changes. >> supervisor tang: supervisor kim? >> supervisor safai: thank you for the feedback. it's right on point. >> supervisor kim: so i missed the land use committee last monday when one of the other amendments went in. >> supervisor safai: there wasn't any. today is the first day. they were under lock and key until this morning. because of the sensitive nature of this conversation, we wanted to make sure we had it done properly. >> supervisor kim: i read through the planning commission and staff's report and thought it was very thoughtful. i think it's important to put in an incentive program, too. i did like the idea of providing ground floor incentive. we're having trouble activating our ground floor for many of our buildings and our district and i like the idea of having the cafeteria ground floor and opening it up to members of the

public. what are the issues with the cafeteria, beyond the fact that after we pass mid-market tax exclusion, that revitalized the mid-market corridor, many of our restaurants didn't benefit from that economic activity. and one of the potential promises of this activation is that small businesses would flourish with so many new workers coming into the area and that isn't what happened. so i do think it's important to think about a mix. if there's a cafeteria program in terms of vouchers to nearby restaurants, placing them on the first floor, opening them up to the public. some of the articles i read about mountain view, where there are two tiers of employees. so employees get to go into the cafeteria as much as they want, but if you are a contractor, which are janitors, security

guards, and some engineer contractors as well, but the w low-wage workers were only allowed to go to the cafeteria once. i was so stunned that these innovati innovative, progressive technology companies have two tiers of citizenship. it was a great article. it came out a few years ago talking about cafeterias in large, tech campuses and security guard workers talking about how they also had children and needs and are not getting paid enough and they can only go to the cafeteria once and other people can go in as much as they want add take home bundles of food for their family. >> supervisor safai: we can put that in the findings. we heard that as well. good point to highlight. i know that the companies that

sat at the table with us, they said they were open and sensitive to that. putting that in the findings and having it part of the conversation with conditional use authorization will be helpful. please proceed. i know you have more. >> supervisor kim: it was one of the points that i made when i met with tech companies that wanted to create a commuter program for shuttle bus, i asked if they picked up their janitors and security guards and cafeteria workers as well as engineers and programmers. and they don't. even though the low wage workers probably need the transportation subsidy more. it's important for these companies as they talk about being progressive and forward-thinking to provide benefits to all of their workers. that was one of my issues with the commuter shuttle bus program beyond the logistical issues,

it's inequitable. they are creating a two-tier system that made it clear who were valuable and who weren't. so i really want to push these companies to rethink that model. if we're going to have programs and these benefits, they should be able to everyone that works for that company. i think it's important for companies to move away from contractors and move to w-2. they should be hiring them -- >> supervisor safai: in the cafeterias -- >> supervisor kim: cafeteria workers, janitors. this is more relevant to the large campuses where everyone just works at google, just works at facebook. it's a little more complex in san francisco where there is janitorial services that service the building and not just a particular company. it's an important conversation to have.

living in a city that has the fastest growing income gap between rich and poor, the tech companies are exacerbating that important challenge that our city is facing and they have to be just as responsible for addressing it as government is as well. i was considered in the planning commission report that employees in cafeterias often get better pay and working conditions than counterparts at restaurants. it can be 30% more said one source. i would love to see the source of that. i believe that it may be true, but if we're going to make policy decisions based on the fact that we believe that cafeteria workers are getting paid better, i would like to know it's actually true. i think that's important for us to examine as well. i do appreciate the planning commission staff's

thoughtfulness in figuring out how we can create sticks and carrots on the program. in terms of the amendment, i was curious about lines 8-10 on page 3, "any such use lawfully existing as of july 24, 2018." are any of the cafeterias approved? how are they lawfully existing or approved prior to a certain day or that they're existing at all? >> supervisor safai: yeah. i think the intent was to capture in the -- are you asking if they're lawfully operating now? >> supervisor kim: no. it says "any such use lawfully approved and existing as of july 24 can be maintained." >> planning department staff. there are about 45 to 48 already permitted cafeterias.

d.p.h. has to go in there for health reasons and we have records about them being accessory uses to office spaces as well. >> supervisor kim: okay. but may not be expanded or reinstalled if abandoned. so those are two separate sentences. so can't be expanded, period, versus they can't be expanded if abandoned. >> supervisor safai: that might have been previous language from the existing. so i -- >> supervisor kim: i wanted to clarify. i could read it as may not be expanded. or if abandoned may not be reinstalled. sorry, just being -- >> supervisor safai: i believe we wrote that as to tie into the prohibition, so we might need to strike that last. after the but, we may want to strike that.

