Skip to main content

tv   Full Board of Supervisors  SFGTV  October 23, 2021 9:30am-12:11pm PDT

9:30 am
better. if there's someone he can help out, we will make him available. we are taking public comments in support of testimony against the project. operations, let's hear from our first caller, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. thanks for allowing me a chance to speak. my name is garev, and i previously stayed in the [indiscernible] 50 units at the [indiscernible]. i would like the board to reject the project to be disapproved. the environmental impact on those units is huge for those units facing the street.
9:31 am
[indiscernible] as well as the b.m.i. units in the light well. only the light change is to add ambient light but it is no match for direct natural sun light, and so i urge this commission to approve plans for no more than a three or four-story building, something that does not have such environmental impact on the light. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. we have some callers in the queue. if you are interested in providing comment in support of the appeal or against the project, this is your opportunity to speak. operations, let's hear from our next caller. >> good evening, supervisors. my name is ross, and i'm a resident in one of the units
9:32 am
that faces the light well. we do not have any other source of light or access to a light well. i would like to point out that the planning commission's environmental impact report was highly [indiscernible] on both occasions and actually fails to follow the impacts on human beings like the caller just mentioned. i don't know how many residents qualifies as general human beings. i would urge this commission to go back and study the environmental impacts of this project, and i would also like to point out that we can save the grub stake and save our homes by building a smaller less tall project.
9:33 am
also, the board will hear comments in support of the project, but i believe they're motivated by a project called save the grub stake. a lot of the supporters of this campaign do not understand the full scope of the building that's going to go above the grub stake, and that is what this appeal explains. this will have direct impacts on natural lighting, affect quality of life on the east facing neighbors and affect our quality of life issues. the office is already built. we're already here. can you please pay attention to our conditions and present present -- listen to those facts. thank you.
9:34 am
>> clerk: thank you. so we have five callers in the queue to present testimony on this matter. there are 32 listening. if you are one of the 32 listening and would like to provide comment, please make sure you press star, three, otherwise, we'll take this group through to the very end. operations, let's hear from the next caller, please. thank you. >> hello. my name is sergei, and i've been a resident of san francisco for five years. i'm calling to oppose the construction at 1525 pine street. as stated, the primary adverse effect is the lack of light for people. it can trigger a host of orders, including bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. the positive effects are
9:35 am
something like the same that exercise and physician movement have on your daily life. there are many different ways to address the legitimate objections to the construction, including a compromise whereby the planned construction does not get blocked outright but the construction plans are appropriately adjusted to mitigate the light so the structure is designed to allow light to pass through it or that the building is smaller. it's my understanding that serious alternatives have
9:36 am
already been proposed. thank you for your time. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, we have four callers in the queue. let's hear from the next caller, please. welcome, caller. all right. let's move to the next line then. that looks like it's an unattended line. >> hi. my name is samantha. i'm a resident at 1545 pine street. as several of my fellow residents have said, there are severe light issues that need to be studied. i think another issue that needs to be studied is the cumulative traffic impacts of this proposed construction? one thing that i think is really important to note is that the time that a study was originally done about traffic impacts, that study was done precovid, and as we all know, people are not using public transportation nearly as much
9:37 am
anymore, public parking are not as available because there are now neighborhood parklets. people use uber and lyft now. basically, outdoor use of space and traffic have changed significantly, and those changes are material enough and not going anywhere any time soon because we know that the pandemic isn't going away any time soon. those impacts on changes like 1525 pine street need to be considered, so a new traffic study should be done to consider how those changes would impact traffic. also, i believe that one of the supervisors on this call talked about how he desires neighbors to be able to come together and resolve their differences. we were hoping that the sponsor would come to us and engage with us to talk about meaningful changes to address our concerns.
9:38 am
that never happened. instead, they came up with a wholly inadequate study, never engaged with us meaningfully. we think these issues are important. they're going to affect a significant number of people in our building. members of the san francisco community already living in this neighborhood, and we just ask that those impacts be really evaluated and addressed and further study needs to be done. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right. let's hear from our next speaker. operations, let's welcome our next caller. hello, caller. we can hear you. all right. perhaps that's someone who's
9:39 am
watching their television and there is a delay. let's hear from the next caller. >> hello. >> clerk: welcome. >> my name is shoshanna dobrey, and i live in district 10. i believe this is generally an older community that has been forgotten and partially cast aside over the years as the castro has become the lgbtq + hub in san francisco. i've been going to the grub stake since 1969 and know all of its wonderful people here.
9:40 am
-- acknowledging how these issues would be impacting them at that time and in the future when 1525 would be built. the developers for the 1525 project have proposed many mitigations based on air and light studies as possible even though that should not be an issue based on the paperwork previously mentioned. it seems that the people at the austin have just been stone walling in the hopes that the possibility of middle-income housing in this transportation rich area will never be built. is their preferred option a gentrified island in this neighborhood? going back to the original paperwork that the austin condo owners signed at purchase, i do not understand why there are all these problems. therefore, i am 100% against the appeal of the austin condo owners. thank you so much for hearing
9:41 am
me. >> clerk: thank you to the caller for your comments. we are currently hearing testimony for those who are in support of the peal of the final mitigated negative declaration for the pine street project. we are setting the timer for two minutes. there are currently four callers in the queue. if you are listening and want to provide public comment and haven't done so, please press star, three now. operations, let's hear from our next caller. >> i support the austin tenants. light is good. don't [indiscernible] nob hill. >> clerk: thank you, caller. operations, let's welcome our next caller, please. >> sorry. my micro --
9:42 am
>> clerk: welcome. >> hi. i had an issue with my microphone. my name is daniel [indiscernible] and i've lived in the neighborhood for 11 years, in business for three, and i'm in support of the proposed development. i've really just seen the neighborhood thin out in terms of business and residents -- >> clerk: sir, i'm pausing your time. this is testimony on behalf of the appeal, so if you can press star, three to get back in line, a little bit more patience, we will have testimony on behalf of those who support the appeal, but just slightly a little bit later in this hearing. we are only taking testimony in support of the appeal. ops, let's go to the next caller, please.
9:43 am
operations, let's hear from the next caller, please. >> yeah, i'm calling to support the project, but i might be out of queue. >> clerk: okay. thanks for letting us know. operations, do we have any other callers in the queue who are in support of the appeal? >> hi. good evening, supervisors. my name is rick. i hope you can hear me. i've lived in the neighborhood about ten years, and i'm calling in support of this appeal and opposing the proposed project.
9:44 am
even if there was anything signed, i believe the project has undergone revisions, and the project has grown in bulk and size and no longer the same development that was initially proposed when a lot of the owners and units have moved. and the austin is already built with the proper set back that the planning commission had proposed, at the 65 feet mark with input from commissioner kathrin moore at the time, if i remember correctly. and a lot of the concessions built into the austin, including units, like b.m.r. units, who do not have access to any light on the street, these were built on exceptions,
9:45 am
ironically, by the attorney representing the grub stake now, mr. pelosi. so it's ironic that there's units being built in the austin with no light access, and now there's a project being built using the state height and density bonus which is going to have a lot bigger impact, so i would urge the board of supervisors to instruct the commission to do an increased environmental impact study on not just the light but the impact on the health of the residents of the austin that would like to -- >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right. there are 31 listeners. we are currently taking testimony specific to the appeal of the project for the final mitigated declaration for
9:46 am
the proposed 1525 pine street project. if you want to make public comment, press star, three, otherwise, we're going to take this next group through to the end. welcome, caller. all right. operations, perhaps we should go to the next caller. >> linda chapman. well, i'm waiting for the video of david chiu and me having a dialogue on the subject of the waivers at this project in which he said they were completely illegal. he said the state wouldn't allow such a thing, so when are we going to see that video? . last i heard, shawn from that building was trying to have the clerk's office arrange to show the video because this is all remote, you know, we felt like
9:47 am
we could bring it in and was having trouble with that. i think that's very important. he was, at the time i was talking with him, chair of the housing and community development and going to be city attorney, and he thought i was insane when i said we were going to waive exposure and all those things in units that don't have windows over the street. so i hope that doesn't affect my time. what happened to the video? >> clerk: miss chapman, this is your opportunity to prevent public comment on the pine street project. >> well, that's what i was talking about. the only thing that happened was the planning commissioners and staff were intimidated with threats that they were going to be sued if they did not accept all of these waivers. you cannot have apartments that
9:48 am
do not have windows over either the street or backyard, an alley, or something like that, and they already gave waivers for the austin. there is no precedence for any of this anywhere in this city. you know how the light wells came about? the lower polk neighbors. if you read my letter, you'll see that there's absolutely no way that any of this could be implemented. it's completely laughable. it's not necessary to do scientific studies about that, and at this point, the wind that's on pine street that's been caused by -- >> clerk: thank you, mrs. chapman, and my staff all sent me a text that they do not have
9:49 am
the video. they've checked the file and the e-mails on this, and there's no video. all right. operations, can we have the next caller, please. [indiscernible]. >> clerk: all right. sounded like a play back. operations, another caller, please? >> yes. this is michael nolty. i'm a member of lower polk neighbors, and i heard several of the zoom calls on this project, and i heard both sides of what's going on with 1525 pine and there were issues about the shadow impacts, the traffic congestion, and the back alley because that would be now the entrance to the grub stake because they don't want to have an entrance for cars
9:50 am
for the residents on pine street, so it's now they are -- how they're designing the building that's causing this problem. of course, i personally would like to see the grub stake exist and continue, so really, there's two issues here. it's the housing project that's being proposed with the bonus density versus preserving the grub stake, and i think what's happened is a campaign has been created to tell everybody that we need to have the grub stake remodelled, and you know, i would hope that there's some sort of compromise that could come out of this, but i have to support the appeal at this point. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. all right. operations, let's hear from the next caller. i think there are four callers in the queue. welcome, caller. >> good afternoon, members of
9:51 am
the board. i am a 58-year-old 20-year resident of san francisco and an owner of a one-bedroom condo at 1545 pine street. this new taller proposed building would drastically affect our unit with no natural light with any use facing the light well. my understanding is the building codes say no dwelling can be built to offer virtually no light, yet here we are. one planning commissioner indicated he was, quote, grudgingly, close quote, approving this project. one unit is only 314 square feet. this project has been approved by the planning commission to shine intense bright light to our unit to create fake sun
9:52 am
light. how will these lights be updated when their technology is updated? none of this was discussed. david chiu clearly stated developers do not have carte blanche to build anything and everything with unlimited waivers. each should be discussed with its own merit. lastly, i find it interesting that the grub stake developers held a save the grub stake rally to rally the lgbtq community against the austin, but just yesterday, the grub stake attorney submitted a last-minute document to your office, and their document stated that the building has zero lgbtq significance. so whatever it takes to get this project through from these owners, you can't have it both ways.
