Transcripts For SFGTV BOS Full Board Of Supervisors 20240711

Clerk mr. President , all members are present. President yee ok. Thank you. Please place your righthand on your heart. Would you please join me in the pledge of of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of america and to the republic for which it stands one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I would like to acknowledge the staff of sfg. Are there any communications . Clerk yes, during the covid19 Health Emergency, the board recognizes that Public Access to City Services is essential and certainly more acute during this time so we hope members of the public will take advantage of the following opportunities. We have a short version today. Were happy to receive your written communication and sports hands if you are using the u. S. Mail address the envelope and San Francisco board of supervisors and room 244 city hall, San Francisco california, 94102. If you would like to send an email, send it to capital, os at fg gov. Org and you can access the livestream by going to www. Sfgovtv. Org and you with watch the proceedings on your television by utilizing channel 26. Just be aware theres a signal delay so when you are ready and can make your public testimony use your cell phone and turn down your television and you can both listen to the proceedings and make sure Public Comment from your cell phone and so the telephone number is television and streaming on our website 415 6550001. When you hear the prompt, enter the meeting i. D. Number which is 146 443 9293 and press pound twice and you can join the readings as a listener. Listen carefully for the prompt. You have been unmuted and then you are able to just begin speaking to make your comments. All right. Just a little bit of information about content on the agenda that is eligible for Public Comment. There are two public hearings. These are both appeals of sfmta covid19. Appeal from Environmental Review and that is item 1821 and items 2225 that is proposed mta covid19 muni rail service adjust commentses and parking changes appeal, another statutory exemption from Environmental Review and i understand those items are going to be continued to november 10th. Public comment will be taken on the continuance. If you are interested in providing general Public Comment, item 29, and you can talk about the minutes from september 29th, you are able to talk about the subject matter, jurisdiction items, that are on todays board agenda and items 3033, those are the items without reference to committee calender. The president has asked i deliver a message that during general Public Comment, each member of the public will have one minute to make that Public Comment. So, all other items, 117, as well as 2627, are not agenda content eligible for your testimony today. We have interpreters at todays meeting. We have two joining us, ago us in lie anagnes liand arturo. [voice of interpreter] [voice of interpreter] [voice of interpreter] clerk thank you to the interpreters for being here. Were working hard not to leave anyone out of these proceedings so if you are experiencing any connection issues, we do have a live person standing by to answer telephones in the clerks office. 415 5545184. And finally mr. President , through a prior arrangement, we do have an individual who is standing by to make his Public Comment pursuant to the americans with disabilities agent. President yee thank you, madam clerk. Before we get started, a friendly reminder to mute your microphone when you are not speaking to avoid audio feedback. And to the public, as you may or may not know today is election day and you know, if you have not voted yet, please, go ahead and cast your vote and make a difference to us locally and nationally. So, you have until 8 00 p. M. Today. Another five hours and 45 minutes to get to somewhere to either drop off your ballot or to vote. So, please, please, vote. Its very important that we all participate. Madam clerk, i understand as mentioned that weve received an accommodation request from a member of the public, who wishes to provide Public Comment. We will open public at that time for that individual. Clerk yes, mr. President. I will remind the vigil have one minute, sir. Operations, please unmute the caller. Caller my name is inaudible . As the clerk said in its meeting, Public Comment Public Access to these meetings is essential and more acute in regular times yet theyre limiting our time now to one minute and still refusing to allow the public to attend visually and this is not a Public Meeting because you do not provide access for those who do not have cellphones and computers to attend and leave comment at this meeting. Ive also pointed out various access issues for people with disabilities and its been very hard to get this accommodation, extremely difficult. I sent emails in october, and i got a response october 30th. And your staff still refuses to tell me when meetings are can september 11th these arkansasca. I hope you can do better. Clerk thank you to the caller. President yee ok. Thank you, madam clerk, for arranging this accommodation. Colleagues, today, we are approving the Meeting Minutes from the september 29th, 2020 regular board meetings. Are there any changes to these Meeting Minutes . Seeing none, can i have a motion to approve the minutes as presented . Moved fewer. President yee seconded by walton. President yee supervisor walton. And then why dont we take the roll, madam clerk. Clerk on the minutes as presented [roll call vote] clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee without objection the minutes will be approved after Public Comment as presented. Madam clerk, lets go to our consent agenda. Call items 16. Clerk items 16 are on consent. Theyre considered to be routine if a member objects an item may be removed and considered separately. President yee ok. See nobody on the roster. Madam clerk, can you call roll. Clerk on items 16. [roll call vote] clerk supervisor ronen, i believe you said aye but it was feint though. Aye. [roll call vote] clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee ok, without objection the ordinance is passed. Lets go to new business. Please call the next item. Clerk item 7 is an ordinance to amend the administrative code to require employers and employees covered by Quality Standards Program at the San Francisco International Airport to provide Family Health insurance to these employees or to make contributions on the employers on the employees behalf to an account established under section 14. 2 of the administrative code. President yee ok. Madam clerk, call the roll. Clerk on item 7 [roll call vote] clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee the ordinance is passed on first reading. You are on the roster and im sorry, i think you put it on after we started taking roll call. Did you have something . I did, president yee and thank you so much. I do not have anything to say. I appreciate the unanimous vote. Thank you. Thank you. President yee supervisor peskin, you raised your hand . Thank you, mr. President. I was going to make a motion to rescind the vote so that supervisor walton could speak but he has already made it clear that he did not wish to do so i i withdraw my end. President yee thank you. Madam clerk, item number 8. Clerk a resolution to retroactively authorization the department of publichealth to submit a oneyear application for calender year 2021 to apply for a Grant Application to the centers for Disease Control and prevention for integrated hiv surveillance and Prevention Program for health department. And the amount of 7 million. President yee ok. Madam clerk, please call roll. [roll call vote] there are 11 ayes. President yee without objection the resolution a adopted unanimously. Lets go to item your 9. Clerk ar ordinance to amend the Building Code, the environment code and mandating new construction to be all electric. President yee supervisor mandelman. Thank you, president yee. I want to thank the members of the Land Use Committee for forwarding this item to the full board with positive recommendations and for all of their work and thoughtful contributions to the legislation. When this item was before land use, i indicated that today i might be requesting a oneweek continuance to elapse further conversations with local 38 with Just Transition and the pot action opossibility of addressie concerns and local 38 has asked for me to make that motion for continuance and i think it would be something we ought to do so i will move that we continue this one week to november 10th. Stefani, second. President yee roll call, please. Clerk on the motion to continue item ninth to the tenth. [roll call vote] clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee without objection the ordinance is passed on first reading. Im sorry, the motion to continue the item to november 10th. Passes. Item 10. Clerk item 10 is an ordinance for third Party Food Delivery services. President yee ok. Supervisor peskin. Thank you, president yee. I would like to start by thanking my cosponsors, supervisor safai, mandelman, walton and stefani and colleagues, as we all are very, very well aware, so Many Industries and businesses have been incredibly hardhit by the pandemic and restaurants are one of those business sectors and while some are recovering throughout door dining and our spared Spaces Program that was the subject of an article in the chronicle, many are still struggling and up to half of them may never reopen and as we all knew, some were struggling before the coronavirus hit. Theres so many reasons for that my office has been analyzing that for two years and the practices and high commissions charged by third Party Food Delivery apps like uber eats, grub hub and door dash are in part one of the drivers of that and over the course of the pandemic, over the last eight months, as Indoor Dining first came to a halt, and has reopened, weve seen the incredible expansion of shared spaces from here to district 11 and thank you supervisor safai for actually going out and encouraging people to participate in the shared Spaces Program. To regain some of that lost capacity and weve also seen a commensurate, if not vast increase of these third Party Food Delivery apps. As restaurants have had to come to rely on them. In the old days, it was the delivery person but now its the internet. I want to really start by acknowledging the mayors executive order in early april which set a 15 cap on commissions that the third Party Food Delivery services could charge to restaurants. All of whom operate on a very, very thin margin. This legislation today builds on that by extending the duration of that cap which is inclusive of all fees charged by food clen deliver re services. Including those outside of the core oldtime Delivery Service. As weve made clear to the Third Party App providers, if they would like to go to marketing and advertising they should do so but they should not be able to exploit restaurants particularly restaurants that are less sophisticated or new restaurants that are entrance into the very, very difficult market for these additional fees will make it even harder on them. This legislation takes aim at the fundamental Business Model underlying these we all know it, multibillion venturecap tarred funded corporations which have been able to emas unbelievable market shares at the same time as i mentioned earlier, while upwards of half our restaurants may never reopen and to that end, this legislation also proposes to end person practices that have positioned the Indoor Dining experience indirect competition with the convenience of delivery and at menu items and provides restaurant with the flexibility to cancel their relationships with any of these Third Party Apps with 72 hour notice and prohibits Food Delivery Services from delivering from restaurants with which they do not have a preexisting relationship. Much of this has been reported in the media and i do want to acknowledge the apps who have been working with us and individual restaurantstures and the Golden Gate Restaurant Association for acknowledging these Core Principles and agreeing to them, albeit, while they dont like the 15 cap. Over the course of the past couple of months, my staff, lee heppner who i want to acknowledge and salute and ive been in direct communication with these companies, and weve actually compromised on a couple of days. First by allowing this legislation that i wanted to be permanent to expire 60 days following a health order issued by our chief Health Officer that allows restaurants to return to 100 Indoor Dining capacity and second by increasing the proposed Commission Cap from 10 per order which is what i originally started with but as a function of compromise and consistent with the mayors order to 15 . To modify as a cover established to add cover establishment should not include any restaurant that meets the definition a formal retail use under section 303. 1 of the planning code. I would like to duplicate file and send it back to committee so id like to adopt them first and coupe indicate the file and send it back with the intent of keeping watch over this ever evolving quick lie evolving political and Business Model and make sure that were prepared to take any additional steps to protect restaurants should we need to do so and in conclusion id like to thank the Small Business for their unanimous support and Many Organizations who provided early common and in sight like the castro merchants and the Sf Bar Owners Alliance and i already mentioned my starve and the golden gate restaurant and ethan and the dozens of Restaurant Owners and workers who wrote into our offices and signed petitions in support of this legislation and i would also like to thank deputy City Attorney sarah and anne and i mention mid cosponsors and witmycosponsoro move that before taking the first read on this legislation. Ok, is there a second. Second. Please add me as a cosponsor. Supervisor peskin. Supervisor safai. Thank you, ill be brief but i just want to thank supervisor peskin for working with us in the beginning of this process i asked him to hold the legislation so we would actually give the delivery at companies the opportunity to sit down with us and do the right thing on their own. We gave them the option during this pandemic, during this health crisis, and during this economic catastrophe to make this decision for themselves and i had multiple meetings with them and working with the industry and laid it out for them and said if you do not do this, well do this for you and its going to make you look as though you did not have the the decency to do this on your own. Ultimately, we made the decision to start off at 10 and we compromised with the Mayors Office as supervisor peskin said and ultimately landed on 15 . I will say i appreciate that theres been some negotiations around the idea that this would end 60 days after full Indoor Dining and i appreciate were coupe dating the file and i was going to suggest that the lead cosponsor and say to them that at some point this might be the best practice anyway for this industry. We need to continue to look at that but i want to put that on the record. We did give the decision to make that on their own and were talking about the survive alf the backbone of our and our economy is based on these Small Business owners and the idea many of them would be signed up without their knowledge and they would have prices set without their knowledge and they would be put no contract and when they were in contract not get out of contract without their own undoing. These are important things were doing so i want that thank lee for his hard work and thank you supervisor peskin for working on this legislation and all the different folks, the Golden Gate Restaurant Association and Small Business perch ants and steed wide folks that are impacted by this so i just want to thank you for your leadership and im proud to be a lead cosponsor on this. Supervisor mar. I just want to thank supervisor peskin and the office for your work on this and wed like to be added as a cosponsor. Supervisor ronen. Thank you for the work and please add me as a cosponsor. Yes, please add me as a cosponsor. Supervisor preston. Sorry. Yeah, same here. Please add me as a cosponsor. Ok. President yee all right. So theres a motion to amend as described by supervisor peskin and seconded. Can i have a roll on the amendment . On the amendment to item 10, supervisor yee. Clerk [roll call vote] there are 11 ayes. Motion to amend passes. Please call the roll on the item itself as amended. Clerk do you have that motion to send to committee at some point mr. President as amended . Yeah, i think with all due respect to president. President yee the second motion would be to send the duplicated file to committee, the same Committee Land use. And im sorry, the government office. Yes. It came as public savvy and Neighborhood Services. Theres a motion to send it back. As amended. As amended. And as a second. Second. Ok. Second. I think it was supervisor fewer. Fewer. Ok. Yes, thank you. Please call the roll. Clerk on the duplicated amended version, to committee, specifically psns. [roll call vote] there are 11 ayes. The motion to send the amended duplicated file to committee passes. I guess the final vote is to vote on the amended visional item that was amended. Ok. On item 10 as amended [roll call vote] clerk there are 11 ayes. The ordinance is passed on first reading. Lets go to item 1114. Clerk items 1114 are four resolutions that determine Liquor License transfers and item 11 transfers a type 48 on sale general public premises Liquor License top sue partners doing business as sewall bar. As part of hotel 321 at 321 through 323 avenue. Item 12 transfers a type 48 on sale general public Liquor License so electro salt Promotions Inc doing business as swig as 553365 geary street and item 11 transfers a type 21 spirits Liquor License and to sue doing business located at 3499 Mission Street and transfer a top 20 like or license to lukes local ink doing business at 2190 union street and the board has determined they will serve the public convenience in San Francisco and is request they impose conditions on the issuance of items 1114. Ok. Please call the roll on items. Clerk on items 1114. [roll call vote] there are 11 ayes. The resolutions are adopted unanimously. Madam clerk, lets go to item 15. Item 15 is a motion 20 appoint sasha bid ner term ending march 1st, 2021 alexander madrid 2022 and daisy mccarther and robin wilson beetle terms ending march 12,023rd to the inhome Supportive Service authority. Ok, please call roll. [roll call vote] there are 11 ayes. President yee without object sex the motion is approved. Please call item 16 and 17 together. Clerk item 16 and 17 are two motions that approve appointments to the assessment appeals board items 16 appoints two board one elizabeth zarra term ending september 6th, 12021 and Dianne Robinson and richard lee ending and items 17 its a motion to appoint jeffrey lee term ending september 4th, 2023 to the assessment appeals board number 3. Madam clerk g. Ahead ex call the roll on these items. [roll call vote] there are 11 ayes. President yee without objection the motions are approved. Madam clerk, lets go to Committee Reports and the item number 26. Committee reports. Items 26 and 27 were considered by the government audit and Oversight Committee at a special meeting on thursday october 29th. And were recommended as Committee Reports and item 26 is a reenactment of an emergency ordinance to temporarily require Grocery Store and on demand Delivery Service employers to provide health and scheduling protections to employees during the public heath emergency related to covid19 and pursuant to the charter this matter requires the affirmative vote of twothirds of the board and eight votes for message today. Can you please call the roll. Clerk on items 26 [roll call vote] please add me as a cosponsor. Well add you. There are 11 ayes. Without objection, the ordinance is passed. Madam clerk, item number 27, please. Clerk item 27 is an reenactment of an emergency ordinance reenacted by a previous ordinance number 15920 to temporarily create a right to employment for certain employees laid off due to the covid19 pandemic. If their employee seeks to fill the same position previously held by a laidoff worker or as substantially similar position as defined. And pursuant to the charter, this matter also requires the affirmative vote to do thirds board. Please call the roll. On item 27 [roll call vote] there are 10 ayes and one no with supervisor stefani in the dissent. President yee the ordinance is passed with a 101 vote. Madam clerk, lets go to roll call for introductions. Mr. President , you are up first to introduce new business. Thank you, very much, madam clerk. Colleagues, today im trying legislation to protect residents of multiunit housing from the Health Impacts of Secondhand Smoke exposure, earlier this year, we had a hearing at the Neighborhood Services committee on the Health Impacts of Secondhand Smoke and you heard the Secondhand Smoke exposure has skyrocketed in recent years and we have seen huge increases in secondhand vape marijuana exposure. My office received emails that reminded mreminded me they have Secondhand Smoke and we looked into creating an ordinance that would provide some protection. Here are a few facts. Smoking is a single most preventable cause of disease and death in the United States and its responsible for 480,000 and 480,000 deaths per year and Secondhand Smoke alone is responsible for more than 41,000 deaths per year and causes cancer, lung disease, and harms brains and heart functions and poses a increased health risk to children, seniors and those of existing Health Issues causing damage to children growing lungs, lung illnesses such as pneumonia, sudden infant death syndrome and make asthma attacks frequent and severe. Unfortunately, home is one of the most commonplaces where we can be exposed to Secondhand Smoke. Residents of multiunit housing are 3. 