this site is zoned for seven units. there's this height limit. san francisco has the topography it has. i was born and raised here. i lived up on beacon street. i know what san francisco's all about. we build here, we try to do it with scale, we try to do it with material. you know, we try to work with the site lines as best as we can. and like i said, i even offered, and this is noted somewhere that we would work with the neighbors to enhance the greenery in our back yard so that we can obscure as much as that base of the building as possible. i mean, this is a sloped site. there's nothing that -- i can't change the topography of the land. i think this is a really good solution. i think it's fair, and i hope that you could see that we worked very hard for the last two-plus years on trying to get this to this point, so i appreciate your time. thank you. >> vice president melgar:

thank you. okay. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: so interestingly enough, i think the slope of the hill is extraordinary and exceptional here in the city. i know when i worked on market and okaytictavio, this is what happened. i completely respect your work. i know you're doing what the project sponsors are asking you to do. the one thing that's interesting to me just as i talked with the project sponsor's team this week and we were looking at the project set back -- the set back from the property line and the set back from the rear, that i hadn't really looked at and just got clued in, we've got each -- you have 2,056 spaces -- 1,056 square feet on b-2, and 47 on

b-1. 893 square feet perunit that's parking and storage. and the height of the building in the back is causing the issue, so that's really where i want to focus is -- you know, i don't think the units are exceptionally large. they're actually coming in at the average of a flat in isk san francisisk -- in san francisco, so i'm okay with it. i really want to focus on the need for that additional 900 square feet perunit between storage and parking. if you look at b-1, and the parking spaces and all the different other space in the -- in that -- on that floor, i think they're -- there's enough room for a storage including on b-1, which hopefully will just be b, if other commissioners agree, for commission ornaments and things like that, you have

closets for things you use every day. the storage downs, i honestly -- down stairs, i honestly believe for things you use once a year, you're going to be able to create on b-1. you don't need to offer an additional 900 commissioned space perunit, which i think is excessive. the question i have for mr. winslow is open space requirement, this is code compliant buildings, so is there any open space requirement, you know, rm 1? >> i'm going to defer to chris towns, the current code inspector on this project. >> the answer is yes, there is an open space requirement perunit in this district. 100 square feet if it's private, 133 square feet perunit if it's common. >> commissioner richards: okay. the back yard itself doesn't

qualify. >> it also qualifies. >> commissioner richards: but, if there was no roof deck, would the back yard in and of itself qualify for the roof space requirement? zbh i'd have to check that. >> commissioner richards: is there a pattern of roof decks in the neighborhood? >> not that i'm aware of. >> commissioner richards: i'd probably focus on the roof deck because it is towering over everybody. i don't think the backward's that usable at a dougherdownwa but i think we have to look at the trade offs between the b-2, b-1 issue that i just raised. >> seven units, seven maximum -- minimum requirement of one perunit. they're proposing seven units, so they're doing the one perunit. they're allowed up to 150% of that amount, so they could go

up to 11, so they're doing four less than what's required. >> commissioner richards: and b-1 would not be a great living space. i think the height of the garage is causing me anxiety for the folks on the west. i think there could be a solution where they don't really have to change too much, but you could actually get rid of a floor that's really not for living at all. it's just storage. >> vice president melgar: commissioner johnson. >> commissioner johnson: i'd actually love to invite the project sponsor to comment on that, the thinking behind it. >> yeah. it's more of a technical thing. so we've started the ramp at the lowest part of the site because the site kind of slopes from east to west. >> commissioner richards: could you speak into the mic. >> oh, yeah. it flows east to west, so we

started with the ramp. the problem with what you're saying, i would have to take that ramp further further down to drop everything. >> commissioner richards: on you about a -- because what we've seen on other projects, you drive your car, it's an elevator, and you go down. you don't need a ramp, you just need enough room for that elevationor to take them down to the floor. they're putting elevators in tiny homes these days, so here's a seven-unit building you might be able to do that. >> we're doing that on much, much bigger projects, and a single-family home, the owner can actually do that because they're responsible for themselves. on a larger project, which we do downtown, we use elevators, but that's with a valet. the owner would never get in that car and do it. the problem i have here is because it's a seven unit