9:53 am
we are for the grub stake. it's the height of the building that we are having difficulty with. please send this back for further review. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. apologies for interrupting you, sir. we are setting the timer at two minutes. welcome, caller. >> hello. i am in support of the grub stake restaurant and [indiscernible] will not be -- >> clerk: sir, i'm pausing your time. i believe you're speaking in support of the project. do i have that correct? >> in support of the project. >> clerk: okay. if so, this hearing, currently, we're taking testimony from those in support of the appeal of the final mitigated
9:54 am
environmental report of this project. later, we'll be taking testimony from those in support of the project. we would ask for your patience and get back in line and we'll take your testimony a bit later. operations, let's go to the next comment, please. >> operations, there's been discussion about how the residents of the austin have signed a waiver. the building that's described in that waiver does not match what is proposed. if you can't waive away certain rights when it comes to liveability. sections of the planning code requires more access to natural sun light more than what this project would provide. if this project is built, several units would not have
9:55 am
access to direct sun light, and the residents would basically be living in darkness for most of the day. those impacts need to be studied and adequately addressed, and the project sponsor really just keeps talking both ways, anything to move the project forward. further, we have not objected to a renovation of the grub stake, but i find it ironic that the developer has framed this as a renovation to the grub stake. the austin residents have never opposed one way or another the grub stake itself. our concerns have always been the building above the grub stake, which the developers have not adequately addressed.
9:56 am
there are severe light and traffic impacts that need to be studied, and we would request that the planning commission consider the study and residents in the neighborhood. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. okay. operations, let's welcome our next caller, please. >> operator: madam clerk, there are no further callers in the queue. >> clerk: okay. thank you, mr. atkins. mr. president? [indiscernible] . >> president walton: -- for public comment, and seeing no further public comment, public comment is now closed. we will now have up to ten minutes for representatives of the planning department, and i believe we have lisa gibson, joy navarrete, stephanie cisneros, and alison vanderslice.
9:57 am
>> thank you. we have some presentation slides. could those be brought up, please? wonderful. thank you. good afternoon, president walton and members of the board. i'm rachel shott from the planning department. the decision before the board is whether to uphold the department's decision to publish a final m.n.d. or return the project to the department for additional environmental review. next slide? the project site is on the southside of pine street against van ness and polk. at shown on this slide, it's -- as shown on this slide, it's above a one-story restaurant known as grub stake. the project would resist
9:58 am
demolishing the restaurant and building an eight story building above. the appellant filed an appeal of the preliminary m.n.d. on february 16, 2021. the planning commission rejected the appeal and upheld the final m.n.d. on may 6, 2021. the planning commission approved the project's application for conditional use authorization and a state density bonus on july 22, 2021. following the approval action, the appellant filed an appeal of the final m.n.d. on august 20, 21, and the department issued an appeal response on september 7, 2021. next slide, please. here's a slide of the department's appeal response, response 1-a.
9:59 am
ceqa focuses on a project's shadow impacts on publicly accessible open spaces, not privately accessible spaces on private properties. ed shadow analysis is consistent with the department's methodology for shadow impacts, and no further analysis is required under ceqa. next slide, please. response 1-b, ceqa guidelines section 15065 requires a response when the impact will impact general human beings. there's no such government adopted standard for shadow. in the absence of such a standard, a lead agency has discretion to rely on its own significant criteria and methodologies to determine
10:00 am
whether an impact has occurred under section 15065. the appellant does not suggest a standard that should be used to make this determination and has not provided substantial evidence to demonstrate that this project would result in a significant shadow impact on the environment. next slide. response number two, the final m.n.d. adequately analyzed the project's impact on historic resources. the existing building is not an individually eligible historic resource. rather, it's a contributor to a historic district. in this case, the district is the resource. demolishing a contributor would not result in a significant impact on the district because there would be no significant impact, no mitigation measure is necessary.
10:01 am
next slide. >> supervisor peskin: mr. president, if you would allow me to drill down because you can let me -- but it -- >> president walton: go ahead, supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, president walton. can you go back to the previous slide, please? you're saying it's not an
10:02 am
individual historic resource, and we can argue that it is or it isn't, but when you say the district is the resource, and if you demolish one of 15 contributors, is what you are arguing is that the other 14 are enough that the district remains intact? is that the argument? >> true -- yes. so i'll defer to the preservation specialist who can answer more specific questions, but essentially, what you said in this case. in this case, the hrer found that the demolition of this one resource did not have a significant impact on this particular historic district. >> supervisor peskin: right, but what's the standard? does that mean that when you hit eight, that that's the
10:03 am
standard? assuming that it's not individually eligible, but you are saying in the h.r.e., that the department accepts that it is a contributory historic resource to the historic district, and that demolishing it would not adversely impact the resource which is the district itself. how do you come to that conclusion? i mean, is there a standard? how do you get there?
10:04 am
>> we look at and we determine whether or not the demolition of one property within the district would be such that it would no longer be able to express the characteristics of the district. one of the other things that we often will use is we'll look at what the range of historic contributors are to the district and the number of district contributors. as you know, often when we're determining whether or not a historic district does exist, we usually have a threshold of 60% should contribute, and so that is one of the thresholds that we can use in first identifying historic districts and also identifying impacts. with discontiguous districts, we're focusing on the range of historic types represented and whether or not those types would still be represented with the loss of one contributor. >> supervisor peskin: so just
10:05 am
as the first one, which presumably is for a historic district, you're saying if you had, like, the dogpatch historic district, you could demolish 40% of the contributory buildings before there was an impact to the district? is that what you just said? >> i would say that we primarily rely on whether or not the district is able to convey its historic significance and still has the range of character defining features which define it. >> supervisor peskin: okay. so in this particular case where you have a discontinuous 15-resource historic district, how did you get to that the conclusion that the remaining 14, assuming that this one is demolished, express that and -- i mean, i think the issue here is if this is -- if this compromises the district or if this is individually eligible, then it is, by division, an
10:06 am
adverse impact that requires overriding considerations, but in this case because this is a final mitigated negative declaration, an e.i.r.s not required, so you have been able to convince yourselves, now you have to convince us, that one of 15 does not compromise the district because the other 14 express those. so with the loss of the grub stake -- or are you arguing that the grubstake is not lost because it will be rebuilt and will still have that cultural significance as a new edifice? >> well, to answer that, we are saying that certain parts of the grubstake are being salvaged and reinstalled in allowing the district to
10:07 am
continue to convey its historic significance. one of the other things that we look at is looking at whether or not the new construction is compatible, so because the character defining features of the grubstake, many of which will be salvaged and reinstalled, that allows the capability to be stated in the significance to the historic district. [please stand by]
10:08 am
class i guess also it is tied to this review. that's a part of the project class i read the cu and i read the conditions in exhibit a so
10:09 am
i didn't see any conditions but what you're saying is because they are set forth in exhibit b which are the actualphysical plans , they are indeed a condition if you will of conditional use. is that right? am i getting this right? >> that is might be planning was also on the hearing might be able to go further as to that as needed. >> thank you supervisor peskin for the question and correct, because these have been conditioned in b if they are to make any changes tothose plans , we have the authority to make them go back to the planning commission and it's not unusual for us to need to speak with project sponsors after entitlement and let them know
10:10 am
what they propose that the building permit stage is not consistent with what has been approved at the planning commission and that if they intend to go forward with what's propose they would need to go back to planning commission and usually they abandoned the changes proposed. i'd like to also further reinforce that in the recommendations of basis for therecommendations of approval , we included thefeatures . as part of planning recommendation or approval so just some extrateeth there i think . >> tank you president walton. the department can resume it's time. >> thank you supervisor peskin and planning, you may continue. >> there is good, thank you. the continuing on to response number three. a final adequately analyzed the
10:11 am
projects transportationimpacts. the transportation analysis is consistent with the department's 2019 transportation impact analysis guidelines and no in-depth that hewas required . the project would not combine with other projects to use great hazardous conditions and interfere with emergency access . substantially delayed public transit or mild travel professionals. these are consistent with recently published documents for two of the relative projects in this vicinity . next slide please. response number four. the omb analyzed projects impacts. speaker focuses on projects impacts on publicly accessible open spaces not privately accessible properties. the analysis is consistent with the department's methodology foranalyzing wind impact and no further analysis is required . next slide please. the department would like to acknowledge at this time that the board of supervisors
10:12 am
receive supplemental appeal letters from opponent september 30 and october 14 of this year . however the letters did not raise any new issues or provide any new information or consideration and the departmentconcluded the letters did not merit a supplemental response . some of the issues raised in the appeal especially those related to shadow and wind are outside the scope of the project. the projects conditional use authorization has not been appealed to the board the board is fullybeing asked to consider the adequacy of the document not the merits of the project . in conclusion a final fmnd is the final for the project and the separation of a report is not warranted. the department request the board reject the appeal and uphold the final fmnd. mycolleagues and i are available to answer any questions . a few . >> thank you so much. supervisorpeskin, anyone have
10:13 am
any more questions? i don't see anyone on the roster . and seeing no othernames on the roster , at this time we now invite members of thepublic who wish to speak in opposition of the appeal . i'm sorry. my apologies. now we need to call up the project sponsor and they have 10 minutes to speak on behalf of the project and i believe we have alexis pelosi and jim consulates. >> there should also be adam phillips from design . >> clerk: if adam is logged in and he should turn his camera on. >> clerk: we have a quick presentation if i could have the ability to share some slides, that would be great .
