Good afternoon. Welcome to the december 1 meeting of the board of supervisors. This will be one of the three meetings in december. And the third to the last, i believe, that i will be on. So madam clerk, please call the roll. [roll call] supervisor safai, were you able to join us . Mr. President , you have a quorum. Supervisor yee thank you. Please place your right hand over your heart. Will you please join me in reciteling the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to flag of the United States of america and to the republic for which it stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. On behalf of the board, i would like to acknowledge the staff at sfgtv who record each of our meetings and make the transcripts available to the public online. Madam clerk, are there any communications . Clerk yes, mr. President. The Meeting Minutes will reflect that Board Members participated in this proceeding remotely through Video Conference to the same extent as though physically present in the legislative chamber. The board recognizes that Public Access to City Services is essential and more acute during this time of covid19 health emergency. Therefore, we hope that the public are able to take advantage of the following opportunities to be able to communicate with the board of supervisors or to access that meeting and participate remotely. We are happy to receive your written correspondence and will make it part of the file and address the envelope and San Francisco, board of supervisors and carlton b. Goodlett place. And if you are utilizing email, send your email to bos sfgov. Org. You can use your computer to access the live stream by going to www. Sfgovtv. Org. And use channel 26 on your television. Just a point of information, due to the signal delay, please dont follow your television if you intend on providing Public Comment. Instead, turn down the television and listen from the touch phone. With your touch phone you can listen to the proceedings and be in live sync to provide your Public Comment. The phone number is streaming on the screen. 4156550001. When you hear the prompt, enter the meeting i. D. 146 1121418. Press pound twice and you will have joined as a listener. And so when you are ready to provide your Public Comment, press star 3 and listen carefully for the prompt you have been unmuted and you may begin speaking your comments. Now that i have provided you information on how to access this meeting, i think its important just to say a few words about what agenda content is eligible for public content. And three strait orders and the 617 sanchez project appeal and that is the 1776 green street appeal and item 59 and the whole shelter in house. And item 59 had the Public Comment satisfied in committee at the last Board Meeting. I understand there may be a motion made to refer this item to committee. If that motion is made, there will be Public Comment on the continuance only. And Public Comment will be made on the demobilization plan on committee. Item 63 is with the Public Comment to speak on items not on todays agenda and item 64 on the without reference to committee calendar. All other items are not eligible for Public Comment as they have each had their individual public hearing. In a special partnership with the office of civic engagement, we have a team of interpreters who have agreed to start the day at 3 00 p. M. Today and stay until the end of the meeting. Before we start the public hearings at 3 00 p. M. , i will have the interpreters introduce themselves at that time. For those person who is may be experience connection issues, we have a live person answering the phone at the Clerks Office 4155545184. And mr. President , pursuant to title ii of the americans with disability act through a prior arrangement, we do have an individual who is prepared to make husband Public Comment when you are ready to authorize him to do so. That concludes my communication. Supervisor yee clerk you might be meeted. Because they are starting at 3 00 p. M. , mr. President , were going to have them introduce themselves at the beginning of the public hearing. Supervisor yee got it. Clerk thank you. Supervisor yee okay, madam clerk, before we get started, a reminder to all the supervisors to mute your microphones when you are not speaking to avoid audio feedback. So as you said, madam clerk, there is somebody that is in communication that needed accommodations. So go ahead and welcome that speaker. Clerk thank you, mr. President. Operations, please unmute the first caller. Caller hello. Journalist with the San Francisco coalition on homelessness. I am calling in to convey my deepest concern for the way that this office and this mayor is treating our homeless right now and planning to close hotels that have been ordered by the governor to house the homeless during the covid19 pandemic. And the hotels are set i am pausing your time. That item is an item that is on our agenda today. It is not eligible for your Public Comment, i am afraid. So if you have any other comments that i will speak on i will speak on a broader issue then. I will begin your time. I apologize. It is very hard to find information on these meetings and [inaudible] and with the department wand the website. I apologize and i do not think that adequate notice is given to the public for how to comment these items. I will say that as i have mentioned before, ms. Breeds Text Messages to the harassment and there has been discussion about the increase in Overdose Deaths and a really disturbing, really disturbing language about starting the new war on drugs. Rather than focussing on housing and focussing on support of our unhoused neighbors. And Drug Overdose please use the money that is available for prop c that was released and to support housing, Mental Health services and care for the unhoused neighbors. 70 of whom were previous San Francisco residents. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comment. Mr. President , that concludes the speakers time. Supervisor yee thank you, caller, and thank you for arranging this accommodation. Colleagues, today we are approving the minutes and the Meeting Minutes from the october 20, 2020, and october 27, 2020, regular Board Meetings. Are there any changes to these Meeting Minutes . Okay. Seeing none, could i have motion to approve . Move to approve. Please call the roll. And please go to the consent agenda. Items 119 together. Items 119 are on consent. These are and if the item is removed and considered separately. Supervisor stefani . Supervisor thank you, president yee. I would like to sever item number one. I have to make a technical amendment. Aawe for the remainder of the items please. On the remaining items. [roll call] a lets go back to item number one. Item one is an ordinance to amend the administrative code to provide notification to qualified contractors and written documentation from prequalified lists and written documentation of contractor selection for work assigned under as needed public works professional Services Contract and to require the controller to audit such selection documentation. Supervisor stefani . Supervisor yes, president yee. I am referring to the nonsubstantive amendment and strike the operative date of december 1, 2020, and replaces wit the Effective Date based on the city attorneys requirement that operative dates do not occur in the past. As a result, this change will make the legislation operative on the date it is signed into law. Supervisor yee okay. Is there a motion made by supervisor stefani. Is there a second . Second. Supervisor yee i hear a second by supervisor walton. Roll call on the amendment. [roll call] there are 11 ayes. Supervisor yee motion and amendment passes. Roll call on item one as attended. Supervisor mandelman. Aye. Mandelman, aye. Supervisor mar . Mar, aye. Supervisor peskin . Aye. Supervisor preston. Supervisor ronen. Ronen, aye. Supervisor safai. Aye. Supervisor stefani. Aye. Stefani, aye. Supervisor walton . Aye. Walton, aye. Supervisor yee . Yee, aye. Supervisor fewer . Fewer, aye. And supervisor haney. Aye. Haney, aye. There are 11 ayes. The item as amended has passed. Madam clerk, lets go to item 20. Clerk item 20 was referred without recommendation from the government audit and oversight committee. It is and ordinance to adopt between the city and the poat San Francisco Police Officers association. Roll call please. On item 20. Supervisor mandelman. Aye. Mandelman, aye. Supervisor mar . Aye. Melara, aye. Supervisor peskin . An aye. Supervisor preston . No. Preston, no. Supervisor ronen . No. Ronen, no. Supervisor safai . Aye. Safai, aye. Stefani . An aye. Supervisor walton . Aye. Supervisor yee . Aye. Supervisor fewer . Aye. Supervisor haney . Aye. There a nine ayes and two noes with supervisors preston and ronen in the dissent. Supervisor yee and the ordinance is passed. Madam clerk, lets go to new business. Clerk item 21 is an ordinance to amend the administrative code to require items to authorize the rent board to issue a license to owners who report the information and to require that an owner have a license to impose certain types of rent increase. Supervisor yee supervisor fewer . Superviser fewer thank you, president yee. I am excited to introduce this legislation on housing inventory. This is long overdue and my office has been working for years to get this right. San francisco adopted a rent ordinance back in 1979 to safeguard tenants from excessive rent increases. Since then the rent ordinance allows the city to regulate rent and helped protect tenants from losing homes because of real estate booms and gentrification but one thing the city lacks is an inventory of the existing Housing Stock. In ordered for rent board to track tenantlandlord relationships and better administer, we need to maintain an accurate inventory of the existing rental Housing Stock. And during the pandemic, we have seen mayor changes in our rental Housing Market with some people unable to pay rent to covid. And vacancy and on the website and tracking vacancies and will help the rent board and using rent control units. And to relevant claims and and the Housing Services and analyzing and other city departments and by providing and the rental. And the directors and the rent board who has worked closely with the office to make sure they can successfully implement the ordinance. At the request of the rent board and the department association, i introduce amendments at the budget and finance committee to make it easier for them to influence and comply with the ordinance. I would also like to thank all the advocates who worked in the office throughout my time on the board to develop this inventory that is long overdue especially with the Housing Rights Committee who are a driving force behind this. And i just want to say to my wonderful, wonderful staff member that this has been a labor of love for him for the last three years that he has worked in my office. I am so happy to finally be at the finish line. And i hope that all of your support and i just want to thank him for this personal accomplishment and also for all the hard work that he has put into this. Thank you, colleagues. Supervisor yee well, i want to thank you, supervisor fewer, and your team, your fantastic team, who have been crafting this legislation for quite some time. This is not meant to vilify anyone. And we need more data. And we are not trying to discourage renting and if anything, we are trying to be more supportive of ensuring that we can provide renters and Property Owners support their needs. We have to understand the number of units we have available to plan ahead. I want to acknowledge that we have to be investing in more resources to support small Property Owners and to work on the housing crisis and still continue working on the resources and starting to better understand our existing housing inventory. Supervisor peskin . Supervisor thank you, chair yee. And i think supervisor