committee and i have numbers. >> i'm sorry. i don't have it but i will funnish it. >> supervisor cohen: just seems like you would bring all the information. [please stand by].

>> it was delayed until the 25th, which is two days from now. >> right, and do you understand why it was delayed? >> concerns about the transit center. >> yes. and has anyone reached out to the chair of the budget committee? >> i'm not sure. >> you're not sure, thank you. >> thank you, commissioner cohen. it's questions like that and responses like that, that is precisely why item 11 is on the calendar. it's time for a time-out. why don't we open this up for public comment. i have a number of speaker cards here on this matters. rowan, david, james, thank you for your comments in this morning's paper, mr. mcgill.

james patrick, peter strauss, and bob finebaum. >> hello again, commissioners. now, to your question, supervisor peskin, i think it was four years ago i brought up the fact that a similar amount in new york, the world trade transit center generated a billion and a half for a 99-year lease and i'm not sure what happened in san francisco. the top priority is to restore public confidence in the structural integrity of the transit center before we resume bus operations. the best way to manage the structures is acoustic monitoring, because steel and the stress emits low frequency sound waves before cracks can be detected like conventional methods. structural acoustic monitoring

is implemented by the installation of microphones on a steel elements of a structure and then later triangulation was used to warn of the formation of multiple cracks in the bridge and was recommended by the bay bridge peer review group to monitor rods and cables in the new bay bridge three years ago. please ask m.t.c. to direct the peer review group to implement for transit center and consider requesting limited proposals for implementation system. in closing, with regards to phase two, i strongly support the motion, but i also believe that the new transbay connection to the east bay has to take priority over high proceed rail and lightrail and as soon as you start studying this, the sooner

you'll realize that you have some serious issues about the way that you're approaching the train box by the second street alignment. thank you. >> chairman peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you, chairman peskin and commissioners. i'm david sung, an architect, we're a small san francisco design architectural firm. in the interest of full disclosure and transparency, we are part of the d.t.x. design team and -- but the reason i'm speaking up is not so much that we're part of this team, but i'm speaking up as a citizen and as a daily commuter on caltrain, and i've seen plans for the d.t.x. extension, setting aside my personal involvement that,

you know, this extension is critical infrastructure transit project that we all know is needed here in san francisco and in the region, and that you all discussed earlier today, you know, about the congestion that's, you know, part of the problem of this area. and i think this project will go a long way to alleviate that, and it's my opinion that, you know, the merits and the goals that you're trying to achieve in this resolution can be achieved, you know, without the draconian pressure of actually suspending funding to the d.t.x. project, which only further delays the critical infrastructure project. so, i urge the board to reconsider this resolution and that we're, you know, opposed to it. thank you. >> chairman peskin: thank you, sir. next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm jim patrick with

patrick and company of san francisco. i believe the goals we have are to bring the trains to the transit center as soon as we can. that is a key goal. you've supported the r.a.v. report, you felt that was an important issue. by delaying this, we run the risk of having a very expensive bus terminal. we need to position ourselves to be moving on to oakland and across the bay, and we're not even thinking about that. what's the effect of letting this design work, which is what's being proposed here? we delay the trains to the transit center maybe by a year, maybe by three years, maybe never. that's what we've achieved for the last 100 years, never. we haven't gotten the trains downtown. we delay our housing. we're going to put housing on the railroad yards. is that going to be delayed another year or two or three

years? we delay this issue of crossing at 16th street. a big permanent problem. we increase the total plans of whatever we end up doing with the inflation increase and construction cost. we delay the integration of mission bay with portrero hills, bringing that area together, which is one of the great things the study will achieve. we delay the funding sources. we don't have the e.i.r. in place, we can't go out and get funding. it's a great idea to be mad at a problem, but the implement and solution we're proposing here is not a good one. we need to continue the process, analyze the problem, and make a fix. the fix is not delay, and i'm going to withhold money and i don't like it. vote no on this resolution. thank you. >> chairman peskin: thank you, sir. next speaker, please.