5 times more likely to be regularly exposed and right now San Francisco does so little to help residents avoid being exposed to Secondhand Smoke in their own homes and oir health code currently prohibits smoking in o common areas and multi unit housing but does not restrict residents have smoking in their own individual units. The problem is smoke easily uses between units and buildings and theres no way to contain it. This legislation would amend the health code to prohibit smoking inside owneroccupied and rented units of multiunit housing complexes of 30 or more units requiring that signage be posted in common areas and that residents are notified of the policy by the building even are or manager. The onus would direct the department of publichealth to conduct a Public Information campaign to raise awareness of the policy and share information about available sun sunnation for residents addicted to nicotine. Half of san franciscans live in multiunit housing. Residents of multi unit housing are more likely people of color and more likely to be low income and exposure to Secondhand Smoke impacts our most Vulnerable Community members. Providing relief out to residents living every day where Secondhand Smoke in their homes is more important than ever. As we continue to battle of covid19 pandemic and be prepared for few season. Secondhand smoke exacerbates the impact of these respiratory illnesses and during this time, why we have asked our assistance to say home to slow the spread of covid19 and asked children to go to school remotely in their own most likely their own homes and we know San Francisco can escape the smoke in their homes during the day and arent able to breathe clean air. If im a parent with a child who suffers from asthma, or a person recovering from covid19, right now i can get no help at all and if any neighbor is smoking every day right next door or downstairs. Its legal for anyone to smoke inside their own unit regardless of the serious and Dangerous Health consequences. We cant prioritize someones desire to smoke along to inaudible to breathe smokefree air. This is unacceptable. Over the past 10 years, 63 cities and counties in california have adopted 100 smokefree multi unit housing policies and including daily seed, south San Francisco, san mateo, richmond, emeryville and berkeley and i am hopeful such policies will increasingly be the norm in San Francisco we have historically taken our fights against big tobacco and Secondhand Smoke, we can protect our vulnerability communities from the devastating impacts of Secondhand Smoke and maybe well catch up with our cities that are our neighbors. The rest i submit. Thank you mr. President. Supervisor fewer. Yes, thank you very much, president yee. Please add me as a sponsor to your ordinance about Secondhand Smoke. Im excited to introduce legislation to create a Housing Inventory. Back in 1979, San Francisco adopted our rent ordinance to safeguard tenants from rent increases and since the ordinance allowed the city to regularly grant and has helped protect tenants from losing their homes because of real estate booms and gentrification but one thing the city lacks is an accurate inventory of the citys existing Housing Stock in order for the rent board to track landlordtenant and inspect Housing Services and restaurants and better administer the rent ordinance we need them to maintain existing rental Housing Stock and we have seen major changes in our rental Housing Market and some people unable to pay rent due to covid19 and many choosing to lead the city to it remotely and this is created more vacancies but we dont know where or how many. We know what asking rents look like but we dont know what actual rents look like for existing tenants. Maintaining an accurate Housing Inventory and tracking vacancy will help monitor compliance with laws against for corporate rental purposes and as well as identifying units that can be used in an emergency for Good Samaritan purposes and rent reporting could also be relevant to claims that they have imposed a bad faith rent increase to co horse a tenant to vacate and this will be used for purposes of inspecting and investigating the level of Housing Services being provided to tenants and rent ordinances and vacancies and analyzing vacancies and monetary compliance and generating resource in survey and provide ago cystance to landlords and tenants as needed by providing a accurate picture of our mental housing stop in San Francisco this is not only helping the rent board better do its job but provide additional benefits to other city departments as well. I would like to thank my early cosponsor. And all those who were in my office to develop this inventory that is long over dont i hope i can count on you for this support of the tool on the rent board. Thank you, the rest i submit. Thank you, supervisor fewer. Supervisor haney. Thank you. Id love to be added to a cosponsor to the legislation she just introduced. And i submit. Ok. Thank you supervisor. Well make sure youre added. Supervisor mandelman. Submit. Thank you. Supervisor mar. Thank you, madam clerk. I would like to be added as a cosponsor to supervisor fewers Housing Inventory legislation and i have three items today. First im introducing an additional reenactment of publicHealth Emergency leave to maintain this benefit for a further 60 days as the publicHealth Emergency continues and second, ill calling for a hearing on the budget and legislative annalist performance audit of the office of economic and Workforce Development planning for large scale projects for the Economic Impacts on surrounding businesses, across the city, we are doing essential work to improve transit and replace and water lines and more and this is disruptive to our Small Businesses who are imperilled by the pandemic and publichealth orders and the bla conducted an audit of how oewd plans to help mitigate construction on Small Businesses last year and weve never held a public hearing on it and this is long overdue and timely given the new challenges Small Businesses are facing and im calling on a meet and confer obligations and practices with the Police Officers association including the threshold for determining when meeting confess required. We have heard loud and clear to have an open and transparent dialogue but when we enter into meet and confer, why we do and what is at stake when it happens. Well be able to discuss this at thursdays gao meeting when the memorandum of understanding with the poa is considered and i wanted to ensure we have a chance to have a focused discussion on this topic which this year will provide. The rest i submit. Thank you supervisor mar. Supervisor peskin. I would like to join supervisor ronen in a matter that she is about to announce with regard to a change in the boards practices of getting every meeting but ill let supervisor ronen speak to that and the rest i submit. Thank you, supervisor. Supervisor preston. Submit. Thank you. Supervisor ronen. Thank you, supervisor. Peskin for that introduction and im just going to speak quickly about this because we will be hearing it during committee but today, supervisor peskin and i are interesting a motion to amend the rules at the board of supervisors and adding a new rule that would require the president of the board to read a statement acknowledging the community of San Francisco during at fuel Public Meetings at this board. November is ma native American Heritage month when we must celebrate contributions of the native people, but also engage in recognizing the generations of harm caused to native communities at the hands of our own government institutions. Its undeniable that our own city of San Francisco has been complicit in the marginalization of native people from promoting culturally offensive art work, staff, treats and mondayments that represent native americans to the systematic underfunding of American Indian organizations. Today and everyday the board of supervisors has a responsibility to honor the first people of San Francisco by recognizing their continued and relationship to the land of which we are guests. However, we understand that it is not enough. I look forward to working with the American Indian Community Leaders to push for greater Political Representation and funding support for American Indian arson cultural projects that bring healing and create Greater Public awareness of the present and historical contributions of native American People to the culture of San Francisco and the bay area. I would like to express my deepest appreciation to greg castro of the association. And sha rye a of the American Indian cultural district for their work on developing the statement and their tireless advocacy on behalf of the San Francisco American Indian community. I am going to send this item to committee so we can have a full hearing and discuss the language that to be read at every meeting and the American Indian community is working also with the Human Rights Commission on a similar statement to be read at all hearings and committee and boards and commission bodies in San Francisco. This is an effort happening across the city and i look forward to engaging in the discussion here at the board and if i can hand it back to supervisor peskin. Clerk supervisor peskin. Thank you, supervisor ronen. I want to add this is something that a handful of state agencies have already undertaken in my two years and couple months on the coastal commission, we actually adopted this and its an agency that actually moves up and down the coast from the north coast all the way down to the border of mexico and in each and every place, the chair of that body would acknowledge the native peoples and thank them for allowing us to be on their lands. So, i really want to thank the native communities that brought this to supervisor ronen and myself and greg castro in particular, and due to deliberation committee, look forward to this being the new way we start each and every meeting of the San Francisco board of supervisors. Ok. Thank you supervisor peskin. Thank you ronen. Next up is supervisor safai. Superivsor safai submit. Clerk thank you, supervisor. I would like to adjourn todays meeting in horn of a san franciscan who we lost too soon after a fight with aml leukemia and Linda Squires growy. She spent her life here. She grew up in richmond and attended elementary and presidio middle leading to earn bachelors and masters degrees from san jose state and to teach at hum bolt state. When linda returned to San Francisco she started her career at city college where she began as a teacher and retired as dean of the department of health and physical education. Linda knew than everyone starts off with the same advantages and that city college could open doors to opportunities that could change lives. She fought hard for her students throughout her career. She was also known for her incredible enthusiasm in the classroom, where she strived to help students with confidence. She was proud of her graduates working in local hospitals and clinics. Linda also gave her time and talent to so many other causes including her work as chair of the board at San Franciscos allfemale Academic High School [please stand by] windchill the proposed covid19 muni bus service and associated stop street and parking changes that was approved by the Planning Department on august 22, 2020. And this is an appeal of the statutory exemption from the Environmental Review. Item that is item 18, and items 20, and 21 are the associated motions that will are associated with that particular appeal. And items 22 through 25, comprised of the hearing for an appeal of statutory exemption from Environmental Review. Proposed for the m. T. A. s muni rail adjustments and the street and parking changes that was approved by the Planning Department on august 20, 2020. Its an appeal of statutory exemption from the Environmental Review. That is the public hearing, item 22, and items 23, 24 and 25 are the motions that are associated with that appeal. President yee okay, any other ones . Clerk those are the two appeals. Items 18 through 25. President yee okay, thank you. So i understand that there may be these items may be continued to a later date. Do i have a motion to continue items 18 through 21 . Moved. Fewer. President yee moved by supervisor fewer and seconded by supervisor safai. President yee i will say that well continue this through november 10th, 2020. Madam clerk, can i have the roll. Clerk mr. President , we were going to take Public Comment on that continuance first. President yee thats right. Youre right, youre right. Should i do both of these first . Clerk at the same time perhaps. President yee yeah, could i have a motion to continue items 2225 to the meeting of tuesday november 10, 2020 . Supervisor fewer moved, fewer. President yee okay. Second . Supervisor mandelman mandelman. President yee seconded by supervisor mandelman. Okay. Before we take these motions lets take Public Comment for the continuance. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on the on just the continuances . Clerk okay, operations, can you please unmute the first caller. And just so that the public knows that we will be the president indicated two minutes for the continuance. Operations, any members of the Public Interested in speaking . There is one. Caller im very concerned about the program which is adding to the traffic congestion. It might be fine in the case of this pandemic, but it should not be permanent. And basically putting it down for the continuance of a few and the interest of the majority indiscernible . And youre adding to the congestion. Thank you. Clerk okay, thank you for your comments, sir. Operations, is that the final caller on the continuance . Madam clerk, that completes the queue. Clerk great. Thank you. Mr. President . Youre muted, mr. President. President yee okay, soing no other speakers, and Public Comment is now closed. Motion to continue items 18 through 21 made already and seconded. Could we have the roll, please . Clerk on the motion to continue items 18 through 25, were taking both appeals, continuances at the same time [roll call] there are 11 ayes. President yee okay. Then without objection items 18 through 25 will be continued to our meeting november 10, 2020. Madam clerk, lets go to Public Comments. Clerk all right. This is the opportunity for the public to give us their Public Comment. If youre calling in now the number is 1 415 6550001. When prompted enter the webex meeting identitier which is 1464439293 and press pound twice to join the proceedings. And when youre ready to get in line to provide your Public Comment, press star, 3. And your phone will prompt you and it will sound that you have been unmuted. And just start making your comments. You will have up to one minute today to provide your testimony. Operations, can you please unmute the first speaker. Caller hello, supervisors, my name is clerk hello, caller. Caller yes, sorry. My name is lavine felton, and the Heart Association applauds the cosponsors for campaign smoke free for San Francisco. This is an important strategy to reduce the exposure to Secondhand Smoke which can have an immediate effect on the cardiovascular system and long term exposure is associated with the 25 to 30 increased risk for coronary Heart Disease in adults nonsmokers. The evidence is clear is that theres no safe level of exposure to Secondhand Smoke and everyone should be allowed to breathe clean air, particularly in their home. Thank you for considering this ordinance. Clerk thank you to the caller. Sorry about that, didnt mean to step on your toes. Okay, operations, please unmute the next caller. Caller my name is bob gordon and im cochair of the San Francisco tobaccofree coalition and i want to thank norman yee for his leadership and legacy of helping San Francisco to become a healthier place for all, protecting san franciscans from toxic Secondhand Smoke. Only some of us who live here in San Francisco are luckyive in to have clean air to breathe in our apartments and homes but it shouldnt be a matter of luck. All san franciscans, especially the most vulnerable among us, such as seniors and pthose living with lung disease and those with compromised immune systems such as h. I. V. And cancer and those at risk of covid19 and other conditions deserve to dwell in residences from dangerous drifting smoke. Thank you so much. Clerk thank you so much for your comments. All right, we have 12 listeners on the line. Operations, please unmute the next caller. Caller good afternoon, supervisors. Im liz williams for americans for nonsmokers rights. And thank you, president yee for having this ordinance. This would be a great way to reduce the exposure for Secondhand Smoke for those living in apartments and condos. Its helpful for the children and seniors and people with Health Issues, especially with conditions like asthma. Having a smokefree residence environment is even more important now that covid19 means that people are spending so much more time at home instead of spending their days in smokefree schools or smokefree residences. And we want all to have a Healthy Living environment that includes the right to breathe, especially at home. So its never been a better time to protect the health of our communities, especially for residents who are already facing Health Disparities that are being exacerbated by drifting Secondhand Smoke and covid19. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments, caller. Operations, please unmute the next caller. Caller im speaking on the findings for 1846 grove street. I urge you to reject the findings before you today because they are not supported by the preponderance of the everyday. In fact, theyre supported by no credible evidence. If the concern was about safety, why were d. B. I. And fire not present for the hearing . Were they invited . When they were found not to be present, why was the hearing not continued . The District Supervisor shut down the request to call the departments. The result is that the number of homes that could be built on this vast parcel was reduced from four to two. So youre going to have more expensive homes here surrounded by acreage where you could have had four smaller homes, accessible for middleclass families. How does this improve Housing Affordability . I urge you to reject the findings, reopen the hearing, invite the departments, read the code analysis, and then make your decision. Your constituents care about housing. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, lets hear from the next caller, please. Caller good afternoon. My name is kalan killy and im the vicechair of the tobaccofree coalition. Im calling to thank president yee for his timely introduction of the smokefree multihousing ordinance. In 2011, a vicious fire started by the dropping of a cigarette ravaged an Apartment Building in the tenderloin. It caused 250,000 dollars in structural damage, not to mention the displacement of vulnerable residents. The adverse impact of this event was compounded by the utilization of the San Francisco Fire Department resources. The acknowledgement of these finite resources is also very timely as Northern California continues to have its Fire Department resources stretched thin due to the onset of the unprecedented wildfires. I thank you again, president yee, for this most timely ordinance. Clerk thank you, sir, for your comments. Okay, operations, please unmute the next caller. Caller my name is herbert minor. Basically the program essentially is going to add to the congestion with traffic. And while it may be necessary in the pandemic, it certainly should not be permanent. It is really due to poor planning and its observingally aimed against automobiles which are forms of transportation. Now if youre concerned about bringing in automobiles, what you should do is initiate the indiscernible thats legitimate. But for heavens sakes, dont limit it to automobile traffic that will add to the congestion indiscernible on california streets. Please do not indiscernible the overall indiscernible is going to be a nightmare. M. T. A. Celebrates halloween every day because every day for m. T. A. Is indiscernible . Thank you. Clerk all right, caller, just for future callers, the m. T. A. Appeals have been continued to november 10th. So there cannot be any Public Comment on the m. T. A. Appeal this is afternoon. But i didnt want to interrupt the caller so he could get his comments out there and we could just reaffirm to the members of the public listening. Okay, operations, lets please hear from the next caller. Caller good afternoon. This is anastasia, im a tenant and a member of the San Francisco tenants union. Im calling to thank supervisor fewer for introducing legislation to create a Housing Inventory. Tracking vacancies and analyzing rent vacancies to have an accurate picture what we have here in San Francisco is what we need. Putting it at the rent board would make it accessible, and i am encouraged that so many other supervisors have already signed on as cosponsors. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, lets hear from the next caller, please. Caller hello, my name is john wondo. And i am a minister in district 8. Im calling to ask the board of supervisors to please reject the racist Police Officers Association Contract renegotiation and to call a public hearing to provide transparency in the future Contract Negotiations. This summer tens of thousands of people hit the streets of San Francisco demanding the end of Police Violence. But nothing has really changed. Just this past month afpd hunted down mr. Vargas, a man this crisis, and killed him in the streets. Despite wide made demands for a transformation for Public Safety, the contract perpetuates the racist status quo. It gives sfpd two additional years of raises and offers no policy concessions to prevent the officers from killing yet another person. It also adds a clause that gives them benefits earned by city workers that create Public Safety, like nurses, teachers and other essential workers. Across the country, cities are beginning to hold police fraternities accountable. In chicago, theres negotiations with their Police Fraternity and theyre asking for 40 disciplinary reforms and had all negotiations in public. Philadelphia even passed a law prohibiting the contract talks with their Police Fraternity clerk thank you, sir. Thank you for your comments. Okay, operations, lets hear from the next caller, please. Caller hello. My name is margaret and i live in district 7. Im calling to demand that the board of supervisors reject the racist Police Officers Association Contract negotiations and call a public hearing to provide transparency into the teacher Contract Negotiations. This renegotiation is exactly what the p. O. A. Wants. They get two additional years of racism and it locks in their accountability through 2023. Any new contract requires them to not harm our communities. And why are we asking for nor negotiations after another killing a Police Killing of a man in crisis less than a month ago. 76 of these forces and acts of violence were against people of color. They still point their guns at people 2. 4 times a day and indiscernible and less than 30 from 2016. And reject the contract and make all teacher negotiations public. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments. We have about 16 listeners on the line. If youre interested in making Public Comment press star, 3. Welcome, caller. Youll have one minute to make your comments today. Operations . Caller good afternoon. This is regina eastbox, district 3, and like the previous callers making commentary on the p. O. A. Negotiations, they must be public. I participated in all of the b. O. S. Calls over the summer, thousands of people called in. Youve got a paltry 25 million reduction while we still have Law Enforcement officers in schools. We dont have adequate counsel ors. We dont have library services. Mental health services. Affordable housing. This is ridiculous. There must be public p. O. A. Hearings and when i look at comparisons to chicago, chicago which is in negotiations right now they have asked for 40 concessions. And where are we, San Francisco . Supposedly a an avantgarde politically progressive city. This has to stop. These hearings need to be public. We need transparency. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments. Okay, operations, lets unmute the next caller. Welcome, caller. You will have one minute. Thank you. Caller can you hear me now . Clerk yes, we can. Caller it is mr. Pelbell. Board file 202118. On that i require a City Attorney memo from years ago and i think that the conclusion of that is that the industry administrator has the naming authority for spaces within city hall. So perhaps you want to consider amending the item to so indicate because it currently urges that the space be renamed. But perhaps mentioning the city administrator specifically with that authority would help. I dont know. But i support item 30 and the proposed press room renaming. I think that its an entirely appropriate honor for barbara taylor. Thank you very much. Clerk thank you for your comments. Fly ththrough the clerk and president , noted and i will now amend. Clerk okay, operations, lets hear from the next caller. We have about 14 listeners in the queue. Caller hi, my name is gracie and i live and work in San Francisco. I grew up in San Francisco. I have been evicted here and ive also been jailed. I am calling to demand that the board of supervisors reject the racist Police Officer association and to call for a hearing to provide transparency into future Contract Negotiations. Standing up to our citys racist Police Fraternity and reject the contract and make all future negotiations public. This negotiation is exactly what the p. O. A. Wants. They get two additional years of locking in their lack of transparency and accountability through 2023 and sets them up to negotiate their next contract in a Mayoral Election year when theyll have more leverage. Stand up to the racist p. O. A. The attempted legal action to prohibit the officers from shooting at moving cars which is how sfpd murdered jessica williams. And the use of the restraint which killed eric garner. And this past june they threatened a lawsuit to kneel on the necks of san franciscans. Weeks after that the same move killed george floyd. The community should have input. P. O. A. Policies are a matter of life and death for black and brown san franciscans. Chicago is in the middle of negotiating its Police Fraternity contract and theyre asking for 40 disciplinary concessions. Why is San Francisco not asking for concessions even after months of protest against Police Violence and another Police Killing of a man in crisis less than a month ago. The sfpd have the level of antiblack bias is seen as extreme. Last year black people only made up 5 of the citys population but accounted for 40 of all police searches and 50 of the jail population. In q4 last year, black latin san franciscans made up 45 clerk thank you for your comments. Thank you for your comments, maam. Okay, were doing one minute today just for the listeners who might have just come into the queue. I think that there are about 17 of you in the queue. Were doing one minute today. Operations, please unmute the next caller. Caller hi, i am an educator and a youth worker who lives and works in San Francisco. Im also calling to demand the board of supervisors to reject the racist p. O. A. Contract. And for the public to hold hearings on future negotiations. We are aware that police fraternities are dangerous. A study found that violent misconduct with the sheriff officers increased about 40 after they were allowed to unionize. We have seen that collective bargaining rights protect officers to be discriminatory against people of color. We have seen in San Francisco itself how violent against people of color, against people who are experiencing homelessness and against our vulnerable populations that police are able to be. And these renegotiations are only protecting that. It is ridiculous that after months of protests against Police Violence that this is even a conversation being had. In the future all of these conversations need to be held in public and there need to be comments to give input and to hold officers accountable. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments. Okay, operations, lets hear from the next caller, please. Caller hi,my name is mimi klaus and i have lived in district 9 for 35 years. I call to demand that the board of supervisors reject the p. O. A. Contract and to call a public hearing to provide transparency and to the future Contract Negotiations. And were not getting anything. This is absurd. There must be policy concessions in any new p. O. A. Contract. As other callers have said, chicago is in the middle of negotiating its Police Fraternity krsht and theyre asking for 40 disciplinary concessions. I have to ask, why is San Francisco asking for no policy concessions, even after months of protests against Police Violence . And yet another Police Killing of a man in crisis less than a month ago. I was not happy that the board accepted a Police Budget with very few changes. Please stand up to the mayor now and dont get me going about d. H. R. If there isnt a more corrupt and racist city department, i dont know. And its absolutely unacceptable that k. H. R. Is the department that has had, you know, in making the decisions about this contract. So stand up, please. Clerk okay, thank you for your comments. All right, operations, lets hear from the next caller, please. Caller hello, my name is jasmine, district 9. Im here to demand that the board reject the p. O. A. Contract and to call a public hearing to provide transparency into the future Contract Negotiations. My dear friend derek gains was 15 years old when he was executed by officer joshua calvillo in south San Francisco. And calvillo was then hired to sfpd as soon as he arrived and has used Excessive Force on multiple occasions and because of the corrupt p. O. A. And s. F. , cops like calvillo continue to terrorize the community. We should not make over 200,000 a year. By not rejecting the contract its saying that their lives matter more than ours. Its confirm that we know that cops beat and kill us and get raises. And reject this p. O. A. Contract and make all future negotiations public. And so the community can have input. And its a matter of life and death and black and brown san franciscans. Clerk thank you, thank you for your comments. All right, operations, lets hear from the incom next caller, please. Welcome, caller. Caller hi there. Im a 15year resident of district 9 and i work in district 10. Im calling in regard to the p. O. A. Contract and the manner in which these negotiations have taken place. The police serve the public and, therefore, are accountable to the public. Continuing to negotiate the p. O. A. Contracts behind closed doors is inappropriate and a decision to continue to support this system and structure is an act of racism itself. The p. O. A. Contract is the mechanism by which discrimination practices are allowed to be reproduced in our society. please stand by this is a severe misallocations resources but its much worse because the p. O. A. Shields officers from accountable when they commit the worse offenses. All future negotiations should be held in public and once again at this time, the board of supervisors must reject this contract. I yield my time. Clerk thank you, caller. Operations, lets hear from the next caller, please. Caller hi, i am a resident of district 6. Previous callers, many of the previously callers im calling on and i want to call on the board of supervisors to reject this renegotiated p. O. A. Contract for the any kind of change to the racist status quo. Its the mockery of the system the way its negotiated. Not even the chief of police new this contract is being renegotiated. Its all happening behind closed doors as a way to sort of like massage the numbers on the mayors budget where she can defund the police and hand them tens and millions of dollars and raises over the next three years and locking in no accountability and if you pass this it sets a precedent of the wave and the board of supervisors will have no input on to any future p. O. A. Conflict. Thank you for your comments, sir. Ok, operations, lets hear from the next caller. Welcome, caller. Hello, my name is hassan and inaudible . First of all, i would like to say that something at the conversation and this vote is incredible underfund because theres a inaudible going on. Also, im calling to demand the board of supervisors to reject the inaudible Association Contract and row negotiations held public during to provide future contributions and this summer tens of thousands of people hit the streets of San Francisco and demanding inaudible but nothing changes. Nothing has changed and actually the past month, sfpd has hunted down another person of our community and a man in crisis and called him in the street and im emotional here. Despite the widespread demands for our approach Public Safety the appeals contract status quo. Thank you, sir. Its all right, we appreciate your emotion. Theres a lot at stake. Operations, lets welcome the next caller, please. Caller hi, my name is amanda and i live in district 1. Like a lot of other people i am calling they reject the p. O. A. Renegotiation and call public hearing to call transparency to future Contract Negotiations and it seems odd that its happening today and the election and we want more public transparency through negotiations and its exactly what the p. O. A. Wants and they get two additional raises and transparency and accountability and sets them up to negotiate in the next contract and the Mayoral Election year when they have more leverage and they have policies and con sexe concessioy p. O. A. Contract and they have movement to defund the police and this would mean a great step to doing that. Nothing changes unless we make changes that have Financial Impact and passing the contract is a pass for police stand up to the contract and headache all future negotiations. Thank you for your comments. Operations, lets unmute the next caller. Caller hi, my name is jacks. I live in district 10. And i worked in district 6 and district 3. Im calling to demand that the board of supervisors, like everyone else before me or like many before me, reject the Police Officers Association Contract renegotiation and call a public hearing to provide transparency into future Contract Negotiations. A former member of local of 665 and a daughter of three generations of unionized teachers. Coming from a union family i do not see police i fraternity as d study have found that collective bargaining rights are being used to protect the ability of officers to discriminate in the dis purchasdisproportionate pol. I watched the police harass neighbors once a week and it was shameful that the bad officers will be protected and up lifted by this contract. The p. O. A. Contract negotiations need to be held publicly and if not held publicly, then not. Thank you for your comments. Operations, lets unmute the next caller, please. Caller good afternoon. My name is alexander post. Im a resident of district 10. Im also a member of case, which is a union of california attorneys government attorneys including the drj, parole board, et cetera. The p. O. A. Is for years spent the resources you provide them to pervert justice not further it. And we worked so hard to stop the p. O. A. s half a Million Dollar campaign to strip the Police Commission of oversight of use of force. They do not spend is that amount of money on trying to further reform and in fact they fight those reforms in court. So, i call on you to reject this contract, call a public hearing, no more negotiating our safety behind closed doors. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. We really appreciate all the callers trying to limit their timeframe to one minute. We very much appreciate trying to figure in all of this Public Comment and be able to conduct our civic duty and vote. All right. So next caller, please. Caller good afternoon, supervisors. I wanted to call and request that we defund the police and we address the systematic racism in our police department. And towards that end i want to take a careful note to notice how many people are around and on a regular basis contributing to this movement. Im very thankful for their support. The thing i want to say is this moment is unique. This Police Negotiation is unique and while weve heard from our supervisors for years now, that things needed to change and for years the p. O. A. Is awful and a chants at our death penality to fuck the p. O. A. When it comes a moment when we have public support and we have people standing there and we need change. Youve said it, weve said it, everyone has said it. This is that moment. Accepting this contract without change precludes the progress that the politicians to the local people have been crying as desperately necessary. We need to adjust the contract and we need to open this process to Community Input and quite frankly, this one minute of time isnt sufficient thank you, sir. Understood. Thank you. Operations, lets hear from the next caller, please. Caller hello, my name is toby. I am in district 8 and yeah, this has to take place in a public discussion. I mean, if we just take a look at chicago, theyre in the middle of ro renegotiating their Police Contract and theyre asking for 40 disciplinary concessions and why is San Francisco is asking for no concessions even after months of protests. This is crazy. This is exactly what the p. O. A. Wants. And yeah, its got to be held in public so the community can have input and yeah, this has to be held in public. Thats all, i yield my time. Thank you, caller. Thank you for your comments. Operations, lets hear from the next speaker. Caller dean. You guys have put quite a motley crew together to call in. Pretty impressive. They are all thoroughly a bunch of nut sacks. All right. So, thank you, caller for your comments. Operations, do we have another caller on the line, please . Caller this is toby from district 8. Theres a mistake. I already had a comment with respect thank you for your comment, sir. Ok. Operations, is there another caller on the line . Caller my name is lawrence and i live and district in district 9. Like so many of my fellow san france i demand the board reject the p. O. A. Contract renegotiations and call public hearings for transparency into future Contract Negotiations. This renegotiation is a sweat heart deal for the p. O. A. They get raises guaranteed at a time that other city workers are being told to tighten their belts due to the pandemic. Their lack of transparency and accountability through 2023 and what is distressing is this renegotiation has a parity clause which gives the p. O. A. Benefits earned by other city workers but actually providing safety and services that we need. Its pretty straight forward stand up group p. O. A. Reject this renegotiated contract and fight the good fight for a safer city when the current contract expires and just be brave. Thank you. Thank you, for your comments. We have 14 listeners. If you are one of the 14, press star 3 and that will get you into the queue. All right, operations, lets hear from the next caller, please. Caller my name is joannie and i live and work in district 6. Im also calling to demand the board of supervisors project the rates of the Police Officer association renegotiation and call on public hearing to provide transparency into future Contract Negotiations. Negotiations should be held in public so the community can input a c. O. A. Policy on matter of life and death for so many san franciscans and as i recall other cities like chicago, are in the middle of row negotiating contracts and asking for a concession so why progressive city like San Francisco not asking for any policy concessions and if you consider yourself a progressive, supervisors, do the progressive thing and listen to your constituents and stand up to the p. O. A. And let us in on the process. Its important we make change and dont keep on living like that, especially during these times. Thank you for your comments. So, operations, lets hear from the next caller, please. Caller my name is sean titus and im a residen resident of d. Especially now we need to extract concessions from the rates of p. O. A. But the Bar Association found the new m. O. U. That extends the contract is not advance any of the objectives of the collaborative reform processes. For years the p. O. Has ha been abusing and confer and instead of doing anything to remedy this, it locks in the existing policies while giving an additional two years of raises to the police. Police associations have been found to exacerbate Police Violence to lock in the status quote for two years after sfpd murdered someone is unthinkable. The other callers mentioned we can look to negotiations in chicago, for inspiration to see real change is possible and it starts by rejecting this renegotiated contract. Following that, the board much hold h. R. Accountable in those negotiations and all future negotiations must be held publicly. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments. All right. Operations, lets unmute the next caller. Welwelcome, caller. Caller hi, my name is catalina and i live and work in district 4. Im calling to demand the board of supervisors reject the racist p. O. A. Contract Renewal Association and call a public hearing to provide transparency into future Contract Negotiations. This negotiation is exactly what the p. O. A. Wants and they get two years of raises and lock in transparency and accountability to the 2023 and sets them up to negotiate the next contract in the Mayoral Election year when they have more leverage. Stand up to the racist p. O. A. Why is San Francisco asking for no policy concessions even after months of protest against Police Violence and yet another Police Killing of a man in crisis less than a month ago. Across countries, cities, police if certain tease are being held accountable and in chicago negotiations with the police, theyre asking for 40 disciplinary forms and have all negotiations in public. Philadelphia passed a law prohibiting contract talks with their Police Attorney until the public hearing takes place and Community Demands incorporate into negotiation. It is your responsibility, supervisors, to prevent sfpd from operating in the shadows. Do the right thing. Clerk thank you for your comments. Lets welcome the next caller, please. Caller hi, im calling to demand the board of supervisors project the p. O. A. Contract negotiation. And call a public hearing to provide trance transparency into future Contract Negotiations. Ronen, i appreciate your celebrating wins on twitter and i hope you are listening please address your comment to the board as a whole. Address your comments. Board as a whole, i think that were all very excite today say bye, whether he is gone or not with the p. O. A. Contract is still going to exist black and brown folk will be targeted and support will still be criminalized. I know you mean well but i invite you to think critically and live by what you say and who we should be supporting. And thats marginalized in the press to have the right to live dignified lives. They have a salute of the use of power and to call out that violence is violence and abuse that all employ in the communities. What better time. What a better time now to stand up to the racist p. O. A. Anti bias training for police doesnt work because police inaudible . Thank you for your comments. Operations, lets unmute the next caller, please. Caller hello. Welcome, caller. Caller hi. My name is lawyer and i live in district 8 and im also calling to urge the board of supervisors to reject this p. O. A. Contract and we should have full public hearings before any kind of renegotiation. Its very important we get meaning. Policy concessions like other cities have done. Thank you, bye. Thank you for your comments. Operations, lets unmute the next caller, please. Caller before i start, i want to ask that after im done that the clerk gives us an update on the queue and continuous updates on that. Thats all, thank you. My name is emily and i live in district 9. Im demand the board reject the racist p. O. A. Contract renegotiations and culture future negotiations to be public. This Contract Negotiation is an act of violence towards black, indigenous and brown lives and the un they marched in the streets in the names of black lives matter and when can he called into the previously medicine and told you to cut the budget one discuss was the p. O. A. Contract prevented you from certain cuts. You did nothing. Any attempt to rubber stamp this contract is complicity with the system of Police Violence. Earlier this month, sfpd, or last month, sfpd shot and killed a man in crisis in the streets. So White Supremacists police if certainty is defending this murder. You want to rubber stamp that and defend them. Across the country theyre holding Police Fraternity as count able and have negotiations with their Police Fraternity theyre asking for disciplinary reforms. Thank you so much for your comments. There are 11 speakers unti in te queue. Can you press star 3 if you are interested in providing Public Comment. Operations, next caller, please. That completes the queue. Clerk ok. All right. Well, thank you operations. Mr. President. President yee thank you. Thank you for the Public Comments and seeing no other Public Comment, Public Comment is now closed. Madam clerk, lets go to for adoption of committee reference. Clerk items 3033 were introduced for adoption without reference to committee. A unanimous vote is required for resolutions today. Alternatively any supervisor may require a resolution to go to committee. President yee ok. So lets see. Colleagues, would anyone like to officer any items for supervisor mandelman . I dont want t sevenner anythinto severanything but imr for 30. Clerk ok. Thank you. President yee anybody else want to officer anything. Seeing none, eye like to be ide added as cosponsor. Lets call the roll on items 3033. Clerk on items 3033 [roll call vote] clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee out objection the resolutions are adopted and motions approved unanimously. Could you read the memoriams. Clerk yes, mr. President. Todays meeting will be adjourned in memory of the following beloved individuals. I have, on behalf of supervisor stefani, for the late ms. Linda squires growing. President yee ok. Colleagues, that brings us to the end of the agenda. Madam clerk, is there any further business before us today . Clerk that concludes our business for today. President yee thank you, madam clerk. There are no further business, go ahead and go out there and do your civic engagement. We are adjourned. It looks at good and tastes good and it is good in my mouth pretty amazing. I am the executive chef ive been here as a chef at la concina since 2005 reason we do the festival and the reason we started to celebrate the spirit and talent and trivia and the hard work of the women in the la concina program if you walk up to my one on the block an owner operated routine i recipient its a theyre going to be doing the cooking from scratch where in the world can you find that im one of the owners we do rolls that are like suburbia that is crisp on the outside and this is rolled you up we dont this it has chinese sisterinlaw and a little bit of entertain sprouts and we love it here. There are 6 Grilled Cheese grilled to the crisp on the outside outstanding salsa and a lot of things to dip it knocks you out and its spicecy and delicious i was the first person that came here and we were not prepared for this every year were prepared everybody thinks what theyre doing and we can cookout of our home and so the festivals were part of the group we shove what we do and we w we tried to capture the spirit of xrifs. And there from there to sales and the hard part of the sales is 250 assess our market and creating a Market Opportunity giving limited risks and sales experience to our guys and good afternoon. Welcome to the land use and Transportation Committee of the San Francisco board of supervisors for today, monday, november 2nd, the day before the most important election in our lives. Our clerk is miss erica major, miss major, let me announce actually, call the roll, miss major. Call the roll, supervisor peskin. Present. Supervisor safai. Safai absent. Supervisor preston. Present. Thank you, sorry, safai is present. The only reason i asked for you to call the roll, the screen that i have doesnt show me everybody who is participating, so im not sure why this device is doing that. But all right. Ms. Madam clerk, do you have any announcements. Yes, mr. Chair. Due to the covid19 Health Emergency and to protect board members, employees and the public, board of supervisor legislative chamber and Committee Room are closed. However, members will participate in the meeting remotely. This precaution is taken pursuant to the statewide stayathome order and all local and state orders. Committee members will attend through Video Conference and participate in the same extent as if they were physically present. Public comment will be available on each item on this agenda. Streaming the number across the screen. Each speaker will be allowed two minutes to speak. Comments or opportunities to speak during the Public Comment period are available via phone by calling the number 4156550001, again, thats 4156550001. The meeting i. D. Is 1466007437. Again, thats 1466007437. Press pound and pound again. When connected you will hear the meeting discussion but will be muted and in listening mode only. When your item of interest comes up star and 3 to enter to the speaker line. Speak clearly and slowly and turn down your television or radio. Alternatively, submit comment in the following ways, myself, land use and transportation clerk at erica. Major at sfgov. Org. If you submit Public Comment via email, it will be forwarded to the supervisors and part of the file. And they can be sent also. Finally, items acted upon today are expected to appear on the board of supervisors agenda on november 10th unless otherwise stated. Thank you, miss major. Could you please read the first item. Item 1, temporarily restrict landlords of eviction of commercial tenants during the pandemic. Call the number 4156550001, meeting i. D. 1466007437, press pound and pound again. If you have not done so already, star 3 to line up to speak. The system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. Mr. Chair. And i want to start by thanking my colleague on this panel, supervisor preston as well as two of our colleagues on the board of supervisors, supervisors mar and walton for their cosponsorship. This may seem like an extraordinary measure but this is an extraordinary and unprecedented time in San Francisco and i wanted to start by thanking and acknowledging the mayor of San Francisco, mayor london breed, for the extraordinary steps she has already taken in a number of executive orders, and this legislation builds off of that. This is commercial eviction protection legislation, and lets be clear. Time is not on our side. Businesses are closing every day, not only in San Francisco, but around our country and i think we all know that its not just because of business losses, its also about inability to pay what we are establishing in rent that exists before the pandemic and no longer realistic in this new economy. And our imperative is to maintain the cultural fabric of different neighborhoods in San Francisco ranging from chinatown that i represent to japantown that supervisor preston represents, and other neighborhoods across the city, and we cannot afford to delay this because if we do we will wake up to communities like chinatown that are decimated with the unique Cultural Heritages that they represent, and i said earlier today that actually happened a half century ago in the case of the Western Addition and the fillmore district during the bad days of redevelopment and once those long standing Community Legacy businesses went away, they never returned. And we have to do everything in our power to do the same in this instance. We all have a shared interest in the stability of Small Businesses in San Francisco, and indeed Small Businesses are the vast preponderance of our employer base in San Francisco. As a matter of fact, some, over 80 of businesses in San Francisco employ ten people or less, and that shared interest extends obviously to lessors and Property Owners and landlords and Small Businesses and their employees as well as every resident and future visitor. And to that end, this legislation would extend the commercial Eviction Moratorium declared and extended by a number of mayoral executive orders and allowed by action by executive order by the governor of the state of california, my former colleague, gavin newsom, for all Small Businesses under 25 million in gross receipts for the full duration of the california Eviction Moratorium. It creates tiered repayment, for 25 or less employees, 24 months, and 11 and 25 employees, a year and a half. Businesses from 26 to 50 employees, 12 months to repay. And in the smallest tier, most Small Businesses operating in San Francisco, you would have the right to terminate your lease despite the contract. And as with the mayors declarations, we also acknowledge that small Property Owners are hurting as well. So if you are a landlord who owns less than 25,000 square feet totally in San Francisco, you can apply for hardship waiver from these requirements. And as with our covid19 response, San Francisco has incurred the earliest pains and have reached some of the earliest gains, albe it we have delayed the expansion of our reopening tomorrow. We are proceeding with our recovery but if we really want to fully recover, we are all going to have to share the pain between Small Businesses and landlords and come up with Creative Solutions to this problem. Thats the full thats really the only path forward to a full recovery. And this legislation gives options. It gives leverage to Small Businesses. It brings people to a table to negotiate and its really about encouraging that