fewer and i share a number of things in common but one of those things is that i think we are the only two members that are small with the Residential Housing and we both agree on this measure. I am proud to be the first cosponsor. And a fellow traveller, liberal, progressive landlord who thought this was an invasion of her privacy. And as the author of the privacy first Charter Amendment of San Francisco, this is not an invasion of privacy in any way, shape, matter or form. There is no individual data that is set forth this evening. There is no requirement that anybody say their name. And interestingly enough, supervisor fewer and myself pursuant to the laws of the state of california on our form 700 with statements of economic interest have to indicate that we are recipients of sources of income from our tenants. We do that every year. There is with the confidential information and a little bit offended that people have used our civil libertarian legislation against what is before us today. I as a small Property Owner and supervisor, as a former rent controlled tenant will not only affix my name but vote for this proudly this afternoon. Thank you, mr. President. Supervisor yee supervisor haney. Supervisor thank you, president yee. I want to congratulate you and thank you, supervisor fewer, and the staff and the tenant groups and that you are working on and championing and this is common sense. I think its so ridiculous that to find out information as important as rent and vacancies in our own city, that we are looking at zillow and craigslist and Online Sources that are clearly inaccurate and dont provide the whole picture and make and the displacement and how to protect tenants and we need information. The landlord should want us to have that information. Tenants want us to have that information. And so i want to commend you on doing something so reasonable and common sense that i cant understand why anybody would oppose this. For years and years to comb and the data and information that will allow us to respond effectively and more gently, more forcefully to the biggest crises we have faced in the state this will be a huge part of the legacy and i wanted to take a moment to thank you and for your leadership in bringing this forward and put it to good use. And mr. President , im sorry, i am having technical it is supervisor ronen. I am having technical issues, and i cant put my name on the chat for some reason. Supervisor yee i should have seen your yellow hand. Supervisor im sorry. I dont know how else to get your attention. But if someone from tech can help me figure out the chat issue, but i just had to chime in here and also thank supervisor fewer and ian for this tremendous work and this legislation is the piece of so many different puzzles that we need to solve in the city if were ever going to have consistent and Affordable Housing. And it was a complicated piece of legislation to put together and to make it so that it is easy to comply with, which i believe youve gotten there. And struck the right balance between getting us the information and the transparency that we need in order to craft other types of protections and make sure thaT Corporations arent taking the very limited and precious Housing Stock off the market for travellers and to so much more. And you said it better than i will, supervisor fewer, but i just know that this has been foundational piece of legislation that we have needed for many years and it wasnt easy to put together. I love that you are going out with a bang, and i promise you that we will use the information that it brings us for many years to come to craft smart policy to keep our housing crisis under control in the city. Congratulation, supervisor fewer. And thank you. Thank you very much. Supervisor yee okay, madam clerk. Roll call. Clerk on item 21, supervisor mandelman. Aye. Supervisor mar . Aye. Supervisor peskin. Aye. Supervisor preston. Aye. Supervisor ronen. Aye. Supervisor safai. Aye. Supervisor stefani. Aye. Supervisor walton. Aye. Supervisor yee. Awe aye. Supervisor fewer. Aye. Supervisor haney. There are 11 ayes. Madam clerk, lets go to the next item to authorize the department of Public Health to receive Grant Funding for the ryan white act and h. I. V. Aids, Emergency Grant Relief Program from the Health Resources Services Administration and to request approximately 15. 7 million in h. I. V. Emergency Relief Program funds for the San Francisco area and march 21 through february 28, 2022. And is december 1, world aids day. It has been nearly four decades since the first mysterious illnesses in otherwise healthy young, gay men first appeared in new york and california. Today we remember and honor the ten of millions who have died from aidsrelated illnesses. This is a day to redouble our commitment to supporting more than 30 Million People currently living with the virus and continuing to drive down new h. I. V. Infections until we get to zero. San francisco has been a global model with a record low of 166 new infections and 65 decline since 2012. We were able to link 95 of any diagnoses to care within one month and 78 of new diagnoses were virally suppressed within six months after diagnosis. Since 1991, the federal ryan white h. I. V. aids program and nearly 16 million will be coming in to help with the department of Public Health and Public Service providers provide quality Health Services to People Living with the virus and aid in San Franciscos efforts to further limit new infections among particularly vulnerable communities including the latinx, africanamerican, and unhoused residents. Roll call please. Item 22, supervisor mandelman. Aye. Supervisor mar. Aye. Supervisor peskin. Aye. Supervisor preston. Aye. Supervisor ronen. Aye. Supervisor safai. Aye. Supervisor stefani. Aye. Supervisor walton. Aye. Supervisor yee. Aye. Supervisor fewer. Aye. Supervisor haney. Aye. There are 11 ayes. Supervisor yee okay. Without objection, the resolution is adopted unanimously. Madam clerk, lets go to the next item clerk item 23 is a resolution to authorize the department of technology to enter into the fifth amendment between the city and at T Corporation to extend the terms agreement by one year for a total term of february 26, 2010 through december 31, 2021, and to increase the not to exceed amount of the agreement by 18. 3 million for a total amount of 140. 7 million. Supervisor yee supervisor peskin. Supervisor thank you, mr. President. Do we have somebody here from staff . Clerk to address this . Okay, great. Who is it . I am from the department of technology and i am happy to answer any question. Supervisor mr. President , here is my question. I would assume during the period of covid19 that the use of at t technology, the phone that i have right here that i have not used since march, should be going down. Can you talk to this board i realize this went through the budget and finance committee as to why the costs are not going down . Yes. So the cost for at t can you hear me . Yes. The cost is mostly monthly cost depending on what kind of program you pick, just like your cell phone. It is not just a fixed cause. Regardless of one use or several time, it is a fixed cost except for long distance. Thank you. Supervisor i understand that. But have we, the city, renegotiated those costs over the last nine months in light of the pandemic . Those fixed costs presumably should be less by virtue of the fact that were not using the technology at the same rate. Has there been any action by the city and county through the department of technology to at t to say, these fixed costs should be lessened . That is a good point. We have not. The department of technology have not reached out to at t in the past nine months regarding the cost. We will do that in the next negotiation because this is only an amendment to extend the time for a year. And it is taken back with the california state contract. Supervisor and thank you for your candor, through the president. I think what you just said is that you could have used this opportunity to renegotiate these fixed costs in a period of time where the technology is being utilized at a lesser rate, but that opportunity was not used. And you are saying lets extend it for a year. I would actually suggest to my colleagues that we give you the opportunity to revisit this instrument with at t, and subject to hearing from my colleagues, i would make a motion to refer this to committee. And ask you and d. T. E. To work with at t to lessen these costs in the intervening oneyear period. Yes. Thank you for this suggestion. I have one thing to clarify. Although it is we did not negotiate with at t specifically about this contract, i did reach out to my peers in Santa Clara County and quite a few other counties and Los Angeles County about the effort to negotiate with the major vendor, like cisco, microsoft, and so on and so forth. We negotiate in many concepts. And then we get the feedback from many other counties saying that the negotiation was not successful for public sector. If one county gets the deduction, all the other counties get the same and this is a huge impact on them and the companies are not willing to do that. And the costs are impacted significantly by covid. And if they give San Francisco a discount and we agree. We should work with l. A. County and other cities and counties and we should all actually Work Together to make sure that at t gives us all better and fairer rates. And interestingly enough, item 28 that was coming up to do with the hometown monopoly from 1932 and we will deal with that in a few minutes. Whether we are an example to san diego and los angeles and oakland or whether we Work Together with our collective buying power to negotiate with at t, but i would like to make a motion, no disrespect to the outgoing chair of the budget and finance committee ms. Fewer to send this back to committee. Supervisor yee there is a motion to send this back to committee. Is there a second . Second by supervisor mandelman. Supervisor fewer . Supervisor i am inquiring whether or not we have a time constraint on this or not. And through the president to budget chair fewer, i totally want to hear the answer to that, but if they turn this phone off that nobody has listened to in eight months, wont hurt anybodys feelings. Can you please tell us whether or not you are on a time constraint or not . We do have a time constraint and also the likelihood of getting it cut is extremely low because we take it back to california county. And if it is not a negotiated contract and is a california negotiated contract. So the whole state needs to negotiate together. I dont think the city can get a better rate better than the state gets. I feel with the time constraint t likelihood of getting a better deal is extremely small. That is to be honest. Supervisor yee to be clear, and we use it for phone messages left there so from constituents. So we cant completely just cut it off. And we need to negotiate as a whole state and we cant negotiate as a city. That is my point. Supervisor peskin. Through the president to the representative of d. T. , i understand that you see this as a collective contract that is negotiated through the state, but what alternatives does the city have relative to contracting with other entities . The cost with the total cost is minimal. Most of the cost is the longtime cost when they connect the circuit to the building or the facility with at t facility. That cost alone is about six months of monthly cost. And concluded that the best option for the city to stay with at t because if they switch to verizon or other company, we going to pay six months cost and then is minimal and nearbiable. And from the audit and an independent study. Supervisor to relate the finding of said study . I can share that cost, yeah. Good afternoon, supervisors. Ben, before you start, so what you are saying is that the six month Capital Investment is not in any way