Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  December 4, 2018 6:00pm-7:01pm PST

6:00 pm
if anybody knows how to do that, please let me know. as far as i know it's a serial number assigned by the clerk. [please stand by] .
6:01 pm
>> okay. maybe we can call the ballot. >> on items 31 and 32 quad. >> yes, ma'am,. >> supervisor mandelman? [roll call]
6:02 pm
>> there are ten aye. >> thank you. these items passed unanimously. thank you. these resolutions are passing. would you like to talk about item 33 quad. >> may i read the item first class. >> this is the item that establishes the board of supervisors regular meeting schedule. >> i know i am interrupting your dinner, but i was curious, our people aware that we swapped out -- veteran's day or a meeting about veterans day for something else around thanksgiving, and i will go with whatever other
6:03 pm
board members want to, but i was a little uncomfortable with that i feel like that i am not honoring the veterans. >> okay. you severed this item to talk on this item. is there anything else you want to do or any action you want to propose? >> i'm asking -- our people aware of this? i guess i was a little uncomfortable knowing that it was tied to veteran's day that we cut. >> did you want to say anything? >> yes. thank you. regarding the veterans day holiday, which we normally have taken off, at this year, because i asked that the board follow the board to rule and meet the week of thanksgiving, and not to the week of after thanksgiving, if you could point that out on the calendar so the members could see the month of november,
6:04 pm
we would not be meeting two weeks in a row. so we would have for three weeks to meet in front, i indicated we would be meeting on the 12th, if you can see that. otherwise we would have a meeting on the fifth, we would be dark on the 12th, a meeting on the 19th, no meeting on the 26th, no meeting on the third so we would have three weeks off november and december, and two meetings in december and the winter break at the end. i am not opposed to making november 12th veteran's day holiday, but since we were taking off the 26th and the third, i left it there as a meeting so that the board could get the business done before we went into the thanksgiving break and the winter break. >> thank you. supervisor ronen?
6:05 pm
i had brought this to the attention of the boards because it has been really helpful when we have the week of sense just thanksgiving off because sfusd is off that week. for parents, we have to get childcare that week. if we don't have it off, which is not something, i mean we can figure it out to, but i know a lot of aides and a lot of supervisors have children so it's been really convenient when the thanksgiving week is off, because san francisco is supposed to the clerk's conference, the clerk needs to take that following week off, and so that would mean that there was not very many board meetings in november and december and so angela's way of accommodating that was to take
6:06 pm
the day after veterans day. we would still celebrate veterans day, but we would usually -- usually when there is a holiday on a monday, we don't meet on the board, and we thought that that accommodated the needs of parents, and also make sure we had enough board meetings in the months of november and december. but i'm open. i wanted to see what the opinion of other parents on the board was. i just know that having thanksgiving week off has been really helpful given sfusd's schedule. >> i agree. we have done that two years in a row. we have had the week of thanksgiving off. i know it is extremely health -- helpful for myself and for others and for anyone else who have children. i would absolutely agree with that. this year, we did both. we had the week of thanksgiving off and we had veterans day off, so this year, in your proposal,
6:07 pm
we would be pushing the schedule farther in to the month of december, right? because of -- does not mean that the entire clerk's office will be at the conference class. >> we are hosting the conference >> we are hosting the conference in san francisco so the entire office will be part of that hosting. that is why we are pushing the schedule deeper into december then we normally do. >> to the president, supervisor kim reminded me we did not take veterans day off. we actually took off elections day. >> that is why we had -- >> in the current year there was no veterans day holiday. >> okay. >> we celebrated veterans day, but we still get up on tuesday. >> okay. >> i just raise the issue and i am okay if we agree on this calendar. >> and we take this without objection and excellence.
