Clerk all members of present, mr. President. President yee thank you. Please plays your righthand over your heart. Join me in reciting the pledge 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. President yee thank you. On behalf of the board i would like to acknowledge the staff at sfgtv. Who coordinates our meetings and makes the transcripts available to the public online. Madam clerk, are there any communications . Clerk yes, mr. President. During the Current Health emergency, the Meeting Minutes will reflect that the Board Members participated in this proceeding remotely through Video Conferencing to the same extent as though physically present. The board recognizes that Public Access is essential and more acute during the time of covid19 and therefore were hoping the public will take advantage of the following opportunities to communicate with the board of supervisors or to access this meeting and participate remotely. We are happy to receive your written correspondence and well make it part of the legislative file. If youre using u. S. Mail address it to the board of supervisors city hall and San Francisco, california, 94102. If you are accepted via email,d access livestream by going to www. Sfgov. Org or if you can watch the proceedings by going to channel 26 and important point is to be aware that during the signal delay, if you are expecting to make Public Comment, its best that you listen by telephone. You are able to listen to the ploweddings and make Public Comment by using your phone at 415 6550001. When you hear the prompt, enter the meeting i. D. And thats 146 149 2857 and press pound twice and you will have joined the meeting as a listener. To provide Public Comment express star 3 and listen carefully. And you may begin speaking your comments. And now that you know how to access the meeting its important i just say a few words about the agenda content available for your Public Comment. There are five separate public hearings today or items 14 through 17 and this is an appeal for the proposed project at green street. Items 2225 this is a hearing of statutory exemption from Environmental Review from sfmta and associated stops and items 2629 is another appeal of statutory exemption from Environmental Review and mtas covid19 muni rail Service Adjustments and item 30 a shelter in place rehoursing and site demobilization plan that is occurring today. These items are noticed to begin no earlier than 3 00 p. M. And Public Comment will be associated with each item. I understand that the mta items may be combined in which case Public Comment for both items would be taken at the same time. If your purpose is to provide testimony during general Public Comments, please wait for item 36 to be called. General Public Comment you can speak about the october 6 the regular board Meeting Minutes. The mayoral appearance today and the items within the subject matter jurisdiction on the board not on todays agenda and the items not reference to committee calender. Those are items 37i will correct that, all other items that ar on the agenda may not be spoken about. Pursuant to the citys policy and along with federal state and local laws we welcome your criticism and your comments and there cannot be comments that insult any conversation or comments that are discriminatory or harassing in nature. We have interpreters at todays meeting. Will you please introduce yourselves . In order we have fay and vivian and arturo. Madam clerk [voice of interpreter] [voice of interpreter] clerk thank you all for being here. And finally mr. President , pursuant to title 2 of the americans with disability ability act, we have an individual on the phone who is prepared to make his Public Comment when its appropriate in your opinion. President yee ok. Thank you, very much, madam clerk. Before we get started, just a friendly reminder for all the supervisors to mute your microphones when you are not speaking to avoid audio feedback. And before i get into our agenda and having our first public speaking due to accommodations, i want to take a minute just to congratulate director john arnts of the department of lexe elects for running an excellent election this year and given all the challenges and recordbreaking people voting it went smoothly and things were tallied very quickly and a lot quicker than i had expected and so, i want to congratulate all my colleagues who have ballot measures on this election and also on the mayor congratulating everybody for having successful ballot measures and i also want to congratulate supervisors peskin, supervisor preston, and supervisor and roman and well be in good hands to have, i guess, supervisors to carry the work of the board of supervisors next year and and you will be connie chan and merna melgar. Congratulations to those two which means now you will increase the women on the board of supervisors by 33 . I dont know if mayor breed, are you there . Im not sure. Im here. Good, good. So, why dont we go to our special order 2 00 p. M. And go ahead. The special order at 2 00 p. M. Is the appearance by the honorable mayor london breed. Theyre being no questions submitted from supervisors representing districts, nine, 10 and 11 the mayor may address the board for up to five minutes. President yee welcome, mayor breed. There were no topics submitted by supervisors today and we welcome to you share your remarks and i know you have quite a few things to say so make your remarks. Thank you president yee and thank you for your opening remarks. Ill be as brief as i can. Really, i want to take this opportunity to talk about a setback. Covid19 has been challenging and unpredictable and today is no different. Were not in a surge of hospitalizations yesterday but we are seeing what is clearly a significant increase in cases at a rate that we havent seen since the summer. This reflects what were seeing across the country and across the world. People are relaxing and were undertaking riskier activities and over and over San Francisco looked at the data and made the tough choice and thats where we are right now and today along with the department of publichealth were pausing Indoor Dining in restaurants and were also reducing maximum occupancy in gyms and movie theaters and while we have opened a handful of high schools and those will remain open, we are pausing the reopening process for our high schools and we foe Outdoor Dining has been a success but we know its not enough, particularly because winter is coming and and we also announced a Million Dollars in grants to help restaurants build out have shared spaces on top of the 3. 5 million we provided in sf health which is zero interest loans we announced yesterday. Which will be districted to the restaurants that cant hope and i want to thank supervisor mandelman and recognize supervisor mar for his support on the issue but these dollars are not enough. As we make decisions in the weeks and months we need to remember that there are people out there losing their jobs and businesses and its going to get worse. Yes, there are other priorities but there will always be priorities. We need to get creative and let me say this about our schools. While we are pausing reopening for a high school, that does not mean we should not stop preparing to open our public schools. Keep to keep our kids in school and getting our young students, in particular, back in the classroom and i know theyre calling to get schools open in january. Im very supportive of that and we will continue to put city resources and support behind that plan. Now, lets end with good news. The good news is that yesterday the person who is going to be our next president said something simple. Wear a mask. It was a profound shift in what weve experienced over the last several months of this pandemic from our current president. I know this wont turn around fast but finally we have someone who believes in science in the whitwhite house and joining joe biden is camel cam kamala harr. Im proud of her and her understanding of San Francisco and california in general and what that means for very challenging issues around housing and homelessness and the issues were going to be facing with our economy for years to come. We also know that theres good news about a potential vaccine though even if they move fast any broad impact on our country are still along ways off. This isnt going to be easy and i appreciate your support for our residents and our publichealth officials and we still have a lot of work to do. Were in a pandemic. We still are dealing with a very challenging economy things are nowhere near normal. So we need to start making sure we do everything that we can to make good policy decisions, to make good financial decisions, because the people of this city are counting on us. We will get through this together. Thank you. President yee thank you, madam mayor, for joining us today and that concludes our special order im glad were going to have unlike the to have revenue to put you through this pandemic. Why dont we go back to providing the person that needed accommodations for public speaking and for Public Comment. Clerk operations, i believe we have an individual standing by ready to make his two minutes Public Comment statement. Its been a huge battle and i have more emails october 1st, october 13th, october 19t october 19th and november 3rd and apparently the election is an excuse to cut Public Comment down to one minute for reasons i do not understand. Three weeks ago, ms. Breed declared we were doing covid and we should start reopening to support our Small Business, i do not support what the mayor has been doing around covid19 she has canceled seven months of meeting which is hugely disabilities to the disability. Im immuno compromised at risk for covid19. As a result of her reopening orders, we had a spike in cases and we now have 151 people dead in San Francisco over 1,000 dead in the bay area and the mayor hopefully who is listening to this blames the public for not Wearing Masks or taking precautionary measures. Ms. Mayor, we look to you for your guidance and your leadership and when you say things are Getting Better when theyre not, you cause these deaths. You cause these infection rates to rise. More over, when you make sure we do not have access to proper p. P. E. And you are not putting the homeless into hotels as you were ordered to do by the governor you increase the spread of covid19 not us or the public. We take safe guards with our help and ive heard from seniors and Homeless People that theyre looking to the leadership of mayor breed around this issue and when that leadership fails theres a problem. I would like to position to mayor london breed ordered homeless suit suites and i encoe this board and the public to look up that article for the many false hoods this mayor has told us. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Mr. President. President yee thank you, very much. I wanted to let my colleagues know i did not forget about district 11 i just wanted to make sure it was a special announcement i say that supervisor safai has been reelected for district 11. I apologize for not including you in the first grouping. But you are special i needed to say individually for you. [laughter] ill take it. Ok. All right. Madam clerk, before we approve the Meeting Minutes id like to return briefly to communications to share a video. Before shelter in place, we used to have a board segment highlighting positive city initiatives. And i guess since the pandemic we havent had an opportunity and in fact this particular video was developed, i believe, either at the end of the year last year or about january. So this video is part of the original sfgovtv series called big news sf which features up lifting stories of what makes San Francisco unique and diverse. So many Small Businesses are struggling and programs that support our Small Businesses are more important than ever. Small businesses are a huge part of what makes our neighborhoods vibrant and unique and you need our support more than ever especially as just heard from mayor breed that theyre having to reverse having the ability to have Indoor Dining that we support them for the Outdoor Dining. They need our support now and we must have their backs. This is about a business. I wanted to spend a few minutes to honor this Small Business that has been here for 63 years and has been run by the mahan family since 1980. Small businesses like this are the backbone of our communities. Again, i dont want us to think this is just about this restaurant, its about all our businesses and i just happened to have the opportunity to feature this particular restaurant today. So, if you can roll the clip. Is there any sound . [ ] [ ] of the 26 neighborhoods that we have in district seven, this is probably the ideal neighborhoods when it comes to being in a small, little town. You can walk around here and it feels very unlike the rest of San Francisco. People know each other, they shop here, they eat here, they drink wine here. What makes the neighborhood are not only the people that live around here but also the businesses. And without these old establishments you wouldnt know h one neighborhood from the other. This is a unique restaurant. Its my favorite Mexican Restaurant in San Francisco. Not only because its great food but when you look around in this restaurant theres nowhere else you see decorations like this and it just gives you the flavor that you are in a different world which is very symbolic. With the restaurant has been here since 1957. Were going on 63 years now in the neighborhood. My family took it over formally in 1980 and with me coming into my role around 1998. My husband was a designer before so he knew a lot about art and he loved art. He loved color. So that is what inspired him to do the decorations so the few times that we went to mexico, we try to get as many things as we could so any time i would see something, he had to bring it in and even though theres no more spaces he would figure it out and find another space to put something else. One of the reasons why we created the legacy and the concept was that we were finding out that many of the businesses old establishments were leaving and closing down for a variety of reasons. It was a reaction and trying to keep our older businesses continuing in the city and i think weve had some success. I think this is this restaurant itself is probably proof that it works. Having the legacy business experience has helped us a lot too because it makes us a unique business because of the fact that we have been here so long and we have stayed here so long. They interact with us and we get to know them by name. We get to know their children too and eventually they come so we know who they are also. Its a great experience to talk to them and to know them. Supervisor, i come here to eat at the restaurant so he is a very Loyal Customer and he is very wonderful to us. This is the chilly relleno. I never have to say anything. The owners son comes out and says i want one again . Well, were really known for our mole. We do three different types of mole. Another dish were known for is our spinach enchilada. Everybody loves t. Even my non vegetarians love that dish. In the beginning, i wasnt familiar with the Legacy Program and San Francisco, being committed to preserve a lot of the oldtime businesses. Its important to preserve a lot of the oldtime and oldschool flavor of the neighborhoods. And for us it was just incredible. Being recognized in that capacity by the city and county of San Francisco. Ive been here for 40 years so i hope it will be for a few more years. I dont know if i could make 40 more but definitely a few more years. President yee thank you for indulging me and to all the Small Businesses who are fighting to keep the heart of San Francisco alive. Ok. Colleagues, today were approving the Meeting Minutes from the october 6th, 2020 regular board meeting. Are there any changes to these Meeting Minutes . Seeing none give me a second here. Seeing none, can i have a motion to approve the minutes as presented . Fewer. President yee seconded by walton. President yee supervisor mandelman. Madam clerk, can you call roll. Clerk on the approval of the minutes [roll call vote] clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee without objection the minutes will be approved after Public Comment. Lets go to our unfinished business, please call the first item. Clerk item 1 is an ordinance to amend the administrative code to require employers of employees covered by the Quality Standards Program at the San FranciscoInternational Airport to provide Family Health insurance to such employees or to make contributions on the employees behalf to an account established under section 14. 