>> commissioners, ron miguel. the last time i came before you was chair of the r.a.v. study, and i appreciate your acceptance of it. i'm here to speak strictly on the resolution of item 11. it's my understanding that what has to be done or should be done in the process would be for the comptroller's office to conduct an evaluation of the tjpa's management delivery, star perform a review of alternative oversight and governance models, and that those studies be put before you in order to go forward. chronicle was nice enough to quote me at the end of the article in today's paper, and basically what i said is, i would not like to see this project derailed.

that's an understatement. and i like to see it start up again in at least six months, but not three years. the previous makers have mentioned the fact that we have to move ahead and not delay it any longer than necessary. that necessary is very true, and i thank president peskin for considering that. you don't go ahead with the same people who are under question until those questions have been decided. and, again, please not three years. >> chairman peskin: thank you, mr. miguel. next speaker. >> first of all, best way to take care of this confusion were documents haven't been presented to you pretending to both negative and cash flow of the project. i believe it would be ideal if this board, when calling a

hearing, not only pertaining to this matter, but any other matter, is to instruct the respondents to supply documents pertaining to both positive and negative cash flow, so you can pinpoint exactly how much progress is being made and how much debt is being made. and as far as this overrun extension and more time to complete the project, the developers got nobody to blame but themselves for that. the developer knows how long it's going to take to complete a project, and it should be a protection clause in there to protect the city if the debt line is not met by the developer, any additional expenses must be paid by the developer. now, about this beam, this might be an exception on the grounds that the organization that fabricated this beam might have used materials that didn't meet

the american society of testing materials is concerned. that's probably why that beam is defective. but the developers got nobody but themselves to blame when they don't meet a deadline that was targeted on a contract that they bid for and claimed that they would have the project completed at a specific date. you got nobody but to blame but yourself for that. now you want to spend more money, and as a result the city's supposed to pay for it. and you're getting a $260 million loan on top of that, plus interest, you got nobody to blame but yourselves for that. >> chairman peskin: next speaker. >> good morning, chair peskin, commissioners. my name is bruce agad, chair of the tjpacac, member of the community working groups and board member and transportation rep of the south beach recognition bay association.

first i'd like to thank chair peskin for moving this resolution forward. this is an example of good governance, which is so much appreciated. with that said, until the d.t.x. is completed, both caltrain and high-speed rail will use 4th and king as their northern terminus. with additional ridership associated with caltrain e lin 2 and high-speed rail in 2027, the station and neighborhood won't be able to safely and efficiently handle the anticipated volume of passengers, residents, workers, and visitors without major infrastructure and station improvements. this is problematic from both a passenger and community perspective, and a basis for this it recommendation. to have the d.t.x. completed by 2027, i would recommend that we

move forward with the items identified in the resolution in parallel with continuing the 30% design. if it's determined a different oversight and governance model is identified and preferred, plans could be made at that time to transition this work to the new structure. thank you. >> chairman peskin: thank you. next speaker. >> good morning, i'm peter strauss, i'm on the board of the san francisco transit riders and also working with the friends of d.t.x. there are a number of us down here on item 11, and i think you'll hear some differences in the particulars we're recommending, but what we're all saying, i think, is that we recognize we acknowledge the need for you to exercise your due diligence over this project, but at the same time we all agree that the schedule and momentum for completing the downtown extension must be maintained. one month ago i stood here and tried to remind you that we all bemoan the latest projects at

their completion, but whether it is housing or transportation, it is at the beginning of the project that we have the most control, the most ability to exercise delays in project momentum and ultimately project delivery. i would urge you to consider alternatives to a shutdown, such as you did with construction management of the transbay transit center, for instance, you might consider asking mohammed to have his department review invoices and task orders while you conduct your due diligence rather than shutting down the process at this point. at any rate, i very much urge you to consider how best to maintain the momentum of this project as your due diligence proceeds with minimal impact on the critical path for project delivery. thank you. >> chairman peskin: thank you, mr. strauss. next speaker. >> commissioners, i'm jim haas,

i was a member of the r.a.b. working group, and as some of you recall, i appeared a number of times over the last decade about this project. and, of course, we were reaping what has -- what we sowed long ago by not paying attention to it. the basic problem was that the first executive director kept the project and the agency under wraps. she asserted it was not a city agency, and she did her best to keep the city out of the project, as some of you are well aware. including the mayor at the time. and so, you know, a lot of what went on occurred because nobody knew what was going on. there's an old expression that says, a power deserves scrutiny, not gratitude, and i think that your desire to change the bureaucracy around is not as important as developing a way to scrutinize what is going on.

