Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  November 10, 2018 2:00pm-3:01pm PST

2:00 pm
tnc? >> yes, we have had the opportunity to review that data. every single agency is working together. we are consistently talking to the transportation authority and mta and planning in the two agencies are actively involved in updating the way that we're looking at tnc and the way they are actually becoming more prominent in the city. there are other studies that will be prepared. going back to the question of tnc and congestion. we did review the report. as justin mentioned in his presentation, we are seeing that the report consistent what the easter neighborhood eir said in terms of congestion. when we were analyzing for the impacts we used level of
2:01 pm
service. which is a measure of congestion. ta that's basically what're seeing now in terms of the eir projection. >> what about the impacts or the implementation of vision zero? the recommendations a vision zero made? does this particular project reflect the incorporation of those recommendations? >> yes. this particular project actually -- we have a process by which every project actually go through team of inner city officials. this team is actually recommendingification thachangeo
2:02 pm
happen. >> supervisor cohen: , colleagues any other questions? seeing none, what i like to do now is call up him to speak up on behalf of the project sponsor. >> good afternoon president cohen on behalf of the project sponsor. pursuant to administrative code chapter 31, i will limit my presentation to discussion of the merits of the ceqa appeal before this board and not the relatively policy decisions underlining the easter neighborhood rezoning. as detailed in the written material, the use of the cpe for this project is proper in all respects under ceqa. thappellate's issues are with te
2:03 pm
easter neighborhood's plannite and not ceqa or this project's environmental review. this is not the appropriate inventorvenue to raise those co. on the other hand, denial is consistent with past precedent when an easter neighborhood's project has no unique environmental compatibilities. in upholding the appeal with threatening a significant number of housing units in pipeline or recently approved, that would similarly be expected to use the easter neighborhood's eir. ceqa's analysis is straightforward. i'm trying to translate into plain english. projects are not allowed undergo
2:04 pm
additional environmental review unless there's effects to the site or effects that are not analyzed related to the project in the eir. the cpe process is used to figure that out. this is not a rubber stamp process. it took almost three years for this project's background studies to be prepared and analyzed and for the cpe to be issued. it relates to preservation, noise, transportation, general plan and zoning consistency, archaeology, green house gas, soil and hazards. none identified an effect. none of these documents are
2:05 pm
challenged by appellate either. as part of the cpe the project will prepare the following plan to be implemented during construction. archaeological testing, noise, treatment and site mitigation for ground stripping activity. it will be subject to the san francisco noise -- more generally, the appeal does not allege any problems or defects with the cpe. the appeals written material hardly discussed this project. there are no projects specific issues identified by the appellate. the project does not cause any peculiar ceqa impacts. the appeal should be denied.
2:06 pm
ths appeal arguments from past appeals in easter neighborhoods. these arguments have been raised by opponent of market rate, mixed income and 100% affordable housing project. they are not new to this board. three recent examples provide direct precedent to deny this appeal. in february of 2017 this board did not grant an appeal. a project appellate claimed easter neighborhood eir of fail and failed to address issues such as transportation, land use, growth, significant finding and impacts. those are similar to the claims raised today. this board rejected each of those grounds unanimously. more recently in october of last year, in save the hill versus
2:07 pm
city and county of san francisco, the san francisco superior court rejected a ceqa lawsuit filed by opponents of a 395-unit project at the base of the hill. relevant to this project, the court explained that a plan level eir does not have an expiration date and cpe is required. exceeding growth forecast or suggesting a growth forecast may eventually be exceeded, does not render a cpe moot. instead, pursuant to the ceqa guidelines section 15183, evidence needs to be presented showing it will cause significant environmental effects that were not identified in the eir. simply pointing out the development patterns in easter neighborhoods have produced more
2:08 pm
housing and less office or other commercial uses is insufficient. finally, when this board did recently overturn cpe it identified project specific . this board overturned a cp earthquakebased on two adjacent schoolyards. the board unanimously concluded that the project cpe was adequate in all respects. declining the same claims before you today about the adequacy of the easter neighborhood's eir or the use of cpe projects. finally, the easter neighborhood's eir continues to be important for the production of all types of new housing. in the mission alone, there are at least 193 units of affordable housing that are expected to rely on the easter
2:09 pm
neighborhood's eir. one of the 12 story density bonus project, and another project at 681 florida street. throughout the easter neighborhood plan in total, we estimate 19 or recently approved projects that can be in jeopardy affecting 1103 total housing units all of which will include affordable units on site or off site. in summary, the appeal does not identify any projects specific peculiar ceqa. its issue relies with the easter neighborhood rezoning.
