Skip to main content

tv   Board of Appeals  SFGTV  October 9, 2020 5:00am-8:01am PDT

5:00 am
>> caller: my name is elena engle in district 9. gas is on it's way out and the use is incompatible with a life-sustaining planet. by voting for various exemptions to this ordinance you are ultimately only make it more difficult and costly for them when they have to do the electricity in their new building, taking out the gas and installi installing electricity instead and we do need to look at just transition and labor. let us face up to the reality of our situation today. we all will have to find new ways to do things because to the
5:01 am
physics of climate change require it. so it is better to do that today when it is less complicate and expensive. therefore i ask you to make exemptions to the ordinance. the past legislation without the ultimate steps of reducing the cost. >> thank you for your comment. next speaker please. >> caller: i live in supervisor peskin's district 3. i support passing the strongest version of this ordinance. amidst the backdrop of a global climate emergency i want to point out the committee only discussed the weaknesses and i'm asking the committee to respect the public's intelligence by
5:02 am
affording us a modicum of debate and ask with the financial feasibility and industrial and laboratories are exempt. please discuss on the part the developers can squeeze out of the requirement without much effort. i hope you'll address this at the committee meeting. thank you very much. >> thank you for your comment. next speaker, please. >> caller: rolled up our sleeves and sat back and listened and learn. we learned a lot about new technologies and new ways of implementing with other technologies. for most projects it seems to
5:03 am
work. we see $2,000 to $3,000 per unit but there's one subsector that has an unprecedented hardship and for most projects the costs would be $2,000 to $3,000 per unit. for that small subset, this is a subset that clearly does not require a transformer. once you go all electric you now require a transformer at a cost of $150,000 to $200,000. going all electric just creates for this very small subsector creates a tremendous financial burden. it's important that we look at this because we have to do this
5:04 am
in a way that's fair and equitable to all housing. if this has a price of 2$2,000 r $3,000 but it's $28,000 to me that's a huge difference. keep in mind if, your project manage to qualify for this exception, you still have to put the infrastructure. if cost is in the infrastructure you will not have to remodel walls or units or sheetrock. >> thank you for your comment. next speaker, please. you'll be notified your line has been unmuted and you'll be given two minutes to speak. >> caller: i'd like to remark
5:05 am
that there was a history where the environment has been iffy and covid-19 came and then we made it mandatory then we were creating too much waste, i don't know. i feel something where it's not so easy what they're not saying
5:06 am
don't use natural gas and the other commender that if you're going to require records used if that's disadvantages we don't know about. i feel and i think of the intention to reduce emissions but i don't know that it's
5:07 am
necessarily the best idea. >> thank you for your comment. next speaker, please. >> caller: i'm a resident of district 10, jody henn. thank you for your leader through this process. i strongly support inhibiting gas and i want it passed in the strongest possible form. in particular i'd like to see the feasibility exceptions for developers eliminated. also, as complicated as the whole process is on passing the ordinance has been, this is the easy one from electronically retrofitted existing buildings with a more lengthy challenge. this makes it important to me to
5:08 am
establish that clean energy building for now and for the future. thank you supervisor mandelman for today and i suggest a hub establishment be a recommendation in the ordinance and also i wonder whether the department of the environment actually could fund such a thing as what they fund is limited to. and if it was a hub it would be one-stop-shop for vital information and access to resources. it would maximize opportunities and eliminate barriers to all electric construction and would obviously be crucial in the future for existing building
5:09 am
electrification because this is the easy one. it's important to reaching our goals of eliminating emissions from buildings. thank you. >> caller: we support new construction and also a d.a. constituent. thank you for supporting the item. and it's important for the climate and health and safety of our residents. please a [audio digitizing] and we received improvements for
5:10 am
the ordinance. the public doesn't have the option to pick up the phone and ask for changes but the supervisor spent the best part of a career crafting this and we have to show up to meetings to let your voices be heard. we can't take a break from taking care of our loved ones and if we don't solve the climate crisis and improve air quality nothing else matter. all the help you give to restaurants doesn't matter if there can't be outdoor dining because of air pollution. for the sake of us and our future we have to continue to put forth the commissions name supporting the clean building amendment and preventing
5:11 am
financial considerations from being considered. >> next speaker, please. >> caller: i agree with a lot of the comments made for from folks like daniel and chris. i want to highlight another couple important reasons we need to pass this gas ban. right now the california energy commissions is considering the next iteration of title 24 which is the minimum building standard in california. we know that the california energy commission has been looking for cities to provide a lierdship role in what is possible. it's being decided now and san
5:12 am
francisco adopting this will send a signal to the country that electric technology is here and needs to be adopted in new construction and i would like to echo a point made earlier and say i support this ordinance moving forward quickly and think the board of supervisors should also think about a just transition moving forward to ensure that the workers who may be impacted by this ordinance have a glide path. thank you so much. >> caller: i live in district 3. i'm here to support this ordinance. i like the attention you're
5:13 am
putting in to this but urge you to more foquickly. there's studies that show the construction is economically feasible and less expensive. and we need to stop continuing to further fix the status quo things when we're experiencing extreme heat waves and wild fires. and we're in a transition period. another public speaker said before with plastic bag bans and other ordinances that have passed and we cannot wait and again this is for new construction when we're talking about existing building. that conversation needs to be
5:14 am
much longer and much more simple but right now we're talking about new construction and this conversation is taking more than a year what is the next conversation going to look like? again, i encourage this to pass without loopholes. >> thank you, next speaker, please. you'll be notified your line has been unmuted and you may begin your comment. >> caller: i reside in district 2. my name is mark. i can only second all the things said. we've been living here since 1997 and we enjoy san francisco the way it is and in california the way it's been until the last year. the climate emergency is upon us and we don't have time to wait. i hope you'll move forward on
5:15 am
this. this isn't a matter of should be, it's when will we? we must look to something cleaner. it puts too much pollution in the area and explodes often in the streets. we have to cut back as much as possible. i'm a homeowner in san francisco and i have an old victorian and buildings are always going through renovations and being upgraded. it should come at no surprise the next should be all electric. not new construction but new construction just based on that basis. in 25 years it will have to be remodelled anyway. let's make sure we get the infrastructure in there for an all-electric power supply here in the city. i would urge the supervisors to
5:16 am
move quickly on this, quickly, quickly. give it to the board and implement it so we can start to get out from under this climate crisis. thank you very much. >> thank you. looks like we have two callers left in the queue. you'll be notified your line has been unmuted. you need to give your comments. >> caller: i'm in direct --
5:17 am
direct -- district 5. i know this has been tough and you want to get it right but i'm calling to urge to you pass this we don't have time to wait. if you want to live in san francisco, we're going to start to redo a lot of infrastructure and the first step is by making buildings carbon neutral. as far as strengthening and i'd like supervisors to close the financial feasibility loophole. i heard it expressed natural gas
5:18 am
is going away so if we don't allow buildings to be mixed use we're putting off costs for the buildings as they're going to have to take on higher costs in maintaining the gas lines as well as doing the ret refit in the future. i hope you pass this soon and make it a strong as possible. thank you. >> we have can you caller left. >> caller: i'm calling to support the ordinance. i'm concerned and this can go a long way in cutting our
5:19 am
emissions. 30% come from burning natural gas. transition element to impacted workers will nhelp in social justice and to other entities. i want to make sure everyone has what they have to navigate new construction and i hope you move forward with passing the ordinance quickly and without loopholes. thank you, supervisors for protecting our climate. >> thank you. >> thank you.
5:20 am
>> commissioner: i'll hand it back to supervisor mandelman if he has any remarks we wants to make. i know we'll continue this item but if you have any additional remarks you have to make before we move to the next item? >> i >> commissioner: i just want to thank the committee members and the feedback i'm getting is on restaurants there's an interest in adding a waiver provision so we'll come back next time with the legacy business and the waiver process in and tighten up the discussion on feasibility and be clear and we can bring
5:21 am
that amendment next time for your consideration as well. >> >> commissioner: he needed more information on what housing would be impacted. i think he wanted more conversation and i think we all agree on that. maybe at the next meeting we can ask someone from the office of
5:22 am
economic workforce development. and why don't we wait for the chair to be part of that conversation. >> and i'm sadly hearing this is not something the committee is interested in pursuing. we'll let that go. >> commissioner: okay. and i just have one of callers called in and they talked about the transformer issue. are you aware of that and have you been in that conversation? i understand some perspective of once you changed the overall capacity of a project and usually it's based on overall size of the project. it has an impact in terms of what it would mean going in having a full-blown transformer. do you want to talk about that before we move on. >> i know the issue was extensively submitted but i
5:23 am
should probably check in with my staff before. >> commissioner: okay. we'll come back with that as well. that's an important note. i think once you change the overall eli elick -- electricald and could require change in infrastructure and when you're at that threshold you're changing from having to have one and not having to have one. i think the conversation about that would be helpful. [please stand by]
5:24 am
>> i know you've made sure that exceptions to your ordinance do not swallow up the rule for any category of folks seeking them. so i just will be interested,
5:25 am
and i know you will work on figuring out how to make sure if there's a waiver process it's limit inside scope so i just wanted to put that out there since you are taking it that concern for everyone. >> we'll come back with the narrowest exemption that seems to address the concerns that we've heard. >> thank you. >> let's make a motion to continue this item. >> to the 19th? >> to the 19th, yes. i'm fine with that. so, madam clerk. >> clerk: on the motion to continue this matter to october 19th, supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> supervisor safai. >> aye. >> supervisor peskin. >> absent. you have two ayes. >> can we make a motion to
5:26 am
excuse supervisor peskin, madam clerk? >> clerk: absolutely. on the motion to ex excuse supervisor peskin, supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> supervisor safai. >> aye. >> you have two ayes. >> thank you, supervisors. >> thank you. >> keep up the good work. >> roll up those sleeves! thank you, madam clerk. please call the next item. >> clerk: yes, item number 3 is an ordinance administrative code to limit residential evictions through march 31st, 2020 unless the eviction is based on the nonpayment of rent or is necessary due to violence related issues or heat health ad safety issues. members of the public should call the number on the screen that's (415)655-0001 and the immediating i.d. is 146 765 3310. press pound and pound again.
