Skip to main content

tv   Board of Appeals 22217  SFGTV  February 24, 2017 4:00pm-8:01pm PST

4:00 pm
>> good evening and welcome to the the wednesday, february 22, 2017, meeting of the san francisco board of appeals dpoels is joined by commissioner sanchez and commissioner bobbie wilson and commissioner rick swig our president commissioner president honda will be absent brad to my left is the dependent and provide the board with legal advice and cable car and my name
4:01 pm
is cynthia goldstein the board's executive director. we're joined by scott sanchez planning department. we maybe by builder inspector joe duffy representing the please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones and other electronic devices are prohibited. please carry on conversations out in the hallway. permit holders and others have up to 7 minutes to present their case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. have up to 3 minutes - no rebuttal. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of the minutes, members of the public are asked, not required to submit a speaker card or business card to the clerk. the board welcomes your comments. there are customer satisfaction forms available.
4:02 pm
if you have a question about the schedule, speak to the staff after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow we are located at 1650 mission street, suite 30 this meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv cable channel 78. dvds are available to purchase directly from sfgovtv. thank you for your attention. we'll conduct our swearing in process. if you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand and say i do after you've been sworn in or affirmed do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> okay. thank you
4:03 pm
so vice president commissioner vice president fung two housekeeping items this evening item number 5 jennifer creelman vs. the department of building inspection at 143 corbett avenue. the parties are requesting jointly that be moved to april 5th to allow time for development discussions we do need to move the item and move to approve okay. >> a motion from commissioner lazarus to continue this to april 5, 2017, at the request of the parties item 5 is there any public comment? okay. snoneeing pathologically or then commissioner vice president fung coissioner swlazarus that mn carres thank you the other housekeeping storm item 7 has to do with with an alteration permit on tichlt 55
4:04 pm
33rd avenue the appeal is withdrawn our regular calendar general public comment the opportunity for anyone to address the board within a jurisdiction but not on tonight's calendar any general public comment no item 2 commissioner questions or comments anything commissioners. >> no thank you so item 3 the boards consideration of the minutes of february 15th 2017. >> annexes on the minutes a question if i was not here it didn't seem appropriate to vote on the minutes does the city attorney have a opinion. >> it is presumed if the commissioners will vote on whether or not they approve the
4:05 pm
minutes. >> okay unless the only basis for being recused a conflict of interest or the permission from the other members of the body. >> thank you sure it is clear. >> any comments or additions to the minutes move to deposit. >> thank you any public comment on the minutes seeing none, we have a motion from the vice president to adopt the minutes commissioner lazarus commissioner wilson commissioner swig thank you that motion carries i'm just not 100 percent sure that item number 4 is happening there is a request to continue to item to the 22 of march came through my phone this moment by the parties.
4:06 pm
>> both parties? >> yes. both parties. >> actually, i don't know if so it both parties i can't tell from the e-mail bear with me a moment the parties are here; right? >> why not hear the next case. >> that would be great thank you so we'll hold off on item 4 item 5 rescheduled so item 6 this is appeal alexander fleming vs. the zoning administrator at 523 guerrero street. appealing the denial on december 1st of an exposure variance to convert the ground floor of the 3 family between to a new between to a non-complying
4:07 pm
rear yard start with the appellant the appellants agent. >> thank you and unfortunately my - thanks very much scott my name is iran district attorney i'm the architect of record for this studio addition indeed i intend to speak quietly at 523 guerrero street we the owner rejects not being here had business in santa
4:08 pm
barbara sends his rejects so sorry i need to collect my thoughts that is the the subject property at is a 3 unit building with vacant storage non-used storage space on the ground floor as well as a garage my client decided to do a volunteerly schematic upgrade and capture the urban used storage space to create a new unit also lives in the building the garage is being used belongs to one of the unit not deed it is an apartment building so is he established out with another designer not a licensed architect who got him acquit a ways introduce the process did a
4:09 pm
good schematic design and took to the various building department dpw got preliminary approval of the streetscape plan, etc. so she wanted to make sure that all her ducks were in the right now and something in the rejected well when the, of course, the structural engineer was involved do do the smeefks upgrades he is, of course, unable to take responsibility for her drawings i was brought in to actually finish up the project i'm a licensed architect and you know she did a good job finished up the details and title 24 and did whatever else
4:10 pm
was needed and brought it into the brought my drawings into go maybe over-the-counter that was what was indicated in her minutes ever her discussions with the various departments at a time she was told so i did this to get two separate permit applications on the one set of drawings because it was actually was one thing and we got partway there over-the-counter and over-the-counter i was- you'll see in exhibit b i think it show see the two the one set of drawings with one, two sets of permanent drawings he went to planning and i met with edgar who told me that you know you
4:11 pm
really should spate out the drawings do the smeefks not voluntarily do the schematics upgrade and come back and do the unit addition he said truly when you do it do it as just a unit addition with a variation she said everything about the plans were pretty much ready with the permits he said you've got everything except this minor enclosure. >> (inaudible). >> pull the microphone over. >> excuse me. the the subject building
4:12 pm
unfortunately, the original designer put mudrooms in exits there which was semi transparent their exit stairs in the space that otherwise would have been a very nice 25 by 27 backyard but my project- the building is relatively small relative to all the rest of the buildings and we have a substandard lot the lot well it is 90 feet deep so our lot end somewhere if looks like it is there but not somewhere back here we ended up from the front space to the back of the lot is 27s feet and this was here 17 feet well, that happens that - close to being.
4:13 pm
>> you have a very expensive easel - the width of unit is only 17 feet without the overhead thing that is 17 feet and it goes back to 17 feet so we felt that mr. lopez said you got a good case i've seen m
4:14 pm
rebuttal time.
4:15 pm
>> very good. >> inspector duffy to hold anything for you. >> scott sanchez planning department. thank you for having the hearing tonight for this case so appreciate the comments and concerns by the appellant just as some background the proposal to add a between to the the subject property at that didn't feature as the unit is proposed not code compliant enclosure on a rear yard in order for the street that didn't meet the requirement of planning code so with that there are two processes that one what undertake used to be one process which was a variance process but for the past two years there's the ability to add do accessary dwelling now the division the dwelling unit allows administration review the
4:16 pm
project and allows for granting of waivers like the endorse in this case in order to quality for the waiver under the adu provisions it has to be 15 by 1 foot open area that faces on to which this qualifies for the benefit of review the ability that are added under the program that are rental unit to create we haven't had the ability to do to create them to grant a zaurns 5 findings that needed to be made in this case, the acting variance in august we been faced with prestigious combed that are adding dwelling units and if an alternative pathway used to be no, but where there is an alternative path we
4:17 pm
findings those are haven't met the necessarily 5 standards for granting the variance there is a code compliant path an alternative path that allows for the creation of unit without a variance that's the in case here for those reasons it is not worthy of a grant for the property in terms of the staff conversations we discussed that with the folks and current a great resource and do everything you can to understand the process that was my understanding that when he was suggesting that as an alternative and make people aware the most that are there i tell people you can point out my determination to the board of appeals not meaning it will be over turned but a good chance these days but have to make people available that are available to them so it results it was represented
4:18 pm
to him the city administrative of the property owner to not is age electrical unit not have the restriction for the new unit so if that's the case this is the process to go through certainly in the past no other process and variances have been looked more favorably by the way, in this case there is an alternative process one that has benefit to the city so you know with that, i i believe that mr. thank you for your time appropriately denied the variance i reviewed the materials by the appellant i don't feel they had a strong argument about the 5 finding that are necessary to the grant of 0 variance the argument largely was based on you know that staff had told them to go through the process and therefore that was enough to justify the granting of a variance i don't see that as justification for granting a
4:19 pm
variance and certainly, if we were to tell someone if you see the board of appeals take an action like this this is not what the decision will be we reserve the right for the information at the time the public housing was held and i think the decision was appropriately render i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> questions. >> just to clarify so prior to this new process if you gotten this as then a variance where you saying you'll be more inclined to grant it from it didn't necessarily meet the criteria. >> so that's what we're looking at here you know what is the handicapping of a variance and in this case there is no handicapping because there is actually a code-compliant alternated that allowed the
4:20 pm
creation of unit that's hard to make all the findings by previously if there was this was 5 years ago and you know we're having because of otherwise be a quality unit to meet the endorsed requirement we'll be inclined to grant the evaporates no way to add to the housing stock within the density limits but through the processes now alternative processes i understand interest is a restriction for it being rent-controlled housing but seeking a exemption to a code compliant so it is a fair trade off not metal detector all the code compliant but going through the accessary dwelling program and having it subject to rent control it is a fair trade off for not meeting all the trade requirements and commissioners. >> i absolutely see the point
4:21 pm
and lean towards the agreement that that is a fair trade i think we'll see things in the future about that because now there is an opportunity to it can illegal units and make them into legal unit unit by what you described, however, it is important in a hearing process to re-ask the question although i always anticipate the answer is having rent control permanently on a unit which is trying to legalize is that a handicapping is anyone going to say well, your wrong it is a handicapping to have permanent rent control on. >> can i clarify one thing that is not an illegal unit. >> no, no, no i'm not
4:22 pm
characterizing that as an illegal unit unit in any way, shape, or form whether the current situation not an illegal unit it is strictly a variance but any unit that going for conversion and it is - can permanent rent control be considered a handicapping. >> no. >> that's the key question bureau but a hardship of rent control i'm not have that vein but i want to put it on the record. >> i have two questions any other questions first is there's 3 levels of residence use above the proposed new unit is there a combination
4:23 pm
of two of the floors to a unit. >> the architect can address. >> secondly, this is a question of endorse most of cases on exposure related to corner lots and the apartments in terms of benefits of urban design having the building wrapping the corner versus a code compliant required a gap on one side or the other how does this differ from that. >> to this would be mid block
4:24 pm
it was existing legal non-conforming so not a code compliant rear yard faces on the rear yard which is not code compliant it didn't meet the requirements for the exposure after the code compliant usually it depends on the size of lot they're better off for meeting the exposure requirement by facing the streets if you're in a corner lot my units that face on the frontage is a code compliant if so it as larger corner lot have a case they're creating a non-compliant rear yard to the unit that a face that are non-complaint in this case an existing structure with the adding dwelling unit and most of time i review the least half a dozens of those a week as
4:25 pm
an accessary dwelling and with the number of units up to six or seven unit added under this program per believe so i - i mean it is something that people avail themselves in terms of adding to the housing stock but maybe i didn't answer that question. >> okay. he think i would have differed a little bit in terms of how those buildings were not coming from to the exposure requirement whether the size of lot was large or small the issue of the distance from there openings to the property line but we can that's a separate issue in terms of the new construction but in terms of the difference between those variance requests versus this
4:26 pm
one is something that we'll stack on i guess. >> okay. >> thank you so i don't think there is any public comment but rebuttal from the appellant side. >> the backyard there the plan is to terrace that back it has wonderful exposure actually and in the paperwork that mr. sanchez submitted his are you able to my original appeal he mentioned possibly putting the new unit in the
4:27 pm
front because with the street frontage it will meet all the requirements but one the garage is being used and two a garden apartment at street level is so much more pleasant than street level up to the street plus the garage is being used so that didn't really - in our minds that you know you're not supposed to take away from the rental part of rental is the garage that was really a solution for us september 4th is when i understand the entire city became enveloped with this policy of adu unit for the whole city up into the literature i was privy to at the time of now
4:28 pm
almost a year ago about doing all of this it hfs the castro and it was for units that were was required to have a retrofit and i don't know if you've ever seen this handout but although it is dated july of 2015 and we went in may of 2016 but this was what i had on hand when i was told this i had a mixture i looked at the literature for adu's in the castro a under the schematic retrofit legislation from the existing building is subject to rent control then adu and coast
4:29 pm
if you are you're adding kooufrts in july of 2015 as far i saw of 2016 a couple of weeks after my hearing with mr. sanchez that it became a citywide thing with all that considered it seemed applyable alex let's go ahead and do it i don't advise variances lightly through everything i could see advice of the senior planner it seemed
4:30 pm
reasonable two different results. >> you need to wrap up. >> okay mr. sanchez. >> oh, excuse me - were there 3 units here before. >> there's 3 flats there is a 4 story building the ground floor. >> - >> how do you create. >> at the ground level it happens to be - >> no, this building is a 4 unit. >> exactly within that. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department. i think the appellants timeline of when it became available san francisco government audit & oversight commission is accurate by the time of hearing it applied to smooefks for the retrofit i think that was required in 2015 but it was an eligible process that of the variance it was heard and at the
4:31 pm
time it applied to the voluntarily upgrades so i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> this zoning allows what 3 units. >> within the density that is allowed under this. >> so the fourth unit is without the adu process would have been in excess of the density. >> so the zoning is rto generally no unit limit there is a - this is within the allowed limit it used to be the rh-3 or rh-2 before the eastern neighborhoods sdoensz to the rto. >> and the density is based on the site area. >> in the rto generally not limited by site areas if there is an rto i'll double check but
4:32 pm
within the density limits of district not exceeding the density if it was they couldn't seek a variance for it it will be through the adu process at this point. >> the last thing that was only a stair and rear yard that make that a non-conforming rear yard. >> no, i think that is building itself extends into the rear yard but it is - >> well the mudroom what she calls the mudroom otherwise she indicated that it was 27s feet from the rear property line to the face of this unit. >> i - i know no dimension of the drawing. >> only in response to that
4:33 pm
question. >> you have to come to the microphone. >> so on the plans there is a 17 foot rear yard which is showing here there is actually within that 17 foot rear yard there is a roof with an open stairwell well but it will have to a 25 feet rear yard but part of stairs and part of existing building will be for a compliment rear yard and if - you understand that but if she removed the mudroom would that and left the stair would that
4:34 pm
then be a complying rear yard. >> in the stairs are not compliant. >> accuses us. >> if you're done with the question commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> commissioners. >> i see the zoning administrator's argument is valid because there is an alternative and therefore there isn't a hardship and therefore the variance there's no justification for a variance and it can get down with the
4:35 pm
