them. they must also contribute to public transit for the new residents and we are a transit-first city. so you have heard this comment before. this must be included. low-cost housing, must always

be included in any consideration of policy for new buildings. because otherwise you are going to get sprawl. so, thanks. >> good afternoon, supervisors, corey smith on behalf of the san francisco housing coalition, also in support. i won't really repeat my comments from the last time we gave comments on this but just one added component of the development economics, as you all know it's incredibly expensive to build housing -- or sorry, parking spots, it's expensive to build housing too, but that's a different conversation. we are talking about $75,000 per underground stall. this is a huge, huge cost for home builders to include it. often times we always try to encourage to do bike parking and as many transit options as possible. no-brainer, i think is the word

i used last time and reiterating that today. please support it and move it forward. thank you. >> hello, supervisors, my name is scott feeney. i am mission resident, i'm with -- mobility, also in support of the legislation. i want to thank supervisor kim for writing this and paul chasan for running the meeting, i think it's great work. this accomplishes two great goals for climate action. one by lowering the cost. also enabling us to move away from cars as the default mode of transportation as we grow, we will always have cars but it doesn't need to be the main thing we assume people use most of the time, this is an important incremental step.

i hope you will vote yes. >> we ran an online petition in support of this ordinance where we got 47 people to support, so we would like to thank supervisor kim for providing this important change. i live in a 33-unit building that has zero parking spaces and the reason it is that way, it was built in 1928 when there were no parking minimums. buildings like mine, you could probably technically build them now because the planning code is full of holes, you could say i will put in bike parking racks. or they will force me to have no parking, though they are also requiring me to have parking. this isn't how our planning code should work.

it incentivizes. meanwhile people who just have a house where they want to convert their garage to an a.d.u. say, wait i have to have a parking space, where am i going to put that? they don't know there's a loophole to put in a bike parking space and you don't have to have a parking space. i applaud this of the planning code and this effort to make our cities less car-centric. that's another reason the building was able to be built the way it was in 1928 because cars weren't the thing that they could build at the time. and honestly cities are better for it. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i hope supervisor safai comes back soon because i want him to hear this. i was actually on the phone with one of his legislative aide's recently and she was telling me how she wants her

kids to be able to live in san francisco, and i know a hurdle for myself and others are housing costs and one of the biggest drivers of housing costs happens to be parking, that's incredibly expensive to build. this is a moment where i feel we need to be politically expedient, we need to be brave and climate leaders by removing these parking requirements from the planning code, of course, this doesn't require developers to not build parking if they so choose. i want to thank supervisor kim for being a leader and bringing this to the board of supervisors and hopefully you will let it get out of committee. so thank you very much. >> good afternoon. my name is ariel fleischer and i'm a senior transportation -- at s.p.u.r., we promote good planning and government in the

bay area through education, research and add vo kay sy. -- advocacy. i'm here to ask you to support. we recommend the elimination of requirements that mandate a minimum number of parking spaces for new development. there is no good reason for the city to force the private market to produce parking spaces for every housing unit built. eliminating will reduce the cost of producing new housing and allow us to use our land more efficiently by replacing spaces for cars for spaces for people. requiring parking to be unbundled from homes in the city's area plab. -- plan. this should be pursued citywide. we urge you to support the legislation to eliminate minimum parking requirements. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors.

tom, executive director of livable city. we are here to urge you to support this legislation. as the case was made by paul and the folks from planning, this is an incremental step. not a big radical step. it's an incremental step, a journey that started in 1973, with the opening of b.a.r.t. where the city began to roll back the parking requirements that had been imposed in the 19 50's. the reason we have been rolling them back is a lot of the reasons you heard. they destroy streetscapes and neighborhoods. if you are concerned about green front yards, getting rid of minimum parking requirements is a great way to keep our front yards green, to keep neighborhoods urbane and walkable. process outlines a lot of different ways you could get exceptions for minimum parking requirements but also mentioned by the city attorney, everyone of those as is appealable. so to say you have to seek an exception to do the thing we

actually don't want you to do in the first place, we are going to require you to go through this exception process. it puts you in jeopardy, you could get dragged before the board of appeals by a neighbor or somebody who doesn't like what you are doing. this is much cleaner, much better to say these don't apply. that the parking requirement does not exist. i have never heard any real good arguments for minimum parking requirements. you hear people say it's hard to get around in my neighborhood. my other options aren't that robust. i'm sympathetic with that, i have walked, bicycled, took transit around the city for 30 years. those need to get better. we need to do better as a city. minimum parking requirements aren't the way to do that. if they were going to do that they would have done it sometime in the last 60 years. we need to invest in