5:27 am
if you have not done so already press star 3 to lineup for item number 3. a system prompt will indicate if you have raised your hand. >> supervisor peskin. >> thank you, chair safai and before us today is ordinance that seeks to no quality conviction throughs march 31st . the underline premise of this ordinance is simple and similar to to make sure no one loses their home during the pandemic. through mayoral order and ordinance of the board, this city has kept up and provide critical protections for renters who have lost income and are unable to pay their rent due to
5:28 am
covid-19 and recently the state enacted assembly member chiu building ab30-88 that provides additional framework to regulate nonpayment of rents through the beginning of next year. ab30-88 is non statement evictions and the state makes clear in that bill and assembly member chiu has confirmed the intent the state is not trying to pre-empt to limit or to alter local legislation for other types of evictions. and in fact, the state law has provisions making clear that cities remain free to pursue stronger protections for other types of evictions the legislation before us today intends to provide additional protections for so-called no faultnofault evictions.
5:29 am
owner move in, demolition, capital improvement evictions. now these evictions are prohibited currently by mayor breed's 12th supplemental orders and they started in april it was renewed on a month-by-month basis and the 12th supplemental stated no faulty conviction ideas prohibit and the protections last today months after the expiration of the date of that order. the monthly renewals of that order ended at the end of september and then the protections are currently set to expire at the end of november. the time has come for us to remove the monthly uncertainty for tenants during this pandemic. we're in a prolonged crisis. i think we all know that. and eviction must continue to be off the table. so this legislation vehicle to extend these protections, not on a one-month basis as the
5:30 am
extension for the mayoral order have been but instead to extend these through march 2021 to really replace our current month-to-month approach to give more security to tenants. we believe this is essential. we have heard reports from councilors and eviction attorneys despite the protections in place, some landlords are take advantage of legal ambiguous to pressure tenants out of their homes. this will help clarity for tenants and landlords that accepting cases where there's a threat of violence or health and safety danger, evictions are prohibited and people must be allowed to stay in their homes during the on going pandemic. and i just want to reiterate that this is not a radical departure from current policy. this is extending the
5:31 am
protections that have been provided by mayor order and were unanimously approved by the board of supervisors. also for the purposes of providing further clarity i have an amendment that's been circulated on page 3 lines five through nine. i propose to add the following subsections, subsection 3 that will read this section 37.9 is intended to limit evictions until march 31, 2021 and shall apply to all residential dwelling units described in subsections 1 and 2 including but not limited to those where a notice to vacate or quit was pending as of the date that this section 37.9 took effect and regardless whether the notice was served before or after september 15th, 2020. this amendment clarifies that
5:32 am
the ordinance applies to the no fault prohibition to notice issued as of the date of introduction of the ordinance which was september 15th and the purpose is to remove any ab tee as to the law he's application and noticed issued after the expiration of the mayor's order but before enactment of this ordinance shouldn't passed. the city attorney's office has confirmed the amendment is non substantive in nature. so in close i just want to thank my co-sponsors, supervisor peskin, ronen, haney, walton and mandelman for their early and strong support and also thank my legislative aid for all of his work on this ordinance. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor. madam clerk, you want to open it up for public comment? >> clerk: yes, mr. chair.
5:33 am
james are there any call. can you queue in the first caller, please. >> caller: hello. this is (inaudible) for the enabled count. we support presenting evictions and people have enough trouble going on in their lives with the pandemic so i ask you to approve it also. in the interest of time, we also support the fourth and fifth items sponsored by supervisor preston housing stability fund, social housing and resolution in relief funds for small (inaudible) owners of reduces
5:34 am
circumstances. thank you, very much. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. you will be notified that your line has been unmuted and you may begin your comments. >> caller: hello. just a minute as you say. you have two minutes. >> caller: tenants are very stressed as we know as they face uncertainty. supervisor preston has said it best, evictions need to be off the table. this amendment pro voids clarity for tenants that they will not be evicted through no fault of their own for the next six months. no new policy direction here suggests here proposes to extend provisions already in place and the mayor's other orders, supervisor preston's proposal puts into law an increased time period for tenants to be
5:35 am
protected against no faulty convictions. absolute clarity helps tenants physically and emotionally and we welcome this and thank you for your yes votes. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: supervisors, loraine petty here. senior, renter, from fill more and member of senior and disability action. i absolutely support preston's ordinance to extend the ban on no faulty convictions for another six months. as renters, we have been assaulted on all sides by crisis completely beyond our control. that is the virus, of course, economic shutdowns, misplacement, continuing racial and social unjustice and climate change effects including the air
5:36 am
we can't breath and thanks to the gross inefficiencies of the state of california, we can't even get the unemployment insurance money we're entitled to. it can't be converted. in the end, after the threat of the virus is over, and we look back on what we've done, we must be able to say that in our city, we absolutely did everything that we could to alleviate uncertainty and suffering. i urge every member of the board to support this ordinance. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please.
5:37 am
>> caller: this is anna stair a and i'm a senior tenant in district 8. i support this resolution, excuse me, this ordinance. no people should be losing their home during a pandemic. landlords could take the opportunity right now to take advantage of tenants and serve them with an unlawful detainer action. it means that they would have to go to court to fight. they would have to go to a tenant councilor and they would have to maybe go to the eviction defense collaborative. they would have to take all these steps during a pandemic. let them keep their homes. it's not time to fight about things that may or may not be true. leave these battles for another
5:38 am
time. another place. and support this ordinance that no one should lose their homes and the time should be increased for tenants to be protected against n no fault evictions. thank you. >> clerk: next speaker, please. your line has been unmuted and you may begin your comments. >> caller: hello, my name is hannah and i'm a staff attorney at legal assistance to the elderly. i want to thank the supervisors who have shown tremendous leadership on the issue of protecting san francisco's rent and particularly in the pandemic. i'm calling in strong support of this ordinance. the city's homelessness crisis is already a moral stain on our community i hope we can degree this is particularly shameful and abhorrent a parent from the moral many not indications i wanted to mention the public-health implications.
5:39 am
our agency has several eviction defense attorneys on staff and even with state and local protections in place, we already have full caseloads. we know what is it like to litigate eviction cases in the pandemic and opportunities easy. this is the case of our client population. by and large low income tenants who are elderly and who are people with disabilities. we often are forced to meet with our clients in-person neither because they don't have working phones, they don't have a method to scan an e-mail important documents to us or they suffer from mental health disabilities that make it too difficult to connection with and serve through phone calls. this is the behind the scenes of litigation and the court has shown itself incapable of finding ways to provide affordable, practical and stave access to their courtroom. i've seen it myself and it's not safe to go forward just from a litigation perspective is places people in close proximity to each other and people hi risk and it's going to just further
5:40 am
exacerbate this public-health crisis and it's of course, in addition to the morally abhorrent practice of evictions generally evictions in the midst of a pandemic. thank you inform the leadership for supporting this ordinance. >> thank you so much for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: well, good afternoon supervisors. i am very pleased to follow the propofoprevious speaker and i cy yes to that. i would like to tell you or speak to -- i wish one of you or all of you would be on the phone line. i am a volunteer councilor with the housing rights committee. my name is (inaudible), if you could be on the phone when i am with these callers every call, the trauma and the terror in the
5:41 am
voices. i thank them for calling to find out about their rights in the first place. this would just be an extension and that once a month, will the mayor sign this and we think she will extend for a month but the terror and the trauma of waiting like that. let's just do it and let's just, as another call previously said, let's speak to also four and five in the interest of time and i group up in a small business and it's critical that everybody be protected and at least let's try to inhale and exhale and extend it through march 31st. and i thank you for bringing this up in the meeting and i urge you all to please move it along to the full board so we can get it as law as quickly as possible. thank you, very much.
5:42 am
>> at this for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: good afternoon, supervisors. my name is (inaudible) and i'm a resident of district 8. i want to thank supervisor preston for bringing this extension fourth. i was on the line to speak to the item coming up, items 4 and 5 but there's a direct connection between protecting tenants right now and what we will be talking about later in terms of providing rent relief at the end of the pandemic. so anything that you all can do to support tenant protections has been extending those protections beyond what is in the law. i want to thank you for that.
5:43 am
>> caller: good afternoon supervisors. i'm calling in support thank you so much, supervisor, preston for bringing this forward and i do hope that all supervisors on this board also support it. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> >> i have one more call that just got in the queue. >> go ahead, please. >> linda chapman. i like who i was here for the next item. hearing this, you already know how i feel about this city policies that have allowed people to layout there in the streets to begin with but this just calls to mind knob hill
5:44 am
neighborhoods and how the tenants of knob hill for different reasons, speculation and so on, be being forced out of their homes including me at the time. just the tragedy. i would see these other people, even before it happened to me, and even though they might have another home, it wasn't their home. their home was the one that they lost. the same as my home was the one that i lost. when i was a tenant there and later when i was forced out of my co-op where i owned it. you know, the tragedy is just beyond belief. it's far worse than losing a job or anything else other than maybe losing a person who is really close to you. it's like practically the end of your life. i don't think you need to be urged to pass this. that concludes my remarks.