2 of the administrative code. President yee can you please call the roll. Clerk on item 1 [roll call vote] [roll call vote] clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee lets go to item 2. Clerk to amend the Building Code to require new construction and to utilize only electric power to amend the environment code to provide public hearings on implementation of all electric requirement to adopt findings of local conditions and under the California Health and safety code and to affirm the ceqa determination. You have an ordinance eliminating gas and require all electric construction and New Buildings starting next year. The ordinance is just the latest step sword a higher healthier San Francisco and Climate Action goals and we have approved and offered by stefani requiring all electric construction for new municipal projects and that is now in effect. Natural gas is the second largest source of car on and accounts for 80 of the emissions from our buildings and San Francisco has taken Climate Change seriously and today on a cat a extravaganza i cacatastroe sun didnt come up we have an opportunity to make one more important move to help save our plans. Natural gas is also a major health and safety hazard and this month is the tenth anniversary of gas explosion in san bruno that killed eight people and destroyed a neighborhood and last year a gas line rup turd on geary boulevard and burned several building and it took firefighters two hours to shut off the gas and this summer a pipeline explosion killed two and injured seven and fires and ex plowses caused by natural gas lead to someone losing their life every 27 days in the United States and in california theres more than one gas leak or emergency reported every minute and theres a bigger risk in california half of all the hours were caused by gas explosions and it could take months after a major earthquake by comparison, service can be restored quickly making us more resilient in the face of future emergencies as well and natural gas is also bad for our health when as well as Carbon Monoxide exposure which can be battal and children and homes are they are more severe for low income households and in smaller apartments where the emissions are more concentrated and seniors with gas ranges and restaurant workers and hot kitchens are at eye risk and all of this is why over 20 california cities have take to limit the use of natural gas why the California Energy commission is looking at ways to phase out natural gas in the state Building Code and why pg e said its type to stop building Gas Infrastructure in california. It would require all electric construction for new residential and commercial buildings and starting with projects that file permits year year and specific electricity equipment or systems may not be piece ability as determined by dbi with peer review and it would allow projects that have submitted Building Permits to proceed under the current code and the requirement we passed last year but this would still apply to about 70 of the pipeline in San Francisco. This is a big change and the ordinance before you is a product of a year of slib races and and which brought together city departments Affordable Housing and mixed use developers and architects and engineer and Community Advocates to craft the ordinance i introduced in june. Since then, the ordinance has been considered by the Building Inspection Commission and the Environment Commission as well as our on up land use and Transportation Committee has received the unanimous recommendation of all these bodies. And in addition, they layout the implementation process and procedures for issuing exceptions has been reviewed and approved over the course of several Code Advisory Committee hearings anhearings for the allc requirement will be implemented so lets talk for a moment will restaurants. Over the past year ive consulted with the Golden Gate Association and the chamber of commerce, San Francisco chamber and other representatives of our vital local Restaurant Industry about the impacts of this ordinance on that industry and i want to emphasize again this ordinance applies to new construction only and does not effect any existing buildings or business in San Francisco and undergoing renovations or remodel. None the mess, i regular were living through a time of uncertainty so we have two provisions to address concerns raised by restaurants and we have additional time before it would a ploy to any construction project that includes a commercial kitchen space and these building windows still be able to file a permit for a mixed fuel building until 2022 provided the gas utilities is used for that commercial kitchen space and in addition, through our conversations that land use and i want to thank chair peskin the oir dinnance includes a waiver process for New Buildings that will include awe Restaurant Business and gas is essential or electrical terne difference would be unfeasible and i believe this will allow for the Fire Department use of gas in New Buildings in the future where appropriate ex necessary for a restaurant and still ensuring we begin the transition away from natural gas in San Francisco. I do have amendments today that would respond to a set of concerns weve been addressing with the Building Trades and labor has been at the table since the beginning one area of remaining concern has been the potential impacts on plumbers and pipefitters who install the Gas Infrastructure and piping in our buildings. I want to express my deep thanks to local 38 and the coalition of environmental groups including ther era and the defense fund who have pound them that we move away from the fossil fuels and that as we move away from fossil fuels we have a Just Transition for workers who will be noticed impacted by the necessary changes and to that end im happy for a amendments today to labor and environmental leaders together which is worth noting that will commit the city to exploring further opportunities and the ordinance is being implemented and we can look for to on Going Initiative go hand and hand with opportunities for Good Union Jobs and San Francisco and they were circulated to this you morning and include a finding on page four line 18 and building electric indication will necessity eight transition in Construction Technology and Workforce Practices and implementation of all Electric Building standards have an opportunity for the adoption of revised rebuilding standards and that such opportunities should be considered concurrently and two, additional language in the environment code on page eight line 15 requiring the sfpuc to be value wait opportunities for the expansion of the non portable on site Water Treatment systems and 108 ar thermal water heating and represent findings and recommendations to the board of exercises by no later than march 1st, 2021 and i propose moving the date after the all electric requirement will apply to new Building Permits from january 1 to june 1 of 2021. And moving the first reporting deadline to july of 2022 from 2021 and thats on page six line 16. Allow time for dbi and the department of environment to finalize the procedures and staff training so the all electric requirement can be successful on day one and allow additional time to evaluate those Green Building updates that i mentioned. I am proud we have voices and perspectives to this conversation over the past year and i want to thank some of the supporters including two dozen environmental organizations and the nrds and the see era club and the San FranciscoClimate Emergency coalition as well as dozens of Design Development technology and construction professionals and organizations and the california of San Francisco architects and local fills and the residential Building Association and the Food Service Technology center and spur, and with todays a investments the plumbers and pipefitters local 38. I want to express my sincere thanks and dbi staff and james haun and john murray and director Patrick Reardon and wells the Building Inspection Commission and president Angus Mccarthy for their support and the department of Environment Team and and of course director and their great work and leadership and our friends of the puc general manager and as well as rob and jane or for all their work and i want to thank supervisor preston and i want to thank all the members and for their tireless advocacy and participation throughout this process and for reminding us at every turn of the urgency of the Climate Crisis we face without your voice and more leadership we won be here today. And so, thank you. And with that, im happy to answer any questions. I would like to move we adopt the amendment and passing those amendments and the items. Thank you. Theres a motion made and supervisor preston, you are on the roster. Thank you, president yee. I want to thank supervisor mandelmanel man and his staff for their incredible work and their persistence and dedication to getting this ordinance to where it is today and as you all know, and the urgency of our climate reality demands we act with swiftness and boldness in our response ex this board require to my time on it, passed a resolution declaring a state of Climate Emergency in San Francisco and i see the ordinance before us as a product of that effort and its really been championed by an Extraordinary Group of advocates and that supervisor mandelman has been referenced and including the amazing work of the Climate Emergency coalition and i appreciate their efforts to move this forward. They work collaboratively to shake this ordinance and this ordinance will save lives and protect the health of our residents and protect our environment and i believe that what is before us today needs the demand for the moment and i think its gone through as the supervisor mandelman has described many months of process really bringing together labor leaders and climate advocates, Small Businesses and many other stakeholders to shape this and we have had four separate hearings and Land Use Committee and heard from the public on all the details of this ordinance so as we transition from our National Nightmare in the oval office to an administration where moving the needle on Climate Change is at least and at long last part of the conversations, its imperative that cities like San Francisco lead the way in taking bold climate measures including bringing stakeholders together and act ing urgency and really with the absolute minimum of exceptions or exemptions as we put together an ordinance that works for all and i think thats what this ordinance does. Its fair and its workable and absolutely essential. I want to thank supervisor mandelman. His staff and all the advocates and stakeholders who work so hard to put this together. Im proud to cosponsor this item and i urge my colleagues to support this as well. President yee i dont see anybody else on the roster. I think safai is. I need to move it to the bottom. Supervisor safai. I thought you said you were going to move me to the bottom, i was like what did i do now . Its pick on supervisor safai day. Im ok with that. Aaron does it all the time, supervisor peskin does it all the time. So, thank you colleagues. First i want to say thank you to supervisor mandelman and his staff jacob i think youve done a tremendous job. Lets be honest, this is not an easy conversation to have given the shelter in place, given the fact that we have to do the majority of this remotely and its hard to have these conversations as much as we try and i think youve done a phenomenal job. This is the not an easy conversation to have. Were in a Climate Emergency. I do want to highlight that. Someone that has worked on achieving our zero waste goals, we have two phases of that, one of which is we passed last year supervisor fewer, and former supervisor cohen, if you think that having only four hearings is a lot, we had far more than that. We have double regarding the zero waste and there were a lot of stakeholders involved very similar to this so this is something that i think will be a far reaching and extremely impactful piece of legislation that some of the largest detriment to our environment comes from homes. It comes from peoples use of energy in their homes. As we create renewable sources of energy and were on electric power, that will reduce our Carbon Footprint. Were not here today. Lets be honest about that. Were not there today. As we use more electric, it does not mean were reducing our Carbon Footprint but were preparing for that and we will prepare for thats a the city expands. Weve had a number of conversations colleagues, one of which was around how we do construction in this environment to achieve all electric. Theres some smaller projects that have issues with the placing of vaults and transformers and were going to continue that conversation. I did duplicate the file in committee and myself and supervisor preston has expressed interest in that and well continue it down the road. The one that is the most vexing besides the Just Transition for labor, and i appreciate supervisor mandelman making the amendment to extend the date of the application of this, has been restaurants. Lets be clear, when you are Building Construction when you are conducting a building, you have to chose and you have to be able to understand the type of infrastructure that you are going to lay. This legislation requires that you know up front if you want to apply for a waiver for a restaurant, you have to know up front the person building the building has to know up front. When does that happen . It happens in a large Scale Development, lets say a hotel or a larger Scale Development where you have multiple large buildings and you might be able to determine you are going to put a restaurant in and this application for a waiver for helpful and i want to appreciate the work that supervisor peskin put in and the work he did working with the chamber and if you are a Smaller Development and you are a smaller mom and pop owned business, most likely what these are, you dont know you are going to be renting in power to a restaurant and so the waiver wont necessarily be that helpful and the idea is you cant go back and you cant put in a trap or the gas line and you cant put in the hoods and the exhaust systems and so, we have some sights in this city and central soma, we spent over a year and a half, a couple years doing that and theres going to be special space there and treasure island, in some of these places the idea is that having restaurants as anna traction point, to activate the retail is an important aspect of that and from all the different people to the Golden Gate Restaurant Association and the council of district merchants and supervisor peskin and i did a small survey and people are not going to chose to go into places if they dont have the option of gas. That in no way ultimately about completely undermine this legislation and i think its very similar to adJust Transitions and what i am proposing today is to allow for an exemption for restaurants but, after speaking with supervisor fewer saying on a buy annual basis that dbi would come back and give us the updates in electric Cooking Technology so as soon as the Technology Catches up, were able to amend and make these spaces all electric. [please stand by] again, its not the same as the waiver. With the waiver you need to know with uncertainty