sustainable -- >> good afternoon, supervisors, my name is john paul, i'm with livable city and a resident of district 5. i'm here to voice my support in eliminating minimum parking requirements. i believe, as paul mentioned, over the weekend with the climate report released by the white house, we can't stress enough this city has to do everything it can to curb emissions and i believe this policy helps us pave the way to do that. i was very fortunate my employer allowed, or provided the masks when we had the terrible davis smoke here in the city. i don't think everyone had that option. but my point there is that transportation emissions in california is not decreasing and i believe with taking away

minimum parking requirements we would take a step towards getting to a point where we don't need to be relying on our cars. it really allows us to focus on our other transportation modes that we should be focusing on and not ignoring any more. again, i voice to support this motion. thank you. >> greetings, supervisors. great to be here. i'm tamika shinya. with livable cities. grateful for livable cities for educating not only the world but our staff in terms of having a livable city and coming to meetings like this to represent that importance and also echoing with my colleague and the gentleman in terms of the last few weeks of the

weather and how it basically took effect and the reality [ please stand by... ]

it became so ever present we need to do something proactive

about climate change. we have an easy opportunity to start a conversation about the use of single-car ownership and how much that actually creates enormous amounts of emission for our state and the majority of our emissions are coming from vehicles. i do urge all of our leaders to take up this conversation and be the first major city here in the united states to remove the minimum parking requirements and start a dialogue how each community can make a sacrifice. towards the greater good and a climate we can all continue to live in. and i want to end on a note that i am from district 10, specifically the baby. so i very much appreciate how vital driving a car can be to

maintaining a job and life with children and i appreciate this is going to propel us to have those -- [bell ringing] >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm ellis rodgers a quarter century resident of district 6 and i'm the board president of walk san francisco. walk san francisco strongly supports this legislation and hopes it will unanimously pass out of this committee with a favorable recommendation. this is a triple win for people from san francisco and you can use the land for specific basis if parking is not needed the

sponsor can opt for more favorable public-serving amenities and also as has been said dramatically lowers development cost for projects that are not parking dependent and lower price which is is critically needed. finally, when parking is not fundamental to the project use, it encouraging project users to use habits more sustainable and walking and taking advantage of transit which we already invest in heavily and use shareable options. stim to the legislation would have a net effect of conflicts improving the likelihood it will achieve our vision and goals. and as a greater percentage of people opt for getting around

via other than single-family vehicles, we will reverse the unhealthy air quality now pervasive in too many neighborhoods. as others have said, now, every san franciscan knows what it's like to live in particle-laden air. some of us live adjacent to freeways and major arterials. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm karen allen a 24-year resident of noe valley and have children and two cannot afford to live in sfrans -- san francisco and the board president of livable city and support removing parking minimums and not only should you eliminate parking minimums, but you should think ahead to the

future when autonomous cabs, autonomous private electric cabs will make a lot of car use not necessarily anymore and there'll be a lot of parking we don't need. any parking built in my opinion, should be designed with a view to be able to be repurposed for housing or some other useful use in the future. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is jeff and i'm a d9 resident and here in support for removing minimum parking requirement. i want to reiterate the points brought up by other commenters as well as the planning commission this is a small step that makes a huge impact in the united states as the major city of san francisco it's sort of a beacon of hope for the rest of the city and the rest of country looks to us in terms of moving forward and being proactive

against climate change and the health of the world, the global climate and everything like that so san francisco can make a huge impact by having a small policy change here and i support it. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is jody maderis of walk san francisco. we're the 20-year-old pedestrian advocacy organization. i am here to strongly support this important amendment to amend parking minimums in san francisco and would like to express my thanks to supervisor kim and all the work she's done to bring this to this committee and i'm hopeful we can get this out of committee and bring it to the board soon to continue her legacy. and i also want to second that with supervisor kim to say, yes, i want to be the first major city in the united states

and lead the way for the environmental smart policy. it's important as you heard from what we ed -- experienced last week. it's a transit-first city and transit love first policy are and resonates with walk san francisco. i feel as an organization we do need to support this because we do need to start putting our chips in with the transit, walking and biking for us to be a real transit-first city and a vision zero city to eliminate traffic fatalities by 2024. we heard from you all at the last committee meeting you wanted us to do further outreach so walk san francisco with our allies and community partners, some you've seen here today, did additional outreach through our constituents and you should have [record scratch] received 50 support signatures