2:10 pm
one final point, the project is being entitled with 10,000 square feet of pdr. it cannot be converted to retail without public note. thank you very much for your time. >> supervisor cohen: seeing there are no name on the roster for questions, i want to invite the members of the public that like to come up and speak in favor of this project. please come up and you'll have two minutes. welcome. >> i am the business property owner. i'm here to tell you we plan to stay long term. we support the plan. that's pretty much it. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. sir you already spoken.
2:11 pm
you're not able to speak. you're not able to speak because you spoke already in favor of the appeal. no. we have to keep moving. you're not able to speak. this is for people that are speaking in opposition of the appeal. if you like to speak mr. otto? any other members? seeing none. public comment is closed. thank you. thank you for your comments. lastly i want to invite the
2:12 pm
appellant to present a rebuttal argument. you have up to three minutes. come on down. >> we are here today to talk about the cpe. i think what you've heard is that additional studies are being done. but they're not in the cpe, telling us they're being done and that's okay it's not sufficient. people wouldn't be standing on mission street protecting bike lanes with their bodies if we didn't have an issue that hasn't been study
2:13 pm
all these things have not been studied. saying that they are no impacts, you can't say there are no impacts. it hasn't been studied. that's the whole point here. the c.p.e. being tiered and eir outdated. no impact studied. the c.p.e. doing a checklist to utilize old data, old methodologies, that's not study. the c.p.e. should not be upheld because these items have not been studied. thank you. >> supervisor cohen: any questions? thank you. this public hearing is closed. i want to thank the neighbors for coming. i want to thank the public
2:14 pm
commenters. this project create an opportunity for housing. i want to recognize supervisor ronen. i'm done. i'm complete. >> supervisor ronen: that's all you will say? >> supervisor cohen: yes. >> supervisor ronen: i wanted to say, first of all, i have so much respect. i wanted thank you for your really thorough, thought-provoking presentation. the concerns that you bring up are so real and legitimate. this body has determined on several occasions that sadly, ceqa doesn't allow us to reject the environmental analysis stricklstrickly -- strictly on socioeconomic impacts. that link just hasn't been -- we
2:15 pm
can't find strong enough link there that would justify me upholding the appeal. i do understand that there are ongoing appeals of this project in other forms. from my office's conversation with the community, we understand that the biggest issue here is the long term affordability of the pdr space. it seems like there's at the cusp of an agreement on that term that if fitzgerald plans to stay there, the community wants it in writing if it's future tenant. if they decide they will leave, it will be covered by the below market rate space there. i wanted to offer that i'm happy to be involved in discussions in
2:16 pm
the future for any other types of appeals. reaching that agreement. i do think it's so close. there's an agreement there to be reached. i wasn't prepared to make a motion since this project is not in my district. it's in district 10. it means a lot to my district because it's bordering the district. i'm happy to -- i don't know if you're going to make a motion supervisor cohen. i couldn't find a reason to uphold this appeal under ceqa. >> supervisor cohen: you could not find -- thank you. colleaguwhat i was saying earlis is an opportunity for housing. in my discussions with the community that have expressed
2:17 pm
concern about the gentrification, the cost of pdr space, cost of the development of office space, the cost of just living in such a concentrated area. i'm incredibly sensitive to it. like you, i find these types of hearings are so uncomfortable it's not the correct tool to allow us the opportunity to really dig in. i am inspired to hear that the planning department is studying -- will be making some changes to the easter neighborhood plan. is that where you're making the change? >> it's bakerly in the -- it's basically in the way we construct transportation.
