tv Full Board of Supervisors SFGTV October 26, 2021 2:00pm-5:31pm PDT
>> clerk: mr. president, all members are present. >> president walton: thank you, madam clerk. 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 ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territories. as guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, relatives, and elders of the ramaytush ohlone community and by affirming their sovereign
rights as first peoples. colleagues, would you please stand with me to recite the pledge of allegiance. [pledge of allegiance] >> president walton: and on behalf of the board of supervisors, i would like to acknowledge staff at sfgovtv. today, we have matthew ignaho, who record each of the proceedings and make the transcripts available on-line. madam clerk, do we have any announcements? >> clerk: yes. for those wishing to monitor this meeting remotely, the proceedings are available for viewing on san francisco's award winning cable channel 26
or live streaming on www.sfgov.org. throughout the meeting, the telephone number is streaming on your screen. it is 415-655-0001. when you hear the prompt, enter the meeting i.d. 2484-749-5194, then pound twice. you'll hear the meeting discussion and you will be muted. when you hear your item, press star, three and listen for the system to indicate your line has been unmuted and then begin your comments. there are three items on today's special agenda.
item 38 through 41, that's a proposed project at 469 stevenson street, items 42 through 45 for the proposed project at 35 ventura avenue. the board may continue this item to a future date. if there is a continuance, the public may comment on the continuance, and on the date of the hearing, public comment will be taken on the merits of the hearing. for item 46, this is the committee of the whole for electric generation rates and charges for cleanpowersf community agregation program from the san francisco public utilities commission. the president may wish to call this item as the first item on the 3:00 p.m. special calendar. you may comment on items that are within the jurisdiction of the board of supervisors but
>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: thank you so much, madam clerk, and without objection, the minutes will be approved after public comment as presented. madam clerk, we are now at the consent agenda, items 1 through 24. >> clerk: items 1 through 24 are considered to be routine. if a member objects, the item may be removed and considered separately. >> president walton: thank you very much, madam clerk. i don't see any other colleagues on the roster.
i believe we can take this same house, same call. madam clerk, would you please call item 25. >> clerk: item 25 is a resolution authorizing and directing the director of the office of public finance or designee thereof, to prepare an amended infrastructure financing plan for the city and county of san francisco and revitalization financing district number 1 and project areas there in, and determining other matters. >> president walton: thank you so much, madam clerk.
and seeing no one wishing to speak on items 25 and 31, we will take these items same house, same call, and without objection, these items are adopted unanimously. madam clerk, please call item 26. >> clerk: item 26 is an ordinance to amend the administrative code to prohibit city funded travel to states that have adopted laws on or after january 1, 2021 suppressing voting rights and to prohibit contracting with companies headquartered in states that have such laws or work that would take place in such states. >> president walton: thank you, madam clerk, and seeing no one on the roster, we'll take tis
item same house, same call and without objection, the ordinance passes unanimously. madam clerk, please call item 27. >> clerk: item 27 is an ordinance amending the business and tax regulations code to exempt certain transfers of rent restricted affordable housing occurring on or after 2021, from the increased transfer tax rates when the consideration or value of the interest or property conveyed equals or exceeds $5 million and affirming the planning department's determination under the ceqa act. >> president walton: thank you. supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: thank you. i know that everybody believes in getting more housing in san francisco. the measure doubled the tax rate for the highest value properties, those assessed at $10 million or more. the board has the authority to
exempt transfers of rent restricted affordable housing from these transfer tax increases. in 2019, the board exempts transfers of property under the community rights of purchase act, and it takes it beyond that and includes deed restricted residential properties. in effect, for affordable projects valued $5 million or more, the increased tax rates will not apply. instead, that will be a flat 5% tax rate. in practice, this facilitates the creation of more affordable housing while ensuring that developers of market rate, commercial and residential projects continue to pay their fair share in transfer taxes. i believe it's helpful to
situation this in the broader transfer tax content. prop i has already brought in tens of millions of dollars, with the controller estimating that in the current fiscal year, the measure will raise more than $128 million. the exemption before us will carve out a fraction of that revenue, less than 2% a year, which would otherwise have funds -- have come from fends dedicated for affordable housing. in other words, this essentially asks the city to move funds from one department to another, and nonprofit affordable housing providers will have greater clarity going forward, and it serves as a reminder as we consider trailing legislation to ensure the original intent of prop i to generate money for housing stability and to create more affordable housing and the need to fully realize that vision.
this ensures prop i does not burden the development and preservation of affordable housing. to ensure the revenue of prop i goes toward its intended purpose of creating more affordable housing, my office looks forward to creating that legislation later this year, and i want to thank supervisors safai, peskin, and haney. this was a very complicated one to draft and really was a team effort by all involved. i urge your support. thank you. >> president walton: thank you so much, supervisor preston. supervisor ronen?
>> supervisor ronen: thank you so much, i would like to be added as a cosponsor. >> president walton: thank you. supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: thank you. i would like to be added as a cosponsor. >> president walton: i would like to be added as a cosponsor, also. supervisor melgar? >> supervisor melgar: i would like to be, too. >> president walton: thank you. and i believe we can take this same house, same call. madam clerk, please call item 28. >> clerk: item 28 is a resolution approving a second amendment to the grant agreement between the city and county of san francisco and san
francisco-marin food bank, for the administration of the covid-19 food assistance program, to extend the grant term by six months, for a total term of july 1, 2020 through june 30, 2022, and to increase the grant amount by 7.4 million for a total not to exceed amount of 22.9 million to commence on october 15, 2021. >> president walton: thank you, madam clerk, and i don't see any names on the roster, so we can take this same house, same call. madam clerk, would you please call item 29. >> clerk: thank you. item 29 is a resolution retroactively authorizing the department of public health to accept and expend an inkind gift of perpetual software licensed of the zeiss forum ophthalmology application valued in the amount of 59,949
from the san francisco general hospital foundation for the department of public health to provide eye care and eye disease management for the project period of july 8, 2016 through june 16, 2025. >> president walton: thank you. and seeing no names on the roster, we can take this same house, same call. madam clerk, please call item 30. >> clerk: item 30 is a resolution authorizing the general manager of the public utilities commission to execute a second amendment to the planning coordinator agreement between the city and county and the california inddepend inddepend -- independent system operator. >> president walton: thank you. and seeing no names on the roster, we can take this same
house, same call. madam clerk, will you please call item 32. >> clerk: item 32 is annual ordinance amending the planning code and zoning map to eliminate the life skiens and -- science and and medical special use district. >> president walton:. and seeing no names on the roster, we can take this same house, same call. madam clerk, would you please call item 33. >> clerk: item 33 is an ordinance amending the planning code to clarify the requirements for applications to construction accessory dwelling units. >> president walton: thank you. we will take this same house, same call, and without
objection, this ordinance is passed on first reading unanimously. madam clerk, please call item 34. >> clerk: item 34 is an ordinance to extend the building code for almost two years to comply with the requirement to have all primary entries and paths of travel into the building accessible to persons with disabilities or to receive a city determination of equivalent facilitation, technical infeasibility, or unreasonable hardship, to extend the period for granting extensions from those deadlines, and to extend the time for the department of building inspection's record to the board of supervisors. >> president walton: thank you. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: yes, would you add me as a cosponsor?
>> president walton: yes. we'll take this item same house, same call and the ordinance passed unanimously. madam clerk, would you call item 35. >> clerk: this is an ordinance amending the administrative code to extend the covid-19 based limit on residential evictions, which allows evictions only if based on the nonpayment of rent or violence or health and safety issues, from september 30, 2021 through december 31, 2021. >> president walton: thank you. supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: thank you. colleagues, i believe this is the 12 ordinance since the start of the pandemic from my office. there's been discussion about covid related nonpayment
evictions, and i want to make it clear, this is a crucial component of our local protection as well as the tenant right to counsel for anyone facing eviction, all of these things thing will ensure that folks are able to stay in their homes during this pandemic. i want to thank my cosponsors, and again, as i have said before, thank you for standing up against displacement and making sure we use every local tool to make sure no one is
displaced. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor preston. supervisor safai? [indiscernible]. >> president walton: thank you. and seeing no one else on the roster, we'll take this same house, same call, and without objection, this ordinance is passed on first reading unanimously. madam clerk, would you please call item 36. >> clerk: item 36 is a resolution to urge and support mayor london n. breed in proclaiming a declaration of the existence of a local emergency around the overdose crisis and immediately implementing overdose prevention sites. >> president walton: thank you, madam clerk. supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: thank you. i just want to thank my colleagues and organizations bringing this resolution to fruition. i think we all are aware of the emergency that we face in our city of drug overdose.