6:08 pm
we can take this same house, same call are there any other duchess or anything else? >> yes, i have three housekeeping items before i read the in memoriam his. on the agenda for december 11th , there will be the seniority pole for the newly elected members of the board, not supervisor mandelman or supervisor stefani, so that will be one of the first items on next tuesday's agenda, and given that there will be a board meeting potentially a december 18th that is when we will have the commendation saying the farewell commendation saying goodbye to the supervisors who will be leaving the board will put accommodations on the 11th thank you for that direction. do not forget to which the board president happy birthday next
6:09 pm
thursday. with that, i will read the in memoriam on behalf of supervisor peskin and supervisor yee or the late manny lunn. on behalf of supervisor peskin got jury robbins, and on behalf of supervisor mandelman, for the late cannot eke a cow. >> thank you very much. i would like to thank our friends at s.f. golf t.v. for assisting us with this evening's broadcast. is there any other business before this body class. >> that concludes our business for tonight his. >> thank you ladies and gentlemen. we are adjourned. [♪]
6:10 pm
>> when i open up the paper every day, i'm just amazed at how many different environmental issues keep popping up. when i think about what planet i want to leave for my children and other generations, i think about what kind of contribution i can make on a personal level to the environment. >> it was really easy to sign up for the program. i just went online to cleanpowersf.org, i signed up and then started getting pieces in the mail letting me know i was going switch over and poof it happened. now when i want to pay my bill,
6:11 pm
i go to pg&e and i don't see any difference in paying now. if you're a family on the budget, if you sign up for the regular green program, it's not going to change your bill at all. you can sign up online or call. you'll have the peace of mind knowing you're doing your part in your household to help the environment. - working for the city and county of san francisco will immerse you in a vibrant and dynamic city that's on the forefront of economic growth, the arts, and social change. our city has always been on the edge of progress and innovation. after all, we're at the meeting of land and sea. - our city is famous for its iconic scenery, historic designs, and world-class style. it's the birthplace of blue jeans, and where "the rock" holds court over the largest natural harbor on the west coast.
6:12 pm
- our 28,000 city and county employees play an important role in making san francisco what it is today. - we provide residents and visitors with a wide array of services, such as improving city streets and parks, keeping communities safe, and driving buses and cable cars. - our employees enjoy competitive salaries, as well as generous benefits programs. but most importantly, working for the city and county of san francisco gives employees an opportunity to contribute their ideas, energy, and commitment to shape the city's future. - thank you for considering a career with the city and county of san francisco. . >> i love that i was in four plus years a a rent control tenant, and it might be normal because the tenant will -- for
6:13 pm
the longest, i was applying for b.m.r. rental, but i would be in the lottery and never be like 307 or 310. i pretty much had kind of given up on that, and had to leave san francisco. i found out about the san francisco mayor's office of housing about two or three years ago, and i originally did home counseling with someone, but then, my certificate expired, and one of my friends jamie, she was actually interested in purchasing a unit. i told her about the housing program, the mayor's office, and i told her hey, you've got to do the six hour counseling and the 12 hour training. she said no, i want you to go with me. and then, the very next day that i went to the session, i
6:14 pm
notice this unit at 616 harrison became available, b.m.i. i was like wow, this could potentially work. housing purchases through the b.m.r. program with the sf mayor's office of housing, they are all lotteries, and for this one, i did win the lottery. there were three people that applied, and they pulled my number first. i won, despite the luck i'd had with the program in the last couple years. things are finally breaking my way. when i first saw the unit, even though i knew it was less than ideal conditions, and it was very junky, i could see what this place could be. it's slowly beginning to feel like home. i can definitely -- you know, once i got it painted and slowly getting my custom furniture to fit this unit because it's a specialized unit, and all the units are microinterms of being very small. this unit in terms of adaptive,
6:15 pm
in terms of having a murphy bed, using the walls and ceiling, getting as much space as i can. it's slowly becoming home for me. it is great that san francisco has this program to address, let's say, the housing crisis that exists here in the bay area. it will slowly become home, and i am appreciative that it is a bright spot in an otherwise >> president cohen: thank you. good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. i want to welcome you to the december 4, 2018, meeting of the
6:16 pm
san francisco board of supervisors. thanks for joining us today. madam check, please call the roll for attendance. [roll call] >> clerk: madam president, you have a quorum. >> president cohen: thank you. ladies and gentlemen, please join me for the pledge of allegiance. [pledge of allegiance]
6:17 pm
>> president cohen: thank you. madam clerk, any communications? >> clerk: yes. i have one to report, dated this morning, december 4, from supervisor fewer, requesting to be excused as she's out of town. >> president cohen: thank you. may i have a motion to excuse supervisor fewer? seconded by supervisor tang. without objection, colleagues. without objection, supervisor fewer is excused from today's meeting. next we'll go on to the approval of minutes. colleagues, we're approving the minutes from october 30, 2018, for the full board. is there a motion to approve the minutes? motion made by supervisor mandelman, seconded by supervisor ronen. can we take this without objection? without objection. thank you. without objection, the meeting will be approved after public comment. madam clerk, please call item 1.