2:18 pm
>> supervisor cohen: one thing that gives me little pause is that we're very close to your completion or the recommendations that you will be using. maybe you can walk me through the evaluation. once you complete your portion of the study, i would introduce an augmentation to the rules to evaluate transportation impact. that will go through the planning department, right? that will come to the full board of supervisors for a vote? it just goes to the planning commission? >> it's just guidelines. >> supervisor cohen: okay. maybe you can describe to me how these enhanced guidelines -- what the process in getting them codified. >> president cohen, the procedures that and the methodology we use to evaluate environmental impacts are internal procedure. we have procedures that relate to analysis off environmental
2:19 pm
topics, that includes air quality which is a topic of discussion before this board. we have presented before to the planning commission about our transportation impact analysis guidelines update and methodology update. we'll be going before the planning commission again. the methodology is not codified. however, we're engaging with consultants. we're seeking information and comments on these procedures. we'll accept that from anyone. there doesn't require an approval of that. i did want to note that just to correct something said earlier, there was a concern that these updated guidelines won't really -- don't really relate to the c.p.e. that it's not benefiting the analysis we did for this
2:20 pm
c.p.e. >> supervisor cohen: you're drilling down where i'm trying to understand. these suggested changes to the guidelines will or will not impact the c.p.e.? >> they won't impact the c.p.e. this is very technical. the point we're making the easter neighborhooeaster neighbr stated it. there's actually more residential growth but there's much less nonresidential growth that's been happening in easter neighborhoods. the residential has less impacts. we overstate our methodology. we overstated impacts relative to what we know what the impacts will be. we're acknowledging that tncs
2:21 pm
are a higher percentage of carers out there on th -- cars t there on the streets. we're saying, the amount of cars that we said, the rezoning would generate it was overstated, we've done project level impact analysis and we've also looked at the methodology that we have updated. when we apply that, there aren't any new significant impacts. if we were to userd our current -- new methodology, we have estimated fewer vehicle trips as a result of the easter neighborhood development. that's we'll be doing moving forward with future analysis. there's less vehicles that will be generated by new development going forward. it's fortunate in this case that we did overestimate this development because we have a change in the types of vehicles that are out there and other things and it provides a buffer
2:22 pm
for future projects like this one going through environmental review. we have mitigation measures. >> supervisor cohen: when are these guidelines will be completed? >> i'll pass that back -- >> supervisor cohen: before you pass that. let me finish with you. how do you quantify this overstatement of traffic impact? that means nothing to me. help me understand. how do you know you overstated it. what's the baseline? what are the tools you're using to calculate this? >> we start with the development. the square footage of the individual uses in this case, pdr. we have factor factors that sayw many trips are generated by each dwelling unit. how many trips are generated by
2:23 pm
square foot for nonresidential development. those are those factors of trips generated. the factors that we have found base end on actua -- based on al studies shows those factors are lower. the other thing i want to say for easter neighborhoods we started withst mates how much development would occur with the rezoning that was our growth forecast. we did the best job we could at the time in 2008 when it was certified to say how much growth would occur. there's slightly more residential that's occurring in easter neighborhoods. but there's much less nonresidential development. the factors how many trips get generated by nonresidential it's much higher trips, more car care generated by nonresidential. when you combine those things with the factors and also, you
2:24 pm
have less nonresidential development today. all of those things lead us to say we had overestimated the trip related effects. >> supervisor cohen: is there a specific number that you're saying? can you tell me? >> growth forecast changes compared to amount of development today, i think you're asking more about the factors for the transportation analysis. >> i'm trying to understand the question president cohen. you're asking if what -- i can tell what we are seeing from the new data. we're seeing more number of people walking. we are seeing more people are using tncs. we are thinking that the uptim
