>> appreciate your comments. next speaker, please. >> i'm a first generation filipino immigrant. just thought i'd offer a couple of thoughts based on what i've heard so far. i've also heard the opposition of those opposed to the project. first of all, this is not competition for the local merchants. the food that senor sisig offers might sound the same but it's completely different. you heard the folks say it is unique, and that, i agree with. second, i am he aa frequent visitor to the area, and i can assure you if one of us stops to do something on that corner, we're off doing something else with many other vendors on that street, and they're not all food vendors. third, i heard the original concerns that people raised, and i see now that in terms of

mitigation, ryan's stepping up to the plate, like he always has with all issued raised. thank you very much for your consideration. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is joe a. >> commissioner veronese: -- joanne boston. i have a vast network from around the country, and whenever they come to san francisco, one of their first stops is senor sisig. not only do they bring pride to san francisco, they bring people to frequent other businesses within their area. having to fight for this and having to do this during a time when we are celebrating asian americans and small businesses, it saddens me that we have to do that, especially since filipinos have a history of displacement here in the united states and san francisco. my family came here after world

war ii. they were kicked out of their neighborhood in north beach. i live in daly beach, but i was born here in san francisco. having a place in this city is very important to our community, so i hope you support the small businesses and senor sisig. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. >> i speak today in full support for the condition of no food at 701 valencia so that senor sisig can return to their business. i am a mission resident just living right down the street, and i work the lot. as i worked the lot i watched people frequent senor sisig as wells aall the other

restaurants. and

regulations like everybody else but we're also subject to high rent costs. for example in the restaurant industry, the general rule of thumb that your total occupancy costs should not exceed 6 to 10% of your gross sales. well in 2017, our occupancy costs were over 10%. the second thing that i wanted

to talk about was this idea that we can just pick up and move to a new spot, it's not that easy. that's not how it works in san francisco or anywhere in the u.s. when it comes to food trucks. lots of any locations such as the valencia location results in an immediate loss of jobs for us. permits are very hard to get, the process is very lengthy, and can take up to six to eight months, and we're never guaranteed a permit that we applied for. the main point that evan has mentioned, we want to remind everybody that we were operating at this location since 2016, and we wanted to make sure that we're treated fairly just like every other business in san francisco, and we hope that you'll take this into consideration. and i want to make a quick note that ryan was required to provide an x amount of signatures for this appeal, and he was able to get all the required signatures, including

25% of those that were from nearby landowners. thank you for your time. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> i'd like to thank the board for letting me speak here today. my name is joshua white. i'm a lifelong san francisco resident. i'm also the son of a small business mission owner called mission dental health. i remember when the valencia was a no-go zone when i was a kid. and now, in my opinion, it's flu fluorishing because of its huge diversity of restaurants that do exist there, senor sisig being one of them. i also want to say that, you know, to add a little bit more context, i've known evan for my whole life, and i remember, you know, him, when he was in high school. i also remember when he was a student at san francisco state, studying business, and senor sisig was his dream. i just wanted to say -- voice

my support for senor sisig on valencia street at 701. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. mr. chair. >> thank you. so we'll move back to the regularly -- agenda. we'll move to, i think, supervisor ronen. no? sorry. we'll have ten minutes for planning department to present on this item. >> good afternoon, supervisors. rich sucre, manager of the southeast department at the san francisco planning department. the decision for you is whether to overturn or uphold the planning department's approval to allow the temporary conversion of an accessory parking lot into a commercial parking lot at 701 valencia street. the planning commission granted the conditional use for the commercial parking lot with the condition of approval to prohibit restaurant and limited restaurants at the site.

