tv Government Access Programming SFGTV April 28, 2019 6:00am-7:01am PDT
cars. because this unit in this proposal is more family style. the data suggests that there will be less cars in this, depending upon the age and composition of it, but we still wrote into the agreement, that they have the ability to expand and the developer has agreed in the development agreement on demand to expand and invest additional money for parking lifts, which they're investing and they can expand to greater degree. i wanted to say that for the record and i appreciate you coming out and highlighting that point. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm emancipated foster youth. i'm 23 years old. i entered the system at the age of 16. i'm going to refrain going into my past because i'm still trying
to gain psychological independence from everything that has happened. i've done a lot of wracking of my brain on this situation, and i believe having safe affordable housing is important for current and former foster youth to instill us a sense of agency in areas of our lives where we haven't been fortunate enough to have it. i believe it's given -- it's with this sense of agency one can use in order to gain control over other areas of their life, that foster youth are prone to experiencing instability. that's all i have to say. >> thank you for your testimony. any other members of the public wish to comment? if not, public comment is closed. just want to say, the planning commission, we heard also from additional former foster youth
and existing foster youth, and importance of that and the statistics of the propensity toward homelessness and lack of job opportunities and opportunities for their future. one of the most stabilizing factors is having a stable home environment and a roof over your head. so again i want to overemphasize the family has committed to do a minimum of five of these additional units on top of the below market rate. and to the point -- the previous point. the mix, the affordable mix, in terms of the 10% at 55, 10% at 80, 10% at 100, we used the bands that we've used in other conversations of inclusionary housing. there are people lower than 55%, they'll be eligible to access the units. same thing on the 80%.
as well as between 90 and 130 for the 100%. so we give that opportunity based on the previous conversations to one of the mental of the commenters. -- one of the comments of the commenters. >> anything you want to add on behalf of the department of city planning? mr. rich, anything you want to add that has not been said? okay. so public comment is closed. and i believe amendments as previously mentioned by supervisor safai as to all three instruments are in order, deleting the extraneous parcel. so that motion has just been made by supervisor safai and taken without objection by the committee and supervisor safai, would you like to make a motion to forward these to the full board for positive recommendation? >> supervisor safai: you just did it. yes. >> supervisor peskin: so moved.
>> supervisor safai: wait, it won't be next week, it will be in may, because we have to allow for the proper time. is it a committee report? >> supervisor peskin: no, not a committee report, but i think in the normal course of business, not tomorrow, but a week from tomorrow. >> supervisor safai: i just want to double check with the planning department. so a week from tomorrow would be -- is that the appropriate schedule? >> so we had to adjust the schedule because i'm traveling. i haven't had a vacation, so i need to be here to present on the item at full board, so we'll be at full board on may 14. >> no, you don't need to be. supervisor safai, the chair of this committee, i think we're okay. we can get this thing done. we don't have to wait until the middle of may. >> i will look to my boss, but i'm very happy to go on vacation.
