more housing. look, we all know the housing action coalition, we are a member supported nonprofit that supports housing at all levels of affordability. and just like you, we are well aware that san francisco is experiencing an affordable and displacement crisis being primarily caused by an underproduction of housing at all levels of affordability for the last 50 years. right? and we know that workers and people who work every day and the key workers and the teachers and the firefighters and the nurses and they are getting pushed further and further and further out of san francisco. and they have super commutes. they are driving two hours in each direction. and that is what is contributing to greenhouse gases and the climate change. it makes sense to look at where there is available land to develop and take old time car centric and gas stations and

parking lots and make it easier for developers to build housing at all levels of affordability and that makes sense in san francisco. we're going to have workers living closer to the urban centers and being able to walk and take public transportation. we're going to be building that next generation of housing and making space for my children, for your children, and your grandchildren. and so we really have something that we should all be coming together and every neighborhood needs to be a part of the solution. right? and welcoming new neighbors and new personalities into their neighborhood. and so this is really exciting and cars to casa is super, super important piece of legislation and one of the main things it is going to do is going to eliminate a conditional use and can delay housing for a year. we know environmentally that this is the right thing to do

and build on a parking lot or a gas station, let's go for it and eliminate that bureaucracy and i want to thank you mayor london breed for moving this forward and the state senator for the unyielding, unwavering leadership and it is my pleasure to introduce. >> good afternoon and thank you. my name is sarah chiu from an environmental justice nonprofit based in san francisco. we work on a variety of policy issues and programmatic work including youth leadership, air quality monitoring and job

training. and and significant changes in transportation are needed to help achieve our climate goals such as limiting global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees celsius or below and limiting carbon emissions for our city. the city should be moving to emission and prioritize public transit investment as new development occurs. this policy would make that this goes first and underutilize gas auto oriented land and to advance equitable, cleaner air in san francisco to impact low income and communities and households next to highways.

week emissions can exacerbate existing conditions like asthma f and long-term exposure can increase respiratory distress symptoms and airways, coughing and difficulty breathing. by transitioning more land away from auto oriented uses, this can bring a more climate resilient future for all the communities in san francisco. thank you. >> thank you so much. that concludes our presentation here today. and are there any questions? >> could you summarize what you are doing today? >> what we're doing is i am introducing legislation called cars to casas where the legislation will allow for us to

remove the conditional use process to speed up the ability to zone properties like this one that used to be a gas station and be able to places at the garages, gas stations, parking lots, car washes and things that mostly served and were zoned for car-related uses. and would allow for us to move forward in the process to build housing rather than go through an additional layer to remove a bureaucratic layer to add anywhere from 12 to 18 months to the process. >> pardon me. how is it going to streamline this process? so it changes -- >> an it changes the zoning of the properties. >> thank you. >> it says they don't have to -- and -- >> they don't need a conditional use. they don't need to go through that additional layer. they will be able to skip that entirely. that would be removed entirely

to the process. and francis scott key and there was another additional layer and added 18 months and you had to change the zoning to be used as a school and that is part of the challenge with the zoning laws and places to only be used for specific purposes and when you are changing the use of the places and a whole other process and the whole housing related process and if it is zoned for housing and we are saying the entire cities and the laws exist, we will automatically through the legislation say they are going to be automatically eligible if housing is an option and if someone wants to build housing and they don't have to go through the additional layer. that is the best way i can explain it. rich, do you want to add something to it?

>> you can speak in planning terms. >> just add to what the mayor said. and it gets rid of the process which can take anywhere from six months to 18 months. and it also gives project sponsors more flexibility and do more units on a parcel like this and is controlled and by the lot size and how many units you can do and gives flexibility and this project and 13 units or 12 units and they were pretty large. and gives us the possibility to do smaller, larger units and get rid of the process and get through the process quicker. >> can you spell your name? >> h-i-l-l-i-s. rich first name. >> and the director of the planning department. >> all right. any other questions? >> mayor, some of the mask rules are changing on friday?

>> they are? yay. >> and in certain settings and wait for a wider change around and will people be confuseed? >> do your best. we are all trying here. do your best. it's been a long time. >> [inaudible question] >> what was that? what was the first part? >> [inaudible question] >> several walgreens are closing, yes. the sad reality is in what we're facing and with a number of the crimes and to be clear is we all saw the person who rolled into a walgreens in their bike and robbed the store and that was what went viral all across the world and what didn't go viral is the fact this man has been arrested by the san francisco police department is behind bars and awaiting prosecution. and the fact the these crimes

sadly are horrible crimes and they impact the quality of life of the communities. and more importantly, what i want people and your mother and grandmother, your relative, they depend on places like wall greens and c.v.s. and target where they have pharmacies to get the medication. when these locations close in a community and then the entire community loses. the things that people want the most in the grocery stores and pharmacies and hardware stores and places that help support the community. and so part of what has to happen is we all as a city have to come together to, of course, hold perpetrators accountable but make sure that the investments we're making on the front end never make it possible for these crimes to be committed. the last thing we want to do is see this happen. we have been in touch with many of the retailers in san francisco. we work with the san francisco police department to revamp our

10b program so that these companies can hire off-duty police officers to serve as security at their locations and we have that happening and we redirected them in the locations that are the most problematic. ultimately we can't force a company to remain in san francisco, but we are trying to work with them and we want to make sure that they are doing a better job strategically around their security system to ensure that these crimes don't continue to happen. and our door is open. and we're continuing to have conversations with them. and we'll continue our police chief is working with them hand in hand. and as you see, the number of robberies with some of the establishments have slowed down considerably and i think some of the things that we have implemented are working but they're making this decision to move and that is going to be problematic for our city and we will continue to do that we can to improve the quality of life and safety and change their mind and come back. >> all right. thank you. >> thank you.

>> thank you, everybody. >> my apartment burned down 1.5 years ago in noba. my name is leslie mccray, and i am in outside beauty sales. i have lived in this neighborhood since august of this year. after my fire in my apartment and losing everything, the red cross gave us a list of agencies in the city to reach

out to and find out about various programs that could help us get back on our feet, and i signed up for the below market rate program, got my certificate, and started applying and won the housing lottery. this particular building was brand-new, and really, this is the one that i wanted out of everything i applied for. and i came to the open house here, and there were literally hundreds of people looking at the building. and i -- in my mind, i was, like, how am i ever going to possibly win this? and i did. and when you get that notice that you want, it's surreal, and you don't really believe it, and then it sinks in, yeah, i can have it, and i'm finally good to go; i can stay. my favorite thing about my home, although i miss the charm about the old victorian is

everything is brand-new. it's beautiful. my kitchen is amazing. i've really started to enjoy cooking. i really love that we have a gym on-site. i work out four days a week, and it's beautiful working outlooking out over the courtyard that i get to look at. it was hard work to get to the other side, but it's well worth it. i'm super grateful to the mayor's office of housing for having this for us. that was hard work. [ applause ] that was the longest earthquake i think i've ever been in. hi everyone. i'm san francisco mayor london breed and it's great to be here at the san francisco main library campus. i was just talking about how

this actual physical space used to be located where the asian art museum was and it was always so dark in that building and going through those on the second floor in that beautiful room now, the card catalog and most young people don't necessarily probably know what that is because of technology now adays and this library over many years has adapted to technology needs of this city with electronic books. in fact, i have the app in order to download books which also include audio books that you can borrow and can we extend that pass 21 days. i have to renew, download, you know, if no one's waiting on it, can i just extend and be given a new option? but anyway, it's great to be here. the great shake out all throughout california. and let me just take this moment to acknowledge and thank all of the people who work here

at the main be folks who work here not only serve the public and deal with sometimes very challenging circumstances. they were the first to raise their hands and say i want to be a disaster service worker and help my city. so thank you all so much. i'm so glad to see you back at work and i can tell under these masks, you're really smiling, right. and, today, we talk about earthquakes. it's really in san francisco, this is earthquake territory and it's not a matter of if the next one happens. it's a matter of when. and in 1989, we remember the giants were playing the a's in the world series. i was in the community that day and it was unbelievable. like that, i still remember where i was, how it felt like

the earth shook and the aftermath of it. right. the bay bridge. everyone was like the bay bridge fell. and part of the upper deck of the bay bridge did fall. the marina was absolutely devastated and our city suffered a tremendous loss and as a result we have continued to push and implement not only policies for soft story buildings and high-rises and ensuring that our buildings are seismically safe, but we also want to make sure that kids and families and people know what to do not only when an earth quake happens, but make sure we're prepared. we're not only here today with michael lambert as well as marry ellen carol of the department of emergency management who would be responsible if a disaster

happens, not if, but when a disaster happens and she's been leading the way on our covid response here in our city. we also have deputy chief david lizard from the san francisco police department who's responsible for the entire city and does a tremendous job as well as our amazing fire chief jeanine nicholson. we're in a situation -- who? oh, i'm sorry, paul. our sheriff paul miamotto is here. thank you for joining us, sheriff. all of our public safety personnel, they will be the front line of any disaster that hits san francisco. they have been at the forefront of this pandemic as well doing everything they can to serve and protect the people of san francisco, but in case of an earthquake, we come ready and prepared to do what's necessary

to help support and keep people safe. but here's what you can do, you can go to sf72.org because, listen, there are going to be a lot of people who may be in trouble, who may need help and our program that chief nicholson is very familiar with where volunteers from san francisco are trained to help in case of a disaster will be a tremendous asset when an earthquake happens and there is help needed. our police, fire, and sheriff, they'll be out there doing everything they can to help support the public and many of the city's disaster service workers who as a result of covid though what it takes in order to get prepared to distribute food and resources and other things. but ultimately. there might be someone and some people in some communities that need to just be prepared to be on your own for some time. and so sf72.org is a resource

where you can know the kinds of things that you need to update in your kids so that you have water and i say canned goods. so you may not need a can opener. just in case, maybe a can opener. so make sure that the things that you have in your emergency kit, your band aids, all of the stuff, it's not expired and you do. this is the time to remind people because we want them to do an annual check. and, secondly, i know we have technology and cellphones and people think i'm just going to call someone on my cellphone, but cellphone towers may be out. and i know this is impossible to believe, but there was a time where there weren't any cellphones and we rely on landlords so let's go back to prehistoric days when we needed those things and think about other ways in which we can communicate with our family and friends and hear the latest of