alternative process without a problem so therefore you know, i would deny the appeal. >> so i guess i'm differ from that a little bit in the following ways the face of this unit is compliant to the rear yard if so the planning interpretation of the overall building because of the stair portion and what they call the mudroom sticks into the rear yard therefore the whole building is non-compliant in terms of rear yard but the unit itself is compliment not firm in terms of what it looks like it does dimensionly the width of the unit in terms of what the rear yard there
4:36 pm
i guess i'm looking it is a process of exposure the adu process was done primarily to take care of the illegal units and bring them to code and make them part of the housing stock this is not an illegal unit that is under that kind of process and therefore it is not my mind the same as the example of the common ones with the rooms behind the garage and the richard or part there are thousands of them and so i disagree with actually with both sides in terms of this is a purely a process the question is it satisfy the
4:37 pm
exposure requirement so it didn't require a variance in the in the first place. >> i understand planning determination yeah there is a piece of building that sticks and therefore that piece creates that the entire rear yard a non-complia non-compliant. >> if no - now we are going getting confusing here this whole case is built on the question of a variance so we're discussing a variance for not a evaporates. >> but if the commissioners reading is that we're discussing the wrong thing because there shouldn't be a variance discussion in the first place how - the case becomes well
4:38 pm
null and void how do we move away from a variance versus a non-variance if you're position is not a variance discussion in the first place that leads to confusion for me. >> not that i'm not dangerously with you by the way, your wisdom is very strong in this case but we're not - that's not the case that is in front of us. >> i guess i'm not saying that planning has been inconsistent in their determination what creates a non-compliant situation but i disagreed with the va and our discussion of where exposure variances have come before us historically they've all been yes on corner
4:39 pm
lots but the reason they were given was that the dimension from openings in the building to the rear property line were not per code we gave those left and right including for high-rises we've done it for three or four story buildings and so i've seen the differences between those exposure variance versus this one, this one conforms if you take the street line dimension from the face of unit to the rear yard. >> but so and so variances arguably met the criteria for a variance; right? >> you know my opinion of the 5 criterias i mean, you look at both of those neither the appellant nor
4:40 pm
the department reason made compelling cases either way. >> but i think this might be worth- thank you think no reason for going for a variance then the appellant is only left with the accessary dwelling process respect this seems for rent control and don't get anywhere. >> let's go away from that whether i feel it should have been a variance application or not let's go to the fact there is an application and the question is whether the va applied it equally in this instance versus the use. >> so our point was that the
4:41 pm
va failed to recognize that in fact, a variance was not that necessary and the solution was the solution also didn't require a adu because the unit was legal in the first place so - >> no, i probably will back off from that and say i don't think that is the the department has been consistent where one piece of building sticks out beyond the required rear yard of the entire rear yard makes it non-conforming i guess my point this situation to the
4:42 pm
code. >> if no - i'll make a motion. >> unless something else feels. >> i want to. >> i'll remind the board if
4:43 pm
this is a motion to overturn the va and grant the variance and the board needs to articulate the 5 finding. >> either tonight or at a subsequent hearing but these need to be stated and need 4 votes. >> yes. we do. >> why not move that along i'll move to grant the appeal on the basis that the va erred in his finding on the 5 findings. >> okay. i i mean, we, call the roll but we need to find have those 5 finding articulated not an error standard but we need to know what the 5 findings are
4:44 pm
but. >> to be provided at a future date. >> so the motion includes the written finding at a later date. >> yes. we'll not b labor that. >> to grant the appeal and overturn the zoning administrator with the adoption of the finding at a later date okay. on that motion commissioner lazarus no commissioner wilson commissioner swig no okay. that motion is voted 2 for and 2 against the motion fails there is no other motion than the variance is upheld by operation of law. >> i can make my motion if there is to deny the appeal and
4:45 pm
that the finding of the zoning administrator were correct that there should not be a variance because there is an alternative facility to allow this project to move forward and that will be the audi know i used too many words but make that what you can edit. >> okay. so that motion by commissioner swig to deny the appeal and uphold the zoning administrator that the finding tacked by the zoning administrator are correct those encompass on that motion community college no commissioner lazarus commissioner wilson no again, the vote is 2 to two, that motion fails. >> let's go home we'll move on to item 4 i got
4:46 pm
confirm - this is item 4 appeal at james kelly vs. the department of building inspection. from the board is inclined we'll move the case to that date. >> so moved. >> that motion from commissioner lazarus any public comment? seeing none, commissioner vice president fung commissioner wilson commissioner swig okay. that motion carries that item is continued at the question of the parties vice president. >> whereon comment to make i know we've already acted on item 5 but i would request that the building department see if the parties there if they can't come
4:47 pm
to agreement with everything they should split off the portion are of the retaining wall if they can come to agreement with that and get that done because with all the rain on the hillside it doesn't make sense for them to stall that come on, if you have a statement. >> commissioners joe duffy dbi so a few weeks we let them do the emergency work because we were aware it needed it wasn't kind of urgent we let them do some of the be work on building but they're working on the settlement and we are involved in that as well with the ethics commission and a permit on that one coming as well so you i only bring this up because the continuance is april. >> i know.
4:48 pm
>> anyway it is just - >> yippee get our point it was i think we were aware of it and wanted to kind of resolve it. >> okay. thank you. >> okay there's no further business. >> the meeting is
4:49 pm
4:50 pm
>> we think over 50 thousand permanent residents in san francisco eligible for citizenship by lack information and resources so really the project is not about citizenship but really academy our immigrant community. >> making sure they're a part of what we do in san francisco the san francisco pathway to citizenship initiative a unique part of just between the city and then our 5 local foundations and community safe organizations and it really is an effort to get as many of the legal permanent residents in the san francisco since 2013 we started reaching the san francisco bay area residents and 10 thousand
4:51 pm
people into through 22 working groups and actually completed 5 thousand applications for citizenship our cause the real low income to moderate income resident in san francisco and the bayview sometimes the workshops are said attend by poem if san mateo and from sacking. >> we think over restraining order thousand legal permanent residents in san francisco that are eligible for citizenship but totally lack information and they don't have trained professionals culturally appropriate with an audience you're working with one time of providing services with pro bono lawyers and trained professionals to find out whether your eligible the first station and go through a purview list of
4:52 pm
questions to see if they have met the 56 year residents arrangement or they're a u.s. citizenship they once they get through the screening they go to legal communication to see lawyers to check am i eligible to be a citizen we send them to station 3 that's when they sit down with experienced advertising to fill out the 4 hundred naturalization form and then to final review and at the end he helps them with the check out station and send them a packet to fill and wait a month to 6 weeks to be invited in for an oral examine and if they pass
4:53 pm
two or three a months maximum get sworn in and become a citizen every single working groups we have a learning how to vote i mean there are tons of community resources we go for citizenship prep classes and have agencies it stays on site and this is filing out forms for people that are eligible so not just about your 22 page form but other community services and benefits there's an economic and safety public benefit if we nationalize all people to be a citizen with the network no objection over $3 million in income for those but more importantly the city
4:54 pm
saves money $86 million by reducing the benefit costs. >> thank you. >> i've been here a loventh i already feel like an american citizen not felt it motorbike that needs to happen for good. >> one day - i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, for liberty and justice for all. >> you're welcome. >> (singing).
4:55 pm
>> (clapping.) >> introduce the san francisco field officer director ribbon that will mirror the oath raise your hand and repeat the oath i hereby declare on oath repeating. >> citizens cry when they become citizenship to study this difficult examine and after two trials they come back i'm an american now we're proud of that purpose of evasion so help me god
4:56 pm
please help me welcome seven hundred and 50 americans. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> she wants to be part of the country and vote so much puppy. >> you know excited and as i said it is a long process i think that needs to be finally recognized to be integrated that is basically, the type of that i see myself being part of. >> out of everybody on tv and the news he felt that is necessary to be part of community in that way i can do so many things but my voice
4:57 pm
wouldn't count as it counts now. >> it's everybody i hoped for a bunch of opportunities demographics and as you can see yourself there's a good life for everyone. >> that's why. >> you have people from all the walks that life and they're standing in water 8 hours to be an american citizen and contribute to the city and that's really what makes this
4:58 pm
worthwhile. >> ♪ ♪ >> we are approving as many parks as we can, you have a value garden and not too many can claim that and you have an historic building that has been redone in a beautiful fashion and you have that beautiful outdoor ping-pong table and you
4:59 pm
have got the art commission involved and if you look at them, and we can particularly the gate as you came in, and that is extraordinary. and so these tiles, i am going to recommend that every park come and look at this park, because i think that the way that you have acknowledged donor iss really first class. >> it is nice to come and play and we have been driving by for literally a year. >> it is kind of nice. >> all of the people that are here. ♪
5:00 pm
>> all right. good afternoon everybody. welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors committee in the meeting for february 13, 2017. my name is mark farrell. i will be chairing this committee and joined by the vice chair aaron peskin as well as supervisor katy tang. i want to thank sfgtv for covering today's meeting as well as the clerk of our meeting alisa somera. madam clerk do we have any announcements. >> yes. please silence all cell phones and electronic devices and electronic devices. all documents submitted to the clerk and items will be on the submitted to the clerk and on
5:01 pm
the february 28 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> already. madam clerk will you call item 1. >> >> womb one is the environment at code for green building requirements for municipal builds and findings. >> okay. we have staff here from the department to speak on this item. >> good afternoon. thank you chair farrell and members of the land use and transportation committee for hearing this item. we're ready for the over heads for the presentation. okay. what you have before you are amendments to chapter seven of the environment code. now this has been sponsored by the mayor and board president breed. so this ordinance is not a new ordinance. it is it ej rated back in 1998 when our first green building program in
5:02 pm
place. it morphed and changed in 2004 to adopt lead silver as the minimum building standard for municipal builderce and in 2011 got lead gold as the building standard. this change was also -- it was also the same as what was going on in the private sector where also lead silver to gold is now the standard city-wide. there's a context and the reason we're having this ordinance come before you today and that is that the building code has changed, want only for the city but the stay wide so you have the california energy code. >> >> as well as the california state building code and cal green are updated and our ordinance needs to corspend to that and lead leadership and environmental design has version three which is expired and now has version four so at one
5:03 pm
level had this is a clean up ordinance to make sure we're in context but using it as an opportunity to clarify and look to the future. so how are we doing? this is just a quick snapshot how the city has doing implementing the lead ordinance since 2004. to date we have 51 municipal bodybuildings, nine are platinum. this is one of the largest municipal portfolios in the united states. some specific examples handout hospital is an example of the -- laguna honda is a example the first lead hospital. and the academy is double load for construction and maintenance building. the airport terminal two is the first terminal to be lead gold in the u.s. here in the building we find ourselves city heal is the oldest lead platinum building in the united states and with the retrofits that we did on this building
5:04 pm
the taxpayers as well as the employees can benefit tw of 25 energy savings and thousands of gallons of water saved and those are some of the benefit s and the new public safety you may not know not only is it home to our police and fire, but it has three living roofs, brain water harvesting, gray water reuse and water savings fixtures make this the most water efficient building in the city's municipal portfolio and designed before we were in a drought and having this as our goal and pushes toward the future and resilient for whatever is to come so the proposed changes to this ordinance are in three buckets. updates which i alluded to. clarifications to make this i clear and easier to implement ordinance and finally additions to look forward to the future so the proposed updates the
5:05 pm
california energy code has been modified and we need to point to the recent code. the california green code has been updated and we need to point to the recent code in our ordinance and finally lead itself has expired version three and on to version four which is heavily focused on energy and efficiency which will help us as we try and meet the statewide goals of zero net energy building. the lead three to body four was perhaps the area that gave the department heads the most heart burn and concerned about the comp implications would be so we worked closely with public works and as with the building construction team, with the consultants to do an analysis of actual city projects to see what the impact would be on the building if we go from three to four. for new construction was a wash and 0.8 increase in the
5:06 pm
cost of the building. for renovations we get a range of impacts depending how we accommodate the solar photovoltaic system from 2.5 to 5% increase in cost. we believe these costs can be mitigated to a large degree by up front planning and yet it's important to go in with our eyes open and a small increase going forward. the clarifications that we put in place. the first one is that we shifted the applicability of this ordinance to have a threshold of 10,000 square feet rather than 5,000 square feet. city-wide that threshold is 2,500,000 square feet so we're -- 25,000 square feet and leading by example but projects have a higher cost burden and asking us to join us in the spirit of lead if not
5:07 pm
certification of the second area had to do with the port. it turns out the port of san francisco has its own building code and confusion as to whether or not chapter seven applied to the port and it's explicit that section 7 05 and 706 that may seem redundant are not in effect for the port but the port changed the code to make sure it's consistent with chapter seven. there's a part of this program which is the waiver process so that if a city department feels it cannot meet the standards set forth in chapter seven they can apply to get a waiver from either the certification for lead or specific elements that are in that certification, and for the port we have put in place a process in the port where they will do their own waivers and director of the port will have the authority to grant the waivers but we instituted a
5:08 pm
transparent decision making process where the task force will issue a recommendation to the port. the port will make a decision and made public at the environment commission and the port commissions, so we clarified and increased transparency when it comes to the port and they're incredibly unthese yatdic and willing partner and the last clarification which was very important is that we made it clear that this ordinance does apply to major renovations and tenant improvements in leased space so for example when the san francisco employees retirement or the health service system remodeled their location they do it now with a lead check list and with lead certification and that way the taxpayers, the employees, the visitors are insured to have the benefit of a lead certified building, so that was then the amendments, and the clarifications, so the updates and clarifications and now looking towards the future how
5:09 pm
can this ordinance prepare us for what is coming ahead? how can we look ahead at what the state of california is putting in place? what about our climate goals? so the proposed additions we're asking each project to do a feasibility on what it takes to build that project to be zero net energy? it's a statewide goal where the energy budget for the building is the same as the energy generated on site through renewables. it doesn't make sense to do it for large skinny buildings but three or fewer stories we may be able to achieve net energy before the deadline by the state of california. we're asking projects to do a cost benefits analysis for solar plus storage and how do we take the solar on site and meld it with batteries and use that energy in the evening or in the event of an earthquake or other disaster?
