find that supplement cal material had been submitted, concerningst third floor where most of the changes is happening. but attached to that was a large file, harder to download actually that set of drawings which should have been in our package last thursday. to tell you the truth, i have a home field advantage of looking at drawings that just comes with my background, and i was up till last night about 10:30 or 11:00, trying to figure out what's going on because the staff report still does not match of what is in the drawing package, and that starts most and foremost with the way the units are described. unit six is the -- unit five is the one which gets pushed into the fourth floor, becomes unit

five, while unit six fits on the third floor next to unit four. that's one of the biggest confusions because you read it the other way around. so you keep looking and looking and looking, only to realize there is either mislabelling or there is not a particularly large accuracy of how the project is described. that said, getting deeper -- and i -- actually to ghive youa real honest amendment of howssi felt, standing in a long line in a grocery store, somebody put cuts in front of me. and in this case, i felt the architect who had not submitted his drawings in time had an advantage over anybody else who comes with a complicated project, and this is a complicated project. and i want to come and talk about why this project is

complicated. i'm not pointing any fingers, i'm just saying that procedurally, as a commissioner this puts more stress on me to properly work and attend to matters of planning commission in the form that this particular case was handled, and i have to say it, and i'm not making any accusations, but i have to say it to the point. i think there's a very good explanation we had last week. if this project would have used -- been used in last week's joint discussion with dbi, this project would be a de facto demolition, and the reason i'm saying that in order to introduce the adu's, the entire structure has to be stripped in order to beef up the structure, you have to take the ground floor out, and all you have is a skeleton struck -- structure, and you have to dig below grade in order to

provide that proper ceiling height, and that by definition could be considered a did defactodemolition. nobody will be able to live in a building which i do know will take significantly longer than two months. i'm in the middle of starting on monday seismic substory retrofit, and the shortest time frame, and nobody is affected but the ground floor, there is no construction which will do this under 12 weeks, so -- yeah, 12 weeks or three months on a seismic retrofit that only affects the ground floor. this affects the entire building because we're adding an additional floor. what i'm seeing here is an honest attempt to upgrade a

building, but upgrading it to the extent that it will address a completely different clientele that currently lives in there. there is no possibility to have even remotely similar rents or rent controlled for the current tenants that are being currently commanded and if you look at what's intended here, there is no possible way to make those two things fit, and i don't think that anybody who upgrades this building is going to be making charitable contributions to maintain reasonable and affordable rents in this building. overall, what we're seeing is the units remaining similar in size. i have a question as to whether or not department of public works demands an encroachment on the ground floor being accessed from stairs, which will require a sidewalk modification. that includes the planting which is supposed to be there to create privacy for the below

grade units. the application states that there would be a required granting of an exception. that is not guaranteed, and in a way, i question it because along hampshire, most buildings sit inbound from the property lines. this particular building, 701 hampshire, sits on the property line. all other buildings hold back, so asking for an encroachment into the sidewalk at a cornered location is something that i would question this being as easily just dotted down on this drawing set. there is no guarantees. this building cannot have additional units unless it gets that encroachment. you cannot go down into these units. we have talked about many times that we would like ground floor units, adu's or other to have privacy. sitting on the property line, below grade is not creating the

type of liveability that i -- that i support for this building or any other. i have questions about the over jaul effect on existi all effect on existing tenants, i have questions about the owner wanting to improve the building, which is already problematic based on its layout. we've talked about many situations particularly the tenderloin about motel-type buildings, which this one is. you basically have to go to your unit, closely walking by bedrooms to get to your own unit, now upgrading this building type to continue to do the same except at higher rent raises all kinds of questions. i am concerned that we are hearing this today. i am concerned that the commission did not have time to

look at the plans and get into the subtleties. this is not an easy plan to understand, and what we've heard from the d.r. requesters, this project raises huge questions for me, and at this moment, i am not prepared to support it. >> president hillis: thanks. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: so people, there'll be people that will be throwing rocks and mud and saying oh, this is about parking versus people, houses versus cars, i can hear it now. the two words that, you know, the two things that we're trying to balance here is stablization of increasing communities along with the existing housing supply. there's our rub, so to say. the problem with this project is it proposes to increase the housing supply, and proposes to stablize the existing