project, they would have to valet that elevator unless it's a single-family home. >> commissioner richards: that's an osha requirement unless it's a single-family home. >> if it's a single-family home, can you do it -- you can do it, but if it's a multifamily home, you can't do it. i'm looking at the topography on the site, to see the least amount possible to go down. like i said, this is a family -- it's kbaered towards family -- geared towards storage space. imagine you have a single-family home, like a lot of these people do. they have a storage, they have car, they have storage in their garage, and then, they have their home. this is similar, but this is

just seven of them. >> commissioner richards: makes sense. i guess my question for mr. -- i'm having a brain malfunction -- and congratulations on your new role. i think we're going to be seeing you more in this position, that you're now the d.r. guy. okay. great. just tap me on the way out. >> the ides of march. >> commissioner richards: this wedding cake terracing, is this common? it looks like the inside of a portland hotel to me? what's sculpting look like to you. >> our first comments were in response to the scale of the building at the back, and they were generic, take your best stab at respecting both the topography of the site as well as the scale at that midblock condition. i -- i think, you know, significantly sculpting the building, and that can take many and any forms, right,

without being prescriptive. when it came back the second time, after the d.r. was applied for, we did get specific with respect to the terracing of the upper most floor, and the dplengs that takes height off the top, but also respects -- if you look next door to the building on the east, it has a top floor that's considerably set back to the rear wall. so that was kind of the cue that we were looking at in being more prescriptive on that second d.r. review. so we aren't looking at the tower of babylon. >> commissioner richards: i'm a little bit not understanding what an additional 2 feet would

do because the other buildings are 50 feet away in the back. >> i did a little research on that. if you look at the plan of those buildings adjacent to us on the east, they are massive. they're twice as wide as our lots, and the reason that these developers chose to pull those buildings back on the edges is so that they can actually get light and air to the middle of those buildings. we don't have that condition. we have back yards on one side, so the 3 feet is what we're offering in order to get that planning strip. it also allows us to get windows along that side. but the reason that 5 feet is not a -- it's not a zoning thing that anybody created, it's induced by the developers -- >> commissioner richards: okay. so you agree to 3 feet? >> i totally do. >> commissioner richards: okay. that was number one on their ask. number two, you're willing to

do 13 feet? >> 13. i just felt that rdat didn't recognize the west side at all. didn't ask us to most the west side at all. i think from a planning standpoint, doing in from both sides. they want something from the west, these guys want something from the top. the top is pretty far below here. even at 10 feet back, you're barely going to see this thing. 13 is fair, and i would set back the handrail, as well, so that that stays back another 3 feet so it doesn't come to the edge to reduce that rich. d >> commissioner richards: and number three, we ask -- >> yes, i did that. >> commissioner richards: great. and then four, they asked for two more feet on the guardrails on the decks. instead of three, they want five. that doesn't do that much to your project. >> that doesn't do too much.

>> commissioner richards: so it looks like you'd agree. >> yeah. >> commissioner richards: include neighbors in the process of appropriate planning, agreed. so i think you've agreed to the six of the seven. the 13 feet is the 20 feet is the big difference, and it looks like you've kind of gone halfway with the 3 feet and the 13 feet. i'm satisfied that this should work. >> it's going to look good. >> commissioner richards: i'll let commissioner koppel make a moti motion. >> commissioner koppel: i'll make a motion to take d.r. with the stated conditions that commissioner richards just stated. >> clerk: 13 feet from which side? >> commissioner richards: from the back of the property. >> from the rear wall. >> right. instead of ten, it's 13.

>> commissioner richards: 3 feet set back on the property, top floor to third floor, set back additional 2 feet, maintain an indentation in the original zieb facade. on the -- design facade. on the third floor, 5'6". >> no. >> commissioner richards: so this would be on the fourth floor. >> the third floor doesn't set back. >> commissioner richards: okay. so then, it would be the fourth floor. >> no, the fourth floor goes back 13'6". >> commissioner richards: that's what i -- decks removed from the fourth floor, parapet on the entire fourth floor belowered to a curb, and include neighbors in the appropriate selection process of planning, so -- >> yes. >> commissioner richards: do i hear a second?

