tv BOS Full Board of Supervisors SFGTV April 13, 2021 7:00pm-10:16pm PDT
diverse neighborhood and population. so i think that's the richness of the mission and it always has been. it's what made me fall in love with this neighborhood and why i love it so much. >> president walton: good afternoon welcome to the april 13, 2021 regular meeting of the san francisco board of supervisors. please call the roll, madam clerk? [roll call]
ramaytush ohlone have never lost nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place. as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. as guests we recognize that we benefit from the living and working on their traditional homeland. we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders and relatives of the ramaytush ohlone community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. colleagues, please place your right hand over your heart and join in the pledge of allegiance. [pledge of allegiance] on behalf of the board, i like
to acknowledge the staff at sfgov tv. we have them with us today, who record each of our meetings and make the transcripts available to the public online. as we have a special guest with us this afternoon, madam clerk, please call the 2:00 p.m. special order. >> clerk: the special order at 2:00 p.m. is the appearance by the honorable mayor london breed. the mayor is here to discuss the eligible topics submitted from the supervisors representing districts 5, 6, 7 and 8. the mayor may address the board initially for up to five minutes. >> president walton: thank you so much. we would love to welcome madam mayor this afternoon. mayor breed. do you have any opening remarks? you have five minutes.
>> thank you president walton. i'm pleased to announce that we are moving forward first ever just sobering center here in san francisco. there's a serious crises on our streets. drug overdoses are at rising causes of death in our city. we need to be creative in how we support and treat those who are struggling with addiction. this isn't a new concept for us. we propose this type of center as part of our task force. we incorporated into mental health to make sure that we are moving towards coordinated care and meeting our residents where they are. since then, we unfortunately seen overdoses and deaths from both methane fentanyl climb. we need to do better.
we know this is not beneficial to them or the surrounding community. especially what we're seeing right now. the center will have one on one peer support and on site nurse for health assessment, referral for psychiatric care and connect people to job training. we'll have places to shower and get a change of clothes and offer snacks and beverages. most importantly, we'll make sure that everyone has a safe place without judgment and we can keep them in our system of care for treatment when they are ready. this is an important piece of the puzzle. we launched a number of initiatives most recently our street crises response team. which is a team of clinicians and specialists, providing a non-police response to non-violence incident involving substance use and mental health. this location will give them a place besides the hospital to bring people safely out of the situation they are in. no other community has done this
before. it's going to be a learning process but this crises is real and getting worse. many cities have alcohol sobering centers. this the first dedicated drug sobering center. we're going to continue to try new things. some of those will be successful and others may not. we need to be innovative in our approach, we need to use data and matrix to track our progress and be prepared to change course if needed. the goal is to not only make sure that treatment is available but that we're making it easy for people to find a resources that are available to them. it should be easier to get treatment in the city than it is to buy drugs. currently that is not the situation. whether that's the homeless outreach team, street crises response team or any of our nonprofit partners on the ground, our system of care, needs to work together to get people the help that they need. it drug sobering center is a key
piece that's missing in that current system. i hope you will continue to work with me on this and support this essential program. thank you. >> president walton: thank you so much, madam mayor. madam clerk, please announce the topic. >> clerk: the first topic submitted by the district 5 supervisor, is pertaining to the budget. >> president walton: thank you. supervisor preston? this is now the time to ask your question. >> supervisor preston: thank you president walton. good afternoon madam mayor, thank you for being here for question time. my question is about funding of fair recovery for all san franciscans. as you know, this past november, my office put forth proposition i known as the fair recovery act. the package included an increase in the tax rate on the wealthiest real estate
transactions. the funds from which are intended to support two programs. rent relief program to address covid related hardship and housing stability fund. the purpose of which is to create dedicated funding stream for the creation of a permanently affordable social houses. with 58% of the vote san franciscans overwhelmingly supported the fair recovery act and last month this board took the first step to work fulfilling the will of the voters by unanimously approving a budget supplemental to allocate the funding. we are very encouraged to have unanimous support of colleagues in this effort as well as the commitment from supervisor haney. my question for you will you join budget chair haney and
commit to funding rent relief and the housing stability fund from prop i revenue for so as long as you are mayor? >> thank you for your question supervisor. housing is and will continue to be a significant crises for our city. i appreciate the additional dollars to help address that crises and the creative thinking to problem solving our way out of this crises. we have an eviction moratorium keeping vulnerable residents housed. we were fortunate to received over $75 million in state and federal resources to support rent relief. we know we have work to do to support many of our tenants who are still struggling. however, the measure that increase the transfer tax on november 2020 ballot was a general tax. the ballot question make no mention of any potential uses. if you wanted a dedicated tax,
you should have been very direct with the voter about what that would mean and get the two thirds vote necessary to make that happen. i'm required by the charter to assume any unrestricted revenue to towards the expenditures. that's important for years like this one when we are facing significant shortfalls and and deficits. we were to assume that funding goes to new spending that is not reflected in our deficit rejection, it would increase the deficit by that amount. to assume that $100 million in transfer tax goes to new housing program would leave us with an additional $200 million shortfall over two years. with all the tough decisions we already have to make, throwing another $200 million shortfall into the equation means we'll have to find larger cuts to make other services. housing is the top priority for me and has been since the beginning of my tenure as mayor.
finding affordable housing permanent affordable housing shelters and eviction prevention is imperative. i believe that the voters elected me and board of supervisors to make those tough decisions about how to spend that money responsibly. i don't agree that we should set it aside for brand new programming that hasn't been fully defined when we have economic and housing crises to solve now. thank you. >> president walton: thank you. supervisor preston, you may ask a follow-up question. >> supervisor preston: thank you. thank you madam mayor for shedding light on your thinking on this. i do respectfully disagree that the voters and board of supervisors were pretty clear on how they wanted the funds used. i understand, your position and clearly, you can correct me if i'm wrong, i think quite clearly, you're not committing
to use the prop i funds in that manner for rent relief and affordable housing for so long you are mayor. my follow-up question is short of the original question which was a commitment for the whole duration of your time as mayor. will you commit that the prop i funds will be used for rent relief and the housing stability fund in your upcoming budget proposal? in this budget cycle? >> i think my remarks i was clear supervisor. i don't necessarily need to be -- need you to put words in my mouth or try to define exactly what i said. i said what i said. i was very clear what i said. i'm not here to do what it is that you want me to do. i i'm here to do what the voters need me to do. that is to make sure there isn't a deficit that continues to get out of control. the fact in this week, over
$75 million has been dedicated to rent relief money that was not anticipated to stoic my commitment to making sure that we provide rent relief to san francisco cans. doesn't matter if the funds are from this proposition or any other source. that's a significant amount of money. you name one city in this country that's done more in san francisco to provide rent relief than we have in san francisco. >> president walton: thank you mayor breed. you can ask question of supervisor preston or any other supervisor this attendance pertaining to the same topic but not necessarily related to the previous question. >> thank you president walton. i'm okay. thank you. >> president walton: thank you so much for being here with us this afternoon. we appreciate your time. please go on and have a wonderful day. >> thank you, bye. >> president walton: this
concludes the district 5 topic discussion and special order. thank you so much madam mayor for joining us again. are there any communications? >> clerk: yes. the minutes will reflect that board members participated in this remote meeting through video conference to the same extent though physically present this their legislative chamber. the board recognizes that public access to city services is essential and invite the public to be able to participate in the following ways. you can send your written correspondence to be made part of the appropriate legislative file. if you using the u.s. mail, send to the san francisco board of supervisors, 1 dr. carlton goodlett place, san francisco, california, 94102. supervisor haney, please mute.
send us an e-mail. on your television you can watch sfgov tv channel 26. when you are ready to provide public comment, just be sure you turn your television and listen from your touch phone to avoid the signal delay. that way you'll be able to be in live sync to listen to the proceedings and to provide your public comment. the telephone number is streaming on your screen. it is 415-655-0001. when you hear the prompt enter meeting i.d., 187 027 7564. press pound twice. you'll have joined the meeting as a listener. once you're ready to provide your public comment, press star 3 and listen to the prompt you have been unmuted.
begin speaking your comments. regarding the agenda content that is eligible for public comment, today we have one special order public hearing notice to begin no earlier than 3:00 p.m. interested parties maybe able to provide public comment either in support of the appeal or in support of the project. potentially if there's a continuance, the public maybe able to speak to a continuance. is that for the appeal of the determination of exemption from environmental review for the proposed project items 22-25. if you are waiting for general public comment, that's item 27, at that time, you may speak to the mayor's appearance and the discussion that occurred with supervisor preston on the topic. the two sets of agenda items that are noticed on the agenda, the items that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the board but do not appear on
the agenda. finally, on items 28 and 29, those are the items that were not referred to committee but will take public comment here today. all other agenda content on the agenda already had its public comment required satisfied in committee. we can talk about our special partnership with the office of specific engagement and immigrant affairs. we have three interpreters here with us today. i like to ask each interpreter to please introduce yourself and the services you are able to provide. [interpreter introductions] [speaking chinese]
trouble connecting to this meeting remotely, there's someone standing by in the clerk's office. we appreciate you being there, john. please -- thank you to our interprets for being here this afternoon. before we get started, friendly reminder for all the supervisors to please mute your microphones when you're not speaking in order to avoid audio feedback. i want to make a brief announcement, i did receive my second vaccine today from pfizer. i'm feeling great. if for some reason if there's a side effect, supervisor melgar will chair the rest of the meeting. we will approve the meeting minutes from the march 9, 2021 regular board meeting.
