supported therapeutic residential treatment program. >> supervisor fewer: right. so then, are there -- in these programs, are -- so they're housed for six months there, and there's a whole bunch of supportive services. there's medical services, psychiatric services, all those kind of things. and what happens after six months? >> yeah. so if they remain in foster care, they are dependant, so they're basically our child. we -- every child in foster care has a social worker, you know, our social workers probably have 15 -- 10 to 15 kids on their caseload, so they are -- they're not released to nothingness. they don't move out of the strtp shall did-and again, it doesn't go into effect until another six months, sev months. they don't move out of the strtp until there's a suitable placement for him or her, which is sort of the crux of the challenge that i talked about. is once january 1, 2019 hits,

we no longer can have a child or individual stay in a group home longer than six months. we have sort of a head start, so it's imperative that we continue to recruit more families in san francisco that are willing to take the responsibility of parenting -- foster parenting that child when they step down -- when he or she steps down from that group home. and so really, the model is what we call supportive -- i don't want to go too much into the lingo, which is supportive therapeutic foster care, which is a foster home, fost irrelevant parents, but with mental services provided by an outside entity within the context of the home or by specially trained parents who are able to provide the behavioral and mental health supports for these kids. so it's unlike the homeless system of care where somebody may -- i think supervisor sheehy hoo broug sheehy hee brought up the

question, once you're done with your mental health treatment ends, where do you go? in the child welfare system, there's no child taken from someplace to nothing. the why the around ccr which is an important one is very -- is all too often kids were growing up in group homes. they are growing up in institutions and, you know, research found across the state and the country is that the outcomes of kids who leave foster care at age 18 who grew up in a group home, really, the only thing they're prepared to is to live in another institution, quite frankly, so we are ahead of the curve in terms of the nation in passing the state law. federal law just passed, actually, two months ago that makes this law throughout the country meaning no longer can you have long-term group home stays, and so we're ahead of the curve. but it really is challenging, and the number one challenge is to recruit those families, because these are not six-year-old kids with, you know, moderate behavioral health needs.

these are very often teenagers who have suffered significant trauma, not only being abused or neglected by their birth parents, but then removed from their birth parents, and bounced from setting to setting, in group home placements. so finding parents to care for them in a family placement is challenging. [please stand by for captioner switch]

>> that's really all it was designed to do. it's 100% county-funded program mandated by the state. the caseload used to be 16,000 people. now it's 4600.

i would be guessing but it was a developed as a way to see the caseload mushroom or balloon to whatever you might see it and so in counties all across california and in general assistance programs all across the country, you had a work requirement. in san francisco it's work fare. >> that limits the amount of recipients? is that what you are saying? >> sure. i think the intent of that ordinance, back 30 years ago or more when it was written, i believe that was the intent given the politics of the day and given the large caseload. now what we've done since then is give every person the option to do something else. you can either do six hours of work fare or you can go on to jobs and make $15 an hour and work 32 hours a week and get off public assistance. or go to city college for a year and go to vocational training

and get a certificate. there's a host of options when someone is in front of our caseworker and they say look, you can do this or if you are physically able, you can do workfare or alternative workfare which is a placement in a non-profit agency where you are helping that non-profit. the workfare numbers are low so the reforms that we created allowing everyone options other than workfare have been successful in diverting folks away from workfare. we only have a couple hundred doing workfare ware they're doing subsidized job training rather than six hours a week sweeping the streets or doing laundry at general hospital or cleaning the buses. >> i was going to ask you what those six hours of work a week, so it was my understanding i thought that workfare included some training around -- >> no, it's 100% working in

exchange for your grant and the reason it's six hours is the grant amount divided by minimum wage so it's six hours a week minimum wage in exchange for your grant. it was never designed as a job training program. we have other paths for folks who want to build themselves of job training programs and workfare is just being frank, it's working off your grant. it's been an ordinance for certainly during my tenure and before. >> so do you, in your opinion, think the workfare program could be redesigned to be more effective? meaning that needing people to steady employment and self-dependency. >> i don't think six hours a week is enough to do that. rather than improving the workfare program, to make it as you say better job training program, i think the better use of our money and time and the better path for clients is to