6:18 pm
>> clerk: it has been referred without recommendation from land use and transportation. ordinance to amend the planning coat for south of market plan and make the appropriate findings. >> president cohen: supervisor kim amended this item last week. this item needs eight votes to pass. madam clerk, on the question, shall this ordinance be finally passed, can you please call the roll? [roll call vote] there are 10 ayes. >> president cohen: excellent.
6:19 pm
this ordinance is finally passed unanimously. madam clerk, please call the next item. >> clerk: item 2, ordinance to approve a business and tax regulation code early care and education commercial rents tax credit and exclusions, subject to hotel tax or parking tax. >> president cohen: colleagues, we can take this same house, same call? great. without objection, this ordinance is passed on first reading. next item. >> clerk: item 3, ordinance to dedicate the brewster street extension consisting on improvements on brewster and martin to public use and affirm ceqa. >> president cohen: same house, same call? excellent. next item. >> clerk: item 4, ordinance to amend the building code to modify the penalty for
6:20 pm
constructing impervious surface in the front yard. same house, same call? we have supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: thank you. i wanted to highlight the importance of this. we have department of building inspection to work with the planning department dealing with those that may violate the front yard setback process. it people are paving over the front yard, it comes to the building department. in our part of town, a significant number of residents have gone above and beyond the allowable percentages. we wanted to have an additional layer and still it will be a response system based on complai complaint, but also the ability of the inspectors to highlight this and look for it in the process of looking for other violations. we feel it's important.
6:21 pm
it feels with environmental goals but also deals with the greening we're trying to do in parts of town like mine that have significant amount of paving in the front yard. so just wanted to highlight that. appreciate the opportunity to speak. hope you will support it. >> president cohen: colleagues, can we take this same house, same call? looks like we can. this ordinance without objection, passed on the first reading. >> clerk: item 5, ordinance to amend the planning code and zoning map for 1550 evans avenue special use district. >> president cohen: colleagues, i'm excited to bring this special use district before you. this s.u.d. represents a promise made and the importance of keeping a promise made. promises made, promises kept by the p.u.c. i want to check out to harlan
6:22 pm
kelly and his staff as they delivered on a promise that was made decades ago, before harlan was the g.m. it's much-needed and much-appreciated. it's a community center for the bayview community. i want to thank everyone that has been instrumental in the vision and community process in creating this community facility. as i mentioned, p.u.c. g.m. mr. harlan kelly, dr. jackson, may she rest in peace, harold madison, ethyl garlington, grateful for the original advocacy on establishing the community facility, which is now located at 1800 oakdale. this was established decades ago. today we've got a whole new set of advocates ensuring that the new building gets built. want to recognize gwen jackson, linda richardson, rodney hampton
6:23 pm
for their ongoing work in getting new facilities work. the members of the southeast facility mission, hunters point family, outstanding nonprofit, holding it down in the bayview and the community members. i see lodi titus is here. there's a host of folks. i hope you will be able to join us today and celebrate -- though we cannot take public comment on this item, but can i see who is here in this chamber for this item, can you stand up so we can recognize you? wow. beautiful. i appreciate it. colleagues, i hope you will join me in supporting this item. looks like we may be able to take this without objection. same house, same call, this ordinance is passed on the first reading. [applause] congratulations>> clerk: item 6
6:24 pm
to amend the public works code to create a mobile caterer unit for restaurants that cannot operate during seismic retrofits of their building. >> president cohen: looks like we can take this same house, same call? without objection, this ordinance is passed on first reading. next item. >> clerk: item 7, referred without recommendation from land use and transportation committee. it's an ordinance to amend the planning code to eliminate minimum offstreet parking requirements citywide to affirm the ceqa and findings determination. >> president cohen: supervisor kim? >> supervisor kim: i like seeing my colleagues add their names to the roster. this is very noncontroversial and i want to thank supervisors mandelman, peskin and brown, my co-sponsors. today san francisco has the
6:25 pm
opportunity to be the first major american city to remove minimum parking requirements following the examples of mexico city and hartford, connecticut. while removing the requirement, the legislation in no way removed the option of the parking. we're not removing the maximum parking requirement or prohibiting the parking. we're not requiring developers to build parking if they don't want to or if they want to build less than the minimum required. and what i've seen in the district that i represent where minimum parking requirements have been dealt away with is that developers continue to build parking as market demands. the city has been moving in this direction for decades and our planning code has many pathways for projects to reduce or remove the offstreet parking, for example, replace it with bicycle parking. they have allowed developers to remove offstreet parking, home