residents. this reminds me of 505 -- it just smacks of it. it's -- at the expense of the existing tenants, we're going to upgrade the building, and we're going to get rid of them because we're not going to be able to have this works done within three months, and we'll be back. i didn't need to see the existing drawings. we -- adu's are not supposed to be carved out of existing tenant amenities. if the tenant has five square feet or ten square feet in their unit, that somebody wants to carve out to create part of an additional adu unit, they don't have to do that. that's not how the adu laws are written. if there's a crawl space or attic that nobody's using,

that's where the adu goes. if the tenants want to voluntarily give up the garage space for the adu, do it, but you're not supposed to be taking away existing space in the name of creating housing, and at the same time you're supporting displacement, so i absolutely would not support this project in any way, shape or form. >> president hillis: commissioner melgar? >> vice president melgar: thank you. so it sounds like commissioner moore, you're look for more like to look at the drawings. if we were going to vote on this, for me, it would be an absolutely not. besides the issues that have been raised by my fellow commissioners, i think that there is an issue with our process. you know, if we are not checking the report on the rent board to see if these common spaces have been voluntarily sold back by the tenants. it's almost like site control.

you know, i think that i understand that this project sponsor needs this space for their financing, but it's not really yours to take without due process. and so i -- i think that if -- you know, going forward, you know, these projects -- it's, you know, checking off whether things have happened before it can move to the next level, i think this is a basic thing because we're seeing it all over the city. as commissioner richards very aptly said, that's not what the adu law intended. i also want to note that the adu was llaw was passed in 201 when the project sponsor purchased this building, we knew this was going to happen. it needed to be retrofitted. this should have been taken into account in pencilling out the building, along with the rents, in what you know work

needed to be done to retrofit it, so that's -- i do think it is an issue of process. >> president hillis: commissioner fong? [please stand by for captioner switch]

>> i want to know what the law -- what the city requires, please. thank you. >> commissioner hillis, kate

stacy with the city attorney's office. i regret to tell the commission i really just don't know the rent ordinance. i will have to consult with what the law requires. certainly landlords can enter into agreements separately with their tenants, but i cannot give you any advice now on the rent ordinance and how that applies to tenant who is leave during the renovation. i will check back. >> thank you. this is the touch piece to me. >> maybe we could have the project sponsor kind of clarify the different components of their project, which i believe are several, related to if there's a mandatory fit on this project, there's the -- baked into that, there's the temporary

tenant relocations that are regulated by the board that allow for different tiers of tenant relocation and return period. i don't want to speak on behalf of the rent board related to that process, but related to the mandatory seismic program, that is a component of that. we may want to have them speak in detail about their full project and the scope of that project. >> do you mind just clarifying what has been offered and if it, in fact, is in writing or not to the tenants? >> you kind of bullet pointed, but, if you can, to the best of our knowledge and to the best of your knowledge. >> so i think there were a couple of questions. the first question was whether or not we're paying up in the relocation expenses.

we'll pay for the relocation services. we're committed to doing that. we're hoping that it could be less than that. if it does extend beyond that time, we're happy to extend the relocation payments also. >> and when you're completed, the construction of the remodel is completed, this is really not a demo. they will be able to move in at the same rent they're paying now? >> absolutely, without question. >> is that in writing with each of the tenants at the moment? >> to our understanding, that is the law, so we haven't put that

in writing, but we're happy to put that in writing. that's what we were planning. >> do you know more about this? >> yeah. the tenants would be able to come back at their original rents. seismic work normally doesn't require tenants to move out. you're supposed to do it within 90 days and a temporary relocation and you get a sum of money. if it goes beyond 90 days there's no additional monies, unless there's something worked out with the tenants. this is the first time i'm hearing that, but we need it in writi

writing. it would be great to have someone who's an expert in the field to be able to opine or at least give us an opinion letter based on the details of that particular project. i'm just throwing that out. while i want to support this project, because i think it adds more in the end. in that time, i would like to see the project sponsor get into contract with each of the individual tenants so everybody understands what your rights are and what you're offering. >> thanks. can i ask a question? is it feiber or fiber? >> feiber.