5:45 am
>> clerk: that is our last public comment. >> thank you. >> supervisor preston. >> thank you. unless there are any questions, vice-chair safai, i windo i woue to move to adopt the amendments that i described. sounds good. >> motion to amend. >> based on your described items, madam clerk. >> that's right. >> do you want me to -- >> you said them already. >> thank you. >> on the motion to amend supervisor preston. >> aye. >> supervisor safai. >> aye. >> you have two ayes. >> and then i'd like to move to
5:46 am
refer the item to the full board as a committee record for tomorrow october 6th. as amended. >> and just to say quickly, i know on item number 5, we're going to talk about a rent relief fund, something that when we dealt with this item before, supervisor preston and i in committee had good conversations about the necessity to provide. that's really what is at stake here to help small landlords and renters pay their rent during these times of crisis. i hope there's a second round of stimulus money that made it really big priority of mine personally to ensure a very similar to what they've done in los angeles that we have our own rent relief fund and i know that we're going to establish the ability to accept the fund but we have to have those dollars and so ultimately i think that's really what is at stake here and i want to thank supervisor preston for moving forward with the ability to protect people during this time of crisis and i
5:47 am
was supportive last time and i'm supportive this time so i appreciate it and i'm happy to move this item to the full board of the committee report. madam clerk. >> clerk: on the motion to recommend as amended adds a committee report, supervisor preston. >> aye. >> clerk: supervisor safai. >> aye. >> you have two ayes. >> great. can you please call the next item, supervisor preston. you have a busy day today. >> clerk: an ordinance administrative code to establish these social housing program funds for acquisition, creation and operation of affordable social housing developments, members of the public who wish to provide public comment that item number 4 should call the number streaming on the screen that's (415)655-0001 and the meeting i.d. is 146 765 3310 press pound and pound again. if you have not done so press
5:48 am
star and then 3 to lineup to speak for item number 4. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments when we get to public comment. i was looking at all your amendments. >> thank you, very much. i will get into those and these just for the preview are substantive amendments so we'll have the opportunity to take our time with those. or let those sit i should say. so, the remaining items, this one and the next, on today's agenda, comprise two pieces of legislation that are part of what we call the fair recovery package. it combination of revenue generating ballot measure
5:49 am
proposition i, along with two companion ordinances that seek to fund housing stability. the board of supervisors unanimously approved a resolution on august 11t august 11th expressing our intent to use revenue generated by the ballot measure should it pass to fund two ordinances, housing stability fund, and the rent resolution and relief fund. so, i will start on this agenda item describing the housing stability fund and describe the amendments which i plan to introduce today as i mentioned they are substantive which will require the item to be heard at a meeting of this committee. the housing stability fund is intended to finance the creation and acquisition of permanently affordable social housing. this includes a range of strategy land banking, community land trusts, non-profit affordable housing, or other
5:50 am
forms of social housing where the city, residents or a non-profit maintains an interest in the property or land while providing affordable housing on site. the could be concept is to provide a dedicated source of revenue to pursue affordable housing strategies. rather than be prescriptive on which housing strategy to adopt in the ordinance, the proposal intends to create an oversight board composed of affordable housing advocates and experts to provide recommendations on how the funds in this program should be spent and allocated on an annual bases. the oversight board will incorporate the recommendations during the budget process and it was introduced on june 9th and
5:51 am
in the intervening months my office has met with a number of stakeholders and with the nair's office of housing and community development and the amendments that i'm introducing today are reflection of the feedback and the suggestions that we've received to date in better lining with the original intent. given the volume of the changes, i will briefly summarize them here and i'm happy to provide any additional detail that's needed. first, we have any and all instances of the housing fund. this is clarity and avoiding conclusion and making sure we're including a broad range of affordable housing strategies including land trust, limited equity co opposite and municipal housing among others and that
5:52 am
kind of has been our intention from the start. second, the amendments provide greater details and rename the bondi that will oversee and make recommendations regarding the use of funds so specifically, as described there, the oversight board will be composed of 15 members with a range of backgrounds and experience in social housing and legal academic, financial expertise and advocacy organized labor and a seat reserved for most cd among other seats and so working with the controllers' office, most cd and the board of supervisors, this oversight board will make budgetary recommendation and provide guidance for the use under the
5:53 am
housing stability program and this is in keeping with the intent, the legislative intent to cast a wide net in terms of the affordable housing and allow the oversight board, the latitude and but i want to a draw your attention to two in particular. the first on lines one through three, we include language as
5:54 am
follows. quote, among the objectives of the funds is to prioritize acquisition and creation of affordable house ing traditional state and federal affordable housing funding and this is a significant component of the legislative intent and we're interested in making sure strategies excluded from private support and things like community land trusts and can be prioritized by the oversight board when consider strategies for the new anticipated revenue and in addition on page two lines 24 and 25 we insert language that set ami levels, quote, based on the median income within the zip code where each project is located. by setting ami levels on a more granule level, i believe we can better achieve house ago forward able to people who live in any
5:55 am
given neighborhood in san francisco. this is long been a goal from we can pilot this program without disrupting the current method for calculating ami levels for projects not under this program. as mentioned, these amendments will require an additional reading in committee and ask for approval of these amendments today and i'm happy to answer before i wrap-up i want to thank my co-sponsors supervisor ronen, mar, walton and haney and i'm looking forward to working with community stakeholders and all colleagues on the board to support this critical package of housing stability measures. thank you. >> thank you, i'm going to hold my comments, supervisor. let's go to public comment and
5:56 am
then we can come back in case anyone wants to comment. can you call any public comment. >> yes. mr. chair, do we have any callers in queue. looks like we have eight linsers and two in queue. james, if you can queue in the first caller, please. >> hello, this is anastasia from district 8. i led this legislation and find out that it's thoughtful and well drafted and establishes a fund for improvement, preservation, development. row hab, construction, loans and grants to be administered by the mayor's office of housing and community development with appropriations are accountable through annual reporting and subject to the board of supervisors' approval. i love the composition of oversight board, this
5:57 am
legislation establishes the mix of 15 representatives and the fact that they will be making their recommendations through a racial and economic equity lense. the true criteria for the use of the funds, one, this there would be agreement ensuring permit afford ability and two, it's served all income qualified households setting the maximum unit price at 80% of the a. >> mitch: for the zip code is about time that happens. housing stability fund legislation is a companion to by campaign, please, forward this item to the full board of of supervisors. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. it looks like we have four in queue now and next speaker, please. >> caller: hi, supervisors, my name is (inaudible) co director of the council of community housing organizations. just want to let the you know that we fully support this
5:58 am
legislation along with the accompanying proposition i that is on the ballot before voters. we can talk about policies with the funding to go with them. this is setting up the kind of funded, good policy that i think we all want to see. the ideas set before in this piece of legislation around expanding funding for things that are not always funded and being able to set the ami according to neighborhoods so that the housing is that located in the neighborhood truly reflects the needs of those neighborhoods and developing a system that is able to access a range of folks by averaging those amis, all good policies and a good direction and i'm
5:59 am
happy to fill in autopsy support for this piece of legislation along with proposition i. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. you will be notified that your line has been unmuted and you may begin your comments. >> good afternoon, supervisors corey smith on behalf of the san francisco housing action coalition. really appreciate supervisor preston's approach to a bunch of different ways to find and fund subsidized affordable housing. they need to be as creative as possible and so to think it's really important. two pieces as this goes forward, first, we have really fantastic affordable housing developers and property managers here in san francisco and so whatever i guess does move forward, we encourage the board to have
6:00 am
those organizations, those non profits continue to operate and the volatility of that funding source and the funding source could have an over all negative impact on housing development in san francisco as a whole and we don't see that as a logical way to be adding revenue for it was
6:01 am
people involved in-houseing and various way and including from knob hill neighborhoods and they manage today come up with all the that wonderful legislation. the whole range. because it had people with different experiences. i haven't seen the most version if something that says doing what. for example, i have found that some of the policies that exist now are maybe they don't really quite have the input from people who have actually lived in co opposite or condos and things of that sort and putting people in
6:02 am
a home owner situation. it's a great idea in rental and people losing their homes and i don't speak for calvin but he is the same kind of thing. when the community land trust was talking at spur, they were going to buy older buildings and convert them into in my building it was 100,000 and i knew a good half-dozen around that time in which i knew people for the special assessment totals were $4 million and ours is a million and a half and so fourth, how are these people coming up with this money and the man from the -- >> your time has expired.
6:03 am
>> good afternoon, this is senior disability action and i am really pleased that this permanent resident would be and i like the idea of the ami idea and when you have sen verse seno are low income on fixed incomes and they live in the bayview.