relationship between Property Owners and their tenants. Exactly in the same way that we have done on the residential side. And if you dont like the 24month repayment period, you can negotiate Something Else that may be shorter or longer and we really encourage folks to reach that alternative agreement and my hope is this legislation will provide the space for those discussions and negotiations and agreements to be realized, and if you are a landlord, i encourage you to do everything in your power to help your tenant survive. After all, given our retail controls in San Francisco you may not have another tenant in the future, and failure to do so will probably be less productive than working something out now. And i really want to, in addition to thanking my cosponsors, thank a number of attorneys who have been representing Small Businesses under extreme pressure, dean ito taylor, allen lowe, and in my office, my staff, lee hefner, and with that, supervisor preston, are there any comments that you might like to add or subtract . Nothing to subtract. Let me just add to thank you, chair peskin, for your leadership on this issue, and also for i think threading the needle in a way thats smart, thats going to force some Property Owners to the table. I do think that there is in a sense the way it is right now and i think we all came together and appreciate the mayors leadership around the moratorium, and those have been, the ones done by executive order have been shortterm, and by their nature that makes some sense and i think this is the right process where we are looking at something thats going to be around longer, provide longer term protection, that it goes through the body, allows folks to weigh in in a way that they cant necessarily do so with the same public process on executive orders. But i also think that to me this legislation is very much about fairness. We have a situation right now where there are there are commercial Property Owners right now around the city who are doing what they should do, who recognize Small Businesses are hurting, who are coming to the take, taking less than the full rent, who are working out payment plans, who are waiving some rent, being creative in those solution. And i applaud the folks doing that. And then we have some landlords who are not doing that with their business, who are insisting that despite the suffering that their business tenants are going through, that residents across the city are going through, they are adamant 100 of the rent throughout a global pandemic, where Small Businesses have had little to no revenue. And i think thats an unreasonable position. And i think that one of the real impacts of this legislation should it move through and be passed by the full board is to force those landlords who have i think unreasonably dug their heels in to just begin acting like some of the more reasonable commercial landlords in this city and theres no reason why the unreasonable folks should be drawing blood, so to speak, and getting every penny of rent from people who cant afford it while other landlords are acting more reasonably, are giving folks a bit of a break and working out as something that works for everyone. So, i think thats the biggest impact of this legislation. Yes, this will stop evictions. Yes, this will force some folks to work out payment plans. What it will really do, it will change the dynamic that exists right now, and chair peskin, you mentioned japantown in my district, the Japan Center Mall has so many businesses and a commercial Property Owner that has not been willing to negotiate with the tenants, and theres a lot of detail in this legislation but to me the biggest impact is landlords like that are going to have to come to the table. The only thing that will make sense for them to come to the table if this legislation gets through. I appreciate your leadership and your staff and lee hefner in particular for all the work getting this right and proud to be a cosponsor of it. Thank you, supervisor peskin. And supervisor safai, i am wait i think for some late breaking amendments, so after we go to supervisor safai we will go to Public Comment and if i have the amendments i will introduce them. In either event, whether i have them timely during this meeting or not, we will continue the meeting to november 9th. Supervisor vice chair safai. Thank you, mr. Chair. Just want to say this is an obvious statement but i think it needs to be reiterated. I think some people want to live in a different reality. These are extraordinary times. These are absolutely extraordinary times. And because of that you cant show me one business in this city that doesnt want to remain in business. You cant show me one person that gets up every day thinking to themselves i dont want to pay my rent, i dont want to conduct my business. Its the opposite. They live with the anxiety of debt. I have a barber in my district and he said im thinking about just closing up shop. The weight of the debt on my shoulders feels like too much. I have too much pride. Im not the kind of person that wants to be in debt for the rest of my life. And that story plays itself out over and over and over again. And all we are trying to do, and i would like to be added as a cosponsor to this legislation. I thought i had conveyed that to you sooner, apologize for not getting it sooner definitely want to be a cosponsor. We are trying to ensure that peoples livelihoods can remain, that people can continue to have a place to go to work, and that our communities are not completely devastated. And thats what we are facing. We are facing the future of so many of these businesses, people that have put their entire lifesavings on the line and they have this massive burden of debt hanging over them, and then not to mention the threat of eviction. Not quite sure what some of the landlords are thinking, i think if they were to evict and massive evictions in commercial spaces they wouldnt then be able to turn around and rent these spaces, so im not quite sure what thats about. Allow there to be more period of time, for people to pay off their debt, to put a pause on the idea of evicting people during this crisis and these extraordinary times and this legislation meets that standard of measure and allows us to really get a balance back and hopefully well be able to continue to protect some of these communities and businesses. That doesnt mean the landlords will not be without collecting their rent because i know people will still be obligated to do that, and as supervisor preston said and you said, supervisor peskin, they will work out payment plans and a way to pay off their debt. The reasonable thing to do here is sit down and negotiate, and thats what this legislation does. Proud to be a cosponsor. Thank you so much for your cosponsorship. Madam clerk, open this up for Public Comment. James is checking to see if there are any callers in queue. If you have not done so, star 3 to be added to the queue. James, first caller, please. Yes, my name is dean erickson, im an owner after small family owned business, fit neighborhood fit, also a member of the San Francisco independent Business Coalition and also a tenant and a landlord, so i understand both sides of the fence, if you will. Im calling today to voice my support for commercial lease legislation allowing alignment of the commercial eviction mother moratorium. Its absolutely that the rent and threat of landlord eviction is mitigated like many. Like many, i have, as a landlord refusing to discuss our lease situation and putting a plan in place. I have requested a number of meetings, offered proposed solutions, expressed interest in longterm commitment, only to be ignored and my business is held hostage by my landlord. San francisco leadership needs to step in to set guidelines and reestablish meant the vacancy tax to support the Small Business community. Crush Small Business, provide landlords all the leverage and negotiations and set the citys economy up to fail as Small Business owners have to walk away from their leases. This again is the no brainer decision on our shoulders. One that must be acted on for the wellbeing of the San Francisco economy. Speakers time has expired. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Looks like we have 16 listeners and nine in queue. Good afternoon. Stefy, a resident of San Francisco, grew up in the east bay, city is a special place for my family and me. Come here to eat and shop in the Small Businesses around japantown and the city. We dont have any family here but Small Businesses made us feel like home. My parents visit me and often times shop at Small Businesses. 44 of the activity, and one of the biggest employers. Small businesses have made the city what it is today. Drive people like my family to visit. Communities that i care about, japantown. And built on dreams and livelihoods across the city and nation. Asking for your full support in its entirety and full support from the board supervisors next tuesday. We need it to pass to give the Small Businesses a fighting chance and a chance to be the vibrant, beautiful, diverse and unique home to so many. Thank you to the supervisors on this call and to the future supervisors who support this. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. My name is evan, my wife and i own a small Fitness Studio on Market Street and im calling in support of this ordinance. I think its instrumental in keeping Small Businesses afloat. A few things i would say, i think its good to align with the state. So much uncertainty with Small Business and doing it with the state, Small Businesses and landlords, more certainty of things. The only other suggestion, especially for the smaller tenants less than ten people, longer than 24 months, should have a Square Footage component. Ten people in the 800 square foot face versus the ten people in the 8,000 square foot warehouse. Another component to look at different rents based off of Square Footage. And i think a lot of us will owe 200,000, and its 10,000 a month in addition to rebuilding the business. In full support and i hope you guys are too. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Notified when your line has been unmuted, you may pegin your comments. Begin your comments. Hillarie, japantown for justice, coalition for the Young Leaders working locally to promote economic sovereignty. Asking for your full support of this ordinance in its entirety. As a fourth generation japanese american, my ties to the Japanese Culture and community directly correlates to San Francisco japantown. If this ordinance doesnt pass, not only will so many Small Businesses go under in japantown but decimate the community we have worked so hard to preserve and honor. These businesses are the heart and soul of japantown. Without them, japantown will cease to exist and future generations will never know and experience the magic of a cultural district such as ours. Please give our Small Businesses a fighting chance to make et through this pandemic. Support this ordinance in entirety and urge you and your coworkers do so as well next week once it passed. Eight in queue. Next speaker, please. Hello. Can you hear me . Yes, you may begin your comments. Ok. Great. Thank you. Hi, my name is nia, calling from berkeley, california but a graduate student at the university at San Francisco state university. Im calling asking for your full support of the commercial Eviction Moratorium ordinance today and the board of supervisors next week. I echo hillaries sentiments, im a fifth generation japanese american and come to San Francisco to connect with my roots by going to japantown and knowing the communities of color have consistently been displaced across San Francisco. It is important we continue to support the Small Businesses that continue to hold on to that cultural legacy, continue being Community Spaces for current and future generations. The covid pandemic has devastated Small Businesses, residents, tenants, not only in San Francisco but the nation. And i believe its in your power to stop that by resisting our communities to be harmed by the exorbitant rental crisis. I hope you will continue to save our Small Businesses and save what makes San Francisco great. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Youll be notified your line has been unmuted and you may begin your comments. Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is paul wormer, and i guess its a relief to be talking on something other than the all electric new construction ordinance. Thank you, supervisor peskin, for sponsoring this and supervisors preston and safai for cosponsoring it. Ive been involved in both the fillmore commercial district and japantown as a customer of Small Businesses. And they are vital and interesting. And it is essential that they be preserved. This ordinance is absolutely, one, a very important part to do that, so, thank you for introducing it. I urge its passage and thats it. Thanks. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Two minutes. Hi, my name is jerry chen, a resident in district one, a board member of the japanesetown task force and community member. Small businesses are crucial to the vitality of our neighborhood. And so i, you know, i thank the supervisors for creating this legislation, and i urge its full support, both here and at the board of supervisors meeting. Japantown as a whole and many businesses have weathered the american incarceration during world war ii as well as redevelopment, but in all these crises took a toll and now our community is once again vulnerable and at risk of the of covid19 and the pending weight of evictions. So i know there are many of our businesses, including our legacy businesses, that really need this support or else they are at risk of closing, and so i thank for writing this and i urge to support it all the way through. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Four left in queue. Hi, malcolm young, and i want to urge the Land Use Committee and the board itself to support this legislation with amendments that the committee im sure will consider and approve. You know, frankly this legislation is a lifeline, lifelines are critical in the era of covid. All the speakers on the floor have mentioned how Small Businesses are failing. At the same time, Small Businesses make up the life blood in many ways, the culture of our community, and thats certainly true of chinatown. So, i want to urge the committee to approve this and the full board to approve it as well. Thank you. Thank you, next speaker, please. Hi, paul, executive director of the japanese cultural and Community Center of Northern California. I live in San Francisco for 60 years. Small businesses are the heart and soul of this city. If this ordinance doesnt pass and the moratorium ends the end of november, there are going to be hundreds, thousands of businesses go out past the holidays. You know, its not just going to affect Small Businesses, when they start to close down, they are going to blighten neighborhoods. Impact is beyond just businesses, you know, they make up the economy of San Francisco. This is crazy that, you know, we havent already extended it and the governor allowing for this. You know, hopefully when we take over the white house and the senate and the stimulus package can be passed, you know, there will be further support to support the economy of this nation. I mean, its the only way its going to happen. I understand landlords are hurting, but you know, its just doesnt equate to some of the landlords who own several properties, multimillions of dollars to a mom and pop business thats all they have. And thats all they have had for decades. And they are going to put them out of business by this, you know, deferred rent that you are going to have to owe in 4, 5 months, and its just going to balloon payment their rent. It will put them out of business. This ordinance has to pass and more government intervention. The only way this situation is going to be solved because this covid pandemic has no end in sight. So we dont know how long this is going to go and how far its going to continue to impact our economy and our Small Businesses. Thank you. Thank you, next speaker, please. Hi, my name is jean erickson, im a Small Business owner, i own Fitness Studios, and im just calling because im hoping for the full support of the commercial moratorium ordinance. As a Small Business community, as a Small Business owner that has put everything into my businesses, with you just really need help to make it through this pandemic. You know, im a landlord and im also a renter, so i can see both sides of it very clearly. But dealing with a landlord who will not even respond to my email, she wont take a call, she wont meet us to talk about it. And we are just sitting here with months and months of rent piling up. You know, ive done my best to pay what i can right now with my business only open at 10 capacity. Just recently being able to open at 25 capacity. But ill tell you, its really daunting to think of having to pay all this back rent so quickly to her when we havent been able to be open and we have lost almost all of our business during this pandemic. So, im going to urge that we make the ordinance longer than 24 months. I think its just a really heavyweight to be putting on these Small Business owners to have to pay the heavy, large sums of rent back so quickly. So when we are talking about we are talking about thousands and thousands of dollars that you are asking us to pay back in a relatively short amount of time. There needs to be help so well stay here and we want to keep fighting to be here. Otherwise, its just a lot of weight on the Small Business operators shoulders. So, thank you so much for helping us out and thank you so much for starting this dialogue and trying to help Small Businesses actually talk to their landlords, and create a more positive out come. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. You have two minutes. Chris chen, im a Small Business owner in the Japan Center Mall, owner of a cafe, and i want to thank you for sponsoring the ordinance. Ordinance will greatly help my Small Business. We have been highly impacted by the pandemic. We were closed for a few months and extremely slow climb back. Revenues are down by more than 60 and the landlord is not negotiating with us. We have tried over and over again, but we have not heard back. And this ordinance will greatly help us with a reasonable repayment plan. Thank you again for sponsoring the ordinance. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. You have two minutes. Hello, matt, a stakeholder in San Franciscos japantown. Call in support of the ordinance. Its full of Small Businesses and the businesses are what make japantown special. Without the business, there would not be a japantown, and i hope you would support this for they have a chance to pay back past due rent. Its not their fault they did not have the fund to raise rent, and continue to have Small Businesses for future generations to enjoy. Thank you, i hope you will support this. Next speaker. Hi, my name is tracy sylvester, owner of e. H. S. Pilates, located in the mission on valencia street. As a board member of the Mission Merchants association, delegate of the district of merchants and a member of another association s advocating for Small Businesses for over ten years. Its important we do all we can for Small Businesses, the heart of wonderful city of San Francisco. Alignment for the Eviction Moratorium by state order. Thank you for your time. Thank you, next speaker, please. Hi, can you hear me . Yes, we can hear you. Begin your comments. Hi. Hi, supervisors, im a resident of district one and a fourth generation japanese american. Im calling to express my full support for this commercial eviction protections ordinance. Like many other minority groups in s. F. , in the Japanese American Community we have a history with eviction in San Francisco. Essentially evicted from s. F. By the u. S. Government in world war ii and then in the 1960s due to redevelopment. Every time we have been kicked out, we have come back to our japantown and even have some Small Businesses here that are over 100 years old. Here again in 2020 we are at risk of getting evicted and this is devastating. Japantown has already lost i think at least seven Small Businesses since shelterinplace began and ive been talking to some of of the Small Businesses here, they are telling me that they are getting charged interest for being late on their payments, some of them 50 a day. Yeah, and these Small Businesses are a huge part of our community. So i really urge you to help us save them, and thank you so much for your work on this ordinance. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Hello i am a resident of the outer sunset and i work at a communitybased nonprofit in japantown. Im calling today to express my support for a commercial moratorium extension and ordinance to enforce it, and i do want to extend my appreciation to supervisors peskin, preston and safai as well for their support and for having the foresight to place policy on the table that will protect our Small Businesses in our communities Going Forward. I am, like many of my colleagues on this call, very concerned about the future of the japantown community and other communities throughout the city. Small neighborhoods with their local businesses are all at risk with the pandemic and without protections in place, you know, without pathways for businesses to be paid back rent, in exorbitant amounts, they will not be able to survive and as others have pointed out on this call, the lifeblood of the communities in this city would not exist without these protections. So, i do want to urge the rest of the board of supervisors to support this ordinance Going Forward and i am hoping for the citys recovery in the future. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Mr. Chair, james indicated that was our last caller. Thank you, madam clerk and colleagues. I will now close Public Comment and let me just start by thanking all the members of the public for their Public Comment this afternoon and as i indicated earlier i do have quite a number of amendments to make to this file which we will continue and those amendments reflect the ongoing evolution of this piece of Public Policy and you will recall that we actually introduced this legislation before the governor extended his original order that was order number n8020, which increased our window to pass this kind of legislation as a local government as well as prior to the mayors most recent 28 supplemental declaration issued at the end of september. The amendments which im about to describe have been circulated to my colleagues and will be included in the public file where anybody can examine them and comment on them again at our hearing on november 9th before this same committee. So, going down the list of those amendments on pages 12, updating the findings to reflect the updated governors executive order and the local supplemental declaration which i just mentioned which extends the protections through the end of march 2021 and november of 2020, respectively. Page three, inserting a new finding that the Small Businesses for the ability or inability to pay back losses for the covid19 pandemic. Page three, line 22, and page five, line six, inserting a series of new definitions for covered commercial tenants, means businesses with less than 25 million in annual gross receipts calculated on 2019 numbers and what that means is that these are businesses that experienced Financial Impact related to covid19 forebearance period, moratorium period, and the four tiers of commercial tenants i described earlier in the meeting. Page five, line eight, the protections that align with each tier for businesses less than 25 million of annual gross receipts that have suffered Financial Impacts, they will not be able to pay rent and the landlord will not be able to get possession during the moratorium period. Tier one businesses, 24 months from the period we discussed earlier, tier 2, 18 months, tier 3, 12 months. And page six, Small Businesses and landlords may arrive at alternative arrangements, i spoke to earlier. Subsection c on page six allows tier one businesses only to terminate the leases during the moratorium period without any liability of rent payments or penalties that comes following the termination, and subsection d, hardship for landlords that own 25,000 square feet of area, and a waiver to landlords who can demonstrate hardships. Subsection e on page seven prohibits late fees or interest from accruing on payments missed due to Financial Impacts resulting from the pandemic and i may next week delete one other subsection, subsection i on page eight, but am not going to do that today, so those are the amendments that i am offering and are there any comments from vice chair safai, cosponsor or member preston, cosponsor . All sound good to me. They sound good to me. I did have a question and i dont know if its a clarification of the existing state of the ordinance or would require potentially additional amendment. If you want to move forward and adopt those amendments before i raise the question it doesnt pertain to these particular amendments. Ok. It does not pertain to the amendments, madam clerk on the motion i just made to move the aforementioned amendments, a roll call please. [roll call vote taken] three ayes. Supervisor preston. Thank you, chair peskin. Here, and maybe this is for deputies to the one thing im trying to understand and make sure is that i think there are some legal questions around where rent is owed under leases. There are some disputes and unsettled questions of law, frankly, as to what extent rent is owed under certain circumstances for a business. So, theres quite a bit of case law, some of which ive looked through, around the commercial frustration of purpose doctrine in which when a Government Order shuts your business down to 0 because of an unanticipated situation. Under what circumstances you may have the right already without the ordinance to either terminate the lease, not pay rent. What i want to make sure, and i want to make sure my understanding is correct of this. Im not a lawyer and dont know this legal theory, like a force mejure concept . Yes, and different concepts, impossibility various defenses, to unanticipated situations that shut down the business and that is one typical contract provision. I think whats important, these are, for the folks who represent the Small Businesses negotiating with the landlords, the question is to what extent do these doctrines apply, what extent in a situation might the tenant not be on the hook for rent. And my purpose for bringing it up, make sure nothing in this ordinance could be read to require a payment, lets say after the moratorium period when we have language about penalties or the obligations to pay, that we are not expanding in any way a landlords right to collect rent. So i dont know, from the deputy City Attorney, maybe as is, we are not expanding those rights. Or waiving those defenses or do we need a provision that says nothing here is intended to to create an obligation to pay rent that may not be as common law, or statute, do we need a provision to make it clear or is it already clear . Madam deputy City Attorney pearson. Hello, everyone. You raised equitable defenses available to tenants who may have an argument that rent is not due under theory of probability, they were not able to do what was in the contract during the term. And i have to be honest, ive read these amendments only in realtime, i had not seen them before they were distributed. I think the suggestion that you are making might be a good one, to just add language to clarify that nothing here is intended to foreclose the availability of the defenses and we can look at that this week, this item will be continued. Thank you, deputy City Attorney pearson. And thank you for raising those really fascinating questions that i dont really understand but i think i do. Yes, thank you. And if we need something next week i think as, in my quick read of the amendments on, you know, just like i was looking at page, what is it, page six, the new c talks about for example, a tenant opts to terminate their lease early, you know, it talks about responsibility for unpaid rent, right . And again, i im confident we are all on the same page from a policy perspective that it would be the opposite of the intent of this ordinance to in any way create obligations for rent thats not otherwise owed, and it would defer to the city of attorney and you chair peskin as to whether something is needed to clear that up or not. And that is certainly not my intent and really appreciate your calling that out and as deputy City Attorney said we have a week to investigate that so relative to the item that has been amended, i would like to make a motion to continue this one week to our meeting of november 9th. On that motion, madam clerk, a roll call, please. Motion to continue as amended to next weeks meeting. [roll call vote taken] you have three ayes. And supervisor safai, appreciate your cosponsorship and supervisor peskin on the leadership side and for all the folks pushing this at the local level. Item 2, ordinance amending the planning code to designate the history of medicine in california frescoes and toland hall, 533 parnassus avenue as a landmark, and appropriate findings. Members of the public who wish to provide public item, call the number on the screen, 4156550001, and meeting i. D. Is 1466007437. Press pound and pound again. If you have not done already, star 3 to sign up for speak. A prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. Mr. Chair. Thank you, mr. Dam clerk and colleagues, i want to thank you, i think it was just about three months ago last day of july we passed a measure asking the Historic Preservation commission and the Planning Department to investigate this incredible set of murals by bernard barok in toland hall on the u. C. S. F. Parnassus campus as a potential landmark. I want to thank the Planning Department as was the Historic Preservation commission that ultimately did the research, presented the case report, and recommended this unanimously to the board of supervisors and i would like to start by turning it over to falia lavalee, from the Planning Department, and then to the university of california vice chancellor brian newman, and i think strides are being made to preserve the work of this incredible muralist whose frescoes are at coit tower, be learned, and the greatest fresco muralist, diego rivera. So with that. Thank you, supervisor peskin. Just one moment while i share my screen. Can you correct me as to how i pronounce your last name, please . Lavallee. My bad. Its all right, thank you. Are you seeing an image on your yes, we are. Ok, great. And its an incredible image. Yes, it is. Thank you. Good afternoon, supervisors. Planning department staff. Before you is an ordinance recommending landmark designation of a history of medicine in california frescoes. Created by artist Bernard Zackheim and his assistants from 1936 to 1938. Artwork is composed of eight panels, and two more panels, on toland hall, university of california Parnassus Heights campus. Frescoes depict california medical history with images of doctors, Lab Scientists and other medical professional, and of suffering and recovered patients. As supervisor peskin mentioned on june 23rd he introduced a resolution to initiate landmark designation for the history of medicine in california frescoes. Land use committee and the full board of supervisors voted unanimously to recommend and approve the resolution, effective july 31, 2020, with the mayors signature. The proposed landmark designation was heard by the Historic Preservation commission on august 19, 2020. Voted unanimously to recommend approval of landmark designation. Its significant with the association of the history of the Work Project Administration federal art project as a work that displays higher values and characteristics of new dealer ra mural artwork and the work of Bernard Zackheim. 1936 to 1938, and at the time of the Historic Preservation Commission Hearing we had three emails and one letter in support of the designation from the public. Separate from the designation, the Preservation Commission made a recommendation that was included in the resolution that was forwarded to the board that the history of medicine in california frescoes be kept together and retained on the ucsf Parnassus Heights campus in a manner accessible for the public to view. Thank you, that completes my presentation, but im here if you have any questions. Are there any questions from Committee Members . Seeing none. Vice chancellor newman. Or miss alden. Vice chancellor brian newman is here, i think hes just getting off his mute. Thank you. To the chair, let brian know his mike is unmuted, so he can speak, you can hear him. Mr. Vice chancellor. Can you hear me now . Yes, we can. Im sorry, i i think i had my default on the wrong set of speakers, apologize. Dont worry, its the time of covid, brian. Can you see me as well . Yes, sir. Okay. Well, chair peskin, members of the supervisor, apologize for that and i thank you for having me back here. I participated in july as well as the Historic Preservation commission. Ucsf remains neutral on the actual ordinance but i want to give you an update on what has transpired since that time when we spoke in july to see if you have any questions about the actions we are taking relative to the zackheim murals. At that time i mentioned that we had a request for proposals out on the street soliciting bids from qualified teams to conserve, remove, transport and store the murals so we could proceed with the new research and Academic Building on the campus, on the ucsf campus, and that r. F. P. Was successful, two highly qualified teams present bids, a thorough process of reviewing qualifications as well as the bids themselves and we selected the Conservation Services g. C. , and group as architect of record to proceed with this work for the university of california San Francisco. So we have awarded the work to them. As you know, they are currently engaged in relocating the diego rivera murals, to sfmoma, they will not begin the Engineering Work on january, but they will be on campus the beginning of january at that do the works, although they will probably not be located to the end of summer. End of the contract in october of 2021. So we were moving forward with that work, but just to be safe, as i mentioned earlier, we also engaged with an outside ven tore, cy art to do high quality digital recordings of the murals themselves, and that is completed. Expanded contracts to do similar works on the other murals at ucsf, so we have a full record of the zackheim work at ucsf. The next step, once the work is underway, to work with all the stakeholders, as well as the broader ucsf on the future display of the murals themselves. We have been collecting ideas and suggestions from all kinds of stakeholders and over the next several months, we will answer the process where the murals will go. But our intention is not to leave them in storage forever. We plan on engaging anyone who has an interest in this to determine where the best location, whether it be ucsf campus or at a Museum Setting where the works of art can be preserved and interpreted formally for the public. Ill leave it there and see if you have any questions. Overall, we are excited about the progress relative to the future of the murals and we are neutral on the specific ordinance, we understand the passion the community and all of you have, and thank the staff and the Preservation Commission for the work of the preparation of the ordinance before you today. So, with that thank you, vice chancellor newman, all rowing in the same direction at least as this aspect from Committee Members. Ill say quickly, mr. Chair, if thats ok. Yes, of course. Im, i would like to be a cosponsor, i thought i was, again, i thought i was already. This is a very important thing. This is a part of our history. I think there was some miscommunication, we have talked about that in the past and glad you are clarifying it today. A message that you were going to archive this via video. You said you clarified that. That to me would not be appropriate based on the history of the mural and the ability to preserve historic artifacts and pieces of art. Im glad to hear that ucsf is committed now to preserving this and we have the ability through endowment, and through benefactors to support this process, im glad that ucsf has committed to this. Its too important piece of would, to lose. Thank you. Member preston, any words . No. All right. Open this up to Public Comment. Thank you, mr. Chair. James from d. T. Helping out with Public Comment callers. James, if you could let us know there are callers, and go ahead and place the first caller on the line. Good afternoon, supervisors. This is willy from San Francisco heritage. I want to express heritages strong support for landmark designation of the history of medicine in california. Ucsf had as youve heard now selected a firm to remove it from toland hall and into storage. They have no plans to renew it to public view. I understand good intentions but no plan announced. This is a publicly funded artwork tied to the site in which it was created. We hope the specificity of this ordinance which recognizes how the arrangement and design of the fresco cycle is inspired by and tied to the parnassus campus. So i hope we are one of the stakeholders that vice chancellor will work with and on view at ucsf for the public too see. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon again, supervisors. My name is paul wormer. One of the marvelous things about San Francisco are the incredible murals that are found in places throughout the city. High schools, hospitals, Old Post Office buildings. And they really are a tremendous education for people. They tell stories that are easily accessible. They give slices of life. There is wit, humor, social commentary critique, criticism in there. These are important parts of our history. So i want to thank you for recognizing this with this legislation. Their importance is definitely related to their location. And because of that i just want to reiterate at mr. Labontes request, that these be publicly available at the parnassus site in a way that represents how they were originally used, if, yeah, how they were originally used, lets leave it there. And with that, i will say thank you for your consideration and thank you for introducing this legislation. Thank you for your comments. Confirming whether we have any further speakers. And that was our last caller. Mr. Chair. Thank you, madam clerk. Motion to send it to the full board with recommendation on that motion. A roll call, please. Motion as stated. [roll call vote taken] next item, please. 3, ordinance amending the Building Code to require new construction to utilize only electric power, all electric requirement, adopting findings of local conditions and confirming appropriate findings. Public wishing to provide comment on item 3, call 4156550001, meeting i. D. Is 1466007437, then press pound and pound again. If you have not done so already, please press star 3 to line up to speak. The system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. Mr. Chair. Thank you, madam clerk. As you recall, colleagues, we duplicated this file and sent one version to the full board to be heard tomorrow and another version in committee as supervisor safai indicated he had some potential amendments, and with that, supervisor safai, the floor is yours. So, everyone should have received my amendments, about five pages long, im just kidding. But just wanted to see the chairs face. No, actually, there are two things i spoke about last week, one was the issue with regard to faults and how the faults play into the process of allowing a project that might be of a certain size to go from dual fuel to completely all electric and what that process is, and extensive process of conversations through the Building Department with potential builders and others. We are going to continue that conversation, its going to require more indepth work at the Building Department. The second issue, the one more pressing and outstanding but in terms of scale, very minimal but in terms of importance to those involved in and looking at it from a city planning perspective, in my mind, very important. And i think what we are trying to do with this legislation is to balance the extreme desire to achieve our environmental goals. We are an environmental crisis, there is a tremendous urgency as i think we have allstated before and state again, this is a phenomenally important piece of legislation and i think we are almost there. But with regard to those in the Restaurant Industry, a lot and feeds in nicely about the conversation not being able to pay rent, not being able to continue your business, worrying about the anxiety of having a business when the pandemic ends. One of the areas of our economy thats been hit the worst are restaurants. And when you look at this from a city planning perspective, yes, the ordinance allows for restaurants to reemerge and be permitted under their existing uses, dual fuel in existing spaces. It only allows a oneyear window for exemption for new construction. And when we are thinking about the mission rocks, thinking about the shipyards and thinking about all the development all over the city, those ever probably some of the places that need more commercial support and often times their desire to put restaurants there and heard overwhelmingly from those in the Restaurant Industry that this could be a deal killer for them and their ability to locate. So, we are going to continue the conversation, we dont have any amendments prepared today, we are going to continue the conversation with the Restaurant Industry and the Environmental Community but i will say off the bat i think one year exemption based on where we are in the economy, based on where we are in terms of the search for technology that might replace the desire for a flame in the restaurant, i think we need, we are going to need more time than one year. But we have not drafted any amendments yet. We are going to continue the conversation, so i would just ask the chair after Public Comment if we continue this item to the call of the chair and will continue to work with those affected businesses. We did have some meaningful conversations with the Chinese Chamber of commerce, with the Restaurant Industry and well continue to have those conversations and hopefully come to some type of compromise. Thank you, vice chair safai. And with that, open it up to Public Comment. Thank you, mr. Chair. James with d. T. Checking to see if there are any callers. If there are any callers ready and go ahead and unmute the first caller. Hi, my name is daniel, thanks again, supervisors for hearing us speak and moving forward with this pressing issue. Last week we were excited to get in planned use. Im here as part of the Emergency Coalition and a resident in district eight. We are definitely concerned about any further exceptions. We actually, as you well know, did not think the restaurant exception was necessary, only sort of a Public Interest exemption to handle cases like the Cultural Heritage cases that are crucially important, as discussed in some of the previous items, so we dont feel extending the additional year restaurants are provided on top of the technical exception that supervisor peskin and mandelman worked through diligently is necessary. Many of the projects that were referenced, like the shipyard have historically poor air quality and burdened with air pollution and burdening them further with more infrastructure, whether its pipes or the poor indoor air quality, does not serve our equity goals. And we are excited to see supervisor safai taking a very holistic view and tackling other parts of the code to unblock the climate goals, and thats something we would be interested in in support of to see how that could evolve now. So, that i want to thank everyone for their time. Thats it. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other members of the public for Public Comment . Hello, my name is sarah greenweld, with 350 San Francisco, and the climate Emergency Coalition and a resident of district two. I would echo his concerns about delay. I was extremely pleased a meeting or two ago, the last meeting, at the progress and i could see that you have worked carefully on exemptions needed. We are continuing the conversation while very goodhearted and certainly wellmet is not terribly specific. So, i dont really know how to comment except to say that climate is not going to wait and the health of people who would be exposed to methane and other toxic gasses if you extend natural gas piping into New Buildings because they might contain restaurants, you know, thats not, health is not going to wait either. I would like to urge all possible [inaudible] on this. Thank you. One last caller. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon yet again, supervisors. This is paul wormer. And i wanted to follow up on the issue of sidewalk faults, and i want to tie it to the recent action in front of the federal energy regular latory between pg e, and raise the issue unlike cities in the Central Valley where everything has been built with airconditioning, and so retrofitting gas heat becomes simple. When you look at San Francisco, which doesnt have airconditioning, the electric grid is not up to the capabilities necessarily as a whole. And so this sidewalk fault issue is one small part of a much bigger problem of how do we get the Electrical Energy to the buildings and how thats paid. And i think thats more than just a building inspection commission, Building Department question. I think that really does play into sfpuc and cleanpowersf. It plays into a more integrated strategy to understand this complex problem which has a lot of interactions with different aspects of the way the city runs. And i urge you not to rush through a vault solution without understanding that it may react with, or interact with other solutions we need to move forward with the full electrification of San Franciscos infrastructure. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Wormer. Does that conclude Public Comment, madam clerk . No, one more caller that popped up. No worries, thats great. Next speaker, please. Hi there, chris, i live in district three, supervisor peskins district. I wanted to address this idea of further extending the exemption for restaurants. I want to be clear, this does not seem to me to be an exemption for restaurants. Seems to be more a bailout for developers. And the neighborhood i live in, there are countless vacancies that could be used for new restaurants so i dont think we have a lack of restaurant space. It seems to me we are trying bail out developers that made bad investments and they should be building all electric commercial spaces Going Forward. With the sidewalk vault issue, im interested in this. The it gives way too much leeway to developers to shirk their requirements, under the Climate Emergency goals and i urge you to consider this idea of closing this loophole. Thank you so much. Thank you, chris. And i think you expressed my sentiments quite well and i do think that supervisor safai is on to something as it relates to the vaults in our sidewalks and that is actually a piece of Public Policy that goes even beyond this legislation that has definitely worth getting our hands around. Any other members of the public that would like to testify on this item . James has confirmed that was the last caller. All right. Close Public Comment. And supervisor safai i believe made a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair on that motion, a roll call, please. [roll call vote taken] you have three ayes. All right. And that is our last item and we are adjourned. To me. Okay, welcome to the San Francisco Historic Preservation Commission Meeting on november 4, 2020. On may 29, 2020, the Mayors Office authorized all commissions to reconvene remotely. This will be our tenth remote hearing. Remote hearings requires everyones attention and most of all, your patience. If you are not speaking, please mute your microphone and turn off your video camera. To enable public participation, sfgov tv will be broadcasting and is streaming this hearing live and we will receive Public Comment on each item on todays agenda. Opportunities to speak during the Public Comment period is available by calling 4156550001, access code 1465162849. When we reach the item youre interested in speaking to, press star and 3 to be added to the queue. Each speaker will be allowed up to 3 minutes to speak. When you have 30 seconds remaining, you will hear a chime. I will announce that your time is up and queue the next person to speak. Best practices is to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and please mute the volume on your television or computer. At this time, i would like to take roll. [roll call] thank you commissioners. First on the agenda is Public Comment. Members of the item can address on agenda items. You can address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. Each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. [inaudible] members of the public, this is your opportunity to request to speak by pressing star and 3 for items that are not on todays agenda. Commissioners, i have no members of the public requesting to speak under general Public Comment. We should move on to department matters. Item one, directors announcements. Staff, do we have any directors announcements . Sorry. Good afternoon commissioners. Just a few updates from the preservation management team. The contracts for 2020 will be received in the end of october. We will hear the legislation at the meeting on november 19 at 10 00 a. M. The ucsf landmarking designation namesly recommended by the committee to the full board on monday, november 2nd. In addition, ucsf announced they hired for the preservation and they should be on site in january. Staff will update the commission as we learn more. This concludes staff updates. I had a question for you on the murals. We can discuss it now, but i wonder if you can find out and report back to us at the next hearing. Are they allowed to remove the character defining feature ahead of it being certified . I dont know the answer to that, but i can certainly get back to you. Okay, if there is nothing further under directors announces, item two, the staff report announcements. I imagine that would have completed that as well. Item three, president s report and announcements. No report, thank you. Item 4, consideration of adopt draft minutes for the review Committee Hearing for september 19, 