and sure you received more from other advocacy groups. in closing i hope you support this and pass this out of committee today. thank you very much. >> good afternoon, supervisors. howard stressan for the sierra club. i'm happy to be here to urge you to correct the mistake that is over 50 years old. in the '50s we passed minimum parking requirement and they say we need more parking and then there's too much congestion and now we're finally waking up. none of my neighbors are not here to say it's too early. no one is here to say they need their parking spaces and that's great you go forward and correct and we can remind them throughout the country, every place with mum -- minimum

parking and it was endless. you don't have to be a don shoop to know this stuff. >> i'm with the san francisco bicycle coalition. i'm here to express our strong support for the planning code amendments to eliminate minimum park requirements citywide. there were concerns brought up by supervisors tang and safai including the need for additional outreach and want to thank the staff for leading the way to host additional meetings to do just that and the legislation is not eliminating cars or making it more difficult to drive in san francisco. the reality is that it's already difficult to drive here. we have some of the worse congestion in the country and

really the choices we make as a city lead by you, our decision makers have already made it prohibitively expensive and difficult to drive in san francisco. given it's irresponsible that further induced demand for driving in our streets when there's congestion and parking already difficult in many neighborhood and transportation costs continue to rise with the region's cost of living. we want to thank supervisor kim for introducing the legislation to bring the parking code to modern day best practices and thanks commissioners peskin and brown for co-authorizing and urge you to move this forward on recommendation from the committee. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm robert i live in district 5.

i live at paige and fillmore in what used to be a single-family home. it was built 120 years ago back when there were no parking minimums. as a result instead of a garage there's a one-bedroom flat. if the building were built today we'd be crazy to require a parking space instead of housing. and it's something that we -- parking is something we concurrently allow but not something we should require. i want to read a quote from urban planning professor shoop from luke -- ucla comment. the buildings are the only indicators much park demand and fail to consider a building's location as an equally significant factor. some cities offer reductions in denser urban zones or near

frequent transit but they still do not account n for the ways they effect transportation choice. we heard from people from almost every district in san francisco. we need to eliminate parking requirements or minimum parking requirements. thank you. >> eileen brogan here from what's known as the outside lanes. i'm here with dino. she's a wanna-be dinosaur. she lives in south basin and is here today on her way to the capital planning committee meeting to speak on option 12. unfortunately, the p.u.c. wasn't able to stay at this meeting.

regarding this legislation, the majority of the committee is in the twilight of it's tenure on the board therefore i urge the committee to table the item so the new committee and new board in the new year would have the opportunity to weigh in on this. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. any other members of the public wish to comment? public comment is closed. supervisor safai. >> thank you, chair. i want to put some things on the record. the dates that were chosen for the community meetings, i got a letter from the district 11 council which comprises groups and nonprofits in district 11. the dates chosen were at the height of the air quality as noted in the presentation though that's a good example of the issues we're having with global warning and kept people from coming out. my biggest problem with the conversation is though i

fundamentally agree with many points made. we're talking about parking minimums, this is an important opportunity for those that are not as much on board as the people here today to be involved in the conversation. i spoke with president cohen. she had said her district was not involved in the conversation. i think it presents an opportunity for the planning department and sfmta to have get out and have a real conversation on what the impacts means for our city and what it means for development. i understand and the presentation was well laid out this is not taking away the opportunity for parking though in places like vernal heights that do have parking minimums i know they fought hard to have the parking minimums. it's one of the way they control for the larger sizes of houses. i know it's an important conversation to have and i wish

it wasn't feeling like this was being rushed. i think it's being rushed because it makes sense to the policy makers and planners and those on board with this policy in general but i think there's a lot of education that could go out and i think the city as a whole would benefit from it so i'm not in favor of moving the conversation in a fast way. i would really appreciate regardless of what the outcome in the meeting is today for there to be more outreach and conversation in the community so people understand what this means and what impacts it has and how it can impact the future development of san francisco as it relates to the conversation about the car. i think people are also misinterpreting and confusing the conversation around what this really means in terms of its policy impacts. and i think because of that misunderstanding i'm getting letters of opposition. i have folks asking me not to