6:04 am
it's not quite the same with income and in order to pay rent and people should remain in their communities, that's the most important thing and stability of all in terms of neighborhoods and in terms of housing and so i am in support of this and i do hope of course that we are also looking at what the income levels would be so that it truly meets the needs of that community and those with the fewer options and the greatest need. so i am very much in support of this and thank you so much for bringing this forward. i yield my time. thank you. >> we have two more people in queue next caller, please. yes, i am happy to hear that the ami is limited to 80% of the
6:05 am
area median income and it's a major improvement over previous programs which have been 120% and i do have some concerns unlike the other callers, about proposals to have -- >> apologies, we lost our bridge line. we will need a few minutes. >> couple people were in the queue when we lost the line. >> there's only one person left. >> do we want to take a couple-minute recess to see if we can get it fixed. >> yes. >> thank you. >> thank
6:06 am
>> do we have the caller queued in? i do not see the bridge line. sorry. vice-chair safai, we're having
6:07 am
technical difficulties again. the bridge line just dropped. >> give us a minute. i'm going to have authur pick it up on his phone and then we're going to switch to a different telephone so give us a few minutes, please. we need a little more recess. >> yes, please. let's go into recess,
6:08 am
>> i have made my call already. thank you. >> thank you for your honesty. next speaker, please. >> hello, caller. have you made comments? >> let's move back to this caller. next speaker, please. >> hello i think i may have been the last caller before things went haywire. i was calling to thank the supervisors for this visionary piece of legislation, most of
6:09 am
all, making it by neighborhood adjusting the the ami to neighborhoods. i don't know if it came through, did it? if not, there it is. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. > >> clerk: hello, caller? ok. let's do the next speaker. >> that completes the queue. >> thank you.
6:10 am
6:11 am
6:12 am
6:13 am
6:14 am
>> i think that we do that through sb35. but thinking about what are the barriers and the things that slow down the production of the housing and how that adds to the overall costs. again, how you can incorporate it into the principles of social housing. so, i would say child care and things like health clinics and things like -- things that are socially promoting a community space can oftentimes, if it's not clearly articulated and it's always an afterthought and a system afterthought, it undermines the idea. you have articulated that really well. and the other thing is people who have worked in affordable housing for a really long time -- again, this is later, right, because you're passing it over from a non-profit or somebody who is going to do it.
6:15 am
but how do you maintain and how do you manage the housing itself? because that's really an important aspect of sustaining and ensuring the success of these targets. so those are just some of my initial thoughts. again, social housing, also in certain places, they don't ask tenants to graduate out if they go over income. some of them are given opportunities for -- not to say that it's forever, but it creates more stability. we have some very small examples of that in san francisco. and i know of the i. are iowu built some housing where a lot of the members, whether they were low income or not, they were able to pass that down generationally. i think that in the terms of tenancy it might be something to think about -- income might be something to think about, because, again -- well, the last aspect that you talked about earlier is, you know, the
6:16 am
federal government is significantly investing in social housing. so the funding of that is, obviously, one of the most important things. and land acquisition being one of the big steps in that process. so i appreciate -- i appreciate the thought put into this and we will make a motion to continue this item to october 19. and it's after these amendments have been made. >> clerk: so the remaining balance is just the continuation to october 19th. [roll call] you have two ayes. >> okay, supervisor preston, one more. madam clerk, call item 5. >> clerk: yes, item number 5 is an ordinance amending the administrative code to establish the covid-19 rent resolution and
6:17 am
relief fund to provide financial support to landlords whose tenants have been unable to pay rent due to the covid-19 pandemic. the members of the public who wish to provide public comment on item number 5 should call the number on the screen, that's 1-(415)-655-0001. and the meeting i.d. is 146, 765, 3310. and if you want to line up to speak, press star, 3, and a system prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand. >> supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: thank you. and, yes, last but not least, the rent resolution and relief fund. and this is one that we have discussed in principle before, and i think it's an important one both for tenants and also for small landlords. so as referenced in my remarks
6:18 am
in the previous item, the rent resolution and relief fund is the second of two ordinances related to the fair recovery package. the rent resolution and relief fund is designed to assist small property owners whose tenants have been impacted by covid-19 and have been unable to pay rent during the state of emergency. if a landlord voluntary waves the debt obligation for the impacted tenants, the landlord will be eligible to receive a percentage of the rent owed, as much as $3,000 per month through this fund. the legislation gives priority to small property owners, defined as landlords with 10 or fewer rental units in the city, as well as landlords facing hardship due to lost income. you will likely recall legislation previously considered regarding tenants
6:19 am
unable to make rent due to covid-19 hardships. that's something that we have discussed quite a bit in committee and at the board. and i think that we clearly did the right thing as a board, as a city, by taking eviction off the table for those tenants. but as you, supervisor safai and other colleagues on this body by indicated at the time, there's concerns what happens to the small property owner who may be at risk of default on their mortgage or foreclosure as a result of the loss of that rental income. and then also from tenant advocates as we continue to have concerns in the absence of any real federal or state rent cancellation, mortgage cancellation, and a mounting rent debt, that tenants are living under right now. and so this legislation will mitigate the impact of -- on
6:20 am
these small landlords and their tenants of the inability to pay due to covid-19. as with the housing stability fund, my office has spent months meeting with stakeholders and considering feedback. i'm going to now describe some of the amendments which as with the previous item are substantive and will require an additional reading and we hope to amend the item and to continue it as we did the previous one so that the two can be heard together on october 19th. i will go through the amendments briefly. page 1, line 20-21, add quote "the mayor's office of community development shall administer the fund," and quote "the funds shall be used" on. page 1, lines 23-25, through page 2, lines 1-4, add, quote "in the case of small landlords facing hardship, the grant may
6:21 am
exceed $3,000 per month and may cover up to 65% of the rent that the landlord has waived." for purpose of this section 10.1-10051.1, the landlord with 10 or fewer rental units in the city and the term, quote "facing hardship," means that the unpaid rent is likely to cause the landlord to become unable to pay mortgage payments or perform pre-existing obligations or complete the necessary repairs at the property. and also strike in that same section, for the purpose of moving this provision to a later section of the ordinance, the following, quote "any moneys in the funds that are not expended by december 31, 2022, may be used by for back rent payment and eviction prevention programs." on page 2, line 23, add, quote
6:22 am
"a percentage," and strike "50%." and page 4, lines 24-25, through page 3, lines 1-2, add, quote "they may also have additional requirements and procedures to ensure that the landlord whose receive grant funds continue to operate their units as residential rental units for five years after the date of the grant acceptance." page 3, lines 4-7, strike definition of "small landlords, facing hardship" as it was incorporated in a previous section of the ordinance. page three, line 10-13, add, quote "section capital c expiration, may award grants from the fund until march 31st,
6:23 am
2023." any moneys in the fund not expended by march 21, 2023 may be used for back rent, payment assistance and eviction prevention programs. the board of direc supervisors y extend these. and that's my amendments and i thank supervisors ronen and mar and walton and haney. and as i mentioned, as with the changes to the previous item, hoping to approve these amendments so that we can consider the ordinance as amended at our october 19th committee hearing. and with that, i am happy to answer any questions or to move to public comment. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor. madam clerk, call public comment. >> clerk: yes. sorry -- arthur, if you could queue in the first caller. >> yes, i have two callers in the queue and i'll release the
6:24 am
first caller. >> caller: hello supervisors. my name is laura kiera, and i'm the executive director of legal assistance to the elderly and i'm calling in support of this legislation. i attempted to call earlier in support of the no-fault evictions moratorium but despite six months of quarantine i still don't know how to use the call-in line. so i stayed on to also support this legislation. and we provide free legal services to seniors and adults with disabilities and about 60% of all of our requests are for help with the housing and eviction offense. we are also the lead agency at the sex cells your collaborative, brought to district 11 through supervisor safai's leadership. excells your legal collaborative is the primary referral for tenants' right representation in district 11. we are seeing tenants that lost their jobs in march and still aren't back to work. they're struggling to make rent mayments and even with the state
6:25 am
legislation that requires 25% of their rent, they're not going to be able to meet this amount without going without food and essentials for their families. we also have a lot of seniors who are 60 and they're too young for retirement but too old because of the high risk of contracting covid so they had to give up their jobs. we're concerned because we have a lot of senior homeowners who need this rent from these tenants to avoid foreclosure. and i think that just in sum, this economic crisis is too big for us to be able to litigate our way out of it. and it can only be resolved through compromise and negotiation. and this fund provides the resources to be able to accomplish that and to allow those parties on both sides to survive this economic crisis. thank you very much. and have a good evening. be well. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please.
6:26 am
>> caller: yeah, i like this legislation in theory, but i am just wondering how easy it will be to implement the part that requires that priority for the funds go to small and large -- facing hardship. and also the renter landscape in san francisco is not just, you know, people individually renting from -- from landlords. you know, there's a wide variety of models. there are people who live with roommates and there are sub-tenant relationships. and so i'm wondering how all of those would play out with this
6:27 am
legislation. and so my concern is that even though this legislation does say that priority is going to be given to small landlords facing hardship, the individuals -- the organizations -- yeah, the entities that would be able to best take advantage of it would be the commercial landlords and, you know, not the sort of mom and pop owners or, you know, the master tenant who needs to -- who has back rent of their own to pay. and so, yeah, i think that there are some kinks that need to be worked out. so, yeah, i guess those are some of the concerns that i have with this legislation. yeah, thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your
6:28 am
comments, next speaker, please. >> caller: hello. this is ann staisha yopipolous. this is very smart to create a fund for homeowners who need the money. and they didn't have to apply for it, they didn't have to show that they had a need. and people who are on the verge of being evicted and who have a need, this money will be available to them to keep them from losing their home. that is the legislation, and it's very smart. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker. >> caller: thank you, supervisors. thank you, supervisor preston, for leading the way on this. this is ebby, and i grew up with
6:29 am
small business and, yes, this is a city of primarily renters and i do counsel at the human rights, and i also had a small business. and you talk about the landlords and i am very appreciative that we had the word landlord. and my landlord, a small landlord, that there would be protections there too. so thank you very much for adding this to our package of housing. we support the bill. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments, next speaker, please. you will be notified that you are unmuted and you may begin your comments. >> caller: good afternoon, supervisors. (indiscernible) i'm the co-director of the community housing organizations.
