>> supervisor ronen: present. >> supervisor safai: present. >> supervisor stefani: present. >> supervisor walton: present. >> mr. president, you have a quorum. >> president walton: thank you so much. and i will entertain a motion to excuse supervisor chan made by supervisor preston, seconded by supervisor mandelman. madame clerk, on the motion. >> on the motion to excuse supervisor chan from this meeting today, supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: aye. >> supervisor ronen: aye. >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor stefani: aye. >> supervisor walton: aye. >> supervisor dorsey: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> supervisor melgar: aye. >> supervisor peskin: aye. >> there are 10 ayes. >> president walton: thank you, motion carries. supervisor chan is excused from today's board meeting. the san francisco board of supervisors acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the ramaytush ohlone who are the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. as the indigenous stewards of this land, and in accordance with their traditions, the ramaytush ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. as guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders and relatives of the ramaytush ohlone community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. colleagues, please stand with me and join me in 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 walton: and on behalf of the board of supervisors, i would like to acknowledge the staff at sfgovtv. today we have kaleena mendoza who records each of our meetings and make the transcripts available to the public online. madame clerk, are there any communications? >> yes, the board of supervisors welcomes the general public to the board's legislative chamber here in city hall, room 250, to both listen to the proceeding or to advise the board in person during general public comment. this meeting is airing live on sfgovtv's award winning channel 26 or you may view live stream at www.sfgovtv.org. alternatively, you may also participate remotely by utilizing the remote call-in system. the best practices are to call in early from a quiet location and make sure your television or computer is concerned down. the board will prioritize hearing testimony from those who attend in person. thereafter, the board will hear from those who called into the remote system. please note the remote system will be open one time. once the board has heard from all callers in the queue, the president will close the remote system and it will not be reopened. throughout the meeting, the telephone number is streaming on your screen. it is 1-415-655-0001. when you hear the system prompt, that's when you should enter the meeting i.d. 2499 088 6363 # #. you'll know you have joined the meeting once you hear the discussion, however your line will be muted and once you're ready to line up in the speaker's queue to provide comment, press star 3, listen for the prompt you've been unmuted and begin speaking. there are no special orders at 3:00, so the only item with public comment associated with it is general public comment when item 42 is called. you may then speak to the approval of the may 17 and may 24 meeting, the recommendations of commendation, items 43 and 44, those are for consideration, or you may speak to general matters that are not on today's agenda, but are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the board. all other content will have been reported out to the board by an appropriate committee where public comment -- the public comment requirement has been fulfilled. you may still communicate with the board by sending your written correspondence by u.s. mail, the san francisco board of supervisors, 1 dr. carlton b. goodlett place, city hall, san francisco, california, 94102 or send an e-mail to the board by using the e-mail address. in partnership with the office of civic engagement and immigrant affairs, we do have interpreters today during general public comment. at that time i will invite the interpreters to introduce themselves and to provide access information to this remote meeting in language. finally, if you are experiencing any trouble accessing this meeting, we do have a clerk in person and live answering our telephones. if you call, that concludes my communications. >> president walton: thank you so much, madame clerk. and colleagues, just a friendly reminder, please mute your microphones when you're not speaking. we'll go to the approval of minutes. today we're approving the meeting minutes from may 17 and may 24 board meeting. any changes? i don't see anyone on the roster. can i get a motion to approve the minutes for those dates. made by supervisor preston, seconded by supervisor mandelman. madame clerk? >> clerk: on the minutes, supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: aye. >> supervisor ronen: aye. >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor stefani: aye. >> supervisor walton: aye. >> supervisor dorsey: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> supervisor melgar: aye. >> supervisor peskin: aye. >> there are 10 ayes. >> president walton: thank you. and without objection, the minutes will be approved after public comment as presented. madame clerk, let's go to our regular agenda, consent agenda times 1 through 5. >> these items are considered to be routine. if a member objects, an item may be removed and considered separately. >> president walton: thank you so much. i don't see anyone on the roster, so we'll take these same house, same call. without objection, these ordinances are passed on first reading. and resolutions are adopted unanimously. madame clerk, please call item number 6 and 7 together. >> items 6 and 7 are ordinances that authorize the department of public health to award two one-time limited term grants with engaging -- without engaging in the competitive solicitation process otherwise required by the administrative code for grants for the purpose of maintaining the financial solvency of both. for item 6 this appropriates approximately $2 million for the positive resource center and item 7, 1.2 million is appropriated as a grant to baker places inc. and for both items a one-year term of july 1, 2022 through june 30, 2023. >> president walton: thank you so much, madame clerk. can we have a roll call vote on these items? >> clerk: on item 6 and 7, supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: aye. >> supervisor ronen: aye. >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor stefani: aye. >> supervisor walton: aye. >> supervisor dorsey: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> supervisor melgar: aye. >> supervisor peskin: aye. >> clerk: there are 10 ayes. >> president walton: thank you. without objection these ordinances are finally passed unanimously. madame clerk, would you call items 8 and 9 together. >> clerk: items 8 and 9 comprise the city's proposed interim budget. item 8 is the interim budget and appropriation ordinance to appropriate all estimated receipts and expenditures for city departments as of june 1, 2022 and for item 9 this is the interim salary ordinance enumerating all positions in the budget for both ordinances for fiscal year ending june 30, 2023 and june 30, 2024. >> president walton: thank you, madame clerk. would you please call a roll on these items? on items 8 and 9. >> supervisor preston: no. >> supervisor ronen: aye. >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor stefani: aye. >> supervisor walton: aye. >> supervisor dorsey: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> supervisor melgar: aye. >> supervisor peskin: aye. >> there are 9 ayes and one no with supervisor preston in the dissent. >> president walton: thank you. these ordinances are finally passed with a 10-1 vote. madame clerk, would you call item 10? >> item 10 -- mr. president, just for the record, items 8 and 9, that was a 9 ayes and one no -- >> my apologies, 9-1. >> item 10 is ordinance to amend the planning code to create the group housing special use district. >> president walton: thank you, madame clerk. i don't see anyone on the roster. can you please call the roll on item 10? >> supervisor preston: aye. >> supervisor ronen: aye. >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor stefani: aye. >> supervisor walton: aye. >> supervisor dorsey: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> supervisor melgar: aye. >> supervisor peskin: aye. >> clerk: there are 10 ayes. >> president walton: without objection, this ordinance is passed on first reading. madame clerk, please call item 11. >> item 11, this is ordinance to amend the planning code to rezone all r.h.1 residential one family zoning districts with exceptions to rh-2 two family zoning districts. to rezone the rh-1d districts to a new class called rh-2 capital d. to provide a density limit exemption to permit up to four dwelling units per lot and six dwelling units per corner lots in all rh zoning districts certain to subject requirements. and to amend the administrative code to require new dwelling units constructed pursuant to be subject to the rent ordinance and additionally to amend the subdivision code to authorize a subdivider pursuant to the density exception, to map that includes the existing and new dwelling units that constitute the project and affirm the ceqa determination and appropriate findings for both ordinances. >> president walton: thank you, madame clerk -- supervisor melgar, my apologies. >> supervisor melgar: supervisor mandelman, should i go first? okay. this is supervisor mandelman's legislation which was debated, amended, discussed for several months at the land, use and transportation committee. we had a very robust engaged process that included many members of this board outside of the land use and transportation committee. i want to thank supervisors peskin and preston for their work in very engaged discussion and their staff worked on this legislation as well. and, you know, i think at the end of the day, we crafted legislation that is a halfway point between, you know, different opinions and perspectives on land use. it will be a change for our city, but one that i feel we must embrace. and i think -- i do think that making small steps in progress is better than making no progress at all. i have a minor amendment that i need to present today. at the committee we supported language that ensured that any new units that were waived into for this legislation were subject to rent control, but, you know, after we passed it, the city attorney flagged that there was a lack of clarity on some of the language. so we are adding this just to make it clear as to what the intent was. on page 9, line 7 -- i'm sorry, page 9 lines 5 through 7 under section, applicability of rent ordinance regulatory agreement, i would like to add the language to read as follows. f, applicability of rent ordinance regulatory agreements. project sponsors of projects utilizing the density exception of this subsection c8 shall enter into a regulatory agreement with the city subjecting the new units created pursuant to the exception to the san francisco residential rent arbitration ordinance, chapter 37 of the administrative code as a condition of approval of the density exception. i believe this to be a non-substantive amendment as can be confirmed by our city attorney. and, mr. president, i would like to make a motion to adopt this amendment into the record before we vote on the ordinance itself. >> president walton: thank you so much. motion to amend. do we have a second seconded by supervisor mandelman. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you, mr. president. first, let me say i really appreciate all the hard work that i think many of us put into this. supervisor mandelman, supervisor melgar, supervisor mar and all of the other supervisors that attempted to steer this in the right direction, but i will not be supporting this legislation today, because i think it's an attempt to thwart our state bill that really was kind of a decor of what i felt was important to preserve. which would allow for the ability of people to streamline and build two units of housing and requires local communities really to step up and begin to build housing in an aggressive manner. i think we have a housing crisis in this city. some people may agree, some people may disagree, but our housing element that we will have to account for and attest to and submit is going to require us to build thousands of units of housing. and particularly in the areas that this legislation is attempting to zero in on. we've had a lot of conversations about increasing density and the ability to build multiunit housing and i support that goal overall, but i think this legislation actually at the end will end up making it more difficult than it will be to making it easier to achieve the goal of building more housing in your city. so -- our city. for many of those reasons i intend to vote no today. i don't agree with the five-year hold. i understand