>> we understand that existing legally established cafeteria couldn't be expanded. if one were to shut down and want to reopen, it would not be allowed to be re-established or reinstalled. that's how we -- >> supervisor safai: it was the original prohibition. that's what i'm saying. it might have been something we skipped in terms of editing. so we may need to strike that last part. >> with the c.u., you would still -- if a cafeteria use was abandoned, you would still want to require a c.u. in order to re-establish it. >> supervisor safai: yes. we may need to clarify that last part. we have time. the purpose is, we're making amendments today, sending them back to planning. anything nonconforming, we'll clean up in the process. >> supervisor kim: and my final question was, when i saw the

proposed cafeteria must be committed to using re-usable food ware packaging. i assume all parts of our environmental code is applicable to these cafeterias as well, for example, supervisor tang's ordinance on plastic straws? >> supervisor safai: it's interesting you bring that up. our environmental laws apply, but many of the cafeterias have separate permitting than restaurants. the first part about re-usable food ware, they have throwaway, but an employee cafeteria, it would be re-usable for metal, so not getting the throwaway stuff. >> supervisor kim: i assume that the other ordinances that this board has passed is applicable, the ban on plastic straws, bag

surcharges. i understand that employees take food home. do they get plastic bags? how does that work? >> i can't recall and supervisors tang or safai may recall better than me the exact scope of the plastic straw and re-usable food ware ordinances. i'm not totally sure off the top of my head whether they apply to this type of facility. we can figure that out. whatever the cafeterias are doing, we want to be sure that the planning commission is considering the practices when they consider whether or not to approve the c.u. >> supervisor tang: i know the straw ban very well but i don't know as well some of the other requirements. the plastic straw ban prohibits the sale of plastic straws in san francisco, so they couldn't

even -- they're not supposed to purchase it unless it's for the disabilities community. for private events, that's where the requirement comes into play around re-usable cups, that does apply citywide. i can't speak to some of the others. >> supervisor safai: so we put that in there as a way to make sure that they're using re-usable cutlery, but we'll make sure as it moves forward that up a applicable packaging and environmental rules apply. >> supervisor tang: i think it's very important to clarify that. the only thing i would add, we're trying to reduce plastic bottles and their usage in the city and county of san francisco and we've limited them, of course, in our public events and

buildings. i'm not suggesting anything specific around that, but it would be good to have companies have a goal around plastic bottling and having the water stations out with re-usable bottles. that's impacting all of us and i know there's a recent story of a whale that was found and all the plastic bags and that needs to reach our goals as well. >> supervisor tang: in looking at the amendments proposed, talking about the factor at a planning commission meeting if it's in an area where

restaurants are not as accessible, it's not part of the findings here. is that going to somehow come up in discussion elsewhere or should we add language in here through these amendments to require that consideration? >> i believe that planning commission could take into consideration that factor under the general conditional use determination. in order to grant a c.u., in addition, planning will be considering whether the use is necessary or desirable and compatible with the neighborhood. maybe your concerns about other restaurants in the neighborhood would fit into that consideration. mr. starr might say more. >> just as to the -- aaron starr, planning department. sincing it being referred back to the planning commission, staff will look at criteria and

see how they can be approved. and how effective they are and make a recommendation. at first glance, it seems thorough, but as you've noticed, maybe there needs to be refinement. >> supervisor tang: i think geographic proximity as well as affordability are two important things that i think that planning commission should consider. and then the other thing i wanted to note was that -- a while back i sponsored a resolution, of course, it's a policy, encouraging local businesses to hire locally. if you are going to have a coffee shop in your building that hopefully you would hire the local, but i don't know to what extent office of economic and work force development tracks that, but i want to share

that with supervisor safai to look into how it's tracked and encourage it as part of this movement. >> supervisor kim: one last thing. i wanted to ask if restaurant -- if the cafeterias are required to apply for the same permits as restaurants? >> no. no, they're not. >> supervisor safai: the fact that they can be a full-service kitchen is permitted above the first floor. restaurants are not allowed to do that. if you have a two-story restaurant, they ask, can we put the kitchen on the second floor, it's not allowed. so they're treated absolutely differently and that's also another thing that's come up. there is no sales tax. there's none of that. it's a very specific class and operation of restaurant. >> my understanding the employee

cafeteria has a different category with the health department. so they don't come into planning as a restaurant. they come as an accessory use to office use. >> supervisor kim: i know that restaurants have to get permits from fire, health, d.b.i., is that the case for these employee cafeterias or do they only get it from d.p.h.? >> i would assume yes but -- >> supervisor safai: it's very different. there has to be referral, right, for their plans. >> mr. strahan is here. >> supervisor safai: it's a different permitting process, very different. >> i would have to defer to permit services specifically about that, supervisor, but i believe it would be looked at on a case-by-case situation. >> supervisor safai: that's his way of saying no.