going to be taken over time, is that what you are posturing in this conversation . If we switch to a different vendor, like verizon or other company, then we have to have new equipment and the onetime cost and the onetime payment to switch to a different vendor is about six months of monthly cost. That is only and actually we have many other costs to maintain two contracts and integrate it to the network, and with the one network with at t and one with comcast or verizon and we have integration costs and design the architects and a lot of other hidden costs as well. Supervisor got it. Mr. Controller. Good afternoon, supervisors. Ben rosenfield and through the president , supervisor peskin, it has been a couple of year, but we did perform an audit of this arrangement at the request of budget and finance committee several years ago. And kind of the top line findings are consistent with what has been represented here today which is simply that the cost of conversion to a new vendor and the onetime costs would likely exceed any cost benefit from lower monthly or annual usage in a reasonable period of time. I dont know if that is the accord of the questions and i can certainly circulate the audit afterwards. Mr. President , if you will indulge me and i apologize and it is 140 million which cant chump change. Mr. Controller, has this been put out to a competitive bid . Put out for competitive bid by california state who use their collective buying power. Supervisor right. Just because gavin newsom said it was okay doesnt mean i said it was okay. Has this put out by competitive bid by this government t city and county of San Francisco, through the president to either one of you . Its been done by some individual Department Long time ago, probably in 1998 or some along that. Some department with p. O. C. And actually bid it out independently wasnt that when we had ma bell . 1998. That was like in high school. Very long time ago, yes. Supervisor so to the controller and to the representative from d. T. , do we not think that at this moment in time during covid19 we cannot renegotiate and get a better rate on this deal with at t . Are you serious . So based on my best knowledge, we may go out to negotiate, but the chance of getting a better deal than california state is extremely low. Supervisor i would like to make a motion to send this back to committee. Supervisor yee okay. There was a motion and it was seconded. Madam clerk. Roll call please. Clerk on the motion to send item 23 to i believe budget and finance committee, supervisor mandelman. Aye. Supervisor mar . Aye. Supervisor peskin . Aye. Supervisor preston . Aye. Supervisor ronen. Aye. Supervisor safai. Aye. Supervisor stefani. Supervisor walton, aye. Supervisor yee. Aye. Supervisor fewer . Really . Yeah. Aye. And supervisor haney. Aye. There are 11 ayes. Motion to end it back to committee passes. Madam clerk, lets go to item 24. Item 24 is a resolution to approve amendment number 3 to the agreement between color ge gnomics inc. And covid19 for Testing Services to increase the agreement amount by approximately 74. 5 million for a new total not to exceed amount of 84. 3 million and to establish a specific term end date of april 5, 2021 for a total Agreement Term of april 6, 2020 to april 5, 2021. Okay. Madam clerk, go ahead and do the roll call. Clerk on item 24. Supervisor mandelman. Aye. Supervisor mar. Aye. Supervisor peskin. Aye. Supervisor preston. Aye. Supervisor ronen. Aye. Supervisor safai. Supervisor safai. I believe you said aye. Correct. Clerk supervisor stefani. Aye. Stefani, aye. Supervisor walton . Aye. Supervisor yee. Yee, aye. Supervisor haney. There are are 11 ayes. Item 25. Item 25 is a resolution to retroactively authorize the with the in kind consulting gift from various providing through fiscal 2020 please call the roll. Supervisor peskin. Aye. Supervisor preston. Aye. Supervisor safai. Safai, aye. Supervisor stefani. Supervisor walton. Aye. Supervisor yee. Yee, aye. Supervisor fewer aye. Fewer, aye, and supervisor haney. Aye. There are 11 ayes. Resolution is adopted unanimously. Lets go to item 26. Item 26 is to accept and expand the 73,000 gift from the Charitable Remainder unitrust to purchase on thes for the San Francisco Airport Museum collection. Roll call please. Item 26, supervisor mandelman. Aye. Mandelman, aye. Supervisor mar. Aye. Supervisor peskin . Aye. Supervisor preston. Aye. Supervisor ronen. Aye. Supervisor safai. Aye. Supervisor stefani. Aye. Supervisor walton. Aye. Supervisor yee. Aye. Supervisor fewer. Aye. Supervisor fewer, aye. Supervisor haney. Aye. There are 11 ayes. Supervisor yee resolution is developmented unanimously. Item 27. Item 27 is a resolution to designate which newspapers or periodicals the citys Community Advertising and Neighborhood Outreach will be placed within. The Small Business exchange for outreach to the Africanamerican Community and outreach to the Hispanic Community and the World Journal, and daily outreach to the Chinese Community if pay area reporter for outreach to the lesbian gay bisexual and transgender community. Jasmine blue media llc doing business as the marina times and the marina, cow hollow, north beach, and chinatown. And potrero, dog patch, mission bay, and eastern soma neighborhood. The richmond review outreach to the Richmond District neighbor and outreach to the sunset neighborhood and the nohe valley and Diamond Heights neighborhood to provide Outreach Advertising for fiscal year 20 through 21. Supervisor preston. Thank you, president yee. And colleagues, there are a number of important outlets that provide useful and Accurate Information to the city and county of San Francisco. I support our efforts to use city funds to pay for the noticing of item of Public Interest in the respective pages. There is, however, one outlet on this list that i would not include in the former category, and that is the marina times. This is an entity that has proven time and again that they are enough for disinformation and of Public Officials and personal attacks on par with the lights of brite bart news and Tucker Carlson to serve a hate free and often hate filled propaganda. I dont believe a single penny of public money should be directed to support their efforts and therefore, i am making a motion to amend the resolution to strike all references to the Jasmine Blue Media llc, dba marina times as the Neighborhood Outreach periodical for china neighborhoods and ma flee, cow hallow, and north beach. Supervisor second ronen. I am happy to speak as well. So i have others on the line. So supervisored safai. Put me on the stack please. Yes, i am. Yes, i am. Supervisor safai, are you still there . Supervisor im here. I didnt necessarily wand to speak to this amendment, but i did want to speak to the item if it is the will of the president if that is okay. Supervisor yee why dont we stick with the amendment first. And then go through that. Supervisor okay. And please come back to me. Thank you. Supervisor yee i will. Supervisor pes kin, are you speaking to the amendment . Well, maybe. Supervisor yee if you are, go ahead. Supervisor mr. President , colleagues, i think that this is actually a much larger issue of Public Policy. And i will speak to the amendment directly which is let me be very clear. And i think this is somebody who publishes not every month but many months a year an article in the marina times which people may or may not like, which may or may not have typos and we have to be very, very careful in the current age of the way we choose to honor or dishonor or pay or not pay media that we agree with or in this case as expressed by supervisor preston disagree with. But what is implicated here is proposition j which came from the family and the political war lord jack davis. That created the advertising regiment that the voters approved in proposition j in the 1990s when i think frank jordan was mayor if my memory serves. And i think that we have to have a Public Policy conversation about proposition a and the utility in the age of the internet. And yes, we want to use taxpayer dollars to make sure that replica and various newspapers continue to make sure that there is access by many communities to all of the information that many departments disseminate regardless of the editorial content. I think this implicates a larger Public Policy conversation around proposition j. And weve wrestled with this. [please stand by] having said that, as from time to time, publisher in the marina times i support the motion. Supervisor safai i found out about this potential amendment about 15 minutes before the Board Meeting and obviously the marina times is a local paper in district 2. Im shocked by this proposed amendment. I cannot stress enough the troubling consolidation of local news outlets throughout this entire country in the last century really. Its coincided with the rise of social Media Companies and President Trump vicious attacks on the First Amendment and sadly this created a media ecosystem that leads individuals without quality news and Public Service iniac to the people we served to serve. In the last 15 years according to the university of north carolina, chapel hill. Quarter of all newspapers died. It creates news deserts and harmful information vacuums. Then what happens . Companies like twitter and facebook then act as the gatekeepers of this information. We know outgoing president has degrade the First Amendment and denigrated journalism. How many times weve seen him go after reporters because he doesnt like what he say. We cannot allow these trends to continue. We cant kill off local outlets here in San Francisco. We must protect local journalism even when we dont like what they say. The events of this year including the citys response to covid19 pandemic and Ongoing Investigation into city hall corruption, have reminded us of the critical nature of local journalism. It is more important now than ever. The choices we make here today will have lasting effects on how our communities get information and how we remain accountable to our constituents if we choose to kneecap journalism during this time of intense economic distress, it can never come back. In just because we dont agree wih the editorial staff, doesnt mean we should cut thousands san franciscans off this information. I believe your amendment will do that. As an attorney, it is my responsibility to fight for the First Amendment. When i first heard about this proposed amendment, i literally could not believe it. I may not always agree with what is printed in the marina times that is not for me to decide. I will not be voting for this amendment today. Supervisor yee supervisor ronen. Supervisor ronen i think we have to make a distinction between how we spend public money to advertise public meetings. And what we call journalism. My basic standards for journalism is that is a respect for truth and facts. This is something thats been degraded substantially under the Trump Administration that when facts are presented, that challenge the political take of this administration and news venues that ignore facts in order to present their world viewpoint as if that was its wrong and very sadly, there has been several instances where marina times protecting incorrect and they refuse to retract their statement. That happened over and over again. There comes a time where people can lie about whatever they want to lie about but our responsibility as supervisors is to decide whether or not we want to support an outfit that presents lies as fact and when presented with facts refuting those lies, fails to retract them. I would love the marina and that part of the city and county of San Francisco, to have a responsible news outlet where we could spend public dollars to advertise. That means the marina times is doing a disservice by becoming propaganda outfit that present lies with facts. To not take that seriously to me is following the horrendous example that