>> vice president melgar: second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. so basically, we are taking d.r. and approving this project with modifications pursuant to the ask submitted by the d.r. requesters, accepting items 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7, not 6. >> commissioner richards: right. >> clerk: and number two gets amended to eliminate the third floor set back ask reducing the second floor set back to 13'6". very good. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 5-0. commissioners item 20 was withdrawn, so we are on item 21 for case number 2013.0847 d.r.p. at 1503 francisco

street. please note on may 24, 2018 after hearing and closing public comment you continued this matter to july 19, 2018 by a vote of 6-0 and on july 19, 2018, without hearing, you continued it to today's date. commissioner richards, you were not present on that first hearing, and if you could acknowledge that you've reviewed the previous material and hearing. >> commissioner richards: i have. >> clerk: thank you. as this is the second time we are hearing this matter, the d.r. requester will be provided with a three minute presentation, and the project sponsor will be provided with a three minute presentation. all public comment will be limited to one minute. >> good evening, commissioners. alexander kirby with department staff. the item before you is a request for discretionary review for a building permit for a vertical addition interior remodel and revised facade design at 1503 francisco street. as the commission secretary said, the item was heard before

this commission on may 24. following public comment and discussion, the item was continued with a request by the commissioners with a project sponsor work with the concerned neighbors to address revisions primarily relating to the exterior design of the project. the subject building is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of francisco and octavia streets, and the immediate area is characterized by a mix of single and multifamily housing that range in height from three to four stories. the project was reviewed by environmental staff and determined to be categorically exempt from further ceqa review. the subject building is not a you historic resource nor is it located within an eligible historic district. the request was filed by the owners of 1409 francisco

street. they've rei they've reiterated that the revised proposals at this time may i approach tanz unusual circumstances, that the communal space of the ground story may not be used as such, that the roof decks are unnecessary and not typical of the neighborhood and that the units should have independent street access. the revised scope of work includes the same internal layout as the original design appropriatesal with two parking spaces and a shared common space at the ground floor, two existing one bedroom units at the second floor, and existing residential units at the third and fourth floor with roof deck access at the roof and fourth floor levels. the existing footprint of the building would not be expanded. this project sponsor did significantly revise the exterior design based on the feedback from the commission and concerns brought up by the neighbors at the prior public hearing regarding the prior contrary design. the newly proposed design reduces glazing from 40% of the

exterior shell to 26 with proportions to better relate to the finestrations of the upper site, and it proposes to change the original cast concrete ridge face to a kol too sooned brick finish to soften the pedestrian experience of the building. the residential design advisory team reviewed the revised proposal and found the design to be compatible in design to the surrounding neighborhood. rdat noted that the windows are compatible in size, scale, and proportion with the surrounding buildings. the context exhibits restrained building articulation that is typically focused on window detailing and a delainiation of the entry and base and that this design articulates the base with a compatible material in the entry with a material differentiation in high recess.

the upper roof deck is limited in size and set back from all edges, and the rear decabutts a blind wall in the street, therefore presenting no privacy impacts. the brick at the -- [inaudible] >> -- with other ground level treatments. the project has been reviewed for compliance with section 317 and was determined not to qualify as a de facto demolition or a unit merger. the area of the existing units at the second floor would not be significantly modified. the project would retain the existing three units, and staff verified with the rent board and office of short-term rentals that there are no evicti evictions at the property.