from our research and findings, it's a very separate, not very scrutinized -- so there's not a series of permits that they have to go through. and the reason planning -- it's been in the realm of the department of public health as accessory use. part of our purpose of this not only was to change the debate and the conversation about the cafeteria and the impacts positive and negative, but also what is the scrutiny and the level of concern. so that's -- i don't want to keep saying the same thing, but we purpose in here, moving to conditional use. we'll work with the planning department. it will be referred back to the planning commission staff. many of the things you are talking about, supervisor tang, will come out in the conversation. i think some of them did come out last time. but now that we're moving to -- this was found to not even conform to the general plan by the commission. which is kind of funny, but

that's okay. now we're going to conditional use. i'm sure it will find a way to conform and there's a slew of recommendations that will be made. we'll also address some of the other issues of permitting and review. >> supervisor kim: i would love to see a unified permitting process akin to restaurants. i'm not saying that -- because restaurants have so many requirements and we probably should reduce that process for restaurants, because i think it's overly arduous, but there should be an evening of the playing field. i don't want to see employee cafeterias have unfair competitive advantages, where small business owners have to put a lot of capital and risk at stake to provide the same

services that employee cafeterias don't have to undertake. as we examine the process, we should look at streamlining the restaurant process. if you can permit kitchens on other floors, it's not clear to meet why we can't do that for restaurants. i did eat at a restaurant on a second floor. on divisadero, there's a restaurant on the second floor. >> supervisor safai: it's the kitchen itself. it's not -- >> supervisor kim: i think it's important for there to be a more level playing field. i'm not saying, make it as difficult as it is for restaurants, but i think it should be a level playing field. and maybe we should look at making it simpler and easier for our restaurants to open up as we look at the permitting process.

i do think that the cafeteria should have a baseline above and beyond what is required today. >> supervisor tang: on that note, supervisor kim, there is staff that our office advocated for, somebody that examined what a restaurant needs to go through to open. it was probably 30 to 40 pages back and front. so, you know, i think with the new, i guess, permitting center opening in the next year or two, to get that shrunken down. i remembered one other question i had. are the smaller kitchens without exhaust ventilations allowed without a c.u. in these companies? >> supervisor safai: what do you mean? >> supervisor tang: aren't there two distinctions? >> supervisor safai: there's more of a break room. that's what public health refers to by h85.

>> supervisor tang: not a break room, but not a full-service kitchen, but maybe they stock -- i mean, some of these companies have, i guess, food throughout -- >> supervisor safai: i'm using the word break room but it's a fully stocked light -- it has a sink and doesn't have a stove. it has tea, snacks. >> supervisor tang: kombucha bar. [laughter] >> supervisor safai: someone making drinks. there is no one -- you guys are really excited about this. [laughter] >> supervisor tang: we work in a building where we don't get that. all right. any other questions or comments? >> supervisor safai: i will say two more things.

i don't want to get lost. i think the concept of -- and i think oewd and concept of local hire for those that might be working in the kitchens and employee cafeterias is important. we'll work with the office of work force development. maybe put that in as a requirement. i don't want to have lost in the conversation what i started out saying, we have a host of network of small businesses that will have the opportunity and we want to encourage the opportunity to work in partnership with the large companies that have the employee cafeterias where they could do catering, where they could bring in small businesses in to work in partnership. one of the groups in the working group was la cocina. and they talked about the opportunity to bring in small businesses outside into the companies, as well as the existing small businesses, restaurants, cafes that would have an opportunity to work in

partnership with any of these folks going forward. all of that will be part of the conversation. 5 wanted to highlight both of those things. i've taken down many of the things that you have highlighted. all employees access, janitors, no two-tier. applicable packaging rules and environmental rules should apply. plastic draws and bottles. local hire. trained work force, working with oewd. permitting review and other things in terms of the location of existing businesses as well. >> supervisor tang: great. thank you for taking that all down. any other questions or comments from colleagues? otherwise, we will -- diego sanchez? >> yes. i want to provide the commission's recommendation from october 25, to be on record they voted to disapprove the original ordinance as proposed and sought