we are on pace, sadly, to reach a similar death toll this year as last year, and this is an emergency in our city if there ever was one, and i want to thank the mayor and the office of the mayor for their leadership, and i think it's needed for us as board of supervisors to stand united calling for the immediate opening of safe consumption sites which we obviously have the evidence to back and a need when we consider the public health crisis and emergency that we are facing, so again, i want to thank the public safety and neighborhood services committee and the mayor's office, and i hope we can take more urgent action to save
lives. thank you. >> president walton: thank you so much, supervisor haney. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: madam clerk, please add me as a cosponsor, as well. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor safai. madam clerk, please call the roll on item 36. oh, wait a minute, madam clerk. supervisor ronen is back in the chambers, so we can take this item same house, same call. madam clerk, can you please call item 37. >> clerk: 37 is an ordinance amending the administrative code to revice the local business enterprise and nondiscrimination contracting ordinance. >> president walton: thank you, madam clerk. supervisor mar? >> supervisor mar: i'd like to be added as a cosponsor. >> president walton: thank you,
supervisor mar. and madam clerk, seeing no further names on the roster, we can take this same house, same call, and the ordinance passes unanimously. madam clerk, please call -- my apologies. we're going to item 47. >> clerk: item 47, resolution to approve the settlement of the unlitigated claimed by sandeep lal against the city for 59,000. the claim involves an employment dispute. >> president walton: thank you so much, madam clerk, and seeing no one on the roster, we will take this same house, same call, and without objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. i also understand that item 48
was not referred out of committee, so madam clerk, please call item 49. >> clerk: thank you. and i will just state that item 48 was considered by the land use and transportation committee on october 25, 2021. item 26 was considered on october 25, 2021, and item 49 is an ordinance amending the municipal elections code to reauthorize nonunited states citizens voting in elections for the board of education of the san francisco unified school district and specifying that non-united states citizens may vote in recall elections regarding members of the board
of education. >> president walton: thank you, madam clerk. supervisor chan? >> supervisor chan: thank you. i spoke on this in committee so i'm not going to speak on this again, but just want to thank supervisor myrna melgar forher leadership. with this legislation amended during the rules committee that this will allow our immigrant parents and citizen parents to participate in the upcoming recall election scheduled for february 15, so i just want to make sure i flag that for you, and i look forward to having your support. thank you. >> president walton: thank you so much, supervisor chan, and i don't see anyone else on the roster, so we can take this item same house, same call, and without objection, this resolution passes on the first
reading. madam clerk, we are now going to do our first item for roll call. >> clerk: okay. first up to call new business is president walton. >> president walton: thank you so much. and today, i just have one in memory -- memorian. reverend calvin jones was part of the class of 1969 at balboa high school and earned a bachelor of arts in social welfare at the university of washington, seattle and a master of divinity at harvard
in 1983. reverend jones played for the denver broncos from 1973 to 1977 as a defensive back and was chosen as the associated press first team all american defensive back. in 1985, he began serving at the providence baptist church as an associate minister and later elected as pastor, where he served faithfully for 26 years. he retired in march 2017. pastor jones work tirelessly as he ministered to families or youth affected by crime in san francisco, and he established a youth outreach in 2014. he was featured in an article by the san francisco chronicle describing his efforts of
reaching young people, his desire to serve those families grief stricken in the wake of san francisco violence. he was dubbed the funeral preacher. he served in many community and leadership positions in san francisco and helped bring affordable housing to the bayview at 4699 bayview tight. reverend jones would always say god took care of this undersized football and as long as i'm alive, we are going to help those who are struggling, and as long as i eat, we're going to help others to eat. on a more personal note, i had
the opportunity to work with pastor jones at the board of education prior to being elected to this office. he always pushed for community with a demeanor that exemplified leadership in love. after his retirement, he remained spiritual and continued to advocate for providence in his community. he will be truly missed as an icon in the bayview-hunters point and across the entire community of san francisco, and madam clerk, i ask that this in memoriam be on behalf of the entire board of supervisors. >> clerk: okay. thank you, mr. president. >> president walton: and at this time, madam clerk, would you please call our 2:30 p.m.
special order. >> clerk: the special order 2:30 p.m. is the recognition of commendations. >> president walton: thank you. and at this time, we are going to start with supervisor preston. >> supervisor preston: thank you, madam clerk, and thank you, mr. president. i offer our highest commendation to robert collins on the event of his retirement after 24 years on the rent board. robert later moved to ashland, oregon. he attended pomona college where he received a b.a. in
that microphone. >> supervisor preston: thank you. robert was appointed the executive director of the rent board in 2016. robert is known for his expertise on the complex issues surrounding rent control. the rent board issues the regulation to implement the rent ordinance, educate tenants, holds hearing to settle disputes. robert plays a key role on countless projects including two website redesigns in multiple languages, two phone system redesigns also in multiple languages. he worked to improve how the
agency provides access to every member of the community and assisted the legislative process with the goal of allowing public to be more available to the board, staff, and the public. there were also changes to the rent board's rules and regulations and applicable state law. through it all, robert has helped thousands of residents to work through issues that impact his daily lives. he has navigated often controversial issues with skill, precision, and clarity. he is widely respected in the landlord tenant community, earning praise from landlords and tenants alike.
on behalf of the board, i would like to offer our sincere appreciation, robert, for all of your efforts, and congratulations on your well deserved retirement, and we look forward to seeing you. we present you with this order signed by every member of the board of supervisors. [applause] >> president walton: thank you, supervisor preston. i believe we have mr. collins here, and i believe we have him on teams. mr. collins? >> well, thank you very much for this commendation, supervisor preston, and to all of you, it has been really an honor to work with you, to serve with you, and to go through this with you. i do want to say you give me
too much credit, supervisor preston, because everything that happened during my time on the rent board belongs to my colleagues who have worked brilliantly and tirelessly to provide services to the public we serve together. they have worked through the pandemic counseling tenants in crisis and conducting mediations. it's one of the most devoted staff that i've had the pleasure of working with, intelligent public service. they really have been amazing and have made my time at the rent board a real pleasure. for years, the rent board has been a place where the law is politely explained, where we work out problems in mediation if possible, and i believe it continues to be a vital service
for the people of san francisco. more than anything, i am proud of the culture of respect of every member of the public that we have had the pleasure of serving regardless of their standing in the community. we learned to work better with you, other departments, and become more transparent and help san francisco follow the law. you can't follow the law unless you understand the law, and that is challenging, but we've done a great job, and i'm proud of my role in that. i want to thank the brigs and mayor breed and the board of
supervisors for your support and providing the funding that we needed. i leave the agency in good hands in the incredibly talented hands of krista varner, joey cuman, jennifer bowman, and anita rando. they are a talented group at the board. it has been a pleasure to work with all of you, supervisors, with the clerks, with your aides who have been amazing throughout this. and it's been my pleasure to work with other departments, with department heads, and, you
know, many colleagues throughout san francisco. i believe we have always tried to be compassionate and find common ground when possible, but more importantly, we have honored our role as a passionate arbiter guided by the rule of law. it has been an absolute pleasure to serve with all of you. thank you for allowing me to speak to the board. >> president walton: thank you, mr. collins. it's been a pleasure working with you, and -- >> supervisor ronen: supervisor
walton? >> president walton: i'm sorry. supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: i'm glad i'm speaking after robert because he is too humble, and i think it's impossible to describe in words because you have given a major part of your heart and your life to protecting tenants in a way that's respecting landlords, and i wish you success and enjoyment during your retirement, and really, really thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor ronen. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, president walton. i just want to associate myself
with the words of supervisor preston and supervisor ronen. he exercised the law carefully and correctly and with passion. thank you for always be willing to take on more and more without us giving you more staff, so thank you, mr. collins, for your incredible team, and i have your cell phone number, so i'll be calling you for advice from time to time. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor peskin. supervisor melgar? >> supervisor melgar: thank you, president walton. robert, i just wanted to say congratulations. from the time we would hangout
on 24 street at st. peter's housing committee, i never imagined that you would be so influential in the lives of all of the folks we served. you have single handedly built systems that we could only imagine, so i want to thank you for your service to us, tenants, and landlords. thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor melgar. supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: thank you, president walton. i wanted to say thank you on behalf of the residents of district 8, so thank you, mr.
collins, and congratulations? >> president walton: thank you. supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: thank you. i just want to echo and join what supervisor preston has said. i know that you're required to enforce the laws that we pass without giving you more staff. i want to thank just the way and you and your team stepped up and made sure the information was out there, supports were there, and protection was there for so many of our residents who should have had that, and it could not have been done without the leadership of your team, so thank you. >> president walton: thank you for that, and colleagues, thank you for your support of mr.
collins and supporting him for his retirement. supervisor preston, i want to thank you for making sure he was honored at today's board of supervisors meeting. now we'll go onto district 9. supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: thank you, president walton, and i also have the pleasure of honoring several city workers who committed quite a heroic act recently. in early september of this year, tevin, a manager with public works and naomi and levon of the office of civic engagement and immigrant affairs ambassadors program were on duty near 18 street and mission. tevin noticed a man slumped in his car and in need of distress. it was then the three of them
jumped into action. kevin immediately sat the man up on his street. kevin and levon, certified in administering narcan, did so quickly. kevin was born and raised in san francisco and started his public service career with public works in 2008 as a general laborer. he later worked a stint as a general laborer at city hall and now serves on the city's graffiti abatement team. thank you so much. not an easy task. he is a dedicated public servant and devoted father. 33, takes pride in working hard
for our city. he takes the department's core values and responsiveness to heart. kevin is a person who steps in and steps up. naomi was born in hawaii but calls the bayview and the mission her home since 2015. [indiscernible] she recently stepped into the team lead role for the mission community ambassadors program and has also played a role in the latino response team covid-19 response team. levon has deep connections to the mission district. he joined the mission community ambassadors program in june 2020 through a strong desire to give back to his community and learn more about the services and resources available to residents. he loves being an ambassador
because he loves meeting people from his community. levon is proficient in spanish and is a member of the jobs now program. these three are shining examples of what san francisco look like. san francisco and the mission district is extremely fortunate to have public servants like you. i commend you and thank you for a job well done and hope that you stay in our community and neighborhood for a long time. thanks. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor ronen, and i believe we do have kevin, naomi, and levon present, and i guess we can just go in order for them to say a few words. kevin, are you available? >> hello?
>> president walton: kevin, you can go ahead, please. >> thank you. as a san francisco native, i pride myself in taking care of the city, so thank you for that. >> president walton: thank you, kevin. naomi? >> hello. my name is naomi. i would like to first thank you guys for the recognition. what we do every day is to save lives and also save our community, and we try to serve wherever we can, and i was glad that i was there that day with my partner levon and also the brother, i forgot your name -- kevin, my brother, kevin, so thank you so much. >> president walton: thank you, naomi. levon? >> hello. can you hear me? >> president walton: yes. >> i just want to say thank you for the honor.
i was just doing my job, and i will continue doing that. >> president walton: thank you, and i want to thank supervisor ronen for taking the time to honor these three brave city employees. i know a lot of times we have city employees getting the job done and they're never acknowledged. i want to thank the three of you for your commitment to save lives. there is nothing that i think that is probably better than saving people's lives, so i want you to know the entire board of supervisors appreciates you and your work. and with that said, thank you, supervisor ronen. we are now at district 7. supervisor melgar?
