Transcripts For SFGTV LIVE Full Board Of Supervisors 20170404

Good afternoon and quell welcome to San Francisco board of supervisors meeting foritudes day april 4, 2017. Madam clerk pluz call the roll. Thank you. Breed rkts here. Cohen, present. Farrell, present. Fewer, yes. Kim, here. Peskin, present. Ronen, present. Safai, present. Sheehy, present. Tang, aye. Present. Yee, present. All members are present cht thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, please join for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of america and to the republic, for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Madam clerk any communication snz i have none to report. Colleagues any changes to the february 14, 2017 Board Meeting minutes . Seeing none, is there a motion tew prove those minutes . Moved by peskin and second by farrell. Take without objection. Without objection the minutes will be passed after Public Comment. Lets go tothe next item item 1 is anend admip strative code to revise the residential yurnts unionversion ord nons to exercise reasonable care verifying a resident unit is on the city rej streprioring to accepting a booking fee for short termerantm transaction. Motion to excuse supervisor farrell . Moved by spl visor peskin seconded by supervisor sheehy. Without objection supervisor farrell is excused. On the item call the roll. Tang, aye. Yee, aye. Breed, aye. Cohen, aye. Fewer, aye. Kim, aye. Peskin, aye. Ronen, aye. Safai, aye. Sheehy, aye. There are 10 ayes the ordinance passed unanimously. Item 2 is ord nchbs to authorize settlement of Eminent Domain against blue line rental llc for 1 1. 65 million filed in San Francisco spear yor court involving payment of justification for lease hold interest at the property known as 1975 galvez. Tang, aye. Yee, aye. Breed, aye. Cohen, aye. Farrell, aye. Fewer, aye. Kim, aye. Peskin, aye. Ronen, aye. Safai, aye. Sheehy, aye. The ordinance passed unanimously. Appropriate 12. 8 million of general Obligation Bond interest earnings for San Francisco General Hospital Trauma Center and placing 392 thousand on controllers reserve pending interest accrual and arbitrage cost. Take the item same house same call. Without objection the ordinance is passed on the First Reading unanimously. Next item. Item 4 is resolution to approve a lease between the port and sp plus hyde parking for lease of surface parking lot in port jurisdition in northern waterfront with approximately 3 million totalerant in first year of operations. Same house same call. Without objection the resolution is adopted. Item 5 is resolution to approve a 2 year Term Extension to the luggage cart lease operating agreement for june 30, 2019 not to exceed 4. 3 million and payment total contract amount of 12. 9 12. 9 million without objection the resolution is adopted. Item 68. 3 resolutions that approve 2011 lease and use agreement between the city and various air lines to conduct Flight Operations at the San Francisco International Airport through june 30, 2021. Item 6 is lease with air lings and 6 [inaudible] item aithd is resolution to approve a lease between the city and redding e rks r rks. Same house same call . Without objection the resolutions are adopted unanimously. Item 9 is resolution to approve supplemental authorization for the jurisdictional transfer of 1800 gerold avenue from General Service Agency Office of contract admipstration to San Francisco Public Utilities commission waste water enterprise and transfer of 555 selby street and 1957 galvez and lease of tol end street subject to amendment one in the memorandum of understanding entered into between the Real Estate Division oca and pu c to create the functional equivalent of city central Fleet Maintenance shop. Supervisor peskin. Jrsh like a roll call on this. Supervisor kim. I just want to address my concerns of the item coming before us today. A little over a year ago i very reluctantly voted to approve a Single Source bid for the mou coming before us today. One concerns expressed when we approve a Single Source is insuring we get the best price and deal for the city possible. But given the emergency nature of the construction project and also it is important for the bayview neighborhood and making sure that we expedite the project i did very refluctantly support the Single Source bid coming before us today. Im disappointed we looking at increase in project price and just cant fiend it within myself to support this increase. Some comments i would make as i made to Public Utilities commission is we worked to scope the project and see if every single aspect of what the Public Works Department is asking for is necessary in the construction project. When there are costs overruns we have to live within our means. I do know that the general manager harlen kelly committed to reexamine the project and make sure necessary costerize moving forward. I understand the respond sg coming from enterprise and not the general fund but dont feel comfort supporting the increase and think moreu work can be done. Not to take away from the incredible work the city an ad mip strairts office and pu c is doing to keep cost down as much as possible but think we can put a little more effort to keep this within budget. I also just want to finally note disappointment in particular with department of real estate the board was not notified there was a tenon on the site when we purchased the building at 1950 galvez. If we had known that i think the board would have had a very different conversation about the cost. Now, there is a cost in terms of relocation och a 10 tenant. These are things that could have been brought at the front end of the process not as the costs are coming into place. Want to expless why i will not support item 9 but do want to appreciate and understand the complexity of the work and multiple agencies trying to make this move forward. Thank you supervisor kim and just for clarity, i was of the understanding there was a conversation we had about the tenant and the property about a year ago when we discussed the item and i just wanted to get clarity from the department if they are here. The department of real estate we had a lengthy discussion about that particular issue. Mr. Kelly, are they here . Do you knowi vaguely remember discussion around appraisal and other issueess related to that so if you can talk about that convrsation because i know there has recently been frustration i expressed with the way things were done with that tenant but it was brought to our attention early on from my understanding. Thank you, madam president. John updike director of real estate. You are correct in that there are two tenants on the property. The fact there were two tenants on the property was noted. We do take to heart the concerns that i heard from the elected officials about the level of risk associated with removing both of those tenant. That was not clearly articulated to the board, no question about that. We have mended our Due Diligence process and transparency in items that come before the board since then and Going Forward. We do acknowledge there should have been more information relative to risk kwr and perhaps you would have had a broader set of data to make a more informed decision then, but we are where we are now and pleased to report we have solutions for both of these rolocations that fit within the timeline expressed and the budget expressed before you today for both tenancies. Thank you. Supervisor kim did you have further comments . No. It was just what i had said it would have been great to been explicitly brought up during the board processes. It was buried within the documents, but i think many had missed it and so it want really a part of the conver sation and something we could have apted anticipated. I wanted to spress the concerns. Thank you. Supervisor yee. Thank you. I just want to ditto basically what supervisor kim expressed. I think it was during the Budget Committee meeting we pretty much members at least myself expressed concerns about the estimates and when we voted for it the first time to sole source this out and think some of the estimates were accurate but there were things that bothered me a lot that if knrou had looked at it more carefully maybe the budget knhity Committee Looked at it more care fully at the time we could have questioned it more. The moving cost was a big difference between what was estimated first time versus what is estimated now. Thats really disturbing that those thingerize not that difficult to get in front of in regards to predictions. So, i think the department has expressed they are going to do better in the future. I hope that will be true when the time comes because this is getter very difficult for myself to continue to support arguments about sole sourceing these contracts out. Given our concerns and given the fact we expressed our concerns and the answers we got back from the department and i think what tipped the balance for me supporting this revision is the fact that this particular project is so important for the bayview community, so because of that and i know that for supervisor cohen it was very important for her to get this going that i supported it and will continue to support it, but think it iswe should note that in the fooucher the process should be done a little better. Thank you, supervisor yee. Supervisor cohen. Thank you fl discussion and supervisor kim i remember it was a difficult vote at it time so appreciate your honesty and know you did careful Due Diligence evaluating this. Im chair the Budget Committee and heard the item again and asked the tough question to gain a better understanding why we are here and again express my frustrations and the importance of moving and having a fair contracting process but i want to highlight that i will support this measure. It is incredible important to it bayview and entire city. Also want to remember that the findings fl this transition will also make it consist wnt the general plan and the planning code. I dont want to leave that understated. Yes, i understand we are authorizing increase of the project development cost. This is through public works from 55 million to 60. 2 million which is approximately 10 percent. As you heard from updike explaining why the additional costs, unforeseen site conditions which are difficult to predict. Increasing the cost in electrical scope and Industrial Equipment and increasing difficulty in having Competitive Bidding market place. But if weif this project does not pass, the impact will be irreversible to the community and set back this timeline. Central shops is important not only to the community that the central shop is located in but the entire city so hope we can move beyond this 10 percent price differential to adopt the project and move forward. Thank you. Seeing no other names on the item madam clerk call the roll. Tang, aye. Yee, aye. Breed, aye. Cohen, aye. Farrell, aye. Fewer, aye. Kim, no. Peskin, no. Ronen, aye. Safai, aye. Sheehy, aye. 9 aye and 2 no with supervisors kim and peskin in the descent. The resolution is adopted. Next item; resolution to authorize the San Francisco Public Utilities commission to execute service grument with black and Beach Corporation for Specialized Design Services to mitigate groundwater and hetch hetchy power lines in accord wns the mitt igation program not to exceed 12 million ov10 year term. Roll call vote. Tang, aye. Yee, aye. Breed,i aye. Cohen, aye. Farrell, aye. Fewer, aye. Kim, aye. Peskin, aye. Ronen, aye. Safai, aye. Sheehy, aye. 11 ayes. The resolution is dopted unanimously. Item 11 is resolution to aproouv Emergency Declaration by the San Francisco Public Utilities commission to construct temporary road around land slide area not to exceed wut 1. 5 million. Same house same call . Without objection the resolution is adopted. Item 12, resolution to authorize the director of property to exercise a lease extension for the Real Property at 1701 ocean avenue with hu ey lan trust for 5 year extension for annual base rent of approximately 215 thousand. Supervisor yee. Just curious, does anybodythis property that we will lease, is to support what program . Does anybody know . Is mr. Updike here . I try today go in there to ask about it seems who ever is running the program dozen respond to about anything we ask for, so curious, is this city run program . Supervisor yee mr. Updike just lefted and can move to later in the agenda to answer your question. Itemthry is ordinance to amends the down tone special use district to authorize a contribution for on site open space rirems to make certain exclusions to dedicate the monetary contribution for lightening and safety improvements and accepting as a gift a monetary contribution to future improvements and maintenance of victoria mu nolo drive and under utilized parks. Take this same house same com . Without objection the ordinance passes on the First Reading. Mr. Updake is back. Can you please come forward, supervisor yee has a question on iletm 12. Thank you for coming back. Just curious and this particular property is in my district and i know this is a omi Family Center or Something Like that and i thought it was a nonprofit running it. Not sure why we are leasing it. Is it a city run operation and if is whyit seems thrike staff doesnt respond to my requests of meeting with them. John updike. I extend my apologies on behalf of department of Public Health and happy to chat with them to respond your request. Our understanding is it is primarily a staff run project with assistance from outside consultant but the lease before the board is a trust that owns the property so thats a private party with which we are leasing but it is city run operation thus a city lease. Im happy to look into the issue oof questions and get appropriate contact at the department. I really would appreciate that since it is down the street from where i live and never met anybody in there. I dont want to hold up the lease on this but certainly i still like to know what they are doing there. No problem. Thank you. Take this without objection . Without objection the resolution is adopted unanimous lee. Item 14 is a resolution to adopt findings under the ceqa guidelines and administrative code chapter 31 to include adoption of mitigation monitoring and reporting program relate d to Sewer System Improvement Program southeast Water Pollution control plan, head works facility. Colleagues take this item same house same call . Without objection the resolution is adopted unanimously. Please call item 15 through 17. Transferring or issue license serve the public convenience. 15 approves the transfer of type 51 club lice toons the Treasure Island yacht club and recommend the California Department of alcohol Beverage Control issue the license. 