up front. This allows them to rent the space out and the tenant who does the final buildout. Some will choose not to do any gas lines and not to have any restaurants in that space. So its a very, very small subset. There have been a lot of conversations over the course of time that this was going on, but i think this was the right thing to do in this particular situation. Before i call the next supervisor, were you looking at a motion to amend . Yes. Thank you very much. As first, i really want to thank supervisor mandelman. Youve shown yourself to be a leader around our environmental issues. So glad youre going to remain on the board. I was happy to cosponsor and also offered the resolution on the biodiversity with the department of environment. So i want to thank you for your help too. This is really important and we know that natural gas is an issue and we should be moving to all electric and i completely get it. Today i am leaning supervisor saf safais amendment. I dont think, given the timing, that this will have a huge impact because i dont see a lot of new restaurants opening and the development happening in San Francisco. Also, with the technology of induction heating can replace the actual gas. It already exists, but its cost prohibitive to have it in the United States. The way things are moving, that will happen soon. I want to thank supervisor safai for adding that in. We could examine where the technology is and if we could eliminate this exemption once and for all. I also just want to say that i understand the need of the Restaurant Industry, but i just want to say on this one, im listening to the concerns of the Chinese Community. Our chinese businesses and restaurants actually have suffered i think the greatest burden under this covid because it started actually in december months earlier than we had our shelter in place. Because this community is so concerned about it and because will have a huge impact, the bulk of the importance of this very importance ordinance is that all of our new developments and all of those new apartments and condos and rental units will all be electric. I think this small xechings that we look at on a regular basis to see whether or not the technology has caught up and i would like to give this suggestion, and it is a friendly suggestion, that we create a fund for any Small Business owner that wants to go all electric, that there is a grant proce process. It would be good for all our Small Businesses to transition to electric. Im just going to give that friendly suggestion. I want to thank you for you help. And as i leave this board, i am heartened to know that you are in support of this. I will second that now. Thank you, president. I want to start by adding my thanks to supervisor mandelman and your staff for your very careful and very necessary work on this ordinance. I also want to thank the department of the environment and all the Community Stakeholder stakeholders who have helped lead the difficult work towards the future that contend with the realities of our Climate Crisis and the need for urgent and bold action. Im especially appreciative of the partnership with labor including plumbers and pipefitters to assure as we work towards a greener San Francisco and meeting our necessary Emissions Reductions goals, we do not leave working people behi behind. This is going to create new union jobs. I will be supporting the amend. The Restaurant Industry especially for the chinese communi community, i agree that the amends made in committee to reach compromise are a reasonable change for the restaurant advocates. This approves the restauranteurs and restaurants to apply for a waiver on a casebycase basis. I really struggle with this, but really believe that the indefinite exemptions are not needed. This really would set us back from the Harm Reduction of Greenhouse Gas emissions. Respectfully, supervisor safai, im not going to be supporting your amendment. I would like to be added as a cosponsor. So i see that we have several people on the roster here. Supervisor peskin, have you spoken yet . No, sir. Chair make your comments and ill come around to supervisor mandelman. Thank you, supervisor. I think supervisor mar just articulated everything i was going to say. As far as the chief sponsor, supervisor mandelman, as he previously indicated really created a narrowly tailored appropriate waiver position. Thats the point where we were able to have it leave the committee. We came up with the additional amendments. I thought that was satisfactory and i say this that it is not that we rewelcome the development of the [indiscernible] days. We are not knocking down whole neighborhoods. The reality also is because of the pandemic and even prior to the pandemic, restaurants were under a lot of pressure. All of those were grandfathered. So i really i mean, is the grass half full or half empty . I believe its more than half full and i believe the amendments made in committee and the amendments put forward by supervisor mandelman today are sufficient. With all due respect to my colleague supervisor safai, i will not be voting for his amendments. Thank you. I also want to thank everyone who has been working on this ordinance. The i remember there was a cultural battle at why are they hanging ducks in front of the windows. Most of you probably know what im talking about, that the chinese, i guess, delis that sell chicken, this habit of hanging the food and people come by and see what they have and they order it. For some reason at the time there was this belief that this is not healthy and so forth. It took the Chinese Community to explain to them, hey, you know, weve been doing this for thousands of years and nobody died from it. Maybe some people did die from it because they were allergic to duck or something. I know when ivy was on my staff early last year or sometimes last we talked about converting everything to electric and they said, you know, me personal, i do my chinese cooking and i favor gas. Eventually with this amendment that supervisor mandelman presented, i came around to, okay, residents make sense. 100,000 residents versus a couple hundred restaurants is a big difference here. There is a feeling and maybe im not looking at what has already been put into the ordinance in terms of addressing this issue for the chinese. Those who want to use gas to cook. There is a part of me that sas,s well, if thats the case, there such a big impact if a few restaurants want this in. If there was an amendment to ask for something similar to what supervisor safai is asking, but maybe with a time limit on this, i think eventually this would catch up. But right now we have the sixmonth extension and thats not good enough for me. I support just about everything in the ordinance, but i also support this notion of we may be providing the opportunity in the next few years for firstround owners to actually use gas. So i wont be supporting supervisor safais motion. Supervisor preston, are you next . Thank you, president yee. I will be supporting supervisor mandelmans amendments and not supervisor safais amendments. I want to address not so much the substance but the process. We have heard loud and clear from so far from sierra club, so far from the Climate Emergency coalition opposed to the amendments supervisor safai is bringing forth today. We have not heard one way or the other. I think thats significant. We have all types of stakeholders call in that have shaped this ordinance. As the author, supervisor mandelman has in the last week met with various stakeholders and is proposing amendments that all have agreed to. And i think thats very different from coming forward with amendments that are not amendments right now that folks have agreed to. And i saw it that the reason that supervisor safai duplicated the file and expressed his intent to potentially work on some of these issues further with the duplicated file, i thought the purpose of that being duplicated and being where the public and all the stakeholders could weigh in. I would be very reluctant and depending on where you weigh in, supervisor mandelman can address the actual impact of those requirements. Regardless of where you land, the impact and how broad the impact of those impacts would be, i would vote against those amendments. I think we should take those up back in committee with a duplicated file. Chair supervisor mandelman. Thank you, president yee. I want to thank all the supervisors for their views on the safai amendment. I too have heard from, as i said, the Restaurant Industry and i too recognize that restaurants in San Francisco are struggling today. But the reality is that extending out natural gas connections, the ability to put those connections in for restaurants that do not currently exist two or five or 10 years into the future does not fundamentally undermine this legislation, but it is moving in the wrong direction. This month the United States stepped out of the Paris Climate Accords. Presumably one of the first things president elect biden will do is get us back. But the Paris Climate Accord doesnt get us anywhere close to where we need to be. This legislation is important and moves us in the right direction. Some of the compromises built in here have made it a stronger legislation. I thank the supervisors for the work we were able to do on the waiver because i think that is important. But i think adding for exceptions and waivers takes this legislation in a direction that isnt helpful. We need to do things to address the Climate Emergency. I would respectfully request that my colleagues reject this amendment, as well intentioned it is, but thank you all for your attention. Chair madam clerk, lets take the amendment as outlined by supervisor mandelman and seconded by supervisor peskin, i think. Lets take a roll on that. [ roll call ] clerk there are 11 ayes. Chair the motion passes. I will speak after we take a vote on my amendment. Chair okay. Madam clerk, go ahead and take the roll on the amendment as offered by supervisor safai and second seconded. [ roll call ] clerk for four ayes and seven nays. Chair the motion to amend fails. Supervisor safai. Thank you, president yee. I just want to address some of the concerns people have brought up, and i appreciate what both supervisor peskin and preston said. Sometimes this is the process that the legislative process goes through. When we amended the inclusionary housing ordinance, we did a tremendous amount of work at the Land Use Committee and at the full board. This was in no way meant to cycle anyones input. There was a lot of input and some fundamental disagreement. I think at the end of the day thats what this amend is about. Besides that, i want to pick up on something that president yee said about maybe not having more definitive time on when this might be. I think a good compromise in this regard and again, i just want to be clear on the waiver process and the certainty versus the uncertainty. You have to know with uncertainty that you would be putting a restaurant into a commercial space. The way it is proposed right now, you would have up to january 20212022. I dont think that is enough time based on the time and the technology. I sent around a second proposed amendment. All we would be doing is striking 2022 and putting in 2026 to now for four and a half years. Youve allowed to june of this year and that would only allow six months. For the commercial spaces, giving an additional four years, that would allow the economy and the technology to have a review. Colleagues, i propose we only extend the dates by which restaurants would be exempt to january 2026. You dont mean june of this year, you mean june of next year . Yes, im sorry, thank you. June in 2021. So this would extend the date out from six months to january 1, 2026. And that would allow what president yee proposed and gets at what supervisor fewer had been talking about to allow the technology and the economy to recover. We can go back to the conversation that we had over any number of hearings that brought out the labor process. Is there a seconder . There was a splitting of the file. People are willing to be open. Sure. Thank you, mr. President. Chair madam clerk, please call the roll on the item as amended. [ roll call ]. Chair the item is passed as amended. Clerk item 3 is part of the police code to amend thirdparty food delivery services. Chair could i have the roll. [ roll call ]. Chair that ordinance is passed. Chair madam clerk, i see that were past 3 00. So why dont we go to our 3 00 special order and call items 14 through 17 clerk items 14 through 17 involve a public hearing appeal of conditional use authorization disapproval of 552554 hill street. Hearing of persons interested in or objecting to the disapproval of a conditional use authorization pursuant to sections 209. 1, 303, and 317 of the planning code, for a proposed project at 552554 hill street, assessors parcel block no. 3622, lot no. 065, identified in planning case no. 2019000013cua, issued by the Planning Commission by motion no. 20756, dated july 9, 2020, to allow the legalization of a dwelling unit merger of two residential flats and unauthorized removal and relocation of one dwelling unit to basement level within the rh2 residential, house, twofamily Zoning District and the 40x height and bulk district. district 8 appellant Sarah Hoffman of zacks, freedman patterson, pc, on behalf of Robert Roddick filed august 10, 2020 clerk of the board items 15 through 17 are the documents in appeal. Chair supervisor mandelman, do you have any remarks on this . I do. Thank you, mr. President. Colleagues, this has been a fairly complicated case related to past remodel work for 552 to 554 hill street and the conflict to that work, concerning city permits and the policies governing the loss of the units. We have been working with the Planning Department to find a path forward. To that we hope we will be able to address the policy issues raised. Accordingly, i would like that we continue this matter, items 14 through 17 on the agenda to our december 15 meeting. Is there any Public Comments on the continuance . Clerk operations, can you please let us know if we have callers in the queue. Operator yes, i have two callers in the queue. Clerk hello, caller, are you there . Hello, caller, you may begin your comments. Good afternoon, supervisors. Congratulations to the supervisors who got reelected, particularly supervisor preston with a very substantial margin. I just want to make a quick comment about this continuance. This item has been continued over and over again and im perplexed because it is a fundamental, straightforward case. You allow people who do not perform work on their homes with permits to go past the go line or you dont. I understand there are a lot of people in the city of San Francisco that have done this to their permits. But if you are caught and your house has appreciated to the point that its multi, multi, multiMillion Dollars, why waste the boards time with more important issues in the middle of the pandemic as opposed to continuing this case over and over again . This is an open and shut case. My comment here is lets not continue this and lets decide whether or not the work that was done illegally merits a continuation forward. I would say no. Thank you very much. Clerk thank you to the caller. Operations, do we have another caller, please . Operator madam clerk, that completes the queue. Clerk mr. President. Chair there was a motion to continue items 14 through 17. Could i have a second . Seconded by supervisor peskin. Madam clerk before we do that, Public Comment on this issue on the continuance is closed. Madam clerk, can you call the roll on the continuance. [ roll call ]]. Chair without objection items 14 through 17 are continued to december 17, 2021. Madam clerk lets go through the next pm special order clerk items 18 through 21 include the public hearing of the proposed project at 2417 green street, affirmed on appeal by the Planning Commission and issued july 16, 2020. Item 19 is the motion to affirm the final