support this today based on the policy. for myself, it's not about the policy per se but more about the conversation about what it means and how it will impact san francisco as a whole. those are my comments. >> thank you supervisor kim. >> i want to first address the comment about vernal heights f.u.d. we had search members of the vernal heights review board and they used the parking management to manage the sizes of new houses but the city no longer requires sponsors to add parking in vernal heights. legislation past roughly five years ago that allows anyone in any zoning district including the vernal heights f.u.d. to replace off-street car parking with bike parking. that is not part of the f.u.d. planning did go back to look at

the r.h.1 and it's not to be used for living space which puts additional pressure on space for size and by removing the requirement the space that would have gone to parking can now be counted towards a living space. removing the requirement can actually take away unnecessary parking and allow the proj sponsor to build more usable living space without expanding the building envelope. we had the conversation with those who came and our office is also following up with supervisor ronan and they stated they'd be happy to work with the residents on control if they need to be modified. we know monster home say -- is a

concern and they're looking to build as many housing units as possible and not just the largest homes possible. our office and the planning department did reach out to every single neighborhood and association and merchant association we were given and sometimes supervisors don't respond to us and i'm not sure what to do when that happens we can't guess. if the ordinance would have a larger impact, i would agree we should do more outreach. maybe because i'm coming off the tail of something it's hard to reach for an outreach is that i believe fairly minimum impact in san francisco because we have largely eliminate the minimum parking requirement city wide simply with a myriad of policies that we passed over the last eight years and certainly in allowing people to swap out car

parking with bike parking. so this is the path the city has been moving towards incrementally and so this would just finally make into reality cha -- what has been the policy. it will allow it to move through quickly and decrease the cost of housing and overall a positive for the city and for neighborhoods concern about the loss of parking and future developments i will say that from any experience as a supervisor if the neighborhood or supervisor asks the developer to build the parking, if it is allowed within the development parcel, my guess is the developer will build it and likely not get the support or approval it needs without meeting the needs of the neighborhood and the market should demand how much parking is needed and what i've seen in the district that i represent where we have eliminated minimum parking requirements is developers do continue to build

some parking but perhaps not as much as we might have required in the past simply because they believe the market demands it. if currently midsized project was required to build 13 parking spots, and really only needs nine, there's no reason we should require that developer to build 13 parking spots when that's not necessary. i think what you will largely see in the future is a scenario like that versus a developer building zero parking spots instead of 13. so i will ask the land use committee to move it forward to the full board. i'd like to move it forward with recommendation but would understand because it may be controversial we move it forward without recommendation but i do think the impact of this would be minimum however, the symbolic passage of the policy i think is huge far beyond the limits of our city where i think the

impact will be minimal i do think it could have a larger national ripple effect. we'd be the first major american city to pass the elimination of the minimum parking requirements. and think it's important as we talk about climate change as we fight this trump-denial agenda and show san francisco is a city that puts our residents and housing first over vehicles and parking. colleagues, i ask for your support on this ordinance and hope at minimum we can move it forward to the full board for an up or down vote. finally, i want to thank the members of the public that came today and came to the outreach meeting and wrote letters of support i want to thank those who helped work on the legislation, alice rodgers from the neighborhood association and cathy deluca and the planning

department for all their work in the outreach. >> thank you, supervisor, safai. >> just since you brought it up because i'm actually someone that's worked in vernal heights over there i want to ask a couple questions. so vernal heights no longer has a minimum parking requirement? >> it's still in the code but any required parking space can be substituted for bike parking. it makes that moot. if someone wants one car parked and they're required to have three, they can add two extra bike parking space. -- spaces. >> when was that added to the code? >> i didn't get the act date and we think it's three to five years but i think it's when we added the new bike requirements to the code and as part of that it was brought up at the commission hearing and voted on by the board.

>> okay. that was it. >> if i may, vernal heights has a reduction intend to address monster homes. it's not making the entire point moot it still has mass reduction. >> thank you. and i do want to acknowledge that at the last meeting the last land use committee meeting asked supervisor kim and staff to go out and talk with community moment b -- members. i appreciate you connect and held the meetings despite the challenge of the air quality meeting and holidays. i heard feedback. i know some of the folks you reached out to and were able to attend the meetings i think my whole thing was wanting them to understand what the policy

meant, not they objected. i agree with supervisor kim it will not impact district 4 but as we encourage people to get out of their cars whether it's district 4, 11 or 10, those that traditionally suffer from public trangs -- transportation issues we need to work on that every day and get complaints from residents and it needs to be coupled and residents in 11 and 10 will not want it to get out of their cars and it's a message we say over and over again to sfmta but i want to hone in on the message. for me i think i wanted that outreach done to community members to have the dialogue. if this was a removal of parking maximum i'd have more concerns