to open it up to the largest extent with technical and public involvement. so along with my colleagues worried about the time frame, i, too, would like to see some of the work continued and would rather than six months, 90 days to figure out if you're going to change the bureaucracy around, and please don't try to construct something that needs new state legislation and all that sort of thing that would take years, because it's important that we have a finished plan with the engineering and the environmental work done, even if we don't have the money to build it, because if we have that in place, then we're going to have a better chance to get the money to build it. so scrutiny, in my view, is the most important thing that should be looked at in the next several weeks. >> chairman peskin: thank you, mr. haas. next speaker, please. if there are any other members of the public on this item, if you line up to my left, your right. >> i'm bob finebaum, the

president of save muni. we are very definitely supporters of the downtown extension of caltrain. we agree with the r.a.b. study, which had a timeline that showed this project could be delivered with caltrain coming to the transbay center at the end of 2026 or beginning of 2027. but it cannot be delivered if you halt the funding. this is a separable matter, ladies and gentlemen. on the one hand is the governance side of it, which the comptroller and the t.a. staff and others can weigh in on, but on the other side is a strictly technical matter, which are the engineering drawings for the 30%

design of the d.t.x. that should go forward in parallel with your discussion about the govern, and i think that if you adopt the resolution as it's stated, you should add one other organization to the review, and that would be the coroner's office, because clearly you will be killing the d.t.x., thank you. >> chairman peskin: thank you, seeing no other members of the public, we'll close public comment. let me ask you a question relative to some of the speakers. phase two, downtown extension, estimated cost is? >> $4 billion. >> chairman peskin: and that does not include grade separations? >> does not include grade separations. that's based on a 2016 cost

estimate, supervisor, and we've been working with staff on funding to update the cost estimate after we do the 30% design. >> chairman peskin: and grade separations are worth over a billion dollars, $2 billion? >> based on the r.a.b. study. >> chairman peskin: so we're looking at a project that's north of $6 billion. is that a fair statement? >> as we currentliest mate. we would need to do some more assessments and establish a program based on that, and that's the allocated previously for us and discussion today. our focus is the $4 billion, not the $6 billion. we have a billion dollars in starts and another billion in local and other funding, and we're looking to have

discussions with high-speed rail and caltrain on passing a facilities charge for folks that would use the trains from the 4th and king station and to a transit center that would also generate approximately $2 billion over time that we can -- >> supervisor, the reason i'm asking these questions, i want to make it clear that this project is not fully funded. we're all committed to getting it fully funded, but i'm saying that by virtue of the fact that -- and let me associate myself with some of the comments, which is one commenter said the right time to get it right is at the very beginning, and so this kind of is the very beginning, albeit we've already allocated over $50 million. and the whole notion that this is just engineering work actually engineers work as instructed, so transbay was designed -- the terminal was

designed by engineers, but we could have given them very different instructions and had a building that cost a lot less money and didn't crack, so i agree that this is -- let me also associate myself with the comments of the individual who said that the agency was not very transparent, didn't work with the city and county of san francisco, and that's precisely why having a governance structure that is willing to stand up to that kind of a culture, i think, makes imminent sense at the front end. this is not designed to be -- by the way, the only tool that we have to fix this is money, and my fear is, if we give them continued money, then they will continue down their same old path. i realize that, again, this didn't happen on his watch or not entirely, but the notion of having the city comptroller conduct an evaluation of tjpa's

management and delivery of phase one and having our own staff come up with governance models that would be ant thetical to that kind of veil of secrecy and lack of oversight is precisely what we will get if we withhold money, and i hope that we can do it in a handful of months, but we finally have their attention, and i think it would be fool hardy to not use that leverage while we've got it. with that. >> i want to clarify a couple of things, there is a change of leadership at the tjpa, and you're aware of that. i started two years ago, i've been transparent with all our stakeholders, including executive director chang and her staff. they are embedded in our team. we have biweekly meetings with them, we have peer reviews together. for me, it's been a matter of oversight, a matter of importance resource that i have available for me that i've been using. so, just to, you know, just to

be fair, the organization has changed and is changing and i've mentioned before in front of this board that moving forward with phase two, this would be a collaborative effort with all the stakeholders, including m.t.c. and caltrain. i do support your call for the san francisco city comptroller's office to conduct an evaluation of the management and delivery of the transit center. i think that's fair. i think it's valuable to have that, because it will give us valuable lessons learned that we can incorporate for phase two. i also support the efforts to review alternative oversights and governance structure. we welcome that effort. we welcome any effort to strengthen the t.g.p. organization, but we recently added high-speed rail to provide us the strategic leadership that we need to deliver phase two, so currently we have numbers from the city and county of san francisco, two members on the