>> supervisor peskin: go on vacation, your boss knows my word is my bond. thank you to the project sponsor. this is the kind of project that we like to see. with that, we'll send all three of these items with recommendation, without objection for hearing next tuesday -- not tomorrow, but the tuesday after tomorrow. that will be the order. madame clerk, please read the lasttime. >> item 6 is hearing of status report and updated work plan for a city-wide survey of historic resources in san francisco, and requesting the planning department to report. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. so before we hear from the planning department, and supervisor safai is going to step out for a moment. i just want to put this in a little bit of context. and we will hear a little bit. i want to acknowledge that historic preservation
commissioner kate black has joined us, along with the staff to the historic preservation commission, tim fry, and frar, there is a number of reasons the city might want to speed up its surveys of what our historic resources in the city. if for no other reason, not just to preserve the best of the rest, but to actually give stability and predictability to the development community as san francisco is struggling with a housing crisis. we're actually behind the times in san francisco. los angeles is far ahead of us and i think if you ever go to the pim. the planning information map, that is on the website, which i commend to people, you
immediately will see whether it's known to be historic resource, is not a historic resource, or what most things fall into, category b, nobody knows whether it is or is not, because it has not been surveyed. and i think if we could get our arms around that, we would be much better off. i want to thank historic preservation commissioner aaron hyland who brought this to my attention, unfortunately, he had an emergency today and was not able to join us. i know that commissioner black is here on behalf of the commission. to my one colleague remaining on the panel, supervisor haney, the way to speed this up will cost money. and so this is a timely moment to have this conversation in advance of our upcoming budget deliberations and i may have actually already identified a
few hundred thousands dollars in funding. the entire effort is going to cost much more than that. if it is okay with staff, would like to provide commissioner black with the opportunity to start or you can end, or you can do both. >> yes, thank you very much. i'm kate black, i'm a member of the historic preservation commission. i'm here today on behalf of aaron hyland who was unable to be here. i'm speaking on behalf of the whole commission. this is something that the commission discussed and voted on and we think is a really important priority. i'm using -- it's a bit of a mashup between aaron's notes and my comments. 25 years ago, san francisco was the historic preservation leader. other cities were copying us and looking to us for our guidance. our preservation movement was born out of the massive urban renewal that happened in the
western addition in the 50s and 60s and the realization by residents and city leaders, we were going to lose our architectural identity if we didn't do something quickly. in 1975, a survey was done. in 1979, splendid survivors was published and it was used to help inform the 1985 downtown plan. we were on top of our game. since then, i'm sorry to say that we just haven't been able to maintain that momentum. some areas have been surveyed. and we've made a little bit of progress in the mission delores and the dubose triangle area. in contrast, as supervisor peskin mentioned, the city of los angeles between 2010 and
2017, the entire city was surveyed. that is 880,000 buildings and properties over 500 square miles. and the pim he was talking about is a very fast way for property owners to fast-track the identification of the work that they would have to do on their property and save themes a lot of -- saves them a lot of money. i also want to note that we've only done 20% of the city of san francisco that has been surveyed. so why is this so important? obviously, it's important from a historic preservation standpoint. and it's not just to retain our architectural e architectural identity, it's important from an economic standpoint. in 2017, that equated to 10.4 million visitors who spent the night in san francisco. and they spent $7.77 billion in
tourist dollars. that is b, billion with a "b". i don't have more updated information. i'm sure it's more than that now. they're not just here because of the golden gate bridge and fog. they're here in part because of the arc technical identity and these wonderful buildings atop clinging onto these fabulous hills. and the more that we lose that identity, the more we look like houston or denver, those tourist dollars will start to wane. so why the urgency? after many years of working with developers, i know that the one thing that can really matter to them is development certainty. they have a lot of hurdles to go through, especially developers of units with affordable
housing. and being able to know in advance whether they have a site that is a historic resource or not, will have a huge effect in them being able to target their developments, and compress the time line and costs of their developments. and there are two reasons why this is very, very important. and both of these are important goals that mayor breed has set forth. the first is development permit streamlining for everybody. every time someone wants to expand or make a large alteration to their property, they have to determine whether their property is historic or not. and that is expensive and it's time consuming and there are some people who just abandon the project or don't even start it, because it's too cost prohibitive for them. the second and more important is, as already discussed, the
critical need for housing, especially affordable housing. and every time a developer wants to demolish a building to be replaced by needed housing, they, too, run into this problem, but it's on a much grander scale. what we're asking is for the survey, the timeline for the survey, to be compressed. it would be a two-and-a-half to three-year time frame in lieu of 6-7 years. it will involve three ftes and one additional intern. these can be temporary term positions. the historic -- in closing, the historic preservation commission wants to urge the mayor and the rest of the supervisors to fund and support this effort, shift the resources, whatever we can do to accomplish this, and we