10:14 am
>> mister philip, do we have slides? >> i have them. >> our team will make you a presenter so share your screen whenyou are ready . >> can everyone see my screen? >> yes we can. >> president walton and supervisors alexis pelosi land-use council project sponsors. i want to thank staff for their presentation and my comments are going to focus on the applicable legal standard that applies and how theappeals the best standards and should be rejected . the key question and assessing the efficiency is whether it can be fairly argued the substantial evidence that the project may have significant impact on the environment . this is that they are argument standard and while it faces although threshold for preparing an eir is not so low as to be nonexistent. it still requires substantial evidence in this case it's defined as facts, reasonable
10:15 am
assumption andexpert opinions supported by fax . it's not arguments, speculation, opinion or narrative orevidence which is inaccurate or erroneous . appeals file does not meet the argument standards . its claims arebased on the standard being inadequate and impacting potentially devastating . the light studyprepared is clearly inaccurate or erroneous and basic legal thresholds for the appeal not been met . the appellant's primary issue light and shadow on a private interior courtyard is also not an issue. the threshold foreshadowed is whether the project would create a new shadow that adversely affects the enjoyment of publicly accessibleopen spaces . the shadow analysis found it would not. based on established case law mandatory findings as significant also do not apply here as an adverse change to the environment on human beings does not affect particular
10:16 am
individuals such as human beings in general. statements of review and analysis needed to save the lives of the residents of 55 pine street are eye-catching and dramatic but not supported by any evidence let alone substantial evidence in the record . instead there is extensive evidence in the administrative record to support the findings and the mitigated declaration guarding light and shadow . previousdesign and technical experts prepared a light analysis of the interior courtyard . the light analysis prepared the office interior courtyard which was granted an exposure. for those interior units is not only already significantly shaded by the 130thtower but that there is virtually no difference in light between the code compliant and density project . -as noted by the appellant's in response to the study light study was prepared by the appellant who are not technical experts and handheld light
10:17 am
meter readings a cardboard model a misunderstanding of basic concepts of life and misinterpreted information divided in the analysis . according to revision among other things this study fails to knowledge that the interior courtyard is over 25 by 25 feet and given the location of the sun not only will there be light directly into the interior courtyard unit increased light reflecting off the new structure into those units. uses techniques such as cardboard boxes which have been found in academic papers to be unreliable in part because they lack reflective colored materials of the actual buildings which greatly influenced light levels and also fails to understand the interior reference enters . what standards are usedtoday interior lighting design and not to establish minimum interior daylighting models . they do not assume additional lighting will be used and handheld light readings taken after the shades and turning down all the lights does not yieldaccurate or representative
10:18 am
daylight conditions . the appellant's light analysis is clearly inaccurate or incorrect previous statements don't change that from making substantial evidence . i'd like to brieflyturn it over to adam phillips who can respond to the most recent claims raised by theappellant . >> you have 60 minutes remaining . >> president walton, members of the board, adam phillips from design preparing of thelight analysis study for the project sponsor. i wanted to the question raised about averaging . we did include some averages of light levels throughout the entirecourtyard area that would be enclosed by the project . however as the as shown in the study we also included reference diagrams which are color-coded and did show all the light levels at all levels so the information was provided there and i believe was also referenced by the neighbors and pointing out and frankly used extensively albeit in sort of a
10:19 am
piecemeal fashion to try to support some of the arguments and the neighbors analysis study i wanted to clarify that point and say that while the average did exist, those individual numbers on the individuallevels were also there , present and totally available for to be read. >> thank you so much adam. regarding cultural resources as staff noted extensive evidence exists in the administrative record to support the finding of the mmd . a detailed evaluation was prepared that found it was one of 16 contributors for lgbt q plus historic districts with the potential for there to be more. the hr did include discussion of the context of the site including the lgbtq+ historical district and the pages dedicated to that analysis
10:20 am
indicate it was in contributory resource to the district and not anindividual resource itself . the eagle bar as evidenced in its article 10 landmark designation is different than the state. it has a focused history and the lgbtq+ community and was associated with people of historic significance. the grub state is a popular restaurant and the 60s 70s and 80s and today the crowd frequented nearby bars along polk street that does not in itself give it historical significance. it is not a landmark the appellant has not put in any evidence to support that claim. the mar keys is important that grubstake is important why which is why we have identified
10:21 am
cultural features to be preserved or replicated and included them in a project themselves. such features include the lunch dragon fagade, the grubstake sign, and so much more. it is part of what's included in exhibit b and it is what must be instilled. before turning over to the project sponsor forfinal remarks i want to say the mmd is legally adequate . it analyzed the environment impact and substantial evidence exists in the administrative record to support the city's determination thatan eir is not needed . neighbors who knew about the grubstake when they purchased their unit sign a disclosure saying their views might be affected. we request the board o supervisors to deny the appeal and find the claims without merit . i'd like to turn it over to jimmy . >> good evening president walton and supervisors.
10:22 am
i jimmy consul, owner and operator of grubstake capacity mirrors. i want to describe our commitment to thegrubstake and importance of the project to its operation . in 2015 we proposed the project and did so because we knew the city needed housing and the grubstake community needed filling. it's been my intent for the grubstake to remain in the same location with the same successful menu and i'll be off with a newsustainable building and state-of-the-art cooking facilities. as has been the plan and it's why we committed to including all the features of the grubstake into the process . appellant's said they want the project to resign. that is simply not true. appellants are aware of the project as proposed is what makes retained the grubstake financially feasible. changing the project size and decreasing the housing will makeit infeasible .
10:23 am
sadly despite our tireless efforts to address their concerns they have tried everything possible to ensure that our meaningful project doesn't move forward. we spent over six years in the community working with neighbors and the lgbtq+ community. we've created a virtual museum and an oral history ofthis vessel place .the project is supported by the community and will ensure that a cultural treasure in san francisco is retained. we are committed to bringing back the grubstake andhave designed theproject around it and are legally obligated to provide . thank you for your time and consideration .>> president: thank you for your presentation. any questions from the project sponsor? idon't see anyone onthe roster . now we will go to public comment in opposition of the appeal . >> clerk: the board will hear testimony specific item 51 through 54 only in support of
10:24 am
the project or advancing the appeal of the final mitigated negative declaration. speakers will have up to two minutes to provide their testimony. i will state the telephone number streaming on your screen is 415-655-0001. when you hear the prompt enter the meeting id 2488 489 6769. press pound, poundyou will be muted in the listening to . just make sure you're going to press star 3 when it's your turn. the system will prompt you. listen carefully for you to be on unit. let's hear from our first caller. we have i believe it's three colors in the queue and 23
10:25 am
colors while listening. if you're one of the 23 and you haven't pressed star 3 it's time todo so otherwise we may make this to the end. welcome caller . >> caller: can you hear me? >> clerk: yes we can, welcome. >> caller: board of supervisors. my name is mark sue penske and i have been a resident of san francisco in this area for quitea long time and i watched the austin be built and i want to say i am wholeheartedly in support of this project . this unfortunately seemslike a great and blatant abuse of the sequin act by the residents of the austin . these people have been sold for about $1200-$300per square foot on their apartments but now may lose of you and that is what this really is about . i wish that the supervisors spoke in support of this
10:26 am
project. this project will provide much-needed middle-classhousing which we don't hear about in the city but we need badly . and lastly i do want to provide a summary if the supervisors have had time to read all the statements that the austin owners have provided. a lot oftheir statements i can summarize quickly . a lot of them are all around hitting pedestrians and their access because there will be more people behind around and i'd like to remind them that this is a city with big transit orientation so i hope they decide to take muni more often rather than worrying about where they can park their car and also the light designation obviously does not hold up any scientific evidence as already brought forward by the people so thank you so much for your time and i hopethat we can have more housing and think about
10:27 am
the 21 families who will want to live here in the city . >> clerk: thank youfor your testimony.let's hear from our next caller . welcome caller. >> caller: this is off the, my apologies. i inadvertently chimed in on the previous matter incorrectly.i'm a san francisco resident in support of the project and oppose the appeal. as i talk i am looking at a street view, google street view of the grubstake. this tiny narrow building sandwiched between two buildings including austin which towers over the grubstake. it's a high-rise buildingwhich is somewhat ironic . that we're going through this exercise. regardless the shadows have been analyzed by theexperts , the planning commissionhas approved the project . the project sponsors have
10:28 am
painstakingly worked on their project for the past six years and i would encourage the supervisors to kind of allow the project sponsors to realize their wonderful vision which includes saving the grub state. i'd also like to add that the austin residents are on notice that one day grubstake could be developed like their own high-rise projects and that there could be impacts tothe quality of light and air . although as previously stated that issue was probably previously addressed and lastly i understand that the project sponsors are including lights and taking measures to mitigate the impacts on their neighbors.
