>> somehow the 24th is not available. i would like to ask for a continuance for the next available date. and i believe we are reasonably close to an agreement so we can avoid a dr and i think we might be able to do that. >> october 8th. >> all right. that would be

fine. >> i think the commission can likely accommodate that. >> commissioners. i need to and i apologize with all the excitement that i need to recuse myself to this item. >> i motion to recuse president fong. >> second. >> on that motion to recuse president fong from item 3, >>commissioner michael j. antonini: >commissioner rich hillis: >>general manager jerry n. johnson: >>commissioner kathrin moore: >commissioner dennis richards: >president cindy wu: and commissioner fong. he's gone already. so moved, commissioners. >> we'll take that item up soon. >> okay. thank you. >> is there further public comment on the continuance calendar?

>> i'm here to request that you continue no. 7 until the date you have chosen for no. 5 which is october 15th. can i have the overhead please. you will notice that day is the same issue. we are using the 5-foot height as >> are you asking for item 7? >> i'm asking for 7 to be continued to the same as item 5. >> should you take up that matter until it is called. we have not called that item. >> so i have to wait until midnight for that? >> depends on the commission. >> it's equivalent now of 10:45 p.m. in terms of a meeting. i have been

here since noon. so i am telling you right now, audience, that you can't do the 5-footers except together because the ones one is issues, there are five more coming and you have one on south of market. you've had a lot of that today. so i will wait until midnight. >> i would like to make the same request. the promises made -- >> we are going to stick to the continuance calendar. i know everyone is tired. >> i will call items 12345 at this time. >> good evening, my name is john, the owner of the property at

3029-baker street. i would like to respectfully request that we just stick to the agenda which is to continue to october 1st. this project has been discussed for 20 months. in other words our meeting with neighbors was 20 months ago and i don't think it's fair to have anymore continueances. i have to disagree with mr. tricks remark that there is any further accommodation that's going to be reached a further continuance would serve any purpose. we've made huge accommodationed already to get to this point and we don't see any further changes coming and staff has made it pretty clear as to what the thoughts are on the approve

ability of this. >> i'm the cosponsor for 2928 baker street, no. 3 on your list. i would like to respectfully keep with the proposed continuance for october 1st. we had our first application submitted to the department back in february of 2014. we made a number of concessions to our neighborhood groups and to the discretionary review filer. we were originally scheduled to be on the calendar before but for reasons it was pulled out. i feel this is a prospect to come into agreement and based on the relation from the planning department it does not rise to the level of unusual or extraordinary. i would like to keep the proposed continuance dates of october 1st. thank you.

>> okay. is there additional comment on the continuance calendar? if there are additional comments please lineup on the side of the room. >> i'm here with grow sf, i want to say every time you issue another continuance you back line this even further and give more opportunities for these projects to be scaled back when we are in the middle of the housing crisis. i hope that you take into accounts that your arguments are made here that why they should be moved forward and it is your position to say yes or no and if there is no more discussion to be had, it's time a decision is made. >> thank you very much. >> can i ask the person who requested october 15th to come back up? >> it was requested for october

8th. >> i apologize. we've been here 11 1/2 hours. could you repeat why you want to continue to an additional week? >> yes. i have an event. a school event where i'm hosting at my house that evening and we sent invitations out and we can't rescind them and originally when the dates were offered, she gave us the 24 and i agreed and a week later the planner rescinded that and gave us the first. i'm only asking for a week. >> i move to continue item 1 to september 24th, item 2, september 24th, item 3 to october 8.th. 4 to

the first and 5 to the 15. >> second. >> very good. there is a motion to continue all items as proposed except item 3 to october 8th. on that motion, >>commissioner michael j. antonini: >commissioner rich hillis: >>councilman johnson: >>commissioner kathrin moore: >commissioner dennis richards: >president cindy wu:. so moved. commissioners that motion passes unanimously 6-0. commissioners, that will place us on your regular calendar item 6 a, b, 00 eight at 1042 jackson street. the conditional use authorization and the zoning

administrator will question a variance. >> good evening, kelly grove, planning department staff. the item before you is a conditional use authorization at 1042 jackson located at the district this item was scheduled on july 23rd but extended to this hearing to provide additional information. the current property is a 2 story over garage and covers the entire 41 -square foot lot and 25 feet wide. the purpose of the construct a 2 story vertical addition involving three total unit. the proposed story would cover an entire lot and setback eight 8 feet from the property line and six 6 feet from the property line. this includes configuration of two additional

residential units of the gauj and two additional parking spaces the project sponsor is seeking a setback of 15 feet. 1 phone call and 75 signatures and approximately 50 signatures in opposition to the project. individuals who submitted visit letters also signed the joint letter of opposition which you have in your supplemental packet. the department recommends approval and believe the property is necessary and desirable for the following reasons. the project would have one unit to an existing two unit building consistent with the zoning district and with the existing neighborhood character of multifamily residential buildings. it's consistent with the surrounding neighborhood context with

three-four residential buildings and the building scope and lighting to the residents. the property is served well and the unit will not impact detrimental capacity and has two parking spaces and two off street parking spaces which will alleviate parking congestion. the parking meets all applicable requirement codes and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. this concludes my presentation and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> good evening commissioners. i'm here on behalf of the project sponsor and who have in the project team. we are very excited to present this project. we are available to answer any questions that you have after

this. as collean mentioned the project involves a seismic upgrade, renovation and configuration of the two existing units which have been vacant since 2014. the building is the shortest building along jackson. the project will construct a two story addition and a total of four story and maximum of 49 feet consistent with the 3- 4 story residential buildings throughout the neighborhood. this is also going to create a four bedroom dwelling unit to approximately 1900 square feet in size and suitable for family occupancy. it's going to be setback six feet from jackson street and additional eight feet from the property line minimizing it's appearance and finally to off street parking spaces. this building is located in the bulk district

which allows development up to 65 feet. the project is only 49. however planning code section requires conditional use for any structure above 45 in rh district and requests a variance from the third floor which already includes rear and front set backs and it's justified by the substandard lot which is only 3 feet which others nearby are 70 feet or more along those lines. the sponsors have engaged in proactive outreach and they have received a good deal support. throughout that process they have received comments from neighbors and concerns regarding building massing. in the interest of responsibilitying to those comments and concerns they have proposed some additional top floor level set backs which we'll be describing to you today in a little bit more detail. at this time i would like to ask the

architect to come up and discuss the design and massing. we are available for questions afterwards. >> thank you commissioners. we had a meeting with some concerned neighbors and they did express to me i'm coming on board with the project. some concerns primarily about height. it's understanding that it was 40 feet and it's 55 feet as previously stated. we have taken some time to look at how the project fits in the neighborhood and i have something for the overhead if we can turn this on.

the orange lots indicate properties that have non-conforming coverage. site coverage. there is a predominance of properties that are 100% or yards with less than ten feet of depth. the others indicate properties that are higher than four stories. the yellow and orange hatched areas are properties that are both exceeding the lot coverage as well as have buildings that are taller than four stories. some noted at 5 stories and you can see a pattern on jackson street. our sight -- site is right here and the properties are all four stories or more. there is a larger building at 1060 jackson street on a wide lot has the power stories and is higher

than everyone seems concerned about in the neighborhood. the other one is the project on the top fourth floor we have scaled back some of the massing along the small alleyway connected to jackson street. we have supplemental rendering not in your packet. this is a view looking up jackson street which doesn't really reflect the changes that we are talking about on auburn street but the pattern that is consistent with the rest of jackson street of buildings becoming higher as you you you you move up the street. this is a view from the

opposite of jackson street to the east and the subject property is at the corner of auburn and jackson. you are starting to see the fourth floor that has been pulled back approximately 3 feet from auburn facade for a portion of the frontage on auburn street. there is a portion that we pulled back only two 2 feet in the area. this is a view a little bit better looking at auburn street and you can see the fourth floor recede nicely and we try to make it horizontal and not make it the massing and try to soften the massing and helps considerably. this is a view up auburn street with massing holding back three 3 feet at the front and rear portions. there is a middle portion that accommodates kitchen area that

we needed a little bit more width. it only sets back 2 feet. we have also supplemented the design with some over hangs to get some shadow and interest and try again to express the project. the original project had a long bulk and we have tried to make some efforts to scale that back so it's a little bit more in keeping with the neighborhood. again, this is a shot that is in your packet that shows the rhythm of the even side of jackson street and you can see our side right here, it is one of the lower buildings on that side of the street. so by adding the two floors we are only coming to a height of 49 feet stairwell with under the 65-foot height limit by 15 feet. on the plan

view that we are proposing with some other set backs we have altered and cut about 60% of square foot acknowledge of the floor area. this is auburn street setting back the first portion of the building on the fourth floor and there is a middle section approximately 16 feet. we are rather tight because on the east side we have been setting back the building from the downhill property by 3 feet so we are rather narrow at this portion. we have outdoor deck areas at the portion at the 8-foot setback and the 6-foot setback on the front. finally the issue regarding the variance for the rear yard setback, we are talking about a very small

portion of the that is visible here in this diagram. so the yellow shaded area does indicate the area that would be in the required setback, the dash line shows where the 15-foot setback would be. this is the 65-foot height limit allowable and we are well under that. the yellow indicates the area that is non-conforming and the other is there and legal non-conforming use right now. thank you. i'm happy to answer any questions that the commission may have. >> okay, thank you. we are going to open up to public comment.

peterberg, christina sanders. gabriela navarro. campos, james language >> good evening. my name is john wilcox black. my neighborhood and i are here today to stand in opposition of the proposed project at 1042 and 44 jackson street. while we are supportive of adding much needed housing stock to the neighborhood, we have numerous concerns with the development as it is being proposed. the bulk of our

concerns have been outlined and today it's been signed by 52 neighbors who live in the immediate area. the developers propose to add a 2 story mega mansion penitentiary penthouse that is in conflict and will diminish access to the light to many neighbors in the immediate vicinity. we believe this is over reach and sought to compromise only to have been repeatedly met with resistance. we have outlined six areas of concern with the proposed project. first we object to the building exceeding 40 feet. the portion of jackson which the subject property resides is rh 3. maintaining development within these parameters is particularly important as the

height is in excess of 40 feet and will cast auburn alley and shadow greatly diminishing access to light and air. further, it will erode the neighborhoods well crated. this is entirely inconsistent with the structures on the street which are generally 2-3 stories over a garage. third and fourth the owners are requesting a variance with a setback with new additions to the rear yard setback. not only will the

additional street -- will cut the environment. the pour intrusion will conflict above ground equipment and preserve the light to existing windows in the neighboring buildings. as property residents we understand the need for development but we oppose renovation at the expense of neighboring properties. thank you.

public speaker: good evening. i want to express my appreciation for working on this issue. i attended the meeting and her new architect. like my neighbors thought you are going to hear in a moment. i'm for development and would like to see the building cared for but i strongly believe it needs to meet the planning code requirements for the street. it's unlikely that any of us would be standing before you today though want a four star unit to make a mansion with the top of the existing

building that's what we have been told. when we have had conversations and i spoke with her, i asked why she can build within 40 feet and her response was that it wouldn't be profitable and economically viable. she said cost are very high and there are significant suspensions and we need the cost to amortize. i don't know why we are responsible for her to return a profit. i'm not an architect but i have difficulty understanding why they can't at this unit that keeps them within the limit and still be profitable. it not probably your area of concern or ours either. since they bought it it's seen about $100,000 increase. their

concerns about profit are really curious in this environment. their desires to use these massive profits to benefit at the expense of the neighborhood. >> she's going to portray us as antidevelopment. that's not the case. we are very much for development. our concerns are really comprehensive. we are very much concerned with light and air. impacts that could have to the neighborhood along auburn and jackson streets and with respect to low and middle income tennants and some we believe who have been wrongfully convicted and keeping to the beauty of our neighborhood. this project benefits herself and her husband. >> thank you, mam, your time is up. >> thank you.

>> thank you, commissioners for allowing me to speak about this project. i'm opposed to this request for conditional use and vaerng. i would like to thank those in the bay area who in supporting those projects. my neighbors and i agree. the project is listed in a town that is to lower income chinese families and immigrants. up until this recent sale this project was offered by the demographics. we are curious as to how this story luxury penthouse wrapped in floor to

ceiling windows can be desirable. this is completely out of context with the surroundings. casting a permanent shadow that leaves many homes. perhaps this is why the sponsor has not showed the rendering. instead the sponsor has provided a series of maps highlighting other properties. over half of these examples are completely different than the subject property and higher limits.

the sponsors own exhibits for conditional use. commissioners, you have over 50 neighbors who have gone on record as stating that no opposition to the sponsor adding a unit otherwise increasing the height and bulk of this property this can hardly be considered antidevelopment. this compromises holy compatible with the city's desire and the project. this project as currently proposed is an increase that is not desired. at our neighborhood meeting this is to mainly ensure the project is profitable and one that has no

compelling interest. based on these facts i urge you to deny this. >> in the current responding and testimony would lead you to believe they are sophisticated people. who are simply looking to build a home. do not be deceived. these are intelligent operators who have purchased and developed multiple properties. they have misrepresented themselves and to the city and law enforcement officials. these developers have an established pattern of purchasing

properties and removing them through harassment and bullying. even in the title to the building before it was sold. intimidated and threatened my neighbors. sadly they have been affected and including a young single mother has decided to leave rather than face fear. there is no doubt san francisco needs housing. that said there is plenty of develop ers who are willing to take the profit. i will admit this project will have very little impact on my

life. but it will impact the lives of others. i urge you to approve this conditional use. this project is not necessary and as history to any indicator it may have been developed in the displacement of a protected family listed living on this property prior to the sale but who can no longer be found. this is not the kind of profit motivated growth that the san francisco planning commission should endorse. based on the attendance it's clear the developers are not in harmony with their neighborhoods and neighbors and san francisco community. thank you.

>> hello commissioners. i have lived at jackson street for 19 years and has been welcomed to and lived on the block in the neighborhood. i am speaking on behalf of five tennants and the building owner chinatown, optometrist dr. alfred t lee. we are across the narrow alley from the proposed project. none of the apartments have views over the 24 current structure in my building and no flat roof to get any views. however we can all see the sky from the current structure without straining our necks. 4 days ago the sun shone to

about 1130 where all the rooms along the house are lit up. about 1030 the sun is at the position that would crest the top of a 40-foot building. if this were at 50 feet, we would not ge anytime direct sunlight at all. to train my next to see the sky at the structure. if that structure were at 50 feet i would have to put my hate -- head out the

window to see the sky. the proposed project would likely not enjoy the light as it's too narrow. the developers have demonstrated no interest in doing a shadow study for the surrounding area but did do one for a park two bloeks away. the tallest roofed to the top end don't add up in elevation. they say they are taller than them but pretty much the roof tops lineup within a feet or two.

>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is richard leon. my name and i moved there 2 years ago but my wife and i actually grew up in this area. i'm one of the 50 nabz neighbors who signed this joint petition opposing the project and i strongly support the points in that petition. let's talk about the adverse affects of the 50 feet height. we talked about

the east side building. around 8:00 a.m., the building cast a shadow across the alley. the 50-foot is twice the height of the existing building. that is going to shadow onto the building across the alley. auburn is now alley. it receives a limit of direct sunshine. the 50-foot height is going to reduce that to a couple hours around noon. my bedroom they will become a lot darker. currently he the neighborhood foot line follows the slope of the street. so the interior of the upper unit is

brightly lit well into the late afternoon hours. this 50-foot height is going to disturb that. right now about 2:00 p.m.. it throws a shadow half way to my roof. now a 50-foot building is 4-5 times the height throwing a shadow to my roof. about 0:0 p.m.. it throws a shadow half way to my roof. now a 50-foot building is 4-5 times the height throwing a shadow to my roof . about the same p.m., that is going to throw a shadow across my whole roof and the this is ub desirable and unnecessary. this is

blocking the sun. the owners and architect has also alluded to adding an elevator. that's going to act about 14-20 feet. you are going to make the problem even worse. good evening, commissioners. my name is pauline. i'm at 1042 jackson street project. i have lived at this residence for 29 years and in the city for 45 years.

the project proposes to add this and a rear yard variance is being requested to reduce the yard variance requirement and this fails to meet the planning commission's idea and it's not meeting this because the proposed project oefrdz the rooftop. no. 2, the extensive shadow of the additional two floors will have an impact on the surrounding neighborhoods and does not comply with the general plan because of the additional two floors do not protect, preserve or enhance the desirable quality of the unique character of the city. this fails to meet planning code section which are required for the zoning administrator to grant variance. when there are no exceptional or circumstances

applied to those involve apply to the properties in the neighborhood and the provisions of this code would not result for the hardship of the applicant. this variance is not necessary for the substantial prooits of subject property: the granting of the variance would be detriment to the public welfare and adversely affect the san francisco's general plan because of the reduction in the rear yard requirement does not provide adequate open space for the neighborhood and the city. i along with my neighbors or immediate plans with the project currently oppose the project as proposed. we request that you eliminate one floor and the zoning administrator deny the rear yard variance request.

>> good evening, commissioners. i have lived in this city for many years. i'm a district attorney in another county t project sponsor's bare the burden of proof for your approval and any justifications put forth by these project sponsors that have documents in the media, city filing and the very documents that you have in front of you today. here are just a few examples. the ducks purchased 240 missouri street in february of 2012. after harassing the rent control and trying to pressure them out, they evicted those

residents. according to the notice filed with the city that you have before you today they are required to live at that address through september of 2016. by their own admission to their new neighbors they have never lived at that address. rather that building is currently under going a massive expansion that includes the addition of two floors and roof deck. despite the living required to live at 240 duck street, they are living at church street. why is that address significant, because of the standard capital ks a lawsuit the ducks settled this year. the ducks intentionally misrepresented the scope of the capital improvement determining the misplacement without compensation. the building remained under construction

for one 1/2 years. in fact they began construction on that project just 11 days after issuing a 60-day notice to vacate on the tenant causing a portion of the ceiling to fall and the back staircase to collapse while the tenants still lived there and they are still being sued for allegedly calling the police and fally reporting that their monolingual; spanish speaking tennants were trespassing and asking police to arrest them instead of forcing them out. we believe this pattern of eviction occur at this building today and the buildings indicate the protected live there and the chinese families that were protected tennants lived at the building at the time of sale. the ducks told us that no one lived there at the time it was close. this should not be rewarded nor

condoned. i urge you to review the packet of conditions. >> hello, distinguished commissioners. i'm here to express my opposition as the project proposed. my wife and i are top floor residents at the proposed structure. we actually looked at purchasing the project site. i can a test when i looked at it. i met them, they were 4 generations family. so that's not a fact that can be gated debated. my primary concerned if approved my building will lose sunlight

because there are no set backs from the property line and it's height extends above that to the east, west and north. because my building shares a wall. my unit will only at lighting to jackson street. if this building is beyond 40 feet the light coming through my window would be coming through my wall. this is unacceptable and unnecessary. this create an issue because the building will cover 100% of lot leaving no land. this is per many code set backs. we have tried to discuss this with the project sponsor and they have been uncompromising to seek a

project that over towers the area. everyone of these is setback and as you can see from the photos submitted by our neighbors every one is approximately shining on auburn and effectively eliminated. there were protected tennants at move in. thank you for your time. i do want to reiterate that the document that the architect showed representing all the buildings represents 4-5 buildings. mine was representative 5 or 4 stories and i'm on the top floor.

public speaker: good evening commissioner. i live at 1060 jackson street. my family has built this building back in 1930s. i have been born and raised there since 1947. i got for the record it's a three level above a sublevel garage. you've got to learn how to count. i built and remodeled this building without the set backs. i think these people should have to comply with the same. i could care less about the size of the lot. the height is another issue. they keep telling me it's higher than everyone else. take a look at the picture many i

think this building if you are familiar with the morris code, that's what this building is. the morris code. it just sticks out. on jackson street i'm a 30-degree grade. everyone knows it from the back and side and the front of them, everywhere. i don't understand this. why can't they be honest about this. where is the truth about this. san francisco is known for seven hills. are we going to change all of these hills and lump them into one. are we going to level them off so they are no hills. what are we going to do? seven

hills, vernal heights. russian hill or knob hill. seven hills. they have all been tapered. i asked the neighbors, i complied with their wishes. neighbors and neighborhood. we have to get along together. these people just care about their money. they are going to come and develop and leave the premise and they can care less about what they left. someone has to pick up after the garbage. we have to deal with it for the rest of our lives. >> thank you. next speaker, please. public speaker: hello, my name

is valerie leon. i'm here to present a video on behalf of anna stunk of 46 taylor street. she's not here because of medical reasons. i have a tript transcript of the video.