6:26 pm
sf, dwelling unit ordinance, section 161, and currently, all 100% affordable housing projects are exempt. at this point, there is no land use or policy rationale for keeping parking requirements and the removal is supported by numerous policies approved by this board ranging from vision zero, transit first, housing affordability, better streets and place making. we're hearing from developers that have built parking spots for their offices or residents and realizing that people are not driving at the same rate that they used to and are holding empty parking spots that could have been used for other uses whether retail or housing and also can reduce the cost and also accelerate the process through the planning department when they don't have to do something that they don't want to do. removing the minimum parking requirement will simplify our planning code in a meaningful way and provide certainty to
6:27 pm
developers and small property owners. i don't believe that the passage of this ordinance, while significant in symbolic meaning, will result in much difference, but increase in efficiencies that will allow projects to move faster through the pipeline. i just want to thank -- take a moment to thank our planning commission, who proposed this amendment, when our better streets ordinance came through the planning commission in october and, of course, to paul chasten has been working with the office on refining and amending the ordinance. city design group. and our long-range planning division, current planning and environmental planning. i want to acknowledge sfmta and public works that reviewed and had staff members come on their free time to speak on public comment. i want to thank our advocacy
6:28 pm
groups walk sf, cathy deluca, livable city, and bike coalition, janice lee. i want to thank our community resident from south park, alice rodgers, who first brought up the issue of how a change, a major change of use, didn't trigger any change of requirements to develop or improve streetscapes for pedestrians. and i want to thank the city attorney's office. finally, want to recognize my staff, noel young and edward wright that helped us to get to this point. i look forward to having your support on this ordinance. >> president cohen: thank you. supervisor yee, you're next. >> supervisor yee: thank you, president cohen. why i completely support the intent of this ordinance to get us to the point where we are not reliant on cars and fossil fuels, but i don't believe that
6:29 pm
this will result in the change we would like to see. again, we are faced with a decision to set a broad sweep that applies to a one-size-fits-all approve to all of our neighborhoods and uses. i recognize that this ordinance is not a ban and would allow projects to include parking, if they choose so. however, it does set a maximum number of parking spaces while also ignoring the needs of various populations who do not have the ability to get by without cars. secondly, eliminating parking requirements across the board does not necessarily result in fewer drivers, nor would it mean that it would result in more riders on public transit. it would encourage people to use ride hail companies that circumvent priorities. i want to acknowledge that not all of our neighborhoods have
6:30 pm
access to reliable public transit and those of us on the west side, we are trying to build more housing, but have done very little in expanding our improving our transit. this is unacceptable and we need to rectify that before imposing any more rules of parking restrictions. colleagues, lets have a deeper discussion about how to reduce climate change, but today i'm not able to vote on this ordinance. >> president cohen: thank you for your thoughtful remarks, supervisor yee. i appreciate hearing that. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: it was in these chambers about a decade and a half ago when there was a huge fight about parking maximums in the downtown c3 area and at that time, there was a proposal to have a maximum of a
6:31 pm
half parking spot per unit. for every two units built, there could only be one parking spot. everyone thought that the world was going to come to an end. our downtown would be even more congested today had that legislation not ultimately have been passed and it was passed with the support of then planning director makres, who bucked gavin newsom, who was listening to developers that wanted higher parking maxes. with all respect through the chair to supervisor yee, is just getting rid of a minimum requirement. it does not prevent a developer, say, in district 7 from having one car or depending on the zoning more than one car per residential unit, but it does not require that it be put in. i think it makes sense. i think it's overdue and i want to congratulate supervisor kim
6:32 pm
in her final meetings on the board in getting this done and spearheading what i think is a remarkably important initiative. >> president cohen: supervisor brown? >> supervisor brown: all right. thank you, president cohen. and i was actually in the chamber speaking on this over a decade ago as an advocate. and i remember, it was pretty fiery. i've had advocates that didn't want the parking removed or the change yelling at me in the corridor, but i was excited when we actually pushed to get this to move through then and now i'm really excited that this legislation is coming forward. it's been a long time, especially for us that were
6:33 pm
