Transcripts For SFGTV Full Board Of Supervisors 20240712

Clerk okay, mr. President , you do have a quorum. President yee okay. Thank you, please place your right hand over your heart. Will you please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance. [pledge of allegiance] president yee welcome, supervisor safai. Lets see. Where are we . On behalf of the board, i would like to acknowledge the staff at sfgtv who record all of the meetings and make the transcripts available to the public online. Madam clerk, are there any communications . Clerk yes, mr. President. President yee go ahead. Clerk yes. The record will reflect that during covid19, members of the board of supervisors participate in the same extent as if they were in the chambers. The board of supervisors believe that all communities with or without the internet have the following available options to participate in this meeting. We will receive your correspondence and make it part of the legislative file. Address the mail to the San Francisco board of supervisors, city hall, room 244, San Francisco, california, 94102. If youre sending an email, you can send it to board. Of. Supervisors sfgov oug board. Of. Supervisors sfgov. Org. If youre watching online, go to www. Sfgtv. Org. If you are watching it on cable simulcast, please note that there is a delay. If you have any problem, call my office at 4155546544. We have someone standing by to help you with your problems. You can provide Public Comment or listen in if you call 14156550001. Enter the code identifying the meeting, which is 1466263696. Press pound, and pound again. To request to speak in Public Comment, press star and three, turn your t. V. Or computer down otherwise, the feedback will be heard when you provide your comments. Items 36 and 37, heres the public hearing to approve the submission of a sales tax to support Caltrain Service. Procedurally, this public hearing moves forward only after item 40 is approved to convene a committee of the whole, which would then be to hear item 37. Further depending on how long all other items will take, that will occur before item 40. Please note that the public hearing may not occur at 3 00 and in fact sometime after 3 00 p. M. But for those who wish to provide general Public Comment, its item 39. The public may speak on items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the board to include the june 23, 2020 Board Meeting minutes, and items 30 through 45. If you are speaking on item 40, that is for the board to convene a committee of the whole to hear item 37, the Caltrain Service item. That is not on the merits of the matter. The merits of the matter will be heard at a public hearing once item 37 is actually called. So if you do speak on item 37 on general Public Comment, well just reorient you and ask you to safe your comments for when the public hearing on item 37 is called. Okay. So all other items on the agenda, items 1 through 23 have already had their noticed public requirements fulfilled at committee and are not available for additional Public Comment today. Again, if youre having issues, contact my office, 4155545584. Second, will all our interpreters let the Community Know that youre here to assist speakers with Public Comment. Well begin with agnes lai, go to mr. Cosenzo, and finish up with the next interpreter. [speaking chinese language] president yee sorry about that noise. Madam clerk, before we get started, could i remind all supervisors to mute your microphones when you are not speaking to avoid audio feedback. Madam clerk, go ahead and receive go ahead and ask the person who asked for accommodations to go ahead and speak at this point. Clerk operations, mr. Qu, is our caller on the line and ready . Hi. My name is zach. Can you hear me . Clerk yes, we can, and welcome. Hi. My name is zach, and im a while chair user and disability advocate. Im here today to speak up for people with disabilities. This july has been declared disability pride month by mayor london breed, and unfortunately, there are still many things about access and key quality that we do not have in this city today. Starting with the Audio Quality of the disability accommodation ive been granted to attend this meeting. Its a much lower quality than other officials have to attend these public meetings. Many Board Members have allowed zoom access for better Audio Quality and visual participation for those with disabilities, and yet, this governing board lags on that, and its fall behind other departments who have made improvements for the disabled. This board hardly ever talks about disability, the abuse, mistreatment at laguna honda hospital where patients have been sexually and physically abused, and its ongoing. African americans are twice as likely to become disabled in this city, and this board says it cares about black lives matter, but what are you doing . We were supposed to get a Community Center as proposed by the Dignity Center in 2016. Its now 2020, we have no Community Center, no place to have communities and be together with our fellow people with disabilities. It takes three years to get a curb cut for San Francisco, and 30 years after the passage of the a. D. A. , there are still thousands of curb cuts that have not been made to prioritize the people of San Francisco. I ask the board of supervisors to please, please, please make it a priority. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments. Mr. President . I believe youre muted, mr. President. President yee sorry about that. Colleagues, today we are approving the minutes from the june 23, 2020 regular Board Meeting. Are there any changes to these Meeting Minutes . Seeing none, could i have a motion to approve . Supervisor fewer move, fewer. President yee okay. And seconded by . Supervisor mandelma mandelman mandelman. President yee okay. Can you please call the roll. Clerk okay. On the motion to approve the minutes [roll call] clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee okay, then. Without objection, the minutes will be approved after Public Comment as presented. Madam clerk, lets go to our consent agenda. Please call items 1 through 5. Clerk items 1 through 5 are on consent. These items are considered to be routine. If a member objects, an item may be removed and considered separately. President yee okay, then. Colleagues, are there is there anyone that would like to sever any of these items . Seeing no names on the roster, madam clerk, please call the roll for items 1 through 5. Clerk on items 1 through 5 [roll call] clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee okay. Then the ordinances are finally passed unanimously. Madam clerk, lets go to our unfinished business. Please call the next item. Clerk item 6 is an ordinance to approve an amendment to the redevelopment plan for the Mission Bay South reveemt project which approved an amendment to the redevelopment plan for the mission bla south redevelopment project, which modifies the mad use designation for Certain Property in blocks 29 through 32, to add hotel and residential as we are mitts uses, and to make the appropriate finding as permitted uses, and to make the appropriate finding. President yee okay. Colleagues, last week, we continued this item until i could get clerk clarification on the child care project not only on this block, but on the entire project itself. Upon further collusion with the land use and Transportation Committee and the golden state warriors, i am proposed to move this forward today. There are seven sites either built or in the pipeline, including one with 59 slots around that area. I know they are committed to continue to push for San Franciscos for San Francisco to be a world class city for families with children. I appreciate staff and the warriors for reaching out to further this discussion, and i apologize for my confusion on my position last week, and but i think it speaks to the urgency and need at a time when child care is more needed than ever, especially what were asking from our providers. So madam clerk, go ahead and call the roll on this. Clerk on item 6 [roll call] clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee okay. Without objection, the ordinance is finally passed. Madam clerk, please call the next item. Clerk item 7 is a Charter Amendment, second draft, to amend the charter of the city to provide the future annual adjustments and baseline funding for specific charter mandated funds will not take into account certain changes in city revenue resulting from voter approved business taxes, and to make other specific changes to the citys business taxes, and to increase the citys appropriations limits by the total revenue collected to be submitted to the ballot for the election held on november 3, 2020. President yee colleagues, i just want to express my gratitude to an Incredible Team that put this unified measure forward that is supported by the mayor, a majority of the board, and the sponsors. To my team sponsors, haney and budget chair fewer, peskin, safai, and mandelman, thank you for helping me craft this. It may have been one of my favorite experiences working on the board so far. I also need to give a huge thank you to the city controller, Ben Rosenfield, our chief economist and our City Attorney teams, for their work and collaboration. And, of course, thank you for our work labor and Community Partners who are fighting so hard for our community families. And also thank you to supervisor mandelman and safai for joining as sponsors. I want to summarize the key points for member of the public. This is repealing the payroll tax and replacing it with a gross receipts system. The measured response to the unprecedented economic crisis we are in with a fair, equitable recovery, especially for our Small Business community and our most vulnerable residents, that is why we are calling this the Small Business and economic recovery act. We must recognize that the that this Health Emergency only made existing inequities force, and that the economic burden is not carried evenly. Who is hurting the most right now are working families, small entrepreneurs, and family owned businesses. Recovery must start from the bottom up. We need to provide immediate relief to the hardest hit industries and businesses and also to provide a responsible, Stable Funding source for our future. This this measure has a very critical element, allowing us to unlock funds already collected through our city, our homes, and early care and education for all measures. This measure will free up 300 million for the general fund by placing a back stop tax that only goes into effect if we lose the court cases, and thats a big if. This will allow us to fund the general fund while also freeing up the Housing Support and Early Childhood education support. We are also helping our Small Businesses by exempting them from this business tax for any of them making 2 million or less. This will benefit 3100 businesses, who are barely getting by right now. Small businesses making less than 1 million are also see reductions to their tax fees. We are proposing more measures to help businesses hit hard by covid19 over the course of the next few years. Lastly, it is clear that the economys recovery is not going to be recovered for a while. Therefore, we are proposing that no tax increases are considered until january 2022, in which there will be a small, phased, incremental increase to the tax rates for Large Industries. Future step increases in 2023 and 2024 will be tied to economic recovery triggers. If the economy would not recover, the tax Rate Modification will be deferred to the following year. Our economy is entering into uncharted water, so we wanted to remain nimble and have the flexibility as a city by proposing reporting requirements so that the controller can provide recommendations to the board if taxes need to be further deferred due to the economic conditions. I truly believe the updated measure is balanced by bringing immediate relief to those who need it the most. While the casts to Large Industries are less cost sensitive. Colleagues, i hope i can count on you for your support. This might be one of the most important measures to be voted on this november. So supervisor mar . Supervisor mar thank you, president fee, and also to supervisors fewer, peskin, and haney, and mayor breed and all of your staff for your work on this very important measure. Yeah, and and also to the controller Ben Rosenfeld and everyone who worked on this. This is an important tax for our tax four Small Businesses tax for Small Businesses, so thank you very much, and i would like to be added as a cosponsor. President yee thank you very much for your comments. Supervisor haney . Supervisor haney thank you, president yee. This is one of my favorite projects, too. I know that this is a very challenging thing to do to bring together all of these different parties, all of these different supervisors, the mayor, the prop c and baby c coalitions and do it on such a tightened timeline, and to do it in a way that was balanced, you know, i think this is a measure that is desperately needed right now, both to make sure we have the urgent funds required to continue to respond to this crisis and protect essential services, and also to provide some relief to our Small Businesses when theyre suffering a great deal during this time. So i think where we ended up is a great and necessary economic recovery measure, and i do hope that the voters join us in supporting it, and i can say without a doubt there are a lot of people involved in this. Supervisors peskin and fewer who did an extraordinary job, and their respective staff, and all of the coalitions, but this would not have happened without you and your leadership, in your final year as president , this is just a great testament to what you have contributed to our city. And finally, the prop c coalition, we should recognize the work that theyve done to both pass those measures and now to continue to fight to be able to have the spending and to support us in seeing this across the finish line this november is just tremendous, and i want to acknowledge them, as well, but also, president yee, you and your staff for your leadership. President yee thank you, supervisor haney. Supervisor peskin . Supervisor peskin thank you, president yee. What you said, what supervisor haney said, but you steered the ship incredibly well, as i said, when it was in the Budget Committee last week. You exceeded, i think, all of my expectations, and i got a little bit of history with our business tax. I mean, everybody may know that our business tax was actually goes way back to the days when Dianne Feinstein was our mayor in the late 1990s. San francisco was sued for its hybrid gross receipts payroll structure. I was on the board when we had to settle that lawsuit and actually retire our gross receipts tax and go to a payroll only tax. That was commonly referred to as the filthy 52 multinational corporations that brought suit against San Francisco and even threatened to bankrupt the city. We ended ups settling that lawsuit, i believe, in 77 million in debt bonds. When i was out of office, the iteration of the gross receipts payroll that we were putting on the ballot that we are putting on the ballot today was crafted, and frankly, it gave Information Services commonly known as big tech a tax holiday that theyve enjoyed now for almost a decade, and this tax immediately addresses that in a way that i really think is about what taxation policy stands for, which is is economic fairness in our society. And we went a lot further not only retiring the payroll tax but by exempting Small Businesses and increasing that threshold. And obviously, a lot of the policy thinking that we all were influenced by was a result of covid19, so i just wanted to say in all, i think it is a remarkably fair package. Im delighted that the mayor has come on in recent days fully on board. So i want to thank mayor breed, and our controller, Ben Rosenfield, and his staff. Ben did not do it by himself, ted egan did not do it by himself. He had some incredible staff, and every time we asked for some new modelling and changed one thing in this remarkably complex package, he was able to show us what that meant in his crystal ball. Lets be clear, there will be more adjustments in the future. Took us a number of clears to get the gross receipts data that the city was lacking in order to make the adjustments that are in the tax schedules that will go before the voters, and these tax packages are not static. If the economy fails to recover, the board can choose not to implement portions of them and delay portions, so we will cross those bridges as we get to them. And i want to say even Large Businesses and Small Businesses realize this is a fair and right package that will allow San Francisco to deliver the services that it delivers day in and day out, 365 days a year. So, again, thank you to all the folks who participated, and most importantly the staffs from each of the four supervisorial offices who tried to make sense of what we were trying to do and actually did that, so thank you, one and all. Now lets bring this to the voters and get this passed. President yee thank you, supervisor. Supervisor ronen . Supervisor ronen yes, thank you. I just want to echo the comments thanking the city staff at city hall and all the staff at the budget and Controllers Office. I would like to be added as a corespon cosponsor, and i just want to say, in talking to Ben Rosenfield the past few weeks, how were going to fill a 1. 5 billi 1. 5 billion gap, this programming is essential. If we dont pass this, the impact to layoffs, to cut services, on the basic needs of our city that are so much more acute at this time during the pandemic will be so much more severe, and so i could not be more enthusiastic about this measure. It is essential to our citystate future, and i will be out there with you on the campaign trail, fighting hard to make sure this really wonderful measure passes, so thank you. President yee thank you, supervisor ronen, for being a cosponso cosponsor. Supervisor walton . Supervisor walton thank you, president yee. I just wanted to thank everybody for their work on this and wonder if i could be added as a cosponsor . President yee thank you, supervisor walton. Go ahead, madam clerk and call the roll on this item. Clerk on item 7 [roll call] clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee okay. The item is submitted to the charter ballot unanimously. Madam clerk, lets go onto the next item. Clerk item 8 is an ordinance approving Health Service system plans and contribution rates for calendar year 2021. Pursuant to starter section a8. 422, this matter shall require a vote of threefourths of all members of the board of supervisors to approve passage of this ordinance. President yee okay. Madam clerk, please call the roll. Clerk on item 8 [roll call] clerk there are 10 ayes. President yee okay. Then without objection, the ordinance is finally passed unanimously. Clerk okay. I do see that supervisor ronen dropped off and is probably rebooting to connect. President yee okay. Clerk so ill re president yee go ahead and go to the next item, i guess. Clerk okay. Item 9 is an ordinance to amend the public works code to authorize the imposition of administrative penalties and additional enforcement remedies for Illegal Dumping, expand the definition of Illegal Dumping to capture electronic waste and clarify that each act of Illegal Dumping constitutes a separate violation subject to abatement or enforcement actions, amending the police code to provide procedures for assessment and collection of administrative penalties for Illegal Dumping, and affirming the Planning Departments determination under ceqa. President yee supervisor walton . Supervisor walton thank you, president yee. I would like to thank my cosponsors, supervisors fewer, haney, safai, stefani, and mandelman. I just had a few amendments. On page 3, lines 9 through 14 and 22 through 25, lines 9 through 12, we deleted the term defined commercial waste, which is covered by other defined terms, including the new term refuse. Lines 13 and 14, delete constructidelete and 14, commercial construction debris has the same definition as defined by the city. Lines 22 through 25, deleted the fine terms debris and waste construction material. Page 4, lines 6 through 8, rewarded to define term electron i didnt care waste. Page 4, lines 9 through 15, added defined terms hazardous. And then on page 4, lines 21 through 23, revised defined terms prohibited materials to include new defined terms, construction, and demolition debris, hazardous waste, and refuse. Page 5, lines 6 and 7, added defined terms refuse. The purpose of these amendments is to more closely align and confirm definitions in article 26 and definitions in environmental code to make conforming changes to definitions in public works code 1602 as suggested by the department of the environment. And i would just love to hear from Council Chair yee if these are substantial. President yee so so deputy City Attorney, is there are these substantial . No deputy City Attorney ann pearson. No, they are not substantive amendments. President yee okay. So theres a motion been made to accept the amendments. Why dont i have a second from any person on the roster. Is there a second for the motion to amend . Supervisor safai second by safai. President yee okay. Supervisor safai, do you have comments . Supervisor safai yes. Just wanted to thank supervisor walton for leading on this. He and i had a conversation over a years ago about targeting over a year ago about the conversation of Illegal Dumping in both of our respective areas. I get daily calls about individuals that dump. Both of our districts are bound by entrances and exits to freeways and some areas that people believe that its okay. I got some calls from some people over by june Jordan High School last night. And often, its not just your every day neighbor. Its also contractors, and i think thats part of the heart of what these increased fines are trying to get at. Definitely need to work more aggressively with recology to let people know that they have the ability a few times a year to have these items collected. Really want to work in a stronger fashion to get the scofflaws that are out there. We have a second piece about construction and demolition waste that will be coming down the pike. Its almost ready to go, but i just want to say that this is something that my district has been waiting for for sometime, and i appreciate supervisor walton bringing it together with my district and several others. President yee okay. Madam clerk, lets have the roll call on the motion to approve those amendments. Clerk on the motion to approve the amendments role parole amendments [roll call] clerk mr. President , there are 11 ayes. President yee okay. Madam clerk, go ahead and call the role on the item as amended. Clerk on item 9 as amended [roll call] clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee okay. Without objection, the item as amended is passed on first reading. Madam clerk, lets go to new business. Please call the next item. Clerk okay. Item 10 is a motion submitted to the voters at an election to be held on november 3, 2020, an ordinance amending the business and tax regulations code to impose an additional gross receipts tax or an Administrative Office tax on businesses with a greater than 100 1 ratio of the compensation of the business highestpaid managial employee to the median compensation paid to the business employees based in the city, and increasing the citys appropriations limit by the amount collected under the additional tax for four years from november 3, 2020. President yee okay. If you would like to speak on this item, you need to be on the roster, but i realize that supervisor haney, you would like to speak on this item. Supervisor haney thank you, president yee. Today, i recognize my cosponsors, supervisors ronen, walton, mar, preston, mandelman, fewer, and safai, we are putting forth a motion to submit this arrestordinance to voters on november 3, 2020. What were proposing today is a very simple straightforward tax measure. If it passes, any company that pays their Top Executive 100 times more than a median worker will have a. 7 surcharge added to their taxes. Companies that are paying their top workers huge salaries can afford to pay this tax. It is based on a similar tax thats been implemented in portland, oregon, and a number of cities in california have proposed similar ordinances. It allows the city to hire hundreds of doctors, nurses, first responders, and other Emergency Personnel to help us it be responding to this us continue responding to this pandemic. Big companies that can afford to pay their multimillion dollar salaries every year can afford to pay their share of taxes. We know that millionaires have dramatically increased their own wealth during this pandemic, adding hundreds of millions of dollars to their bottom line during this pandemic. The executive overpay tax is politicable only to companies who gross over 1. 7 million annually and pay their is applicable only to companies who gross over 1. 7 million annually and pay their executives more than 2. 