>> supervisor melgar: thank you so much, president walton. today, i have the great honor of commending someone i consider a friend and greatly admire and also i've introduced a proclamation naming october 29 as kate stacey day. kate stacey is retiring from her service with the city. she joined the city attorney's team as a lawyer in the land use team after graduating in 1985 from the university of chicago law school. for 32 years kate has advised and otherwise assisted in affordable housing, resilient water infrastructure, revitalize parks and facilities infrastructure, museums in the
city. during the time from the loma prieta earthquake, her knowledge of land use law has earned the respect of colleagues, opponents, and city colleagues. beginning in 1999 and several years thereafter, kate advised the arts museum of san francisco in an effort to build the new state of the art facility of the young museum including the successful defense of the ceqa challenge. kate advised five different planning directors, four zoning administrators, four environmental review officers, providing advice on countless permits, environmental review, endorsement, and all planning related matters at all hours of
the night with unflappable calm, stellar recall and clarity, razor sharp intelligence and wit, she artfully guided the department through very dense ceqa determinations, complex land use approvals, and provided legal advice on a wide range of issues. did i mention late at night? the san francisco public utilities commission once sought approval of a $4 billion wastewater improvement system so we could improve the 100-year-old wastewater system, and kate, of course, did great.
she has aided in the development of all important land use policies in san francisco, affordable housing programs, advised five mayors, board of supervisors, planning commission on hundreds of ordinances, resolutions, admissions, charter amendments, and i think the thing that i admire most about you, kate, is your team leadership skills. you have mentored and trained your staff in making sure that that knowledge stayed with our city. as a fellow ceqa nerd, i so admire you and your grit and demeanor. i also admire that you showed up for all the parties, and i will say that you have single handedly brought down the vehicle miles travelled because
of your van coming to every party, and i am so glad that you were with us, and it will be a loss to not have you, but i'm so grateful for all the leadership and information that you're leaving behind. thank you for your service, kate, and we're very, very grateful. [applause] >> president walton: supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, president walton. i think that supervisor melgar stated it very well, but i think i was a pain in miss stacey's behind for 20 of those 32 years, but her awesome
temperament never waned. while you didn't always let me do what i wanted to do, you always showed me a way to get there. thank you for your incredible service to the city attorney's office, the board of supervisors, the planning department, countless other departments, and the people of the city and county of san francisco. you'll be missed. i have no idea who can fill your shoes. i think we all feel repairdation, but this, too, shall pass. thank you, kate. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor peskin. supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: thank you, president walton. kate, i remember when i heard you were retiring, and i was sad, i have to say. i think i have not worked with you enough since i've been a supervisor, but i'm lucky since i've been here at city hall to work with you on many different pieces of legislation as an
aide to two different supervisors. when i worked with you, it was always a great experience. you're wonderful, and i'm going to miss you, and i just wish you the best of luck in your retirement. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor stefani. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you, supervisor melgar, for highlighting one of the best city attorneys this city has seen over the last several decades. thank you, dennis herrera, for promoting kate, and her time on the job. i just want to take a moment to speak on my personal experience with kate. in my first year in office, i took on the heavy duty of going toe to toe but also working beside supervisor peskin and others to take on the city's inclusionary housing debate, and it was kate who held my hand every step of the way.
it's important to have someone who has institutional guidance in this job, and i'm glad it was kate given the importance of this. i just want to thank you personally for helping that first year in office and the transition and the wonderful work that you've done this last number of years helping the city and county of san francisco advance policies that are not only replicated in california but around the united states. so we know you will truly be missed, but we know that there's a team of wonderful well trained attorneys that will follow in your footprints. thank you, mr. president. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor safai, and we will now hear from our city attorney, dennis herrera. >> thank you, mr. president. please forgive my lack of
formal attire today because i am moving, but i could not pass up the opportunity to speak on behalf of kate stacey. this is my last act as city attorney, and thank you, supervisor melgar, documenting miss stacey's career in the city attorney's office and before. you got to the essence of what is extraordinary about kate's career because we all know that perhaps the most difficult job in city hall is working on land
use issues, and supervisor peskin knows that well. and there is no more politically fraught position in the city attorney's office, including the city attorney, than being head of the land use team. and to win your respect, to work on issues, to navigate through the lab of politics and policies that govern these 40-some-odd square miles takes a special attorney and a special person. you can be mad at our deputies one day and happy with them the next, but to make sure they have your respect is the most important thing, and kate's career of 32 years in the city attorney's office and 15 years
as a supervisor, she has done that without parallel. you heard us talk about some great deputies, buck delventhal was the oracle of city hall. jessie, my assistant, is the conscience of the office. kate stacey is not just a great attorney but a fun person, she can regale you with story of about her name as a deejay at swarthmore college, and talk about the tremendous exploits about her children. at the same time, she's telling you what's wrong with something you want to do with a smile on her face. i can't tell you what an honor and privilege it is for me to
be talking about kate stacey, and she is a tremendous person, a great deputy, and i'm just kind of glad we're going out together, so kate, congratulations. [applause] >> president walton, supervisor melgar, honorable supervisors, i'm a little overwhelmed. thank you so much for this honor. i have long felt like the luckiest lawyer. i have loved my job 90% of the time, and i think a big part of that has been, of course, our incredible office, impressive colleagues, who work hard every day and help push forward all those agendas of the city and the clients. i have been so lucky to be head of this incredible team of land use lawyers. nothing we do in our office i
do alone. i can only echo what robert collins said earlier about it's always a team effort, and our office is full of generous and collaborative people that are just so creative and brilliant. i also have so enjoyed working with clients, including this board, the city attorney's office, and always pushing the limit and the boundaries, challenging us as lawyers, challenging san franciscans to move the ball forward because you care so much about the city and the world, and a lot of what we do here moves in concentric circles. i've always been lucky to work with bosses whom i admire and
respect a great deal. louise renne, who hired me, and dennis herrera. it's been such a pleasure to be part of that world and dennis's way of practicing law and running that office. most of all, i just really want to give my thanks. i'm so grateful for this incredible career with clients who care so much and an office of such impressive attorneys, and most of all, my beloved land use team who will carry on. they are such impressive lawyers who carry on so much, and our whole office is that way. we work with ann and so many other teams in our office, but thank you for all of it.
i couldn't have asked for a better legal career, so thank you. [applause] >> president walton: and kate, as the entire board of supervisors, i just want to say thank you on behalf of the entire board of supervisors. >> supervisor melgar: i just wants to add one -- wanted to add one thing, president walton, if i could, we all fought over who would be first to present you this honor, so we're all presenting this to you.
>> president walton: thank you so much, supervisor melgar, for taking the time to honor kate in this chamber. now that we have you here, attorney herrera, i want you to say a few words and then turn it over to supervisor peskin, but we couldn't pass up thanking you for your 20 years of service as city attorney. i just want to say a couple of things. one, it's been great to have you as a constituent, and really appreciate you and your effort to ban e-cigarettes here in san francisco as they were trying to poison our children and also that we had their company located in our
district. you made sure that the city and county was never screwed over, and i want to let you know that i appreciate you personally for that, and just for your service for so many years demonstrates the type of public servant that you are. and the last thing i want to say that i think you misstated that this is your last official time before us. i don't think that is true. but that said, i look forward to working with you in your future capacity, and honor you for your many years of service. thank you. [applause] >> president walton: supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, president walton. i, too, would be remiss if we did not use this opportunity to acknowledge and salute mr.
herrera for serving two thirds of what miss stacey served. i remember the day that mr. herrera appeared in these chambers 20 years ago. i had no idea that we would be shoulder to shoulder from everything ranging from airbnb short-term rental litigation, the academy of art legacy of 20 years, corruption of d.b.i., the health care security ordinance crack down. this one over here, when he was on the college board, had an idea. we met at cafe triest, and the county attorney sued, and successfully so, around accreditation. but i appreciate the fact that dennis is humble enough to know that buck delventhal, who passed away two years ago
today, and if the president is willing to continue matters 46 today, we will be able to go to the memorial for buck today at 4:00 p.m. i don't think that's going to happen, but i wanted to thank you, mr. herrera. [applause] >> president walton: thank you, supervisor peskin. supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: thank you, president walton. san francisco has been extremely lucky to have an attorney of extraordinary talent leading our city attorney's office. i have supervisor peskin listed the long list, but that's not all the stuff that dennis
herrera has done. two items stick out, and one was saving city college. he saw an institution that had served so many in so many ways in the world, and where an attorney could be helpful, he leaped in and threw some super talented lawyers at the problem, and he helped keep city college open and accredited and still open to fight another day, so i'm grateful for that, and i'm sure many others are. and i am the gay on this board, and my life as a gay man and the life of queer people around this country and around the world have been changed by the work that dennis herrera and
terry stewart and some of the other fantastic attorneys in the city attorney's office have done over that couple of decades, so i personally as well as on behalf of my constituents am incredibly grateful, and i want to celebrate dennis herrera for hiring and supporting such extraordinary lawyers over the last 20 years. you have maintained and built a most phenomenal team, and we have been so lucky to have them, and we have been so lucky to have you, so thank you, mr. herrera. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor mandelman. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: yes. thank you, dennis, for all of your years of service. some of the things, i want to echo, for sure. i don't think there's been one
single deputy city attorney that i haven't enjoyed working with. we are head and shoulders above, and that's a testament to the work that you've done, cultivated tremendous staff, and promoted women and people of color that you've promoted into positions of leadership is extremely, extremely important, and it really sends a message. the two issues or policy matters or areas of concern that i feel like are extremely important, one, my history. it started working under mayor newsom in the summer of love or the month of love or whatever they call it.
thank you so much for the career that you've given and the work that you've done, and we know that you're going to take on the p.u.c. and be successful, as well. thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor safai. supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: thank you. i wanted to congratulate mr. herrera, and i wanted to thank him for giving me my first job here at city hall. like so many others, i was an intern in the city attorney's office in 2010. and though i was not a good enough attorney to make it in that capacity, i did make it back into city hall years later. and what i knew then and what i
know now is our city attorney's office under your leadership is the gold standard in the country when it comes to the municipal practice of law, not only providing the services that you do to us here at the board of supervisors and the department, not only in standing up for civil rights, for consumer protection, for public safety, you know, not only in using every possible affirmative proactive piece of law under your authority to move forward our city, but also for what you do to build, as supervisor mandelman said, a generation of trained experienced skillful attorney, many of us stay with us here and will stay beyond your legacy even. and also staff, a whole set of
departments all over the country. i don't think we get enough credit for the way that you have trained folks, and they look to your office for a model of what a city attorney and office should be. i know that that work to set the standard is exactly what you're going to do for the p.u.c. so i want to thank you for giving me my start in this building, and i'm one of many, many hundreds of associates and fellows that you brought in that are helping to shape local
and urban government law all over the country, and probably all over the world, and that is a tremendous legacy in addition to every you've done for our residents. thank you for your service, and i look forward and we look forward to continuing to work with you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor haney. supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: sorry to repeat what all of my colleagues are saying, but thank you. it's a point of pride in san francisco that we have the best city attorney's office in the country. it reflects well on all of us, not just on you and your office, and you did that. you drafted just the best of the best. it's not we pay our attorneys
the top dollar like law firms, but they choose to come here and dedicate their lives to fighting for what they believe in, and that's an amazing accomplishment in and of itself, probably your biggest accomplishment even though you've got to the supreme court several times arguing cases. it doesn't get more important or bigger than that, and for that, thank you so much. look forward to working with you and your new role and feel a lot of gratitude. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor ronen. supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: thank
you. dennis, i can't see you. like president walton said, we will be seeing you shortly, i'm sure. you've taken on so many fights using the power of law to make a difference in people's live, and not just san franciscans. as supervisor mandelman said, in so many lives, including my sister's, who we celebrated the supreme court case when she knew that she was allowed to mary her partner, so i can't thank you enough for that. i want to say thank you for being not just an effective attorney but an effective manager because it's not always easy to do that.
