Transcripts For SFGTV BOS Full Board Of Supervisors 20240712

Good afternoon. And welcome to the september 15th, 2020, regular meeting of the San Francisco board of supervisors. Madam clerk, will you please call the roll. Clerk supervisor fewer . Present. Clerk fewer present. Supervisor haney . Present. Clerk supervisor mandelman . Present. Clerk mandelman present. Clerk p clerk supervisor mar . Present. Clerk supervisor peskin . Present. Clerk supervisor preston . Present. Clerk preston present. Supervisor ronen. Present. Clerk supervisor safai . Present. Clerk safai present. Supervisor stefani . Present. Clerk supervisor walton . Present. Clerk wallton present. And supervisor yee. Present. Clerk yee present. Mr. President , all members are present. Thank you. Please place your right hand over your heart. Mr. You please join me in rerighting the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of america. And to the republic to which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. On behalf of the board, like acknowledge the staff at sfgov tv, who records each of our meetings and make these transcripts available to the public online. Madam clerk, are there any communications . Clerk mr. President , i believe you wanted me to remind you that when the mayor is present, that we begin with the mayor. Thats the communication. Before we do, that i want to make at least a simple comment. I want to in public acknowledge the work that the city, departments and the mayor under the mayors leadership, the Department Heads like rec and park, the department of children, youth and families, director maria sue, who work really hard to work with the community and put what we call the our Community Learning that started up this week and starting to roll out. I believe it helps 60, 80. I dont know remember any more. It really does take leadership and it takes teamwork to get this done. This is not something that we normally do. As you all know, this is what were faced with. We said from the beginning, we will Work Together and get things done. And this is another good example of that. Thank you very much, mayor, breed. So, madam clerk, lets go ahead and go to our special order. Clerk okay. Special order at 2 00 p. M. The appearance by the honorable mayor london n. Breed. There being no questions submitted from the representatives of districts 1, 2, 3 and 4, the mayor may address the board for up to five minutes. President yee okay. So, welcome, madam mayor, mayor breed. Mayor breed thank you. President yee topics submitted by supervisors today. We welcome you to share your remarks. So go ahead. Mayor breed thank you, president yee. And i truly really appreciate your partnership, especially on the Economic Recovery Task force, which you know that well be releasing a report on the work that you all did in october and im really excited about that. Thank you for having me here today. Today i really want to talk about specifically Small Businesses, because its been a hard six months for anyone trying to make a living in San Francisco. But especially for those in our city who keep our storefronts open. It was already very challenging even before covid. This city has not done its part for people to have Small Businesses in the city. They have endured month after month of shutdown and uncertainty, we had to pause our reopening in june, just when we thought we were moving forward. In trying to navigate, keeping their customers happy, their employees paid and their doors open. Weve tried to help when nearly 30 million in funding for paid sick leave, grants and zerointerest loans and our sharedspace program to give them more room to operate safely outdoors. But still its been hard. The good news is over the last few weeks, weve begun to move forward with a number of reopenings for our Small Businesses community. First, our Outdoor Services for personal services and gym. Now this week both are open indoors, because most of us know many of those services cannot even operate outdoors in the first place. We are until conversations with our restaurant owners, because we know that while they have been allowed to open outdoors and for takeout, thats not enough for them to survive. As federal support for Small Businesses drives up, its getting even harder for our businesses, even those that are able to open. Weve never made it easy as a city for Small Businesses to operate. But covid took it to a whole another level. Supervisors, we are lucky. We have not face the challenges these Business Owners have had to face, potentially losing everything that they built. These Business Owners didnt do anything wrong. This crisis is far outside of their control. Now one way we are able to help, we were able to help early was to put in place a commercial eviction moratorium. This prevented our Small Businesses from losing their lease if they couldnt make their rent. As you know, unlike residential leases, commercial leases are ruled by state law. And thanks to an emergency order signed get governor, the state lawing were overridden and we put in commercial evictions at the local level. If the governor does not extend it, thousands of Small Businesses could be put at risk of being evicted. We wont be able to protect them here locally any more. I know Governor Newsom cares about this issue and im hopeful he will extend it or find a way to provide repayment protection so that our Small Businesses are not put at risk. Our Small Businesses need us, our city needs this. And i know supervisor peskin is introducing a resolution today to put this board on record in support of extending the moratorium and im confident that you all share these values of protecting our small Business Owners. We dont know when covid will end, so these protections need to be extended. We cant lose sight of the need to do more. And i really want to thank supervisor fewer, supervisor peskin, and supervisor safai for some of their work early on around Small Businesses. But we have to do more. We cant just keep talking about caring about our Small Businesses and not willing to take risks and make significant policy changes, so that they dont continue to deal with the challenges of the bureaucracy, the layered fees and all of the other issues that they face. The time is now to focus on Real Solutions and thats what will be coming out of my office, which we know that some of the things that weve already done have not necessarily put a debit in the challenges that they continue to have. We have to do more and we have to do more now. Thank you for the opportunity. Clerk muted, mr. President. President yee thank you, madam mayor, for joining us today. This concludes our special order. This item shall be now filed. [gavel] thanks. Have a nice day. Thank you, madam mayor. President yee so, madam clerk, i guess you can continue with the rest of your communications. Clerk thank you. Thank you, mr. President and members. The minutes will reflect that during the covid19 health emergency, members of the board participated in this meeting remotely, through Video Conference to the same extent as though physically present in their legislative chamber. The board recognizes that the Novel Coronavirus has made the need for Public Access more acute and believes it is essential that all communities with and without the internet have the following options to be able to participate remotely in this meeting. We will accept your written correspondence on any subject, making it part of the legislative file. If youre using the u. S. Mail, address the envelope to the San Francisco board of supervisors, city hall, number 1, carlton b. Goodlett, 94102. If sending an email, use the email address bos sfgov. Org. If using your computer, you can access the live stream by going to sfgovtv. Org. If youre watching the cable cast on your television, use channel 26. Please note that theres a bit of a broadcasting delay, so when youre readying to provide the public testimony, make sure the television is turned down. The text phone can be used to listen to the proceedings and provide Public Comment. The telephone number is crawling across the television and it is streaming as well on your computer. Its 415 6550001. When you hear the prompt, enter the meeting i. D. 146 360 9063. Press pound twice. Youll have joined the proceedings as a listener. Make sure youre going to turn down your television when youre ready to provide Public Comment. We have interpreters present at todays meeting. Will the interpreters please introduce yourselves in succession, in language, to let the Community Know that youre here to assist them with their Public Comment. Miss fay, miss agnes and welcome back mr. Cotenza. [speaking spanish] thank you. [speaking foreign language] thank you. [speaking foreign language] clerk mr. Cotenza . Hello. Can you hear me . Clerk yes, were having trouble with your its sort of fading in and out. Oh, really. Okay. Sorry. Let me start from clerk well okay. Very hard. Thank you. Sorry about that. [speaking spanish] thank you, madam clerk. Clerk thank you, all three of you for being here with us today. I think its important to mention what agenda content is eligible for Public Comment today. There are three 3 00 p. M. Special orders slated to begin consecutively at 3 00 p. M. Each has its own public hearing associated with it. For the 66 Mountain Spring avenue appeal, those are items 6467. The proposed project at 3516 through 3526 folsom street project. And for the 178 seacliff avenue appeal of determination of exemption from Environmental Review, item 7275. Once those items are called individually, that is the opportunity for you to make your Public Comment