8 million a year. So with that, i hope to have the support of the entire board and hopefully the support of the voters in november. President yee okay. Thank you, supervisor haney. Id like to be added as a cosponsor. Madam clerk, can you call the roll on this item . Clerk on item 10 [roll call] clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee okay. Without objection, the motion is approved unanimously. Supervisor ronen mr. President , sorry. President yee supervisor ronen, would you like to rescind the vote . Supervisor ronen yes. Can i make a motion to rescind the vote for item number 8 . Supervisor safai seconded. President yee okay. There is a motion to rescind the vote on item number 8 and a second. Clerk and mr. President , i heard two voices as the second. Can you clarify which one made the second . President yee i think i heard supervisor walton. Clerk okay. Thank you. On the motion to rescind the vote on item number 8 [roll call] clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee okay. So the motion to rescind passes. Could we go ahead and have the vote for the item again, please. Clerk for item 8 [roll call] clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee okay. So the ordinance is finally passed. Lets go over to the next item, which is item 11. Clerk item 11 is the reenactment of the emergency cord nance, ordinance number 3320, to limit the spread of covid19 by requiring the city, through Service Agreements with third parties, to provide staff and maintain rest rooms equipped with toilets and hand washing facilities, pursuant to the charter section 2. 107. This matter requires of the affirmative vote of two thirds of the board of supervisors or eight votes for passage. President yee supervisor haney . Supervisor haney yes. I want to thank the board for hearing this again. This is an emergency ordinance that we put in place a few months ago, and i hope we can all agree that public bathroom access is essential especially during a pandemic, but i know all of the time, and i know that all of us are seeing the benefits of having these public rest rooms available to our residents. They are getting tremendous use at all hours of the day and night, and i hope we can make this the norm in our city where we have dozens and dozens of public rest rooms available all over the city, and that this is misthat he aultimate something thats ultimately extended even after the pandemic, and i hope this is something that we can all support, having this kind of Public Access to public bathrooms in our city. President yee okay. So madam clerk, go ahead and call the roll. Clerk on item 11 [roll call] clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee okay. The it madam clerk, lets go to the next item. Clerk item 12 is a resolution approving modification number two to ground laze l00464 between the city and county of San Francisco acting by and through its Airport Commission and United Airlines for the exchange of certain land at plat 6 at San Francisco International Airport in support of the plot 6 reconfiguration project, decreasing the annual rent payable by united by 95,297. 07 zlr to an approximate total of 2,243,041. 43 to commence following board approval and full execution of modification number two and with no changes to the term expiring on june 30, 2021. President yee okay. Madam clerk, go ahead and call the roll. Clerk on item 12 [roll call] clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee okay. Without objection, this item is passed unanimously. Item 13, madam clerk. Clerk item 13 is a resolution authorizing the general manager of the Public Utilities commission to execute amendment number two to planning and engineering project Design Services agreement for specialized planning and Engineering Services for the proposed new head works facility at the Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant between the city and county of San Francisco and carollo engineers, inc, increasing the graemt by 21 million for a total not to exceed agreement amount of 54. 5 million and with a time extension of two years, for a total Agreement Term of 11 years, from december 1, 2014 through november 30, 2025, subject to the board of supervisors approval pursuant to charter section 9. 118. President yee okay. Madam clerk, go ahead and call the roll. Clerk on item 13 [roll call] clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee okay. Without objection, the resolution is adopted unanimously. Madam clerk, call the next item. Clerk item 13 is a resolution approving professional services agreement, contract number 50195, between beumer life cycle management, l. L. C. , and the city and county of San Francisco, for the operations and maintenance of the baggage handling system in the harvey milk terminal, for a total not to exceed contract amount of 21 million for a term of two years and 11 months commencing august 1, 2020 through june 30, 2023 pursuant to charter section 9. 118. President yee okay. Madam clerk, please call the roll. Clerk on item 14 [roll call] clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee okay. Without objection, the resolution is adopted unanimously. Madam clerk, i know we hit the 3 00 mark, but id like to get to item 18 before we get to special orders. Clerk okay. President yee so if we could call the next item. Clerk item 15 is a resolution approving for purpos [inaudible] and or kwipg of educational and related facilities owned and operated by town school for boys. President yee okay. Go ahead and call the roll on this item. Clerk on item 15 [roll call] clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee without objection, the item is adopted unanimously. Item 16, please. Clerk item 16 is a resolution retroactively authorizing the department of Public Health to accept and expand a grant in the amount of 660,557 from the California Department of Public Health for participation in a program entitled disease prevention and control local infrastructure funds for the period of february 1, 2020 through june 30, 2023. President yee okay. Madam clerk, go ahead and call the roll. Clerk on item 16 [roll call] clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee okay. Then without objection, the resolution is adopted unanimously. Go to item number 17. Clerk item 17 is a resolution to authorize the Mayors Office of housing and Community Development to execute a Grant Application under the department of housing and Community Developments local Housing Trust fund program for an amount not to exceed 5 million. President yee okay. Go ahead and call the roll. Clerk on item 17 [roll call] clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee okay. Without objection, the resolution is adopted. Madam clerk, lets go to item number 18. Clerk item 18 is a resolution, pursuant to administrative code section 6. 60 and administrative code chapter 21, to declare an emergency relating to the may 23, 2020 fire at pier 45, approving emergency contracts entered into by the port and to direct the port to take all necessary and appropriate measures to perform repair work to pier 45 in the most expeditious manner. President yee okay. Madam clerk, go ahead and call the roll. Clerk on item 18 [roll call] clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee okay. Without objection, the item is adopted unanimously. Madam clerk, lets go ahead and go to our 3 00 p. M. Special order, so call items 24 through 27. Clerk okay. Items 24 through 27 compromise the public hearing of persons interested in the determination of exemption from Environmental Review under the California Environmental quality act or ceqa issued as a categorical exemption by the Planning Department on february 26, 2020 for the proposed projects at 2651 through 2653 octavia street to construct a fourth floor vertical and who ahorizo rear addictions to an existing three story house. Item 25 is a motion affirming the determination by the Planning Department that the proposed project is categorically exempt from further environmental. Item 26 is conditionally reversing the callical exemption determine, and 27 is the preparation of finding to reverse the categorical exemption. President yee okay. We have an appeal concerning 2651 through 2653 octavia street. Without objection, we will proceed as follows up to ten minutes for a presentation by the appellant or their representatives. Two minutes per speaker in support of the appeal. Up to ten minutes of presentation by city departments, and up to ten minutes for the project sponsor or their representative, and then two minutes per speaker in opposite to the appeal and in support of the project, and finally, up to three minutes of rebuttal by the appellant or their representatives. Colleagues, are there any objections to proceeding this way . Seeing none, the public hearing will proceed as indicated and is now open. Supervisor stefani, would you like to make any opening remarks . Supervisor stefani not at this time, president yee. I will wait until after the presentations. President yee okay. Seeing no other names on the rot every, i would ask the appellant to come forward and present their on the roster, i would ask the appellant to come forward and present their presentations. Hello . Can you hear me and see me . President yee yes. Okay. Great. My name is maureen foles, and i am one person representing a fourperson Appellant Group from three buildings in the neighborhood. We have widespread support in the community for this appeal. The community has supported us by sending letters of support into the board of supervisors website and unfortunately, some of our older neighbors who might have been able to attend, had this hearing been held in person, dont feel comfortable with the technology, so they are unable to attend today, but we do have some neighbors who will be available for Public Comment. I want to say we have no personal problem with the cooks, and we support their effort to design their personal property and join our neighborhood. I am going to share my screen. The other person that is going to present is kelly knight, and were going to share one screen, and at some point in the presentation, hell take over for the last few slides. Can you let us know when you can see the screen . President yee we can see it. Okay. Great. So our focus and concern it with the potential for negative impact on the golden gate Public Library. It caters to residents and visitors throughout the city. It has stood on the corner of green street and octavia for 103 years. It is a public service, with renovations paid for by residents and community don ors. Any impacts to this is not only felt by adjacent neighbors but to the entire San Francisco community. I want to show you the grand scale of this reading room. The key defining feature is the windows, and clearly, it was designed to maximize the amount of Natural Light entering into the reading room. We are requesting that the board of supervisors overturn the ceqa finding granted by the Planning Department in 2017 and allow for the city to keep a beloved public resource. There is press decedent to sup this request. In january 2019, the board of supervisors voted twice to do the same at 2417 green up the street, which negatively impacted the historic earnest coxhead resident next door. The project may not impair the significance of an Historic Resource by causing impacts to its immediate surroundings are verbatims taken from the record of that hearing. Coincidentally and ironically, coxhead was the master architect of the Golden Gate Valley Library, so we are asking that the same standards are applied to this building that was a historic part of his career, the same as on his residence. Substantial investment was made in new south facing High Performance glazed windows controlling solar Heat Exchange, a new photo role take on the south facing roof provided 25 of the library energy needs. Renovations were made by 8. 5 million of taxpayers money and additional donations. The six other carnegie libraries in the system were all awarded historic status after their renovations were completed. For each of the carnegie libraries that were land marked, the spatial volume of the main reading room was identified as a specific character defining feature of that building. This is a timeline which shows in september 2019, the categoric exemption was granted. There was no shading impact study, at least none for public view. In october 2019, a discretionary review was submitted. In december of 2019, the project sponsor then conducted a shading impact study. Clearly, that study did not inform the september categorical exemption decision. In february 2020, discretionary review hearing occurred. The Planning Department visited that site the same day at noon of the hearing, claiming deminimus impact, and a categorical exemption was upheld. We filed the board of supervisors appeal in early march, and on july 12, the Planning Department filed the standards of treatment for historical properties. The Planning Departments claim of deminimus impact is not supported by the sponsors own shading impact study of december. For five months of the year, october through february, the sponsors study sites double digit reductions in shading impact, like 30 reduction in december and 25. 25 in january, depriving the panels and windows below of heat in the winter months. Further blockage of Natural Light will alter the windows ability for solar Heat Exchange efficiency will alter the experience of the space. These reductions in Natural Light qualify as defining features in a historic natural resource. This is one of the south facing windows. There are five along the south wall. This shows currently the existing building at 26512653 octavia. You do see a bit of city. The proposed new building will block the remaining light through this window and at least two others. The shades are down to allow maximum light into the library. This is a sideview of the 2651 octavia showing the proximity to the library, and the bottom picture shows shading on the southern walls by the existing building. This shows further shadings on the southern walls. The five southern windows are directly below where the solar panels are situated. Two minutes left. Clerk two minutes left. Okay. Thank you. The impact to reduced light and shading were not evaluated with substantial adverse changed. There was failure to follow procedural standards, and we believe this project should have been heard through a formal mitigated declaration. Each of the classes of exemptions set forth in article 19 must be consistent with both the letter and the intent expressed in such classes. Planning department stopped at the letter, but they didnt because they didnt have to consider the impact of this project on the library itself, and theyre not required to, they claim. Were asking that the board interpret the impact of ceqa. In summary, the Planning Department negated the importance of Natural Light and employment control. The procedural inconsistencies on the part of the department not only hurts the resource but also hurts us as sponsors. We dont believe the developer and sponsor should be allowed to determine how much light the library needs. Finally, well close with [inaudible] it takes actions that cannot be undone further down the road. Wed like to quote supervisor peskin in the 2417, where he said its not categorically exempt if it may have an ad joining impact to a Historic Resource. If you have a Historic Resource, you err on the side of caution. Thank you. Were available to take questions. Thank you. Were going to figure out how to stop sharing. Clerk i believe youre muted, mr. President. President yee so i guess there werent any questions. Sorry about that. Id asked that earlier, when i was muted. Now id like to go ahead and invite people that want to make Public Comment. If you are here to support the appeal, you will have opportunity to comment now for up to two minutes. For those who oppose the appeal, there will be an opportunity to hear that later in the hearing. Madam clerk, will you please call the first speaker. Clerk thank you, mr. President. Operations, can you please send the first speaker through, please. Hello. Im sorry. I was a little confused. This is to speak in support of the Planning Departments resolution or against it . Clerk this side is to be in support of the appellant. Okay. No, im in support of upholding the Planning Commission. Clerk okay. So what you do is just press starthree. Thatll put you back in listening mode, and come back at the appropriate time. No problem. Clerk operations, next caller, please. Hello. Can you hear me . Clerk yes we can, welcome. Hello. My name is bridget maille. I live at 1715 green street, less than one block from the golden gate Valley Branch library. This statement supplements my written comments that you have on file. I am a frequent library user. Im an architectural historian. Im an approved consultant on the Planning Departments consulting pool and am frequently asked to evaluate the potential impacts under ceqa to impacts on historical sites and when it wis adjacent to the historical site. My concerns about the project are purely procedural. Ceqa guidelines section 15300. 2 specifically states that a categorical exemption occur only after a shadow study was done, and finally, the Planning Department conducted a formal analysis of the secretary of the interior standards only after this appeal was publicly accessible analysis of the facility only after this appeal was submitted. Lastly, i wanted to let you know that i have submitted a landmark designation report for the golden gate Valley Branch library. As has pointed out, it was intended to be landmarked after the renovation was complete, but this was never done. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, i believe we have one more caller. Hi. My name is leticia yang. I am also a resident in the neighborhood, and i live around the corner from the proposed project and half a block away from green street from the library. I wanted to spend a little bit of time just letting you know the importance of the Golden Gate Valley Library to our neighborhood and to the people who elected you and that you represent. The Golden Gate Library is really a center of gravity in our neighborhood that has a legacy that has stood over 100 years. During the times that were not ordered to shelter in place, its open seven days a week, and it provides immeasurable benefits to our community. This extends beyond loaning books, newspapers, and periodicals to our community at no age, but it provides services to children, seniors, and everyone in between. There is a range of programming for people of all ages, including story time, technology instruction, crafting, film night, and stem courses. And to give you a sense of the popularity of these programs, when i spoke to the branch manager, she shared with me that the play time and story time events that they host for infants and toddlers typically occur three times a week and have 70 participants, which is quite remarkable for a facility of this size. I just wanted to mention that while i know ultimately the decision that you make today affects the broader San Francisco community. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, did other danother step into the queue . Operator madam clerk, that completes the queue. Clerk thank you. Mr. President . President yee okay. I guess that ends this Public Comment section. Seeing no other presenters, we will move onto our next portion, which is to give representations from the Planning Department to give their presentation. Good afternoon, board of supervisors members. Im here with other Planning Department staff to address the class one categorical exemption issued by the department on december 1, 2019 for 2651255 2653 octavia street project. Two of the appellants and Nine Community members submitted letters in support of the peal. The department reviewed these letters and concluded that they do not provide any new information that changes the evidence provided in the 2019 finding response. Contrary to the appellants convention, the sponsors studied the shadow impact on the site before issuing a categorical exemption. The departments Historic Preservation staff worked with the project sponsors to divide the proposed projects so that it meets the secretary of the interior avoid any potential impact on historic new sources, including the Golden Gate Library. The department determined that no further analysis is required. The appellant consents that inside of the Golden Gate Valley Library. The board should for the following two reasons. Im going to share my screen. Can you see that . So these are pictures taken from octavia street. The building on the right is the library. The building on the left is the residence. As you can see, there is an approximate 10foot gap between the site and the library facesouthing windows. The gap will remain after the conclusion of the proposed project. In addition, the meeting room has large windows on all four sides of the building providing abundant light into the building interior. The project sorry. Let me start again. So the project will have a negligible effect on the Natural Light in the reading room. The quantity of Natural Light in the reading room is not a feature that contributes to the significance. Even if the project reduced the lighting, which it wouldnt, this would still not constitute a substantial Significant Impact under ceqa. This would be true even if the library is a landmark. The appellant made several issues that are not relevant to the full appeal of december 5, 2019, categorical exception. These are issued in the peer response. However, it should be clear that no further review or preservation entitlement such as certificate of appropriateness would have been acquired if the landmarking has been complete. They have not demonstrated that the categorical exemption fails to comply with ceqa, ceqa guidelines, chapter 31 of the administrative code. Therefore, the Planning Department recommends that the pull the issuance of the categorical exemption and reject the appellants appeal. My colleagues from the Planning Department is here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. President yee okay. Thank you. Any questions . Seeing none, can we on the roster . Then what id like to do now is go ahead on the call the project sponsor, or the representatives, to speak for up to 10 minutes. Good afternoon, board of supervisors. My name is jane cook and along with my husband are the owners of 2651 octavia. Were here today to defend our proposed plans to renovate our building, to create multigenerational apartments for us, our Adult Children and elderly parents. The applicant would like you to believe that the Planning Department has been negligent in giving a categorical exemption to the project. But i want to defend s. F. Planning and show that the opposite is true. Weve provided the applicants with facts and determinations from the Planning Department that show that the Golden Gate Library will not be adversely affected by our project. Its disconcerting they choose to dismiss these arguments and only a ceqa determination will satisfy them. I hope our presentation will help you understand that the applicants requests are unreasonable and allow our project to move forward. My architect will take it from here. Hello. Im going to share my screen for our presentation. Good afternoon, board of supervisors, im the architect of this project along with my business partner. This is the threestory twounit nonhistoric residential building. We understand the unique nature of our building being next to the library thus we worked diligently for more than a year on a design. They had multiple inperson meetings and email exchanges. After working for over 15 months, we arrived at a design that was sensitive to the neighborhood and required no extraordinary circumstances. On february 6, 2020, the owners defended their plans where the Planning Commissioners voted in approval of the project. Planning supervisor, and Janice Ferguson conducted an on site determination to determine any effects on the library. Recorded words, the difference to the light in the library should the addition as proposed would be diminimous. We redesigned the facade to reduce the fourth floor awe created an entrance that is more in keeping with the neighborhood design and reduced the garage common by having one door instead of two. It increases only three feet above the detail. The fourth floor addition is minimally seen from the street. This is the proposed facade as viewed from the street level. Heres the proposed north elevation. The portion to the left of the vertical blue line is visible at some angle from the street. The following design features were in response to the Planning Departments comments, matching the window design to the street facade, maintaining existing exterior materials. The proposed roof deck is 20 feet, set back five feet from the sides of the building. We designed a hatch. The guardrail is to be nonglare and is compliant in height with planning code. The mechanics to the elevator are needed on the level and are planned to be five feet high, substantially lower than the code of 10 feet. Youll find additions where an added floor has been accommodated. To reduce massing add a floor of the stepback to maintain the appearance of the house and reduce the mid walk. The next two slides show the building that is set back from the street. All of the are within half a block to two blocks of the subject property. 