16 approve type 40 on sale beer license doing business as rs 94109 at 845 larkin. On sale beer and wine to specific retail do business as vomfass oils vinegar spirit and recommend California Department of alcoholic Beverage Control impose conditions on the issuance of items 15 and 16. Colleagues take these items same house same call . Without objection the resolutions are adopted. Item 18 is motion to appoint angela roy to immigrant Rights Commission term ending june 6, 2018. Supervisor ronen. I just wanted to say a few words on behalf of angela roy. Extraordinary woman who decided that she had a dream to study Political Science at uc berkeley so home country of chile figured how to get the bay area but worked through public science degree atu c berkeley. She is a extraordinary advocate for women and immigrant rights and immigrant community. She is currently the president of the Young Democrats and just has my endorsement and excited she applied and been recommended for the immigrant Rights Commission and hope you will join me giving her your unanimous support today. Thank you. Thank you, supervisor ronen. Take thisite same house same call . Without objection the motion is approved unanimously. Item 19, motion to appoint mike boyd and Dacey Macarthur to public support terms ending march 1, 2020. Same house same call . Without objection the motion is approve; and itedm 20 is motion to appoint ema kelsie and clint loftman to Citizens Committee on Community Development ending february 23, 2019. Same house same call. Without ubjebz the motion is approved. Motion to appoint robert keli [inaudible] to same house same call . The motion is approved. Item 22, motion to appoint john martin to the air fort facilities naming Advisory Committee for indefinite committee. Same house same call. The motion is approved. Lets go to roll call. Supervisor tang is the first member. Submit. Supervisor yee. Rediffer. Supervisor breed. Rerefer. Supervisor cohen. For visor farrell. I have 3 items today. First of all today is equal pay day in the United States. It is important april 4 why today is equal pay daand what it represents. Rements how far women have student work to earn what a man earns. The total is 94 days thmpt gender wage gap is real and cost billions and right here in San Francisco. There are a number of businesses offering women discount baz they earn less than men. It is a great way to highlight the issue and pay disparity but women shouldnt need discount they should be paid equally for equal work. It is unbelievable this is something we continue to deal with in 2017. Unfortunately given the way the president and republican colleagues think of women we know the feelings of discrimination are pervasive. Just last week he revoked the 2014 fair pay which allows pay check transparency. We agree we need to stand up with women and push policies that advance equal pay. In San Francisco, women earn 84 cent on the dollar for what men make. This totals thousands of dollars each year for women in the city and for every family. The disparity is greater for women of color. African american earn 60 cent and luteen ewomen 55 cent on the dollar. Despite the work the national and state representatives have done to right this injustice, there is still need and room for improvement in the gap. The wage gap is narrowed by less than half a cent a year acraustz cross the country since 1963 when the equal pay act ive passed. Given the wage gap especially in San Francisco i believe we need to do everything in city hall to make a difference and close the gap. Today i introduce the pay parody law that takes a important step to help the level the Playing Field for women to insure they earn equal pay for equal work. It bans private employers are askic for Salary History. Women start careers making les than male counter pards for a variety of reason. If women are always hell back and hell down by the Salary History they are prevented catching up from men. This legislation fosters a fair conversation and negotiation process around salary to insure people are paid based on the qualifications and experience not just on past pay. The policy allows for voluntary disclosure of samry if a apperant wants to coupter a offer. There should be negotiations around salary for sure but have to level the Playing Field in San Francisco and for women. Nationally, and state and local levels we passed equal pay laws but there is a ton more work that needs to be done especially here and particularly in San Francisco. If we keep the current rate of closing the wage gap well get there across our country in 2059. Thats 42 years away. For African American womeen it is 108 years, hispanic, 232 years. It is simply unacceptable. Especially i speak to you as a faulther of a young dauther who when she enters the workforce i want her to have any opportunities to earn as much if not more than male counerparts. I hope to have your support for this important measure. Banning the u. S. Of Salary Historys allowing women to negotiate salaries on the value and not past history. Together we can close the wage gap and want to thaj a number of cosponsors for supporting the measure as well today. I have a ordinance im introducing around the omi eviction christs in the sit ampment housing crisis per susts we talk about it all est moevery week. As do incentives to wrongfully evict. The local bay area Investigative Unit produce adreport that looked into owner movement eviction jz unlawful evictions. They did great journalism and found one out of four of the 100 addresses they surveyed over a 6 month period had a unlawful eviction. I think we are outraged i was to learn of this. It should be a outrage the city to get the eviction notice mean eviction from the city for the tenants. I believe in owner and the family should be able to move into a home or unit that they owned and purchased but if they evict someone they should absolutely be living in the unit and follow the let orthf law strictly. The unit should not be rerent today the market to a new tenant at a higher rate. The laws exist for a reason. Owner move in evictions spiked 200 percent in the past 5 years. If you take the 25 percent average we talk close to 400 people who are evicted illegally. We have to do everything in our power to stem the tide of wrongful evictions. Today i nrtd deuce new owner move in eviction reforms to make bad actors think twice. Under my policy owners who move with a owner move in eviction must follow reporting and transparency requirements mpt sign a declaration under penalty of perjury to follow all ordinances and laws. This will be filed with the rent board along with notice to vacate the property. Second, owners must provide continuous proof of tenancy documents to prove they or Family Member is living in the unit and following our eviction laws. Owners have to firs report this information within 3 monthoffs eviction and every year there after. Landlords are required to file at least 2 forms of document augz included but not limited to utility bills, automobile registration or insurance, home owner and renter insurance policies or government correspondence within the last 45 days. Voter registration, driver license or a home owner tax exemption. Again, these reporting requirements will be reported through the rent board to provide tenants a tool for resource against a owner who may have wrongfully and illeemly evicted them. These put people over profits. Because of financial incentive exists to wrongfully evict someone to make a buck, we have to deeverything possible to strengthen our tenant laws. I look forward to discussion of the policy ahead and hopefully earning everyones support and want to thank cosponsors for this as well. Lastly, im introducing a resolution opposing California State Senate bill 649. As we talk about inside the chambers local control is extremely important in the city of San Francisco. As the city and county we should have a say and control that impact our residents and businesses locomy. There is a state senate bit sb 649 authored up for Community Hearing today and still trying to find out the results that eliminate all local control related to design and placement of wireless telecommunication facilities in San Francisco. Since i have been in office and debating the issue inside city hall we talked about this time and time again. What is the best and most appropriate use for commercial assets on the shared public right of way . Sb 649 will eliminate local Government Authority over what we constructed on and publicly owned property and assets. Sb 649 will prevent local government charging reasonable fees for using our publicly owns property and assets. This bill appropriates public property for commercial use which in this instance isnt in the best interest of our public. It is a solution in such of a problem and amount to a huge land grab giving away or valuable public assets. Our city absent sb 649 is already engaged in a successful local permitting Leasing Program which is helped facilitate the deployment of wireless fusimties protecting public saelft, neighborhood asthetics and Public Health concerns. As a city we issued more than 900 licenses to install the wireless facilities on existing infrastructure on right of way while denying fewer than 10 percent of application. Sb 649 has a negative fiscal impact. The pu c estimates they would alone lose well over 20 million in license fees needed to Fund Improvements replacement and repair the streetlights. The city as a whole will lose out on twebl millionanyially for losing local control and prevent our city negotiating communications benefits including fiber optic cables including in the city street pole program and used for a variety thoings including public wifi, Smart City Application and technology and other innovative initiatives the City Government is working on. As a city we are mitted work wg private sector partners to facilitate and provide fast wireless access to all our residents but 649 at the state level strips our City Government and strips the bord of supervisors and San Francisco with any local control over the issues and it is the wrong approach. Hope to have your support opposing the bill next week. Madam president it is after 2 30. Thank you very much and with that we will do our 2 30 commendation. We have one 2 30 commendation, supervisor sheehy. Thank you, madam president. So today we honor thousands of our citizens who participate in national and Community Service in vista. National serbs members each year in San Francisco impressive. Building housing for low income individuals and families, turing student and low performing schools and grandparents to students. Coordinating mentoring program serving over 900 youth. Legal services and assist rns to low income individuals and families. Connecting homeless youth, transitioning out of foster care to internships and jobs. Teaching nutrition to low income stud rnts. Educating individuals and families on financial literacy. Offering visst transportation and running errand for older adults home bound. One xmp of service is a 92 year old grandparent who gave 20 hours of volunteer services as friend of st. Francis preschool. He arrived every afternoon to engage with children offering a bit of snack or kind word and playing with children in the out door space. David helped shape the future of twn years of preschool children preparing for kindergarten and beyond. Provides education and leadership abilities and job skills for those who serve. Community service is contagious and bedrock of the values in San Francisco california and nation. On the county recognition for National Service i like to call up kate [inaudible] Program Officer for National Community service it say a few word. Thank you. [applause] hello. Thank you. As the Program Officer with corporation for national and Community Services, im honored to be here to share how we work hand in hachbd with cities, counties, nonprofit and local partners. Corporation for national and Community Service is the fram agency that ovsees america corp, senior corp and programs that engage millions of citizens each year. Citizens address the pressing issues facing the city and represent america at its best. Citizens turning toward problems instead of away working to solve challenges. Today with me here we have mar core state national and amera vista from habitat humanities, 18 reasons, justice corp, San Francisco unified school district, the Foster Grandparent Program and senior companion program. Each of these amazing programs give back to the community in different ways building homes to tutoring student to offering visit and support to home bound older aduments. The board of supervisors joins more than 4520 mayors recognizing services in San Francisco and dedication of National Service members. Together the bipartisan officials represent 194 million americans over half the u. S. Population so thank you for supporting National Service and like everyone to stand up who is part of the programs. [applause] thank you each and every one of your for your service i know supervisor sheehy will join you outside in order to take a photo to get the entire group as a part of the photo so if you can join him outside for a photo that would be great. Thank you very much and truly appreciate your service on behalf of the city and county of San Francisco. Thank you. Supervisor fewer left the chamber. Supervisor kim. Peskin. Thank you, i have one resolution for the imperative calendar commending food runners and founder mary rizly on occasion of the 30th year delivering food to those in need and declaring april 7 as food runners day in San Francisco. Thank you, supervisor peskin. Supervisor ronen. Submit. Supervisor safai. Submit. Supervisor sheehy who is outside so will go back to supervisor yee. Thank you, madam clerk. Ill introduce one resolution today. This resolution opposed the coordinated Child Initiative and disaleutian of in Home Supportive Service and maintenance of the effort cost sharing agreement. You know, the in Home Supportive Service program home health and daily care such as bathing, dressing house work and preparation to over 530 thousand low Income Elderly and disabled california. A Critical Service to allow over 22 thousand aging adults with disability to age comfortable and safely within the homes and communities of San Francisco. Historically, the state paid for about 65 percent the programs nonfederal cost and counties paid the remaining 35 percent. Beginning in 2012, 13, the coordinated Care Initiative replaced the prior county contribution rate with a county ihsa maintenance of effort. The county moe sets contributions at the 2011 and 12 expenditure level and increase annually by 3. 