i just admire you for that. obviously, you have one of the best attorney's offices -- i think you have the best in the nation, and i want to thank you, too, for the past couple of years, for taking on fights that a lot of people won't take on. you're brave, and you stand on for what you think is right, when you take on the open air drug market, when you take on the school district. when our kids aren't in school, you take on those fights, and i want to thank you for that. i also want to thank you for all the gun violence legislation working on with our staff. when i got sued for declaring the national rifle association,
and i couldn't go for some reason to the state of indiana, and i thank you for getting that cleared so i could go to the university of notre dame with my son, and i just want to say thank you for everything you've done and for your service to the city and county of san francisco. >> president walton: thank you. supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: thank you. i didn't realize we could get parenting advice, as well. a lot of people see the city attorney's work out there and don't have a real understanding of what it takes to successfully run what is effectively a huge department, an army of attorneys and support staff, and i don't say that lightly. to run a scandal free
department in the city and county of san francisco for years and years and years and build its reputation, mentor, and really develop the talent, that others have said, have gone to to stay in the department or do really important work. as others have said, the actual cases that you've litigated, the line of issues that you've really led on is really an incredible service to thecity, and i will say, as someone who is newer to city hall but as
someone who has, for a long time, been out city hall, pushing for the work that we have adopted, this body, by its nature, pushes in a progressive direction, and when you do that, you confront money, you confront power, and you confront threat. what we've always known in those fights is if the city and county of san francisco pushes the envelope, if the city and county of san francisco passes laws that protects tenants, the consumers, the environment, that when the big businesses hire their high priced
attorneys and takes our city to work, we have attorneys that are as good as they are and will fight back in court, so i want to thank you for always defending and allowing your deputies to defend without reservation the laws that push the envelope here in the city under great pressure from a lot of powerful interests to simply resolve, settle, or fold those kinds of cases, and again, city attorney ease office under your leadership the last two decades has stood firm in those visionary policies. thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor. supervisor mar? >> supervisor mar: thank you, president walton. yeah, just want to add to my colleagues, all of the well deserved thank yous and congratulations, dennis, for your incredible leadership as
city attorney the past few decades. and i think we've heard about all the really big issues, impactful ground breaking issues that you've really stepped up and led on as city attorney, you know, from same sex marriage to our health care ordinance to standing up to big corporations in our city and beyond. as a newer member of thi board, want to thank you for your leadership in standing up to uber and lyft and standing up to the gig economies and making sure that their workers are properly classified and make sure they have the same rights as other rk woulders. and also standing up to the -- other workers, and also standing up to the trump
administration and their bullying of sanctuary cities, but also, as supervisor preston has said, four leadership of this office, and all the guidance you provide on a day-to-day basis. look forward to you bringing that to the p.u.c., your work leading the p.u.c. thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor mar. supervisor chan? >> supervisor chan: thank you, president walton. i don't think i can repeat all of the words that my colleagues have said, but city attorney herrera, you have defended the values of san franciscans, and the fact that you have always lead your team to serve in the best interests of san franciscans, and i think that not too many people can say that, so we applaud you and thank you for your service. but for me, personally, i
really appreciate you as a rookie supervisor taking office, from the day one that i have taken office, you have been kind and patient in answering my questions, and i cannot thank you enough for that. i think that speak volumes not just who you are as a attorney but also as -- as an attorney but also as a person, and i just want to say thank you. >> president walton: thank you. supervisor melgar? >> supervisor melgar: thank you, city attorney herrera. you have done everything for your city with the utmost competence, and i have admires your leadership in building a team full of women, people of color, and i have no doubt that
those values will go with you to the p.u.c., and i'm grateful that you still want to do it, and i'm so glad that you will be there for all the young kids in the community to see and to admire and for you to lead the way you have led the city for so many years. so thank you for everything you've done and that you continue to do. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor melgar, and thank you to all of my colleagues. city attorney herrera? >> president walton, this wasn't something that i was prepared for, actually. this was about kate stacey. i didn't think it was going to be about me here at the end, and i kind of wish i wasn't. i just want to say a couple of words and keep it brief. first of all, supervisor
stefani, i think you think i might have more parenting advice than i do, and i can tell you that i spoke with declan today, a sophomore in college. i was giving him fundraising advice. i clearly knows that that wasn't something i was great at, and i think he learned more interning in supervisor peskin's office that summer than he did from me. but he's my pride and joy, but if there's any advice i can impart from him to you or anyone else, i'm happy to do that. as for my office, i had a simple philosophy. it's hire people smarter than me, and i did that. i hired people smarter than me, trusted them, gave them a lot of rope, let them know the rules that i would not
tolerate, and i encouraged them to make mistakes. if we weren't making mistakes, we weren't being entrepreneurial lawyers, pushing the occupational envelope, and my job was to make sure they went out and did it with passion and honor, and if there was an arrow to be flung at somebody, i'd take it for them. kate and i went out for a drink last week, and she said, dennis, you always lead with your heart, and that's true. internally, they know that i care for them, and they know i would do anything for them and be their biggest advocate, whether it's on the outside for them or to their clients. that's something that i've considered my job, and it's been my honor and privilege to
lead them for these 20 years. these are 350 of the best legal professionals that you will find anywhere, and they will continue to do a great job on behalf of all of you. and a couple of things. i have enjoyed working with all of my clients so much, from the mayor's office to my clients, but there's always been a special relationship with the 11 members of this board of supervisors, whoever was sitting in that chair, because i knew you would force us to be our best. whether it was a good idea or a harebrained idea, you would push us to be our best, and that forced us all to be great
at what we do. and i'd like to just say a word of encouragement, you know, sometimes, an idea might sound crazy, but i encourage you to push the envelope. one thing i've learned in 20 years is that a lot of provide interests like a couple of supervisors have alluded to, most overtly, supervisor peskin, the timidity of public officials not to standup and fight for their constituents, so i would encourage you to standup to interests, powerful interests, and do what you think is right because if you focus on the power of your conviction, even if it might
not be politically popular, you are doing the right thing, and that's what we have tried to for 20 years in our own individual initiatives is try in terms of defending our own advice and what you all do, and that's what we have try today do. people who don't have respect for government, who don't see the importance of government fighting for people that might be our most vulnerable, they bank on the timidity of public officials to not have the strength to go out and do what is right. so that is my parting message to all of you as i go out and do my next job. continue to demand from this office and our leadership to continue to go out and be the best office that we can be as we continue to go out and fight on behalf of our most vulnerable. and finally, president walton, let me just say, this is my
last meeting, that i would not be here, i meant at city attorney. i relish that i will be here, asking me questions, pushing me as department head. so thank you. it's been a great run, and i appreciate everything that we have done over the course of the last 20 years. thanks very much. [applause] [indiscernible]
3:00 p.m. special orders, and i believe we're going to start with item 46. >> clerk: thank you, mr. president. item 46, on september 30, 2021, the san francisco public utilities commission informed the board of supervisors of the cleanpowersf community agregation program electric rates and charges. item 16 is a hearing of the board of supervisors to convene as a committee of the whole to consider the electric generation rates and charges from the san francisco public
utilities commission. >> president walton: thank you, madam clerk, and i know that supervisor chan would like to give some opening remarks, and she will also facilitate this portion of the agenda. supervisor chan? >> supervisor chan: thank you, president walton, and thank you, colleagues, for the opportunity to facilitate this committee of whole. colleagues, as i mentioned last week as we continued this item that we as board of supervisors have the authority over rate setting process by resolution, and in this case, with cleanpowersf, the rate has been increasing, but that's not why i requested this hearing today. i requested this hearing to serve as an informational committee. it is not my intent to take action on this. that will take place on november 1. the goal is to have a
transparent conversation with the san francisco public utilities commission and a public acknowledgement from this body about the cleanpowersf rate increase as it is our duty to conduct oversight, but i also hope that we take this moment to hear the details about cleanpowersf, where it is at, so perhaps give us the opportunity to affirm our commitment to support cleanpowersf. please recognize that from the report that there was a 16%, 16% decrease in rate for cleanpowersf in january of this year. we recognize the rate increase by 4% in july and now is an additional 6% increase on top of that starting november 1. now, colleagues, this all in a way is to be comparable to the pg&e rate that has also increased in the summer, so the
goal is and the question is how do we ensure cleanpowersf stay competitive and is affordable? it has been the process of this body when we set forth to establish cleanpowersf that we ensure cleanpowersf stay affordable for san franciscans. so i understand there will be a rate study coming spring 2022 to help us understand how cleanpowersf can set its own rates independent from pg&e. so i look forward to the report coming spring 2022 and we'll also be requesting a hearing perhaps from government audit and oversight committee for the study once it's available. i again wanted to state this, that the cleanpowersf rate has
been increasing. while it's not back to the 16% decrease that we experienced in january, it is time for us to really figure out how to move cleanpowersf forward, to allow it to stay competitive and affordable in the years to come, and i apologize. i don't know which staff we're going to have present today. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor chan, and i believe we have michael hyams and rachel [indiscernible] presenting today. >> great. thank you. my name is mike hyams, and i am responsible for the cleanpowersf program, and i'm
joined by erin franks. it's our pleasure to present to you this update on cleanpowersf electric generation rates this afternoon. erin and i have about nine slides we're going to walk you through, and we're also joined by our sfpuc colleague, edith castorena, who's going to help us navigate our presentation slides. supervisors, i know you're aware that cleanpowersf has been a popular program. after completing citywide enrollment in 2019, it now served more than 380,000
residential and commercial customer service accounts with a 96% retention rate. that means that only about 4% of customers have chosen to return to pg&e for their power choice. through the end of 2020, cleanpowersf saved its customers about $18.5 million on their electricity bills. by directing our customers purchasing power towards more renewable and cleaner sources of electricity supply, cleanpowersf has made our grid cleaner and generated significant green jobs. next slide. this slide shows average bills for cleanpowersf residential customers since the program launched in 2016 and tells much of the story in graphics that
supervisor chan just explained to you. as a reminder, under state law, cleanpowersf is a partner to and competitor with pg&e. under the community choice model, cleanpowersf is responsible for procuring the electricity which is delivered to our customers by pg&e, and pg&e is responsible for metering each customer's usage, billing customers, and maintaining the power distribution infrastructure. cleanpowersf's customers' electricity bills include charges from cleanpowersf for sourcing the electricity that customers use. this replaces what pg&e would charge for electricity supply if it continued to source the power. the top chart on this slide with the green bar shows cleanpowersf charges on a