2915 octavia street, 1368 francisco street and 2141 octavia street. And these are 2754 and 2626 octavia street. I would like to address the appellants main concern of adding a floor will impact the light to the library. The impact of the addition to the light will create little to no visual impact. The dashed lines show the outline of the library and the approximate location of the arched windows. Most of the library windows, number, 3, 4 and 5 are in question with regard to the proposed addition. The Children Play area is window number 1. In this slide, we address the outlook from the library windows. There will be virtually no change in any of the views with the proposed addition. Windows 1 and 2 will outlook to the mid walk open space. This shows that the library itself was designed to protect its own Natural Light with a large 11foot light bulb between the two buildings. Currently all five windows have grey shades over that cover more than half of each window. It has been observed that these shades are used to decrease sunlight and glare to the user tables and work stations. It is noted that the appellant provided photos where the shades were not engaged. We feel those do not portray their actual usage. You can see the space of the library is narrow. 25 feet from north to south. With windows alongside the perimeter. On the north side of the library, there are seven large windows that flood the interior of the library with Natural Light. The physical environment of the program that is held in the childrens play area which is serviced by windows 1 and 2 are not impacted by the proposed addition. There are two additional windows on the west and north that add Natural Light to this area of the library. So wed like to address the appellants concerns of shading. Currently, it is noted there are no laws in california or San Francisco that protect solar panels. Theyre concerned about lighting being diminished to the solar panels. They conducted a shading Impact Analysis on the solar panels of the library. This data shows the overall impact in each month of the year. Each month of the year, concluding in 5. 8 annually. The largest impact is from november to february, the months where normal production is the lowest. Wed like it address the appellants concern that precedent has been set in overturning the categorical exemption. The addition to green street, the outside of the window mid walk open space, light and air. At our project, the windows of the library are unchanged without the proposed addition. There is a high probability that the foundation will be undermined by the excavation of soil for a garage. There is a shared foundation for the two houses. There is minimal excavation and no sharing with the library. At 2417 green street there are can tanks in the area that could be an environmental hazard. As our project, there is no such contaminated soil. There was contractor overreach where there were violations of work were done. There has been no Construction Work Done at the property to date. In conclusion, we believe that weve been thoughtful and thorough in considering the integrity of the neighborhood. There is no adverse impact on the Golden Gate Library. The appellants refuse to acknowledge the depth of review by the Planning Department. We ask that you allow this project to move forward as designed. Thank you, board of supervisors. Im happy to answer any questions you may have. President yee thank you. Colleagues, any questions . Seeing nobody on the roster, then what id like to do now is invite members of the public who wish to speak in opposition of the appeal, in support of the project, please press star 3 to be added to the queue to speak. You will have up to two minutes. So madame clerk, go ahead and please call the first speaker. Clerk operations, can you please send the first caller through . Hello, this is i want to speak about [inaudible] and i just want to say clerk im pausing your time for a moment. The caltrain item is not until later in the agenda. This is specifically on behalf of the appeal for the octavia street project, proposed project, and were taking Public Comment in support of the project sponsor. So, please join us later on when that item is called. I apologize, i wont be able to join you at that time. Youre also able to submit your written comments. Were happy to receive them and place them in the file. Operations, is there another caller, please . Hello. Just wanted to speak in support of this. Im on the bus, its kind of loud. I think its ridiculous how much projects like this get held up in red tape. I just want to voice my support. Great, thank you, sir, for your comments. Operations, is there another caller . Madame clerk, that completes the queue. Clerk thank you. Mr. President . President yee thank you for your comments. Are there any other members of the public i guess not, so well now what id like to do is invite the appellant to present a rebuttal argument. You have up to three minutes. First, wed like to address the Planning Department comment that they had already conducted a Historic Resource evaluation. I would like to point out that was only done to determine that the sponsors property itself does not have historic property. The claim that light is not a defining feature is adequate. All six of the libraries are called out for the quality of the light in the main dining room as a defining feature. That is not true. There is the claim that the onsite evaluation resulted in his comment it was diminimous impact. That was a very short visit by him the same day of the hearing. He and two colleagues did a drive by the library. Took a look. Wed like to point out that is an opinion, not analysis support supported by any facts published or discussed. Wed like to point out that the standards and processes by government agencies, were not seeing this here. We have no issue with the cooks living in their house or as neighbors. I personally happen to think the design is attractive. But it affects the library and thats the issue were concerned here and we believe its compromised and the categorical exemption does not allow the facts to come through. Also would like to point out that the project sponsor architect mentioned that the grey shades are consistently up. Theyre not consistently up. I go to the library probably at least once a week when its open and there are many, many days when all of the shades are down. They have been up consistently since shelterinplace started in march, thats true. The southern windows are now partially covered by grey shades and have been since march 6th, but thats a pandemicrelated situation. That isnt a constant situation. The similarity to 2417 green, weve never said that the actual facts about why the categorical exemption was similar. Its similar that there was potential for impact to a Historic Resource and thats the basis for this request as well. Let us close with the final comment that light is not important to this library. I think you would have a completely different point of view. The architect would have a different point of view if she were ernest cock stead whether it was important or not. Thank you. President yee thank you. Sorry. Thank you for making the comments. So i want to say that public hearing has been held and is now filed. As previously discussed, we will take up a consideration of the categorical exemption determination which involves analysis of whether the determination by the Planning Department, that the project is categorically exempt from further Environmental Review is appropriate. To conditionally reverse the plannings decision, six votes of the board are required. So supervisor stefani, would you like to make any comments . Supervisor stefani i had one question for the Planning Department. Im clear on the arguments and the argument over the appellant and the project sponsors. And i just had one confirming question. Whether or not they did receive the shadow study from the project sponsors in december of 2019 . Is that when they received the study . President yee somebody in Planning Department . President yee are you still there . Yes, were still there. So, that study dated december of 2019 was submitted as part of the discretionary hearing. So i believe around december is the time the Planning Department received that report. Supervisor stefani okay. And the catex was issued on september 5, 2019, is that correct . Correct. Although yes. Supervisor stefani i dont have any further questions. Do any of my colleagues have questions . President yee supervisor peskin. Supervisor peskin thank you, president yee. So lets heres the problem. A categorical exemption and i think the panel cited this, can only be issued when there may be no impact to the environment. And there are a number of arguments here, but the argument is akin to if youre putting an environmentally destructive use next to Yosemite National park, would that have an impact on Yosemite National park . And granted this is an addition to a house in a dense urban environment, so but that analogy is important for a reason which is had the analysis of the detrimental use next to the park been analyzed and looked at the potential impacts to the park, then the ceqa would have been complied with. But when a categorical exemption is issued, it says there may be no impact, period. We are not going to review it. A categorical exemption means were not reviewing it for any environmental impacts. And class one exemptions are the standard exemptions that are issued. But there is a number of things that are troubling in this case and what is particularly troubling, that decisionmakers because ceqa is a tool to inform decisionmakers. Like ourselves on this case or the Planning Department. The Planning Department readily admits in their response that they actually attached the wrong categorical exemption to the Planning Commissions discretionary review package. And indeed, because of the discretionary review, the Planning Department then did many things after the fact. As supervisor stefani just set forth, the shadow study was done in december. That was already the department determined in september that it was categorically exempt. So they were actually doing Environmental Review after they said it needed no Environmental Review and that goes on with regard to the formal analysis of the project of the impact on the Historic Resource. So this is all just cart before horse and, quite frankly, and i mean no illwill to the project sponsors, but i think procedurally, the Department Just blew this one and doubled down with a response saying, no, we didnt blow it, but respectfully, they blew it. And we issued the categorical exemption in error. Boom. President yee the planning staff . Thank you. Chris kearn. I wanted to respond to some of the concerns raised by supervisor peskin and the appellant, specifically with respect to procedural errors that were perceived in this case. With respect, supervisors, it is, in fact, a very common and well established process under ceqa, not only in San Francisco, but throughout the state to avoid Significant Impacts of projects through project redesign in order to be able to ensure that a project can qualify for a categorical exemption. And we view that as not only an important practice, but really a success of the whole ceqa process, because it incentivizes project sponsors to redesign their projects up front to avoid impacts and, therefore, obfuscating any need and measures. A real common example that i might share that sort of takes from supervisor peskins Yosemite Valley example. We do many projects we do ceqa review, the Planning Department for many projects by the San Francisco Public Utilities commission in watershed lands where there are sensitive biological resources. Most of those projects, we grant categorical exemptions because we, working with the sfpuc staff and consulting biologists often and the California Department of fish and wildlife work to ensure those projects are designed to avoid sensitive areas. Common example of that might be where an engineer, who is less sensitive to or less aware of biological impact concerns, might design a project with a, say, trenching through drainage that the engineer doesnt even recognize that is a sensitive biological resource. Once we get ahold of it and work with the biologists and regulators, we suggest redesign of the project. The result being, if thats feasible, we have the ability to grant categorical exemption for that project. Otherwise, we would have prepared a mitigation for the project, saying please relocate your trenching to avoid that ephemeral drainage. This is something we work with, to avoid impacts so that we can have a more streamlined ceqa review of projects. There is nothing unusual about our practice in this case. We do thousands of such actions in any given year. The reason that the shadow study wasnt required for ceqa review in this case was because the project is under 40 feet in height. We do an initial screening to ensure that projects wouldnt have significant shadow impacts and if we conclude through that initial screening that they wouldnt and the focus by the way is on outdoor public recreational spaces, not interiors of buildings no shadow studies were required. That was the case here. So no study was required for the categorical exemption in this case. I think we and the project sponsor architect have adequately addressed the contentions raised with respect to the effects of the project on the interior light and the Historic Resources and if there are further questions on that, i would refer to preservation staff who are also available. Thank you. President yee okay. Supervisor peskin, another question . Supervisor peskin i dont want to be argumenttive, but i do want to say two things relative to mr. Kearn, who i hold in high esteem, look, hes referring to the puc example is something where through collaboration, the project description changes such that no subsequent Environmental Review or secondguessing of the categorical exemption has to be done. But in this case, the department did actually secondguess themselves by doing things, rather it was the shadow study, or as late as last month, the analysis of the projects potential impacts on the Historic Resource. And then finally, the last thing ill say for the record is that while we have qualified historic staff, bridgett may li who testified earlier and submitted formal testify to this proceeding, who is a former member of the Landmark Preservation board, is also qualified under the secretary of interior standards and her testimony and written documentation carries great weight for this supervisor relative to a respectful, professional, disagreement between experts. So i just want to say those things on the record. President yee okay. Seeing there is no other on the roster, supervisor stefani, would you like to make any make a motion . Supervisor stefani yes, thank you, president yee. I want to thank supervisor peskin for his comments and for his opinions on this and his questions of planning. I know that hes had several of these ceqa appeals in front of him as a supervisor. I know that i have as a legislative aide for nine years, staffing supervisor farrell and now as a supervisor myself, ive had more than a few of these ceqa appeals. So i take these cases very seriously because the board of supervisors, we do sit in this semijudicial role and were adjudicating the facts. We have to act on the merits of the information. In reviewing that information, i think its really important we start with the history of the golden gate Valley Branch library. The City Property identifies the branch of the San Francisco Public Library located at 1801 green street as a category a Historic Resource. The San Francisco Public Library as a component of its Branch Modernization program previously committed to formally designating each of the citys seven libraries as landmarks under article 10 of the planning code upon rehabilitation. Six of the seven libraries, including chinatown, mission, noe valley, were landmarked. For each of the six carnegie libraries, the spatial volume of the main reading room was identified as a significant characterdefining feature of the building. Had the Golden Gate Valley Library been designated as a landmark as planned upon completion of its renovation in 2012, its main reading room would have been identified as a significant space and feature like the six others. Neighbors have submitted a landmark designation report to the Planning Department. Planning has acknowledged receipt and plans to agendaize review of the report with the Historic Preservation commission. In this case, however, the department failed to analyze the potential impacts of the proposed project on the adjacent historic Golden Gate Library. Only after the department issued a categorical exemption did it evaluate the Historic Resource. One, the site, including the interior of the adjacent library, a known resource, occurred a day before this hearing, as acknowledged by staff today. Two, the department accepted a shadow study from the project sponsor that provides some information on the impact to the library. The study was submitted on september 19, 2019, yet the categorical exemption is dated september 5, 2019, several months prior. We are using the secretary of interior standards for the treatment of historic properties, the department did conduct a formal analysis of the impact on the adjacent historic library. The analysis was finally issued by the department on july 12, 2020 in response to this appeal. Then further corrected in an erata on july 23, 2020. This analysis of the impact of a Historic Resource should have been completed before a categorical exemption was offered, not after. In ceqa, 28. 41 and ceqa guidelines section 1506. 45 and 1500. 32, a categorical exemption from ceqa may not be issued for any project that may cause substantial adverse change in the significance of a Historic Resource. In this regard, the department failed to assess the impacts of the Historic Resource immediately adjacent to the project, a known category a Historic Resource as previously identified with a group of six other carnegie libraries as an eligible San Francisco landmark under article 10. The ceqa guidelines state, a project may not be categorically exempt from ceqa if it could cause impact to Historic Resources. The department granted the exemption in this case before even evaluating whether the project would have impacts on Historic Resource. Additionally, when the Planning Commission chose to not take discretionary review on the project, they did not have all the information in front of them. Due to a clerical error it was attached to the wrong package. They they did have access on the website, it is equally, if not more important that the decisionmakers, those commissioners, had the proper information in front of them when making their decision. Without that to me, the decision is not sound. As ive outlined, the categorical exemption from ceqa was granted before the Department Staff made a site visit to the Historic Resource, before a shadow study was produced and before analysis was done and at the discretionary review planning, planners did not have the categorical exemption attached to the packet. Therefore, i move to table item 25 and move to forward item 26 and 27 to canconditionally reve the exemption. President yee motion is moved. Is there a second . Second by supervisor peskin. So the motion to approve items 26 and 27, table item 25, have been moved and seconded. Madame clerk, would you call the roll. On the motion to table item 25 and approve 26 and 27, supervisors walton . Walton aye. Yee aye. Fewer aye. Haney aye. Mandelman aye. Mar aye. Peskin aye. Preston aye. Ronen aye. Safai aye. Stefani aye. Clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee okay. Without objection, item 25 is tabled and items 26 and 27 are approved colleagues, the planning decision related to the categorical exemption is found to be inadequate and hereby returned to the Planning Department. Thank you very much. Madame clerk, please call items 28 through 35. Together. Clerk these items comprise two appeal hearings. Item 28 through 31 are the hearing on the appeal of the exception exemption determination from Environmental Review. And the associated motions and items 32 through 35 comprise the appeal of the conditional use authorization. Both appeals and associated motions are for the proposed project at 1846 grove street. President yee thank you. I understand a motion may be made to continue these matters to a later date. So, supervisor preston, do you have any remarks . Supervisor preston thank you, president yee. Yes, my office has been in touch with both the project sponsor and appellants and each has indicated a willingness to engage in mediation and wed like to give that sufficient time for that conversation to happen and possibly work toward an amicable resolution of these appeals. So for that reason, would like to make a motion to continue these items to august 25. Second. President yee and seconded by supervisor walton. Madame clerk, before we take the motion, lets take Public Comment on the continuance. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on the anticipated continuance . Clerk operations, do we have any callers in the queue . Madame clerk, there are none. Clerk thank you. President yee Public Comment on the continuance is now closed. Motion to continue items 28 through 35 made by supervisor preston and seconded by supervisor walton. Can you please call the role . Clerk on the motion to continue items 28 through 35 to august 25th, walton aye. Yee aye. Fewer aye. Haney aye. Mandelman aye. Mar aye. Peskin aye. Preston aye. Ronen aye. Safai aye. Stefani aye. There are 11 ayes. President yee okay. Without objection, items 28 through 35 are continued to the meeting of august 25, 2020. So, colleagues, since we need to vote on item 40 in order to hold this special order, the next special order which is item 36 and 37, we will be coming back to these items later in the meeting. Madame clerk, well skip items 35 through 37 for now. And lets go to roll call for introductions. Clerk mr. President , did you intend on going back to items 19 through 23 before we head to introductions . President yee i had intended and forgotten about it. Lets go back to item 19 and looks like up to 23. Madame clerk, please call item 19. Item 19, ordinance to amend the planning code to provide that in the Mission Area Plan portion of the urban mixed use district all office uses not in a landmark building are prohibited except that a professional, financial or medical services will be allowed as a conditional use on the ground floor when primarily open to the general public on a clientoriented basis and to affirm the ceqa determination and make the appropriate findin findings. President yee any comment from supervisor ronen . I dont see her name on the roster, so call the roll. Clerk on item 19, supervisor walton . Walton aye. Yee aye. Fewer aye. Haney aye. Mandelman aye. Mar aye. Peskin aye. Preston aye. Ronen aye. Safai aye. Stefani aye. There are 11 ayes. President yee okay, without objection, the item is passed on first reading. Please call item 20. 