in association with that those appeals. If your intent is to provide testimony during general Public Comment, please wait for item 80 to be called, where you may be able to speak on the approval of the august 7th and august 11th regular Board Meeting minutes, todays mayoral appearance and the items on the subject well, those items that are subject matter jurisdictionrelated to the board, that are not on the agenda and and items 8186. Those items without reference to committee calendar. All other items, items 163 and items 7678 are not eligible for your public testimony today, as each have already had their duly noticed public hearing at committee. After having any access or connection issues, please contact my office. We have a gentleman standing by 415 5545184. And finally, mr. President , pursuant to title ii of the americans with disability act, through a prior arrangement, we have an individual who has requested to make his Public Comment by telephone, when you determine appropriate. That concludes my communication. Thank you. President yee thank you, madam clerk. Before we get started, just a friendly reminder for all of the supervisors to mute your microphones when you are not speaking to avoid audio feedback. So, madam clerk, as you mentioned, theres someone that asked for accommodations. So please have them come forward. Clerk thank you. Operations, are we ready to have the speaker make his Public Comment . Hi, my name is zach. Im a disability advocate and Community Organizer. Thank you for this disability accommodation to speak with you all today. During the past couple of weeks, weve all noticed really poisonous air. And air quality issues relating to the fires along our coast. And i think it is without a doubt very understandably our unhoused, homeless neighbors that are experiencing the worst of this crisis. While i am sheltered in my home, i cant even go outside into my garden without coughing and experiencing major respiratory problems, because of the incredibly poor air quality in our city right now. And yet it is our homeless who are facing the worst of this, because they dont have to place to shelter, they dont have a way to get away from this poisonous air. So far the board of supervisors and mayor breed have limited their access to Hotel Shelters that the governor ordered in the beginning of the covid pandemic. And have increased and continued the removal of peoples tents and equipment that they need to survive. Additionally, in the july issue of the coalition of Homeless People, there was some disturbing information presented about mayor breed making calls to the police chief about Homeless People just existing, one quote says man sleeping on bench on hayes street near go. That was mayor breed at a police chief to william scott. He replied, we are sending a team. Eight minutes after that, she said hes still here, but not sleeping. The police chief said, following up now. And theres dozens of these texts of even our mayor calling our police chief, use our taxpayer money and Police Resources to harass the homeless, who are just existing and trying to survive in our city. Supervisors, especially supervisor walton proposed the karen act to stop racially profiled 911 calls. I think its a step in the right direction. Lets please do the same. Clerk thank you. Mr. President. President yee okay. Thank you. So lets go ahead and go through our Consent Agenda. Madam clerk, can you please call thames 123 together. Clerk mr. President , were you going to take the minutes on now . President yee yes. Clerk thanks for reminding me. I can share them with you. President yee i see it now. So today we are approving the minutes from the august 7th, 2020 and august 11th, 2020, regular meetings of the board of supervisors. Are there any changes to these Meeting Minutes . Seeing none okay, seeing none. Can i have a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Fewer. President yee moved by fewer. Second . Shamann. President yee by supervisor shamann. Okay. So madam clerk, go ahead and please call the roll. Clerk okay. On the minutes, supervisor peskin . Supervisor peskin aye. Clerk supervisor preston . Aye. Clerk preston aye. Supervisor ronen . Supervisor ronen aye. Clerk supervisor safai. Supervisor safai aye. Clerk supervisor stefani . Aye. Clerk supervisor walton. Supervisor walton aye. Clerk supervisor yee. President yee aye. Clerk supervisor fewer. Supervisor fewer aye. Clerk supervisor haney. Supervisor haney aye. Clerk supervisor mandelman. Supervisor mandelman aye. Clerk supervisor mar. Supervisor mar aye. Clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee okay. The minutes will be approved after Public Comment is presented. Okay. Madam clerk now go ahead and call thames 123. Clerk okay. Item 1 the ordinance to authorize pardon me. Yes. The ordinance to authorize well, these are the consent matters. I apologize. Items 123, these items are on consent. They are considered to be routine. If a member objects, an item may be removed and considered separately. I dont have to call them all individually. President yee thank you for remembering that. Colleagues, would anyone like to sever any items from the Consent Agenda . Okay. Seeing no names on the roster, madam clerk, please call the roll on items 123. Clerk on items 123. Supervisor peskin. Supervisor peskin aye. Clerk supervisor preston. Supervisor preston aye. Clerk supervisor ronen. Supervisor ronen aye. Clerk supervisor safai. Supervisor safai aye. Clerk supervisor stefani. Supervisor stefani aye. Clerk supervisor fewer. Supervisor fewer aye. Clerk supervisor haney. Supervisor haney aye. Clerk supervisor mandelman. Supervisor mandelman aye. Clerk and supervisor mar. Supervisor mar aye. Clerk there are 11s ayes. President yee the resolutions are adopted. Unanimously. Madam clerk, lets go to our new business. Please call items 2447. Clerk okay. Items 2447 comprise all matters associated with the fiscal years 20202021 and 20212022. Budget and appropriation ordinance for all city departments and agencies. Item 24 is the budget and appropriation ordinance. I apologize for my dog barking. To appropriate all estimated receipts and expenditures for departments of the city, as of july 31st, 2020, for the fiscal years ending june 30th, 2021 and june 30th, 2022. Item 25 is the annual salary ordinance enumerating positions in the annual budget and appropriation ordinance. For the fiscal years ending jun, 2022. Item 26 is the resolution to approve the fiscal year 20202021 budget of the office of Community Investment and infrastructure. Operating as a Successor Agency to the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and to approve the issuance by ocii of bonds in an aggregate principle amount not to exceed 15. 47 million for the purpose of financing a portion of ocii enforceable obligations. Item 27 is the ordinance to adopt the neighborhood beautification and graffiti Cleanup Fund Tax designation ceiling. For the 2020 tax year. Item 28 is the ordinance appropriating 579. 1 million of proceeds from Revenue Bonds, state loans, grant and wastewater revenues capacity fees and deappropriating and reappropriating 391 Capital Improvement program. Item 29 is the ordinance appropriating 344. 8 million of proceeds from state loans grant funds and water revenues, capacity fees and deand reappropriating water capital appropriation of 14. 4 million and deappropriating 3. 5 million waste Capital Project funding. For fiscal years 20212022. Item 30 is the ordinance appropriating 260. 3 million of proceeds from Revenue Bonds, hetch hetchy revenue. Cap and trade allowance and de and reappropriating approximately 341,000 of fund in the walter power Capital Improvement program for fiscal years 20212022. The ordinance appropriating 4. 3 million clean power s. F. Revenue for the clean power s. F. Capital improvement program. For fiscal years 20202021 at 1. 8 million and for 20212022 at 92. 4 million. Item 32 is the ordinance authorizing the issuance and sale of taxexempt or taxable power Revenue Bonds for various Capital Projects, benefiting the power enterprise in an amount not to exceed 1. 42. 9 million. Item 34 is the ordinance authorizing the issuance and sale of taxexempt or taxable water Revenue Bonds and other forms of indebtedness. For various capital water projects benefiting the water enterprise in an amount not to exceed 347. 1 million. Item 35 is the examiner fee amounts to remove obsolete references and to include postmortem investigation services. Items 36 is the administrative Code Amendment to authorize the department of Administrative Services to improse a fee for reproduction and notary services. Item 37 authorizes the refunding of certificates of participation for multiple Capital Improvement projects, located at 375 laguna honda boulevard. Or for other property as determined by the director of public finance. In an amount not to exceed 97. 5 million. Item 38 is an ordinance to deappropriate approximately 4. 6 million of series 2010 a circumstances of participation, prior reserve funds and appropriating 1. 2 million of refunding certificates of participation series 2020r1. Including deappropriated funds and 97. 