chose one of the other options we have. that are really building skills and building soft skills, leading to a certificate at city college. that's a way better pass than simply six hours a week. i should say, back when workfare was developed, we were and we still remain the highest grant in the state. and there was a big concern back then and still a little bit of a concern that if you do away with these requirements, that every other county has, some counties even have time limits on general assistance, we'll see an inflow of folks from other countries coming under our role, and i think it's a real concern. you have to balance managing that and being prude ant with the use of county dollars for san francisco residents versus a program with very few requirement that's might attract folks from other cities and counties. >> so you say there are a couple hundred left? >> i can get you the actual

number. the last time i looked at it 200 to 250 people. that's 5% of our caseload. >> they haven't taken advantage of the other job works and these are people who actually come for 66 hours a week and how long of an average time would you say that someone, a recipient like this is in a workfair? >> i don't know specific to work fair. the average months on aid throughout the year and we may have people on county assistance through the course of a year, we may serve three times that number so wall it 15,000 people coming through our doors. >> they come and go? >> right. if you look at a 12-month span the average number of months on cap is seven or seven and a half months. that's the average. of course you have at either end

of that you have people who have been consistently on. we even tried to insentavise spokes away from workfare with a higher grant. we have grant differration. you can do something else and get a higher grant and we had people chose work fare. >> there are a lot of people who say i want something more. i'm able to work 30 hours a week and i want to do that. i share your concern and i kind of see the angle you are going at and look, they're doing six hours a work and they're not getting anything out of it so job training is not preparing them for the next step. but for some, that's all we can

do and they appreciate the structure and they get their cash assistance and benefits in exchange. >> do you think these individuals that do this workfare and it seems to work for them because it's enough for them to live on in their living conditions with some other assistance? don't you think a part-time job, a steady part-time job would have better outcomes for these folks? >> absolutely. why is why we offer that to them. you have the option. you can go into jobs now and go to a part-time job. you can go to job training and you can volunteer at a non-profit. giving the client a choice in every step. reaffirming that choice when they come in for benefits. nevertheless, you still have a couple hundred choosing workfare. >> and a question, are you proposing increase or decrease in the number of g.e. positions? >> we are flat. >> ok.

are you proposing an increase or decrease in the number of civil service positions? >> flat as well. are there positions that would be transitioning from permanent to temporary or being contracted out? >> not contracted out. we have a whole series of substitutions. it's really too early in the process to know how we're adjusting that. we often have from year to year you have different departmental needs and you may need to substitute positions so we do that constantly and it's part of the budget submission in june. >> thank you, very much. i appreciate it. now i think we will hear from sherine. from the department of aging adult services. >> good afternoon supervisors, sherine, director of the department of ageing and adult services. i'm just going to go over some caseloads first.

so, just want to start with in-home supportive services which sour biggest program at d.o.s. ih. we serve about 25,000 clients or we served about 25,000 clients last year alone unduplicated and we had about 22,400 independent providers serving that clientel. on average, clients get 98 hours a month, which on the private market if they had to pay for that it would be almost $3,000 a month. it's a really great benefit for those people who need it. i wanted to talk about integrated intake in referral. in 2016, with the support of mayor lee, we were able to open up our dos benefits and resource hub at the corner of goff and otus and we wanted to help streamline the intake process

for people who need our services and make it easier for them to find us. we constantly are up against people not knowing where to find senior services or services with people with disabilities and we wanted it to be our hub for those services. what we have are people can access home delivered meals, they can come in and sign up for those and they can call in and do it online. they can also make reports of abuse to adult protective services and they can get support of services and also we co located our county veteran service office there. so, last year we had about close to 15,000 intakes for those programs. we received close to 28,000 calls. we were able to work with about 2800 veterans and file 5700 claims for veterans, which result inside about $4 million in retroactive benefits for those veterans. in office on the aging, we have

now served over 34,000 people in the last fiscal year and that is an increase of more than 10,000 individuals annually since five years ago so we've really increased in those services and those services are things that really help people engage in communities such as senior centers, meals and those things. i know, you are all very familiar with those. just wanted to highlight some of the things we're doing in our various programs. thank you to mayor lee, he put that into the budget last year and so we were able to get it up and running last year and it has a clinical focus for clients who can't provide for their own basic needs due to substance abuse. the unit was launched in may of