6:30 am
happy to pass along that our coalition of 22 housing developers and advocates are supporting this piece of legislation. along with our support for proposition i as said earlier, in the legislation, that it's important for us to be putting forth not only excellent proposals, but the funding measures to go along with them. earlier you all were discussing extending the protection and we need to look at what happened at the backend and how tenants are able to come out of this without losing their homes or having their credit impacted. or having their ability to someday to go into other housing situations. so this is one piece that looks to solve a problem, not only for tenants but for landlords as well. and this is as we all
6:31 am
experienced the consequences of the pandemic and the recession. so, thank you, and i'm happy to put our support behind this. and i look forward to discussing this further in light of the events. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> that completes the queue. >> great. so we will make a motion to accept the items, the amendments, as proposed by supervisor preston. can we do that without objection, madam clerk? >> clerk: we will need to take a roll call. on the motion to amend the legislation, [roll call] you have two ayes. >> supervisor safai: can we make a motion to continue this item
6:32 am
to the meeting on october 19th? >> clerk: on the motion -- excuse me -- as stated, supervisor preston. preston aye. supervisor safai. safai, aye. you have two ayes. >> supervisor safai: thank you. i don't believe that there's any other items before us, correct, madam clerk? >> clerk: that's correct. no further business. >> supervisor safai: we are adjourned. >> clerk: thank you. >> supervisor preston: thank you. >> clerk: thank you.
6:33 am
skbl. >> hello. i'm shawnna loghorn with the league of women voters. along with the league and sfgovtv, i'm here to discuss proposition b, a proposition that will be on the ballot and before the voters on november 3. the city has three departments tasked with cleaning tasks. the city administrator oversees the department of public works and appoints the director with the mayor's director. proposition b is a charter amendment that would create a department of sanitation and streets which would take over some of the duties of the department of public works. this new department of sanitation and streets would be responsible for sweeping
6:34 am
streets and cleaning sidewalks, providing and maintaining sidewalk trash cans, removing graffiti and illegally dumped waste and maintaining city buildings, public rest rooms, and street trees. the department of public works would continue to provide all other services required by law. proposition b would create a five-member sanitation and streets commission to oversee the department of sanitation and streets as well as a five-member public works commission to oversee the department of public works. the mayor would select the directors of both departments. if you vote yes, you want to create a department of sanitation and streets with oversight from a sanitation and streets commission, and you want to establish a public works commission to oversee the department of public works. if you vote no, you do not want to make these changes.
6:35 am
. >> i'm here with honey mahogany, a legislative aide with supervisor haney's office. we're also joined by lari m -- larry marso, an opponent of the measure. we're going to start with some opening statements, and we'll begin with honey. >> thank you so much for having us today. i think that as a native san franciscan, someone who grew up here, and a small business owner, it's become very clear to me that san francisco has really failed at keep our city clean the clean. there is trash all over the streets, some streets are covered with feces, and
6:36 am
sometimes you can't find a bathroom when you need one. we've been working on how the city can better address this issu issue. what we found is the system that we have in place is broken. no matter how hard the workers at d.p.w. work, they're unable to get the streets clean because the system is ineffective. d.p.w. is too big, there isn't enough focus on the streets, and especially during the time of covid-19, sanitation's now more important than ever, so we are putting forward a new department of sanitation to effectively keep our streets clean, wash our sidewalks in our most busy corridors and also to establish commissions overboth d.p.w. and the department to ensure that both departments are accountable to the public. the commission will also set
6:37 am
baseline standards for cleaning, something that really doesn't exist now under the current system. >> thank you, honey. now, larry? >> hi. please vote no on proposition b, which takes a $400 million san francisco agency and needlessly cuts it in half and politicizes what remains. it's the case chaos and paralysis that will worsen the squalor on our streets. san francisco has the political will to clean the streets. the board of supervisors does not. proposition b creates two new bureaucracies and injects politics into the department of public works. this is a failed model of
6:38 am
oversight. we have over 100 boards and commissions in san francisco already. proposition b sets no clean streets standards. there's nothing in here that says we are going to deal with the needles, the syringes, the feces on the streets. it's not there. matt haney writes in his argument that they're in proposition b. there's nothing in proposition b that sets baseline standards. we need -- we need -- we need to address the fraud and waste in the department of public works. >> thank you, larry. that's 1.5 minutes, so we're going to go into questions now, and the first question will go to you, larry, and then honey, you'll have a chance to answer it. the question is the amendment
6:39 am
would create a new department of sanitation and streets to perform duties that's currently performed by the department of public works. if that's the proposition, what's the argument for creating a new department? >> the city controller says it's going to cost upwards of $6 million a year. that's over 50 million in ten years. that's a lot of money. but if you look at the paid arguments for proposition b, you see a long list of public sector labor unions. the seiu and the san francisco labor locals representing the trades that engage in cleaning our streets and maintaining some of our parks. they're talking about we need more resources, we need more
6:40 am
resources. they believe that this new structure, which is going to put the board of supervisors in the position of straiting political appointee -- placing political appointees into governing these agencies, they believe it will mean significantly higher spending. and nowhere do the proponents of proposition b stay straight to the san francisco people that this is a major spending increase. will it address any of the core issues of cleaning san francisco streets? not if it atdss drug addiction, homeless, and mental illness on our streets, the root of so much of our problem. >> thank you. the same question to you, honey. why create a new department? >> well, i would like to first
6:41 am
address some factual inaccuracies in some of those statements. one, the measure does require the department to set public standards for cleaning. we want to hold community outreach to set those standards. there is a metric to address that. also, i do want to correct that the controller report says -- the updated controller report says this will be closer to $2.6 milli 2.6 million in costs to create this new department. the reason we have to create this new department is the current department is broken. there is not enough oversight over cleaning and sanitation in the current system. it is less than a quarter of what d.p.w. does. d.p.w. is a department with 1600 employees, and like you said, a $400 million budget. less than a quarter is dedicated to cleaning.
6:42 am
we feel like a metro city in san francisco where tourism is its number one industry, we need to have a focus on cleaning with metrics that are created in a very transparent manner, a method for us to have feedback, and for the public to have feedback, and again, really providing some very close oversight and accountability for a department that, up until now, really hasn't had any. >> thank you, honey. our second question, and it'll start with you, honey, is again, about the cost. the office of the controller states that this amendment, in the report that i read, ranged from 2$2.5 to $6 million annually. honey corrected that it will be just over $2 million. do we think this is the right way to spend the extra money on sanitation or is there another
6:43 am
way that is perhaps more beneficial? >> you know, $2.6 million is a very small -- it's less than a percent -- or a fraction of a percent of the city's current budget. it's a small amount of revenue that the city would generate through improvement to its business districts. it has been very public how we've been criticized by -- all over the world, really, for our filthy streets. the travel industry has been impacted, our hotel industry has been impacted, so those are our biggest industries for our city. so for the city to spend $2 million on an issue that we haven't been able to fix in decades is nothing. i will note that the legislation actually also
6:44 am
reduces duplication in terms of staffing by putting some of the staffing as shared with d.p.w. for the back end, which larry referred to earlier, and it also required city administrator to also provide that support. so the additional hiring is really minimal. there is some costs for the commissions, but again, the controller actually -- the f.b.i. and the scandal recommended that supervision be placed over d.p.w., so it is good governance. it'll put a commission over d.p.w., and it'll also put a commission over the department of sanitation and streets to oversee them. >> okay. larry, same question to you. >> since 2014, the portion of department of public works spending on cleaning our streets has doubled. if you look around you, do you see that our streets are
6:45 am
cleaner? spending money is not the solution to cleaning our streets when we have significant significant endemic root causes of drug abuse and mental illness on our streets. the department of public works, if it's split in half, it's going to generate more costs than simply what the controller has documented. there are duplications of band-end services -- back-end services. okay. but why are the biggest unions in san francisco pouring money into this measure? they're doing so because they're looking for higher pay and more hiring. >> sorry. i have to cut you off there as time is up for questions, but we're going to move into
6:46 am
closing statements, and we will start with honey. >> thank you so much. it's funny because i think larry and i agree that we've been pumping money into d.p.w., and things haven't gotten any better. in fact, things have gotten worse, and that is why we're establishing the department of sanitation and streets because the current system is broken. we're going to be providing accountability, setting baseline standards. i have to say the reason why so many labor unions are behind this is we figured out a solution that would work for everybody. it's not about raising salaries for anything like that. these are hard working san franciscans, people who really care about their city and want to be proud of their city and the work they do, and they know best how to address this problem because they're dealing with it every day. so we're proud to have worked with them, to provide this
6:47 am
measure of accountability to provide safer, cleaner streets, trash cans that will work, access to more rest rooms. more green infrastructure which has been sorely lacking. and, again, public accountability and a real focus on street cleaning. so i'm very proud of the measure, and i implore san franciscans, if you want to see our travel industry be reinvigorated, our children and familied supported by the picking up of needles and keeping our streets clean, then please vote yes on proposition b. >> thank you, honey. closing statements from larry, please. >> proposition b will politicize the department of public works. that's why i and a number of centrist politicians and organizations are opposed to
6:48 am
proposition b, on the board of supervisors, supervisor sandra fewer voted no, raff vel mandelman voted now, more man yee, voted no, catherine steph he knee voted no. the ed lee democratic club says no. the sfgop says no. you have people across the political spectrum who recognize that this is going to increase costs significantly while at the same time inducing chaos in public services, paralysis in the cleaning of our streets. uncertainty at a time that san francisco needs to be smart and focused in how it spends its money, how it raises its money, and to address the real causes of what we see going on in our streets.