would have the additional benefit that the post entitlement backlog that the mayor is trying to expedite would be significantly alleviated. again, by identifying properties that are not resources, developers can target those properties and build much needed housing on them. thank you. >> thank you, supervisors. i have a presentation, although i believe many of the points in it have been covered ably by commissioner black and supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: but you have to the power point. >> [laughter], yes, and additional copies here. anyone? so good afternoon, supervisors. planning department staff. i'm here to present an overview
of the cultural survey including background of the survey, history of survey and data collection, and proposed survey phasing staffing and budget. so surveys are an integral part of any preservation program as they provide critical tools for understanding, identifying, evaluating and protecting those resources that give each community its individual character and sense of place. among other things, surveys provide information needed to make informed planning decisions, develop and implement land use policies, perform environmental reviews pursuant to ceqa. although there have been many surveys conducted in san francisco since 1967, none have approached surveys of a city-wide scale. previous surveys were
property-based or community sponsored, focussing on a single neighborhood or property type. in the 2013 report on historic preservation in san francisco, they stressed the need for a city-wide survey and there has been growing support for this effort. city-wide cultural resources surveys is intended to be a multiyear effort to document property and places that reflect important themes in the social and cultural history. it will strengthen community identity, aid disaster planning and recovery and support housing development. historic resource surveys ace is a process of maintaining inventory of the data gathered. the primary components of the survey are historic context statements which provide the foundation for preservation planning. property documentation, which is where we identify and record potential resources within a
community and neighborhood and inventory or database, which is the publicly accessible forum where we maintain the survey and information, and outreach. communication and information-sharing with stakeholders. given the number of previous surveys and the variety of forms that constitute our legacy data, we have spent time reviewing this past documentation in an effort to understand how many properties have been surveyed previously and where the properties are located throughout the city to identify historic context and themes and to determine the age of building stock and how the stock is disbursed across the city. this map on the slide -- the shaded areas represent the parts of the city that have been surveyed to date. as commissioner black noted, only approximately 20% of the city parcels have been surveyed. and so those parcels are generally located within the shaded areas. that have been surveyed. we estimate is that based on the
areas that aren't shaded and the number of known properties that we have, remaining 80-100,000 parcels are left to survey. this map shows the number of designated properties that are designated either locally or in the california or national registers. and this is included to show how little of the city is actually designated and the geographic distribution of the designated properties. it's important to note while survey information can provide background for a property or district designation and note eligibility for the designation, the surveys does not equate to designation. that's a separate process that will rely upon data collected in the survey, but is not the direct result of a property being surveyed. one of the primary goals of the survey is to move properties
from that category b, where they are age-eligible, but their historic status is unknown, into either category a, or category c. this survey, a proactive data collection by the city will improve response and recovery time following emergencies, reduce application costs around streamline review periods and make everyone more aware, and have provided knowns of what they're getting into with the property. the planning department preservation staff have been developing a city-wide survey that reflects best practices in the preservation field, meets standards for survey and can be completed in a timely manner. this survey methodology indicates we will record individual resources as well as district and cultural
landscapes, will create individual records in a database. arches is an open source platform for cultural heritage inventory and management. and it was used by the city of los angeles for their survey program. each record will include a photograph, a physical description, identify historic theme or context, assess the physical integrity of the property, evaluate the property. and provide links to any related records. we'll be evaluating buildings, structured objects, districts, constructed. and we'll be evaluating for the national register and california register eligibility. the survey team -- the work itself will be conducted primarily by planning staff and interns. at least that's how we're
currently budgeting for the approach. we'll have a survey advisory group that will be two tiered group, one that will be a core advisory group, made up of preservation consultants, commissioners, preservation groups and city family and then a rotating group of advisors that we envision as neighborhood groups. and that will change the -- the membership will change as we move through the phases. i'm talk about the phases in a later slide. the historic preservation commission and the rest of the city family and the public, which we obviously need to be quite involved in terms of information as well as participation in the survey effort. and then for phasing, we have been looking at a number of variables and considering how we would go about phasing this approach. so the variables we've been considering are physical hazards and disaster preparedness.