residential customer's electricity bill. this is the portion of the electricity bill that the city controls. you can see the associated dates across the top. the lower slide with blue bars showed the average cost that residential customers paid pg&e. they're authorized under state law to collect a surcharge from cleanpowersf customers the power charge in adjustment charge or pcia. it's intended to collect the above market costs of power supplies that pg&e procured on behalf of san francisco customers before the city launched cleanpowersf. as you can see on this slide, the cleanpowersf charges have stayed relatively consistent since the program launched, moving a few dollars up or down
per month on average. in early 2020, to allow us to respond quickly to rate changes to allow us to maintain competitiveness, the sfpuc adopted a rate formula that automatically adjusts cleanpowersf rates pursuant to criteria. despite the sfpucs efforts to manage the impact of rate volatility on its customers' bills, the total cost has gone up. in fact, pg&e's charges have increased 40%, an annual rate of almost 8% a year. by comparison, cleanpowersf charges are currently less than when the program launch index
2016, and you can see here, too, the impact of cleanpowersf's recently rate action that would bring the average cleanpowersf's rates to november 1. you can see how, in january of this year, pg&e increased the pcia by more than 20%. in response to this increase in the pcia and to protect our customers from rate shock, the sfpuc reduced cleanpowersfs rates by 20%. you can see that by the dip in charges in january 2021. next slide, please. cleanpowersf rate changes happen in a context that
requires us to remain competitive while managing a number of factors that are out of our control. one of those factors is the challenge of pcia rate volatility. when we reduced rates by 16% in january, rereduced rates below our cost of service using our rate stabilization reserves to balance our costs for the fiscal year. this is intended to be a temporary reduction to help our customers to smooth out the dramatic reduction. this year, we have also seen significant volatility in energy markets, with electricity prices in the california wholesale market rising by more than 20%. a number of factors are causing this to occur. for example, extreme weather and drought are increasing
demand on the grid and decreasing power supply as hydroelectric resources become dwindled, compounded by more uncertain and extreme weather have increased natural gas prices. natural gas is still a major driver of electricity prices throughout california and the u.s., so it has contributed to significant increases in electricity prices. finally, supply chain interruptions are impacting the availability of parts and equipment from manufacturers needed to build new electric generation capacity, increasing costs and causing delays. earlier this year, california also had the first bankruptcy of a community choice energy program, located in riverside county. this bankruptcy resulted in the return of western's customers back to southern california
edison, the utility in southern california, has drawn attention to the financial reserves and liquidity of financial choice programs, including cleanpowersf. so the financial health of our program is facing increased scrutiny from credit institutions, financial regulators, and other parties, including power suppliers. the september 20 rate action is intended to put cleanpowersf in a more financially sustainable position, allowing them to recover its costs and continuing to operate in what has been a volatile and uncertain energy marketplace. so with that background, i'm now going to turn the virtual podium here over to erin who will walk-through some of the specifics of this action in our rate planning process. >> thanks, mike. if we can go to the next slide. so this brings us to our most
recent rates action. following the process that's required by the san francisco charter, our rates are first reviewed by the rate fairness board, which is a board appointed by the mayor and the board of supervisors. the rate increase is then approved by the san francisco public utilities commission at their september 28 meeting with an effective date of november 1. the average cleanpowersf customer bill for a residential customer will go up 4% from its current level. that worked out to a $3 increase for the average residential customer or a $15 increase for the average commercial customer. changes maintain the same margins between pg&e and cleanpowersf's rates as what's effective on november 1. next slide. this rate increase is fundamentally about ensuring
our financial viability through this really tough fiscal year. it addresses the increased cost that we're seeing in power supply, ensuring in a range of scenarios, we end the year with sufficient financial reserves to meet our financial policies. this protects our credit rating, which is currently the highest of any california c.c.a. a strong credit rating helps us enter into power purchase agreements with more favorable terms. our long-term financial sustainability underlies all of the goals of cleanpowersf. with sufficient reserves and clean power viability, we can support the plan to transfer to
clean energy. all that said, i want to talk a little bit about where we're going next with cleanpowersf rates. the charter requires a rate study by an independent consultant at least every five years. it's currently underway and will be completed in spring 2022. with this rate study, we will propose rated based on our own timeline, our own policy, and our own goals, moving away from the reactive to pg&e approach that we've had to take since program launch. we're aiming to propose rates that only change once each fiscal year, avoiding midyear rate changes except in emergencies. while we can never ignore pg&e in a competitive environment, rates based on our own costs instead of a margin compared to
pg&e puts us in the driver's seat. i'm really excited about this rate study, and you'll hear more about it between now and next spring, and with that, i'll hand it back to mike. >> thank you, erin. supervisors -- next slide -- oh, great, thank you. affordability is a top priority for the sfpuc and the cleanpowersf program. as a local government program, cleanpowersf prioritizes the needs of our san francisco community, not corporate shareholders. we recognize the challenges many of our customers are facing especially in light of the covid-19 pandemic. that's why we delivered $3 million in direct bill relief to low-income customers last year and decreased cleanpowersf's rates last year during the winter covid surge.
this also helped us promote the care and low fare programs, decreasing costs by as much as 30% on a total energy bill. in addition, sfpuc has been engaged at the state level to advocate for debt relief assistance to our customers, at the legislature and the california p.u.c. this past month, residential and small commercial customers with more than 60 days of energy charges past due were enrolled into new pandemic payment plans. low-income customers that qualify for the care and fare programs may also participate in the new arrearage programs. this provides forgiveness to
customers who make timely payments on their bills each month over a 12-month period. finally, the c.a.p. program will be distributing $700 million in debt relief bills as authorized by assembly bill 135. this is being authorized by the state community fund for resources and development. next and last slide, please. as we've shared throughout this presentation, the recent
cleanpowersf presentation are ensured to recover rates costs. thz the critical foundation that we need to continue to meet our goals, including reinvesting our rate payer dollars into the community, spear heading renewable energy projects and new jobs and providing for long-term financial sustainability. so that concludes our presentation, and erin and i would be happy to take any questions that you may have. >> supervisor chan: thank you, and thank you, president walton, allowing me to facilitate this. and director hyams, and this is probably a question for miss frank -- we don't have to go back to the slide but -- presentation, but i note that on slide 5, that is specifically talk about rate increase at 4% and the dollar amount that bring to the
average residential and small business customers. the question that i do have -- >> president walton: just real quick, and my apologies, supervisor chan. i forgot to make sure that, colleagues, for the record, we are convened as a committee of the whole to hear and take public comment on the electric generation rates and charges submitted by the p.u.c., so this public hearing has been in effect, and i want to make sure it's been officially open. thank you, supervisor chan. [please stand by]
small business, that is the only the 4% increase but not really the total dollar? >> that's correct. so that's on november 1st with the clean power s.f. rate increased as proposed how much alone that would increase rates >> july 1st? >> november 1st, that's the one going into effect on november 1st. >> so november 1st is 4%, is that correct? >> on the total bill, including the pg&e rate increases. >> okay, i think that what i'm trying to get at though is, you know, it does add up for the residents and really for ratepayers and noted that my next question is knowing that as it currently stands, i know that you're doing the right study, but as it currently stands the market seems to be volatile. so, you know, knowing that we
have increased by 4% and coming back on november 1st to increase additional 6%, what is the next -- what is the plan ahead of the next six months or 12 months to stabilize the rates, so to speak? what is the plan there? >> i can -- i can take that or start that, erin. you know, i think, supervisor, the -- you know, the first step is this rate increase and really what we're doing, right, is we're bringing our rates back to the cost of service. when we reduced our rates earlier in the year, we absorbed an increase in the pcia. and so now we're really recovering from that absorption i think that the rate study that erin talked about in her portion of the presentation is intended
to focus on stability and planning, and i thought, you know, she said very eloquently we really do need to be in control of our rates in order to be in the driver's seat for financial planning for this program. in addition, you know, through our power procurement work we're entering into new long-term contracts with new renewable resources. those contracts also help stabilize our rates over time. and, in fact, we have an amendment to an agreement before the board now that will do just that -- it will help stabilize our rates and avoid potentially needing to increase rates further as a result of this volatile market that we have been seeing. >> supervisor chan: are you referring to the contract that was at the budget and finance
committee? >> yes, yes, i am referring to the blythe contract, that's right. >> supervisor chan: no problem. i do actually have questions about that contract but probably i'm not going to question that today but i do see my colleague, supervisor peskin, have questions and i'm going to look to him for those questions. >> president walton: supervisor peskin has indicated that supervisor chan is facilitating this portion of the meeting. >> supervisor peskin: president walton, i have no questions and i just wanted to thank supervisor chan for calling this hearing. oftentimes we let these things go and don't utilize our powers that pass after a brief moment to just get this level of update and education and let the public see it. i remember the long, hard road to getting this program launched, starting with assembly member migden did the mitigation
that i finally called community choice aggravation that ultimately got then the supervisor to push the puc to launch this program which i think that probably all of us are now clean power consumers, along with hundreds of thousands of san franciscans. so i really appreciate the daylighting in this committee of the whole about the power rates, the bond ratings. i think that it is very important and timely discussion so i just want to thank supervisor chan. >> supervisor chan: thank you, supervisor preston. i think that, colleagues and this is sort of is the goal of this hearing at this moment, you know, i think that it is for us to be educated about the rate setting, to be reminded that our authority on the rate setting process, i think that it is a reminder for ourselves but also
sfpuc that i think that we are wanting to also let the public and our constituents know that we're tracking the rate changes we're going to do our due diligence to question about how these rate-setting process goes, and that we're going to continue to track the rate study. i am really going to push sfpuc to complete the rate study on time and to really help us to gain some independence from pg&e and the way that we set rates. and, director heinz, in my questions for this, if none of my other colleagues have questions, i don't know if you're prepared to show that, but i would love for you to speak a little bit about, you know, knowing that half of the san franciscans are now customers for clean power s.f., but also noted that there are utility debts owed by san franciscans in both resident
customers and business commercial customers. could you just speak a little bit about that and why these rate changes increased and how they may be impacted. >> yes, supervisor chan. so as i laid out during our presentation, the sfpuc has clearly been i think, you know, leading the way as far as protecting our utility customers from the impacts of covid-19. you know, as i discussed, the pcia increased 40% for clean power s.f. customers at the beginning of this year. we reduced rates in response to that, drawing from financial reserves that we put in place to help smooth these kinds of things out over time.