to explore alternatives, which this new iteration is doing. they were not in favor of a ban and thought that regulations on employee cafeterias should consider geographic considerations, size considerations, enhanced entitlement process and other alternatives yet to be defined or realized. >> supervisor safai: there was no conversation about conditional use? >> i think it was mentioned, i guess, in an enhanced entitlement process. that's how i would interpret what that means. >> supervisor safai: that's why i was wondering about referral back to planning. it was my understanding the enhanced entitlement process, but if they don't use the words conditional use, it has to go back? >> i'm happy to look at this more, but my understanding is that it wasn't discussed in the context a c.u.

the planning commission didn't discuss the potential c.u. factors. generally a prohibition with different policy options attached. >> supervisor safai: if there's wording akin to or synonymous with -- i'm serious. i'm not trying to be flippant. just for my own understanding. i got a lot of questions from people and my understanding is that because they didn't specifically talk about it in that context, it's -- >> the commission would want to deliberate over the proposed findings, if nothing else. >> supervisor safai: i'm fine with that. >> supervisor tang: all right. thank you very much. seeing no other questions, comments, we'll open up item 5 to public comment. any members of the public who wish to speak, come on up. >> hello. here representing golden gate

restaurant association. thank you, supervisor tang and members of the land use committee for hearing this item. golden gate commission believes that a conditional use process provides the best vehicle for the necessity or viability of a nonretail-free cafeteria in the city plan principles. we also support changes in the codes for them to be full-service. or perhaps a food service operation term versus a kitchen that may be used for cooking and preparation. it's important to make the distinction. we're speaking of full-service operation. and the definitions should not impact the use for carrying-in food, we're in support of that. some key considerations as to

why it makes sense, i can provide to you. commerce and inventory represents 65,000 jobs with 10,000 accounted for by food stores. this represents 60% of the jobs in the retail sector, generating $5.5 billion in retail sales and taxes. local sales and use taxes are lost. restaurants pay first in the sale and then the final project. we see in the general plan as we know that neighborhoods thrive with restaurants on the street and creating a more economic vitality in the neighborhoods. we also speak to the planning code requirements for fairness for restaurants. we have a lot of additional

layers. >> supervisor tang: thank you. thank you very much. any other members of the public who wish to comment on item 5? okay. seeing none, public comment's closed. thank you for entertaining all of our suggestions and further considerations of this legislation. >> supervisor safai: i want to make a moment to accept the amendments as proposed. >> supervisor kim: second. >> supervisor tang: without objection. and -- one minute. one note about your current amendment about the abandonment or reinstallation, maybe need to finesse the language. it would require conditional use if it was a full service kitchen. >> supervisor safai: i was asking the city attorney to get clarity on that. we might not -- we might want to keep the second part but may not be reinstalled if abandoned but

strike -- they will look into the clarification on may not be expanded, but if it's abandoned, they would have to go through the process all over again. so we'll get clarity on that. >> supervisor tang: okay. so the item has been amended and you can make a motion to continue to call of the chair. >> supervisor safai: right. that's what we need to do. >> supervisor tang: we'll do that without objection. item 6, please. >> clerk: a resolution receiving rural housing dollars report 6 dated may 10, 2018, and report 7, dated september 30, 20018, section 103. >> supervisor tang: this is a housing report. we have teresa oheda. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm principal planner policy

planning section. i'm here to talk about the housing balance reports that you received in may and september, particularly going to be presenting on the report number 7, which is the latest. this is only for your information and no action is required. so what is the housing balance report? the board of supervisors approved ordinance 5315 to add section 103 to the planning code. this new section directs the planning department to monitor and report on the balance between new market rate housing and affordable housing production. the housing balance is a proportion of all proportional housing units to the total number of net new housing units over a 10-year housing balance period. the ordinance requires a

bi-annual reporting. and i will talk to you about the 7th report that covered third quarter, 2008, to second quarter of 2018. one stated goal of the ordinance is to ensure that data on affordable housing targets citywide is an approval process for new housing development. there are three housing targets cited. the housing balance report gives context to the three different housing production goals. the housing element mandated by the state to be updated by the article set a production goal of about 28,000 new units to be