and the two maps on this slide show two of the physical hazard variables, sea level rise, flooding and soil liquefaction zones. neighborhoods and communities that are underrepresented in preservation programs. using the survey as a development tool, so focusing on areas with high development pressures. and then also age of building stock. this map here is a map showing the different ages of the building stock. and sort of what -- while this is not the primary variable we're considering right now for the phasing plan, it is an important variable to consider. and what this shows is that what you would expect, the oldest buildings, pre-1906 are located near the center of the city, but also scattered throughout. post earthquake and fire is concentrated in the northeast
and neighborhoods south and east of downtown, with subsequent development periods to the south and west with infill development from later periods. this map shows -- has the breakdown right now of the current phasing as we're proposing it, although i want to stress this is still in draft form and we're expecting as we go through kind of all of the outreach and informational presentations and briefing processes, that this map, these phases will shift as we identify additional priorities. but right now, the phase one would be the area in pink -- or what we're thinking is phase one is the area in pink and each phase would span out to the south and west similar to the development patterns. the dark purple is where there are surveys that are ongoing and we would anticipate that those would remain ongoing and that we
would add other community-sponsored or area plan related surveys as those occurred. and then this is the budget and the schedule and related costs that we're using. so right now in our fiscal year 19-20 budget proposal, we have 3.15fte and we're estimating with that, with those ftes, this process would take roughly six years. and then we have the two options with each increasing the number of ftes and decreasing significantly the amount of time that the process, the survey process would be expected to take. and then just where we are right now. so obviously, we're here today presenting to this committee.
we are -- we have been doing various briefings to board members, supervisors, over the past month and will continue do so. we've also met -- presented to the planning commission as well as the historic preservation commission. we expect to go back to the historic preservation commission in june. we'll be meeting in the spring with survey advisory group and we're also bringing in a consultant to help us put together a cultural heritage assets methodology, that we'll wrap into the overall survey methodology. and we hope to be out in the fall with our phase one survey. that completes my presentation. i'm here for any questions. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. i know that supervisor safai has questions. i just want to, first of all, thank the commission and staff. i mean, this is a conversation that i took a run at over a decade ago with a little bit of
result, but not the comprehensive result that we really need. and commissioner black is absolutely right, which is a quarter of a century ago, san francisco was at the forefront and we've fallen way behind. whether you love historic preservation or want development, this is the tool. i think it would be great to get this done in two-and-a-half years and given the development pressures we're under, that is probably the right thing to do. i have had a conversation with the representative of the historic preservation fund committee, which many, many years ago was the recipient of money from the settlement of litigation and i was actually able to get an appropriation for that committee in last year's budget, which remains unspent. so i have broached and will continue to broach with the fund committee whether or not some of
that money -- or all of that money which was appropriated, a small drop in the bucket for what we need if we're doing this at the clip of $845,000 for two and a half years, but it makes a little bit of a dent. there may be other things, including fee money, because this is something that, like i said, gives the development community some stability. and reduces their costs, because they know what can be demolishnded and know what can't be. but i'd like to make a plug to my now three colleagues on this panel, because we've been joined by supervisor mandelman, that this is something we should take seriously in the upcoming budget deliberations. with that, i turn it over to supervisor safai, followed by supervisor mandelman. >> supervisor safai: thank you, supervisor -- chair peskin, for pushing this forward.