what's going on. you know, power may be down, so that's when you do need a battery powered radio where you can hear what's happening and finally because usually everyone is worried about where are their loved ones. when a disaster strikes, you want to make sure that even if you can't communicate with an electronic device or any other way, that you designate a meeting area and a specific timing after something occurs so that you can meet up and ensure everyone is safe. this today is a reminder for our state here in california that earthquakes happen, but we are prepared. we've been through this before. we're a resilient city. we bounced back and made san francisco even a better place as a result of the '89 earthquake. when you think about the freeway that was down at the embarcadero, many people may not remember that, but it was dark, dreary, it's not a place you went unless you were in a car. now, people are loving and

enjoying our water fronts and spending time down there at restaurants. it's a part of keeping you and your family healthy and safe and to protect our amazing city when an earth quake occurs. i want to introduce the department of public health, mary ellen carol. [ applause ] sorry. it's hard. go ahead. >> dr. colfax is on vacation. i'm mary ellen carol and the director of the department of emergency management. and, mayor, you can have my job. she really laid out exactly

everything to every detail about what to do to be prepared and we are really lucky to have the leadership of this mayor who takes emergencies seriously. i'm happy that we're all here in person again on 10/21. we got distracted for a bit by this global pandemic, but now we're able to refocus on other things and i want to echo the mayor's words about the library staff and i know many of you are here. we could not have responded the way we did and safe the live that is we did without the hundreds of incredible library staff and so we'll all incredibly grateful. and i just want to say to my partner over here your leader is incredible and never says no to anything and is always willing to step up. and, finally, these distinguished looking partners

behind me from fire and police and sheriff. these folks really are going to be the front line in an earthquake to save lives and to, you know, come to serve the public. so we're super grateful that they're here. you know, it is a matter of if not if, but when an earthquake happens and the mayor did such a great job of running through a lot of the things that you can do. going to sf72.org is a great place to start. it's also my dad's birthday, so it always makes me remember. but i have big gallons of water in my garage and so twice a year, i change those out, once in april during the 1906 and once during this. so there's just different things that you can be thinking of. i really can't see very well,

so i always really -- so for me having my extra set of glasses in a safe place especially next to my bed because otherwise i'm literally flying blind. having medication. all those little things that are important to your own family. finally, i just want to say that we as a city came together during the pandemic and the crisis that we went through and it was more than a second and it was really about community. and san francisco saves san francisco. i wasn't just standing here. it was about every single person here who did what they needed to do. they sacrificed. they got vaccinated. and in an event like an earthquake, it's going to be the same thing. we're really going to need to come together. what we learned during covid is that the most vulnerable among us become exponentially more vulnerable and for those of us

that don't have that vulnerability, that we're safely housed and we have the means, we really need to look out for our neighbors who aren't in the same situation and i know that we will. so, again, it's so great to be here. i'm so proud to serve under this mayor and with these colleagues. and, with that, i'm going to turn it over to our city librarian, michael lambert. [ applause ] >> thank you, madam mayor, and thank you director carol. thank you for choosing the san francisco public library for hosting this event today. i want to thank mayor breed and all of our special guests today. chief nicholson. deputy chief lizar. pete wong is here. i want to thank all of them for their strong leadership throughout this pandemic. their steady leadership is

proof that we are in the most capable hands in san francisco. and the library's been proud to partner throughout. we've been helping to keep our community safe, informed, and connected with high quality programming and collections. i want to echo the mayor and director carol and thank all of the library staff for their phenomenal service during covid. whether deployed as disaster service workers or holding down the fort to make sure that we can continue to deliver library services. i'm so proud of their extraordinary contributions. at the library, getting prepared for the next big one is something that we take very seriously. we've actually lost two libraries to earthquakes in the past. the old main library in 1906 and the mccreery branch in eureka valley in the 1960s. so i'm pleased to report that this main library is one of the safest buildings in the entire

city now. this building has an innovative seismic design that can withstand an 8.3 magnitude earthquake. so the library's always the place to be, but particularly during the next 'big one.' so thank you again for coming and participating in 'the great shake out.' [ applause ] >> thank you. that's it. >> all right.

>> flyshaker pool was a public pool located on sloat boulevard near great highway. it operated from 1925 to 1971 and was one of the largest pools in the world. after decades of use, less people visited. the pool deteriorated and was demolished in 2000. built by herbert flyshaker, pumps from the pacific ocean that were filtered and heated filled the pool. aside from the recreational activities, many schools held swim meets there. the delia flyshaker memorial building was on the west side of the pool. it had locker rooms with a sun room and mini hospital.

in 1995, a storm damaged one of the pipes that flowed to the ocean. maintenance was not met, and the pool had to close. in 1999, the pool was filled with sand and gravel. in 2000, the space became a spot for the san francisco zoo. these are some memories that many families remember swimming at flyshaker pool.

>> president walton: good afternoon and welcome to the october 19, 2021 regular meeting of the san francisco board of supervisors. madam clerk, will you please call the roll. >> clerk: thank you, mr. president. [roll call]

>> clerk: mr. president, you have a quorum. >> president walton: thank you so much. the san francisco board of supervisors acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the ramaytush ohlone, who are the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. as the indigenous stewards of this land, and in accordance with their tradition, the ramaytush ohlone have never forgotten nor ceded their responsibilities as caretakers in this place as well as all people who reside in their traditional territory. as guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their tradition homeland. we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the ramaytush ohlone community and

by affirming their sovereign rights as first people. colleagues, please stand with me and join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance. [pledge of allegiance] >> president walton: and on behalf of the board of supervisors, i would like to acknowledge the staff at sfgovtv. today, we are supported by kalina mendoza, who records each of our meetings and makes the transcripts available to the public on-line. madam clerk, are there any communications? >> clerk: yes, mr. president, and you instructed that when the mayor is logged in, that we will call that item to begin with. the mayor is logged in. >> president walton: thank you so much. we will now go to our 2:00 p.m.

special order, the mayor's appearance before the board. >> clerk: special order at 2:00 p.m. is the appearance by the honorable mayor london n. breed. there being no questions from supervisors representing districts 1 through 4, the mayor may address the board for up to five minutes. >> president walton: thank you, madam clerk, and welcome, madam mayor, and you have up to five minutes for remarks to this body. >> the hon. london breed: thank you, president walton, and good afternoon, supervisors. we are just a few weeks away from a really important date in our city, november 1. that's the day that all city employees will be required to come back to work. it'll be a big adjustment for some, but i also know it will help encourage our residents.

it will help our small businesses that are excited to welcome people back, and it will help us all get back to where we want to be as a city. the second thing that will happen on that day is that all those city employees who will be required to be fully vaccinated to perform their duties for the city and county of san francisco, i know there is a tendency, understandably so, to focus on those who aren't vaccinated and what those implications may mean for our city, but i want to take a moment to recognize all the city employees who are vaccinated. we're talking about 96% of our nearly 35,000 city workers. that's higher than any other jurisdiction that we are aware of. when we issued this mandate back in july, we knew there would be challenges, but i'm really proud how our workers

stepped up to protect themselves and the public, but there are still some who have not been vaccinated. as of november 1, these people will be suspended without pay and have a due process hearings, after which they can be terminated by the city. right now, we are in a number of due process hearings because they work in high risk settings, including 43 members of the police department and 46 on duty police officers, 26 members of the san francisco fire department, including 23 firefighters, and 243 employees of the department of public department including 125 employees at san francisco general hospital and 35 at laguna honda hospital. this is a part of the overall number of employees who weren't

vaccinated. we went from last week, over 1700, to 1,418 employees who aren't vaccinated. so many care about this city, and they care about their work. with the november 1 deadline fast approaching, i'm hopeful that we can get even more employees vaccinated. we are seeing improvements in m.t.a.s numbers to answer any questions that people have about covid-19 and the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, and we will continue to work with all employees that are vaccinated. i don't want to lose a single city worker. nobody does, but i won't sacrifice the health and safety of our workforce, the public, because we know that covid is not going anywhere, and we need to be prepared for the future.

i want to thank all of you for your support on this mandate and with a need for people to be vaccinated, we are continuing to lead the country in the vaccination rate. 83% of san franciscans are vaccinated, so we are well on our way to reopening, so whether you are answering questions for individuals or constituents or helping drive vaccinations and education events in our community, all of you are helping our city move forward. let's keep moving san francisco forward, let's keep doing what we need to keep our city moving forward, and thank you for the opportunity. >> president walton: thank you, madam mayor. and as mentioned, there were no questions submitted by supervisors from districts 1, 2, 3, and 4, so thank you, and

thank you for those statements there today. >> the hon. london breed: thank you very much, president walton. >> president walton: madam clerk, before we go to communications, i just want to call on deputy city attorney pearson to make a brief statement about why we are still wearing masks in the chamber. >> ms. pearson: deputy city attorney ann pearson. i've been asked a question why it is that we're still wearing masks today because many of you are familiar with the health officer's order that was effective on the 15th of this month, which, in some environments, relaxes the masking requirements and would allow people to go unmasked in small stable cohorts of people that are vaccinated. that order was issued this week. it was effective as of the 15th, but on city properties, d.h.r. has adopted its own policy regarding masking, which is a little bit more strict

than the health officer's office. so until they adopt a different citywide policy, we will be wearing mask, and if and when they revise it, they will be removed. >> president walton: thank you so much, ms. pearson. madam clerk, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes. for those of you watching the meeting, the most efficient way to provide up to two minutes of public comment is to use your touch phone where you will be in live synch to provide public comment. the number to call in is streaming on your screen. 415-655-0001, and when you hear the prompt, enter the meeting

i.d. 2488-489-6769. press pound twice, and you will know you've joined the meeting as a listener when you hear the discussion. when you hear your item, press star, three and listen carefully for the prompt that you have been unmuted, and you may begin your comment. now, i'll begin on what items are eligible for public comment. there are four special matters at 3:00 p.m.; items 43 through 47, and the texas street appeal conditional use authorization, items 51 through 54, the pine

street appeal of a final mitigated negative declaration, and item 55. this is a committee of the whole that the board has wanted to convene today to discuss the electric generation rates and charges for cleanpowersf. with respect to item 59, that's general public comment, you will be permitted to speak to the mayoral appearance, matters that are within the jurisdiction of the board of supervisors that are not on the agenda today, and hosting of items that were not in committee, these are items 64 and 65. all other items have had their public comment requirement fulfilled. the board will accept your written comments by u.s. mail. use the address san francisco board of supervisors, the number 1 carlton b. goodlett place, room 204, city hall, san

francisco, california, 94102. or you may use the e-mail address bos@sf.gov, and finally, there is -- if you are experiencing any trouble connecting to this meeting remotely, we do have a live clerk standing by in the clerk's office at 415-554-5184. we're happy to assist you in any way, and that concludes my statement, mr. president. >> president walton: thank you very much. and colleagues, just a friendly reminder to mute your microphones when you are not

speaking. today, we are approving the meeting minutes of september 7, 2021 board meeting minutes. can i have a motion, please? motion made by supervisor ronen. madam clerk, can i have a roll call vote, please. >> clerk: on the motion to approve the minutes -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: thank you. the minutes will be approved after public comment.