but it's not and i'm okay with sending this out of committee and out of respect for others who may want more committee outreach i'd like to send it out without a recommendation and that can continue from now to the board meeting. >> i'm personally committed to outreaching to other neighborhood associations and merchant associations where our office did not get the list in the previous round of inquiries so we'll make that request again today and will have time before the next supervisor meeting to do the outreach and phone calls. we did find that folks that came in initially questioning or opposing the ordinance, once they understand the mechanics of it, realized it would have an minimum impact so walked away neutral or supporting and i want to thank the planning department for spending all the time during

the dialogue and outreach because there's fear when parking comes out of the mouth and the word eye eliminating can also be scary for folks. i do want to agree with supervisor tang as someone who's lived in the sunset and we do need to improve our public transit infrastructure and protected bike lane infrastructure because if we're going eliminate or reduce parking storage and car usage in our city which absolutely should be the policy and direction of san francisco we have do everything we can to make other modes much transit viable in san francisco. i want to support supervisor tang's statement. i want to move this forward without recommendation to the full board and want to thank my colleagues for the supported and additional time. >> and do we need roll call or do it without objection? we'll do it without objection. thank you very much. madame clerk, are there any other items. >> that concludes our business for today. >> thank you, we are adjourned.

>> i have been living in san

francisco since 1957. i live in this area for 42 years. my name is shirley jackson, and i am a retirement teacher for san francisco unified school district, and i work with early childhood education and after school programs. i have light upstairs and down stairs. it's been remodelled and i like it. some of my floors upstairs was there from the time i built the place, so they were very horrible and dark. but we've got lighting. the room seems lighter. they painted the place, they cemented my back yard, so i won't be worried about landscaping too much.

we have central heating, and i like the new countertops they put in. up to date -- oh, and we have venetian blinds. we never had venetian blinds before, and it's just cozy for me. it meant a lot to me because i didn't drive, and i wanted to be in the area where i can do my shopping, go to work, take the kids to school. i like the way they introduced the move-in. i went to quite a bit of the meetings. they showed us blueprints of the materials that they were going to use in here, and they gave us the opportunity to choose where we would like to stay while they was renovating. it means a lot.

it's just that i've been here so long. most people that enjoyed their life would love to always retain that life and keep that lifestyle, so it was a peaceful neighborhood. the park was always peaceful, and -- i don't know. i just loved it. i wanted to be here, and i stayed. >> hi. my name is carmen chiu, san francisco's aelectricitied assessor. today, i want to share with you a property tax savings programs

for families called proposition 58. prop 58 was passed in 1986 and it was helped parents pass on their lower property tax base to their children. so how does this work? under california's prop 13 law, the value we use to calculate your property tax is limited to 2% growth peryear. but when ownership changes, prop 13 requires that we reassess properties to market value. if parents want to pass on their home or other property to their children, it would be considered a change in ownership. assuming the market value of your property has gone up, your children, the new owners, would pay taxes starting at that new higher level. that's where prop 58 comes in. prop 58 recognizes the transfer between parents and children so that instead of taxing your children at that new higher level, they get to keep your lower prop 13 value.

remember, prop 58 only applies to transfers between parents and children. here's how the law twines an eligible child. a biological child, a step child, child adopted before the age of 18, and a son-in-law or daughter-in-law. to benefit from this tax saving program, remember, you just have to apply. download the prop 58 form from our website and submit it to our office. now you may ask, is there a cap how much you can pass on. well, first, your principal residence can be excluded. other than that, the total tap of properties that can use this exclusion cannot exceed $1 million. this means for example if you have two other properties, each valued at $500,000, you can exclude both because they both fit under the $1 million cap. now what happens hwhen the totl value you want to pass on exceeds $1 million. let's say you have four

properties. three with current taxable value of $300,000 and one at $200,000, totaling $1.1 million in value. assuming that you decide to pass on properties one, two, and three, we would apply the exclusions on a first come, first served basis. you would deduct properties one, two, and three, and you would still have $100,000 left to pass on. what happens when you pass on the last property? this property, house four, has been existing value of 2 -- has an existing value of $200,000, and its existing property value is actually higher, $700,000. as i said, the value left in your cap is $100,000. when we first figure out your portion, we figure out the portion that can be excluded. we do that by dividing the exclusion value over the assessed value. in this case, it's 50%. this means 50% of the property will remain at its existing

value. meanwhile, the rest will be reassessed at market value. so the new taxable value for this property will be 50% of the existing value, which is 200,000, equaling 100,000, plus the portion reassessed to market value, which is 50% times $700,000, in other words, 350,000, with a total coming out to $450,000. a similar program is also available for prepping transfers fl interest r from grandparents to grandchildren. if you're interested in learning more visit our website or >> one more. [♪]