i think it's extremely important to understand the historic resources and the current makeup of our city in terms of the historic nature of a lot of the properties and we often have -- we are often able to identify the historical significance of projects on an individual basis as they come forward, but in terms of looking at overall scope of what it means to have these historic resources, i think this is an important survey. i have a general question on slide number, page number 3. you said 20% of the city had been surveyed. [please stand by]
the status of that property and provide direction as they move forward with alterations to their properties or redeveloping their properties. >> so this doesn't replace a historic analysis property by property. >> well, it could. >> if something came in at level a? >> if something came in at level a, we would still need to do that analysis. if we identified the property was a resource and given a category a and if someone want to defollowish or do something to that property, they would have to go through -- they would still have to go through the california environmental quality act review to ensure they weren't impacting that property or to document how they were impacting that property. if the survey had been done on a proactive basis and we had all of this map shaded in instead of
only 20% of it, and the majority in the properties have been found not to be, that step of analyzing whether or not something is a historic resource is when someone comes in with a building permit or development application, we would not have to -- we i don't no longer have twewe would no longer have todo. we found it not to be a resource, we no longer have to ask that question at the beginning of the process. >> if it came in at a category c? >> correct. >> but there's a lot that come in at category b, which is undetermined. >> ideally, we're not going to find things to be category d. or undetermined. it's to move away from category b and end up with as or cs. >> the only reason i ask is two weeks ago i got a call from a perspective and they said well,
we have category level b and i was like, oh, well how many of the properties that you surveyed fall into that category -- >> nothing that has been surveyed -- it just means unknown. b means unknown and c means we know it's not a historic resource. >> it's in your map area. that's why i'm asking. is the n.c.d.s surveyed? >> the n.c.d.s have been surveyed but the results have not been adopted yet. so those statuses in our parcel information map have not changed. so there still be bs in that. because the survey hasn't been adopted. when the survey is actually adopted and formalized, then we change the status codes. so adoption means that we've taken it, we've done the analysis and we've presented it to the historic preservation commission. >> so your n.c.d.s have not been adopted yet? >> correct. >> all the other shaded areas
have been. >> correct. >> got it. >> so i don't want to over state that there's never going to be a category b b in this shaded are. because it's the case there will be category bs wa because propertying may not be aiming al edge able. we'rageeligible. >> if someone is potentially thinking about buying a property or developing a property or preserving a property, you all, in theory, have done a significant amount of work. it just so happens that this parcel was in an n.c.d. and you haven't adopted it yet. >> got it. >> so then, all my questions are answers. at the end, when you survey the city and adopted them, it will help to inform the process that much better? >> correct. >> because now, as i understand it, the planning department has a new program where you can come
in and submit and do the consultation and within 60 days, they will let you know what category or area that the particular parcel -- >> you are referring to our historic resource assessment process program. which is new. we're piloting it this year. it's an advance of a property owner can voluntarily apply for that process. essentially it is a property-by-property survey and it was infende intended to fillp before the survey can get to these. >> my last question before supervisor mandelman, what willl you adopt the surveys on the n.c.d.s? did you already talk about that too? >> well, i'm not 100% on the timeline for that. i think we are looking at
probably moving forward with those maybe as part of each phase as it sort of -- >> can i make one suggestion. this is an important part, this is just my opinion as it relates to home s.f. we not couraged people to -- and often times a lot of actual opportunities for greater density and development happened to be on the commercial corridors whether they're an exiting property oexisting prop. if someone is interested in taking part in that process, it actually helps them to know what category the properties are under. so, i don't know if that's a planning department or simply your historic preservation commission but it certainly would be helpful because then people go in with the level of certainty to know whether or not they want to potentially participate in this program or not. it can affect the purchase and sale process, it can affect the
whole development. again, we want to preserve and we want to protect the buildings that are historic resources. the ones that are not, we want -- there's an inter play between the home s.f. program and some of these additional density and affordable programs and this particular survey. it absolutely is helpful. i came across this recently in the last month. >> i appreciate that comment. certainly we could consider the n.c.d.s of the separate phase or making that more of a priority to get that one adopt adopted. >> i know this is his baby for lack of a better word. i just think it's important, if we're having the conversation about additional housing and additional affordable housing and incentivizing if this can