>> in recent years we have lost families >> [video] vibe sea in vibrancy in san

francisco is being integrated -- [inaudible] to enjoy economically by gentrification >> we said we want to rolling hills of san francisco. please vote know

-- no on the conditional use application. >> time is up on that. next speaker, please. public speaker: good evening, commissioners. my name is joe. i live at 1044 jackson street. i have lived at this residence since 1991. thank you commissioners moore and antonini. we can see the additional two floors and the potential rooftop terrace would be in the adjoining properties in the neighborhood. i think those who

have sent letters should be taken into account because they are many advocating on behalf of the project who do not have a legitimate interest at hand and they are not living adjacent to the project or the same block or the same neighborhood and not directly affected or relevant. thank you. public speaker: good evening, commissioners. i have lived two buildings up from the development in question. i'm here to to object to the proposed project because they are not following the planning code and the impacting conditions on the surrounding neighbors. my family has lived

in chinatown for 5 generations. we witnessed that developers in knob hill have not conformed to planning codes and residents are left with higher density and less privacy. this is exactly what this proposed development stands to do. this proposed project would exacerbate live ability conditions to surrounding neighbors. the existing building is non-conforming with no rear yard. it would have greater site coverage to adjacent buildings and towers over the alley. this further expands the non-conforming nature of the property by not providing a code compliant with the yard and serving as a legitimate yard and eliminates the mandatory open space. additionally, should the developer add stair and elevator access to the roof based on building and

inspection code requirements, the penthouses could cover the roof. the proposal offers no redeeming contribution that would offset it's lack of compliance and negative impact to surrounding residents. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. public speaker: good evening, commissioners. any other name is joanna and i will be playing a video on behalf of my father ronald liu. >> honorable commissioners, my name is ronald wu. i wanted to speak to

you today but unfortunately i'm not able to today because i'm in hong kong addressing family matters. i'm coming to you using video technology. my wife and daughter joanna and i are owners of 1036, 38, 40 jackson street. a 6-unit apartment building. we are next to our neighbors to the project. i have been a resident and property owner of san francisco since 1961. from chinatown to knob hill to telegraph hill and north beach. the first time i arrived in san francisco in 1961 i lived near the chinatown ymca on sacramento and waverly now i'm living in the peninsula. my daughter joanna was born in the children's hospital in san francisco in laurel heights now

california pacific medical center. as good neighbors we wholeheartedly support new development next door. this project is at the corner of jackson and auburn. jackson street is a busy uphill cable car route. this project is is directly across the street from the entrance to the cable car barn. the cable car barn is the shelter maintenance shop for all cable cars. there are currently about 40 cable cars in operation in san francisco. in the morning, this cable car will leave for the streets. in the evening, they will return to the barn from the streets. auburn street is a small narrow residential alley between jackson and -- at the corner of jackson and auburn is a very busy corner most of

the time. as the next door neighbors, we strongly object to the height and the bulk of the project. the project as it is proposed is too tall and too big for this neighborhood. it is not consistent with the characters of the neighborhood. it is not in harmony with the neighborhood buildings. >> we will withdraw our objections if our neighbor -- >> i'm sorry, your time is you have. next speaker, please. public speaker: good evening, commissioners, my name is millana and live at 1421 taylor street. a property directly affected by the jackson 42 street project. one of the questions before you tonight is not whether to

allow a project that adds an additional unit to the city housing supply. nor is it weather -- whether to allow a building. the question which the standard must decide whether to use or request a feature at the size contemplated and the proposed location would provide a development necessary or desirable for and compatible with the neighborhood or the community. that's the question on the conditional use. the standard decided on the packet is one of the bases for the recommendation. yet no evidence is cited. it's sounds like it was assumed or the additional unit that was the need. with an i would like to say is the need isn't met. building above 40 feet isn't necessary for the project or the neighborhood. the project can build an additional unit and improve

the building significantly without going above 40 feet. based on the architectural rendering which shows floor to ceiling windows on the northern eastern facade. it's clear this applicant seeks the extra height is to capture and enjoy and monetize the sweeping views of the bay and tour. who -- tower. who wouldn't want to see those views? second, building above 40 feet isn't desirable for or compatible with the neighborhood. 52 neighbors and i mean neighbors on one petition alone say the project as currently contemplated isn't desirable with the neighborhood. the project in fact will cast a negative shadow literally and figuratively on the neighborhood. we understand the city must continue to add housing to the current

supply and this commission is faced with the task of approving projects that support this goal in a reasonable way and the power to do so. this project isn't reasonable. it's an over reach and represents an overall development of the project. i ask the commission to deny the request for the cua because it doesn't meet the standard for approval. the project should continue by right up to 40 feet using the discretion to say no will be the right outcome for this particular project in the goal and overall for the city. thank you for your time tonight. >> good evening, commissioners, thank you very much for the attention in light of the long day you have. my name is peterberg and i live around the street from this proposal. you

have been shown many diagrams by the sponsors and a lot of information about the developers background as well. i would like to take a brief step back and suggest there is a reasonable compromise available and mutual solution we can drive towards. instead of this luxury penthouse that will cast a shadow around the surrounding buildings, we can add all the following benefits. additional housing capacity which i and the cosignatory on the petition and improve the integrity of the building and improve the neighborhood including the rolling hill topography and not zero impact but minimal and while this whole thing can be achieved with currently compliance and zoning guidelines. this tips all the boxes. it's kind of a no brainer.

developers architect concede that a compliant code would add at least additional space and under 40 feet and set backs. that is enough for a stand-alone apartment or fa you can add an additional floor to the existing upper unit which will give the developers the penthouse they are so intent on achieving. we can suggest this item and more but meet indifference from developers. the first architect quit in protest citing the developers own behavior and refusal to engage in a meaningful discussion with neighbors. in fact according to his letter, commissioner moore graciously offer to mediate a conversation with the neighbors and they did not take her up on that. instead we the neighbors reached out to the developers and intimated this project was

essentially an all or nothing proposal. that is a false construct. this is all or nothing. in fact there is a compromise staring us on the face and they told us they have no plans to make substantive changes to the neighbors and they have to put it up to the commission to decide. here we are. i respectfully urge this commission to use the discretionary powers to use a reasonable compromise. with your help we can increase housing and create housing for the developers and preserve the neighborhood characters and the rolling topography. please reject this request and ask them to revise their plans. thank you for your attention. >> thank you. is there additional public comment. if you would like to speak, please lineup on the side of the room. the first speaker can

come forward. the first speaker. in the interest of time if you want to align yourself with other people's comments that would be appreciated. >> sure. my name is juan -- i want to thank you for taking this valuable time this late in the night. i support this project and creation of housing and parking in the city. i work at a management consulting firm in the city and found my clients and my own company will not be able to hire people because the rent is too high. researching housing finds that high end technology

jobs, the kind that demand good housing have a multiplier in five jobs. therefore the city and it's residents should look to create houses that attract high tech jobs and five local jobs. returning to my own experience, for those that can afford the rent define the housing is too small and they get bid too high. we need to encourage builders to add space and at least arrest rent increase in the city. we also increase parking spaces as we all know and this project is adding two parking spaces. san francisco planning needs to plan for existing and future demand for housing. thank you very much.

>> thank you. next speaker. public speaker: high, today is a weird day because earlier today we spent hours listening people telling you not to approve a project that really literally didn't displace anyone. and here is a project that maybe did displace someone by someone who also maybe did displace other people. i don't know, i didn't look it up. i heard rumors about it and i thought about looking it up and i decided not to because this project today isn't about what kind of landlord she was other times. this project today is about whether we should add square footage and we should definitely atd square footage. i don't know what you should do about whether to use this commission to punish people for things they may or may not have done in other venues of their life. i hope not and i don't expect you to do that. thanks.

but i really don't know. i'm telling you everything i heard tonight is the first time i heard it. thanks. public speaker: good evening, my name is daniel kemp and i live in san francisco. i want to urge you to approve this project and i am a resident of the bay area. not just san francisco, the entire bay area is in a regional severe housing shortage and that's why i'm in this project. i have two major points i want to bring up to you. first there are already a lot of areas around the city especially the northern part like russian hill and pacific heights that have really really tall apartment buildings next to relatively short homes that are like 3- 4 stories tall. you know, there are still people that pay a lot of money to people that live there. to say the quality of life has been

neglect atively affected by this and those that still pay to live there. when those buildings were built can you emergency having them built at all we would have hundreds of people out of homes during housing shortage. it would have been a mistake to put people out of housing then and a mistake to do it again today. my second major point as a renter and most people in the city are renters, there is no value in living near buildings with heights that are all the same. there is no value in living somewhere where it's you know the yard is x feet large if you have to move to the central valley to find room for housing because the city you wanted to live in is in a housing shortage. as a renter i would urge you to

approve this project for those reasons. to keep that in mind that you have the power to end this housing shortage. please help us get out of this problem. thank you. >> next speaker. public speaker: good evening. i'm a new resident of san francisco. we wanted to live in this city for a long time and we couldn't afford it for a long time. it's happened now and i love it. i have looked at the diagrams and i have heard that it out of sync with the neighborhood. i urge the commission to look into that. i cannot imagine any architect reputable people would put this out there. this creates three very habitable units for a city that needs it. all of those are really

important points to me. i also want to speak for my friend she relocated to san francisco 3 years ago and spent 4 months bounding back and forth trying to find a place to rent. for each property she walked in to there were more than 20 families competing. it was rough writing letters. they ended up in daly city and they are in a situation with a month to month lease. they have made multiple offers on 75 homes all to noah veil. there is just not enough options. she lives and loves the city of san francisco and the hurdle of finding accommodations for her in the city. she urges you to building more housing which should take precedence of protecting views of neighbors.

thank you. >> hi. my name is laura clark. the neighborhoods and developers have reached an impasse. it's up to you to vote yes or no on this project. i would urge you to say yes. the developer has said this is the project that they have determined is economically viable. i know that sound that it's just about profit but it does mean that somebody has a profit incentive to create housing in this city. that is the only way we are going to create housing that is not 100% tax subsidized. we need housing. they have decided they want to

prau approve this project. i urge you to say yes. public speaker: my name is usa austin. i urge you to support this project. the so many times we see families leave and you have an opportunity to keep one here or allow one to come to our city. yes, they could down size and take the project back but that would be saying no to allow a family into our neighborhood. i think families in my neighborhood is what i want. as we see our schools and community suffer, it's important to have places for residents to stay. to design this space with a family in mind. she didn't design it to say i'm going to build multiple units in one space to get a bunch of rent.

it was designed to accommodate a family. if you choose to not approve this property, you are saying no to another community stakeholder. please support this project. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening commissioners. it's been a long day so i'm going to be short. my name is kashmir. for starters, this project is 15 feet below the height limit. another thing that keeps coming back and back again is this whole magical thing about shadows. as i said earlier, the sun, the moon, the trees. shows these objects are real. on the motion that a building is

going to limit air, that's not possible. i studied physics. it does not affect the air. thts an opportunity for you to move forward and say yes to having more families in the city say yes to more housing and at some point, it's an opportunity for another family to have a place to live. thank you.

commissioners thank you for being here on such a late night. i approve this project. it is a project for families. it's designed with four bedrooms with the living space on the fourth floor otherwise there would not be enough room for a living space. i heard two and three bedrooms. families need room to grow. san francisco needs more four bedroom units. is this such a shornl of them? my sister for example my sister had to move because she couldn't find a four bedroom apartment. san francisco needs to grow substantially with all sorts of units with families large and

small. >> the builders have agreed to the back side for the neighbors. i can personally vouch for their character. their not the money grubbing people that they have you believe they are. they are small business owners trying to get by. this project is good for the city, consistent with the neighborhood. it's good for families in san francisco. thanks. >>

public speaker: hello. it's great that we can come here to argue about something. it's really amazing for our democracy especially when voter turnout is low. thank you all even though we disagree. i want to talk about this project. first is that this project in particular displaces your residents and as units in an already expensive making arguments about displacement.

housing is decreasing massively. shouldn't we increase housing to families? not only this project changes the view as it describes the units to 20 stories. it would be a sacrifice towards making and we live in a city with tradeoffs and sacrifices. my neighbors about their desire for parking. these are woven into our society and in a dense urban environment. living in a society and living especially in a city is great. our closeness need to generate a lot of heat. this recognizes

when we can neglect one thing or the other. i love pretty views. i live in the sunset by the ocean. when the rent is rising over 20% in the city, when thousands are being displaced and the very fabric we prioritize views. for far too young the fact that this tiny project has become a political came -- campaign. the neighborhood grievances.

thank you very much. public speaker: i'm your last speaker. there are one thing that i would really love to preserve about san francisco and it's being a family city. i was born here, i was raised here. i lived all over the city and now live on the peninsula. this project right here, this addition of two additional floors to create a metro unit is perfectly sized for families like mine who have many family members and have to cram into one little housing that we can. i don't find shadows on an alleyway or additional parking to be a worthy of legitimate excuse to block more housing

when we need it the most and the area that needs it the most. this area is also dense so the project makes sense in the local context. this development right here up to 40 feet of height is logical and i might dare i say not as ambitious as we need to be. this small housing project shouldn't be turned into some kind of add homonym debate attack on 1 person. this project for the conditional use authorization for the variance is necessary for san francisco. i urge your aye vote. city clerk: is there any

additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore? >>commissioner kathrin moore: i'm impressed by everyone's stamina. we have heard a lot for and against. i have a couple of questions. what is far more practical and far more governed by things which perhaps are harder to understand if you don't sit here every week. i would like to ask mr. tarpter if you wouldn't mind coming to the microphone. you talked about elements of a dwelling which i do not find in my drawings here. my question to you is were those changes made afterwards, are these your drawings ? >> yes. these are my drawings and i

worked on the exterior elevation. >> answer my question please. is the set of drawings, did you prepare these drawings, plans, sections. >> i prepared a portion of those drawings. i did not prepare all of those drawings. >> it looks to me those are the drawings you had before. >> a portion of those are, yes, correct. >> clarifying that, i would like to ask you a couple of questions. could you explain the section drawing which is drawing a 41 to us please. there has been a thought that you are intended to raise the building, is that correct? >> yes, currently the garage driveway is quite narrow and quite steep and the intent would be to raise the actual basement level so the ease of

getting out is more useful. now it presents a hazard. to have access to that garage level raises the floor to have access within the driveway. >> can you explain to me about raising the floor? >> the proposal is that the foundation is not in very good state and that given the amount of work that is being proposed to add one or 2 stories would justify having to significant foundation improvements that at the same time while the building is is floating above the existing foundation as it's removed and replaced that the building could be raised approximately 12 inches to facilitate a better access from the street or driveway

from the narrowness and existing driveway rate. >> i do not see an indication of that here. my question if you are adding two floors, that would mean that you would have to basically redesign the structure as well because the building as designed probably could not carry two additional floors. >> correct, there are two designs in place that have not been involved with the previous author working with the instructional engineer and there are some moment frames and additional structures to accommodate the addition of the two new floors that would take place at the lower levels throughout the building. >> would this particular type of the building eventually be a demolition? >> i don't think what is considered by a demolition by the building and planning code. there is significant change but not a full

demolition. >> but you are not yet assen trenched on the design of the building to answer that question in >> correct. >> the other question i have if you have indeed to take over the project which happens sometimes, i'm surprised that you are showing modified floorplans and elevations projecting them while you are asking for approvals tonight which need to be based on drawings which are this front of us on hand, are you familiar with that requirement? >> yes i am and i apologize late in the game we've had some discussions and the sponsors project sponsors have agreed to try. they want to do a good job and make this a good project and in consideration of some of the comments that came from the neighborhood, they felt that they could they try

to make the effort to include set backs on the fourth level. >> the general rule as this commission follows very closely is that a project can only be fully reviewed and approved when the documented in drawings which forms the bases for an approval. in addition to that, that could potentially open a more positive discussion with your neighbors particularly if it's documented with a way to dimensionally understand the building. i'm going to make it short because you are tired. the building is only in context. it shows that at least sitting amidst three buildings down to the alley but you haven't done that. it's interesting to see the elevation drawings and the other things but it doesn't quite do it. i want to

leave it at that. the building is too massive for me. i believe it should work within adding one additional floor or perhaps combining the second and third floor, but adding a fourth floor is something i'm very concerned about. as you know, this threshold, this is not a dr. i don't think commissioner has done this either. that means a project has to rise to be necessary and desirable. the necessary and desirable is most and foremost described for people next to it. that's what the neighbors have to tell us. i appreciate your opinion about needing to identify the city and everybody to comment on it but it's the voice of the neighbors

that has to work with us. i appreciate your sensitivity but there is still more missing for this project to come forward to me. >> >commissioner rich hillis: i would agree with commissioner moore's comments. i think you are asking for too much. to add a floor as a variance that would encroach on the rear yard on the third and fourth floor. i think you can get away with the third floor although i'm not the zoning administrator. i think what you are trying to do by putting a space on the top floor and bedroom space. it ends up needing too much space on the floor. you cannot provide as much of a setback. i can understand if you had a

modest increase on the third fleer. i'm support the third floor. but the fourth floor is is not appropriate here and doesn't work especially on the alley. >> thanks, commissioners, in regards to the rear yard variance, the lot is fairly substandard. there is a very small parcel behind it on the alley also a corner lot to continue to contribute to the open space and the adjacent property to the east is a deeper lot and extends back to the rear yard. i think if there are some specifics for the variance and i have concerns for the proposed project and i don't see any need for the variance at the fourth floor level. the rest of the project would be up to you but

i can find some jugs for the variance on the level and this would require a variance not only at the level but the second construction as well that would trigonometry -- trigger the variance at the level and i can support the three levels but not the fourth level. >>councilman johnson: i was looking at the presentation from the property owner -- project sponsor and was looking at between from mr. fong's documents because i wasn't seeing what i had study for today. so that was problematic. that alone is problematic to me. being late at night i would like to rely on what i worked on for today. the other thing is i can be okay with the height of the floor my issue in

terms of krchluof c u at the dr doesn't like about the project. cu at a high bar. for me it's problematic with space floors 1 and 2 and the second floor from a two bedroom to a three bedroom. we are talking about creating a family home and you had one where you had three bedrooms and now you are added a fourth bedroom on top of it. i think it's something that should be look at. a lot of things brought on to go into a design studio here at 11:30 p.m.. that seems problematic to me. taking it altogether, not sure i can make a decision but i hate

continuances. thank you. >> commissioner antonini? >>commissioner michael j. antonini: i viewed this site and was at the adjacent building at 1044 jackson. it was quite apparent that adding an additional floor would bring that building up to where it would fit with the height of the adjacent buildings and kind of conform to the sloep coming down the hill. and you know, there are some work that needs to be done seismically and a problem on the bottom to see where i'm going to raise it up to make it better. i agree with the other commissioners to putting too -- two floors even though they backed that up is going to be a little bit large and probably just a third floor