2017 and we've since served 285 clients in that program. in that unit. about 50% of the clients were referred because they were at high-risk of loosing their housing. and to date, almost 80% of the clients whose cases have been closed were found to be safe, stable or thriving at time of closure as a result of their a.p.s. intervention. we're really excited about the results of that unit. you've heard a lot about conservatorship today and if you asked questions. we continue to work in partnership with the department of public-health, community behavioral health services within d.p.h. and the homeless department to assist people who are experiencing acute mental illness or grave disability because of that. we're continuing to expand the community independence participation program that provides for community-based conservative o.p.p. ship and we work actively to keep people who

need conservatorship at the settings. you asked about placement. half the people in our program end up being out of county but we're really working on this community based program that helps people stay here if they agree to conservatorship and you know, we're really able to serve them better in support of housing or places like that within the city. so far we've assisted over 50 people in that program. the number may be lower but the threshold is very high for someone who can towell actuallyn that so we're excited about that number. we're participating, the inner agency high priority case review meetings and we're very excited to be involved in those meeting. it's clear you are asking questions about someone who has been 5150 multiple times. the key is getting the resources in place at the right time.

right when that person needs resources we need to have the placement and we have been given the jurisdiction, the authority to serve and all of that has to happen and it's really great we're doing this inner agency collaboration and looking at each individual needs. also just the change in representation from the district attorney to the city attorney that supervisor sheehy, you referenced that president reid was in the legislation related to that. we're working closely with both teams to make sure that the transition happens as smoothly as possible. and then in home support of services, home bridge is our provider that does what we call contract mode so they work with people who really can't manage their own worker.

they provide the workers, they train the workers, et cetera. so it's kind of our highly vulnerable i.h.h.s. population they're working with. one of the issues they've been facing is just this very, very high turnover. of course the economy has been good and people can find jobs elsewhere and working with this population is tough. it takes great workers and dedication and commitment and passion and so, we wanted to work with them. they were having a 60% or 70% turnover in their home care staff and so, we helped them to implement a tiered wage and essentially, we're study the tiered wage and see if it helps that workers are getting paid more. they start off-the-record with a $2 increase and then some of them will be able, with extra training, will get access higher amount so up to $3 over the

minimum page. and then moving on to our community based services, i know everybody knows about the dignity fund and we just finished the dignity community needs assessment part of the dignity fund legislation. we will be reporting part of the legislation says that there needs to be a joint hearing of the aging and adult services commission and the oversight and advisory council of the dignity fund so we'll hold that on apri6 here in city hall. and there are some highlights from the report that i just wanted to point out to you. and one is that toss is serving 1-4 of the community based programs. this doesn't include inhome support of services, it's really that 34,000 people we mentioned and the equity analysis is factors are accessing services

at higher rates. in particular, we're really pleased to see that toss is serving half of the low income seniors and this ind indicates we're doing effective strategic targeting of populations that we know really need our services. and then we've identified research and analysis such as breaking out the communities in color to see how we're really doing within and across those groups. and also, the lgbt population. we just started really collecting the sexual identity and sexual orientation identity. we don't have good data how we're serving that population. we expect to have better data around that next year. when the aging and adult services commission has approved

the community needs assessment, i'll be bringing it to a committee of the boards and it will go to the full board for their approval, before june. and then lastly, i just wanted to mention the support at home care pilot and that was really interesting that was championed by erik mar, former supervisor, before supervisor fewer. what we're doing is focusing on a middle-income population that can't afford home care outright but may be able to pay for a little bit of that home care. these people don't qualify for in home support of services or community living fund but we want to see if they can really benefit and stay at home more easily if they had up to 18 hours of home care per week. and so, we're really still recruiting people. we want to find more people with disabilities who are under 60 to

participate in this study, it's really a study. we're working with the institute on aging who is administering the program for us and they've engage ucsf to do a thorough evaluation and looking at utilization, looking at quality of life indicators, et cetera. so we're going to be very excited to find out the results of that are and see if it's making a difference for people. when we talk about making a difference, is it keeping them out of the hospital. is it keeping them at home, et cetera. and then lastly, we're enhancing outcomes. focusing on performance objectives in our community contracts. and just trying to do this while not over taxing our community providers. of course we always want to ask for more information but we hear from them that we are trying to do things without a lot of margin so we want to make sure we're not asking too much, at the same time we want to move to a much stronger focus on