10:29 am
so i would encourage the board of supervisors to allow this project to go forward. i mean, we need housing. housing, housing. please support this project. >> thank you for your testimony. all rights, operations let's hear from our next caller. we have six callers in the queue and 24 are listening and if you'd like to provide testimony in support of the project or against the appeal now is the opportunity todo so. press star three if you haven't already to indicate you wish to speak . next caller please. >> my name is allegra berrios and i'm wholly in favor of the grub state diner not only in terms of the san francisco community but the lgbtq+ committee and i'm pleased to express the support for the rebuilding of this. with a worked tirelessly to express the neighbors concerns including having anice light
10:30 am
analysis prepared for the project . despite this effort some have continued their years long abuse of the land use entitlement project and really the residents of the neighboring condominiums have tried every way possible to file appeals to various aspects of the project and its unfortunate that all owners were required to sign disclosures stating the grub state plans were developed and that the light air and views in the building were where the light will exist with impacted. the grub state team has made every possible attempt to address any issues and we really amongst the community want to support the grubstake in any way possible. let's go forward 's thank you for your testimony
10:31 am
operations let's hear from our next caller please . welcome caller. all right, that's perhaps an unattended line. let's go to our please . >> i'm david gammel, a proud novel resident living one block down from the grubstake. i spent many a night frequenting our fine establishment on street. always looking for a decent patty melt at ungodly hours an always thankful for a place like it . i'm a little bit puzzled at the applicants expressing concern for preservation by asking there to be the complete opposite of what it needs to continue on. what's more and what i think is very important is that the
10:32 am
project is passed to or otherwise restricted housing supply. all the while just allowing more neighbors to come frequent and support localbusinesses like grubstake . the ones that keep our neighborhood vibrant and interesting. i want to be as sympathetic as possible to those fearing the catastrophic loss of life but it just seems hardly an indication that this is any different from a normal and reasonably decent development citywide. if the health effects were as bad as they suggested i feel like our streets would otherwise be filled with pale week individuals withbroken bones dying of vitamin d deficiency . in some , the project is completely sensible and practical on all fronts. i'm so happy we can bring in more neighbors while maintaining these land marks of the lgbtq+ culture so please
10:33 am
support this project and thank you for your time .>> clerk: thank you for your patience. all right, we have six callers in the queue who are ready to provide testimony in support of the project or against the appeal. let's hear from our next calle . >> caller: my name is jonathan, a resident of districts 2 and i'm a neighbor. i strongly support these developments that goes along with the grubstake.the board of supervisors should prioritize the provisional new housing over any concerns from neighboring residents about their property values and i think we are in a dire housing crisis in the city of san francisco and the bay area in general and this housing is in a highly transit area so i strongly support the project.
10:34 am
>>. >> clerk: thank you for your patience. let's see, operations. let's hear from our next calle . let's go to the next one. welcome caller. >> caller: thank you. my name is gary and i'm in support of the grubstake project .the apartment complex was built after the design and plans for the grubstake were presented to them. they knewwhat was going to happen . as far as the air circulation is concerned the building doesn't get verymuch life as it is . they're doing everything they could do to accommodate them in
10:35 am
every single way to support what theyneed . there's air circulation and the whole bit . we're doing a frivolous lawsuit and they keep coming up with frivolous lawsuits to stop construction of the grubstake. it will provide housing of21 families . that is something that's very necessary in this area. the grubstake has been here a long time. construction will not affect that building in any way to the point where it's going to be detrimental to any of the residents of the austin comple . i support the grubstake project completely and it will provide 21 with housing and help with the continuation of the grubstake which isa popular restaurant for every neighborhood . it's going to provide 21 more families which will help the economy and all the small businesses . you have more families coming in and out to support all their stores in the area. i support the grubstake.
10:36 am
right now the austin is in the middle ofa lawsuit and it should be eliminated . the city should go home with their projects and support the grubstake in every way. >> clerk: thank you for your testimony and thank you for your patience thisevening. do we have another caller and that you ? >> caller: i'm calling to support the project. i believe it's been made clear by the project monsters testimony and legal defense that that site is entitled to construct what it plans to build. and furthermore, the owners of the units within the austin were made visibly aware of the potential change in their
10:37 am
surrounding environment when they purchased. it strikes me as being disingenuous to move in and purchase a unit knowing that the environment around you may very well change and then to come back after the fact and prevent other people who may very well enjoy living in the city to have the liberty to do so. i think the city is about sandwiches. it's aboutlate-night diners . it's about spectrums across the economic horizon and building more housing allows for the many different types of socioeconomic diversity and unfortunately san francisco
10:38 am
teams to the dismissing over and over again. i amsupporting the project . >> clerk: thank you for your testimonyoperations, do we have another caller in the queue ? >> caller: i am a neighbor in the area and iwanted to support the project . >> clerk: thank you for your testimony. operations, let's hear from another caller . >> caller: can you hear me? >> clerk: yes we can, welcome. >> caller: unfortunately i was on an unattended line earlier, i apologize. i wanted to call in to provide
10:39 am
support for the project as it's been proposed and i wanted to add. [inaudible] the proper transit was held up again by another building . it did not diminish the health or safety. it was just a necessaryfact of living in the city that provides good housing for lots of different people . i just wanted to thank you all foryour time and thank you for the opportunity to speak . >> clerk: we have 26 listeners and if you're one of 26 and you'd like to provide testimony on behalf of the project sponsor or against the appeal press star 3 if you haven't already. we have a handfulof colors . operations, let'shear from our
10:40 am
next caller . >> caller: i'm jessica. i work at an office nearby the grubstake and i think the project should be approved so that they can continue to live on for more generations for people in the community and provide housing and affordable housing or the community as well . >> clerk: thank you for your testimony. operations, do we have another caller in the queue ? thank you for circling back to the unattendedline from earlier .welcome caller. operations, perhaps that line is stillunattended . >> caller: hello. >> clerk: welcome sir. >> caller: i wasn't sure if i
10:41 am
was on an unattended line or not. my name is mike chen taking and a speaker capacity. i live two blocks away from this project at franklin and pine and i'm also a member on the alice b toklas lgbtq+ club and had interest in this project. actually i don't know if the board made that statement but there have" from a bay area reporter who asked that she said they had a long history with theproject . the district talked about how there are people who have had a long history of activism and the people who have spent time at the diner in virginia and activists who talked about the history of how political columnist harvey milk and supervisors and political folks . it would be great to keep this
10:42 am
project going, to give the diner a new lease on life and continue making history and connectthe past and present . so i urge the supervisors to deny the appeal and allow this project to go forward. >> clerk: thankyou for your testimony. let's hear from our next caller please . >> caller: my name is jonathan and ilive in san francisco for 30years . you for this opportunity to speak . did jimmy conscious say he started getting this project in 2015? every day we read about another person caught up in red tape and eventually giving up on a valid project that they've spent timeand money attempting to complete . in the case of this proposal, the owner has followed every
10:43 am
legal and ethicalguideline to preserve this historic and iconic business while adding needed and desirable housing . claire is our commitment to reusing red tape where is our commitment to preserving a well presented project ?this project that could have ran years ago welcomed new residence and cut the ribbon on the rejuvenated grubstake and it's about and up in the dustbin because ofa handful of disgruntled neighbors . as our elected members don't let this happen, denied once andfor all this ongoing appeal and join me in the near future for a late night dinner at the new improved grubstake . >> clerk: thank you for your testimony miss sachet. do we haveanother caller in the queue ? >> caller: my name is janet and i used to work in the vicinity of 1525 pine street. i'm calling to support the
10:44 am
rebuilding of grubstake and also the construction of the 21 unit condo project. i am just not understanding the purpose of this appeal since the owners of the austin for required to sign three disclosures. stating that the site of the grubstake would be developed and that light and views in the eastern side of the building wouldbe impacted . it's just seems to me that the san francisco business was with such a history like the grubstake and construction for middle income housing should be able to move forward. thank you for listening. >> thank you for your testimony. all right operations, do we have another caller in the queue. there are 24 listeners and if you like to provide testimony on in support of the project for against the appeal please
10:45 am
press now if you haven't already otherwisewe will take this last three callers to the very end. welcome caller . >> hello. thank you for your time this evening. i'm calling to support this project. wholeheartedly. and you know, just stepping back from this and looking at the situation i think anybody who doesn't live in san francisco would look at this and be like look at those absolutely wacky people and i understand that like there are reasons that we do this and it is important to go through it but also does feel only to have had i think this is like the third or fourth time that wehad to call on the whole afternoon supporting things .and i just really think it's time to say the people at the planning department have done a great job. they do this all the time. there's no reason to give this
10:46 am
appeal the time of day and it's timeto move the project forward . thank you very much for your time. >> clerk: thankyou for your testimony. operations we have another caller in the queue . >> good afternoon supervisors and thank you forworking so late. my name is gary virginia for those who may not know me . i'm a reference resident of district 8 since 1987. on the past president for two years of san francisco pride and the task president of positive resource center known as the rc and the year-round activist and fundraiser in the community. in preparation for this appeal during and for the record i submitted to you on october 1 copies of 220 letters and two petitions worth over 200 signatures in support of the pine street development project . on september 27 i helped organize the community rally at
10:47 am
the lgbtq+ community leaders in front of the diner with about 30 supporters written a broad-based support of the rally was reported on by more than a dozen local and regional tv and radio stations and print and let electronic media. sadly the very few minority condo owners with deep pockets can keep trying anything to stop this project have characterized our support as a quote sideshow or frivolous because we are members of the lgbtq+ community that includes leaders from theleather, drag , transgender andlifestyle communities . this is not a circus. we are major players in business, philanthropy, artsand culture, india and civic life in our diverse city . we understand all these issues or processes and what it takes to fund the completerestaurant rebuild and build housing as a formula for long-term profitability .
10:48 am
i'll cut to the chase and say we've lost sparky steiner, the gangway bark, and other clear bars and restaurants catering to us in the light knife when julie and broomstick has been a safe haven and will be rebuilt as one. we've been working for six years with jimmy costa in good faith to get this project rolling and wereally want you to please deny this appeal and . >> thank you for your testimony. my apologies. i have to interruptand speakers, we are setting the timer for two minutes so thank you . let's see here. operations do we have another caller? all right. perhaps that's an unintended line. welcome caller. >> my name is anastasia and i approve of the grubstake diner and also for the housing.