mitigated negative declaration for this project. Item 20 is the reversing of the final mitigated negative declaration. Item 21 is a motion to direct the preparation of findings, reversing the Planning Departments finding of the negative declares for the green street project. Chair colleagues, we have before us an appeal for the project at 2417 green street. This is related to the approval of the final mitigated decision under the California Environmental equality act. After the hearing, the board will vote on whether to affirm or verse the final mitigated declaration. We will proceed as follows, up to 10 minutes by the appellant or their representative. Two minutes in support of the appeal. Up to 10 minutes for a presentation from city departments. Up to 10 minutes for the project sponsor or their representative. Then two minutes for speaker in opposition to the appeal or in support of the project and finally up to three minutes for the rebuttal or their representative. Is there any objections to proceeding in this way . The public hearing will proceed and is now open. Supervisor stefani, do you have any opening remarks . Thank you, president yee, i will wait until after the remarks. Chair i will ask the appellant to come forward and present their case. You have up to 10 minutes. This is the representative of the appellant. I would like to share my screen. Can you allow me to do that . Clerk have you provided that document to my staff in advance . I have. Would you prefer to do it that way . Clerk i believe, madam deputy, do you have that document . Madam clerk, he just needed to be made a presenter. Clerk mr. Drew, you can show your screen now. Let me bring that up. Are you able to see that screen . Chair yes. Thank you. So my client lives at the home at 2421 green street, which is immediately adjacent and up hill from the proposed project on green on a steep street. My clients house is to the right. The subject property is immediately in the middle at 2417 green. Mr. Kaufmanns house is one of the most Historic Houses in San Francisco and possibly the nation. It was build in 1843 by ernest hockhead. This home has been featured in numerous architecture books. The developer of the proposed project at 2417 green has approximately 50 projects throughout the city. Despite previous representations, this is not his for ever home. It is his 50th for ever home. He proposes to construct a threestorey addition that would have a large underground garage and living area. This will block light and air to my clients historical architectural elements. It will threaten the brick foundation. This matter has already been before the board of supervisors twice. When the board of supervisors ruled unanimously that the project presents unusual circumstances relating to Historical Resources and Hazardous Materials and it appears as a result of those circumstances that the project may have significant Environmental Impacts. The city has prepared a negative mitigative declaration. This is different than the documents youre used to seeing. For the negative declaration, the ceqa document is required if there is a fair argument that any project would have a Environmental Impact. If there is agreement among experts on the significance of the impact and ei is required, this is a low standard. In this case the board has already found that there is a significant Environmental Impact and we believe an eir is required. We have presented expert evidence from four prominent experts who conclude that the proposed project presents an impact of the structure to the house. This could cause the house to collapse on the hillside. The architect who is here and will speak after me underlines that there are many features of the house underlining its historic significance. It is also found that the project would adversely affect the significance of my clients house. The hydro geologist has concluded the project may be contaminated because it is on the citys moderate list of contaminated sites and testing has not been conducted. The citys own mitigated negative declaration makes very similar conclusions. The citys mitigated negative declaration finds, the project construction could compromise the Structural Integrity of the Historic Foundation at 2421 green street. This would be a Significant Impact. Thats not our expert speaking, but the citys with a negative projection. Similarly, they go on to say, the proposed project could directly or indirectly cause a substantial effect including the risk of loss, injury, or death, including a seismic vault, ground shaking or a land slide. Again, thats the citys conclusion, not our experts. There could be Significant Impact that could make this unstable as a result of the project. There has been quite an allegation that we are perpetuating falsehood. How best to show the truth of the document that we are quoting their own conclusion. There was a house recently that collapsed due to inadequate shoring. Thats the type of risk that were talking about here. If there were such a collapse, it would destroy this house and pose serious risk to the inhabitants. Now, the staff contends that these impacts have been fully mitigated by a single mitigation measure in the m. M. D. That is not a mitigation measure at all. It is a process by which a mitigation may or may not be developed sometime in the future. It allows them to coordinate with staff and mitigate if unacceptable Earth Movement occurs. If it occurs, it will be too late at that time to come up with another measure. There is a requirement that the mitigation measures be set clearly in the sequa document. The negative impact remain significant and unmitigated. Next, soil contamination. This shows the moderate map and that the site is on the map, yet no adequate soil testing has been done. The only soil testing was in the garage, which was built in the 1980s. Its the only area which is clean. This is where contamination is expected, and no testing in that area. Next id like to discuss the smoke protection act. This reversal by the staff saying this slope protection act applies to the project and we believe it does. The staff in the end reversed their position and said this doesnt apply. This says the project is not on the blue map, but the staff was silent in regard to the other two maps. This is a picture of the citys own 25 slope map, showing this is on that map. Clerk two minutes remaining. This is the blue map. Finally, there is a long string of notices of violation that the developer incurred. Failing to repair this projected long list and we believe that this extensive long record shows that the developers and a heightened review is required to ensure the mitigation measures are binding and enforceable to ensure the protection. I would like to turn over the floor to the architectural historian. I just want to make sure you can hear me. So i submitted a letter in which i lay out the undisputed facts that this building is one of ernest cotsets most important buildings. I lay out an addition to the analysis in which wellknown scholars have noted how this building is situated on the street and the importance of its brick retaining wall that supports the structure above it and how it elevates it to a level of significance that i feel would fundamentally be undermined by the work that is proposed immediately below. My concern is that the work proposed will undermine the structure. Thank you. Clerk that concludes the 10 minutes, mr. President. Chair all right. I dont see anyone in the roster for questions. Well open up Public Comments specifically for those who would like to speak in support of the appeal. If youre here to support the appeal, you will have an opportunity to come forward now for up to two minutes. For who oppose the appeal, there will be time later on in the appeal. For those who support the appeal, please press star 3 to be added to the queue. Madam clerk, will you please call the first speaker. Clerk operations, lets hear from the first speaker, please. Im a resident on green street and i live in the 2400 block of green street and one door up from this house. We live in a cotset house that was built in 1892. We vigorously oppose this project and we have been opposing it for the last three to four years. Were concerned about the Structural Integrity of the cotset house as well as the house below it. We question why there has not been an Environmental Impact report and i know there are two projects on green street, the 2417 house being one and another one further down where an Environmental Impact report has not been recommended. We find it very disturbing and we appeal and feel that the Impact Report should happen. Clerk thank you for your comments. We have 22 listeners and there are three individuals in the queue. As the president indicated earlier, if you are one of those listeners, you need to press star three to get into the queue. Operations, lets hear from the next caller. Youll have two minutes. Greetings, supervisors. I wrote to you earlier and wanted to reiterate im a resident of San Francisco writing as a concerned mother, wife, and daughterinlaw, whose home is jeopardized by this plan to uproot the property downslope to my fatherinlaws historic home. The covid19 pandemic has shuttered us and my kids are learning full time at the Distance Learning pod, known as their grandfathers basement. More than, their father and his father phil work there full time as film makers. Construction jobs and rebuilding without an e. I. R. Would risk damage to all of the house. The city knew about this before and the board of supervisors talked about this with them even before covid. The risks and dangers are important to my daughter as well as my fatherinlaw. If you were to approve this plan, you wouldnt know what it is because we dont know what it is because it keeps changing. When the chimneys were smashed in and the doors were banging, there was no one to help. You supervisors know because you sponsored ballot measures to get at the root of the inefficiencies in d. P. W. And d. B. I. You know it is not a good idea to let projects like this without supervision. [indiscernible] in the 1990s. I know that its far more important for you all to invest in Affordable Housing than to be dealing with housing collapses clerk thank you for your commentcomments. I am one of the residents in San Francisco concerned about historic preservation. I am particularly concerned in this particular case the Planning Department resorted to what is a traditional focus on preservation. Is the building that is being touched historic . This ignores the real fact that the historic nature of the building is determined by its setting and location. In the case of the cotset house, that is clearly the case because of the importance of his use of Natural Light and darkness and windows and nonwindowed areas. The proposed project would block the significant features of this house which are the windows on the eastern side. I sent an email to you outlining this, but i want to reemphasize this. We have seen what has happened through the ways the citys frequently ignored characterdefining features. When i moved to the area i now live in close to the wexis street historic district, that district was going through the process of being listed as a historic feature and there were features that were clearly identified. Those characterdefining features have been clearly ignored as they approve projects along that street. If we do not Pay Attention to why the building is historic and what the historic character can teach us, whats the point of having clerk thank you for your comments. The time has concluded. Operations, do we have another caller, please . Yes, hello. My name is shelly sofman and im a friend of the cotman family and a frequent visitor to the property. In this neighborhood there are newer apartments and old, contiguous gardens. There is a tiny cottage set back and a heritage tree. 2421 green is one of the first original houses built in 1893 as his own for ever home. The dwellings around are diverse, but the neighbors are united in their appreciate of this property. It is not economically or practically feasible to repair this home, with the quality and craftsm craftsmanship of that era would invite damage. If the developer has his heart set on building his for ever home, lets help him be a good neighbor. Building a home in the guidelines stipulated by the Planning Commission on january 9 will ensure his plans do not jeopardize the irreplaceable home perched just above him. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, do we have another caller . [indiscernible] and im particularly interested in this because i have [indiscernible] i see the mitigation measure for that is when the earth has been moved, it shall be halted. I dont know how you can halt Earth Movement other than to prevent it to begin with. You cannot put it back to where it moved from. Im also interested in the 17foot extension into the neighborhood [indiscernible] space. My house is exactly [indiscernible] into the open space and my back garden is back there [indiscernible] i dont see how you can get around when you already made this determination, the project may have a significant effect on the environment. [indiscernible] in this way, i would confirm and [indiscernible] clerk thank you for your comments. Do we have another caller . Yes, i would like to endorse everything that has been said, mr. Drury and the callers have been very eloquent on the subject, so i really dont have too much to add, but i would underscore that the mitigating measure for the Planning Commissioners was if unacceptable Earth Movement is encountered during construction, the project shall be halted and the geotechnical engineer will come and review. In other words, shut the door after the horse has bolted. It is neither lawful nor sensible to impose the requirements of the eir. We are very concerned about the contaminated soil, the threestorey rear addition which is completely out of character with the neighborhood and not in compliance with the guidelines. Thank you very much for your consideration. Clerk thank you for your comments. Okay. I understand there are three members of the public in the queue. We have multiple speakers. Please press star three. Operations, do we have another caller, please . Hello. As the friends of kaufmann, i have been visiting this house for over years. I still remember my very first time that i drove up and parked on green street. As an engineer i just marvelled at the fact and especially an engineer growing up in india, i marvelled that such amazing homes could be built on such a street. And over time i learned that there are some very interesting things done with the foundations like bolting them together and stuff like that. Now we are at a point where we are phil is unhappy and extremely ive never seen him this upset at whats going on. It seems like a very simple thing to do, which is to do a review on the environment, just check on what the foundations are like. There are so in many things that need to be done to make sure if youre going to move forward, you do so safely, so it keeps the beautiful home intact. I thank you for listening to me and i really hope you take that into account when making a decision. Clerk operations, lets hear from the next caller. Youll have up to two minutes. Honorable supervisors, this is a dangerous project with a dangerous developer. He has received at least five notices of abate municipality. He illegally ripped out two chimneys to create a teardown. This is a reckless actor and not have been trusted. There is a possibility of loss, injury, or death. The project could compromise the foundation at 2412 green street. This is not theoretical. Planning staff had a similarly steep hill side. The developer has retained the same geologist from that property. Were living in a constant state of fear. This project requires an e. I. R. Clerk thank you for your comments. I am a friend of the kaufmanns and a frequent visitor to the neighborhood where they have owned for the past 25 years. As previous speakers have said, this is a wonderful neighborhood and one that we appreciate visiting. I strongly feel that given what has been said by the lawyer that at a minimum an e. I. R. Needs to be done. If the builder or the developer wants to live there as a permanent home, then he too should respect the recommendations of the e. I. R. , as these can have extremely negative impacts, not just on the Environmental Impact, but clearly on how mr. Kaufmann and his family would be living if such a structure were built. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, is there another caller . Operator madam clerk, that completes the queue. Clerk thank you. Mr. President. Chair thank you for your comments. Since theres no other public speaker, i will close this Public Comment. Now we will have up to 10 minutes for the representative of the Planning Department to present. Good afternoon, president yee and members of the board. Im tonia shaner, department of planning staff, and i would like to have permission to share my screen. Clerk were making you a presenter as we speak. Please let me know if youre not able to see my slides. Clerk we can see. The item before you is the appeal of a final mitigated declaration for the proposed project at 2417 green street. You were provided with an appeal lett letter. A supplemental appeal letter submitted last week does not create any assertions or impacts. The decision before you is whether to deny the appeal and affirm the document. If you decide not to affirm the m. M. D. In its entirety, you may refer this project to the Planning Department for specified revision. Or you may send it back for further Environmental Review. First, i will describe the project and summarize the appeal history and respond to the concerns raised in the appeal. The project wants to modify an existing fourstorey family home by adding rear additions above the existing building, add be an accessory dwelling unit and expanding the basement garage. Also expansion of the rear yard. The amount of excavation has been slightly reduced since the application. These changes did not require changes. There is a complicated history of permitting and Environmental Review. In january of 2018, the board of supervisor supervisors upheld the appeal and directed planning staff to conduct a further examination of the project. We included a study that included all the potential impacts being reduced. We published our recommendations in 2019. After it was affirmed in january of this year, it was approved in 2020. The appellant filed an appeal in august of 2020. Before i address the main appeal concerns, the appellants approach is to cherrypick the analysis, while ignoring the mitigation measure and impacts that this would be reduced to with this mitigation measure and there would not be any results of impacts. In addition, the mitigation measure would proceed in conjunction with the Building Code requirements to underpin the requirements to prevent lateral movements. There are direct impacts shown due to direct noncompliance with the Building Code. Impacts on views and light and the release of dangerous materials. This will be summarized next. Structural integrity of the cotset house would be maintained. In addition, the project would incorporate a mitigation measure that requires the project sponsor to perform ongoing coordination with and monitoring by the Planning Department during d. B. I. s planned review. The request for more d. B. I. Involvement at this time is prematu premature. Specific instruction details will be reviewed by d. B. I. As part of their building review process, which happens after the c4 process is concluded. The slope protection act was amended in 2018 to include additional areas in the city. The project site is within an area that was added in 2018. However, Building Permits are reviewed based on the date of the Building Permit application, in this case 2017. Therefore, despite appellates assertion to the contrary, it was not subject to the slope protection act in 2017, as only areas outlined in the areas there and this is not located in an area of site designation. Should it be felt that an input of the experts be permitted, it can be submitted to d. B. I. We coordinated with the building departments planned Services Division to review the projects preliminary geotechnical analysis. The proposed project would not result in indirect impacts on the cotset house. While the expansion would be visible from the house and other vantage points in the area, it would not materially impact so much that it would not be able to convey its architectural resources. While the proposed project may alter the amount of sunlight on the rear yard, it would not alter the setting such that there would be a major impact. Moreover, i want to point out that views from private residents are not subject to those buildings covered by sequa. This would not relate to Hazardous Materials because this is in compliance with chapter 22a. The project site is on the map of potentially hazardous sites because it is within 100 feet of an underground storage tank that was previously removed. There is a subject of review for this ordinance. This property has been in residential use since 1921 and no evidence has been presented of any contamination of the site. Because of the appellants concerns, the project enrolled in the program and tested the soil. The project reviewed the test results and concluded the no constituents of concern are present and the project does not require a site mitigation plan. It was also confirmed that the site mitigation measures were conducted appropriately. The existing resource on a hillside is not unusual in San Francisco. Projects of similar size and scope are usually exempt from sequa. As part of our analysis, we visited the project site multiple times, coordinated with d. B. I. s plan review to develop a mitigation measure and reduce any effects to a significant level. Thus, no reasonable possibility of a reasonable effect on the project would occur. We request that you uphold the ffmd and not require further analysis. This would not yield different results that have been exhaustively compiled in the ffmd. Joining me are jeanie polling, Stephanie Anna and the planning officer. I thank you for your time. Chair i asked if there were any questions and im not seeing anyone on the roster at this moment. Lets move to the next presentation which is by the sponsor. You have 10 minutes. Before my time begins, i would like to ask the clerk to have the ability to screen share at the end of my presentation. Clerk operations, can you prepare for that, please. With the appeal before the board follows the Planning Commissions unanimous 60 approval of my project. In describing support for the project, commissioner moore described this can be described as a pop out. I cannot see that this is being impacted in the manner people are describing it. It is done in a manner that is respectful of where it sits. The latest appeal presents no new information and zero evidence of any impacts under sequa. This is a small addition and remodel to a singlefamily home that includes a new a. D. U. I reduced the size of the proposed addition by 70 . It went by less than 1,000 square feet to 300 square feet. The Planning Department and this board have approved much larger and more complex projects by categoric exceptions under sequa which is what should have happened with this project. This is not even subject to sequa. It needs to be approved with no further delays, as per applicable law. The case was dismissed immediately because it has no merit. There was an inability to read and understand plans. Mr. Drury has no understanding of construction and zero respect for city staff, the Planning Commission, and the approval process. The appellant has taken the unreasonable position that no project should proceed. I have exhaustively attempted to allay his concerns, including at two fourhour meetings. Mr. Drury was so disruptive during the meetings that he had to be silenced so i could continue my presentation. I made major reductions to the already small project and even agreed to remove a portion of the existing building to further address concerns. The appellant has no interest in setting under any circumstance. Still, ive made exhaustive efforts to meet his demands. Some are the new garage foundation that hes opposing is now more than eight feet away through solid rock from his foundation. There was a report with falsified claims that the new foundation proposed to attach to the brick foundation. This is intentional fraud and was disheartening to see. Carp attended our meeting and was so unprofessional, he had to be muted for most of the meeting. The key facts of his reports are not correct. The property is not steep. At its maximum point, it is 15 and at other places much less mr. Kaufmanns private view of my rear yard is not obstructed. I eliminated the excavation and reduced the size of the garage. I hired vibration engineers. The engineer predicted the ground vibration would be safe than the level criterion. As a matter of law, this project is categorically exempt under sequa. Nevertheless, i complied with each and every request of the Planning Department at enormous personal and financial cost. I have spent over 1 million and three years on the permitting process. This is unreasonable. This home needs a muchneeded bedroom. The side of the house is being reduced to accommodate the a. D. U. The appellant makes several old points in his appeal. That there is a disagreement among experts. This is false. There is no disagreement among experts. He has been proven wrong under all claims. The fdmd says that this could have death as a consequence. The Planning Department approved over and over how this is not true. Mr. Drury has submitted false claims. There has been a confirmation that this project is not subject to the dba. I hired an engineer and geologist. The 2019 report by my geotechnical engineer clearly states that the average slope doesnt exceed 25 , but our site has a maximum of 15 . The Historic Resource impact. There never have been or will be any impacts to the appellants house under sequa. Every qualified expert agrees there are no impacts under sequa. The Hazardous Materials is a false claim over and over. The calhalo guidelines is also not true. There was an attempt to get the appellants to see this was an incorrect claim. In response to the failed claim about the botched windows, i made a change to try to get to a resolution. No windows are blocked. I went above and beyond to allow more light to enter the light well. In summary, this is a small project on an existing home. There are two floors that are not suitable for a family. When completed, the new rear addition will be 29 feet shorter than the appellants house. Clerk [indiscernible]. Im going to let tom take the rest of the time. He has a few additional comments. Yes, im here. Can you hear me . Clerk yes, we can hear you. I just wanted to refer to a specific project that this board considered just a couple of weeks ago 66 Mountain Springs avenue. That is a property that in slope of over 25 . In that case, as you may recall, neighbors spoke and an appeal was filed expressing concerns about landslides. That property was located on the landslide map. That property has been approved with a landlandslide except. There were concerns expressed about the homes there and those homes were no less valuable than the house in this case. This board, as you may remember, questioned staff very closely about the fact that examination and studyies of the project planned wouldnt happen until later. After a back and forth, this board said they agreed with staff and they appreciated staffs careful attention to that project. The categorical attention was upheld. May i submit to this board, if categorical [indiscernible]. Clerk thank you. Chair thank you very much for the presentation. You can see the excavation is occurring on the existing garage. Its a onecar garage being expanded to be a twocar garage. That excavation occurs directly behind the current garage. It is native rock and has not been disturbed. The lab company we hired wanted to take samples in the excavation because thats where were doing the work. You are not answering the question that i pose, which is why are you not sampling in the rear yard . By the way, you have just stated this is someone working on your dime under your instructions, but you have not answered my fundamental question, which is why have you not tested the external site . I hired an stert to do this and that was on an approved list. That company is an approved company by the city. He took those samples in the area he felt were most relevant and thats where he took them. Im sorry, i didnt mean to interrupt. Thats where were doing the excavations. Is that Party Available to testify to this body . I dont have them here on my behalf, but they have issued extensive reports. And i dont mean to be too inquisitive or argumentative. Can you say why these notices were issues . On the total number, i would exist to defer to coat enforcement. There are zero existing Code Violations on this fact. I understand from the Code Department they were getting numerous code complaints. And at one point there were so many code complaints, they sent a couple of code inspectors. They found no villageses on the property and they did notice the neighbors doing structural work when they were there, in fact, the neighbors who called in. They went out and gave them some violation tickets. As it stands, there are no reconciliations and there wont be any going forward. Well, thats a representation, but can you explain why this these permit numbers were suspended . No, they were suspended because the board of supervisors gave a sequa appeal. They suspended several years ago because of the appeal. We addressed what we believe were all the issues on the appeal. Now were back in front of you again because even though we addressed those issues, it was appealed. Its your representation that no violation was given for any excess of any legitimate Building Permit, is that your position . I want to discuss the chimneys brought up. We legally had permits to do Foundation Work and that Foundation Work required removal of foundation and rocks that was underneath a 70somethingyearold may son sonry masonry chimney that was unsafe. The scope of the work was not on the foundation permit. It was missing the notes because it was a technical error. Within 24 hours, i went to the department and filed the permit. It would be remedied with this permit. The scope of work on this permit shows the removal of the chimneys. Thank you, project sponsor. I will reserve any questions. Chair i will invite members of the public who wish to speak in support and opposition of the project to speak well, you need to press star then three to speak. You have up to two minutes to speak. Could you call the first speaker. Clerk we have 19 listeners and two listeners in the queue. Operations, lets hear from the first caller. My name is susan bird and im the other adjacent neighbor to this project. My husband and i have lived in our for ever homes for over 20 years, weve lived here for over 24 years. Weve lived in the neighborhood for 30 years. I want to quickly respond to mr. Dirkens reference. I think its important to note the mischaracterizations when he said a building inspector noticed major structural work at our property, to give you an example of the miscommunication from the beginning. We had dry rot on our wooden bars on our victorian homes. It was being remediated. The building inspector came over, talked to our carpenter, and asked him to get a proper permit to finish the work on the three wooden stairs. It was not structural work. From the beginning, the entire neighborhood, some of the people youve heard from, they say, we know youre a developer and not a homeowner to give with your wife and your children. We know you dont live here. We know you want to make the biggest house possible, flip it, make the biggest