is probably the best way to do it. commissioner hillis said if it wasn't a fourth floor maybe you had add a suite on the top of bathroom. i'm not sure. we are probably going to have to continue this given the hour an we are going to ask project architects to come back with another version to include project that only had the three floors on it and that might be the best way to do it. >> commissioner richards? richards >commissioner dennis richards: i know it's very very late. give us some information on the rh. >> there are some which have a higher limit. if you are in the

planning code in the rm district, the findings made for conditional use for having desirable per section 253. ask that you look at the general characteristics of the rh 3 zoning district and in terms of the actions you may seek if you desire to have a building, the denial of the conditional use would result in a 3 story building and would not necessarily need to come back to you. but if you would like to retain some jurisdiction of the design elements over the third story it's a little complicated because they would no longer need to before you because of the conditional use. it could potentially bring the dr if you would like to see it revised. >> sure. i appreciate the

change the project sponsor made with the comments given. i think that's a good step. i always reel against houses above the square feet when the per square footage. what just through me off was the issue with the evictions and the lawsuits. was there a tenant in this place the record time that you purchased it was the rent fee being paid. what did we find? what happened? >> good evening commissioners. at the time we purchased the property the downstairs was occupied by a family

waiting for years to get into the housing program and were getting support letters as well as the owner of the trust with the support letters to be moved along in the housing program. they have been wait listed for 8 years. they got into inclusionary housing program. that was an important consideration for us even purchasing the property. >> words are why are you punishing and taking these matters into consideration. i wouldn't say it's punishing but not rewarding and with building more housing and we have policy goals around displacement. someone said we need to accommodate a family and we need to have people come to the city. i don't want to

appear condescending and you are making room for a new one. it a bad wash. it's something that i think really in the message that you are telling us hurts your movement to be honest with you. i think you need to consider that in the future because it really resonates with me as those things to be considered by you. >> i support a continuance or support whatever else the commission decides. >> can i just ask for a clarification from the zoning administrator. if it's a denial of the project, it defeats defaults to a 3 story? >> yes. they can buildup to 40 feet if it was denied. >> did you say it could require

a look back? >> that's the consent, we would want to discuss at the city attorney's office. i can't recall a case like this which was denied. section 311 was performed as part of this project. >> a denial would default to a 3 story building in >> yes. >> commissioner wu in >president cindy wu: i'm starting to see there is a consensus to want the 3 story building. i would suggest we deny the cu to achieve that. i don't have to see this project again. if it doesn't need a cu we don't need to do this again. >> there is a motion before you. we are saying for your review you would need to adopt or approve a motion for denial in that process. so it wouldn't

be a motion to intent to deny. >> okay. i will move for a motion of intent to deny. >> second. >> commissioner moore? >>commissioner kathrin moore: i have a question for you. the balcony on the alley seems would require more? >> they are permitted given the width from the sidewalk they can project to the wall no more than 8 feet to the road. we did review this today and does appear it's in compliance. >> thank you for clarifying that. generally because the project still basically draws on the dna of somebody whose work we have seen

frequently that's not any put down which is typical to took over. i believe that dna from what is proposed from the design is quite strong and requires modification of how you finish the building on the third floor. so i don't have to see it and i am comfortable with the motion. >> commissioner johnson. >> there has been a motion that has been seconded with an intent to deny, commissioner wu, would you like to continue this matter to october 8th? >> it's an intent to deny but we should also continue the matter. so there is no requirement to notify. >president cindy wu: the timing is because of the time to write it. >> it would be drafted and included in your packet. we can do it. i'm sorry. commissioner moore? >> i just want to ask that it's on the

first of october. >> yes. >> commissioners if you desire sounds like you are not interested in doing it that staff question for the revised project. one could be made on the first. >> thank you. city clerk: very good commissioners there is a motion seconded for a motion of intent to deny the conditional use authorization and continue the matter for october 1st. commissioner >commissioner rich hillis: >>commissioner michael j. antonini: >>commissioner kathrin moore: >president cindy wu: >commission vice-president rodney fong: that motion passes unanimously 7-30. zoning administrator. what say you. >> close the public hearing on the variance on the third floor variance granted at the fourth story. >> i want to open this discussion. it's been a very long day. i think

this item will take more than an hour. we have a half hour before the garage closes. >> we have two more items. i believe the 16th street would like to continue until at october 1st. >> the first on the agenda. >> you want to hear this next one? >> i don't think we are going to make it. we have to get to the garage. >> i don't think we'll make it. it takes about 10 minutes running over and bringing it back. >> i think there is consensus to adjourn the meeting. >> it's a continuance. >> we have to continue to pick a date for both. october 1st for the

16th street. >> again, october 1st or the 8 are probably the soonest hearing dates that are available. i suppose, well, the mission controls are next week. i would recommend the 1st on the 8th. that's entirely up to you, commissioners. you have the housing balance report and the facilities planning code amendment. i don't see why not. >> let's go for the first. >> let's put them both on the first and unfortunately we need to move. >> move to continue item 7 and 8 to october 1st. >> commissioners, we should probably take public comment on the continuances. >> item 7. you already have continue item 5 to the 15th of october.

it's identical issue. the extra fee of the zoning is used for an extra story. if you look at your schedule it says 7 story, 65 feet tall and if you look at the description on 5 b is a 9 story building and 80 feet tall. guess what, those are the 5-footers. you have to have the discussion of the 5-footers. they are going to be a play in the south of market. a lot of them are just youth and family zone. i would suggest you continue them. you already continued one to october 15th. just leave it out on the october 15th about the 5-footers. please don't make yourselves and us crazy. crazier. >> this is public comment on the continuance. >> i know that.

>> my name is jamie whitaker. i live on south of market. i think there is a public integrity issue with the buildings that was just mentioned. there goes an understanding that the 5-foot bump in many area plans not just west and eastern soma are other plans is specifically intended for use for pdr or retail ground floor. >> we are speaking to the continuances right now. to pair the >> we are only talking about the continuance now.

public speaker: commissioners, i'm the project sponsor for item 7 and respectfully request the commission that you hear the item tonight. it's been a very very long wait. thank you. >> any other public comment? commissioner, antonini? >> i'm very supportive. i'm game to do anything. i would like to hear it tonight, however we can't get our cars out. the only thing we can do is adjourn, go move our cars to the street and come back and we did that once on home depot. i think we are kind of worn out. but i would love to do it tonight, i don't mind dying it -- doing it. it is an issue. it has to be decided. the sooner we do it the better because we have a lot of issues and i

would prefer to see it on the first than to have to delay it for the 15th. that would be my issue to continue it to the first. >> do you have a motion? >> yes. >> commissioner moore? >>commissioner kathrin moore: i don't see the two projects have to be seen together. an issue to be thought so independently and based on what the particular conditions are of whether they are being executed one way or the other. i think i would rather have this commission work a little harder and bring a certain amount of knowledge to the speculation of the 5 feet and look at the two projects independently. i don't think they need to be heard together. i suggest the project be continued to october 1st and the other one comes when it does. >> commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to

continue item 7 to october 1st, >>commissioner michael j. antonini: >commissioner rich hillis: >>councilman johnson: >>commissioner kathrin moore: >commissioner dennis richards: no, >president cindy wu: aye, >commission vice-president rodney fong: aye. so moved, commissioners that motion passes with commissioner richards voting against. >> commissioner wu? >president cindy wu: i want to say to the members of the public who waited for item 8, i know every one wishes to speak. i just want to make that clear. >> we are proposing to continue item 8 until october 1.st >> another vote for 8. another motion. >> to continue item 8 also to

the first. >> second. > we need to take public comment on that motion. >> good evening, for item 8 we are fine with the continuance for october 1.st. >> public comment is closed. city clerk: there is a motion that has been seconded to continue the matter to october 1st. >> you want to speak, ma'am?

>> i really appreciate how late you guys are here as well. the attention that you have given the project on 16th street. i think we have the majority of people who could come on the eighth. we can't get as many people here on the first. i don't know if it's possible to calendar around our schedules. 15th isn't going to work. >> we are proposing the first. >> the eighth is going to work. whatever you need to do. thank you. >> as always, keep it on the 1st and if we need to stretch it out we can do that. city clerk: commissioners there is a proposal to continue the item 8 to october 1st. >>commissioner michael j. antonini: >president cindy wu: >commission vice-president rodney fong:

>commissioner dennis richards: >>general manager jerry n. johnson:. that passes. >> comments and questions. >> i attended the arts commission meeting reporting on pdr. >> there are no commission comments, departments matters. directors announcements? item 10. public comment? since there is no public comment i would like to thank commissioners for a very long day. controversial topics and i don't think we made everybody happy but appreciate the service to the city. adjournment. meeting is adjourned. [ meeting is adjourned ]

>> >> >>

announcer: b dreams and good grades aren't enough to get into college. there are actual steps you need to take. finding someone who can help is the first and most important. for the next steps, go to knowhow2go.org.

>> good afternoon everybody. welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors meeting of september 15, 2015. madam clerk, can you please call the roll? >> madam president. supervisor avalos. supervisor breed, supervisor campos, supervisor christensen,

supervisor cohen, supervisor farrell, supervisor kim, supervisor mar, supervisor tang, supervisor wiener, supervisor yee. madam president, all members are present. >> thank you, ladies and gentlemen can you please join us in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge of allegiance, to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> thank you. >> thank you. madam clerk, are there any communications? >> i have none today madam president. >> okay, madam clerk, can you please call the first item? >> yes the first item of business is the policy discussion between the honorable

mayor edwin lee and the board of supervisors. the mayor may proud additional remarks up to five minutes. the mayor may recognize supervisor christensen. there maybe followed up questions asked. >> thank you very much, welcome mayor ed lee. do you have opening remarks at this time? >> i do. thank you again president breed and supervisors and guests to our city hall. supervisors welcome back from your recess. i know you're all eager to get to work. i like to use my time to talk about how we are working everyday to keep our city more affordable. that's our laser focus on housing, housing that's affordable to low and middle income families. we are using this time of prosperity in our city to make sure every resident benefits. we have already together, raised the minimum wage for our city.

we've made muny free for low income kids for seniors and people with disabilities. we've invested in our public schools, the great equalizer to make sure our kids succeed. by providing affordable housing to low income families is an essential part of our affordability challenge that we must solve. even though we have a housing crisis that's decades in the making, we must act decisively together now to make sure that families stay in their homes and get access to an affordable one. that's why last year, 2014, i announced a pretty aggressive housing plan. build and rehabilitate 30,000 homes by 2020 making sure it's affordable to low income family and to middle income family. we're making sure this progress with the most housing we've ever

seen built in our cities since the great earthquake. we need to do more. that's why last week we launched a blueprint to build an additional 10,000 homes. more than 10,000. while we set the ambitious goal of 10,000 affordable homes, with this package of legislation for the first time, we have a clear blueprint to meet and i believe that we will exceed, the goal of 10,000 affordable units by 2020. we're working together, the board and the mayor, championing legislative package of five key policies and programs that will help us reach our affordable housing goals. we are together fixing public housing. no more poverty housing but we'll rehab one thousand foreign and public housing units in 15

different sites in just phase one of our public housing rehab. we're giving existing residents the priority for affordable homes built in their communities through our neighborhood preference program. we're helping tenants who lost their homes to an eviction or no fault eviction. who had to leave below market rate with a displaced tenants preference. my thanks to supervisors christensen to breed and cohen and all the supervisors for your support on this legislation. we are revamping our inclusionary housing program by incentivizing developers to provide affordable units alongside market rate units. i along with supervisors farrell will introduce legislation today to create more 100% affordable housing developments entirely funded by the private sector and

incentivize developers to provide affordable units at a greater range of income levels under private projects. for the first time in our city's history this package will help us to secure housing for families and rent controlled units and stabilize the rent at permanently affordable levels. finally, we are incentivizing developers to build projects that have low income, middle income and market rate ones side by side with our affordable housing bonus program. i'm excited about the package of legislation that will be introduced today and hopefully we will all work together to make sure that we ramp up our affordable housing production with our city's resources and with the private sector investment. if we talk about homes, we need to talk about homelessness. i'm eager to get to supervisor christensen's question.

>> thank you mr. mayor. now i like to recognize the supervisor from district three. supervisor julie christensen. >> mr. mayor, good afternoon. i thought today will be a good opportunity to look at the homelessness issues. i know it affect all the district. our count of homeless persons is up 27% in district three. there's been some talk about impending celebrations that might be occurring. but this is a day-to-day fact for a lot of folks in the district. i thought this would be an opportunity to talk about how your office is addressing the issue specifically in our district. thank you. >> thank you supervisor christensen. you've asked a question that's been on my mind everyday. on the minds of all san franciscans. i'm sure each of your colleagues the same thing. as we all try to offer hope to people who are living on our

streets. because of smart investments, there's no doubt our city changed many lives for the better. in fact, through housing or family reunification, the city has helped more than 19,000 people leave the streets with nearly 11,000 move into supportive housing since 2004. we are making progress in better serving homeless veterans. families and youth. in fact, we expect and we will end chronic homelessness for veterans in san francisco by the end of this year. we'll continue to make progress on family homelessness and youth. however, even with the strongest social safety net that we've all worked together and i think we're proud of it here in san francisco, we know that we must do more because we still have too many homeless people suffering on our streets and too many people unable to make the choices they need to save their own lives because of mental

health and substance abuse. we have relaunched the homeless outreach team with over 55 members to directly engage with people on the streets and give direct care. we have integrated a 311 reservation system for shelter beds so no one has to wait in long lines to get shelter. we're using innovative approaches like rapid rehousing, reversing an historic spike in family member -- homelessness and cutting the shelter wait list by more than 50er%. i worked with many of you on these investments. the one i'm most excited about is our innovative navigation center. we started nearly five months ago and have already helped 200 people homeless san francisco cans change their lives. we're committed to continuing this model and increasing it and multipling it.

many have joined me last week when we announced an additional $3 million to double down on our efforts to serve street homeless residents after an anonymous donor got the center going. we can't do it alone. we will need more donors. i join the supervisors to ask the private sector to step up is we can continue to intake new clients, provide meals, safe shelter and connect homeless people with social services. that's why we're starting the navigation partnership's fund. this will raise hopefully another $3 million or more and it will be deposited into the fund with a controllers office. we know there is much hard work in front of us to solve this. i'm willing to work with the

board to make sure that we have a more robust answer to the mental health and behavorial challenges. i look forward to working with you supervisor and each the supervisors to making sure we're working together to create and continue our focus on this homelessness problem in san francisco. thank you. >> thank you. thank you mr. their for being -- mayor for being here today. at this time, we're going to move on to the consent agenda. madam clerk read the consent agenda. >> items 2 through 5 comprised consent agenda. if a member objects, an item maybe removed and considered separately. >> seeing no names on the roster. madam clerk please call the roll. >> supervisor cohen. supervisor farrell, supervisor kim, supervisor mar, supervisor

tang, supervisor wiener, supervisor yee, supervisor avalos, supervisor breed, supervisor campos, supervisor christensen -- there are 11 ayes >> these items are finally passed and approved unanimously. madam clerk, item number six. >> to clarify that the affordable housing program applies to housing projects including group housing projects. changing certain requirements and certain circumstances to allow affordable on sight units in group housing projects. for on sight units in group housing projects to be priced 75% of the maximum purchase price for studio units. to clarify the requirements for designated units in certain district, under section 124f to

affirm the planning department and to make other appropriate findings. >> colleagues can we take that item? without objection, this ordinance is passed unanimously. item seven. >> to require the sheriff and the police department to gather and regularly report data regarding detention and traffic stops. >> same house same call. this ordinance is finally passed unanimously. >> item eight please. to amend the administrative code to rename the disasterry recovery fund. to designated as a category eight fund and specify how the city may use the fund. >> supervisor tang. >> thank you president breed. today we have legislation before us. as you know, currently we have a san francisco disaster recovery fund.

today this legislation will be amending it, not only is it for disaster recovery but for emergency perches. in particular, my intention for this legislation is to that we can expeditiously provide funding if there is an emergency situation in san francisco quickly, these are funds specifically from private donor who decide they would like to donate money to the city for particular purposes. we would also be expanding the fund to include four categories. one would designate they would like to donate money for infrastructure and repair replacement for emergency housing or for helping animals. if you don't designate the city administrator's office will be responsible for determining the allocation of the funds. in budget committee, we had amended the legislation so that not only is the city administrator's office and the

controller's office completing a report as to how much funds we are getting and how we're spending the funds, they would have to submit an annual report to both the mayor and the board of supervisors regarding the use of the funds. the controllers office shall include the disaster and emergency response in its quarterly budget status report. the overall extension of this legislation is to allow us as a city to be able to obtain funds from private donors in the event of an emergency for quicker disaster recovery. but also for emergency response and to not have to go through a board process in order to do ho. often times we need to be able to provide funding quickly. this is what this legislation is intended to do. to date, we have only received $546 comprising 19 donations. that is between november 2011

and july 2013. to date, no expenditures have been made from this fund. we hope that by changing the way the fund is structured, that we're able to better be ready to accept private donations and to help those in need during a time of emergency. with that colleagues, i hope you will support the legislation as is. we have controllers office staff here ready to answer any questions you may have. i know there may have been some concerns about transparency and how we're spending the funds. i do want to give our deputy city controller an opportunity to speak to that. if that's okay? >> yes. >> good afternoon, todd, from deputy controller. i like to wish you a happy national disaster preparedness month. the month of september. the item before you today as

highlighted by supervisor tang, is really a piece of legislation that does go to the next step as far as being prepared and responsive as well as recovery efforts. much like you've already done in your legislation for chapter 21 as well as chapter 6 for public works contracting. this is the compliment on the private donation side. if there are particular questions, i will be happy to answer there. there are the additional reporting in transparency items mentioned by supervisor tang with the quarterly reporting back to you. >> thank you. supervisor tang is there anything else? thank you supervisor yee. >> thank you very much. appreciate supervisor tang's legislation here to make it easier for people to help on the emergency situation. while i support the intended

resolution, san francisco being prepared in case of an emergency. i also understand that -- as supervisor tang mentioned -- there hasn't been a really whole lot of funds collected through this mechanism. of course, if we collect 2000 here and there, that can be great. i also know that when you have huge disasters and lot of times whether you read it in the news all the time, whether you want to go back to katrina where there was a lot of donations and nobody knew what happened to the funding or to other international situations, even in the quake, there was a donations that were unaccounted for. when it comes to huge disasters,

the donations itself by private donors comes after the fact that we had city or state or federal government will react to the situation. part of what i want to do is amend this. again, i don't think it's going to really have much impact unless it's a major disaster. i would like us to not totally give away fiduciary responsibility and having a check and balance here. if we were indeed, to have over 100,000 and 500 is very far from 100,000, that the board would have to approve the expenditure, anything that's over 100,000. again, i don't think going to have much impact in terms of things like the fire and the mission. if it was 100,000 paid for about

130 victims for the three nights at $256 a night at a hotel. i'm asking support for this amendment so we don't give up our fiduciary responsibility as a board of supervisors. >> supervisor yee has made a motion to approve an amendment that he circulated to the members of the board. is there a second? seconded by supervisor avalos, supervisor tang. >> thank you very much. i appreciate everything that supervisor yee just stated. i do believe in transparency and accountability for even private donations. not just city funds but private donor who are trying to contribute to disaster recovery and emergency response. we do -- unfortunately respectfully disagree, it does

defeat the purpose why we're doing this. we trying to bypass the board process only in the case of an emergency. for nothing else. that is why i proposed the amendment reporting annually. speaking to that concern, i do want to ask the controllers office if you can let us know what types of internal controls there are in terms of spending. again, we don't have much experience with this. however, do know there are internal controls in place as to how funding will be dolled out. >> deputy controller. this is a matter of balancing the fiduciary responsibility as well as the internal controls. specifically on the internal controls when donations are provided to the city, they are separately accounted for and tracked. the proposed legislation does specifically tell the controller

as well as the city administrative office how it can very limit spend those funds. that's one of the delegations that you would have that's presently drafted. additionally with that required transparency and recording, you will hear from us when we give you the quartering budget updates of all the sources and uses for that fund as well as annually a full accounting of all sorts of end uses. i i know the amount before you today, you seen $500 in donations, very thankfully we have not had a major earthquake since 1989. we have not had thousands of people displaced. this will be a matter of where you feel comfortable delegating us with the oversight as well as the city administrator's office. the allocation of the funds is

in consultation with our office as well as department of emergency management and the mayor's office. there are those internal controls in place that we would be accountable to you. >> supervisor cohen. >> thank you. first, i wanted to -- good afternoon everyone -- supervisor yee, i don't have your amendment. this is your amendment? thank you very much. what page? >> [inaudible] >> thank you. i do have a question for clarification. i think it's for you. on page 1, line 21 at the end, it says, san francisco disaster emergency response recovery fund is a category eight fund. can you tell me what category eight fund is?