10:49 am
middle-class housing is necessary here in san francisco . and i just wanted to let them say that i doapprove of the appeal . >> clerk: thank you for your testimonythis evening . operations. another caller in the queue please. all right. another caller in the queue operations . >> there are no further colors in the queue. >>mister president . >> you for everyone who called in with public comment and seeing no more public comments public comment is now closed . lastly we will invite the appellant topresent a rebuttal argument and we will have up to
10:50 am
three minutes to present your rebuttal . >> caller: this is david again. the project that was originally proposed in 2017 was 65 feet and only 15 units. i have to assumewhen they submitted it but it was feasible at that time . with the planning department recommended it take to stories and all the city got was another six units but it was six units no more bmrunits on site . i also want to point out that the project when it was initially heard theplanning commission was denied . the motion was made to approve it and that failed 4 to 3. it was the commissioner then spoke extensively about how work
10:51 am
should be done to espy the concerns about the shadows and light on the adjacent building . no comedic asian ever took place the tween the austin tenets and the grubstake project sponsor during that time so the shadows study was presented as fate a complete. then without any consultants as well these lights appeared. now that commission for the lights was opposed in the conditional usemotion. there's no details on how that's going to be imposed. how long the lights will be on, how they will be maintained. soas to how meaningful that is is really a question . so i should talk more a little
10:52 am
bit about the historic preservation issues of this . supervisor peskin knows i'm no stranger to historic preservation issues. he and i have been on both sides of the issue and in my circumstances i have seen where salvage materials were required to be identified conditions so we have the two most significant ways to guarantee the grubstake is done the way people believe it will be his through the mitigation measures and even in the innate debt and secondly with conditions a in the attachment to the senior motion. the fact that there in exhibit b is significant but again, it's not as definitive as i even complemented in my original point that i thought the issues that the design was good. i finally want to say there is a requirement that any
10:53 am
significant environmental effects and a further environmental review is required if there are substantial adverseeffects on human beings . it doesn't say where those are. it doesn't say who they are or how many thereshould be . itjust says human beings . thank you. >> president: i want to thank everyone who participated in this hearing andthis public hearing has been held and is now filed . as previously discussed we will now consider whether to confirm or conditionally reverse the approval for the final mitigated negative declaration as at 1525 pine street. supervisor peskin. >> thank you president walton and thank you to all of the speakers and presenters on both sides of this matter as well as the planning department and
10:54 am
their presentation.i think after having read three letters on behalf of the appellants from august september and october for mister sen,. that there's only one tolerable argumentand that's the argument that i asked the planning department questions about . i think the planning department is correct clearly relative to issues around humility of impacts. shadow impacts, wind impacts and all that is asked and answered in the appeal. the response to the appeal and final mitigated declaration so the only culpable argument is the argument about the demolition and whether that's a significant impact that would require an eir or not. i while i disagree with some of the arguments about how the department comes up with the
10:55 am
standard. i think everybody in this room would agree that if you were to get down 40 percent of the dog patches historic district for the blue street college row or the grub hill historical district you name it that certainly would be an impact of historicalcircumstance but this one is unique . and i think that the arguments work with regard to this particular edifice not being individually eligible are indeed compelling. i think that if we were to do this in the physical and not cultural context it would be entirely different argument about compatibility. i don't think that argument exists here because of the nature of the history see of it
10:56 am
and indeed i think that even though they are not mitigation measures in the final mitigated litigation that are actually in essence conditions to conditional use and that is the incorporation and salvaging and reinstallation's of part of the existing facility whether it's the mural and wood framing. the red vinyl seating. the replication of the fagade. all of that is set to work on the documents for us. so the thing i think is very important to hear and this is a comment to planning and the project sponsor is that we should expect no deviation from exhibit b and the incorporation
10:57 am
of those elements and you know, strict adherence to what's bee represented in the plans. i think that is important . with that i would move item 52 to affirm the final mitigated negative declaration and table items 53 and 54. >> thank you so much supervisor, is there a second. seconded by supervisor madeleine. on the motion to approve, item 52 table items 53 and 54. >> on the motion to table items 53 and 54 and approve item 52 provider stephanie. [roll call vote]
10:58 am
10:59 am
11:00 am
11:01 am
>> president: i note everyone has them. and the changes are just one
11:02 am
page 10, lines 7 through nine. changing the language to state that the ordinance is operative 90 days after the effective date versus december 1. and i would like to move for acceptance of that nonsubstantiveamendment. seconded by supervisor preston . madame clerk on the motion . >> on the amendment toitem 240 . [roll call vote] >> president: motion to approve the amendment for item 40 is approved unanimously and i will
11:03 am
leave. we can take this item to call and without objection the amended item ispassed on first reading . madame clerk, i believe we are now back to roll call. >> class we left off to introduce the business of supervisor mar. >> i havefour items to announce today . i'm calling for a hearing on the city's progress towards meeting the housing needs of our workforce and i want to thank supervisor melgar for cosponsoring working people are facing a crisis of housing affordability and a lack of affordable housing and instability caused by gentrification. this especially in light of significant job changes and workfrom home impacts on wages in low-wage jobs due to the pandemic. and as our city recovers , it would be an opportune time to revisit how san francisco is
11:04 am
faring in terms ofproviding housing prices affordable to the workers across industries and employment sectors. to make our economy work . in 2019 we passed an ordinance calling for an annual job housing report by the planning department and commissioned a bla report on job housing fits for such fees to look at the issue of creating housing to meet the needs of our workforce . we have not yet received these reports so today and also submitting a letter of inquiry to the planning director to inquire about their status and requesting the planning director to report the hearing . meanwhile the work cannot wait as low to middle income workers continue to be displaced and forced to commute to their jobs in our city fromgreater distances in the bay area and even central valley . the hearing will include a presentation on a new joint report . housing our workers getting to jobs housing fit for the san francisco labor council jobs for justice and the council of community housing organizations and the report will be released
11:05 am
later thismonth . the pandemic has exercised the importance of the relationship between the central workers and safe housing and it's incumbent on us as a city to plan for development thatsupport our needs for public investment , appropriateregulation and equitable land-use policies and i hope to engage all of you in these conversations . secondly , in anticipation of veterans day and the month of november i'm introducing two ordinances to recognize and pay respect to our veterans by expanding access to affordable housing and providing fee waivers andreductions for veterans at facilities on city park properties . the first piece of this legislative package puts our city on a path to creating a new affordable housing priority for veterans who qualify for existing affordable housing preferences under administrative code and i want to thank supervisor stefani for your cosponsorship. there are 20,000 veterans who
11:06 am
have made personal and per fractional sacrifices to serve our state and country and such sacrifices make veterans deserving of consideration for targeted public support and preference. yet veterans face many challenges when they come home andbegin their reintegration back into our community . housing andemployment are cornerstones of societal reintegration and are necessary to support our veterans . that many veterans have slipped into poverty and are at risk of homelessness through either affordable housing or employment is not available. the 2019 count identified 600 veterans in our city amounting to nine percent of the total count and of the chronically homeless veterans 84 percent were people of color. in addition in 2017 study by the university of southern california san francisco veterans over 40 percent of post 9/11 veterans in the city
11:07 am
reported being homeless and 40 percent of post 9/11 veterans in the city reported concerns about having housing in the next two months. in additionally i just additional housing programs for parents such as public housing are only available to veterans earning up to 50 percent of ami and many veterans with an income up to 50 percent afi who are not eligible for housing are still rent burdens are and are at risk. prioritizing eligible veterans who qualify for housing preference will support low income veterans transitioning to stable housing and mitigate the risk of homelessness by veterans in ourcity . the second ordinance regarding veterans would demonstrate our city's appreciation for veterans by providing free
11:08 am
admission or discounts to certain park andrec facilities including free admission to th japanese tea garden , the conservatory of flowers , swimming pools and botanical gardens and i want to thank my supervisors stefani, melgar and safai and want to thank the ad hoc community affairs commission and veteran leaders from groups like disabled american veterans and legislative aide alan welch for his piece work on these pieces of legislation. i want to ensure we are paying respect to our veterans as we approachveterans day . >> thank you supervisor mar supervisor melgar .>> in memoriam i would like colleagues as we close this meeting in memory of a longtime
11:09 am
activist in west portal, henry doyle. he passed away peacefully september 22, 2021 surrounded by her kids at the age of 96. she lived through the great depression, world war ii, civil rights movement and most recently the covid pandemic. she raised five kids in westport. while working full-time at at&t. it was after her retirement that she became an active participant in politics. he fought hard against the development of luxury homes and open space in the neighborhood and picked up how to navigate city politics. through her experience she was able to launch a series of successful efforts to fight blockbuster video opening in
11:10 am
west portal and protect existing small business owners and and the character of our charming commercial corridor. we spent a lot of her free time archiving historical documents and would later writearticles for the local neighborhood newspaper. the west portal monthly . she poured her love into special features profiling stories of local merchants and their journeys. ray leaves behind forchildren, four grandchildren and two great-grandchildren . ray was one of those rare people who cultivated multi generationalfriendships and touched people from all walks of life with her kindness and generosity . she is missed but not forgotten. >> thank you supervisor melgar. supervisor peskin. >> i'll try tocompact this as much as i can given the late hour but i have a number of items i would like to . first after ayear of iterative tinkering , i am introducing
11:11 am
legislation today and want to thank my cosponsors supervisors chan, ronen and preston for what we call tenants right to organize. inessence, being able to have a union at home in your apartment building . it's no secret as we hear every week that in the city and across the state and country renters are facing a period of particularly unprecedented uncertainty but some of the trends that have informedthis particular piece of legislation existed long before the pandemic . as a matter of fact in 2004 when the golden gateway which i think is the largest single residential complex in the city with 1200 units were not
11:12 am
allowing the tenants organization there to distribute literature. i introducedlegislation and the board passed legislation that gave tenants that right . and in many ways this is an expansion of that. it would allow 50 percent +1 of the tenants in an apartment building to establish a tenants association in buildings of at least five units or more and create a framework for effective communications between landlords and tenants associations. it is i think you all hopefully agree and elegant but simple and somewhat profound idea that we've ripped off from the house oflabor that's been doing this for 100 years between employee orders andemployees .