5 percent plus additional cost associate would locally negotiated ihss wage increases. Since the mou was implement, the state general fund assumed all non fraul ihss cost above counties, moee expenditure level. Governor brown eliminated from the 2017, 18 budget which returns counties to cost sharing ratio. This will leave San Francisco responsible for covering at least 40 million we did not account for to continue operating this program. We are already in a budget deficit and cannot afford to leave over 22 thousand sowniers and adults with disabilities without inhome care. I doubt if we cut all 22 service to 22 thousand but im afraitd it will cut service to many individuals in San Francisco that needs it. It is important to me because i have seen importance of these services when workers came into my sisters home and also my aunts home before they passed away and what they did for them so i know it means a lot for these individuals. That beinged, being understand im encouraged Governor Brown is negotiating with the california state legislator and city departments to reestablish the ihssmoe and increase the amount by statewide 623 million and protect county budgets by sup llting with other state fund to fully cover the new costs. So, more importantly, this renegotiation or negotiation to put it back in will protect the service for our vulnerable seniors and adult individuals with disabilities. I want to thank supervise er cohen and staff creating most the language in this resolution. The rest i submit. Thank you. Madam prezden. Thank you madam clerk. Today i have just a few items and i want to start with one that im really excited about. So, you know in San Francisco if you grew up here and went to high school here like many of us did included galileo, low eland washington, we fight in supports. We have a good time and also very proud to represent our high school and very territorial about that especially with our sports teams. But, there is something that we have to celebrate. None went to Mission High School but there is a school that did something that no other high school in San Francisco has ever done before and that is when a win a state championship. We will be honoring the team at a later date at the board and also have a large public celebration here at city hall next week, but i wanted to take the opportunity to Say Something about it because it was a significant accomplishment. Many of these young men live in my district and one in particular i was really good friends with his dad good friend with his mom and just so proud of him and what he has been able to accomplish with this amazing team. These young men and what they represent for the community is so incredible. We have had over the years many challenges in our neighborhoods, violence and a number of other issues and what is so amazing is watching these young men fight hard, win and bring a community together. They in their season they have basically been 35 and 1 for the entire season. How amazing is that . And i also wanted to say their coach and coaching staff, coach arnold is an amazing inspiration to these young men. They won the California Interscholastic Federation division 3 state championship and they did that in sacramento march 24, 2017. This was an exciting game. They successfully edged out villa parks spartan with 82 to 75 and this is just an amazing thing and wanted to take the opportunity to acknowledge it. We know that Mission High School is located in supervisor sheehys district and he will be very active par ticipating in the public celebration. But, as a Public School kid, someone who loves my school, Galileo High School it is hard to go there with another school. You know how it is with us but you got to give credit to where credit is do and when you see young people doing something so amazing we as a city owe it to them do all we can to lift them up and support and encourage them and let them know we are so proud of what they have been able to accomplish so want to take a opportunity to do this during roll call. Congrat ulations to the Mission Bears and look forward celebrating you here at city hall nx week. Colleagues i have another item today im introducing legislation that will create a safe Injection Service also known as Safe Consumption Services task force. Maegz it wide the subsstance abuse epidemic is rachbage community and taking far tee many livesism San Francisco is no exception, in fact it is getter worse. The department of Public Health estimates the city is home to 22,000 people who inject drugs and injected drugs use is responsible for approximately over wn00 deaths per year in San Francisco. We dont need numbers to tell howbed the situation is, we see the worsening conditions on the street. Today you cant walk out of city hall to civicsenter without seeing people shooting up. Outside city hall but all over the neighborhoods. It is unsafe skn unhealthy and we have a obligation to do better for those in need. As i told you before, i know the pain of drug abuse all too well. I lost my sister to a Drug Overdose in San Francisco. I know the impacts and think what could we have done differently at that time that would have potentially saved her life. I also know in trying to help her how difficult it is to get help and to get the support that someone who struggles with an addiction need in order to fully recover. We need to do all we can here in San Francisco. For years we grappled how best to serve people like my sister but too many are left without any way on the streets without help or solutions without any hope. Our existing efts are not working. With worsen heroin epidemic and other substances we need to find real innovative effective ways to help this population and we especially need to figure how to help those facing homelessness and Mental Health issues. When people want to change their life we have to be ready and have the urfbss at that mome. Ovdose deaths shtden be the only way the story nds. We need to find ways to connect drug users with available resources like primary care physicians and minuteal healthcare, case management, Harm Reduction programs and other critical wrap around servicess that provide hope for healthier life and opportunities for rehabilitation. I dont know if a safe Injection Service are the answers, i dont want this to be a free for all that makes it easier for people to use drugs and dont want the see neighborhoods divided as resident worry safe injection will draw illegal activity to their community but this issue is too big a issue for us to rule out all the possible solutions without at least taking a opportunity to learn more about it to study it. There are approximately 100 safe injuckz sites operating in ov65 cities athround world that have been success ful. Spain, denmark recollect france. These services are working in the city and how it can be replicated in San Francisco. Tomorrow i take a flight to van coorfb to do just that. Im going tour their safe Injection Services, we need to look at their data and get a understanding of what San Francisco tailored solutions can look like. One thing we are existing needle Services Facilities that can potentially offer Safe Injection Sites without having to open new full silty and providing wrap around Services Safe injection could prevent overdose and actually reduce drug use, not just on our sidewalks but overall by helping users possibly into rehabilitation. In 2016 cost benefit analysis of potential safe Injection Services in San Francisco found that the city would save about 3. 5 million per year if one safe Injection Program were opened or 2. 33 for every dollar spent meaning alternative solutions can end up saving taxpayer dollars as well as lives. I want to thank supervisor sheehy, ronen and kim for cosponsorship. The department of health for the collaboration and commitment to this task force and for all the advocates doing all the hard work around safe Injection Services and Harm Reduction for decade and trying to shine a light on the issue and bringing it tothe attention the policy makers. I also want to thanki see laura thomas is here from drug policy alliance, thaupg for your advocacy for the issue. Health rights 360, the glide foundation, tender line health improvement, baker place, st. Anthony, Sf Aids Foundation and project inform. Looking forward working on this important issue and want to thank Barbara Garcia at department of Public Health for leadership and work on the task force. The next 90 days i look forward to the results of that and hopefully we can have the data, the information we need to make a good informed policy decision around this isue and hopefully that will make a difference in what we all see out there today. Colleagues i have one last item, issue near and dear i want to talk about. On april 5 i introduced a resolutionapril 5, 2016 i introduced a resolution encouraging everyone from 18 to 44 to register as a bone marrow donor to diversify the bone marrow donor registration and i know supervisor tang, cohen and peskin and kim were cosponsors of this. Ages 4560 may also register. Every three minutes someone in america is diagnosed with blood cancer and bone Marrow Transplant is the only treatment for over 70 of those cancers. 70 percent of patients do not have a full match or donor in their family and must depend on the ciped noss of strangers to save their life. Patienterize more likely to match with someone who shares their ethnic background. A National Bone marrow registry, 16 percent of asian or pacific ilener patients cannot find a donor. That ratio increasing to 17 percent for hispanic or lutineo and 24 percent for African Americans. For white patients 3 percent cant find a donor. This is really personal for me. Yesterday i lost my dear friend jane bolander. She was diagnosed with leukemia after christmas 2015 and she has been fighting every since and she lost her battle yesterday. After gowing through round of chemo therapy and last year my dear friend Chris Carpenter passed from leukemia as well. Im committed to do all i can to continue to shine a light because that is the kind of person jane is and what she would have wapt wanted. She took this as a opportunity to help other people. She was involved trying to do what she could to make sure we did everything we could for the other said who need a match and donor. She turned it into a movement. I met jane in 2012 and like most of her friends you instantly become her friend. He had a kind spirit, she was a beautiful person both inside and out and she was always about connecting people and bringing people together and doing what she could to make great things happen. We bonded because as a director of the African American art and culture complex she was actively engaged trying to connect kids in our community to the work she did. She was a Small Business owner, she did Public Relation through jsy Public Relation firm and that worked with athletes all over the country setting up events and foundations doing pr. She worked with a lot of incredible clients and in every step the way with her work it was always about making sure that those athletes were somehow connected to the community and giving back to the community. During the campaign of 2012, she met my dear friend jary bol lander and they fell in love and in october of 2014 i was honored to perform that ceremony to see my friends come together to get married and to watch how they loved one another was truly inspiring. Sadly, when she was diagnosed in 2015, that was just over a year after they had been married. Jane was only 36 years old. She lost the battle, she lost the fight, but i do know that if jane was still alive today, she would be spending every minute trying to fight for other people because thats the type of person she was. Today colleagues i would like to adjourn the meeting in her honor in recognition of her incredible spirit. She is survived by her husband jar ea, mother father brother and an Amazing Community of friends that will truly miss her. Thank you colleagues for allowing me the opportunity to talk about her. Thank you, madam president. We will refer to supervisor cohen. Thank you very much. Colleagues, i am going to make a hearing request to request that the director of our department of homelessness come back and make a report and give a status where thingerize with the progress of providing services to the homeless population. As you can see there are over proliferation on the streets and curious to know what we are doing and our timeline. Im interested here hearing about the opening of the Navigation Centers that are couple month said behind the original target date so will also be reaching out to sfpd and dpw to paritous pate in the hearing. Thank you. Thank you, supervisor cohen. Madam president seeing no other names that concludes the introduction of new business. Can we go to Public Comment, please . Yes. At this time the public may address the entire board of supervisors for up to 2 minutes on item one the subject matter jurisdiction of the board to include the february 14, 2017 minutes and the items on the without reference to committee calendar. 2530. Public comment is not allowed when an item has been subject to comment. Direct remark tooz the board and not individual supervisors nor the odd ynls. Speaker using translationsistence are allowed twiges thumount of time and if you like to display a document on the oevhead clearly state such to sfgtv and remove the document to return to live meeting. First speaker, please. Good afternoon supervisors. Andrew yip [inaudible] should apply love and kindness to have [inaudible] of human civilization. [inaudible] establish ment of civil right and liberty and freedom to stabilize political power and social system. Political leaders must preserve and introduce all good legislative policies to maintain perfect national system. Apply to a principle as [inaudible] promoting cisc justice and social [inaudible] for a strong nation. [inaudible] making success of politics and holyness for the modern world. Members struggle for the spiritual liberation for rescue mission of the people. The unifiication of International Culture of a common body for the people would provide a scheme for peace and prosparity. Having a complete personal [inaudible] and pathways of virtue [inaudible] thank you, next speaker, please. My name is francisco decosto and come here occasionally because when we advocats meet we prefer to meet outside rather than coming to the chambers. Where have seen the transactions and deliberations and sorry the controller has left the chamber but some of the actions here are crimes. Crimes committed in this chamber. When it comes to transparency and accountability, and now here the City Attorney cannot listen to me because one of the supervisors here you may have noticed is spending a lot of time giving sidebar conversation so supervisors you are here to represent us. This is the land of the [inaudible] the more and more i see bullhappening it proturbs me and why i dont want to come here. There are very few who have your heart in the right place. Very few of yall and i have been doing this ov40 years. I have video jz photographs and a lot of documentation. The time has come for us to be united and we cannot be united if our heart is not in the right place. Now that we have the joker in the white house it is going be more difficult and some some of you supervisors trying to make a attempt but it is a half hearted attempt because we dofent have a blue print. As our transactions today so many millions, whos money is it . Taxpayers money. You dont have a line item and dont know how to do a check list. Shame on you. Not all you but most of you. Thank you very much. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. My name is Mohammed Corinne and live in bayview Hunters Point and here to vice my concern about the housing situation. I dont know what you are using to come up with so many Homeless People in the city. Back then the 60s when kennedy got elected and [inaudible] fighting for the antilirch laws and having the same problem now. We having the problem with the police department. Shooting down black people all ovthe country and now you guys got so comfortable i dont have no problem with the gays and so forth, but you making it a problem because you making a issue getting rid of all the black people that lib in the city which were the top homeope owners of all the groups in San Francisco. When [inaudible] he used to come down here and fight for the people. Now you become so complacent you dont see the issues. Now you got trump in office but that aint the problem, the problem is that we have become complacent and the money seems to be the goal and objective. The city getting rid of all these folks. I have been in contractor for over 20 years and they have been making thebuilding up these apartments and fixing them up and charging way over what the house is really worth and pushing all kind of people out of the neighborhood. Who ever is doing it, all you doing is not right. I dont care what you are doing. The money aint the problem. You should be trying to let all the people in just like when they had the unions and wanted the jobs. Thank you, sir. Thank you for your comments, sir. Next speaker, please. Hello, good afternoon. My name is amy [inaudible] with [inaudible] and im here to speak in full support of item 29, which is the resolution for ab 523, wuty in clean energy investments. I just wanted to say that thank you to supervisor ronen recollect fewer and peskin for your sponsorship of this resolution. [inaudible] part of the California Environmental Justice Alliance and we work state wide on Environmental Justice bills. Now clean energy projecterize not reaching communities that need them the most. Last year only about 14 percent of the epic program went to disadvantaged communities. Thats rr why it is important to have bills like ab 523 that will be able to prioritize disadvantage communities and low income families by directly putting praunlect project in the communities that help and benefit them and have them access these things. Lastly, i want to say that ab 523 will insure that low income communities throughout california will have access to energy and programs that help their wellbeing so thank you and hope we get your support for the resolution. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker. [speaking spanish]. Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is [inaudible] her name is maria as she is a member of [inaudible] today she here to support the resolution for ab 533. As a pluther of a child with asthma [speaking spanish, waiting for translation] one of the reasons i becacome a member is because fighting for Environmental Justice issues in the communities and i decided i wanted to be part of that space qu be able to work for communities that are healthy and it is really important we consider that all communities have access to clean energy in our city. [speaking spanish, waiting for translation] so, again as a mother of a child who has asthma, i know how difficult it is for mothers when they have it take their kids to the emergency room gibbon of the levels of pollution that we experience in our city and especially in other areas of california. [waiting for translation] so, again i ask you to please support ab 533, the resolution will help not only our communities in San Francisco but also communities in the Central Valley and all the children that deserve clean air and access to betterhealthy energy in their communities. Thank you very much. [speaking spanish] good afternoon, again my name is [inaudible] with [inaudible] and here in full support of ab 533. I want to thank the leadership of the supervisors and ask you to help us support our resolution so at the state level we have better projects for communities of color and disadvantage communities who have not benefit from clean energy and projects in our communities will help us to stay healthier and help us be in a community to thrive. I really appreciate the leadership of the supervisors who helped us work on the resolution and looking forward to get the support of all of you. Thank you so much. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon supervisors. Tony robles board president of manila town. The i hotel is our legacy in the 40th anniversary of the evictions of the elders of manila town. Here today to speak on behalf of myself who born here in San Francisco california in 1964. Seen a lot of things happen in my community and tell you im troubled and hurt and angry and disgusted about what happened to irish canada. What is happening to our elders here in the city. What came down with irish wasup excuse my language but it was. It unjust andfrankly, im disgusted. I come here to the chambers often and feels like im in a bad church. Often times i feel im in a bad church. How did our city become so ugly . How did it become so damn ugly and im not the only one that feels that way. Bhaut came down with ilish locked out of her home you know, while she was out at a senior male program gets locked out of the home and doesnt have access to life time of belongings. That is something to be proud of huh . In the city. Right . Something that we should all be proud of. How did we get there . How did we get so ugly here . Im disgusted disappointed and cant tell you how angry i am. Im speaking not as a organization but for myself. I want you to know that how screwed that situation was. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Tom gilbrti. Since the activism of the civil rights starting in the 1950s into the 60s connecting with the antivietnam activism we have something happening right here right now. People are involved. Today is the anniversary 50 years Martin Luther king pulled a bow and shot a arrow and hit the mark about how a society that decides to go for agent orange and denatured bullets is going to stray and here we are. A time ofwe have dead end streets and oppression and restriction, dchs spending is a dead end street for our contry and society. We don need to kill 10 children in yemen to get vital information. It is ridiculous. We are in a batd bad way. On the street it is a time of change. We just changed our police chief. We have new policies, new prestiges are in line here. A part the solution is Community Policing where we get to know each other and break down the walls. In the same regard, our new Housing Needs to have a sense of community housing. When you plop down a new building and norebd in the neighborhood can move in and that building cant help those in the society we need a change and reenvisioning of our maybe housing. That includes community housing, thank you. Thank you. Any other members of the public wloo like to address the board at this time . Please come forward. Thank you. Seeing no other members of the public who like to provide pubhook comment, Public Comment is closed. We need to go back to roll call for introductions. Supervisor sheehy. Yes. So, i like to the board fooadjourn in memoriam for ryan nu nez who passed suddenly during the San Francisco performance friday night. Ryan was a member of the gaymans chorus for three years as a lower bar tone and loved dearly by his fellow chorus members. Aside from his unrivaled comedic quickness, ryans response to crisis around him with the bar to which all people can aspire to. If you pulled the gaymans chorus he was one of the first people or often the first person to reach out and make sure someone was okay in the hour of need. That was the type of man the city lost and the kind of love that came from him. I also like the board to adjourn in memoriam for gilbert baker. Gilbert a dear friend of mine was a creator of the rainbow flag and really take a moment to think about that. Our community did not have a symbol other than the Pink Triangle that the nazi put on us as they took us to contration camps in the 30s and somehow the geneerous of inspiration came upon the symbol that captured diversity the community and joy of the community and captored the love and it spread worldwide. Everywhere in the world, russian they banned the rainbow flag. Its also says a lot about gilbert that he never patened it or trademarked it or tried to make a nickel off it and people urged him. [inaudible]ed you should paten that and gilbert said no this is for everybody. What made gilbert so unique is at his heart he was a artist so everybody looks at the flag pole. I helped gilbert put that up we cornered mayor brown one day and that is a flag pole. It is a art installation and if you would ever talk to gilbert about that that would be how he would describe it. Thats why the day he died he left specific instructions not to put half mass. Flag poles fly at half mass but art installations is pristine is unique. Gilbert really understood the art of political theater and it a lost art wherethink about this is through the aids crisis, this is our civil rights fight to be able to do this and make it fun, to be able to show the love that exists in a community at a time when thinks were really ugly and they were really bad and people got beaten up. People were killed. A community was left to die in many instances yet the spirit of fun and love shown through gilbert. Um, i could go on and on. Gilbert was enmy office and going to do my float. We had a project we were working on. Gilberts dream was do spng at the airport because he really was great with major installation. He did mile long flag in new york and coast to coast in key west. There will be something here at city hall and i think something significant because this is a huge loss for our community and the achievements of this individual it is one of thehis record and what he has done for the community is certainly unparallel. Thank you supervisor sheehy and colleague cz we do the in memoriam on behalf of the entire board . Without objection that will be the order. Madam clerk lets go to the items for adoption without reference to committee. Item 2530. Considered for adaumgz without reference to committee. A roll call vote may enact and member may object. Supervisor peskin. Could we sever item 27 init was not for adoption without referance i think thepaperwork was to go to committee. Anyone else . Also like to politem 26. Okay. Seeing no other names madam clerk on the remaining item please call the roll. 24, 28, 9 29 and 30. Tang, aye. Yee, aye. Breed, aye. Cohen, aye. Farrell, aye. Fewer, aye. Kim, aye. Peskin, aye. Ronen, aye. Safai, aye. Sheehy, aye. 11 ayes. The items are adopted unanimously. Call item 26. Resolution to support California State Senate bill 562 authored by senator laura and atkins cal for healthy cal act that establish a comprehensive universal single Payer Healthcare Program and cost control for the benefit of all state residents. Thaupg and see that supervisor kim you are the sponsor for the particular item and i had a opportunity to review the item. What came to my attention for example kaiser and know that many of our employees use kaiser including myself that this potential bill may have impacts on that and impacts on who were able to choose as pride provider so not certain where it fits in but dont feel i have enough time to analyze and have discussion about it to make informed decision today but maybe you want to address that or make comments in regards to that now . Well, our office did reach out to everysial office on the hall prior to the coming before the board because we require unanimous vote without adoption. I did speak at rom roll call on the itm when i introduced two weeks ago, but as the federal government debates the Affordable Care act and the millions of californians able to par tace pate in healthcare with what is known as obama care, he in the state of california we have a opportunity to truly expand healthcare to everyone single californian through a single payer system. Now, many of the private hospitals are going to have many concerns about this new system and it will really move the ball away and advantage away from the private market and hospitals and put healthcare in the hands of the members of the public through a publicly funding universal healthcare program. Senate bill 562 is also known as cal ifornians for healthy california and under consideration by the state legislature to establish a comprehensive universal single payer healthcare Coverage Program and healthcare cost control system for the benefit of all San Francisco residents. It is a system which a single public or quasi Public Agency organize Healthcare Finance but the delivery of care would still remain in private hands and under a single payer system all residents would be coved for all medically Necessary Service including doctor, hospital, preventive, reproductive helths, Prescription Drug jz medical supply costs. The program would be funded by savings obtained by replacing todays inefficient and profit oriented multiple insurance payer system with a streamline nonprofit public payer system with modest new taxes based on ability to pay. We dont have helt care for all now. This policy would move us in that direction. It is a big policy and so happy to have greater conversation if you feel more comfortable referring to exity so that conversation can be had. And then just another question because you mentioned nonprofit. Kaiser is non a plauft and least expensive providers for helths care for City Employees and so i guess just trying to understandjust to be clear because i have been critical of kaiser in the past especially around ceo pay and Community Support and a number of issues but as it relates to the cost of the insurance they provide to employees they are just basically the most inexpensive provider and i guess i just want to understand because they are nonprofit, how this would impact and i hear you and hear what you are saying changing the system, but i guess it sound like what that would mean is San Francisco directly for its employees this would be potentially change that system. Yes, it would take our Healthcare System out of the private market and would put it into a public nonprofit system that would be fupded by public taxpayers henchs the term single payer being the payer is the public government. It would put in line with the Healthcare System in canada and europe and countries inyishia which is able to demonstrate every resident and citizen can have henth care through a public lee funded system and not driven by profit. Many hospitals are eligible under the nonprofit status, i think we have demonstrated and seen throughout the country that a multiinsurance system has really been inefficient profit oriented and leaves people without any form of Health Insurance today. And so this concept that we have been pushing isnt a new one, and something we have seen successfully implemented in countries throughout the world and has been really the subject of debates over the last couple decades. Now, the system we have today interesting enough despite it being attacked and vilifyed was a proposal put forward by the Republican Party because democrats were pushing for a singing payer cyst similar to what we see in canada, europe and asia. Because the democrats were not able to push through the policy they settled and compromised to continue to include the multiinsurance Company Private profit driven program that we have in place today and while it is a Better Program that what we had prior to the passive of Affordable Care act it dozen cover every american and think the state of california is really in a unique position to lead for the country and to pilot something we have seen work in other places to demonstrate single payer can work here in california. The bill is strongly supported by the California Nurse Association among with many labor partners but again this does require unanimous vote at the first read here at the board and see if you feel more comfortable have this referred to committee happy to refer it to committee. I think it is up to you. I dont know how i feel. I want to have further discussion and apologize for doing it so late, but i just dont know where im at so it is up to you as to whether you feel comfortable because i cant commit next week