>> so the parking. you asked the question, did we err on the side of parking or housing. i think what is causing this problem is the fourth floor. i think the seismic retrofit of this building, like you said, could happen on the ground floor. i don't think it needs to go up above the second floor. you could spruce up this building, add units on the ground floor, and i think we would have a decent project. but the issue of parking gets in the way of that. the rent ordinance, give us a quick snapshot in the law. if you have parking in your lease, and you have parking. the legislation doesn't allow an owner to take that parking and build a unit. >> no. it's considered part of your unit. you can give it up voluntarily, but you can be bought out. you can't be forced to do it.

in order to fight it, you have to get an attorney. the rent board can't get involved. >> what do you mean in order to fight it? so my landlord came tomorrow and said, i'm taking your parking, a portion of your lease, you do down and file -- >> you would file a wrongful eviction from that space. >> and what happens? >> they could determine that was correct and lower your rent. that's all, but they can't stop the own for doing it. if you have a private attorney, they can go to court and stop it. >> so the rent board's remedy is to reduce the rent, but you can't take a portion of your unit. is parking a different animal, that you can take some parking. if they came in and wanted to take my kitchen, would the rent board say, will we just reduce your rent? >> no. it's part of your unit. >> that's where i kind of get confused. the rent ordinance --

>> when they voluntarily move their car out, that's where the problem arises. once they vacate, you've given up your rights. so the only thing to do is stay there and get a lawyer and say, you're not taking my garage. >> from a seismic retrofit, you need to take the parking away. it's 90 days. so you brought up the issues of adus causing evictions, i mean, the intent was they were supposed to be in areas they used. if it's a parking garage, there's a process we have to make sure, first, that the rent board has made whatever determination of that parking. the parking is no longer part of somebody's lease and can be

used. i mean, i don't support this project, but i think the problem is not the adus. i think the problem is the fourth floor. that's what's causing all this additional work, as we go up, sprinklers and everything that's causing people to vacate. if people didn't have the parking under their lease or they agreed to it, i think you can put two units in there, retrofit the building, seismically upgrade it. that's what they were intent on doing, but i think they' taken this now and added this component of it. that throws this into a whole different building code. you've got sprinklers, other exits, people are being evicted. that doesn't work for me. i think commissioner richard said, it's kind of pitting new housing versus displacement, but i don't think the housing is causing it. it's the addition of the fourth floor. >> can i say one thing about adu? >> sure. >> i think you guys should talk

to tenant attorneys because these are pretty easy cases for them. the garage issue, it's part of their unit. i totally understand, butitis conflict. >> we need to make sure that garage is not under -- when there's an negotiated agreement between the owner of the building -- i've seen it happen. it happened around the block from me where there were five park spaces in a ground floor. the owner did a nice job converting the back of that into a unit. they were under a lease. a lot of people don't like them under rent control, so they enter a separate lease for parking and they're able to put in a unit and get rid of the parking. i think that's fine as long as it's not within somebody's lease. i appreciate that classificatioclassificatiorific. i can't support it, as it is. i think that top floor is causing problems.

a total renovation of this building wasn't the intent of the adu for the seismic retrofit legislation. >> commissioner moore? >> i would like to take what you said further, if i may. can you please explain to us. i do not see how this particular building is getting a retrofit, but the structural improvements is only adding a fourth floor. the building itself, why you make improvements voluntarily is not under the city's et trow fit program. correct? >> the building itself is under the retrofit program. generally, it refers to the ground floor only. commissioner hillis is correct that the extension of the shared walls up through the building is under the code and it becomes required if they're adding the

additional load on the top floor. so the approach was to look at the retrofit. >> but it's fair to say if if you do an upgrade, you would not have to move or interfere with any of the tenants, is that correct? >> i can't speak to the sequencing and construction. [overlapping speakers] >> what is the foundation now? you need sheer walls -- the garage opening, clearly you have a soft story problem. >> correct. that the garage opening -- >> what is the foundation? >> it's a large concrete retaining wall on the east side. >> on the non-garage side. >> on the non-garage side and there's cap walls that are doing something at the moment. >> the seismic retrofit, it would be adding -- >> they would probably be doing some sort of steel frames.