11:13 am
a lot more to say about that . i really want to thank my staff lee hefner, the housing rights committee, sanfrancisco tenants union . the rent board particularly soon to be retired director collins for all his help as well as his staff, the deputy attorney and a host of labor organizations that have been helpful, insightful and supportive ranging from the united educators to ask me to the national union of healthcare workers, jobs with justiceand spi due 10 to 1 . and lee hefner did a great job on this. second i'm introducing legislation that will modify the food delivery service caps that this board unanimously passed earlier this year. to establish aseparate fee structure for nondelivery services . this improvement and addition of the earlier legislation has been the subject of discussion
11:14 am
with the restaurant industryand our partners there . and it was something that we were preparing to introduce a few months ago before door and groundhog made the regrettable decision to file suit against thecity and county derailing progress on this project but despite all of that , believe it or not my office has found helpful but partner in huber have made the more mature decision to avoid litigation and instead are working in good faith on the policy that i am bringing forward and was bringing forward before. finally, colleagues in conjunction with president walton and a number of the you, to hearing requests on the day where more charges have been leveled against a former city department head. mister kelly and implicate a former commissioner mister mattress and the board of
11:15 am
supervisors i think has an important role toplay here . a role of unlimited inquiry. of unbiased and impartial investigation. and to that end, given the recent allegations that were set forth over the last i guess today wouldbe day three . mission local having to do with mister o'riordan, the acting or interim head of the department of building inspection which i think you are all colleagues in receipt of his email adamantly refuting those in and asking for an investigation by the city attorney. i think we have questions to ask there and i want to in addition to present walton and acknowledged supervisors ronan,
11:16 am
chan, preston, mark and melgar who have signed on as close cosponsors of that again unbiased and impartial hearing and then finally given the allegations in mission local this morning, another exercise of the boards unlimited power of inquiry and the pursuit of the information on the alleged failure to disclose conflicts of interest in the action of board of appeals member mister honda. again i think there are questions to be asked and we will ask the city attorney has done take these questions to wherever they lead . i think the board has duty in this case particularly in so far as thatindividual is aboard appointments . and again, impartial and unbiased and the rest not on
11:17 am
clerk i will submit. >> thank you supervisor. supervisor ronan. >> i have a few items today as well. first i mentioned introducing a resolution encouraging the san francisco superior court to prioritize the assignment of criminal trials and safely open more courtrooms to ensure the speedy trial rights of both defendants and victims are accountable to our san francisco criminal justice system is broken. over the past 19 months our courts have failed to adhere to one of our most important constitutional rights that the swift and fair justice. during this time the court has hidden behind a guise of good costs seeing the pandemic is a reason to continue cases ask their statutory deadline and keep people in custody. in san francisco it's
11:18 am
vaccination rates and the easing of restrictions suchas official distancing and indoor activities. the court can no longer use these to delay cases . continuing cases under the fagade of good cause have detrimental effects to the defendants and victims alike. allowing a person to be caged for extended period when they've not been convicted of a crime is contrary to one of our nation's most basic principles that a person is innocent until proven guilty. victims have a right to a speedy trial. witness memoriescan be lost in the victim may continue to experience emotional distress to talk of san francisco people can get a haircut , meet friends indoors fordinner or visit their district supervisor at city hall but if a person would like to invoke their right to a speedy trial the court tells them to wait . today we have a backlog of 437 felony cases of which 248
11:19 am
defendants are in custody past their statutorydeadlines. the administration of justice cannot come to a standstill . this urges the court to open departments for trial and use departments they have exclusively for criminal trial. in addition to the resolution i'm calling a hearingso that we can hear directly from the district attorney and public defender , superior court and sheriffs department to find solutions so that we can reopen the courts to criminal trials in a timely manner. second colleagues today introducing ordinance reappropriated $121,365 in infrastructure funding thorough and complete exploration of k-8 communities and what needs to be repaired. a few weeks ago i held at hearing at the young adults committee on the conditions of school facilities.
11:20 am
for years bb hm faculty and parents filed complaints regarding exposed radiators, rodent infestations, temperatures reaching 90 degrees in december, hauling ceiling tiles, faulty wiring and more. in 2020 into separate reports as f usd rated buena vista facilities in good repair and clean space and functional despite what students and faculty faced every day yet after that rating three major life-threatening incidents happened this year alone including a dangerous gas leak that went unchecked for a week and which sf usd facilitieshad originally dismissed as the smell of dead rodents . and a student who was electrocuted and sent to the emergency room. one of bb hm community demands is to have school facilities assessed by a non- sf usd
11:21 am
inspector. clearly the inspectors are finding these conditions in goodrepair and we need someone from outside to do this . i have to public works to facilitate this assessment through a third-party vendor and am redirecting money from the school year 2019 20 citywide spending plan that was slated to the planning and outreaching for land use and transportation improvements on and around allegheny market in my district. the project is on extended pause because of the pandemic leaving these funds unspent and there'spotential for future major sfp infrastructure projects along allegheny so other improvements may bring their own resources . works has estimated the cost of this facility in the range of 140,000. we are working with the controller and departments now to unencumbered the remaining 90,000 in committee but i
11:22 am
wanted to get it going as soon as possible and i wanted to thank school board member matt alexander and the entire bbhm community for making their voices heard and for addressing this issue in aserious way for the first time in years . i also want to thank our early cosponsor supervisor melgar, safai and walton. thank you so much and finally it is with great sadness that i am sharing today in memoriam of valerie suzuki who passed away at home on september 25 surrounded by herfamily and two beloved dogs . valerie was a fierce lawyer who dedicated her life to pursuing justice of the most vulnerable immigrants. he dedicated the latter part of her career to mentorship and
11:23 am
training new immigrant advocates. valerie had bravely battled breast cancer since 2014 and despite illness and grueling treatments she remained a fierce advocate sharing her vast knowledge with others as she built and strengthened the immigration bar. valerie's impact on the community and contained immigrantrepresentation space in california was in its period in 2017 valerie was the founding lead attorney for the northern california collaborative for immigrant justice at the justice university center .when nci j brought in its reach to become the statewide collaborative for immigrant justice valerie became its first legal director. valerie remained part ofthe cci j family as a board member transitioning to independent nonprofit status . in june 2020 valerie took on a new role as a special project attorney immigrant legal resource center where she met
11:24 am
implementationfor the first cohort of california immigrant justice fellowship . she was also a pro bono attorney for her last client client who describes her as a first person to see something in him and someone who always treated him like family. valerie practiced nightingale from 2011 to 2019 and started her law career at northwest immigrant range project from 2007 to 2011. a group of friends and colleagues shared with valerie prior to her passing that the fund would be established in her honor to advance the development of more fierce immigration lawyerslike her and that has beenestablished as the valerie zug andmemorial fellowship . please send condolences to her friends, colleagues and the community who depended on her . may you rest in peace and power valerie . >> supervisor bbhm. >> supervisor safai.
11:25 am
>> today i have introduced two resolutions. my first resolution is proclaiming the month of october children's environmentalhealth month. many of our current environmental laws and regulations are failing to protect our children . i'mgoing to name a couple of statistics i think are important . over 200 million pounds of pesticides active ingredients are applied in california each year . over 400,000californians are hospitalized for asthma each year . most children and disproportionately african-american. pesticideexposures are associated with behavioral problems, anxiety,depression, adhd decreased ability to regulate emotions . communities do not have the right to know when pesticides are being sprayed intheir
11:26 am
neighborhoods . and there is no regulation regarding how closea fossil fuel drill site can be placed in proximity to a children's house , bedroom, day care or school . the month of october isthe month for us to consider the necessary shift that must occur for california's children to be better protected from potentially toxic chemicals and from the effects of climate change . and obviously wewant a better and healthier future for our children so therefore i'd like to join the house of representatives in declaring october children'senvironmental health month . my second and final resolution is honoring a filipino heritage month . as a proud supervisor of district 11 and home of the excelsior neighborhood our mission and other neighborhoods on lakeview which has the largestfilipino populationin the city in terms of numbers . not necessarily the cultural home as south market is . supervisor haney and i always have this conversation but i'm pleased to recognize october as
11:27 am
filipino heritage month. since the 70s and 80s the excelsior neighborhood and even before that in the 60s as and still remains to be a attractive location for filipino families who purchased their home and often their first home to start businesses. the filipino communities presence is strong in my district and it's been an honor to put forth this resolution and i like to thank my cosponsor to provides or haney and the entireboard of supervisors . peskin, mar, melgar, stefani, ronen and mandelman. i'll have somemore words when the resolution comes forth . the rest i submit. >> supervisor haney you asked to be re-referred. >> i have a few items and i will get to them as quickly as
11:28 am
possible. i'm calling a hearing on the budget and appropriations committees 21 to 22 spending plan foressential human services . the department ofpublic health and homelessness and supportive housing , mayors office of housing and community development and open awb. the hearing designed to clarify how major city departments are clarifying voter approved spending as it gets specific questions answered about budget allocations in the city's homeless response system. i know you remember it was only just a few months ago that we approved our budget for the year but there are already questions about how this spending is going, whether we're getting the dollars where they should be and how we can make sure that these funds are spent as effectively and efficiently as possible. i'm alsoannouncing a piece of legislation that i asked the city attorneys to draft . we as you all are aware have certain laws that require
11:29 am
zoning changes to be made. some changes of use if we are changing from a hotel to housing and we have had situations in my district where hotel owners are knowingly ignoring these requirements in part because the last amendment to the planning code authorized a zoningadministration to assess appealable penalties only $250 a day for any planning code violations . the result is that they simply pay the feeknowing that they are violating the code . and for that reason we need to update this section of our law. i am working with the city attorney's office and planning department to bring forth an amendment to this planning code so it acts as more of a
11:30 am