there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: thank you. without objection, the minutes will be approved after public comment as presented. please call items 2-6. >> clerk: items 2-6 are in consent. these items are considered to be routine. if a member objects an item maybe removed and considered separately. >> president walton: thank you so much. supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: please sever items number 2? >> president walton: any other items? seeing none. madam clerk please call the rolls on items 3, 4, 5 and 6. >> clerk: [roll call vote] there
ken nonnorbert, marshall higginbotham, antoine dewhitt, cory butler, montrail breakens, delon barker, against the city $30,000. created unconstitutional condition for confinement for the inmates. other material terms of the settlement is that the court approves the settlement. >> president walton: supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: thank you president walton. colleagues, when i first read about this lawsuit, i was frankly shocked that up until 2019, the sheriff only allowed six hours of uninterrupted sleep in con jail 4 and five hours uninterrupted sleep in county jail 5. i thought that a settlement of allowing seven hours of
uninterrupted sleep which is the minimum that the cdc recommends for proper amount of sleep to preserve one's health. i decided to vote on this item on first reading in favor of the item. i since learned that the plaintiff are having some second thoughts about the settlement agreement that it appears that sheriff is in agreement of returning to mediation to discuss the item. the more i think about it, i don't know that seven hours is sufficient. everyone is different in terms how much sleep they need in order to function. i need eight hours of sleep to be at my best. the people that are in jail are often times are suffering severe trauma, often times have mental illness and quality
ininterrupted sleep which they don't get because state law requires regular security checks. it's a human right. it is the best way to make sure that people are able to be healthy as possible to eliminate stress, have clear thinking. all of those types of things. it's extra important that our inmates are entitled to get the amount of sleep that they require. i'm going to be voting no on second reading on this item for those reasons. i e-- regret having voted yes the first time. thank you. >> president walton: thank you supervisor ronen. madam clerk, please call the roll on item number 2. >> clerk: [roll call vote] there
there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: without objection, this ordinance is finally passed unanimously. madam clerk, please call item number 8. >> clerk: ordinance to authorize the city administrator to amend certain leases and forgive rent due between april 2020 and december 2020. with nonresidential tenants and waiving administrative code and environmental code requirements after the most recent modification of each lease to allow for rent forgiveness. related to the covid-19 pandemic. >> president walton: please call the roll for item number 8. >> clerk: [roll call vote]
>> president walton: would we have anyone not on the board of supervisors or clerk, please turn off their cameras. >> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: walk. this ordinance is passed on the first reading unanimously. please call item number 9. >> clerk: an ordinance to approve a transmission facility
are 11 ayes. >> president walton: this. ordinance is passed on first reading unanimously. please call item number 10. >> clerk: a resolution to approve amendment number 2 to the business services lease number 13-0202 between airport travel agency evening inc. and the city for a total term january 1, 2014 through june 30, 2023. with the condition that the airport director may terminate earlier with no change to the minimum manual guarantee. >> president walton: thank you. please call the roll.
amendment with tegsco l.l.c. for services relating abandoned illegally parked vehicles to authorize an increase to the contract amount by $11.2 million for the first year of the 5-year extension with the option to increase the contract amount by an additional $11.6 million in the second year of the term for a total amount not to exceed $88.2 million to commence on april 1, 2021. >> president walton: thank you, so much. supervisor chan? >> supervisor chan: thank you. colleagues, this is a contract that i want to be very clear that i will be voting no today. it's based on my -- the towing policy itself. not the operator who i have been
informed and learned that is a good employer, supportive of our union workers. the reason why i'll be voting no on it, i think there's few reason. i do believe it's a good government policy that we should adjust the cost of doing business and meeting the demands and the needs of a change and continue to pay for storage and all the expenses while we look to changing the towing policy is key. this is not what -- this contract is not it. it's not adjusting the cause of doing the business to find ways to really to have better policy. we know that the challenge around towing vehicles for low
income people and that really is detrimental to them the way that cost of living is already really high in the city when vehicles are towed. it impacts the work, their daily life and further put them into poverty. it's the reason why i will be voting no today is my statement to sfmta and its board of directors to really reconsider its towing policy for our city to make their that it is equity throughout. thank you so much. >> president walton: thank you supervisor chan. madam clerk, please call the roll on item number 11. >> clerk: [roll call vote]
lease between the city of landlord and volunteers in medicine doing business as clinic by the bay for the city owned property located at 35 onondaga avenue authorizing reimbursement you have to approximately $1.6 million for tenant improvements to commence following board approval upon execution of lease. >> president walton: please call the roll on item 12. >> clerk: [roll call vote]
there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: without objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. madam clerk please call item 13. >> clerk: item 13. we have a resolution to retroactively authorize the department of public health to accept approximate $1.7 million grant from the california department of justice for participation in the tobacco grant program award. the term bag january 1, 2021 through december 31, 2023. >> president walton: please call the roll on item 13. >> clerk: [roll call vote]
department of the treasury. in the amount approximately $26.2 million. term being january 1, 2021 through december 31, 2021. >> president walton: supervisor chan? >> supervisor chan: thank you president walton. for this item colleagues, i have a friendly amendment that i'm going to introduce to this grant to request data reporting from the mayor's housing and community development. it is similar to the -- the language is similar. it's not the resolution we have passed unanimously last week on the rent relief. it's really the goal is to collect data. i said last week speaking on that resolution, i'm grateful that the federal government has made these funds available to
us. we need to really know exactly how we can support the need for rent relief. we know that the need will far exceed the supply of funding. we know that some of our largest corporate landlords can afford to offer their own rent release before they enter these limited public funds. i'm making the motion to amend this accept and expand resolution. i would like to make that motion and amend the resolution by adding the following clause on page 3 line 1. that the board of supervisors request a monthly written report from mohcd to the clerk of the board until all funds have been distributed.
>> president walton: without objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. madam clear, please call item number 15. >> clerk: a resolution to adopt the city's 5-year information and communication technology plan for fiscal years 2022 through 2026 pursuant to administrative code section 22a.6. >> president walton: please call the roll for item number 15. >> clerk: [roll call vote]
there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: without objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. please call item 16. >> clerk: item 16 is an ordinance to aim the planning code to designate 1830 sutter street, also known as japans ywca the issei women's building and to make the appropriate findings. >> president walton: please call the roll for item 16. >> clerk: [roll call vote]
using mechanical ventilation systems to make sure systems are operating in compliance to require businesses to post certification within their work space and require department of health and building inspection to post information on their website pertaining to filing complaints regarding noncompliance. mr. president, members, pursuant to charter section 2.107 this requires vote of 2/3 of the board with only one reading. >> president walton: supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you. just i want to start by thanking my co-sponsors, yourself supervisor melgar, chan, preston, haney, ronen, mandelman and mar and for the collaborative work on this conversation with supervisor
peskin. we have been in conversations directly with the front line service workers along with individuals in the building and want to ensure that there's further discussions, there's lot of questions that have come in at the last minute. i will be asking for a continuance today to allow further discussion and investigation. i will say that san francisco is home to 5000 private sector janitors. they have put themselves on the front lines from the beginning of this pandemic. they have shown up to work faithfully. now as we're moving toward more aggressively opening back up the downtown, downtown corridor and office buildings ventilation,
safety standards and ensuring that office workers and employees in buildings feel safe and we're following state guidelines it's paramount. we appreciate the hard work of deputy city attorney for moving as quickly we could on this. colleagues i ask that we continue this item and further these conversations over the next week. we will come back to you with a final result. i think supervisor peskin has something he wants to say. thank you mr. president. >> president walton: thank you. before you go, is there a second to the motion? >> supervisor peskin: i will second. if i may i have the floor in addition to my second and closely related note, i've been
meeting with representatives of the department of health and stakeholders who involved in related item. i am concerned and state for the record that ordinance has not been fully enforced as it relates to hotels and office buildings and that i believe, that they have the tools and resources that they need to carry out that mandate. this will be the subject of future hearings and tweaks, ordinances while we're still possessing whether fees or other funding mechanisms maybe required, i still believe that ordinance needs to be enforced.
there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: thank you. this motion passes. please call number 18. >> clerk: an ordinance to amend the administrative code to reinstitute the sheller monitoring committee and change the date on which it expires from december 31, 2021 to july 1, 2022. >> president walton: thank you. please call the roll on item number 18. >> clerk: [roll call vote]
there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: without objection, this ordinance is passed on the first reading unanimously. please call item number 19. >> clerk: an ordinance to amend the administrative code to waive the requirement for employers to report compliance with the healthcare security ordinance for 2020 to codify the 2019 previous waiver and amend the police code with the fair chance ordinance for 20 and codify the previous waiver for such requirement for 2019.