>> just a moment frame on the front. >> a moment frame on the front and sheer walls on the short direction of the building. [overlapping speakers] >> or even if the garages were not going to stay. >> either way, that's true. >> i don't think it would involve the upper parts of the building, other than voluntary improvements you would be making. that's just the way it reads. >> what is the height of the ground floor? >> the height of the ground floor is 7'67'6". >> it would be down steps to 8' 8'6"? >> but tenants would not have to move out, if you did that? >> that's true. well, i don't want to say, but my opinion is they might not. >> commission richards? >> so a couple of other things, soft story retrofits are happening all over the city. drive down the street, and you can see a building being retrofitted. we don't have a massive displacement problem because of

it because tenants do stay in the building while it's happening. there's 1 on scott street right near golden gate. take a look. the building is on stilts, but there are still people living in the building. this is exactly like 505 grandview. it's the additional -- i don't want to call it amenity because from the report, the tenants are going to be forced to move into the adus? that was the first plan. okay. so you need to retrofit the building, absolutely, but you don't need to do it at the expense of the people that live in the building by needing them to move. so i can support a soft-story retrofit, which is what we're trying to do here for safety and some cosmetic improvements, and the tenants need to -- >> >> it's the law. >> it's the law. the tenants have needs with

regard to taking a portion of their unit. we need a legislative change, or you can sue us. and i welcome that because i hate sitting up here having to go through this all the time. i make a motion to approve the soft-story retrofit -- [overlapping speakers] >> i think we have a couple of choices, it sounds to me. i need to just chime in, considering the housing accountability at this part of the equation, but you can continue it with more information or you can -- if you continue it or not, the direction that i hear you giving is that the fourth -- the work on the building that would affect the existing tenants is what you're most concerned about. it sounds like the fourth floor. what i also hear you saying is, of course, you should do the retrofit. but i'm not hearing you should put units on the floor -- [overlapping speakers] >> how many are under leases?

two. under a lease that's associated with a lease upstairs, not with someone around the corner. there's two. how many spaces are there? [off microphone] >> can you speak into the mic? >> but if you're talking about an outside person, there's no right to that. [off microphone] >> so there's two that potentially -- so, yeah, i think we continue it. you're not going to get a fourth story on this building because it causes too much displacement. you may get some adu units to help with the seismic retrofit, but i think you've got to figure out what the existing residents -- especially those that have the units, those parking spaces, whether they're willing to work with you to give them up or not. >> we had one of these over -- i think it was in russia where we started to take parts of the lobby, and we said, no, you can't do that. >> it was on clay street.

>> it was on clay street. at what point does the adu stop confiscating units? it's the way things are being done in the renovations. it says you cannot take existing living space or living service space for the unit, but what people are choosing to do is go beyond the basic adus. they're doing more than that. [overlapping speakers] >> i wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water. >> it's a wrongful eviction under the rent law. >> the adu that's causing it, it's other people doing things beyond that. >> i guess the housing accountability act. we have to confiscate a portion of somebody's unit to build a unit. i don't agree with that. >> you don't have to, under this case. >> they were going to. >> right. it's because of the fourth quarter unit, the fourth floor. >> commissioner fong?

>> let me clarify, for myself. so there's no loss of unit. if at least going to be an adu unit. >> two of the six are currently not bundled. >> are bundled. [overlapping speakers] >> you have to convert four garages. >> while you're tearing things up to to do seismic retrofit, you can add -- >> and if people are willing to give up parking spaces -- >> i think we're feeling the fourth floor is too much at the moment and obviously displacing temporarily tenants is not worthwhile. i don't know if we want to approve that or offer a continuance for them to redraw

everything. take moving the fourth floor as a continuance and if there's going to be displacement, have that in writing with the tenants. >> commissioner melgar? >> i'm not ready to vote on this, other than to say no. i would vote for a continuance because i think there's too many things that are still not settled. >> i second that. >> to the point about the drawings, i couldn't really understand what i had. so maybe it was just me. back to the issue of the housing accessibility act and the adus, i would like a crisp, clear guidance from the city attorney about this issue. comment spaces or garages are part of a lease, and we say no, are we in violation of the housing accessibility act?