environmental activists. and i'm happy to continue my support. and i have the real strong backing, i know, in my community of hayes valley and other areas of the city that is pushing this and they've been pushing this for the last few years of wanting this type of opportunity and recommendation for developers as they come into these transit-rich and denser neighborhoods. and we're seeing -- for me, we're seeing the terrible impacts of climate change in california. we need to limit and reverse the effects of global warming and i feel like this is an important step to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions and traffic congestion. and eliminating our dependence on personal vehicles for
6:34 pm
transportation. we also know how expensive it is to build in san francisco, especially housing. and this requirement will help the cost of housing, being able to put units where parking would be and especially when we're looking at any affordable housing. when i'm going through my district and looking at the different affordable housing and h.u.d. housing and looking at the parking, i think, wow, wouldn't it have been nice if there were actually houses and apartments built there? so i'm excited about that. and i just feel -- to close -- less cars and more housing means a brighter, greener san francisco. thank you. >> president cohen: thank you. supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: i remember when i was on the livable city board charge for the work you were doing in this chamber then, so your advocacy and work has been consistent. supervisor kim, i want to thank you for taking this cause up and bringing forward this
6:35 pm
legislation and allowing for me to participate with you. thank you. >> president cohen: supervisor kim, your name is back on? >> supervisor kim: at land use, we were asked to do more outreach on the ordinance. i want to let members of the board know that in partnership with the planning department, our office reached out to 200 neighborhood and community groups and we received 50 letters in support. only a handful opposed. and 75% of the attendees that came to our meetings were in support or became supportive after learning more about the ordinance. i do want to add that i agree with supervisor yee. i don't think we'll see a dramatic change in the passage of this ordinance. in many ways, it's cleanup, moving in the direction we're already moving in, but symbollically, it means a lot. and i think for the rest of the country that is looking at cities like san francisco in terms of the future of land use and planning, the passage of
6:36 pm
this ordinance is incredibly meaningful. if we can eliminate it here, we'll start to see a movement across the country. the ordinance, of course, by itself does not decrease driving or car ownership, but it does move us in the direction where we understand that private vehicles make up 1/2 to 2/3 of our carbon emissions of any major city and we just have to do better. if this pushes us to provide better transit in districts like 7 and 4 and 11 to help us to get to a transit-first city, we should move in that direction and this ordinance will help us get there. colleagues, again, i want to thank my co-sponsors, supervisor peskin, brown and mandelman and, colleagues, i look forward to your support. thank you. >> president cohen: supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you. i feel conflicted on this vote. in particular, i enjoy and
6:37 pm
believe in the policy goals. we should do everything we can to remove people from their cars and promote more public transportation. some of the things that i said in committee was the reality of some of the more transportation-deprived parts of town put us in a situation where they're more car-reliant. we've been making strides. we work with the sfmta to provide more less-mile options, so we did that through the scooter program. myself and president cohen pushed the sfmta and the original awardees of the permits for scooters and now there's a significant increase of the scooter presence in our part of town. we're looking for other last mile options and working with the go bike program, all of those things for last mile. where we currently are, for a
6:38 pm
policy conversation like this -- and i appreciate the fact that supervisor kim and the planning department made an attempt -- i think there was a confluence of unfortunate events and absolutely underscoring where we are with global warming and the fact that there were massive fires, as we know, and a lot of people were not able to attend. i did receive a letter from the council that represents 15 plus organizations in my district saying that they were not in favor of this right now, but i do believe they could be significantly convinced to support something like this. i feel like a little bit more time and education, as i said in the committee, would allow the sfmta to get out and have more conversations about what this actually means. i do agree with supervisor brown and others that have made the point that reducing parking also helps with the -- to defray costs. that's a real issue. it does change people's behavior
6:39 pm
in many ways. so i think ultimately, i will defer to giving more time to this conversation. 5 want to be on record that i'm not opposed to the policy. i just think that maybe more time would help in pushing this conversation forward. thank you. >> president cohen: thank you very much, supervisor safai. i'm going to take a moment and i want to take the staff. they spent a considerable amount of time with me. thank you. on this item. while i respect them as individuals, i feel like in good conscience, i can't say it's good policy, certainly for the southeast. if you were to read the headlines, the t-line is failing. it's not living up to what it said it would live up to. it was never lived up to its promise and coming upgrades may not be enough to help. that's october 19, from "the chronicle." there are several other headlines that are more recent.