money possible. Lets call a spade a spade and call a turkey here. Youre a developer and the rest of us are remodeling our homes. The rest of us are maintaining and beautifying our homes. We are maintaining and have lived here for over 20 years. If you clerk thank you for your time. Chair im going to remind the public that this is Public Comment for those who are in opposition of the appeal and in support of the project. I think the last speaker should have spoken earlier. Clerk thats right, mr. President. I believe we have one more caller in the queue, operations. Welcome caller. This is david scofield. I wanted to identify myself for the next item. Chair operations do we have more speakers on this item . Operator madam clerk, that completes the queue. Clerk mr. President. Chair Public Comment is now closed. Lastly, i will invite the appellant to present a rebuttal argument. You have up to three minutes. Thank you. This is Richard Drury for the appellant. Can you hear me . Yes. Thank you. I would just like to address a few of the points that have been made. First off, i really take offense with being charged with making false statements. What were quoting is the exact language from the exact quote. I have a long reputation of representing some of the leading nonprofit environmental groups in the state and i take offense to my reputation being questioned. Lets talk about the mitigation measure. The citys entire argument is premised on a mitigation measure. It is not a mitigation measure. Its a proposal that if the earth start to move, the developer better talk to the city and think about what to do. Its too late then. We cant wait that long. The city requires sequa to be developed now to avoid the harm in the first place. There is talk about the slope protection map and focus on one map. The sequa refers to one map. Ive showed you all three maps and that this parcel is on the slope protection map that requires protection. As far as the modern ordinance goes, testing was done at one location immediately behind the garage. This project extends 17 feet into the rear yard. That area hasnt been tested. In the intervening two years, it would have been easy for the developer to do testing and they havent. That raises questions, why hasnt the testing been done . Its not hard to do. On the n. O. V. , there have been five n. O. V. S over the past three years and two abatement orders. Those n. O. V. S are for very serious violations that allow rain to pour through. These are serious violations. This is really i would like to point out this project poses serious structural risk to the neighboring property. Under sequa, he is anaesthetic bigba bigback impacts do matter. We encourage the board to require an Environmental Impact report. I want to caution the project sponsor. This is a forum we are not used to hearing these types of attacks. We have known mr. Drury to be honest and knowledgeable and have integrity. I want to caution the project sponsor of his personal attacks of mr. Drury has always presented himself, even though we dont always agree, that mr. Drury has always presented himself in a professional manner. Colleagues, as youve just heard, this appeal seeks to save this home that was designed as his personal residence. It is my understanding that this specific home is included in many architecture books, as was mentioned by mr. Drury. This house is built on a steep hill. This last came before us in 2016 when we voted unanimously to uphold the appeal for the Historic Resource next door, that this project would have a Significant Impact on sequa. I do not have any additional questions to ask of the presenters at this time. I continue. I paused too long there. I do have Major Concerns about protecting this credibly Historic Resource. I do not believe that the mitigation measures are substantial enough. Also troubling is the fact that the project sponsor, a geologist, who assures us that there is not risk with this slope. I believe that further study and mitigation measures are necessary. The Planning Department should coordinate with the department of building slope protection issues. We must make sure this is properly studied and mitigated. Based on items for those reasons i move to table items 20 and 21. Chair before we do that and get a second, i will go ahead and close the hearing. So the public hearing has been held and is now closed. [indiscernible] final mitigation of the final altercation which involved an analysis of determination from the Planning Department and whether that was appropriate. To conditionally verse plannings decision, six votes of the board are required . Colleagues, do you have any comments to make . If not, i believe supervisor stefani has made a motion to approve items 20 and 21 and to table item 19. Is that correct . Yes, thats correct. Chair do you have any questions . No, those questions were answered. Given that this project rises to the level of Environmental Review, i believe the appellant stated that the mitigations are not mitigations. This requires more Environmental Review, given the fact that the contentions around slope stability and whether its subject to the slope protection act or not, that it appears on two out of three maps remain unresolved. Given the lack of testing as previously discussed, given the previous behavior by the project sponsor, for all of those reasons, i rise, though im not getting out of my chair, to second supervisor stefanis motion. Chair there is a motion to approve items 20 and 21 and table item 19, made by supervisor peskin and seconded by supervisor peskin. [ roll call ]. Clerk there are 11 ayes. Chair items 20 and 21 are approved and item 19 is tabled. Madam clerk, lets move on and go to the next 3 00 p. M. Special order. Please call items 22 through 29 together. Clerk items 22 through 25 and 26 through 29 pertain to Municipal Transportation Agency projects. Item 22 is a public hearing of persons interested in exemption under the Environmental Review under the California Environmental quality act issued as a statutory exemption by the Planning Department on august 20, 2020. Item 23 is the motion to affirm the determination by the Planning Department that the proposed Planning Project is exempt from the planning review. Item 24 is the conditional reversing. Item 25 is the preparation of finding reversing this determinati determination. Items 26 through 29 comprise the public hearing of persons interested in the determination of exemption from Environmental Review under sequa from the Planning Department. Item 27 is the motion to affirm the determination by the department that the proposed project is statutorily exempt from review item 28 is the conditional reversing of the statutory exemption determination and 29 is the preparation of findings to reverse the statutory exemption from Environmental Review. Chair colleagues, we have before us today two colleagues from the Municipal Transportation Agency, proposed project projec projects from staff. The august 22 and the covid19 [indiscernible] these appeals are related to the Planning Departments determination of statutory exemption of Environmental Review under the california Environment Quality act. Today i call items 22 through 29 together. This board regularly calls items together where there are similar issues and were [indiscernible] and project sponsors. In addition, due to covid19, the board of supervisors has a backlog of appeals and there is a need for us to use our time as efficiently as possible. That said, these are separate appeals of two projects and the board will consider them as such. The board is reminded these projects are separate and distinct. The public may comment on some or all of the projects. We will proceed as follows, up to 10 minutes for presentation of who is an appeal and up to 10 minutes on both of the appeals. Then well have two minutes per speaker and then up to 10 minutes for a presentation from the Planning Department and then 10 minutes. Two minutes for rebuttal. Colleagues, are there any objections to proceeding this way . Seeing no objections, the public hearing will proceed as proposed and is now open. The board will vote to affirm or deny each project under sequa. Well have mr. Silko go. You have up to 10 minutes. Can you hear me now . Clerk yes, i can. Actually, i believe that safeway is supposed to go first. Thats what i was advised. I will defer to safeway first. Chair it doesnt matter. Safeway, are you there . Its justin zucher or nathalie matin. Were amenable to that. Chair you have 10 minute approximates. Good afternoon, president and supervisors. We are on behalf of the appellants safeway. Nathalie matin will be addressing you after me. Safeways appeals approved the project with the road closure and the vehicular restrictions. No other projects proposed relying upon the statutory exemptions at issue are contested. Safeway has been a longstanding member at church and march since 1954 and it appreciates the environment there. From the outset, safeway expressed concerns about this project, given the vast on the of residents near and far that rely on this Grocery Stores and pharmacy. Safeway needs to be flexible to respond to the challenges of covid19. For a project that has been in the works since last year, theyve been responding to the reasons. M. T. A. Has proceeded with phase one of the project, including closures between 15th and Market Street. M. T. A. Wants to rely on the project exemptions. The evidence in the reveals that m. T. A. Has been planning this project as the j trip switchback pilot since 2018, well before covid19. This closure [indiscernible] in the area. As is common in the record, safeway and other merchants have seen a drastic decline in sales due to phase one implementation of the project [indiscernibl [indiscernible] m. T. A. Relies on an emergency and trass transit exemption. But this exemption is not supported by substantial exemptions. The project must not proceed until an adequate sequa review is performed. Substantial elements support the finding of an application of a substantial exemption. The emergency exemption relied upon allow an emergency to bypass the Environmental Review. For the purposes of sequa, this is demanding immediate action to show damage to life, health, property, and public services. [indiscernible] [please stand by] the project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, the project has the substantial to achieve shortterm environmental goal to the disadvantage of longterm environmental goals, the project has possible environmental event that are accumulatively considerable, meaning the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in the concept of past project, future projects or past projects, future projects, or possible future projects. The ceqa guidelines also states in part the following emergency par projects are exempt from ceqa, and does not include longterm projects taken from [inaudible] if the anticipated [inaudible] would create a risk to Public Health, safety, or welfare. According to western municipal, cited in my brief, the emergency exception to the e. I. R. Requirement under p. R. C. 21080 b4 and extremely narrow, including an emergency, and limits an emergency to an occurrence, not a condition, and limits the emergency be sudden and unexpected, demanding immediate action. Also, the construction of a statute should give meaning to each word of th thats a quote from headnotes on western municipal. You have my brief, and hopefully youve read it. Unfortunately, the m. T. A. And planning responses did not really reply to it, in my view. Ill emphasize a few points and highlight some issues. A stable project description and baseline are both required under ceqa, and i dont see that here. Mass transit exception, p. R. C. 21080 d shall 10 and ccoc 2075 covers the increase of passenger or Commuter Service on rail lines or high occupancy vehicle lanes already in use. Wheres the increase . Theres no institution or increase on rail lines already in use. The rail lines at issue were not in service from march to august. The changes here only reflect a shift from bus to rail. Although the claimed exemptions are statutory and not categorical, there are very real impacts here to Church Street area access to safeway, other businesses and residences, bus and trail transit passengers through church and duboce, church and market, and west street station. West portal accesses to residents and businesses. These are changes in street use, however characterized. These project are not ministerial, they are entirely discretionary, and as has pointed out, theyve been in use since at least 2014, if not earlier. In my view, if one exemption fails, then the whole exemption fails and needs to be reversed. On the project, its too unpredictable, including the check recovery. In case the economic recovery. The concept of equity cuts in different ways here. I think equity is providing service everywhere throughout the city, proportional to demand, not just on certain routes. In fact, when does a title 6 analysis get triggered here . My brief successed muni operator sign ups and approval dates. I believe the approved project dates for these projects should have been earlier. The el taraval should have been covered in the changes to the e. I. R. Or the taraval project. The projects have been implemented, a rail restart date is unknown, and there is time to conduct Environmental Review. I urge you to approve items 24 and 25, 28 and 29, and table items 23 and 27. I can answer questions that you may have. Thanks. Clerk mr. President , i believe youre muted. President yee thank you very much, mr. Pilpell. I dont see any members in the roster, so lets see if we have any Public Comment in support of the appeals. If you support the appeal, youll have an opportunity to come forth and up to two minutes. And for those who oppose the appeal, youll have an opportunity later. But at this time, those who support the appeal, please press star, three, and youll be added to the queue. Madam clerk, go ahead and call the first speaker. Clerk okay. As operations unmute the first caller, we know there are 21 listeners in queue, press star, three to speak, otherwise, well take this one caller. Welcome, caller. My name is bob planthold. Im a transit dependent disabled person who lives in the neighborhood. This is not a response to covid, it was not an Emergency Response. It was in 2019 that then private citizen jeff tumlin proposed the change. They said nothing and did nothing, but i told them this is out of bounds, out of sync. It doesnt make sense for what was being proposed, so m. T. A. Has been unresponsive to this. I also want to say that the planning that went into this showed safeway was not considered. There was initially a plan to extend a low boarding platform south on Church Street to construct a high boarding platform. That would have blocked the entrance at reservoir way. Only when i talked to the director of transit planning personally, in the presence of other seniors, did he say oh, and they started to realize they didnt need to do that. Im a private citizen, im making comments and suggestions that, frankly, rebut their planning and improve the process. Similarly, the stopping of the jchurch at church and market after it went to bus only service was nonsensical. They could run it up one more block and allow people getting on the bus at church and 14. The planning thats gone into this is unprofessional, ineffective, and its incomplete, plus, its not a response to an emergency. I suggest that this approval be done and sent back to have a comprehensive analysis. Thank you. Clerk thank you, mr. Planthold. Operations, is there another caller, please . Hello. My name is herbert winer, and im very concerned about ramming things through without an appropriate review. This is a typical procedure, and you cant override peoples concerns that are really very legitimate. [inaudible] can be a disaster as far as traffic goes, and mr. Jones for the j line is definitely wrong. I support the other comments that have been made. Thank