5 million of one or more series of refunding certificates of participation proceeds for fiscal year twitters 20202021. A Digital Signature fee and update other fees to current amounts in the county Clerks Office. Item number 40 is a health code amount to set rates for patient Rate Services provided by the department of Public Health for fiscal years 20202021 and 20212022. Item 41 an administrative Code Amendment to suspend the restrictions of expenditure of Funds Available in the budget savings Incentive Fund and to authorize the use of the fund for any purpose related to the citys response to the covid19 pandemic or its economic impact. Item 42 is an approval of the expenditure plan for the department of homelessness and Supportive Housing fund for 20202021 and 20212022. Item 43 is a resolution to concur with the controllers establishment of the Consumer Price index for 2020. And to adjust the assets line tax by the same rate. Item 44 is a resolution to concur with the controllers certification, that Certain Department services can be performed by a private contractor for a lower cost. And similar work performed by city and county employees. Item 45 is a resolution to concur with the controllers certification that Department Services can be performed by a private contractor for a lower cost than similar work performed by city and county employees. Item 46, resolution to authorize the San Francisco Public Library to accept and expand 809,000 grant of inkind gifts, services and cash money from the friends of the San Francisco Public Library for a variety of Public Programs and services, direct support. And item 47 is a resolution to suspend the citys financial policy in administrative code section 10. 61, for fiscal year 20202021 and 20212022 to authorize the city to spend selected nonrecurring revenues described in that policy on reoccurring expenditures. That concludes the budget items. Muir muted, mr. President. President yee thank you very much, madam clerk. And dont worry about the dogs barking. Its not the first barking weve had heard for the budget. [laughter] supervisor fewer will make a few remarks and i will ask others to probably hold off on your remarks on the budget, when its heard next week. Supervisor fewer. Supervisor fewer thank you very much, president yee. Colleagues, this is a budget process in a year that will go down in history. I know it will be permanently etched in my own personal life history. Our city has had to respond to a series of unprecedented challenges, that strained our structures and capacity in a way weve never seen. But through it all, i watched and was humbled that all budget stakeholders responded with professionalism, grace and a commitment to doing the most for the residents of San Francisco. Beginning in march, the city was faced with covid19 and shelterinplace. When the mayor would have been in the midst of proposed developing a proposed budget. We saw escalating and unforeseen costs and uncertainty about reimbursements from the federal government. Weve seen an ongoing economic recession as a result of the pandemic, and major emphasis on city revenues and, of course, an Immediate Impact on the residents of San Francisco, facing economic leadership, particularly for many lowincome communities and communities of color, who were already struggling to make ends meet. In response to the Police Killings of george floyd and others, weve seen calls locally and across the country to shift investments from Law Enforcement to black communities who have experienced disinvestment for decades. The board inherited a budget from the mayor in august that was balanced on a couple of big assumptions. One, that voters approve a ballot measure overhauling our local business taxes and also assumption that the city workers get give back wages, a challenge for the board, given that labor unions had not actually agreed to give back more wages. Moreover, the amount of Community Ask to address immense need during this pandemic and recession was overwhelming. Totally over 400 million. It was a responsibility of the budget and Appropriations Committee to balance all of these needs and develop a budget package that expresses our San Francisco values and shares the best use of taxpayer dollars and prioritizes services and supports for vulnerable san franciscans. To that end, we passed out of committee this 13. 6 billion budget with the board spending plan to serve our most vulnerable residents in the midst of a pandemic and serious economic recession. Investing in the restoration of services, food security, rental assistance, covert response and Racial Equity for communities hardest hit. The Budget Committee passed a standing plan, that includes 52 million in general Fund Resources for rental subsidies, community service, Covid Response, job training, healthservices and more. It included a modest use of the revenues, still leaving over 750 million in our reserves that restores the cuts to our city workers and city services. And emergency relief for nonprofit organizations and workers and Covid Response for hardhit communities. City workers and nonprofits have been on the front lines of the response of covid19, ensuring our communities are fed and continued access to services and worked tirelessly to prevent the spread of covid19 and treated individuals who became sick. We are talking about librarians who stepped up early to staff, the largest nursing home facility was an example in the nation for preventing an outbreak. Our city workers who continue to clean streets, city workers deployed as disaster workers and nonprofit workers who staffed hotel rooms for vulnerable populations, responded to the needs of the community during this unprecedented crisis and continue to do so and staffing our Community Learning hubs. I am immensely appreciative of the work of our City Employees and nonprofit organizations, who are at the core of making our city safe and healthy during this time. And i think the spending plan reflects intention from myself and my colleagues on the board of supervisors to follow through on our funding commitments to these critical partners in the midst of this crisis. I must extend my deep appreciation to all of our partners through this intense budget process. Budget Appropriation Committee members shamann walton, rafael mandelman, Hillary Ronen and president noree nor norman y. City controller Ben Rosenfield and his team with support and responsiveness. Mayor breeds director for her collaboration and direct communication. Our phenomenal budget and elective analysts for their detailed analysts that guided the discussion and the tireless and everprofessional clerk and Clerks Office for keeping us on track and staffing wildly long budget meetings. I would be remissed remiss if i didnt recognize chelsea. For those who are unfamiliar with the word that actually goes on behind the scenes that brings forth the budget, that reflects the needs and priorities of 11 supervisors and hundreds of Community Advocates, allow me to bend your ear for a moment. This process started early, first with chelsea and i feeling extreme anxiety over our role and responsibility of being the chair of the Budget Committee. This happened in about march. I first attempted to get out of it and asked president yee to replace me, which he refused to do. I realized having been on the Budget Committee for the last few years and being a chair last year, our office was the most prepared to take the task on. Thats not to say that we were not terrified that we were not anxietystricken or felt a thousand pounds on our shoulder. We knew it was imminently important that we approach this budget with the same principles that we had last year. To be as inclusive as possible with my colleagues to make sure that voices are heard, especially those in the most vulnerable communities and that we have integrity, transparency and fairness at the forefront. This budget, my colleagues, what happens when the past Committee Organizer finds herself as the trusted it legislative aide of the supervisor that has been appointed chair of the Budget Committee. This meant numerous hours of meetings, with staff of other offices, the mayors budget director and staff, the b. L. A. , the controller and meeting after meeting with Community Advocates and also Holding Workshops on the city budget. It is a result of a Community Organizer who used her skill and knowledge to hold true to a moral compass thats reflected in this budget. Hundreds of hours of work, problemsolving, listening, understanding the nuances and need of communities, the districts and the city. This is the work of my legislative aide chelsea boll ard and i want to congratulate her on this personal accomplishment, which would be exceptional during normal times, but extraordinary during these challenging times. There continues to be unmet need above and beyond what were able to allocate in this budget. Im proud of the work we have done together to finalize a package that reflects the boards and the citys values. In the end, we are one city and our communities need our help now. Lets be bold enough to answer the call. Today the budget and all items inform and introduced at the full board, and according to tradition, should sit for a week before taking action, therefore, i would like to make a motion to continue items number 2447 until next weeks meeting. Second. President yee seconded by supervisor peskin i believe. Thank you, chair fewer. And again, you know, i want to echo your compliments to your chief of staff chelsea. I think everybody would agree. It was her that wanted to keep you on the Budget Committee. [laughter] supervisor fewer thank you. President yee so theres a motion made. Like i said, im sure others will have comments when we actually have the hearing on the budget. But today we have other things. So theres a motion made and seconded to continue items 2447 to our meeting on september 22nd, 2020. So then, madam clerk, could you call the roll on this. Clerk yes, on the motion to continue items 2447 to september 22nd, supervisor peskin. Supervisor peskin aye. Clerk supervisor preston. Supervisor