the appellant raises several issues in their written appeal with regard to this added condition of approval which would prohibit the restaurant and limited restaurant uses. the applicant contends that the project was thoroughly reviewed by planning staff who found that the project could be desirable for the neighborhood. the planning staff recommended approval of the project with standard conditions of approval. in addition, the appellant contends that the contrary to the concerns that the proposed use would be competing with traditional mexican restaurants in the area, filipino fusion cuisine is different. further, the food served by the proposed operation would be afforded a commodity is that is less and less available in the valencia street neighborhood. during the hearing, the planning commission determined that the proposed temporary commercial parking lot use is desirable as a shared use of an existing facility as it will alleviate short-term demand for on street parking. the kmshl parking lot will

provide supplemental parking, and the existing parking lot will not be enlarged or altered to accommodate this temporary one. although the planning department did recommend approval of the proposed use, it is up to the planning commission to grand conditional use applications by taking into consideration not only planning staff's recommendation but also public comment and other issues that may arise during the public hearing. the commission determined that a restaurant and/or a limited restaurant use at this location would not be necessary or desirable for the surrounding community due to the overabundance of nearby eating and drinks establishments within the vicinity of the project. it is within the purview to place conditions on the permit to ensure that the proposed use will be comparable with the surrounding neighborhood. further, the permit is on the conditional use, not on the restaurant, menu, and price

points. the commission carefully reviewed the proposed project and came to the unanimous conclusion that on balance, the proposed project met the criteria and the planning code. further at the hearing, the commission gave staff and the applicant clear direction regarding the added condition of approval. for these reasons, the commission approved the project and now staff will leave the questions in the hands of this board. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for any questions. thank you. >> president breed: thank you. supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: yes, mr. sucre, i'm just trying to get a sense of the hours that senor sisig were operating when they were operating at this site. i don't know if you know the answer to that question. if not, if i could bring forward adam to answer that question. do you know the answer to that question? >> sure. so you remain, senor sisig is operating under a mobile food facility temporary use authorization. they obtained a temporary use authorization in january of 2017.

under this, we don't actually have specific hours that are assigned to a temporary use. they're either allowed to operate six days for 12 hours max or for three days as a 24 hours. so this is something that's specific to mobile food facilities, basically, someplace on a private lot, not within a building, for example. >> supervisor ronen: could i -- is it proper, madam chair, to ask the -- adam the hours that he was -- >> president breed: yeah, this is the time. fine. >> supervisor ronen: okay. if you could come forward. >> yeah. as he mentioned, we had the permit for six days, 12 hours max. we -- every weekend we were there, and we were inconsistently there throughout the week, and we were trying to get staffed to get to be able to be there six days, 12 hours. >> supervisor ronen: six days, 12 hours. okay. thank you. that's all. >> president breed: okay. all right. so let's open it up to public

comment for those who are in opposition to the appeal, this is your time to talk. you will have up to two minutes. >> thank you for your time in listening. my name is sasha hamilton. i was raised in san francisco, and i've lived across the street from 701 valencia for 22 years. my mother is the landlord, and we support long-term tenants and rent control. i worked all my life with children, families in san francisco including mission graduates, and as a public schoolteacher in vis valley and the richmond. i now work in special education in the bayview. i also currently serve on the board of mission kids, a cooperative preschool on south vanness. throughout my career i've been committed to working with under served populations. my initial concerns regarding this proposal was a mother and a neighbor, and the related noise and congestion in an already heavily trafficked

area. families and residents tolerate a lot, and to add a large outdoor eating area open for long hours all week felt like too much. children and working people have a right to sleep and thrive. the proposed hours, alcohol use and increased numbers of days did not seem necessary or desirable for a place already saturated with restaurants. as a neighbor, i was okay with the prior restaurant, two days a week, 11:00 to 5:00, no ko congregate seating. current food truck legislation requires a food truck to be at least 75 feet from another restaurant. while sharon's is a private lot, i hope you will appreciate

the spirit and intent of the legislation. according to the golden gate restaurant legislation, restaurants can see a daily loss of 35 to 40% when trucks park outside their businesses. i -- this proposal sets a bad precedent. what are the implications for other commercial streets? will whoever's the most popular food truck get access to -- [inaudible] >> thank you. thank you for your comments. >> my name is kriss blochris b i'm the owner of the building that would form the backdrop for the food truck proposal. when my husband and i, thomas pena and i bought the building and put everything we had into it, i never thought i would be the bad guy in this equation. we ran regularito for ten years. we're definitely part of the solution, not part of the problem at 18th at valencia. when we went to the planning commission, we were talking