>> no. >> and so, you know, this is what we're going to see. so if no is the case, if we can get away with saying no, this is not buildable space, then we need to have that in the process. we need to have a planner look at the records and the rent board and say, yeah, these folks, you know, gave these up. they got some money for it, whatever. and then we proceed because otherwise, you know, it just opens us up to an abuse of folks who may not quite know their righ rights, you know, getting their common areas, their lobbies, their laundromats, their garages being taken away because the monetary incentive is so powerful to do this. so i do support the adus. i support having housing units rather than garages, but i want to be very careful about the

process because it is not right to take the value that is bundled with somebody's tenancy for your own without having to go through the proper process and, you know, monetizing it and making the tenants whole. >> agreed. move to continue. >> second. >> i believe that's a motion. [overlapping speakers] >> we need a date first. >> i would go fairly far out. you're going to need a couple of months. >> i would like to add a little more subtlety to what we're talk about right now. there are two issues here. one is the whole legal issue about what can you take from tenants with leases on garages, et cetera, and two is a plan that reflects all the things you can do and not the things which could legally potentially get us into problems, as commissioner melgar just summarized. it's a two-step process here. i think we need to make sure

that the applicant and the architect fully understand the requests we're making here. on the other hand, for this size building, i think the soft-story retrofit has a very, very tight timeline. i'm surprised that the structural engineer is not here. that's way under process. i spent two and a half years going through the plans on a similar building size. so these people, if they're already in process are a little bit on the time pressure side, we need to be sensitive to that because we do not want this building not to meet its time line. >> i think we're okay on timing. i think the plans have to be approved, but i think as far as timing on doing the work, they're okay. i'm pretty sure. that's fine. we give them a couple of months. i want to make sure we don't

associate adus -- a lot of what's happening with adus, it's good. we're building units, yeah, there may be laundry. like it was said, you can take the laundry away. you have to compensate, but you have to pull laundry out of a building. there's a reduction in service, but you can do it. should we encourage that? no, not necessarily. we should encourage people to work it out. if tenants don't need their parking and are willing to be compensated for the removal of parking, and we can build two units or one, that's good. >> if i may, there are a couple of things. one, the issue -- the housing accountability act, as i understand it, and i'm no expert, if it's a code compliant project, then you need to allow for the maximum number of units, right? it's a code compliant project. that's the question here. if it's not a code compliant project, this issue is not addressed of parking and all that kind of stuff.

that's a whole different issue addressed in the city's code. what's called a housing service that's attached to the unit, such as a laundry room or whatever. i think the problem -- the current problem we have with access to date is the rent board doesn't currently have leases. you can't just go to the rent board and see if that lease says this parking space is attached to that unit. that's not -- they don't have that unless the landlord voluntarily gives that up. we cannot require them to divulge that information ahead of time. >> right. >> i think what we're trying to do, and we've been talking to staff about this issue because it's come up now several times, is figure out a way to address that up front when a project like this comes to us where there are -- whether it's parking spaces or a laundry room, whether there's housing services to know in advance that the tenant is being -- has been notified.

if we can't necessarily require an agreement, we want to know if they've been notified >> and we don't currently have that. if you go into this building and do an adu, you will get the normal notification for construction, but not necessarily your rights as a tenant because services are being removed or something is happening to the unit. i mean, that would be a good, at least, first step in the process. >> i think the other thing is -- we talked about this in terms of being able to have these projects pass the sniff test. this is the second or third, i don't know, of these, but when you're adding another story, it's going to kick you into a higher level of seismic upgrade when the adus are on the ground floor. we should start recognizing these patterns, i think, that we're not adding housing on the upper floor, we're expanding units, but we're adding housing underneath, which doesn't require the higher level of seismic upgrade, which would

result in displacement. >> can i ask one question, please, just within this group, or the commission. if this i would bei-- if this building were 100% vacant and sold 100% vacant, would we have opposition to this floor is this >> no. >> no. >> no. >> i agree. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, there's a motion and second to continue this matter to june 21st. on that motion, commissioner fong? >> aye. [voting] >> so moved, commissioners, the motion passes. >> all right. the meeting is adjourned? >> if you say so.