built between 2015 and 2022. this is regional housing needs allocation goals. 57% should be affordable to low- and moderate-income househol households. there is an annual report and the goal to the state housing and community development. proposition k passed by san francisco voters in 2014 set a goal that 33% of net new units be affordable. this is the goal that the housing balance report will be aiming for. there is also a goal of 30% affordable units. there is a weekly dashboard highlighting progress towards meeting the goal. it should be noted that the

housing element and 30k by 2020 have their own reporting requirements. what is a 10-year affordable housing trend? if we are to look at just new housing production, affordable housing made up 24% or 1/4 of net new housing units built in the last 10 years, which is the third quarter of 2008 to second quarter 2018. i would like to add that disproportion has been more or less consistent in the last two decades or more. it's just a tad higher than the last housing balance report, though, by one point. i'm sorry, but the slide shows not market rate units, but actually a net total. the market rate units is about

21,420. the calculation looks beyond new housing production, in addition, the balance calculation looks at aquisition and rehabs completed, public housing completion. it stands for mental assist answer demonstration and the older housing projects and entitled and permitted affordable units, minus units removed from protected status. these are rent-controlled units that are removed, either through act, demolition, and owner move-in evictions. this is the net affordable housing stock for the purposes of this report. the affordable housing stock is

seen as a proportion of net new housing units. the figures are for the 10-year reporting period. the presentation covers the report the period q3, 2008, to q2, 2018. the net affordable housing stock over 4,631 is about 26%. this is the cumulative housing balance in the near period. it's the one percentage point higher than the previous housing balance report published. the ordinance requires that the housing balance is calculated by board of supervisor districts and by planning department districts. the housing balance for

districts range from negative 277 in district 4 to 72% in district 5. negative balances are due to larger number of units removed from protected status relative to the net new affordable units built. most of the districts have positive balances, except for four, which have negative balances. this next slide shows the distribution by planning department districts. the districts, by the way, are consistent with the boundaries used in the housing inventory reports, which has been in existence for over 50 years. again, this is a range of balances from negative 286%, roughly same geography as the

board district 4, to about 137% in bernal lights and western addition. the positive balance is due to a program in the district. it projects a housing balance as a proportion of new units and projects that have received entitlements and yet to receive building permits. the slide shows the balance at 16%. it's in the same time as the previous reporting period. the housing balance is provided at board district and planning district levels. the housing balance ordinance specifies the projects entitled

but not yet to have building permits not be included in the housing balance. all together, the remaining basis of the projects will provide 21,570 net new units of which 23% will be affordable. i would like to also note that there are other entitled projects that are multi-phased like pier 70, mission rock and home-sf that are not counted here, as these have yet to get permits issued. affordability range from 25% to 40% affordability. also not included are projects

under review. 17% are in 100% affordable housing. and 95 market rate projects, will be subject to the affordable housing requirement. that could bring 1,900 affordable housing units. i will now talk about miscellaneous housing matters. the report will come out in april and october. there is also an annual hearing to be conducted before the board of supervisors and planning commission each april. the newest office of housing and work force development,

department of building inspection and city economists will present strategies for achieving and maintaining a balance consistent with housing goals at this meeting. should it fall below 33%, mohcd will determine the funding needed to bring the city into the required 33%. i would like to acknowledge the presence of amy chan and robert collins and they will be available for -- to the board if the supervisors have questions. the planning department has a website for the housing balance reports as required by the ordinance. the current report can be downloaded from the site. that's all for now. i will be here for questions the supervisors may have. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you for that presentation.

this is a report where i always cringe because as you documented district 4 does pretty poorly in creating new housing in our district. so i hope that it will change over time and a more positive upswing of seeing the negative 277% is disheartening. >> supervisor kim: i want to thank the planning department for conducting the bi-annual reports on housing balance. we first introduced this back in 2014. and while it does not build more affordable housing or get us to a goal, it's important for us to have a clear and transparent lens for the board of supervisors, mayor and the public to understand how we're achieving our goals on building more affordable and middle-income housing, which represents at least 60% of our residents, as we know, that are under 120% of a.m.i.