2020, and regular hearings for the Historic Preservation commission for october 7th and october 21st, 2020. We should take Public Comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak to the minutes. Please press star 3 to get into the queue. I see no members of the public requesting to speak at this time. Public comment is closed and the matter is now before you. I move for the approval of the draft minutes. I second it. Thank you commissioners. On that motion to adopt the review committee and regular hearing minutes. Commissioner. Unanimously 60. Comments and questions . I dont see any so unless anyone has any issues. I think diane is raising her hand. And i see commissioner john as well. Sorry, i was not fast enough to put my name in the chat. I was wondering if shelly could help me further about the discussion we had on friday with, i believe her name is erica. She convened a meeting with the Planning Department staff talking about intangibles and i think and thought it was a great initial discussion and im going to ask shelly to provide more information for the commission to learn more about that. Shelly, we cant hear you, but youre not muted either. [laughter] i think shelly is asking for one second. Okay. Sorry. Shelly, are you ready to go . No, still cant hear you shelly. Im sure shell get back to you diane. While we go to commissioner john and then were going to check in with shelly before we move on. Is that okay . All right. Thank you. I was very interested in what progress they have made and their celebration, whether or not theres going to be maybe a request to extend that and where are we on the issue of nighttime lighting . If we can have a report on the general subject of the ferris wheel at some point, i think that would be a good idea. Dually noted commissioner. If that concludes commissioner comments and questions did you have another item . Yes, thank you. I was contacted by the office of Small Business to participate in a request Proposal Evaluation Panel as you remember, they have a logo now in place where the legacy businesses, and this r. F. P. Is to select the marketing component of it. That will take place well, i think were going to get an orientation next week and we will be asked to submit our comments by the end of november. Thank you commissioner. If there are no further comment from the commissioners, i have a personal favor to ask of the commission, if you would be so kind. The manager of Commission Affairs that works in my small office is leaving to take on a position with the sfmta board as their secretary, so my loss, the departments loss, but sfmtas gain. It comes with a little bit of pride because shell be taking on my role at that body. So, the request is to and i will share my screen, to adopt a resolution commending christines 13 years of service with the Planning Department, the last 6 which were in my office. She was invaluable in helping me set up these remote hearings and allowing the citys business to continue. She led the digitalization of records to allow for easier access to members of the public of the departments records and previously she also worked in the current Planning Session of the department. So if you would indulge me commissioners and adopt this resolution, i would be greatly appreciative. So moved. Second. All for it. Second. And [inaudible] adopt this resolution. Absolutely. Thank you christine. I just personally and on behalf of the commission, thank christine for all her hard work and please stay in touch. I want to add one more thing. She has been phenomenal. I am really happy for her and her career goals and i look forward to continuing to benefit her ability to work across multiple city agencies and also on the digital platform and just going to be clearly missing her, but well see her around. Yes, we will. It will be difficult to replace her. So thank you and ill be asking the same of the Planning Commission tomorrow and presenting her with a hard copy at some point. Thank you commissioners. Now we can move on to calendar 6, 10. 36emv. This is an Environmental Impact report for your review and comment. Is staff prepared to make their presentation . Yes. Hell need to share his screen please. Yes. Do we see the presentation . We do. Okay, great. Joining me today are my colleagues, environmental planner, senior preservation planner, and architecture and design manager. Members of the project sponsor team are present on the line as well. The item before you is a review and comment on the project, draft environmental report. San franciscos local procedures for implementing. Under chapter 21, as amended in 2013, the Planning Department will be scheduling a public hearing to obtain any comments that the Historic Preservation commission may have on the draft d. I. R. For a resource that the Environmental Review officer determines based on substantial evidence to be Historic Research and close. The building on battery street has been identified as a Historical Research and we will discuss this later in the presentation. The draft d. I. R. Was published on october 21, 2020. Public review period began on october 22 of this year and will continue until 5 00 p. M. On december 7, 2020. We have not received any congressmens related to Historical Resources thus far. In advance of this hearing, the commission numbers were sent electronic copies of the d. I. R. And the project that pertained to Historic Resources. The evaluation part one, significance evaluation, the Historic Resources part two, impact analysis, and the preservation analysis at random. As you will recall, a public hearing was published for you in october of 2019. To receive your comments on the draft project alternatives, as we mentioned at that hearing, the design of the proetc. St proposed project was modified using some of the principles that were later include in the retained element guidelines. They were here to provide an opportunity to the commission to receive public testimony, discuss the Historic Resources issues, and to formulate any comment you wish to submit on the draft d. I. R. I would like to introduce my colleague who will describe the proposed project and the alternatives and provide you with a brief summary of the findings of the draft, with regards to the Historic Resources. Thank you rachel. Good afternoon president hyland and Planning Department staff. The project site is comprised excuse me. Its comprised of a single parcel with one three Story Building. They would demolish the internal structure and nonvisible side facades, retain the east and south facing facades and 18 stories, 200 foot tall Hotel Building with 2 restaurants and 2 conference rooms. Public open space will be provided along merchant street. The building at 447 battery street also known as the jones Coffee Company building was constructed in 1907 and was designed by frank. It was identified as historically significant in the here today survey, in the 1970s as the official citywide survey and inventory of significant structures in San Francisco. More recently, this determination was confirmed by the Planning Department in the 2017 Historic Resource evaluation response, which found the building to be eligible for listing in the california register of Historical Resources under criteria 1 with reconstruction and the San Francisco coffee industry. Under criteria 3 as a notable example of the brick store and warehouse building type. The subject building is not locate in the california register eligible at the district. 447 battery street retains significant integrity to convey architectural significance. Features include a three story height and rectangular footpr t footprint, openings for storefronts and building entry on battery street, regular rhythm of window openings, slightly projecting window openings, and brick corners. Based on this, the 447 battery Street Building is a historical resource. The draft e. I. R. Concluded that the proposed project would result in an adverse change to the significance of the Historic Resource at 447 battery street. This was determined to be a significant and unavoidable impact due to the fact that the proposed project would demolish the existing building, negating its status as a building. The proposed project does not meet the secretary of standards and the new construction of an 18Story Building would overwhelm the remanence of the h Historic Building. Three mitigation measures have been identified for the unavoidable impact to individuals Historic Architectural resources, resulting from the product. The first measure includes the project sponsor to documentation of the building. The second is an Interpretive Program concerning the history and architect ral features of 447 battery street. The third is video documentation of the subject building. While these mitigation measures would reduce the projects impact on the Historic Resource on 447 battery street, this will remain significant and unavoidable. To address the significant and unavoidable impact of the proposed project on the individual resource, the draft e. I. R. Identified three alternatives to the proposed project. The note project alternative, the full preservation alternative, and the partial preservation alternative. It was developed in consultation with the members who provided feedback during the october 2, 2019, hearing. They recommended the design of the partial preservation alternative to be more compatible with the existing individually eligible resource at 447 battery street. Also, to draw from the design language of nearby Historic Buildings. Suggestions for improving this compatibility include an organization which the retained walls of the existing building would serve as the base of the taller building, which also included a shaft and another element at the roof line and they recommended making the building taller. H. B. C. Feedback was incorporated into the revised set of alternatives, which was in the draft e. I. R. The existing building would be kept as a commercial building and would not construct any addition. While this no project alternative would not have an impact, it would not meet the project objectives. Under the full preservation alternatives, the character defining features of the Historic Building would be rehabilitated. A two story addition and mechanical penthouse would be set on top of the building and set 15 feet from the visible south and east facades. Some openings will be enlarged and new awnings would be installed. This alternative would avoid Significant Impact and no mitigation efforts would be required and would partially meet the projects objectives. The partial preservation alternative would construct a new 12 Story Building behind and above. This a ternive would have similar impacts to the proposed project. It would not avoid the Significant Impact related to the demolition of 447 battery state and mitigation measures would be similar. This will partially meet the projects objectives. The purpose of todays hearing is to provide comments on the adequacy on the Historic Resource analysis in the draft e. I. R. Now i will direct you back to my colleague rachel to conclude the presentation. Thank you. Before i conclude, i would like to remind everyone that your comments today should be directed towards assisting this commission in formulating its comments on the draft e. I. R. Comments made after the hearing will not be responded to in the document. A public hearing before the Planning Commission is scheduled for november 12th. In order to be responded to and the comments to be in the document, it must be submitted orally or in writing to the Planning Department by 5 00 p. M. On december 7, 2020. After the planning Commission Hearing, the Planning Department will publish a response to comments document, which will contain our responses to all relevant comments on the draft e. I. R. Our comments will be followed by a certification of the final e. I. R. At the Planning Commission. This concludes our presentation. As i mentioned, city staff and members of the project sponsors team are available to answer any clarifying questions you may have. Otherwise, i respectfully suggest that it be open to commission comments on the draft e. I. R. Thank you. Thank you. Did you have questions or comments on the opening presentation . We can afford you 3 minutes if thats sufficient. It looks like my camera isnt on, which is fine. I feel like staff has adequately described the project and the alternatives, but were here for questions. Christina who conducted the alternative analysis, jeffrey and rob who are the project sponsors who are all here to respond to your questions. Thank you, thank you for your time today. Great. Then we should open Public Comment. I have one member of the public requesting to speak. Yeah, this is catherine howard. I wanted to speak about commission matters, which i believe were allowed to do Public Comment on. I dont want to interfere with this e. I. R. Process. Why dont you hang on and maybe after were done with this well afford you the opportunity to submit your testimony. Is that okay with the chair . Commission president . Yes. Very good. Do i do star 3 again or just wait . No, ill just mute you now and as soon as this item is done, well take up commission matters again. Commissioners. I have no other members of the public requesting to submit their testimony so if i see any additional hands raised, i will certainly let you know. For now, well close public dement and allow the commissioners to deliberate. Thank you. Would you like to go first . Sure, thanks very much. This is a very interesting project. Its particularly challenging, i think, from a preservation point of view. I certainly appreciate the project design versus the partial preservation design. I know that we kind of drove from the a. R. C. I think we drove some of those in the direction of the response. My question and comment is that we talk about partial preservation but in this case, the partial the amount of demolition appears to be the same from the partial preservation as the project. So therefore, there is no partial preservation because its a demolition. Its considered a full demolition under the code. So, it feels like there is not a partial preservation alternative since this one is for all intents and purposes, is exactly the same as the project, in terms of the building itself. So the difference between a 12 story and 18 Story Building makes no difference relative to the preservation of the building itself. In this case, the same amount of demolition is taking place actually, more demolition is taking place. You know, than the full preservation, but the same as the project. I dont know how the project sponsor would respond to that but i feel that this partial preservation alternative is not adequate because its not partial. If i could add on and then we can let staff make further comments if they see fit. I think this is you know, weve improved our process and the whole notion of evaluating preservation alternatives should be a process. Up until recently, we didnt see those that work, those studies until this stage of the project. So we ask project sponsors to bring their project to us sooner. As a result, if we remember the partial preservation was a much sho shorter building stereo so we were trying to take this project through the process and get it as close to the proposed project as possible. I think i understand that the partial preservation, we label it that because it doesnt meet the standards and therefore cant be a full preservation. So, while its not a full i would agree that its not adequate as a full preservation project, i think its adequate to include in the e. I. R. , because it documents the process we went through and it shows that the proposed project, even though its much greater, its less environmentally superior, which means the proposed project could end up well, i guess its going to be a demolition. Well, did you want to add on to that . Yeah, the comment is recorded and well definitely include it in the letter. I just want to go off of what you were saying commissioner. Its a challenging process because in this case, because this is a retained elements project, basically developed parallel with the adoption of the retained elements policy. We were we are still struggling with how exactly to incorporate a partial preservation alternative in a case where the project is a retained elements project. I think we that the design landed where ultimately because we felt, or it was felt that the materials, the demonstration patterns and were sort of more compatible with the facades of the existing building, which has been noted to be a demolition. With that said, it will be slightly smaller than the proposed project. Finally, it would be more compatible with the built fabric in the area, with other Historic Buildings in the area. Primarily, i think because of the materiality and the pattern, this was thought to be something, you know, would have a lesser impact than the project. Yeah, i just want to jump in there. So i appreciate that, thank you. This is so challenging. You know, i always find this process so challenging because we want to encourage the development and you know, our role is not to do that. Our role is to look at the preservation of the specific building. I think the project is substantially better than the alternative, but thats a qualitative evaluate of t evaluation of the overall project. So as a retained elements project, its fine. It makes total sense as a retained element. Then were just looking at the facade and were keeping the basic character and shaping the project above to be, you know, less certainly from the street, obviously impactful, but less impactful because of the setbacks and the area floors and all of that. So i appreciate that. Its just that this middle ground is always this kind of dicey place where we as preservationists have to look at it one way and then as planners in a sense, you know, it has a whole different there is a whole different kind of response. So any way, i appreciate that. Thank you. Yep. Thank you commissioner. I will add on or reiterate, i think that the process has allowed us to from our perspective, improve the proposed project and have it be more in keeping at least with the context of the surroundings and maintaining the facade. So commissioner i agree. Did you want to make any comments . Yeah, im sorry for the feedback on my mic. Im not sure whats going on. I also agree that its a greatly improved process. My question is about how racial and social equities can be incorporated. We have made it a priority and an important part of the process, but im not sure how to incorporate it into this kind of document, so i would like to bring that up and see if we can talk about that in future e. I. R. S with staffer staff because this talked about Cultural Resources and there is one line about the chinese community. I thought we just need to figure out how to further incorporate history and all cultures and all contributions. Perhaps one area that can be done is through the e. I. R. Process . I dont know how much study has been done at that stage, but we obviously havent heard. San Francisco Department staff, i just wanted to follow up on that. The other department is definitely looking into further incorporation of our racial and social equity goals. First there was a resolution passed by the h. B. C. , so were not only doing outreach with our Historic Resource consul tablta but our processes through the department and were happy to come back to you with those ongoing goals and processes as we move forward. Commission president , the commissioner is requesting to speak. Yes, thank you. So where are we now . I think were at the point where we need to decide whether this proposed e. I. R. Adequately points out the preservation issues and if im correct, then i just like i think it does. I think the commission has established a pretty good record of how we have struggled with this particular project since it really is mostly a retained elements thing. I think that is pretty clear from the record and our commission and from the e. I. R. Mr. President , is that where we are at in the process . Yes, thats correct. As far as the Planning Commission and our desire to communicate our concerns and issues with all projects that have impacted the Historic Resources, theyre looking to us for advice and guidance because they will be improving the design and the project overall. Right. If i may, essentially this is the draft environmental report opportunity for the public and the Historic Preservation commission to submit their testimony and certainly i think your advice to the Planning Commission will be considered by them. Your comments will be included in the responses to comments document that staff will be preparing for the final Environmental Impact report. So is there anything further for us to do today on this . Theres no action on this matter. We will be selecting the comments and staff will incorporate that into the draft e. I. R. And the Planning Commission will review our comments, along with other comments as they certify the e. I. R. The question is then, does the staff feel that it has adequate information from us so they can do its job . You know, yes, i believe i do. Just to summarize, i think there was a comment. Excuse me to interrupt, we still have a few other commissioners that need to speak and comment and then we can but to answer your question commissioner, probably. There may be additional demecom from other commissioners. Commissioner black, do you want to go ahead and comment . Yeah. I understand completely the struggle. I remember we struggled with this at a. R. C. You know, i think one of the difficulties is looking at graphics, especially some sort of small Computer Generated graphics. Its sometimes hard to translate what it looks like physically. The partial preservation design. I think it would actually look better in the field than it does in this graphic. I think it works. I think they did take into account our concerns about the call, the capital. I think it works. Its less sexy than the proposed project by a long shot. Its very difficult to struggle between the Design Review hat and the a. R. C. And the levels preserving a building. Thats part of our job. So, its a struggle. Its really a struggle. I think both projects work. The proposed project is further away from pure preservation, no getting around it. On the other hand, in this kind of a context, its a better building. So, here we are. Those are my struggled comments. Thank you commissioner black. I completely agree. The proposed project is a much improved project. I think its a success for the most part. Obviously, you know, were going to be seeing many of these projects coming before us. We have one other that i think is as successful as this. Successful is a relative term. I think the proposed project has achieved the goals of what we were attempting to achieve. The partial preservation, i think, in comparison seems a little heavier. While the tri par tide is stronger, the delicacies of the proposed project is superior. So initially i was thinkings that i like to see it stronger on the proposed project, and comparing the two and the fact that they changed the plainer qualities of the wall above and below the cornice, i think its successful. For the direction that we given them up until now, i think its a very i appreciate the design team. I know that they struggled. I really appreciate them taking the project this far and really, i think incorporating their thoughts. On the existing building. I do have three points. Historically its a stucco building. This is the only one in the area that hadnt been sandblasted over the years. Luckily it didnt damage the brick as much as other buildings in the neighborhood, so i think we expect to see a brick building because thats what were use to. So i wouldnt propose any changes where the original storefront on the ground floor was more historic and they have been lost. Thats just part of the evolution so i wouldnt ask for any consideration on that because were going to be having more storefronts and they will be more in keeping with the contemporary building. I am wondering, the windows, if there is a possibility to have something a little more in keeping with the Historic Windows that have been lost. I think we have sliders in there now. So, anything would be better than what was currently there. So having a single pain of glass, which i think theyre proposing seems like a missed opportunity to put Something Back that would make the Historic Building more compatible. So thats one thing i dont know where were at with the process or if we can ask for that as part of the mitigation measures. Thats one item that i would add. I believe it wants to install double hung windows. That is a comment that the project should include historically appropriate windows. Okay. Also, as a point of clarification, does the commission find that the e. I. R. Analyzes inadequate ranges of alternatives or is there a request for an additional partial alternative at this point . No, im okay with that. Yeah. Great. I would like to add excuse me sir. I would like to add that i forgot to mention, i think the hyphen in this project is extremely successful. I like the double story and you can view a story and half and the treatment of the curtain wall so you dont read the two stories on top of it. I think thats very successful and i hope we can see more of this kind