preston aye. Clerk supervisor ronen. Supervisor ronen aye. Clerk supervisor safai. Safai aye. Clerk supervisor stefani. Supervisor stefani aye. Clerk supervisor walton. Supervisor walton aye. Clerk supervisor yee. President yee aye. Clerk supervisor fewer. Supervisor fewer aye. Clerk supervisor haney. Supervisor haney aye. Clerk supervisor mandelman. Supervisor mandelman aye. Clerk supervisor. Supervisor mar . Aye. Clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee okay. Items 2447 are continued to the meeting of tuesday, september 22nd, 2020. [gavel] madam clerk, lets go to the next item. Clerk item 48 is a resolution to approve and authorize the director of the Mayors Office of housing and community development, mohcd, to ek cute documents relating to loans for the acquisition, rehabilitation, or permanent financing of atrisk housing, located at 270 turk street for an approximate loan amount under 232 million. President yee okay. Madam clerk, clerked a call the roll. Clerk supervisor peskin. Supervisor peskin aye. Clerk supervisor preston. Supervisor preston aye. Clerk supervisor ronen. Supervisor ronen aye. Clerk supervisor safai. Supervisor safai aye. Clerk supervisor stefani. Supervisor stefani aye. Clerk supervisor walton. Supervisor walton aye. Clerk supervisor yee. President yee aye. Clerk supervisor fewer. Supervisor fewer aye. Clerk supervisor haney. Supervisor haney aye. Clerk supervisor mandelman. Supervisor mandelman aye. Clerk and supervisor mar. Supervisor mar aye. Clerk there are 11 ayes. Ronen without objection. [gavel] madam clerk, call item number 49. Clerk is a resolution to approve a Municipal Transportation Agency contract for nextgeneration customer information testimonies, with Transportation Systems inc. , to develop, implement and maintain a new realtime vehicle arrival and Service Update systems for muni in an amount not to exceed 89 million for an initial term of six years with two optional fiveyear terms to cover software, subscription and equipment lifecycle maintenance. President yee madam clerk, go ahead and call the roll. [roll call] clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee okay. Resolution is adopted. Clerk item number 50 authorizes the director of property on behalf of the Citys Department of Emergency Management to lease the Real Property located at 1663 Mission Street from speyer and schwartz for approximately 208,000, annual rent with a 3 annual increase over a tenyear period. Anticipated to begin november 1st, 2020 and with documents and with two fiveyear options to extend and to authorize the director of property to execute documents, to make certain modifications and take certain actions and furtherance of this lease and of the resolution and to adopt the appropriate findings. President yee okay. Madam clerk, please call the roll. Clerk on item 50, supervisor peskin. Supervisor peskin aye. Clerk supervisor preston. Aye. Clerk supervisor ronen . Supervisor ronen aye. Clerk supervisor safai. Supervisor safai aye. Clerk supervisor stefani . Supervisor stefani aye. Clerk supervisor walton . Supervisor walton aye. Clerk supervisor yee. President yee aye. Clerk supervisor fewer. Supervisor fewer aye. Clerk supervisor haney. Supervisor haney aye. Clerk supervisor mandelman. Supervisor mandelman aye. Clerk supervisor mar. Supervisor mar aye. Clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee with no objection, the resolution is adopted unanimously. Madam clerk, lets go to item 51. Clerk item 51 a resolution to retroactively authors the department of Public Health to health and expend and expand 488,000 grant if the Health Resources and Services Administration to participate in the ryan white h. I. V. aids program, coronavirus disease response april 1st, 2020 through march 3 3 31st, 2020. President yee madam clerk, please call the roll. Clerk on item 51, supervisor peskin. Supervisor peskin aye. Clerk supervisor preston. Supervisor ronen . Supervisor ronen aye. Clerk supervisor safai. Supervisor safai aye. Clerk supervisor stefani. Supervisor stefani aye. Clerk supervisor walton. Supervisor walton aye. Clerk supervisor yee. President yee aye. Clerk supervisor fewer. Supervisor fewer aye. Clerk supervisor haney. Supervisor haney aye. Clerk supervisor mandelman. Supervisor mandelman aye. Clerk and supervisor mar. Supervisor mar aye. Clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee okay. Without objection, the resolution is adopted unanimously. [gavel] madam clerk, please call items 52 and 53 together. Clerk items 52 and 53 comprise two retroactive amendments to existing Grant Agreements for nutrition programs, item 52 approves the expedited Grant Agreement between the city and selfhelp for the elderly to administer programs and increase the grant amount by approximately 1. 625348 for a total not to exceed an amount of approximately 11. 3 million. And item 53, approves an expedited Grant Agreement to administer nutrition programs and increase the grant amount by approximately 2. 4 million, for a total not to exceed amount of 26. 6 million for both Grant Agreements to commence on july 1st, 2020 and to extend to december 31st, 2020. President yee okay. Madam clerk, please call the roll. Clerk on items 52 and 53. Supervisor peskin. Supervisor peskin aye. Clerk supervisor preston. Supervisor preston aye. Clerk supervisor ronen. Supervisor ronen aye. Clerk supervisor safai. Supervisor safai aye. Clerk supervisor stefani. Supervisor stefani aye. Clerk supervisor walton. Supervisor walton aye. Clerk supervisor yee. President yee aye. Clerk supervisor fewer. Supervisor fewer aye. Clerk supervisor haney. Supervisor haney aye. Clerk supervisor mandelman. Supervisor mandelman aye. Clerk supervisor mar. Supervisor mar aye. Clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee okay. Can you call clerk we called 52 and 53. President yee thats what i thought. Without objection, the resolutions are adopted unanimously. Did i do this right . [gavel] madam clerk, please call the next item. Clerk okay. Item 54 is a resolution to rootively authorize the office of Civic Engagement and immigrant affairs to accept and expand an approximate 259,000 supplementation grant from the california complete count census 2020 to support San Franciscos census outreach, education and motivation campaign focusing on hardtocount communities and populations march 1st, 2019 through december 31st, 2020. President yee supervisor preston. Supervisor preston thank you, president yee. I want to remind everyone that we have 15 days to get everybody who has not yet participated in the census. Im wearing my census button and i just want to put out a challenge to all 11 members of the board. And i want to thank sarah sousa and the work shes been doing as a volunteer on weekends and evenings. And i fully intend to meet that challenge, but i want everybody to use the next 15 days to get everybody to be counted, because we all count. Thank you, president yee. President yee thank you. For reminding us. And supervisor ronen. Supervisor ronen i just wanted to reiterate that were not doing wonderfully as a county compared to the surrounding counties. As a matter of fact, 10 Percentage Points below our surrounding counties in term terms of people participating voluntarily and answering the census. That could equal hundreds of millions of dollars and lower our Political Representation in congress, et cetera. So its essential that we all are doing our parts, you know, weve been working with all of the food lions in our district that they had people there with ipads so that theyre able to answer the census right then therand there. Of course, its confidential for ten years for 30 years. For 30 years. It is 30 years. I cant thats my own feedback or if someone else is speaking. But just want to make sure that were all doing that final push in our own districts, because were pretty sadly behind. President yee thank you. Madam clerk, can you please call the roll. Clerk on item 54, supervisor peskin. Supervisor peskin aye. Clerk supervisor preston. Supervisor preston aye. Clerk supervisor ronen. Supervisor ronen aye. Clerk supervisor safai. Supervisor safai aye. Clerk supervisor stefani. Supervisor stefani aye. Clerk supervisor walton. Supervisor walton aye. Clerk supervisor yee. President yee aye. Clerk supervisor fewer. Supervisor fewer aye. Clerk supervisor haney. Supervisor haney aye. Clerk supervisor mandelman. Supervisor mandelman aye. Clerk supervisor mar. Supervisor mar aye. Clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee without objection, the resolution is adopted unanimously. [gavel] please call the next item. Clerk item 55 is a resolution to approve for purposes of the Internal Revenue code section 147 subsection f, the issuance and sale of revenue obligations by the the california Enterprise Development in an amount not to exceed 25 million to finance or refinance the acquisition, construction, renovation, rehabilitation and improvement and or equipping of educational and related facilities to be owned and operated by the california nonprofit Public Benefit corporation, known as the San Francisco friends school. President yee okay. So go ahead and call the roll. Clerk on item 55, supervisor peskin. Supervisor peskin aye. Clerk supervisor preston. Supervisor preston aye. Clerk supervisor ronen. Supervisor ronen aye. Clerk supervisor safai. Supervisor safai aye. Clerk supervisor stefani. Supervisor stefani aye. Clerk supervisor walton. Supervisor walton aye. Clerk supervisor yee. President yee aye. Clerk supervisor fewer. Supervisor fewer aye. Clerk supervisor haney. Supervisor haney aye. Clerk supervisor