5:10 pm
and finally we're looking at what is actually going in those buildings and it turns out that the furniture in the buildings -- in fact the furniture you're sitting on now often contains toxic chemicals and flame retard arts so we're putting language in the ordinance for the department of the environment to draft regulations and city department to the change the procurement in the wonderful lead program soas that's a snapshot of this ordinance in terms -- like i said there is larger context why we need to do it now. we have amendments that have clarifications and updates s and the idea to looking to the future so any questions you might have i am open. >> colleagues any questions right now? okay. thank you very much. we will open up to public comment. anyone wish to comment on item number 1?
5:11 pm
okay. >> hello i am here to support i am laura and here to support the update to the environment code. san francisco is an early adopter of buildings and lead the country towards innovative green buildings and the private sector to follow. it's gone on to be a success around the world and we can pride in that and this update includes important true ups to stay current and continue to lead in this area. the gold standards for green building have evolved so we need to keep up and pushing the envelope and san francisco wants to be a leader in this area and we can do so with some of the amendments in the ordinance. finally we're especially pleased to support some of the key pieces that director raphael
5:12 pm
mentioned at the end, the idea of making the buildings zero net energy which is a staple that the state doesn't fully know how to execute so we can show how to do in san francisco, doing on of sight battery storage and paired with renewable energy is important as our energy system becomes more renewable we have to figure out to keep the electrons we generate into sun and something we recommended in a report at spur worked on over the last two years that being load at what the bay area and what cities in the area can do to help advance a fossil free region especially recommended this idea be pursued so to see it incorporated into the municipal green building is a great idea as well as we're happy to see the ordinance include the requirement to implement the better roofs ordinance which we worked hard on over the years and pleased to see and incorporated into the
5:13 pm
sites such as the public safety building so in short we're in favor of the update and look forward to it be implemented. thanks. >> thanks. i have two other speaker cards. [calling speaker names] so if year free feel free to come on up. >> good afternoon supervisors. rich berman part of san francisco and i am here to express my support of the revisions. the port has worked closely with the department of of the environment in carving out some of the revisionsa and they have been a fantastic partner not only in this but establishing city-wide goals and leaders for us in establishing our own climate action goals which are reflected in the port's strategic plan, and we're very appreciative of the ability to incorporate the especially 705 and 706 sections into the port building code. if there are questions about that i am
5:14 pm
happy to answer them. >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> good afternoon. my name is brendon mc haney and i am the director of the building councils northern california office and here to support the green buildings requirements for the municipal buildings and san francisco has been a lead on these issues and it ensures the leadership that these projects reduce environmental impacts. our lead rating system is the leading choice for environmental impacts and certifying the improvements made. while this standard has been voluntary adopted in the private sector and many are in the public sector and governments that saw the benefits of reduced energy bills and improving environmental conditions and healthier and more productive working spaces. local government leadership and raising the ceiling for performance has in turn raised
5:15 pm
the floor and advances in the building and environment code and for technology and market advances and the lead system is regularly updated and this would require lead verse four and the current version of best practice in building environmental performance. the state of california has expressed its intent that all buildings are zero net energy by 2030 and producing clean sources and take a step in that dreakz and mandating the standard consistent with the policy direction. with so much uncertainty at the federal level it's important to push for leadership on environmental cashes and thank the city and county of san francisco issue for the leadership and look forward to working with leaders and staff to make sure that municipal buildings meet a high level of performance. thank you. >> thank you very much. anyone else wish to comment on item number 1?
5:16 pm
>> yes. i am a neighborhood activist and here for the next item but i think at that point somewhere in our great bureaucracy and system somebody has to say something a little bit realistic about this building and what is going on with it and let's say we build a zero net energy building but all of the activity that go in and owl and embedded in an environment and economy that is 70% based on fossil fuel so we're increasing the fossil fuel -- you know, juice, you know and that's the shortcoming of -- it's not beautiful in other words. it has a huge wart on it. >> thank you very much. anyone else wish to comment on item number 1? seeing none. public comment is now closed. [gavel] . colleagues any questions or comments? if not a motion to move this item forward. >> so moved. >> second. >> okay. motion by supervisor
5:17 pm
peskin with recommendation supervisor? >> yes, sir. >> if we could do that and second by supervisor tang. we will take that without objection. [gavel] madam clerk will you call item 2. >> item 2 is ordinance amending the planning code to allow amusement arcades south of market eastern neighborhood and mixed use district except in the residential enclave districts affirming the department's department. >> thank you. i am from the department. thank you members. last week we heard this item and asked for a continuance so the city attorney could prepare amendments spflg to allowing the arcade use or prohibited -- removing the prohibition of arcade use only in the soma light industrial district and we have revised legislation from the city attorney so we ask for your amendments to the original legislation that it only be
5:18 pm
limited to soma service light industrial and we have legislation. >> do you have copies? >> sorry. >> do you think maybe you could walk us through the amendments here can't vote on them until understanding what they are. >> yeah. originally the legislation had the arcades prohibition deleted in the south of market and mixed use district so all of the mixed use
5:19 pm
district and each -- eastern neighborhood but we prepared prohibition for the south of market service light industrial district and this is an amendment of the whole so it doesn't show the original place wrist it was originally allowed. >> okay. i have some cross outs and so forth. this is the amendment -- we can take this forward and move it forward today? okay. so just in the title as well as it looks like 17 and 18 on page two? >> correct. >> you have an extra period on page one at line 17. >> supervisor peskin attention
5:20 pm
to detail here. >> john gibner and there were sections not amended in the first ordinance and removed from this version all together some changes to zoning coal tables that no longer need to be changed because the ordinance is scaled back. >> okay. colleagues any questions, comments for the sponsor and team in. >> less is more. i am fine with these changes. >> okay. we will open up public comment then. thank you. [calling speaker names] if there is anybody else wish to speak please line up and do this for the next items as well. everyone has two minutes to speak if line up on the far wall. that would be great. >> good afternoon supervisors. i am president of the south of market business association. i remember as a kid i still loved to go to the local cafe in my town and play pin ball and not
5:21 pm
just games but meet people there and a fun time to have a friday evening or saturdays and so forth so it was a great time to spend with friends and so we feel it's the same thing now. we don't have the pin ball machines anymore. it's sort of more electronic and techy stuffs and i don't blame myself but it's great for the community and great for the young generation to come and spend time with friends and you know but also what it does is makes the area more vibrant and on top of that the city benefits because of the money that comes in from the folks that spend at these places that will have these entertainment -- what do you call it? arcades, amusement arcades, sorry, so i urge you to please support this. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> i was here lapt week and
5:22 pm
ask for your support and here again for that and piggyback on everything i said last week. you know this is a concept that is resurging in the country from new york to portland to southern california and it will be helpful to get it in our city now. thank you. >> thank you very much. anybody else wish to comment on item 2? okay. seeing none. public comment is now closed. [gavel] colleagues we have an amendment whole in front of us. >> i will make a motion to adopt the amendments discussed and send forward with positive recommendation to the full board. >> okay. motion by supervisor tang and second by supervisor peskin. madam clerk will you call items 3 and four together. >> item 3 is exempting requirements and authorizing land and on 180 jones street establishing the affordable housing fund and accepting a
5:23 pm
$2.7 million gift to the fund and approving the [inaudible] of conveyance of property and appropriate findings. >> okay. thank you very much. these items sponsored by supervisor kim. >> yes,. >> we will open it up to her to speak in the beginning. >> i know this committee heard this item last monday and just wanted to summarize the ordinances that are before us today. first of all i do want to recognize many of our community leaders and residents from the tenderloin and mid-market area that were part of working on negotiating the deal that is before us today with 950 market. the ordinance that is before us today was an outcome of discussions that the community had with the developer group out of concerns that below market rate units for ownership
5:24 pm
wouldn't be accessible to the vast majority of residents in the neighborhood. due to that they identified a site, one of the last developable vacant parcels in the tenderloin, 180 jones which is currently a parking lot and worked with the developer to purchase and acquire the site and dedicate the city to build at least 60 units of step up affordable housing for single occupancy residents and this is a huge housing issue here in san francisco. we have many residents that are long-term single room occupancy residents who are ready to move into step up housing, other affordable housing and freeing up their rooms for other individuals that are recently homeless as future housing for the formerly homeless in san francisco. this group worked close with the office to purchase the land and additional funds to build that 180 jones street. the primary
5:25 pm
project is important to the revitalization of the mid-market and the loin area. we proximate the value of the land purchase and contribution to the fund at approximately 25% of the on of site affordable housing obligation. i had mentioned last week at monday's land use committee when questions arose about the value of this deal that our office works very hard to push the envelope with all of the private developers to ensure that we're sharing in the value conterto land and building the maximum affordable housing possible but also we want to make sure we're consistent with our developments so we crafted this deal looking at a project that passed unanimously at this board of supervisors last may of 2016 which is the 1066 market cite and the parking lot and
5:26 pm
residents were concerned they weren't qualify for the below market rate units and residents asked that developer to acquire another parcel that is very meaningful to the tenderloin neighborhood, 101 hyde street which is currently the old post office building, previously one of the ways that the tenants received mail and communication, and to purchase that site from property owner that had entitle to build 100% market rate units and that land is dedicated to the city and they also dedicated an affordable housing gift to help jump start the predevelopment for that site so it will also be 100% affordable housing. on top of this because of some of the historic nature or the historic nature of the building in that it previously housed transgender, lesbian, gay and bisexual retail and
5:27 pm
environment sites. the compton's district historic district committee work with the developer to seed and grant a $300,000 fund dedicated to city to support webcor/obayashi tlgb. the money will. >> >> go towards the cultural heritage district in the tenderloin, create a transgender focus community in the tenderloin and want one or more transgender store fronts in the compton's this legislation codifies many of the components i talked and i want to recognize the audience that worked together with the developer and 950 coalition and the sro collaborative, market street for the masses, the compton coalition and city side and mayor's office of housing and community development and staff that are here today, our department much real estate, the planning department and o ewd
5:28 pm
staff and city attorney and our project sponsor and team for working so closely with our community. we do have updated numbers based on some of the questions and concerns that came up at land use committee today which i know committee members have, and i just received additional amendments that we do want to make to item number 4 that were result of discussion with mohcd to codify we intend for the affordable housing development to be offered to individuals and families with income of 40% ami or lower and intend the affordable housing at the site provide preference for tenants in city supported housing for at least three years and they haven't have all of the subsidy for the development on
5:29 pm
the site but do our best efforts to secure the gap funding so just to be clear because there were concerns about a gap in the affordable housing project and a gap for 101 hyde as well. while we pushed with both developers they were able to commitment to 25% off site which is greater what was previously gathered at 20% however it didn't cover the gap on both deals but we have an analysis that shows the gap for this project at 180 jones is lower than 101 hide which the board supported last year so with that these are the amendments that i am hoping the committee will make. i will make sure each of the committee members get a copy of these amendments during public comment, and if there are no further questions chair farrell i ask that we open up for public comment. >> thank you supervisor kim, so and thank you for those
5:30 pm
amendments and we will be taking care of them after public comment. you know last week at the hearing on this item and my colleagues on the committee would join me on this wasn't comfortable moving this ordinance forward with the information in front of us, and perhaps i am -- too used to be at budget committee and harvey rose is present presenting for the board of supervisors and last week there was a memo is that showed ordinance had a two and a half million dollars profit to the developer and just to be clear i'm not here to decide the profit for the developer but i am here to make sure that development deals made outside of a development process agreement are fully vetted. if we are exempting projects with the money it's important policy decision and i am glad to entertain those when we talk the community that came hoing in the neighborhood but
5:31 pm
i want to ke sure that the city gets an adee retu and the best deal possible and frankly the way we went about this we were holding housing hostage in the city and it's not the right approach. last week when i raised questions about the profit and the departments and the developer couldn't have agreement on the numbers so we didn't have the information in front of us and thanks to the mayor's office of housing and the developer and the planning for over the last week working with my office and i believe my colleagues as well to do a further dive on the analysis up to about an hour and a half ago i was on the phone running through excel sheet wts developer's finance team to unpack the data in front of us and reality is today or two months ago we have completely numbers from the city staff. i want to run through the numbers but quite frankly from a
