debt issuance process. >> supervisor fewer: let's see. i believe that we have anna from the controller's office to present on this item. >> yes, thank you. good morning, supervisors. my name is anna, i'm the director of the controller's office of public finance. the item before you today for your consideration is a resolution to approve an updated debt policy. the controller's office of public finance has maintained a written debt policy. this is formally adopted by the board in may of 2017 in accordance with new estate law. this document establishes the city's policy objective for debt, such as maintaining moderate debt service levels, the highest practical credit rating, establishes processes and internal controls and demonstrates a commitment to best practices in the municipal

debt planning issuance and management process. this is a document that we'll be looking to update periodically, likely every couple of years to keep it in line with the city's current needs as well as current bond market conditions. our memo highlighted a couple of the key proposed changes. the first one is to allow for the flexibility to structure our general obligation bond with a term of up to 40 years. this is longer than the typical bond year of 20-30 years. background, you'll hear more about this with the next two items before you, we were approached by the mayor office of housing to structure these general obligation bonds as 40-year bonds under the prop c authorization from the proceeds from the issuance will to go make affordable housing loans and the 40-year bond term would be to keep that term in line

with the term of the underlying affordable housing loans. additionally, there is a second key change. this came to be in conjunction with this fall's global climate action summit, mayor london breed signed the pledge. green bonds are bonds whereby they're used for climate friendly projects and they're designated as such for marketing purposes. amendment b considers designating bonds as green bonds or social bonds or sustainable bonds. whereby the proceeds are earmarked for specific projects and this would help further the development of these markets. with that, i'm happy to answer any questions on the proposed updates to our debt policy. >> supervisor fewer: any questions? seeing none, let's ask for the

budget legislative analyst report. >> the board of supervisors previously approved the city debt policy in june of 2017. so this is an amendment to the previously approved policy. she laid out some of the key issues and i want to point out, she also said this, that extending the bond authorization from right now, the city can issue bonds for 30 years, this will allow the city to issue bonds for 40 years. this is to make the issuance terms of the bond consistent with loans given out to affordable housing projects. you'll see this in the next item on the agenda when you're being asked to approve bonds for affordable housing. the other piece of this, too, that she tacked about was the issuance, green bonds, or show social bonds which for instance, affordable housing project would be designated social bonds. one of the other changes which i

don't believe was mentioned which we talk about in the report, is right now with the bond issuance, especially revenue bonds, the proceeds are set aside to guarantee interest payments on the bonds. this would allow the city to enter into an insurance policy. this gives sort of flexibility in the arabance with of bonds -- issuance of bonds, but i would say each time it's brought before the board, this is something that would be looked at. this is setting policy, but there would still be subsequent review when the actual bonds are brought to the board for approval. and we recommend approval of the amendments. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. let's open up for public comment. any members of the public like to speak on the item? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, any questions for the controller? i have just one or two questions. if we extend the contract for

your saying about, it could be 20 or 10 years, 10-20 years, what additional cost and interest that we might be accruing because of extending this. >> sure. that's a great question. specifically, we did look at extending an additional 10 years, so going from 30 years to 40 years. that would be an increased interest cost of about 0.2%, so because we're borrowing for a longer term, the interest rate itself would be higher by that amount and then the estimated interest costs, the bonds aren't refinanced earlier, would be $30 million. >> supervisor fewer: additional costs? >> additional costs. >> supervisor fewer: additional 10 years. >> to spread out additional 10 years and some of that cost would be reimbursed by the

payments from the housing developers. so a portion of the interest cost would be recovered. >> supervisor fewer: and is there an option to pay it early? so if we wanted to bring it back to 20 years, we could? without penalty? >> exactly. so after a period of 10 years, the loans may be refinanced, so at that point the term could be shortened and reduced to go out 10 years or 20 years, so that is definitely a possibility. you could then refinance. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. what i'm hearing from ms. severin, that -- from severin, these must come back to the board for approval on any of these bond extensions, is that correct? >> that's correct. bond approval, yes. if the -- you'll see in the next item for instance, if the city

plans to sell bonds it requires board approval. so the actual terms of the bonds would be submitted to the board for approval areviewed by our office. >> supervisor fewer: any comments. >> i just had a question about the social bonds. just to -- because i'm trying to understand that better. can you describe what type of projects that refers to? and then also, just clarify whether this is -- creating guidelines for social bonds or creating a process to create the guidelines? i'm just trying to understand this. >> sure. so social bonds are a newer designation for bonds. they're similar to green bonds, they're use of proceeds are different, but with green bonds,