you. Clerk okay. Thank you for your comments. Operations, do we have another caller on the line, please . Operator madam clerk, that completes the queue. Clerk okay. Thank you, operations. Mr. President . President yee okay. Thank you for your comments. Since there are no other speakers, then Public Comment is now closed. [gavel]. President yee now, we will have up to ten minutes for presentation from the representatives of the Planning Department. Hello, mr. President. If we could give presentation access to jennie diluna, she is going to be running the slide deck. Clerk okay. If we could give her access. Operator she now has access, madam clerk. Clerk great. Thank you. All right. Good afternoon, president yee and Board Members. My name is lauren beale, Planning Department staff here today with other planning deputy sta Deputy Department staff. Planning staff jennie diluna will be presenting the departments response to the appeals of the statutory exemption for the covid19 muni rail adjustments and associated street and parking changes dated august 22, 2020 and fall 2020. Our presentation today will focus on the Environmental Review of the projects. Although we will give a brief description of each project, we will rely on our colleagues at sfmta to provide a more details presentation. [inaudible] the sfmta has seen an increase in ridership compared to the early levels of the covid19 emergency. In response, the sfmta proposed to modify the Muni Core Service plan by making bus and rail Service Changes in order to accommodate the increase in ridership while maintaining social distancing standards. Adding more frequent routes would increase spacing and lessen contacts between passengers. Ceqa defines an emergency as a sudden unexpected occurrence involving a clear and imminent danger involving immediate danger to prevent immediate danger or threat to life, health, or public services. Additionally, Mass Transit Services that would increase passenger or Commuter Service on rider lines or high occupancy vehicle lanes are exemption from ceqa for review. The statutory exemption applies to any given project that meets its definition, regardless of the projects potential impacts to the environment. On february 25, 2020, mayor london breed issued a local Health Emergency to address the spread of the coronavirus or covid19 pandemic. On march 16, 2020, a Public Health order was originally issued as shelter in place and has since been amended as more information and recommendations become available. Health orders are directable laws and provide legally binding instruction on how to comply with the health order, such as maintaining 6 feet of social distancing in order to mitigate the spread of disease. As the health order was written to address increasing ridership during the pandemic. While the pandemic is not explicitly listed in the Public Resources code, a sudden and unexpected event such as the covid19 pandemic falls within the category of events that would be considered an emergency. Both sfmta projects meet the definition of an emergency project by addressing the need for adequate space to maintain 6 feet of social distancing during the public Health Emergency. No exclusion is applied to either project because they are mitigating an emergency that does have a high probability of occurring in the shortterm. We are dealing with a pandemic now. Additionally, both projects would provide Transit Service during a public Health Emergency and are temporary. These projects can be reversed as soon as 180 days after the citys Emergency Declaration. Covid19 muni adjustment and associated parking changes project consists of changes in butt routes spread across several neighborhoods across the city. With modified covid19 use core service plan by implementing surface rail service for muni lines that typically operate in the subway and on some straights before covid19. The associated street and parking changes would facilitate these rail changes by creating transfer points and providing riders more stations and safe service routes. As described on the prior slide, the muni Rail Service Adjustment project would mitigate the emergency, like facililike [inaudible] as a covid19 automobile Health Emergency has a high probability of occurring in the shortterm as it is happening right now. The project also meets the definition of a mass transit statutory exemption as it would reinstate Passenger Rail service on existing rail lines to facilitate essential trips, an increase and ridership over conditions at the beginning of the Health Emergency. There are no exclusions to using the mass transit statutory exemption under ceqa. In conclusion, each project meets the definition of an emergency project, and nonof the exclusions for issuing an Emergency Declaration under ceqa apply. Both projects meet the statutes of a mass transit statutory exemption. The projects are there statutorily exempt under ceqa. The information presented in the supplemental briefs do not raise issues that have not been addressed in the Planning Departments response submitted on october 26, 2020. Both projects meet the definition of an emergency project statutory exemption and a mass transit project statutory exemption under ceqa. The Planning Department respectfully recommends that the board uphold the ceqa statutory exemption termination and deny the appeals of the ceqa determination. That concludes our presentation, and city staff are here to answer questions. President yee thank you. Any questions, colleagues . Okay. Seeing none, could i have the project sponsor, m. T. A. , to go ahead and provide your presentation . You have to up to ten minutes. Great. Good afternoon, president yee. Could i have the ability to share my screen . Clerk yes, were making you a presenter as we speak. Great. Thank you. Mr. Kennedy, you are now a presenter. Excellent. Thank you. So good afternoon, president yee and members of the board. My name is sean kennedy. I am the transit planning manager at the sfmta, and shortly after the San Francisco shelter in place order went into effect, in march, the sfmta implemented and has continued to operate a covid19 Muni Core Service plan, and before i go into a little bit more detail on the rail and bus changes, i did want to give a background on the constraints that were facing with our program and our service. During the covid pandemic, our ability to provide service has been limited in several ways. First, we have fewer vehicles available because of increased cleaning of those vehicles and making sure that our operators and passengers have clean vehicle when they get in the service. And secondly, as this diagram depicts, the capacity of each vehicle is diminished due to the physical distancing requirements. So were essentially taking a third or about half of the amount of people that we normally could have taken, you know, precovid, kind of bus. Were down per bus and per train. Given this, its critical that muni provide no delays and provide enough service to improve capacity along lines where were seeing high demand and reduce overcrowding and the amount of time that people spend on the bus. This has led to the development of the Muni Core Service plan. So first, im going to go through the rail changes, and then, well talk about the bus secondly. Prior to covid is the, the muni subway experience was really unacceptable. Both the levels of crowding, as well as delay, and im sure most of the people on this call can remember what the subway was like. Subways creeping through the tunnel, and waiting to get through the portal as well as pe west portal itself. In the mornings, it could take 20 minutes to get from powell to west portal station and use the turnaround there. Obviously, as we proceed through this covid period, we really cannot have crowded trains and platforms that we were seeing. Unfortunately, the Historical Service plan of having all rail lines go through a single trunk track line in the subway really exacerbates these issues, both the delay as well as the crowding, and what were seeing. So consequently, the covid Rail Service Plan was developed to address these Structural Service programs. Under the Covid Service plan, we have several changes. One, the j would stay on the surface going from from basically churchduboce to balboa park. Similarly, the l, the k would stay on the surface, and they would become essentially one line going from the zoo to balboa park and having people transfer at west portal if they were heading downtown. Due to the urgent kind of need to restore rail service at the time and have more capacity in the rail system, these changes were approved on a temporary emergency basis, and they were authorized by the director of transit and the city traffic engineer who authorized the street changes. It is really anticipated that the m. T. A. Board would affirm these changes in september, but due to the pending outcome of this appeal, that has been essentially put off, and were know well be were now well be going back to our board in the december time frame once this aheppeal has bn settled. So in order to accommodate these changes that i talked about, both the j turning on the surface at churchduboce and not going in the tunnel, as well as the l and k at west portal, we knew we had to make some changes on the street. And on Church Street, that includes limiting traffic on the block on between market and 15 on church to just local and commercial vehicles, and residents, merchants, customers can still access this block to pick up materials and or access this driveway, but this but the street closure itself really provided space to allow what we felt was going to be a high increase in passengers boarding and allowing a surface to transfer at the subway and move into the downtown. These changes were implemented for the august Service Change and remain in place pending the outcome of this appeal. The second face of this Church Street project i mean, currently, we had ended it right here at Market Street, as mr. Planthold had noted, we have now extended the service to the far side of churchduboce which will be the first side of the Church Street project, but in order to actually extend the train up that extra block, we need to make room for some Wheelchair Accessible stops at church and duboce and at market, and those will require the continued closure of the southbound church lane between market and 15, but it will no longer require the northbound closure of the lane on market between church and 15. Additionally, at west portal, we are also installing some temporary and have installed temporary wheel care accessible boarding platforms at ulloa that will help transfers between the surface only and subway lines at that location. So given the importance of the return to rail service, we implemented some a number of communication techniques aimed to reach as many people as we could, given the circumstances, and as you all know, its harder to reach people during covid. We really tried to target outreach, including merchants, residents, community groups, advocacy organizations, neighborhood organizations, and, of course, elected officials. We made numerous adjustments to the to the plan based on stakeholder feedback. We updated the signage on Church Street between market and 15 several times. We added shortterm parking space in that block. We adjusted our enforcement strategies, and we also did not implement a proposed also ban going southbound on church into the safeway parking lot after talking with stakeholders, including safeway, about that proposal. Going forward, communitybased organizations, stakeholders, neighbors will be involved in shaping the process for evaluation of this project and adjusting the rail Service Changes in realtime. Based on feedback as well as ongoing ontheground data monitoring, the m. T. A. Is going to be continually evaluating this project and can reverse elements of the changes to meet the needs of the community as well as muni customers going forward. Clerk mr. Kennedy, you have two minutes left. Great. Thank you. I will finish up quickly here. On the bus side shall you know, we we on the bus side, you know, we made a number of changes to mitigate crowding. Our major considerations were connecting to essential services, connecting to address service gaps. For example, we reinstituted the Affordable Service line to make sure that the Housing Development had transit access, and then restating the reinstating the 30 short and the 27 to address concerns in the chinatown corridor. So due to the need of increased service and the need to reduce crowding on the citys transit, the bus changes and associated street changes were approved by the director of transit as well as the city traffic engineer. So just in summary, covid19 Service Changes are an opportunity to respond to an emergency in transportation challenges and ensure transportation and safety of Public Health during this truly unprecedented time, and that concludes my presentation. Im happy to take questions. President yee supervisor preston . Supervisor preston thank you, president yee. I just want to make sure i understand the situation here, and i guess a question for mr. Kennedy. So as i understand it, this is sort of the j i understand the plans that were in place as an Emergency Response. But then, now with rail service not coming back for this foreseeable future, any changes to the j, are they on hold now, pending the reopening of the of the rail service . Right. So we are we will be depending on the outcome of this appeal process, we will be going to our m. T. A. Board, advancing the second phase of the j project, which would coincide with bringing back the j rail changes in early february, late january. That means it would go across market to church and duboce during approve by our board, and when service would build up, we would build a temporary accessible boarding platform at safeway there that would allow that service to go into effect. Supervisor preston i think what im trying to understand is this gets to how moot this may relate to this appeal. Forget the fact that things were suspended due to the peal. If there had not been an appeal, but there had been a decision made prior to moving this Emergency Response forward, m. T. A. Had decided, whatever reason, made the call not to move forward with rail on what could be up in other context of eight month to a year time frame. Would this even be moving forward . Eventually, this project became moot basically once the problems with rail surfaced, and there was a plan to reinstate rail surface. Z as far as the j goes, so it was always planned to be in two phases. When we were thinking about the first phase, of course, we were assuming that the subway would be operational, and since the subway wasnt operational, and we had to run bus service along the j, that definitely changed the trajectory of the project, but we still planned to bring back j Train Service, like i said, starting at the end of december, so were 1. 