>> category eight fund specifically is allowed under the administrative code in so far as the appropriate spending of that money is allowed without coming back to you first as a board for approval. in this specific case, though, the legislation narrowly defines how it can be expressed into those four expressed categories. the legislation gives the automatic appropriatation but narrowly defines how it can be spent. in this case, it's nonpublic in an emergency response or recovery effort. specifically auto appropriation. it allows the donor's money to accrue interest and to be spent later or in a subsequent fiscal

year. >> thank you. >> thank you, at this time, supervisor yee has made a motion to approve the amendments it was seconded by supervisor avalos. please call the roll on the vote. i don't see your name on the roster. supervisor campos. >> thank you madam president. just s question for the chair to supervisor tang to the author. what will be the concern if we pass the amendment that supervisor yee introduced? it seems like it provides more transparency and more oversight. i'm just wondering what the concern is. >> sure. i think as i stated in my opening comments, the whole purpose of this legislation so that if private donors want to

make a donation to the city for emergency response, well dole out that funding for whatever that emergency is in a timely fashion. if you were to adopt the amendment, i understand the concern for transparency but if you adopt the amendment, it essentially really does away what this legislation is all about. which is only in the purpose for the emergency will be doling out this funding. i'm not generally speaking of category eight funds for the event of an emergency, i believe it is something that is appropriate. like mr. reed said from the controller's office, there are a lot of internal controls to make sure the funds is only spent in those four categories that we laid out in this legislation. >> okay. supervisor campos, anything else? thank you. seeing no other names on the roster, madam clerk, please call the roll. >> supervisor cohen -- no,

supervisor farrell -- no, supervisor kim, aye supervisor mar -- mar, supervisor tang -- no, supervisor wiener-no, supervisor yee, aye supervisor avalos, supervisor campos, supervisor christensen -- no. there are four ayes and seven noes. >> okay, the amendment fails. madam clerk, please call the roll on the item. sorry, supervisor yee. >> i just wanted to be clear, i do appreciate the intent. i didn't think that we're going to reach $100,000. i will be voting no on this.

not because i agree with the intent. we should be taking fiduciary responsibility on this item. if we're going to be fiscally responsible, we need to make a decision to do that. not back off that. >> thank you. madam clerk, can you please call the roll on the item? >> item eight, supervisor cohen, supervisor farrell, supervisor kim, supervisor mar, supervisor tang, supervisor wiener, supervisor yee supervisor avalos supervisor breed, supervisor campos supervisor christensen. there are eight ayes and three noes with supervisors yee, avalos and campos in the dissent. >> this ordinance passes on the

first reading. i know that we have two accommodations. like to call on supervisor farrell for our first accommodations. >> thank you president breed. today it's pretty rare i think we get to honor people that have done amazing things that we can never even imagine doing here at the board. this summer, i remember watching tv and hearing this crazy idea that there was a woman who was attempting to interim from the island -- swim from the islands all the way to city of san francisco without a wet suit. she was going to do it straight without touching her boat. all the news coverage of her making that successful swim. then, as i was mentioning to her, i was with my wife and children this summer in a car and listening to an npr interview and her life story.

i am so in awe of everything she accomplished. today we're honoring kimberly chambers who became the first woman in the world to swim from the islands to the city of san francisco. come up kimberly. [applause]. >> to put this in context, this is a swim of 30 miles of shark infested water. as some of my friends mentioned to me, the idea of proactively jumping into shark waters where they're known to eat in the islands in the dark, seems to be a bit of a crazy idea. it was nothing but admiration that everyone continues to talk about it. she did this feat in 17 hours

and 12 minutes. which is unbelievable. i want to talk about background for everyone about your background. in 2007, she suffered an accident where doctors gave her a less than one percent chance of walking unassisted. former rower at berkeley, she spent two years rehabilitating her leg and started swimming six years ago for the first time since primary school. building a foundation for what you did is so incredible. she's a proud member of the knight swimmers who are here. all the group here, i know bob and some other folks here. simon who's there with them, was the man earlier this year that swam from san francisco and only to get pulled out the water because there was sharks

circling around him. he was just a few miles away from the finish of that swim. something i could never imagine doing. any case, in 2012, some more history here. she joined a number of swimmers on a relay team from san francisco and santa barbara. swimming day and night. despite that, raised over a million dollars for charity. on september 2nd, she successfully swam the northern ireland to scotland north channel. which was seventh of the ocean seven swim, which was unbelievable. all that you've done. she's been nominated for so many women of the year awards. which is unbelievable. supervisor christensen is right nearby.

we were talking about her earlier today. i want you to know how amazed so many of us of what you did. i'm sure you heard that a lot. on behalf of everyone here, congratulations. i know after hearing that interview, i realize what a team effort that is. what an amazing collective story of a group effort. but also, i want to make sure, you probably didn't set out to do it on purpose, i have a 9-year-old daughter who's on the swim team. the example that you have set and letting young women know that they can accomplish if they put their mind to it. this is obviously beyond mote everyone's dreams. so congratulations to you and thank you and congratulates for all that you've done. >> thank you so much. [applause]. >> thank you supervisor farrell and madam president and members

of the board. i'm tremendously honored to be here. i'm trying not to cry. none of this as sunk in. you don't do these swims. they're not athletic events. these are very personal journeys of self-transformation. i was in a situation with an injury. it took me two years to walk again. swimming has really put me on this path of the self-discovery of realizing his dreams and realizing that we're all capable of far more than we think we are. it starts community. i am tremendously proud to have the support of my friends and san francisco, the swim clubs, dolphin clubs and most of all my night train swim team who are

here behind me. everyone has encouraed me to dream big. to make these swims bigger than yourself, to do this more charity, i learned from my mentors i like to take a moment to introduce. >> okay, i'll say a couple of things. first of all, you didn't know that the fairline island belonged to san francisco. you own the ready and you have -- real estate and you have to abide by the rule. people started talking about, why don't we swim to san francisco. they toyed with that idea. they used to eat ham sandwiches and drink brandy about half way. in 1967 ted made it. he was the first to do that.

he actually tried three times. once he didn't make it and second time he died. third time he made it. the dream what kim was thinking about was wouldn't be great if a woman can do that. san francisco has been a city of pioneers. the gold rush days. no limits, always tests whatever you can think of and dream of. we've all been proactive and the city of san francisco so cool and neat. i'll leave you with this. history is being made now, 20 years from now, you can say, i was at city hall when they honored kim chambers. this is history in the making. it's like a first person flying to the moon or doing something or flying across the atlantic. this is kim chambers. not to forget simon who laid the ground work. he showed her the road map.

he swam three mile short. he was bleeding from his neck down because. he was so nervous. big hand for simon. [applause]. kim, your turn. >> thank you once again. i'm just tremendously honored to be here and don't be afraid to dream big. thank you. [applause]

>> thank you very much, congratulations can. next commendation is erik mar. >> i wanted to say that it's a historic moment in this chambers that we're joined by an amazing leader all the way from seoul, korea that has an example of courage and breaking silence. she's an example of a growing movement led by women's organizations in korea and japan and in this country and the u.s. for justice for hundreds of thousands of girls and women that were kidnapped coerced into sexual slavery by the japanese imperial army from 1932 to 1945.

i wanted to ask if our honoree can come forward. but also acknowledge that we're joined by judges, lillian singh and julie tang. we are also joined by phyllis kim from the korean american forum. she will be translating. the leader that we are here honoring today ms. eun sue lee. she's a courageous person showing perseverance. she represents and embodies the fighting spirit of women's movement in the pacific and in asia and in this country leading the struggle for justice. she's been leading it for about 20 years since she broke her silence along with other women.

grandma lee was more than in 1928 in korea. she was 15 years old the age of my daughter as well. my japanese and chinese-american daughter, jade. grandma lee was 15 years old when she was lured out of her home in the middle of the night. she was taken to a comfort station for a unit in taiwan. she returned after the war and lived in silence. she lived in silence until 1992 when she registered with the korean government as a victim of the japanese military sexual slavery. tremendously courageous person. she thought what happened to her was an isolated incident. but soon realized so many other women well over 200,000 were subject to the statement horrors that she went through. i think some say that the average was 10 to 20 rapes of

people per day. just the suffering and the horrors. since then, grandma lee has become a leader and an activist in the movement to demand an official apology and government reparations from the japanese government. grandma lee was one of the three supervisors that testify -- survivors that testified before the u.s. congress. grandma lee embodies courage and determination. she's making numerous trips around the globe including japan and to the u.s. to attend events, give talk and raise public awareness about the so called comfort women issue. i like to say that our justice for cuppard women coallation is growing because of the courage of grandma lee. she's getting around at the age

of 87 to speak and to raise awareness to pressure the japanese government to formally apologize. she lives in korea. my was a is working with the justice for comfort women coalition to arrange for a conference. she's meeting with the mayor later today, i believe, also grace hugh has her and many other events that she's attending. on behalf of the justice for comfort women coalition, i wanted to ask those in the audience could stand from the rape of coalition and justice for comfort women coalition. stand in solidarity as we thank

brand ma lee and give her -- grandma lee and give her remarks. thank you. [applause] >> president breed. >> [speaking foreign language] >> hello everyone, my name is sue lee. i am the living evidence of history.

it's beautiful in san francisco no meet with you. i want to ask you, from the bottom of my heart, please let me get rid of my sadness in my heart by erecting a memorial in this beautiful city of san francisco.

i came here as a witness of the history but now i am more than that. i came here as an activist who is trying to resolve the history for the sake of all women rights of the world. for the sake of the women's around the world, i am determined to resolve this problem. [speaking foreign language] enter all of you in san francisco, i give you my respect and will have and i sincerely ask you to erect a memorial in san francisco. i am very grateful, thank you.

i love you everyone. >> thank you. >> thank you supervisor mar. [applause] thank you, at this time supervisor kim will say a few words. >> first of all i want to say a couple of of my own words as well. i grew up -- my parents integrated from korea to the u.s. in the 1970s. i grew up in my childhood hearing story about the occupation, the war and the story of women and wrung girls that were taken from their home to serve as sexual slaves for the japanese military. these are stories that i grew up hearing from so many women in my family. who are fearful that they could

have been one of the victims. i want to thank you so much for what you were doing. the greatest revolution that you can give is not just to survive but survive and tell the stories. the experience and the story are humiliating and so haggling to -- challenging to hear. i know even more challenging to tell the public and share your experience. i want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for your leadership and courage. it is so important we not only know our history but we remember the story so they won't happen again. i think that your contribution to women and girls across the world that are victimized is so incredibly important that we cannot rest until we end this type of violence against girls and women. so thank you again. [speaking foreign language] >> thank you supervisor kim.

>> okay, thank you very much. okay, thank you to the paparazzi, we will now turn to the regular business of the board of supervisors. madam clerk, plaza go -- please go to item number nine. >> to levee property taxes to each 100 evaluation for the tax property.

the bay area district. to establish a pass through rate of 0.020 for residential tenants. >> madam clerk please call the roll. >> cohen, supervisor farrell, supervisor kim, supervisor mar, supervisor tang, supervisor kim, supervisor wiener, supervisor yee, supervisor avalos, supervisor breed, supervisor campos, supervisor christensen. there are 11 ayes. >> this ordinary nans is -- unanimously passed. member of the public please sit quietly. thank you very much. madam clerk, can you please read the next item.

>> item 10 is an ordinance to waive banner fees under public works code section 184.78 for up to 25 banners to be placed by the abraham lincoln high school to public sized 75th anniversary celebration gala. >> same call. without objection, this ordinance is passed unanimously. >> item 11 is a resolution to approve amendment number one to terminal news specialty store lease between hudson group retail for relocation of another concession space and reduction of the minimum annual guarantee of the rent of approximately 555,000. >> please call the roll. >> supervisor cohen, supervisor farrell, supervisor kim,

supervisor mar, more absent, supervisor tang, supervisor wiener, supervisor yee, supervisor avalos, supervisor breed, supervisor campos supervisor christensen. there are 10 ayes. >> this resolution is adopted unanimously. item 12 please. >> resolution to authorize the office of the district attorney to accept an expanded grant in the amount of approximately $2.1 million frtm the government claims board for the period july 1, 2015 through june 30, 2018. supervisor cohen, supervisor kim, supervisor mar, supervisor tang, supervisor wiener, supervisor yee, supervisor

avalos, supervisor breed supervisor campos, supervisor christensen. there are 11 ayes. >> this resolution is adopted unanimously. item 13. >> resolution to approve an emergency public works contract with kone evening to renovate and update the elevators. >> same house same call. this resolution is adopted unanimously. next item. >> item 14 resolution to authorize the general manager of the san francisco public utilities commission to negotiate and execute 25 year lease for approximately 199 acres. for water use and management aggravate conveyance for annual rental rate of 60,000 plus four percent. >> same house same call.

this resolution is adopted unanimously. can you read item 15 through 19. >> they are five resolutions that approve amendments are a modification to the various leases between the treasure island development authority and the united states navy to extend the term for one year for the period of december 1, 2015 through november 30, 2016. item 15 is amendment 40 to the treasure island land and structure master lease, item 16 is amendment number 31 to the treasure island south water front master lease. 17 is the amendment number 19 to the treasure island master lease. item 19 is a modification of the cooperative agreement to extend the term from october 1, 2015 until the earlier of the termination was conveyance agreement executed between the navy and the authority or the date that all parcels at the the treasure remind are -- island

are conveyed. >> can we take those items. without objection, these resolutions are adopted unanimously. item 20. >> resolution to authorize the department of public health behavorial health services to enter into an amendmented multiyear contract with the state department of healthcare services in the approximate amount of $40.4 million from july 1, 2014 through june 30, 2017. >> this resolution is adopted unanimously. item 21. >> resolution to retroactively authorize the department of public department to accept and extend gifts from dr. laguna. in the amount of $400,000 from july 1, 2015 through june 30, 2035 and $100,000 to the

development fund. july1, 2015 through june 30, 2025. >> without objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. next item. >> item 22, resolution to authorize the department public health to receive federal and state funding for certain nontransportation project through the department of transportation and to execute these agreements in any amendments. >> without objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. >> item 23 resolution to authorize the recreation and park department to accept and extend a grant in place for the public land improvements to the buchanan street mall valued approximately $188,000, april 7, 2015 through october 31, 2015. >> without objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. okay, madam clerk, can we go to

our committee report? >> item 24 was considered bethe rules committee as a regular meeting on thursday september 10, it was forwarded as a committee report. it was recommended as amended with a new title. item 24 now reads, motion to approve the mayor's reappointment of bryant tan to the entertainment commission term ending july 1, 2019. >> this motion is approved unanimously. okay, let's go to roll call for introductions. >> first supervisor up to introduce new business is supervisor cohen. >> thank you madam clerk. i submit. >> thank you supervisor cohen. supervisor farrell. >> i have two items today. first of all, is an item that i'm co-sponsoring and mayor yee is sponsoring around our inclusionary housing program. without a doubt, obviously our most pressing issue we continue

to talk about inside of city hall with housing shortage and crisis. we've been doing a lot to create new housing and affordable units. a number of us came together over the past year plus to participate in the mayor's housing working group. we worked with a group of folks including our staff affordable housing advocates, community leaders. as a result of these meetings and a lot of back and forth between stakeholders, we arrived today what i am very much supporting and introducing the most substantive undates inclusionary housing program. today, mayor lee formally introduced these amendments that include number of items. first is the creation of an inclusionary dial, which adds

option to increase a target of pricing of on or off sight units for providing more units. for rental units, sponsors will be able to dial up to 90% ami. all in exchange for producing a greater number of permanently affordable units. in addition, there's addition of small site alternative. where developers of small projects will have the option to direct their feed towards the acquisition of rental buildings in the neighborhood of the principle project. there's also strengthening the

off site alternative where the developers will have the project to be located 1.5 miles of the market rate project. this allows for more time for an off sight project to be completed since there's difficulty in obtaining all the permits. our residents expect that we continue to work on this housing issue. i do believe as we all do, producing more affordable housing is one of the key things that we must focus on here in city hall. these are common sense reforms, overdue reforms and i'm glad that over a year of working together, we've introduced them. i do want to thank a number of people from the mayor and staff that have been working on this. jeff buckley, his senior housing advisor and all of the mayor, housing staff and planning staff including sophie hayward and everybody else who participated in these working groups. the second item i'm introducing today is something i mentioned

earlier in the summer. that is around our gun control legislation and policies here in san francisco. easy access, obviously, two firearms continuing to be a contributing factor to senseless violence. not only here in san francisco but across our country. even though we have some of the toughest gun laws, there still remains more we can do in terms of public safety. there are gaps in our federal and state legislation that san francisco has yet to address, that a number of other counties in san francisco have already taken advantage of. that's why today i'm introducing legislation that would require the video taping of all gun and ammunition sales in san francisco. and require all stores transfer to the san francisco police department. i want to thank supervisor cohen who's been a strong leader in proposing gun control reforms. it is intended to fill the gaps

that exist at the federal and state level and enhance public safety. i do believe we need to do everything within our power here inside of city hall. i hear about public safety concerns whether it's quality of life crimes or violent crimes. obviously, we can't go out and patrol the streets. what we can do inside the city hall is equally important. i do believe we need to continue to press forward. the first portion of the legislation would require the video taping of all gun and ammunition sales within the city of san francisco. including counters and safes, vaults and so forth. currently no federal or california law impose a security requirement during business

hours. simply having this evidence of all gun sale and all gun handling within the stores will hopefully deter those are buying guns and ammunitions. as with both of these items, it will give our law enforcement personnel additional data and resources and tools in order to prosecute crimes and investigate them as well. the second portion would require the electronic transmission of ammunition sales data and transfers weekly to the san francisco police department. over a dozen local jurisdictions in california have already adopted ordinances requiring similar electronic transmission. california currently does not have anything similar in place. i do think the goal here are pretty simple and straightforward.