board from the state of california, one is high-speed rail and one is caltrans. we also have caltrain and transit. having said that, i'm sure my board will welcome any ideas to enhance the leadership of the board. having said that, i think we can all do these things in parallel with moving the 30% design so that we're not incurring any delays. and more importantly, not losing any opportunities for funding. we are losing funding opportunities. we had a very good funding opportunity with s.b. 1. however, we did not have the environmental document approved in time, so we lost that opportunity. so i think moving forward in parallel, in cooperation, will enable us to stay on schedule and capture any funding opportunities that may arise, as well as satisfy your concerns on the project. thank you for giving me the opportunity to address this. >> chairman peskin: thank you. any comments from commissioners? commissioner tang.

>> commissioner tang: thank you. and i definitely hear your comments, but i think from this board at least, or this body, you know, i think that there has been a lack of confidence on a wider scale, and so i think that at this time we would feel -- i would feel comfortable moving forward with such a resolution in terms of this authorization until, i think, that all of us can feel more confident in how it is that we move forward. there has been a lot that's happened in the past, and so if there are future updates where you can restore that level of commitment to us, i think then we would be more than happy to move forward more funds. so, i will be supportive of this resolution. >> chairman peskin: thank you, commissioner. are there any other questions or comments from commissioners? seeing none on item 11, a roll call, please. >> clerk: motion? >> chairman peskin: is there a motion to move item 11, seconded by commissioner brown? colleagues on that motion made and seconded, a roll call,

please. [ roll call ] we have final approval. >> chairman peskin: thank you for that, colleagues, and is there any introduction of new items? seeing none, is there any general public comment? mr. wright. >> yeah, i want to speak up about the matter close to millions of dollars that's being spent on bicycle paths that's

located on treasure island. i believe some of that money should be spent on testing the soil materials that the youth and lessons and adults, as well, that's going to be using this path to test the soil, which i believe is contaminated because a lot of that soil comes from the hunter's point naval shipyard. and also, this demonstration pertaining to contracts and taxes, you've got a differential treatment that you're applying to taxes. you want to tax certain organizations, and then you turn around and don't tax the corporations that's a multitrillion, billion dollar organization and you're applying taxes to companies that's head is nowhere as far in their area of profit as the high-tech

companies. it's not fair. you can't have a situation about one company but not enjoyed by another. i spoke about that company called chariot, where they just have an employee that was killed by a negligent driver. they came in here and made pleas to be excused from paying payroll taxes and highlighted by the m.t.a., and yet they cannot be exempt from payroll taxes, because they get along with the m.t.a., but yet you turn around and exempt the high-tech companies from payroll taxes, giving them a break. they don't need a break. since when does a mul multi trillion, billion dollar corporation need a break? the people that need a break is the people that's most vulnerable, who you campaign and say that you want to help get situated in the city. >> bob finebaum from save muni.

well, you've done the wrong thing, but i hope you realize that what you've also done is criticized and commented about the tjpa board. the tjpa board is controlled by the city of san francisco -- >> chairman peskin: so, i don't want to interrupt you, but in as far as item 11 has been discussed, this is general public comment, so if you want to make general public comment, you can, but you can't talk about something already on the agenda and we had public comment on. >> this is general public comment, because the tjpa board is controlled by the city of san francisco and by adopting that resolution, you are also adopting a vote of no confidence on the tjpa board. you should realize that. >> chairman peskin: thank you for those comments. seeing no other public comment, public comment is closed, and the t.a. is adjourned, but

please stick around, because we're going to reconvene as timma for one item. >> clerk: timma board meeting will start in five minutes. [ five-minute break ]

good afternoon, colleagues, and welcome to the most exciting part of our day today, the board meeting of the treasure island mobility management agency. please contain your excitement. our clerk today is alberto quintanilla, and i'd like to take a moment to thank felix and charles at sfgov tv for broadcasting our meeting and ensuring it is available online. mr. clerk, do we need to take roll? >> clerk: yes. [ roll call ]