help to inform that process as along with preservation at the same time. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you for actually teasing out the n.c.d. question. if the survey has been done, i see know reason they shouldn't be adopted. it's like, you know, any time there's a survey that is been done, it should be adopted. i would get that phase out of the way now. i mean, that need not be a part of this entire process. i know supervisor mandelman wants to speak. >> i'm sorry, one more question. i hope i'm not slowing you down. just to supervisor pose tin's ps point. what about finalizing the adoption of that? >> well, the field work has been done for it so like we've looked at each property. we haven't -- so it's part of our legacy data that still needs
to be sort of looked at and based on our current methodolo methodology, and final evaluations, still need to be made. it's also a staffing issue. how we focus our time. >> i would just end, if you've done the majority of the work and there's additional work and we're going to approve in this process, which i know we are, i think we're all going to be highlighting additional staff and work that you would prioritize that first and that work has been done and get it off of your plate. i'll send with that. >> >> supervisor mandelman: i totally agree and i was happy it was on supervisor's safai. >> >> supervisor mandelman: i wanted to thank kate black for her great work for the city. and also, to just concur with
the supervisors on this committee who see this as an important priority as i think about the increasing -- the up zoning happening in san francisco either as directed by the state or as we decide and look for additional places where we have development capacity, there's development pressure throughout the city and i think it is all the more important that we very quickly identify what is important to us and what we don't want to see lost as the new san francisco gets built. for me, this is also a high priority and i would hope that we can move it along closer to the two and a half-year rather than some of the longer time periods. i wanted to and by and say that and thank you all for your great work. >> very much appreciate you coming, supervisor, mandelman. let's open up this for public comment. mr. wright.
>> top class demonstration. i made it clear what class of people that advocate for the most vulnerable people in the city. s.f. viewers, please, out of all the demonstrations that i've seen, everything is top class. this is the one that strikes me the most pertaining to support, new housing and development. i want to get the future representatives to look at building all these brand new apartments where you keep the amount of money that you spend on these apartment building complex at a minimum and by the same response, get the maximum performance and output of your building. i would like to get the standards set for any apartment building complex that is being built is to use this standard being used in mountain view. this is 144-unit apartment building complex that's being built for $56 million. that's the best bang that you
can get for your buck. i was talking to supervisor walton about this and the projects that he is been working on and they're charging $180,000 per unit. you multiply that by the 144 and subject the difference and you save $66 million. you can confirm that with him when talking to him. this demonstration is just flows. and, san mateo county, there's another public building complex being built for $57 million. by the same response, my idea of the money that's getting of the budget of $8.5 million and the $500 million that was handed down for homeless only, you can build nine of these apartment building complexes and make a 27-storey apartment building complex. here is a 68-unit apartment building complex. you could stack those up
27-storeys and take a big chunk out of the housing of the homeless. >> thank you, mr. wright. are there any other members of the public here to speak on this item number 5? the historic preservation survey. >> sir, if you speak into the mic. >> the reservations of the complexes, the value in total should be very less than what we are anticipating and purchasing or allowing financial means to utilize. now, again, we are trying to establish a new criteria into destroying the system which we're in the process. the important thing is what i like to initiate is that in this part of neighborhoods, are there going to be vocational training
processing, meaning did you get trained for vocational training? we're going to have a lot of employment to provide these stability of financial interests so they can pay and provide insurance for the room. now, the thing is we have spent much money, billions and trillions of dollars on advancements we should know better. so the cost of the development of $61 billion is unacceptable. it reduces the cost of $66 million. unacceptable. the indication is we must review and allow the inspectors to allow what needs to be renovated and what is going to be the least cost of each property, including the foundation. they look like historic locations and in that sense we must establish the appropriate means to secure and stabilize