mandelman. Supervisor mandelman aye. Clerk and supervisor mar. Supervisor mar aye. Clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee without objection, resolution is adopted unanimously. Madam clerk, lets move on to number 56. Clerk item 56 is a resolution to retrofitteddively amended cares act for the housing communithouseopportunite United States department of health and urban development, to expended amount of 118,000 between march 15th 2020 through june 30th, 2023. President yee can you please call the roll. Clerk okay. On item 56, supervisor peskin. Supervisor peskin aye. Clerk supervisor preston. Supervisor preston aye. Clerk supervisor ronen. Supervisor ronen aye. Clerk supervisor safai . Safe aye. Clerk supervisor stefani. Supervisor stefani aye. Clerk supervisor walton. Supervisor walton aye. Clerk supervisor yee. President yee aye. Clerk supervisor fewer. Supervisor fewer aye. Clerk supervisor haney. Supervisor haney aye. Clerk supervisor mandelman. Supervisor mandelman aye. Clerk and supervisor mar. Supervisor mar aye. Clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee okay. Resolution is adopted unanimously. [gavel] madam clerk, number 57. Clerk item 57 is a resolution to declare the intention of the board of supervisors to renew and expand a businessbased Business Improvement district known as the Fishermans Wharf Portside Community benefit district, a multiyear assessment on identified businesses in the district to approve the management district plan and proposed boundaries map to order and set the date and time for a remote public hearing november 17th, 2020 at 3 00 p. M. We have a board of supervisors will convene in the setting as a committee of the whole to approve the form of the public hearing notice and the assessment ballots to direct the preparation of findings and proper notice of the public hearing as required by law. President yee okay, madam clerk, can you call the roll. Clerk on item 57. Miles per hour pes supervisor peskin. Supervisor ronen. Supervisor ronen aye. Clerk supervisor. Supervisor safai . Aye. Clerk supervisor stefani. Supervisor stefani aye. Clerk supervisor walton. Supervisor walton aye. Clerk supervisor yee. President yee aye. Clerk supervisor fewer. Supervisor fewer aye. Clerk supervisor haney. Supervisor haney aye. Clerk Miles Per Hour mandelman. Supervisor mandelman aye. Clerk and supervisor mar. Supervisor mar aye. Clerk there are 11 ayes. Mr. Olson. President yee[ please stand ]. Go ahead and call the roll for items 5860. Supervisor peskin. Aye. Supervisor preston. Aye. Supervisor ronen. Ronen, aye. Supervisor safai. Safai, aye. Supervisor steph . Aye. Supervisor walton, aye. Supervisor yee . Yee, aye. Supervisor fewer . Aye. Supervisor mandelman . Aye. And supervisor moore . All right. There are 11 ayes. Supervisor yee resolutions are adopted unanimously. I know it was three, but i want to go through the next few items before we get to the special order. Madam clerk, call item 61. Clerk a resolution to authorize the sfacc or San Francisco animal care and control to enter into a use agreement with Big Fish Entertainment llc to develop and produce documentary series to be known as live rescue regarding animal Emergency Rescue calls and the animal control officers. And grant all necessary trademark licenses and the exclusive right for one year to traditional and digital networks. President madam clerk, go ahead and call the roll. Peskin, aye. Supervisor preston . An aye. Preston, aye. Supervisor ronen . Aye. Ronen, aye. Supervisor safai . Aye. Safai, aye. Supervisor stefani . Aye. Stefani, aye. Supervisor walton . Aye. Walton, aye. Supervisor yee . Aye. Yee, aye. Supervisor fewer . Aye. Supervisor haney . Haney, aye. Supervisor mandelman . Aye. Mandelman, aye. And supervisor mar . Mar, aye. There are 1 1 ayes. The resolution is adopted unanimously. Madam clerk, item number 62. Clerk motion to appoint Sarah Boudreau to the bicycle advisory committee. Madam clerk, please call the roll. Supervisor peskin. Aye. Supervisor preston . Aye. Supervisor ronen . Aye. Ronen, aye. Supervisor safai . Aye. Safai, aye. Supervisor stefani . An aye. Stefani, aye. Supervisor walton . Aye. Walton, aye. Supervisor yee . Aye. Yee, ai aye. Supervisor fewer . Supervisor haney . Haney, aye. Supervisor mandelman. Aye. Mandelman, aye. And supervisor mar. Aye. Mar, aye. There are 11 ayes. President and the motion is approved unanimously. Please call item 63. A motion to reappoint alan cooper to the commission on the aging advisory council, term ending march 31, 2022 for allen cooper. President go ahead and call the roll. Clerk supervisor peskin . Aye. Clerk peskin, aye. Supervisor preston . Aye. Clerk supervisor ronen . Aye. Clerk supervisor safai. Aye. Clerk supervisor stefani . Aye. Clerk supervisor walton . Aye. Clerk supervisor yee . Aye. Clerk supervisor fewer. Aye. Clerk supervisor haney . Aye. Clerk supervisor mandelman . Aye. Clerk supervisor mar . Aye. Clerk there are 11 ayes. President okay. Without objection, the motion is approved unanimously. Okay. Madam clerk, lets go to the special 3 00 p. M. Special order of the day. 64 through 67. Clerk the appeal of determination exempt for the 66 Mountain Spring avenue project. This hearing is continued from august 25, 2020. Item 64 is the public hearing of persons interested in this determination of exemption from Environmental Review issued as a categorical exemption by the California Environmental quality act. For the Mountain Spring avenue proposed project to demolish an existing twostory, one family house and construct a threestory, Single Family house. Item 65 is the motion to affirm the categorical exemption as dpe determined by the Planning Department. Item 616 the conditionally reversing the categorical exemption. And item 67 is the preparation of findings reversing the categorical exemption determination by the department. President colleagues we have before us an appeal for the proposed project at 66 Mountain Spring avenue. This appeal is related to the Planning Departments determination that the project is categorically exempt from further Environmental Review under the California Environmental quality act. After the hearing the board will vote on whether to affirm or reverse the categorical exemption from Environmental Review under ceqa. Without objection, we will proceed as follows up to 10 minutes for presentation by the appellant for their representative. Two minutes per speaker in support. Up to 10 minutes for presentation from the city departments. Up to 10 minutes from the project sponsor or their representative. Two minutes per speaker in opposition to the p. U. And in support of the project. And finally up to three minutes for rebuttal by the appellant or the representative. Colleagues, are there any objections to proceeding this way . Seeing no objection t public hearing will proceed as indicated and is now open. Colleagues, this appeal is for the property in my district, district 7, and i will reserve my comments for the end of the hearing. Are there anybody else that would like to make any comments . Seeing nobody on the roster, i will now ask the appellant to come forward and present their case. You can have up to 10 minutes. Is it gloria smith . Yes, president yee. Can you see and hear me okay . Supervisor yee yes, we can. Thank you. Tht, president yee and members of the board. I am gloria smith and i am an attorney for the appellants. As you know from our submittals, this appeal is about making sure that the proposed project is safe from potential seismic and landslide impacts. On august 7, the project sponsor opposed this appeal by saying that there had been a site visit that showed no evidence of active slope instability. Dr. Larry carp of u. C. Berkley has expected the entire slope from Mountain Spring avenue down to claritin avenue and he found substantial slope instability in his september 9 report. If the project sponsor missed this, it is highly likely they were simply looking within the project footprint itself rater than the whole area from Mountain Spring avenue down to claritin. And theres no evidence that anyone from d. B. I. Er to Planning Department has gone out and actually inspected this site either. In addition, the project sponsor has claimed, quote, the project will comply with the sfpa during the department of Building Inspections review and will undergo additional review by the Structural Advisory Committee. Appellants find this problematic for several reasons. First, input by the Structural Advisory Committee is only discretionary and its not mandatory under the sfpa so the appellants have no idea whether this will happen or not. Second, slope stability for any new development within San Francisco is the most important use of the citys land use process. We all know San Francisco is prone to earthquakes, fire, drought, and landslides, so human safety is constantly at the forefront for all of us every and the city conducts all the slope analyses after project approval and that is away from public view. We dont believe this is the proper sequence of events to instill confidence within the public and people who live adjacent to and down slope from this project. And as you will hear acutely in a moment, there are to bring to current avenue and the current house has been there since the 1940s. My final point is public agencies must support the exemptions with substantial evidence, but again t city hasnt even looked at the slope stability issue in any substantive way. So therefore, it cant claim there wont be any safety impacts because they havent got on the that step yet. In fact, all the regard is there are slope stability