>> clerk: this is a motion to reject the mayor's nomination for appointment of christina dikas to the historic preservation commission. for this item, we're in receipt of communication from the mayor's office that ms. dikas has withdrawn her name from the board of consideration for appointment to the historic preservation commission. you may table this matter just as a matter of process. >> president walton: thank you so much. let's consider a table. >> supervisor peskin: mr. president. i'm happy to defer to any of my colleagues on the rules committee and we do not take this lightly. before we table the matter, which we take very seriously because it is quite rare that the rules committee makes a
recommendation to the full board of supervisors to reject a nominee. even more rare that the rules committee does so unanimously. i want to afford my colleagues an opportunity to speak to that. if they wish to defer to me, i'm happy to speak to it as well. i still don't have my chat button. i don't know if supervisors mandelman or chan is on the roster. >> president walton: thank you. i do see supervisor mandelman on the roster. >> supervisor mandelman: i will be brief on this. i want to thank ms. dikas for pulling her name back. i had said when the rules committee considered the mayor's
appointments for three historic preservation seats, back in march, i was concerned. prior to that point, folks on the hick preservation commission with the appointments that the mayor was making and we considered in march. there was a risk. there was a possibility there will be no queer people on the historic preservation commission. that's in context where queer representation has dramatically declined over the last several years. there are no queer people on the planning commission. board of appeals, these are -- [indiscernible] that's the concern. in this particular case that actually goes beyond the allocation of slots.
one of the commissioners was doing work on queer issues specifically related to historic preservation and landmarking. that was work that he helped fund but spearheading and now in the process of looking for and helping find appropriate site for landmarking. when we forward those three nominee, i supported them, there was a remaining seat whether it was commissioner or someone else, i thought it was important continue to work that commissioner highland had been doing. i know there are women and people of color who are ready, willing and able to continue that work. i think this is an opportunity
to look for candidates to continue that work and add to the diversity of our representation on the commission. i want to thank ms. die cass for -- dikas for pulling her name back. >> president walton: thank you supervisor mandelman. i don't see any other names on the roster. >> clerk: mr. president -- >> supervisor peskin: my chat button continues to be broken. i want to be quite frank and candid about this. the mayor proposes the board disposes. this pursuant to proposition j
of 2008 is up to the mayor who to nominate, entirely up to the board as whether we accept or reject. i believe the rules committee was abundantly clear, quite early on what the rules committee wanted to see from the mayor. i want to get into a fight with the administration over this. as supervisor mandelman mentioned, there are queer folks who actually have a commitment to the lgbt context statement and the history of the lgbt community who are qualified, who are willing to serve. i think we should start there rather than have the mayor renominate people that may be lgbt but don't have that commitment and don't have that demonstrated history. i will leave it there.
i thank ms. dikas for withdrawing her name from consideration this afternoon. >> president walton: at this time, we will entertain motion to table item number 20. >> supervisor mandelman: moved. >> president walton: motion to table item 20. madam clerk, please call the roll. >> clerk: on the motion to table item 20. [roll call vote]
supervisor melgar, my apologies? >> supervisor melgar: i wanted to express how thrilled i am that the rules committee moved this rock star group of folks forward. they will help us move this work forward. they are really well qualified and have deep and strong history of community schools. i'm grateful to supervisor ronen for all her work. thank you so much. >> president walton: thank you. supervisor chan, were you trying to get my attention? thank you for those words supervisor melgar. supervisor peskin, i saw your salute.
special order at 3:00 p.m. for public hearing of persons interested in the determination of exemption from environmental review under the california environmental quality act. issued as a categorical exemption on july 15, 2020 for the proposed project at 476 lombard street for construction of horizontal addition and new elevator and roof deck, single family resident within the residential house three family zoning district and 40x height and bulk district. the project is exempt from further environmental review. item 24 conditional reverses the department's determination based upon the adoption of finding in support of the reversal of the determination. >> president walton: thank you. supervisor peskin?
>> supervisor peskin: thank you. this is a relatively unique case. i note that this is in a very architecturally historically rich area of north beach. i want you know that last week prior to actually reading the moving papers, relative to the ceqa appeal which i have done every single one and supplemental documents that we received today last thursday, i met with the project sponsor and the appellant and tried to see if there was any common ground. there was not. friday of last week, i actually went to the project sponsor at
their encouragement. i attempted to resolve the matter. but the matter is before us today. we'll adjudicate it on the merit pursuant to the law. i have led every single one of moving papers. >> president walton: thank you. colleagues, we have before us a hearing on the appeal determination of the exemption from environmental review at the proposed 476 lombard street project. after the hearing, the board will vote to affirm or exemption determination at 476 lombard street. without objection, we'll proceed as follows. up to 10 minutes for presentation by the appellant or
they're representative. two minutes for public speak in support of the appeal, up to 10 minutes from project sponsor. finally up to three minutes for rebuttal by the appellant or their representative. i don't see any objections to proceeding this way. the hearing will proceed as indicated. we have heard from supervisor peskin. with that, we will move forward with this hearing. which is now open. i believe we have the appellant who is here to present. you have 10 minutes. >> good afternoon. i'm here representing the
appellant. i'm an attorney who practices with the california environmental quality act. i like to begin with just a few minutes talking about the framework for your decision here today. ceqa from the very beginning, 50 years ago, [indiscernible] it's protected just like water and air and natural resources. actually, one of the few parts of ceqa that has increased protections to certain resources since then. the historic resources is one of the few areas of ceqa that received additional protections over the last 50 years. there's specific guidelines and statutory provisions for historic resources. this item is challenged for the
categorical exemption that was approved. the idea behind categorical exemptions there are certain things that need discretionary government approval. it doesn't matter. there's an exception to the exemption for historic resource. if there's a project that may have a significant impact on a historic resource, a categorical exemption cannot be used. that's what's going on here.
it's a bit technical but it's very important for the board to understand that there's a special way to review this. there's different from any other type of project. normally if there's any substantial evidence, any reasonable basis for the board to grant an appeal, its decision will be respected. ceqa guidelines an the supreme court has agreed that if there's any evidence any substantial evidence that a project may significantly impact the integrity of a historic district, the categorical exemption cannot be relied upon regardless of the evidence of the contrary. substantial evidence includes, fact, reasonable assumption based on a fact or expert opinion base the on fact.
all of this is before the board today is to consider the record before you and see if there's any reasonable assumption or expert opinion based on fact that this project may have a substantial impact on the integrity and significant of historic resource. the record before you is very clear. the planning department, the applicant's attorney, all sides agree that the fair argument standard applies that the issue is historic. you're looking for whether there's any evidence that the project may significantly impact resource. that is what you have here. this is a small project but in ceqa it's larger. california supreme court has a number of decisions regarding historic resources that involves -- there's one with a single
family home few years ago. there's small gardens that were before the supreme court with ceqa. that's not a consideration for the board. this particular project regardless of size is subject to the rules of ceqa. i'm sure your staff and counsel don't disagree about that. when you look through the record as i did when i saw the report for the applicant's lawyer and i saw the planning department appeal memorandum. i looked for some indication that the expert evidence which primarily on behalf of appellants, is architectural. some kind of -- some reason that was not expert evidence. expert opinion. it's not there.
everyone agrees on the fact. ceqa requires that if there's evidence on behalf of proceeding with environmental review that is all that the board should look at. unless there's a question, the question is is >> fact-based expert opinion of any kind that supports environmental review in this case or supports an opinion that
this project may have a significant effect on this particular historic resource. all of the evidence in support of of this appeal is in the record. it's all written down. we're going to present points to underscore them for the board today. >> hello good afternoon. i've been doing this work in san francisco for 20 years. i'm considered a qualified expert. i meet the secretary of interiors professional qualifications in the area of history and architectural history. relative to 476 lombard.
i'm very familiar with the area. i lived and worked in north beach for many years. my office is in the historic building. in addition to that, i have relevant professional experience. i worked on north beach historic context statement which is a document that's comprehensive and sets forth the historic development of this neighborhood. it explains why buildings are important, what the history has been in this area. in 2019, i also was engaged to do field work which meant looking at all of these individual properties to determine if they are historic. one of the properties included in our work was 476 lombard. we determined that it's a historic resource. i'll lay this out quickly for
you. the good news is that the planning department and all parties involved agree that the building before you today is a historic resource. we agree that it is architecturally significant. it obtains high degree of integrity. it's a qualified resource for the purpose of ceqa. there's no disagreement. that. the disagreement is whether or not the proposed project will have an impact on the building so it will impact its historic standing. that's the point on which we disagree. i would point you to my letter of april 12th that you may have in front of you. you may not.
the proposed project is our feeling that the proposed project would cause a material impairment. those are the pieces that give this building its characters. the planning department lists the character defining features of this building as those are on the street facing elevation. we agree with that. we think there are other character defining features that will be impacted by this project. those are pretty well obvious if you look at page 3 of my letter of april 12th. which you may or may not have in front of you. i'm not sure. it shows the distinctive rooftop element that will be demolished by the project. it's a feature with design intent.
i'll wrap up with that. i'm available for any questions. i know it's all technical. i try to keep it as simple as possible. please let me know if i can answer any questions. thank you. >> president walton: thank you so much. colleagues, do you have any questions for the appellant? >> i will reserve my questions until after we have heard from the project sponsor and the planning department. >> president walton: thank you. now we are in time for public comment. this is specifically for those who like to peek in support -- speak in support of the appeal. you will have up two minutes to provide your comments. for those who oppose the appeal, there will be an opportunity later in the hearing. madam clerk, please check in so
we can have the first speaker. >> clerk: thank you. i will add that the telephone number and meeting i.d. number is streaming across the television that you're watching or the computer you're streaming on. make sure your location is quiet or you may miss the prompt. we have four listening -- do we have any callers in the queue? >> we have no callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. >> president walton: public comment is now closed. now we will hear from the project sponsor and the planning department. you will have 10 minutes to present.