6:49 am
matt haney does not represent a common sense approach on homelessness, drug abuse, or mental illness. i have tried to bring these solutions myself to a citizen ballot measure on the regulation of navigation centers. the entire ballot you're seeing was put together by the board of supervisors. no one could even collect signatures under shelter in place to propose alternative measures, as i tried to do. >> thank you, larry. thank you very much both for your comments and for your time. we hope that this discussion has been informative. for more information, please visit the san francisco elections website at this year, every person in california will be mailed a
6:50 am
ballot starting on october 5. you may drop off your vote by mail ballot in person starting on october 5 in the city hall voting center located outside of bill graham city auditorium 8:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m. you may drop off your ballot at your voting center for the two weekends before voting day, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. thank you. >> my name is colleen chan, and i'm running for district 1 supervisor. that's including the richmond neighborhood and golden gate park. i was a a first generation immigrant.
6:51 am
i was horn in honeg kong and - born in hong kong and i came here when i was 13 years old. san francisco has been a great home for me and my family. today, my partner, a firefighter, we are able to afford our home in the richmond, raising our child, a second greater, avenue lafayette elementary. i've spent the last five years in my life working in city government the, starting out at a legislative aide on the san francisco board of supervisors. also advocating for more than $500 million grants and funding to improve our park system at rec and park. last, but not least, but also at the city college of san francisco, champion free city
6:52 am
college that is a higher education program froee for al san franciscans. i'm proud of the things that i have accomplished, but also, at the same time i have seen the income divide significantly increase in san francisco, especially during this pandemic, it has disproportionately hurt something the working people in our communities. it's the reason why i'm running, that i want to bring my skills and experience to the table to help close that income divide gap and making sure that all working people can stay housed, stay healthy and safe in our beloved city. thank you. >> hi. i'm sherman dasilva. we have problems that we face daily when we walk out or door to shop, work, and enjoy the
6:53 am
precious neighborhood we call home. on homelessness, it means no camping or sleeping on streets. instead, we will use city-owned garages to provide a safe, clean, and private space where we can offer mental health and he diction offices. on crime and safety, we'll increase beat officers to deter theft and vandalism, but we will not defund, reduce or reappropriate the number of sworn officers. on pedestrian safety, we will install traffic lights on all major corridors. for accessibility, we'll have a neighborhood department to serve you. for infrastructure, we're going to set aside money every year to replace sidewalks, roads, and public buildings. on police accountability, we'll increase transparency and randomly review officer
6:54 am
actions. we want to be independent. it means we will not accept money from unions, corporations, or special interests. i've seen the decline of our neighborhood happening over time. refocusing these priorities will make our neighborhood cleaner, safer, and a more enjoyable place to work and live. i'm sherman da silva, and i'm looking forward to being your next richmond district supervisor. >> i'm a small business owner, with my wife, we operate a small business on gary boulevard, and we have been serving the community over a decade. i'm running because i'm deeply troubled by the current state of our district. we now have more homenessen campmented, closed businesses, and increased crime. the richmond district has been neglected by city hall for too long. it's time for new city leadership at city hall. it's time for a supervisor who
6:55 am
will put the richmond first. i'm the only candidate with extensive civil rights experience needed to effectively represent the richmond district. first, the richmond and san francisco more broadly must build more affordable housing. second, i will fight to expand healthy san francisco so that uninsured middle class residents will receive health care coverage. additionally, i am the only major candidate in this race to oppose any tax increases swoosh the covid-19 -- during the covid-19 pandemic. we should not kick people when we're down. let's first look at our current spending and fight government waste before we increase teaks. we net better environmentally friendly options to help getting citizens to and from the richmond. that's why i'm for bringing b.a.r.t. to the richmond.
6:56 am
lastly, our current homeless policies have been ineffective. i support caring for our homeless without turning our neighborhoods and our parks into homeless encampments. i believe my policies will help all residents and help put the richmond first. >> hi. my name is marlhausen, and i'm running for supervisor because for too long, politicians have allowed the problems in our neighborhood to worsen without taking action. we can't afford four more years of this. the devastating effect of the covid-19 pandemic has increased the need for new leadership at the board of supervisors. to make a significant impact on homelessness, we have to recognize the different needs
6:57 am
of our unhoused population. there is no single simple solution. we must prevent evictions by stabilizing tenants. we have to meet the immediate needs of our unhoused population by acquiring more safe sleeping places, shelters, and safe spaces. i have over 30 years experience in government, business, and community advocacy. two years ago, my sister and i opened our family business on balboa street, and now, like so many other small businesses, on you future is uncertain -- our future is uncertain. many owners are stalled or defeated but our bureaucracy
6:58 am
before they even had a chance to begin. i will support policies and legislation that make it easier to run a neighborhood business in san francisco. finally, we need to make our streets more friendly or residents and families. ill owe prioritizes more street cleanings in our business corridors. we must bring our neighborhood together to ensure that none of us is left behind in our recovery. >> hi. my name is veronica cinzano. for far too long, our government has been out of touch with the problems of so many san franciscans and struggling families. i'm a 30-year richmond district. i'm your neighbor to make sure you have a voice at city hall. you need someone who understands your struggles who
6:59 am
represents, and not the same old politics. i'm a working mom, and a small business owner. i'm working for all of san francisco, not just the privileged few. i'm running to offer concrete solutions. we have a 2 billion shortfall. make no mistake, we cannot tax our way out of this pandemic. my priorities, economic recovery for all. with historic unemployment and a pandemic with no end in sight, budget cuts cannot be made on the bams working family he ands -- backs of the working families and middle class. resilience, identify additional sources of revenue to fund city projects and reevaluate government spending carefully. calibrate budget cuts without
7:00 am
hurting those who are already feeling the brund of income inequality before the pandemic. as a community taxpayer advocate, if you're tired of politics as usual, then i'm your candidate. vote for veronica. i'm not backed by any political machine or special interests. whether you're a moderate, progressive, republican or independent, join us, and please stay healthy during these tough times. thank you. >> it is 1:00 p.m. and this is
7:01 am
the regular meeting for the commission of investment and infrastructure. i would like to welcome the members of the public who are following the live stream as well as the staff who will present for us. the members of the commission are meeting remotely to ensure the safety of everyone, including the members of the public. madam secretary, please call the first item. >> clerk: thank you, mr. chair. the first order is roll call. please respond when i call your name. [ roll call ]. >> clerk: all members, excuse me, all other members of the
7:02 am
commission are present. the next item is announcements. the next regularly scheduled meeting will be held remotely on november 20, 2020. please be advised that a member of the public has up to three minutes to make pertinent public comment on each agenda item unless the commission adopts a shorter period on any item. please note that during the public comment reared, all dial-in participants from the public will dial 1-415-655-0001 and the access code is 146-436-7015. when you dial star 3 you will hear the following message: you have raised your hand to speak. please wait for the host to invite you to speak. when your line is unmuted, this will be the time for public
7:03 am
comment. you will have three minutes. please speak clearly and slowly. you can stay on the line and listen or you can choose to hang up. if you wish to make any public comments, you must call the call-in number. today's presentation and other meeting materials are available on our website at under the public meetings action. the next item is report on actions taken at previous closed sessions. the next item is matters of unfinished business. the next order of business is matters of new business, the ascent agenda and the regular agenda. first the consent agenda, 5(a),
7:04 am
approval of minutes, item 5(b), authorizing a first amendment to the personal services contract with forster & kroeger landscape maintenance to increase the contract expenditure authority by $276,668 for a total expenditure authority not to exceed $551,104 to provide continued landscape maintenance services in community facilities district no. 1 south beach, rincon point-south beach resolution no. 25-2020. >> do we have anyone from the public wishing to speak? >> clerk: at this time members of the public who wish to provide public comments on this
7:05 am
item should call 1-415-655-0001, access code 146-436-7015. if you are listening to us by phone and would like to provide public comment, please press star 3. our phone moderator will let us know if there is anyone on the line. we'll give them a few minutes to call in. >> operator: madam secretary, there are no callers on the line. >> clerk: mr. chair, there are no members on the phone wishing to comment. >> if there is no one requesting to speak on this item, i'll
7:06 am
close public comment. commissioners, could i have a motion for this consent item? >> [indiscernible] -- >> we have a first and a second. [ roll call ]. >> clerk: mr. chair, the vote is three ayes and one absent. >> [indiscernible] -- >> clerk
7:07 am
>> clerk: just a second. >> i'm not sure what's going on. jamie, can you reshare the content, the powerpoint of the meeting? >> it's frozen. >> she may have encountered a minor i.t. issue, nadia. i'm not sure if you want to give everyone a quick pause, but let's wait for jamie for a few minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, let's hold on tight for a quick minute while we get this i.t. issue straightened out. >> i'm going to give her a call on her cell. >> thank you. >> everybody on zoom, this
7:08 am
happens quite a bit. >> miguel. >> yes. >> does your screen show that we need you to sign in again? >> no. >> is yours showing that? >> yes. >> don't worry about that. that's the shared screen. >> i'm on. >> go ahead and reshare the
7:09 am
powerpoint when you get a chance. >> i'll reshare. >> clerk: sorry about that. the vote was three ayes and one absent. >> madam secretary, please call the next item. >> clerk: the next item is regular agenda 5(c) workshop on proposed amendments to the redevelopment plan for the mission bay south redevelopment project, the design for development for the mission bay south project area and the mission bay south owner participation agreement collectively "plan documents"
7:10 am
and the basic conceptual/schematic design related to a proposed mixed-use life sciences facility on parcel 7 of block 43, mission bay south redevelopment project area. >> this is an amendment to the redevelopment plan to give an overview of the proposed project and that would allow up to 170,000 of commercial and industrial [indiscernible] on the property. they are excited to come and give a preview. i will turn it over to nicky who will be presenting on the item. >> thank you very much,
7:11 am
director. good afternoon. as was mentioned, my name is nicky henry, assistant development specialist with the team. there is a workshop on the proposed amendments to the mixed-use life sciences facility on parcel 7 of block 43 of mission bay, including approval of a basic schematic and concept design. next slide. >> i'm sorry, if you could give me a second. >> okay. >> i look like i'm asleep, but i'm not. >> we could have caught you yawning. [laughte
7:12 am
[laughter]. >> as you know, mission bay has been over 20 years in the making, and standard the lease square suite for commercial development has been built leaving no additional square feet available for new development. today we'll be going over the history of the parcel and the proposed project -- i think we're getting a jump on the slides here. today we'll be going over the history of the parcel and the proposed project, following a review of the development.