all three units feature independent accessing kitchens, and were the property owner to seek a unit mer jerge at a later date, they would be required to file for conditional use for the loss of a unit to be heard before this body. at the time of the prior hearing, staff had received 25 letters of support and ten letters in opposition to the proposal. since the revised project was presented to neighbors, staff has received two e-mails in support including the neighbors to the immediate east with whose property would most be directly impacted by the roof deck,s awell as three letters and e-mails and a petition with 20 signatures, including those of the d.r. requesters and neighbor who's had submitted

letters. the department -- [inaudible] >> -- and presents no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. i'm available for questions. thank you. medical melg we wi . >> vice president melgar: we will now hear from the d.r. requester. five minutes -- >> clerk: three minutes. [inaudible] >> clerk: well, let's fix that. >> good evening, commissioners. my name's kristina mcnair, and my sister and i are owners are property across from the project. our family legacy has been tied to the marina since the early 1920's. our d.r. request represents the out pouring of community from the marina community opposed to the 1503 project and since our last d.r. hearing, we received an additional over 34 additional signatures, including the san francisco

tenants union. our concerns include loss of our thinks toric community character, loss of vital housing stock, concern over deep pockets, forever changing a community for their own benefits. shortly after our last d.r. hearing, on several occasions, i attempted to connect with the 1503 team. on the 21st of june. we did receive updated plans, on july 26, d.r. representatives had a meeting with the 1503 team, and now three weeks later we still have not received any further follow up. we'd allowed sufficient time for them to provide changes to the plans. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm the architect. i have ongoing concerns about the project regarding roof decks, unit mergers, and overall design. we request elimination of the roof decks, three or 4% of the buildings in this neighborhood have roof decks, and there's been strong out cry about roof

decks, both in this neighborhood and other neighborhoods. there's a blind -- the next -- there is windows on the -- noted there's a blind wall in the report. it actually has windows. one solution to the unit mergers is to provide an open air lobby, which creates a connection to the street and -- and creates a more inviting, communal feeling in the community. current configuration easily allows the units to be merged on the second floor. you can see this is a closed lobby, and again, the -- in the past, the department has forced unit interior reconfigurations based on known code compliance -- future code compliance problems. there is a current pattern in the neighborhood and in the city in real estate sales to merge units after sale into single-family home. this is exactly the thing that

could happen here. it could use some massing changes on the exterior. it's still -- it w's a very bld simplified feature. the finestration is very simplistic. i think it has a need for further detailing, which has not been provided. thank you very much. >> vice president melgar: okay. thank you. we will now hear any public comment in support of the d.r. requester. so this is the second time we're hearing this item, so one minute. >> hello. thanks for the time. i'm still opposed to this project. i do appreciate the other side making some changes since we

were last in front of the commission. but to me, it comes across as a bit of a bare minimum effort and didn't address all of the points that were raised by the -- the insightful discussion that the commission had after our last hearing. in particular, i'm concerned about the motion of a single-family home really changing kind of the dynamic of our neighborhood, and most particularly, the roof decks. there's also -- the same owners purchased the residence next door and there's a plan to have a roof deck on that one, as well, so we're looking at putting three roof decks in a very tight area in a pretty much over night. the city has new guidelines on roof decks, of which there's three or four points that are

in violation. >> clerk: thank you, sir. >> thank you. >> vice president melgar: next speaker, please. >> hi. pam davis. i am a neighbor down at 1567 francisco, and i want to also thank them for redesigning some of the exterior. my concerns previously were regarding the glazing. that does appear to have been addressed significantly. my only remaining concern relates to the rear deck. if you look at this photo, you can see this is francisco street where you see the vehicles. and then, the rear deck that's being proposed is actually what would be visible as a side deck from the street, and my concern is living just a few doors down from here, the noise that is generated from a side deck that is exposed and as open as this area would be is very concerning to me. so that is the feature that remains in this that i

specifically have concerns regarding. >> vice president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. i'm margin requalley. i'm a 23 year resident in the marina, homeowner for the last 14 years across the street from the project. i'm concerned about the impact of the project on the nature of the neighborhood. in particular, there have been a lot of contradictions from the owner about what the intentions are for this building. originally, it was talked about as being a single-family home. i think you've heard we have continued concern with the design seeming that that's still a likely intention in the future. secondly, it's been stated as using it for corporate housing, again, not keeping with the long-term residential nature of the neighborhood. at this point, there have not been any tenants in the units, so there really hasn't been any impact directly, but between