to prevent and deter illegal traffic, to make sure our san francisco police department continues to have all the tools available to continue to force our public safety. hopefully this package will continue to aid in that progress to deter violence in our neighborhoods and on our streets. stop people are getting access to guns. the rest i submit. >> thank you supervisor farrell. supervisor kim. >> thank you. i look forward to the discussion on inclusionary reform. i'm curious as to how looking at reducing develop or obligations will build more affordable housing for our city. today i am making a request to our comptroller's office to study and develop a range of option for a citywide public toilet program expanding upon

the successful tenderloin pit stop program which is piloting with public works. the critical component of what has made this pilot so successful is the regular maintenance and monitoring. only possible with staffing of our public works program. my first two years in office i heard over and over again that residents needed more public restrooms. not just the green bathrooms that often utilized not for bathroom purposes but became magnets and dangerous activities. our residents want to -- that would prevent them from being forced urinate or defecate on the streets. over the two years, we worked closestly with director muhammad

and public works to develop it. last summer, we were able to launch three pit stops in district six. over the year, the data that we have collected has shown that they are a tremendous success. on average, everyday, almost 100 people use the three pit stops in the tenderloin. in july of 2015, these three pit stops were utilized 4500 times. we're noticing there's a tremendous increase even over the last two months. an example of one that i will share which is on ellis, right across from glide church in may,

we saw 1235 uses. not only the programs are successful, they've been utilized as people grow to trust them and learn from them. in the first six months, we found that we were saving 240 gallons of water a month. it led to reduction in request in the neighborhood by over 60% in steam clean ask. these facilities have made our streets cleaner, we collected over 120 bags of garbages. i want to thank and recognize my colleagues for unanimously approving my budget request to make the pit stop permanent in january of this year and expanding a fourth location in the south of market on sixth street. over the last month, this program has now expanded to supervisor david campos's district and two more pit stops in our district on mid-market and civic center. even in the last two weeks,

we're seeing utilizing one of the j.c. dacoe bathrooms. number of flushes are tripling. meaning more people are feeling safe and comfortable using these restrooms because they are monitored and cleaned on a regular basis. we, however, know this is a citywide issue. this isn't limit to district six and nine. we are hearing across the city, not only we need more places for all members of the public, whether they are tourists or families that are shopping, vendors on the streets that aren't able to access restrooms, of course the individuals call the streets their home and have nowhere else to go. this can be something to provide dignity for all residents and make streets cleaner. i live in south of market. i walk to work many days. there are not many days when i don't see examples of this or

have to step over it. this is something that our city can address with financial support. today, i am asking the comptroller's office to examine the geographic need based on 311 and public works data, propose locationses throughout the city including existing resources that we can utilize. and examine alternatives like the innovative pit stops and the citizens proposed concepts like the pee plant on market street a few months ago. i'm making this request with supervisor campos and avalos. access to public restrooms is a basic human necessity. no one can stop going to the bathroom. that's just not a bodily function that we can control and we should not blame individuals on the streets for having to

urinate or defecate on the street. we deserve to live and work in a city where we can walk down the streets without stepping over feces or smelling urine. we look forward to having a hearing on this item in the next couple of weeks. the rest i submit. >> thank you supervisor kim. supervisor mar. >> thank you colleagues, i have several items on hunger piece and valley fires. i'm really hungry right now. we're in the middle of hunger action month. this week a number of community leaders are going through the snap challenge, the hunger challenge, trying to live off $4.72 per day. i only have to deal with this for a week. there's 42,000 san franciscans

that live off food stamps everyday. there's one in four san francisco -- san franciscans that are at risk. i wanted to thank the san francisco marine food bank for challenging us. i wanted to thank project open hand for requiring the leadership of their organization to go through this at least week long experience. i'm living off extremely tight food budget. oatmeal, rice and beans, a positive thing is cooking more at home with my daughter. i think that's a benefit of building community and family. i'm hungry height now. by the time i -- i did this last year. my brain stops working about 3:00 p.m. i go to bed hungry everyday and every night. it's a good experience for policy makers like me to do this. i wanted to say, right now the cal fresh snap benefit is about

$4.72 a day. i realize that for me it's only a simulated experience, it's not the same when i can go back to my regular habit at the end of the week. i still see a value of shipping my own perspective on the issue. really helping to ease the suffering that many people have everyday. together, i think with the food security task force, the tenderloin and many others, we can raise awareness and mobilize our public and hunger in san francisco. we as a board pass resolution to end hunger to significantly end it by 2020. we're trying to do that at the budget committee. we need everybody to help us do that. for more information, suggest of how to survive off $4 a day, go

to sfmfoodbank.orghunger challenge 2015. it's opening my eyes. i wanted to say i'm helping to support an amazing event on september 19th on saturday. it's a third annual piece in the park in district one. it brings together the diverse san francisco and surrounded communities to unplug and explore activities of peace, joy and happiness in a fun, inspiring and healthy atmosphere. the festival was created in response to the growing concern that we are over stimulated 80t afflicted, i have to admit openly that i have add. we're a tech saturated culture.

if you come with us, you'll be among some of the best artist, scientists and policy makers in the bay area at this event. the festival is offered free of charge by a coalition. for more information, go to peace in the park sf.org. lastly, many people know, thousands of lives have been disrupted and touched by the valley fire that's raging in napa and lake counties. to date, 585 homes have been destroyed and hundreds of other structures have been destroyed as well. the loss is up there include the

home of my friend and former aid, peter's parents. many of those affected have lost everything. there are various ways help. to give to the california fire foundation, go to w ww.cafirefoundation.org. i wanted to say, i know how devastating home fires can be. in 2000, i lost my home and all of my family's belongs to a fire in the richmond district. my heart goes out to all of the families and residents struggling to get back on their feet. tricounty bank set up an account to benefit the victims. anyone like to donate can visit any bank of tri-county bank and make a deposit to the valley fire relief fund. the funds will be distributed to people in need through relief agencies and salvation army is accepting monetary donations. you can donate online or call

1-800-sfl army. >> thank you supervisor mar. with supervisor kim wish to speak to the hunger challenge. >> i want to thank supervisor mar for taking leadership of taking up the hunger challenge last year. my was a and including myself have joined ther hunger exactly as well. i have been participating sense yesterday and my entire staff including their families and three children are participating. i do agree with you, it is a really important challenge for policy makers to take on. i'm really committed to our healthy corner store program and food justice program in the tenderloin. because of that i'm shopping locally at our local corner store. figuring out how i can stretch my budget on $4.50 a day. which is something many of our residents are doing here in the city. i want to thank you for doing that. we want to continue to work on

this issue. i want to recognize the food bank who is leading this challenge this year. i know what many of us come from families where our parents have immigrated to the united states to better unites. very proud that san francisco has always welcomed our immigrant community with open arms. in september 17, 1787, it was the signing of the u.s. constitution. back in 12, our city had launched a san francisco pathways to citizen initiative. since then, we have reached over one million bay area residents.

we trained over 500 volunteers. i want to take some time to recognize and celebrate september 17th as constitution and citizenship day here in san francisco. with that i submit. >> thank you supervisor tang. supervisor wiener. >> thank you madam clerk. today i'm introducing a legislation to expedite the approval process for affordable housing. specifically to eliminate the conditional use requirement for any affordable housing project that contains 100% affordable units. we all agree that we need significantly more affordable housing in san francisco. it takes way too long to get affordable housing projects approved in the city. the conditional use process, which is a very useful process

in many context, in the context of getting affordable housing built, can at times delay these projects by a year or more adding significant expense as well. we have seen projects that have been delayed through the conditional use process. it's not the best way to proceed. we need more affordable housing and it takes way too long to get affordable housing built in the city. legislation will also make it easier to use publicly owned land other than park, space or open space to build affordable housing. by eliminating the requirement that publicly owned land be rezoned in order to create affordable house. this is legislation applies only to projects that are affordable housing 100% in all the units are affordable housing to people

making somewhere between zero and 120% of area median income. i look forward to discussion about this and other ways that we can build more affordable housing and make it easier, faster and less expensive to do so. i also will be joining supervisor yee in memorial for everett, she passed suddenly and tragically. was the principal at st. phillips. a school that's been there for many years. it's a real institution in the community. she was someone who was beloved by the school community and by the neighborhood. i know that people are in shock that she's gone and we'll all miss her dearly. >> thank you supervisor wiener. supervisor yee. >> thank you madam clerk.

i would like to adjourn today's meeting of a principal. she would be sorely missed. ms.everett passed away unexpectedly this weekend. nobody expected this. she is someone who has dedicated her life tirelessly to education. she was a loving and caring person and always made time to get to know each student. ms.everett will be missed so much and the st. phillips community. our thoughts are with her husband john and her two daughters. >> thank you supervisor yee. supervisor avalos. supervisor breed. >> thank you, i have one in

memoriam for ms. karalee. kara lee. i want to acknowledge karalee who passed away with her former husband mellee. ms.lee was born on december 5, 1941. mrs.lee dedicated her life to serving the public by working as an intake nurse at the california pacific medical center for her whole career until she retired in 2007. outside of work, mrs. lee was athletically talented. she enjoyed playing tennis and riding on horseback. she had a gift for water color painting. she liked to paint fruits,

flowers and vegetables. a loving mother, mrs. lee is succeeded by her three children and three grandchildren. she will be truly missed. the rest i submit. >> thank you madam president. supervisor campos. >> submit. >> supervisor christensen. seeing no other names on the roster. that includes the introduction of new business. >> at this time, can you please read public comment. >> the public may address the entire board of supervisors for up to two minutes on items, the subject matter jurisdiction of the board. to include the minutes, the items on the adoption without reference to committee calendar, items 27 through 29. items 1 through 24.

pursuant to the board's rules of board direct remarks to your board as a whole not to individual supervisors. speakers using translation assistance will be allowed twice the amount of time to testify. if you would would like to display a document on the projector, please clearly state such and remove the document. >> okay, thank you. first speaker. welcome. >> thank you members of the board. i'm rabbi doug khan, director of the jewish community relations council. pleased to speak on the organized jewish community. honored to be a member of the coalition. we believe in the importance of memory. it will only be confined to the obscure history books.

san francisco's holocaust memorial was established more than 30 years ago after mayor feinstein appointed a committee. i was privileged to staff that committee at lincoln park. as with this memorial, this one will do precisely the same in honoring memory and shining light on humanity. in honoring the survivors and serving as an opportunity for reconciliation. the effort to establish a monument to comfort women, resonates deeply for the jewish community. this is why our community is proud to support this important

memorial. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker please. >> i like to use the overhead. i haven't started yet. >> can you start the time please. >> i'm here concerning my son aubrey who was murdered to a semiautomatic gun. to my son, we just recently got through rallying right here in front of city hall.

mothers demanding action for unsolved homicide. i've been doing this for nine years. august14th will be nine years since my son was murdered. still to justice or closure. we want to bring awareness to unsolved homicide so that mothers like myself can heal. we have no closure. i want to bring awareness to also that firearms are the third leading killers of our children ages 1 through 17. firearms, how many firearms are we going to let come here for people to get a hold of and go and commit senseless violence like this among our children? we need to stop these shop from opening that are carrying these guns for people to go and shop and get these guns and people are selling guns out of the trunk of their car to people

with mental health to go and kill our children. like i said, i'm not only here about my child, we have other mothers and fathers that are suffering in silence concerning their children. these are all unsolved home sides and something needs to be done about it. we don't need to be left with this what i have to look at everyday. what i have to think about everyday concerning my son. this is something i'm going to be doing for the rest of my life. i shouldn't have to stand up and fight. >> thank you mrs. brown. next speaker please. >> overhead please. supervisors, director of san francisco. i showed you this list sast

week. 24 wins. i don't need to tell the members of board of supervisors how hard it was to win 24 times. the public should be made aware of the awareness have been made to sabotage the sunshine ordinance task force. let's start the next six months to a year discussing some of these. let's start with the case of your president. i made a public record's request which the supervisor and her staff knowingly and willfully ignored. a request under the sunshine ordinance and the california public records act. supervisor breed didn't respond to me, didn't respond to the task force, didn't even send anybody to the hearing. after a month, her representative connor johnston,

appeared only to moan about having to be there. he was dismissive both of me and the task force. didn't give a dam but the supervisor had violated my rights under the law just as these other 23 groups have done. i'm nobody special. i believe they probably treat other citizens the same way. my opinion would be that her representative exhibits the same dismissive attitude toward the open government that your board supervisor does. someone who rather than setting this type of example, should be setting a positive example and a couple of more of you which we'll talk about next week and the week after have chosen to follow that example by being dismissive of the fact that the citizens have rights -- >> thank you very much, next

speaker please. thank you. next speaker. sir your time is up. >> there's a board rule that does not allow signs in the chamber. >> one second, we have a speaker at this time. sir. >> for two years, 85 years old, jew, holocaust survivor, sleeping on the streets,

homeless because number 12 is lee. you don't have right, not human rights, not any right to put on the street a person -- [inaudible]. 85 years old holocaust survivor and you put him on the street for two years. only fascist country can do it. only hitler did it in 1940. by the way, you give me two --

two gave me one -- [inaudible]. after this you put me on the street. fascist. i ask jewish god to punish you. >> thank you next speaker please. >> the sfgov tv, the overhead projector please. >> can you zoom out please? >> it's too close. >> if you want to wait, we can figure it out so we can zoom in and take the next speaker.

okay. >> my son and three other young boys were murdered j anuary 9th, quadruple homicide that happened in hays valley and eight months later there is no arrest. mind you, it has not been one penny of a reward put on these young men lives. i am outraged as a mother and state of shock that when i spoke with chief the other day, i asked him what was going on with the arrest. his words were, oh, that. oh that? i'm here for another case he said. that let me know that it's not priority as you claim a high profile case. that nothing like this is happened in san francisco yet. we as black mothers are losing our children in mass numbers.

it's not being acknowledged. i'm coming to this board it's because something really needs to be done to comfort these mothers and families. we're suffering in high percentage and much of the focus is on the dollars. what do you expect us to do? we're asking that the mayor be contacted to demand an arrest because they do know who the killers are. they know the suspects but they claim they have no witnesses. they arrested someone with a stolen car and they let them go. if it was your child, what would do you? thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker please. >> i've been a teacher for the san francisco unified school district if 38 to 40 years. this is my grandson who i was at

uc hospital. i was the first one to touch him. this is obituary of my grandson. who was murdered january 9, 2015. eight months and about five days. i was going tory tire last year. my grandson told me please don't leave. he didn't make it to the end. i'm here now. eight months, they know who the person are. i say make an arrest. i have serve san francisco unified school district for 38 plus years from high school, volunteering my services and working and touching all of those children who have been in the san francisco unified school district from pre-k to 12th grade. i say, how long does it take? i say make an arrest. my grandson, my first born, he has a brother left, 20 years old. he doesn't want to come back to

the house. he's into his spirituality, i'm a hebrew. i say all lives matter. we've been here even before this happened to our children. i say who murdered my grandson? i say, make an arrest. thank you. >> next speaker please. >> thank you president breed and other members. my name is christopher. i like to comment on justice. victor hugo seems to have entertain among the first to claim that justice for the opressed is to be found in their crime. because oppressors are to bare

the entire guilt for those crimes. he has said if a soul is left in darkness, sins will be committed. the guilty one is not he who commits the sins but he who causes the darkness. i would give great weight to calling acts a revenge committed by the opressed among the oppressor. i could give no weight to arguing that crimes committed upon random passersby, among the innocent, upon the conveniently weak are anything more than simple crimes. when such crimes are committed upon neighbors, upon family and community, the destruction is even greater that tragedy is more personal and justice if any, even more distance. we all have an internal executive which orders our

actions. we do what we will to do and nothing else. we are all able to manage our impulses whatever they may be if that is what we choose to do. thank you president breed. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> after 32 years of the san francisco superior court, i retired today so i can speak before you about the comfort woman resolution. i gave my career up so i can speak into justice and peace. this resolution is not japan bashing, it is holding japan accountable. the argument against resolution because other countries have also committed atrocities is absurd. if you follow that argument to the logical conclusion, you will end up doing nothing and holding

no one accountable. what other atrocities and gay rights, black slavery, you cannot include every human rights violation when you remember certain crime against humanity. when you talk about gay rights, you focused about gay rights. when you talk about this resolution, you're you focus on japan's atrocity to what's 200,000 women. it is not all about the citizens of the world. the argument that this resolution will hurt japanese americans is simply wrong, wrong. japanese americans have done nothing to deserve such a association. japan did what japan did as a foreign government. japanese-americans were victims. they should not be associated

with that and we will fight against hate crimes against japanese-americans because of this resolution. we are a multiethnic rights collaboration including many japanese americans like all americans, many japanese-americans want to hold japan accountable for its crimes against humanity. she said, my father went to jail because of the association -- >> thank you very much. next speaker please. >> hi, my name is judith. i'm a long time resident of the city of san francisco and member of the national lawyer guild. when i heard there was a controversy over the building of the memorial to the so called comfort women, i was more than puzzled. i decided yesterday to visit the holocaust memorial. it's hard to find but it's

there. it was by coincidence very appropriate as it is now. as i stood there, i started thinking, although the memorial is very specific to the 6 million who parished during world war ii, it makes you think of holocaust from time in memorial and is happening to people today. in my mind, i also thought specifically about what's happening to syrian migrants right now in europe. what you also think about when you look at these kinds of memorials, it's about the people of humanity. how they lived, how they fought and their lives were taken away from them. that's what the germans did. they took away our humanity and we were less than animals. that's what happened to the comfort women. their very humanity was taken away. they were just women to be used

during war. they were sexually violated and thrown away. we want to give that humanity back. next week is yom kippur. what better way to listen to the voices of those comfort women and to say to the women of the world, never again. >> thank you, next speaker plaza. -- please. >> good afternoon. john from san francisco. human life should not be left at the mercy of a money-making business that can't provide housing for all. we are prisoners in our own

apartments. one afraid to complain because of fear of eviction and eviction is like a death sentence for many living on the streets of san francisco. no human being should have that kind of power over another. maybe we should come to the realization that we can't always count on the free market to provide ample shelter for everyone that needs it. my landlord is one of the exceptions. i know this board is trying hard. thank you. >> thank you next speaker please. >> my name is john. i'm here to speak in support of the comfort women memorial. i am a japanese-american who grew up in san francisco.

i have been involved in the japanese american community for over five years. i worked actively as member of the san francisco chapter of the national coalition for reparations during more than decades long but ultimately successful movement to win a government apology and confrontation for surviving japanese-american who were incarcerated by u.s. government during world war ii. i have heard there are concerns what the memorial may cause or contribute to japan bashing or anti-japanese sentiments. as a japanese-american, i think these concerns are completely unfounded. the resolution targets the japanese militarist, not the japanese people or the japanese-americans as the

perpetrators. >> thank you, next speaker please. >> good afternoon, my name is cathy, i'm co-chair of the nikkei civil rights.

founded in 1980 to seek reparations for japanese-americans incarcerated during world war ii. we see this issue as an issue of human rights and women's rights. we to not see this issue as one of comfort woman issue, as one between countries of japan, china and korea. but one between japanese government and the women. we support their call for apology and for reparations from the japanese government and unfortunately, just like our government had to give reparations to the japanese-americans for what happened during world war ii, so too japan of today needs to be accountable for what world war ii japan did during that time to the comfort women. it'sed to share a couple of lessons. we have supported the glendale

statue in los angeles. i want to dispel any thoughts that there was harassment our bullying. we called the police department of glendale and found no reports of bullying. we have as an organization have gotten no reports of that incident. in addition, i spoke to the regional director of the japanese-american citizens league. she heard no reports. our community is one that will hear reports and rumors like that. instead our experience has been one of being able to share where korean-american community our history and to be able to teach people who are new to this country and don't know our history. a dictation to something that our organization believes in. people don't know the history of japanese and other immigrants here in this country. we need to share that history in the lessons of redress. this is an opportunity to teach and build unity.