about three food trucks, seven days a week, with alcohol. that's what we were discussing a month ago. and now, the proposal has changed significantly. now, we're talking about one food truck, we're talking about going back to where we were before, right? i grew up in a small business. we ran a small business for a number of years. i don't want to see senior sisg leave, either. nor do i want to see three food trucks until 11 clock at night with alcohol which was the proposal in front of the planning commission. so if indeed today what we're talking about is protecting senor sisig from 11:00 to 5:00 saturdays and sundays, right, with no congreggate seating because it's almost impossible to mitigate that in an outdoor seating area. when we put in our patio, the city required us to spend

$100,000 to mitigate the impact for surrounding neighborhoods, but if again we're talking about saving senor sisig from 11:00 to 5:00 on saturdays, let's do that. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. [speaking spanish language ] >> good afternoon. my name is eduardo. i am the owner of regalito. regalito is behind the parking lot of sharon's. [speaking spanish language ] >> i've been working there for ten years. i work for chris pena for six years. [speaking spanish language ] >> i had the opportunity to buy the restaurant from them as an effort to -- on behalf of my

family. [speaking spanish language ] >> lately, when senor sisig was operating, i saw a decrease in my sales. [speaking spanish language ] >> i believe in fair competition, and that we all deserve the right to grow. [speaking spanish language ] >> with ybut we can't compare amount that is invested in our restaurant to the amount that it takes to run a food truck. [speaking spanish language ] >> i believe this all of the restaurants on the valencia corridor have a multiplied

tremendously. i do support mr. sisig, but perhaps in a different area where there are less restaurants. [speaking spanish language ] >> and i would also like for them to support us as a small business. [speaking spanish language ] >> unfortunately we don't have wheels to move from one place to another. [speaking spanish language ] >> and unfortunately, also, don't have that many friends that can come here and speak on my behalf to attest to all of the hard work that i put to run

my business. [speaking spanish language ] >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. [speaking spanish language ] >> good afternoon, members of the board. my name is miguel echevarria. [speaking spanish language ] >> i am the owner of the taqueria on valencia and 18th. [speaking spanish language ] >> i'm here to ask you to support the planning commission's decision to oppose the -- the appeal.

i'm very proud that for the last 20 years my family and i have been able to pull forward our business based on hard work. [speaking spanish language ] >> after having provided my family and my employees stable work through all this time. [speaking spanish language ] >> i ask you to mitigate these negative impacts and if you plan to help senor sisig, i also ask you to consider us and help us. [speaking spanish language ] >> with the competition of food trucks, it could be a -- a --

an unfair competition for me to be able to make the same means that i make now. [speaking spanish language ] [inaudible] [speaking spanish language ] >> in order to keep my business running, and my staff -- sorry. [inaudible] >> now that the restaurant is

only a few steps away from where senor sisig is. [speaking spanish language ] >> i think that it's unfair that mr. sisig as the appellant has created a large base of support through his media presence. [speaking spanish language ] >> he's very popular, and his following goes wherever he goes. he does have more than one truck. [speaking spanish language ] >> and the noise level that he creates can also annoy the neighbors and possibly my clients by creating a high level of stress. [speaking spanish language ]