1503 francisco, this project, and 3255, which the owner also owns next door, four of the five units have been vacant. thank you. >> vice president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. philip meza, and i would echo the comments made by my neighbors earlier tonight, and i would also specify that we have concerns about the property becoming a single-family home. overhead, please. we have concerns about the property becoming a single-family home, and this is magnified that we now have concerns about the property becoming a single-family compound because the property at 3255 octavia received

permission to in-fill the light well between the two properties. so i don't know what further evidence you need that this is going to become a single-family home and a single-family compound. thank you. >> vice president melgar: next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. instead of echoing the same points that everybody has raised, which i wholeheartedly agree in one minute that i have or less, i just want to point out to the arrogance of power. in this case, mr. minaj is trying to buy the support of neighbors by purchasing the properties, the surrounding building. i have no idea if the intent is to keep purchasing and keep purchasing the support of neighbors, but i just wanted to point out to you that residential mr. murphy here, overhead please, as you can see, he purchased mr. murphy's -- mr. patrick

murphy's how's next door, and this is the same -- house next door, and this is the same house that everybody's pointing is going to be another roof deck on it. i'm just pointing out this is just not right. this arrogance of power is not right and should not be permitted. just, you know, please, you know, like -- okay. thank you. >> vice president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> commissioners, mark hermann, i live directly across the street from this project. this project started five years ago with a well documented attempt to use the property as a single-family home. we saw it from 2013, a failed dwelling unit merger and the project sponsor's own statement at the last hearing. in the last five years, we saw this building being used at best as a corporate rental today we have an unchanged floor plan screaming for legal.

tomorrow, we have the project sponsor's vacant two unit building next door with proposed remodel details, very suggestive of future unit accommodation. if this project isn't stopped now, i hope you've seen the future from similar projects in other neighborhoods where the planning department is mocked, neighbored are thumbed, and units in the neighborhood are being marketed and sold at single-family homes. thank you. >> vice president melgar: thank you. if there are no more comments in support of the d.r. requester, we will now use the project sponsor. >> thank you. last we met, we came with a code compliant project, full support of planning, and 25 letters of support. a small group of opponents led my kristina mcnair met us by

throwing everything but the kitchen sink at us, and more has come tonight, because as i've learned through this neighborhood kristina has a deeply rooted grudge with the city and their planning process. kristina received four citations from the city which she's fought for more than three years. she should not be policing the neighborhood as she thumbed her knows not once but four times to this very process. mark hermann told me when i knocked on his door that his neighbor reported him for a deck he was building illegally in his garden. we were unprepared and remain taken aback by the lies and tactics that are being invoked by the pretense of architecture design. kristina remarks at the may 24 hearing were not her own words with you rather read from a letter of constance. what kristina didn't tell you is that constance is not within the 311 notification area.

her unit is in escrow as we speak. kristina also didn't tell you that she herself empties parts of her building in the last year, there by adding to the density of our neighborhood and adding average rents. mark hermann likes to have conversations here at the neighborhood and at the hearing, highlighting my wife's native origins, the size of her family, and i see had deep concern about using the building to how's her family memory -- house her family and not tenants. these are not acts nor statements of people endeavoring to act with us in good faith. they have not asked us to meet. we have continually invited

them to meet us. in fact, just two days ago, we accepted supervisor's kathrin stefani's offer to mediate a discussion between the principals, and kristina and mark, like other times, rejected the invite. we don't want the good feeling of the neighborhood to be washed away with a few bad apples, so concrete was replaced with stucco, wood, brick, to soften all materials widely used in the neighborhood. windows were decreased from 10 foot in height to 8.5 feet. the overall circumstance was decreased from -- >> clerk: thank you. your time is up. >> window patterns -- >> vice president melgar: your time is up. sorry, you have two-minute rebutt al. >> clerk: no, not on the second time. >> vice president melgar: okay. are there any commenters in

support of the project sponsor. come on up. >> thank you. how much time do i have? >> clerk: i have a minute. >> my name's patrick murphy. i live at 1526 francisco street, directly across the street from the project. born and raised in san francisco. been on the street for 26 years. i'm very much in support of the project. my view is affected more than anybo anybody else's, and that's the true view here. i think families should be allowed to expand existing units without getting rid of any existing tenants as many of these other people have. >> vice president melgar: thank you. so -- so we don't have a