has been set by the Trump Administration, fox news, breitbart and other outfits that arent responsible journalism, arent journalism at all but are mouthpieces for a certain political view. That is irresponsible to me. I support this amendment and hope that our colleague will join us and have basic standards for decency, truth and facts. Supervisor yee let me make a comment. Some of the things that supervisor peskin said in terms of has there been a discussion, which i believe needs to be done. I cant sit here and know which paper does what. Some of you pay more attention than i do. I will base my vote on the fact that theres lot of people local people who do writing and dont necessarily agree with me much at all. Sometimes wonder in fact or not. For me, its just a matter of to restart. I cant today just make a judgment on the marina times i dont know much about them. What i see listed are a number of publications to sort of diversify the outreach fert that i think eight years ago when we started talking about this, there were very few small publications that were included in this. This has gone overtime. Thats where im coming from. Certainly, im not necessarily debating whether supervisor peskin, whether youre right or wrong. I just dont know. Thats true for lot of these publications. Supervisor preston first off, i think theres an interesting question of expenditure of city funds and the position that paper takes. I do think that is not the impetus of this. Theres plenty papers highly critical of myself or others which i will not make the motion about. Im not sure well be excluded from that. As a body, the city this board has to determine not to engage in contracts with states that have excessive limits on womans right to choose and reproductive freedom which have allowed discrimination. This is a contract to purchase advertising space. I think its an interesting question not one that i feel needs to be resolved in this motion. It is an interesting question, whether if you have a right wing publication that was a legitimate journalistic effort. I agree that would warrant further discussion. I want to be very clear here and respond. This is not about in any way, killing off journalism or anything like it. I think we really, especially in this day in age, need to distinguish between disagreements on policy, disagreements with a political view and stuff that is way out of bounds. I got to say, looking at, i wont bore you with all the details. When the marina times tweet to ask me if i had children ends a saying preston heard, which i take as a threat to my family. When they engage in that type of behavior, shamelessly and regularly, thats totally out of bounds. Thats not legitimate journalism. Its not just me. As a board, we talked about attack on officials. When you engage in ridiculous gymnastics and accuse people of protecting child molesters of totally unrelated things that anything at issue in your article. Just scroll through the twitter feed and look at what were talking about. Colleagues, i dont think this poses the question of whether we should take advertising space in paper we disagree with. This poses the question much like some of the antihate resolutions that weve talked about. There are certain stuff out of bound. When you do it, you dont get to come in and present yourself as another journalist and get money from the city and county of San Francisco. Supervisor yee thank you supervisor preston for your remarks. You made me change my mind. Supervisor peskin actually. As minds are being changed with all due respect to supervisor preston who i joined in the beginning of this conversation, im going to do something that is very rare to me and im going to reverse. Based on the words that i heard from my colleagues, supervisors preston and ronen, i am actually now getting troubled about the First Amendment. By the way, through the president , through supervisor preston, weve all been through a deeply dark and disturbing period in american history. I actually still am able to distinguish between twitter that has been abused by number 45 and by an individual named susan dire reynolds and the actual publication. I can see supervisor preston is raising eyebrow. Supervisor preston tweets from the marina times. Supervisor peskin when i hear the words. I do not want this elected board to be the arbiter what is okay or not okay First Amendment speech. This is not an easy thing. We can award contracts. I do think we have the much larger Public Policy conversation about proposition j. I do also think that we have to talk about how the city uses next door. Weve got departments who frankly should be paying the city and those departments for content. Were actually putting that out to a certain segment of the population. I think that should be complicated in this larger Public Policy conversation. As im listening respectfully, i mean it sincerely to the words that i heard from my colleagues who as you heard, i was going to agree with, this probably not a good idea. I actually think that we would have to have hearings to determine that the behavior and the standards set forth this evening are truly correct. I dont think we can do this as a matter of contract and i reverse myself. Supervisor walton i dont think this is about First Amendment speech. I believe a paper should be able to write what it wants. Just like supervisor stefani, i do not believe in censorship. This is a broader conversation that needs to happen. However, i do not believe taxpayers money should be go towards gossip and mischaracterization of facts. Were not in position to be defunding the paper. Were saying, were not going to use city resources to advertise in a particular publication which i dont think theres anything wrong with us denying resources to any publication. In this case, especially again for publication that may not focus on facts. We dont have to spend taxpayers money on any publication here in San Francisco. Supervisor safai thank you mr. President. I was not going to comment on this. I do have to say that i think the reasoning behind canceling the contract is somewhat disturbing to me. I think its a slippery slope. Ultimately, we always have the decision of who we contract with to do advertising and publication. I remember when i was first elected to this body. There was an attempt to cut out San Francisco examiner by previous members of the board. We had robust debate and ultimately was the examiner was allowed to remain. There will be times where i was subject of salacious lies and exaggerations from many different online and articles. Many of whom many members of the board championed as a source of wonderful journalism. I never had any issue with that. Ultimately, at the end of the day, were going to have disagreements. Were going to have people that i might think are not journalist. At the end of the day, they fundamentally believe they are. In this instance, to respectfully supervisor preston, this does not seem to be the venue to have this conversation. It seems it should happen in committee. There should be an opportunity for this publication to present and the facts to be presented and there to be more robust conversation ultimately around what decision we make with regard to this periodical. What you read into the record as a parent, sickens me. It would sicken me to receive Something Like that from someone that purports to be a journalist. That is awful. I feel for you as a parent. Ultimately we founded our democracy on freedom of feature and ultimately, i have a problem with this maneuver today. I think there should be further conversation and if its okay, ill hold remainder of my comments that i was going to make about this overall item. We can come back to it after we vote on the amendments. Coming to this conversation from a place of some ignorance. Im not a regular reader of the marina times i dont actually im not entirely sure and i dont know what all is included in marina times and what role it plays for folks in the neighborhood that it serves. I think it is possible with further time to reflect and look at the communications and stories and tweets, i would be able to reach a conclusion that perhaps, they are out of bounds. I havent had that opportunity. I am concerned based on the conversation that we had that we are straying dangerously close to not entering into a contract because of the viewpoint of a publication. That may not be whats going on here at all. I have that concern. I have the concern that at least one of the two supervisors who represents folks who are served by marina times didnt hear about this until this meeting. Im not prepared at all to vote to take the marina times out. At this moment, im not. Supervisor ronen a few points, first a question. I understand supervisor mandelmans point. I wonder if supervisors will have the opportunity to examine this publication and how it treats the truth. I think there are several issues. Can i get an answer to that question before i make some points . Is there any problem with delaying this item is the question . If we delay this item, if were going to miss any deadlines etcetera. Exactly. Supervisor yee anybody have any answer . Mr. President , i will defer to the o. A. C. Supervisor safai i was going to make a recommendation. Could we sever just marina times from this one item and move rest of the publication forward and continue the marina times item for another meeting . Are we able to do that . It seems as though as the only publication were having discussion about. I thought perhaps we move that on but the one contention, which is the marina times we can continue that item. Supervisor yee i can you can do that. Let me check with the city attorney. Yes, supervisor fewer. You could do duplicate this item and vote on the amendment, strike that one publication and move that forward and send the duplicated version back to the committee. Supervisor yee thats what we did about six or seven years ago. Theres another way and that is called dividing the question you just simply divide the marina times from this resolution. You vote on the rest of it and keep this item refer it to committee. Supervisor safai mr. President , i didnt know if i still had the floor. I want to say that, i would actually make that motion to divide the question if it moves the marina times and move forward the rest of the publications that were listed. Supervisor yee well correct the language of that in a second. Supervisor ronen, youre still on. Supervisor ronen i never made my point. I asked a question and then i had several points. Is that okay . Supervisor yee yes. Supervisor ronen few points, i really would appreciate the time for colleagues to go and investigate this outfit. I agree that a question about whether or not a certain publication uses certain tactics against certain groups and people that are beyond the pail which opine upon on a regular basis and use our dollars whether it be lgbtq i think were not contracting or doing any business or traveling using public funds to travel to half it states in the union at that point. I dont see how that differs that certain activity of a publication is beyond the pail and those types of attacks against a group of people is uncalled for. Something we do on a regular basis. I will say that. My second point i want to respond to supervisor peskin, in this day in age, to not view social media posts by the publication as part of the journalism from that publication i think its an old school notion that doesnt hold truth today. We have to look to some of our younger legislators and how social media is used in our society and the way this changed our society and that when the New York Times or the b. A. R. Speaks on twitter that it speaks of part of its journalistic endeavor. To deny in fact to me out of touch with the times and how journalism happens in our society. Last but not least, the point that im making, i agree with supervisor preston completely and