20 is an ordinance amend the planning code. The continuance of a nonconforming parking lot that is on the site of a designated landmark and to make the appropriate findings. President yee okay. Madame clerk, go ahead and call the roll. Clerk on item 20, supervisor walton . Walton aye. Yee aye. Fewer aye. Haney aye. Mandelman aye. Mar aye. Peskin aye. Preston aye. Ronen aye. Safai aye. Stefani aye. There are 11 ayes. President yee okay. Without objection, this passes on first reading. Madame clerk, call item number 21. Clerk item 21 is resolution pursuant to article 10 of the planning code to initiate a planned lark designation for the history of medicine in california frescos in the university of california San Francisco, painted by jewish artist bernard zackheim. Forgive me if i didnt pronounce his name correctly. Zackheim . Thats all i have. Thank you. President yee madame clerk, before we take roll, i would like to call on supervisor peskin. Supervisor peskin thank you, mr. President. As i said in committee, i just wanted to use this opportunity to celebrate bernard zackheim, who indeed was a great 20th century jewish artist and immigrant from poland here to San Francisco. I want to thank supervisors mandelman and safai for their cosponsorship and supervisor preston for voting to send this to the full board. Mr. Zackheim is probably best known for being the founder of the San Francisco writers union, a group of activist artists who lobbied for federal funding which was a new deal art program to employ artists to create public art and which resulted in the coit tower project. We should be thinking about that at the federal level. He studied the fresco technique and became a master of that forum. And some of his series, a series of 10 fresco murals, known as the history of medicine in california, are painted on the walls of the hall at university of californias parnassus campus. And are in danger of destruction, although, i do want to note that the university of californiaSan Francisco has indeed referred to these murals as the jewel of the Art Collection and the product of an extraordinary individual. And i know that they very much would like to save them as they rebuild the parnassus campus. So i am hopeful that, together with mr. Zackheims descendants, including ruth gothstein, who is actually depicted in the coit tower mural as a young girl and his other relatives working together with the university that we will find a solution, but today im introducing the resolution to initiate their landmark status under article 10 of the planning code. And i do want to thank San Francisco Architectural Heritage for their support and look forward to bringing this before the Historic Preservation commission and ultimately back to the board of supervisors for an official landmark designation under an ordinance. Thank you, mr. President. President yee okay. Madame clerk, go ahead and call the roll. On item 21, supervisor walton . Walton aye. Yee aye. Fewer aye. Haney aye. Mandelman aye. Mar aye. Peskin aye. Preston aye. Ronen aye. Safai aye. Stefani aye. There are 11 ayes. President yee without objection, the resolution is adopted unanimously. Madame clerk, lets go to the next item, 22. Clerk item 22 is ordinance to amend the administrative code to introduce standards and goals for Food Purchasing by the department of Public Health and Sheriffs Department in hospitals and jails. Supervisor fewer yes. Yes, thank you, president yee. Colleagues, im so glad that after three years of work on this issue, were moving forward with the adoption of the good foods standards for hospitals and jails. Thank you to the rules committee for sending this to committee with a positive recommendation. This legislation articulates goals that the Sheriffs Office and the department of Public Health are adopting in alignment with the five core good Food Purchasing standards, a valued workforce, a focus on local economies, environmental sustainability, Animal Welfare and nutrition. I first learned of this model when approached as a member for the board of education and wrote it to adopt the program. I quickly learned how much more complicated food procurement is for the jails and hospitals. This is a model developed in 2012 to incentify Public Institutions to adopt institutions adopted in los angeles, cook county, washington d. C. , cincinnati, boston and our own San Francisco Unified School District with more in the exploration process. While School Districts have adopted the standard and many cities in exploration say in passing this legislation, San Francisco is the first municipality west of the mississippi to formally adopt the good Food Purchasing standard for hospitals and jails and only second to cook county in illinois. This program is an innovative way for local governments to strategically use our food for permit dollars to push vendors to embody key values like sustainability, workers rights, Animal Welfare and nutrition. The goals listed in the legislation are the minimum commitment and are made in recognition of this as a critical but new Strategic Direction for food procurement within a comprehensive suite of food systems, priorities that San Francisco departments will be pursuing over the coming years. After three years of coordination, meetings and hearings and after both chairs in the department of Public Health have undergone baseline assessments, i am so glad to see this official adoption of the good Food Purchasing policy and setting of goals in the next two years to transform the way our jails and hospitals purchase food. Thank you to alexa and colleen from the center of good Food Purchasing for guiding this process and holding our hand along the way. Thank you to the kate and alex from the department of Public Health, general hospital, laguna honda, respectively and the Sheriffs Office for their commitment to the shared goals and hours of dedication to pushing the boundaries of what is possible within the limited Food Purchasing structure. And finally, thank you to committee advocates, including kate and eli from spur and doug at teamsters who first began discussing this with our office in 2017. For their diligence and hard work to advance this policy, which will make sure we put our money where our mouths are when we purchase food to serve in San Francisco jails and hospitals. I also want to thank, of course, my fabulous staff member, chelsea, for all her dedicated work on this. I am so pleased and honored to bring this to you today for your consideration, colleagues. And i hope i have your support. President yee thank you, supervisor. Madame clerk, go ahead and call the roll. Clerk on item 22, supervisor walton . Walton aye. Yee aye. Fewer aye. Haney aye. Mandelman aye. Mar aye. Peskin aye. Preston aye. Ronen aye. Safai aye. Stefani aye. There are 11 ayes. President yee okay. Then this ordinance is passed on first reading. Madame clerk, lets go to 23. Clerk item 23 is a motion to order an ordinance to be submitted to the voters at an election to be held on november 3, 2020, authorizing the city to own, develop, construct, acquire up to 10,000 affordable rental units in the city under article 34 of the california constitution. President yee supervisor peskin . Supervisor peskin thank you, president yee and supervisor preston thank you, president yee, and i want to thank the rules committee for hearing this matter and forwarding it with recommendation to the full board. Colleagues, before you today is an Initiative Ordinance that would authorize the creation of up to 10,000 units of Municipal Housing. This is one piece of a broader package of legislative reforms put forth by my office which intend to tax wealthy Real Estate Investors and corporate landlords to pay for covidrelated rent relief, as well as longterm social housing. And this measure, in particular, is relevant to the social housing component. It will allow, but not require San Francisco to expand its ability to pursue a Municipal Housing program. In addition to the proven notforprofit housing strategies that the city currently utilizes. The back story of this measure is some seven decades in the making. In 1950, segregation as backed by the California Realtors Association passed a statewide ballot measure with just 50. 8 of the vote to create article 34 of the california constitution. Article 34 requires that any Public Housing or private lowincome housing be approved at the ballot before even a single unit can be bought or built. It is and was a racist relic of the red line. In effect, it has allowed for municipalities in california to keep out lowincome tenants and people of color, especially africanamerican tenants, furthering segregation on race and class lines. I note there is no law requiring anyone to go to the ballot for approval of highrent housing. Its just lowrent housing that is discriminated against. This was and remains plainly classist and a racist approach to stopping Affordable Housing. I believe and i know colleagues, many of you do as well, that article 34 should be in fact, must be repealed at the state level. And while a Broad Coalition has supported such efforts, including the entire San Francisco state delegation, they have not seen [inaudible] and we cannot sit by and wait indefinitely for this racist state law to be repealed. So im proposing with this ballot measure that San Francisco lead the way with the powerful statement that we are, in effect, standing up locally against the structures that have upheld housing injustice and discrimination for decades. In closing, i would like to thank my cosponsors, supervisor ronen, haney, walton, mandelman, mar, peskin, fewer, safai for their cosponsorship and support. I also want to thank my legislative aide who has worked so hard on this and the rest of the housing package. I urge all of you colleagues to vote in support of this important measure. Thank you. President yee thank you, supervisor preston. Can i ask a question from this. I think you said that this is not mandated or anything. [please stand by] [please stand by]. Supervisor fewer thank you, supervisor preston, for bringing this forward. I just wanted to confirm that i was a sponsor. Thank you very much. President yee supervisor stefani . Supervisor stefani yes, thank you, president yee, and thank you, supervisor preston, for this legislation. As i said in rules committee, this is an absolute stain on californias constitution, and i should have done it at committee, but i want to be added as a cosponsor. President yee supervisor mandelman . Supervisor mandelman yeah. Its a stain on our housing authority, and its hard on our providers because it is super complicated for local governments who are funding the production of Affordable Housing and limits the types of regulatory requirements that can be put on that housing and requires a lot of time and energy, and having been on one of the lawyers who worked on this for other jurisdictions, i am glad to see supervisor getting themselves 10,000 units so lawyers wont have to worry themselves about that particular set of problems. President yee yeah, and so many lawyers have to work so hard on this, i think id like to be added as a cosponsor. Supervisor mandelman oh, yeah, i think so. President yee okay. Madam clerk, please call the roll on item 23. Clerk on item 23 [roll call] clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee without objection, the item is approved unanimously. Madam clerk, i believe now we could go back to roll call for introductions. Clerk thats right. Supervisor walton, you are first up to introduce new business . Supervisor walton thank you so much, madam clerk. Colleagues, today i sit alongside supervisor peskin, black entrepreneurs and Business Owners across San Francisco, the state, and the nation. We are introducing a resolution that would urge the city and county of San Francisco to clare the month of august as black business month, and to recognize the is notth annual black business month beginning on august 1, 2020. August 1, 2020 marks the beginning of the 17th National Black business month. In 2004, motivated by his own experiences, san franciscan frederick e. Jordan, sr. A legendary Civil Engineer whose work has shaped the current skyline and infrastructure here in the city and many other places, and dr. John william templeton, the creator of the california avenueri can American Freedom trail, launched National Black business month in 2004 to help highlight black entrepreneurs, encourage people to support black businesses. National black business month is more important than ever as National Black businesses here and across the country have been disproportionately affected by the covid19 pandemic. If youd like to get involved, the office of economic and Workforce Development has created a running list of blackowned businesses in San Francisco, and you can find that list at www. Oewd. Org blackowned businessessanfrancisco. Thank you so much, and the rest i submit. Clerk thank you, supervisor walton. Mr. President . President yee okay, colleagues. Id like to introduce a resolution condemning attacks on the armenian community. What is chilling is this is during a time of global unrest in which there have been a series of hate crimes against armenians. Some have been especially violent. The mt. Davidson cross, a historic landmark in San Francisco, had been previously vandalized by criminals. This type of unwanted behavior is not wanted in San Francisco. We will not stand for it. This area became a safe haven for armenians fleeing the armenian genocide. The school was a place of sanctuary for students and their families, and i hope that we can send a strong message to the perpetrators that this type of hate will not be condoned or tolerated here. I id like to introduce a memo memory memoriam for judge kwan. Judge kwan didnt care if his decisions would impact his career. In fact, he was placed in a sixmonth suspension last year after the Utah Supreme Court denounced the use of his bench to criticize trump. Nevertheless, he continued to be fair in his advocacy. As a descendant of one of utahs Chinese Railroad workers, he was recognized for the long overdue recognition of this forgotten piece of historhistor history. Last year, during the history of the transcontinental railroad, he was part of the delegation that came to San Francisco. I want to share our condolences to the community that fights for civil rights for everyone. The rest i submit. Clerk thank you, mr. President. Supervisor fewer . Supervisor fewer thank you, madam clerk. I am calling upon the controller to share an analysis of the City Reserves with the full board of supervisors. I am asking controller Ben Rosenfield and his team to issue an update on the status of all City Reserves. The policys guiding use of each of the reserves, and what options remain available to the board as we receive the mayors proposed budget and look at how to implement the boards policies. Policy makers will always have tough choices to make in a recession, and San Francisco is in a better position than we were in previous recessions because our reserves are exceptionally robust. I have been in back to back meetings with Community Groups and labor unions where they discussed how cuts will impact the lives of every day San Francisco citizens. We understand this storm is likely to continue for some time, but i do believe in making informed choices. Ultimately, i dont believe the board should be in a position of choosing between Community Services and city workers, to understanding all the tools at our disposal feels critical. Thank you very much in advance to the Controllers Office for accommodating this request. The rest i submit. Clerk thank you, supervisor fewer. Supervisor haney . Supervisor haney thank you, madam clerk. Earlier this month, supervisor walton and ronen and i introduced a resolution calling for a post pandemic homelessness housing plan, and to ensure that a broad commitment that all those brought into this crisis are housed for the longterm. Today, along with supervisor walton, i am introducing a hearing on the development and progress of that plan. Last week, the mayor and the department of homelessness released a preview of that plan, setting a goal of 6,000 Supportive Housing placements for people experiencing homelessness through a combination of subsidies, acquisition, and other housing means. It is critical for people who were brought inside during this pandemic, that this is the end of homelessness for them, and they are not released back onto the streets, and we take significant steps towards ending homelessness in our city during this time. With that, im calling this hearing along with supervisors walton and ronen, and the rest i submit. Clerk thank you, supervisor haney. Supervisor mandelman . Supervisor mandelman submit. Clerk okay. Thank you. Supervisor mar . Supervisor mar thank you, madam clerk. Colleagues, i have two updates to share today. First, i have withdrawn the taxbas taxbased compensation tax on the ballot. With the on set of covid19 in our increasing budget deficit, needs have only grown, and i want to make sure that everything on the table, and a stockbased Compensation Plan was one before us. We sought to raise up to 150 million with a stockbased compensation tax. This is about a more fair economy, a more balanced framework, and im happy to withdraw this proposal in favor of a more equitial city and strategy. [inaudible] supervisor mar as an emergency ordinance, its protections will expire after 60 days on september 1, even as the layoffs continue and business reopenings are delayed. This new regular ordinance will cod identi codify the protections for a year or until the Public Health declarations expire to ensure that workers who have already been laid off because of the pandemic will have a fair hiring process if their employer reopens. Many businesses will not have returned to full business by september 1, so this allows our Worker Protections to continue past september 1. The rest i submit. Clerk thank you, supervisor mar. Supervisor peskin . Supervisor peskin thank you. The actions of mostly Peaceful Protesters in the Union Square Area in direct violation of the antisurveillance ordinance that this board of supervisors passed by an overwhelming majority. I am deeply concerned about that. The Police Department did not bring that forward as a policy to the San Francisco board of supervisors. This is precisely what this legislation was aimed at, and today, im issuing a letter of inquiry of the San Francisco Police Department in this matter, and the rest i will submit. Clerk thank you, supervisor peskin. Supervisor preston . Supervisor preston thank you, madam clerk, and i just wanted to speak further to the resolution that supervisor walton mentioned earlier that we were submitting together today. I wanted to thank supervisor walton and his entire office for their work on this in collaboration with our office. I also wanted to supervisor walton mentioned john templeton, who urged this resolution and who was part of founding the National Black business month, and just wanted to recognize his leadership and thank him for working with both of our offices to move this forward. Colleagues, i i, as you know, represent one of the last remaining districts in San Francisco with a large African American population here in the fillmore, and the number of black owned businesses that have closed in recent years is just tragic, and our office is working with entrepreneurs African American entrepreneurs in the fillmore who are trying to go in business and those who are struggling to stay in business. These struggles are real, and theyre not going away. In fact, theyre getting worse in covid. I want to recognize that part of celebrating black business month is urging folks to support black owned businesses, and thank you, supervisor walton, for referencing that folks can contact oewd to get a list. Our office also maintains a list of the district 5 blackowned businesses, and we really want to encourage folks particularly for those businesses that are currently opening open right now, the dispensaries and the food service and restaurants, to please urge folks in my district and elsewhere to to frequent these places and support them in every way possible, and that includes and ill read a few quick. Sheba piano lounge, club international, oasis cafe, fillmore street cafe, brunos, two jacks, walking fish pokey, and many others, and also blackowned cannabis dispensaries, and i just wanted to acknowledge those blackowned businesses in our districts. I also want to thank a lot of black Business Leaders who are in discussions with our office, and i want to really recognize and commend supervisor waltons work in partnership with the mayor and Human Rights Commission on the recently released report on reinvestment of San Francisco Police Department budget to support the African American community, and among the many things that came out of that report including, really, a call to action to build wealth and invest in projects that invest in economic progress. Some recommendations including looking at grants for nonprofits or providing microloans or Small Business loans for startups and existing organizations. The report also called for green lining black neighborhoods with capital empowerment and strengthening access to assist not only increased housing for black san franciscans but also for blackowned businesses. So i think through our resolution, in recognize of august as black business month, we want to encourage, as i mention, encourage blackowned businesses, and these businesses need us more than ever. Thank you, folks. Clerk thank you, supervisor preston. Supervisor ronen . Supervisor ronen submit. Clerk okay. Thank you. Supervisor safai . Supervisor safai submit. Clerk and supervisor stefani. Supervisor stefani submit. Clerk okay. Thank you. Seeing no other names on the roster, mr. President , that concludes the introduction of new business. President yee okay. Thank you. I guess that would take us to item 39. Clerk okay. At this time, the board of supervisors will host remote Public Comment via teleconference. The board believes it is essential that members are fully able to participate remotely in this meeting, therefore, if you need any assistance with access at all, please contact my office at 4155545184. We have a clerk standing by to assist you with your access issues. The telephone number you would call is displayed on our website, and its crawling on channel 26. Its 4156550001, and when prompted, enter the number which identifies this meeting. Its 1466263696. Press pound twice to join the proceedings at a listener, and if you wanted to speak and be added to the queue, dial starthree. If youre not ready, and you want to go back into line, just dial starthree, and the system will move you back in line. And when you are ready, starthree will put you back in the queue. So each speaker will have up to two minutes to provide comment. Please listen closely, or you will miss the prompt. I will just add that items 40 through 45, you are able to speak on those items. Youre also able to speak on the minutes. There is going to be a public hearing on the caltrain joint on the caltrain item, i should say. Those are items 36 and 37. We first have to take item 40, which just allows the board to convene a committee of the whole where they will have the public hearing. So if you are trying to provide your comments on the merits of the matter, i will just redirect you and have you save those comments for the actual public hearing. We have three interpreters who are standing by. Id like them to each drus themselves in language and just let the Community Know that they are introduce themselves in language and just let the Community Know that they are here. Miss lai . [speaking chinese language] interpreter thank you. [speaking spanish language] interpreter thank you. [speaking tagalog language] interpreter thank you, madam clerk. Clerk thank you so much, all three of you. We appreciate your presence here. All right. If youre unable to stay for the length of Public Comment, please submit your written correspondence to board. Of. Supervisors sfgov. Org. You can also find our meeting online or channel 26. The Public Comment information is also streaming online and on cable channel 26. Thank you. Mr. President . President yee okay. Lets proceed with Public Comment. Clerk okay. We welcome your comment. Each speaker will have up to two minutes. Linda chapman. [inaudible] completely uncalled for. Im looking further on your agenda [inaudible] clerk thank you, miss chapman, for your comments. We have 16 individuals listening and six members of the public in the queue. If you are listening, this is a good time to press starthree so that you can get in line. Operations, please, next caller. Welcome, caller. You have up to two minutes. Hello, caller . Have you joined us . Starthree will get you in line. Hello, caller, have you joined us . Hello . Clerk hello, welcome. Hi. Can i list can you listen to me . Clerk yes. Im calling to voice my concern about a resolution passed last week. The resolution in question is number 20073, which is medical and scientific relations between San Francisco and cuba. Im a cuban sittecitizen, and e lived in San Francisco for the past 16 years. I am calling here today and spending my time here because i already emailed the board of supervisors. I emailed supervisors ronen and peskins with my concerns, and i received a oneline response. We disagree with you. Thats okay. Im calling to voice my concern about this resolution 20073 over the Tax Implications of the city. I support the barack Obama Policies in terms of cuba, but i think the city of San Francisco is making a mistake here. [inaudible] this is not as simple as collaboration in a time of covid, so thank you so much for your time, and with that, i yield my time back. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, next caller, please. Welcome, caller. Hello, can you hear me . Clerk yes, we do, mr. Chriswell. All right. Thank you. This is jim r. Chriswell. I want to say hi to president yee and to madam clerk and to the supervisors. Im calling to talk about transit and transit issues. Another week, another month, and still no muni service in my neighborhood. How long is this going to get on . I dont get any results from muni. Muni has no updates on service cuts or restoring service. This is unacceptable. Muni says it has no buses because it has no money. Muni says it is bankrupt, and it is a financial black hole. Who is going to save muni . Well, dont go to the voters when youre doing Major Service cuts and dont have a Transit Systems. When muni doesnt go anywhere . Oh, muni goes to west portal, it goes to bernal heights, it goes to pacific heights, it goes to the tenderloin, but if you live in my neighborhood, you dont get service. It is time to get muni management under control. Stop the corruption at muni and stop the service cuts. We need muni service for seniors to go to the grocery stores, to go to their doctors appointments. We dont need supervisors doing photo ops at restaurants and retail stores. We need muni service to work. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Welcome, caller. Hey, its hayden miller. Just wanted to call in for two things. With regard to the transit and 30 years of the a. D. A. , i think San Francisco needs to make sure that we work more with muni to make sure that were not having cars parked illegally on the streets. Even when the cars are not blocking the entire sidewalk, with social distancing, it narrows down that sidewalk so its hard to get through safely. The other thing that i wanted to talk about was Illegal Dumping. The intersection of 28 avenue and balboa street, its crazy how much Illegal Dumping goes on there. In comparison to the intersection at 27 avenue, it has less than 20 reports. This is insane. Ive tried to get sfpd to do an investigation of who is dumping, but they refuse. This intersection is out of control. We need to tackle Illegal Dumping, and we need to tackle sidewalk parking. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, next speaker, please. We have 15 listeners and four members of the public in the queue. If you want to speak, please press starthree. Welcome, caller. Hi, madam clerk and supervisors. My name is curtis wu. Im with the San Francisco public bank coalition. Calling on a couple of things. First of all, so much better to see you guys on Public Comment. Second, just a suggestion to the clerk or sfgovtv, when you have long lines, maybe if its possible to give a warning that well be speaking next in Public Comment. Were here to advocate for the creation of a state bank. Our coalition sees a stand bank as complimentary to our building a Financial Institution with oversight by the people. I think at city hall, thanks to supervisor fewer and preston being really supportive unfortunately, i think there are a lot of outside forces that are still having a conversation of if we should have it, so really looking forward to leadership on the board to push this. The only safe current bank in the country, bank of north dakota issued more p. P. P. Loans per state per worker in the entire country. Thank you, supervisor fewer and preston for this. Hope to have more cosponsors on this. Really hoping for more cosponsors and your support, and i yield my time. Clerk thank you, curtis, for the suggestion. Unfortunately, our system cant handle that at this point, but well work on that. Operations, next caller, please. Hello. This is chrissy duran. Im an Emergency Department nurse at San Francisco general. I am calling in regards to something that you may or may not have heard about. Just a little background. As you know, at San Francisco general, i work with our most underserved populations, and i actually chose this job to work with homeless or psychiatric patients of all races, all orientation, everything, and i enjoy it, and thats why im there. Although with the current climate of the systemic issues in our Law Enforcement and, you know, the city trying to figure out how to allocate funds and appropriately deal with and help the black community, i want to say that our sheriffs deputies at San Francisco general are a specialty, especially in the Psych Department and emergency services. I think all of the supervisors, at one point, have gone to San Francisco general and seen what its like. Theres a small staff at San Francisco general that dont work in e. R. Or p. D. That are asking to have the sheriffs deputies removed based on one or two incidents. We are very concerned about this. 3,000 people have signed this petition in less than a week. Our sheriffs have improved a lot over time, but i just want to be clear that she wasnt there the people that are saying that the sheriffs should be removed, they werent there when i watched a paramedic get pummelled into a wall by a patient or when the sheriff had to knockdown the bathroom door because someone was trying to kill themselves in the bathroom or when clerk thank you for your comment. Okay. Thank you. Clerk thank you kindly. Thank you. Clerk next speaker, please. What a corrupt socialist puppet government you are. Policy is not law. People tried to talk about items that had already been to committee or yeah, committee, and they were cutoff and said nope, cannot talk about those. It was general Public Comment. If they want to talk about it, they can talk about it. So what if, you know, stuff got moved around . Either put them before Public Comment, which i still dont think its right, Public Comment should be first because its a government of the people, we, the people. Public comment should be first, or just put all the items that are not eligible before Public Comment. You need to be really good at that, but it can be really confusing. I only look at the second half of the agenda because even though id love to comment on some of the first half, i cant comment on it. Now that being said, i want to get back to the brown act. Today, just a few hours ago, i was speaking at the board of education meeting, and they cut me off when i brought up my gang stockers, which is a real issue. Theyre going to learn. Thats all im going to say. I want you to learn, and i want to thank you guys for cutting me off. Youve done pretty good. Im going to jinx myself [inaudible] clerk chris, thank you for your comments. Please join our Virtual Office hours. Im happy to walk you through why the rules are the way they are, and the agenda is the way it is. You nailed it, saying that we put the items that are not to be spoken about before Public Comment. Next caller, please . So supervisors, i was listening to you some days ago, talking about our homeless, the bad situation, the situation, and the situation, supervisors, is getting from bad to worse. And one of the issues that maybe theyre not paying attention is a lot of the people who have been released from san quentin and are in our community, i dont know if somebodys paying attention to that issue, if those people can be housed. This pandemic is going to be with us for a couple of years, and if you look at it like some sort of a joke or a circus, its not going to help its very, very difficult to stay at home. Very, very difficult. And when you go out maybe to the walgreens or do some essential work, and you get sick, thats not fair. Thats whats happening. That is whats happening, supervisors. Im getting too many calls about that type of situation, and i dont know how there should be an orientation. Our mayor doesnt give a hoot. Clerk thank you, mr. Dacosta. Okay. Operations, are there any other callers in the queue . Operator madam clerk, that completes the queue. Clerk okay. Thank you, operations. Mr. President . President yee thank you. Seeing no further Public Comment, Public Comment is now closed. So, madam clerk, lets go to our adoption without committee reference, items 40 to 40. Clerk these measures were introduced for adoption without committee reference. A unanimous vote is required for adoption of these resolutions today. Any supervisor may require any resolution to go to committee. President yee okay. Colleagues, would anyone like to sever any items . Supervisor haney . Supervisor haney just like to sever item number 41, just to be asked to be added as a cosponsor . Clerk mr. President , i would just suggest that if members want to be added as a cosponsor, im happy to take those outside of the items being called, so we can add you, supervisor haney, as a cosponsor, to item 41. President yee without severing . Clerk exactly. It doesnt require another vote. Supervisor haney works for me. Clerk thank you. President yee supervisor fewer . Supervisor fewer yes, i would like to sever item 41, and thank you, supervisor haney, for signing on, but please, sever item 41. Thank you. President yee supervisor stefani . Supervisor stefani yes, id like to sign onto item number 43 as a cosponsor. President yee supervisor mar . Supervisor mar id like to be added to item 42 as a cosponsor. Clerk well see to it. President yee and id just like to be added to item 45. What remains . Clerk that leaves items 40, 42, and 44. Okay. On items 40, 42, and 44 [roll call] clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee okay. Then these resolutions are and motioned are approved. Supervisor fewer . Supervisor fewer yes, thank you very much, president yee. This resolution is in support of Assembly Bill 310, authored by Assembly Members miguel santiago and david chiu which restructured the economic and public bank as a state depository bank. This also involves removing money out of the state funds to the bank ifunds. Understandably with covid19 pandemic and subsequent economic recession, we are seeing some challenges to our ability to advance the issue of a public Municipal Bank in San Francisco, but while that issue may be temporarily on hold, i am so appreciative for our state legislators to moving this issue at the state who are moving this issue at the state level and exploring the creation of a california state bank. In fact, this preliminary hearing and economic moment required us, more than ever, to think outside the box about financial models that serve us and serve the public. Large commercial banks are certainly not meeting our needs, and so it is imperative that we keep moving this forward to a system of public banking. Thank you to my cosponsors, and i want to thank my wonderful legislative aide who has been working on this incident since we came into office and tirelessly has been working on it and calling for advocates. Colleagues, i hope to have your support today, urging support of Assembly Bill 310. President yee supervisor peskin . Supervisor peskin i would like to be added as a cosponsor. Thank you, supervisor fewer. Supervisor fewer thank you. President yee supervisor walton . Supervisor walton thank you, president yee. I just wanted to make sure that i was added as a cosponsor. President yee thank you. Supervisor ronen . Supervisor ronen i just wanted to be sure that i was adds as a cosponsor. Thank you for all your work on this over the years. G president yee supervisor mar . Supervisor mar yes, i wanted to be added as a cosponsor, also. President yee okay. Call the roll. Clerk on item had 1, supporting california state best testimonyably bill number 310, the California Public banking act [roll call] clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee okay. Then without objection, this rez lu resolution is adopted. Madam clerk, call item 43. Clerk 43 is a resolution celebrating the 30 anniversary of the americans with disabilities act, recognizing july as disability pride month in the city and county of San Francisco in perpetuity, and urging continued commitment to expanding accessibility and empowering the civil rights of people with disabilities. President yee colleagues, july 3 marked the 30 anniversary of the americans with disabilities act, and i want to thank the sponsors of this item. This resolution complements the mayors proclamation calling july disability pride month in San Francisco from here on out. Disability pride enables people with disabilities to refind their identities, serves as a tool to tackle biases, discrimination and shapes unique perceptions of individuals with disabilities as people with value, talents, and significance. But more important, we passed this resolution to also recommit ourselves to advancing this cause. This subsequently impacts on our daily lived that raised concerns about Public Access to the rightofway, transit, and even government participation. It highlights how we need to continue evolving the way we work on inclusion in every form. San francisco has a place in his as the longest occupation of the Federal Building in 1977 in history. Disability advocates were relentless and ultimately possible makers in washington, d. C. In 1973 which was the framework for the americans with disabilities act. I want to commend jessica neighbors from seniors with disability action for working with my office on this resolution, the alliance of Community Disability advocates, independent living and resource center, and the ark, lighthouse, and many other organizations and individuals. Happy disability pride month, and happy 30 anniversary for a. D. A. Colleagues, i will ask madam clerk to go ahead and take the roll at this point. Supervisor peskin mr. President president yee i see some names on the roster. Supervisor fewer . Supervisor fewer yes, please add me as a cosponsor. President yee yes. Supervisor peskin . Supervisor peskin ditto. President yee supervisor mar . Supervisor mar id like to be added, as well. President yee supervisor mandelman . Supervisor mandelman me, as well. Supervisor safai and supervisor safai, please add me. President yee okay. I think that was supervisor safai. Supervisor safai yeah, please add me. President yee okay. Madam clerk, please go ahead and call the roll. Clerk on item 43 [roll call] clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee okay. Without objection, this resolution is passed or adopted. Madam clerk, go ahead and call item number 40 clerk 45 . President yee 45. Clerk item 45 is a motion to authorize preparation of written proponent and opponent ballot arguments and rebuttal ballot arguments for submittal to the voters for the november 3, 2020 consolidated general election. President yee so colleagues, there are a number of amendments made today to reflect discussions with sponsors of ballot measures on who will be identified as the lead author. We also need to remove mention of ballot measures that have been officially withdrawn. Madam clerk, would you mind reading through the amendments . Clerk im happy to, mr. President. Okay. My microphone is on. All right. So of the 26 matters that moved through both the rules and the budget and finance committee, we have 12 that were providing to the department of elections. Just really quickly, would like to thank victor gomez, the budget clerk and linda wong, the finance clerk. The amendments should have been sent to you in an email. In page 1, line 21, were designating president yee to be the ballot argument proponent for authorizing 16 and 17 year olds to vote in the municipal election. You are designating president yee for the Charter Amendment regarding police Department Staffing levels, page 2, lines 24 through 25. [please stand by] i believe that the mayor and the members are aware that mayor breed would like to be designated on page 4, line 16 the repeal and replacement, page 5, line 16. And the Initiative Ordinance. Save our Small Businesses, page 6, line 13. This motion will strike all references to the following measures that will not be going to the ballot. The initiative regarding business tax exchanges. The stock based compensation tax, the file number 200, 652, page 7, lines 410. The Initiative Ordinance submitted by four or more supervisors on tax, on businesses with disproportion at executive pay, on page 7, line 1119. And the Initiative Ordinance submitted by four or more supervisors on business tax changes, this is file 200, 656, on page 8, lines 419, and strike all references to opponent, ballot arguments, since there were no supervisor who indicated that they were interested to author one. On page 8, line 20 through page 15 on line 23. And well make other clarifying and conforming changes. To highlight two deadlines to submit to the department of elections, specifically for the legislative aide whose ares whoe working on these arguments. 12 00 on thursday, august 13th to submit a proponent ballot arm argument. And noon on sunday, august 17th to have rebuttal ballot argument. I want to just make a quick shoutout to the legislative deputy, alisa samara who is managing and coordinating all of this information. Thank you, mr. President. President yee thank you very much, madam clerk. Madam clerk, you might have said this, but did you mention for the Public Works Commission piece or the sanitation and streets that supervisor haney would be the clerk yes, sir, i did. President yee okay. Thank you. Clerk okay. President yee okay, no questions then, madam clerk, call the roll on motion to amend i believe. Clerk yes, thats correct, mr. President. President yee motion to amend . Supervisor peskin. And anybody want to second . Second, fewer. President yee we have a motion and seconded. Roll call please on the amendment. Clerk on the amendment to item 45. [roll call] there are 11 ayes. President yee so the motion to append is passed. Madam clerk, call the roll on the item as amended. Clerk on item 45 as amended. [roll call] there are 11 ayes. President yee okay. This item is amended is approved. Lets see, i believe that we need to go and back to special orders clerk item 36. President yee and 37. Yoirk yes, items 36 and 37 compromise the public hearing of the board of supervisors will host as it convenes in a committee of the whole to receive public testimony and consider a resolution approving submission of oneeighth of one percent retail transactions and use tax for caltrain or its Successor Agency to use as certain conditions are met to support its immediate and longterm operational and capital costs, at an election to be held on november 3, 2020 and to affirm the ceqa considerations. President yee we will go to the committee of the whole to look at the support for Caltrain Service to november 3, 2020. Without objection, we will proceed as follows. A brief presentation from staff at m. T. A. And ceqa, twominute speech for those who wish to provide Public Comment on this resolution. And then to consider the resolution to approve submission of the sales tax to the ballot after the hearing is held. Supervisor walton, would you like to make any remarks . Supervisor walton thank you so much, president yee. And, again, i. Ed to thank you you, president i wanted to thank you, president yee, to hear this as a board of the whole as well as my colleagues. This is a caltrain sales tax resolution. This is authored and sponsored by supervisor peskin, haney and i and we just appreciate this opportunity. As you know, last week last tuesdays Board Meeting we introduced a resolution to place a oneeighth caltrain sales tax measure on the November Ballot subject to agreement by other caltrain member agencies to do the same. As you heard when we introduced the measure last week, our resolution provides for a comprehensive approach to creating reliable funding for caltrain while setting a timetable and process for reform of the governance of caltrain. Our resolution includes provisions to facilitate progress on organizational structure and accountability issues that San Francisco and santa clara counties have raised over the past 18 months and, quite frankly, over the past few decades at the caltrain joint powers board and at our Transportation Authority as well as from this body. As you may recall last may 2019, this board passed a resolution led by supervisor peskin and myself to affirm our support for a strengthened and independent caltrain agency, separate from the managing entity for caltrain. In that resolution, we called for a process for determining the appropriate governance framework, believe that the next generation of caltrains development as an electrified metro Light Service that provides fast and frequent access for everyone along the corridor. I want to thank supervisor peskin for working with me to engage with our counterparts in san ma mateo and santa clara counties on these particular issues. I want to thank the fellow director and santa clara board of supervisors president and the chair sandy chavez and the mayor of san jose who also called for similar changes last summer and through this past year. Together supervisor chavez and i have endeavored through the caltrain Ad Hoc Committee on governance and in other forms to ensure that we work towards equitable and direct representation of our count accounting at caltrain. Im grateful to mayor breed and members of our state delegation, including senator scott wiener and the team for their support. We remain hopeful that San Mateo County representatives will join us in supporting this resolution that advances the sales tax measure for voter consideration, and if passed, sets up an immediate and longterm source of funds for caltrain in tandem with a timely discussion of caltrain governance reform. These are key to ensuring that San Francisco and santa clara would together provide nearly 80 of the anticipated tax revenue from this measure, has an equal say at the table. This is critical given the regressive nature of the tax and the many important decisions that are before us with caltrain. I want to reiterate that we all believe caltrain is an incredibly valuable asset to our counties and the greater bay area, and we want to have the system to fly. Now is time for all partners to join together to fund caltrain and create an equitable and accountable and Transparent Organization at caltrain. And to strengthen the agencies to be responsive and an outstanding rail system that our region needs and deserves. I also know that supervisor peskin and supervisor haney wanted to say a couple words, president yee. Just real quick, i do have a few changes from last weeks versions to read into the record. And i want to know should i do that now or prior to the vote after the count . President yee why dont you hold off. Well take those amendments later. Supervisor peskin. Thank you. Supervisor peskin thank you, president yee. Actually, what supervisor walton and j. B. D. Member walton just said summarized a lot of it. I want to put this in a regional context. This is a railroad that has connected san jose to San Francisco for over a 150 years. And eventually connected gilroy to San Francisco, 77 miles of Railroad Track that pursuant to a peninsula joint study between santa clara, san mateo and San Francisco that i think was done in the late 1980s, 1987 led to the acquisition from the Union Pacific railroad in late 1991, and a Railroad Asset becoming a regional threecounty asset that has taken many, many cars off the road. And there has been simmering tensions between the three counties as supervisor walton said for many decades. But the railroad has persisted. Weve all put our money where our mouth is. There have been generations of joint power support members, including today the state Assembly Member calra, and many others pushing for those changes for real shared onethird, onethird governance for many decades. But what supervisor walton is right. In the last year and a half we have not only reengaged those concepts but reengaged our colleagues am we have driven up and down the peninsula. And without telling tales out of school, had dinner at supervisor chavezs house and have met at burton luccis restaurant in San Mateo County to try to bring the parties together over shared governance. And it was asked what is at stake . And let me proceed by saying that this is not a power grab. As a matter of fact, we invited caltrain into our downtown extension. This is really about shared governance. But whats at stake . Whats at stake is a lot of land. There are somewhere around 700acres of land within the caltrain rightofway within these three counties. Many of them are developable for smart growth, for Affordable Housing. Heretofore we have not been able to have those conversations because in essence the joint powers board is a paper board. Yes, im saying it. No, this is not a power grab. But the best time to have this conversation is when money is on the table. And i know that its been an unpleasant conversation and i know that we have all been inundated with emails and visits from various delegations. Much of it actually under the umbrella of caltrain and san trans. And all 10 of my colleagues know, it its the equivalent, albeit at a much lesser scale, of the county bus operator in san mateo operator. I dont say that m majorititive, but theyve been with the caltrain joint powers board. And it is time to have shared governance. Its time to unlock those lands for Smart Development and Affordable Housing. And it is time to extract caltrain from san trans and their intermingling of responsibilities and potentially funding. It is time to figure out how the money has gone between those two agencies. And let me just give San Mateo County its due. They have been the county that rescued this from Union Pacific in 1991. They are owed a great debt of gratitude. But as this railroad has expanded, as it will continue to take cars off the road, it is time to have shared governance, it is time to have more equity in transportation. It is time to have more transparency. And the way to do that is with real regional governance and the time to do it is when the sales tax is on the ballot. I really, really want to thank and appreciate supervisor and j. P. B. Member walton as well as his counterpart in Santa Clara County, supervisor chavez, and mayor lomay licardo for being rl leaders on this. I know that its an unpleasant conversation, but theres never a good time to have this conversation. But as we said this is not the time to kick that can down the track. Thank you. President yee supervisor haney. Supervisor haney thank you, president yee, and thank you especially to supervisors walton and peskin for all of your work. And the shuttle diplomacy. This is a very unusual measure that we have to get agreement across all three of these counties and the transit agencies. So i know that theres been a lot of hard work put into where we are today. I just want to, you know, to speak to the critical and urgent need for this funding and for sustainable Revenue Source for caltrain. San francisco has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in recent years into this system, including as you said supervisor peskin, creating a Transit Center that ultimately we plan to have caltrain reach to. Planning for a downtown extension. And, you know, i know that in my district that there are thousands of people who rely on this system every day. And thats true across our entire city. Also our businesses and our economy really rely on caltrain. And caltrain is really one of the few Transit Systems that doesnt have its own dedicated source. And so it was created by the state to allow us to do this. And it is a huge opportunity that i hope that we put forward to voters here and in the other counties and are able to pass and establish the urgent immediate need of the crisis of funding that our transit agencies are facing more broadly in caltrain as well. And the longterm need to sustain caltrain and to ensure that it can expand as well. And so i do think that the measure that is in front of us is effective in addressing the need for that revenue. And also muchneeded governance reforms. And i think that it sets up a fair process to do that in the right way, to do it in a thoughtful way, to have it led by the caltrain joint authority. And to do it with a real timeline. So i do hope that we pass this and ultimately i hope that the other counties pass it as well. I want to also underscore one other thing. This will have a positive impact on the m. T. A. Budget and on the union as well. We give a contribution from m. T. A. Directly to caltrain, which is about 9 million a year. And theyll discuss this im sure in the presentation. But that is muchneeded funding that can be given directly by a sales tax that would have a positive net benefit to the m. T. A. Budget. So i want to, again, to appreciate the leadership. Especially supervisor walton. In having the difficult conversation and coming to a point where we can get behind this sales tax and be excited about it and also be confident that the outcome of this will be not only sustainable funding, but an effective accountable independent governance structure as well. So i want to thank supervisor peskin and our staff and supervisor walton and all of our regional leaders for getting us to this point. And i hope that we can pass it and that our voters will agree. President yee thank you, supervisor. Supervisor walton, why dont you go ahead and talk about your amendments just in case the public want to comment on it. So why dont you introduce it right now. Supervisor walton thank you so much, president yee. This is a resolution, not a cosmetic change. So i will go ahead and read into the record. So this version is different in terms of just some cosmetic changes from last week versions of the resolution. I wont go through lineforline but ill do a detailed summary of those changes for the record. So page 1, lines 1 plus 3, added additionally to short and long title. Page lines 4 and 5, removing as certain conditions are met. Page 4, line 5 through 10, removing the entire clause. And page 4, line 13, removing an extra space for ballot. Page 4, line 1720, removing the entire clause. Page 5, lines 1118, adding a cause to clarify the california revenue and taxation code. Section 7286. 