madam clerk, let's go to consent agenda, items 1 through 22. >> clerk: thank you. all matters listed hereunder constitute a consent agenda, are considered to be routine by the board of supervisors and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the board. >> president walton: thank you. and we can take this same house, same call. madam clerk, would you please call item 23. >> clerk: item 23 is an ordinance appropriating 35 million from the issuance of one or more series of special tax bonds of the cities community if a civics district 2014-1, and placing such

amounts on controller's reserve and appropriating 11.6 million of special tax revenues for funding related to the transbay transit center project in fiscal year 2021-22. quality wallet thank you. i don't see any questions or comments, so we will call this same house, same call. madam clerk, will you please call item 24. >> clerk: item 24 is ad ordinance deappropriating 400,000 previously appropriated to the office of economic and workforce development for the office of small business legacy business historic preservation fund and reappropriating 400,000 to e.c.n. to provide a new grant program for legacy businesses in fiscal year 2021-22. >> president walton: thank you. seeing no objection, we'll take

this same house, same call. madam clerk, please call item 25. >> clerk: item 25 is a resolution retroactively authorizing the recreation and park department to enter into and amend a grant contract with the california department of parks and recreation in the amount of 375,225. >> president walton: seeing no supervisors on the roster, we can take this same house, same call, and this item is adopted unanimously. madam clerk, can you call item 26. >> clerk: item 26 is a resolution approving amendment number 46 to the treasure island land and structures

master lease between the treasure island development authority and the united states navy to extend the term for one year to commence december 1, 2021, for a total term of november 19, 1998 through november 30, 2022. >> president walton: thank you. seeing no supervisors on the roster, we can take this same house, same call. madam clerk, would you call item 27. >> clerk: item 27 is a resolution approving an updated emergency declaration of the san francisco public utilities commission pursuant to san francisco administrative code, to replace and repair fences on sfpuc watershed land in alameda damaged by the s.c.u. lighting complex fire, increasing the total not to exceed cost.

>> president walton: thank you. seeing no one on the roster, we can take this same house, same call. madam clerk, would you please call item 28. >> clerk: item 28 is a resolution receipt owe actively authorizing the office of the district attorney to accept and expend a grant in the amount of 2.5 million from the california victim compensation board. >> president walton: thank you. seeing no objection, we can take this same house, same call, and the motion passes unanimously. madam clerk, would you call item 29 and 30, please? >> clerk: a resolution to purchase real property for the mission smart space senior,

l.l.c., 1320 mission street, for approximately 8.7 -- for 87 million. >> president walton: thank you, and seeing no one on the roster, we can take this item same house, same call. without objection, these resolutions are adopted unanimously. madam clerk, let's go to our 2:30 special order. [please stand by]

>> supervisor peskin: i'm delighted to partially welcome back our 2:30 p.m. special commendations even if they're still virtual, but this absolutely rises to the occasion given that after a long, long time, my good friend of some couple of decades, byron cobb is retiring from an incredible career as a cable car operator known as long the corridor and beyond from downtown to chinatown to knob hill all the way to van ness as the mayor of california street. and byron is not just a cable

car operator, but for those of you who have been down to the bell-ringing contest, you will know that he is the number one eight-time champion of that contest, a favorite only in san francisco, that i've gone to on a number of occasions to witness and cheer byron and his colleagues on. and i knew byron even before i ran for office 20 years ago as he expertly operated those cable cars up and down california street past grace cathedral and into chinatown. byron moved to the city at the age of 20 to get work alongside his uncle at muni and has been a staunch advocate for the cable car division and its union operators, especially during the battle over service cuts where he never hesitated to call me on my cell phone. and he's been a mentor.

he mentored and framed literally hundreds of cable car grips and operators on that 150-year-old technology of pulleys and brakes on our steep hills in the northeast corner of san francisco. and he did it with pride in his craft and a smile on his face and was really a community ambassador. byron helped swear me in when i came back to office in 2015 at the new asia restaurant in a classic, his own special way, which was with a full brass bell ringing celebration. he brought the cable car bells to the restaurant and everyone was thrilled to see his performance right in the middle of that banquet hall. and byron even met his wife who is lovely on the cable car and now the two of them have split

for florida and madrid where they will split their time in retirement, so that is the next bit chapter in their life adventure. and, byron, we're all very sad to see you go. and even though you wore that dodgers cap and claimed to be a dodger fan and are probably celebrating in that right now, you have been one of my favorite san franciscans and on behalf of the board of supervisors, i just want to celebrate you and wish you the best on our well-deserved retirement. the floor is yours, mr. cobb. >> hi, good afternoon. thank you for having me. are you there? okay. thank you for those nice words. but like you said, i love what i do. and i just hate to -- i would like to stay a little longer.

you know, when it's time to go, it's time to go. i miss the city. i'm going to miss my favorite three runs in the morning, two in the morning and one in the afternoon. and all the people that we used to meet, the locals. we've gone out for drinks. and i'm going to miss that. i'm going to miss my colleagues, especially those guys that are working with muni right now. i trained them all the way from wesley, bel-air to -- there are so many of them in management right now, now that i trained them. and i look back and i never imagined it, because i loved driving the cable car. it was something that once i did it, i did not want to move into management, period. and i can say i've known for 20

plus years, before you even started, and went into politics and i know when i met you that day on california and van ness. i'll never forget that day. it will always be with me. it will always be with me. so i appreciate you honoring me and the board of supervisors and also the mayor. and like i said, i'll miss it, but i love it, but it's time to move on like you say. but you know what? there is always a rainbow at the end of the clouds and the clouds are the rainbow. that's the way i look at it. >> supervisor peskin: come back and visit, byron, or we'll come and visit you in spain. >> you'd be more than welcome to. i'll be back on the 1st of december for one day, 8 hours and 30 minutes and that's it. i'm gone [laughter]. >> president walton: thank you so much for your service, mr. cobb. we truly appreciate you and

enjoy your retirement. i wish i could live in two places, but i do really just want you to know how much we appreciate your service. thank you. >> you're welcome. thank you. >> president walton: thank you so much. with that, this concludes our 2:30 p.m. special commendation. madame clerk, can we go back to item 31. >> item 31 is a resolution to negotiate and enter into a sublease agreement on behalf of the department of homelessness and supportive housing for the property owned by the california state lands commission and leased to the california department of parks and recreation fork the city's use as a vehicled triage center at candlestick point recreation area for a two-year term with rent to be paid with estimated value at $1.8 million and to take certain actions in furtherance of the sublease as

defined herein and adopt the appropriate findings. >> president walton: thank you, madame clerk. seeing no one on the roster, we can take this same house, same call. without objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. madame clerk, please call item 32. >> item 32 is an ordinance to adopt and implement amendment number 2, to the 2017 through 2021 memorandum of understanding between the city and the committee of interns and residences, with the term extension for one year and to update the patient care fund provision and to eliminate obsolete language. >> president walton: thank you, madame clerk. seeing no one on the roster, we can take this item same house, same call. without objection, this ordinance is passed unanimously on first reading. madame clerk, please call item number 33. >> item 33 is a resolution to

respond to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations contained in the 2020-21 civil grand jury report entitled van ness avenue, what lies beneath and to urge the mayor through her department heads and through the development of the annual budget. >> president walton: thank you, madame clerk. seeing no one on the roster, we can take this same house, same call. without objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. madame clerk, please call item 34. >> item 34 is a resolution to authorize the director of property to sell up to $1.2 million in gross square feet of transferrable development rights from city hall located at the number 1 dr. carlton b. goodlett place, at or above fair market value, to execute or record certificates of transfer.

to -- >> president walton: supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, president walton. i just want to express my gratitude to mr. pennic for incorporating a number of changes to the legislation as originally proposed. i was worried that some money might be left on the table. i think those issues have been ameliorated by the resolution in front of you. thank you, mr. pennic, for your cooperation. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor peskin. seeing no one on the roster, i believe we can take this same house, same call. madame clerk. can you call item 35. >> item 35 is a resolution of intention to add territory and to make amendments to order and set a time and place for a

public hearing of the board of supervisors sitting as a committee of the whole on january 11, 2022 at 3:00 p.m. and to provide public notice thereof pertaining to the city and county of san francisco rifd or the revitalization financing district number one at the treasure island. >> president walton: thank you, madame clerk. colleagues, supervisor haney. >> supervisor haney: sorry, it's actually 36 that i need to continue. >> president walton: no worries. seeing no one else on the roster. we'll take this same house, same call. without objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. madame clerk, please call item 36. >> item 36 is a resolution to authorize the director of the office of public finance or designee thereof to prepare a

financing plan or irfd for the project area therein and to determine other matters as defined herein also pertaining to the revitalization financing district number 1 or treasure island. >> president walton: thank you, madame clerk. supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: thank you. i want it make a motion to continue this item to next week's board meeting on the 26th. >> president walton: thank you. do we have a second? seconded by supervisor chan. madame clerk, on the motion to continue to next week 10-26 meeting? >> on the motion to continue item 36 to october 26, supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: aye. >> supervisor walton: aye. >> supervisor chan: aye. >> supervisor haney: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye.