and that, you know, mitigated what would have been a pretty significant bill increase for our customers at that time. we also delivered $3 million in bill credits to low-income customers during the covid-19 pandemic. and that, you know, that came without any other increase to rates to fund it. so it was a reduction, again, from revenues for the fiscal year. we've also been very active in advocating on behalf of our customers, not just our clean power s.f. electric customers, but for water and wastewater customers who have accumulated debt as a result of the pandemic, and that's coming to fruition in terms of results as far as assistance, that relief assistance from the state government, the federal government. as i mentioned the cap program is being implemented and over the next several months we do
expect a significant reduction in the debt that has been accumulated by some of these customers that you mentioned. at this point in time we don't know about how much but we have submitted about $5 million in eligible debt relief to the state and it's my understanding too that the p.u.c. will come to this body later for -- i'm going to blank on the terminology, but maybe erin can help -- >> accept and expend. >> accept and expend, thank you, for those relief funds. and i think -- i think that turning to the long term really, we know that clean power s.f. is a competitive service. customers have the ability to choose who they get their electric generation service
from. so we are very much focused on delivering a higher quality product to our community. and i think that we have done that to date and the community has shown that it wants it product through the really high participation rate that we've had in the program to date. but i do look forward to working with you and with other members of the board to implement new initiatives, to assist our customers going forward. >> supervisor chan: thank you, director heinz, i think this is my last question, actually. other thanking that we have residents and businesses incurring utility debt in san francisco, it's important to highlight that clean power s.f.
has been playing a very critical role to extend its disconnection moratorium until march 2022. but, director heinz, can you speak again -- i just want to highlight where clean power s.f. is important and even though you have as an agency extended the connection -- disconnection moratorium, but that does not mean that pg&e does not -- cannot stop pg&e from disconnecting the customers. >> yeah, thank you for your question. so pg&e adopted a recommendation, on our water and wastewater side, utility disconnections until march of 2022. and, you know, erin and our financial team have been working
on that effort and making sure that our customers on the water and wastewater side have programs in place to that. and we have suspended to the pg&e service which is clean power s.f. and the city's only recourse in that instance, if a customer is not paying its bills. only pg&e has the authority to disconnect customers for non-payment, and the california public utilities commission had imposed a moratorium that sunsetted on the 30th of september. so our customers could be disconnected under the current rules. i don't anticipate that
disconnections will resume still for several months. part of the reason of that is the implementation of these repayment plans that i have outlined during our presentation. all customers who have debt that would make them exposed to a disconnection under pg&e's tariffs are being enrolled into these repayment plans. as long as they are in the repayment plan, they won't be disconnected, and they will be given opportunities to -- to miss a certain number of payments before they could be disconnected. >> vice-president collins: thank you, director heinz -- >> vice-president collins: thank you, director heinz. and seeing that no other colleagues are on the roster, this is my last parting comment is that, you know, knowing that we have collectively worked on eviction moratorium to the end of this year, noted that there
is a disconnection moratorium, though extended in 2022, we have yet to understand the utility debt and tenants' relief and all of those supports that may go away in 2022 for san franciscans. and i think that there are challenges ahead for us to remember to work on this together and it's not just the tenants' relief, but knowing that there are other debts that our residents and small businesses are experiencing in the last two years. and that they are just cumulative and may come to 2022 and figure out how we in our budget prioritize ways to support them. thank you. thank you, president walton, for this privilege. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor chan, and i do want to echo the comments of supervisor peskin and just thank you and i appreciate you for calling this committee of the whole. it is important that we discuss
the process for our puc and how we decide on these rates, not just for us to know at the board of supervisors but also for the public to know and understand. so thank you for calling this hearing and thank you so much, michael and erin, for being here to present this afternoon. and before this committee of the whole is filed, madam clerk, would you please call for public comment on the committee of the whole. >> clerk: thank you, mr. president. the board of supervisors is now convened a committee of the whole and they will hear public testimony associated with the electric generation rates and charges. the telephone number is streaming on your screen. it is 1-(415)-655-0001. and when you hear the prompt, enter the meeting i.d. 2484 749 5194 please press pound twice. you would have joined the meeting. you'll be able to hear the discussion but you'll be muted and in a listening queue. right now we have 12 individuals
in listening queue and we have one caller who is lined up to provide comments. so if you're one of the 12 and you would like to move over to provide comments, this is when you should press star 3. when it is your turn, the system will give you a prompt. and listen carefully as you will be unmuted and you can speak your comments. i would like to introduce the interpreters here from the office of civic engagement and immigrant affairs. we have for spanish, and filipino, raymond bores, and cantonese, agnes lai. welcome to you interpreters. >> [speaking foreign language]
>> clerk: thank you. mr. bores, is your equipment working? okay. all right, well, we do have a spanish interpreter and cantonese on hand. operations, do we have the first caller in the queue, please? >> caller: good afternoon, supervisors. today i'm calling in support of mutual power. it's clearly the only answer for our city to be able to reliably implement low-cost power in the capacity that we require. while we have long-term -- had sufficient water -- the approach
with our increased population, there's the likelihood that we will not. currently 9% of our power in the state of california comes from diablo canyon which is in the process of being shut down. and so the largest loss of renewable power that california would have faced. second only, or right after san anofri. so today i'm calling for technology to solve this problem as we see microreactors and small modular reactors implemented in many other states, we in california, specifically san francisco, have a unique need for these systems whether it is to create water for our growing population, or to serve as a renewable source of power as it is uniquely capable of. we need nuclear. fundamentally. fundamentally, it creates more than half of the heat that our civilization uses to survive --
not just ours but the entire planet. we have a nuclear reactor, and that is what keeps us alive. using a small piece of that in san francisco is the only safe choice. >> clerk: thank you for your comments, sir. operations, do we have another caller in the queue? >> madam clerk, there are no further callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you for your assistance. mr. president. >> president walton: thank you, madam clerk. seeing no other speakers, public comment is now closed. and, madam clerk, this hearing has been held and is now filed. madam clerk, can you please call our next 3:00 p.m. special order, items 38 through 41. >> clerk: items 38 to 41 for a
certification for the proposed project at 469 stevenson street, this item was continued to the public hearing for the fdir project issued by the planning commission on july 29, 2021, and for a proposed mix of-use project for the surface parking lot at the project site and construct a new 27-story mixed use residential program to include 495 dwelling units, commercial retail use on the ground floor. and private and common open space. three below grade parking levels with 166 vehicular parking spaces, among other spaces and uses. this project will use the individually requested state density bonus program and provide affordable housing units on site. item 39 is the motion to affirm the commission's certification
of the fdir for this project. and item 40 to continually reverse the commission certification of the fdir. and subject to the adoption of written findings of the board of supervisors in support of this determination, and item 41 is the motion to direct the appropriation of findings. >> president walton: thank you. colleagues, we have before us a hearing on the appeal of a final environmental impact report certification for the proposed project at 469 stevenson street after the hearing, the board will vote on whether to affirm or to conditionally reverse the planning commission's approval of a final environmental impact report at 469 stevenson 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. and up to 10 minutes for a
presentation from the planning department. up to 10 minutes for the project sponsor. and then 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. i don't see any objection to us proceeding this way and seeing no objections, the public hearing will proceed as indicated and is now open. colleagues, do we have anyone that wishes to speak before we get to the appeal? seeing no one on the roster, we will now ask the appellant to come forward and to present their case. you have up to 10 minutes and we have susan brant-holly and john elverling.
>> good afternoon, president and members of the board. i'm susan brant-holly and i'm here, i'm a lawyer that works with ceqa, and i'm here representing the appellant. i'd like to spend a bit of my time talking about the standard of review, because that's so important for this board. obviously if it's a substantial evidence standard that would mean that if there is any evidence to say that the eir is adequate, that the board could not then find that it's not. but that is not the standard. and the supreme court has resolved that -- there has been a dispute about how an elected decision-making body like this board addresses the adequacy of an eir. that resolved by the supreme court just a couple of years ago
in sierra club versus county of snowma. excuse me, county of fresno. the supreme court found that the adequacy of any eir is a question of law which means that it is up to this body to figure out if based on the requirements of ceqa, this eir is adequate. and i note that in the recent letter that we have received from the applicant's lawyer that there was a statement that, in fact, the question of eir adequacy was argued is substantial evidence because the only question that is a question of law is whether procedural or statutory criteria of ceqa were satisfied. yes, that is the rule but there are a lot of requirements of ceqa -- procedural and
statutory, substantive, i guess, that is what is meant that, must be followed. and there's a lot of case law that indicates what should happen. i did argue this case in the supreme court and there was dispute by the opponents that, in fact, it should be a substantial evidence, unless, in fact, there's a whole portion left out and the court said no. so it is a question of law. and those are -- in this particular case, the eir -- we have said in our letters what the problems are and they were identified by the planning commission as well. but this is not respectfully a close call in terms what hasn't been looked at here. one of the main issues is the geotechnical information and to be clear while the applicant is stating that there was adequate analysis, and has even tried to put new analysis before you today, there's been nothing in
the eir itself. what happened was the initial study said that there was no possible problem in light of a cursory analysis of the soils, and so it was what they called scoped out of the eir. and scoping out of the eir means that it's not discussed at all. and at this point there's been no eir analysis. the planning commission raised concerns about it. the architect told the planning commission, have no fear, we'll make sure that it's all safe, but, obviously, with an eir process one doesn't have -- one can't just say trust us -- we have a good expert. that would mean we wouldn't need eirs. well, time is going by quickly so i'll jump to a few other points here, if i can find -- this is a little tricky to find my notes. the -- i just want to say too that the letters from the applicants switched between different issues.