[please stand by for captioner

[speaking spanish] >> some of its negatives effects are the level of noise that it creates and the congestion, the number of people and the traffic that it creates making it much more difficult to find parking in the area. [speaking spanish]

our business is one of the few that affordable prices in the community. it signifyings a serious threat because they don't pay the high level of taxes and overhead we pay. [speaking spanish] >> translator: besides we have kept our business running with a lot of effort for the past 20 years. [speaking spanish] >> translator: which serves not just the acknowledgment from the community, but also its

protection. >> [speaking spanish] >> translator: it would be very unfair to see us be endangered by a business that can run so inexpensively. >> [speaking spanish] >> translator: this is why we ask you to support the -- to reject the appeal and respect the decision of the planning commission. >> [speaking spanish] >> translator: we want senor sisig to have the opportunity to be in a mission or some other

place. if you decide for them to stay in valencia, with the same schedule before, and also of saturday and sunday. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> thank you, board of supervisors, my name is darren fox. the valencia corridor is saturated with restaurants. this was the main factor that contributed to the planning department's unanimous decision. 20 eating establishments within one block, 71 within two blocks and that is including vacancies due to profitability factors. also the planning commission's

unanimous decision had nothing to do with the type of food being served. this was a false narrative used to drum up signatures and create internet noise. raising a family in the mission across the street from the sharon lot we were opposed to the multiple food trucks and alcohol service well past midnight. in fact that sprung us as neighbors into action. as neighbors we had no problem with the weekend arrangement senor sisig had, but that consists of him at the corner 9-10 hours a day, so now we represent the brick-and-mortar businesses that will be effected. it is a provable fact that one of the two restaurants within feet, suffered profit losses and that with us senor sisig only being there on the weekends. one cannot say with a straight face they support local brick-and-mortar restaurants in

the mission and then proceed to place a food truck operation within feet of two existing restaurants and then allow added expansion of hours and communal seating. with the talk of jobs, what about the 25 plus jobs from the restaurant that are again, feet away from this? finally, the fact that the appellant would go to our neighbors and friends, the people we interact with and tell us we are only in opposition of this to benefit just ourselves is hurtful -- [bell ringing] >> thank you for your comments. >> good afternoon, my name is julie, 20-year renter living directly across the street from the lot and the proposed project. i think many of you know me as a dedicated with all of my heart and soul to economic justice in

this community. this was never about getting rid of senor sisig, i'm sorry that everyone feels that way. it was never about that, it was about creating a good relationship between food trucks, local businesses and neighbors. my personal issue is about the congregate seating because my window is right there. 75-100 people sitting for hours on end is loud. so we're coming here to ask you as neighbors, we're the surrounding immediate neighbors, to help us work through the project and to welcome people and make this happen. and we also put much of our own blood, sweat and tears into helping them find permanent locations. we got authorization for senor sisig starting in july to be in the community market. we worked with the planning department to find another location across from the skate

park. so we've been in it to help and i hope that everybody in this room knows that, so that if they're feeling an argument that's being heard by the planning commission or the powers that be, that's not what the neighborhood feels like and i hope that everybody knows that. thank you. i would support saturday, sunday, 11-5 like before. that would already be the longest single block of operation for senior sisig anywhere in the city. >> i'm a neighbor and my biggest concern is the hours and aggregate seating. we live in older buildings, we can't move at this point, so it would be great if they could respect the original times and like the other businesses that

have outdoor seating, they have tents around them, so it blocks the noise. and they have restrooms so if you do honor the appeal, i hope that you can also consider those aspects. thank you. >> thank you for your comment. before the next speaker, are there any other members of the public that would like to speak in opposition of the appeal? please come to the podium. >> hi, i live in the 700 block of valencia. to me, i feel it's one person's attempt to call this a community space when in fact it's a profit for him as far as business. and like to point to the fact that he's been running his parking lot business and food truck business without a permit for months. i should say years. and i feel that food trucks,

they are very fun and in certain places, like the soma eats food truck area, it's located right under a freeway. and it's a great spot for a bunch of food trucks. however, next to buildings where families live and legacy restaurants exist, it's not the best place. and not run by an owner who previously has not held proper permits. so i would just like to encourage the board of supervisors to support all decisions made by the planning commission. thank you. >> thank you for your comment. madame president. >> president breed: are there any other speakers who would like to speak in opposition to the appeal? not yet general public comment. thank you. ok, public comment is now closed.