i will be supportive of it so if you want to send to committee or continue for a week it is your call. Okay, why dont we continue a week for now and our officeyou ask i can discuss this resolution in the time period and if we need conver sation happy to refer to committee. Supervisor kim made motion to continue to next week, the week of april 11, 2017. Take without objection thmpt without objection continued to april 11, 2017. Please call item 27. Item 27 is resolution to urge the retirement board of the employees retirement system to renew commitment to deivist from publicly fossil few Companies Since october 20s 13 and provide update on public and private holdings to you and supervisor peskin i apologize for the ovsite not going committee. Send the item to committee. Supervisor peskin you know which committee or decide later . I think this was previously heard at government audits if i recall correctly. Send to audit and oversight. Alright. Lets go to imperative item. On behalf of supervisor peskin, we have a resolution commending food runners and founder mary ricely on the occasion of the organization 30th year of delivering food to those in need and declaring april 7, 2017. I like to make a motion for sunshine and brown act findings. Seconded by supervisor farrell. Colleagues can we take that without objection . Without objection passes. Supervisor peskin do you want to talk about the itm . I spoke about in during roll call. Any members of the public who like to make Public Comment . Seeing none, Public Comment is close td. On the imperativeiterm take same house same call. Without objection the item passes unanimously. Please read the in memoriam. Todays meeting is adjourned in memory nof following all loved individuals on behalf of supervisor breed and supervisor tang for the late mrs. Janein bill nds render and for ryan nun yz and suggestion of supervisor sheehy and entire board of supervisors for the late mr. Gill birt baker. Alright. Colleagues this brings to the end of ow ajena. Is there any further business before us today . That conclude our business for today. Alright, we are adjourned. Thank you everyone. [meeting adjourned] govern everybody welcome to the San Francisco board of supervisors land use and transportation for monday, april 3, 2017, my name is mark farrell ill be chairing this our vice chair supervisor peskin as well as supervisor tang and joined by supervisor breed do i want to thank leo and jim smith from sfgovtv for covering this as well as eric schizophrenia and madam clerk, any announcements . Yes. Please silence any devices that may sound off during the proceedings. Items acted upon today will appear on the april lovingly board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. Okay. Thank you mr. Clerk a super long agenda of one item. Housing requirement and fee in divisadero and fillmore neighborhood commercial transits districts. As a result of Zoning District of divisadero commercial Transit District court. 0 integrity okay sponsored by supervisor president london breed so supervisor president london breed ill im going to turn it over to you. Thank you supervisor farrell good afternoon, supervisors and members of the public im glad to present this legislation to you today it will provide more homes for people along the dpris and Fillmore Fillmore street neighborhood commercial Transit District. Or nct that is a good thing for the neighborhood and for the city let me first make it clear before we get into the details of the legislation i want you to understand this legislation does one fundamentally critical thing it sets Affordable Housing requirement for Pipeline Projects in the fillmore and divisadero nct as at a higher standard that is required their taking advantage of the nct d controlled divisions that requires Pipeline Projects to provide 23 percent on site affordability or thirty percent offsite for unit that will include 6 percent for those at the 55 percent of ami, and thats basically a family of four making 59,000 a year up to 8 percent of the unit for one he 20 percent ami a family of for up to one and 29,000 a year and 9 percent up to one and 40 percent ami or one and 50 thousand for a family of four instead of the 13 or 14 percent onsite 2k3wr5irg9d in per prop p passed by the voter this legislation provides Affordable Housing for multiple levels of wage earners the former city law provided inclusionary housing at the 13 or 14 percent for percent of ami or less it is true this legislation im proposing today decreases the percentage of apartment or rezoned at the bottom of the call this fact has been the main point of contention that turns its back on the needs of citizens he contend were not thank you for the opportunity our back on anyone but trying to fully see the Housing Needs and trying to answer the need in the broadest and biggest way to help the kinds of families as possible find homes in San Francisco ill explain the reasoning behind that we know that the lowest income earns are in desperate needs of you housing those making less than 59,000 a year and expand into housing for those families fighting to get into the next level of income levels but your housing criticize is more complex than the lower income wage earners that are in the 55 percent of ami and below our hicks is not just as one data that the three exists wrenching and keeping the middleincome from affording housing it is families at nearly every level that feel that San Francisco is becoming a city of which we can no longer live a blast they cant afford thats why this protective opens of up the car share into 3 tiers seeking ways to keep the fantastic of San Francisco intact multiple funding the how are you trusting and the inlieu fees and the fees paid by Developers Anyone above the 55 percent of ami family again making over 59,000 a year a family of four dont qualify for those particular programs theres no help other than they earn too much money for a Government Program but not enough to live in the city those are people i grew up with in my neighborhood any friends who basically was displaced from the community who is a bus driver making over the 59 thousand a year with with two kids she tried to return to San Francisco and the development they was displaced from she made 600 to allow her to return to her home we know about the construction be workers the people that built this city and they make too much more Affordable Housing but not enough to afford the marketrate Housing Units that are being built my aspirin that works for the state and whose daughter is uplift out of the school because shell not afford the city and not qualify more Affordable Housing who is lieutenant for them building for them we talked about jurisdiction and the people moved out of the city but not a pipeline so those people can qualify and not to mention until my neighborhood legislation we had no way to give them a fighting chance of till assessing that Affordable Housing who is room 416 the halls of city hall advocating for them and illustrating for the interests of those people that continue to get pushed out of San Francisco protecting Affordable Housing is critically important i grew up in Public Housing and i know how important it was for my family the point is that so is making sure that there are other layers of affordability and were not funding it for or building is neither here nor there enough the best way to get it built to incorporated into privately inclusionary housing and that is exactly what that legislation does i miss my friends and communicated community and tired of this issue being used as a way to claim to do something that isnt i know we cant turn back the hands of time but start to get it right now i dont want to look back or the next jurisdiction and wonder who happened to my community and city the basic and narrow question today do we want all projects on divisadero and fillmore that use the nct for hire standards we feel the answer a unevolving yes, we should be maximize missing Affordable Housing in the neighborhood and now let me give a background of how this will work in 2012 voters passed prop c that set the inclusionary requirement in the charter at 12 be onsite and 20 percent offsite for a fee in 2014 i passed legislation creating made neighborhood commercial district on fillmore and divisadero in the summer of 2015 i passed the legislation to rise those to make them neighborhood commercial transit nct meaning residential sdenlt will be controlled by height and bulk instead of a lot ratio in terms of more Housing Units within the given Building Size without increasing height and without go increasing height with line of other intensity changes and the board of supervisors and Planning Commission supporting may be nct legislation unanimously the density decontrolled in nct help to create more affordable units at the total nuke of unit more Affordable Housing and cheaper marketrate housing without any height and bulk district increases for building respect ncts are a great first step but i want to increase the requirement of affordable units unfortunately, i received information that under prop c in 2012 that wasnt considered possible when i introduced the legislation but after careful consultation we increased the Affordable Housing under the strict controls of prop c in summer of 2015 he created higher inclusionary requirement for projects within the ncts that exercise the decontrol under the then operative nexus study i set the fee and at the highest level and the onsite under 20 percent within the neighborhood the board of supervisors then introduced what became 2016 prop c a Charter Amendment to undo 2012 prop c that is passed and the current citywide inclusionary rates are 33 percent for fee out or out site and 25 percent for onsite housing the residential prop c trailing legislation provided tiered grandfathering exemption for projects in the pipeline this means without my legislation the two counter projects in divisadero can move forward with only 13. 5 or 14 percent plus and not enough and ive always making mad made it clear i want want more and the Community Wants more thats exactly what many legislation schufz the legislation before you say in the Pipeline Projects to take advantage of the nct density decontrolled they should meet the 33 percent requirement i originally proposed in december of 2015 not get to use the control and benefit for projects not getting and density decontrolled i set the 23 percent inclusionary to break down a minimum of 6 percent of the unit to be important Affordable Housing earning up to 55 percent of area medium income, 8 percent of unit shall be affordable up to one and 20 percent of ami, and the 9 percent of unit to be affordable to households earning up to one and 40 percent ami this is geared more towards middleincome than other inclusionary housing policies have previously been and thats for a couple of reasons we are requiring onetenth of the unit in the project to be affordable compared to the law in 2012 prop c and even what is current law in 2016 prop c and two ive lived in the neighborhood my whole life and i think be far too many middleincome friends and families forced out by rising prices or even their own rising wages im committed to providing for opportunity it for them to find a home in their own Community Two projects in the pipeline right now an divisadero one at the 650 divisadero for 66 united and one at oak and divisadero 1922 quite a bit larger this legislation is the best way to insure this is a provide Affordable Housing for the broad range of residents using the nct zoning will hesitate 23 percent affordable rather than the 13 or 14 percent under the grandfathering and trailing legislation in prop c, 2016 to the additional 15 or 20 families that get an Affordable Housing unit that planes a lot because of preference legislation i pushed for 40 percent of unit will go to the resident of district 5 where theyll have a fighting chance of assessing the unit within their community that doesnt exist before the legislation thank you supervisors for you patience this is been a bit of a moving target since we introduced this before the Charter Amendment it changed the citywide standards do we want projects that use the density higher Affordable Housing standards or should they get lower grandfather rate my answer is more and ill be happy to answer any questions you may have. And thank you so much for your time but also i want to talk about an amendment but if there are questions im available to answer any questions first and then get into the details of that. Supervisor tang. Thank you for the author explanation commissioner london breed ive received emails i know you clarified it but anything you mentioned that fall within the nblths will have the percent onsite housing and would have been 13 percent if it had were it not for this legislation; correct . Yes. And two how many unit will those on the project sites. From the estimate aaron you, you might know the answer correct me if i am wrong the one on divisadero this project proposed 16 unit total and because of nct legislation the possibilities to build 66 unit as a result of this legislation there be be roughly 16 units onsite affordable units that are available this is basically a what this legislation does so the number of unit will be built will be the number of units that will be actually provided to the community as affordable units possibly. I dont know how far along the project at oak and yeah. I dont know yet. All right. Thank you. Supervisor peskin. Thank you chair farrell and through the chair to supervisor president london breed going through the history of this the 2012 prop c knocked down Affordable Housing by 20 percent so generally, the number we use is 15 percent Affordable Housing became 12 percent but in some cases like in about ncts there was actually a higher percentage to begin with so when we family fast forwarding to the grandfathering legislation actually, if i have this right might defer to Planning Department staff it was a 20 percent reduction from whatever the percentage was at the time that sounds muddy let me see if i can articulate that in the nlths there was actually a higher than 15 percent and higher than post 2012 prop c heroin 12 percent so the grandfathering took that take a look at it and in terms of i think that the grandfathering legislation depending on the year theirville evaluation was 1234i789d is higher than 13 and a half percent but. From my understanding and maybe can be explained by the Planning Department the range is 13 to 14 percent. The range is 13 to 14 percent if you were a the call back provisions the grandfathering legislation that attempted to capture the 2 hundred plus unit in the pipeline was not bans 12 percent but the percentage at the time and the ncts had a higher percentage of Affordable Housing required and the grandfathering acknowledged that. So i dont think there was a blanket all ncts 3 depend on the neighborhood and a specific. 