>> chairwoman kim: can you call items two, three, and four together? >> clerk: items two, items three, item four, approve the minutes of the june 26, 2018 meeting. this is an action item. >> chairwoman kim: thank you, colleagues, this meeting is somewhat apropos after our deep dive and discussion into congestion management and mobility management in our sfcta committee meeting, and this is really our first foray into introducing a mobility management program on treasure island, and create a revenue source to fund a brand new ferry and bus service, as well as autonomous shuttles to policy frontiers related to tolling and

equitable access. earlier this month i joined my colleagues who represent districts that border the 180, i'm sorry, the 80, the 101, and the 280, and we, along with our san mateo policymakers, traveled to los angeles to study the experiencing with tolling and another context that of freeway express lanes. we toured and learned about l.a.'s decision-making approach for the 10 freeway, which was experiencing heavy congestion, as well as generating harmful emissions in the neighborhoods adjacent to the 10 back in 2012. and i want to thank supervisitors mandelman, ronen, cohen, for attending this trip. we also learned it's as much about congestion as the health of our residents.

the world health organization estimates up to 80% of residents around the world are caused more than 3 million premature deaths worldwide every year, and so it's important for us to address air quality. at this time i want to open up for the executive director's report. director chance, who is shaking her head. >> thank you so much. i'll submit that online and forego the verbal presentation. >> chairwoman kim: thank you. the clerk has also called an action item, approval of minutes. are there corrections to the minutes or comments from colleagues? seeing none, we'll open up public comment for items 2, 3, and 4. seeing no public comment, public comment is now closed. colleagues, can we take action on the item? we have a motion from commissioner fewer, second from commissioner yee, and let's take a roll call on this item.

>> clerk: on item 4. [ roll call ] we have final approval. >> chairwoman kim: and the item passes. mr. clerk, can you please call the next item? >> clerk: item 5, approve a three-year professional services contract with hntb corporation in an amount not to exceed $250,000 for conceptual system design, operations oversight, and evaluation services for the treasure island autonomous vehicle shuttle pilot program. this is an action item. >> chairwoman kim: this was heard at committee and is incredibly exciting. it will be the first time our city launches or pilots an autonomous shuttle program here in san francisco, and so this is just to begin the design

operation oversight and evaluation services. we have mike tan here if anyone has any questions or comments. seeing none, we'll open up for public comment on this item. seeing no public comment, public comment is now closed on item number 5. mr. clerk, can we do same house, same call? >> clerk: motion and a second? >> chairwoman kim: sorry, we have a motion from commissioner yee, a second from commissioner peskin. >> clerk: we can take it same house. >> chairwoman kim: same house, same call. mr. clerk, can you call items 6 and 7? >> clerk: item 6 is an information item, item 7, public comment. >> chairwoman kim: colleagues, are there any new items you would like to introduce today? seeing none, public comments on items number 6 and also general public comment at this time. seeing no public comment, public comment is now closed for item 6 and 7. mr. clerk, any other items before this board? >> clerk: item 8, adjournment.

>> chairwoman kim: seeing none, this meeting is adjourned. see you all at 2:00 p.m.

>> i personally love the mega jobs. i think they're a lot of fun. i like being part of a build that is bigger than myself and outlast me and make a mark on a landscape or industry. ♪ we do a lot of the big sexy jobs, the stacked towers, transit center, a lot of the note worthy projects. i'm second generation construction. my dad was in it and for me it

just felt right. i was about 16 when i first started drafting home plans for people and working my way through college. in college i became a project engineer on the job, replacing others who were there previously and took over for them. the transit center project is about a million square feet. the entire floor is for commuter buses to come in and drop off, there will be five and a half acre city park accessible to everyone. it has an amputheater and water marsh that will filter it through to use it for landscaping. bay area council is big here in the area, and they have a gender equity group. i love going to the workshops. it's where i met jessica. >> we hit it off, we were both

in the same field and the only two women in the same. >> through that friendship did we discover that our projects are interrelated. >> the projects provide the power from san jose to san francisco and end in the trans bay terminal where amanda was in charge of construction. >> without her project basically i have a fancy bus stop. she has headed up the women's network and i do, too. we have exchanged a lot of ideas on how to get groups to work together. it's been a good partnership for us. >> women can play leadership role in this field. >> i tell him that the schedule