>> next speaker please. >> i like that thank the board of supervisors for giving me and the others a platform to voice our opinions about the comfort women resolution. what we requesting to be memorialized is the memory of a singular, unique atrocity of a time of colonial rule and war that was marked by countless atrocities. comfort women is a misnomer it's like calling the women of auschwitz, contract labor. there are those who would have you not approve this resolution. these have been denialist, the revisionist and the nationalist. they'll tell you what every

perpetrator and every rapist tell you. it was consensual. it was voluntary. they are exaggerating. they enjoyed it. they imagined it. it never happened. there's no evidence. the comfort women say, we are the evidence, our bodies are sars, are the truth. it was not consensual. it was a living hell. it happened over and over again. san francisco has a long history respecting even fighting for the rights of the oppressed, of being a beacon of justice. i humbly beseech the supervisor in that tradition to pass this proposal for our community for our city for the world for

universal conscious. for the defiled and disrespected to a portion of quantum of dignity and rectification. >> your time is up. thank you. next speaker please. >> my name is michael wong. i'm a member of veterans for peace. i was born and raised and lived in san francisco. the reason that veterans for peace is involved in this issue and supports the memorial for comfort women, is because the peace movement in japan reached out to us and asked us to come and speak in support of this resolution. veterans have experienced not just the horrors of war but also the healing that can come from speaking painful truths openly

and from making restitution and admitting when wrongs were committed. many vietnam veterans have gone back to vietnam, have met with civilians in the villages in which they operated and have done work including donating time and money to vietnamese orphanages, medical clinics, agent orange clean up. the result has been very much healing between both them and the vietnamese who suffered tiger the war. healing is possible but it can only happen when truth is spoken openly and sincerely and action is taken. thank you. >> thank you next speaker plaza.

>> i am with korean american councilwoman california. you were just handed my response to the letter written by the mayor.

these are the people including the prime minster and the national league, small group of people who also have sent $500 million in annual budget in order to fight this type of effort around the globe. i ask the leaders of san francisco to make a defining moment in this movement to recognize the history in accurate way so that people around the globe will look up to the city of san francisco just

like it has been doing in the past decade. thank you so much. >> before i call the next speaker, reverend brown, would you like to come forward and speak? >> members of the board. i name is brown, president of the san francisco branch of the national association for the advancement of colored people. for us, color onlies in all colors. i rise to say that dr. elijah once said, if you can't think for yourself, someone else will to your thinking for you. whoever does your thinking for you will be your master and you their slave. i stand as a free thinker and president of the naacp and

pastor of third baptist. i have looked at this matter. i talked to some of you who serve in this august body. i'm ashamed. let's think about it. the state of texas some days ago wanted to do some redaction of history. and to suggest the idea that slavery was not something that happened. they tried to put it in economic terms. i feel that we would do disservice to history and definitely do some redacting to suggest that what happened to these women was not real. it's like telling a woman who is

raped that it didn't happen. i don't think we want to do that. i am standing in support of the statue and i also would appeal to us, to think clearly, to think logically, this is no blanket indictment of japan. it's just permitting people to say, we deserve to be considered and to remember the pain that we felt. >> thank you reverend brown. next speaker please.

>> hello everyone, i come from korean-american senior center located 745 canyon. there is ms. london breed district number five. i would like to ask supporting the resolution as full board and district five. [inaudible]

it's harder to understand in a modern perspective. but they are history colleague. we should not forget all. thank you. >> my name is joe. i was born and reared in the city's bay view district. currently i reside in district seven. i'm a product of immigrant grandparents who are proud to come to america for yugoslavia.

i stand before you today in support of the board's resolution regarding memorial to the comfort women and to urge your affirmation of this resolution. the city that knows how has blossoms from the days of my grandparents into an array of beautiful diverse people and cultures. it has not been afraid to launch and pioneer issues that other cities would never entertain. a statue in memory of the comfort women will be an asset to the whole community. the city graciously received visitors from all over the globe, everyone wants to come to

san francisco. they come to see its beauty, unique neighborhoods, sample the best food in the world. see the scene on the bay to name a few objects of their visit. with all the different statutes and color art work on the streets of the city, the addition of the statute in memory the comfort women will only add to what the city stands for, justice, pride, confidence, character, hope and love. it will be a place where all people can come and pay their respect as with any other memorial victims of war, disaster or the like. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> afternoon, i teach at city college in san francisco. i'm assuming that i'm speaking to the open minded and convinced, i'll try to stay within your two minute limit

today. my intent is not to bash japan but to show my support for a very rational movement to inshrine the memorial to the women who suffered greatly and japan was not the only nation in history to commit this kind of sexual slavery. it did it on a much larger scale than most of the other countries. i have a background in the peace core and the army and labor movement. i've been a teacher at city college for 40 years. it's my view that the best way to write wrong is to seek forgiveness, to make amends and i think this memorial is certainly in that tradition. it would be not just a monument or a memorial to gender equity.

japan is a great country. the literacy rate and longevity and the technological brilliants of japan are exemplary. and the overwhelming of the people oppose the government attempt to rescind the peace revision of the constitution. they also are critical of the union bashing and anti-worker initiatives. i believe that this statue will serve peace and reconciliation and i believe that the japanese people who are humane on this issue, want the government to make reparations. those are the true patriots. not the right wing zealots. it's those people who will help lead japan. >> thank you very much. next speaker please. >> my name is julie tang i'm a retired judge.

i'm all too familiar with victims of sex trafficking. i have arraigned hundreds of sex workers. i see firsthand the faces of sex workers and the evils of sex trafficking. i have never seen a happy sex worker. the memorial is about them and about the largest victim of sex trafficking in world war ii that is to comfort women in modern day history. i want to urge the members to support the resolution as written. i understand there's an amendment proposed. the purpose of the amendment is transparently clear, to deny the japanese women. the resolution tells an account of what happened and why the resolution is necessary.

nor should it be a vehicle to make the japanese military look better. japan committed serious atrocities during world war ii. one of which is a sexual enslavement of women and girl. japan should be held accountable. apology to the victims so that the healing process may begin. japan cannot try to behind other world evils. the memorial is not about bashing japan or japanese-americans, it is about historical truth and a positive step so what's peace and reconciliation. let the monument be built. it is a first step towards peace planted in the souls of san francisco. the comfort women who are suffering is most -- >> thank you, next speaker

please. >> hello. good afternoon. i like to address three matters today. two are the leadership just been provided today by supervisor mar and supervisor kim. very appreciated in the issue of the comfort women and the courage they have in raising the issue and demanding justice is something that we must all applaud and not fall for phony excuses to absolve culpability for those crimes. other disappearances for 43 students in mexico. there was a resolution on this, that addressed the issue about the mexican government's

investigation. recent international review determined that it was a bunch of you know what. it's the same bull that we faced in mexico and they're so used to. the third issue is a treatment an objection to the treatment of our courageous sisters regarding the treatment of their children. i find it ironic that in a meeting that has been overwhelmingly addressed, the violence against women, the militarism, here that we have grieving mothers in the amount of attention that it's taken to address grieving mothers when we have these pressing issues. i believe that is not correct to have hyper and overzealous efforts when the first amendment is evolved.

there is no respect to first amendment. if we protest it discourages. i like to -- >> thank you very much. next speaker please. >> it's a very special monument. next, if 60 white boys from high school were killed within the city, i think police department will get on to a little bit better than they're doing with black lives.

just wonderful things. i love glass. here is something -- the next time you go to a museum, take a small pair of glasses and then stand back from a painting and focus into the painting. the three mayors on the news program. they all three mayors, san jose,

oakland, san francisco, thinking outside the box. and outside box has gotten us jobs, growth and in homes of 88% san -- san franciscans can't afford. the mayor wants to come up with it. we can do better. thank you. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public who like to provide public comment at this time? seeing none, public comment is closed. please read the items for adoption without committee reference? >> items 27 through 29 adoption without committee reference. single roll call vote may enact these items. a member may object and considered separately. >> seeing no members of the roster. please call the roll. >> items 27 through 29,

supervisor cohen, supervisor farrell, supervisor kim, supervisor mar, supervisor tang, supervisor wiener, supervisor yee, supervisor avalos, supervisor breed, supervisor campos, supervisor christensen. there are 11 ayes >> those items are adopted unanimously. madam clerks, please read the memoriam. >> on behalf of yee and wiener for the late and principal of st. phillips school, remy everett, on behalf of supervisor breed, wiener, yee and tang, for

ms.kara lee. >> is there any other business before us? >> this concludes our business. >> we are adjourned.

>> thank you. >> good morning, everyone and welcome to the san francisco budget and finance committee for a wednesday, september 16, 2015, my name is mark farrell and i will be chairing this committee and i am joined by tang and we will be joined by eric mar and i want thank sfgtv no covering this meeting as well as the clerk miss linda woning, do you have any announcements? >> please, silence all cell phones and electronic device and completed speaker cards and the documents to be included as part of the files should be submitted to the clerk and the items acted upon today will be on the september, 22nd board of agenda unless otherwise stated. >> could you call item one? >> it is a hearing on the new, information, compiled for the 2015, point-in-time, homeless count. >> thank you, and so

colleagues, today i asked for this hearing, to take place, to discuss our recently completed and released 2015, point in time homeless count here in san francisco. as many of you are aware, the homeless count occurs every two years, in order to receive, federal funds to address, homelessness here locally. back? january, i joined the city staff and the non-profit partners to participate in the count and the white house, chief of staff came out as well and the results were just released publicly in july. and the results of the count, which we will discuss, in detail, today, provide some optimism, but also, show the way of a much more work to do ahead of us to reduce the homelessness here. and the stats in july shows that we continue to make the progress in the homeless, and we are on the way of achieving and 2015.

but the count revealed that the population is older and a higher rate of substance abuse and more behavior mental health as well. and 71 percent. and today, we are going to hear from the director of the human services, and dufty or director of hope and our research firm, partnering with the city, has for years, and to produce this count, she looked forward for the discussion and the work ahead of us. mr. roar, if you are ready, we have trent here who is the head of our human services agency. >> and thank you. >> findings for the homeless count. and you know, you touched on supervisor farrell m of the points that i was going to

mention that back that, that we encountered on the street and getting older, and we are seeing the higher incidence of the behavior health issues. and we are also seeing something interesting about the point or the length of most of the recent homeless that i am going to touch on as well but let me take two steps back and give you a little bit of context. and so we do this homeless count, at the point in time, koupt count and it is done on a single night, once every two years and it is a requirement from the federal department of housing and urban development as a condition of receiving or continuing of care funds and the continuing of the care funds, support and a whole range of interventions and targeted at homelessness and notable for us is the funding for the supportive housing and we get over 20 million a year from the feds through the continuing of the care process and so the count is geb, again is a condition of that, but it also helps us to measure our progress, clearly and also

gives us a much richer understanding every couple of years of the population on the street and we couple our point in time count, which is done by the volunteers. and i think that we had over 500 volunteers span the entire city and you walking or driving to attempt to encounter those who they see on the street that appear homeless. and in addition to that, we follow the count, with a survey. and we get a fairly large sample size, and so we can generally draw the conclusions from that representative sample and that gives us things like age and length of time that we have been on the street. and issues of behavior health and a lot of other really, interesting data that helps to inform our system, as we continue to see it evolve and continue to think of new interventions targeted to the folks who are on the street and in our shelters. so, over all, the total number

counted, in january, of 2015, was 6686. and this represents about a four percent increase, from two years ago or the number was 6436 and again, it is important to note that this represents the entire number of folks who are defined as homeless, which includes, not only the individuals and families, who are on the street, but those who are in shelters, and transitional housing and treatment and hospital and jail. and vehicles, and many of the others sort of temporary living and the situation. and the number of unsheltered homeless, and now in 2015, was 3505, which represents about a three percent increase from 2 years, before. where the number was 3401, and these are actually folks who are counted on our streets. and on that single night. we also for the second time did a separate youth count, which

is which is counted at night and the numbers there went down from 914 two years ago to 853 in 2015, which is a 7 percent decline. so, we sort of first reaction as one of many, and the city officials overseeing the system of care, is why did the numbers not go down in the context of the really, the significant numbers of individuals, and families that we have either housed or reunited with their families and support structures in their home communities. and so i want to talk a little bit about that. so you understand kind of really what we have been able to achieve over the last two years in changing the lives of thousands of people. and yet, the over all net number is, you know, essentially is the same. and so, what it represents the progress, since, january of 13 to try to get a sort of similar time frame and so since january

of 13, we added 348 units of supportive housing and 93 that are targeted to transitional aged youth. and you know that we have initiated very long, rental subsidy program for family and particularly through our cal works program where we housed 120 families. where it is really the supportive housing that i want to touch on. but we did add, 348 units which compared to 6600 homeless may not seem like a lot. but it is important to know that we have an existing portfolio of housing of over 4,000 units between the human services agency and the department of public health and those units do turnover and so we place, individuals in those units as they became, vacant and so over the last two years, of the human services agency, we placed 1391, individuals or individuals and families. and then, the department of public health who is the direct access to the housing program, placed another 627 and that is

the total number of individuals and 2018 who were placed over the last two years, about 450 of them were in families, and so when you take the single adult piece and you take the families out we placed almost, 1600 people in two years, 1569. and in addition as you know and supervisor you know well because you helped secure, funding for 8 additional home ward bound caseworkers and home ward bound is a program that we started in 2004, that helps the homeless individuals, reconnect with, their typically their families but it could be another support structure in their home communities. and over the last two years, through that program, we provided transportation, and resources, to reunite, 1614 individuals in all 48 states. and cities and in california as well as cities in other states and so when you take those

numbers together, that is, 3632, folks that we have placed in housing, either in san francisco or outside of san francisco. which is quite an accomplishment in two years. and i often comment when getting questions you know, why isn't the number going down? why aren't you making progress? the answer is we are making significant progress. and we do know how to house the people and how to end homelessness at the individual level. and feeling, and it is demonstrated and shown you that the successes over the last two years and it illustrates over the last, 12 years, since we have been tracking and since 2003, we have placed in the housing or reunited through home ward bound, over 21,000 people from san francisco. and which is an astounding number and you look at it and you say that this cannot be possible and yet, that is the progress that we have made. so we are helping, you know it is important to keep this in mind that we are, you know, you

look at the street and you see the individuals on the street and you look at the noise and you have got the lot and it is important to keep in mind that the human level is significant progress that we have made and the significant number of lives and family, and individuals and families, that we have improved. and looking forward, beyond january, 15 in terms of the pipeline of housing. 54 units of the housing and transitional housing that we anticipate coming on-line and another 324 units for homeless single adults, and that will be coming on-line very shortly, within the next few months. and so, we will continue our approach as supportive housing again, being the corner stone of our strategy to end the homeless in san francisco. and we do have and i think that devon the director of hope will talk more about this. we are and have piloted a what we will define as a low

threshold or intervention to the people on the street to whom the shelter may not be the place sxment this is in the navigation center which devon will talk about. and i was recently in new york two weeks ago looking at their front end and their not only, the street out reach, but, what they do, sort of in conjunction with the street out reach for the individuals who for the shelter does not necessarily work. and they have, similar to the navigation center, they are smaller and they have the safe havens which are the low threshold environments and the physical health barrier and not necessarily navigate a very large and complex shelter system and that is the resources that the out reach teams have and they have had significant success and there is slippage recently and they coupled it with the low threshold and the folks on the street in two years and this is

about six years ago in terms of the time frame. >> those interventions do work and we are pleased with the out comes that we have seen so far at the navigation center and devon will talk more about that. in terms of the interesting, subpopulations and i will turn it over to him. and there are two groups of homeless individuals, largely individuals that we have been focusing on. and we have been focusing on the chronically homeless for, since really, the mid 2000s. and recognizing that these are the sickest and down the street the longest and the folks most in need of interventions and so we have been targeting them. intentionally, for housing and for interventions. and the second subpopulation is veterans and you know, we have been following the directive from the white house to end veteran homelessness and we have really, taken that as a community, taken it very seriously with the partnerships

with the non-profit agencies like the serve to plow shares with the leadership from my staff and on addressing the veteran and just to speak to the numbers there. and starting with veterans in 2011, 17 percent of our homeless population, were veterans and 20 is 3, that dropped to 11 percent and in 2015, count dropped to 9 percent and so we are, we have had, cut in half the number of veterans who are experiencing homelessness. and i think that it speaks to the success of the strategy and if we are targeting the populations with the support of the housing and the other strategies and we know that those are working and among the chronically homeless in 2009 and almost two-thirds of folks who are counted, were defined as chronically homeless and again, these are folks and there is a formal definition of chronic homelessness, and you know, the layperson's terms is someone who has been homeless for over a year and with the

multiple spells of homeless, making progress in those two areas is important, and particularly among the chronically homeless which tend to be again not only those most in need but tend to be the largest strain on the city in terms of the use of emergency room, and inpatient, hospital stays. and other non-homeless service intervention costs. another piece of data that we bring to the survey is the length of time that an individual has been homeless, and i think that this is important. because, it speaks to the need to have the different types of

interventions. whereas someone who is more longer term and chronically homeless and typically the intervention will be supportive housing to address his or her behavior health and other needs. in addition to their homelessness. >> but, a shorter term stay or the folks who are homeless, it really speaks to a different time of intervention and maybe the home ward bountd and maybe the short term rental and the placement of a job and getting that person back in the housing through the rapid rehousing effort. >> it is the length of time for the most recent spell of homelessness, and over half, 51 percent of the most recent spell has been over a year. but interestingly, 35 percent of folks, that the most recent spell was less than 6 months. and ten percent of whom less than 30 days. and so when you, you sort of pull that out, of 6600 folks,

on the 6700 folks, 670 of them have just been on the street less than a month and that is really defined as low hanging fruit and those are the folks that we will get quickly rehoused or reunited with their families so that we don't fall into a pattern where homelessness, becomes more chronic for them and i think that you have got to even extend that out from the ten percent who have less than a month to those who are less than 60 months, and the third of the 6600 people and then lastly, i will speak to the age and the supervisor farrell you did noelt that the aging population and this is not a surprise or a new, phenomenon and there is research out of ucsf that follows the homelessness and sort of the age, and increase, but, i am going to give you the real numbers. and in 2013, 17 percent of folks were over the age of 50. or over the age of 51.

and in 2015, 30 percent, or over the age of 51. and then, even the older, 3 percent, over the age of 61, verses 8 percent in 2015. and then, of course, if the proportion of the folks are older then you are going to see a decrease on the younger side which is what we are seeing and in fact. 29 percent of the folks in 2013 were aged 31 to 40 and that number dropped to 16 percent and cut in half of the most recent year and again these numbers, you don't take them in isolation and you look at them and say is our service system equipped to handle the more aging population? and you know, i think that when you look at our supportive housing certainly that can is equipped to handle a more an older population that tends to have more physical health needs. but when you look at the intervention, and the shelter system it may not quite be, the right, place. to have the folks who are older, and maybe, more frail,

and again, maybe, that speaks to looking at a front end response, that is more, either low threshold or more medically centered for a larger segment of our homeless population. >> i will pause for questions. and then we will turn it over to devon when you want. >> thank you. >> one thing that i think that we will get into it with some and the applied research, but you know, as you think about, and in your experience here that you think about the number stayed static for the last two years, generally speaking and that is pretty remarkable and the amount of people that we

have helped is 21,000 is unbelievable. and also look at it relative to other jurisdiction and what they are seeing and this is not a san francisco phenomena, obviously. but then, also we need to talk and we need to talk about what is next and because, obviously no one thinks that even maintaining these numbers are okay and we all want to strive to do better. but how do you think about that? i mean that, is it hey, we are doing, or we are doing compared to other jurisdictions but we need to do better? >> yeah. >> how do the folks think about that and especially the folks that are on the daily working on this issue? >> sure. i appreciate the question, supervisor, portland was about the same and la increased and new york although it dropped by 5 percent, the street numbers have increased recently, and

so, it just gives you a sense and sort of, this problem is not ours alone. and it does not make us feel any better and we know that we have work to do. but, our path is correct. and there is numbers growing, and in large across the country, and it really is, and it gets the question a lot, and the way that, and the way unlike most of the public assistant systems that the human services agencies that are federally funded that the system for the care of homeless is locally funded and we get 20 million plus, from the feds, and we have the section eight program that can help some but when i am talking about supportive housing and shelters that is largely born on the general fund and so we have a national problem with millions of homeless individuals, and even a directive from the white house, that we should end the veteran's homelessness and what is coupled with that and even a more recent directive and that should seize in communities across the country, what has not fallen is that influx of

federal resource and so we are fortunate, i think in san francisco to have a system of care that has 150, or 170 million in general fund and because we have the political will and commitment. and the value of the human lives to that extent. but it is a national problem, that is not you said a word that i think that i would not use which is static. and the number one, similar, but, not static. and in fact, this is a very, very i dynamic population and the numbers that i talked about and i don't mean to, and disrespect your word. >> no, no, you are actually completely right. and half of the folks that we counted in january and we didn't count in january of 2015, we didn't count them in 2013, because they were not

here, right? and 49 percent of the folks that we counted there is most recent spell of homelessness was less than a year and so we are seeing this, and sort of this long term and then we see this episodic and a new face and a new person and whether they will become homeless in san francisco or they are coming in from the community and whether they are formally homeless or came here for a new opportunity and we know that does not matter. but what matters is that we are seeing the people on the street and it is really important, and i think, for the layperson and for the reader of the paper or someone who sees the homeless on the street to understand. half of the folks that i see are new.