6:40 pm
i'm supportive of public transportation and hope that it becomes a real, viable option for all of san francisco, but that simply is not the case for the outer extremity residents, outer extremity of the city. my district is full of families. they're full of seniors. they're full of people that rely on their vehicles as the safest -- safest, most convenient transportation option for them. many don't have transportation options readily available to them, case in point, the t-line, which has been failing. the t-line disruption of service has impacted people who are just trying to get to and from work and to and from school. southeastern part of the city is neglected in the conversation and transit first is no exception. i want to acknowledge, although there has been outreach, the
6:41 pm
meetings have been held inside city hall and we know how challenging it is not only to get down to city hall but to take time to be a part of the conversations. i much prefer to see community meetings inside the communities that they're looking to garner feedback from. and i think that the legislation is presented as a nonchalant legislation. it's inocculative. that is how it happens. that's how it starts. it starts little by little, inch by inch, eating around the edges. i would ask that if people want this legislation, they should be able to opt in. i'm asking for a carve-out. i'm asking that you take out district 10, so we can study it more and understand the impacts. parking cars, vehicles, is a
6:42 pm
reality. and it feels very prescriptive that a very vocal, well-organized, very -- vocal and organized group of people have a vision of what san francisco should be going and the direction and forcing that decision on all parts of san francisco and i'm here to say it's not a clear fit and it's incredibly uncomfortable and it feels like more of the same, more policies coming down from organized groups that have the privilege to be in a position to send down these policies. and those of us that are less privileged, less organized, don't have the ability or the wherewithal to say, no, time-out, stop, can we rethink this? can we get more time? colleagues, if you are on the fence, i hope you will join me, please, asking for your support. we can continue this conversation legislatively, but
6:43 pm
can i tell you, my constituents have not had adequate time in weighing on this policy and, again, it just feels like -- district 10 is coined as being the forgotten district. it feels like this policy is leaving us, again, behind. why? the larger majority of the group believes that that is the direction we should be going in, completely ignoring working people, people who speak english as a second language, people trying to work third shift, swing shift, trying to get to work. it just doesn't feel right. so i'm going to be voting no on this. and would hope that the department, planning department, would consider carving out district 10, if this legislation should move forward. perhaps i can make a motion. maybe i will make a motion, to carve out district 10. that's an open motion on the floor. is there a second? seconded by supervisor safai. madam clerk, in terms of move
6:44 pm
forward, i don't know if we want to get to the deputy city attorney. >> clerk: if you would like to vote on this, it would have to be a roll call vote, not without objection. >> president cohen: thank you. >> deputy city attorney, john givner. we have not prepared a district 10 carve-out for today. if you want to do that, you can do that next week, or continue it, or if it passes on first reading, you can amend to make that change next week. generally both for this ordinance and all planning and zoning ordinances, my office and the planning department strongly discourage zoning by district for a variety of reasons that you probably don't want to hear at this moment, but if you want to work with us on a carve-out, we will do that. >> president cohen: thank you. i would appreciate that. and i tend to agree with you that spot zoning is not the most
6:45 pm
appropriate way. what other tools are available to me when i feel like i'm not being heard or my constituents are not being considered? i don't see any other opportunity. i will leave it for a larger policy discussion to this body. maybe we can continue the item. >> supervisor kim: i want to respond to that. first of all, if the sitting supervisor insists that a developer build parking, which they will continue to be allowed to do under this ordinance, i have never seen a scenario under which the project spotsor or developer doesn't build the parking that the supervisor requests or that the community requests. again, this ordinance does not prohibit a developer or project sponsor from building parking. in most of the city outside of districts like ronen and peskin and brown, project sponsors will be building parking even if you don't want them to build parking. that's the reality of the market needs today.