2:25 pm
in tnc is reduction in people driving. we're seeing the overall drive share go down slightly. it depends what party of the city you're located. we actually did about 65 -- we went out there and studied 65 different locations throughout the city and asked preferences what the choices are. that's how we're updating our trips.i want to add one more point. when we did apply the new trip rate to this project, we we're seeing it generate around 28 vehicle trips. basically showing that with the old guidelines we were
2:26 pm
overestimating. >> supervisor cohen: that's what i was trying to look for. i'm looking for numbers and data. i'm looking for you to quantify it. i heard words, i wanted to hear value. you shared that with me. colleagues i like to make a motion to improve item 32 and table items 33 and 34. i don't see any name on the roster. madam clerk please call the roll. >> we need a second. >> supervisor cohen: seconded by supervisor tang. [roll call]
2:27 pm
there are 11 ayes. >> supervisor cohen: thank you very much. the final environment impact report is finally certified. thank you. madam clerk. next item. >> we can go back to item 22. it's -- >> supervisor cohen: colleagues, this requires an eight vote. supervisor fewer? >> supervisor fewer: i introduced this ordinance to extend to the reentry council. this is a body to the city and county of san francisco which i serve on as a representative from the board of supervisors. the unique thing about the counsel it brings together respective on criminal justice
2:28 pm
ranging from various law enforcement agencies to community advocates and incarcerated adults. i have learned so much there. i've been inspired to pursue criminal justice reform to make our city safer and compassionate. thank you to the rules committee to passing this. i hope i can count on all of you for your support extending the life of this collaborative public body that has been central in providing accountability for our criminal justice system and improving the lives of those reentering the society after serving their time. >> supervisor cohen: thank you very much. colleagues same house same call? we can take that without objection. this resolution is adopted. >> number two 23, ordinance amending the campaign and government conduct code to update conflict of interest
2:29 pm
form. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. colleagues any discussion? seeing none. same house same call? this ordinance pass on the first reading. >> clerk: item number 24 is an ordinance amending the police code to extend by one year the possible duration of a cannabis business permit. >> supervisor cohen: supervisor mandelman any remarks. we can take this same house same call? ordinance passed on the first reading. >> clerk: item number 25 a
2:30 pm
motion approving the president of the board of supervisors nomination to the board of appeals for a term ending july 1, 2022. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. i want to first of all, it's not easy for me to vote against this candidate. i met with miss tanner. this is a quasi judicial board. i want to know board of appeals which is an important body, for the first time, will not have one attorney sitting on the board and as i said to ms. tanner, only she is lacking is a law degree. when i was president of the board, i think i uniformly made
2:31 pm
sure that there were processes and i really am worried that the board appeals without having at least one attorney on that body. person who it leaving, ms. wilson is an attorney at law. i will not be voting for ms. tanner today. >> supervisor cohen: i want to acknowledge that supervisor peskin is correct. ms. wilson is leaving. she did a fantastic job. i have the one who nominated her and fully vetted her. i nominated ms. tanner. i hope you will support her. she's in position to serve on seat two of board appeals. you should note that she has served as a senior planner for planning department and has worked for -- she's managed
2:32 pm
multimillion dollar capital projects and has familiarity with the san francisco planning code which i believe is an asset to enable her to hit the ground running for the first board of appeals meeting which is scheduled to be next week. currently, there are only one other woman, that's commissioner ann lazarus. she's serving on five member board of appeals. this is a young woman of color. she's bringing a fresh new perspective to the board of appeal. i believe she will be able to adequately handle the duties as we see fit as a quasi judicial body. i don't have a law degree. the point that i'm making, we too, sit in a quasi judicial body and don't have the legal expertise that supervisor peskin
2:33 pm