we are not seeing that net change and a couple of what is the public policy response? and ours, and yours and the mayor has been, you know, twofold, which is to continue to support and expand the supportive housing which is the right way to go, and the subdies for those whose income is the problem and continued to support eviction, prevention and this is the next step and intervention and to comment from the director, and sort of my counter part in new york who said that when they look at his system for homelessness, they see two systems and a shelter system and they have the right to shelter, which is manifests itself at 12,000 beds which we don't have here and would not want to have here.

shelter population and they can navigate, and making a reservation and meeting a curfew and sort of being able to survive, in an environment that could be kie on the i can at times in a small area and a population that really can't, function in that environment and that is, the folks who are trying to address the navigation, and the folks that you see. who is so significant that they need the environment where they can bring their stuff and they can bring their companion animal or their partner. and again, with, getting 200 of the what we will call the homeless into the navigation center and 70 of whom have been housed and 75 percent who are home ward bound is really an impressive number in a fairly short period of time and we opened it at the end of march.

and so we want to replicate it and you know, the mayor had an announcement last week around looking at redirecting the money internally and the dph, to expand the model and we are going to be embarking on that shortly. >> we are a city without boarders and how to deal with it is challenging at times and we have to go at it and thanks for all of your part work on it. >> supervisor tang? there is a lot that has been done and more that will be done and in looking at the report, and also, from the information, and you know that we get from, you know, whether it is the officers or whoever else, that are encountering the homeless individuals, and you know, the report says that, over time, it

really shows, those who don't want the government assistant, they just refuse, the help, and it has and it looks like it has steadily increased so for example, 7 percent said that they didn't want the government assistance back in 2011, and now in 2015, 40 percent said that the reason that they do not receive the government assistance is because they don't want it and how do we, i know that it is a complicated question, how do we go about addressing those kinds of cases? >> the government assistance like the shelter system is harder to navigate. and you got to make your appointment and you have to fill out your forms and you need the id. which many folks don't have and

although we try to make it easy and we have the multiple modes of access and phone and walk in, and it is difficult. and which is why, the sort of front end and navigation center where the folks who may be, just distrustful or think that it will not work for them, or can't deal with the 40 percent and we have been able to show with 200, that it does work and i think that the word is getting out on the street that this is, you know, an environment where, you can come in doors, and be safe and what we have done is had the human reforces people on site, on the site and especially in the appointments to get the cash assistance and getting a california id through the dmv and sort of bringing the services right on the site, and making it as easy as possible.

to navigate that and not only providing the shelter and the navigation center but the things like the home ward bound and the 8 new caseworkers that we are in the process now, and a lot of folks that come here, not just homeless, or the low income and in san francisco it is historically a city of refuge for a lot of population and sometimes the things just don't work out and they find themselves stuck. and stuck in can lead to a lot of things and can lead to the increased substance use and it can lead to other sorts of activity and behaviors that are not healthy and if we can be there and say that hey, you are stuck and where did you come

from? and do you have a support structure and we can help you get back there and work for over 8,000 people and less than 1 percent who have returned to san francisco and i think that is important. and so to have 8 caseworkers who are having the shelters on the street, and who are at the navigation center and to offer, sort of that real time, and hey, i can get you transportation in a couple of hours. and to get there before they take the step backwards on the street >> good morning everyone and i want to say what an excellent job that trent did in outlining the count and talking about the efforts that are going on during a two year period that do house people and help the

people. >> he talked about the difficulty of navigating systems and the complexity of applying for affordable housing and the necessity for the people to apply to multiple lists and the fact that someone that i supported and was probably the single reason that i got elected supervisor here in san francisco, does not touch people in ssi like it touches people on ga.

>> the people who i encounter say that i don't want to stay in the shelter and to go to the effort to sign up and get $65 a month >> we look at nashville with what they have been able to do and what phoenix has done and a different housing market than what we have. but in, salt lake city, the involvement of the mormon church and really just the setting that we are not going

to have the people, who are struggling to access housing. we are foeg to develop housing. and that is a difficult thing to do, and we have a housing bond here, and it is going to take time and it costs, and he has been strategic because we have the hotels and the housing which is appropriate, for low income individuals in particularly, single adults and the mayor has been, aggressive, both in asking the tech community to come forward and help which is how we started the navigation system with the $3 million donation which was given to the san francisco, inner faith, council and it is a big part of boosting our effort. and now, and supervisors that are here and participated and supported and identifying an additional 3 million as trent pointed out, within the existing city resources but the legislation that is going to specify that we can't spend that money, unless that money is matched. and, certainly, some of the

housing that was referred to in trent's comments that are coming on-line this year, that is housing that is matching, this effort, and with the navigation center. >> and one of the most important things happened recently with leader, where she helped the hud approve a much heighter payment standard given the coast and i think that is the big overlay, is that how expensive housing is in san francisco.

these number show that the new people becoming homeless, and i think that it is parcel to the same struggle and you that and the mayor have been addressing and the different initiatives are addressing and i think that trent touched on the point that one of the numbers that brings a lot of energy is the people that are homeless and have been in san francisco, prior to becoming homeless, and verses those that came here for a job. and the partner or a relationship that did not work out and didn't have a safety net.

there is 700 or fewer individuals identified in the count, and 800 additional individuals who are identified, in district six. and so, i am not suggesting again because the chronic number has come down, from 2,000 and these are not fesly the people that picked up the possession and walked from the bay view into the civic center or the neighborhoods but the numbers are dramatically different. and i think that it will require a recalibration of our effort and a real focus on the neighborhoods like the tender loin where the homelessness is endemic to that neighborhood and we need to do more, i want to point out that, and sam, can talk about this, but the respondents also identified people always ask me this, to what extent are health issues and mental health issues a factor in individuals

homelessness, and in this count, 37 percent of the individuals identified as having a substance abuse issue, and 35 percent, were i do want to say that the individuals could have more than one, issue or challenge, but that does remain a big factor. and so, these numbers are hard and the city does work, diligently and we do make the investments and a lot of individuals that want to change, and homelessness and not have it be as present for the people

>> i think that without the curfew and respecting where the people are and combined with the really focused effort that the mayor and others are making around and maximizing the use of sros are really the path that we need to pursue in the near term to try to address the street homelessness. >> >> okay. thank you. >> and sorry. >> and colleagues, any further questions? >> okay, so, up next, we will must have peter, and thank you for being here. and the work with the city and look forward with having this discussion with you.

>> thank you supervisors. and members of the committee. and first off, i would like to thank the great number of le wpeop participated in this effort. that we are going to talk about today. and i would also like to thank, bev and trent for their comments and the entire team, and the, this participated as well as my project director samantha green who is sitting behind me. and i am going to review, the summary, result of the report, and some of the data points have been discussed already. but, in the interest of being, methodcal i will go through those again and i apologize in advance for any redundancy. >> they are done every odd

years and they are required as a component on the application, for the homeless funding and that is part of the 20 minutes that san francisco receives. and all continuing of the care. and are over quiet and conducting the counts over two years and in the last ten days, of january, and in a single 24-hour period. and then in san francisco, that was, of course, january 29th of this year.

>> it is scrutinized by hud and the data presentation that is made every year, and the definition of the shelter used in the san francisco study, individual, or family living and a supervised and a public or privately operated shelter and designed to provide the temporary living arrangements, and the examples, are fairly straight forward, and the individual. we also collect the data at the people staying at resource centers and stabilization rooms and the residential programs and jails and hospitals. the unsheltered definition, is an individual, or family with a

nighttime residence that is a public or a private place and not designated for, or orderly used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings, and setting apart of the building or the bus or campground and i spend a little extra time on the definition, because, it is, it is really a guiding principal and it, it excludes a lot of the persons who many, many of us, in the, and in the community think that may be literally homeless and that includes, folks that are doubled up. and in other words, living with a friend or a relative in an existing shelter. >> and informal shelters such as the church basements and the bunk beds and the rec rooms that have been converted to a nightly shelter, sros, and other private property locations which are inaccessible to the teams. and also, some folks in unsafe

areas that were not considered suitable for enumeratio n. >> the point in time counts do not include the persons in the permanent support of housing, because that is not considered, part of the shelter definition, within the point in time, rubric as given to us by hud. >> so, methodology that was used in san francisco, in 2015, is very similar to the methodologies used since 2009. when applied survey research began to come and similar to some previous years, with some improvements from the periods before we helped out. and we follow a hud guideline

on counting shelter and unsheltered persons in the method that has been selected in san francisco is an observation based street count and combined with a survey, and in the obligation based street count is mentioned the community effort included roughly, 500 volunteers, and which was similar to the number that we have had every year, that we participated since 2009. >> as trent mentioned, beginning in 2013, we added in a dedicated youth count, which was an overlay, or afr extra layer to the count, in response to growing interest, in concerns about youth homelessness, and certainly, its prevalence here in san francisco. and so that was, that was counted as well and there were 75 youth guides, that were recruited and participated in

that, with the support of local youth homeless advocates. in addition, to the street effort on the 29th, that was followed up by an indepth survey of roughly 1027 currently homeless persons in the shelter and unsheltered locations. and that is was a sample which means that we tried to, we tried to administrator survey and locations where the folks who were observed. and the quarter was based on the neighborhood location. shelters and status and age. >> peers were recruited to administer the surveys on the streets. and shelters staff have administered the surveys in the shelter, subsequent to the completing of the survey element and the street, data collection, from the day of the

count, and analysis, was conducted, which you see in the final report and then, several months ago, that data was submitted to hud, as part of the over all national effort to collect homeless data, which has been subsequently included in the annual homeless assessment report to congress. so, now for the fun part which is the results as we have heard already, the count found 6,686 persons, in the general street count that we did with all of the community volunteers, in 2015, and that was supplimented with the youth count result, which was 853 persons. so, for reporting standards to hud, there were a total of 7539

persons reported in or on a single point in time in san francisco in 2015. which represents an increase of 4 percent. 205 people. and as both trent and devon very accurately noted, this number and this relatively small change does not reflect the level of turn in a population. it often in terms of number and characteristics. and there has been a lot going on, in the last two years. and the data reflects some of that. the youth count and there was a slight decrease of 7 percent. and then the over all count when you add both the youth and the general count, there was an over all increase of 2 percent. >> as mentioned it is not

always tremendously informative to know what other communities and jurisdictions around the county and state are doing, but within california to just give you an idea, we work at a number of these counties, and in the count, and santa clara went down over all 14 percent, as trent mentioned, san diego is down, and los angeles is up 12.4 percent and sonoma we want down 27 percent and santa cruz went down 44 percent. and salano went down 18-.6 percent just as a comparative in where we stand. and the vexing thing to us as researchers many of the economic and the housing scarety issues and the

affordable issues exist in all of the california, coastal communities and yet, each community showed odd changes, that are not necessarily consistent with that. >> and so, it just as a reminder, that there is a tremendous number of issues which effect the over all numbers, and them going up and down. >> the single adults and 25 years and older, represent 71

percent of the count. >> youth under 25, and 21 percent, and persons and families, 8 percent. >> here is a little geographic distribution, of home sness, within the city. as mentioned there has been some changes. some things have not changed in the district six remains are the most by far, the most significant area for homelessness in the city. and district ten as well. and district 6, increased from 2013, by 29 percent.

>> this increase in the districts where we are seeing some of the high concentrated homeless areas are getting increased infment lux of persons into those areas. and as homelessness, tends to be more and more consolidated in many, many urban areas. >> question for you, are you finding that in larger areas, or in every, jurisdiction that you do? >> even in the semi, urban rural areas, and so on. >> as trent mentioned it has escalated for our perspective throughout the country in the last couple of years and hopefully that may change.

20 percent of adults and 25 and over, 74 percent. these are the efforts and the planning all over the country. and that, and there was, in the very good success in addressing this in san francisco, from 2013, to 2015, and as a, and maybe a repetitive reminder,

chronic homelessness, by definition is being homeless, and continuously for one year. or having four episodes or more of homelessness, over three years. and a disabling continue as present as well. >> and so, there were 1745. homeless individuals in 2015 that were found and that is in comparison of 77 founded in 2013, and chronically homeless families. and there were 58 families to be found homeless, and that number was 116 in 2013.

>> >> veteran homelessness and this is an important area. and it is, as many of you, who are involved, in homeless services and read the paper, the addressing and the ending veteran homelessness has been, one of the top priorities of the, or of the hud and the inner agency. and the council on the homelessness and a lot of funding efforts in putting in the aggressive out reach and vouch programs. and so there is great, great progress made on this. in san francisco and a total of 598 persons, had veteran status, and it is down from the 716 found in 2013. >> chronically homeless vets, which was kind of a subset of this, the veterans who are

also, chronically homeless, and that number was 208 persons in 2015. and that is a decrease from 260, chronically homeless vets in 2013. >> pushp >> and this is a decrease of 7 percent of, or where from 2013, or 679 family members were found. and again, very importantly, this does not include double up

persons where double up is the most common sleeping location for many homeless families. and however, it is excluded from the pit definition we need to work with. >> unaccompanied youth, and 128 individuals, and unaccompanied children. and that is, children under 18 years of age. and they total of 1441 transition aged youth or youth between 18 through 24. and if you combine the unaccompanied children, and youth, number, it represents close to 21 percent of the over all homeless population.

>> i flow that the definition does not include the children that live in fros for example and, my understanding is that the definition, of the homelessness is a problem because there are so many people that are coach surfing and to and outside of the definition and so it is way higher, i know since the first census count and others were challenging the huge under count. and how many, children are within the estheros that we can add to that 128 that are below 18 years old, do you think? >> that is a great, question, and unfortunately, i have not seen the sro data that would, or that i could share with you.

>> and from to profile that. >> from the friends and family members and others, and stories, it seems that there is the cramming in of even more people under the tiny, 8 x 8 srorooms now that is going on. and my hope is that we have and i am really, pleased with the work and 300 plus volunteers and i am hoping that we can refine the way of giving accurate data and so the 1441, transitional aged youth that were identified, and my understanding too, is that many of them and there is probably way more than that, because of the other ways that the people find places to live that may be outside of the definition, could you comment on that? >> yeah. the again again one of the big challenges that we have to work with is that there are various strict guidelines and data auditing from hud as to who is included and who is not.

and in san francisco, too, there is very significant safety, safety concerns, which have prevented us from going into, abandoned buildings? many areas we have the law enforcement and community groups and the city staff, to see, if there are ways that we can penetrate those areas more effectively and it is determined to be too much of a hazard. >> there are and some other xhupts that we have worked in, we have made some efforts to get it, and some of those double up locations, and profile that data. and the results from some of those efforts, and cost intensive have indicated that it is a huge number. and los angeles, and until this

year, conducted a private property telephone survey. to profile the persons, on private property, who they consider homeless, but not to the enumerators and that represented 20 to 32 percent of the over all count. >> and we have, we have done some work, and general community assessments and santa cruz and we found that, the general community has had ten percent of the general community indicated that someone had lived in their house as a homeless person. and with the homeless status, in the last year. and so what as the researchers and one of the big unknown areas, is this fine line between precar yusly housed, and literally homeless.

and in the movement that goes on back and forthwith that. and there is very little, because of a challenges, and in research, and there is very little that is known about it, but, i believe that you are absolutely right that that is a huge group. that is not represented necessarily in this data. and yet, it is a group that is regularly accessing city services. in an attempt to improve their situation. >> so, you mentioned that the numbers that the point in time numbers don't include many of the people that are doubled up in different places that were counted? and then also, you said for squaters in a abandoned building, for example, because we don't have the ability we don't even, and we are not even able to go into some urban areas, where there may be large numbers of encampments of transitional ages youth or younger that are living in

encampments that are squatting in a building. >> right. >> and so there is and that is just, and unfortunately that has been the numberation teams are tip typically volunteers and i think that you have seen the efforts over the years, but there are two to five person teams of general community volunteers, that are going out, and having them go into the buildings under construction, or at some phase of demolition, and it is considered too risky from the liability standpoint. and i just wanted to acknowledge great articles by chris roberts from the examiner that looked at the methodology and tim redmonday for really kind of looking at numbers so that it is giving us a better sense of what the policies work and i know that the significant funding from the federal government, for the, and to lessen the veteran, homelessness is as significant, investment, and it might be a

good example that, more investments in to, long term solutions, are the farrell and others are promoting might being the best remedy, verses the policis that we are facing the 5th anniversary of right now. i wanted to ask one other question about immigrant rights and undocumented youth and so that i know that this board and the city has dedicated significant amounts of money to really try to support, young people, unaccompanied minors who are pleaing persecution and other horrors in other countries. do we have any sense of the youth and unaccompanied minor and how many are fleeing from central america, unlike in the middle east and other places that are dealing with the similar situations? >> we, unfortunately that is a great question and it would be great data to have, unfortunately that is not something that we included in our youth survey. we have -- and the general

survey, is given to everyone in the city and we added a supply mental questions that get into the youth themed data components but, where they were, if they were part of a refugee or the fleeing was not unfortunately one that we were able to capture. and as i mentioned earlier, we would love to get the better profile of the double ups and because especially with the youth, and in the couch surfing and the youth given a place to sleep on a regular nightly basis is a common phenomena. >> and just lastly, i wanted to thank you for the great work i wanted to ask later if sam dodge or devon know if we are going to continue on the sro

census count that helps us to suppliment good information like this for the youth and families that are homeless as well. >> very good questions. >> the next slide is one that is one that is always, very, very, much a topic in a lot of public discourse, and it is home grown, and homelessness or not. i think that both devon and trent mentioned this. but, 71 percent of our respondents said that they had a regular, a regular housing situation in san francisco before they became homeless. and that is, that is up significantly from 2013. and in fact, if this number is fairly consistent, and with

what we find in almost all of our research committees if not higher in some of the other communities. and then, first time homelessness, and this is something that trent in particular, i think was talking about and that has decreased significantly. and so, and it represents, you know, some changes and shifting in and the characteristics of the homelessness. and the next slide, is primary causes of homelessness and as you can see, there is a variety of different areas, and there is multiple reasons given in which is the primary and we have put on in the tech chart in the trending from 2011 to 2015, and the lost job is

consistently there. and you might predict with the shrinking housing stock and doubling up and so on, and related to, the housing status that is a consistent issue as well as other, as well as other family, oriented things. and obstacles to getting permanent housing. and you can see, how the issues noted by the respond ants are almost all economic in nature. >> and you can't afford the rent and no job. and no money for moving costs 13 percent. >> health conditions.