3 favors of nktsd that had different percentages of Affordable Housing all of them higher than 12 percent is my recollection. I would have to go back and look at that i know that i think the mission did and then the missouri had higher inclusionary rates those were left in place those were on the development. It indeed happened in the case of 2015 up zoning that commissioner london breed conferred on divisadero. Yes. They conferred into the property but in the same time increase the inclusionary. So youre telling me that is the only nct that didnt end up with a higher inclusionary. Fillmore and divisadero not part of a neighborhood plan so in other words everything in the eastern neighborhoods we conferred up zoning and captured additional inclusionary when we up zoned planning doesnt recommend there be a recapture of Affordable Housing in that. No. And can i interrupt please and answer that two that of those a lot of the frustration from the nct in the first place because clearly when you are providing i believe is an incentive to allow for significantly higher number of units then, yes should be an additional requirement of Affordable Housing and under 2012 prop c a back and forth between the Planning Department and the City Attorneys office we were told our office was told there was we couldnt do that we couldnt do that in the legislation specifically and so then later on there was you know again a lot of pressure if the community and we have continued through maintaining the conversations because regardless of whether or not we could do this in legislation the plan all along was do we we can to have the developer provide a higher percentage of unit onsite and probably have to negotiate that on a projecting basis that is upsetting and later on down the line this is when i introduced the 2015 legislation to do a higher than requirement thats why were here today and so you understand the frustration and the conversation miscommunication through the process. My recollection actually it is early on i think i just became a member of the board when you introduced the legislation to recapture some of the Affordable Housing i think i cosponsored that legislation if my memory serves me ill get a phone call from Dennis Herrera but nothing that prevented commissioner london breed from requiring higher inclusionary in an up zoning of those to ncts or the rezoning of those two ncts through the chair to john gibner, deputy City Attorney. John gibner, deputy City Attorney. You know, i cant get into the details of the conversation we had with the st. Josephs and the Planning Department but commissioner london breed introduced this ordinance before the second prop c passed which we drafted at her request but as supervisor president london breed said a lot of discussion moonts the participant what was possible to obtain the inclusionary to move forward with the 2016 that is substituted here. The absent the prop c this could have been done. Yeah. Okay in terms of it could be done at the time of the up zoning of the fillmore and divisadero ncts. Commissioner london breed introduced this before the second prop c so it could be done at the commissioner london breed said complications we were working out and the Planning Department to make sure that could make that. Your legal advice evolved over time. I cant say that i frank was not a party to those meetings so ill leave it at that. Thank you mr. Gibner i think for the purpose of conversation and maybe that is not important but i think that we should see these in the same way as we see the mission ncts that with the 2012 prop c were higher than 12 percent so. Do you know what those percentages were. 17 and 19 that sounds about right. I think 17 and 19 is what they are i think for the purpose of that conversation we should and so far as as it turned out jotting. More of it was also not trying to throw the Planning Department under the bus but part of it was working with the Planning Department and trying to negotiate and figure out what we can do and get have not process i mean you know so you know there were mistakes made clearly this is an effort to correct the mistake i think thats where we are now. One of the things that 1yu789d out at me let me see if i can find it supervisor peskin through the chair can you explain what youre trying to get at i mean, i understand it would have been better to have this done already during the time with an nct the betterment but we didnt i think im trying to understand what our suggesting is as it relates to trying to look at this in the same way as some of the other ncts within the neighborhood plans and how that makes sense and what youre suggesting as a result of it. I think im getting at the stated contentions it a little bit this legislation they will be at 13 and a half percent one of the things that popped out at the me the sentence that said if the board adopts the inclusionary housing that are higher than than section 48 the higher will apply at the bottom of page 9 a ill make amendments to strike that. Because let me just through the chair this at the time, we introduced it we knew there was a polk that there will be higher inclusionary raised the point is i dont want to keep on changing and changing but something defiant well make the amendment so we make it clear as a result of those are the requirement for those particular projects. Rather than because were going as you may know at the board of supervisors make additional changes to the Affordable Housing requirements and i dont want to just keep on putting those ncts on hold this should have been done already and need to get this legislation forward this is the reason for those through the legislation. Through the chair to supervisor president london breed are you saying youll remove that sentence on page 9 a were actually yes specifically the amendments are to take 7 lines 8 and 9 package 9 lines 21 and 22 is so forth in the legislation this is a copy of the amendment. Ill look at those and through the chair to supervisor president london breed im not trying to be agree men active there are things going on here im happy to take them one at a time at a higher level were having i think a large policy conversation as it relates to citywide Affordable Housing mixes that yourself and supervisor safai introduced and obviously supervisor kim and i have an feasibility version and can discuss the policy merits of that since 2002 when then supervisor leno passed i think unanimously the first inclusionary law section 415 of the planning code i believe at a time that was 12 percent for amis at 60 percent or less is my recollection of later on we had a San Francisco area income and later on not able to calculate that we dropped it from 60 to 5 percent then up to 15 percent at 55 percent and then the 2012 prop c dropped to 12 percent or everybody took a 20 percent hair cut as we were coming out of the recession this is a fundamental change in the distribution and the mix of how and what ami levels the city provides Affordable Housing and im a little bit reticent to o to have a conversation i respectfully think this is a little bit of cart before the horse the large the citywide conversation of proper mix and thats a conversation that is had by the Planning Commission and presuming last night next month by the full board of supervisors but im reluctant to do it in a one of situation i respect and indeed im a cosponsor of the original legislation to capture the up zoning value in more Affordable Housing we have seen mostly in district 6 but other areas is that where we have done ferreted the additional height weve been able to recapture significant amounts of Affordable Housing and we just saw it in the case of south van ness at the 25 percent so push a little bit to see. Thats a much larger project. I think that was one and 40 unit so that may be but id like to get some analysis from staff or so some performas we can make that work at 25 percent and the large policy question about the mix i personally think that ive been consistent in saying this im hopefully, a resolution as to how we split the baby and i know that there is no question there is a need at all levels he except the luxury level that takes care of of itself but a large conversation first and have this kind of does conversation second for what that is worth. And supervisor peskin through the chair thank you for your input because i think that is really definitely the large conversation in terms of the split i think that part of my consistent push is what ive mentioned in my opening remarks i release we have and you in our history fight to make sure that you know the 55 or 60 percent of ami and below were included in those particular developments for onsite inclusionary but i think that part of my concern and we have this discussion about were building in San Francisco and the 50 percent of ami and below the comparison to the other categories of middleincome which is not middleincome in San Francisco is not affordable to live here even with a family of four making over 60,000 a year or 60,000 a year like theyre not qualifying for the Affordable Housing and more specifically as i mentioned the how are you trusting and the housing bond the nias all the layers that provide one hundred Affordable Housing projects in the case of you know the kennedy apartment in my district that was amazing 98 senior units most so for all one hundred affordable senior unit but the one person that gets a pension cant afford to live in San Francisco a senior worked here at the department of health a few hundreds dollars over the requirement thats the problem for me and thats why from my perspective we need to start looking at a higher ami in the inclusionary housing because that is really the only way to fund this i know that is the bigger conversation we need to continue to have i appreciate your comments and your perspective around looking at the percentages and in this particular case i wish this was done should have been done not a lawyer and depend on doesnt and everyone to give us the best advise based on the tint of what we want to do i want more housing Affordable Housing and trying to sort of trying to push the limit on what we can do to maximize the Affordable Housing but also be more importantly want to make sure that were viewing it so that the next layer of affordability it is so desperately needed so im open to suggestions or comments of ways to potentially looking at the 23 percent not certain what that means we are look at the nexus study and looked at it what we committed to when i introduced the legislation in 2013 what is a good mix and the area medium income of the neighborhood and what people are making and who are the people were losing in the neighborhood 1922 mostly how we came up with the percentages of what can work to provide a real opportunity more Affordable Housing for you know just that layer of income levels that is missing because those are the people that who are again being displaced and so i appreciate that and happy to continue the conversation with the Planning Department and looking at the percentages you know i dont want to continue to delay this i want to make a decision but the right decision of what you know is the best thing for this particular case i do know were having a larger conversation about this and but i do appreciate your comments and feedback thank you. If i may mr. Chair a few observation prop c of 2016 did two fundamental things number one, was maybe ill sound like a broken record the inclusionary percentages will never meant to be status things change cost of construction came back land values, sale prices it was never meant to be rigid the problem with the 2012 prop c was that it stuck it in the trunk no way for the legislative branch in communication with experts looking at numbers and what was maximum be feasible can change that the first thing it did took it out of charter had an unanimous vote to put 2 on the ballot and the second thing that said that until the board of supervisors acted it would be 15 percent at 55 percent of area medium income and then ladder on i think coming from the snapshot an additional 10 percent of area medium income up to that and, of course, we said subject to the Feasibility Analysis this is thanks to the controller and the technical Advisory Committee and outside experts that launched our conversation about the proper rate should be thats the conversation well have i think were coming from the someplace we want to acknowledge and produce that middleIncome Housing but there is a vast difference between the pensioner youre talking about to have a few hundreds dollars over qualifying at the percent and taking the policy lead were taking here of creating an entire layer at the one and 40 percent prop c as of 2016 was added we say hey well stick with the traditional rates by the end of my first tour of duty in 2008 had gone up to 55 percent and ladder on an additional 10 percent so i think we all are acknowledging that need i dont know i mean the fact that in this case were turning that 15 percent that 55 to 6 percent at 55 and taking what is under prop c 10 percent at one and 20 and turning it into one hundred and 40 percent an analysis im interested in what you poke to supervisor president london breed about neighborhood incomes and id like to i havent seen that data for this area but i think that that would be helpful if this data exists can be shared by planning with the committee pubically or i mean obviously any information it Public Information but like to see that data audience through the chair mr. Starr do you have information handy for the area medium income of the neighborhood . Unfortunately, your data didnt go by mcds so we have sort of the haight and then the western edition and overlap the divisadero is so the haight area medium income is one and 14 thousand and little medium Family Income is one and 17 thousand but it is considerably less. Can you repeat those for the haight and one and 14. One 14 and the one and 57, one and 8. Im sorry the one and 14 for the households and one and 57 for the area medium income. And that includes the upper haight and yeah. The upper haight but to divisadero and captures the up to the panhandle. Cant have that in the anymore immediate information. I dont have that. But how long will that information take to obtain. Probable about a week ill guess without having the data team here i dont tell you for sure. Okay. The western edition is about to pop out. I can tell you a little bit about 9 data for example, with we did this thorough haight valley around the Grocery Store you know families protecting low income and a lot of seniors making if 11 to 24 a year next to the western edition in the same hear from hayes valley it was 83,000 a year in terms of afternoon area medium income households and for western edition is the area medium income is 47,000 and the memoranda family is 58. 