is pointing out. she volunteers for the community in her spare time. i like to recognize supervisor mandelman. >> supervisor mandelman: i had to wrestle with this appointment. i served on the board of appeals 10 years ago. both board of supervisors appointees were lawyers. there's a dynamics where there's split authority. i think that it is important that the folks who are appointed by the members of this board understand that they have a role in representing the neighborhoods that are represented by this board. i had a good conversation with ms. tanner. i think she is an excellent person with a lot to contribute. i did not get the sense with her that she had thought much about
2:34 pm
that dynamic. the other thing i would say about the board of appeals which has incredible authority over permits. sometimes has the ability to overturn and change decisions of the planning commission. it is an awesome responsibility. i have been troubled reviewing the decisions made by board of appeals. sort of overruling or changing decisions that the planning commission carefully wrestled with. i think this is an appointment that will last a long time. we'll be dealing with decisions from board of appeals for a while. i share some of the concerns that supervisor peskin spoke to and some others as well. i will reluctantly be voting no. >> supervisor cohen: the appeals that you are concerned are actually, there are lawyers over
2:35 pm
there that are overturning these planning department appeals. supervisor ahsha safai. >> supervisor safai: i know she might not have a law degree, she has a masters in city planning. she worked for the planning department. i had the pleasure of having her work on my staff for a few months when i had a staffer go out on medical leave. i can tell you with full confidence that she will execute these responsibilities with dutiful determination. about 90% of the board of appeals is a lot of small neighborhood appeals. supervisor mandelman. i think her understanding of the planning code and the development process, how city functions and how land use interacts with neighborhood decisions. she's a resident of the bay view. she's a long time city staff and
2:36 pm
has been involved in multiple activities. i couldn't think of a better person. i understand the desire. but it's not a requirement to have a law degree. i would say respectfully supervisor peskin if you no longer served on this body, i would feel confident someone that does not have a law degree you will be able to perform those duties well. >> supervisor peskin: i think you would. we are charge in this body to put more women in these positions and having a body that has only one female on it and woman of color, this is an important decision. i feel like there might be other stuff going on. i hope that some folks would
2:37 pm
consider make the right decision and appoint ms. tanner to this body. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. i wanted to echo that having msc requirements. one of the areas we struggled is having age diversity to the young woman. gender, diversity as well as ethnic diversity. i hope that that would factor into your considerations, in your vote. -- let's call the roll. [roll call]
2:38 pm
>> supervisor cohen: thank you. next item. >> clerk: excuse me. item number 26 is a motion appointing josh wolf, leuwam tesfai, bruce wolf, frank cannata and matthew yankee. to sunshine ordinance task force. >> supervisor cohen: we take roll call vote on this. [roll call]
2:39 pm
>> supervisor cohen: this motion is approved. next item. >> clerk: committee reports. items 35 and 36 considered by the land use and transportation committee. as a regular meeting, forwarded as committee report. item 35 was recommended and is an ordinance amending general plan to incorporate the dogpatch plan. >> supervisor cohen: i'm excited to have this plan move forward. the dogpatch community has been experiencing tremendous growth over the definitely. the growth projections for the
2:40 pm
central water front can see a quadrupling of housing units between 2020 and 2030 or five times the number of people living in the area that we see there living today. this legislation, the dogpatch public plan, sets the guideline for city investment in neighborhood during the next 10 to 15 years. this plan will ensure that the neighborhood continues to grow and we're on the record for committing to infrastructure for a transit first neighborhood complete streets that connect through new -- retaining and supporting pdr business and improving parks and open space for growing population. i wanted to acknowledge this has been a model for interagency coordination. i want to implemen compliment te involved. i want to recognize the neighborhood outreach and the
2:41 pm
level of involvement from the neighbors in the dogpatch neighborhood. it brings historicall historicat land uses. allows the community not only to coexist but ultimately setting them up to continue to thrive. please call the roll. [roll call]