7:13 am
we will then talk about the public benefits accompanying the project and we'll end with a summary of the proposed actions necessary to facilitate the proje project. are, the largest property owner in mission bay who specializes in serving the life science industry is proposing additional project in the area. the proposed project is approximately 170,000 leasable square feet on parcel 7 of block 43. today is a workshop and we plan coming back in front of you in november with the following actions to facilitate the project, including an amendment to the mission bay south redevelopment plan which
7:14 am
amendments the allowable square feet, a development agreement between o.c.i. and the developer and which will redefine the obligations of the project. approval of a basic concept and schematic design for bcsd for the design base. the proposed projects on parcel 7 of block 43, as shown, is located on owen street, bound by a future active recreation public open space to be designed to the north, a street, a private street to the south, and the raised i-282 freeway. the parcel was acquired by a.r.e. in 2004.
7:15 am
a.r.e. submitted a permit for a building approved by the agency in 2008. the current allowable height is 39 feet. a.r.e. chose not to move forward with the project and the parcel is being used as a temporary service parking lot. as mentioned earlier, the project is nearly built out and well served by neighborhood amenities. a.r.e. is now proposing a seven-storey, 100-foot high mixed-use building with an allowable penthouse. the proposed project consists of the research and laboratory
7:16 am
space, conference space, and ground floor retail space. there are a number of public benefits, including financial contributions, which i will go over in more detail later in the presentation. i will now introduce the project sponsor, tracy nemit, to present more details on the proposed projects. >> thank you. it's a pleasure to be in front of you today. i have been in front of your commission many times since the beginning of mission bay. we are providing here an opportunity to bring new development to a site that has
7:17 am
been long been unused and will create a very nice entry point to mission bay as well as capping the project commercial side of the project and enhancing what we have jointly all created, which is a real life science district in the city and county of san francisco. we are happy to bring this to you because the the life science department is strong. we work in great partnership with all of our tenants, many of whom are working on covid-related therapies, vaccines, testing. so it is very much of the moment to think about enhancing life science facilities for these companies to do their research. so the site is unique in that as
7:18 am
was pointed out it's right next to the freeway, and also next to the future park which is next to the top of the slide, it is shaped by those two components. it's also shaped by owen street, which has a setback required to allow for a very large storm and sewer line that runs from downtown san francisco south bound to the southeast treatment plan. so the site is an odd-shaped pie. therefore, we have challenged ourselves to create enough interest on the ground floor by providing a good lobby as well as retail space to front a plaza that fronts the street.
7:19 am
the back of the house uses take up a lot of the floor. you see the gray area. life sciences require very large loading spaces as well as support spaces for all of the laboratory functions that are needed. then in the gold color is a concept that we have to bring some meeting spaces, not so much big conferencing, but some gathering spaces for the life sciences community because that is something that is needed. we have with us today the architect for the project. this is a local woman-owned business. lisa wamoto and craig scott are partners. lisa was to be here today, but unfortunately she isn't here, so craig is going to be here.
7:20 am
craig, if you are able to join us, perhaps you could describe the architecture design of the project. >> sure. thank you, theresa. with this irregularly shaped trapezoidal site, it has unique conditions on each of the four sides. so we're responding to that with the design, in particular the sides that face owen street and the freeway are all built on this side that we've developed. the first initial idea is to break down the massing and then
7:21 am
to create a kind of continuous wrapper of the fins and the reveal that have a subtly undulating pattern. this is a view looking south on owen street with an open space to the right. if you go to the right there is a view shifted towards the cal-train. this shows the two, that three-storey spaces. these move back and forth along the stacked volumes. if we go to the next slide, from the 280 approach heading north
7:22 am
into san francisco, you can see this kind of inflection on the facade that gives the further depth and animates that facade facing the freeway direction. then we see the opposite side facing east. this is a view looking west on nelson rising as you're approaching the intersection with owen street and the front of the building. it's facing open space, which if we go to the next slide we zoom a bit closer and here we can see in that setback zone that theresa described which is indicated by the underground sewer line, we've been working with a design firm to develop
7:23 am
this open space as a public plaza where the café can spill out, there is a beautiful landscaping feature and it is articulated by a recessed portal. so this is a summary, facts and figures on the building again. so in floors, 109 feet. 15-foot ground floor and then the six upper floors are above that 15 foot 6 due to the requirement. so this is a summary of the facts and the figures of the building, 109 feet, 16-foot ground floor, and then the six
7:24 am
upper floors are 15 foot 6 due to the requirements of lab space of minimum floor-to-floor height needed. next slide. so we worked closely with the community and stakeholder groups. as is condition of the view north to the skyline, and then the next slide shows in this light red or pinkish tone that in title projects -- and actually the ones on the far left are beyond entitled.
7:25 am
they're either nearing completion or far along construction, will go from left to right in terms of what that represents. the new dorm of the fcca is just getting completed. these three in the background are all in the central zone of plan in part of that set of developments. the next one over to the right from the flower mart, which is the kilroy development is on the east. to the right of that, the tallest is the creamery. so our project we're talking to today is just beneath that. so it might be helpful to click back one and forward now that
7:26 am
we're situated. in this coppery color, it's the 14 and 15 project that we're talking about today, just below the creamery taller buildings behind it. with that, i'm finished with my portion. >> nicky. >> yes, thank you. this slide shows the impact required in order to build the project. these are in addition to the existing community district zones. the first section shows the one-time funds that would flow through. it is acknowledged that the current rate would allow for
7:27 am
research space and proposed a higher rate of payment for the office space. in total, the one-time fees total approximately $12.2 million. the bottom portion of this slide shows that the extra maintenance meant to offset the usage by the guests. it is to be paid annually through the project. have been working with the city directly on an operational endowment project. the project is still being finalized and there will be a contribution. the school is estimated to be complete in 2025. the project will comply with the south opa project in diversity and economic development.
7:28 am
airy is currently exceeding the participation goals at 66% for professional services, including 40% san francisco-based s.b.e.s, 40% minority women-owned business, 3% p.m.-owned firms. a.r.e. has agreed to provide those unless otherwise stipulated excluded from the program. a.r.e. is committed to working closely with o.c.i., including local hire and permanent jobs in the program administered by the office of economic and workforce
7:29 am
development. a.r.e. first pursued a recommendation in 2018 for a taller project at 183 feet high. the c.a.c. had concerns over the proposed height and requested a.r.e. request an additional hearing. there was a request to return to the c.a.c. on july 9, 2020, with a proposed height of 120 feet. the c.a.c. voted unanimously in favor of the proposed project and associated plan document amendments. as mentioned earlier, this item will be coming before you in november with the following actions. the commission would be required
7:30 am
to make environmental findings pursuant to the air quality act, and to increase the square footage of the project. an amendment to the mission bay south honor participation agreement defining the augmented child care fee and open space financial contribution, also an amendment to the mission base design for developments to increase the height on the parcel from 39 feet to 109 feet, along with an increase in the controls and other amendments to the proposed projects. lastly, approving the proposed bcsd for the project. if the project is approved in
7:31 am
november, it will go before the planning commission or supervisors and oversight board as well as the department of california finance. this concludes our presentation and we can answer any questions you may have. also on the line and available for questions is mark sluskin, george bridges, and laura shifly, and tracy amends, and jay powell. >> madam secretary, do we've anybody from the public wishing to speak to this item? >> clerk: at this time members from the public who wish to make a public comment should call
7:32 am
415-655-0001, enter access code 146-436-7015, then press pound and pound again. if you are listening to us by phone, press star 3. if you would like to provide a comment, the operator will let us know if there is anyone on the line. we'll let the public have a few moments to call in. >> operator: madam secretary, there are no callers on the line. >> clerk: mr. chair, at this time there are no members on the phone wishing to comment. >> thank you. hearing no public on the phone, i'll close public comment.
7:33 am
i'll turn to my colleagues for any questions or comments they may have. >> no questions. just completely in awe as i went through your material. your team, i commend you and it just brought tears when i've been dealing with and thinking about all of the recovery that's needed, this presents so much hope. just for a brighter future. i am just pleased with all the thought that went into it. thank you. >> i did have a couple of questions. the first couple of questions
7:34 am
are regarding the fees. if there's trouble hearing me, let me know. on the child care fee, for instance, and jobs, housing, linkage fee -- maybe i'm misreading this, but are those two one-time fees? >> yes, they are both one-time fees. the job housing fee, the impact fee said it right in the planning code, and then with the child care fee areas agreed to expand that to pay the office rate because the research and laboratory rate is a much lower rate. >> yes, i got that.