>> clerk: i believe operations granted you access to share your screen. >> good afternoon supervisors. i want to thank the planning department staff, director hillis and supervisor peskin for their help. we're here today after planning commission hearing on request for discretionary review by the appellant. planning commission denied the request without modification. the planning department conducted an analysis. the project was reviewed and approved by the residential design advisory team on multiple
occasions. the project is mindful of the existing historic resource which is individually eligible for listing in california register. it's near listed in the california register nor designated historic landmark building by the city. >> supervisor peskin: this will not come out your time. counselor -- >> president walton: please let them finish their presentation. you'll have time for questions. at this point in time -- >> supervisor peskin: counsel for the project arguing that this is not a historic resource. >> president walton: you can ask that question after the presentation. please continue. >> i will resume the time now. >> appellants who have the burden providing substantial evidence has fail to show that
the project will cause adverse change of the significance of historic resource or constant evidence that shows adverse environmental impact. the opinions presented by the appellant do not constitute substantial evidence. to that end, appears to have been added after the original construction since it does not match the rest of the building and does not have similar orientation found elsewhere. planning department found due to scope of work and consistency with the secretary of interior standard for rehabilitation, the project will not result in adverse impact. the project does not cause a substantial adverse impact to the significant historic research which is critical. character defining features of a historic resource are those characteristics that convey a
historical significance. under ceqa, a substantial adverse change in the significant of historic resource needs physical demolition, relotion or authorization of the resource. the significance of historical resource is a materially impaired when a project demolishes or alters and adverse manner those physical characteristics of the historic resource that conveys a historical significance. here, that is not the case. all character defining features that contribute to the significant of historic resource are being preserved in their entirety.
the project does not call for demolition or alteration of the historic resource such that the significant of the home will be impaired and removed with eligibility for inclusion in the california register. the project maintains the historic resources architectural style that conveys the building and exemption see is appropriate. i will turn it over to our architectural historian. >> hi, good afternoon. i'm i'm an architectural historian and cultural resources planner working with the project sponsor team. we just want to note that project -- we concur with the finding of the planning department staff. this is an eligible historic resource. eligible for listing in the california register under criteria e for architectural
design and is the work of master architect. we concur with the character defining features outlined planning staff's report. we want to emphasize that it's our opinion, our professional opinion that the west facade of the property is not the character of defining -- feature. it's caught in horizontal wood siding compared to the street facing facade which was designed in a classical revival style. the side light wells are a feature that allow light to penetrate in the center of the building. such light wells are pervasive throughout the urban environment of san francisco. in this photograph, you can see many other nearby homes have light wells. the fact that the west facade
lacks architectural detailing the top of the facade that detailing doesn't wrap around to the side. it's clear that the architect didn't provide detailing but did provide light wells on the west facade. they would have anticipated that a taller building would have been constructed at 488 lombard, the neighboring site. other examples of this architect's work such as this mix-used building, built by the same architect. you can see that when the architect knew that the side facades will be visually prominent that he provided a level of care and providing architectural detailing that tie
the side facade to the street facing facade and reinforce the architectural style. in the case of the subject property, he did not. we also want to note that the rear roof form is a shaped roof with walls with vertical and horizontal wood siding. the rear roof doesn't exhibit the same materials or level of architectural detailing as the primary facade. doesn't contribute to the architectural style of the building. the building is significant for architectural style. eligible for the california register under criterion c. as previously noted, the proposed project is not
demolished or materially impair any of the character finding features. the height and setback of the additional allowed it to remain subordinate to the historic resource and the residents will still maintain a historic character. we believe this project -- >> clerk: two minutes remaining for project sponsor. >> president walton: thank you madam clerk. >> that concludes for us. >> president walton: thank you so much. i want to apologize to the planning department. we will call on you after hearing any questions or comments from my colleagues to the project sponsor's
presentation. >> supervisor peskin: as the district supervisor, i will wait until after the planning department has spoken. planning department did not speak before the project sponsor. [indiscernible] >> president walton: you're going in and out. >> supervisor peskin: i will reserve my comments until after we hear from the planning department and i noted that that we have not heard from the planning department yet, you may want to call on individuals we have in support of the project sponsor. >> president walton: we'll get to that when it's time for public comment. we have representative from the planning department?
>> clerk: yes, that is lisa gibson. her camera feed is on. >> president walton: welcome. >> president walton and members of the board. good afternoon, i'm lisa gibson, environmental review officer for the city and county of san francisco. before my colleague begins his presentation, i like to make a few remarks. earlier today the planning department requested a continuance of this appeal hearing. the reason we did so is because this morning we received the supplemental appeal letter submitted by the appellant. this letter raises new arguments and more specific points than original appeal letter dated february 25t2021. we believe that the appellant's argument merits for consideration and raise new questions that we would like to investigate. we respectfully asked additional time in order to conduct necessary research to determine whether this information
presents substantial evidence, supporting a fair argument and draft a written response. for example, the appellant provided additional information that the roof structure should be considered character defining feature. planning department does not have roof structure was original to the building. had we received this information from the appellant before this morning in it original appeal letter for example, we would not have had to ask for this additional time. we were not granted additional time our presentation today does not respond to this new information. thank you very much. i'll turn thing over to charles.
>> good afternoon president walton and board members. i'm preservation planner. with the planning department. i'm here today with other planning staff to address the appeal of the categorical exemption for the proposed project at 476 lombard street. as noted, the appellant submitted a supplemental letter that raises new and more specific arguments than the original appeal letter dated february 25, 2021.
the second floor will increase toward rear of the property and includes rear facing roof deck. the third floor will enlarge existing third floor with the setback over 12 feet from the front facade. it would also capture space in front of the addition for roof deck area and provide a third floor rear-facing roof deck. above the third floor addition will be a rooftop deck. >> president walton: excuse me. there's a lot of feedback. somebody is not muted. please mute your microphone. >> on july 15, 2020 department determined that the department
was exempt under ceqa class 1. i want to emphasize that the project qualifying for categorical exemption under ceqa undergoes robust environmental review process to determine if the project will have a significant impact on the environment. i will discuss in detail later in my presentation. in addition to looking at the ceqa checklist appendix g question, we paid close attention to the circumstances outlined in ceqa section 15. it will prohibit from using exemptions. these exceptions include potential impacts. there are five main issues raised by the appellant undertaken by the planning department as shown in the slide. note this does not reflect the
information submitted by the appellant earlier today. which we were unable to give due consideration. as discussed, the appellant provided additional information on the roof structure. as outlined in our response letter, upon reviewing the information provided by the appellant, the department found that ceqa venue recovery fund -e resource. i'll outline the reasons why the department stands by the original findings under the class 1 categorical exemption. this is because the project maintains character defining feature business the department these are features that were consistent with the national registered bulletin 15. the project is consistent with
the secretary of interior standards and the national park service interpreting the standards bulletin number 37. the department historic review found -- as it represents a rare residential type by master architect. good example of the classic and mission architectural style. department preservation staff identified character finding features listed on the slide to express the historical significance of the resource in accordance with national registered bulletin 15. per ceqa guidelines, character defining features are those characters that convey historical significance and that
justify its significance -- justifies inclusion or eligibility. the secondary west facade does not contain design content that will be impressed of the building's architectural side. similarly, the rear elevation is not a character defining feature of the historic resource. alterations at these elevations are consistent with the secretary of interior standard for rehabilitation as well as interpreting the standards bulletin number 37, which states that whenever possible, new additions should be constructed on rear elevations that will have less of an impact on the building's historic integrity. as stated the planning
department respectfully request additional time to review the appellant's additional letter that we received this morning. this concludes my presentation for this appeal. >> president walton: before we go to questions, do we have any questions from planning? >> i can ask questions for planning. we should probably just wait until we hear from everybody and get the rebuttal. if you like me to ask questions, i can do so now mr. president. >> president walton: this will be the time to do that. >> supervisor peskin: okay. let's talk current planning.
>> president walton: i believe you're on mute. >> that is correct. >> supervisor peskin: does the proposed project add any units? >> it does not. >> supervisor peskin: got it. have you attempted to resolve the matter between the appellant and the project sponsor personally or has the department tried to do that? >> yes, we have. we met several times. the director has actually sat down with both parties and tried to work out some sort of solution. >> supervisor peskin: relative to roof decks at the top, front, back, have you -- is it in your professional experience, seldom or common that you see this many
what is before this board is pretty narrow issue around ceqa and whether or not it was categorically exempt or not. i appreciate your attempt to resolve the matter and you're putting out that information. relative to discretionary review, the vote of the planning commission was mixed 4-3 vote. >> that's correct. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. i understand from my staff, tuesdays are a little complicated for us. the 11 of us had this morning
for many hours the transportation authority commission. the planning department ask for a continuance by call of my staff on a tuesday, i didn't even get that until moments before this meeting. i don't believe that number one, your request is an order in so far as the request should come from the real party interest and project sponsor and not from the department. my question to you is, you stated a number of things. i believe certain things are issues of fact. we agree, i believe that the building is a historic resource.