deterrent than it does in its current iteration and two resolutions i'm introducing . one is the resolution i'm bringing forward with the enemy community calling for the opening of the sinai airport in yemen and for president joe biden to advocate for the reopening of this airport. for the last seven years of the civil war regional war and suffocating siege we have seen just a catastrophic human rights crisis in yemen. there are many yemen residents of my district and of our city who are now suffering in addition to the long civil war there. to the disconnection that has occurred from the closure of yemen's main airport. the airport closed in 2016 after the saudi led coalition hold up its restrictions and despite un security council
11:31 am
resolutions and international pressure it has not reopened. the result is that people have been separated from their loved ones and have been unable to deliver and connect with supplies and medicines and it has had a huge impact on our yemen community here so this resolution will urge the biden administration to work towards the reopening of the sinai airport and the last resolution i'm introducing relates to an issue that i know that all of us have become very familiar with in various ways particularly over the last few months as we've seen a rise in the number of lawsuits that have been brought against especiallysmall businesses under the americans for disabilities act . this is a very important federal piece of legislation that is intended to protect people's access and prevent discrimination butcan also be misused . i got the call last week from one of my constituents, a small
11:32 am
business who had been hit with three of these lawsuits. despite the fact that she was very much ready and willing to immediately repair the issue at hand to ensure access for people with disabilities she was the victim of essentially a shakedown by one of these attorneys who in many cases has filed thousands of these lawsuits targeting often small businesses, targeting often immigrant owned businesses targeting many businesses within chinatown and so i know that our mayor and now our office of small business is providing important assistance and support for many of the small businesses who have found themselves in the situation wanting to address the questions of accessibility but also not wanting to be squeezed and put out of business. so that's important and it's also important that we take a
11:33 am
stance to the state and federal governments and communicate to them some of the ways that the federal law in particular is making this challenging for small businesses. our state actually made a change to the law which allows small businesses to correct with notice before having to have statutory fees and essentially going to a lawsuit process and that is not reflected in federal law currently so i'm working with our small business community on this resolution to come forward with some recommendations for changes that can be made to both ensure access and protection for people with disabilities and protect our newsmall businesses, especially those that have been targeted by some of these predatory lawsuits . lastly it is with a heavy heart i share this in memoriam for a long time sanfrancisco
11:34 am
resident, political activist and dear friend to many , rebecca hopeor as she likes to be called becky . becky passed this month on october 7after an extended illness . becky was born in inglewood california and moved to san francisco at theage of six . somenew becky has petals, her childhood name which followed her throughout her life . since moving to the city she became a dear and lovingfriend to so many .all of whom she fought for tirelessly throughout her life. becky not only loved the city but especially was in many ways the embodiment of treasure island and its people. she was never afraid to speak her mind about the issue she was passionate about. she cared deeply about the safety and well-being of her community which motivated her involvement on san francisco's pedestrian safety advisory committee as vice chair a lot of us in the political world over as a longtime leader in the fdr democratic club where she served asvice president for disability . she was a fierce advocate for
11:35 am
workers rights and served as a union steward for many years for thecommunication workers of america . she will be remembered as a passionate and involved community member we spent her time advocating for residents in san francisco especially on treasure island . she was a member of the treasure island is in advisory board since its inception and served in the navy restoration advisory board and could be counted on to attend treasure island community events such as national night out, back to school events for holiday celebrations . she never missed an opportunity to be out in the community getting to know residentsand showing hersupport for local initiatives . every time i attended an event on the island i could count on becky to be there .she was an avid reader, dog lover and warrior's fan. her dedication was inspiring and shehad tremendous impact on everyonearound her, especially
11:36 am
the disabled , sick , elderly and the people of treasure island. it is it an honor to have known beckyand be part of the community she loved dearly . she will be forever remembered and cherished by all who had the privilege of knowing her. rest in peace rebecca hope that you supervisor any. seeing other names on the roster that includes the introduction of new business thank you so much colleagues and thank you madam clerk. we are now at public comment. >> clerk: at this time the boardof supervisors will welcome general public comment . listen from your touch phone and you should listen from your touch phone, you'll be in live safe tolisten to the proceeding and provide publiccomment . throughout this meeting the telephone number is streaming on your screen . both television andcomputer it's 415-655-0001. when you hear the promptand
11:37 am
enter the meeting id , 2488 489 6769 . press pound twice and youwill know you have joined the meeting as a listener . your line will be muted. once you're ready to get into the queue to provide public comments press star 3 and listen for the prompt to indicate you have been unmuted and begin speaking. there you may the matters within the jurisdiction of the board of supervisors but that are not on this agenda today and the section ofthe agenda hosting items that were not heard in committee . these are items 60 through 65 . all other agenda content has had itspublic comment requirement fulfilled at the committee level . so operations let's before we hear from our first speaker i will just state there are 17 listeners in the queue and there are seven who are lined up and ready to speak. if you're one of the 17 and you haven't already press star 3 now and that way you can get into the line tospeak . let's hearfrom our first color
11:38 am
please . >> caller: good afternoon. good evening supervisors. my name is bill markel and i'm commissioner for veterans affairs insan francisco and retired from the air force 29 years . thank you for supervisor mar for the two proposals. they are very essential to our veterans and it would be instrumental and to the betterment of our veterans and as you know november 11 is veterans day but we pass legislation a couple of years ago thanks to supervisor stefani that the month of novemberis all veterans . thank you once again for the this legislation that's very important to us. >> clerk: operations, can we have another caller in the queue ?
11:39 am
>> caller: that evening supervisors, myname is julian and i'm a third-generation san franciscan and a veteran . i'm calling to express my support for thefood parks for veterans mental health as well as housing for veterans . i want to thank everyonewho made this happen. i believe veterans will greatly benefit from this . thank you for your timeand have a good night . >> clerk: to you and previous caller thank youfor your service . do we have another caller in the queue ? >> caller: my name is jason cheddar bob and i want to thank you guys for opening up about the veteran bmr. hopefully we can help to achieve the objective of a new transition and reducing the amount of impactinghousing and shelters . this will definitely benefit our active-duty members transitioning to veteran statu
11:40 am
. i appreciate everything and supervisor mar. >> clerk: do we have another callerin the queue please ? [inaudible] welcome caller. [inaudible] we will return to that line in a moment, it seemedto be unattended . >> caller: hello, my name is james mccarthy, a resident in san francisco in full support of the legislation working for free parks and bmr housing for veterans. as a local supporter of the veterans programs and educator, i just wanted to share my support and i hope to get these things pass. thank you so much.
11:41 am
>> clerk: we have six callers inthe queue and there are 20 listening . if you're one of the 20 and you have not yet pressedstar 3 . all right operations, let's welcome our next color please . >> caller: high. supervisors, it's really late. i am a us, former u.s. navy disabled veteran, born and raised in san francisco. i want to thank supervisor mar for championing the bmr housing and free parks. i believe that the free parks will help mental health. as you know a lot of veterans
11:42 am
have ptsd and mental health issues just like me myself. i admit i have mental health issues and having free parks out there gives me the ability to focus and clear my mental image and it's better for veteransand all . thank you so much and i support mister mar still. >> clerk: thank you for your patience. operations, do we have another caller in the queue ? >> caller: my name is eduardo ramirez, mission high school graduate and retired air force master sergeant. i retired va employee and i was administrative officer for mental health and i'm currently commander of the american legion post 505 and the founder
11:43 am
of one that, one voice and formerly a homeowner in san francisco and abusiness owner in san francisco . i am in support of item number 58 and 59 and i want to thank you supervisors for putting this on the agenda and hopefully we can get it passed and many of our veterans that are returning from the afghan and overseas deserve a place to go and have peace and rest and by opening up the parks to these veterans it will give them the opportunity to do tha . san francisco used to be a military town and it's no longer a military town but we have a lot of veterans in the city. the 7000 that are still registered homeowners and voters of san francisco. i urge you to support this legislation and just make it
11:44 am
happen for our veterans. they gave to our country. let's get back to them. iq. >> clerk: thank you for your comments and for yourpatience. we have eight callers in the queue and 17 who are listening .let's hear from our next color please. >> my name is jr wilson. i am a past state commander for the disabled american veterans and and also their current legislative director for the state of california for department of counsel and disabled american veterans and founder of delta veterans. the dav has 70,000 members throughout the state of california, many of them residing in thegreat city of san francisco . doing all types of jobs and property owners and things like that. for the mental health of veterans and free parks, this
11:45 am
gives them the opportunity to go out there and get that public ... [inaudible] we also want to let them know they are appreciated in our great city of san francisco and so we are fully in support of supervisor mar and the bill and for this legislation and thank you for the opportunity tobe able to speak on its behalf . thank you. >> clerk: we appreciate you an your service . thank you for your comments this evening. dowe have another caller in the queue ? >> my name is nicholas bruce enough, i'm a veterans affairs commissioner, purple heart recipient. i'm very grateful board and
11:46 am
gordon mar for keeping veterans in their agenda and being willing to listen to the needs of the veterans and needsof the citizens of san francisco . i'd like to make a point that we've been at work for 20 year . i've seen it, i enlisted in 2001 after 9/11 and i was deployed to iraq in 04 during the sign-up uprising and right now recently we pulled out of afghanistan and our military operations are slowing down and i want to say that these kids need to be housed now . these kids need a chance to better their lives and to buil their lives . there hasn't been a draft. no one else has to go. only the people who volunteered and they came back and they did it again and did it again and
11:47 am
then their daughters did it and their sons did it and then the did it together as a family and they went to war and came home and went again . this bill that would help them get housing and this bill that would help the parks, this would make the american veterans so grateful to the city of san francisco. just to say you fought for us when we came home and to make sure we had shelter and that we were given a chance at a life after this whole mess. i've been listening to friends who been trying to get afghan he refugees home and it's been impossible and watching people talk about the ones they've lost is just unbearable. i ask that you continue to work diligently to get this measure passed and i'm grateful to all of your efforts.