rebuttal. commissioners? [inaudible] >> vice president melgar: commissioner koppel? >>. >> commissioner koppel: just one question fore the project sponsor. what do you have planned for the basement? >> there is no basement. >> commissioner koppel: there's a basement in the drawings. >> there's no basement. >> commissioner koppel: just saying, drawing a-2 had a basement plan. >> this is common space to that the building occupants can access the guard where my wife likes to guard, so it's for the benefit of everyone in the building. >> vice president melgar: is that -- is that it, commissioner? commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: so i think the design's improved much over what it was before. i like the idea that the two middle units are around the same square footage. more power to you for expanding

the top. the roof deck is small, so i have no issue with that. the only issue i have is the common space in the future becoming a new unit number through with the merger of the two units above, so i would like to take d.r., approve the project with a notice of special restriction to the common space if it were to become a unit in the future, it would become a unit as an a.d.u. >> vice president melgar: is that a motion? >> commissioner richards: it's a motion. >> commissioner koppel: second. >> clerk: very good, commissioners, if there's nothing further, there's a motion to take d.r. and approve the project as proposed with the condition that if the common space becomes livable that it become an a.d.u. on that motion --

[roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 5-0. adjourn. [ gavel ]

watching. >> ever wonder about programs the city is working on to make

san francisco the best place to live and work we bring shine won our city department and the people making them happy what happened next sf oh, san francisco known for it's looks at and history and beauty this place arts has it all but it's city government is pretty unique in fact, san francisco city departments are filled with truly initiative programming that turns this way our goal is to create programs that are easily digestable and easy to follow so that our resident can participate in healing the planet

with the new take dial initiative they're getting close to zero waste we 2020 and today san francisco is diverting land filled and while those numbers are imperfect not enough. >> we're sending over 4 hundred thousand tons of waste to the landfill and over the 4 hundred tons 10 thousands are textile and unwanted listen ones doesn't have to be find in the trash. >> i could has are the ones creating the partnerships with the rail kwloth stores putting an in store collection box near the checks stand so customers can bring their used clothes to the store and deposit off.

>> textile will be accessible in buildings thought the city and we have goodwill a grant for them to design a textile box especially for families. >> goodwill the well-known store has been making great strides. >> we grateful to give the items to goodwill it comes from us selling those items in our stores with you that process helps to divert things it from local landfills if the san francisco area. >> and the textile box will take it one step further helping 1230 get to zero waste. >> it brings the donation opportunity to the donor making that as convenient as possible it is one of the solutions to

make sure we're capturing all the value in the textiles. >> with the help of good will and other businesses san francisco will eliminate 39 millions tons of landfill next year and 70 is confident our acts can and will make a great difference. >> we believe that government matters and cities matter what we side in san francisco, california serve as a model phenomenal in our the rest of the country by the world. >> whether you do not to goodwill those unwanted text told us or are sufficient value and the greater community will benefit. >> thanks to sf environment san francisco has over one hundred drop off locations visit recycle

damn and thanks for watching join us >> hi, i'm lawrence corn field. welcome to building san francisco. we have a special series, stay safe. we're looking at earthquake issues. and today we're going to be talking with a residential building owner about what residential building owners and tenants can and should do before earthquakes and after earthquakes. ♪ ♪ >> we're here at this wonderful spur exhibit on mission street in san francisco and i have with me today my good friend george. thanks for joining me, george.

and george has for a long time owned residential property here in san francisco. and we want to talk about apartment buildings and what the owner's responsibilities might be and what they expect their tenants to do. and let's start by talking a little bit about what owners can do before an earthquake and then maybe after an earthquake. >> well, the first thing, lawrence, would be to get together with your tenants and see if they have earthquake insurance or any renters insurance in place because that's going to be key to protecting them in the event of a quake. >> and renters insurance, there are two kinds of insurance. renters insurance coffers damage to goods and content and so forth. earthquake insurance is a separate policy you get after you get renters insurance through the california earthquake authority, very inexpensive. and it helps owners and it helps tenants because it gives relocation costs and it pays their rent. this is a huge impact on building owners. >> it's huge, it really is.