5:32 pm
process perspective and from a land use committee perspective let alone the full board of supervisors' perspective that simply doesn't work, so going forward supervisor tang and i and the rest of my colleagues will join us and introduce legislation to make sure we have a full analysis of these projects done before they come to land use committee where there are numbers that our city departments will stand behind both at the time of production as well as two, three months down the road and to make sure that again if we do not have projects going through a full vetting of a development agreement that we make sure we have full information here at the land use committee before approving these projects so with that i know my colleagues actually have comments they want to make but after that i am going to be asking ms. kate hardly about the updated numbers and walk through that and ms. rogers from the planning department, additional items to add in and give you the
5:33 pm
opportunity to walk through the numbers as well so we will talk through the numbers and the differences from a few months ago but before they will turn it over to my colleagues and first supervisor peskin. >> thank you chair farrell and i want to echo the chairman's words as it relates to process but to put them in a little bit of context, and let me start by saying that over the last number of years the vast majority of residential development that has occurred in san francisco has occurred in district 6 in supervisor kim's district, and i am profoundly aware that supervisor kim has used her office and worked with various departments including but not limited to planning and the mayor's office of housing to push the envelope to make sure that the community is getting the most public benefit in the form of affordable housing that is possible, and in deed it is i think has been an example time
5:34 pm
and again when we were back in the dark days of 12% on site inclusionary where supervisor kim showed us in projects that the required development agreements or not we could provide housing for workers, for teachers and so i want to salute that. as to process and i am not patting myself on the back when i say this. there has been something lacking and to that end that was one of the reasons that the board -- albeit it did not pass forward to the full board with a positive forwarded to the department on housing and whether public or private deals could actually get that level of scrutiny. >> >> so that supervisor kim wouldn't be doing it all on her own as she was pushing the envelope to get us more affordable housing so i do conquer going forward and i hope
5:35 pm
this is meant in the spirit it is given that we will actually come together so that we make sure we're not leaving any money on the table, and the questions that i asked last week and some of my colleagues asked were really about whether or not there was money being left on the table. i conservation cur that develop -- concur that developers get into this to make money and it doesn't hurt my feelings when they do that and that's when developers do but it hurts my feelings so we could get more affordable housing or closing a project whether at 180 jones street or on market has the maximum feasible amount of affordable housing. we don't have a crisis in luxury units in san francisco. we have a crisis in low income and middle income units and i think that is what supervisor kim has been trying to solve for, so i hope that going forward the board can
5:36 pm
actually have a conversation so we don't have what we saw here last week and i mean no offense to the mayor's office of housing or planning but it was highly siloized and clearly not the level of communication and the numbers were clarified and a lot of that has been done in the intervening week and made me more comfortable but as the hearing going on we have questions about presumed interest rates and crystal bale things that we can ask but the lizon going forward we should have higher level of procedural oversight as the one off deals with created in the public interest. >> supervisor tang. >> thank you and i will just definitely echo what supervisor peskin and farrell said and of course i want to thank supervisor kim and her office for as supervisor peskin mentioned just always looking out for the district and make making sure we can get the best deal and we know she's a tough
5:37 pm
negotiator but i think what this committee was pointing to last week was not about this project on jones or market. it was about a larger idea of transparency and making sure there is information independently vetted whether by department or outside parties so really that's the point we were trying to get at but conceptually i can speak for the agreement that we know the -- committee and the agreement is the best for the neighborhood and i will leave it at that so we can move on with the hearing. thank you. >> okay. with that we have a number of speaker cards and but ask kate hardly to go through the letter with updated numbers and so we're clear on what the updates numbers do say. >> good afternoon. i would like to begin by saying that we agree. we have a process in place in the city to analyze
5:38 pm
transactions where there's some concessions or variations from the legislation for real estate and development agreement and the mayor's office of housing participates in the agreements regularly and scrutinized by the legislative and budget analyst office and we're more than happy to do that sort of work and we do think that it's a great way to make sure that each transaction that moves forward is maximizing affordable housing, offering a fair return to developers, but that we're very clear on what the numbers are, so -- >> before you go on i just want to say in the course of our discussions, our discussion and my discussions with other department heads over the past week since going through this rigamarole last week everyone is in agreement that we need a
5:39 pm
better process so i look forward getting that legislation through so the land use committee is dealing with facts when we have everything in front us and no one is pointing fingers and i think that's where we all want to be. >> sounds good to me. so i have copies of the letters i sent you via email this morning. i am happy to provide hard copies. you have them? okay. so essentially supervisor farrell you asked us to further investigation into the research that we did in december regarding 180 jones and 950 market. at the time we use the information we had to assess the terms of this transaction and whether it made sense. there were a lot of moving parts and we did the best we could with the information that we had. as you have described in december we found that the difference between the developer's surplus and that is -- you know, i use
5:40 pm
that in sort of not standard way because we don't have our -- we don't have information on the entirety of this transaction which includes a hotel but it looks like the developer had a benefit of 2.4 million if the developer provided funding to the off site versus just building on site inclusionary. the developer rebutted that assessment on december 15 and said a few really important things. one is that we were using sales cost inflation factor of 3.9% which was too aggressive given what the market did in 2016. also there were some policy questions about whether the developer should be exempt from the gray water system requirements as well as whether a fee applied for tdr
5:41 pm
transferrable development rights was appropriate and whether we should be looking at the developer getting a benefit by instead of all of the section 4 15 inclusionar y fees up front
5:42 pm
at first construction document which is is typical and required under this section instead deferring a portion of the fees, approximately 11 million, until temporary certificate of occupancy -- >> sorry. excuse me. supervisor peskin had a few questions. >> if you want to go through the numbers -- i just have questions of taking a snapshot in time for 2016 as compared to using a half decade worth of data and while the market may have flattened -- although it's kind of hard for us to believe given that we just got our six month report from the controller and 2016 had the highest ever in the history of the city and county collection of real estate transfer tax and we are way over on property tax, so intuitivity -- i don't know if this type of unit flattened a lot bit in 2016, but intuitively if the 3.9% number goes back to 2010 which was at that point we were coming out of the recession when nobody could get finance dispg what have it it seems a little dangerous to start using 1.2%. i'm happy to solve this in other ways conceptually and including but not limited to the return on investment and the exercise fundamentally is what is the difference of the 31 on site units and however many -- 60 to 88 off site units and if the
5:43 pm
developer is making more is something to think about but we're getting twice as many units. >> >> and there are lots of ways to skin it but i'm not sure if taking that number is the way to get there. >> well, it's a hard thing to argue. i think you could commission a full market study and come up with a number that is appropriate. the developer proposed 1.2% based upon -- and then provided market data from polaris that showed there was actual decline in sales prices in 2016 for the building type they're proposing to build. in addition, we looked at information from parra gone real estate group, trillia, other market watcher who is are consistently evaluating the data and they all confirmed there was for this building type especially one and two bedroom units a plateauing and even a
5:44 pm
sales price decline. in addition these reports are showing because of increased inventory there isn't so strong a market. now is 1.2 the right number? i cannot tell you and that is -- that's something that -- you know it's a prediction and it's something that you know deeper study could probably provide a better answer, but there's definitely contradictory data showing that you had ten, 15, 17 price appreciation between 2010 year over year and 2015 and the plateauing and then saw a drop in sales prices for this. will that continue? it's hard to say. >> well, i think ms. hardly to further supervisor peskin's comments though what we're being asked to approve though is literally putting our finger on a number and saying specifically that this is what we agree is
5:45 pm
the growth rate and the pricing increase for the next two and a half years, and so -- and we can talk about the merits and have further discussion about it. i for one i am mixed about that. one, i can't believe it on one side given what we have gone through in the city and talk about affordability issues. however, given the amount of meaning on line, given supply demand i am excited if that is the truth, but you know as we talk through -- as i work with the developer through the financial model and share with my colleagues on this committee it's a very big difference what the developer is getting and not if we agree 1.2% versus 2.4% and the developer.2% -- i am sure you will run through it if we are the you speak they're losing a few hundred thousand dollars on this because of this ordinance, but if we actually
5:46 pm
think it's 2.4% doubling sounds like a lot but in the grand scheme of things and housing is projecting that much in the city of san francisco and project it out and many before would have said it's true and then at 2.4% they're getting a benefit of $500,000 and that's my point last week. i don't want to grant legislation and giving them hundreds of thousands of dollars and the additional benefits. let's get creative but make it cost neutral for the developer so i think while it's difficult the point is though today we're having to decide what that point in the sand is so that's why i think this discussion is going to be an interesting one. >> well, i think there are ways to address that. we can commission a better market study then just sort of cursory review
5:47 pm
of the materials and i think it's important to look at the entirety of the transactions, so they originally came forward in support of this because we were acknowledging the community's desire to have the 68 units built at a lower affordability rate than 31 condos on site. granted we wanted to make sure there was no additional benefit related to the developer in that that was adverse to affordable housing so a lot of turns on the inflation rate which we have to make a guess on. even a full market study we will make a guess. in addition since the time that we did our additional analysis in december the developer provided another million dollars in gift funds beyond the 2 million they previously committed to and there are the questions of the
5:48 pm
applicability of a tdr amendment as well as whether we should be looking at the delay and the payment at tco between first construction documents and tco as something that needs to be applied against the developer's contribution, so when you put all those together with the projected sales prices that's really the analysis that we need to consider, and as we said in our last letter to you if you assume a 1.2 inflation rate then it's about break even between on site and off site, but if you say -- if you decide as policy makers that the benefit that -- there really shouldn't be a benefit conferred or a benefit
5:49 pm
applied to the developer because they're not paying their fee right at first construction documents as is typical in a section 4 15 in lieu payment. then they're actually spending approximately 1.8 million more to do the off site development. now, if you say 1.2% inflation on the condos sales prices is too low and go to 2.4 then you would have a different outcome and we're more than happy to continue this analysis and give a variety of scenarios that bring in all of those elements, but there are some policy questions that have to be determined as part of that. >> okay. do you want to run through your analysis and just the comparison because i think it's helpful for everybody. >> so when we went back we took the data that we saw on the marketplace also with the
5:50 pm
developer claimed that we were too aggressive in the price inflation and revised the market rate they're projecting. we also failed to account for financial carrying costs for the developer from tco to the point where the sales was completed. we didn't have an absorption rate or the cost of funds were at that time. we now know what it is and so they're actually going to have to spend about $800,000 in interest in order to borrow the money to make the section 4 15 payment. we kept the gray water system credit and the tdr credit the same but now that we know what their money costs we also gave them an additional -- we also applied an additional benefit to them for not having to pay their fee at
5:51 pm
first construction documents. they increased their gift to the city by a million dollars since the first analysis, and as you add and subtract all the credits and debits it came out to about a $260,000 loss to the developer if they provided money for inclusionary development at 180 jones street. again there are some policy questions here that should inform that analysis about the tdr, about the requirement to pay the fee at first construction versus tco, and about gray water, and we tried to lay those out for you in the letter, and that is where we landed. >> okay. thank you ms. hardly. colleagues if no other questions we have
5:52 pm
planning planning. >> i'm sorry. i wanted to say one thing. we have staff here that has information about these issues. >> maybe this is for planning and my understanding along the way the job linkage fee was calculated originally at 1.4 million and subsequently $400,000. what is the behind the scene story on that. >> good afternoon. i have some of the behind the scene story but supervisor kim knows more than i do. the ordinance introduced included a original job link am fee and a guess on the fee and shows how complicated to figure out the real value a deal such as this because that's the straight fee and the drafter of the ordinance didn't require when we would assess the fee we would give
5:53 pm
credit for existing office use that need to pay the fee so in this case the existing use on the site would credit the developer for a .9 million credit so due $.9 million in actual job linkage fee. so they got a credit for on site use so you have to pay for the impact of the higher intensity use but if you have already that use on the site you don't have to pay because you're not increasing the intensity. you only pay for the amount you're increasing the intensity. >> so the final job link an number was? >> .9 million. >> [inaudible] [off mic] >> thank you to the experts in the audience. >> so it went .08 to $400,000. >> because of the credits.