>> supervisor melgar: aye. >> supervisor peskin: aye. >> supervisor preston: aye. >> supervisor ronen: aye. >> supervisor safai: aye. >> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: thank you. and without objection, this motion to continue this resolution to the october 26th, 2021 meeting is approved unanimously. madame clerk, please call item 37. >> item 37 is an ordinance to amend the planning code and small business zoning controls in chinatown and north beach and on polk street. to allow neighborhoods serving philanthropic uses in chinatown with conditional use authorizations among other changes. >> president walton: thank you, madame clerk. seeing no one else on the roster, we'll take the item same house, same call. without objection, this

ordinance is passed unanimously on first reading. madame clerk, please call item number 38. >> item 38 is an ordinance to amend the health code, the planning code and the police code to extend various cannabis sunset dates and to make the appropriate findings. >> president walton: thank you. seeing no one else on the roster, we'll take this same house, same call. without objection, this ordinance is passed unanimously on first reading. madame clerk, would you please call item 389. >> item 39 is a resolution to declare the intention of the board of supervisors to rename the stairwell at sonora lane between o'farrell street, which runs parallel to st. joseph and is perpendicular to o'farrell street, to --

>> president walton: thank you, madame clerk. supervisor mar? >> supervisor mar: thank you, president walton. i would like to be added as co-sponsor and want to thank supervisor stefani for bringing this forward and, of course, thank the family of grandpa for their courage in fighting for justice for grandpa veatch and also playing a central role in organizing to stop aaip hate here in san francisco. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor mar. >> supervisor haney: i also want to thank supervisor stefani and the family and ask to be added as a co-sponsor. thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor haney. >> supervisor safai: thank you, mr. president. i, too, would like to be added to supervisor self-ny and the family for all their courage and thank you for prioritizing this. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor safai. >> supervisor melgar: i would like to be added as a co-sponsor

as well, thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor melgar. supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: thank you, president walton. i just want to thank my colleagues for adding their name as a co-sponsor to this very important resolution. i know it's going to mean a lot to the family. in committee, i had to amend the resolution to include 2000 more hate incidents involving asian americans and pacific islanders nationwide. so this is a problem that continues and doing something like this will help the family heal and it will definitely continue to call attention to the hate crimes we're experiencing and hopefully do everything we can to put a stop to that. thank you very much. >> president walton: thank you. supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: please add me as a co-sponsor. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor preston. >> supervisor mandelman: me, too. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor mandelman. supervisor peskin added as a

co-sponsor. supervisor ronen would like be to added and supervisor walton would like to be added. >> noted. >> president walton: thank you for noting that, madame clerk. thank you, colleagues. and seeing no one else on the roster, we can take this same house, same call. without objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. madame clerk, there are going to be some amendments proposed for item 40, so we're going to move to item 41. >> item 41, mr. president, i understand there was a mistake in this title. i sincerely apologize outright to ms. howie for not catching the mistake. i believe my office is responsible. we sincerely apologize and now reading the title as noticed. item 41 is motion to appoint howie madeleine, autumn, jason

and tracy jacks to the market and octavia community advisory committee. >> president walton: thank you. supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: thank you, president walton. and i want it thank all the nominees for these positions. i spoke extensively about them and they spoke in committee so i won't repeat comments. i want, per madame clerk's comments, go ahead and amend the long title and short title to reflect madeleine howie's correct name to reverse both in the long and short title. >> president walton: thank you. is there a second? seconded by supervisor safai. on the motion to amend the title, made by supervisor preston and seconded by supervisor safai. madame clerk, i believe we can

take that same house, same call? >> without objection. >> president walton: correct, we'll take that without objection. the motion carries. and seeing no one else on the roster, we can take the amended item, same house, same call. without objection, this motion is approved unanimously. madame clerk, please call item number 42. >> item 42 is a resolution to urge the department of children, youth and their families, dcyf to require all organizations receiving funding to have a youth age 14-24 years old on their board of directors by 2023. >> president walton: thank you so much. seeing no -- supervisor haney, my apologies. >> supervisor haney: i'll be added as a co-sponsor. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor haney. seeing no one else on the roster, we'll take this item same house, same call. without objection, this

resolution is adopted unanimously. madame clerk, we still have a minute before it's 3:00, so let's go to item number 56. >> item 56 and 57 were considered by the rules committee at a regular meeting on monday, october 18, 2021. and were forwarded as committee reports. item 56 is an ordinance to amend the administrative code to repeal the city employees sexual privacy ordinance. >> president walton: thank you so much, madame clerk. seeing no one on the roster, we can take this item same house, same call. without objection, this ordinance is passed unanimously on first reading. madame clerk, please call item number 57. >> item 57 is ordinance amending the administrative code to

extend the sunset date for the cannabis oversight committee from december 3, 2021 to january 1, 2025. >> president walton: thank you, madame clerk. seeing no one on the roster, we will take this item same house, same call and without objection, this ordinance is passed unanimously on first reading. madame clerk, let's go to our first roll call if supervisor stefani is ready. >> supervisor stefani up to introduce new business. >> supervisor stefani: thank you. today i have a few being centered around fee waivers. i'm introducing another piece of legislation to encourage shopping local and activating our commercial corridors, our small businesses rely heavily on the holiday season for sales and as this time approaches i'm introducing ordinance to temporarily waive the fee required for sidewalk sales for the first two weekends of the

december. i hope i will have your support in this effort to support local merchants. i want to thank supervisor mandelman for his co-sponsorship. also in partnership with the mayor's office i'm introducing a three-year waiver of banner fees for the shop and dine in the 49 campaign. annually, in collaboration with shop small in san francisco's buy local campaign. they coordinate the shop and dine to promote local businesses and challenge residents to do their shopping and dining within san francisco. these banners help publicize the campaign in major corridors. this campaign also supports small business saturday, the annual marquis event of the campaign which takes place on the first saturday after the thanksgiving holiday. oewd plans to replace the banners no later than one year after posting them. this is an annual effort, but this year we need to support our

small businesses. they were devastated bit pandemic. thank you again to the mayor's office and to the office of economic and workforce development for your work on this. thank you, again, supervisor mandelman. finally, i'm introducing a resolution urging the u.s. senate to reauthorize the violence against women act. the violence against women act 1994 was the first legislation to address violence against women and its passage meant that it was caused by domestic and sexual violence. it's reauthorization would invest in prevention programs, improve victim services, help stop abusers from obtaining firearms, and more. in the united states, one in four women experience sexual vines, physical violence and or stalking by a partner in their lifetime. locally, here, 70% of victims in

domestic violence incidents are women and half are black and latinx. the pandemic left women trapped at home with their abusers and we sought 241 domestic-related calls to 911 in san francisco. domestic violence-related calls. october is not only domestic violence awareness month, but also is a time to reaffirm our commitment to take action around violence against women. i look forward to calling on our senate delegation to pass this legislation and the rest i submit. >> thank you, supervisor stefani. >> president walton: submit. >> supervisor chan: thank you, madame clerk. colleagues, today i'm introducing a resolution to recognize october as children's environmental health month. environmental hazard in the surrounding of our neighborhood such as lead exposure, the quality of our air, water, food and chemicals in everyday

products, including plastics can affect a child's development, growth and developmental milestones. all too often, disparities stemming from environmental hazards have most disproportionately impacted children and families in communities of color. we owe it to our communities to tackle racial inequity including and especially environmental health. at a local level our department of public health has a dynamic program working to promote multilingual information, education, reports and training around addressing lead in health homes. throughout the month, a series of free educational briefings is being organized. bringing together speakers and resources to discuss pediatric

asthma, pest side, children's health, fires, fossil fuel and pediatric cancers. challenging us to think how we can critically and proactively work together to tackle this on a local, global and system level. so, thank you to president walton for cosponsorering this resolution and thank you to the alliance for nurses for helping environment who are organizing nurses to become advocates in helping to elevate awareness to this issue of children's environmental health. the rest i will submit. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor chan. supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: rerefer, please. >> thank you. supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: thank you, colleagues. i have a few items today. first, i'm introducing a resolution urging facebook, twitter, google and other major online platforms to take responsibility for the harmful effects of their products.

two weeks ago facebook whistleblower appeared on "60 minutes" to inform the public about the harms from her former employer. she's hardly the first person to raise the alarm, but she is the first to share internal research revealing that facebook has full knowledge of how dangerous its products are. it includes a myriad of disturbing findings, including 32% of teen girls said when they felt bad about their bodies, instagram made them feel worse. among young people who reported suicidal thoughts, 6% traced it to instagram. it's an algorithm that keeps people on the platform as humanly possible and make as much money as possible. that quest sets far too many of us changing a dopamine feedback loop that results in dependency. demonstrate how acutely aware

facebook leadership are aware of the harm by their product. a thorough investigation conducted by the "wall street journal" following the leak found that facebook has refused to fix the situation. instead giving priority to retaining users, helping business partners and at times placating authoritarian governments. the investigation highlights alarming anecdotes such as the time facebook employees tried to alert that armed groups in ethiopia and others were utilizing the platform to have most of their concern go unaddressed. this is not the first time we've had to hold social media companies accountable. we've noticed the homophobic attacks that senator wiener endured and we condemn social media platforms for their failure to protect users from hate speech. this march, they released a report which found that just 12

people are responsible for up to 65% of anti-vaccine content on facebook, instagram, google and twitter. these 12 people continually violate the terms of service, yet a few minutes of searching show that seven of them have active twitter accounts. while we're lucky to have high vaccination rates in san francisco, i can't help but wonder how much higher they could be in our communities. which is why i'm introducing this resolution calling on all major social media platforms to step up, take responsibility for the damages they've done and do better going forward. this will require full implementation of the disinformation, including removing all 12 users from their platforms. this further urges social media to demonstrate a refresh commitment to responsibility by making all research public, hiring additional staff to review content and limiting the

number of hours users can be on a platform per day. [please stand by] [please stand by]

>> supervisor mandelman: unfortunately, that's the opposite of what happened. people were not being informed that their street would be completely inaccessible. the issue isn't that the notice wasn't sent before the project, but it's a completely inaccurate reflection of the project. until i let them know i was considering holding a hearing. obviously, we can't hold hearings every time our constituents are inconvenienced by construction, but i am concerned that the mistakes made on this project reflect a pattern of disregard for residents and a lack of sufficient protocol. at this hearing, i plan to identify best practices and redundancies that can be implemented to ensure all residents receive equitable information about any infrastructure projects that will impede access to their

streets or sidewalks. i want to thank residents of castro street who have been enormously affected by this project. i want to thank jackie hill for her work on this and i look forward to looking more on how this debacle unfolded. and, lastly, colleagues. lastly, my colleagues talked about their dream of opening a wine bar. while she was calling, when she went to the planning department to find out what she needs to do, she was told it wouldn't be possible. as it turns out, bars are not allowed in the castro neighborhood commercial district. now, that may come as a surprise to any of you who have visited the castro.