>> i want to thank everybody for being here today for this historic signing ceremony. it is been 40 years since the tragic passing of harvey milk and i think as you can see by all the people gathered with us here today, his memory and his legacy here in san francisco lived very strong. harvey emboldened and represented everything here in san francisco that remains true

to our hearts today. compassionate, kindness, and a thoughtful person. he stood up for those facing opposition and discrimination. whether it is members of the lgbt community or homeless youth. san francisco has a very strong place in our nation's history of civil rights activism. standing up for what is right and harvey was the epitome of those efforts. he had a vision of the world where everybody was equal. a vision that we share and embrace here in san francisco. where everyone was treated with respect and dignity, regardless of the color of their skin, religion, economic status or sexual orientation or gender identity. in san francisco, we have to admit, we take that vision for granted. but 40 years ago, those ideas still frighten people. they make people uncomfortable,

they make people react in different ways, and harvey knew this message put him in danger. but he persisted none the less because he knew he silenced himself, he would be silencing the next generation of leaders. and today, we celebrate that courage by signing this legislation and renaming terminal one at sfo as harvey milk. we are ensuring his name will last forever and be synonymous with the city of san francisco. the city he loves to much and we all loved so much today. i do want to thank a number of people that truly made today happen. starting with my former colleague, supervisor david compose. supervisor compose. let us be clear his supervisor compose's pushing for quite some time and bore the brunt of a lot

of negativity at different points that got us to where we're here today. and supervisor compose, you have embodied that spirit. to row nan and jeff sheehy for following through at board of supervisors to get where we are today. i want to thank the san francisco international airport for being a partner in this. thank you to to jeff, who was h. thank you for your support as well as the arts commission for working with the public artist to see dine the signage that will memorialize harvey milk terminal. i want to acknowledge harvey's friends and former colleagues that are here today that knew him and that could speak to him much better than any of us could. but i want to make sure we acknowledge that, because this is the heart and soul of harvey milk we're celebrating here today. today is a great day for us to celebrate in san francisco. it's a great day to remember one

of our fallen heroes in the city of san francisco. but it's also a great day to remind us exactly who we are in the city of san francisco. with that, i would like to call up supervisor hillary ronan. >> hu so much. it's such an exciting day for us at the board of exercise. my friend, supervisor jeff sheehy and i were so honored to carry this legislation through for supervisor compose. those of us who have the plaintiff of sitting in the board chambers and representing our districts at supervisors, most of us hold harvey milk in our hearts and minds. we remember his boldness and idealism and inclusion as we do that work here. and i just have to say that knowing at a time when there's so much hate being spewed from washington d.c. that when queer

youth and people come to san francisco and are welcome into harvey milk terminal 1, that they will know they are not only recognized in our city but they are welcome and cherished here. this is a day to celebrate. i want to turn the time to my colleague jeff sheehy. >> thank you. this is been great. thank you david for your work and tom it's always great to see and you my other colleagues because we were all behind this effort. and i think it's just really amazing that we did this at the airport because harvey was all about opening doors and the first door you come to san francisco will be the harvey milk terminal. it will be wide open of anybody. regardless of where they're coming from or where they want to go. so again, thank you. thank you mayor, it's a great day. >> and now as i'd like to

introduce jeff littlefield from the san francisco airport. [applause] thank you. this is a great day. i would first like to say on behalf of the san francisco international airport and the airport district or thank you for having us. this is an honor and this is a historic day and we're very appreciative to be here today. just a couple of comments as we look forward to working with the arts commission to develop a plan for the design and placement of the art work in terminal one to memorialize the life and legacy of harvey milk. very significant. we're very appreciative. by september 1st we plan to submit plans to the arts commission for the design and the plan for the roll out of the art work. in december 1st, we plan to

submit a similar plan to the board of supervisors reflecting how we will proceed foray approval of the board of supervisors. and with that i just want to thank you for having us here today. and we look forward to the roll out of this very successful art work at san francisco international airport. with that i'd like to introduce david campos. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, mr. littlefield. you know, when you think about how long it took for us to get to this point, we are reminded, nothing was really easy for harvey milk. nothing has been easy for the lgbt community. as far as we can come, 2017 was the deadliest year for our community. i think it's only fitting that in the midst of so much violence and hatred, that we in san