and the aappellant has up to three minutes for rebuttal. we'll get there and we'll make sure you get call on. -- called on. >> first off, i'd like to say it makes my heart a little more warm hearing there is an open mind about welcoming back senor sisig. i want to point out the fact that we always had valid permits, i had a letter from the sspd to make that clear the entire time we were operating and i can show you copies of permits, so that comment is wrong. >> thank you, i do want to thank all those in opposition for speaking, i understand their concerns. my father was an immigrant who came here, worked on valencia street for years, worked up to the point he could start his own restaurant on valencia and market in 1993, sushi, which is

now sushi zone. and he passed away in 96 and we sold the business, valencia is close to my heart, i understand the concerns of the businesses. i understand neighbors' concerns of noise, so those concerns are valid. we have done a lot to mitigate the concerns and told them no generators, we're going to plug in, no amplified music or sound, no alcohol on the site. we will close at a time of 9 p.m.. on fridays and saturday we ask to be open until 10. we'll provide bathrooms for our customers on the site. and so, i feel like we're meeting a lot of the concerns. there are -- continues to be brought up we don't pay rent on the site. this is not a public parking lot where we get a permit or public

space where we just pull up. we do pay rent on the lot like another restaurant would and all our permit fees and other things as well. you know, they're saying we were there 11-5 on sundays, we have a permit to be there six days a week, 12 hours a day. so we had the ability to do it. we were just trying to get staff and wait until the cu was approved. so we're asking to get the same ability that we had previously in this lot. another idea which sounds like the businesses and neighbors might conflict on, but the lot is huge. we could provide extra seating for the neighboring businesses as support for their businesses. that might not sit well with the neighbors because there would be extra people in the lot, but that's something we're willing to do. the lot is huge, senor sisig is not going to utilize the whole thing, just the corner of the lot. [bell ringing] and yeah, that's it, thank you.

>> thank you. >> president breed: can you provide clarity on the hours you're proposing to operate, because i keep hearing different information. >> proposed hours under the cu is monday through sunday starting at 11 ending at 9 p.m. on week nights, on friday and saturday nights, we stay open until 10. >> 11 a.m. to 10 p.m.? >> correct. >> president breed: thank you. ok, our hearing has been held and is now closed. and this item is in the hands of the board of supervisors. and i will recognize supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: thank you. i really want to thank everyone who came out today. when the appellant first came to our office to share his proposal for a parking lot plus food truck park, at the lot in 17th

and valencia, the scope he described was very broad. the range of proposed activities. he talked about pop-up options, a vision up to four food trucks that also served beer and wine, and hours that extended to 11 p.m. his initial outreach to neighbors and their conversations with my office touched about various compromised options but no solid agreement was presented when the cu went before the planning commission. during the commission hearing neighbors expressed strong opposition to alcohol being served and asked for mitigation to prevent drinking and partying, to limit hours and subdue noise. and matter of fact and specific problem raised by the 25-year-old taco across the street, patrons were crossing the street to use their rest rooms. the planning commission responded to concerns that food trucks would be unfair competition for brick-and-mortar

restaurants and authorized the parking use with a prohibition against the restaurant use. i am very supportive of existing small businesses along valencia and recognize that throughout my district, businesses like these are often struggling to keep their doors open. we have seen many of the more affordable restaurants and those owned by latinos in the mission displaced because of rising rents. whenever and wherever possible, we need to take the opportunity to protect those businesses. the legacy business protection that came out of the district 9 office and my cultural district legislation we voted on today, are both proactive tools for stabilizing small businesses. since the commission did i say decision there has been outpouring of support for one food truck we talked about today, senor sisig as unique to san francisco, filipino owned business that offers food options different than what is

available on mission street or in the mission i should say. a compliment to the existing businesses rather than direct competition. but both the sponsor and appellant and the neighbors have been organizing support for each of their sides, my attempts to bring them together to work toward an agreement was declined by the opponents. unfortunately, i wish we had gotten a chance to come together and work this out. i am disturbed that this situation has evolved into a fight that pits small businesses both owned by people of color against one another. and it is hard for me to buy the argument that just one food truck would pose a threat to the adjacent restaurants, but i do recognize the fear that this idea is taking hold. land use decisions are not based on popularity, so it is not the quantity of support or opposition. but what i've received from the public has been for the most