our financial institutions and you are essentially using your negligence to provide proposals where there's no better investment. there's developments going on in san francisco and we're working on it because something happened. you need to get the right inspectors inside. if you failed to do so, there's no need to have you in government business. >> thank you, sir. seeing no other members of the public for public comment, public comment is closed. i think everything that has been said should be said has been said. again, i want to thank the commission for having the fortitude to come and say what should have been said years ago and thank staff for preparing that at the commission's request. and i was really happy to hear from my colleagues of their interest. hopefully we can get this right in the 19-20 budget, which will be before us in the months
for thousands of san francisco for some people a speeding ticket or parking ticket are annoandannoyances. for others they can be a major financial set back. in 2015, a report showed in cities and counties across the nation, thousands of people were struggling to pay their traffic tickets and court fines and fees. i have first-hand experiences how the fines can force someone to decide between paying their car to get out of tow or issues of that nature and paying rent. in san francisco before december of 2015, if someone could not pay the traffic fines, their driver's license were suspended. imagine already struggling to
pay your bills, then you receive a notice in the mail your driver's license was suspended. not only can you not drive legally, but more and more companies now require a driver's license specifically for employment. in fact, studies show that people who have their driver's license suspended, almost half will lose their jobs in a year. this is not equitable. i am grateful that supervisor walton is here with us today. sadly, we knew in bayview-hunters point they have three times the average of the number of driver's licenses that have been suspended statewide. that is why san francisco was the first in the nation to stop suspended driver's licenses for failure to pay fines. [applause.] over two years ago, we were the
first to top suspended driver's licenses for failure to appeer in traffic court. after we discovered the biggest reason people do not show up for traffic court date is because they cannot afford to pay the fees. people are also worried if they show up, they would be forced to give up their driver's license, and, sadly, some are afraid they might gee arrested. he on o get arrested. while we stopped the suspensions. we discovered 88,000 driver's licenses were still marked as suspended in the super-your court date take base. thousands of residents were unable to drive legally because they did not show up for traffic court date even though the super-your court no longer suspended licenses for this
reason. when we looked into what it would take to lift those previous suspensions, we were told that the superior court only needed $15,000. $15,000, which we provided. for $15,000, we could create a clean slate for everyone across our system. [applause.] it may seem like a small amount, but it is going to have a tremendous impact on so many people's lives. so today, thanks to the work of everyone here, i am proud to announce that all holds on driver's license for failure to apfear in traffic court have been lifted. [applause.] what is so great is that we are the first city in california, according to our research so far, the first city in the
nation to do this. [applause.] now, to be clear, if you have had your driver's license suspended because you were driving recklessly or you have holds from other counties, your driver's license will be suspended until you resolve those issues. if you are one of the thousands who could not afford the traffic convict and therefore did not show up for traffic court dates, you can take action to get your license back. we have flyers explaining how to call the dmv. how are you going to get through to the dmv? nevertheless, we have flyers explaining how to call the dmv to find out exactly what you need to do, and we will make sure that all of our city departments and websites have this information. while we need to have consequences and penalties for people who break the law, we do
not want to do this in a way that makes it harder for people to get a second chance. in san francisco, we know that we can hold people accountable without putting them into financial distress. whether by eliminating wasteful administrative fines and fees in our court systems which we did here in san francisco or getting rid of overdue library fees that prevent people from accessing our public records, or offering discounts for low income residents to pay their traffic fines. the announcement continues the commitment in this city to help lift people up. by taking this step, we are making it possible for thousands of people to get back to work, to grow our economy and create better lives for themselves and
their families. i would like to thank everyone including the financial justice project. [applause.] the office of our amazing treasure jose and so many who have worked on these issues for years, including many of the community groups who helped us to focus on the courts over the past several months, and members of the san francisco fines and fees task force that led the research on starting this effort. now our next speaker is someone who has dedicated her career to fighting for the legal rights of low income residents and working on a more equitable and financial justice policy. please join me in welcoming