francisco are sending a very clear message of hope, which is what harvey talked about. i'm happy to see steward milk, harvey's nephew from the milk foundation was here. you see a number of query queert owed efficientlies in san francisco and they're here and other gay elected are here throughout the country and the world because of harvey milk. harvey opened the dor for so many of us. and as i was coming up to this event i made a point of going up to the stairwell that harvey milk talked about because it's important for us to be reminded that to be reminded there's a reason for us and to see behind us the harvey milk looking down upon us. and i would simply say this as a last point, i was actually

listening to the tapes that harvey milk made before he died where he talked about how he was not just about being a candidate for political office, he was really part of a movement and that is what we're honoring today. a movement for social justice. not just for lgbtq and now, we have the first really airport in the country and the world that actually honours an openly lgbt person and it will be the coolest and gayest terminal it can be and so, before we move on i want to call upon someone who for me, was really instrumental in getting to this point and when i first thought of the idea of naming the terminal, the airport and the terminal, i spoke to him and i think to me he really embodies the movie harvey milk talked about, a movement for social justice and

that's a great man who is also a mentor for so many of us, my friend tom omiano. >> thank you, very much. this is a bigger rush than getting an upgrade to first class. i'm looking forward to the lavender lounge that we'll be opening. featuring perhaps a well-known gay comic. this is totally thrilling. when you consider the journey of milk and of the movement, the day that he got sworn in here, how euphoric. the horrible day that we lost him and the mayor and his recognize recognize decision. san francisco is a singular city, we have singular heroes. we don't name airports after john wayne or ronald regan. we name them after someone who made a contribution to san francisco and i think there's more to discover about the

contribution of harvey and the movement that he sparked and showed focus on. so fasten your seat belts, woel have a very non bumpy flight. i look forward to the opening and thank you to the elected who made this happen. i know it's very difficult. it took eight years to get the school named after harvey. eight years. so in a sense this is on the fast track, even though we had to be patient. thank you. [applause] >> i'm steward milk. i'm harvey's nephew and the co-founder of the harvey milk foundation. you want to come up and join me while i speak. anne was my uncle's campaign manager and we did a lot of support in terms of the initial effort to rename san francisco airport after harvey and that was really through the leadership and vision of david campos. it was a great experience

working with him. i also am very appreciative that the mayor has done this ceremony and it was quick to join in in terms of wanting to assign this legislation and supervisor ronan for putting it second and supervisor sheehy. i think it's really no no error harvey is looking over us. for those of you who don't remember, when a bus was approved to go into san francisco city hall, it took i think about 11 months. the bus was everywhere and everyone objected to where it was. he was the first non mayor to have a bus and so typical of anything about harvey as tom said, there's some controversy in it and it was actually mayor knewsome who just said look, it should be the only one outside of the border supervisor's office and should look over the staircase. you know, this is a very important message to the world.

anne was with me in the freedom ceremony when president obama gave harvey pustule usually this country's highest honor. i got to know the kennedy family closely. at that point, karen kennedy, ted's daughter septembering on behalf of them became close friends. she let me know it was her uncle john f. kennedy who said that who a community honours, who a community remembers, who a community memorializes says so much about that community. and it was only a few weeks after the assassination of president kennedy that j.f.k. airport was renamed from idawyld to send a message about new york, to send a message about this nation. we stand up for the rights of all people. we stand up for civil rights.

and so for the people around the world who have the opportunity to fly into a great airport that sfo is and transit through the harvey milk terminal it sends that message that this community honours those who have, not only led but who paid the ultimate sacrifice. and so i always end these type of events with what i was asked by a member of press if we, the family isn't sad that harvey didn't get to see a day where we would have these wonderful issues and my uncle did see this day. because he dreamed of it and it is what gave him the courage to take these bullets to go in with all the hate mail. he knew they were coming and the courage came from these people and from all of you who have

made that vision on behalf of the harvey milk foundation. [applause] l

>> i'm going to call the meeting to order. good afternoon, everyone. it is now 1:04 p.m. with our brand-new monitors. you all will look gorgeous. it's 1:04 p.m. this is the regular meeting of the commission on community investment and infrastructure, the successor agency to the san francisco redevelopment agency for tuesday, april 17, 2018. welcome to the members of the public. my name is 34 arilee mondejar, and i am the chair. madam clerk, please call the