issues. For more specific information on that, i would like to yield the remainder of my time to three residents on claritin avenue that live directly below the project site. And i believe that they have been invited to this team. Ms. Smith, do you know who will be on first . Inits mr. Park. Mr. Theres mr. Park, mr. Jackson, and i am pretty sure its park, but im not quite clear. I think they are all here. Mr. President , we should pause the time of this time has been ticking this entire time. Go ahead and pause it and put back about 20 second i guess. Thank you. Is there any indication that they are able to get on . We are checking the participant list right now, mr. President. Legislative deputy samara, are you familiar with i am here. I am checking. I do not see the names david park. They were not invited on the list. I have for the appellants gloria smith and meg diver. So i dont know where ms. Smith is. Those twr only two names provided to us for the appellant. To clarify, this morning they asked if there would be any additional participants and 10 00 this morning i provided them. I think we can resolve this and reserve my time and i know they are here, so to speak, and when we go to the public session, for those who want to speak in opposition to the project, can we allow them to do that then . I think that is the easiest way to resolve this. They could also speak to support the appeal. That is what i meant. I am happy proceeding that way. Okay. Are you done . I am, thank you. President okay. Thank you. Since she is finished with her comments, lets go to the Public Comments on to speak in support of the appeal. And you have two minutes and if you want to speak please press star and and 3 to be added to the queue. Madam clerk, please call the first speaker. Operations do we have callers in the queue . And 6467 is the appeal of the determination and spring avenue project. And currently four callers in the queue. We will start the first caller. Welcome, caller. Caller all right. When you hear the you have been unmuted, just start speaking. If you are listening to your television, that is a bad practice because you will not be in sync with live Public Comment. Do not listen to your television. Operations, lets come back to this caller. Hello, caller. Welcome. Calle caller i am a neighbor in the neighborhood. Madam clerk we are pausing the speakers time. Hello, sir. We are taking Public Comment right now on behalf of the appeal of the 66 Mountain Spring project. We are going to take 10 minutes for the comment and after that we will take against the project appeal. Press star 3 to go back in line. We should certainly return to you. You will be first on the list hopefully. Okay. He must have followed the instructions. Pressed star 3. Caller i think i am unmuted. Can you hear me . Clerk yes, we can. Hi there. Caller i am frank jackson. My wife and i live at 71 claritin which is south of 66 Mountain Spring. I would like to thank you guys for considering the appeal and i will make a couple of quick comments as someone affected by it. The backyards of 71 and 75 claritin are adjacent to 66 Mountain Spring where the proposed construction is going to take place. And in particular, they are down the hill directly from it. We are down the hill. And it is a very steep hill. You cant stand in our backyard. You cant walk upright in them. Rather, you can only scale them by essentially rock climbing. And all the data from the sfgov. Org which is classified as a landside zone. If this land, should it slide l fall on our home. We have a sheer cliff going up. That website also states that developers in such zones may be required to investigate potential hazards during the local permitting process. Our concern is that this proposed construction could possibly destabilize the hillside. Even without stress of construction, there is a pile of rubble at the base of my hill with good sized rocks and our fear is that the construction could destabilize it further. The existing house there is set back quite a ways from the edge of the slope, but the increase in size and change in location were afraid could further destabilize things. Anyway, my family depends on this house. It is our largest single asset. Very important to us. We urge the board to reverse the exemption and require review so the proper Due Diligence and seismic diligence can be performed. Clerk thank you for your comment. Operations, lets hear from next caller in support of the appeal of the 66 Mountain Spring project. Welcome, caller. Caller im sorry. I am calling for item 68. Okay. Then we are currently hearing items 6467. That would be the next appeal. Dont go too far. Can i put back in queue . Yes. You can just press star 3 and that should put you back into listening mode. Okay. Operations, lets hear from the next caller. Welcome, caller. Caller hello . Clerk welcome. Caller hello. Yes, i am here to urge the denial of the appeal. I believe i need to get back in line. Clerk that is right. Star 3. This is great participation. Thank you. Okay. We will return to you in a moment. Operations, is there another caller in the queue . Who is interested in supporting the appellant . This appeal of 66 Mountain Spring. Caller yes, there is. Clerk welcome. Caller yes, there is someone. Clerk i do support the appeal because i think an Environmental Review should be conducted because it is not stopping the project. Its just saying that a review should be conducted and who know what is the findings will be. I personally dont think there is any reason not to have the review. All right. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, is there another caller to hear from . Who is interested in supporting the appellant. Hello, caller. Hello, caller. You are unmuted. You have the attention of the board of supervisors. I believe i hear your television in the background. Hello. Clerk welcome. Caller thank you. I live in 75 claritin avenue. I agree all the points mr. Jackson made previously here and just to be efficient, i will also talk about the proper demolition and construction of the property at 66 Mountain Spring avenue. It is where my house is already in a very, very steep slope. I want the city to make sure the demolition and construction doesnt have any adverse impact on my familys living quality and our right to live in our property safely, peacefully and comfortably as usual. And especially in a city always prone to earthquake. And secondly, at the experience presently, i use my residence as my office to run my startup company. My two young daughters use their rooms as the elementary and preschool classroom. We use our home as Business Office and small classrooms. I urge the city to consider this reality that any adverse risk may impose on our property potentially due to the demolition and construction will be compounding meaning not just to Family Living but to business as well as education. Thirdly, the proper construction is almost three times as large as the existing house. The sheer size and scale of the necessary demolition should be reduced totally and made smaller given the facts i mention earlier. I would like to point out the current sponsor only provides a simpler, boilerplate report that i can only see as negligence for the neighborhood. And the city should take the necessary excess steps to make sure about the Proper Development plan, too. Lastly, again, as we all say, there are and will be a series of adverse impacts from the climate change. And we have unpresented rainfall or Something Else that can end with the risk of landslide that is of concern and the proper plan is be structurally irrelevant. Thank you. Thank you for your comments, sir. I understand there is one other person in the queue. Operations, lets hear from them. We are currently taking Public Comment on behalf of the appellant for appeal of determination of exemption from Environmental Review for 66 Mountain Spring avenue. If you are in support of the project, we havent yet take than Public Comment. We will in a moment. If you are in line listening, just press star 3 and that will move you into line to speak. Otherwise we will take the next caller. Welcome, caller. Caller hello. Thank you very much for taking my call. I live at 79 claritin avenue. I am a neighbor of mr. Jackson and the parks who just spoke. They actually articulated my concern really well. Basically on the avenue which is down the road from the proposed construction site at 66 we have the same concern. There is a slope but my its almost more like a cliff. You have to climb it, that is how steep it is. I do have a concern that was raised by the previous speakers that the propoeszed construction will negatively impact the security and safety of my backyard in imposing increased safety risk to my property and myself. So i would currently request supervisors to consider the revers reversal of declining the California Environmental quality act and is issued to the pushback to the Planning Department for further diligence in environmental assessment. Thank you very much for taking my call. Clerk thank you for your comments. We understand that there is an individual on the line who we have gone back to three separate times, and they have not had their opportunity to speak. Possible you are not interested in speaking on behalf of the appellant, which is fine. But we just want to unmute your phone one last time to make sure you have access. Operations, can you unmute that caller please. We ole give it a try. Hello, caller. I can hear your television. Please turn it down. You are welcome to provide your comment now. Okay. Hello, caller. All right. Thank you, operations, for