>> correct. >> supervisor peskin: even though the project sponsor tried to do what lawyers do, which was whether it was on the state register, not on the state register, it doesn't really matter because it is a historic resource. do you agree with that? >> it is a historic resource under ceqa, correct. >> supervisor peskin: the question here is whether or not the categorical exemption which is by definition a statement that was set forth by the environmental review function of the city and county under ms. gibson, could have no impact on the historic resources. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> supervisor peskin: i believe that the issues -- i'll get to your request relative to the late documents submitted by
ms. bradford-bell on behalf of the appeal. the issue is whether or not i believe the -- i think there are three issues. number one, impacts to the facade that faces to the west. whether that is the impact of the historic resource. number two, whether or not the relatively large addition the third floor is an impact and number three, whether or not the gabled roof whatever that is, i'm not an architect, that little thing with the gables at the back and it's demolition is an impact historic resource.
would you agree on the issues. >> i like to clarify that there is a regulatory presumption that if the follows secretary of interior standard for rehabilitation, that the project results left less significant impact. >> supervisor peskin: isn't that a matter of opinion and fair argument standard prevails? is that not correct? in other words she meets and i believe exceeds the secretary of interior standards has set forth a fair argument. do you grow. >> the department finding there can be difference in expert opinion. but that expert opinion have to be based in substantial fact and
evidence. >> supervisor peskin: i think you're confusing two pieces of law. >> this is lisa, the environmental review officer. i really appreciate if i may please to the chair respond to supervisor peskin's questioning. >> president walton: yes, please. >> it is correct that the fair argument standard prevails and as charles was saying, it must be supported by substantial evidence in the record. in this case, i do want to clarify because of the circumstance that i addressed earlier. we have not had a chance to fully evaluate the information that was presented to us today which includes facts and information that we do believe warrants further evaluation. we do think that the information
arguing whether there's a character defining feature that is the rooftop that we think that should be evaluated and we do have questions about the roof in terms of when it was constructed as part of the building. therefore, i want to say that we don't have a complete conclusion because we have information before us that we have not been able to fully evaluate prior to this information. we did feel to say that we find that there was not substantial evidence in support of a fair argument. i want to be clear that we would like to have more time to conduct the research to fully consider this information
provided to us today we will as is our obligation under see kwa, be guided by the principles of the law and that assessing the factual information before us to come to our conclusion. we don't have a foregone conclusion. at this time, i want to be very clear to the supervisors that this is where we are with an incomplete review in light of the information that was presented to us today. >> supervisor peskin: i would say this, which is if you're saying that you believe that your conclusion was less than thorough, you could actually withdraw. this happened from time to time. categorical exemption. asking this board to continue it
when this appeal filed some time ago based on new evidence in as far as, you evaluated the expert opinions and did them independently. i see no reason for continuance. i will reserve my judgment until we hear from the project sponsors supporters and the rebuttals. you are welcome to withdraw this. this happened from time to time. but the notion that you got new evidence. this is venomous project. it's kind of quite seldom. it's not rare that a project like this comes before the
board. 2417 green street, board of supervisors had to tell you at least twice you were wrong. with that, mr. president, i will be quiet and defer rest of the process. >> if i may -- >> president walton: is it your intention to withdraw? >> it is not my intention. i like to distinguish this case from the others referenced by supervisor peskin. in the past it has been the case that presented with information even on day of a hearing, we have decided that this information warrants substantial evidence that will be decided to change course and withdraw our ceqa determination. it is also the case that presented with information on the day of a hearing, we have been able to evaluate it and
determine we proceeded with our ceqa determination. in this case, we are in the middle. we said that this warrants further look. we have not been able to accomplish the research that we like to do before this hearing. the appropriate conclusion may be that there is a fair argument that's been presented. we will determine that in the initial study isn't the right course of action. it could be that we would find that we will be prepared to defend our exemption and we would like to have the information-in a documentation to support that to give it full
consideration. one week maybe sufficient time to allow us to do that additional research. >> president walton: with in information submitted -- with this information submitted by the deadline that was requested? >> the deadline for submittal of information proceeding an appeal hearing is basically friday before -- two fridays before the hearing. this information came after that deadline. >> president walton: i will take that as a no it was not submitted by the deadline. >> i will defer to the clerk of the board to -- >> president walton: that has been confirmed by the clerk of the board. >> clerk: thank you ms. gigson. i will add that is our suggested date. the code does allow documents to
be provided all the way up to the date to the hearing. that will be impossible for the planning department to respond by the time of the hearing. >> supervisor peskin: i will wait for the rest of the hearing. >> president walton: we will now go to public comment for those who wish to speak in opposition to this appeal. please press star 3 to be added to the queue to speak. you will have two minutes. madam clerk, please call the first speaker. >> clerk: thank you mr. president. i believe we have three listening and operations, do we have anyone in the queue? >> yes, i have one caller in the
queue. >> clerk: welcome caller. we are setting the timer for two minutes. >> caller: hi everybody. i limp three buildings -- i live three buildings from this property. i basically walk up and down on a daily basis. based on my understanding of the application of the project and hearing all of your experts explaining basically the situation and all that. we don't see what will cause the problem after the project is complete. i can imagine just based on your explanation. once it's done, walking up and
down the block again, i will not really notice any difference. it's a historical building. it's not going to look any different. i really don't see any reason why this project cannot be proceeding. i will fully support the project and oppose to the appeal. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. do we have another caller in the queue? >> that completes the queue. >> clerk: thank you. >> president walton: thank you so much public comment is now closed. at this time, we will invite up the appellant to present a rebuttal argument. you will have up to three
>> the applicants certainly got it yesterday and that was, we just got the planning department and the appeal memo last week, the end of last week and there was a response made to that and ceqa, it allows us to present something new right now and so, we're not laying everything else has been submitted by deadlines and while there's certainly an effort made and a preferred
deadline, otherwise, to get everything else in as soon as we can we did. i do want to point out, that, there were many basis for the extra opinion for ms. petr o on on sothere's enough evidence toy that mandates restrictfully, the granting of this appeal. there's an expert opinion of a significant impact with the language from the ceqa guidelines, the substantial impact, on the integrity of the building and it's not including the rooftop. it's of interest and it's worked worthlooking at and the west sid you have enough before you that you have this expert opinion that that's fact based and that really is all that they made a
determination and there's evidence to support it you would defer to them. in this situation, could you have 100 experts and one credential expert on the other side that presents a fair argument that is fact-based and that means you can't exempt it from ceqa and what will happen next, they'll be an initial study and your staff will look at what should happen next but it's not exempt, it's not the kind of project that you can say absolutely, it's so miner the impacts will not effect an historic research. you have evidence meeting the ceqa standards. i'm not sure how much time you've used here. >> clerk: i believe that concluded the town. time.>> thank you, very much. >> president walton: thank you so much and i want to thank both
the appellant and the project sponsor and planning department for participating. this public hearing has been held and is now filed. colleagues, any additional comments? supervisor peskin. >> i will defer to any of my colleagues and i want to thank you all for your indulgence. this is a very confined neighborhood dispute between two parties on the other hand it has larger implications for one of the most intact historic areas in san francisco that is north beach. for that reason, is profoundly important. i was hopeful that the parties could resolve their differences in a way that would impact the
historic resource. light wells and the western facade as it is articulated are part of what makes the area that was built after the earthquake and the notion that you ignored that is not correct and i think that was set fourth correctly and for those reasons and the reasons that were stated in the course of this hearing, i would like to make a information to table item 23 and move items 24 and 25. >> president walton: thank you supervisor peskin. do we have a second. >> second.
>> clerk: there are 10 ayes in the dissent. >> by a vote of 10-1, motion passes. thank you all for participating and madam clerk, roll call for introductions on item 26. >> clerk: yes, supervisor haney, you are first to introduce your business. >> all right. can you refer me? >> yes, happy to and supervisor mandelman. >> thank you, madam clerk. and i have a resolution and hearing request. i'll do the resolution first. colleagues in february, i announced two pieces of legislation and upon a path and the city and county of san francisco and shifting new development and residential
neighborhoods very large that the wealthiest households and toured more neighborhoods scale multi-unit building and the first was an ordinance i introduced to curb the conversion of existing housing into large, luxury mansion that's do nothing to increase housing opportunities or preserve affordability by requiring continual use approval for large home expansions in our districts that don't have at least one more units for the lot. the second, was an ordinance to allow up to four units on corner lots and lots within a half a mile from a major rail station in r.h. zoning districts. since that roll call, my office has been working to finalize the second ordinance which is proof to be a more complicated piece of legislation. i none the less remain commit committedto it and hope to havet in the next few weeks. at the request of planning and stakeholders, then introducing a resolution that would grant an n extension of the 90 day review
period for the planning commission to contract large residents ordinance so, it can be considered and discussed in the context of the for plex legislation which as i explained, still needs a little more time to refine. i want to thank all of those who have engage with my office about these two proposals over the last couple of months and i look forward to continuing these thoughtful discussions in the months ahead. secondly, i am introducing a hearing request today and to discuss violations of the the health airport ordinance which i authors with supervisor walton and the board passed last november. as you will recall, it requires employers at sfo to provide free high-quality family healthcare to service employees for low wage airport workers and including cabin cleaners, luck age handlers it means for the first time their families can
access quality healthcare tell they me this is the first law and there's hope that other cities will soon follow san francisco's lead. but unfortunately, we have learned that sky a contractor that provides food catering services for airlines and an employer covered by the healthy airport ordinance is avoiding, seek to go avoid compliance with the law by moving its workers out of s.f.o. and also refusing to comply with noticing requirements intend today ensure airport employee know their rights under the health year and and local 2 which represents hundreds of workers employed by sky chef estimates that as many as 300 food produce workers including dish washers and cooks have been told that and would not be right to comply with san francisco healthcare requirements and where workers
make about $4 less per hour than s.f.o. workers. only drivers and assembly workers who prepare snacks and liquor for planes have been told their work will stay at s.f.o. according to local 2, workers have been unable to get information in the sky chef about their rights in the healthy airport ordinance or the plan and for deck decades and it's in the united states largest airline and filed a lawsuit against the city seek declar tory and relief from the health airport ordinance and as we've seen time and again, wealthy corporations would rather spend money on expensive lawsuits and costly ballot measures and even offender their operations and the case of sky chef and give them the rights and protections they have earned and deserve and after a year in
which workers have suffered more than ever, the airline unprecedented $94 million in federal aid and one of the two largest catering companies in the airline industry received more federal payroll support programs funds than any other airline contractor in the country and i understand the local 2 is working with the airport and the airport commission to request a hearing on sky chef's actions and my office will coordinate with the commission should that request be granted and i want to thank local 2 for keeping up this fight and i hope you will join me taking the stand against this attack on the air for the and i believe it was to provide updates and and you may know that i am one of our reps to the association of bay area governments and in that role,
along with supervisor mar, and our representatives, supervisor ronen, we've all been increasingly involved over the past several months in the development of our plan "skyfall" been involved on the regional planning committee since 2019. and that particularly is important now because you know, that plan bay area is closely tied to our arena allocation which determines the next -- it determines what goes into our housing elements for the next eight years and it's coming next year. folks know this history but they
have region growth in mid-december and that would increase san francisco's housing growth by 50% on top of what was already roughly two-fold increase in-housing allocations under the previous draft plan. and that last minute change was troubling it reduced the housing forecast for suburban with economic opportunities and strong regional transit connections in the peninsula and northwest santa clara county and staff claimed these changes were the only way to meet state mandated greenhouse gas reduction targets but san francisco's have argued the staff proposal left historically exclusionary communities off the hook exacerbating fair housing disparities in the region and displacement pressures in san francisco. we have been -- that's been what
we've been fight ing and talking about and we managed to get our fellow members of staff to growe to include an equity alternative that may address some of the concerns that we raised. i think i remain concerned, i think i know president walton is concerned and i think fellow commissioners are although they can speak for themselves and we'll see what happens with that and at any rate, out of all of this, perhaps related our mayor has asked me to join the administrative committee which will be involved in finalizing the planned bay area. i will be briefer and thank you colleagues foray proving my appointment to tjpa and i was
honored toby elect the vice-chair of tjpa at our march meeting and we have a lot of work to do there including working with the joe biden administration and regional parters to find the funding to make the downtown extension real. in addiction i volunteer to search on the committee for a new director for tjpa and i'm also your rep, our rep on the california state association of counties board of directors and have been to one meeting during the pandemic for that, a virtual meeting and our next one is on april 22nd and i also serve as a member of the urban county caucus and finally on coastal commission, i have very little report there as i'm the alternate for marine supervisor katie rice, who does not appear to be someone that misses meetings so i've not been to a coastal commission meeting.