5 months away from bringing back that Train Service, and it would not go through the tunnel because, as you know, the tunnel is going through some other changes and other concerns. There would not be Train Service in the tunnel when the j returns, but we will be bringing the j back and connecting to the n bus. Supervisor preston i see. Thank you for that clarification. I didnt realize that independent of whether the tunnels open or not that it would move forward. Yeah, i and one other question, and im not sure if this is for planning staff or m. T. A. , but im trying to understand what the relevance here is of the appellants claim that there was an intent prior to the covid emergency to make these changes to the j. My question is, does that matter . In other words, is even if there is even, you know, in taking the representations about statements made back in 2019 about this as a potential change to Improvement Service as described, and then, we indisputably face an emergency, and this is an Emergency Response again, i dont know if thats a question for planning or City Attorney but if we accept there was an intent on the part of m. T. A. To do this any way, but then, it was also done or accelerated as an Emergency Response, does that, as the appellants claim, affect the impact of doing this as an Emergency Response . Jennie diluna, Planning Department staff. When we evaluate Planning Projects, we evaluate for this particular statutory exemption, does it meet the definition of a statutory exemption, so whether or not whether some aspects were considered prior, if it would mitigate that emergency, then, it is statutorily exempt. Supervisor preston okay. Thank you for that. I just want to say, that this is a recurrent issue on a lot of these appeals. I just want to make clear, that just because before the emergency, our m. T. A. Has decided that maybe it would be a good idea to make something a slow street or maybe it would be a good idea to change a rail service. Just because that thought has been entertained, prior to an emergency, its my understanding and as you just confirmed, it doesnt undercut the idea that these things can be legitimate and legally defensible responses to the covid emergency, and i just i appreciate the clarification on that. Thank you. President yee thank you. I see no other colleagues on the roster, so im going to go ahead and invite the public who wants to make Public Comment in opposition of the appeal and in support of the project. You have go ahead and lineup by pressing star and three to be added to the queue, and then, you have two minutes to speak. Madam clerk, go ahead. Clerk okay. Thank you, mr. President. Operations, can we hear from the first caller, please. Welcome, caller. Hi. Mr. [inaudible], thank you for your comments. I was particularly interested in the comment about the 30 short. My understanding is the 30 short has been eliminated, and instead, the 60foot buses have been extended not only throughout the 30 but on the 30 through chrissy field. [inaudible] we were told that its an emergency. Its hard to know what Emergency Services were needed at chrissy field, especially if 60 foot buses were removed from the 5 fulton which Services Numerous hospitals and golden gate park, a far more used recreation area. We were given no notice, yet we find out that theres been a fiveyear agreement signed between the authority and the municipal trust. It seems disingenuous that this was an emergency. Finally, that theres no ridership on the line when it extends out to chrissy field. I see one or two riders maximum on a 60foot bus. It seems that that capacity could be much better used somewhere else. So i urcge you to not do the extension of the chrissy line, put that somewhere else where it could better serve the people of sf. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your time. Operations, could you unmute the next caller, please. Hello. Clerk we hear you. Welcome. Hello . Oh, hi. My name is hayden miller. This is for opposition, correct, to the appeal . Clerk thats correct. President yee yes. Okay. I wanted to speak in opposition to this because the appeal is just another frivolous attempt to delay Emergency Response projects by the sfmta that really benefit the essential workers who are riding transit right now. You know, muni service is already suffering due to the pandemic, and these projects just bring a little bit of hope to the essential workers who have to ride transit right now, and so these frivolous appeals that are delaying and preventing these projects, its really ridiculous, and its sad that people in our communities would file these appeals, and big corporations are filing these appeals that hurt transit riders and essential workers. Its really a shame, so i urge you to reject this appeal, keep the project, help keep essential workers and riders safe during this pandemic. Clerk all right. Thank you for your comments, sir. Operations, can we hear from the next caller, please. Good afternoon, supervisors. This is cat carter with San Francisco transit riders. I urge you to approve items 23 and item 27. Of course, were absolutely still in the middle of an emergency, during this emergency with very little capacity, muni is still serving over 150,000 trips per day. Just because people dont see a lot of riders at church and duboce or in the marina or whatever doesnt mean that other areas of that route arent totally packed. We need new amendments to implement during the pandemic to make transit more efficiently, make muni run more efficienty. With very little resources, we shouldnt have muni wasting time in traffic. Further, booze these a becaue these amendments are temporary, private projects allow providers to get the benefits sooner. Riders arent stuck in waiting f until any decision is made. We need to put the riders on muni first. Thank you so much. Clerk thank you for your comments. Before the next speaker, there are about 27 listeners in the queue. If youre interested in speaking on this hearing, please press star, three. Okay. Operations, lets hear from the next caller, please. Good afternoon or good evening, supervisors. My name is robert, and i live in district 5. I ask you to reject these appeals. I think as someone who lives on page street, im well acquainted with munis efforts at physical distancing measures during the pandemic, and theyve been wildly successful on page street in my opinion and the opinions of my neighbors. Frankly, we need greater social distancing, and we also need transit improvements. Ive seen the packed capacity on muni buses before and after the pandemic. We need all the capacity that we can get. I have very vivid memories of packed subway trains after seeing that m. T. A. Slide from with the pictures of inside the cars, so please, reject the appeals. We need these changes. Thank you very much. Clerk thank you for your comment. Were currently taking Public Comment in opposition to the appeal and in support of the project. Operations, do we have another caller in the queue, please . Operator madam clerk, that completes the queue. Clerk on you. Thank you. Mr. President . President yee okay. Thank you for your comments, and as theres no other member of the public lined up, Public Comment is now closed. So last thing, i will invite both appellants to present rebuttal arguments. Mr. Pilpell, you will have up to three minutes, and you may go ahead. Once again, i believe safeway is going to go first here. Thanks. President yee okay. I dont think theres any rules for this, but ill go ahead and oblige you. Safeway, go ahead, you have three minutes. Thank you. M. T. A. Said that this project has been done to provide a level of service that prevents overcrowding and vehicles, you allowing essential trips to be made. However, the j church only has a few people on it, and theres no mass crowding. Theres plenty of room for social distancing to meet their needs. In addition, they came when evaluating projects, they can, if it meets the definition of emergency at that time, they can proceed with it, however, as stated in castaic, if [inaudible] the emergency statutory exemption, and that is the exact situation that we are in currently. The j project seeks to address existing infrastructure issues that have been in place for years as identified in slides provided by m. T. A. Further, it was claimed that there is a high probability in the shortterm to justify reliance under ceqa guidelines 59269c. The guidelines of subdivision c prevent the guidelines of the emergency exemption. It states that the emergency exception does not include longterm projects taken for the purpose that has a low probability of occurrence in the shortterm. In this case, the muni subway is not anticipated to resumeless resumelesses resume services in the near. In addition, the projects claim to make changes to Church Street, which it does, and by doing that, it limits traffic on the block to just local and commercial vehicles. That limitation alters the street such that it is no longer it no longer is clarified as a highway under state law, and the mass transit exemption cannot be utilized in this instance. Further there was statemented by targeted outreach with r statements by targeted outreach with regards to safeway. Weve been working diligently to talk with m. T. A. And address the issues, but weve been unable to reach a final conclusion, which lead us to draw these appeals. Its our opinion that emergency mass transit exceptions are not politicable, and the reason that we are here today. Thank you. President yee thank you. Mr. Pilpell . Mr. Pilpell, are you still there . Yes. Hello, can you hear me now . President yee yes. Okay. Sorry. There were issues with unmuting. Ill try not to repeat what you just heard. In my october 23 appeal brief, at the bottom of page 5, i discussed, in a long paragraph, some of the issues and uncertainties around the Market Street subway. I dont think that that subways reopening at any time soon. There is time to conduct Environmental Review here. There is time for meaningful Public Outreach and engagement. This may be an unprecedented time, but it is not an emergency under ceqa. Beyond ceqa, the relevance of transit during the pandemic and beyond is very much at issue. If many people arent taking transit now and in the future, the principles and assumptions, travel demand models, land use, all kinds of things that support muni are in question. Supervisor preston properly started to frame that dialogue with his earlier question, and that dialogue needs to continue. Planning and m. T. A. Keep saying that the projects mitigate the emergency. They dont. We still have new cases and deaths in San Francisco, we still have bus service instead of rail. Were losing or have lost much of the ridership, transit ridership, which may never return, much to our dismay. What we need is to restore at least weekend level Transit Service throughout the service, including routes like the 3, the 21, the 27, the 31, the 33, plenty of other routes in the system. The local emergency was proclaimed almost nine months ago, and no one knows when or if it will end. Ceqa does not contemplate an ongoing condition satisfying the emergency exemption. Whether the transit Service Changes are good or bad, they do not prevent or mitigate an emergency as defined. I urge you to carefully consider the arguments and the record before you and reverse the exemptions. Once again, i can answer any questions, and thank you. President yee thank you. Okay. I dont see anybody on the roster, and so i want to thank everybody, and this public hearing has been held and is now filed. [gavel]. President yee okay. As previously discussed, we will take up consideration of determination of the statutory exemption from Environmental Review from the California Environmental quality act for each project, which involves an analysis of whether the determination from thepolitaning department was appropriate. To conditionally reverse plannings decision, six votes of the board are required. Colleagues, do you have any anybody have any comments . I see that supervisor peskin. Supervisor peskin thank you, mr. President. Before we get to the merits or lack thereof of this appeal, insofar as this is, in essence, a quasijudicial hearing, and as a full member of the California Coastal commission and a current member of the bay conservation and development commission, i take the quasinature of these hearings very, very seriously. I wanted to start, and i mean no disrespect to my colleagues, with a threshold issue. We cannot, based on what weve seen, heard, and read, adjudicate this issue. And to my colleague representing district 6, the press release released this morning, based on the appeals bought by one or two individuals, whether or not the district 6 supervisor believes that he is able to hear this in an unbiased quasi judicial manner. President yee so supervisor supervisor peskin and if hes not, then i would suggest that he recuse himself. President yee supervisor in district 6, would you like to respond in. Supervisor preston i i can hear this in an unbiased manner. Thank you. President yee anything else, supervisor peskin . Supervisor peskin no, mr. President. Thank you. President yee so we have a couple of options, and id like to entertain a motion for one of the options. Would anybody like to affirm the Planning Departments statutory exemption for the Environmental Review . Supervisor preston so moved, supervisor preston. President yee okay. Is there a second . Supervisor mandelman second. President yee seconded by supervisor mandelman, i believe . Yes . Supervisor mandelman yeah. President yee okay. Okay. Then why dont we the motions are approved this is for 22, right . So the motion is to approve item 23 and to table items 24 and 25, made by supervisor preston and seconded by supervisor mandelman. Would you please call the roll. Clerk okay. On the motion to approve item 23 and table 24 and 25 [roll call] clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee okay. Without objection, item 23 is approved, and items 24 and 25 are tabled. [gavel]. President yee we will take up consideration of the determination of the statutory exemption from Environmental Review from the california jiermt Environmental Quality act for the proposed m. T. A. Covid19 muni rail Service Adjustments and associated Street Parking changes and parking changes august 22, 2020 and fall 2020 projects. So if i could entertain a motion to approve item 27 and table items 28 and 29. Supervisor mandelman ill make that motion if i can say a brief thing about it. President yee im sorry. You can make a motion, and you can say a brief thing about it. Supervisor preston i hear the frustration from safeway, and its not just safeway, but many of the businesses along Church Street that have been impacted by the changes to to the rail there, and i have a lot of frustration for frankly, about the way that that has rolled out. My office expressed our concerns. It appeared that at least one business has gone out because of the changes that have been made here. I do not believe this has been the m. T. A. S finest hour, and none of that is seek i cant. So i do believe as the ceqa matter, we should affirm the exemption, but i have sadness and concern at what has happened at church and market. Supervisor peskin hear, hear. President yee thank you for your comment. Is there a second for the motion . Made by supervisor peskin, okay. So roll call on the motion to approve items 27, and table items 28 and 29. Clerk okay. On the motion to approve item 27, table 28 and 29 [roll call] clerk there are 11 ayes. Supervisor peskin due process aint that bad. Thank you, mr. President. President yee i concur. Without objection, item 27 and approved, and items 28 and 29 are tabled. [gavel]. President yee so we have one more 3 00 p. M. Special order. Please call the next item. Clerk item 30 is a hearing of the board of supervisors to sit as a committee of the whole to hold a public hearing on the shelterinplace rehousing and site demobilization plan. President yee all right. Colleagues, we are now convened as a committee of the whole to hold a hearing on the shelter in place rehousing and site demobilization plan. Without objection, we will proceed in follows. First, well have opening remarks from supervisor walton, then, well hear from controller ben rosenfield, director of the department of homelessness and housing, and department of emergency management, mary ellen carroll. Then, well hear from providers who have been serving shelter in place hotels, including Community Partnership housing. Well then open it up for questions and comments. Following that, theyll then have two minutes each for those who win to provide Public Comments. With that, supervisor walton, would you like to make some opening remarks . Supervisor walton thank you so much, president yee, and colleagues, thank you for convening today as a committee of the whole so we can learn more about the shelter in place rehousing and demobilization plan. On october 27, my colleagues, supervisors haney, ronen, preston, and i, also sent a letter to the department of homelessness and supportsive