that theory behind it, but again i think that will slow down the development of housing. i think that what will happen in practice it will be small builders in the city that will use the opportunity to build on scale and create more housing and increase the supply. and this housing will be targeted toward that missing middle. we've seen that happen in other cities in the united states and i think we can do that and we should be able to shoot for that. i think more time would allow us, as much as we've attempted more time, would allow us to get a better piece of legislation. i think that at the end of the day the legislation that i had going forward which was parallel, preserved sb9, it attempted to exchange some level of affordability for an expedited process, it gave people still the option to build lesser than four units, but at least two with preserving sb9 which i think is important. it created in-lieu fees and protected historic properties and renters. for all those reasons, i can't support this legislation today. i believe it's too small of a step in a crisis that we need to be taking a much larger step to be building housing in a much more aggressive manner. thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor safai. supervisor mandelman. >> supervisor mandelman: president walton, thank you, chair melgar, for your work on this in land use along with colleagues supervisors peskin and preston. this little piece of legislation has had a very long journey. it's been, i think, more than a full year since i introduced the first version -- well, yeah, it was last may, so more than a year. and, you know, we had many conversations with folks before then. and, you know, the legislative process is beautiful and frustrating at the same time. no individual on this board gets to get the thing done that they absolutely want without any feedback from others. the product that comes forward are the result of group work. i believe that it is important for us to find ways to allow the production of more housing in san francisco in our laws. i believe it is important for us to allow the production and to fund the production of more affordable housing -- and congratulations, supervisor preston, on a significant win yesterday and to all the members of the budget committee. but i also think and i know that there are -- we have different views about this on this board, that part of the solution -- part of san francisco's contribution to solving these statewide housing crisis is for us to find ways to build more market rate housing as well. i believe that this legislation, although it is not what i introduced, in some ways it has expanded, in some ways it has contracted, but it has moved us closer, i think, to allowing for neighborhoods that have not been producing significant amounts of housing to produce a little bit more housing. to try out this idea of increased density in what were rh-1, 2 and 3 districts. if this moves forward and becomes the law of san francisco, this is not the final statement on density in low-density neighborhoods. this is one piece of legislation. we may come back and revisit pieces of it that have got -- that have been able to get us a consensus around it. but i do believe this is a positive step. and with regard to whether we want to turn over the rezoning of rh-1 to the state for a one-size-fits-all sb9 approach to creating density, my answer is no and the planning department's answer was no. that was baked into this legislation, but that's, you know, a piece of this. we introduced this -- i introduced this long before sb9 came along. and i support the elimination of rh-1 zoning. i think it's the right thing to do, but allowing up to four units and allowing six units on corner lots and trying this out which is something for property owners rather than developers, if that's what it takes to get confidence on this board, then that's, you know, a deal i've been willing to make. i think we need to go further. i think we need to go faster. i think we need to do things like this and many more of them. but i don't think this is a step backward and the opposition it has inspired is intriguing to me. there is no four plex ballot measure out there. there is no other way to pursue four plex. this up-zoning of low density neighborhoods, so i don't get the point of trying to kill a piece of legislation, that although modest and incremental would be in my view a step towards a denser city with more market rate housing which i think is a goal. perfect? no. better than what we got? yes. that's my test for legislation. i'm staying on it. and i want to thank all the folks on the board and in the community who have been willing to engage around this and i want to thank supervisor melgar in particular for working with the city attorney on this final amendment. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor mandelman. supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, president walton. colleagues, let me share the accolades to the chair of the land use committee for, as i said in committee, a good and difficult process. and we haven't spoken to this yet. there were three competing pieces of legislation from three different members of this board and we had to sort through that. and ultimately, the land use committee actually went with the least restrictive proposal. i'm actually kind of shocked that there is opposition to this. and i want to drill down into that opposition, because the land use committee rejected pieces of legislation that actually required more affordability as presented by supervisors mar and supervisor safai. but, supervisor mandelman chose to -- i did not make this amendment -- supervisor melgar did not make this amendment, supervisor preston did not make this amendment -- chose to go down the path consistent with public policy that this and previous boards have adopted that would subject these additional units as further amended today or about to be amended by supervisor melgar, to the rent stabilization ordinance. now mind you, these are units that would rent at market. but today's market rents are tomorrow's affordable rents and indeed that is what this board and previous boards have done in the case of adus and multiplexes. what they hate is rent control. they hate rent control and that is why they're posing a bill that increases density in san francisco. so, let's be real about it. it is a positive step in the right direction. i'd say that is a supervisor who represents the densest district in san francisco. but it