6:46 pm
while i would like to get to a place where anyone who lives anywhere in san francisco can take public transit easily to their school, their place of work, to services, etc., we know we're not there yet. we hope to get there one day. we're not there yet. this ordinance doesn't really address that. in places where developers are perhaps required to build nine units of parking but only want to build seven -- it's not nine to zero. it's really, must build nine but only need seven. why wouldn't we give developers that discretion? to re-emphasize, this policy is already basically in place. we already have removed the minimum parking requirement here in san francisco. we already allow you to replace it with bicycle parking. we already allow you to figure out other incentives and ways to reduce the parking minimums. this does not change anything. it is, of course, symbolic, and i think the symbolism is very
6:47 pm
important. i think more than impacting san francisco itself, it really impacts land use and housing development and thinking throughout the country. what i'm hoping for here today is that san francisco is a leader in that. i want to emphasize. if you want to see parking and projects in your district, you will get parking in the projects end your district. if the community, who the project sponsor is endeavoring to get support from, hears they must build the minimum or the maximum allowed, you will see that in that project. in fact, it's always the opposite. in fact, developers and project sponsors tend to want parking, even against the wishes of the community or the supervisor. so i just think that the voices of your constituents will continue to be heard a of the the passage of the ordinance. it does not in any way circumvent their opinions, perspectives, being included in the projects being included in
6:48 pm
your district. again, we've been whittling away at the parking requirement and the request has not been made when we pass home sf, accessory dwelling unit, we exed -- exempted affordable housing. all of this essentially removed the minimum parking requirement or reduced it. so i just think that as supervisor yee said, there isn't going to be a dramatic change that happens on the day this ordinance is signed into effect. however, it does move us towards a pathway of saying that we want to be a transit-first city and in projects where they don't need to build parking and seeing that increasingly in districts like mine and supervisor brown, we don't make them build parking where it could have been a housing unit. i would love to have your support, but before that, let's take a vote on the motion made by president cohen.
6:49 pm
>> president cohen: i would like to speak before we take that motion. i would like to say, i think you made my case. you are talking about symbolism. and san francisco always wants to be at the forefront, but at the expense of cities of color and the poor. at what point will we say, enough is enough? m.t.a. is not working. it hasn't been working. its been a transit-first city since the '70s, the '70s. it has not been working and serving people. yes, you're right. you listed off a bunch of policies that are already in existence and that's my point -- how we're slowly eroding, chipping away around the edges when it comes to parking and consideration. it really speaks to a larger issue of who is determining the policies of san francisco when it comes to parking, when it
6:50 pm
comes to transportation. in your remarks, supervisor kim, you talked about your district, peskin's and supervisor brown's district, the most transit-rich districts and slow in district 8. the rest of us are at your mercy. and i'm asking for some consideration. we're at your mercy because you guys -- quite frankly, the planning department is also complicite in this in coming up with policies that continue to move forward and be first and be a leader, but at the expense of whom? so i have a motion. why don't we just continue the item and we can continue to talk about it instead of doing -- >> supervisor kim: i would like to take a roll call. >> president cohen: to continue the item? >> supervisor kim: yes. and i would like to say, this is not at the expense of anyone. we're not prohibiting parking. parking will be built in
6:51 pm
districts where they're not as transit-rich -- >> president cohen: until we create a scenario, where it's like, they don't have parking over there. we build this project here and they didn't have parking and next things you know, there will be proposals popping up with zero packing in areas -- i don't approve projects without parking, i agree, supervisor, that a developer will do what they can do to put something most attractive to get their unit built and filled. what i'm highlighting is a slippery slope that we are sliding down and i have witnessed and i've been complicite because i've voted for every one of those projects you've talked about. i'm saying time out. enough is enough. we need to get serious and understand what we're doing and the adverse impacts it's having. i'm telling you today, when you pick up "the examiner" and "the chronicle," you can look and see
6:52 pm