you know, a lot of owners don't realize that, you know, when there is an earthquake, their money flow is going to stop. how are they going to pay their mortgages, how are they going to pay their other bills, how are they going to live? >> what else can property owners do in residential rental housing before an earthquake? >> well, the first thing you want to do is get your property assessed. find out what the geology is at your site. get an expert in to look at structural and nonstructural losses. the structural losses, a lot of times, aren't going to be that bad if you prepare. an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. get in there and get your property assessed and figure it out. >> so, what is a nonstructural issue that might cause losses? >> well, you know, pipes, for instance. pipes will whip around during an earthquake. and if they're anchored in more numerous locations, that whipping won't cause a breakage that will cause a flood. >> i've heard water damage is a

major, major problem after earthquakes actually. >> it is. that's one of the big things. a lot of things falling over, ceilings collapsing. but all of this can be prevented by an expert coming in and assessing where those problem areas and often the fixes are really, really cheap. >> who do you call when you want to have that kind of assessment or evaluation done? >> the structural engineering community is great. we have the structural engineers association of northern california right here in san francisco. they're a wealth of information and resources. >> what kinds of things might you encourage tenants to do besides simply get tenants renters insurance and earthquake insurance, what else do you think tenants should do? >> i think it's really important to know if they happen to be in the building where is the safest place for them to go when the shaking starts. if they're out of the building, whats' their continuity plan for connecting with family? they should give their

emergency contact information to their resident manager so that the resident manager knows how to get in touch. and have emergency supplies on hand. the tenants should be responsible to have their extra water and flashlights and bandages and know how to use a toilet when there's no sewage and water flows down. and the owners of the building should be proactive in that regard as well. >> so, george, thank you so much for joining us. that was really great. and thanks to spur for hosting us here in this wonderful exhibit. >> good morning, everyone. i'm barbara ga sierra, the director of health and i'm be your m.c. this morning and i want to thank you all for being here today for this program announcement. and i want to thank victoria manner, one of our incredible care facilities, for hosting us this morning. and so we have several distinguished leaders with us

this morning. and our mayor london breed, we hope to have our president of the board of supervisors malia cohen. and our new supervisor rafael mandelman and the owner of the victorian manner bernadette joseph. bernadette is the second generation of owners of this type of facilities and we really appreciate her family's commitment to the communities that we serve. our residential care homes are very important form of housing in san francisco, providing compassionate support for our community who live independently. the department of health, the department of aging, and i want to acknowledge that we have our department heads with us today. and both departments depend on these homes and facilities to ensure our clients are safe and that they get the care that they need. so we're so fortunate to work and live in a city that cares -- cares for its most vulnerable community members. our strongest leaders for this

is our own mayor, mayor london breed. mayor breed is committed to ensuring those facing behavioral and health challenges are provided care and housing that they need. so please welcome mayor london breed. [applause] >> mayor breed: thank you, barbara, and thank you, everyone, for being here today. i'm really excited to be here and as mayor i have made it clear that one of my top priorities is to not only address many of the challenges that we face with so many people struggling with mental illness, but, more importantly, to address issues of homelessness. we have to make sure that we invest in preventing homelessness in the first place. and we know that this particular facility, along with so many others throughout our city, continue to struggle financially. they struggle financially due to

lack of funding from the state, from the federal government, and what that means is that time and time again in our city we need to figure out ways in which we can continue to support the great work that this facility is doing and others like it. so today i'm really proud to announce that we're investing over $1 million over the next two years from one-time revenue to stabilize residential care facilities that support our most vulnerable population throughout san francisco. [applause] and, let me tell you what it will do. it will help 37 residential care facilities and house more than 350 people in our city, including many of our seniors. some of these people suffer with serious behavioral health and medical issues. many have a history of homeless