is behind, his work is crappy. he starts dropping f-bombs and i say if you're going to talk to me like that, the meeting is over. so these are the challenges that we face over and over again. the reality, okay, but it is getting better i think. >> it has been great to bond with other women in the field. we lack diversity and so we have to support each other and change the culture a bit so more women see it as a great field that they can succeed in. >> what drew me in, i could use more of my mind than my body to get the work done. >> it's important for women to network with each other, especially in construction. the percentage of women and men in construction is so different. it's hard to feel a part of something and you feel alone. >> it's fun to play a leadership

role in an important project, this is important for the transportation of the entire peninsula. >> to have that person -- of women coming into construction, returning to construction from family leave and creating the network of women that can rely on each other. >> women are the main source of income in your household. show of hands. >> people are very charmed with the idea of the reverse role, that there's a dad at home instead of a mom. you won't have gender equity in the office until it's at home. >> whatever you do, be the best you can be. don't say i can't do it, you can excel and do whatever you want. just put your mind into it.

>> i love teaching. it is such an exhilarating experience when people began to feel their own creativity. >> this really is a place where all people can come and take a class and fill part of the community. this is very enriching as an artist. a lot of folks take these classes and take their digital imagery and turn it into negatives. >> there are not many black and white darkrooms available anymore. that is a really big draw. >> this is a signature piece. this is the bill largest darkroom in the u.s.. >> there are a lot of people that want to get into that dark room. >> i think it is the heart of this place. you feel it when you come in.

>> the people who just started taking pictures, so this is really an intersection for many generations of photographers and this is a great place to learn because if you need people from different areas and also everyone who works here is working in photography. >> we get to build the community here. this is different.

first of all, this is a great location. it is in a less-populated area. >> of lot of people come here just so that they can participate in this program. it is a great opportunity for people who have a little bit of photographic experience. the people have a lot, they can really come together and share a love and a passion. >> we offer everything from traditional black and white darkrooms to learning how to process your first roll of film. we offer classes and workshops in digital camera, digital printing. we offer classes basically in the shooting, ton the town at night, treasure island. there is a way for the programs

exploring everyone who would like to spend the day on this program. >> hello, my name is jennifer. >> my name is simone. we are going on a field trip to take pictures up the hill. >> c'mon, c'mon, c'mon. >> actually, i have been here a lot. i have never looked closely enough to see everything. now, i get to take pictures. >> we want to try to get them to be more creative with it. we let them to be free with them but at the same time, we give them a little bit of direction.

>> you can focus in here. >> that was cool. >> if you see that? >> behind the city, behind the houses, behind those hills. the see any more hills? >> these kids are wonderful. they get to explore, they get to see different things. >> we let them explore a little bit. they get their best. if their parents ever ask, we can learn -- they can say that they learned about the depth of field or the rule of thirds or that the shadows can give a good contrast. some of the things they come up

with are fantastic. that is what we're trying to encourage. these kids can bring up the creativity and also the love for photography. >> a lot of people come into my classes and they don't feel like they really are creative and through the process of working and showing them and giving them some tips and ideas. >> this is kind of the best kept secret. you should come on and take a class. we have orientations on most saturdays. this is a really wonderful location and is the real jewel to the community. >> ready to develop your photography skills? the harvey milk photo center focuses on adult classes. and saturday workshops expose youth and adults to photography

classes. >> i moved into my wonderful, beautiful, affordable housing march 7th. i have lived in san francisco since i was two-years-old. i've lived in hunters view for 23 to 24 years now. my name is vlady. i use titus and i am the resident commissioner for the san francisco housing facility. from the very beginning, this whole transition of public housing and affordable housing

was a good idea. but many, many residents didn't think it would ever actually happen. it's been a life changing experience. and i'm truly grateful for the whole initiative and all those that work on the whole sf initiative. they've done a wonderful job accommodating the residents, who for many years have lived in delap tated housing. now they have quality housing. i was on a street where the living room and the kitchen and stairs. it wasn't large enough to accommodate. the children are grown. i had the accomplish of having a dishwasher in my home. i really like that. [laughter] i really like not having to wash dishes by hand. we still do it from time to time. the mayor's office has been a real friend to us, a partner.

we know that our city supports us. i love san francisco. just to be able to stay in my community and continue to help the residents who live here and continue to see my neighborhoods move into new housing, it's been a real joy. it's been a real joy.