what happens when transportation is failing. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: i wanted to offer a compromise maybe. maybe we can take a vote on your carve-out and then we can make a decision whether or not we want to vote on this today. i'm fine with voting on this today. and then we can proceed from there. >> president cohen: deputy city attorney givner? >> the carve-out amendment is not ready today. if you want to make that, you can do it next week. it's not ready for this meeting. >> supervisor yee: would people be open to duplicating the file and allowing for discussion of the carve-out to continue and have a vote of up and down with the existing? >> president cohen: so there's a
6:53 pm
motion to carve-out -- my question to the clerk, which takes precedent? >> clerk: if supervisor yee wants to duplicate the file, he does not need to make a motion. it is his right. madam president, will you withdraw your motion for carve-out on this particular item? >> president cohen: yes. >> clerk: okay. withdrawn. >> president cohen: that leaves with us an up-or-down vote? >> clerk: if supervisor yee would like to followthrough with duplicating the file, you will have two matters in front of you that are alike. >> supervisor yee: my intent is to duplicate the file and vote on the original today and to continue the duplicated file to committee. >> president cohen: madam clerk, do we need a motion or --
6:54 pm
>> clerk: the item that's been duplicated, supervisor yee would like to make a motion to send that item to committee. you need a second. supervisor kim seconded. is that without objection? >> president cohen: looks like it. without objection, going to committee. thank you. >> clerk: on item 7 as it's originally presented. >> president cohen: roll call vote, please. [roll call vote]
6:55 pm
>> clerk: 6 ayes and 4 nos. >> president cohen: thank you. next item. >> clerk: item -- >> supervisor ronen: yes. it's after 2:30. thank you. it's time for our 2:30 commendations. >> president cohen: we have a myriad of commendations. give me a moment. >> clerk: okay. >> president cohen: we have eight special commendations. you have 5 minutes, and we'll hold it to you. 5 minutes to present each commendation. so keep your remarks brief.
6:56 pm
are we on the same page with that? supervisor ronen has two special commendations and she will be recognizing fred pecker. [applause] and organizers of the advance our city our home. mission organizers, pardon me. madam clerk, could you set the time? >> clerk: okay. >> supervisor ronen: if i have to take a little time for my second from my first i reserve the right to do that. this is a very important commendation, not only to me, but to a room full of people who love you so much. [applause]
6:57 pm
i want to recognize the extraordinary amy bynhart from my office, who helped me prepare the remarks today and a dear friend of fred's from high school and college and recognize her work in putting these remarks together. i am humbled and moved today to have the privilege of honoring you, fred pecker, for your outstanding and profound contributions to san francisco labor movement and for the love and commitment to social justice and activism that infuse every single aspect of your life. i know that you are not one to seek attention, but today we're going to shine a light on you to celebrate your accomplishments and to express our incredibly deep gratitude for the example that you have set for all of us. your story begins -- fred's story begins in a middle-income
6:58 pm
co-operative apartment in long island city, queens, where he was raised. both of his parents were educators. and committed union members. and fred's introduction to activism came early. fred attended his first protest in a stroller. fred's own union history starts with his summer work in high school as a door man in a fancy new york building. while friends were working pizza deliver yes or our minimum jobs, he had the well-paid union job and well worth the annual haircut. fred and his amazing, amazing wife and life partner united educator susan solomon. [applause] they first met as kids when
6:59 pm
their parents brought their young families together one summer and history was made, ladies and gentlemen. they reunited while fred was still in college and moved together to begin married life in brooklyn. fred finished school, earned his bachelor's degree and was hired in a montessori on the upper west side. good try, but not exactly the perfect fit. at his exit interview, they let him know that he had a problem with authority. i like that. i see you. returning to san francisco to be closer to susan's family, they moved into st. francis square, a limited equity co-op build by ilwu and raised their children among a growing web of family, friends and comrades. wherever fred worked, if there wasn't a union when he got there, there was a union when he
7:00 pm
left. [cheers and applause] of course, his most important work was with the international longshoremen where for 25 years he was elected to various offices. fred's extraordinary work included welcoming into the union, a broad range of new employees seeking protection from bicycle messengers in the '90s to the animal care workers, a fight still under way today. in fact, we're having a protest tomorrow at 5:00 p.m. hope to see you there. fred is a musician with sophisticated, eclectic tastes, ready to share his music discovery, a cook, host, intellectual, philosopher and activist. he has been guided by the idea

46 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on