and the rest i submit. >> clerk: thank you, supervisor mandelman. next is supervisor haney, you indicated you were ready to go. perfect. >> sure, thank you, madam clerk. i appreciate that. first, i'm proud to introduce a resolution that both recognizes the commencement of the muslim holy month of ramadan and expresses great respect for the muslim communities of san francisco and nation wide. the entire board of supervisors are co-sponsoring this resolution in solidarity and gratitude for the muslim community. islam is the words second largest and fastest growing religion with 1.9 billion muslims making up 26% of the words population and the bay area has one of the highest concentrations of muslims in the nation and here in san francisco the muslim community has continued to grow and thrive since the establishment of the
islamic center of san francisco and 1959 and the first mosque located in bernal heights which continues to serve as a community and religious hub. there are five major mosques in san francisco including three in my neighborhood and the tenderloin where we have a thriving muslim community. san francisco muslims have contribute today critical movements to have advance rates of equity and criminal justice reform and environmental justice and public safety and increase interfaith engagement and our muslim led organizers are comprised of cultural and religious organizations and small business owners and grossers who make up the heart and foundation of san francisco. muslim families in the bay area have been hard-hit by the onset of covid-19. experiencing a multitude of hardships and in this ramadan muslims around the world are making every effort to remain safe during the on going pandemic. the muslim community has contributed much to charitable organizations during this pandemic, helping people from
all faiths, faithed around the world providing before and after school programs and food distributions and locally in san francisco i want to recognize the efforts of our muslim public officials and religious leaders and allies including those in the department of public-health and ucsf, esf, the human rights commission, small business commission, command center and chinese community development corporations and neighborhood development corporation that have done tremendous men does outreach and and tpe and language translation and testing and vaccinations opportunities and one of the bay area led organizations and life foundations mobilizing one of the largest in the bay area targeting food security. with this resolution, the board
of supervisors acknowledges the start of the holy and blessed month of ramadan and expresses its deepest respect to muslims in san francisco throughout the world and during this significant time and we affirm our commitment to insuring that our city values remain welcoming and compassionate and that we per s.u.v. policies that respect the dignity and rights of all people regardless of race, religion and immigration staff us or country of origin and i want to thank you for joining in this resolution and the celebration and the holy and blessed month of ramadan and thank commissioner for her support and partnership on this resolution next, i am introducing a resolution in support of the acosta invest in women's health act of 2021 and introduced by congressman jimmy gomez and u.s. senator patty murray. this act will increase access to co testing for h.p.v. and acre victim alkan ser and create job opportunities for healthcare
providers including especially training for women of color and expanded research and awareness for cancer screening. the covid-19 pandemic made it harder for women to access preventative health services due to changes in employment, loss of insurance, reduced in-person case and cervical cancer is preventable and treatable and if caught early the five-year survival rate is 940% and impacted and janette acosta a law graduate and native california 34th congressional district was a women's health advocate and a former congressional staffer and state vow director for president barack obama and she tragically lost her battle with cervical cancer at the age of 32. a u.s. hastings, she was dedicated and fought for civil rights, women's rights and
undocuments immigrant rights and mexican farm workers rights and she was executive notes editor of the hastings constitutional law quarterly and we reached out to ms. acosta's fiance and friends and they described her as a fierce go getters, a fierce advocate, loving and brilliant mind and she represented all the best in everyone and she was even willing to find time to contribute to causes when she has other pressing obligation and she was and still is remarkable in every respect, long live janet. her father shared with us that during the year that she battled cervical cancer, she was determined to live, she tried all of the treatment that's were offered to her and it was an agony to see her suffering introduce so many treatments, surgery and hospitalizations and she didn't want other women to suffer from cervical cancer and she advocated for women's health
especially for black and latino women. we know she would want it to be law to save women's lives and i hope you all join me in supporting this important bill as we honor the life and legacy of janet acosta and other women whose lives have been cut short from cervical and breast cancer. next, i'm introducing a resolution and bobbie scott that has passed the house of representatives and in the u.s. senate while amazon and wealthy corporations are making billions in pandemic profits, working families have faced cuts to hours of unemployment and worse and many people have risked their lives as frontline workers to keep our community safe and the role of unions to protect workers and expand the middle-class as vital. if passed, it will make it easier to june unions and engaging collective bargaining and end the heavy handed corporate tactics that make it hard for workforce union eyes in america. and lastly, i am introducing a
>> clerk: supervisor mar -- >> thank you, madam clerk. colleagues, i have one item today and i'm introducing a resolution supporting california's state assembly bill 257. authored by assembly member lorena gonzalez to enact the fast food accountability standards or fast recovery act. this is legislation that would empower and protect california's half a million fast food workers and i want to thank my co-sponsors, president walton and supervisor chan. historically, fast food workers are subject to poverty wages and unsafe working conditions and on march 2021 report, from researchers at ucla and uc berkeley found that in california two-thirds of fast food workers are enrolled in a major safety net program that an average state wide annual cost to taxpayers of $4 billion even before the pandemic fast food workers faced overlapping challenges putting them on the razor's edge of economic
calamity including low wages, lack of workers on the job, workplace violence, harassment and wage theft in an industry where workers operate in environments that are fast paced, crowded and frequently and physical contact with customers, fast food workers have been vulnerable to contracting covid-19 and researchers of university of california at san francisco found that line cooks had a 60% increase in mortality associated with the pandemic and though latin x saw a 39% increase in mortality and numerous complaints filed by fast food workers with local health departments illustrate fast food operators have flout protection including but not limited to requiring workers to work without access to personal protective equipment and denying workers sick day and demanding that work commerce to work when
they're sick and fast food workers are the largest and fasted growing work of low-wage workers in the state and lack industry specific protection and so ab257, the fast recovery act will ensure workers and employers work together with state actions to raise over all standards and protections in the fast food industry and ab257 would establish a state wood fast food sector council which will include state agencies and employers and workers representatives and that will be tasked with periodically reviewing and creating minimum health safety and employment standards in the fast food restaurant industry and ab257 would hold fast food franchisers responsible for insuring franchisees comply with health safety and employment standards. the law established by ab257 would help to address widening incoming inequality that has allowed a small number of executives to profit while subjecting workers to poverty wages and unsustainable working
conditions. this resolution a firms that the san francisco board of supervisors stands with workers, community groups and labor unions in strong support of ab257 and california can emerge from covid-19 stronger than before but only if essential workers have the opportunity to succeed by giving immigrant workers more power and a voice on the job. and i just also wanted to announce that over the next two weeks, fast food workers across california will be on strike for ab257 in their mobilizing a car cara ban that will stop in san francisco on monday. for action that's multiple. and i want to thank the fast food workers and the fight for 15 movement.