we still feel that health homelessness is as much of a health as housing issue for many folks out there. and these percentages of different health conditions that folks have, are consistent in the years that we have been doing this. the alcohol use, 37, and the psychiatric and emotional and 35. and the physical disability and 28 and ptsd, and 27 and general chronic health problems, 27. and tbi, ten. and aids and hiv related 7. >> which is, is, consistently higher than other communities that we work with. and the hud is very interested in domestic violence. and in, we interested of the communities, and the profile this, more effectively and in

the data collection, and the history of domestic violence and 30 percent, said yes. 12 percent declined to state. 58 percent clearly said no. and just in the nature of the domestic violence, and self-reporting, is that it is typically, significantly under reported. and we have no reason to believe that this is not an under count as well. and folks, and supervisor chang has talked about the service assistance. and this is, these are the services that we are being accessed by the respondents. free meals and emergency shelter. and dish services and health services and not using any services. and you could see that there is obviously changes in this.

but, generally, within the ballpark. and then, specifically, what services were being accessed. and food stamps and again, it is one of the highest. and general assistance. and devon talked a little bit about the challenges to that and yet they are still 30 percent and not receiving any government assistance, and it is still high. but, it is an improvement from 2013. and medical 20 percent and ssi, 16 percent and getting back to the health issues, or excuse me. relative to receiving benefits, 74 percent of the respondents were getting something and to maybe, suppliment a little bit, on to what trent was saying, about in addressing the supervisor change's comments about not wanting it, or any

government help. and in other communities, not in san francisco, this topic is called, homeless by choice. and it is a, and it is a common belief that there is a lot of folks out there that don't want any help. and other communities have asked us to probe this a little bit. and when we phrase the question, in terms of if housing were available, to you, that it was acceptable to you, and safe and recognized some of the challenges that you phased, would you accept it? >> and it was a little, worded a little simpler than that. but the response was consistently 95 percent. >> and so there is a lot of, in a programming challenges and which, make placement, in the some of the shelter system, very, very much a concern to folks. and we think that they would

like housing, but not necessarily housing the way that they have experienced it to date. >> so with those applause i will conclude the presentation and as you know, there is, almost 90 pages, and there is more data that we can, we can thumb through and address. but, i will be happy to answer any questions, but, and the committee has. >> and thank you, very much. and i don't know if we have any more questions right now, but want to thank you for all of the hard work and look forward to continuing to work together as we offer this data and so forth and appreciate your work on this on the city's behalf. >> and i don't have any questions either, do i want to thank everyone for their presentations but, also, and even though the data shows that our district has 7 homeless individuals, and which we know is much more than that, and you know our offices obviously worked very closely with

whether it is dufty's office or other s to try to get services for the individuals on the street. and so, i know that this is an ongoing issue and i really appreciate that we have tried to find creative solution and trying to eliminate the barriers for the people to receive the services and so i want to see if we continue down that path and just, again, thank you for the ongoing, partnership, on this very challenging issue. >> thank you. >> supervisor mar. >> i had a question and i think that it was by one of the reporters analysis of our data. and my understanding is that in 2007, instead of district by district, we used a census track maps that helped us to hone in, we we say the golden gate park and 5200 homeless people and that is not a good example. but district seven we will know based on the tracks where the people are and that and it is misleading to look at just, wide, 80,000 person districts

to look more, specifically, on the census tracks. >> yeah. i don't know that, i would agree with that. the, and what has been developed and refined, in san francisco, with trents department has been neighborhood routes that make sense. from a canvassing and an out reach perspective and all of those, those routes and maps, are, developed and in conjunction with the jis department with the city. so it does, how or whether you define it in routes, or if you define it in census block, groups. or census tracks, you, can, mix and match the subunits very easily, either way. and i think that the way that the city has chosen to makes it work, you know, effective, for

good analysis. and that, and it does, it gives the ability for the future analysis, even on subareas that have or are, more targeted, within a census tract or a block group that might be done. >> yeah, i wanted to say that, it is shocking how many people are in district six and ten and then your information about the possibility of people moving out of district ten, and into district six, and then, district five, around the haight ash bury and the parts of the golden gate park around it seem to be the key spots for the large numbers and the homelessness in the city. >> yeah, it is, and it is, and unfortunately the data does not really give us insights into the migration, or whether or not the increase of the people that we saw in 10, are actually or six, are actually from you know, another, particular district or not.

we don't necessarily get that, that, level of analysis. >> and then i think that the report really shatters the stereotypes about homelessness and humane cities like san francisco that were not a magnet for homelessness and i think that out of the survey, 70 percent of the people were living in san francisco before they came homeless. >> right. >> so i think that is a really good thing about the report. and my last question is on page 14. you go through the federal definition, of homelessness, for point in time counts. and is there a possible way to work with the coalition on homelessness and the others to develop the san francisco based definition, that gets at the people that are cramed into couches and inlaw unsits and sro hotel rooms, and 8 x 8 rooms. and the squaters, in the buildings, and other places that your definition and your data is not counting?

if there are key data sources that for example, the coalition, if they, and if they had great numbers, on sros. and we would be fine with including them in our final report. there is also the education numbers that are reported to the county office of education. which do include some double up of the data children. but those can be added to the report as a reference, but obviously they, they can't be reported within the hud

definition. >> okay thank you, and i think that in san francisco, we have the other jurisdictions and the circumstances here and the way that people are dealing with it and being marginalized from the housing perspective and it does not capture all that we need to capture, for the future. and i know that we are bound as a city to do it according to hud standards and the federal definition is better. and they are good, but they don't capture the entire picture. >> right. and it makes it really difficult, to communicate to the community groups, some of these really, fine details definitional distinctions that we have to work under. >> thank you. >> we open up the public comment in a second. >> i want to thank everyone for participated in the hearing, in particular, devon and trent,

and the entire hsa team who is here and dph, or sorry, and trent's team. >> sure. >> and devon's team. >> excuse me one second sir. i think that we need to be reminded of the efforts that we are making in the city of san francisco. and it continues to persist, homelessness as an issue. and that is on everyone's mind. and san francisco residents and i think that we should be encouraged by the progress and all that we have done today but also cannot be come play ant and we have to do more to get the people in their own two feet and off of the streets and we look forward to working with everyone in the room and everyone else who participates in this. and challenge as a city going forward. with that, we will open to public comment and everyone will have two minutes. >> (inaudible)

>> my name is amy and i am the foupder developing with the mission to support, and sustainable development and here we are right now. we cannot hear right now without doing the solution and so i am proposing the solutions today and i did just talk with the coalition, on the homelessness, and was told that under ed lee's administration we have gone from a 40 percent pipeline of a percentage of

affordable housing going to homelessness, and to 20 percent. and so under brown,. we need to take action to improve the lives of our homeless neighbors while building a vision to permanent solution and for better or worse, he has made the up coming super bowl a catalyst for changing policies for the treatment of the neighbors on the street, we have enough, wealth and creativity and talant and heart in the city, to improve the lives of thousands of homeless residents and in time for the super bowl and i call it the saint francis, super bowl, homelessness challenge and now it is not a game. but we could all win by taking this challenge >> we have homeless neighbors sleeping on in the tent em

campsments and they became home s by life ining san francisco and we don't have enough permanent housing and this is a crisis and we must take the creativity action. what if we had $5 million and a source from the nfl or the 49ers we have under utilized small parcels of city owned property and there is a project that was done, by a cal berkeley professor called local, code, thank you >> any other members of the public that wish to comment on item number one? >> yeah am hearing the reports. i think that we need to start with the main scenario. and i think that we need to, we need to actually partner with the homeless, so that they can actually build the better san francisco. so they can actually work and prove and hope that the other homeless.

and it just seems like every time that i will try to offer something like let's have a supportive group and let's do something, i continuously got rebuffed. and the other time out, and the homeless resistance to the services. and in the government agencies, and we as a city have not really gotten past that par dime of the violent and the local sro and the sro that, and that the community has in partnership, and they could be in and i have the better quiet enjoyment sleeping outside on the sidewalk than i actually do inside of that sro. and and it is tolerated if not endorsed with having a place to live and so, and have we gotten passed the paradyme of the rat and roaches of the bed bugs of the sro stock?

i think that there is definitely solutions, and i think that you just need to meet with the homeless, instead of talking down to our or about them. and i think that the, again, you need to partner with the homeless, because if there is a problem, then they are part of the solution. and lts just that there is no accountability or very, and our accountability for these violence abusive sro and the shelter workers. and i mean there is a woman intact in front of the partnership building, 650, 80, and they ran in circle and never -- >> thank you very much. >> any other members of the public wish to speak on item 1? >> i am not here as a homele, however i am one of them and i heard about the data and i do have respect for it.

okay? i do know that the people have been working hard with those men who are together and however i don't think that they are representing the real. and many of the people are on the street and many of the people are destroying our cities. and i, went to one of the shelters or two, and believe me, the reason why people do not want to go there, is because they do have time, and they force the people to keep from being homeless, and they do not want the people to go to the school that is to look for a job. they have to be there by 3:00 or 4 and besides that they do have to present more information than what they can afford i heard that santa clara, went down and i did show that the facebook and the police and others are taking away the people from the street, and not because they are not homeless, but because they are taking their lasting to hide the fact that we are having much more homeless,

today than before. and i am not sure how they presenting those members but what i can tell you is to go outside and see how many people there are. and how many people, that are in front of clara and how many people are hired to, and to hide the fact that we are getting worse and worse. and i just, begging you, to do something about it, and to, reflect that the real data to make changes for our country to be better. >> thank you very much. >> any other members of the public wish to speak on item number one? >> okay. and seeing none, public comment is closed. and our colleagues, thank you for being with me for this hearing and your involvement, and could i have a motion to file item one? >> so moved. >> motion by supervisor tang and take that without objection. >> and if you will call. item two. >> ordinance authorizing the department of human resources to accept and expend a grant in

the amount of approximately $130,000 from the fuse corps to prepare students for the pathways into careers in science, technology and engineering and mathematics. >> good morning, donna from the department of human resource and workforce development director and i am here before you today to request the community's recommendation to authority to accept and extend a grant. and the fuse corps is part of an executive fellows program with the mayor's office with the department of human resources and fuse corp and this partner wls the career professionals and designated city departments to work on the specific, high priority city initiatives. the goals of the executive program, are to provide resources and opportunities for city leaders to learn from the experts in the private sector to address the critical issues that may require the creative

solutions to provide the opportunities for individuals in the private sector and to learn about the city and make a positive contribution to the city. and to create and build the stronger public, private working relationships and recruit the individuals would may not have considered, working for the city before. >> and in the fiscal year, 14, 15, a pilot program was launched and with the success of the pilot, the program was expanded in this fiscal year to 7 fellows, and the grant from this fuse corps will allow the city to expand the program and add one additional fellow. >> this is a joint project with the mayor's office and the unified school district and focusing on increasing opportunities for the unified school district schools for the careers in stem, science, and technology, and engineering and math. and related fields. >> and the fellow will partner with the particular holers to develop a plan, to identify the common goals to put the

students on the path, to succeed throughout their kthrough 12 education. and to also, work with the stake holders to maximize the opportunities and resources to achieve these goals. the fellow will work closely with the public and private and non-public partners to insure that the programs are working collectively and effectively to prepare san francisco youth for the stem careers, thank you and i will be happen xwr to answer any questions. >> thank you. >> any questions? >> all right, then we will move on to the public comment and anybody wish to comment on two? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. and that motion to send this item forward with recommendation? >> and we can take that without objection. >> could you call number three. >> resolution for approve and authorizing the acquisition of one construction easement, and one permanent subsurface electrical, and one permanent and well connection, and one

utility water connection easement from the coast co-wholesale to be used by the city under the water system improvement program. >> okay, thank you we have fuc here to speak. >> actually, claudia. and we do have the staff if there are questions and i will be brief and this resolution regards the water, system, improvement program. in 2012. and the san francisco, public utilities commission initiated the regional ground water storage and consisting the of construction of the water wells and to increase the capacity of water, during the regional dry years. and the sfpuc is requesting funding for the 190,000 previously appropriate ated by the board of supervisors under the project as part of the sfpuc water system to purchase four easements from the property owner, costco, and the easements will provide a

temporary construction, easement area for the project, staging and the subservice, utility connections to provide power and water, and a connection easement. and the total average price which has been appraised, is $2.59 per square foot. and that is a $2 square foot appraised value for the temporary construction, easement and about $8 per square foot appraisal value for the other easements. and based upon a total land value of $60 per square foot. and the temporary construction, easement will be for 18 months with the option to extend the term up for 12 additional months for month to month. and the sfpuc is also asking that the final environmental report and the findings previously adopted last fall, be readopted as there is no substantial project changes and

no new, information, of substantial importance that will change the conclusion set forth. >> and mr. rose and his office and the report, provides a informative summary of the project and this project and ultimately recommends the resolution without change and we agree with that recommendation. >> thank you. >> colleagues any question for the staff here? >> okay, mr. rose could you go to your report please? >> yes, members of the committee on page 3 of our report we note that under the purpose of the agreement and as the department is just indicated, the city has purchased the four easements from costco at an average cost of $2.69 and a total cost of $190,000, and a matter of summarizing and table one on page 3 we recommend that you approve the resolution. >> okay. >> thank you very much. >> and no other questions we will move on to public comment and you may wish to comment on this item? >> okay, seeing none, public comment is closed.

>> we have it in front of us. >> i would like to make a motion to move this forward with a positive recommendation, and motion with tang and we can take that without objection. >> could you call four? >> resolution approving the fourth amendment to the agreement with the prwt services. for citation processing and support services to extend the agreement by one year to october, 31, 2016. with an option to extend the agreement for up to two additional years, and for a total contract amount not-to-exceed, $63 million. >> good morning, supervisors, steve leee sfmta and thank you to hearing our item today. this fourth amendment and resolution, before you is a request for one year, extension, on the third of five one year options, and the increase to not-to-exceed amount by 9.2, million dollars, and for agreement, with the prwt for the citation process and support services. and the amendment also

authorizes the mta to implement the enhancements and we feel that we have the great customer service and the operations. and these improvements include, creating a residential permit and a parking system that will auto mate it on-line as well as mail in, and the improvements to the web portal that will allow the customer to view the current status of any citation and process of any protest and to create a web portal, where they can query the system to see if there is a payment on the citation and request it on-line. issuing an rfp for a new agreement by the end of the november of this year, and we urge that you approve this amendment. >> okay, thank you very much. >> and colleagues, with know questions, and mr. rose could we go to your report. >> yes, mr. chairman and members of the committee, on page 9 we report that the sfmta is arequesting approval of the

additional approval of 9,250,494 which equals of to 3 million, for the july, first of 2015, 0 october, 31, 2016, and less the balance of 2 million, 45,000, and in 2015, from the original, not-to-exceed agreement amount and we also note on page 10 of our report that in the fiscal year 14, issued 1 million parking citation and received, 150 million, in parking citation revenues and we do recommend that you approve this resolution. >> thank you. mr. rose. >> supervisor tang. >> thank you and i think that this would have been in the budget analyst report as well. but i just wanted to provide for the public the information about funding that we are spending through this agreement, amendment. particularly for i guess better

on-line, efficiency or processing and i think that is a really good goal and i think that the budget analyst pointed out, roughly, 400,000 dollars extra that we are spending for that and just wanted to clarify that if for some reason we are going to go with another service, and after the rfp process, what happens to the data, and the system and if you could just explain that. >> sure, what the prwt will be developing is our web pour tal and any new rendor that will come in a year and a half from now or a year from now will have to integrate in terms of the data and that is natural. and these, particular improvements are we feel, minor elements of a contract, that will probably be in the range of about, 40 to 50 million dollars. and the heavy portion of the contract, will be citation, processing and enforcement and ajudation, and so these improvements will be able to transfer to a new vendor in the future. >> and then, again, even though we are, and we could go with

prwt again and another company, and do you have a sense of the time frame for when some of these new improvements especially through the on-line, web portal will be able to take place? >> absolutely. >> this extension, and authorization is from november first, and through, october 31st. of this year. we would implement it immediately and take two to four months to implement all three. >> from now? >> yes. >> because we can't start until we are authorized to start. >> okay. >> november first >> great, thank you very much. >> okay. thanks very much. we will open this up to public comment and anyone wish to comment on four? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues we have this item in front of us and could i have a motion to send this forward. >> so moved. >> supervisor tang and we can take it without objection. >> madam clerk do we have any other business. >> no other business. >> thanks, everyone we are adjourne

issue. >> homeless in san francisco is a challenging issue that effects owner in the city in many different was as of the 2014 homeless census over 64 homeless in individual in the city to try to address the issue we've got a program for chronic homeless welcome to the navigation

center. >> this pilot project is for people living on the street what makes it different the navigation center is able to accommodate homeless encampments lowell u allowing people to keep their pets and bring their personal bloonlz. >> the full realization that people don't want to be homeless not refuse services but from the services don't meet them and not relevant they're not going to be successful if you look at the budget losses we've got a community sacrifice important people to get food and laundry we're standing next to the bathrooms it is designed to be a dynamic and brief residential experience where right of on this site city staff to connect

you to homeless places to return to family dine is up for medi-cal and all those things that are complicated for people. >> the other exciting thing city agencies come on site and provided the services for folks this is existed to see when the goal of streamlining a a whole processes of getting people on go gentle assistance into housing as much as possible. >> way totally different you can come and agree as please and get laundry services and showers any time of the day and night it's twenty-four hours a day whatever and twhefr it's not like any other she recalls. >> they come and help people for what it is they're required the issues they need and reach out and do what we can to say

okay how can we accommodate you to get you set up and straight never in my mind imagined a program like this this place it different and a a lot a lot that better it works. >> the navigation is center is a collaboration of partnerships too city departments one is the homeless outreach team managed by the san francisco distributing i look forward to the navigation center we'll have our agents go out and help and say don't go anymore over and over send our dayshift out they've meet the population and hang out and hang in the encampment and transport people and be with them and make immediate impacts with me and my

staff. >> bringing our wloongz whatever you go presents a problem this place their help with the storage i don't have to worry about it staying here you know you're getting things done they need to get things down done to get off the street avenue of the hope alsoness is gone. >> they help you if you're hungry go eat if e you need to go places go. >> they're 4th district it awe auto. >> it was funded through a unanimous donation and of may 2015 an additional $3 million to help to continue the program beyond 18 months. >> you see people coming out they're ready to being so the future homes you know how

variable the navigation center is my message for the constituents yes something can be done do break chronic homelessness it is being done. >> this is a community that sets an example but i how to pick an area that was funky they've seen we're trying to do is help their neighbors they've seen getting sicker and more frail and broken down on the streets and welcomed us that's a powerful statement people are exist and president in they're becoming to see the movement for folks and people on the streets are only survival modes where is there next meal and their itch more carefree. >> the staff here is

interpretation the first day i have a appointment and everything was made all you do is go through them this makes a huge difference. >> to get settled in a helping hand, to get on my feet, take care of the issues i have and get out of bed and help. >> even though the navigation center has been up in march 2014 the program is creating successful outreach for it's clients. >> a month ago they came to me and asked me to go into a new program i moved into here and now 3 months later i have my own place it is mine i lock my door don't worry about my stuff it

feels human again >> i call this meeting of the transbay joint powers authority meeting to order for september 10, 2015. would you call the roll, please, madam secretary. >> director kim. kim present, lee present. vice chair nuru, present. president