they're all grandfathered in. this is a very good thing for those bars, but it's not such a great thing for this lesbian business owner or others like her who might want to add something. since that conversation, i've had a chance to discuss the question with a lot of folks in the napd and the prevailing sentiment seems to be that it doesn't seem fair that it doesn't from opening alcohol serving establishments in the neighborhood. this is especially true in a neighborhood that's set the high retail vacancies and is struggling to get back on its feet after the we've heard from stakeholders who don't want to see a complete flux of new bars that might not have as much history with the queers we know

today. the prohibition on new bars in the castro which to be clear covers castro from market and for the planning commission suits how well the proposal. this should be including the upper market m.c.t. which runs up market street from castro to church and runs a number of other gay bars and queer spaces that have successfully opened there. this is a relatively new piece of legislation but i hope the castro will become a welcoming neighborhood and i hope you all will agree and we can pass it and i will submit the rest. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, supervisor mandelman. since it's 3:00 p.m., we'll

return to roll call introductions beginning with supervisor mar at a later time. mr. president. >> president walton: thank you so much, madam clerk. would you please call items 43-46. >> clerk: items 43 through 46 were continued from july 2021 and september 28th, 2021. for a hearing in persons interested in a conditional use authorization for a proposed project at 575 vermont street to allow demolition of an existing single-family home and a 44' tall residential building. containing two dwelling units, one accessory dwelling unit, one automobile parking space, and three class one bicycle parking spaces the associated motions with this appeal. >> president walton: thank you, madam clerk. colleagues, both the appellant

have requested the additional time to finalize their agreement. with that, i would like to make a motion to continue items 43 to 46 to the november 2nd, between 21 meeting. can i get a second? seconded by supervisor peskin. >> clerk: mr. president, we may have some callers in the queue who would like to speak to the continuance. >> president walton: my apologies. we'll now take public comment on the motion to continue. >> clerk: operations, do we have any callers interested in speaking about the continuance of items 43-46, please. welcome just press star three to get back into the queue.

at the time the item is called get back into the queue to speak. do we have any other callers, operations? okay. all right. welcome, caller. okay. we are taking public testimony on -- welcome caller. we can hear you. >> caller: [inaudible] >> clerk: press star three to put you back into the queue to speak for another item. we are taking public comment on the continuance of items 43-46 november 2nd, 2021. let's hear from our next caller. welcome. there are four of you lined up to speak on this item.

>> i'm trying to get out of it. star three. >> clerk: sir, are you interested in speaking to the continuance of these items? 43-46? >> caller: negative, ma'am. 46-49. >> clerk: all right. you can hang up or press star three to enter back into the listening queue. welcome, caller. >> caller: hello. good afternoon supervisors. i'm a former tenant of 249 texas street. i [inaudible] from november 2014 until november 2018 with the valencia family. the other side lawyer made it seem like the leases --

>> clerk: sir. i'm pausing your time. i'm sorry, sir. i believe you're speaking to 249 texas street. that item has not yet been called. we appreciate your patience. just press star three, that will move you back into the listening queue. okay. currently, we're taking am testimony on the continuance for 43-46 to november 2nd. is there another caller in the queue. all right. operations, maybe we should go to the next caller. all right. welcome, caller.

all right. it appears the callers in the queue may be ready to speak to a different item. let's try one more time. operations, do we have another caller in the queue interested in speaking to the continuance in the items 43-46 to november 2nd. we welcome your comments. >> madam clerk, there are now callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you, kindly. mr. president. >> president walton: thank you. seeing no other speakers, public comment is now closed. now on the motion to continue this appeal to november 2nd made by supervisor walton, seconded by supervisor peskin. madam clerk, would you please call the roll. >> clerk: on the motion to continue items 43-46 to november 2nd, 2021, [roll call]

there are eleven ayes. >> president walton: without objection to continue this hearing and motions to november 2nd, 2021, is approved unanimously. madam clerk, can you call our next 3:00 p.m. special order items 47-50. >> clerk: items 47-50 were continued open july 7th, 2021. it's interest in the aprom of a personal at 249 texas street to demolish the existing 3,908

single-family dwelling. and construct a new three-story 4,364 square foot residential building containing two dwelling units above a garage with two offstreet parking spaces within the rh2 zoning district and a 40x height zoning district. to approve a item 49 is a motion to disapprove the department's decision by the board in support of this determination. this item has an eight-vote threshold. and item 50 to the preparation of finding in support of the board's disapproval of the proposed conditional use authorization. >> president walton: thank you, madam clerk. colleagues, we have before us a hearing on the appeal of a

conditional use authorization for the project at 249 texas street. the board will vote to approve or disapprove the planning commission's approval of the conditional use authorization at 249 texas street. without objection, we will proceed as follows. up to 10 minutes for a presentation by the appellant or their representative. public comment, two minutes per speaker in support of the appeal. up to 10 minutes for a presentation from the planning department. up to 10 minutes for the project sponsor. public comment, two minutes per speaker in opposition to the appeal. and, finally, up to three minutes for rebuttal by the appellant or their representative. are there any objections to

proceeding this way? seeing no objections, the public hearing will proceed as indicated and is now open. and now i don't have any brief comments at this time. i will have comments at the end of the appeal. i don't see anyone on the roster. so we will now ask the appellant to come forward and present their case and you have up to 10 minutes and i believe we have the presenters present. >> thank you. honorable president walton and board of supervisors, thank you for your time today. i'm speaking for the opposition which includes 60 neighbors, over 60 neighbors who are not represented by council. what started as concern for our

homes evolved into something bigger when we encountered a rigged system. we had the privilege to investigate and appeal with the support of many union coalition and community leaders who backed us, but we remain concerned about the cases where people can't or don't know how to fight back. to justify a demolition they deemed necessary and desirable by stating the existing building as a single-family home that will be replacing a two-unit home. that's adding housing stock. in reality, a two-unit naturally affordable rent control building that housed two working families for decades will be replaced with a

studio basement for one family. yet, at the first hearing, both planning and the sponsor repeatedly denied the existence of the second unit even after it became evident. the sponsor falsified the plans that showeded the interior of the second unit. these plans change at every single iter ration of the case to cover up the fact that exists a second unit with three bedrooms, all code compliant ceiling heights. two of them getting lots of natural light from their windows. all of them have either internal or mounted closets. in fact, it was remodeled in 2016 as we showed in our brief. the analysis we are referring as a necessary and desirable project that adds housing. the exact opposite will be true. naturally affordable rent controlled housing will be permanently destroyed. invoking sb-330 is neither here

nor there because they never net planning code section 317 in the first place. even if they had netted, invoking sb30 in the planning bull 10 would violate the law. after the fraud was exposed at the first hearing, the planning commission triggered a continuance so the planner and the architect could go and get their stories straight. witnesses met with director rich hillus on april 14th where he apologized for the planning department's mistakes. we should just focus on seeking a pro myself on design and put these compromises forward at the next continued hearing. so we followed his guidance. we put forth our compromises

and we wanted to protect the tenants. according to planning code section 303 there was a cover-up of material information. despite director hillus' promise to be transparent and moving forward for which they openly thanked planning for helping them to creatively and interpret and apply sb330 to their benefit. planning to the sponsor were to reveal now, allowing the attorney to comment on portions of the city's brief or writing part of the city brief is a failure of judgment. the sponsor's deception regarding the existence of the second unit was never mentioned again in front of the planning

commission. the continuance was supposed to address the prior. this created a lot of confusion to the public and we believe to the commission. we suspect that planning encourages neighbors many of which we've met throughout the city who think that they don't stand a chance and that they should just nip and tuck they should ask for nip and tuck to the other buildings for planning mistakes and this is how projects get pushed through at the expense of affordable housing. invoking sb330 is counter to the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. the bill is meant to retain affordable housing and address the housing crisis. it's not meant to be used as a loophole for the wealthy to evade section 317. invoking sb330 without complying with its own requirements is also unlawful.

they need a separate application which they never filed. two, they would need to replace the bottom protected unit with a comparable unit. now, even if the unit is unauthorized, the bulletin makes it clear that u.d.u.s get the same exact protection as authorized units. three, they would deed restrict the bottom unit that they build to 50% of 80% of adjusted income. planning said it was too difficult for them to file their own requirements and bulletin. if you can't determine the and, by the way, it was not that hard. we have tracked down that tenancy with ease. now, planning requires to follow only one criteria of

sb30 which confused everybody. so to -- they said they would put both units under rent control which is smoke and mirrors. the building can never inherently be affordable. the misuse of sb330 as a way to circumvent a clear violation of the general plans which makes it clear you cannot trade the existing rent control housing for units of market rate housing. further, only four to maybe six at most of the 18 criteria were met under section 317. the sponsor and the department justifieded the demolition by saying to bring the u.d.u. up to code would be financially burdensome and unfeasible. commissioner imperial found this baffling and we agreed.

but really, think about this. to build an entire new luxury large home almost 500,000 square feet, four stories, luxury features and elevator full of glass picture windows is listed in the city record as a permit for $815,000 but to legalize the second unit below is $416,000. it just doesn't add up. as a cost of suring up the foundation for the whole structure. conflating these costs. even if our quote is an underestimate, it is nowhere near 400,000 excavate less than

a foot of 20% to 50% of the area at most of the living room that doesn't have code compliant ceilings. now, there never has been nor will there ever be any set of facts to support demolition under the current laws today. not for the planning code, not the mayor's directive and not the general plan. citing sb330 just makes it like there's no other option to approve. the sponsor has really hammered the napd. they set their high-powered attorney on us. he's using undue influence on our neighbors to get letters of support. and every letter of support was either outside the neighborhood or a couple of letters within the actual radius of where we live and those people never participating in the prior commission hearing. now an overwhelming and intimidating display, they have hired one of the most powerful

lobbying firms in san francisco for residents in a middle and working class neighborhood. this family had the right to remodel, but no demolition can be permitted. find a way to retain the existing second unit with deed restrictions on rent control and income for the law and no more cheating with the help of planning. start back at square one with a plan for a reasonable remodel and be transparent and respectful to this neighborhood. pay restitution to tenants who were mistreated during the height of the pandemic. the tenant's union is going to speak about that later today. we urge you to listen closely to the public comment, especially the former owner, the tenant unit and the tenants who took off time to be here today from their jobs. was i just cued to finish? >> clerk: yes. that is correct.