>> i have a hearing equipment and i will memoriam and i'm going to start with the report back from two of the outside bodies that i serve on and the first five commission and the golden gate bridge district. so, for first five, we approved a budget for fiscal year 21-22 reflecting the consolidated administered the functions between first five and the office of early care and education. and that reflective the decreased revenues from tobacco taxes from the state and also increases from bayview proxy. we have a presentation and time lines for the move of the agency and the same office space and consolidation of functions and hiring a consultant to support the strategic planning that this merger is going to require between both agencies. we are going to be hiring a
consultant to support this merger and the strategic planning vision and through a racial justice lens and acknowledging the great disparity that has existed in our city in terms of access to high-quality early care and education in black and brown communities. for the golden gate bridge highway and transportation, we approved the committee that would income connection tendtures and the drick you saw a revenue from package and we also voted to support the repairs to the ferry float and the operations program and in other news, the windsor mayor dominique was stripped of his appointment to the district to the golden gate transit district and by the sanoma county board of supervisors due to the recent allegations against him by multiple women of sexual assault
and so we forward to working with the next sanoma county board of supervisors appointee for this position. so now, i will go on to my hearing requests. colleagues, i am introducing a hearing request on the state of sidewalks in our city. as it pertains to construction zones near commercial buildings. we are super glad that our economy is recovering and necessary work and if i can companies as well as city departments and we need to discuss the effect on pedestrians, especially those who have mobility issues. we must be honest and point out that these sidewalk alternatives are not always safe, especially for those with sight or mobility issues and especially when the construction can go on for a long time. sometimes construction zones lax signage and that a low vision person's can read and protective
barriers are too narrow for wheelchairs. sometimes the past forces crowds on to roadways or under tricky scar folding and sometimes there not uneven surfaces or lack of curb ramps that make for navigation dangerous and it seems that we largely use a complaint system to address those concerns which puts the onus on beds and residents in wheelchairs to report dangerous situations after the fact and a proactive approach would be better so that we can avoid complaints in the first place and i want to understand which department are involved in designing safe walks alternative and they work well and what are the consequences when a construction site is in violation of safety requirements. what is enforcement and how do they deal with consistent bad agentors? are there ways to integrate the work of different agency this is what are the funding needs to keep the sidewalk in the state of good condition compared to
what is currently budgeted? and additionally, our office gets many calls about sidewalk issues, caused by trees which the city is now responsible for in 2016 so i'd like to under how the street tree assess programs is shaping up and whether funding is adequate for that. i want to thank the community living campaign for their work on this issue. they often organize outings to evaluate sidewalks themselves and to help gather the data and i hope that we can come together with our agencies the mayor's office of disability to ensure we have a coordinated approach and to ensure that everyone can safely use our sidewalks across the city. and lastly, i would like to present this and close our meeting in member row of carolyn dillon. who passed away on
april 520th, 2021. she passed away peacefully at home in the care of wayne, her husband of 60 years. she was the treasurer of the midtown terrance homeowners association in district 7. where she helped plan many neighborhood events. shortly after graduating high school while on a trip to europe she met and fell in love with wayne and they married a few years later moving to san francisco to raise two children. carolyn attended a college in san francisco state university. participating in peace marchs and concerts and golden gate park during the 1960s, she relished in the good party and could be counted on to support an important cause always living life to the fullest. she was a parishioner of saint ago us in and member 69 parents' club. her career as a teacher included time at saint agnes and enjoying
27 years as a teacher. there she took charge of the school carnival, numerous fundraising events and created her infamous math lab. a bright light who gave to the community and carolyn was dearly loved and will be greatly missed and the rest i submit. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, supervisor melgar. supervisor peskin. >> thank you, madam clerk, ramadan, mubarak, ramadan kareem and with that everything i will submit but i'll give a brief response to president walton's request with regard to my extracurricular activities. the san francisco bay restoration authority, spends $25 million a year and the nine area counties and it is
relatively new agencies and $12 per parcel in those nine bay area counties that generates that $25 million and over $5 million has been allocated to san francisco counties and for the property and district 10 for environmental remediation and eventually a new water recreation site at that location and many more things to come through out the san francisco bay and san francisco county and i also serve on the bay conservation and development commission along with my colleague and alternate supervisor catherine stefani and regulates bay fill and the san francisco bay and development within 100 feet of the shoreline in all coun tease and obviously
the issue there of late has been adaptation to sea level rise and to that end we recently received a briefing from the port of san francisco relative to their waterfront resilience plans from time to time we have projects that come before the bcdc for approval within san francisco county and as i said, mr. president, the rest i submit. >> clerk: thank you, supervisor peskin. supervisor preston. >> thank you, madam clerk. thank you press walton for this opportunity just for the public and board members to take eye little time and hear about the different committees that we're on. i serve on the state ledge legislation committee which until president walton was kind
enough to appoint me to, i did not it existed and you know, i think it's just a reminder of the value of us take a little time and appreciating the residents' leadership and giving us this form to do that so i am on the state legislation committee, along with supervisor chan and unlike some other bodies, this is a body where staff can sit in our place, our office has the seat, so i want to recognize jenn schneider of my office and ian of supervisor chan's office who often attends these meetings and cast votes on behalf of our offices. the state legislation committee makes recommendations for the city to support our oppose legislation that is pending before the state legislature that would impact the sitting county of san francisco.
this committee is where we discussed basically what has been introduced in the assembly and if the senate and it's what making and we have voted already on dozens of bills on a range of topics and i won't go through them all but i will say the things we're referencing that things like ab43, freeman traffic and setting speed limits, i mean, virtually every conversation we have locally around vision zero july 1st of
this year and the controller and city attorney to prepare a budget supplementals to provide one-time funding to the m.t.a for the three-month pilot of fare free public transit in san francisco. transit ridership and fare revenue have plummet and traffic congestion is on the rise. with san francisco and the bay area to reopening workplaces, expanding muni ridership, and service, it's essential the community pilot is long overdue and now is the perfect time to do it. if this pile so the adopted, san francisco would join boston, washington d.c., kansas city, and other cities that are
testing the waters when it comes to fare free transit. san francisco residents, as you know, have been hit pared by covid-19 and the ensuing economic recession. free muni will put money back in people's pockets. the typical muni rider will save $81 per month, the cost a monthly muni pass. those who pay for individual rides, rather than monthly passes will save even more. and for our families with children, who are returning to school on muni, this pilot will save them even more as a parent, taking two kids to school for example, pays $5 each way, that's $10 as i day that they would save under a free muni program. fry muni accomplishes multiple objectives. it saves riders money and incentivizes people to ride public transit, reduces traffic ton jestion, and helps us reach
our vision zero and climate goals. i want to be clear, a return to full service, and piloting free muni during our recovery are not mutually exclusive they're two sides of the same coin. our goal is to make sure public transportation is extensive and widely used as we recover from this pandemic. m.t.a. timeline will not be impact bid the fare free pilot nor will m.t.a. two year budget by thanks to the large infusion of federal recovery funds is fully funded. right now, we have a unique opportunity to pilot free muni. with fare revenue at historic lows, we can pilot this now for a fraction of what it would cost at any other time. and then we can make a data informed decision later about whether to move forward in the future with a ballot measure to find a permanent source of funding for permanent free muni.
interests a there's a free muni in the pandemic. this is the time to pilot free muni when fare ridership is low and we need do everything possible to make sure people get back on public transportation not back in their cars and the data shows this is needed movement you congestion is surging back towards pre pandemic levels. people are defaulting to private vehicles -- in incorporation on revenue and it will be conditioned on the m.t.a.
launching a pilot july 1st of this year and announcing the free muni pilot and notifying riders their payment for the pilot for the period of temporarily shifting enforcement stats to other duties like promoting safety on board muni and reporting back to the board regarding ridership, voluntary fares collected during this time and impacts of the pilots. i want to thank the m.t.a. for working with us on the data for the projected fare revenue and the official m.t.a. estimate of fare revenue starting july 1st r the period of the throw-month pilot. i want today express my thanks to supervisor haney, our budget chair, who has been a very strong supporter of this idea and who has made clear to me he has committed as budget chair to making sure we do what is needed to fund and launch this pilot
and i understand that he has some remarks when i conclude if he can be rereferred. i also want to thank president walton and supervisor ronen for their early and strong support and i know other colleagues have publicly expressed interest and free muni as recently as this morning and with supervisor melgar's comments and i'm looking forward to following up with you about this proposal until the days ahead and i'm also looking forward to continuing our conversation with the staff and the m.t.a. satisfy and twu local 258 and transit advocates and riders as we finalize the details of this free muni pilot. colleagues, we have a unique opportunity to help riders. and i'm excite today make this happen. and the rest i submit. >> clerk: thank you, supervisor preston. and i believe supervisor haney
wanted to be rereferred. >> yes, thank you, madam clerk. i want to thank you, supervisor preston, for your leadership and your steadfast commitment to getting this done and your partnership. one of the -- i would first say, we face many challenges over the next couple months to reopen our city and to ensure that our still deeply impacted small businesses one of the most fort ant fans and getting folks back into public transit and we are already seeing the number of cars on our roads reach pre-pandemic levels, even as we have our economy that has not reopened. the prospect of folks reopening
the businesses, coming back into offices, and getting into cars at unprecedented levels, would laid to congestion, it would hurt our city t. would hurt our recovery and of course t. would also hurt our environment. the challenge that we have to reduce every possible barrier, that people may have to take public transit, to incentivize it in every possible way is critical and that is going to need to mean increasing service, restoring services in lines that have been cut and pulled back. and also, eliminating fares and i think that we have a transformational opportunity here to demonstrate our commitment as a transit-first city to.