i believe that this publication goes beyond the pail in attacks of groups of people. Its wrong and in and of itself. Theres another issue with this publication that is very different from any of the other publications that are listed and we chosen to advertise our meetings on. That is a respect for the truth and facts and evidence. Every single publication there has spoken badly probably on all of us. Its part of our job that people are allowed to criticize us to do it unfairly and often, to do so untruthfully. When presented with facts that proves the falsity of claims because there are truths that can be verified or disproven. To then not retract those facts marina times done this several times with members and staff within the city and county of San Francisco. I dont know how we can call that serious journalism that we should be supporting with public dollars. I have very little respect for this outfit, i hate giving them the lime light that were giving them now. They relish in this type of attention. I dont read the marina times regularly. I would ask my colleagues to spend some time looking, happy to discuss in more details the examples that i cite here today. None of the other outfits on this list of journalist would do that. The fact theyre gone above the pail of attacking people in specific groups, based on their identification or based on their politics. Are both two reasons why i hope you will do your research and seriously consider whether or not public dollars should be spent in this way. Supervisor yee supervisor fewer, were you finished . Supervisor safai i want to supervisor fewer i think that use of public funds is an important one. To say that if you dont agree with the publication or what they are writing, i get it. I think the bigger issue is, if we as a board and the power has been given to us as a board. We can say, should we do this bottom line is, we have the power to deny this or we have the power to approve it. We have the power to say, whether or not this is something with public dollars, we know these dollars are earned off the backs of hard working san franciscans. If we want to support this type of publication with public dollars. This, i think, discontinuance this public dollars to that publication to say, they wasnt have any news. Its not true. All it is, putting public dollars towards advertising in the publication. Its the same way Republican Party and everyone else spewing stuff. I dont center to donate to them, i dont have to support them. I feel like the city and county city of San Francisco as legislators say i will support this and not support this. People may not like that but it is what it is. We have that decision to make or we can continue it. Its our decision to make. We all come from different places. This is not saying, oh, this neighborhood will not have any news. This is saying the neighborhood this is by no means a media void in San Francisco. There are many places to get information and outlets that give same type of Public Notices and information. Supervisor yee supervisor walton . Supervisor walton i want to reiterate some of what supervisor fewer stated. This really is not about the publication itself. It really is about the fact that we get to make a decision on whether or not we want taxpayers dollars to go to advertisement, whether it be this particular publication or any publication. Were not killing the newspaper. Were basically stating that we dont want taxpayers money to go towards advertising in any particular publication. We dont fund what the paper write. This is about getting information out that we feel is important to communities through publications across the city. We have a right to say that we dont want taxpayer dollars to go towards something. This is from my standpoint, not just about what the actual publication writes but its about the fact that if we dont want taxpayer dollars to go towards something, were put in position to make that decision. Thats why were having this conversation now. Supervisor peskin thank you mr. President. As i said earlier, i believe that proposition j is outdated and needs to be changed. Because it was approved by the voters, it would need to be changed about the voters. I believe it is incumbent on all 11 of us, subject to input by various publications to actually revise proposition j. Having said that, i do not believe, let me preface that by saying at the beginning of this conversation, i was supposed to vote for supervisor prestons amendment. After hearing the subsequent words from supervisor peskin and ronen, i realize i do not want to be one of 11 of a body that is making a decision as to what is okay speech or not okay speech in a publication that we fund. If we want to go down the road of saying that the behavior of this publication, the marina times is acceptable. That should be done through the chair, i see you smiling, that should be done by a third party. By unbiased party. That should not be done by 11 elected officials. I find that conduct unbecoming. With that, im not going to v ote. I believe that this is not the proper or appropriate role of the board of supervisors to play as to an individual publication. I do believe that we should revise the entire scheme of how we publish our notices. I do believe, as i said earlier, that is entirely inappropriate for next door to utilize our content without any attribution to the city. This is an entire area of Public Policy that we collectively and the clerk need to wrap our financial and policy brains around. I am not going to vote even though the behavior and statements of this particular publication president yee has not written, im not going to vote to say that they cannot be treated the same way as el reportero and other publications. Supervisor mar ill be brief. I want to thank supervisor preston for raising the question and for this very robust discussion about whether marina times is appropriate vehicle for us to use in our Community Outreach and advertising along with the many other diverse neighborhood and newspapers and ethnic newspapers that are part of this contract. I appreciate supervisor preston and ronen especially the information you presented and the deep concerns you shared about the marina times. Like supervisor mandelman, i feel not prepared based on my familiarity with the marina times to make that important decision to exclude them from the contract based on their journalistic and editorial content. I do support what supervisor fewer had proposed, some way for us to move forward with a contract with all the other outlets and then allowing more time to consider marina times. Supervisor yee supervisor ronen. Last word. Before we vote on this, supervisor prestons motion, i want to clarification from supervisor fewer. You were you planning to present another motion . Supervisor fewer well, i would like to explore whether or not we can move on with other publications. Yes, i think its possible to split the file. I like to actually make that motion. I guess i can make it after supervisor prestons. Through the president and to the members, dividing the file is a privileged motion. Does take precedence over the actual motion thats on the floor which is to strike or amend an item. Board rule 5. 30 is a division of the question. Which indicate prior to the roll call to action on a matter that dividing the question may take place. Thats not a motion. Supervisor yee would you like to call motion to divide . Supervisor fewer i call motion to divide the question. Supervisor yee the question you dividing is the marina times. Supervisor fewer from group of other advertisers. Supervisor yee okay. Is there a second . Motion is to divide mr. President. I will say my apologies for not being clear. It is supervisor fewers individual preference to divide the file. It does not need a motion. She wants to divide, thats her privilege. Which means that now the board takes up this matter. Its two issues essentially. Its the bulk of the outreach periodicals and the marina times on its own. Supervisor yee two votes now . Exactly. Supervisor yee all right. Supervisor peskin. Supervisor peskin you would like to merge the two issues back into two. On the divided file, by the way, im happy to continue the matter. Im happy to send the matter back to committee. I do not want these things taken separately. I will vote no on both dividing the files. They must be taken together for what is worth, ill be voting no on both. Im happy to send both to committee or to continue them at the full board. Supervisor yee supervisor preston . Supervisor preston just to address, since we have a motion pending before divided file now, i wanted to clarify. Im amendable to the proposed approach or the divided file that we have now moving forward and approving the balance of it. I would propose just a one week continuance on the portion of the file so folks have the information they need. I dont know we need to rerefer it to committee. Point of information. Supervisor preston is asking for a continuance of both files divided . Supervisor preston no. The file has been divided for supervisor fewers statement. I dont know which will be called first to vote. Supervisor yee ill clarify for you preview preston. Supervisor preston to supervisors peskins point, my intent was to move the portion. Supervisor yee i got it. Were going to vote on the larger grouping first. After we do that, theres only one left to vote on. Supervisor preston, youre going to make a motion to continue that one divided item to next week. Supervisor preston just point of clarification, do i need to withdraw the original motion . No you should withdraw it supervisor preston. Supervisor ronen has to second as well. Supervisor preston i will withdraw the original motion. Supervisor yee supervisor peskin. Supervisor peskin i like to make a motion to continue the bulk of the item to the same meeting as the divided portion. Supervisor yee i got it, dont worry. Supervisor safai i held second portion of my comment because we were focused on the time amendment. I think its timely. I think that prop j, which was passed by the voters in 1994, was during a time when we could not have contemplated social media. Could not have contemplated the changes in which people get their information today. When were looking through this board made a significant commitment to equity and looking at things through a Racial Equity lens. Now supervisor fewer leading, thank you for your tremendous work in this regard. When i look at the list of papers, this is not a complete list. This is not a list that actually is reaching many of the intended communities that were intended to reach. The time has evolved. So many people get their information from social media. One of the social Media Outlets referenced here that other social Media Outlets referenced. The right thing to do, given the intensity of this conversation, will be to send this item the entire item, not divided, but the entire item back to committee to have a more robust conversation and invite the publication, invite members of the community to weigh in and to have a real fullfledged conversation about prop j and what this means in terms of reaching so many of our different communities that are underserved by putting an advertisement in a paper that so many dont reference or use within those respective communities. Thats not to say that places like World Journal arent reaching their intended communities. In that particular community, they are. Theres many ones listed here today that when were thinking about a Racial Equity lens are not. I think its important that we have that fullfledged conversation. I appreciate the attempt to divide the file. I appreciate the attempt to have a conversation to separate out what supervisor preston has identified in many ways that will be hate and threatening speech. At at the end of the day, this comes back to First Amendment. It comes back to Racial Equity lens. For me