part thoughtful and sincere input and i really again want to thank all the people who took time to contact me. i have reviewed everything very, very carefully, been trying to figure this out and trying to come to a compromise that really recognizes every point of view here. for more than a year, senor sisig has been operating under a temporary use authorization without complaints. what i'm proposing for going propose is a compromise that recognize both the desirability of senor sisig as a small business owned by a local person of color, and the necessity of protecting adjacent restaurants and the daily lives of people who live along valencia street. what i'm proposing is to amend the cu where it now prohibits restaurant use. i would like to amend the cu to allow the operation of one mobile food facility on the project site under a temporary use authorization. the term of the temporary use authorization will be one year.

and while the law prevents us from naming a specific business in the conditions approval, my expectation and for the record, is that senor sisig will be the one food truck on the site. during the one-year term of the temporary use authorization we can monitor the impact on adjacent businesses. additionally, i would propose that we add the following conditions to limit competition with other restaurants. that there will be no alcohol and no amplified music on the side, that the hours of operations will be up to six days per week, with hours limited from 11 a.m. to 8 p.m. that toilets with running water for hand washing are available. and if porta-potties are used, they be camouflaged and there be no congregate seating in the area. the sponsor retains the option for other temporary uses such as

crafts as long as the sponsor secures a temporary use authorization. so, colleagues, i move to table item 19, amend item 20, so that it conditionally disapproves the cu authorization and approves a new temporary cu with the additional conditions i just described. and i would like this also include in my motion, that we pass item 20 as amended and item 21, directing the clerk to prepare findings. >> president breed: i'll start with the amendment to item number 20, so supervisor ronen has made amendment to item 20, seconded by supervisor peskin. colleagues, can we take the amendment without objection. without objection the amendment passes. she's made a motion to table item number 19 and support item number 20 as amended. and what to do with item number 21? >> supervisor ronen: to pass it

directing the clerk to prepare findings. >> president breed: ok. so madame clerk on the motion, please call the roll. oh, did i get a second? >> seconded by supervisor peskin. >> clerk: safai aye. sheehy aye. stefani aye. tang aye. yee aye. breed aye. cohen aye. fewer aye. kim aye. peskin aye. ronen aye. there are 11 ayes. >> president breed: the item is approved unanimously. madame clerk, let's go to our next public hearing items 22 and 23. the board of supervisors will

sit as committee of whole as to hearing scheduled on may 27, 2018, it's to report assessments costs for information and repair of blighted properties. the resolution is the report of the assessment costs submitted by the director of public works. >> president breed: today's committee of the whole is conducted to consider objections to a report of assessment costs submitted by the director of public works. for inspection and/or repair of blighted properties ordered to be performed by the director pursuant to the administrative code. let's open the hearing. so with that, first we'll hear from the department. >> good afternoon, president breed and members of the board. my name is kenny bruce, here with alicia wit, representing public works graffiti unit. chapter 80 of the administrative code. the community preservation and

blight reduction act requires that property owners maintain their property in a safe and blight-free condition. the code requires public works to inspect graffiti and notify property owners to make corrections. it is the obligation of the property owner to maintain the property free of graffiti and blight. public works notifies property owners by physically posting at the property regular mail and certified mail when blight is posted. the notice of violation provides information on how to contact the graffiti unit, how to request hearing and extension. if more time is needed to abate, accompanied by the mail notices, we include date-stamped color photos to indicate the extent and location of the graffiti. we also include a frequently asked question sheet with each notice that is mailed.