>> thank you. >> president walton: now, at this time, we are going to open this up for public comment specifically for those who would like to speak in support of the appeal. madam clerk. >> clerk: the board will now hear public testimony specific to items 47-50, the appeal of conditional use authorization approval for 249 texas street. you'll have up to two minutes to provide testimony in support of the appeal or against the project. a bit later in the hearing, the board will hear testimony from the speakers in support of the project. currently, the telephone number should be streaming on your screen. it's (415) 655-0001. when you hear the prompt enter meeting id 24484896769. press pound twice and you'll have joined the meeting as a

listener. you'll hear the discussion, blue you'll be muted. to be added to the speaker's queue, you'll press star three and when it is your turn, the system will send you a prompt. listen carefully for you have been unmuted and just begin speaking your comments. with us today we have interpreters from office of civic engagement and immigrant affairs. i'd like each interpreter to introduce themselves. for cantanese we and spanish. welcome. we are grateful for your service. >> translator: [speaking foreign language] thank you.

>> translator: [speaking spanish]

. >> translator: [speaking foreign language] . >> clerk: all right. thank you all for being with us today. now, let's get to the testimony. we have 47 listeners and there

are 18 callers in the queue ready to provide testimony. we're setting the timer for two minutes. operations, let's hear from our first caller, please. welcome, callers. >> caller: hi. my name's mary bockturn and i'm a mother of three boys with deep roots in san francisco. i know how hard it is to organize the neighborhood and i commend the appellants to come forward and not back down. they're not being treated unfairly and are being discriminated against. they own a large two-unit property in noe valley and one other property in sunset. in addition to the property in the hills they would like to build their dream home. their attorney is a regular fixture at the planning department and a registered

lobbyist themselves who has stuck an even more lobbyist on the case. this behavior's not okay for any part of san francisco. their architect who works with the planning department and has developed guidelines has built cookie cutter homes throughout the city which includes sham studios and in-laws with skirted regulations. at the expense of affordable housing and the desires of the countless neighbors. they are refusing to meet with the neighborhood themselves. then when our architects and attorneys lie on record, they say we are not the liars. they say if we're professional, you hire and pay to do your doing and do your bidding, then it's all the same thing. let's just focus on following the law. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, do we have another caller in the queue who is

interested in providing testimony regarding the appeal of the texas street project items 47-50? welcome, caller. >> caller: counselor with the san francisco tenants union calling in support of the appeal. neighbors and advocates contacted planning staff long before their commission report to plan out the importance of a second unit and tenants currently living at 249 texas street. appellants asked for a counseling while project permits were being reviewed. the rosy story the architect told the tenants in june was not true. now, the sponsors finally admit the departure was due to a

covid related lay off and their refusal to renegotiate through a crashing housing market and eviction moratorium. for years, we have tried to get planning to acknowledge and harm done to them by renovations or demolitions. repeatedly, we are told that planning staff can only concern themselves with code compliance. still, the general plan is quite clear that protecting existing rentals is a priority assigned to them. our experience with the planning department has been beyond frustrating. being 63 of the planning staff forgot to turn off track changes. for the public and offered comments to the draft. we wish tenant advocates had this privileged access. this cozy relationship is

highly unethical and if that's what's happening at d.b.i., there should be a procedure to investigate. whether tenants and rent controlled units exist before issuing permits. we need to honor the general plans objective to preserve rent control housing and you can do that today. but reform is required of permit approval procedures so demolishing units does not foster tenant displacement. >> clerk: thank you to the caller. all right. let's hear from our next caller in the queue, please. welcome, caller. >> caller: good afternoon, board of supervisors. i am a bi-racial and transgender person. i've tracked this case since the first hearing on march 1st so i want to take time today to

focus you on a pattern from a policy standpoint. it is the mischaracterization that makes it easy for them. the department of alteration permits filed over the past three years includes over 180 permits of which at least 110 and permits to legalize an authorized unit. 60% of the applications received offer unauthorized units located in single family homes. it is safe to assume that single family homes are the most common building types. this conduct of the situation in the present case. in the present case, the department did not even bother to go through the analysis before rushing to recommended

approval. mayor london breed wanted to fast track building. it's not meant to it's not a good use of resources that the board of supervisors has to spend their time during the planning commission and the planning department's job. staying with the middle and working class. stand against gentrification. thank you for your time. >> clerk: all right. we have 15 listeners and 14 callers in the queue. let's hear from the next caller. welcome, caller. >> caller: good afternoon. my name is jerry dratler with the san francisco land use coalition. i'm in support of the appeal. the project sponsors presented in the plan to demolish a

single-family home at 249 texas street that was actually two units of rent controlled housing. the first floor was a three-bedroom unit and the second floor was a two-bedroom unit. when their story fell apart, the project sponsor under sb 330 without filing an sb330 application and without adhering to the planning department. the plan approved by the planning commission does not comply with sb330. it reduces the first floor unit from three bedrooms to a studio apartment and increases the number of bedrooms on the second floor unit. this results in a reduction and the moderately affordable housing unit in san francisco. i'm asking the board of supervisors to disapprove the

conditional use authorization for 249 texas street. the board of supervisors allows the planning department and the planning commission to consistently disregard their own rules. in a few years, the planning department and the planning commission will be as bad as the department of building inspection and the building inspection commission. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right. operations, do we have another caller in the queue who would like to provide testimony in support of the appeal or against the proposed texas street project. welcome, caller. >> caller: hi. i'm a hispanic mother of two children. i grew up as a daughter of working class people. we had hardly anything and i was happy. let's make sure in san francisco w-we continue to allow the people to make san francisco a place to live.

make it so that the only rich. the project sponsors with the help of the city that's supposed to be neutral. one that has the facility on top and the other working class of family and renters. all over the city, planning reports all over the criteria to meet the demolition doesn't add up. when right now there are two rent controlled family housing such as teresa lando. she's in her 60s and has been rent controlled for over 20 years next door. they're both public health workers working for the most vulnerable people in our society with the long demo the

sponsor getting the support of their attorney or through their kids private school is incredibly inappropriate for a matter like this. it doesn't take long to read between the lines in this case and what is happening. during this tough time in history. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right. we have 49 listeners and 17 callers in the queue. operations, let's hear from our next caller, please. >> caller: good afternoon. this is bruce bowan. others are detailing the specifics of the appellant's analysis with shortcomings and failings the commission district and authorized conditional use for this project. the impacts of this proposed development on the city's existing relatively affordable

existing stock and also the impact of the planning department and commission's compliance with their own procedures and applicable law including this case, sb330. i'd just like you to be this architect is replacing units with larger and larger monster homes. the planning department analysis staff determined that 40% of relevant demolition to the city was under this architect. and he is responsible for 40% of these demos also. these projects have also evolved so you should be careful with the testimony. however, i know these previous demolitions have not involved demos of rent units or

misplacement of facts needed. this project is alarming. this is expanding and with this case, you have the record to do so. please approve the appeal. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, let's hear from our next caller, please. >> caller: hi. i'm a tenants rights council and i support the appeal for 249 texas. i just joined this in the last hour in case some of the tenants would not be able to call in because they're working. when i learneded about what's going on, i was appalled by the fraudulent behavior of the sponsor and what i'll

charitably call the incompetence by the planning department specifically, i'd like to note the sponsors took advantage of the covid-19 pandemic. they refuse to grant the previous tenant's rent increase of 10% after one of them lost his job to the pandemic. on top of this, they tried to charge them for breaking their lease. then, when the new tenants replaced the unfortunate old tenants, the sponsor tried to get these tenants to sign away their rights. in addition to disapproving this project, i begged this board to develop a stronger connection between tenants'' rights and planning decisions along the lines of mandelman's adu legislation. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right, we have 46 caller who is are listening. and we have 15 callers in the

queue. we're taking public testimony if you are in support of the appeal or against the proposed texas street project. we will hear from operations. let's hear our next call. >> caller: hello. this is john decastro. i support the appeal. i'm opposing the planning commission's approval of the conditional use authorization. for over 40 years. my home is within 300' of the project as i mentioned for identification purposes. i was present in the patrera booster's association from 1999 to 2003 during the live work era. as i read information about this project. it brings back the neighborhood

nightmare where they've built 3,600 and i don't know what else was going on in the background, but it was not pretty. during one of the protests. back then, developers were in rough shot over the approval process and found every loophole possible. i hope the supervisors direct the developer to explore options to further, i hope there's a concerted effort by the board of supervisors to prevent mcmansions being created out of affordable housing like they're attempting to do at 249 texas. thank you very much for your time, president walton and the supervisors. >> clerk: thank you for your

comments. all right. operations, do we have another caller in the queue, please. >> caller: hello. i've been a neighbor of 249 texas street for seven years. unlike the vast majority of letters which came in, i've been at both hearings prior to this and spoke both times. also, unlike every person here, i was at the preapplication meeting and i also met the tenants. i just want to note that two planning commissioners voted against the disapproval. those being commissioners moore and imperial. commissioner imperial called the planning department's baffling and because they accepted the sponsor's claim that it would not be financially feasible. i agree. how can it not be financially feasible for the owners of the building to legalize when they paid more than $1.5 million for the place and they're going to build a luxury home from

scratch at this property. this just doesn't make sense and then this he try to support their claim with some nonsense about it costing over $400,000 to legalize when the average cost is closer to $60,000. how can it be when the foundation is relatively new. when it was relocated from james late and patrera hill hads. the units don't have to be rented. it is clear that the sponsor will never rent the studio in the basement. they said it was for one of their mothers and they're putting an elevator in the unit so the mom doesn't have to walk up three flights of stairs. and i think that is why these commissioners evaluated the project. and i want to thank you for

your time. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, do we have another caller in the queue, please. >> caller: thank you board of supervisors. i live two doors down from the building. i'm a mother of four and community college instructor. i participate in prior hearings and ask to attend even the preapplication hearing that was informed not allowed to be there. first, i want to say the applicant brief attacked the character of the tenants. i'm just going to be really real with you about that whole situation. the deal was considered before any of the hearing. i think many people would consider it, but not if she

does not take the deal. i honestly think they were confused by the deal. they had to answer them like four hours. at the time, i remember standing outside. wondered if they could use the money to help the neighborhood instead of keeping it all for themselves. even then, they were thinking about the community. i remember telling her i wish she would just take the deal and this would all be over. she caught wind that this same thing is happening all over the city so she has to keep fighting and she has. i was there at the march 4th hearing and i can testify there's outright deception of this project. with the new owners that wants to bully the neighborhood. it does not belong here.