i would think that the right thing to do will be to send the entire file back and lets have a fullfledged conversation about the overall idea of what prop j was and what reaching these communities means to these publications. Supervisor yee what youre suggesting we will not take up unless Everything Else drop off. Supervisor safai thats fine. Im happy to make a motion on this entire item so we can have a further conversation about it. Supervisor yee madam clerk, correct me if i got this wrong. Theres been a motion to divide the file. I said i will vote on the bulk of it first. Supervisor preston said hell end up hes making a motion to continue the one item. Supervisor peskin is suggesting making a motion to continue the larger part also. I think that the motion that were going to take. Is there a second or we take that up first . That would be correct mr. President. Unless what i heard supervisor peskin say, he wanted to make a motion to reunite the two items and then send to committee. [indiscernible] supervisor fewer made her motion to divide. That is the question before us. However, now its ready for action. Both pieces. If another motion is made on top of that, then that will take precedence. Supervisor peskin i am not making a motion to reunite. Im going to vote no on both. Supervisor yee okay. We have a roll on the divided item thats the bulk of the item. On item 27 without the marina times [roll call vote] there are 7 ayes and 4 noes with supervisors, mandelman, safai and peskin in dissent. Supervisor yee lets take the other motion, which is to continue the other portion. The marina times. That motion was made by supervisor yee to the next meeting its what i heard. One week continuance. That motion was made by preston and seconded by ronen. The date is going to be december 8th. One week to december 8th. [roll call vote] 7 ayes and 4 noes. Mandelman and peskin and safai in dissent. Supervisor yee it will be continued to next meeting on december 8th. I think were done right . Thats correct. Supervisor yee lets go to our special order. I dont know what number it is. That will be item 5154. Items were continued from august 18, 29 and november 17th all in 2020. Item 51 is a public hearing of persons interested in the determination of exemption from Environmental Review under the california quality act or ceqa by the Planning Department on april 8, 2019 for a proposed project at 617 sanchez street to demolish one family house and construct a new fourstory Single Family approximately 30 feet high within the rh1 Zoning District and 40x height in both districts. Item 52 is the motion to affirm the Planning Department determination that the proposed project is categorically exempt from Environmental Review. Item 54 is a motion to direct the preparation of findings to reverse the exemption of determination. Supervisor yee proposed project at 617 sanchez street. Related to Planning Departments determination that the proposed project is categorically exempt from further Environmental Review under the California Environmental quality act. After the hearing, the board will vote on whether to affirm under ceqa. Up to 10 minutes for the appellant, up to 10 minutes from the city departments, up to 10 minutes for the project sponsor or their representative. Two minutes per speaker in opposition to appeal and support of the project. Finally up to three minutes for rebuttal by the appellant or representatives. Any objections . Seeing no objection, the public hearing is proceed as indicated and it is now open. Supervisor mandelman, would you like to make opening remarks . Supervisor mandelman i will reserve my remarks after the hearing. Supervisor yee lets call the representatives to present their case. This is joerg, rathenberg. Good afternoon, i like to thank the board of supervisors for the opportunity to present our appeal. My name is Joerg Rathenberg im here with our civil engineer. Since 1999 my family owned the house at 619 sanchez, which directly is adjacent to 617 sanchez. These housed are located on a steep hill. Today, we speak on behalf long time neighbors and friends some who lived in our neighborhoods since the 70s. Number of the letters are included in their packet. I hope you will hear from some of them during the Public Comment. Why do we ask this board that 617 sanchez categorical to be sent back for additional Environmental Review . Well, first of all, the categorical exemption allows the steepness of the area. It considers neither of the executives of the extreme slope nor of the soil or the affects of the adjacent homes such as ours. As you can see on the picture earlier, our block provides exceptional Public Financing views of San Francisco. Because of its steepness, many people come to see the city from our street, take pictures, see the fourth of July Fireworks or hang out to enjoy the view. This is a panoramic photo of the 617 sanchez property looking north at our house. On the left, you can see the carport over here. Which is at the highest elevation where the four Story Building will be locate the property slopes down steeply to the back. You can see 615 sanchez property in the middle. [please stand by]. So what is the effect of speculator and Anonymous Companies moving into San Francisco and tearing down our homes . It makes our neighborhood unaffordable to current residents, middle class, and the gay community. The rich history of the city is being destroyed, and people who built this neighborhood are driven out. This is how Center Street looks today and has looked for over seven years, theres construction vehicles, dirt, and noise, just like here on the corner of sanchez and cumberland. Senior citizens are being abused and driven out of their home. In 2018, the agent who handled the sale of both 615 and 617 sanchez, pursued our home so it could be moved into a compound. Now, i would like to hand it over to pat, our civil engineer, to talk about the other points. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is patrick buscovich. I am a licensed civil engineer, and i have the title of structural engineer. Ive been practicing 41 years, almost exclusively in San Francisco. I have unique experience about the slope protection act and the development of this area of noe valley. The slope at this location in the street which is the most closest to native grade, and it was 29. 9 . This area was graded extensively in the 1915 to 1919 reconstruction period under one of the 50 committees to rebuild the city. Cumberland, on the corner, was extensively graded, and you can see where you have extensive slope changes in the streets, that the slopes were levelled and graded. The lots on the site post 1906 had lead ash covering it. The fire stopped about a block away at the golden fire hydrant, and part of the reason it didnt burn up to here are the two cemeteries that are now a shall ppark. Theyre proposing to excavate 16 feet down, remove approximately 2 Million Pounds of soil, and it appears the sustainability plans were waived. It shows that this is above the 25 threshold. You can see on these digital levels, its 29 . The only way that im aware that this can be waived is if the Building Department waives it as part of a submittal. Ive not been able to find any documentation it was waived, and the person who would have waived it is not available to be asked questions if he did approve it. The maher law says if youre going to drill, you have the Health Department issue a permit to be able to drill. Havent been able to track this down. If this area was graded in 1915, which is appears it was because the topography doesnt appear to be native, and i know that cumberland is graded. In the middle of cumberland, between sanchez and church, there is a pump in the street that was installed when they reconstructed cumberland [inaudible] oh, im sorry. The plans indicate a 16foot down excavation. The boring was done in the backyard. It was done where theres an existing house, so theres some discrepancy there. The site theyre going to propose to build it is 12 feet higher based on their own topography. Why they did a soils report here in the backyard, which showed 9. 5 feet down, theyre going to hit refusal, which is rock, and the soils report is for a clay site, but 16 feet down in the backyard, which means theyre going to hit 6. 5 feet of rock. Their soils report doesnt match this project, and if they had done the soils report at the site of the house, they would have been able to see what kind of fill materials that were brought in to adjustment the grade because the front of the house, which is maybe where they convinced the city or somebody that this is not a 25 grade, has obviously been filled, and theyre going to be excavating this out. Theyre going to be hitting rock, and when you remove 2,000 pounds 2 Million Pounds of soil from a site where the rock appears to be underlaying the site to be steep, you need to have done a better study. This report appears to be for building a building in the backyard where you would have been on a clay site. So i have a number of questions. I dont think they properly address the lead hazard. I have significant concerns about the report being applicable clerk time concluded, mr. President. President yee that pat, is that your name . Yeah, patrick buscovich. President yee im sorry. Im a little confused. Youre saying the site of the existing house is clay . Well, where the soils report is saying where they did the boring and heres a copy of the soils report, theyre saying they did the single boring in the backyard. Well, if you look at the map, thats where the existing twostory house they want to demolish is. Further, the building theyre building is in the front yart. Why would they do a boring in the backyard, which is 12 feet lower . Why wouldnt they do a boring in why would they do a boring there . Theres a planting box there, and the grading is different between the front and the back on the site by 12 feet. They did a boring in a spot that doesnt make sense, and its where the house is. So they must have missed something, but even there, that boring, 9. 5 feet down, hits rock. The building, theyre digging down 16 feet, so theyre 6 feet into rock . President yee okay. And if its rock, then the soils report doesnt apply. President yee okay. Thank you. Maybe ill ask this of city planning or somebody in terms of i guess excavating is rock and harder, but i always thought that building on rock is better than building on clay thats true, but the building protection act president yee that wasnt a question. Oh, sorry. President yee okay. So any other questions . Supervisor mandelman . Supervisor mandelman thank you, president yee. Yeah, i guess im trying to understand the claims of the inadequacy on soils and slope, and it sounds like the argument is there could be i mean, its not shown as in the maher area. Theres its not shown on the maher on a maher map. I dont yeah mabd mann. Supervisor mandelman yeah. Okay. So its not in an area thats designated for [inaudible] materials, so it could have been moved up the hill for the roads or the construction up there. Its graded monday. Supervisor mandelman and so you think that the its graded. Supervisor mandelman so you think that the boring there would not necessarily show toxicity or hazardous issues on the part of the property where theyre actually doing construction and removing a lot of dirt. Have i got that right . The boring area is in a site that clearly has fill, and what ive been able to research is the fill was a long time ago. The house is preearthquake, so that house doesnt have fill in it. But at the front, you can see the grading has been changed. The first is why would you do a soils report in a different location on the site, and two, if there is fill here, which is one of the requirements that the Health Department requires that when you are doing a boring, you have to get a permit for them, which we havent been able to document, did