65. Page 5, line 20, changing resolution to regional measure. Page 6, line 4, 79, refining the conditions. Page 6, clauses 8 through d, cleaning up the clauses. Page 8, line 18, adding a clause e that if the j. P. B. Board has not amended the joint Powers Agreement by twothirds majority by december 31st, 2022, the modified governance structure or procedures the j. P. B. Shall work with the state legislature to modify the j. P. B. Governance structure or procedures in the 2023 legislative session. And page 8, lines 2224, removing separate from those hired by san trans and replacing with and shall not have the same council and auditor. And page 8, line 24, removing this, and adding the caltrain text before the measure. And page 8, line 25, adding three after november for the date. Last change, page 8, line 24, removing the extra space after j. P. B. Thank you, president yee. President yee okay. So right now id like to ask michelle with the San Francisco Transportation Authority, if youre present, would you like to proceed with your presentation. Yes, thank you, president y yee. Im going to share my slides with my screen now. So thank you, president yee and supervisors. I am with the San Francisco Transportation Authority. Im here to give a brief presentation about the caltrain three county sales tax. In 2017, senator hill, senate bill 797, gave the peninsula corridor a joint powers board authorization to put a oneeighth sales tax on the ballot. And being a dedicated sales tax, the measure requires twothird of supporters in the three counties. The authorization has no sunset date and caltrain has been discussing going to the ballot in november 2020 for some time now. Precovid19 forecast estimated that this tax would raise just over 100 million per year and 25 of that generated here in San Francisco. Currently caltrain does not have a dedicated Funding Source, so it makes it vulnerable to fluctuations and ridership. Prior to the covid19 pandemic, the majority came from selfgenerated revenues which is today many of caltrains workers are working from home. And their ridership has dropped to 5 of precovid levels that has significantly reduced the revenues. Caltrains budget is supported by contributions from the three member counties for both operations and for annual capital state of repair projec projects. For San Francisco, our annual share for the fiscal year 2020, was 15. 6 million. And half of that funding, the funding for operations, comes out of the sfmta budget while the Transportation Authority has been paying the other half for the capital contributions through our sales tax program. As noted sfb747 was to raise over 100 million per year and the revenues to fund the xapittal state of good repair needs. The expenditure plan would be reflected in the ballot question presented to voters. And the ballot question hasnt been finalized but the draft question asks to approve levying a 30year 1 8th sales tax to support the Regional Economic recovery and to prevent Traffic Congestion and to make caltrain more accessible, to reduce pollution with cleaner and quieter trains, to make travel times faster and to increase frequency and capacity of caltrain. Currently authorizing the legislation caltrain can put this sales tax measure on the ballot with a twothirds majority of their board. However, the measure also requires approval by the majority of each of the three county boards of supervisors and by the three counties Transit Agency boards. And to date san trans and the san mateo board of supervisors have approved the placement of the measure on the november 2020 ballot. However, they passed an earlier version without the provisions which we will discuss in a moment. So those two boards will need to pass another resolution supporting those provisions. The sfmta board is scheduled to discuss this meeting this friday, july 31st. And the santa clara board of supervisors, and the b. T. A. Board and the caltrain board are all scheduled to discuss the board next week prior to or on august 6th which is the last day that caltrain board can ask to put the measure on the ballot. And so with that im going to turn this over to our executive director to discuss the governance provision. Thank you, thank you so much. Good evening, im the executive director of Transportation Authority. Im glad to provide some background on the governance provisions that are included in todays resolution. For the members of the public who may not know the history of caltrain, supervisor peskin did describe some of that, and the board has established an Ad Hoc Committee on governance in january at the request of supervisor and director walton, and its comprised of director walton and director chavez as he mentioned and also chair pine from san mateo. Caltrain board also hired a special counsel in february to advise the committee and the board on issues relating to governance. Their first presentation to the caltrain board was on july 9th at which the special council summarized two governing documents that caltrain operates under today. So this is again a presentation by olson remshaw to the caltrain board. And these are the two agreements that were summarized. The first was a joint Powers Agreement established in 1991. Among the three counties when caltrain was formed after san mateo purchased the rightofway for the railroad on behalf of all three counties. The j. P. A. Was last amended in 1996. And so that is what were operating under today. The second agreement is the Real Property agreement that was amended in 2008 at the last sort of financial crisis of the region. This set up caltrain as the managing agency for as long as it wishes, regardless of payment of outstanding debt by the other two counties to san mateo for the original rightofway purchase which there does remain 20 million outstanding. The agreements said that samtrans would be able to change that designation after samtrans is reimbursed for the rightofway purchase. The 2008 amendment as i understand it allows for samtrans to, again, serve as the managing agency for as long as it wishes, even after that final 20 million payment is reimbursed. So the samtrans as managing agency under these agreements, in exchange for forgiving about 38 million of rightofway debt in 2008, was established as this managing entity. And the c. E. O. And the c. F. O. Of caltrain under this agreement must be the same individual as the c. E. O. And the c. F. O. Of samtrans. And samtrans has financial rights and interests stemming from its ownership and management of certain caltrain operating and nonoperating assets, referring to things like parking lot and resource and land parcels along the rightofway. Next slide, please, michelle. So thats the background. And so turning now to the San Francisco and Santa Clara County proposals for the governance provisions as written in todays resolution, there are i believe six provisions, a through f. And here are the first four. A, revenues will be held in a special account, an esco account, to be disbursed by the joint powers board only. For eligible expenditures at any time with a twothirds majority. Again, these would be the tax measures, should the voters pass the measure, in november. And up to the first 40 million collected of the tax shall be offset shall be used to offset the member operating contributions provided by samtrans, uni and replace the covid related costs if relief funds are made available before the effective date, january 1 of the if a governance solution is found, the special escrow account would be closed and funds would be transferred to the joint powers board regular use the regular account and administration. If no government solution is found by september 30th, the first date that is mentioned in the special provisions of 2021, then another 40 million would be made available. Again, for operations. And to ensure that there would be no disruption to service for riders. E, if no governance solution is found, all parties would then commit to working with the state delegates from all three counties on a legislative solution for the 2023 legislative session. Finally, the joint powers board shall appoint an independent special counsel and auditor, which are separate from the ones that are used by samtrans within 90 days of placement of this measure on the november 2020 ballot so that those those consultants could be available to advise the board immediately. So with that im happy to take any questions. Finally, okay, one last slide. I should note that our Citizens Advisory Committee heard this item at their 722 meeting, july 22nd meeting last week. And did vote 91 in support urging the San Francisco board of supervisors and sfmta to support this caltrain resolution as sponsored by supervisors walton, peskin and haney. And theres a joint statement from santa clara counties calling for this comprehensive approach to funding and reform. Thank you so much. President yee okay, thank you for your presentation. Any questions from anybody . No questions. All righty. Now we have Public Comments on this item. Madam clerk. Clerk thank you, mr. President. To operations, do we have callers in the queue . I understand that a moment ago we had about 9 callers in the queue. Yes, there are currently 11 callers to speak. Clerk thank you. Unmute the first caller. We welcome you, caller. Thank you for your comments. President yee madam clerk, remind the callers they only have two minutes. Clerk to all of the callers who are going to be speaking on the sales tax for the caltrain operations, the costs associated with it, youll have up to two minutes to provide your testimony. Welcome, caller. Caller hi, yes, steven miller. I wanted to call in support of the tax. Kind of disappointing that we have to play politics, especially supervisor walton, who actually sits on the board claiming unfair representation. Where in the slide presentation that you just looked at, its not onethird, onethird, onethird that goes into caltrain. We all pay our fair share in by that logic, we dont have a third of the ridership. Its ridiculous. You guys are playing politics. It is a power grab. You can say whatever statements, youre on damage control mode right now and you know it. The only reason this is here is because the public go got mad. You know why the reason that people got mad . Because the way that it runs is good. And you dont see the photos of the bart stations and the muni station and the metro train. No, people love caltrain and thats why there was so Much Community outrage when you guys tried to play politics and pursue your own agenda. Remember you work for us. Were the voters, we pay the salary. Clerk thank you for your comments. To future speakers, please address the board as a whole and not individual members. Operations, please unmute the next caller. Caller hello. My name is christopher peterson. I am a San Francisco resident and prepandemic, a muni rider and occasional caltrain rider. Thank you for holding a hearing on this measure. I urge you to place the measure on the ballot but to remove the conditions that require most of the residents in the measure to go into an escrow account. It would have samtrans and b. T. A. That we would spend on caltrain and instead to direct that money to bus service. It will also allow caltrain to rely less heavily on regressive fares and to establish discounted fares for lowincome riders. The escrow provisions, however, by preventing caltrain from establishing equitable fares, would harm riders simply to create the negotiating leverage regarding caltrain governance. Please reject that risky strategy. Its clear caltrains governance needs to change, but not at the expense of transit riders. And i pray that the negotiations dont create another transit bureaucracy. We have far too many of those in the bay area already. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your testimony. Next caller, please. Welcome, caller, you have up to two minutes. Caller hello. Im andrew sullivan. I am, members of the board, im andrew sullivan, a 20year plus caltrain rider and along with supervisor peskin a coauthor of the 2003 prop k which as everyone knows is a sale tax for transportation. I am calling to urge the supervisors to pass the sales tax with no incompan restrictio. Caltrain needs a dedicated Revenue Source and i look forward to supporting it. Caltrain is a critical part of our system and needed to reduce auto traffic and greenhouse emissions. I would like to express outrage that this board has chosen to hold riders, its constituents, San Francisco voters like me, hostage to a bureaucratic dispute that has nothing to do with riders, service or the climate. It is completely unacceptable that they have chosen this moment to put Caltrain Service in jeopardy because of land. Its not also conforming to bill 797, caltrain gets nothing. This discussion proves beyond a shadow of the doubt that we need to do away with bart and caltrain and create a unified agency under the principles of the bay area. I strongly urge the supervisors to move beyond parochial power gains and to support this approach. For now stop playing game with transit riders. Pass a clean sales tax measure that withstands scrutiny and conforms to senate bill 797. That means no escrow. And dont stop with the joint powers board. Lets get seamless bay area do done. And for the record, mr. Sullivan was never a board of supervisors and did not cosponsor prop k but much of the rest that he said, relative to having bart take over the entire system, i agree with. Clerk thank you to the caller and thank you, supervisor peskin. There are 25 listeners and 19 members of the public in the queue. Lets have the next caller, please. You have up to two minutes. Welcome. Caller hi. My name is Bethany Beacham and im a transit only community and im concerned about the future of Caltrain Service. Im calling to pass a clean caltrain measure with no restrictions that will retain the Service Without putting caltrain through uncertainty year after year. While i agree with many Board Members that caltrain governance does need to be reformed, i dont think that this measure is the appropriate avenue for those changes. So those are conversations that could happen at the regional level. So i urge the board to support the Reform Efforts currently underway as part of the Blue Ribbon Transit Recovery Task force. And the task force is working across the entire region to figure out how to build a seamless Transit System that serves all riders, including caltrain riders, both now and in the long term. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments. Next caller, please. Caller good afternoon, supervisors. My name is sarah bars. Im a board member of seamless bay area. And im also a San Francisco resident. And a transit commuter. And a prepandemic times i would run muni and bart and caltrain regularly. I applaud supervisors on the governance, however, unfortunately, i respectfully disagree that this proposal will resolve the governance issues that supervisors peskin and walton so eloquently described. This has the indiscernible and that will in the future make the Caltrain Service funding unreliable. Caltrain governance should be resolved via the regional blue ribbon Transit Task Force as the previous commenter mentioned. I urge the board of supervisors to support a clean tax bill to put those measures before the voters. And to not take any risks that could potentially harm Transit Service or transit riders in the region. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your testimony. Next caller, please. Caller hi, everyone. This is janice lee. I am speaking on behalf of myself. I thank you, supervisors, for holding this hearing. I am on the bart board of directors. Ill have a bit of topics beyond this. I dont think that you are playing games. I thank them for support and thank supervisor walton for really putting this issue of governance for quite some time now, maybe through different kinds of channels, but you have not been silent on this issue throughout. And i want to thank them for having a hearing on this and supporting this measure. Where i personally stand is that i support any path forward, including this one, to have the sales tax measure on the ballot. I dont need to tell you the importance of transit. Transit is part of the Pandemic Recovery and so is caltrain. With that said, i know this is a complicated measure and theres a lot, a lot of nuances and a lot of history here that cannot and will not be solved by one measure or in the next 20minute discussion. I recognize that transit is funded by regressive taxes and that caltrain has no dedicated revenue and muni and bart and m. T. A. Get to enjoy their dedicated sales tax revenues. Caltrains collapse and or lack of revenue has direct impact on muni, bart and beyond. And those systems were far more lowincome transit dependent demographics. And at the last bart meeting i asked the general meeting about the bart sales tax and he said that it was imperative that we keep that system moving. Its an important link for San Francisco and important to find a path forward. So i am committed to doing outreach with the state legislators, including senator wiener and i acknowledge they signed a letter that mayor breed signed on to. And will work with them to bring San Mateo County on board. I recognize that the governance provisions in this way are not ideal, but clerk thank you for your time. Caller thank you for hear ago clerk thank you for your comments. Next caller, please. Caller hi. This is adam, district 6. I wanted to speak on caltrain. One of the key things to remember is that caltrain brings more riders into San Francisco than out of it. San francisco benefits from this, especially here in d6, combined with the workers earning and spending money in the city. What is also important to remember, and contrary to the many Public Comments made over the past two weeks, mr. Peskin and mr. Walton, based on the last study, 40 of caltrain riders make less than the areas median income. There are many lowincome riders who rely on caltrain to get to work and school. And its also important to remember that caltrain when you look at the numbers, that those are household income. So a household falls into 100,000 bracket is not comprised of riders making big tech money or rich folks. Its likely that its two partners averaging 50,000 each. I dont think that anyone here would claim that 25 an hour is rich, especially com in the bay area. Especially last week when we were talking about bart drivers making 93,000 and being a middleclass salary. Were all on board there. Caltrain as it is, we need to pass a clean tax bill. Caltrain is consistently more reliable than bart or sfsta is. Im a former caltrain rider and i dont ride it right now but i dont trust San Francisco to have control of caltrain. We need a regional system that is above local politics, not one beholden to local whims. Samtrans runs the daytoday operations for exchange for giving up that 40 million demand. And the regional Blue Ribbon Task force is underway. Pass a clean measure for the voters to vote on and not one with this poison pill that puts caltrain funding in jeopardy. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments. Next caller, please. Welcome caller. You will have up to two minutes. Caller hello. My name is alan. And im calling in to express my support for the tax measure as a whole. But to express my i guess disappointment and disagreement would be added governance reforms have been added to this legislation. Caltrain needs to be treated as a transportation service. Right now where it is transporting people in this pandemic and not as a developmental opportunity where San Francisco can go and stick its nose in, in all of the other counties. We have not paid samtrans back and we accuse them of stealing our money. We cannot run our own Transportation System yet we try to extort a different one from a different county that has been doing it quite well for just shy of 30 years. It is wholly irresponsible to tie this muchneeded funding for Transit Agency that needs it in a time like this where funding is s so unreliable. Its unconscionable to tie it to governance reform down its throatthroats that may not be ie best of the agency. I need you as a board to pass a clean and the original resolution that was offered by caltrain staff and not to pass this one including the governance reforms now. Clerk thank you, caller. Thank you for your testimony. Before operations sends in the next caller, we have 26 listeners and 14 members of the caller in the queue. Okay, operations, unmute the next speaker, please. Welcome, caller. Caller hi. My name is indiscernible im a district 6 resident and before shelter in place i relied on caltrain for my daily commute. I ask you to pass this free of any escrow mechanisms. And im very grateful to supervisors haney for this measure, im disappointed that things got to this point. Playing games with the funding of a political link is not the climatefriendly Transit Service that we should have. And if you dont care about the governance, why are you engaging in a hostagetaking scheme that is proposed by a majority of the cacaltrain board . If you care about the governance of our system, why havent you ensured that our own system is having the nomination of the sfmta board . If you care about the governance, why do caltrain riders not only i ignored indiscernible and all of these funds are not about the governance. Theyre a power grab by supervisors walton and peskin. I urge you again to pass a clean tax. That escrow system will not pass muster, and a measure that would be a fair legal challenge is something that distribute help our Transit System. And for supervisors peskin and walton, turn on the news and try to look at what is really going on and decide that the republicans that are moderate indiscernible that we are emulating here in San Francisco. Thank you very much. Have a wonderful night. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, please unmute the next caller. Caller good afternoon, supervisors. My name is magi dogg and im speaking in support of the Caltrain Service. Obviously, without caltrain, traveling through San Francisco down to indiscernible would be difficult for those who do not have access to it, but at the same time im concerned that all of the restrictions that are placed that are proposed will be detrimental to transit riders. So i am urging for a the sales tax but without all of the restrictions in place. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your testimony. Next speaker, please. Caller thank you, board chair, president yee and members. My pronouns are she and her. This is very, very important. And i travel the bay area in a very regional way which includes caltrain. Im a modest person of means, i dont have a car and so caltrain is very, very important to me and i support this sales tax and i have always supported this sales tax. And theres different conversations for different times. Governance is important as well. But its a separate conversation for a separate time because we dont have a lot of time for all of these public bodies to pass identical resolutions in order to get this measure to the ballot. So if one of these boards was not passed then the public would not have a chance to vote on this very important and historic measure. I do not want the future of caltrain to be in question. Because i remember the 1970s in new york city and the crisis in 1975 when the historic new york subways future was in question. They had the broken lights and all kinds of other problems and plans were made to demolish Grand Central terminal. So much was this in the aftermath of six other eastern railroads including the pennsylvania and new york central. So as the railroad goes, so does the city. And almost a Million People moved out of new york city in the 1970s, most likely in part because of the decline of the subway. So this measure is extremely important. Lets say the lowest common denominator and focus on the matter of getting the tax passed and continue at another time the conversation about governance. Thank you very much. Clerk thank you for your comments. Next caller, please. Caller hi, my name is jordan davis and my pronouns are she and her and i live in district 6. I actually do not not support this sales tax. Because the sales tax isnt very regressive. I like revenue measures and i vote for every tax that has been on the ballot in the past but when it comes to sales taxes, im a tax revolter. Second, is caltrain, which is mostly the people mostly take it are wealthier people in the peninsula trying to get the tech jobs. And. Clerk caller, are you still there . Caller can you hear me . Clerk yes, we can. Caller so, anyway, they doubled the they claiming they wanted to doubt it but the court, they said they needed to continue to function which shows that the caltrain board is being duplessis. I dont want to pay anymore of my lowincome to a bunch of wealthy tech indiscernible who just want it so please oppose the sales tax. Clerk thank you for your testimony. Operations, next caller, please. Caller hello. Good evening, members of the board of supervisors and the staff. Thank you very much to president yee for allowing this member to come forward with a special process to bring this measure forward after the issue in the previous week. Friends of caltrain is an organization that is focusing on Stable Funding for caltrain in the context of their public Transportation System that is accessible to all. And in the interest of making it accessible to all, we have for over five years worked on supporting research and how to make caltrain more equitable and to have access to the greater diversity of people. We are pleased to see as part of its Business Plan that caltrain is about to approve policies to improve the access and affordability so that a greater share of people at a variety of income levels can use caltrain, which would be funded by the fact that this tax is not moving forward. To put the ability to diversify the caltrain ridership in jeopardy. We, like many of the speakers today, are not supportive of linking the conditions to the tax, which would make it legally problematic and more difficult for tax people support the possibility for increased ridership, better connections, better affordability. And in complicated measures that would spend 35 of the money for caltrain for two years and then the remaining to be in limbo pending state legislation that may or may not pass in a begin year. This is putting a lot of risk on the back of riders for these changes that should happen, but not be tied to this ballot measure. We do support the governance change and upgrade, including the ability at a regional level to have fare integration and regional schedules and regional management of megaprojects. This needs to be done at a regional level, not only at the caltrain level. So in summary, we urge to you put this measure on the ballot. Its a clean ballot resolution. And ongoing clerk thank you. Thank you for your comments. Great, thank you. We have 11 members who are interested in speaking and we have 24 listeners in the queue. So, operations, next caller, please. Caller good evening, supervisors, i am live near the caltrain station. Which currently gets four trains a day. Two in the morning and two in the evening. I would like to echo bart director and thank supervisors walton, peskin, and haney as well as the executive director for rescuing caltrain from the great samtrans robbery. Thespass these resolutions unanimously. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Caller hi, i am Nancy Arbuckle and im a San Francisco resident. My family is transit only and were carfree and devoted caltrain riders. I want to make sure that you are thinking about the riders, the caltrain riders themselves. Those of us who have friends, relatives and jobs that we rely on caltrain to get us to. And with that in mind, i would like to ask that you set aside the governance battle and imagine a World Without caltrain. Those without cars couldnt access the peninsula, people couldnt get to their jobs. Giants and warriors fans would have a hard time getting to the game. Students couldnt get to school. Next, picture the traffic that would return in the absence of caltrain. The four freeway lanes worth of cars that the system has carried and now back on the streets and freeways. Picture the congestion, the delays, the increased crash rates, the long commute times. Count the tailpipes in your minds eye and breathe the polluted air. Now think about the Carbon Emissions that would be generated. Think of the Climate Emergency upon us, the droughts, the wildfires. Think about all of the things that we would face in a future without caltrain. And then reflect on the amendments, the ideas and the conditions and quibbles about governance. Lets make sure that were clear on the priorities here. Lets save caltrain for real. Lets place a clean sales tax measure on the ballot and remove all of the amendments and restrictions and conditions. Thank you very much. Clerk thank you for your testimony. Next caller, please. Caller good afternoon, supervisors. My name is kyle barlo and i live in the mission and i speak in support of the measure with improved governance reforms. Prior to the pandemic i was a daily caltrain rider and with personnel interactions that i had with the staff, i also believe that the Current Organization is not sufficiently accountable to the public or to the joint powers board. In particular, i have the caltrain staff that take sides on issues that are coming before the joint powers board. So we have heard differences of Public Opinion with the staff as the san mateo c. E. O. And to let the board decide the best path forward. This is not currently happening is one reason that we need governance reform. I agree that now is the time to address the issues that fiscal train before the dedicated funding stream is passed. And particularly the j. P. P. Member walton and peskin and haney, and with the crisis facing caltrain. I urge the board to pass the measure as is with the limitations that were added in consultation with San Mateo County. I believe that we can walk and chew gum at the same time and pass most with the current measure. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your testimony. Okay, please, operations, send in the next caller. Caller good evening, board. This is peter strauss, on the board of the San Francisco transit riders and a member of b. T. X. I want to thank you first of all for your recognition of the importance of caltrain as a regional transportation resource. That said, im not enthusiastic, i think that i have shared this with many of you, im not enthusiastic about the sales tax, but thats the hand that the legislature has dealt with us. So ill live with that and urge support. With respect to governments, i recognize the importance of governments reform of the of caltrain and its establishment in the bay area. However, im not going to present a specific recommendation on the form that it takes and the linkage that youre discussing today, except to recognize that its critically important that what you pass to be something that can be supported by all four counties. I hope that what you pass will have something that will have the support of San Francisco, santa clara and san mateo because thats essential to move forward. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your testimony. Next caller, please. Caller hi there, board. I just want to say that caltrain is a necessary for transit up and down the peninsula. Give the voters a chance to have a sustainable Funding Source for caltrain. Between caltrain and the california highspeed rail the peninsula will be more connected than ever. Please approve the submission on the ballot of the sales tax with no additional amendments or the government provisions or requirements to support the sustained Caltrain Service. Thank you, board, for your time. Clerk thank you for your testimony. We have 2 22 listeners and Seven Members in the queue. Please unmute the next caller. Caller hello. Hello, supervisors. This is jayward cristobal. I oppose this tax. I cant believe that you people are putting this on the ballot. Not a penny for muni and not a penny for caltrain. I cant believe that you think that you can manage caltrain when you cant even get buses running here in the city. When theres no Subway Service in this city. You are going to manage caltrain . What a joke. Muni is corrupt and caltrain is corrupt. You want to dump more money into a black hole that is caltrain . Make it go bankrupt. I cant wait for the voters to vote on this. When theres so much unemployment in the city. When the people that are going to pay the tax are seniors, disabled and poor folks. We cant afford this tax. Vote no. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments. Next caller, please. Caller hello. My name is cliff barger and i live in patrero hill. And i have been a daily caltrain commuter for 5. 5 years and i strongly support placing this measure on the ballot. And i strongly support the governance reform. I would like to echo the comments of supervisor peskin earlier, but i also agree that maybe even something as bold as merging the existing j. P. B. Into the bart district is something to aspire to. But i would encourage you to reconsider placing this tax measure on the ballot with the current restrictions because its not clear that its legal. And im worried that it will not pass all three counties and that even if it does, that it will get sued and we may not end up seeing the tax revenue. So i want to reiterate that i really appreciate the work of all of the members of the board of supervisors who brought this forward, both to ensure that caltrain has Stable Funding and to ensure that the governance reform moves forward. But its not clear to me that this is an appropriate vehicle for showing they have it in tandem. Thank you. Clerk thank you. We have 21 listeners and six members of the public in the queue. Next caller, please. Welcome, caller. You have up to two minutes. Hello, caller, are you there . Caller hi there, this is vela selby from the San Francisco transit riders, first of all. Im a cochair of this 10yearold organization which you supervisors have supported, and i thank you for that. Im also one of the founding members of voices for Public Transportation. And i tell you that to emphasize the fact that we have worked for two years to get politicians to understand that there are actions to regressive tax measures. And that we can give you the papers to show it. We if covid hadnt happened on s. B. 278, we would have a solution that would be larger than what were talking about today, but with a progressive and not a regressive tax source. Im also the other thing that i am and everybody has spoken very eloquently on why this may not be a bad idea what were doing here, and such a good idea of what were doing here in San Francisco. Im a mother with a son in san mateo. My son does not have a car. I do not have a car. And so what youre contemplating today is potentially the risk of taking away my ability and my sons ability to get up and down the peninsula. Of course this is larger than us. Its called Climate Change. And the thought of not having an ability to get up and down the peninsula in a way that does not create tremendous congestion and pollution is terrifying to me. And i sincerely hope that we can figure out a way to get the the sales tax, which i dont support as a sales tax, but i support in the sense that we need something to keep caltrain going, without potentially the other parts of it like the governance that i completely agree that governance changes are necessary. I do not see the need to link the two. And i think that this can be done without the link. I want to thank in particular supervisor haney. One of my issues with San Francisco is the attempt to get things done without allowing the public to weigh in on them. If not for supervisor haney clerk thank you for your comments. Caller hello. My name is sam. And i live in oakland. And im calling in because caltrain is an integral and essential part of our regional Transportation System. The decisions that youre making on it will have consequences far beyond San Francisco. Our cal train people across the region will be cut off from large sections of the bay area. So its been very frustrating in that light to watch this process play out because it has felt like transit riders have been an afterthought in the process. But the priority has been who is in charge of caltrain. The more we serve is going to depend on caltrain in the future. Transit riders seem to be an afterthought. Youre putting forward a ballot measure with dubious language putting money into an escrow. Its not just me saying that its legally dubious. The people who wrote the bill, authorizing this ballot measure, have also said that this is legally dubious. They do not think that what you are proposing is legally sound. This puts a giant target on the back of this ballot measure, and revenue that we depend on to keep caltrain operating, to implement fairer programs that will make it more accessible to lower income riders. While putting a target on the back of that necessary revenues by structuring this in a legally dubious way. Have you asked the City Attorney to weigh in on whether that provision is legal . I know that weve been asking the council in san mateo count tow weigh in on that. I havent seen a verdict on that. I urge you to put this measure on the ballot in a way that is clean and that it can pass and it will not put a legal target on its back for the average taxpayers, to deny us the revenue that we desperately need. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, please unmute the next caller. Welcome, you have up to two minutes. Caller hello. My name is simon. And i live in San Francisco. Im a frequent bart and muni and caltrain rider and i live in district 8 and i have relatives in mountainview. I ask to support this measure. Sales taxes are the worst way to fund transit. And we shouldnt charge poor people to fund transit that does benefit higher income riders. I dont have an opinion on the governance, but they should make sure that the funds are not in jeopardy if theres a legal challenge. I ask for support because if caltrain were to go away that would be disastrous. Caltrain does serve people and if caltrain went away so much traffic would be added to our space when theyre already choked as it is. It would create pollution when the problem with Climate Change has not gone away and its getting worse. I wanted to address a really kind of misleading Public Comments. People dont get mad at caltrain because theres far more riders on bart and muni. Therefore, caltrain would have fewer complaints. And caltrain has terrorized lowincome riders with their own Police Department because theres not as many lowincome riders on caltrain. Its laughable for anyone to say that the San Francisco governance is corrupt because caltrain is more reliable than muni and bart. Caltrain is one line. Bart manages six. Muni manages 60. So its misleading to say that the government is problematic. One idea about funding, how about Tax Companies to run the shuttles and fund caltrain . If tech people are the ones riding caltrain, then, you know, have the companies that make them commute down to the valley from San Francisco, charge them to fund caltrain. Thank you so much. Clerk thank you for your testimony. Operations, next caller, please. Welcome, youll have two minut minutes. Caller hi, i am pete brown and i live in San Francisco. Im calling to support the measure to put the sales tax on the ballot. Like so many speakers, i understand that theres problems with sales taxes but i think that it is important to support caltrain. And i would like to say that i think that the communication on the issues around caltrain has been terrible. Specifically coming from supervisors walton and peskin. There has been very poor communication to those of us in San Francisco about what is going on with caltrain. And the fact that supervisor peskin has just today introduced this issue at the caltrain land is an example of how poor the communication has been around these issues. And i think that the governance issues have been explained adequately to people in San Francisco. And with better communication i feel that the sales tax would be defeated because san franciscans are going to be frustrated and confused by all of the issues with caltrain and theyre going to throw up their hands indiscernible . So i urge the board to try and to improve the communication around these issues before the voters go to the polls in november. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your testimony. Operations, next caller, please. Youll have up to two minutes. Welcome, caller. Okay, operations, perhaps the next caller. Well circle back to that individual. Operations, can you give us a report, please . Caller good afternoon, am i audible . Clerk yes, sir, we can hear you. Welcome. You will have up to two minutes. Caller thank you. Yeah, new name is adrian grant, a lifelong caltrain user and i started riding when it was southern pacific in the 1970s. I just wanted to touch on a point that an earlier caller made. Theres nothing duplessis about the fact that caltrain was in the middle of a 2 billion system and electricification and the sb797 was going to be the first and only as many have said sources of revenue, recurring dedicated revenue. And prior to covid, it was going to allow the doubling of service and transition to a real regional bartlike rail service. Now what were doing now is were in a covid unforeseen covid pandemic crisis. And were literally on life support at caltrain. And i say we because im on the Advisory Committee but im not speaking for that committee. But we are in we are literally on life support with the cares act funding and like any other Transit Agency and that is going to run out. That will run out in the fall if there isnt more. And if there is more, it wont be much more. So what we have is a fiscal cliff. And the potential shutdown or decimation of service around that timeframe. So if this measure, you know, the governance question is a good one to have, its a good discussion to have. Not opposed to that. But bilinging i but by linking e ballot measure at the 11th hour, sb797 is simple. Im not a lawyer but its very easy to understand. These conditions will very likely open it up to a lawsuit. And it will also undermine the support among many supporters. The polling shows that were right on the bubble with a twothirds majority. Anything like these measures or anything that imperils in the courts later such as we had the bridge hung up in the courts clerk thank you. Thank you for your call. Thank you for your comments, sir. Is there another caller in the queue . Caller can you hear me . Clerk yes, we can. Welcome. Caller thank you. Regina, district 3, i am a person who has family and friends all along the peninsula. I have been riding caltrain for approximately 30 years. And i dont own a car, that is an affirmative choice. And this is an extremely important measure. We know that. We need a clean ballot measure. I have to agree with some previous callers that it shouldnt be linked to the governance issue. I would like to see it separated. But it is important to have a clean ballot measure in plain simple language put in front of the voters. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your testimony. We have 21 listeners and six members of the public in the queue. If youre interested in getting in the queue, please press star 3. Otherwise well take this group to the end. Okay, operations, please unmute the caller. Welcome. Caller hi. My name is jonathan new. And i think that it is critical indiscernible and tens of thousands of indiscernible please put a clean measure on the ballot and this should not be linked to the governance issue. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your testimony, sir. Next caller, please. Caller good afternoon. My name is ian griffith. Im the policy director of the seamless bay area, an Advocacy Group that supports an equitable Transit System and a district 8 resident of over 10 years. And i want to thank all of the supervisors for coming together to try to revive this measure and to try to Work Together to find a solution to put this on the ballot. I strongly support the conversation about governance and we as an organization think that the governance fixing governance is essential to creating a better, more equitable system that works for riders. However, the governance issues that have brow brought up and attached to this ballot measure dont have anything to do with riders. And for that reason, i urge you to pass a clean, winnable ballot measure. I am really nervous about the prospect of this not getting approved, not actually making it to voters, either because its seen to not be legal or because voters find it too confusing. And i worry about the fact that it wont be able to fund the important equity provisions that so many prior callers have spoken to by creating all of these restrictions around how the funds get used. Im a transit professional. And i have been in this industry for over 10 years and i can barely understand all of these complicated amendments. Hard for me to follow and i read 797 its very clear and i think that voters view it as clear as well. Poor governance has held our Transit System back for too long. But these conversations are finally happening at a regional level where theres a real momentum. Theres local, regional and state leaders like never before that are saying its time for these reforms. So we dont need to connect it to this ballot measure. Its going to happen and we welcome working with you to make sure that it happens and supporting the existing champions that we have for that. So lets not connect it unnecessarily to this ballot measure and risk losing caltrain. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments. Next caller, please. Welcome, caller. You will have up to two minutes. Caller hello, my name is simon sam and im a San Francisco resident for over 20 years, district 4. I dont need to rehash on the pros and cons of the governance reform more generally. I would like to emphasize that we need caltrain to survive. We know how important transit is in the area and how bad the congestion would get. And also if you look at the public outrage is loud right now, imagine how loud it would get if caltrain collapses, because we couldnt get past the quibbles between the local jurisdictions. Create a resolution that has the best chance of passing because this is a time for the room to do this. And, you know, without any nonessential things that could be put in later. So, thank you. Clerk thank you for your testimony. Operations, next caller, please. Caller wow, thank you for having me on tonight. This is jill conslar and im a big fan of public transit, and indiscernible and its great to be on the call. Its great to see supervisor haney and its great to be back here to ask you to please pass a clean measure to pass the voters in november. And indiscernible and this is something that indiscernible im also for the indiscernible and i support everything that was said. The reason that i support is because indiscernible to have caltrain with bart, because it is really, really i want you to consider this i am grateful for the leadership on this and i indiscernible matt haneys leadership indiscernible to ride caltrain. So i want to thank you for your awesome leadership and president yee as well for putting this measure forth. Thank you for your leadership and i wish you all the very be best. Clerk thank you for your testimony. Thank you for your testimony. Operations, please unmute the next caller. Caller ing any of, supervisors good evening, supervisors and board clerk. My name is mike chen and im a San Francisco resident of district 2. Im speaking in favor of the sales tax measure. If possible, a measure without preconditions. As many callers said before, i think that there were questions of legality that have not been fully resolved. And the best bill that has the best chance to survive the legal scrutiny is a bill without conditions. Barring that, a bill with some clauses that such if the preconditions are struck down, that the measure can still move forward in some way, shape or form, would be prudent. And, you know, what i would like to say is that i think theyre frustrated of dealing with cities and towns who are attracting a lot of jobs and not building the housing to house a lot of these people. And, therefore, a lot of that housing demand, you know, is to the east bay and San Francisco and san jose. And one remedy from the city is to try to encourage, force, cities to do transit or into development. We need caltrain to be running. We cannot, you know, have any partial shutdowns, that would reduce the service. In order for places like cities like them to do development. I hope that you take that into consideration when you do this. Thank you very much. Clerk thank you for your testimony. Operations, next caller, please. Caller good evening, supervisors. Thank you for your time tonight. My name is jordan grimes. Im a san mateo resident and a life long rider of caltrains and growing up my family didnt have a lot of money so caltrain was a lifeline for us. While it was more expensive than it should be, it was still less expensive than owning a car. Im never a supporter of sales taxes but, unfortunately, were in a place that this is the only way to save caltrain so i support this. And i urge you to as well. And im a strong supporter of governance reform and i think that what youll find is that theres a great number of people in San Mateo County who are residents who support the governance reform. Particularly around the credible housing policy. Additionally, i just say that i and many others want samtrans that we love to have its own dedicated staff and resources. San mateo county bus drivers and riders deserve to have that system. However, the issue here is sb797. Its deeply concerning to me that the board is pursuing a resolution with language here that is not legal under 797. Surprising that theres no discussion thus far tonight whether the motion would be legally compliant. And im curious as to why that is. And in summation i urge to you pass a clean resolution and move to pursue comprehensive government reform at the bill level. I and many others will be there to join you in strong support should you choose to do so. Thank you so much for your time tonight. Clerk thank you for your testimony. Theres 20 listeners and five members of the public in the queue. Next caller, please. Welcome, caller. You will have up to two minutes. Caller hi. My name is dell hines and im from the east bay transit riders. Im i wani. To say that you should put up with the sales tax. please stand by if caltrain does get shut down, otherwise we should get the measure on the ballot as soon as possible. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your testimony. Next speaker, please. Hello, caller . Hi, there. I live in bell mirr. Im a commuter. Im not going to rehash it, but a perfect example, the agency is becoming the politicians lost the forest through the trees. Instructing the sales tax to change the dynamic reasonable control over caltrain holds them hostage. It makes pawns out of the riders to travel. But not orphaned by plague. Caltrain works. Its a Commuter Service on which millions of riders rely. Being impacted by a caltrain shutdown. Amnesty environment further clog our freeways which are shared by the county. Thats to the platform which many of the politicians were elected and i cant call it anything other than progressive. There is surely a conversation had about governance. Its not perfect and had problems for a long time, but now is not the time to have that conversation. More than anything, it distinguishes as leaders, matter of course from those who support them as matters of principle. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your testimony. Next. Hi there, good evening, board of supervisors. I live in district 2. Im calling as a Community Advocate for chinatown and north beach as well as the richmond and sunset districts. Im a member of the Asian Pacific islander council. I encourage you and hope youll work out all the prementioned bugs and get this on the ballot. Members of the residents depend on caltrain to get to work and school precovid. Please pass it cleanly. They depend on the peninsula in south bay. There is no other means for them to get there. It will be a hardship and the riders really depend on the route. No one owns a car that im talking about. Many are lowincome. So they do not have a car. So as complicated as this measure would be, the result of not having caltrain operate would make their lives even more complicated for many thousands. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. There are 17 listeners and two members of the public in the queue. This is the last call. If youre interested in speaking, press star 3. Were taking this group to the end. Next caller, please. Hello . Welcome. Hi. So my name im the chair for couper tino. Were the only prohousing and protransit organization that exists in our city. Weve definitely gotten a bit of a reputation over the years, thats for sure. I just wanted to stay being from Santa Clara County, i share a lot of the governance concern, but my biggest worry is that if we focus on governance right now during a global catastrophe, then there might not be a caltrain left to govern. And at that point the forums arent useful. Its about priorities and making sure caltrain stays alive. I know personally in areas like my own, transit is not heavily valued or housing. So im going to try 0 my best to take sure it does well at the ballot box. I ask that you get it on the ballot, too, in the cleanest way possible. I want to express my gratefulness im grateful for supervisor haney for bringing this item up as well. Thats all i have to say, thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Operations, next caller, please. Good evening, supervisors. Calvin quick, insurance officer with the San Francisco youth commission, i represent district 5. I have im not going to be [inaudible] like many other people have concerns, share concerns with members of the board expressed about this being a sales tax, about the governance issues with caltrain. These are all valid concerns, but shaping the deadlines for getting a measure onto the ballot, facing the deadlines, we need to do the cleanest way possible of just making sure that caltrain stays operational while we continue to hash out the issues around funding and governance. And it seems now that san matteo is saying theyre not going to accept San Franciscos plan and yes, that may be a problematic stance to take, but to be honest, thats what we did a few weeks ago. So at some point, someone has to rise above the fray. We have to we are going to, you know, continue these discussions along the road and opportunities to resolve some of these issues at the state level. That there are openings for the discussion there. So i, you know, echo what everyone else is saying about please pass this as a clean funding measure and then we continue to have all these discussions now and Going Forward to resolve these issues. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Operations, is there another caller, please . Hi, my name is kevin burke. I live in the mission. I would like to urge you put a clean measure on the ballot. The city would turn into a punching bag for the taxpayer association. I would not like the city to turn into a punching bag for the taxpayer association. So i urge you to put a clean bill on the November Ballot. Thanks very much. Thats all i have to say. Thank you for your testimony. Operations, next caller, please . Yes. Good afternoon good evening now. I have spent many, many hours sitting in the taxi line waiting for passengers to come off the train. Id have to say that an 8 sales tax i could afford when i buy my food or my gas in the city doing my business. I urge you to allow this to happen. I notice that the m. T. A. Board actually took this agenda item off its calendar the last meeting. But i tell you, though, they talk about this and i think we need to have more representation at the table. And i think that you need to figure out how San Francisco can, because to say that the peninsula provides more riders than San Francisco, i dont think so. There are a lot of people that live in San Francisco, go down the peninsula to work. Especially you see it during commute times. So i think that it does need more seats at the table, but i urge you to put this on the November Ballot. Thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony. Operations . Next caller, please. That completes the queue. Thank you, mr. President. President yee thank you. I want to thank the public for their comments. I will say Public Comment is now closed. Supervisor fewer, after we got started with Public Comments, im sorry if you wanted to say thing before that, would you like to go ahead and take the floor . Supervisor fewer yes. So, president yee, thank you very much. I had a couple of questions. I had asked i met with caltrain and asked them about their rider demographic and they didnt share it with me, but i was looking at a 2019 study, a survey done. Its extensive about the ridership of caltrain. I just have to say this is a regressive tax. When we look at by their own survey who the ridership is, it does seem this is much more affluent, 85 of them are speak english very well. Most are fulltime employed. I just am wondering i mean i know governance is a big issue, but this is a regressive tax. This is a time where i think that people are really struggling. And so i just wanted to ask, first, also, i want to thank supervisor walton supervisors walton and peskin for standing up for the people of San Francisco around this governance issue. When i first came on the board, it was an issue then. People talked about it. We had a representative that we put there who thought it was tough and she couldnt do it. And i just think governance is really important, especially because this is a recesssive tax. Because i look at who the ridership is and because, we in San Francisco, should have more of a voice in the governance of what is happening. And i do think that if you attempted which ive heard our representatives have attempted to breach this conversation repeatedly before the caltrain board and not getting responses or actually any action, you know, i just want to say that i get that people depend on it. And i get that caltrain says its important to the regional economy of San Francisco. But to more of the fact that San Francisco has had limited governance over this is completely ridiculous. Especially now when there is going to be a tax that is placed on the ballot that is a recesssive tax, that it is regressive tax, i mean. That it is taxing amongst the poorest people, not the riders of caltrain. I just wanted to know, what are some of these equity measures that you think should be actually promoted . And why hasnt caltrain done it . And why are they so dependent on the weekday commuter when i look at who is really commuting on the weekend, or not during rush hour. Or looking at the demographic. Why isnt there more of emphasis if people are saying this service is so important to riders, why is the rider demographic like this . When we see that over 26 of 250,000 or more annually . Through the chair. Thank you so much, supervisor fewer. One of my Major Concerns upon serving on the j. P. B. , obviously was the lack of diversity of ridership, not just because of ethnicity or race, but also because of economics and how much people make that ride caltrain. We did fight for making sure that in the language for the ballot measure that we also were going to address making sure that fares are more equitable, more opportunity for folks with lower income to be able to ride on the rail system. There is lots of conversation about what we need to do to make the rail system more equitable. And we are participating in those conversations, but by no means can i say that the ridership of caltrain looks like it should represent the diversity of the bay area. I believe with us having a hand in governance and leadership in the rail system, those changes that we want to happen, because we have dedicated folks who are willing to serve to make that happen and push the envelope, i think they will happen. But they wont happen without us being able to have a bigger say in how things happen with the railroad. Supervisor fewer thank you. Supervisor peskin thank you, president yee. I really want to thank supervisor fewer for really asking the questions of our time on a day where this board of supervisors has advanced to the San Francisco ballot a c. E. O. Tax, a gross receipts tax that is making the tech industry, the richest corporations in our society, pay their fair share. And look, caltrain as i said earlier, takes thousands of cars off the road, benefits the environment, but as you just said, supervisor fewer, serves a very affluent clientele, which is absolutely fine, but what senate bill 797 actually set forth, the false truth that it set forth, which is the one that were grappling with, the one that santa clara will grapple with, was in essence a false choice. It is going to be an affluent railroad, then perhaps they should pay for it. If it is going to be what Public Transportation usually is, which is the great equalizer, then perhaps a regressive tax makes sense because everybody can use it. But the reality is, that it is only on the eve of this discussion that supervisor walton in his incarnation as commissioner walton on the joint powers board, has finally gotten caltrain to do the kind of equity measures that are commonplace in cities like San Francisco with muni, relative to youth, seniors, lowincome individuals. That has never been part of caltrains thinking. In large part because of the Structural Dynamics relative to the three counties. So i hear this argument that we heard during Public Comment about the quote, unquote, clean, conditioned. You want to know what . I have to say this for the record. Their notion of clean is my notion of dirty. Supervisor fewer thank you. Mr. President , if i may continue . I just also wanted to say that i think that it is the voice of the these large cities, these large urban cities like San Francisco and also san jose that actually will bring the voice of equity. I think i get that riders are saying its really important, we need it to pass. I get that their livelihood depends on this Transportation System, which i think is super important regionally also. Were right, were taking cars off the road. You know, i think that there is more connectivity and i get that people use it, but then i also get that its not for everyone and its not open and its not inclusive of all of our communities. And it is a public Transportation System, it is imperative on us as 11 legislators in San Francisco to stand up for everyone. Not just the people who can afford to ride caltrain and that is working very well for them. It has to work for a larger population. So i understand it, you know, minimally compared, i think to you are all so entrenched in it, but i just want to say thank you. I think i didnt fully understand it. And i had a conversation with caltrain. I had a conversation with other people and i think i understand it a little more. I understand your hesitancy in the beginning. And i understand how important that voice is. And San Francisco sometimes stands alone with that voice n that voice, but we have to remember we represent everyone here. We represent the 4 of africanamerican the ridership which is 4 africanamerican compared to the 40 almost 50 that are white riders. We represent all of them. So i just wanted to say, thank you for standing up for san franciscans. And i, you know, i think it will be probably in the hands of the voters. And its going to be a tough measure to pass. And i think that everyone is going to have get on board if they want to get it passed. So youre right, we have a lot of revenue measures on the ballot because were in a recession. Out of the tax measures are the livelihood for San Francisco. I know the Transportation System is important, but where you live in San Francisco is also super important. We lay off people and people are losing their jobs and we cant deliver City Services because were going to have a 1. 7 billion deficit. So anyway, i just want to thank you for having this conversation and bringing it to the public, but also bringing it to the board for us to discuss. Thanks. President yee so there is a lot of tough issues that you brought up, supervisor fewer and im pretty sure all of us are thinking about how to balance this off. But one i wanted to see the m. T. A. , jonathan regehrs, if hes still available, because what we did need to talk about is this particular tax measure, if it passes, how does it benefit m. T. A. . Can you just briefly, you know, let us know so we can better understand this. Sure, president yee, supervisors, i will give just a very brief presentation. Im sharing the screen. Hopefully you can all see. Just covering that question. The member contribution that we of San Francisco make to the caltrain budget and kind of its impact with regard to the m. T. A. Specifically and muni service. Just as brought up throughout todays hearing, through the joint Powers Agreement, San Francisco does provide a capital cost and capital contribution to caltrain through the proposition k sales tax as director chang brought up. The operating costs, though, or the operating budget of caltrain, that contribution comes directly from the sfmta budget. It comes from the same source of funds we use here in San Francisco to cover muni service, parking and Traffic Services here in San Francisco. Heres just quickly to the right, youll see what the contribution has been over the past few years. Back to fiscal year 18, 6 million, 7 million, 8 million. The contribution is proportional based on, one, the total operating budget of caltrain, so essentially their proposal for service. And the percentage, which is 27 that San Francisco provides for the total. The numbers im going to give you now are based on caltrain preliminary proposal for a 70Train Service. We had budgeted at the m. T. A. For fiscal year 21, you see in purple, about 9. 1 million for the contributions to caltrain. However, their deficit after the cares act required the contribution if this budget is maintained and finally approved, a contribution of 14 million. So that would be an additional 5 million from the m. T. A. Budget that we had not accounted for and in that situation, we have to make choices about what services we can provide and make reductions elsewhere within the agency to cover our contributions. President yee i dont want to go through the whole thing. If the sales tax were put on the ballot and were to pass, do we still continue making this contribution, 9 million or 14 million . This is the last slide. So the last slide covers the impact of the legislation as proposed. So if the legislation were to pass, the bill were to proceed as proposed today, it would essentially remove that additional requirement for us to provide an extra 5 million, that means that reduction we would have to make at the m. T. A. Goes away. It would also reduce our contribution overall, again, if caltrains budget stays the same to 3 million next year, which would add 3 million to the m. T. A. And muni budget which we could use for additional Transit Services here in San Francisco. This is all based on the fact that if there were no additional federal funds, this would be the result. President yee thank you. This is really helpful for me, anyway, to understand that its not only about helping bail out caltrain, but also there is a benefit to our residents in San Francisco who actually take m. T. A. Or muni. Okay. So, supervisor peskin, again . Supervisor peskin so let me just ask you a few numbers. Precovid, how many human beings use muni every day approximately . We have about 700,000 boardings per day. Supervisor peskin and during covid, like today, or approximately today, how many human beings use muni now . Director tumlin is here with me, but i believe were in the 160s of of right now. As of right now. Supervisor peskin and how many bus and other lines, light rail, cable cars total did muni have precovid . Oh, in total, i know were i dont know. Jeff, im going to need help with this, but i know as of right now, the Current Service plan shows us holding back on those. Supervisor peskin you have 57 bus lines. Yes, thank you. Supervisor peskin and weve gotten rid of cable cars. Weve gotten rid of our fixed rail systems, right . And you cited a number for caltrain of 70 trains per day, is that what you said . Their Current Service plan calls for a 70train per day operation. Supervisor peskin and what was their precovid trains per day . I must review my notes. Supervisor peskin i think the answer is 92. You could be correct. It might be a little more than that, but yes. Supervisor peskin ill let you review your notes. Mr. Tumlin, if you would like to jump in . The point im trying to make. Id like to do it based on facts, is that muni delivers a population that is a largely working class lowincome population. Caltrain works undeniably does incredible work relative to reducing Greenhouse Gas emission, relative to delivering approximately precovid 63, 65,000 people in a northbound and southbound direction in almost equal amounts, albeit 15,000 of them originate in San Francisco county, went from, i believe, 63 to 65,000 to about 3500 to 4300 a day. Reduce their daily runs from 92 to 70 whereas in San Francisco, we made the very difficult decision, the imperative decision that were all suffering from, because all our constituents cant get to their essential jobs. We chose amongst our children. We went from more than 57 because the number is 57 bus lines, were not including light rail, or cable cars, that by the way my constituents use to get to work. We all have to share the pain here, brothers and sisters. And how ive said enough. Mr. Tumlin . Yes, sir . Was president yee was there a question . I was asking him about the comparative numbers of the sfmta versus the comparative number of caltrain before and during covid19. I can confirm your 92 Train Service number. You are correct. Which is the equivalent number of runs per day as many of the sfmta muni lines that we have been forced to eliminate during the covid period. Supervisor peskin thank you for that summation, mr. Tumlin. President yee any other questions, comments before we get a second on the motion to amend . Okay. On just the motion to amend supervisor walton president yee, if i may. Pushing a of course, is something i see as a last resort. I just want all of my colleagues to realize the reason why i am supporting this is because president yee supervisor walton, your volume is not very loud. Supervisor walton is this better . President yee little bit. Supervisor walton hmm. What about this . President yee yeah, yeah. Supervisor walton sorry about that. I was just saying that its not ideal and one of the reasons why i am supportive of this is because of the possibility and what we can envision for the region if we, one, get a dedicated revenue stream, but, of course, we would have to have a voice that provides opportunity to ensure that ridership is diverse, that are opportunities for us to make the rail system equitable. I want to dispel a couple of myths. One, this measure is not something that happened as a result of covid19. I think there is a narrative out there saying this measure came about to save the rail system through covid19. So weve been talking about this for well over a year about a dedicated Funding Source for caltrain. We talked about it through a mega measure through online counties and something bigger. We talked about it through 797. But this measure is not a brand new measure in order to bail out caltrain because of covid19. Secondly, the scare tactics that are citing that caltrain will go dark if this measure was not put on the ballot. That is not 100 true as well. There are conversations with state leadership. There is other dedicated Revenue Sources. Particularly if ridership increases during this pandemic. So that scare tactic that san matteo county is using to get people to support something, that would not be good for San Francisco, i just have to make sure we respond to that because that is also not something that is the case. And i just want to say, lastly, caltrain needs to be its own independent rail system, separated from samtrans. It should have its own c. E. O. , own employees and certainly its own legal counsel. That is not the case right now. If were going to be responsible for 80 of tax revenue with Santa Clara County, this is how we achieve equitable voice, by removing caltrain from under samtrans fund. We have attempted to provide a dedicated Revenue Source through this resolution pushing for a tax measure for the November Ballot. The best way to keep caltrain running is for san matteo county to join San Francisco county and Santa Clara County and support this measure on the ballot. When samtrans states and when san matteo county states they want to see a clean measure, what theyre saying is, they want us to allow them to continue to use caltrain resources to subsidize samtrans and even though San Francisco and san [inaudible] president yee you just got cut off. I think hes frozen he was on a roll, though. Supervisor walton what about now . Im back . So i just got off when i said samtrans and san matteo county says they want to see a clean measure, what theyre basically saying is allow us, san matteo county, and samtrans to continue to use caltrain resources to subsidize samtrans and even though theyll be responsible for 80 of the revenue generated from this tax, we should let good ole boy policies and practice continue. That is not good policy for San Francisco. And this resolution will give caltrain what it needs and protect San Franciscos interests, which is our job. President yee thank you, supervisor walton. And thank you all three of you for moving this forward. And if there is no other comments, is there a second for the amendments that supervisor walton had highlighted . Second by supervisor haney. Madame clerk, could you take the roll on the motion to amend . Clerk on the amendment to item 37, supervisor walton aye. Yee aye. Fewer aye. Haney aye. Mandelman aye. Mar aye. Peskin aye. Preston aye. Ronen aye. Safai aye. Stefani aye. There are 11 ayes. President yee so without objection then the motion to amend passes. On the resolution as amen