please keep the neighborhood accessible. don't reward lying and cheating. the planning department and commission must remain neutral and partial. make the newcomers show concern for the existing neighborhoods. they really do plan to live here. >> clerk: thank you. i do apologize if i'm interrupting anyone. we are setting the timer for two minutes today. so we have about 15 callers in the queue and about 50 who are listening. let's hear from our next caller, please. we're taking testimony currently from those in support of the appeal or who are against the proposed texas street project items 47-50. welcome, caller. >> caller: good afternoon. i'm in a two-unit as chair of

the booster's development committee. i often hear from people who are concerneded about nearby projects. the neighbors adjacent to 249 texas were worried about impacts to their homes, but also told me that the former tenants were under duress. in february, i got an e-mail with owners stating our initial renters had a lease from march 1st, 2020, to february 28th, 2021. they informed us in september that they planned to leave the city and were exploring the housing outside san francisco. we rented the house to another couple from november 1st at the original lease to the initial tenants. the original tenants paid for the difference between their lease amount and the lower lease amount for the remainder of the term of the lease, end of quote. before the commission hearing, i wrote planning about potential tenant issues and

talked to architects about some of the design and concerns. i also checked the permits and that the permit should remove the lower unit had never been signed off on. at the march hearing, i was shocked to hear project sponsor insist on the record that this was a single family home and the owners offered the tenants lower rent one of the facts and their own words say otherwise. based on miss representation that this was another unit to a single-family home, the commission approved the project. changing the story in a second hearing didn't make the project necessary or desirable. it remains neither. i urge you to support this appeal. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right. we have 45 who are in the queue listening and 11 who are in the line to provide testimony.

operations, let's hear from the next caller, please. welcome. >> hello supervisors. i'm the previous owner of 249 texas street. my mom and my dad purchased this home in the 1950s. me and all of my brothers were born in that home and inherited it from my parents. i lived there my entire life and with a friend bought out my brothers in 2006 to take ownership of the home. the bottom unit where my family and i live, the other room that doesn't have code compliance is the living room. i leased a room in my unit and the five years before i was forced to sell when the other owner of the building died. i remodeled the unit in 2016 and the unit was in good condition when i sold the home. i sold to the shapiros because

they said they loved our home and neighborhood. saw themselves living in the community and wanted to remodel it, not destroy it. instead, they suggested that the fabricate tenant leases, that i didn't own the home in 2006 and that i didn't live there my whole life. they submitted plans that have mischaracterized where i live. they provided an outrageous quote because it is far more than the one i obtained to legalize the bottom unit. the truth is easy to approve. the shapiros don't love this neighborhood or else they wouldn't have such a strong opposition from so many houses in the ratings. they were going to demolish the ratings and their letter to me suggested otherwise. hurts to see my family home and my neighborhood treated so poorly. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right. operations, let's hear from our next caller.

welcome, caller. >> caller: hello supervisors. i am emily block, a anybody of 249 texas street and i was friendly with the first set of tenants who live there. they pay as an act of generosity that is actually evidence that we have been hoping for all along to become forward. the tenants were too afraid to give to us. i saw with my own eyes how upset they were. they left there under duress because the sponsor couldn't cut them a break when the 2020 moratorium and shelter-in-place were an asset. the sponsor's actions may not have been illegal, but their attorneys know how to stay right above the law. why would anyone want to do

that to their tenants when they're just trying to make ends meet. with regards to the current tenants who were required to sign a lease. these kinds of leases are against the law unless they include degradements. i bet it was a hard call talking about whether to release those e-mails because it's not a good look for them. but they had to because they wanted to make sure their claim wasn't an eviction. no one ever said it was an eviction, but it took place during the moratorium. these tenants had no clue and the landlord has a duty to tell them. these people are frustrated when land lords like this give all landlords a bad reputation.

i wanted to focus on that. thank you for your time. >> clerk: thank you to the caller. all right. we have 45 listens in the queue and there are nine lined up to make their testimony. we have public comment on items 47-50. we thank everyone for their patience. there will be testimony taken on behalf of everyone who support the project a little bit later on in this hearing. operations, let's hear from our next caller, please. >> caller: okay. good afternoon board of supervisors. i'm a former tenant of the home that currently stands at 249 texas street. i lived at this home from november 2014 to november 2018 with the valencia family.

i am a real person and i lived there for years. i was fortunate enough to find this place to rent through a common friend of the valencias. $860 a month with access to the kitchen, bathroom, living room, laundry room, and back yard. in addition to that, i never had a rent increase in the four years that i lived there. i lived there comfortably and i even took care of their dog rocky when they would take vacations. we became more than tenants and landlords, we became friends. we shared great moments together during thanksgiving and christmas and such experiences on texas street. all i ask is don't hurt the community by making it available to low-income and working class. please make it an affordable house. thank you for listening to me.

>> clerk: thank you to the caller if for your comments. let's hear from our next caller, please. >> caller: board of supervisors, my name is elliott. i spoke at the last hearing on june 3rd. i opposed the demolition of affordable rent controlled housing on 249 texas street for the sole purpose of building a dream home for wealthy san franciscans who already own multiple properties in the city. they need a dream home these as big as the four-unit apartment building next door? i want to point out too that it's in very poor taste that the shapiros are using their mother who has dementia as a prop in their case. why are they using a picture of their mother with a black eye for any other reason. i find this very offensive as i have an asian-american wife,

children of half asian descent and asian in-laws. frankly, the shapiros would be better off sharing the potential tenant and the only way the unit would be adding stock to the housing market. supervisors, please uphold the appeal. stand with district 10's working and middle class stand against practices like this. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, do we have another caller in the queue in support of the appeal or against the proposed texas street project? welcome, caller. >> caller: good afternoon, president walton and members of the board. i'm carolynn kennedy, chair of the delores heights improvement club in district eight supporting this appeal. this appeal clearly needs to test for your approval both on procedural and substantiative grounds. [please stand by]

. >> -- and sometimes we rented rooms there, too, to nice working households. the sponsor's presentation of the interior home, they want to destroy it dishonest.

the plans they submitted changes the bedrooms into storage rooms. this is simply a way to make the house seem unliveable and unsafe so they can justify destroying it. the brief from the applicants [indiscernible] latino working class families and the other neighbors instead of focusing on the facts. their statements that my stepdad did not own the house until 2006 is untrue. he was born in that house but because he couldn't financially afford to own it outright, he had his best friend purchase it with him. we were forced to sell from a t.i.c. position, and my father fought for that house then as he is now. the existing neighbors should be just as important if not more important than newcomers

coming in disregarding the needs of the neighborhood. a knowledge equity is at stake in this case. thank you for listening to me. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, let's hear from our next caller. i think we've got six in the queue and 48 who are listening. welcome, caller. >> hi. my name is kim lavell, and i live across the street and slightly diagonal to the project in question. i have been participating since the first hearing in terms of written protests, speaking at board meetings, and watching for developments, but there has been no outreach from the sponsors. i was participating in the first c.u.a. hearing when they said that the project would have no second unit. a large percent of the neighborhood signed onto the appeal, it's actually more than

that because they don't count tenant signatures, and there are many long-term tenants in the area, including my duplex, but most importantly, there was no outreach from the sponsors. i want to say when i planned construction on my property on arkansas a few blocks away, i consulted with tenants in a large radius around my property and took their feedback into consideration, so i would have expected there to be outreach from the sponsors to the neighbors surrounding this project. this oversized project disrupts the preservation of the neighborhood without adding

honest and significant units. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, do we have another caller in the queue? i believe we have six who are still in the queue, lined up ready, to either speak on behalf of the appeal or against the project. welcome, caller. >> hi. this is zachary wisenberger. i urge you to support the appeal to oppose a project that will result in the loss of two rent controlled units. planning failed to abide by the law, which should make the board's decision an easy one. there are no criteria to justify the demolition as the project does not qualify under s.b. 330. personally, the project violated state law by failing

to submit an application, and separately for housing projects that would demolish any existing protected units which includes protected dwelling units, s.b. 330 requires that the unit have the same enthusiastic of bedrooms, while in this case, the -- same number of bedrooms, while in this case, the studio replaces three bedrooms. the sponsor's initial applicant falsely claimed it was a vacant single-family home when there were three tenants living in the units. please act to preserve these much needed housing units in district 10.

thank you for your time. >> clerk: okay. operations, i believe we have 49 who are listening and six callers in the queue. let's hear from the next caller who would like to provide testimony in support of the appeal or against the proposed texas street project. welcome, caller. >> i'm john brossard, and i'm not a person of color. i oppose the project because the facts of this case make it clear that the building should not be demolished, and the deception cover up by the sponsors and planning department was really clear to anyone who listened. frankly, it wasn't just them, it was the planning department. i hope you read the briefs and saw the hearings. it's all there, plain as day. i have three small kids, and it's not easy on me to wait on the phone while i have them.

face your neighbors by trying to work with them. don't discredit latino working class families who had the house for generations. that's revolting. their briefs to the commission brought out all these personal details of mr. valencia's ownership history. do you know how harmful that is to working class people? the valencias have so many history here as well as many families that are working class. i'm not going to mention the supplement that satia and matt refused prior. they have gone up against these powerful people.