they get that required permit. Its to make sure that you know what youre drilling in, is it toxic or not, and generally, from this era, all fill used in the 1915 is presumed to be lead arrest would have lead in it, and the fill could have been from grading of the street or could have been from bringing in grade from another site. But fundamentally, you do a boring right in the front yard where the planter box is. Supervisor mandelman you also, i think, are making the argument and have made the argument in some of the papers that theres an essential slope stability issue here . Yes. The Planning Department has a lighter map that theyve generated, which is an airplane ill simplify it. The plane flew over the city and shot down radar beams, and the beams bounced back up, and they were able to create a topography map that removes buildings, removes trees, and shows that this grade is greater than 25 . The way the ordinance was set up, and this was one of the reasons i was asked to be involved, is you can go to the Building Department to show to them adequate information that the lider map is greater than 25 by doing a Topographic Survey by submitting this to one person who is not availabletor me to discuss, and im not sure he even did it, and you can show that the topography is not greater than 25 , there by, youre waived out of the program. But if you go to the street, which is the best measure of the slope, i just put a digital level now, its 25 . I dont see any scenario unless the argument is that the retaining wall the neighbor to the north built so that they can have a flat driveway at the front raised out to be less than 25 , but in a slope stability analysis, building retaini retaining walls to change the slope could be the worst thing you could do. And if you were going to make the argument, it should be done by a registered engineering geologist. Supervisor mandelman if the slope is greater than 25 , whats the consequence of that . You have to do a more Detailed Analysis to make sure that removing 2 Million Pounds of soil and digging down 16 feet will not have an adverse effect on the slope stability of this site and the adjoining properties. Supervisor mandelman under the under the peskin ordinance. But and youre arguing that that needs to be done prior to a planning approval . Absolutely. Supervisor mandelman and last well, i think i understand, but the Historic Resource argument is that one of the first African American families in the neighborhood the first in the neighborhood lived there, and that it is proximate to the lgbt cultural district, and that it is was occupied by an important lgbt person. Okay. All right. Thats my questions. Thank you. President yee all righty. In this case, so were going to go ahead and move to the next part, which is to allow for speakers to speak in support of the appeal. You have up to two minutes. For those who oppose the appeal, there will be an opportunity later in the hearing. At this point, those who support the appeal, please press star, three to be added to the queue. Madam clerk, will you please call the first speaker. Clerk thank you, mr. President , and if i may, mr. President , we do have our interpreters who have joined us. May i have them introduce themselves quickly for the rest of the meeting . Okay. Okay. Please begin your comments. Just introduce yourself. [speaking tagalog language] [speaking cantonese language] clerk thank you. And that was agnes lai. Thank you for being here. [speaking spanish language] clerk thank you. And so when a speaker comes on in language, the interpreters will just join in and assist them with their Public Comment. So as the president stated earlier, we are taking Public Comment now on behalf of the appellant on behalf of the appeal. Operations, do we have a caller in the queue, please . Operator yes, madam clerk. We currently have seven callers in the queue. I will unmute the first caller. Clerk first speaker, please. Welcome. Youll have two minutes. Im sorry. I think theres been a mistake. I wanted to speak during general public. My apologies. Clerk okay. Thank you for joining us. Please just hang on for a moment, and we will call general Public Comment later in the meeting. Thank you for your patience. Caller, is there another caller on the line, operations . Hello . Clerk yes, welcome. [inaudible] he used to cut my hair, and john did not need to be [inaudible] for his house and be abused for greed. [inaudible] destroyed our beautiful home and neighborhood. I ask you to put an end to this and keep our neighborhood alive and not be sold to the highest bidder. I support [inaudible] thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments. Okay. Operations, lets hear from the next caller. Good afternoon, and thank you for letting me speak to you. [inaudible] and theyve been doing it for a long time, and theyre trying to buy whatever they can, especially on sanchez street. The big money flowing in from Tech Companies is ripping apart the neighborhood, and the people who live on sanchez street are hard working, every day people. But now, l. N. C. Corporations are building huge mansions at the expense of the entire neighborhood, just like the monster home on cumberland street, which theyve been building for years now. This affects our life in a big way. Since 2012, weve had trucks everywhere, noise everywhere, and the builders dont follow the timeline. The construction and the trash around is a constant eyesore. We help maintain the stairs to 19 street and delores street, like picking up trash and keeping it nice. And ive never seen anyone from the mansions come down and offer to keep the neighborhood looking like it used to. Please approve the ceqa appeal. Otherwise, this project will increase the disruption in our quiet neighborhood, and destroy the most historic parts of San Francisco. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comment, sir. Okay. Operations, lets hear from the next caller, please. Were taking comment on the 617 sanchez street on behalf of the appellant. Welcome, caller. My name is [inaudible]. Hello . Clerk hello, we hear you. Okay. Im the architect who worked on 617 sanchez street, and we worked on it back in 2002 through 2004, and we were aware of the house in the backyard on the subject property now, and how low it was, how old it was, how unusual it was for the neighborhood, and we were also aware about 615 sanchez, which has been built on sanchez street, and its an incredibly large, wide house, which did significant damage to public and private views. We lived at 241 delores in special use district, and in private views, its unusual. I think its the only special use district in the city that does that. It also tears up the character of the area and interrupts views. Theres a lot there that seems to be totally ignored by the city in approving this project. Im kind of shocked. I think that the times have changed, and my clients, when they were building that back in 2004, i think the expectations were you were going to keep delores heights a magical character, not unlike telegraph hill, and i think times have changed. My client got support of the neighbors to building lower instead of higher to keep their views, and when i look at this, i just see another example of [inaudible] built, which is dramatically changing the character of delores heights, and this is already section 241. Im surprised to find that the board has allowed it. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comment. Okay. I believe we have six callers in the queue. We have about 24 listening. If youre interested in speaking on this item, press star, three. We are taking Public Comment on behalf of the appellant for the 617 sanchez street appeal. Lets hear from the next caller, please. Hi. I was born and raised in San Francisco. Our neighborhood celebrated halloween, and everyone in the area is like a Family Member to me. My neighbor, john, who lives on 617 sanchez street, had a beautiful traditional house. I used to go to his house, and we would grow up together. The memories i made in that house because of johns kindness has caused me to continue to play canons to this day. This is one of the most beautiful and diverse neighborhoods in San Francisco. Please help us save it. Thank you. Clerk thank you four for your comments. Okay. Operations, lets hear from the next caller, please. Welcome, caller skbl. Hi, can you hear me okay . Clerk yes, we can, welcome. Okay. Hi. Thank you, board of supervisors, for allowing me to speak. My name is jennifer. I am also a native san franciscan, born and raised, and i just value the beauty and the character of the city, and i can see more of that charm and historic significance being destroyed by aalthough youing this project to go through by allowing this project to go through. [inaudible] as well as the significant contributions of the lgbtq population. I am also coming from a place of just wanting to preserve the neighborhood and character of all the beautiful wonderful pieces of history that the city embraces, and to see it being torn apart by l. L. C. S and this continued harassment of the elderly neighbors is just tearing us apart, and we need to preserve the history and the richness and the charm of the city, so please appeal this project. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments. Okay. Operations, can we hear from the next caller, please . Sorry. I meant to call in for the next section, not this current one. Clerk okay. Thank you for your patience. We have four callers in the queue, and 24 listening. We are taking Public Comment on behalf of the appeal at 617 sanchez street. We are taking Public Comment. Welcome, caller. Hello . Can you hear me . Clerk yes, we can. Welcome. Hi. Thank you so much for giving me a chance to speak. I am calling to support the ceqa appeal on 617 sanchez street. We have to take action against big money taking over our city. What we need is to really preserve the housing for working and middle class people and not tear it down. I mean, have you tried looking for a home in noe valley recently . Even if you are like, you and your partner both have great jobs and are earning well, it is really, really hard to find Affordable Housing and buy a home here. Super rich people and Anonymous Companies are just driving up the prices. Theyre destroying houses like this one and removing whole areas like delores heights from the market for common citizens. Therefore, they shut out the very type of people that build this neighborhood. I mean, its People Like Us that actually work hard and build this neighborhood that now cannot afford to buy houses here. And while they build 4,000 or more square foot houses, theres also only one or two People Living in these homes, or many times, they go empty most of the year. [please stand by] we have listeners in the queue and 24 listeners. If you wish to provide Public Comment on behalf of the appellant, were taking your Public Comment now. Next speaker please. Good evening, im here to speak in support of 617 sanchez street. Almost every weekend, we walk [indiscernible] its sadden to watch this beautiful neighborhood next caller. If youre one of the 24 listeners, you can press star three now. Were taking Public Comment on beof half the appellant for 617 sanchez street appeal. Welcome caller. Hello. I know you guys have on the docket to talk about africanamerican cultural district. I didnt know about in particular incident, but based on what im hearing, the first house of somebody black in San Francisco, i dont know how you do one thing without the other. I dont think that that house should be torn down. It should be part of whatever the black community that exist. Thank you for your comments. Operations, is there any. Another caller in the queue . Welcome. Please join us. Im a member of the yacht club. I had the neighbor call in and ask me questions. I went back and i talked to the members, martha and bruce and people that