2:42 pm
>> supervisor cohen: thank you. this ordinary than is passed first reading. item 36. >> clerk: recommended as amended with a new title it's a of course -- resolution to water board to update the water quality control plan. >> supervisor cohen: supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. i said most what i needed to say yesterday in committee. i really want to thank the three co-sponsors of this resolutioner. i want to extend my appreciation to the chair of the land use committee and the members of that committee chair tang and
2:43 pm
supervisor safai for forwarding this to the full board. i want to reiterate the points i made before we vote. i want to thank the public utilities commission for coming to the table. i want to recognize and thank my staff who did a lot of diplomacy between the ngo community who has not been at the table in the recent water wars of the northern part of our great state. i want to say that -- an issue that is remarkably complicated. there are some facts. over the last handful of decades the fisheries have plummeted if the san joakim valley and the
2:44 pm
river. to now just a few thousand salmon. we all need to be part of that solution. none of this is easy it requires a rot of give and take. there's an urgent to the puc. the health of our region is at stake. it's time to turn a new page. it's time to reconsider our relations with turlock and modesto. i want to be clear that this is a resolution in support of state water boards adoption of 40% unimpaired flows and to go to table and reach a settlement
2:45 pm
which will implement these changes in a more expeditious fan. with that, i want to reiterate p.u.c for coming to the table. now let's settle this matter. >> let's call the roll please. [roll call]
2:46 pm
>> thank you madam clerk. next item. >> clerk: roll call for introductions. madam president, you're the first up on roll call. >> supervisor cohen: thank you very much submit. [roll call] >> i'm asking that the board today end our meeting in memory of lisa m. jenkins 40-year san francisco resident. lisa jenkins was an inventor and entrepreneur and worked with public institutions. realizing the promise of extension of wealth in community. her experience included serving
2:47 pm
as strategic planning manager and engineering groups responsible for the governance of enterprise innovation and strategic process management. she served on the board selected corporations and organizations. one of the few women of color to do so. working to help define and execute structure for 21st century firms organized for triple bottom line impact. creating place, protecting community and expanding wealth. excellence in innovation has been acknowledge and sharing of 25 patents and human interface did it acquisition and predicted system. each patent present product built and executed. her passion was found in a lesson of her parent on fairness. she said, i learned early on that you must find a way to participate, to be a catalyst for change on fairness and
2:48 pm
inclusion. at the time of her passing she was pursuing executive fellowship on research and development projects completed over the last five years of her work. she's survived by her sister angela r. jenkins and active resident leader and 20-year resident of district 6. i ask that we end in her memory and thank her for her work. >> thank you. supervisor mandelman. >> supervisor mandelman: i'm joined mayor breed that will allow san francisco to pilot a conservativeship program. by implementing this new law we'll have to ensure services for mentally ill and drug
2:49 pm
addicted individuals. introduction of this ordinance allows to start a conversation a will take some time. i believe it is imperative that we move the ball forward today. everyday the san franciscan suffer in our streets and jails for untreated mental illness is one day too many. we cannot continue to allow our neighborhoods to serve as open mental institutions and shelters as jails. sb1045 is not a cure all. it does offer a new tool to help people suffering from severe mental illness and addiction. it give us an opportunity to take a hard look to bill on what's working and fix what's broken. we haven opportunity and obligation to disrupt the status quo. it's my hope include process
2:50 pm
over the weeks and months, we will not add this new tool but treat it as an opportunity to evaluate and strengthen in programs we use and drug addicted homeless people. the reality is that we have many innovative program and dedicated nonprofit providers working everyday to address this crisis. these programs are not at the scale they need to be. we don't allocate resources with the problem. we have not given this issue the consistent and unrelenting focus it requires. the fact that sb1045 are not ace woes of our mental health and drug treatment system is not excuse for inaction.