[♪]

[cheers and applause] >> wow. ladies and gentlemen, you give it up for the high school band. [cheers and applause] >> do we know how to have a good time in san francisco or what? [cheering] >> i also want to say thank you to the san francisco group for working with us to have what you saw when we first walked in. a giant dugout right here. [cheers and applause] let me tell you, i have never seen anything like this thing. this looks better than the last location. this looks better than the old

location. you really outdid yourself with the artwork, with the seating, with the buffet style food. we try to feed as many people as we can. this will be a great place to watch the giants game. to watch the warriors game, and to watch the 40 niners. [laughter] >> but nick and everyone here, thank you all so much for being here. this is absolutely incredible. you have an amazing group of young men who are representing san francisco well. that was an incredible performance. you have to do it for us again. take a bow and have a good time. make sure you get some food and enjoy yourself today. make sure that you come back to not only eat, but to donate toys so we can get toys out to kids on a regular basis. thank you, everyone. happy thanksgiving. [cheers and applause]

>> on the mural over here, we will take a picture in her baseball uniform. >> oh, my god. >> do you guys want to go over there? [laughter] >> assembly member to, do you want to say a few words? >> very briefly, first of all, where is it? thank you for giving us all an excuse to start drinking at 115 in the afternoon. [cheers and applause] >> madame mayor, i'm looking forward to working with you and catherine stefani and others. we will get a lot of business done here in left field. is that right? i have brought the certificate of honor from the california state of assembly because we do not want this day to go unrecognized by our state. this has been an incredible institution for six years.

remembering the legacy of someone who was an amazing, not just baseball player, but a community service member. i will say for a cultural note, he was an ambassador of baseball to asia. when i was trying out, my dad said, will you grow up to play baseball? and i said no. but because of him, he has brought so many people together and i very much appreciate what you are doing here. on behalf of the city and behalf of the state, thank you for everything you are doing or the community. we want to thank you and declared today to be, from the california state of assembly, lefty oh, dual's ballpark baseball buffet and café. congratulations for the grand opening. [cheering] >> thank you i would like to accept this on behalf of my dad

who passed away and our mayor who passed away too. i would like to accept this on their honor and on the honor of our great city of san francisco. because this is the reason that it is all about. we live in one of the greatest cities in the world and i want to thank the mayor and thank our assembly men and thank all of you who came. i like to keep it on the tradition that we learn here in san francisco. i am just one part of a small edge. one small part of a larger san francisco city. i want to thank -- there so many people to think here today. i want to thank two more people. actually, michael, who helped me build this place. [cheering] and all of our staff. because without them, i couldn't have done this. without our great city, i wouldn't even have done this.

thank you to san francisco. thank you ed lee. thank you to my dad. [cheers and applause] >> we have one more if his representative is here. could you come forward? >> hello. i wanted to recognize the grand reopening. thank you again on behalf of the california -- thank you. >> i would like everyone to stay in place while the cameras proceed to a center for the picture with london in her baseball outfit, and then you can all come out. all right?

>> i view san francisco almost as a sibling or a parent or something. i just love the city. i love everything about it. when i'm away from it, i miss it like a person. i grew up in san francisco kind of all over the city. we had pretty much the run of the city 'cause we lived pretty close to polk street, and so we would -- in the summer, we'd all all the way down to aquatic park, and we'd walk down to the library, to the kids' center. in those days, the city was safe and nobody worried about us running around. i went to high school in spring valley. it was over the hill from

chinatown. it was kind of fun to experience being in a minority, which most white people don't get to experience that often. everything was just really within walking distance, so it make it really fun. when i was a teenager, we didn't have a lot of money. we could go to sam wong's and get super -- soup for $1. my parents came here and were drawn to the beatnik culture. they wanted to meet all of the writers who were so famous at the time, but my mother had some serious mental illness issues, and i don't think my father were really aware of that, and those didn't really become evident until i was about five, i guess, and my marriage blew up, and my mother