7:35 am
i commend a.r.e. in offering that. i guess my question is because i just don't understand if -- how are the moneys received this one time and how are they implemented? how did it go $351,900, how is that utilized for child care in a project like this? >> it goes into helping fund the city -- it goes into a city pool which i don't think we have testified yet whether they can flow back into mission bay or the city pool. i think the thought is we want them to flow into mission bay and fund further child care facilities in mission bay, custom will be proposed in future housing sites.
7:36 am
>> i would say unless there is no need for child care services in mission bay, that we would want it to be project specific, which raises another question in my mind. i've just lost track in mission bay. i think there are possibly five child care service programs in mission bay. do i have that correct? >> i can't remember off the top of my head, but there is one under construction at the uber site and one under mission bay south block, which is an affordable housing project, one in the north at ridge sorrow housing projects. there are a few in-house family
7:37 am
care within the mercy housing project at block 13 east. >> [indiscernible] -- >> and of course the ucsf one which is a rather large one, which is between 100 and 200 spaces. >> [indiscernible] -- >> that's fantastic. just as a commentary, i remember when i started on the commission now seven or eight years ago, mission bay was representative as a place where no one really expected a lot of kids, so they got that one wrong. so i do have a related question on the job housing theme. does that one also go to the city for workforce developments? >> the jobs housing fee goes
7:38 am
into the pool that's administer administered by the city to help with affordable housing. >> the jobs housing we're going to keep in mission bay. >> that's even better. >> thank you. >> then i got a question about reference to neighbors serving retail. do we have a sense of what that might be? >> commissioner, on the project it's a fairly small chunk, about 2,500 square feet. we think it would be some sort of a café or food service. along owen street we have implemented four cafés or food services in our projects from -- starting on 16th street north to
7:39 am
this site and they are very well utilized in great part because there is a keizer permanent clinic in the middle of that block and a ucsf orthopedic clinic that has a lot of patients coming and going. there is quite a demand by people for eating establishments, staff dining as well. >> my next question is that i would recommend the program be amended to include these types of programs in the future, but my big question is just from a dollar value of the project, can you tell me what the anticipated
7:40 am
budget for the construction proje project? >> so the construction of the project, the current shell is in $400 a square foot and laboratories tend to be at least $400 a square foot. >> okay. great. those are my questions. thank you. >> thank you, vice-chair. i just want to say that this is really exciting that this is happening. i know that lot well. we had a lot of discussion it over the years. given the fact that we are living in a world where there are pandemics, one that has completely uprooted our lives, that we need more of this
7:41 am
because more of this is going to happen because this is the next step. if we can find the vaccine or the cure for covid because it is what it is. in regards to the architecture, i'm usually a stickler for the design designs, it's actually quite nice and it looks airy, which flows with the fact that there's a lot of low buildings there. so it doesn't seem overly huge. so i just want to commend you all for putting that together. this is very exciting. when do we -- are we looking at completion? >> well, we are hoping to
7:42 am
complete our entitlements here. i think march is the time frame because your actions and then it flows to the planning commission and it goes to the board of supervisors and all that. i believe march is that time. in the meantime we're working on the design documents. hopefully around that time we would submit for a building permit which takes six, nine months to get a building permit. so we're probably -- and then the construction is about two years away. so we're almost three years away from getting a building, i'm afraid. >> well, this is an essential service because we need to find cures and vaccines for some of this work. if you need folks to testify, i
7:43 am
appreciate it. >> this is great. thanks to the staff for all the diligent work that you always do. it's just a workshop, so we're not voting on this item. thank you for coming and presenting. we'll close this. madam secretary, the next item. >> clerk: thank you, mr. chair. the next order of business is item 6, public comment on non-agenda items. >> do we have any speaker cards? >> clerk: at this time members of the public who wish to present public comment should call 415-655-001, access code
7:44 am
146-436-7015. when you get in, press star 3 to be placed in the queue. if you are already in the queue, please press star 3. the operator will let us know if there are any callers on the line. >> operator: madam secretary, there are no callers on the line. >> clerk: thank you. mr. chair, there are no members of the comment wishing to comment on this item. >> okay. i'll close public comment. madam secretary, please call the next item. >> clerk: the next item is item 7, report of the chair. >> i have no report today. >> clerk: the next order of business is item 8, report of the executive director.
7:45 am
>> i have no report either. >> clerk: the next order of business is item 9, commissioners' questions and matters. mr. chair. >> thank you, madam secretary. are there any questions or matters that the commissioners want to bring up at this time? seeing none, hearing none -- >> i'm sorry, i was referring to commissioner scott. i would like to raise not a question, but perhaps the executive director to explore the program to reach improvement work. i don't know how many more projects we have that would call for tenant improvement work, but i do think it's an easy or easier access to opportunities for our small businesses if we
7:46 am
can include it in the small business program. >> do you want to respond? >> no, we'll take it under advisement back to the commission. >> yes. >> can i ask, mara, is that referring to the maintenance of the facility, is that what you're suggesting? >> when we have buildings, office buildings or any development that may have some tenants, the tenant improvement is simply the buildout of the space so that, for instance, there's a park tower where
7:47 am
facebook went in, in trans bay, then our program would have been applicable to facebook's interior construction of tenant improvements. >> right. all right. madam secretary, please call the next item. >> the next order of business is item 10, closed session. there are no closed session items. the next order of business is item 11, adjournment. >> commissioners, i'll need a motion to adjourn. >> i move that the meeting be adjourned. >> i second. >> thank you, commissioners. we are now adjourned. thank you very much. >> thank you. [♪]
7:48 am
7:49 am
7:50 am
7:51 am
7:52 am
7:53 am
7:54 am
[♪] >> i just don't know that you can find a neighborhood in the city where you can hear music stands and take a ride on the
7:55 am
low rider down the street. it is an experience that you can't have anywhere else in san francisco. [♪] [♪] >> district nine is a in the southeast portion of the city. we have four neighborhoods that i represent. st. mary's park has a completely unique architecture. very distinct feel, and it is a very close to holly park which is another beautiful park in san francisco. the bernal heights district is unique in that we have the hell which has one of the best views in all of san francisco. there is a swinging hanging from a tree at the top. it is as if you are swinging over the entire city. there are two unique aspects. it is considered the fourth chinatown in san francisco.
7:56 am
sixty% of the residents are of chinese ancestry. the second unique, and fun aspect about this area is it is the garden district. there is a lot of urban agriculture and it was where the city grew the majority of the flowers. not only for san francisco but for the region. and of course, it is the location in mclaren park which is the city's second biggest park after golden gate. many people don't know the neighborhood in the first place if they haven't been there. we call it the best neighborhood nobody has ever heard our. every neighborhood in district nine has a very special aspect. where we are right now is the mission district. the mission district is a very special part of our city. you smell the tacos at the [speaking spanish] and they have the best latin pastries. they have these shortbread cookies with caramel in the middle.
7:57 am
and then you walk further down and you have sunrise café. it is a place that you come for the incredible food, but also to learn about what is happening in the neighborhood and how you can help and support your community. >> twenty-fourth street is the birthplace of the movement. we have over 620 murals. it is the largest outdoor public gallery in the country and possibly the world. >> you can find so much political engagement park next to so much incredible art. it's another reason why we think this is a cultural district that we must preserve. [♪] >> it was formed in 2014. we had been an organization that had been around for over 20 years. we worked a lot in the neighborhood around life issues. most recently, in 2012, there were issues around gentrification in the neighborhood. so the idea of forming the cultural district was to help
7:58 am
preserve the history and the culture that is in this neighborhood for the future of families and generations. >> in the past decade, 8,000 latino residents in the mission district have been displaced from their community. we all know that the rising cost of living in san francisco has led to many people being displaced. lower and middle income all over the city. because it there is richness in this neighborhood that i also mentioned the fact it is flat and so accessible by trip public transportation, has, has made it very popular. >> it's a struggle for us right now, you know, when you get a lot of development coming to an area, a lot of new people coming to the area with different sets of values and different culture. there is a lot of struggle between the existing community and the newness coming in. there are some things that we do to try to slow it down so it doesn't completely erase the
7:59 am
communities. we try to have developments that is more in tune with the community and more equitable development in the area. >> you need to meet with and gain the support and find out the needs of the neighborhoods. the people on the businesses that came before you. you need to dialogue and show respect. and then figure out how to bring in the new, without displacing the old. [♪] >> i hope we can reset a lot of the mission that we have lost in the last 20 years. so we will be bringing in a lot of folks into the neighborhoods pick when we do that, there is a demand or, you know, certain types of services that pertain more to the local community and working-class. >> back in the day, we looked at mission street, and now it does not look and feel anything like mission street. this is the last stand of the latino concentrated arts,
8:00 am
culture and cuisine and people. we created a cultural district to do our best to conserve that feeling. that is what makes our city so cosmopolitan and diverse and makes us the envy of the world. we have these unique neighborhoods with so much cultural presence and learnings, that we want to preserve. [♪] >> good morning, the meeting will come to order. welcome to the thursday october 1 meeting of the government audit and oversight committee. supervisor gordon mar, i'm the chair of this committee, and i'm joined by vice-chair, supervisor aaron peskin and supervisor matt haney. thank you to the clerk,