2:51 pm
we must seize every opportunity to improve conditions of those suffering mental illness. i look forward working with you to make this program a successful and effective as possible. second, as the city moves forward implementation of s sb1045, the process of conserving individual begins involuntary hold. i want to thank supervisor stephanie for calling for a hearing on coordination of services for individuals suffering from substance abuse and mental health disorders. we need to know whether we currently use l.p.s. as efficiently and effectively. we need to understand why not. data shows last year they
2:52 pm
received 253 fewer referrals than in 2011. that is in 2011-2012 -- why are fewer individuals recommended for con -- i believe answering questions like these will improve our current importance to substance abuse. after the bla work is complete, we will be making are the full report available to members of the board and public. i will be requesting a hearing on the final report at that time and the rest i submit. >> thank you. supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: thank you madam clerk. it is with a very heavy heart that i would like to adjourn
2:53 pm
this board meeting in the memory of the 11 people who were murdered in pittsburgh together with my colleague supervisor ronen and supervisor mandelman maybe from the entire board in a anti--filled anti-semitic gun-toting rampage. they were all murdered on saturday morning by a neonazi in pittsburgh. it is unimaginable to me. it is the largest mass killing of jewish people in the united states of america. i want to associate myself with the resolution that supervisor stephanie will be introducing
2:54 pm
and as rabbi said, it's about love first. i held a hearing last week and thank the oversight committee for hearing the san francisco housing authority matter. they spent $29.5 million that they did not have. that's the bad news. compounded that audits in 2013 and 2017 showed that their fiscal house was in disorder. the good news is that it appears that the city will take over the housing authority. not just by appointing the members of its board but by actually taking over its day-to-day functions.
2:55 pm
i'm asking for a budget and legislative analyst report and will be introducing a motion to look at the structure of the city and corporation of san francisco housing authority and rest i will submit. >> thank you supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: thank you. i wanted to make a few remarks with the horrific killings at the tree of life, which was without a doubt, a heinous act of anti-semitism. it was clear he was targeting that synagogue because of the work they were doing to refugee. the killer posted in the immigrant aid society accusing them of bringing in invaders and worse. the extreme right has been obsessing about them and the
2:56 pm
work they've done to protect and assist refugees seeking asylum. the hatred inflamed by the current administration in washington are directed at all of us. i send my deepest sympathies to who's who loves ones. we are all in this together and we must fight back together. i find myself more and more speechless that after every horrific tragic mass killing that nothing seems to wake up this administration and congress to do something about the ability of assault rifles to
2:57 pm
people. i don't know what we need to wake us up. after every tragedy that is so hard to even understand, that is is heinous, nothing changes.+ i don't know what we're all supposed to do. what i do know is that we have to vote. we have to vote for representatives that don't do nothing after every single heinous mass murder in this country. please vote. thank you. >> thank you. supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: thank you fofor those words. i like to associate myself with the resolution she has coming forward in honor of the fallen victims a were murdered a hands
2:58 pm
of gun violence. i have an update we're submitting a clean ordinance of the labor agreement today. i want to thank my colleagues for all their hard work along with mayor breed and her leadership. we negotiated one -- i want to make a couple of key points in this negotiation. of expiration date of 20 years. we will have everyone union that's affiliate of the san francisco building construction trade and their affiliate will provide a pathway for direct entry. the project labor agreement will step down from $5 million to $1 million on bond only projects. starting at 5 and following years, three and then one. on nonbond projects, nonbond related, the threshold will
2:59 pm
remain $10 million. we will have an annual report from the comptroller giving us information on the annual data as it pertains to those in the industries, particularly the l.b.e. community and now they are performing with citywide projects. in perpetuity there will be $5 million credit or ramp where those that are applying for these projects, the p.l.a. will not count towards their work until they reach $5 million threshold. they're able to do $5 million worth of work. many cases, we're talking about micro l.b.e. they will have a significant rampup.
3:00 pm
after that point, the city wide negotiated p.l.a. will start at $5 million and go to three and one over a period. only after there's been a negotiated city widep.l.a. we have effective date and allow for a year for the city and affected parties to negotiate p.l.a. this was a lot of hard work. i want to thank supervisor peskin for all his hard work along with supervisor i fewer ad mayor proceed for calling us in at the end and asking all parties to knuckle down and come to an agreement. we were able to come to an agreement. the rest i submit. i wanted to differ an


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on