elisa from lawyers committee from civil rights. thank you. [applause.] thank you, mayor breed. it is wonderful to be in san francisco, which is a leader on common sense policies to increase public safety and benefit and protect our lowest income residents. as many of you know, traffic tickets in california are expense expensive. we did a study that showed they were twice as much as places like new york. $500 for coming around a right hand turn for a red light. for many families that is out of reach. we have had person after person coming to us to say i can't afford $500. if i could have my driver's license i could keepny job, take kids to school and not risk
arrest because if you drive on a suspended license, that is incarceration. that is a criminal offense. this step that san francisco is taking is saying we don't want driver's license suspension to be a collection sledgehammer. we want it to be about public safety. we want those in san francisco and the bay area who drive here to be able to work. we want our residents to have fair and be common sense policies around driver's license suspension. san francisco is a leader in this. we call on other communities to follow san francisco's lead. 88,000 suspensions lifted. that means more people who can work. that means more people who can drive safely and legally. i will say one thing, if you go to the courthouse in san francisco and you are there right as the court clerk's office closes, then you have seen the person every day there
is at least one person who took off of their work at risk to their job, tried to get to the courthouse and was two minutes late after they shut the door. when you see that look on that person's face, when you know what they had to sacrifice to make that effort, you know it doesn't make sense to punish that person more than a person with money would be punished. you can mail in the pavement to avoid it. for low-wage workers and communities of color this is a punishment for being poor. congratulations to san francisco and all of the organizers who worked so long and hard to make this happen. we are grateful for san francisco as a leader. thank you. >> thank you to the lawyer's committee and all the work they continue to do. now, i would like to ask the supervisor from district 10 to provide a few remarks.
[applause.] >> i am definitely going to be brief. i am trying to get my voice back for a long time. this is true equity at work. so many times we fine people for infractions and the punishment is to increase the fine. the punishment for that is to increase the fine and take away the very things that allow you to be economically self-sufficient to put you in a place where you could possibly pay a fine. we have learned over the years that does not work. what does work is information and helping people learn how to be responsible so going back and retroactively eliminating the unnecessary fines that stifle folks who are trying to work hard to earn a living is the right thing to do. i just want to thank the
treasure's office and everyone from the task force and committees that continue to work on equitable opportunity for low north carolinas to make sure -- low income communities to make sure they are not punished. this is important. this l make a major impact. i want to thank mayor breed for standing up to lead the city toward these equitable policies in san francisco. >> thank you, supervisor walton. now, i would like to welcome the aclu of northern california. >> hello. i am the chief program officer of the aclu of northern california, but i have worked in civil rights and social justice for 20 years. i am the daughter of california
and native of the bay area. i live here and raise my children here because we are a community that believes in diversity and equity and inclusion in our society. i think we aspire for what martin luther king talked about as the beloved community. we aspire to create that community. we cannot do that if we punish people for being low income and poor. we live in a city, region, state and country with great resources and opportunities, the greatest. also, we have great and unanswered racial and economic inequities. as we invest in these wonderful programs, minimum wage and investment in education and training and wenvist in the folks left out of the prosperity of this golden state, we have to simultaneously route out and end
these unjust practices and policies that drain financial resources from these exact communities. if we don't, we are trying to build a house on quicksand. we neat to stop and look how equity plays into the work we do not just in building community but making a solid foundation. this is about economic and racial just tuesday. this is about civil rights and liberties, removing burdens that hold people back from jobs and education and from fully participating in the community. this is about moving closer to the dream of the beloved community. it is about smart on criminal justice. it is about bold leadership, and it is about time so thank you, mayor breed. thank you again everyone for being here. this is just bringing us one step closer to dealing with what
we know are a number of inequitable things that exist in san francisco that we need to address. i want to take this opportunity to acknowledge cheryl davis. director of human rights commission, who has already started work and research on how we can make sure that even be in the city and county of san francisco within our various departments that ther there is equitable access to job opportunities in our city. we know there is work to be done. today we celebrate an amazing accomplishment, thanks to so many incredible people who believe in the work we are doing and because of this work we are going to positively impact thousands in san francisco and hopefully change their lives and our city for the better. thank you all so much for being hereod