5:54 pm
>> i like the other number better. >> sorry. >> supervisor kim. >> just to talk about the amendments we made to the ordinance. the originally ordinance was for 18.8 million and this was under the assumption that the linkage fee was that amount and however through extensive conversations with the developer knows there is a gap on the jones site the developer and i worked out a deal and despite the reduction she's stay paying off -- well, we're waiving the job link an fee and instead of the reduction it's $700,000 reduction so she wanted to make sure there was a gift above what is required and that is codified in the ordinance that is before us today. just a couple of things though. i just want to concur with the land use committee. i would love for there to be a consistent assessment of all of
5:55 pm
the land use development deals. it has been incredible work for my staff and office that feel that the vast majority of the developments in the city to make sure we're getting a fair deal for the city and making sure we're building as much as affordable housing as well as contributions to arts and open space and pedestrian safety and the whole multitude of things we care about when building healthy and complete neighborhoods with the vast amount of development, but you know we do have to run our own numbers and we depend on a lot of community members through the affordable housing developers to help us with numbers to make sure we're getting a fair deal so it makes sense for the city to provide that. the mayor's office of housing has been helpful and olson lee and kate hardly are always working with the office
5:56 pm
for the best numbers possible and we support that but i want to emphasize the 180 jones and market deal structured in a deal that we did a year ago a block away on market so we did a cost comparison between those two developments to make sure that while we're getting the most we could we're treating developers as fairly ooze possible, and not asking one to do more than the other, and so very similarly 1066 market, the market rate units and both of these projects are out at 25% and 101 hyde and the units there and on jones 60 units and i know there were concerns about the gap. the gap on hyde is -- and so because
5:57 pm
for a number of reasons we were able to crush the dollars more and offer the land cost more in 180 jones street than 101 hide but if we have concerns about the payment of first construction document and we didn't because we know it would take several years to build on jones and the timeliness of the payment wasn't as important to us but if we talk about the value of that this committee and board didn't question us when in the 1066 market deal we let them make the affordable housing gift as an exempt contribution to a foundation so they actually got tax ex contribution and by giving to the san francisco foundation so there is a tremendous value to that as well
5:58 pm
and this board didn't question that value we gave to the shorren steinos 1066 market so obviously there's a lot of deals. they're apples and oranges. this is for ownership and hotel. sen 66 market was all rentals and we do the best we can to have consistent housing deals before the land use committee but i agree it would be great to have an independent analysis from the city to make sure we're running the best deal possible. >> ms. rogers, can i invite you back up? i believe you were going to go through additional numbers. >> yeah, there were two other numbers that planning staff was responsible if you but i would like to support the idea of forwarding additional fiscal vetting support changes by the development agreement have such a process and the staff and commission would support such fiscal analysis by tree experts
5:59 pm
just as this body has concerned today staff and the planning commission has concerns when the ordinance was before them but we didn't have the tools to fully vet this from a fiscal perspective so we appreciate the board's interest in doing so. the other two fees i wanted to talk about besides the job linkage fee citizen gray water fee and use the numbers from the developer and the intervening woke the puc tested the numbers and concluded those are appropriate. however, planning staff does continue to differ from the project sponsor where they should be subject to that requirement at all, and as i said last week it is our opinion that the project sponsor couldn't have received the entitlements before the date and it's a policy decision before the board to waive it and secondly on the costs. last week we estimated of $25 a square foot and compared to
6:00 pm
recent sales and with research we found it's a set rate required by board resolution by specific purchase for the site. >> thank you ms. rogers. >> thank you. >> and again in terms of all the analysis we looked through in the past week i concur and thank puc for weighing in on the gray water analysis and planning and talking about tdrs and the caring cost questions and the biggest question whether we agree as a board and i am supportive -- i have a amendment to make sure that we do, a 1.2% growth rate over the next two years. i think that is subject to debate and so forth and i think we can have that discussion. colleagues if no other questions right now for staff i think we do have a lot of public speaking cards here so i would like to go through them if open for everybody else. all right. with that we will open up public comment. i will read
6:01 pm
your name off. please line up and everyone has two minutes. [calling speaker names] and i got some more here as well. >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is rob peal and the development and communications manager with the housing coalition. i hope you had a great weekend. 950 market hab through the journey and came to us in july 2014 so two and a half years ago and my goodness a lot has happened that time. at that time it was a sud. it was clear that the project sponsor [inaudible] deliver in this case the arts committee. that
6:02 pm
didn't work out and went to [inaudible] project and a year later saw it again and now in early 2017 with what we feel say terrific proposal and maximize the amount of permanent affordable housing it can deliver. we think this solution introduced by supervisor kim is very sensible. a lot of decisions on the project were made jeerg. it's hard to predict where things go but this is a smart proposal and it's good today and we hope to move it forward. thank you for your time. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> hello. i am helen beam representing the tenderloin equitable project development and we're here to support the 180 jones street ordinance because of the benefit its provides to the tenderloin residents and community. basically we believe that this
6:03 pm
ordinance is preferable to building on site affordable units and doubles the number of affordable housing that would be built and provides the units at a deeper level of affordability and includes the step up units available to sro tenants in city supported housing and free up their units for other homeless units needing a home and so for these reasons we believe that the 180 jones street ordinance best serves tenderloin residents and we request that the committee move this item to the full board. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> hello. my name is josephine rivero and i live across the 550 market project since 1990. i have worked as a hotel housekeeper on the marriott for 16 years and a union representative here. i
6:04 pm
am representing the civic center -- [inaudible] park center -- [inaudible] and chancellor. i had housekeeping jobs with the union and without a union contract. i can tell you how much better it's for the hotel employees to have the union. the wages are better. we have job security and protection and we get health care and pension when we retire. the developers of 950 market have signed an agreement that will allow workers at the hotel to organize a union without fear of retaliation. this will be -- this will provide good living wages, jobs that will benefit this neighborhood and also today i am asking you to approve this motion for 180 jones which is an important part of this project. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker
6:05 pm
please. >> good afternoon. cynthia gomez at the hotel union. as you heard the project sponsors signed an agreement that will protect workers right to form a union without form of retaliation which is increasingly important and signed in december 2015 and so the hotel jobs will certainly be the kind we need more of in san francisco in terms of living wages and protection and benefits. we have members who live in the tenderloin and depend on sro and affordable housing so any project that will expand affordable housing options is certainly one we support. in this case we as i said the project has benefits and workforce training as apable way to good jobs and 80 jones -- the ordinance is something we're definitely urging you to support. don't allow for the community benefits and housing
6:06 pm
and the prospect of living wage jobs to be further delayed. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> >> >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is curtis bradford and president of the east tenderloin residents association and the and the coalition that negotiated the benefits as part of the thing and also here as one of the members of the tenderloin people's congress and i would like to say i am here today to speak in strong support of the 180 jones street. worked on this deal a year and a half and negotiated by members in the tenderloin and residents like myself and sat down with the developer in robust negotiations to reach this agreement and an unprecedented the opportunity to support this resident driven process that created this. this is what the rose dents wantd
6:07 pm
and they asked for the development and negotiate thursday development and it's just part of a whole package of benefits that were negotiated for the tenderloin including a rent free space at tark and taylor and for the employment program and part of a larger package negotiated by the residents. i was one of those people and i would really expect that our board of supervisors would support this resident driven initiative. frankly we're talking about a few dollars here and the dollars even out, $100,000 more or $200,000 this way? how do you measure the benefit of building affordable housing in a site in the tenderloin that wouldn't be built? we want this housing. we need this housing. we want your support. >> thank you. next speaker please.
6:08 pm
>> hello. i am jesse johnson and reiterate what curtis said today. the 180 jones street is important. it's crucial to the future of working class and low income people in the tenderloin and equally important the process by which the decision was made. this entailed months of negotiation between the coalition and the group and hours of conversation within the community. we covered a whole range of issues from strategies for our survival perhaps collective vision of our future, accountability, representation, transparency, all these issues were an important part of that discussion. i know in the past two too often decisions of this magnitude have been made by political players or gate keepers and this time was different and had empowered residents and please support that. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker please. >> hi supervisors. my name is eric and i'm a community
6:09 pm
organizer in the tenderloin and member of the tenderloin congress. support the 180 jones street project. we have a state of the art agreement and standard for developers in the future. this process took over a year and agreement that speaks to the need wants of the community. the land use committee and the board of supervisors should honor the desires of the residents and approve this project as originally negotiated. the opposition to this project is a cynical attempt by supervisor farrell to politicalize the project while appearing to be an advocate of affordable low income housing which has never been the case. don't play politics with our housing and benefits. thank you. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> mr. chair may i remind the members of the audience there are no audible expressions of support or opposition. if you would like to show your support
6:10 pm
you can use your spirit fingers. thank you. >> okay. thank you very much. next speaker and by the way as the next speaker comes up i will call up the next cards. [calling speaker names] >> thank you and good afternoon supervisors. my name is stephanie ashley. i'm the executive director of the st. james infirmary and here today as a member of the compton district coalition which is you know is a coalition of organizations serving and made up of the trans community in the tenderloin and the compton's coalition came together as just one section of a broad community effort to reach agreements around the 950 market street project and i am here to sept that section of the community and we encourage to you move
6:11 pm
forward with the 180 jones project and the agreement as it stands. supervisor kim's office did a phenomenal office bringing the community together with agreements that really benefits as much and the most needy sections of the tenderloin community and we're hopeful that 180 joans can move forward as quickly as possible. st. james infirmary and other coalitions and justice project are a block away from 950 market and we're invested in seeing the best outcome with the project and we believe that the 180 jones street in its current form is that version and we hope that you move the project forward with as little delay as possible. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon. i did not fill out a card. i am with land lease and general contractor on the project. we see it as positive plus -- can you hear
6:12 pm
me? it's a positive plus to the project itself, plus to the community itself. we would be providing publicly about 2,000 job in construction itself over a 20 month period for the construction. we work -- our company is well known for being safe. we're safety k. we will do everything we can to project the workers and the public itself and to maintain the necessary conditions that we neil best benefit both the people who live there and work at the site thank you. >> >> thank you. next speaker please. >> yes supervisors. randy shaw director of the tenderloin clinic. you see togetherness in the community and every labor developer on the same page and why the project needs to move out of committee today and i appreciate the comments before why this is a good deal and not clear to some of you last week
6:13 pm
and i want to calk you when you're in the numbers game to realize something very important here. the money spent on site condos was no benefit to the tenderloin resident, no benefit at all so the fact that you give certain benefit from doing on site condos that cost one thing and comparing to 40% median for affordable housing that do benefit tenderloin residents that's humongous. taking the condo money is like flushing it down the toilet for the tenderloin and no benefits and it is not simply a money game and in an article i wrote they had to get $18 million that supervisor kim arrange friday forest city to fut them in play. >> >> if we have a few new rule to have all of the money there won't be any
6:14 pm
development and the whether approved they're below budget because of the construction costs go up and we have to be careful about the money and not just the dollar amount but the value and in this case 180 jones is the best value for the city and the tenderloin. thank you. >> next speaker please. [applause] >> supervisors my name is ramone and i represent [inaudible] tndc has been part of this coalition for the community to create this deal for the community between group and support of 180 jones and have a process and respecting that process once it's allowed by the city, and we want to encourage communities to participate in their
6:15 pm
communities and so in effort to do that and support that we need to move forward with 180 jones street and because the community has put the work, has shown up to the meetings, has worked together, and i think this is a very good opportunity for the board to support a community that has shown up, worked hard, made a deal, and that shows -- that is something that's needed in our society, more people participating, more people taking an interest in the community, and i think participatory planning is important thing and we need to respect that. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker please. >> good afternoon. my name is [inaudible] and i am representing the compton coalition for the compton's cultural district for
6:16 pm
transgender people and as a team we're excited to see the formation of 180 jones and a team and implemented negotiation as innovative and tailor made to this region of the tenderloin and we're in full support. >> thank you very much. next speaker please. >> good afternoon. jamie mayer manager director of the theater and the non-profit space for the market development. the ordinance enabled project in farther costs more than the other option. in addition the developer is providing more than $5 million of community benefit package to ensure existing neighborhood residents participate in the benefits of the project. it's essential that the committee pass this ordinance to make much needed affordable housing to the neighborhood. the community made it very clear this is the affordable development solution it wants and needs and we believe the developer is paying more than their fair share.