helping me have that caller make comments, but perhaps they are not interested, mr. President. I believe does that complete the queue, operations . Yes, madam clerk, that completes the queue. Clerk thank you. Mr. President . President seeing no other speakers for Public Comment in support of the appeal, then Public Comment is now closed. Now we will have up to 10 minutes for representatives of the Planning Department to give a presentation. All right. Is that my queue . President that is your queue. Good afternoon, president yee and board member bs. I am lauren from Planning Department staff. I am here sod with lisa gibson, director of Environmental Planning, and Deborah James and jessica range, principal environmental planner to address the appeal of the categorical exemption for the proposed project at 6 Mountain Spring avenue, and i will go ahead and share my screen actually. I do have a small presentation for you. Okay. On february 12, 2019 can everybody see the screen . The presentation . President yes. On february 12, 2019 the department determined that the project was categorically exempt under California Environmental quality act ceqa under path one which applies to, among other things, the demolition and one Single Family residence and the key consideration under a class one exemption is that the project involve no or negligible expansion of use. The project is expense from ceqa review under a class three categorical assumption that applies to a limited number of small structures including one Single Family residence. In regards to seismic and geotechnical concerns t appellant contends that the department improp properly issued the february 12, 2019 categorical exemption because the developer did not comply with the slope and sliez mick hazard zone protection act. The appellant claims that the project is subject to the ordinance because it contains slopes greater than or equal to 25 sand partially low dated in a state designated land zone to express additional geotechnical concerns from the project. The q3 jooe owe Technical Report does identify that the project may be subject to slope and seismic hazard Protection Zone act. However t official determination of whether or not it applies to the project is made during the Building Departments review of the Building Department which is a process that occurs subsequent to the projects Environmental Review. During the permit review process t Building Department will review the projects plan for performance and the Technical Report and Building Code and determine whether the requirements apply to the project. The projects location on a steep slope and potentially subject to the slope and seismic hazard zone protection act is otoan original circumstance in San Francisco, which has over 40 hills, many of which are developed. The presence of the unusual circumstance alone does not mean they cannot issue a categorical exemption. Rather t appellants must provide substantial evidence there would be a significant Environmental Impact that would occur due to that unusual circumstance. That is not the case here. The Building Department standard in review of the Building Permit application with the state and local building process would not result in Significant Impacts to geological hazards if appellant has not provided any information supported by substantial evidence that the project after conforming to the Building Code environment would result in a Significant Impact. In regard to the aesthetic impact t appellant contends that the project would result in a Significant Impact because the project does not comply with the citys residential Design Guidelines or with the residential design teams recommendation. Contrary to the appellants claim, the requirements of ceqa state that aesthetic impacts of residential in fill projects located in a transit priority area shall not be considered Significant Impacts on the environment and the project site is currently developed and is located within a transit priority area as defined in the ceqa guideline because it is within 1 2 mile of the transit stop. As such, any impact of the proposed residential project cannot be considered a Significant Impact on the environment under ceqa. The Planning Department acknowledges the public system heard today for concerns related to Environmental Issues and either addressed in the appeal response and other comments relate to the merits of the project. They are not concerned with the appeal and the departments response addresses whether the categorical exemption prepared for the project will meet the environments of the California Environmental quality act. In conclusion, the appellant has not demonstrated that the categorical exemption failed to comply with the requirements of ceqa, the ceqa guidelines or chapter 31 of the San Francisco administrative code. Therefore, the Planning Department respectfully recommends that the board uphold the Planning Departments issuance of the categorical exemption and reject the appellants appeal. This concludes the departments presentation. My colleagues from the Planning Department and i are available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. So just curious, what circumstances would Environmental Planning not exempt a Single Family home demolition and rebuilding of a new home . And what would trigger Environmental Planning and seems like there is very few situations where i have seen where they do not exempt this type of situation where a Single Family home with the home to trigger conditions that would trigger not having or not exempting for it to have conditional use, i guess. I would probably defer to one of my senior planners and someone else who may be able to answer that in more detail. I have been with the department for about six months and i am fairly new to these types of processes. If jessica is on. And they should be. What circumstances would Environmental Planning not except a Single Family home and demolition and rebuilding a new home . That is a great question. We look at whether or not any of the exceptions would be met such as whether or not the project would demolish a historic resource, whether or not there are the potential for cumulative impacts and in a significant Environmental Impact to name a few. What about slopability . And as lauren mentioned and with slope stability is slope stability San Francisco is not necessarily an unusual circumstance. There are many project slopes and we have the slope requirement zone which could apply to the project that d. B. I. Review confirm to the Building Code and there would be no significant Environmental Impact that would occur. Isnt that an Environmental Review . We often rely on d. B. I. Review process during the Building Code to ensure that there could be no Significant Impacts. So frame, under is slope and zone act f i am saying that directly. And to with the additional ways to determine what may be a third party and may determine that a Structural Review Committee be performed and under no circumstances are they to have that committee approve a project that has the Significant Impact. On this particular project does not require an additional inspection . Is this something that happens later . You are muted, jessica. My understanding is that can part of the project site is maybe subject to the review process and d. B. I. When they review the project would determine whether or not the project is to comply with that act subsequent to Planning Departments review. And my colleague is here if he can explain more about the d. B. I. Review process. Supervisor yee yes, thank you. And this is deborah dwyer, Planning Department staff. I want to know that the state identified seismic hazard mapping act was instituted in 1990. And as part of that state requirement which this project site would be subject to, the geoTechnical Report actually has to address the landslide hazard and part of d. B. I. Review would be insuring that information is addressed appropriately and to their satisfaction. The steps that jessica mentioned to beef up our look and scrutiny and projects within the zones to have the potential for outside peer review by experts and then if necessary, the Structural Advisory Committee. And the Building Department has the authorization to deny the permits if they are not addressed to their satisfaction. The Building Code relies on the engineer of record. The Structural Engineer and the geotechnical engineer. These are licensed by the state of california and their professional expertise is to acquire the Building Code and insure that whatever foundation is proposed to support the scope of the building that is contemplated and would that there would be appropriate support to insure the safety of that construction. And the Building Code also requires that adjacent structures but this is not the body to address the Building Code requirements. We rely on our colleagues at d. B. I. President if this project was approved, there is still the possibility that what the Building Department would require for mitigation would not be doable . Then the project stops . So t first of all, the abilit to understand the structural calculations and the Engineering Design happens later in the process. The with the area that scrutinizes closely and ensure if it doesnt make sense to them, they will be following up with the Structural Engineer and geotechnical engineer. If it is not if it doesnt make sense and if the measures that are in place is not something that people, that the experts agree would support the structure to an adequate level of safety, then they are not going to approve it. That is my understanding. That is what the