were members and are friend with the member. He said that he was gay, hair dresser, had a pencil thin [indiscernible] nice guy of the community. We dont know how this happened at the end of the day. This doesnt make sense. I believe in my rationality of talking to the other members that the mariposa yacht club, this has been something funny about this situation. Thats all i have to say. I can get you members numbers. Im giving a representative of [indiscernible] when people get incoherent and they get elderly and they sign on the dotted line. It sounds very fishy to me. Thank you for your comments. Do we have any other callers on behalf of the appellant. In completes the queue. Mr. President that, concludes Public Comment on behalf of the appellant. Supervisor yee thank you for the comments. This portion of the Public Comment in support of the appeal is closed. Now we have up it 10 minutes representative of the Planning Department to provide the presentation. Thank you, i will put the presentation up on my screen. Good afternoon president yee and Board Members. After the Planning Department provided response ton august 3, 2020 the appellant submitted additional material. I will now identify the issues and the Planning Departments responses. The appellant alleges that the departments exemption ignores impacts associated with the proposed project excavation activity. This allegation is incorrect. The department concluded there are no unusual circumstances regarding the proposed project. It will not result in geology impacts. The appellant notes that the project site is located on a steep slope and detailed in planning response prepared a project specific geotechnical report. This report investigated site, soil, geologic and ground water conditions of the property and made representations for the projects construction. For the Building Department, well review the final building plans made in the report to ensure compliance with state and local Building Code provisions related to structural safety. This review must ensure that the proposed project will have no significant geology impacts from excavation activities. The Building Department will review the building plan and will determine at that time parcel subject to the act. As identified in planning appeal response, Building Department information sheet property subject to the slope ordinance, provides detailed guidelines for review and analysis of project subject to this act. The appellant asserts there are Hazardous Materials that were not addressed in the Environmental Review even though the project site is not located in the area. The appellant asserts that the project site is on hazardous on the 1906 earthquake. However the project site is outside the area. The appellant correctly states that the project environmental recover does not evaluate impact. The proposed project meets the ceqa which states that parking impacts are a residential project on a site within transient priority order shall not be impact on the environment. The appellant correctly states that the Environmental Review does not analyze the projects effect on view corridors designated under the deloris height special use district, given that the department is prohibited from considering aesthetic impact under ceqa. Consideration of the special use district was addressed in the projects Design Review process. The appellant disagreed with the departments determination that the 617 sanchez Street Property is not Historic Resource. The appellant restates information provided in the determination about homeownership by scott, africanamerican family from 1913 to 1952. As documented in the project Historic Resource evaluation the property was not found to be historically significant. Preservation staff reviewed the Historic Resource evaluation provided by an independent historical consultant and conducted further research. Preservation staff additional analysis is focused on whether this instance of africanamerican homeownership can be considered notable in it neighborhood or the citys history. I will explain departments evaluation of this project against the four criteria use to evaluate Historic Resources as shown on this slide. The property is not eligible for listing in the california register under criterion one as no Africanamerican Community was established in the neighborhood. Staff conducted independent research into the potential historic significance of members of the scott family and all other owners and occupants. Mr. Harvey scott who purchased the property in 1917, he had two daughters, ro Roberta Scott the scotts owned 617 sanchez street until 1952 but move and rented out the property as early as 1941. Planning Research Shows it will justify signing of individual eligibility under criterion 2. Criterion 3 is not applicable to this determination. It is not the work of of recognized master. [indiscernible] [audio breaking up] the 617 sanchez street is not located within the boundary of lgbtq district. Preservation staff analyzed the historical significance of all occupants of the property. The appellant states that the Historical Resource is deficient. Additional Research Conducted by planning did not indicate that he will be considered a significant historical figure to justify finding of california register eligibility for the subject building. Determination that the property does not meet the criteria for eligibility for listing is substantial evidence in the record. The appellant has not provided any substantial evidence that will support a different determination. The appellant raised several issues that are not relevant to the board. The department appeal response identifies these are not ceqa issues. Many of these issues are relevant to the project design. Finally i like to note that it project sponsor is proposing to add accessory dwelling unit to the project. This is a modification to the project previously approved by the Planning Commission. Proposed modifications are categorically exempt under ceqa. The appellant has not demonstrated that the the Planning Department recommends that the board uphold the Planning Department issuance with the categorical exemption and reject the appellants appeal. This concludes the departments presentation. Were available to answer any questions you may have. President yee i dont see anybody. Supervisor mandelman. Supervisor mandelman you talked about the soil analysis and the slope stability issues. There seems to be a question raised around whether the boarding he says the basis for the determination around the presence of build on the property and the presence of hazardous material. Whether the location of that boring is relevant to where the actual project is going to happen. He seems to be saying that boring was done lower down on the property and there could be fill and it doesnt show very much what the soils, geological analysis found on that part of the property. Can you talk about that . I can. We also like to note that, we do have the project sponsor, geo geotechnical engineer available for questions. This boring location was selected that geotechnical engineer will be soil boring at other sites. Earth material that were described in the boring logs were consistent with the types of materials that were found at 617 sanchez street. It was determined that only one boring location was needed but two specific location i would need to defer to the geotechnical engineer. Supervisor mandelman are they around . President yee did you want to wait for the project sponsors . Supervisor mandelman thank you. President yee we will move on to invite the project sponsor or representatives to present. You have up to ten minutes. Thank you supervisors. On behalf of the project sponsor, thank you very much for your time. I will try to share my slide if i can. Im going to give you some information about the project. I think staff did great job covering ceqa issue. One question thats outstanding about the boring. That was taken at the back of the lot. Due to the front of the lot was hardscape. The other thing ill say about the slope issue, which i think were covered by planning staff, this is just a really beginning of a process of approval of this project. Were going to be through a long permitting process. It is certainly possible that there will be a higher level of review for slope issues here, which will undergo. Im sure the Building Department will suggest an evaluation and well comply with whatever is required there. Im happy to have geotech engineer answer any questions if theres outstanding questions. Just wanting to give an overview. You can see here view 617 sanchez street and surrounding properties appellant owns the adjacent property. The adjacent house at 619 sanchez, the house 615 and 617 sanchez are three stories up the street and slope back towards the rear of the lot. Showing here across the street just to give you a context for the scale on the street. Prompt across the street are three to four stories. You can see here the lot looking back, this is over the garage, carport. You can see the nonconforming building at the rear and you can see the large houses on the side and this will be built between those houses to really fill up that hole. You can see that while the appeal is on ceqa issues throughout the entirety of the process up until this point, appellant expressed concern for views and they have nice views. There will be impact from this construction. We incorporated setbacks in the project. Youll hear later the adjacent, we worked with him. Hes supportive of the project. Were happy about that. You heard that the planning staff that the existing house to be demolished and based on the Planning Department analysis, it was determined to be Historic Resource. Three stories at the front and four at the rear consistent with other properties on the block. This is a view of the house back towards the west side of the street. Here you can see just a graphic of the construction. Were under the 35foot height limit and to make sure building stepped down with the street front is consistent with the built pattern. Respects the adjacent houses. Here you can see the rear of the property. Consistent with the stepping down of the surrounding property and opening up the midblock open space. Walking through the footprint of the building, as i said before, we were approved at the Planning Commission on discretionary review and the project was appealed. Were excited now to be adding an a. D. U. To the project. We understand that theres a lot of concern about new construction, monster homes and totally get that. This is not a monster home. This is the upper unit the upper unit will be 2563 square foot, a. D. U. Will be 1222. This is a reasonably sized family home and quite large a. D. U. At the ground floor. You can see the a. D. U. Thats being added to the first floor. The second floor has a very small garage. We shrunk the garage to be tiny as possible in order to accommodate living space in addition to a. D. U. Did require us to eliminate what you consider a master bedroom due to some other reconfiguration, we were able to keep four bedrooms in the upper unit and reconfigured. You can see here, we made the garage small as possible to maximize the living space. Thats the bottom living level. Heres the living level of the upper unit. You can see that notch that weve added. Addressing view concerns which obviously are not protected and not a ceqa issue. Here is the top floor. You can see its the top floor level is quite small with the setbacks that are added. There are two bedrooms. We did some reconfiguring. One of the bedrooms is pretty small. With these changes we were able to accommodate the a. D. U. Throughout the approval process, sandy strived to design a project thats liveable family home and protect the privacy of the neighbors. Shes added the large a. D. U. , she added the notch. We had many discussions
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.