so we clearly continue to have work to do. but i hope that this report is being utilized at the planning commission to push commissioners and staff to help us address meeting our goals every single year. but i do just want to thank the commission and staff for their work in putting out this report. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. seeing no other questions or comments, any member of the public that wishes to comment on item 6, please come on up. >> corey smith, san francisco housing coalition. i will probably share the same sentiment that supervisor tang stated. it's disappointing across the

board when -- and a fantastic job to the department and staff. it's interesting and useful to know where we are and where we've been, but we've failed. so looking forward, we can we do to increase housing production at all levels of affordability? there's been so much built in district 6. that makes sense. there's an apartment ban in the majority of the city. if we can't build apartments, we can't build subsidized, affordable housing. city of minneapolis set the model for a progressive agenda. and they removed their apartment ban citywide. for a city like san francisco, to let other cities beat us to that punch, i particularly find disappointing. it's not easy and there are a lot of difficult situations. if we're serious about the scale

and mass of this problem, we need to take radical solutions and putting things on the table like, it's okay to build 4- to 6-story apartment buildings. it's okay to build low- to middle-income buildings, will get us to a fair and equitable city. it's not easy and we look forward to continuing the conversation. >> supervisor tang: thank you. next speaker. >> thank you. i'm fernando marte, community of housing organizations. as the previous speaker stated, we have a long ways to go and this report makes it clear. not only are we not producing enough affordable housing is for every two new affordable housing units we produce, we lose an affordable unit.

two steps forward, one step back. and i think it leads to several directions that the city could go in. what the previous speaker said and supervisors tang and safai did around home-sf, that's one direction. it created something that a lot of people came together to support. but we haven't seen it actually make that difference yet. and i think it will take some time before the market starts to move out to the outer areas. in the meantime, we keep losing and losing the affordable housing that we have. and it points to the other direction of what we need to do, which is a real preservation policy that puts permanent funding at the scale needed to buy buildings before they are lost to the speculative market. before the tenants are kicked out and buildings transformed into t.i.c.s or condos or three

demolitions and made into mega houses, but permanently kept for affordable housing. we have a program that rolled out some years ago, but it's underfunded. and this report puts it before the city to figure out how to fund programs like that that can really make a difference in those neighborhoods that are seeing the negative housing balances. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. peter cohen, also colleague of fernando's. and just real thanks to the planning department for sticking with this and the commitment to doing this type of deep dive as they say every six months. i know this kind of stuff makes our eyes glaze over, but it's

incredibly important and thank you for pointing out that just the transparency and a reality check on what is happening is not important, but it's a straight data and tells a story. so thankful the planning staff has invested the time and smarts to do it. we have to remember, we argue a lot over how many housing units we need total. [please stand by]

>> one of the issues we need to work out with the city his how we use the public sites to prioritize the type of middle and low income housing we are not getting, and how to find the funding to make this happen, which we can't get because you do not have private funding capital. thank you for sticking with it, good work to the planning department. >> thank you very much pick any other members of the public who wish to speak on item six? public comment is close to. thank you to all staff and the mayor touch office of housing for that. with that, colleagues, clerk, are there any other items for us today? >> is there a motion on the item

cost. >> we should continue or file the hearing. >> while it is mandated to have the report. we had it and heard it so you can file it. >> we can file this? okay great. motion to file the hearing? >> so moved. >> we will do that without objection. are there any other items for us today? >> thank you. we will see you in 2019.

>> i lived in the mission neighborhood for seven years and before that the excel see your district. 20 years a resident of the city and county of san francisco. i am the executive director of a local art space nonprofit that showcases work that relate to the latino community and i have been in this building for seven years and some of my neighbors have been here 30 year. we were notified from the landlord he was going to sell the building.

when we realized it was happening it was no longer a thought for the landlord and i sort of had a moment of panic. i heard about the small sites program through my work with the mission economic agency and at met with folks from the mayor's housing program because they wanted to utilize the program. we are dealing with families with different needs and capacities. conversations were had early in the morning because that is the only time that all the tenants were in the building and finally when we realized that meda did have the resources to buy the building we went on a letter writing campaign to the landlord and said to him we understand you want to sell your building, we understand what you are asking for and you are entitled

to it, it's your land, but please work with us. what i love about ber nell height it represents the diversity that made me fall in love with san francisco. we have a lot of mom and pop shops and you can get all your resources within walking distance. my favorite air area of my homes my little small patio where i can start my morning and have my coffee an is a sweet spot for me and i

>> all right, welcome to 2019 period today is january 7th, 2019 period we are at the land use and transportation committee meeting. i am katy tang, chair of the committee appeared to my right is supervisor jane kim. it is our last board member -- board meeting ever appear to our left is supervisor peskin. we will get a motion later to excuse him. we like to thank jesse larsen and michael balthazar san francisco government t.v. and think our clerk. with that said, are there any announcements? >> please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices. speaker cards and copies of any document should be included as part of the file and should