58 . Yes. So for the western edition if you were to use the medium will be close to 55 percent of ami. For the western edition yeah. Colleagues any further discussion right now okay. Well move to Public Comment commissioner london breed appreciate the legislation here the efforts behind that anytime were talking about assuring affordable and projects im supportive of that i think two things one you spoke about an amendment in our amendment one of my larger concerns generically if you change the goalposts on people i dont mind we have those policy discussions and a make that up front but changes the rules midstream run the risk of that pro bono process that Developers Think is discouraging for having more housing in San Francisco im supportive of that amendment take that out to continue to kind of derisk the future for those individuals i think one question though i have about as we have the broader conversation and introduced the conversation and supervisor peskin introduced legislation now were having a one of conversation a division to have one of discussions that will individual corridors or the other blanket conversation they go against each other i was thinking about that. Thank you supervisor farrell fewer question the point this should have been done the goal was to try and a because we know there are two projects in particular we want to move forward we want to get them done and want the highest amount of Affordable Housing occupant as we can get the as a matter of fact in the case of 650 chris a project of 16 units was the larger unit more expensive with you know the 12 percent onsite Affordable Housing unions and the as a matter of fact they dont want to take advantage of the density increase for the nct legislation they can go back to project theyre basically getting you know a huge i mean this is changing a project from one amount of money to making something completely different and important that the give back the significant amount of Affordable Housing the maximum possible according to what is property as a matter of fact in those projects they knew that was happening and made adjustments to change their projects right away we we added the nct legislation and knew regardless of this legislation be required to do as much Affordable Housing onsite as those projects would provide and see this is i mean from my preservation owe get what our saying in terms of changing things were at a point where i i get it i know you dont want to have the one of conversations it is important to move forward that we get going with should go that is definitive with the significant incentive their getting as a result of nct legislation. I appreciate that and i think this is a unique situation got caught in the middle of prop c i appreciate that and supervisor peskin to take it out of the charter i dont want the one of for the corridors will have a separate conversation despite the fact with differences on the board about the inclusionary requirements of the proposal front of the us i like we dictate it that way and from my perspective want to make sure that when we are going from my preservatives Going Forward and allowing this legislation to go through that were acknowledging this is a bit of a one of to clean up the past and prop c having this discussion but hopefully as a board and body as a city and policy matter for pope people that are creating housing in the city well have a citywide and not continue to change the rules on people we want to create more chief Administrative Officer and go predictability whatever it may not be too high in the cost but create that level of predictability so with that, intention and so forth i appreciate the fact youve been working on this for years in our district and create more Affordable Housing for units here so with that, supervisor tang. Thank you very much so just to clarify given the amendments being proposed for example, on page 7 deleting the language that says in the board adopts higher inclusionary housing the higher should apply at 23 percent it is higher than what youre saying it could have been which was 13 percent. 13 or 14. 13 or 14 without this legislation but for some reason citywide had a higher 2350b8g9d amount i want our requirement why you struck out or strike out this language. What was mention by the supervisor farrell i want these projects to move forward i dont want to keep on changing the rules in the middle of the game and this is legislation that should have happened before prop c was passed and a big part of holding off on trying to get it to have a clear understanding of prop c and a newer nexus study and figuring out what is the best method and how we create the maximum affordable units for the neighborhood theyre impacting. I understand you know the rational for the two immediately pending projects but moving forward into the future and whatever reason the board ends up with a higher than 23 percent inclusionary rate that might occur strike 0ub9 will not allow for nothing with the fillmore and divisadero to qualify for a higher affordability rate is there any thought how you want to approach the future projects not with the two pending. Mr. Gibner that was mentioned as something that because we didnt want to keep on changing the legislation for those two particular corridors was of this should have already been legislation that had been passed and in complication with our office my understanding we were somehow this was recommended for us to do can you give me clarity on that. Sure john gibner, deputy City Attorney. So the ultimately whether to include that language this policy call for the committee and the board the board by a future ordinance could change the inclusionary levels that apply to the nct up and down in theory is in concert with the citywide inclusionary ordinance or not i understand that the when the ordnance was initially introduced the goal of this language was to insure that if prop c passed or post prop c legislation passed and the inclusionary levels were higher than proposed the these projects will be subject to the higher level now the city has adopted the post prop c inclusionary levels in order to provide some certainty to the ground floor level of sobriety total projects the amendment will remove those inclusionary levels will automatically change. I i get it what supervisor tang is suggesting is there a way to make sure that future projects the requirement whenever requirement is the one especially, if it is higher the one that basically comes into play in those particular cases. Yeah. If this is what you want to do leave this language in or could amend the future citywide inclusionary ordinance so is new hirer level applies to this corridor as well if you thats the choice you can make today or next for the board to. The concern theyre pending projects we want those to move forward and there could be future projects that should follow suit under if possible a higher percentage of affordable units and theyll anticipate that, of course, and i think the goal is not to create a barrier with this particular legislation. Right with the pending projects you reach a point after they pull the permit and rely on them we cant change the raise the inclusionary levels any future but in terms of future projects you can keep the ordinance as is that suggests for future projects the levels unite go up or address it in a future legislation. Do you have a recommendation to specify any future projects or the way that the current legislation reads this could be pending projects as well. I think the best way to address that specifically if youre trying to capture the projects to include a grandfathering clause in this ordinance which will say any project that is submitted with an environmental application before x date say today is subject to these levels any project that submit an application after this date is subject to those dates unless the board increases the citywide projects will be included in that level. Thats basically, what i want to do for sure thanks. Thank you supervisor tang. Supervisor peskin you had a followup. I have a point of information that still commissioner london breed introduced this before what became the 2016 prop c was introduced so i want to keep the history right this is this was done completely before supervisor kim and i introduced the recommendation. I was saying that to mr. Gibner. Im not sure this may be a reservation after prop c passed but the substitute. May i have a motion through the chair to supervisor breed like i said earlier i dont know what the two projects are or what their status is i understand this is a 66 unit project in one of the two ncts but i dont know if they are where they are in the process whether theyve applied or the one on oak and divisadero im not sure where that is this is early but at divisadero is moving forward with the conditional use with the Planning Commission. Okay. Colleagues any further questions or comments or else there is some people i summary we have people in comment open up for Public Comment anyone feel free to line up on the screen side of the room. To come up if you want to speak line up against the far wall and everyone will have two minutes to make sure we get through everyone in a timely manner. Mr. Chair and supervisors thank you for the opportunity to speckle im my name is christian im an attorney in San Francisco and a member of Neighbors United my concern is im opposed to commissioner borden legislation simply because that delivers too much discretion and power to the developers that will result in the construction of more housing at a level that is beyond had me and many of my colleagues attorneys are able to afford in San Francisco if we build more body cameras and rolls royce that will not affect the prices of some things were talking about it will have more and more bent let me see and poeshz that will not transitional down to the level of people i work with and thats the end of my comments thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Hi, im jen im a member of the Neighbors United aids jen if you could pull that microphone down. Im in district 5 and for about 9 years lived in them and want to say i really oppose this rate to developers and back to the drawing board multiple level housing is fine but dont steal Affordable Housing if low income people and give it to middleincome you steel it from developers that will be making money regardless so thats yeah. I just really have a question like why developers dont lose out in this field i them like this pits low and middleincome against each other and they compete for housing this is unconscionable what is happening in San Francisco for many, many years and i just really want to reiterate the pockets of developers and marketrate housing we should be volley ball our citizens of San Francisco over the profit be developers and basically is supervisor president london breed you promised United States the highest rate of Affordable Housing ever and i think that anything less than that and not acceptable hi, im renae i live in the you were sunset for 20 years im also a member of Neighbors United i oppose this lastly version of legislation that as jan said was supposed to be the highest level of affordable units 6 percent is not feel like this is looking at 650 van ness that is two units because the new legislation is 6 percent at the 55 percent of ami and then the next level is one 20 and this is not middleincome that is high income this is a gateway to the developers please go back and look at the origin you know the preelection version of this legislation and either keep that or improve it thanks. Good afternoon, supervisors supervisor president london breed, supervisor tang and supervisor cowen and supervisor farrell my name is rufus im speaking as an individual from midtown i grew up like supervisor president london breed i was in grew up in 1970 in the western edition divisadero i was living there i think you need to back to the drawing board and growing up up there i went by 650 divisadero and divisadero is changing ladies and gentlemen, and you need to back to the drawing board the developers in my opinion have having a field day with the board of supervisors and you know all the political vocabulary and changing the goalposts dont work so you need to back to the drawing board and be a xanax human being not as the board of supervisors one of our colleagues bragged by st. Francis of assisi so if you brag about st. Francis of assisi you should live by that you need to back to the drawing board and thank you for the opportunity to be here and have a good week. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi, my name is norman ive lived in coal valley for 20 years im a retired graernd and a member of Neighbors United and here to on to the lastly give away to developers thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi my name is shannon ive been living in San Francisco 12 years in the western edition well, i moved into the western edition 11 years ago and our neighborhood is leading long term residents i i dont think this legislation does anything to address that concern ive seen over the past 6 years now neighborhoods one by one moving out of neighborhoods they come back to visit and stand on the corner to see glimmers of the community we used to have there this is now gone 0 i dont think that the proposed legislation communitybased organization slightly far enough to address this issue and having worked with different organizations in the neighborhood looking at trying to provide services for low income people i can assure you, you there are plenty of low income people struggling to stay in the neighborhood they grew up in and depend on to live i hope youll reconsider this and thats all i have to say. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Yes. Hello im david wu born and raised in the haight in San Francisco and wanted to state my opposition to the current legislation and largely see that as a give away to Large Developers there are a lot of Campaign Promises made last election regarding fighting for extremely high levels of Affordable Housing specifically for integrity district 5 that legislation flies in the face of this and we need stronger housing levels to be put in place that dont take away from groups fighting to stay in the city and take away from those that are already privileged or maybe privileged enough. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name is laura please accepted this draishgd e back to the drawing board it cuts the inclusionary housing unit in and a half or raising the high level to 9 and 8 percent respectfully this is the statement of higher earns and on the with the 23 all of a sudden understood 77 percent that will be matters of and one and 40 percent means those homes are for people making above the 40 percent medium that is telling me one and 40 percent of persons for 8 house 200 and 50,000 a month but that you make 8250 you dont need a subsidy not what san franciscans voted for when we 2ku78gd prop u and most will not be family unit policy in the city home sharing have enjoyed the profits displacing the long term renters and their Profit Margins are not questions when socalled Affordable Housing more than half the population has a bad policy calling it informational didnt a make it is we need homes but 0 what about 100 percent medium and gut the low end and call it affordable. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Thank you supervisors my name is lisa ive lived in the panhandle for 3 decades a year and a half in december 2015 supervisor president london breed announced ore proposed legislation to increase the percentage of required Affordable Housing in new projects along the stretches of divisadero and fillmore at the stated quote most of all the history Affordable Housing ever in the city and county of San Francisco that legislation was never finalized its been missing ever since the press conference the original fillmore go legislation was written to increase the Affordable Housing requirement for developments that received a density increase due to rezoning again supervisor president london breed impacted this nct rezoning in july of 2015 the property legislation called for an increase from 12 percent to 23 percent almost double now it that the verse has created a new baseline 15 percent low income and 10 percent middleincome instead of the fundamental requirement the incarceration of that proposed will actually reduce the requirement from 15 percent to 6 percent if the intent of the legislation before you is to there the affordable unit this legislation is not it please vote against it and go back to the drawing board. Thank my name is a tony robles, housing organizer with the senior disability action collaborative. Im very concerned about the reduction of the affordable requirements the folks that we serve at my organization the seniors and the people with disabilities got hit very, very harder nothing that slices and dies the affordability our folks among the poorest and the most in need are making like thirty percent of ami if not that ill strongly suggest ill urge you to go back and relook at this legislation thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Calvin i think the most accurate statement that is made so far was mistakes have been made i think your task is to not make any more the question of ami and making what is a regional number of ami applicable to real neighborhood is address supervisor president london breed and your own legislation you and supervisor tang legislation on the Inclusionary Zoning requirement that is good afternoon moe to cut to 20 percent no greater than 20 percent of marketrate any affordable bmr unit allowed in the language of Inclusionary Zoning ordinance your spoen not in this ordinances i wonder why you should pick up the language in 415 your and supervisor tang are having this legislation you good afternoon moe to analyze the actual Affordable Housing levels of the ami in the neighborhood and in no case allow to be 20 percent greater than or within 20 percent of marketrate and that includes allowing moe to lower the ami levels that is in the legislation you and supervisor tang are proposing to this board on inclusionary Zoning District you should men, women, and children amend that go language into this legislation. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, supervisors dean i live between fillmore and divisadero and this has been a give away to developers from day one supervisor president london breed has only advocated for any affordability only have prefts from the community this has been missing in action for 15 months you notice not a chamber full of developers up here talking u talking about this is so painful theyll not be able to build of all the flowery it speeches in talking about affordability here and elsewhere known is talking about the profits for developers when supervisor president london breed chopped in half the housing for lowincome folks and shift that over to household that make between one and one and 50 thousand their tripling the rent those folks will pay and the bottom line of the developers this is yet another give away supervisor president london breed rezones divisadero and fillmore to allow tripling and quadrupling the density without requiring go affordability it is nuisance to suggest that none knew you could increase the affordability nuisance as supervisor president london breed pick up the phone and talk to any advocate shell be told as supervisor peskin referenced and in other neighborhood that 2012 prop c made clear that could be and should have been done this legislation was even worse the original legislation she introduced in 2015 lets get real Affordable Housing not those belowmarketrate housing Profit Centers for developers thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, supervisors todd david on behalf of the Housing Coalition i that that data shows the last thirty years weve not built housing for middleincome people in San Francisco and so you know, i do i totally support the sustainability i think that family teachers and workingclass are having a hard time struggling staying in to so we totally support that there is a real effort to keep families and workingclass in San Francisco so we applaud you for that just a couple of concerns i want to raise supervisor farrell stated it well make sure we think about policies that we really try to get away from one of conversations i understand this particular policy has been in the works for a long time and so this is trowel a kind of unique situation but certainly bad for home creation in San Francisco all levels of creation when not serving the marketplace we want to make sure that we have certainty that people stand and get financing to build housing theres a lot of moving parts to that we really want to make sure that certainty is there for as many as possible and one really kind of an open ended question with the nexus study as saying that was 23 percent is affordable rate i wonder what that is robust enough to support that number thank you very much appreciate it. Next speaker, please. Hello board of supervisors my name is hfa year and go to college and activist as someone that grew up here and loves San Francisco and i think this bill threatens young people from accomplishing their dreams 40 percent of millennials instead of cutting Affordable Housing we need to expand is like supervisor president london breed promised as a hubby on the board of supervisors needs to 2kr5ushgd and make us having feel welcomed and at home again, thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Laura clark i appreciate the spirit in which this legislation was put forward the intent to increase the amount of housing this is a worth geography by my understanding the increase of density will occur with or without the legislation that is conferred this project is being drawn as evidenced by the speakers into the debate well have Going Forward about what the made up of our Inclusionary Zoning will be and if we continue to pook the discussions on a casey understand this may have been planted inform a long time we fivehundred instability to our city hall well have a bloody murder of what the Inclusionary Zoning and the speakers have already getting a head start on that argument i dont want to see this project drown into the argument we need to move forward as quickly as possible and supervisor peskin said increases in allowingable density give us the ability for more subsidized Affordable Housing and any percentage and my made up of that percentage if we do up zoning we get for subsidized Affordable Housing it is 7, 8, 9 to get to work doing the real things that will have an impact up zoning the neighborhood and get rid of the institution of singlefamily homes that was designed to keep low income and minority out of neighborhoods see those are the things that have about a dramatic impact on the residents thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, supervisors im clinton with town hill square over 20 years i want to clarify and understand exactly what were doing this this how are you policy by antidote i feel we can have gone to an irish pub and had fun drawing the numbers with one thirty and one 10 and a bulls eye as a faicht youre the Land Use Committee then he wonder do each the supervisors get a one of supervisor mark farrell may want a one of and supervisor peskin somewhere in his district none of us here are opposed to having the increased affordability especially the state density bonus in the nct with that said, i think it was at least one and year and a half we were promised a abrupt the housing abrupt is random numbers by an disposal evidence this is our affordability of make up for two projects that are going to change the basis of divisadero ill suggest we hit pause on this supervisors the fact were now discussing the weaken continental use is border line ludicrous that was not done but didnt mean we have to have nasty sausage and make up stuff i suggest we hit pause and have a comprehensive policy that makes sense and based on data and not stories and an dots who may or may not qualify for housing thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, supervisors be a long time will district 5 resident remember interesting is some 60 thousand units that have been improved lots of housing for the upper income people over one and 20 percent it is approved we dont have to rush anything through the car wash has one and 50 unit i dont remember exactly the numbers but 6 percent of one and 50 is a far cry if 15 percent we need more units for the people that are einstein below 55 and 60 percent ami and one and 20 percent dont need to jump up there we have one and 80 percent over our teetering for income for people of those incomes we dont need to submit more of that it is supposed to be about developers we want to have mixed Income Housing in the divisadero and fillmore not housing only for the rich that is part of what make liveable neighborhood not 100 percent affordable units in the bayview to help out the quote poor people that happen to be my friends and neighbors and getting evicted from our neighborhoods so what we need to do is look at the neighborhood amis we need to prepare reasonable policies that based on prop c and is applicable to citywide and get those numbers up for those specifics two specific sites at least to property levels you. Okay. Thank you any member of the public that would like to comment . Number one, seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Supervisor president london breed. And thank you to the members of the public for coming out and providing some input i want to say i appreciate supervisor peskin and some of his comments that is as important to look at a little bit more data around area medium income and in the areas specifically we probably need more time and as supervisor tang suggested looking at grandfathering and making sure that future projects are not impacted and so just a little bit more work that needs to be done it appears that possibly boo before we move forward with the proposed amendment that we should maybe do a week continuance to give us time mr. Starr you think that is property for the information im requesting. Probably i honest i dont know how easy to get it data for the divisadero and fillmore district but i will doing everything we can within a week. Okay. I also want to make sure that we have an idea or my colleagues on the Land Use Committee have an idea of project in particular and why it is important to look at this in the particular way separately from the large conversation in the future so maybe a one week continuance before any amendment. Okay supervisor president london breed is requesting a week for continuance. Motion by supervisor tang and supervisor peskin. Im happy to vote i was going to say that one of the comments that was raised earlier seemed to be worthy of considerations by the sponsor as it related to conforming to this legislation to the legislation that supervisor safai and commissioner london breed introduced as part of large conversation relative to i get it mohcd the ability to reduce the ami to maintain pricing that is belowmarket rate value in that neighborhood that might be something and along the same lines given what occurred and haight those two ncts might indeed benefit from different ami structures that comport with the surrounding neighborhoods that may be different from one another thought for this week and happy to vote for the continuance. Okay i did have one question relative to the investing of this project on 650 presumably a number of things could happen the Planning Commission didnt have to hear this on thursday they grant conditional use that is subject to anything many board of supervisors chooses to do before that invests thats an affirmative need. From mr. Mr. Gibner. Mr. Gibner communitybased on the record they may grant the conditional use authorization that the cu maybe appealable to the board the entire entitlement process has to sort of be completed before the project has any invested right. In terms of a Building Permit for issues. That includes as a first step Going Forward an appeal to the board or final cu approval. And the board can appeal to the board or the members of the public can appeal to the board. Yes. The members of the public or 5 members of the board for a cu plan. Okay so we have a motion by xhaupg and seconded by peskin madam clerk, is there any additional business to come before this body . Theres no further business. All right. Things everybody were adjourned today we are going to talk about fire safety. We are here at the urban center on Mission Street in San Francisco. Its a wonderful display. A little house in the urban Center Exhibition center that shows what its like in a home in San Francisco after an earthquake. One of the major issues that we are going to face after earthquakes are fire hazard. We are happy to have the fire marshall join us today. Thank you. My pleasure. We talk about the San Francisco earthquake that was a fire that mostly devastated the city. How do we avoid that kind of problem. How can we reduce fire hazard . The construction was a lot different. We dont expect what we had then. We want to make sure with the gas heaters that the gas is shut off. If you shut it off you are going to have no hot water or heat. Be careful not to shut it off unless you smell gas. Absolutely because once you do shut it off you should have the Utility Company come in and turn it back on. Here is a mock up of a gas hear the on a house. Where would we find the gas meter . It should be in your garage. Everyone should be familiar with where the gas meter is. One of the tools is a wrench, a crescent wrench. Yes. The crescent wrench is good and this is a perfect example of how to have it so you can loosen it up and use it when you need it. Okay. Lets go inside to talk about fire safety. Many of the issues here relate to fire, for example, we have a little Smoke Detector and i see you brought one here, a Carbon Monoxide Smoke Detector. This is a combination of smoke and Carbon Monoxide detector. They are required in single homes now and in apartment buildings. If Gas Appliance is not burning properly this will alert you before the fumes buildup and will affect you negatively. This is a Battery Powered . This is a Battery Powered and it has a 10 year battery life. A lot of times you may have one or the other. If you put in just a Carbon Monoxide detector, its important to have one of these too. Every house should have a fire extinguisher, yes. One thing people expect to do when the power goes out after an earthquake about using candles. What would you recommend . If you have a battery operated candle would be better to use. This kind of a candle, you wouldnt want it in an area where it can cause a fire or aftershock that it doesnt rollover. You definitely want to have this in a noncombustible surface. Now, here we have our stove. After a significant earthquake we expect that we may have gas disrupted and so without gas in your home, how are you going to cook . Well, i wouldnt recommend cooking inside of the house. You have to go outside and use a portable stove or something else. So it wouldnt be safe to use your fireplace to cook . Not at first. You should check it by a professional first. Outside should be a safe place to cook as long as you stay away from buildings and doors and windows. Yes. That will be fine. Here we have some alternative cooking areas. You can barbecue and if you have a regular propane bark could barbecue. Thank you for joining us. And thanks for this terrific space that you have in this exhibition space and thanks for helping San Francisco stay safe