6:17 pm
any delay causes harm to those in need of housing in the tenderloin. without passage of the ordinance our option is build the fireable units on site and fewer units on site. this is not a solution for the community. the neighborhood has waited long enough for jobs and how longing and programming for this site. we encourage you to support this ordinance today so that the project can move forward. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon. my name is donel boyd and i am here to support the 180 jones ordinance because it's a step up program and for me who just got housed it adds back to the natural flow of things from homelessness to the shelter to sros and then to an affordable apartment so i
6:18 pm
would like to endorse it, and i would like to ask supervisor farrell a question. he said in the beginning that we are holding housing hostage in san francisco, and we includes you; right? and i want to know -- and word "hostage" means you're holding something for something and what does it take to get housing flowing and housing it held hostage. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. before you go sir let me call the next cards up so they can come up. [calling speaker names] >> my name is steven ten us and a 30 year residents of the tenderloin and worked and volunteered with sro collaborative and i am -- or was a number of the 950 market
6:19 pm
street coalition. for a year and a half we worked hard. we worked long hours. we went to over a hundred meetings in that year and a half and we had a deal with group i. now i don't know what your motivations are mr. farrell but i think you really blew it on this one. we had an agreement with group i. it's not just about money. it's about step up housing and getting people off the street and into housing and people like me and in sros to get something than a sro. to delay this is unconscionable. you're doing nothing but harm with the delays. there is no reason for delays. there's an old saying if it ain't broke don't fix it. this ain't broke. everyone wants. why you don't i have no idea. please pass it. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker
6:20 pm
please. >> hello council people. i am reginald meadows from the tenderloin people of conquest. i want to first of all thank jane kim and her efforts she's putting forward to help the community and others to make it possible to have affordable housing down there, real ones that circumstances not the condos. it is important to note that what we are discussing is something already agreed upon by the [inaudible] and the developers. the agreement should stand as it is for the monies and programs already agreed upon there should be no need for further discussion. as those joined in and determination has agreed. if money was what they really needed more of they would have discussed it at the table, not
6:21 pm
with your help mr. farrell, so for mr. farrell we need -- not that you jump in at this time and make any changes period. let's turn this situation around. if we were sitting in your chair where you're at in your nice suits and your community. how would you like it and don't concern yourself with the deed of the people but the money you get in your pockets so we have to change all this now. [inaudible] because we voted you in so why don't you act like it and do your job correctly. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon committee members. i was part of the 950 coalition negotiating the community benefits agreement. it's great we're working on
6:22 pm
this this week. wednesday is the 100 anniversary by attempt of politician and church leaders to shut down the tenderloin and businesses and thousand people out of work and they thought they put a lid on the neighborhood for good but as you know the tenderloin is kicking 100 years later and coalitions like the one and members of the tlgb community and non-profit folks and others come together in the tenderloin and make our community thriving and arrangements to keep our neighborhood strong. what more could the land use committee want? we're coming with a deal worked with the supervisor and the developer and community groups and a deal that will have benefits to many sectors of the community. we believe fully because we vetted this project for months there is an overall fwf and here we hear nitpicking what percentage of growth we will see over the years so we can less what level of profit
6:23 pm
the developers will make. we're not interested in slowing down the project because if the developer loses money and we reviewed the programs and community groups in the tenderloin reviewed the benefits here. we're confident that the project should move forward and trust the neighborhood in what is best for the neighborhood. every question you're asking we have asked for ourselves. hundreds of developers met with community groups have not been value whd think going the overall benefits here. the de-escalation training they offered for all hotel workers to be trained in so they know how to deal with residents that hasn't been evaluated. the $300,000 of job training funds that hasn't been evaluated. there are benefits that haven't been considered in the amount of
6:24 pm
profits the developers stand to make and understand we went through a two year process and trust the numbers and the process and we ask you to move it out of committee with a recommendation and approved by the board of supervisors. thank you. let our residents step up in the step up housing. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> greetings supervisors, mark, aaron, jane, katie, daift elliott lewis i am have been part of the negotiation process with the developer for two years, part of 950 market street. i am implore you to look at the big picture. this project is entitled -- it's going forward. it's being built. ground will be broken soon so the question is do we build on site 31 units of condos for people that -- most people in the tenderloin could never afford or do we build twice as many units off site on 180
6:25 pm
jones street and half of ami and this is step up housing for people who live in sro rooms and i don't know if you spent a night in a sro room. i have. it's a small room with a bathroom down the hall and you don't get a kitchen. this is a chance for a life changing event for people who live in the tenderloin to step up their lives. again 950 market is going forward. it can go forward with off site housing or not and for you to argue about -- you know, potential rates of growth and profit, potential rates of growth and real estate prices which nobody has a crystal ball. let's face twe didn't know in early november 7 what would happen november 8 that we would have a maniac for president. we didn't know that. how could you know -- how could you know what is going to be the potential interest or growth rates next
6:26 pm
year or five years? and if you look at the construction gap of what is going to cost to build 180 jones street versus not it's much smaller than other gaps in the community. the community supports this. i implore you supervisors not to obstruct off site housing. 950 is being built. let's help the community. don't block us. support us. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> hi. my name is allen stewart and on the board for the magic theater and i just had three quick points. one is as a former business owner in the city i understand the need to look at numbers and the importance of numbers when you're building something but i heed the terrific community support that is out there for a project like this and just listening to what is going on here it seems like a no brainer
6:27 pm
to move forward so i sergeant urge in that regard. in regard to the the magic 38 who hopes to -- theater who hopes to occupy a space there and we represent who the city represents and we speak to the community and to the tenderloin community in particular and great to bring that voice to the space and the third point which has been said but is valuable and worth repeat suggest that the neighborhood has waited long enough for the jobs and housing and programming for this particular site and encourage to you support this ordinance today so that the project moves forward. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> hi. i am sonia fernandez and work if the 38 on
6:28 pm
market. i am surprised about the delay. maybe i don't know city government but as allen said this is a no brainer. it's my understanding as a resident of san francisco and the lack of affordable housing is the number one biggest problem in the city. through the 180 jones project group and adding the below market rate unit to the housing supply. this is affordable housing that the community needs and as you have heard asked for. delaying this housing hurts those in the tenderloin. as a personal note as a former renter and resident of the tenderloin and a person trying to stay in the city and raise a family in the city please take action and keep us as san francisco. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon. my name is adam and i'm a literary
6:29 pm
apprentice at magic theater and reading a statement on behalf of a trustee. "i am offering my support in the 180 jones street affordable housing ordinance. as a volunteer in the bay area and arts organizations in the bay area and 35 year resident i try to support these proposals and offers that we can bring a swift and impactful solution. housing is a completion issue and the full resolution is an iterative process instead of a master plan. my frustration is that many organizations search for complete solutions with difficult issues. from my perspective there is a real offer from group i with a meaningful solution and delivered quickly and a step in the right direction and support by the community and ask you to approve this ordinance. the key points that offer a swift solution is this housing ordinance would add up to 70
6:30 pm
below market rates to the housing supply more than double the units created on site. the off site housing was conceived and driven by the community from the start as the best way to serve the tenderloin's residents. to make this a reality group i is dedicated and purchasing the land on jones street and providing the payment and gift for the construction of this affordable development. these numbers are based on an equivalency study conducted by [inaudible] consulting hired by [inaudible] to confirm there are no additional profits to group i besides building on site and the project costs more than the bmr project option and developer is providing $5 million community benefit package to ensure existing residents participate in the benefits of the project. please approve the 180 jones street affordable housing ordinance. thank you. >> thank you very much. next
6:31 pm
speaker please. >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is gail seagraves and work at city central sro collaborative as a tenant objectioner here in the tenderloin. i am here in support of 180 jones. on a personal note i have been in an sro for eight years, not because i want to but that's all i can afford. this gives me and other long-term residents an opportunity to have hope to actually move into a place with a kitchen and a bathroom. that happens to be very important. and i just urge you to please trust us, the community. this is a good project. we worked hard. trust the community and pass this please. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please mam, before you speak i have three last cards and i will call them up. [calling speaker names]
6:32 pm
>> hi. i am felicia smith and a tenant ob at organizer at the hotel. i went through a bad dedivorce after 25 years of marriage and unexpected. i was told i had two weeks to get out of the house they lived in for 27 years. i didn't know the laws. i left. i slept on a park bench for two months and a broken down pickup truck. a police officer that would come and check on me when i was sleeping in the park told me about 311 which got me into an sro. i was very grateful, but i have two kids. too many riewps and regulations. i can't have my kids with me at the sro. a step up program would be perfect. i could have
6:33 pm
somewhat of a normal life again. i was so depressed and desspondant until i heard about 180 jones and other projects like this and it gave me a sense of hope. it gave me hope that maybe i will be okay one day, so please don't delay this anymore. we need it. i need my kids. [applause] >> thank you. next speaker please. >> my name is otto dusty and i speak to speak last and i like to hear what people say and the discussion here and i appreciate it and i find my own thoughts about things improved or changing by that. i would say that i agree that the focus of
6:34 pm
this on a slightly lower income of people, working group, not the lowest income by far but lower group will work out much better for the loin. i don't know if there is more money on the table or not and maybe unless you carefully put that money in a good direction i don't know -- even if we get more money it will improve the project any. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> hello. my name is jawlian dash owner of holy stitch and seat two for the mid-market district. i am in full support of the ordinance. i think it goes without saying and everyone saying we need housing. the community asked for this, desires this. knowing everything that is based on a relationship and people to people basis when it boils down to things my perspective and
6:35 pm
sentiment and knowing joy and business owners and the community -- me myself cell clothing and art and i have relationships with many of them and support of joy and what we would do and the ethos of the community and not just as buy in in and not facetious but another level. i lost housing. i was living in the tenderloin and having a family and business that i rely on my art i see full sierk circle. the saw the project and youth for the factory and because of the disparity of housing being in the community of the tenderloin, being a business owner, relying on my hands for my survival and family i see the necessity of the project to get done as soon as possible. my business is across
6:36 pm
the street from the 950 project and i see the ins and outs of it and again i am in full support of it in anyway. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> hello. my name is windy. i am speaking today as a member of the public. i would like this project to go forward without any further delay. very few affordable housing units are built under 55% of area median income which translate to approximately $41,000 a year. okay. people are fixed income generally pop out at $18,000 a year. that is not even enough.
6:37 pm
there's no housing being built on that lower end. any delay is going to add costs, both time and financial. i don't understand why there is such a high level of scrutiny on this project. if you want something to scrutinize okay balboa reservoir for instance, okay. the numbers are 18% for those making less than $41,000 a year. that's 55% of area median income. 15% of those units for people making $90,000 a year or
6:38 pm
120% of air median income and then $113,000 or -- 150% of area median income. 17% of the housing is there. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon. my name is judy young and i'm the director of the vietnamese youth development center and edie and mason in the heart of the tenderloin i am hear to support group i and have been working with us for three years and truly understand the needs of the asian community in the tenderloin. there's over 30,000 families and young people and single residents that live in the neighborhood and we want to make sure that their jobs and housing for the community as well so our center works
6:39 pm
primarily with immigrant youth and families. we urge you to pass this ordinance today so our youth and young adults and families will benefit from the purchase. our clients will get jobs on site and our families and most in need of housing will benefit from the 80 jones site. now more than every the community needs housing and jobs and imperative that you move forward the ordinance as soon as possible. i'm here to support the movement of the ordinance. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please as we're getting to the end of the line if there is anybody else to speak on public comment please line up on the far side. >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is [inaudible] i'm a field representative with the carp enter's union and we're here to support this project at fine 50 market
6:40 pm
street, -- 950 market street and on jones. it will bring the affordable housing that is much needed to the residents of the tenderloin and create jobs, avenues of opportunity for apprenticeship and journey men alike and we urge you to move this project forward and build it right. >> thank you very much. next speaker please. [applause] >> good afternoon. my name is brenda washington. i reside in the sro hotel and there over eight years but lived in the tenderloin for 20. i have seen the good and bad and up things and the down things, but what would let me down is not passing the 180 jones street initiative for step you up housing. i'm a two time cancer survivearer. every day my health is worse
6:41 pm
than the day before and i don't want to wear a diaper because i can't make it to the bathroom not having my own bathroom. i don't want to get infections because of people's handling of food. i want to fix my food. i have no where to do that so i am asking you and i am praying that this project passes and i am one of the residents that gets to live in there or even just seeing it before i leave this world would mean a lot to me. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> thank you supervisors. steve on behalf of group i the project sponsor. you heard discussion about the rest of the community benefits package that we negotiated with the community and i wanted to through those. this is in addition to fees and the transit fee and other fees, the child care fees as well as in addition to the affordable housing discussion we were having today. this package is worth about $5 million of
6:42 pm
additional voluntary contributions from group i. it includes free art space, 2000 free rent space. the magic theater will have a lab and training for the community. it includes $350,000 in de-escalation training, public space and safety training for employees and hotel guests. it includes $350,000 in construction mitigation impacts for low income residents living immediately adjacent to the site. it includes three $300,000 in workforce development housing and $75,000 for lgbt interpretive program and agreement with local two. not including that neutrality agreement is not monetizeed in this discussion so all together it's $5 million. in addition to the $3 million gift the group i
6:43 pm
is providing under the 180 jones ordinance. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker please. >> hi. dan jordan. i'm with the central city sro collaborative. i am in support of the 180 jones project and needs to be built. people are low income will be able to afford that whereas with the 950 market even the upper middle class people can't afford that not going at $2,000 a month or more. people are social security we get maybe a thousand dollars a month give or take and for a person who has only about two units of low income housing to be built in his district supervisor farrell i think that's pretty pathetic. thank you.
6:44 pm
[applause] >> thank you. next speaker please. and any other members of the public to comment on items 3 or four? >> okay. seeing none. public comment is now closed. [gavel] supervisor kim. >> thank you. i do believe that the land use committee has copies of the amendments that i articulated earlier before public comment so it would be great to have a motion to amend the ordinance to include those amendments. second, i do want just to acknowledge the comments that steveetel made and there were in my talking points but i forgot to make them. outside the ordinance that is before us the community signed a community benefits agreement which makes the package larger than what is before the land use committee today. there is dedication to magic theater in the presidio and find a new space. they worked closely with the developer early on, i believe
6:45 pm
the beginning of last year for a ground floor art space there which will be a theater and add another theater to the mid-market corridor along kind of the historic nature of what market street has previously been with agreements that the theater would work with partnership of the youth and the arts organizations in the tenderloin to provide art performance space. of course there is several mitigations around the construction for the residents that live near by but also the $300,000 contribution for workforce development fund that will help train tenderloin residents to be employeda the hotel whether they finally open but finally something that could not be part of our negotiation but i want to thank the developer for agreeing to the card check with local two to ensure that the workers have an opportunity to unionize if they would like so, so again this is
6:46 pm
what is before the land use committee today and so committee i just ask for your support and again i just want to recognize and thank all of the members of the community for coming out today. it has been a very long process and just going back to the gray water exemption. normally it's something i wouldn't support but we have been talking to 950 market developer since 2013 on the project and so many changes as a city originally wanted this to be an arts sud and the developer worked with the community on a arts project that included hotel and residential, and then there's numerous design changes that happened over the summer. honestly we weren't expecting that the project wouldn't have site permits before november 2016 when the gray water ordinance took into effect and we felt it was fair because they had been in the pipeline for three years to give this exemption because of the length of time it took for them to get
6:47 pm
through the process, so again thank you to all of the members of the public for coming out. you reminded me how long the process was well and appreciate your patience and work and the last thing i would say we never had a project commit to step up affordable housing for single room occupancy tenants and this is really a historic accomplishment. this is something we sorely, sorely need and not only does it provide an opportunity for residents to is step up in the affordable housing unit but free up sing occupancy rooms in the future for those on the streets today so this is incredibly important. we need to expansion this portfolio and i know we had meetings about it but we need to make it happen and thank the developer for making that real. thank you. >> thank you. so colleagues we have more comments but a set of amendments from supervisor peskin and working with the
6:48 pm
mayor's office of housing and community development. can i a motion to accept the amendments? >> those are amendment frs item 4? >> correct. >> yes, i am happy to move the amendments. >> second. >> moved and seconded. we will take those without objection. [gavel] and colleagues i will say and to supervisor kim and my committee i want to thank everybody for the time over the past week to be be able to review the analysis. thank our city departments for coming together dwelz the developer. what is different about this project we have a baseline project but an ordinance in front of us that is creating certain exemptions and bestowing benefits and to the community and the unions and thank you for coming out and speaking with the representative last week thank you for doing that. that means a lot to the committee and myself but when we have a project like this in front of us and a law a
6:49 pm
separate law that creates certain exemptions i believe it's our duty at the board of supervisors and the land use committee to make sure that the city getting the best deal possible. i don't back down for a second demanding that we have a robust analysis of every deal that comes in front of us. it's not the business of the city of san francisco to be in a position not knowing whether we're getting benefits or fleeceed in a deal and we need to do that every time in land use and we will do that going forward and that's why i am more than anything aside from seeing all the units being built excited about the process because because now we will have legislation going forward supported by the city departments and everybody was frustrated how the process moved forward in the last months to make sure we have the analysis done and with that analysis being done, with the developer spending the time going forward with that i am very much
6:50 pm
prepared to support this project as it is and i think that we need it to continue to look hard at these development projects, and again make sure that the city gets the best deal possible building more affordable housing absolutely and making sure that everything we do is on a net basis to the developer and see it come forward and let's build it now. i know it's a long time coming and held up at planning for various reasons and six months last year and legislation to carry it forward. one week is a blip on the radar screen to make sure this committee and the full board of supervisors is able to do the right analysis going forward so with that again thank you to everyone. thank you to the committee members and thank you to supervisor kim and congratulations to advance and i am prepared to support this as is. [applause] . supervisor peskin.