for every notice of violation posted, the graffiti makes considerable efforts to research property ownership, make courtesy calls and send e-mails with photos to property owners. property representatives and/or property tenants alerting them of the new graffiti vandalism on their property and their requirements to clean it up. public works records show is that the majority of property owners abate graffiti from their properties on time. if not abated within the allowed time, a fee is incurred. in cases where the property owner ignores the notices or refuses to remove the graffiti, the city will perform the required correction and assess the cost through the tax roll, today we request the approval for the assessment of blighted properties. since there is outstanding balance on the properties, public works is requesting that

these assessments be added to the property tax bill through this board hearing. the outstanding fees owed are to recoup the city's cost. i thank you for your consideration. >> president breed: thank you. any questions? seeing none, let's open this up to public comment. are there members of the public who would like to provide public comment? this is not general public comment. this is for the 4:00 hearing. not yet for the general. we're almost there. you're here for the 4:00 hearing? >> madame president, members of the board, i'm a senior project manager with economic development agency, one of the partners at 1990 fulsome, which is a proposed 100% affordable housing project in the mission district. here in response to just what i'm assuming is a clerical error

regarding that particular piece of property while we're in a hold for that, we received no notice of blight assessment or for any work done. we have regularly been updated on blight and have gone out and corrected that on a regular basis. so we're hoping that we can work -- continue to work with the department of public works to ensure that we are taking care of the property while we're preparing to undertake our new construction 100% affordable housing at that site in a few months. so thank you. >> president breed: there is also an opportunity to speak with the representative who is here from the department of public works once we conclude public comment. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is alfred scott, i'm the owner of one of the properties on the list, 887 webster street. and i'm here basically asking

that the charges be waived from my property. i get these notices periodically. once i hear about them, i come over and take care of it right away. the one that was in question was issued on january 2, 2017. and i show that i took care of it. i believe i received a call from one of the officers tell meg that -- telling me that i hadn't gotten back do them -- because i had a certain period of time to get it taken care of, which i did right away. so on april 5, i show that i e-mailed the department confirming that i had taken care of the graffiti and i heard nothing else from them, so i was assuming that everything had been resolved. so i get these notices maybe three, four times a year. i take care of them right away. they're really small issues. and so i don't think i should have to pay for this because i did take care of it.

>> president breed: thank you. there will be opportunity to speak with mr. bruce after he conclude public comment. >> thank you. >> president breed: any other members of the comment that would like to speak on blighted properties? seeing none, public comment is closed. for those of you here for this particular item, blighted properties, mr. bruce will be able to talk to you outside. in order to address those particular issues, so if you could -- mr. bruce? yes, if you could step outside with those who would like to talk to you about the issue and then maybe bring back to us what might be amended from the particular file. we would appreciate it. thank you. ok, colleagues, let's go to roll call for introductions. >> first up to intro does new business is supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: that's right. thank you very much, madame president. just kidding, it's been a long

meeting. i have a few things. one i'm going to re-refer, proud to be cosponsors supervisor tang, big announcement that is environmentally friendly, thank her for her leadership but i'll say more remarks on that. secondly, i'm very happy to submit something that is one step in the process of moving forward to 100% affordable project in my district, the upper yard, we're transferring the property from the sfmta to the mayor's housing of community and development. this is a long overdue project, transit-friendly, immediately above the balboa bart station. it's between 100-120 units of affordable housing for homeless and formerly homeless. we're extremely excited about this and this has been in the works for many years with our previous supervisor along with mayor lee's commitment to proposition a and the affordable

housing bond in the past. so the rest i submit on that one. and then the -- i will rerefer on the announcement on straws. and i want to say happy ramadan to everyone. thank you. >> supervisor sheehy: i'll be joining with supervisor breed on an inmemoriam later. i have one for mark kirkland, a san francisco native who spent most of his life in san francisco. he's the beloved spouse of arlo smith and he passed away from cancer last week. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor. supervisor stefani. supervisor tang? >> supervisor tang: as you read already, i'm introducing

legislation and i want to thank supervisor safai, breed, sheehy, peskin and yee. we're trying to ban plastic straws here in san francisco, because basically, they suck. they can contribute to litter on the streets and harm the environment. so the legislation will do a couple of things starting july of 2019. we are going to ban plastic straws and that includes plastic compostable straws. instead, you would be served with either paper straws or reusable ones. or stirrers, cocktail sticks, toothpicks, cup sleeves, lids, you name it, all of that, those accessories will only be available to customers upon request or in a self-service station. the idea behind that, we as