community impact on client impact, et cetera. i want to give one example. we're piloting evidence-based measures to track loneliness and nutrition risk and implementing follow-up procedures to ensure clients have access to appropriate further resources. i think that's the end of my report. unless there are questions i'm going to turn it over to september gerard. >> any questions? >> yes, i had a couple. one does your eviction prevention unit work with the sheriff? i did have a conversation with her where she mentioned that for seniors because she has to do it and she comes across folks that are not aware of what is happening to them. >> we do work closely with the sheriff and we can make sure the deputy sheriffs understand how a.p.s. works and we work closely

with that. >> my understand question was the dignity fund. so long time survivors of h.i.v., the interface isn't working well? >> we're very interested in working with long-time survivors of h.i.v. the request that came to us didn't quite fit the dignity health funds. i'm continuing to work with the h.i.v. and aging task force and find ways that we can help we as a coming up next through dignity fund or other ways help support them and it didn't quite meet the criteria what we're doing and also i think there was another issue with the panel and

volumes we're asking and we're interested in working with them. >> it's a challenge for that community to manage this system and i know that there's a lot of confusion on where people should be going for this support and they don't fit in the dignity fund so many of their request have health components but from the patient or client standpoint, they're not really separable. you have people living with h.i.v. 20, 30, 40, well not 40, well actually, some are 40. so you have people who are aging with h.i.v., you know, 60% of the people with h.i.v. are over 50 and that will be 70% soon and we're not finding a place for that community within the city funding structures and they don't seem to fit here and don't

seem to fit there. given what people have survived, and given the support, the enormous amount of support that that community drummed up for passing the dignity fund, it's a challenge trying to figure out what advise i can give to that community to try to participate and have some sort of relationship -- you know, just to have something happening for them as they age. >> i mean, what i would suggest supervisor, is that if maybe through the h.i.v. and aging task force, if they set up a meeting with me and we can just literally talk about what the challenges are, maybe we can help them -- i could help them figure out what the right path is. and i think so that didn't happen. so we had some asks that came in and they didn't seem quite related to dos but if they were able to just have a conversation about how they might go about it, maybe that would be the best way to do it. i'm happy to have a conversation

with them about that. >> it's hard if it ends up being something i have to deal with in the add-back process. you know, it's -- >> i can talk to them. >> this community has been through a lot. and the trauma that they've experienced and the loss that they've experienced. the effects of aging and h.i.v. presents unique burdens to this community and the ability to self-organize and really direct is a challenge. at the same time, to maintain some sense of community when so much of, you know, so many people have lost so many people. the social isolation is a huge issue. and so it just feels like rather than help it's like you guys pull it together and figure it out. they've been pulling it together and figuring it out for 30 years. >> they have, but i think we

have to work within the constraints of our funding and so i think if they came and talked to me about it we can figure something out. i really do. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. i just have. you said the report is going to be coming out on april 4th or the results? >> yeah. the report is public and i believe that we have already sent it to each of you through your aids. if you haven't received it i'll make sure it went down. i thought it had. it's public. >> just very quickly in a couple sentences, what do you see as some of the gaps or trends that we will have to address in our budget cycle probably in the years to come? i know that there have been estimates that the senior population is one of the largest growing populations in san francisco. i know in my district it is. and the need is going to be great and that we're seeing, we just had a report on home care.

we've had a report on skilled nursing beds, we've had a report on a lot of these homes that take care of seniors and they're closing because of a high cost of san francisco and so can you give us a snapshot of where do you think this is trending and what some of the gaps are. [ please stand by stand by for captioner switch ] s

lot of the jobs are going to be, and that's where the need is going to be. thank you. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. and now, i believe we have last but not least, the fabulou is the office of early care and education. >> good afternoon, supervisors. again, i'm september jarrett.

our city is home to about 48,000 children under the age of five, and we believe thatbyy getting our youngest residents off to the strongest start, we can avoid some of the challenges that they face later. with that start, they'll be productive citizens. with that, i would say just a few things. a key point of the critical piece of early years is access to high quality care and early childhood education. in frisk frissan francisco, vil of our children are growing up in households where parents are working, and half of our household struggle providing hey quali

high quality learning that they prefer. san francisco's stepped up to meet the challenges. our work next year, like we and my colleagues shared, we're lucky enough to really steward and san francisco's a leader nationally in drawing down state and federal funds to close the early learning gap for families, and we are also a leader in investing local dollars because in a national context, the state's as far behind other successful industrialized countries that really invest in families when they're young, in that critical standardup period where lifetime earnings of parents are low because they're early in their career, typically, and the cost of really giving the kids that education and support that they need is high. so many other countries, the u.s. has yet to catch up, really invest publicly in that critical window, and in san francisco we're proud to make a difference and demonstrate some good practices.