homelessness. and we know again that the best solution is it to prevent homelessness in the first place. one of the care providers that support one of the ones that will receive funding as we said before is victoria manor which we are here today, located in district 5, which is now represented by supervisor brown. this place has 90 beds and it serves 26 clients for the department of public health. the facilities like these have been under strain as i said in terms of lack of funding and the city currently spends $2.5 million through the department of public health to provide supplemental funding to close the spending gap. and i want to, again, i appreciate barbara g garcia for identifying where the needs are and making sure that we are using city resources in the most efficient way to support this community. but this is a complex issue

which requires a holistic approach to look at now and the financial challenges of the future. and this additional funding is a down payment and demonstrates our commitment to ensure that these providers can care for and to serve our community. the department of aging and adult services is convening a working group along with the department of public health and the office of economic and workforce development to analyze the current demand and study options to meet the needs of the future throughout this city. i expect to hear recommendations by the end of this year and until then this funding will help to ensure that we continue to serve hundreds of san francisco residents who would otherwise be at risk of homelessness and who would otherwise not be able to care for themselves. i want to thank the supervisors who are here today for their tireless work in preparing this coming fiscal year's budget, who is now our board president and

was leader during this budget time, she was also the finance chair, supervisor malia cohen. and i am hoping to sign this into law hopefully soon and i have sent a letter to president cohen outlining my support for this funding and how we're able to move forward in our shared priorities. we know that there's a lot of work to do and it takes a village. it takes a lot of our departments it takes members of the board of supervisors, and i'm glad to be joined by someone who has been my partner although he's just joined the board of supervisors, supervisor rafael mandelman who has really been a champion for issues around mental health. we're so grateful for his support here today. and i also want to take this opportunity to acknowledge roma guy who has also been an incredible advocate behind mental health reforms and pushing for more mental health stabilization beds in our city to, again, care for our most

vulnerable population of citizens in san francisco. with that i'd like to provide an opportunity for the president of the board, president malia cohen, to say a few words. [applause] >> thank you, and good morning, ladies and gentlemen. what a wonderful day, mayor breed, also a fantastic start. this is exciting news. i'm thrilled to join the mayor as well as my colleagues, supervisor mandelman and supervisor brown, as well as my partners in the department of public health that are standing up here with me, to announce this $100 million for board and care. san francisco has always been a city that has been committed to supporting our most vulnerable residents. you know what, we haven't stopped yet. we're actually recommitting and reaffirming that commitment today. this year i'm proud that the -- that our budget process was, quite frankly, most transparent.

and policy driven. a collaborative process that we have seen to date. in the month leading up to the budget we spoke with community activists, we have spoken with our residents, we polled our residents and, of course, we surveyed the colleagues on the board of supervisors. resoundingly without a doubt we have heard that homelessness is a top priority for particularly those who are suffering mental health issues. we have a responsibility to keep our residents, to help them to remain in healthy condition, and it's a top priority of ours and we want to have them in a safe place to live and access to care and treatment. and so it is actually through our policy-driven process that we allocated $47 million in additional funding for homelessness. i think that is an important figure to note. the board of supervisors has directed over $4 million towards

housing and homeless solutions and it's going to manifest itself in several ways, ways that you will be able to see instantly. first, in housing subsidies for families and seniors, mental health services and street medicine teams, patch the funding for residential care facilities. that's a critical one. patch 23u7din funding for residl care facilities. and also for those facing eviction. so this additional million dollars for the board and care facilities is without a doubt welcomed. it's a welcomed investment to help 355 san franciscoians facing displacement and also dealing with mental illness. this is directly aligned with the board's budget priorities and our commitment to ending homelessness and ensuring that our most vulnerable residents are safe, healthy and housed. thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. [applause]

>> thank you, president cohen, it was one of the best budget processes i have been involved in so thank you. we are so fortunate today to have our board member from this district, i have worked with her for many years and we're very proud to bring her up to the podium. [applause] >> thank you. thank you to everyone that is here today. the residents of victoria manor. and also thank you mayor breed for finding this additional million funding to help our board and care facilities throughout the city. and president cohen and supervisor mandelman, thank you for supporting this. i think that it's so important. i have to thank roma guy and barbara garcia because anytime that i have questions they're the boots on the ground and i call them. i want to just thank you for all of of the years tha