customers don't need the products, but are given those when we enter a restaurant, cafe or so forth. also we're requiring that for large events that take place on city property that consist of 100 people or more, 10% of the beverage cups that are used for the events must be reusable. and lastly, we're banning starting january 1, 2020, flour nated chemicals from the product, they're commonly used to repel water and grease. you'll find them lining your coffee cups, but they leech in the food and can be taken up in the food as well. and they rescinded the use of such chemicals due to heightened risk of cancer, toxicity and health impacts. the reason why this legislation is so important, the statistics are astounding to me, but our ocean is filled with over 5.5

trillion items of plastic. that is trillion, not million or billion. but trillion. and every day, in the united states, it's estimated about 500 million straws are used every day. that is about 1.5 straws per person per day and that equates to 1 million straws used in san francisco per day. so incredibly alarming. and straws literally fall through the cracks in machines. we are not able to really capture them in the machines we have to properly recycle these items, so they end up in our landfills or sewer system or the ocean. so it's really important that we really nip this issue in the bud, changing our culture, behavior of using the single-use products and to understand the significant negative environmental impact that are associated with these items. so i want to thank the sf environment for all their work, jack and charles.

and of course the director, ashley from my office. i want to thank surf writer foundation who have been working on the ground with restaurants and bars to already have these establishments convert to using paper straws. i want to thank all of the other restaurants and the guys we partnered with today to take leadership on this. especially the babia industry where you're required to use a straw. they're wrapped in plastic as well. so harmful, so i'm glad to see them take leadership on this. and of course i want to thank gupta, our city attorney who worked on this and the many changes on the legislation. this is really one in many pieces of legislation to help us with our environmental goals, whether it was composting requirements or plastic bag bans, all of these help with our protecting our planet. so again, thank you to

cosponsors on this. and i can defer to -- >> i understand supervisor safai and yee has approved that. >> thank you. >> supervisor safai: i'll be brief, i know this is a long meeting. i think this is really, really important piece of legislation. when i came into office last year, my first meeting with the department of environment, i said i want to work on straws, they said, too late, supervisor tang is already working on it. i got in line, we worked together and i know president breed has been working on the issue as a cosponsor as well. but i would just say in the context of when we're thinking about the planet, thinking about the food chain, thinking about using things that don't need to be used. when you're drinking a cup of water, when you're having a drink at a bar, when you're in a restaurant there is no need to have a straw. as supervisor tang said, i want you to hear this again, one million plastic straws a day in san francisco.

in fact, if you talk to bartenders they'll say they're trained to add straws to your drink because they know you will drink it faster with a straw. so you will then order another drink. so this is a really, really big deal. this is about as i said, with the food chain, it's about changing behavior, but it's also about getting to zero waste. if we really believe in getting to zero waste in this city, which we're going to be having a hearing coming up in the next week to talk about those methods to do that, you cannot even recycle plastic straws and some of the other times as supervisor tang said. they literally fall through the cracks. so even when people think they're doing the right thing by putting a plastic straw in the recycle bin, it ends up in landfill, same with the stirrer,

same with the cap and so many small pieces of plastic. the small plastic bits. i want to thank supervisor tang for her leadership and president breed working on this, all of us together and the restaurant industry has also said by removing the straw as an immediate in the drink, they have already seen cost savings. sometimes adds up to 90%, because once people don't see the straw, they don't ask for anymore. and if they do and do insist, we're going to give them an option that is environmentally friendly. and they're doing it in places like hawaii. they're doing it in other parts of the world. but once we do it here in san francisco, as with the plastic bags, it will have a profound impact. i'm proud to be cosponsor of this today. >> clerk: thank you. supervisor yee. >> supervisor yee: thank you, madame clerk. just add to this issue of straws, i was in the middle of