Building Code allows for. It awe lous for them to not approve the project. Okay. Supervisor peskin, do you have any other questions . You are muted. Thank you, president yee. I know this is going to sound incendiary, but the reality is we still have Rodrigo Santos who is the Structural Engineer who i just read an article today inmy Mission Local that he is continuing to render advice to d. B. I. But when a project is deemed to be categorically exempt, the underlying concept is that it could have no impact on the environment and indeed, i would pause it since this is in your district that relative to slope stability, the notion to wait for d. B. I. And future reports does not give decision makers, in this Case Planning commission and now on appeal to us, the information that they need to determine that it truly could not have an Environmental Impact. I was on this board of supervisors when we had to settle the lawsuit when they went into chief of police hills backyard and that happened in the district that you now represent. Is this categorically exempt and are there things in the record . And i think you are touching on those things, president yee, relative to whether or not there is a fair argument that there could be slope instability and you are replacing one big house with another big house. This is an issue to whether or not downhill neighbors and property may, may be impacted. That i think is why there is a tolerable argument this is not exempt from the California Environmental quality act from the categorical exemptions. I wanted to make those comments for the record. You are muted, president yee. You are muted. Thank you, supervisor peskin. And these are not necessarily intuitive with what comes first and a project a few years ago that the project went ahead and had to do a geological study before and to remember that and i am curious to wait for a study to happen afterwards and rather than the part of the ceqa process. So i am not asking you to reckon, but are there projects similar to this where they have to do the geological study first . As an environment . So i am asking that of city planning or maybe of deborah. Thank you, president yee. And there is an environment for a geotechnical study and we did have that. And we do preliminary review the study to insure it is prepared by a licensed professional. We are also looking at it and may inform other environmental topics to insure that we do understand the full scope of the project. With the Different Levels of disturbance and soil improvement measures that are things we do want to understand as part of the Environmental Review. The actual engineering review of the geotechnical information as well as any subsequent studies that may be needed to address those hazards and we do rely on regulatory process in place through the with the state and local Building Codes and implementing procedures which have modified and strengthened over the last three or four or five years. The Building Code is premised on the fact fa there is a certain minimal level of life safety provided for all construction. It is not no impact but minimal impact. We are saying less than Significant Impact. Mr. President , that is not true. And as a matter of law, and i say this as somebody who is not a lawyer, no, when its categorically exempt, the notion is that it cannot have any Environmental Impact. What you just said respectfully is actually not true. What you just said is that you did analysis and you came to the conclusion that it did not have an adverse impact. Categorical exemption means no analysis whatsoever. And i am not arguing the instant case, but what you just said which is fabbing lully and legally which is factually and legally incorrect. If i may, mr. President. Yes. I just want to add a little nuance to the legal discussion that we are having. For a categorical exemption, it is not the Planning Department that determines whether or not there is a likelihood of an environmental effect. It is the state legislature that has made that decision. If a project falls within one of the categories that is categorically exempt, the starting assumption that there is no Environmental Impact and the exemption does not apply if an exception applies. The exception that we are talking about here is the significant affect exception and in order for the significant affect exception sorry, the significant effect exception to apply, the Planning Department would have to conclude that there were unusual circumstances and there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment because of those unusual circumstances. And what planning staff is saying is project on a slope is not an unusual circumstance in San Francisco. They have determined the first half of the calculation doesnt apply here and that there is not a reasonable possibility the project will have a significant effect on the environment. In any event, we know a hill is not an unusual circumstance in San Francisco, and therefore, what planning staff, i believe, is explaining to us is that the significant effect exception does not apply here. President okay. That is, i think, helpful. Lets move on. Supervisor peskin . An i will note for the record that her client did not ask her to offer that. But when it comes to slope stability t reason this board and supervisor passed legislation is because those actually are extraordinary circumstances and that is exactly why half the hill ended up in the backyard and exactly why this board has to through the City Attorneys Office with any amount of litigation over slope instability and why this is for whom i have profound respect. Lets move on. And i believe the next part of this would be to provide the sponsor 10 minutes to present their project. That is not a very good connection. Can you hear me now . Yes. Great. Thank you, mr. President. Good afternoon, supervisors. With the 4400 single square foot family home and the construction just a foot taller than the existing building. The project is determined for class one and class three exemptions to allow for the expansion of the home that reasonable doubt need to be resolved and the Legal Standard is different deferential to staff. The appellant said that the project wouz result in a sigh mick or Geo Technical impact. As is the process, a report was prepared for the project during the Planning Departments Environmental Review which did not identify any evidence of slope instability but acknowledged the use of the seismic zone protection act in this scenario. Now, as is the process during d. B. I. Review of the permit, the slope act says a couple of things. It authorizes d. B. I. To bring in Third Party Review and review by the Structural Advisory Committee, so the appellants attorney is we rely on the technical experts and city staff to determine the degree and need of Third Party Review. And the slope act does require site visits and express approval of the structural plan by the fire department, d. P. W. And the Planning Department. And finally, it requires mandatory denial of the permit if d. B. I. And the committee conclude there is a reasonable likelihood that the proposed Structural Design would result in unsafe conditions. This is how we are protected to insure that we know now that its not going to have a Significant Impact because if there is a reasonable possibility of landslide and unsafe conditions, the permit will not be issued. Now, this is the exact purpose of the slope act which was just reviewed by the board with legislation back in 2018. Now, the appellant submitted two letters from their own technical consultant yesterday and both raised concerns about the construction of the slope which is why it applies here and the appropriate Structural Design is determined as a result of the project. Now, what seems to be going on is were trying to reorder the process here. The appellants want a very clear, thorough review of the potential for landslide or other unsafe situation here. And that is exactly what happens during the slope act. This is not the only example where ceqa allows us to rely on applicable law. In San Francisco we have the maher program for sites potentially contaminated with hazardous materials. We say we know d. P. H. Has an ordinance that requires their authorization and review and d. P. H. Will do that and a permit will not be issued authorizing excavation until the review is done and that process that is that legally binding ordinance in place to ensure that the adequate review of the issues takes place before any permit is issues and any construction begin. With all this said, lets be clear this entire hillside is developed with homes in comparable situation. This isnt some extraordinary situation. The project sponsor and their architect have built dozen of project subject to the slope act. It is not uncommon to have a permit subject to the slope act. As it is t proposed home will substantially sit on the same footprint as the existing home which is safely operated for its entire history on the site. So the board has done the review about that process not being rigorous and is unsafe is unfounded. Second, environmental issue that the appellant raises is the project would have a Significant Impact on aesthetics. Im sorry, i am repeating here a bit from what staff have said and will be quick with this. And to start the state legislature has already expressly modified ceqa in 2013 to eliminate the potential for aesthetic impact in urban environments and so legally this project cannot result in a significant aesthetic impact. But beyond that, the building is clearly consistent with the existing character of the neighborhood. [please stand by]