6:51 pm
>> thank you chair farrell. i thought the intervening week was helpful to ask questions of staff and i want want to thank and welcome the comments of supervisor kim just relative to process moving forward and reiterate my earlier comments, and then -- not to beat a dead horse but i do want to say and i am fine with the arrangement how the tdrs are but to staff i want to say having looked at resolution 16 14 it does not create a price of $25. it is a resolution and i am just saying this to staff because i want to say it on the record that was aimed at the board several years ago selling off tdrs off of municipal buildings that didn't previously have them including city hall and established a base minimum price of $25. it was not a ceiling. the legislation that is sitting in front of me
6:52 pm
is very clear and by the way there's a study, libby stifle cited with this project and shows sales as high as $37.50 and want that on the record and with that i am happy to vote for the please call the next item three and four as amended. >> supervisor tang. >> i want to ditto comments made earlier as well. i think that seeing what has transpired this week could have been frustrating for you and i understand that but just the information that has come to light really heights something that we want to work on together moving forward long-term for broader policies around the arrangements so with that i am happy to support these two items moving forward to the full board. i don't know if there was a motion made or if i should make the motion.
6:53 pm
>> go for it. >> i will make a motion for items 3 and four as recommended with amendments. >> motion and a second. we will move that to the full board. madam clerk does that conclude our business? >> that is the end of business. >> thank you everyone. we are adjourned. [gavel] happen. >> (clapping.) >> thank you all for coming my name is rich gross the chair of board of the san francisco
6:54 pm
housing accelerate fund and also the vice president for the community partners enterprise is a national nonprofit work in affordable housing throughout the country we are proud to have worked on hope sf the rad conversion of public housing a small site and invests over $400 million in affordable housing throughout san francisco enterprise works nat i, easily say that san francisco under the leadership of mayor ed lee mass the most robust affordable housing program in the country san francisco committed to producing new affordable housing and preserving the existing affordable housing and protecting residents in their units they've also nurtured affordable housing developers for decades in order to have them available to do affordable housing and in
6:55 pm
fact, we have the most sophisticated developers in the country as well the san francisco housing accelerate fund is one new piece to fill a gap in this housing market on steward a tool to add quickly to buy properties vacant and existing property and a key to our investment we are proud to have worked with the city and mayor ed lee to a candidate this and proud to kickoff today and please welcome mayor ed lee. >> (clapping.) >> thank you rich and thank you to you and to all of our partners that are standing with us today and i just, i just spent the last 40 minutes with supervisor safai
6:56 pm
and he's burned my area yet again we've not done enough in workforce housing, housing housing in san francisco i'm here in the midst of many of our affordable housing developers cbo developers we've got to get to work and need more fund and support and certainly need more collaboration and so rich said easily we're talking today about the launch of the housing accelerate fund that's a lot of words so i'll breakdown first, the word housing it is more than a commitment it is something that i cared about my whole life being in san francisco and as an advocate so for a low income resident i wanted to do more and have the opportunity the fortunate opportunity to command more things to happen
6:57 pm
but can't command hours to just appear we have to preserve it we have to rehab we have to build it i do know one the strongest stories in the housing is the collaboration that we have with community-based organizations they have been there their commitment was there i used to get all my clients for the low income development community they were the ones we're representing that were struggling in this expensive city so the backdrop is we don't have enough housing have not built the rehab that's why we have a housing crisis very simple how do do get there well then you get into a lot more technical financially related terms and collaborations with other than advocates but i want to begin by saying
6:58 pm
thank you, thank you, thank you to groups like mission confirmation development association and chinatown community, demonstration corporation our land trust our housing corporation and mission housing corporation our tenderloin housing corporation our c hd and mercies and all so many others have been working with that community-based organizations who spent career after career trying to figure out how to build and rehab affordable housing i've got other in some way linked to my public housing now in the community struggling to get their own fund and struggling to make sure they're managing those places well and working with the city to assure and guarantee for the future all this housing can be built and the rehabbed and
6:59 pm
sustained accelerator wow. that's a big word but represents something that all of us believe in it is taken us too long why ways b.a. because we have a lot of rules to go through every site we have there is 10 others competing to buy that site they have resources they're going to again even though it faster we're slower in building more affordable housing we don't control the land and when we do we have to talk with 5 entities and agencies to put together the best deal; right? you know that your deal experts your deal experts having to go to a many agencies whether a city or state or federal government and all of this and the private sector so i think we're using
7:00 pm
the word accelerator we have not be able to accelerate now we need to accelerate because is getting more challenging when you have money nets private sector that abundant enough such that on a site we building should be used for affordability now has over priced speculative pricing people buying it for other things if we're not there that site is gone more dangerly small sites where it is housing that is affordable for people and entities are buying them up for other reasons obviously we have story after story about that we have to accelerate our ability to do this better and finally the word fund you, you know two years ago when
7:01 pm
i announced that we would start something that will be more alcoholic with our financial institutions our philanthropic world and our community development world i meant to say we'll take a little bit of time it has taken us a couple of years to throne how to do this best and found some terrific clorox collaboration so the word fund it is single word but k34r5ik9 word when we talk about even though funding because it is not just cash out of a general fund we don't have enough we have so many other needs in the city have to think creatively when it comes to accelerating housing in the city to today's fund is a new tool we're creating it is a funding tool
7:02 pm
72 hours a tool that kind of got us together with financial institutions like citibank and chase and outside the working with community-based organizations that were figure outing funding or affordable housing and what once we put that together the city kicked off by saying we can put in about $10 million into this but that is not $10 million of cash so supervisor you don't have to burn my area we're not using cash it's what we we call dent finance those in the world know when debt financing it is a tool a financial tool but we're able then to use this to attract money from foundations and i think to the tune of another 13 or almost 13
7:03 pm
are $14 million and we're to raise the rest so hopefully in the first year we'll accomplish a goal of $50 million with the public and private sector again not about cash we're not giving anything we're creating a financial tool that's why that is a little bit more and more complablth i wanted to explain that to you i'm proud of creating of everyone that came together this is not easy work how can we help our efforts and people in a way from the circles of expertise i want to thank our startup funder it is kind of like being a staurpt in you believe in the idea and it is attractive enough you're helping the right people folks are saying i'm not sure what you're doing but i want to be part that
7:04 pm
have staurpt funding and so i want to name a few they include for example, dignity health, the san francisco foundation, city community development and the h lit foundation and bank of america and silicon valley foundation all also grant funder for this initial funding so in other words, people believe in accelerating affordable housing in the city that they're willing to create a new tool that would help us be able to compete with the purely private sector that is impacting our ability to buy down land that can be used more affordable housing and to preserve affordable housing for people living there like what we're doing in the small site program so i want to say thank you to them for their initial good hit on this i'm also taking the opportunity to call out this is where my
7:05 pm
biggest role is there is room to grow the fund just because we have $50 million we need a few hundred million dollars because the land values in the city have so vast all over the place our willingness to want to get those sites out the supervisor came in the city and have a vacancy in her district it is up for sale they're selling it for $24 million who will buy it i don't have $24 million i don't know if you have that we need creative ways that site maybe good more affordable housing in the city to be in the smack middle of the battleground of housing could potentially be beneficiary of this kind funds i know your friends in the mission
7:06 pm
i i've had a chance to work with meta they know how valuable and we but that in $50 million that has gown occupy we're putting that money together to go to work trying to build and fast and have new partnerships a new tool the housing accelerate fund and again, i want to say thank you to people in the city the people in the nonprofits seesht, the housing development our developer community and today a particular thanks to all the financial institutions that know this stuff backwards and forwards depended upon their time to educate us about how the fund can be set up and make our city that much more smart you know if you - from the city
7:07 pm
has to do affordable housing by itself we're fail i admit that i admitted that two years ago we need other tools to make our city smart and this very challenging way and now in other words, to be smart you have to be open to the great new relationships i'm so lucky and thankful for all the groups that step forward to help to create this new fund i hope i caught you in the accelerate fund will do thank you very much. >> (clapping.) >> thank you, mayor ed lee and the leverage that the city created with the he $10 million investment is critical to the process i want to currently you, you to understand the leverage i want to introduce bob who was a global director of city community capital and want to see he's representing the group
7:08 pm
many are up here the city is active in affordable housing throughout the country we know that is as an enterprise point of view but i'm sure you know that but we taunted risk in san francisco and the bay area we're proud of the innovation and in this case, the capital will come in and willing to take a risk that is really, really important and unusual for a group to do that before bob comes up i want to thank vicky our personal hero in this process. >> (clapping.) >> so thank you thanks rich. >> thank you mayor ed lee yes i mean first thank you for tombed it was about two years ago with vicky we were
7:09 pm
introduced and an opportunity and it was mayor ed lee personally an advocate too to get this vehicle this unique fund set up mike and vicky we've seen the team go in early and looked at the gap in communities development i love the fact that rich and the mayor ed lee they're an angel investor that was about making investment as a team in the collaboration and a plan that really steady many of our preemptions so we came up from the beginning with a half million dollars of investment to get the fund started get it out of the ground we are my colleagues and city community capital with the largest not the
7:10 pm
largest bank in the united states but where we are and around the country that is really on area we focus and san francisco is just a model it is a model for us we repeat our spirits here from city to city i've been shouting this accelerate fund right from london with the mayor affordability in san francisco like london like boston it is a major issue the issue for workforce an issue for existing resident and for you and those would aspire to homeowners and affordable living i think the work of the city and bringing out the accelerate fund in collaboration with so many organizations is unique and i hope that model that the cities what emulate we look at san francisco and envy in the sense
7:11 pm
a wealthy city culturally and financially and in diversity in the community but it is an expensive city i think the leadership that the city of san francisco and the county a taking something we'll replicate throughout the country again my colleagues are looking at not only building new hours we are hooked on primarily when we preserve the housing we preserve the communities too and with meta and looking at the mission and preserving the mission as much of that community not just preserving the affordable housing but this is often integrated and this is an added value we think deserving of small business owners to the sustainability fee that many of the units have add ones that many of us can begin with so we say thank you to everyone that is here and thank
7:12 pm
you for inviting us we're an excited early investor i'll i'm going to turn it over to my colleague of the accelerate fund thank you. >> (clapping.) >> thanks bob thank you, mr. mayor and thank you to olsen and ruby and the amazing team that the mayor referenced and to rich and our board and a special thank you to the investors because of all of you we're here today posed to launch the accelerate fund with an initial launch amount of $50 million i say initial as the mayor said we're starting we need to grow that amount to one hundred million dollars and then $200 million this is the beginning and all of partners
7:13 pm
have really done over the last two years of work they've done the heavy lifting to get us here now it is on us we need to start the pulling capital yesterday to buy those sites to buy the building we need to be closing on loans tons of them and fast and we're ready to do it the reason we exist is to give affordable housing developers in san francisco which as rich said are the best in the country for resources and now resources for them to be competitive and sustain the housing market in san francisco and we're starting with setting the bar high over the next 5 years this is smlg something we'll be here forever in the first 5 years we want 15 hundred
7:14 pm
homeowners now households accelerated the prozac production and the preservation that's our goal and even when i say that we know that is not enough we have to do way more 15 hundred that a drop in the bucket and we with can't keep on losing buildings and affordability and our residents of san francisco with the support of our foundational funders and the future funder out there i'm talking to everyone, everyone will read about this we can and will do more with our continued leadership in the committees and the city and nonprofit and affordable housing partners we can hit the ball out of park with partners as the mayor mentioned with the chinatown meta and mission housing
7:15 pm
tndc, san francisco community laufd we will keep even more of our hard working san francisco residents in their home and keep san francisco as a place that your working families our health care workers, our teachers that people like those he we'll hear from can stay here and grow their families here and stay in the neighborhood to give you a sense of the caliber and commitment of the affordable housing partners i'm going to turn it over to carolina and what this crazy market is like she's the director of the ñ.fym?úíkb"]'ww!jç÷tr
7:16 pm
7:17 pm
7:18 pm
7:19 pm
7:20 pm
7:21 pm
7:22 pm
7:23 pm
7:24 pm
7:25 pm
7:26 pm
7:27 pm
7:28 pm
test. >> everybody i'd like to welcome everyone to the phone bank this is our at a of action for the affordable health care act the seiu we're
7:29 pm
the health care workers representing many workers and have a serious even if affordable health care act thank you for joining you guess i want to welcome a guest that's mayor ed lee good morning thanks for being here first of all, thank you. the united health care workers west for letting us join them in this multiple state call day for action to a safe our health care and recognize governor jerry brown from the board of supervisors who is someone that is well-informed about the issue having worked in and around health care for a good part of his life and we'll have i think some good to guess to share joined by department heads directly involved in the affordable health care act and our overflow room healthy san francisco and now, of course,
7:30 pm
our covered california for san francisco barbara garcia who is our head of our department of health and jerry mcfattening the department the of aging and joined by some very important partners in our on and on to make sure that everybody is health women's health and protected and immigrant health are outlined cost planted parent hood thank you and our communities consortium clinic consortium it here we're in a fight we're in a fight with the administration and congress over saving health care for millions of people and i'm here to express that san francisco wants to save health care for all people not just in san francisco but the entire state of california that has over 5