>> on mtc and i've been serving on the metropolitan transportation commission since february of 2019 and in addition to the full commission, i also sit on the admin committee, the program and allocations committee and the newly formed bay area housing finance authority, overnight committee and these rules have been focusing on the first area is to guide the allocation of federal resource or federal transportation dollars coming
from the cares and krisa, the coronavirus response relief supplemental probations act and the stimulus bills and how to divide them among all of the regional transit operators and there have been several distribution traunchs with the first by urging of getting dollars out quickly and back filling fair box glosses and the task before us know was subsequent traunchs is to be more strategic in distributing these funds along principle and informed by equity and transit need. with the highest number of low income transit dependent riders, san francisco pushes for our share. the second issue i've been focused on mandelman and mar have been involved as supervisor mandelman chaired, through the rules has been plan bay area 2050 and i don't need to go into that because supervisor mandelman went into it in depth but, trust that we're working
together and in unity to make sure that san francisco is treated fairly and isn't required to produce more market rate housing than we should be. next, colleagues, i'm going to introduce together with budge chair matt haney a hearing at the budget and appropriations on food, insecurity and hunger and our local response. the food security task force working under d.p.h. is charged with assessing food insecurity and making recommendations for legislative action and city wide strategies to arrest the problem and prior to covid-19, students security in san francisco was ready far too common and the task force report inside 20191/4 san franciscans, in the richest city in the richest county in the world were at risk for hunger with potentially profound impacts on immediate and
long-term physical and mental health on fetal and childhood development and academic achievement and our city's economy. i just wanted you all to know that i am planning on introducing a resolution to extend the term of the food security task force and it's an important that we have a body that is looking across all of the different entities that address food security and the san francisco unified school district and the early care and education first five and human services agency, department of homelessness and supportive housing of aging and result services and they you will do incredible work on food security and their intersection is complex and we need we want to
have a place to analyze and hear the recommendations for this year's budget. that will be the purpose of this hearing and colleagues, i'm introducing a legislation that seeks to make it easier for local massage practitioners and small business owners to open and operate and by amending the planning code and to permit massage businesses for other health services are currently allowed to operate. [please stand by]
and supportive environment for massage health services for small businesses. finally paul from my office. you've been working on this legislation for so long. thank you so much. the rest i submit. >> clerk: thank you. supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: thank you madam clerk. thank you chair. i will start with my updates from the couple of boards that sit on. first retirement board. two key updates. we are working aggressively on two things. one is continuous search for
executive director for the retirement system. this has been an ongoing conversation. it intersects with the second thing we're working on. that is divestment of fossil fuels. we believe the two items converge very nicely. we believe having the right executive director to go aggressively toward complete divestment on aggressive schedule is something that this board prior to even myself being on, i know supervisor peskin cares deeply about this. we've been working together. he has been on this topic prior to me even coming on the board. it was one of the top priorities for me asking to be on the retirement system to move this agenda move. we believe we have the opportunity to do that. the second and last piece is
we're finalizing the return rate for the retirement system currently at 7.4. that being negotiated. just a tenth point difference in impacts significantly to our general fund. right now one of the reasons we were able to close the gap on our $650 million shortfall is our retirement is, not that many years ago was about $12 billion retirement fund is now $30 million. it has been performing exceedingly well. all of our retirees and their pensions are about 90% funded and climbing. we're doing extremely well. i'm very happy to report that. i'm really happy to report that there seems to be strong alignment when there hasn't been in the past on complete
divestment. we spent a lot of time working on to move forward in the conversation. we will update more at the next request. on the san francisco community roundtable, with the past year the decline of disembarkments, basically amount of trips and planes leaving and coming into san francisco. the amount of noise and impact to the southern neighborhoods of san francisco bayview, hunters point, and parts of the western twin peaks, sunset area. have decreased significantly. has plane traffic is increasing again, unfortunately, many of you might not realize but, there was automated flight system that
was installed few years ago back in 2015-2016 the changed the way in which the crossover systems were happening in san francisco. because of that increase significantly amount of noise impact. that is something that we've been using. lot of the conversations that the airport roundtable many of the surrounding communities are impacted dramatically. we're talking about flyover for our system but also the way which the noise the levels are immediately measured and measuring systems that are put in place. that's something that we have been working on. very proud to continue to be a part of. lastly, i appreciate supervisor ronen and her conversation today about food insecurity. i want to update colleagues on
that. we had a drafting request about a month regarding couple of different things. one was food inventory that would adopt the efforts created by the covid command task force. we've been working with paula jones for the food insecurity task force. definitely want to be added to a co-sponsor, supervisor ronen. i'm happy to continue to brief you on what we've been doing. we ask for drafting of legislation to create what we're calling food empowerment market. building on the success what we've seen during the covid crises and what we've seen in district 9 with the mission hub, district 11 with excelsior strong and latino task force and also in district 10 and 6 in particular, which showed during
the pandemic that's where the vast majority of food insecurity correlated with job insecurity was happening. this is something that we've been doing -- these conversations have been happening to begin with not just the san francisco food bank but looking to ensure culturally competent food is delivered using the model. my office spoke with the new executive director of san francisco food bank. she's pledged to support this initiative. happy to continue to work on that with all of you and food insecurity task force and looking for greater accountability with all the different departments as supervisor ronen was saying. there's been a lot of disjointed efforts. we've been working to enforce and work with all of the different bodies to ensure they are working collectively. so we can put this together. i think the biggest takeaway is -- we appreciate the work that the city attorneys begun to do.
really putting in the framework the idea of having food empowerment market where the most food insecurity has been experienced. look forward to working with you on that. supervisor ronen, looking forward to partnering with you and budget chair haney on the hearing that you're talking about because we certainly would like to move this legislation forward and ensure it's a part of the current budget process. that's all i have for today mr. president. >> clerk: thank you supervisor safai. supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: thank you. since you heard from supervisor peskin on bcdc updates and disaster council economy also sit on, has not been meeting regularly over the past year.
i'll speak about the board of directors for it goldengate bridge. with respect to the bridge board, i like to thank everybody here for reappointing me for full two-year term in march. most significant update from that body really involves the budget which like every transit agency across the country has been under tremendous strain due to covid-19. the pandemic decimated ridership levels. bus ridership has been down about 75%. ferry ridership 96%. the board plans to lay off employees and cut positions. in december the layoffs were rescinded thanks to the federal stimulus that was passed that month. i'm looking forward to work with
my kleagles -- colleagues to continue navigate economic lovery of the biden administration. i like to say i'm happy to be joined by supervisor melgar who was sworn in at our last meeting. i spoke with the family violence council few weeks ago. i want to thank you again for your support of my legislation to renew and expand the family violence council this spring. i'm pleased that the council's work to address all forms of family violence including intimate partner violence, child abuse and elder abuse will continue to 2024 at least. at this time, the council compiling and reviewing the most recent data that we have collected in anticipation of publishing the family council report. which will cover july 1, 2019 and june 30, 2020.
the report will be published this spring. it will give us a fuller picture of the severity of the family violence crises. we saw it at the start of the pandemic and we continue to see it today. i'm sure that report will paint a grim picture because it has been terrible through the pandemic in terms of domestic violence and the child abuse that we've seen or that has not been seen because kids not been in school and mandated reporters haven't had a chance to see what they've been going through. i'm looking forward to having that information in the near future to better understand how community partners can prevent and address family violence in san francisco. thanks again president walton and colleagues and the rest i submit. >> clerk: thank you. president walton? >> president walton: thank you. thank you colleagues for
providing updates for our boards and commissions told. i do have a resolution an ordinance and memoriam. i will be brief. i'm introducing an ordinance to amend the campaign and governmental conduct code to update the conflict of interest codes form 700 filing requirements and sunshine ethics training requirements to include members of the sheriff's department oversight board and the inspector general and the sheriff office department of inspector general. this will include the new sheriff oversight board and inspector general that was approved by voters with prop d last year.
i'm also introducing along with co-sponsors supervisors chan and haney a resolution supporting california state assembly bill number 490. the angelo kinto act of 2021. he was a navy veteran from northern california who in december 23, 2020 was murdered by an antioch police officer. the officer knelt on his neck for over four minutes during which time mr. quinnto lost consciousness. he was transmitted to a nearby hospital but never regained consciousness adied three days later. the circumstances of hang low quinnto's death are stark parallel to george floyd's which both exposes great areas and
loopholes. in california our use of force policy ban choke hold restraints do not outlaw positional asphyxia which includes knee to neck restraints and any other dangerous techniques that impairs a person's breathing. 8490 will create a uniform statewide policy banning restraints to ensure they can no longer be applied on californians. i like to thank the assemble member gibson for his leadership. i urge our state represents and governor to pass this long overdue legislation. we have clearly seen these restraints literally lead to death. lastly i have an memorial mr. ray rivera.
he was an advocate for people of color and those disenfranchised. at the real alternatives program, known as r.a.p. ray was introduced to a set of principles to love and serve the community with dignity and respect. ray formed mission media arts and outgrowth of r.a.p. who's primary of courses to ensure people of color were on screen. to prepare young people for the industry and train young people all phases of operations. for the first time young san san
franciscans of color began to see media careers. the coalition was successful and cultural centers were created in every district. the coalition then allowed the mayor's office to ensure the city's hotel tax will be used to support district center. this modality became a national model. survived by his family, jay and renee rivera, his daughter and son and his wife gloria.
ray will be missed by his loving friend as the renaissance man who played as hard as he worked. ray was a chef, poet, novelist, army veteran and businessman who left his heart in san francisco. on behalf the board of supervisors i'm proud to honor the life and memory of ray rivera. i'm going to briefly report on caltran, workforce investment san francisco and the jjcc. i want to thank you for your support and push for getting this on and through the november ballot. we have a government ad hoc
committee in place and we will expand it to include the leadership of transit agencies so both director chan on the committee. we will announcing the selected gent counsel in may. we have not had our own dedicated general counsel dedicated. that announcement will be made in may. caltrans is upgrading vending machines to include clipper cards to allow access for more people to use the system. i want say that the staff is working with the transportation authority to expand eligible infrastructure improvements and trip reduction program. this will include opportunities for ferry that is important,
serve on the inclusion and equity committee and finalizing what the goals and purpose of the committee is going to be as far as workforce investment board, we approved oewd four-year workforce investment opportunity local plan. the plan is currently on for public comment through the month before it is submitted to the state workforce board on april 30th. in regards to the juvenile justice coordinating council, as you know, juvenile justice coordinating council is responsible for develop