some of our priority, laies, l year, we created an enhanced san francisco tradition of closing the gap for children and families and launched a new program called early learning scholarship, continuing to leverage state and federal dollars, and trying to meet families' needs with a sliding scale, early care and education program that draws down and meets our lowest income family needs but works up the income ladder to more working families that might not be eligible for state and federal assistance but can't yet afford the high cost of quality in san francisco. with this reshaping, we're now reaching 7500 young children and their families under the age of five, and we're serving about 680 more kids than we served year to year with the same dollars and we're drawing down -- we're closing the gap

and drawing down more state and federal dollars, about 18% more than we were with this new approach. looking ahead to next year, early care and education, we do want to try and offer the many small businesses and nonprofit child care centers that do the hard work of educating and caring for our children a cost of doing business increase to meet their increases expenses. we're also really working hard to try and get better information out to families and programs. we don't right now -- finding early care and education is one of the most difficult choices a parent or a caregiver can make, and finding quality timely relevant information about your program options, what your share of cost is, and whether or not the city's financial assistance can help you and your household is so really hard to navigate. so we're actually through the mayor's start-up and residence

process, we accelerated building a new digital portal, one-stop shop in three threshold languages so parents, on their schedules, nights and weekends, not just days when we're working, can really be empowered to know their range of options and the financial assistance we offer? i hope to be sharing with you -- we'll actually have beta testing of parent programs and professionals and we'll be happy to share that with you and engage your districts and networ networks in testing that new information portal. like director mcspadden shared, we have a workforce challenge in san francisco. education and early childhood care is among some of the most physically demanding work and among some of the lowest paid in the city, and we have a lot more to do in recruit, retention and compensation work? we're looking to expand the number of spaces in early education programs to prove

sprisk's a leader in planning policy that really support and promote the employment of family home child care centers, and lastly we have an opportunity because the city's children are everybody's responsibility to further some public and private partnerships to close the gap for families, and with that, i'll take any questions. >> supervisor fewer: so thank you, miss jarrett. actually, i just have one of the same questions that i asked for sherreen, which is what are we seeing about urgent needs and gaps? >> well, there -- we -- we're fortunate enough to have a san francisco citywide plan for early childhood education, which was endorsed by the nature yo and board of supervisors in 2016, and we setup four prior areas and

northstars that we're moving our system towards. first, we share the vision that every san francisco child will have access to an affordable high quality learning setting. within that, we have several thousand low income subsidy eligible families who've asked for child care financial assistance for whom were not receiving financial assistance from the state or federal government, so one unmet need is really clearing the list essentially of families that have the need and are working. the second is because of the social policy framework, we're having this middle income or missing middle where there's working parents working hard that quite -- can't quite afford the full cost of quality, so there's a missing middle that we have an aspiration in this early learning scholarship approach if this were available where parents are paying a portion of

cost but getting if financial assistance. there's kind of a hard cliff right now. you hit that wall, you meet that dollar an hour base, and you could lose your child care assistance. i would be remiss to say our third priority is really our workforce. folks work hard -- there's nothing harder, i think, than managing a classroom of young children, at least for me. excuse me. but we have some recruitment and compensation challenges. one example, the cost of living in san francisco is high, as we all know, for -- for all of our san franciscans and families in particular. our workforce right now in a community based setting or a family child care home may be ashi as earning on average, even with a b.a. or b.a. work, less than 40,000 a year. that's far below an average two

bedroom rent right now plus important. so while it's noble work and important work, the pay is below what the professionals need to thrive. as one of our family child care advisors reminded me, she said i can't pick up my family child care business and commute in from oakland or alameda or somewhere more affordable because child care homes they're home is being licensed and operated to care for other san francisco children. so those are the three pressing gaps. we do have additional challenge, which i think is important to lift up? because of fragmentation in different program and see some challenges in state and federal policy, our early care and education is hard for busy working parents of diverse cultural backgrounds to navigate. and so a fourth priority is to lift up and make better, more clear information available and also make our programs easier to understand, access and engage with and retain. thank you.

>> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. a lot of similarities between daas, also. thanks. so let's open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public that would like to speak on these items. seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, any questions, comments for our presenters today? seeing none, thank you very much. can i have a motion, please, to file this item? [ inaudible ] >> supervisor fewer: oh, supervisor. are you making the motion? that's great. okay. so we will file this item. thank you very much. and madam clerk, are there any other items before us today? >> clerk: no, madam chair, there are no other items on this agenda. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. the meeting is adjourned.

we are celebrating the glorious grand opening of the chinese rec center. ♪ 1951, 60 years ago, our first kids began to play in the chinese wrecks center -- rec center. >> i was 10 years old at the

time. i spent just about my whole life here. >> i came here to learn dancing. by we came -- >> we had a good time. made a lot of friends here. crisises part of the 2008 clean neighborhood park fund, and this is so important to our families. for many people who live in chinatown, this is their backyard. this is where many people come to congregate, and we are so happy to be able to deliver this project on time and under budget. >> a reason we all agreed to name this memorex center is because it is part of the history of i hear -- to name this rec center, is because it is part of the history of san francisco. >> they took off from logan airport, and the call of duty

was to alert american airlines that her plane was hijacked, and she stayed on the phone prior to the crash into the no. 9 world trade center. >> i would like to claim today the center and the naming of it. [applause] >> kmer i actually challenged me to a little bit of a ping pong -- the mayor actually challenge me to a little bit of a ping- pong, so i accept your challenge. ♪ >> it is an amazing spot. it is a state of the art center.

>> is beautiful. quarkrights i would like to come here and join them >> clerk: all right. good afternoon, everyone. welcome to our land use committee meeting, monday, march 19. i'm katy tang, chair of this committee. to my left, ahsha safai, my right, jane kim. mr. clerk, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes. please silence cell phones. and any documents should be submitted to the clerk. items adopted on will appear on

april 3 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> supervisor tang: item 1 is changing 1600 block of galvez avenue to sam jordan's way. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm from the office of supervisor malia cohen and i'm here to give our enthusiastic support on behalf of this name change. it's been a straightforward process. the outreach done to the businesses in the area yielded no negative responses. sam jordan was an incredible community member, not only for the bayview, but also for san

francisco generally. one huge accomplishment in his day is he was the first african-american to run for mayor in san francisco. beyond his personal and political leanings, he was a person that treasured creating space for community to gather and be engaged not only in the immediate neighborhood but in citywide politics. supervisor cohen asks that you join her in supporting this and moving it to the full board. >> supervisor tang: seeing no questions or comments, we'll go to public comment. any members of the public that would like to speak on this item? no? okay. seeing none, public comment is closed. i'm sorry. we will reopen public comment. anyone else, come on up. >> good afternoon. i'm alan jordan. sam jordan was my father.

my sister, ruth, is here also. we'd like to come and thank you for putting this on our menu to make this thing finally come about. for years, my father was very committed to the bayview. this is something of pride for my family as well as the neighborhood. this goes hand in hand with the legacy program. last year we were -- we made a legacy business, one of the first ones to be in the state of california and, actually, in the country. like i said, it's a source of pride for me, my family, and our neighborhood, that this is finally coming about. and thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much for being here. any other members of the public that wish to comment on item 1? seeing none, public comment is

closed. supervisor kim? >> supervisor kim: i just want to thank supervisor cohen's office for working on this. i always really enjoy these ordinances because i get to learn a lot about san francisco's history and the people that make our city great. i want to thank the jordan family for all of your father's work. and excited to support this and i want to add my name to the ordinance. >> supervisor tang: is that a motion? >> supervisor kim: yes. i make a motion to move it forward with positive recommendations. >> supervisor tang: we'll do that without objection. item 2. >> summary street vacation-portion of panama street sidewalk acceptance in the niantic street. accepting an irrevocable offer for public sidewalk between

panama street and saint charles avenue. dedicating the public sidewalk for pedestrian use and designated it public right-of-way and accepting it for city maintenance and liability. establishing a new sidewalk on niantic street. >> supervisor tang: we have javier rivera here. >> good afternoon. javier rivera from public works. this legislation street vacation and sidewalk maintenance. due to errors during the construction at 10 niantic, 40 feet was built over the sidewalk. to not complicate title, we were asked to vacate the right-of-way. the community and various situations came together and determined that in exchange for the vacation area, the developer