7:31 pm
million people enrolled in covered california and (2) 000-0000 people enrolled in the athens that president obama had started we should not repeal this law and this program without an adequate explanation and a replacement of the program because i'll tell you why we're lucky to be in california with so many people are health care coverage and earned it and worked hard i'm more lucky in to we had a human services health services agency as well as a public health agency worked as a team to enroll 93 thousand people into the mel program and therefore that's why we have one and 33 thousand people covered by covered california in the city really a hard to do this
7:32 pm
but a reflection the city's commitment we care about health we celebrated the year of rooster and if you alone carefully you didn't have to listen in marine and cantonese to understand that people said happy lauer new year's that is meaning it is so important to everybody you have good health to begin the year to be with your family and to be able to work and this is work we have been successful to enrolling people that is important i had an opportunity as part of action team to literally learn in detail what it takes for a city like ours to provide the health first of all, i began with the hsa and public health to look at we enroll people and thanked the team of people that were really the cause of being able in multiple languages in multiple
7:33 pm
locations that to enroll over 93 thousand people in the medical cannabis extension program if it wasn't for that team that will go agree competent and the cbo that result will not to have happened we were the best example of how the affordable health care would be successful i think the state of california is to be congratulated as well then i went on to one of our clients one the 12 to 14 cbo based clinics the max minute hall clinic with 4000 patients i went there i wanted to hear first-hand what it means to people before they have health cottage and now after i hear story after story here's the lesson i learned from the
7:34 pm
stories you know fear does a lot of things to you that's why i working hard to remove fear from people in san francisco one of the areas of fear is that if something happens to you whether a medical condition or otherwise people fear going to doctors and hospitals because they think they'll not be able to afford it prior to the ac a-1 medical episodes will literally put you in jeopardy of bankruptcy no standards and all of that got cleared up with the labor unions and the cbo clinics the system of care people didn't is to tear if what about enrolled and start not just responding to an episode but the more important things to have ongoing coverage to diabetes i've heard two stories about this afternoon or
7:35 pm
aneurysms that may not have caused dedicated but people to get checked out and treated and ongoing treatment with one treatment so those episodes in fact, they have an 11-year-old that was presented to me with 4 pages of petition signed and a cover letter that will break our heart she hoped she wrote about her brother how they needed this coverage in order to afford the medicine she doesn't want her brother without the coverage to a mother who wasn't there but she got treated and now she wasn't there are she's working i like it i had to hear the stories because prior to the coverage and someone's brother who doesn't b know about the
7:36 pm
affordable health care coverage those people would so been in complete economic and arithmetic devastation that is what we wanted to do today to present those stories and quite frankly their not just stories their about lives they're about whether we care about people or not those are reale. episodes in people's life we care about in san francisco their real they're not alternative facts they're real because people live through them, they really understood after they got coverage what their fear was doing to their health and economics and now we have the 3 thousand people in san francisco about one and 334 thousand people that didn't necessarily live in fear of not having health conform that is so important and life saving i wanted to insure he appeared to join all the volunteers at the
7:37 pm
united health care workers to call the elected officials that are attempting to repeal the ac a without an adequate replacement or discussion again what we some do to reduce the fear thank you to all the volunteers today, we're calling congress people and elected people and the staves nevada and arizona and right here in california i'll expect to make the calls myself i'm joining mayors across the country and mayors in the statistic let's not repeal this law if that so valuable such a foundation of hope for themselves their families and lie people to work and really join this incredible economy in the bay area and they wouldn't be able to do it that unless a pass forward to take
7:38 pm
care of their families health that is one the most important things to improve people's lives i know that jeff knows this we're elected officials we ask ours probably at the beginning of our careers but the beginning of everyday how am i supposed to help people health is one we're doing housing and transportation and if we don't take care of the fear of the lack of health coverage we'll be a big disservice to so many people i want to 82 say thank you and take that day of action and move forward and make my calls i want to i know know i come from a culture you're supposed to take care of our health first, you can't take care of anyone unless your health so with that, let me introduce gil district attorney
7:39 pm
and thank you, very much. for your leadership as well. >> (clapping.) >> thank you. i'm gil district attorney ceo of planned parenthood in northern california it is a great honor standing with the brothers and sisters with u h w and other leaders as you may know that planned parenthood is in the cross hairs the administration when you no strainers to advocacy 3 brave women opposed a clinic in brooklyn and were arrested it is not easy for us over the last one hundred years we know this fight and more importantly how to survive we're ready to fight and ready to fifth because of weathered thousand patient it come to us in the most vulnerable days of their lives would we've been here for us of 55 thousand other young people in the schools
7:40 pm
providing answers and needed information they couldn't get and the other 70 thousand people through the building we know the fight is worth it and we're going to be here no matter and player i heard you say recently, i picked up excuse me - because we wouldn't go up and not back down not now not every this is a pleasure to be here. >> ii represent the clinic consortium our 11 members are the major nonprofits community clinics serving san francisco diverse population we serve one hundred thousand people 10 percent over 10 percent of san francisco's population along with the partners all represented here we feel like we do a good job in providing connections to people to an excellent system of care
7:41 pm
the clinics are unique we offer high care regardless of the ability to pay but like others we've voonsz from 50 years ago we were founded now we have advanced medical practices using data to improve the quality of care and use the programs for intervention to ward off diseases we have become modern listed but as the clinic we welcome everyone and have a lot of language and culture diversity so that all people of san francisco feel comfortable coming i personally worked on health care coverage for 20 years and nothing makes me angrier when the politician say break a leg go to the emergency room i hope they bring me to zuckerberg san francisco general, however, the
7:42 pm
vast majority of people need the competitive appropriated care and counseling about nutrition and void diabetes we need assessment so depression didn't ruin their lives and need something agency for i do he provided with the pediatrics care that very inexpensive and ice easy intervene what help ward off things for the rest of their lives if the ac a expansion goes away some clinics will survive by the ability of the clinic to approve the quality for this evidence based care will be affirmative list from the financial point of view here in san francisco our clinics provide over 8 hundred jobs and clinic training jobs
7:43 pm
which is great health center patient on average 20 percent lower costs than others provider so there is a large statement to the mel program in san francisco we're lucky to have the haight system as a safety net for those no eligible for the private insurance companies or mel but not money to the community clinics that is medi-cal they've been wells as well as a federal grant it is threatened without the ac a and the san francisco percent reduction in the health care grant in san francisco 5 hundred jobs will be lost and over 41 thousand patient will be taken care of elsewhere the result $60,000 higher i'll close with the words of a working mother for the children this
7:44 pm
particular family had two sick children with the parent had to pay for urgent care for their healthy child like pneumonia the other child had to go without medication this was the moms words having to choose one child's medication is one of the worst position my husband and i were devastated hard to watch it hits the couldn't stopping his medication what could we do we've made prognosticating and particularly in california and san francisco and can't go back because some politicians in san francisco think that is exhibitor to stop healthy thank you for we don't go backwards.
7:45 pm
>> (clapping.) >> good afternoon. i'm maria i work at the st. francis memorial hospital and was for the viral services if the affordable health care act is over turned that will cause a lot of harm i'm speaking personally my fiance is a worker had a full-time job by the job didn't give him health orange coverage he said he didn't need the health coverage i was grateful, however, december 2016 i was rushed to the emergency room where we thought he was having a heart attack they admitted him into the hospital and found out he had high blood pressure and other medical issues and you know we were grateful for that, however, the health coverage at
7:46 pm
the time juan's bill was to big there 0 was no way i could pay it and him to pay it the affordable health care act helped my fiance stay alive he's doing great and does his doctor environmentalist thank you to the affordable health care act i want everyone to be able to keep their health care coverage none should live in fear of getting sick and not have something that is affordable so that's why i'm here i'm calling on voters today and asking him to contact their elected officials to protect the affordable health care act we need this law to keep people health and safety and need to give people a sense of hope and we need to keep people like juan if he didn't have is it he could have been bad i'm asking
7:47 pm
everyone to support find affordable health care act because as a community we need it and as americans we need it thank y thank you. >> (clapping.) >> good afternoon. i'm barbara garcia the health director of san francisco and as health directors my obligation to insure the health of everyone in san francisco it is my job to protect health care and the healthy with 8 thousand employees and others have been providing care for dozens of years in the city over 12 years ago we developed it to make sure that everyone be has access to health care and the ac a helps that it is important to check with them over the last 5 years received over one billion dollars to build our new trauma center and rebuild the existing
7:48 pm
clinics the mayor was talking about one of the clinics we have an information to protect the infrastructure of the health care system in san francisco and today, i'm here to sherry, support of union work and call the representatives and our obligation 8 thousand employees of the department of behind me to make sure we work hard to insure we save the health care to everyone has care we don't want people to go to the emergency room but we'll try to protect and we will fight to insure that all san franciscans my personal obligation and the obligation of the urgent care to protect the health care in san francisco thank you. >> good afternoon i'm sheree the director of department of aging & adult services in san francisco want to thank you and
7:49 pm
mayor for having a day of action i wanted to highlight two things that the evicting for the people with disabilities the first our department administrators the in-home care project far inform we serve over just under 23 thousand people in the program and the workers are represented by u h w and the expansion has loitsd for nine hundred plus people to assess the in-home care services without in-home care services will be in institutionstion and medi-cal has afforded them up to an average of two hours of in-home care a week would have cost 3000 a month and people in expanded medi-cal can't afford that is allowed people to stay in their homes 31 percent of people are
7:50 pm
asian pacific islanders and 20 percent of the people are african-american and those are populations that we really want to keep living in san francisco we want to keep it affordable and in addition the affordable health care has given some is more help to medi-cal so medicare benefits are wellness for people that come into medicare as part of that they get a screening and also allows for annual visits and allows for cancer screenings mammograms and things like that that is critical to people i want to thank mayor ed lee for having this event and thank you u h w and good afternoon. >> (clapping.) >> highway i'm supervisor jeff
7:51 pm
sheehy, you know, i both approach this in a policy point of view when i was diagnosed with hiv i didn't have insurance one of the reasons i didn't get test until i was starting to get sick i didn't have insurance companies i know what that feels like to not feel well, not know what to do and where to go and not an option i know that feeling having gone to see a doctor and number one was where i presented that will mean you can see a doctor and get care and spent a night in the san francisco general i know the care we provide it outstanding favtd two years ago later that the affordable health care act we have been able to really think and start to achieve big goals a national movement to - the
7:52 pm
medicaid expansion so everyone can get coverage go on the exchanges and get covered if we treat people for hiv they're much less likely to effect people a profit for people to not tariff advisors we're following on hepatitis again, the means there is a cure we can end this it costs out people don't have their stop working if they don't have to get a transport it is cheaper and san francisco started the san francisco, california a multiple approach to reduce the cancers that impact our marginalized community all of the big vision ideas with only really possible within the construct of the
7:53 pm
organization c a it is great for calling other congressmen i heard this st. patrick's that the horrifying that 51 percent of the individuals in bakersfield get their health care through medi-cal or medicare and just to remind people medi-cal is the ryan budget proposes a voucher program for medicare and it is amazing if there they're voting republicans i wonder in the republicans that are supporting this said the rhetorical for their own constituents so thank you u h w fork doing this today and let's to the voters and the congressmen. >> (clapping.) >> i'd like to thank everyone for coming out today and the speakers and the community partners and now it is time to get on the phones and make that
7:54 pm
work i didn't o- >> sound familiar do you keep on getting up there's an easier way. >> of course there's easier way get rid of of mosquito they breed whatever this is water no water no mosquito mosquito feed on good blood the eggs hatch and stay near the
7:55 pm
waters san francisco to breathe and the adult underlying mosquito waits on the as many until it's sexuality hardens water pools in any areas and creates places you'll not normally think of budget and any container that holds water and hidden in bushes or else were dump the water and do it over soil not into a drain the larva can continue growing in the pooled water is sewage disthe first of its kind the area if the sewage is two extreme have a licensed plumber assist water pools in rain gutters and snaking and cleaning out the water when keep the water from pooling and keep in mind that mosquito breed in other waters
7:56 pm
like catch balgsz and construction barriers interest crawl spaces with clmg is an issue you may have is week to cause the water to collect this is an sour of mosquito so for buildings just fix the clean air act drains and catch basins can be mosquito ground it will eliminate it as a possible location keep shrubbery and growths estimated any water to can be seen and eliminated birdbath and fountains and uncovered hot tubs mosquito breed but it is difficult to dump the water out of a hot top can't dump the water adding mosquito finish rids the source of mosquito there are also traditionally
7:57 pm
methods to protect you installing screens on windows and doors and using a mosquito net and politically aau planet take the time to do the things we've mentioned to eliminate standing water and make sure that mosquito are not a problem on your property remember no water no mosquito hearing for
7:58 pm
7:59 pm
8:00 pm
commission regular hearing for thursday, february 23, any kind. proceedings. and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. i'd like to call roll at this time. commissioner president hillis commissioner fong commissioner koppel and commissioner moore commissioner vice president richards is present here. >> oh, there he is and commissioner johnson and commissioner mar that expected to arrive shortly commissioners, the first item on your agenda items for proposed for continuance at the time of issues 1016 de haro street

6 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on