eir adequacy versus findings. it's true that findings can be made by substantial evidence. and, for example, here if you agree that the eir is not adequate, you will make findings and have reasons why, and they must be supported by substantial evidence. we will talk more about the seismic issues. but we also have issues relating to the multiple historic districts. we have an inadequate analysis of alternatives and finding that anything that achieves less benefit is infeasible, which is not the standard. there are, in fact, feasible alternatives to this project. but the key point here is that there has not been adequate analysis, both of the seismic nor the geotechnical issues, i should say, the historic resource impacts and also the gentrification displacement which the physical consequences of that is going to be the need
>> -- that the builder developer does not intend to put piles under this building. you know there was an old marsh here. we know from experience in building eight buildings in soma that the conditions can change from one lot to another, and that's exactly what happened to the transbay tower, the millennium tower in transbay. that never was discussed, never mentioned in this morning's letter from the engineer. and we've learned that they're not going to put piles in the building. well, if you all had evaluated the whole issue, the planning
department could have required piles as a mitigation, but because that was never discussed, it's not going to happen. we have united now south of market long time groups. we have united playas, we have west bay filipino multiservice organization, we have the south of market community action network, and we have soma pilipinas, and united save the mission also support this appeal. the threatened building here is going to be the mint mall. it's over 100 units, and it's almost occupied entirely by filipino family units tonight.
that obviously makes it a prime target for investors to buy, for investors to declare they need to move the residents out and move it -- market up the building. these are important vital resources in the city's programs, but those massive leases do not include any options to buy the property. so when the lease runs out several years down the road, the owners do not have to renew the lease. they don't. they could instead to take those hotels up market and likewise to renovate them and require the existing tenants to move out. that's how gentrification works. that is -- your vote is about
sixth street, and despite, obviously, the present environmental review process, then you have sealed the fate of sixth street that will be last to gentrification and the future. that is why we urge you to please support our appeal this afternoon. thank you. >> president walton: thank you so much, and i don't see any questions -- supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, president walton. and maybe this is a more appropriate question after planning, but the pleadings did speak to the alleged lack of analysis with regard to impacts relating to historic resources and -- in the plethora of different historic districts which is not addressed in the e.i.r. and the project sponsor does raise some defenses, but i
wanted to open to that. i don't know if i should ask that of the appellant or reserve those -- i guess i could ask those of the appellant now. >> president walton: if you have a question of the appellant, i think you should feel free to ask. >> supervisor peskin: i do. i have looked at the draft sections of the environmental impact report, which miss hawley said were, quote, unquote, scoped out. i've never heard that, but they were, based on a planning department study in 2019, no potential impacts to those historic and cultural resources. subsequently, it appears that -- not appeared. based on comments on the draft e.i.r., the response to the planning department were those comments didn't raise any additional issues so they did not modify the e.i.r.
project will affect the surroundings of the historic resources to the point that it might affect their integrity, and we would argue is not responded to or analyzed in the e.i.r. adequately for a project in this particular location. >> president walton: supervisor peskin? >> president walton: thank you, supervisor peskin, and thank you to the appellants. seeing no one else in the roster from my colleagues, we are now going to call for public comment. -- comment if you are here to support the appeal. madam clerk? >> clerk: thank you, mr. president. the board will now here
in support of the appeal for the approval of the stevenson street project. there will be an additional public hearing for those who want to support the project and who do not support the appeal. the telephone number is streaming on your screen. it's 415-655-0001. when you hear the prompt, enter the meeting i.d.-12484-749-5194. press pound and pound again, and when you are connected, you will be muted and in the listening queue. right now, we have 21 listening and one who would like to speak. when it is your turn, the system will prompt you. listen carefully for you have been unmuted and then begin speaking your comments. we do have three interpreters present to provide services. welcome. [speaking spanish language]
i have provides comments for this public -- provided comments for this public comment section of the hearing. i understand there were some more specific questions that may be directed to me, so i will try to keep it to two minutes, but i am available to answer specific questions going forward. >> president walton: and just so you know, you only have the two minutes for public comment. >> fine. thank you so much. heritage supports the creation of new housing in san francisco. however, the project at 469 stevenson as currently envisioned in problematic. we oppose the project primarily with regard to the insufficient analysis of the project's scale, bulk, and density. we oppose the overall combined effect of this project and its direct and indirect impacts on historic and cultural resources on the area.
cultural heritage district. the project e.i.r. is insufficient in its analysis of impacts on these resources, and furthermore, the proposed tower would be just half a block west of the city owned u.s. mint, the national mint, a u.s. historic landmark. the impacts on the mint have not been adequately assessed. mint plaza is a great community amenity with potential to be so much more and to flourish as a
pit space. we urge the supervisors to support the appeal and reject the final e.i.r. certification. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, do we have another comment in the few please? all right. perhaps that's an unattended line. >> hi. i was just unmuted. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. >> yeah, it took a while. matthew nolty. i was trying to get into the zoom meeting, but apparently, the i.d. is wrong, so i just have zoom audio, and just whatever happens, i just -- i'm extremely troubled by the covid deaths that we're dealing with and the lack of accessible of ivermectin in san francisco clinics. thanks. >> clerk: thank you. at this time, the board of supervisors are taking public comment of those in favor of the appeal of the certification of the final environmental impact report. later, there will be an opportunity to provide testimony for those who are in support of the project. so i understand there are 24 listeners and three callers in the queue. let's hear from the next caller who will be in support of the appeal of the feir for this stevenson street project. welcome, caller. welcome, caller. [indiscernible]. >> clerk: perhaps you could turn down your speakers. >> hello. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can. >> i'm calling in support of the appeal on behalf of the yerba buena neighborhood consortium. i think it's important to note that the vote was a split vote at the planning commission, with all the board appointed commissioners supporting the e.i.r. we do not need a 17-story 428 market rate project in the heart of our neighborhood. we support predominantly low-income families and seniors that live in the south of market, many of which are close by this project and are already living in subpar conditions and s.r.o.s, and by having a project this high will drive home that it's unaffordable, and it's really not going to help make our neighborhood affordable at all. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. operations, can you bring us the next comment, please? >> hello, supervisors. my name is david wu with soma
pilipinas. the 469 stevenson project will only serve gentrification and displacement in our neighborhood. the soma alleyways where so many families live, like natoma street, which has seen rent controlled families containing generations of filipino families, be bought and flipped. how many more filipino families can we stand to lose in the south of market in san francisco? these market rate units are not meant to be affordable for people of color. with those to 40,000 vacant homes in san francisco, it's
clear that san francisco's affordable housing crisis isn't going to be addressed by building even more market rate units. we ask that you support this appeal. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. we understand there are 24 callers in the queue and two callers who are lined up to provide testimony. we're going to take this group to the end, so if you are one of the 24 who would like to provide testimony on behalf of the appeal, you should press star, three now. otherwise, operations, let's hear from our next caller, please. >> with good afternoon, supervisors. my name -- good afternoon, supervisors. my name is nisha olivas, and
malleable. it's necessary to make sure our projects are safe. we have seen time and time again that there are people who can afford to build affordable housing, but there's no land to be found. adding another 500 residents of high income will not do anything for the neighborhood. far those reasons, please support the appeal of the e.i.r. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right. operations, do we have another caller in the queue, please? is
including needs that come out of the covid-19 pandemic. i am one of the residents in south of market and an s.r.o., so this is really important to me. the community benefits agreement is supported by residents of soma and tenderloin. it is the result of community centered processing environment involving residents, the community members that have been excluded from these projects in the past. we home that project sponsors in -- hope that project sponsors in the future below -- >> clerk: thank you for your comment, sir. all right. there are 24 listeners in the queue. if you'd like to provide comment testimony in support of the appeal, press star, three now. operations, do we have another caller in the queue, please? >> hi. can you hear me now? >> clerk: yes. >> hi -- okay. hello, president walton and members of the san francisco board of supervisors. my name is julio ochoa, and a member of local 22. i'm in support of the 469 stevenson street project -- >> clerk: sir, forgive me for interrupting you. i'm pausing your time. this is the testimony opportunity for those who are in support of the appeal. in just a couple of minutes, we're going to have public opportunity for those who are in support of the project. may i ask you to be just a little bit longer patient and then press star, three to put you back into the listening queue, and then once we call testimony on behalf of the project, you just press star, three to get back in line to speak. okay. thank you. operations, do we have any other callers in the queue who would like to provide testimony on behalf of the appeal? >> hi. good afternoon. this is emily [indiscernible]. i am a member of sfrc, and i am
time. thank you kindly. i'm pausing your time, but this is not the opportunity for those who are in support of the project just yet. please press star, three to get back in line, and when we call those to testify in support of the project, that's when you'll provide your testimony. all right. operations, do we have any other callers who would like to testify in support of the appeal? welcome, caller. >> hello. good afternoon, supervisors. this is bobbie [indiscernible] a soma affordable housing developer, providing comments to support the appeal. for the last few decades, we have stopped [indiscernible] as mr. oberly said, [indiscernible] we know that's not true. we should be studying the upzoning studies coming out of new york. we need to look at what happened in crowded cities in downtown operations, do we have any caller in support of the appeal? hello, caller. >> hello. i'm ramon maldonado, and i'm calling in support of the 469 stevenson project. i just feel like it's a great opportunity -- >> clerk: sir, forgive me interruption. i'm pausing your time. this is testimony in support of the appeal. there will be an opportunity to provide testimony in support of the project, but this is
onto streets away from the proposed projects. it is these facts upon which the department bases its conconclusion that the project would not result in significant impact to these historic districts. appellant has not demonstrated that the project appeal is supported by significant evidence. the preliminary geotechnical report for the project identified two foundation types. while the proposed project is anticipated to be constructed on a mount foundation, the initial study analyzed structural types. the proposed project would be
subject to the building code in effect at the time. the building department's administrative bulletins and information sheets are also updated as needed inform monitor changes for the building code. an engineering design review team compromised of independent expert and geotechnical experts would review the project. in particular, interim requirements that geotechnical and instruct al review of tall buildings were issued in 2018 and 2019 pending the incorporation of requirements into local building code under administration bulletin 111. it is through this process that
the final foundation system would be determined. as also stated in the e.i.r., should a mat foundation be appropriate, they would monitor for settlement during a ten-year period after the foundation permit is issued. the geotechnical expert is present to address any further questions you may have on this matter. the appellant has not met their burden of proving the conconclusions in the e.i. -- conclusions in the e.i.r. have not been upheld by ceqa. this concludes my presentation.