of treatment in these hyphens. Great, thank you. Very good commissioners. If that concludes your comments sorry, i have one more thing. Sorry. You dont need to record it, i just want to know that the base of the project with the top, the cascade top, is it just because they need to max that out as an e. I. R. . Is it related to what the president mentioned about the tri part of this . It is really odd, by the way, designwise. Thats kind of how they need to maximize what they can do. Its like putting a weird cap on top of a building. I believe it was the shadows, the light and shadow requirements. It drove the setbacks and this outdoor space. Thats my understanding. So the facade and also the topography of the language, its like a spaceship landed on this building, you know . I like the transition, you know. I really like the double height curtain wall delineating the old and the new but when it gets to the very top, i just want to know, are we expecting seeing similar things coming to us when the project is going through. Are we going to see all these cascading terraces that have nothing to do with the rest of the buildings design . Thats a very good points. Commissioner pearlman, do you want to add to that . Yes, i wanted to comment on that. I think the design, the project its part of the e. I. R. Because its the project thats being reviewed. The alternatives are the things that we have gotten involved in that process. So, the idea of the tri par tide basement capital as the partial preservation is one that we encouraged them to do. I agree with the president that its a clunky, odd design, but again, i dont think anyone really cares. I think its just the question of have you studied like if that were the appropriate solution, i dont think that would be the project that would be the final project. There would be a lot of evolution of that design if that partial preservation was the direction that the project would move in. So the idea it has this stepping terrace, upper floors, thats a design element thats related to the quest for some open space, stepping away, reducing shadows in the street and things like that. Thats the architecture part. It does explain it. The reason im bringing it up is so that the staff can look into it. If they can incorporate these setbacks with the shadow and light exposure for the street level, there is a way to make it a part of the building instead of this is where the planning code dictates us and this is where we have to look like this. Its something that i wish i like to share with the staff to see if there is a way you could recommend and suggest and shepherd the project sponsor for incorporating a better building as a whole. Eventually it will get further tuned and tweaked, but when i see a project like that, the time it takes to go through all the processes, they usually exhausted their design resources and they end up to stick with what they have. Its been daylighted to the public. So thats something im concerned how many more designs they can go in and polish. Its just a general comment that i like to share with you all. I think its a valid comment. I would like to add that as we shepherd these projects through the process, youll have more involvement at the beginning of the project so you will be able to help us evolve the project. Excuse me. I think that the designer would probably prefer not to have these cornices, and maybe thats one of the ways which you can resolve it. Im thinking the conservatory and the shape of the building, while one considers it to be interesting looking, whether you like it or not, but interesting. It was totally driven by the light and the shadows and the requirements and then the program. So they took advantage of the Program Element of that. So, i wouldnt suggest we i would suggest that we continue in the course of direction we taken them on. We can certainly include your comments, if you think there is something more to be looked at. I think it was more of like a comment in general, like a general observation. I am all for this project to move forward, to do what you need to do. I mean, what the staff needs to do. Just really in general, overall, if we could do a better transition in terms of like the flow of the design in respect to historical significant contacts and to take another stab at it. There are challenges to do that. I would encourage it more. Commissioners, i just wanted to say i understand your comment. You refer to the upper set back stories into the building in a more harmonious state, is that correct . Yes, just the project ended up chosen goes with that option, yeah. Okay. Well, i mean if you look at it right now, i guess its like this is kind of like a schematic level. If you look at the window treatment, the language of it, it is three different distinctively different ones. The base one, which is historically significant, is retaining. There are certain things i believe a designer can do to incorporate design language in the demonstration and the facade pattern. To setback those cascade pieces to be more in coherent with the bulk of what theyre adding into the hotel portion. You know, the cornice should be there and it is there. Its one of the previous where now im aware of and now im just talking about in general, maybe it is clearly designed to make it look like three different things, where i think that if this option, should it ever be chosen, the designer should be incorporating the m d middle part together as a whole piece. I know there is a way to do it. I just wish that i you know, that you can highly encourage them to take a good look at it. [please stand by] i do agree that maybe theres some other ways to bring the penthouse or the massing above the cornice, a little more pleasing design. And one more thing. It is acknowledged that this does not meet the standards, so, you know, were not in a place where were evaluating it relative to the standards because weve already acknowledged that it doesnt meet it. So then, we look at then, its just an Architectural Design program where these retain the facades. Yeah. Thats a struggle. Its always a struggle, yeah. Very good. Shall we move on . Clerk yes. That concludes your deliberations for the draft e. I. R. Through the chair, well go back through the commission matters and accept Public Comment. Miss howard, are you still there . Yes, that was very interesting. Ca cath catherine howard, friends of the museum. Rec and park did hold a meeting last week, however, with only one weeks notice given to the public. There is a sign to, quote, let rec and park know how you feel about the wheel. Nevertheless, there were a number of people objects to the wheel and letters submitted. It includes the bright lighting of the wheel, and pulsing and vibrating lights that can be seen from parnassis. Last week, we contacted rec and park and asked what further steps they will be taking in regards to your directive regarding comments and feedback. We are delighted to support commissioner johns request so the public can express their concerns directly and propose mitigation to this intrusive feature in the music concourse. Another member of the public had called in, and she had trouble with the system. She just texted me. She gave up, but she seconds the request for a report and a hearing, and thank you for sliding me between items. Clerk great, thank you. Commissioners, we should now continue with your regular calendar for item 7, case 20209508, d. C. O. For administrative technical issues. This is shelley. Can we hear you now . Clerk we can hear you now. We can hear you now, but i have to recuse myself before staffs presentation. I live within the boundaries of the project, so i will have to recuse myself. Can i have a motion . So moved. Second. Clerk thank you. Commissioners, on that motion to excuse commissioner brock [roll call] clerk so moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously. Commissioner johns, you are excused. I also need to recuse myself, as well. So moved. Second. Clerk thank you, commissioners. On that motion to recuse commissioner so [roll call] clerk so moved, commissioners. That [inaudible] commissioners, please tell me that no one else needs to be recused, other sides, we would lose a quorum and otherwise, we would lose a quorum and not be able to proceed on this matter. Hearing none, thank you very much, shelley, the floor is yours. Thank you, commissioner secretary, and i apologize for technical difficulties earlier. If youd like to ask any questions that you posed at the beginning of the hearing, im happy to go through all that. I wanted to start my presentations by sharing a statement that the Human Rights Commission has drafted with the help of the American Indian community. This will be considered by the board of supervisors at their meeting next week. So with that, we want to acknowledge that we are on the unceded Ancestral Lands of the ohlone. As the indigenous stewards of this land, and in accordance with their traditions, the ohlone have never ceded their territory and allow all people to reside in their traditional territories. As guests, we realize we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. We wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. I know this commission has asked to start including a land acknowledgement in their own hearing, so well bring it back before you after its hopefully approved by the board lanext week. Today, we are presenting an administrative code to expand the boundaries of the American Indian cultural district and provide Additional Details regarding the cultural and historic significance of the district. This extends roughly from 17 street at sanchez over to folsom, and iffi im allowed t pull up my map, i can share my screen and further discuss the boundaries. Thank you. So were looking at the proposed boundaries, which i just directly described. After speaking with the district staff yesterday, i learned that the boundary that were currently reviewing was the area first envisioned by the community when we were first forming the district, and it was after discussions with supervisor ronens and supervisor mandelmans offices, that this district was approved. There is now general agreement among the districts about the boundary. While theyre speaking about the boundary, id like to explain staffs recommendation to modify the text description in the ordinance before you. It was not clear to us whether or not the lot on either side of the boundary streets were intended to be included as part of the district. So, for example, as you [inaudible] avenue, with the buildings on the northside of duboce be included in the district . So wed asked that the language be amended to be more explicit. After speaking with the director of the department yesterday, ive learned that it was meant to include both sides of 17 street as well as the whole of dolores park. In other areas such as Market Street and duboce avenue, theyd like to see the boundary drawn at the midpoint of the street. This is particularly significant because it Market Street represents a shared boundary with the castro lgbtq district, and it also reflects important boundaries and areas for the American Indian community, so theyd like both areas included in the district. I think this language adequately captures the description of the land that carries such cultural significance to the American Indian people. Staff is generally of the opinion that the community [inaudible] our best positions to understand what boundaries are most appropriate. We think that the proposed area will provide more strategic opportunities and opportunities to honor our history here. It also gives the community more opportunity to engage with the district concerning people in the community. That concludes my presentation. I want to note that paul monge of supervisor ronens office is also on the line today to speak to the ordinance, and the executive director, sharia souza, of the American Indian cultural district, and one of her assistants, april gill, is also on the line. So that concludes my presentation. Im happy to answer any questions, and i will stop sharing my screens. Clerk okay. Thank you. Commissioners, if there are no immediate questions from commission to staff, we should open this up for Public Comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak to this matter by pressing , 3 to enter the queue. I see one member of the public requesting to speak. You have three minutes. Go ahead, caller. Caller, would you like to submit your public testimony . Hello . Hi, can you hear me . Clerk yes, we can. Okay. It was showing that i was still muted. Thank you very much. My name is mary travis allen. I am seneca on my fathers side. I am a member a board member of the American Indian cultural district, and i have been living in San Francisco all my life, 64 years, and im also an elder in the community. This district is long overdue in establishing, you know as a community, as the American Indian community, our community has been misrepresented in so many ways. And this opportunity gives the establishment to give the recognition and respect to our people that has been disregarded through history but also to educate others that would stop the misappropriation of our culture and misrepresentation. We also need to vitally establish and express ourselves as a community so that we can establish resources to build and support our elders as well as our youth. And so thats been in desperate need. We have had our offices ive been here since weve gained and lost indigenous members a couple of times, but most importantly, to give recognition to the ohlone people and their lands that we use. I thank you for this opportunity to talk, and i look forward to your support in not only establishing the district but establishing the boundary. Its much needed. Thank you. Hi. This is [inaudible], assistant director of the American Indian cultural district. I just wanted to second what mary and one of our Community Elders said. This [inaudible] raised the consent that shelley brought to the table. I read the planning document yesterday, and this isnt doubling the size of what we had, this was what was originally proposed. [inaudible] with some of our surrounding cultural districts prior to this, which is why you see some of those cutouts along duboce and Market Street. They were proposed by mandelman as cutouts to protect landmarks in the lgbtq cultural districts. I also wanted to comment on a park brought up by shelley yesterday during one of our meetings. I confirmed with our shohlone board members, and it would be disrespectful for folks to claim any other right to that. That site has been claimed for generations as 27 different village sites. It would be highly inappropriate for any other folks to claim just because of the level of sensitive of that site, so were doing that as a special expansion to honor greg and to honor his folks and the people that he works with. So i just wanted to echo that. We didnt want to bring it up until we had proper consultation. And as far as we go to duboce or do markto market, i think y the map that reflects our intention how we want to go to market, and how we want to go to duboce, as well, and how we share that important space. The last thing i wanted to touch on in the planning document. Were one of the few communities of color in San Francisco that does not have a historical statement, and you can clearly see that were most impacted by housing, most impacted whats clearly missing for our community, and thats the last thing that ill cap on, and we brought this up to the mayor and the board of supervisors and the Human Rights Commission. The way that this is capturing our American Indian data,. 3 is not capturing who we are today [inaudible] and thats not who we are. After thousands of years or hundreds of years of genocide and termination and relocation. We need to be mindful that we arent. 3 . We are working on that with the Planning Commission, so i just wanted to i know my times cutoff, but jui just wanted to make those points, and i hope that the city moves forward on this without any red flags. Thank you. Hello. My name is jennifer forester. Im a member of the Cherokee Nation of oklahoma. Im currently the treasurer of the board of the San Francisco American Indian Cultural Center. I want to thanks shir thank shirea and mary for their comments, as well. I support the American Indian cultural district as proposed. This expanded area more effectively embraces the cultural and historical facets of the neighborhood past and present. This expanded area, which is what we originally proposed, will support the efforts our Community Organizations are making to work collaboratively with our cultural district neighbors. So thank you for this consideration. Good afternoon. This is april mcgill from the American Indian cultural district. Im the executive director, and i just wanted to share my views on the expansion. We have worked really hard to advocate for a cultural district for American Indians. And similar to what shirea had said, were asking for our original boundaries. Its morn for americ its important for American Indians to have a visible boundary in San Francisco. It wasnt until recently, during black lives matter, that weve seen this unity within our people of color here in San Francisco. So we really think its important for us to have this visibility. And what were asking for is not much, considering were on indigenous land, and the ancestral land of the ohlone people. Its really not much that were asking for, and weve seen that theres many places throughout San Francisco that are indigenous to ohlone people, and and we we see that theres many spaces, many places of ceremony, many places that we see ourselves gathering, so i just ask that, you know, this is just the beginning of what we seek to be bringing us together and honoring our relatives. So i just want to thank you all for listening to all of us here. Again, my name is april mcgill, and im also an enrolled member of the San Francisco round around tribes. Clerk very good. Members of the public, this is your last opportunity to submit public testimony. Press , 3 to enter the queue. Commissioners, seeing no further oh, one last person. Go ahead, caller. Apologies. This is [inaudible] one last time. I just wanted to give a huge thank you to ronen and to paul and to mandelmans office and to all those who helped push this. I didnt do that within the time limit, so thank you. That was all. Clerk okay. Second bite at the apple. Commissioners, Public Comment is now closed, and the matter is now before you. Commissioners, i do see that theres a representative from supervisor ronens office. I wonder if hed be interested in making Public Comment. Would you be interested in making Public Comment before we hand it back to the commission . [inaudible] great, yeah. So thank you to the Community Leaders who spoke in support of this measure. I just wanted to offer a little bit more background and context around why this is returning to you all a second time. So in in march and april, during the early stages of the crisis, we had managed to reach consensus with supervisor mandelmans office and Community Stakeholders both in district 8 and 9 around these very extended boundaries that were considering today. The reason that the ordinance that established the cultural version of the district boundaries was during the lockdown and the inability for the h. P. C. To meet we didnt have a mechanism to have the boundaries as amended by the original ordinance. It would have had to return to you for consideration. What it did was establishing the cultural district with the agreedupon expanded boundaries which would prevent us from deploying Critical Resources from the Mayors Office of housing to the American Indian communities in response to covid. So the sequence that we decided was most expeditious and responsive to the Public Health crisis was approving the amendment to the ordinance regarding the boundaries and returns once things stabilized and committees and commissions were already meeting again. So before you today is a followup on that, an agreement on the boundaries that had been agreed on several months ago, but included something that was a recommendation from this commission, will yincluding a g around the American Indian Cultural Center. We took it very seriously, and Many Community members were also very committed to following up and through, and so youll see that new level of detail around the sort of Historical Context around the American Indian Cultural Center and its earlier versions. With that, i thank you all for your reconsideration. Were excited that this has brought Community Support from other cultural districts and sister districts in the area. Ive had the honor and opportunity to partner with American Indian cultural and Community Members who have made it clear that this is a long overdue gesture, so im happy to answer any questions, and thank you for your consideration. Thank you very much. Were going to take it back to the commission. I see commissioner black, did you want to make a comment . Yes [inaudible] from several of the callers that this is overdue. Native people were here longer than anyone else. I also would like to make a motion to approve, provided that staff continues to work with the community on mapping the boundaries, including dolores park. I second the motion. Okay. I just had a few comments and questions for shelley. I believe its directed to shelley, and i really appreciate the comments the Public Comments that were made, particularly about being sensitive to the other sister cultural districts, why theyre respecting the boundaries. But im expecting that cultural districts need to be as expanded as possible, and the American Indian cultural district and the American Indian people have been here for centuries, and now were recognizing them as a very important part of our community, as part of our cultural district. Im just wondering, now that we have this approved framework, one of them was mentioning that they didnt have that chest document. Does this start or trigger that process . Thats my first question. And then, my next question is were talking about a community operation, a people who have been here hundreds of years, but there have been people that come after them. I dont mean to offend anyone, but there are layers of history now in our nation, and im just wondering why we wouldnt be able to do some kind of overlap and, you know, i dont want to offend anyone, but there have been people who have come its like layers of an onion, people who have come and who will continue to comafter us. Also, i take into consideration the sensitivity of making sure that we dont exclude particular boundaries, but im just wondering how we can be more inclusive in that conversation. [inaudible] i think im getting some feedback from someone. Thanks. To start with the questions about the chess project, the American Indian cultural project, as i understand, is actually already initiating that process. I believe the onetime funding that we were that mohcd was able to provide like this fiscal year will, in part, be used by the district to initiate that process, and i believe they also have a consultant already on board to help them plan that effort. So theres the ordinance in front of you today will not interrupt that effort in any way. If anything, it allows them to now focus more attention on that broader area and will make their chess more effective, i believe. In terms of what cultural district boundaries need and should they overlap, can they overlap, the original ordinance establishing the program used the language that the districts should not overlap, but it does not use the term shall not, so its a recommendation to the boord that they should consider trying to avoid or prevent overlap when they can. Thats my understanding of how it can be interpreted. And as you may know, the soma filipinas and the lgbt cultural district do overlap almost in their entirety, as well as the transgender district and the [inaudible] also overlap long sixth street. And my understanding is that that has not caused any conflicts. So although the programs still relatively new, it appears not to be problematic in the implementation of programs so far. However, the program was set up to try to avoid avoid conflicts and try to avoid overlapping those boundaries [inaudible]. Thank you. Commission commissioner pearlman, did you want to make a comment . Yes, thank you. I think this notion of the overlap that commissioner matsuda brings up is pretty important because the whole purpose of the cultural districts is to acknowledge the people who have created our place. And, you know, you take certain particular areas that have had so many people create the place, that it only enhanced, you know, the protections, ultimately, and future development, because there were protections if its, for example, the castro Lgbt Community and the American Indian community are overlapping, some communities and parcels of one community affect the other. But it makes the clarity of our reality as, you know, a melting pot culture sort of clear that we all are participating, and then, another one comes in and takes over at a distinct line in the ground. So i appreciate this in the south of market, there are the overlapping districts, and i agree with commissioner matsuda that these two districts, you know, or three districts that are all related to have a border that would not diminish any of the three. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner black, did you want to make yeah, just very quickly. With those comments, architectural districts are defined by their physical presence. Theres bound to be overlapping, especially, as commissioner matsuda talked about, the layering over time, and i think we need to respect that, and i dont think it takes away from any one group where theres a layering of overlapping districts. Clerk if theres no further deliberation, there is a motion that has been seconded. Ill call that question, then. Theres a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval with modifications as were amended to include direction for staff to continue working for the boundaries. Hopefully that captured the motion. Yeah, im sorry. Clerk on that motion [roll call] clerk so moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously 40. Commissioners, that places us on your final item on todays agenda, number 8, case 2020003248 p. C. A. For the statemandated accessory dwelling unit controls. This is a planning code amendment. Thank you. [inaudible]. Yes, im prepared, and ill request that you pass me the ball for my slide. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. Veronica florez, Planning Department staff. The item before you is the statemandated a. D. U. Ordinance, as mandated by the mayor. The goal of the ordinance is to align our a. D. U. Programs with the recent changes to state law by clarifies the ministerial review processes for state a. D. U. S. This is focused on things that we are required to do to comply with state law. As a reminder, the ministerial review means theres no discretionary action on these a. D. U. S if they comply with the state requirements. These are not subject to ceqa review and cannot be reviewed against any subjective design standards. Additionally, per changes made last year, state mandated a. D. U. S amended last year have a shortened appeal period. So state mandated a. D. U. S actually have two buckets that i faretured on the slide here. The first bucket, were calling streamlined a. D. U. S, and these are permitted and existing proposed singlefamily or multifamily dwellings. Under this bucket, the Property Owner can only add one a. D. U. To the property. However, streamlined a. D. U. S are more flexible for the Property Owners because they cannot approve planning requirements such as backyards or open space. We can only mandate what state law requires. The second is what were calling the ministerial a. D. U. S, which applies to existing singlefamily dwellings or existing multifamily dwellings. So this bucket here most close closely resembles our current planning code requirements. That includes things like rear yard and open space. The only thing that they are exempted for is the requirement for the density on the property. Under this bucket, theres also a new type of a. D. U. Called the junior a. D. U. So junior a. D. U. S can convert up to 500 square feet of a singlefamily dwelling. It requires an efficiency kitchen and may or may not share sanitation facilities with the primary dwelling. One requirement of the junior a. D. U. Is that the owner needs to occupy either the junior a. D. U. Or the primary dwelling. So with a different bucket under state law and also keeping in mind our local program, a Property Owner may actually qualify for more than one type of a. D. U. , and in that case, staff will work with the applicant to clarify what they qualify for, but ultimately, its up to the qualify to decide which type of a. D. U. They would like to pursue. So just going over some of the big picture changes in the proposed ordinance. State law now requires that all permits for state mandated a. D. U. S are issued within 60 days of receipt of a complete complication, so this is currently half of the time that we have right now; and we do want to mention this week that the Planning Department has taken the primary role of accepting and issuing new a. D. U. Permits in San Francisco. The new online submittal process will help us streamline the new a. D. U. Permit review in the order it was received. It amends sections 10 and 11 to say that state mandated a. D. U. S outlined in articles 10 and 11 would be exempt from state reviews as long as they comp certificate of proopsness aapp and permit to alter review. There is an additional change related to the architectural review standards that you adopted last year. Some of those standards actually conflict with some of the new state law requirements, so the ordinance included in your packet proposed striking reference to the architectural review standard to remedy this. After more discussion with staff and the City Attorneys after this packet was distributed, i also wanted to highlight that striking this language takes away your ability to adopt or modify it in the future, and i want to make sure you consider this during your discussion. Of course, we are able to answer additional followup questions on this matter after the Public Comment period, and i see that commissioner pearlman already has some questions for us later. But ill go ahead and continue with the presentation, and we do have some other big picture changes listed on the slide here. One is related to impact fees, and the ordinance outlines that state mandated a. D. U. S would either be exempt or have a reduced impact fee. And then, the last change is related to a 30day noticing requirement that was added to a. D. U. S within singlefamily homes last year. So the ordinance changes this requirement only to be required if there is a tenant within the singlefamily dwelling. If so, then, the Property Owner would need to complete the d. B. I. Screening permit if applicable or proof of completing that notice of planning code. That would need to be complied with to be considered complete. It also helps ensure that we meet the 60day review time frame mentioned earlier. In this ordinance, there are also two clarifications made to the local program. These are nonsubstantive and essentially clarifying to the code, and i have them featured on the slide for you today. The first clarification is relat related to waivers from the planning code and clarified that these are only for a. D. U. S proposed in existing buildings. The logic here is new construction buildings should be able to design to comply with code requirements such as an open space and rear yard, for example, which is more difficult when working with an already existing building. Only the density waiver may be granted for a. D. U. S proposed within new construction buildings. The second clarification under the program is related to noticing. So with last years change to permit a. D. U. S and new construction buildings, there was a little confusion on noticing requirements, and what was exempt or not. So the change in the ordinance is to explicitly state that new constructions themselves are subject to neighborhood notification, but the separate a. D. U. Is not subject to neighborhood notification. Staff recommends approval of the ordinance which, again, focusing on bringing our code in compliance with recent state law changes. The ordinance also supports state law ordinances and allowing more a. D. U. S in the city and also adds different types of dwellings to the Housing Stock. This concludes staffs presentation, and im available to answer any questions, along with the rest of the a. D. U. Team that is on the call today. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Should we go to commissioner pearlmans question before Public Comment . Sure. Yeah, its a qual its a question just about the program itself, so probably before Public Comment. Should i go ahead . Please. So i thank you for your presentation. Very much appreciate knowing about this, and im trying to get some clarity on understanding the streamlined or ministerial and, you know why would a person, lets say within an existing singlefamily house, why would they choose one or the other which when, let me just for example, if i wanted to put an a. D. U. In the back of my property, i could literally put it up to the back property line, ignoring any, you know, rear yard set backs, which might significantly impact someone whos living behind, with a wall, then, there whatever. So im just curious how one would qualify, and why one would choose one path over the other . Sure. Thank you, commissioner pearlman. So this goes back to the the different potential paths that the Property Owner can consider for the for their a. D. U. , and let me share yes, i still have control. Let me share this to help illustrate the next point. So i just strolls to the draft fact sheet that was featured in your staff so i just scrolled to the draft fact sheet that was featured in your packet. This includes some of the dimension that would be required for streamlined versus ministerial. Clerk im sorry to interrupt you, veronica. The screen youre sharing is just gray. I dont see what youre referring to. And can you see this now . Clerk no, its still the gray screen. Okay. Let me stop that, and let me just narrate through this, and then, ill see if i can pull that up momentarily. But going back to the question for Property Owner with a singlefamily hope, there are certain requirements on, lets say, five restrictions. So they would have to think about their goals for the a. D. U. To they want to have a bigger a. D. U. And the biggest the biggest detached a. D. U. , for example, would be 1200 square feet, that they can only pursue under a streamlined a. D. U. Bucket, so that would be one consideration. If they were okay pursuing something that was smaller, and just staying on the example of the detached a. D. U. , if they were proposing one that was 750 square feet or smaller, they would be eligible for both the ministerial or streamlined a. D. U. Bucket. So in the packet, these different dimensions and other requirements are outlined, so its really thinking about what homes that the Property Owner has. And then again, one key or two ski distinctions for streamlined or ministerial, is that streamlined only needs to comply with the state law requirements, and they can only have one a. D. U. On the property. For the ministerial bucket, they still need to comply with the planning code requirements, such as rear yard or open space, but theres a little more plexibility in terms of the number of flexibility in terms of the number of a. D. U. S that they can have on the property, and it will depend on whats on the property already. So i apologize i was not able to actually pull that draft on the screen for you, but, commissioner perfect commissioner pearlman, can i check if that helped you answer your questions . I do have clients with singlefamily homes, not getting to the historic part of it. If i have further questions, ill give you a call, but that was very helpful. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Clerk commissioners, we should open this up for Public Comment, even though there are no longer any attendees of the public. Members of the public, if you would like to submit public testimony, now is your time to press , 3 to enter the queue. Commissioners, there are no members of the public wishing to speak, so the matter is now before you. Commissioner jones . Thank you. So veronica, i was wondering, there are a lot of, i think, previously illegal units in San Francisco that you might call potential a. D. U. S. Could a Property Owner who has one of those illegal old inline units, they used to call them, take advantage one or another of these programs to have that unit legalized . Yes. And this is in the case of a junior a. D. U. , that new a. D. U. , we anticipate that we will be seeing interests in that type of a. D. U. So yes, they will be able to legalize the unit through some of these recent changes. As a reminder, we also do currently have the legalization program, which people are able to pursue authorizing any of the illegal authorized dwelling units. Commissioner pearlman . Yes. So if i understand this correctly, what were approving today is so that this Program Comes into compliance with state law, so therefore, all that we can do as a Planning Department or as a San Francisco is to tweak things that might be more appropriate to San Francisco than to los angeles, for instance. But basically, were approving this were asking for approval for something that we need to do you know, that we need to do to be in compliance with state law. Is that correct . Yes, commissioner pearlman, that is correct, and its again, the focus is to comply with state law, and i do want to highlight the clarification that i had regarding the architectural standards that you adopted last year. So under state law, we are still allowed to apply objective standards to state mandated a. D. U. S. That includes those streamlined and ministerial a. D. U. Buckets. In the ordinance, the ordinance strikes out the reference to the architectural review standards . That was our initial approach to remedy the conflict between those standards and the recent changes to state law, but again, i want to highlight that removing such reference to those architectural review standards removes your ability to adopt or modify any of those standards in the future. So as part of your motion today, the two additional options i see are that you would two initial options i see are that you would recommend approval of the ordinance. You can also recommend approval of the ordinance and keeping that language that references the architectural review standards, and depending on the rest of the discussion, if you have any other ideas on that manner that you would like to consider, again, we do have the City Attorneys here on the line with us today if you had more technical questions on that aspect. Arent the architectural review the architectural review issues, arent those subjective, so therefore not allowed because we have to be objective . It can only be an objective review . So the architectural review standards that we adopted last year are objective, so we can apply them. And as as in the ordinance strikes the ordering to those architectural review standards. So part of your considerations today would be if you still wanted to reference those or be able to adopt or modify such standards in the future or if you want to move forward with the ordinance as proposed. I do also want to share that a lot of those tstandards are featured in our a. D. U. Standards which staff used to approve the a. D. U. S, so its the objective standard that we have on hand. I know its confusing, but i hope that answers your question. No, i just want to know why we wouldnt want to include those architectural standards. I dont remember them, but i remember the process. Im not asking you to remember them. It feels like we should adopt the ordinance and retain the a. D. U. Standards. Yes. Part of that, if the commission is interested in retaining those standards and being able to apply them, we will, as a follow up, need to review those architectural review standards to make sure that they comply with the architectural state law requirements. In the architectural review standards last year, detached a. D. U. S were permitted under one story. However, under state laws, we are actually permitted to have a. D. U. S up to 16 feet tall, so we figured out they could be up to two stories call. Thats a district conflict between the detached a. D. U. Architectural review standards and the state law. If youre interested in retaining those architectural review standards, we would have to modify those from last year. Is that an onerous process or are there just a few things you would have to modify, challenging the is there hundreds of things you have to consider or is it just a few things to modify . It was a few pages. That resolution that you adopted last year, it was a few pages, and just as a reminder, part of the minor scopes of work for a. D. U. S were going to be revisited in your delegation agreement, so theres already an ongoing larger effort that does tie into what were talking about right now. So i wouldnt consider it an extremely onerous process, but we would just have to make sure that we are explaining that process and why were striking that portion. Okay. Thank you. I will recommend that we retain those standards. Okay. Thank you. To your point, commissioner pearlman, are we if we retain them, are we delaying the process . Is that going to be the impact. Ill turn that to veronica. Yes, its veronica. So we can move forward with the ordinance since those architectural review standards do not live in the planning code, and that was the intention last year so we can amend those standards separately . So if you were to include that and ill invite the City Attorneys to chime in after i speak right now, but we can continue with the Planning Commission scheduhearing as scd tomorrow, and as soon as possible review those Architectural Design standards, and depending on the timing of the legislative process in a perfect world, we would have that reviewed by the time the legislation is enacted, but whatever the situation, we would make sure to resolve it as quickly as possible. And if peter, andrea want to chime in, please do so, just to make sure that i shared the correct information. [inaudible] peter . Hi. Deputy City Attorney peter milnius. Can you hear me . Yes, you can move forward on your recommendation of the ordinance. The city would not be forced to apply any of the architectural review standards that conflict with state law, but this can move forward in the process, if you may. Do you have further conversation on this, commissioner pearlman . No, im good. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner so . Hi. Thanks for this report, and im just going to cut it to the chase. I have two clarifications i wanted to ask to to clarify to veronica. This is only politicable to adding a completely detached singlefamily a. D. U. And a multifamily complex . And the question is were waiving the certificate of appropriateness and the c. F. A. , is that concluding all the category a building and category b buildings . Thank you, commissioner so. Regarding your first question, the ordinance does include the opportunity to convert existing habitable space under the a. D. U. Under the streamlined bucket, were able to have some expansions, so its not specifically just to detached. And regarding the second question for waiving the certificate of appropriateness, all of this pertains to the state mandated a. D. U. S. You would still see certificates for appropriateness for or potentially see certificates for appropriateness for a. D. U. S proposed under our local program. But to date, youve only seen nine certificates of appropriateness for a. D. U. S in front of you, so its not a large number to begin with, but the changes weve listed today are for the state mandated a. D. U. S. And i do want to see if [inaudible] has anything to add to this question since shes been involved in the daytoday processes and managing our a. D. U. Team. Good afternoon, commissioners. [inaudible], Planning Department staff. Rememb veronica is correct. There are a couple of different a. D. U. To be added to state law. Prior to this, a. D. U. S were limited to singlefamily homes. They are allowed in existing or proposed single and multifamilies, and there are a couple of options that veronica mentioned. So theres the detached, and then theres opportunities for a. D. U. S in the existing buildings as well as expansion. So all of those, if theyre added under state law, would be exempt from a certificate of appropriateness or permit to alter, so thats correct. And thats regardless whether of those houses or building has already been a landmark . So it is limiting it just to the article 10 and 11 buildings and districts . So if theres a building within the boundaries of a district, it would be exempt from the certificate of proposeness. If its a category a building, but its not under the article 10 or 11, that is already not subject to a certificate of appropriateness. Thank you for clarifying that. Commissioner. So if i understood the City Attorneys comments, there may be some instances in which our standards conflict with state law, and therefore, our standards could not be enforced. Billion, if thats true, then i think wouldnt it be a benefit for the commission and for the public to know what those conflicts are so we can eliminate them from our standards . And if thats the procedure that we should follow and i think that basically makes the most sense. I guess we should need someone i guess it would be you, veronica, with the assistance of the City Attorney, to come back and tell us which of those standards are no longer enforceable. And thats what i was driving at, as well. The same going the same way so we understand what the issues are. Yes, of course. And that is something that staff can certainly work on and make sure we review with the City Attorneys office to have the clear list for you. Unfortunately, we wont have that list for you today. I did share the one example with the detached a. D. U. , one story versus 16feet tall, and the conflict there, so thats something we can come back to you with. I also just want to clarify that the changes in this proposed ordinance are actually already in effect under state law as of january 1 of earlier this year, and so we were making sure that we can tailor this to the San Francisco code and our circumstances here. So just want to be cognizant that we want to be able to allow Property Owners to pursue the state mandated a. D. U. S as soon as possible. So if if you are open to it, again, we can follow up with that specific lift, but i suggest that we are able to move forward with that ordinance today and have your recommendation and approval with that modification to retain that reference to the architectural review starndard and then, we will come back with the high level list and discuss how we want to remedy that at the subsequent hearing. Veronica, i think thats a perfectly appropriate way to proceed. Im not suggesting we hold up the ordinance. This is for me, and i think its the same for commissioner pearlman, this is a housecleaning nature so everyone can know what they can and cant do. Right, yeah, agreed. Commissioner black, did you want to comment . Yes. Once we do our housecleaning [inaudible] theres nothing wrong in my mind, as long as its expressly stated, to have suggestions. The kinds of things that we had previously codified available to applicants, and these are typically things that are Good Neighbor policies that tend to lead to more successful designs or more successful anything. I dont think its necessarily bad to have a document like that available to people because they many people want to do the right thing. As long as they know what the code requires, you must do this, and youre good. I dont think its necessarily inappropriate to have suggestions, but that might be helpful to people. Clerk do i hear a motion . I just wanted to clarify and just make it abundantly clear, is there a reason why we do not continue the guidelines with this . Yeah, that was my question. I mean, it seems pretty basic. Is it a Research Issue . We certainly dont want to hold up the ordinance. Is there a i havent heard why we would consider not including them. Sure. Thank you, commissioner hyland. So, again, part of this is that after the staff packets were published, we realized that in order to make our code comply with state law, it was actually the standards themselves that came into conflict with state law requirements, not the reference. Its the fine details as included in your ordinance, and thats especially why we want today highlight that for each day, so thank you for your questions and the discussion on this matter. To answer your question, no, there is no distinction reason that we would want to remove the reference to these standards. It is appropriate to be able to apply these standards, architectural review standards to the state mandated a. D. U. Excellent. Commissioner johns . Sk so i move that we adopt for approval the proposed changes. However, we should continue to have our the review standards apply insofar as they do not conflict with state law. Second. Jonas, youre muted. Clerk sorry. My apologies. Commissioners, theres a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval as amended to include a reference to the architectural review standards as so much as they could not conflict with the state law. On that motion [roll call] m and im sorry. Just one question for clarification. Is the commission proposing the actual language of the motion to say insofar as they dont conflict with state standards or [inaudible]. Well, it doesnt have to be in the ordinance. That is the intent, but what i want to avoid is a situation where theres confusion about one of our standards which does not comply with state law possibly being imposed on people. And so i want, so that the commission knows and the public knows, that there must be compliance. Clerk if i understand correctly, commissioner johns, your motion is simply to reference the architectural review standards, and with the understanding that they be revised to eliminate any conflicts. Absolutely correct. Yes. Clerk okay. Very good, commissioners. Then on that motion [roll call] clerk so moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously, 60, and that concludes your agenda today, commissioners. Very good. Were adjourned. See you in two weeks