why else would they have some powerful people and unions behind them. let's cut out the deflection of the laws and avoiding the comments. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. if you are wanting to provide comment in support of the appeal or against the texas street project and you are one of the 50 listening, now is the best time to press star, three, otherwise, we may take this last group of four individuals to the end. all right. welcome, caller. >> hi. i'm kyle toppin. i spoke at both commission hearings, noting that the sponsor had no support in the community. the recent support after hiring their lobby firm and lawyer comes from people who don't even have or know history of the case or live outside of the radius. the opposition is consistent,

strong, and has been here all along. we are based in the facts of the case. the approved project at 249 texas streets only meets four of 18 criteria for demolition of the planning section 317. it's plain and simple. the project removes sound, naturally affordable rental units that are replaced with rare market rate units. that's prohibited. it's extraordinary to see how the planning department pushes these projects through. for example, contrary to the report, this project does not preserve neighborhood, cultural, or economic diversity by trading rent controlled for market rate housing, and the project certainly does not provide permanently affordable units. and more importantly, the

project does not increase the number on the site of bedrooms in the bottom unit. if these criteria were evaluated fairly by the planning commission, this project would have never been allowed to go forward. there's no reason to demolish and set a precedent. a mansion on top of a basement studio is not ever going to provide housing to anyone. the owners say they don't have to ever again. how is this necessary or desirable? thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right. operations, let's hear from the next caller, please. >> good afternoon. ozzie reaume with san francisco

land use coalition. president walton and board of supervisors, the culture of corruption that goes well beyond d.b.i., p.u.c., and d.p.w. on one side, we have super rich and well connected owner with an army of lawyers and [indiscernible] misrepresenting the property as a single-family home, forcing their tenants out at the height of the pandemic, and on the other hand, we have ordinary neighbors and working class residents who raised all of these issues to no avail. let's face it. this is fraud, and all along, the planning department has been aiding and abetting this fraudulent behavior. to this day, planning admits the first floor aren't up to code even though the sponsor's

own drawings have ceilings 8 feet in the bedrooms. every fraudulent climb is on this project was refuted by the neighbors, yet planning did not even bother to show up at the site to verify the facts on the ground. the facts on the ground do matter. what's at issue is the floor-to-ceiling height of the e.d.u. and the owners placing a bogus estimate of $450,000 to make it financially unfeasible to rehabilitate it. [indiscernible] for low-income tenants. these are serious violations that disqualify the approval of this project, and that's why we're turning to you to reject this project application and reprimand the planning department. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments.

all right. we have seven callers in the queue. let's hear from our next caller, please. >> hello there. my name's gavin murphy. i live two doors away from the project location. i have lived here ten years. i have four children in the neighborhood, and i'm calling in support of the appeal. this seems to not be the way to run a planning commission evaluation. so many people have established the falsehoods of this evaluation. i don't see how the commission can make a thumbs down, thumbs up after bypassing all of the proper processes and humoring the disingenuous project applicants and reprimand the

people that are violating the trust of this city and the neighborhood. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right. operations, let's hear from the next caller, please. i believe there's about five callers in the queue. >> hi. thank you for your time. my name is leanne, and i used to live next door to the house in question and still spend at least three days a week in the neighborhood. i don't believe the project is appropriate for the neighborhood. why is a house for one family as big as a four-unit apt building next door. why does the studio down stairs not have a front door and you have to enter behind the main house? make the sponsors play fair,

and the neighborhood will welcome them with open arms. thank you for your time. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right. we have six callers in the queue. let's hear from our next caller, please. >> hi, thank you. my name is edmund drake, and i vote to uphold the appeal because otherwise this is going to promote the loss of affordable housing and promote the gentrification and keep evaders from obeying the law. there are no sets of policies that are going to justify this under any scenario. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please.

hello, caller. you are on the line. >> okay. hello. my name is frank mon. i am in support of the conditional use permit. this is a family that is seeking to house their elderly mother, and i think the terms are consistent with the family moving in to live there. i think with the affordable housing issues, the city has committed to construct affordable units that should satisfy communities in terms of meeting demand. this property itself is an old victorian, originally as

designed, was a single-family home. over the years, you know, units were added, but i think the family deserves an opportunity to take care of their elderly and take care of their child, so please support the conditional use permit, and that's my opinion. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for calling. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is -- >> clerk: i'm sorry? go ahead. >> hi. my name is jennifer murphy. i attend a public high school in san francisco and i live two doors away from the proposed building. i am calling you today to support this appeal. i am watching and observing what happens today. i saw what happened to the

evicted tenants. people let rich owners do that to tenants or future tenants by taking away affordable housing. do the right thing. enforce policies. keep affordable housing for the working class. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, do we have another caller in the queue, please? >> good afternoon, this is anastasia iovannopoulos. the project sponsor's proposition at the planning

commission seemed highly suspect because a project sponsor is required to first file a preliminary application separate and distinct from a development application. there's no indication the project sponsor ever filed this application as the law required for demolition under the emergency housing crisis act of 2019, s.b. 330, or was an application removed. no paperwork filed under replacement units [indiscernible] conditional use authorization packet. why did planning staff ignore their own directives in this case? after project sponsors admitted the existence of a second unit during commission hearing, project sponsor sought and

obtained approval to demolition the u.d.u.s and replace it with a studio apartment. a claim that ceiling heights don't conform is easily dismissed with a ceiling measure. s.b. 330 requires the replacement unit has the same number of bedrooms or more, replacing the three bedroom u.d.u. with a studio does not satisfy that requirement. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. i understand there are two callers in the queue and 49 that are listening. if you'd like to provide comments in support of the peal and against the texas street project, now is your opportunity to press star, three. all right. operations, let's hear from our next caller, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm stephanie peak with the san

francisco land use coalition. i ask you to please approve this appeal. you know, at one point, the sponsors of 249 texas presented their project as the demolition of a single-family home. by now, you know that the property actually had two units, rent controlled buildings. the sponsors forced out the tenants during the moratorium and shelter in place orders and then asked for a demolition based on s.b. 330, but they did not meet the requirements for that law. then, the sponsor said it was financially infeasible to legalize the ground floor unit because the ceiling was too low, but we know that's not true because the ceiling is 8 feet or possibly 9 feet. the owner said it would cost $500,000 to raise the ceiling

height. this seems an argument to avoid a rent controlled property, and we need rent controlled property in this city. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right. operations, let's hear from our next caller. >> hello, supervisors. my name is henry [indiscernible], and i'd like to raise that first of all, 249 texas was never a legal two-unit building, and therefore, it was never under rent control. there was a complaint filed on the lower level, and it was never cleared up, and there were problems with that and that's why that exists. the shapiros have been my neighbors since 2006. in the hearing, in the protest

document, their individual characters have been maligned. [indiscernible] the level of bitterness surprises even me with my decades of experience being involved with san francisco real estate and the planning process. it is also ironic considering joanne is herself an immigrant and the couple have lived in san francisco for many decades. i know joanne and kerry personally. they're kind neighbors and people of integrity. they're often seen walking their dogs in the neighborhood and stopping to chat with people in the neighborhood. it bothers me to hear such bad things spread about them. that's why i lend my support against this appeal. in addition to speaking with

joanne and kerry, i have also done my own due diligence on the project [indiscernible] which is speckled with inaccuracies -- >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, do we have another caller in the queue, please? >> operator: madam clerk, there are no further callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you, mr. atkins. mr. president? >> president walton: thank you. seeing no further public comment, public comment is now closed. madam clerk, we will now have up to ten minutes for staff from the planning department. >> thank you very much, president walton. good afternoon, supervisors.

i'm aaron starr, manager of legislative affairs and board liaison. i'll be making this presentation to the planning department, and i'll be assisted by alex westhoff and rich sucre. the appellant raises two main issues in their written appeal. first, that the planning commission mistakenly found that demolition of this type of housing as being necessary and desirable for the community, contrary to the need of the neighborhood during an affordability crisis, and that

it falls under s.b. 330. in response to the first issue, the commission found that the proposed three-story property is keeping with other residential properties in the neighborhood and is complying with the san francisco planning department and residential code guidelines. the existing building contains a lower story unauthorized dwelling unit that is not code compliant, request no code compliant bedrooms. the current ceiling height is substandard in the bedrooms and do not have risk [indiscernible] windows. further, the ceiling is 6'9", for 70% of the space. it's required to be at 7'6". regarding concern number two over the implementation of s.b.

330, under that, if existing units to be demolished are under the rent control ordinance, and the tenant has 80% of a.m.i., then, the units must be replaced by a unit with the same number of bedrooms. understand s.b. 330, the replacement units are required to provide the same number of bedrooms. in the case of this project, more code compliant units are being provided. these three rooms, however, do

not meet the building code requirements for bedrooms, as none of them are code compliant. the project includes one four-bedroom unit and one studio unit. thus, the project is a net increase in the number of coat compliant bedrooms from two to four. for the reasons stated, the department recommends the board uphold the decision reached by the planning department. that concludes the presentation, and we are happy to answer any questions at this time. >> president walton: thank you, mr. starr. i don't believe we have any questions -- oh, supervisor melgar. >> supervisor melgar: thank you, supervisor walton. i do have a couple of questions for staff on this one. so in your presentation just now, mr. starr, you say that there's no evidence that there were any low-income tenants residing in either unit. i'm wondering if you can take

us through the steps of how you made this determination? you're muted. >> i'm going to defer to alex westhoff. >> sure. we have an affidavit from the tenant in the upstairs unit, the application from the last tenants that resided there until earlier this year, and this -- the [indiscernible]. >> president walton: mr. west ho, we're not catching most of that. there's some technical difficulties. maybe if you turnoff your video, that might be helpful.

>> i apologize about that. can you hear me better now? >> supervisor melgar: yes. >> president walton: so far, so good. >> so we have an affidavit from the current tenants who live in the upstairs unit. we have the rental application from the last set of tenants that lived in the upstairs unit with their incomes, and finally, the lower unit has been owner occupied by the previous owners, and they have not rented it out since the new owners took over. >> supervisor melgar: and so -- so you had the affidavit from the previous tenants. did you do income verification for the lower unit? >> the lower unit was owner occupied.

there's no tenants in the lower unit now. prior to that, it was occupied by the owner. >> supervisor melgar: i see. and then, when you say there is no evidence that there have been any lower income tenants residing of either unit, you are based on the affidavit that the owner submitted? >> that's correct. the application from the previous tenants, and the fact that the lower unit was owner occupied. >> supervisor melgar: so if there is no information or if the information is lacking, doesn't the department then have to record a deed on the -- on the unit under s.b. 330? >> as a condition of approval,

they must comply with s.b. 330 requirements, correct? >> supervisor melgar: okay. now i have a qu