had to construct a new 500-foot sidewalk on the southerly side of niantic street. this provides the neighborhood with an ada-complaint, direct path to the overpass that leads to the bart station. as usual, we circulated this to all agencies and no objections were received. if you have any questions, i would be happy to respond. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much for that. seeing no questions or comments, we'll go to public comment on item 2. any members of the public? >> hi. jeremy schaub from schaub lee architect representing the project's sponsor. i've come to the project rather late, but there's a history of this house being built, over 10 years ago. and we look forward to clearing this up. let me know if you have any

questions. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. any other members of the public that wish to comment on the item? supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: i'm curious how this actually happened. how is it that the project sponsor built in the public right-of-way? >> to be honest with you, i'm not sure. it could have been a surveyor's mistake when they were staking out the property or it could have been the contractor that misread what was going on during the construction. >> supervisor safai: it wasn't a fault of b.s.m.? >> no, sir. >> supervisor tang: seeing no other questions or comments? >> supervisor kim: i don't think there's been a good response as to why the project sponsor built on public land. i will be voting against this. i think we need a better explanation of that. also, i think there's a number

of issues with this property, including evictions that are now on the record that have now vacated three units. and three households from san francisco. and i know they're attempting to legalize one of the units at planning. there are active complaints at the site at building suspension. so if this is going to move forward from land use, i will not vote for it, but i think we should make a motion to continue this item until we have actual answers as to why the project sponsor and property owner built on public land without approval from the city prior. >> supervisor tang: thank you, supervisor kim. i'm okay with a continuance if you want more information at the next meeting. >> supervisor safai: i met with the head of public works. i wanted you to be on the record saying it wasn't your department. but i know that there was some misreading of the plans and in terms of how they, when they

constructed it, they found out about it after the fact. they spent a long time working with the community and they constructed a significant portion of the sidewalk in exchange for this mistake. i'm okay with that in terms of how the resolution was and i'm okay with the explanation from the head of the department of public works. >> supervisor tang: thanks, supervisor safai. i think we can, one, continue it. another, send it to the full board without recommendation. and we don't have a board meeting next tuesday anyway, so it would be quite a bit of delay, so i'm okay either way. >> supervisor kim: i will be voting against the motion. >> supervisor safai: i'm okay to send it to the full board. >> supervisor tang: can we take a roll call vote, please? >> clerk: on the motion to send the item to april 3 without

recommendations. >> supervisor kim: no. >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor tang: aye. >> clerk: there are two ayes and one no, vice-chair kim in the dissent. >> supervisor tang: so the item will go to the april 3 board meeting without recommendation and we would like the information that supervisor kim request requested. if we can call 3, 4 and 5 together, please. >> clerk: agenda item 3 plan to amend the map for the music project at 200-214 van ness avenue, item 4, amending the planning code to examine a height exemption. it will be used to enclose or screen features from view. increased roof height. and provide visual interest. amending zoning map to change

the height designation for 811. numbers 10 and 12 from 96x to 120x, affirming the ceqa determination and make any necessary findings. and number 5, development agreement between site and county of san francisco and can conservatory of music, including student housing, faculty housing, activation of a neglected portion of van ness avenue. one for one replacement of 27 dwelling units, including clear right to return to a comparable unit and voluntary rent control and waiving rights under the ceqa.

setting impact fees and actions said forth in the development agreement. confirming complains with or waiving certain items, 14b and 56. and ratifying within the ordinance. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. we'll turn it over to supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: thank you, chair tang. colleagues, thank you for your consideration for the legislation before us for the san francisco music conservatory music project. this called for 113-room group dorm that would accommodate 420 students. it's a private music institution and has provided music education for over 100 years and has been a critical part of our cultural

district along the van ness corridor, where we also have the san francisco symphony, oprah and ballet and maybe one day a san francisco school of the arts as well. we know that student housing and the construction of student housing is an incredible need, especially in this housing crisis. at this board, we've talked about how to build more housing so students are not competing with our everyday households, families, seniors, in our competitive housing stock here in san francisco. i first want to acknowledge the san francisco conservatory of music for answering our call and looking to build housing near their campus, and also ways for students to walk to school and not increase congestion in the area. also to make sure that in procuring a site, where there's rent-controlled units, that they had spent this time over the last couple of years individually meet