11:48 am
>> clerk: thank you for your comments. we are setting the timerfor 2 minutes thisevening . operations, do we have another caller in the queue please ? >> caller: good evening everybody, my name is justin and i'm a commissioner on the veterans commission and i really want to emphasize the importance of the parks. as somebody living in the city and was recalled to active duty to go to iraq the thing about the part in san francisco when you're in the middle of the desert, it's quite the image in one's head. and to have the ability to give back to not only myself but other people in the city will rely on the parks is very important to our mental health and well-being so i appreciate the comments on it andfor the bmr i know if i ever go out the door again , very likely but the process of going again be
11:49 am
able to return home and not having to move and deal with the move while goinginto combat is powerful . soplease consider that . thank you for your time. >> clerk: thank you for your service. operations do we have another callerin the queue ? >> this is peter warfield, executivedirector . we can be reached at library users 2004 and also by regular mail to po box 170544 san francisco california 94117. my subject is a toxic social media company and how your body's funding support and spreads it and how your body can take prompt action to not support andspread it . i'm talking of course about facebook. two weeks ago i spoke to this
11:50 am
body regarding francis howden, former facebook employee who gave thousands of pages of internal documents showing that facebook arms its users and in particular armschildren . it does so knowing the harm it causes. quote, facebook over and over again has shown it uses profit over safety miss haugen said and facebookparticularly targets children . how does the library you fund support facebook? at least two ways. library constantly touts the existence of it and repeatedly provides its logo and all manner of felicityincluding for example the monthly newsletter . second the library provides funding for its own resources including staff to be used to provide materials tofacebook . basically helping facebook grow and retain raw materials and
11:51 am
the raw material being the attention of adults and children both to enable it to sell advertising. we ask you and the library stopped using funding you have provided to supportfacebook in any way . whether it's the publication of icons or images oradvertising , and also not to provide facebook with materials that functions as a lower to draw the attention of users. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments mister warfield. we have about seven callers in the queue and 19 callers who are listed. if you would provide public comment , if you're one of the 19 callers and you haven't already press star 3 otherwise we may take this last listof colors to the end . let's hear from our last caller. >> caller: my name is jenny
11:52 am
perez born in san francisco. i've cared for veterans and am a wife of a veteran and i went through the program. i'm here to advocate for changes to the preference category at the market rate housing program. i hope you consider this legislation as we are approaching veterans month in november. as supervisor mar touched on most units under the housing program are offered to individuals earn between 55 to 65 area median income whereas section 8 housing is an option for individuals who make 50 ami or less offering of preference to the veterans and members of the armed forces in the program will especially help veterans in the 55 to 65 ami bracket cannot or who currently do not have government assistance to afford housing prices in san
11:53 am
francisco. it's a simple update tothe program but a very needed one . there is legislation coming in the pipeline for you to offer. we will need your support to help those that need the time to process documentation and get the attention during the process. to have successful outcomesfor that veteran or member of the armed forces being housedin san francisco. these folks are babysitters, building cards, janitors, drivers, restaurant staff members . we need them to live here in san francisco thank you for taking the time to listen to us all >> clerk: thank you for your patience,service andcomments . we have seven callers in the queue . let's hear from our next caller . >> caller: i'm on. good evening supervisors. this is stephanie upton from
11:54 am
the domestic violence consortium and i want to thank all of you for on behalf of the domestic violence advocates of san francisco and those that they serve. even though domestic violence has been in the news every day, most domestic violence happens in the shadows and itcertainly happens in the shadows every day in san francisco . i want to take an opportunity today to thank supervisor catherine tran team for her leadership regarding violence against gender-based violence act and to all of you for your ongoing care and support throughout the year . i want to take a moment to thank you all and especially supervisor stefani for recognizing octoberas domestic violence awareness month in san francisco . iq so much and we're justhere for safety , equity and some kind ofjustice. thank you so much . >> thank you for your comments
11:55 am
operations, let's hear from our next caller . welcome caller. all right, perhaps that's an unattended line . welcome caller. >> caller: hello everyone, sorry vice president of veterans affairscommissioner . veterans month is around the corner and we need your help to serve as support to the veterans community. thank you supervisor mar for meeting this. as a mission high school grad i'm here to advocate for veterans for the low market rate as well as free access to san francisco parks and recreation. mental health and housing are twoof the many issues veterans face . we have approximately around
11:56 am
23,000 veterans residing in the city and county of san francisco. we want to do more to support this community. they are the backbone of many businesses and many things here in the city. i urge the supervisors to act on veterans issues, work together with the veterans affairs commission along with others as well to servethose who serve andthank you so much, have a good night .>> clerk: thank you for your service. operations , may we hear from our next caller please. >> caller: my name is commissioner mcdonald . i am advocating for the low market rate and also the parks and recreation. on below-market rates, just to let you know i'm a 20 year
11:57 am
retired army veteran and also a disabled. i've been living in san francisco for at least seven years now. i was homeless for at least three of those years and the day got me out of that level and i was able to find aprogram and i'm working towards getting a house for my family . during the tour of when iwas in the service , we moved every three years and didn't have a home of our own . to be able to have a home of our own in san francisco is a really nice pleasurable thing to where we can call our own home for a place to live. and as you can do that for lots of veterans, that would be very nice. we do that for defending our
11:58 am
nation and our country's freedoms and we don't ask too much but having a place to live in our countryis a nice way to do it . thank youvery much . >> clerk: thank youfor your comments and patience . operations, can we hear from our next caller please? i believe we arecircling back to an unattended line from earlier . aswell as the caller . perhaps it's still unattended. let's go to our next line please. >> caller: thank you for the previous callers who spoke on the veterans issues . speaking to the benefits of parks for mental and physical health, i'm submitting public
11:59 am
comment in opposition to the proposed sublease agreement for the vehicle triage and camera point. the area is already overburdened by poverty, pollution and lack of resources compared to otherneighborhoods . second the plan is using incorrect zoning ignoring redevelopment plan open space intended for parks and related recreation. >> that item was actually before the board, item 31 on our agenda. that is not authorized content for discussion as italready had its public comment fulfilled . so we're going togo to the next caller . operations, do you have another callerin the queue ? >> caller: hello.
12:00 pm
my name is charles baker, i'm a native of san francisco and i'm pro-affordable housing for veterans and also throw parks for veterans. being a native i have been homeless, i am a disabled vets as well from the air force . i've had these opportunities available to us , that's a huge thing. it's tough for us to go to parks and have that break from the everyday, a mental space of clarity there and for affordable housing, that's huge as well so being part of storage, i've had great opportunity to stay in a lovely place in the city and now that the time is up like what would i do kind of thing? i don't expect much and i don't expectanything at all but it
12:01 pm
would be nice to say hey , these are places you can afford that you're goingto be okay kind of thing . i work here doing a security job and like the woman said earlier, we are here working a lot of jobs that really give back to the city. so i'm just throw parks and equal housing for that's and thank you for your time and you for yourpatience this evening. operations, do we have another caller in the queue ? >> my name is courtney ellington and i am the executive director of the veterans expense center and the war memorial building. i am also the first vice commander of theamerican legion district 8 . i am here to support the
12:02 pm
below-market rate program and the parks bill. here at the veterans success center we have veterans that come in daily without a place to stay and we are running out of resources and referrals for the veterans and the numbers are increasing so it's very very important in our veteran community. also with the parksville i think the park bill will help veterans especially those who are having mental health issues. it would give them somethingto do . with the pandemic and everything i think that would be a great outlet for veterans to go out and do something so the parksville is very important and that would be another resource we canbetter serve veterans when they come to the veterans building . again my name is courtney collinson and i support the low
12:03 pm
market rateprogram and the parks and recreation bill. thank you . >> clerk: thank you for your patience and your service. do we have another caller in the queue? you've indicated there are 2 callers left. there are about 16 listeners and if you'd like to provide comment if you haven't already press star 3. let's hear from our next caller. >> caller: [inaudible] >> clerk: thank you for your comments this evening . let's hear from our next caller. >> caller: [inaudible] >> clerk: welcome caller. >> caller: hello. >> clerk: we can hear you.
12:04 pm
>> caller: yes, my name is shirley mullen and i want to comment and respond to the comment you made to a caller about the center in candlestick park. that issue was called earlier today and you said it was passed. unanimous vote. >> clerk: are you calling about thevehicle triage center item 31 ? >> caller: it was said that ... >> clerk: i am pausing your time. i am sorry to interrupt but that item is noteligible for publiccomments this evening . if in fact you are talking about the vehicle triage center item 31 . >> caller: we were not heard so
12:05 pm
why isit we cannot be heard on this issue ? >> clerk: that item had its public comment fulfilledin committee . it's not that the board doesn't want to hear from you. it's that they have taken publiccomment on that matter . anyway, i'm going to move on to thenext caller but i don't mean to be rude or interrupt you . this is general public comment so operations, can we have anothercaller please ? >> caller: hello. i had my hand up also for the bcb comment but i heard what you just said. in the future how will we be notified and how can we find out if public comments are for committee and not for general meeting? >> clerk: i would invite you to callthe clerk's office.
12:06 pm
we can help you out with that . and for the record i'll just indicate it's 415455 5484. anything else you want to commenton this evening ? okay. thank you for your comments. do we have another caller in the queueplease ? >> no further colors in the queue. >> clerk: mister president. >> president: seeingno other public comments, public comment is now closed . madam clerk would you please go to adoption without committee reference item 65. >> clerk: items 60 through 65 wereintroduced for adoption without committee reference .
12:07 pm
a unanimous vote is required for adoption of these resolutions and alternatively a supervisor may require resolution to go to committee. >> president: any items that need to be severed? i don't see anyone on the roster. madam clerk would you please ... supervisor haney. >> a couple cosponsors, 60, 61 and 64 . >> clerk: noted. >> president: madam clerk pleasecall the role . [roll call vote] on items 60 through 65, who provides her stefani. >>. [roll call vote]
12:08 pm
>> please add me as a cosponsor to item 61. >> clerk: there are 11 aye's and we will add you to item 61. >> president:these resolutions are adopted unanimously. madam clerk, any inherited agendaitems ? >> clerk: there are none to report . >>president: would you please present the in memoriam . >> clerk: today's meeting will be adjourned in honor of the following individuals on behalf of supervisor haney. becky hope, on behalf of supervisor melgar, june radio oil and on behalf of supervisor
12:09 pm
ronen, valerie zukin. >> president: that brings us t the end of our agenda . anyfurther business for us today ? >> clerk: that concludes our business today. >> president: there is a direct correlation between education and public safety. then attorney general harris now vice president harris. thismeeting is adjourned .
12:10 pm
. >> president: the virtual meeting of the san francisco entertainment commission. i am ben bleiman. due to the covid-19 emergency and to protect employers are the public, the city hall meeting rooms are closed. this precaution is taken pursuant to various local, state, and federal orders. commission members will attend the meeting to the same extent as if they were present. each speaker will be allowed two minutes to speak in public comment. opportunity to speak during public comment period are available via the