my colleagues and i are available for questions. >> president walton: thank you so much for your presentation. supervisor peskin, did you have any questions for planning? >> supervisor peskin: i don't have questions, but i will say some of the statements made by planning department staff are now set forth in chapter 31 of the administrative code. our standard of review in section 31.16 that advocate -- clearly set forth what our roles are and is not set forth on an evidentiary standard.
if the board finds that the final e.i.r. complies with ceqa, including that it is accurate, adequate, and objective, sufficient as an informational document, correct in its conclusions, and it says the board shall reverse if we find that it does not comply with ceqa, but this substantial evidence thing, that's a new twist that planning is throwing into this soup. it doesn't matter because i think there is substantial evidence, but i will get to that later. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor peskin. supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: thank you. i have a few questions for planning and a few questions for the city attorney. one is on the issue of seismic safety. i think this is a very serious question and, of course, obviously in soma around some of these larger projects a big concern for us.
and you spoke a little bit to this. you know, what are the steps that a project would have to go through to gain final approval to make sure it is safe and available, and when is it the right time for the city to weigh-in on those concerns? i know that planning has a particular role around it, but there's still more work to do in order to have final approval based on how these concerns are being addressed, so if you could clarify that a bit more because i do think that is one of the main arguments that is being made by the appellants? >> sorry. debra dwyer, planning department staff. thank you for the question. the process does allow for a
site building review process which does typically review after ceqa and after the entitlements? this allows for building to review conceptual plans for conformance with the building code and conformance with recommendations in the geotechnical report. however, the site permit that's followed by the submittal of construction documents which are the details engineer designs that are used for actual construction, and those addenda, for example, for foundational and structural design and for the super structure are reviewed by the building department in separate phases, and those are reviewed, and there is a back and forth with the -- in the case of tall buildings with the design
review team in which they meet and review and ask questions of the engineer of record, both the geotechnical engineer and the structural engineer to ensure compliance with the building code as well as provisions of the local code. in this case, for tall buildings. this is in administrative bulletin 111, which has the requirements that jennie recommended. does that answer your question? >> supervisor haney: yes. so there's another set of processes that would happen after this. and have those been strengthened? you know you gave reference, but that's sort of a rigorous process. has that process changed at all to sort of give different levels of review or how are we
making sure thoo these concerns are addressed? >> yes. administrative bulletin 082, which are procedures for structural, geotechnical, and hazardous technical design review were originally issued in 2008, but they were revised in 2016 and further updated in 2018, and then most recently updated in january 2020 for the 2019 building code? and then, so the projects have complied with this administrative bulletin, but then, in addition, there is administrative bulletin 111, which is for buildings that are greater than 240 feet and has a number of additional requirements. this was issued last june but it was preceded by two
information sheets, structural 18 and 20, which were interim guidelines that were previously in effect i believe in 2017 and 2019. so these are the requirements for an engineering design review team which is comprised of experts that are independent from the project sponsor's team. and were forced to the building department directly. >> supervisor haney: thank you. i want to ask about the argument around the neighboring historic districts. even though this is adjacent in some ways, you know, obviously, there's an argument that it would impact the neighboring historic districts. would this project, as you see it, displace any cultural or
historic resources, and can you speak to it more how you came to the conclusion that this would not have any impact on a couple of the historic districts that surround it? hello? >> president walton: i think you're on mute, if you want to try to answer it, justin. >> sorry. justin [indiscernible], planning department staff. we do consider the districts around it, along with the article 11 mint-mission conservation district, and we determined that most of the contributing buildings to these historic districts are oriented
towards streets away from the proposed project such as the sixth street lodging historic district which has contributing buildings that all face other streets or contributing buildings that face market street, so it was our determination that the construction of the proposed project would not impact any of the boundaries of any of these historic districts nor would it impact any of the contributors to any of these historic districts. >> supervisor haney: thank you. appreciate that. i know that there are questions about the surrounding districts and historic place. did you look at some of the protections around some of the buildings in the area if you might speak to any of the protections around the
buildings that exist, particularly around the protection of the sixth street buildings? >> certainly. you know, any alterations to properties that are located within district -- the sixth street historic lodging district would undergo review. we would take no account whether or not that would impact the district through material impairment, but it was our determination that because this proposed project is located outside the boundaries of the historic district, that the proposed project, although it may have some affect on the setting of the historic district, some material impairments are expected.
>> supervisor haney: thank you. i'll hold any material questions for now. thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor haney. supervisor melgar? >> supervisor melgar: thank you very much, supervisor walton. so i have some questions about the geotechnical analysis, so jumping off the questions from my colleagues, supervisor peskin and haney. so to miss dwyer, you described the process under which the building inspection commission would go about permitting a building methodology that would support your analysis, but i -- you know, what's missing for me is that our -- our introduction here is about the adequacy of the geotechnical analysis as part of the e.i.r., and my
knowledge of the department, the planning department, you have folks on staff who are, you know, experts on the historic nature and the cultural district surrounding this project. but is there someone who has particular expertise on the geotechnical issues who can then say, you know, the methodology that is being proposed will mitigate this particular building, which you have stated in the analysis is on the type of soil that, you know, that necessitates specific methodology for it to be safe. so that's question number one, and question number two is i'm wondering, when it gets to d.b.i., if the folks at d.b.i. has the expertise to say that
the particular methodology that they're doing will not impair the historic resources around it because to my knowledge, d.b.i. does not have the knowledge of the historic cultural districts around it, so can you talk to me a little bit about how you went through that analysis and how you came to that? >> yes. so the planning department does not have geotechnical experts on staff. we do review the reports and ensure that they address the issues that they're required to address through the building code section 1803. they need to be prepared by qualified experts that are licensed by the state. that is also what d.b.i. is reviewing for and checking the plans have conformance with those recommendations, but the building code is(d) indicates
on the basis that the engineer of record is responsible as an expert to develop an appropriate design, and what d.b.i. is doing through their peer review, and it can be required even for small projects through the structural advisory committee is getting independent review by other experts to say that the building is being designed in accordance with state and local building codes. >> supervisor melgar: but state and local building codes does not necessarily sort of lead to the conclusion that this will adequately not impact the
historic and cultural resources around the project. >> i'm not addressing -- i'm just addressing the structural and geotechnical aspects. the building code does require that adjacent development is not adversely affected by construction, and there would be permits for both shoring and underpinning of adjacent developments that would have to be reviewed and approved, those permits. and geotechnical reports do address the methods and the -- how those activities would be carried out, what type of shoring or what type of underpinning because there may be different methods that could be utilized. >> supervisor melgar: okay. thank you, miss dyer.
supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: thank you. following up on supervisor melgar's line of questioning, i'm wondering what happens if d.b.i. requires the project to make significant changes, whether it's the historic resources or something else that weren't analyzed in the e.i.r.? what happens at that point? >> when a project is modified, an assessment is made as to whether the ceqa needs to be
supplemented or redone. >> through the chair, to add to what debra dyer said, if there's any changes to the proposed foundation, we can track with our internal flagging system, and we would review those changes to ensure it would be consistent with the environmental impact report that would be prepared, and if there are changes, then we would actually address those. >> supervisor ronen: and would your determination be appealed to the board of supervisors? >> if it requires -- if it's a different discretional action, then that discretionary action could be approved per what that action is. >> supervisor ronen: i just think there's a flaw in the way that this is set up, and that's not particular to this project
per se. i think it's a project in general. ceqa does have a geotechnical section, and we should fully, as the board of supervisors, have the ability to analyze whether the e.i.r. or whatever, the environmental review is adequate before d.b.i. comes in and potentially makes more changes. the whole thing seems very problematic to me, and i'll just leave that at that. my second question is, and this is for the city attorney. the planning commission decided that the shadow impacts on the historic resource were a necessary -- were an impact that couldn't be mitigated and chose to override that impact. what if the board decides differently? what if we decide that it shouldn't be overridden? do we have that power?
>> supervisors, through the chair, [indiscernible], deputy city attorney. the approval in this case was a conditional use, and the ceqa findings are a requirement of any approval. so after an e.i.r. is prepared, then, the agency adopting the project needs to make ceqa findings. in this case, they override the ceqa findings, and the conditional use was not appealed to the board as it could have been. so technically, under ceqa, the overrides are not within your purview. what's within your purview are the certification of e.i.r. if you find that the e.i.r. is inadequate, you can reject it, but the review of the findings themselves are part of the approval, the underlying approval. >> supervisor ronen: so if the board disagrees that the shadow impact on the historic resource should be -- should not be overridden, we just don't have
the power to do anything about that? >> if you find that the [indiscernible], if you find all of those requirements were not met and did not comply with ceqa, absolutely, you can send it back, but not as a party of policy whether or not it should have been overridden because the findings are a part of the e.i.r. and that's just not part of chapter 31 but follows directly the language of ceqa and the ceqa guidelines which allow for appeals when a nonelected official making body certifies an e.i.r., the certification is appealable to the official elected body. so here, the certification can be appealed to you, and the
planning processes and then build those buildings without, you know, without a ton of process and difficulty around doing what we said we want, but in this case, there must have been a planning process for this property at some point, and i'm curious if it's any of those early 2000s kind of planning processes or if it's older than that, but i'm curious how the older zoning limits apply when this part of the city has had a ton of development, a lot of that encouraged by the --
>> supervisor mandelman: i'm just curious because that process, that planning, that thought about how this property related to the other properties in the neighborhood, how the neighborhood fit together, what the land use priorities for that area is all sort of out the window if the building that's going to get built is more than twice as large as what that planning, that introduction at some point in san francisco's history concluded ought to be there. and i'm curious, and this maybe is an on going question, so the e.i.r. has to look at the on going consistency with the city's land use and planning, so how