there is green bond principles that address the types of projects that would likely be eligible to have those bonds designated as green. and similarly, for social bonds, there is similar guidelines. so what we would look to do -- and social bonds as set forth in the policy, it's where the proceeds are going to a project that are mitigating a specific issue, so here it is affordable housing. and to achieve a positive social outcome, which may or may not be impacting a targeted group. so for example, los angeles has issued social bonds in the past, so what we would do is designate the bonds as social, recognizing that it's going toward trying to mitigate this social issue and in doing so we hope to attract

additional investors that would be interested in buying these bonds because they, in turn, then he have customers that want to invest in environmentally or socially responsible projects. so there is not an additional cost to do so. but it's something we would consider doing to support the market. the green bond market has been growing over the past several years. it's now up to about $100 billion. potentially the social bond market will grow in the future. >> thank you. just a follow-up question. are there other examples of social bonds in addition to the

affordable housing issue? here in san francisco or other cities. >> certainly. really, none in other cities are coming to mind right away, but many projects that cities were to fund, let's say potentially for a library or a park or funding maybe a project that would address make a building more seismically safe, one would consider that, i would imagine would fall under this category. >> supervisor fewer: i have a follow-up. i think part of the question was what is the criteria actually what you stated is a broad criteria. is that the reality of it, it's

a broad criteria, or is there a more specific criteria? and i think that's the question that the supervisor wanted more clarification on, which i think would be educational for all of us. >> that's fair. again, it's a developing market and i think specifically how under the social bond principles, the definition is it's supposed to directly address the social issue. i know that is extremely broad. i think we would in managing the city's debt only consider it for the issuance of bonds, we're looking to designate these bonds as social bonds and making sure the board agrees with that. what we could propose and include in the policy is to have specific categories just that our city determines. and that could be a modification

that is made to that policy to include things that are of utmost importance for you all. >> supervisor fewer: since the category is so broad and it can be interpreted in many ways, different communities will interpret the social bonds in a different way than our own community here, but what you're asking for today is actually to be able to issue these bonds specifically for affordable housing, is that correct? >> yes, that would be the next item before you. in thattime there is a bond -- item, there is a bond title that would designate them as social bond and be specific to affordable housing bonds. >> supervisor fewer: would it be possible for what you're bringing forward today, just limit it to affordable housing bonds? >> yes. >> supervisor fewer: okay. you could add that category? would that be in agreement? >> yeah. >> supervisor fewer: that's

great. i think we have an amendment before us to the policy, it would be the scope would be narrowed for affordable housing. city attorney? >> deputy city attorney, i don't think you need amendment to the resolution if the controller's office and the office of public finance is indicating that they will amend the policy. >> supervisor fewer: that's great. absolutely fabulous. that's great. so i would like to make a motion to pass this with a positive recommendation to the board. and i see we can pass that without objection. thank you very much. okay. thank you very much. madame clerk, please call item 6, 7 and 8 together. >> 6, ordinance appropriating $75 million of proceeds from the seismic safety retrofit and the

bond series to 2019a to the mayor's office of housing. and placing these funds on controller's reserve pending the bond. item number 7, resolution authorizing not to exceed $75 million. bond series 2018a and item number 8, resolution providing for the arabance with not to exceed $260 million aggregate principal amount of the city bonds. >> supervisor fewer: i believe we have a presentation from the mayor's office of housing an community development and from the controller's office. >> thank you, supervisors. good morning.

i'm very pleased to present the resolutions appropriating -- the resolutions appropriating ordinance to the issuance of $261 million in general obligation bonds, as well as the sale of up to $75 million in bonds for the committee's consideration and recommendation to the full board. the bonds will be used to finance the acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of affordable housing under this preservation and seismic safety pass program which is the key component of the city's preservation and anti-displacement strategies. as part of a coordinated response to the housing crisis, and with overwhelming support from the voters in 2016, $260 million in underutilized bond capacity was repurposed to fund

the city's anti-displacement and preservation programs. through a combination of below market rates and market rate loans, the past program will provide low cost and long-term permanent financing to prevent displacement of at risk households to finance acquisition and rehabilitation and remove existing housing stock from the speculative market and preserve it as affordable housing. the initial program funding of up to $75 million through the sale of the 2019 series a bonds is requesting your approval today, the remain bond authority for the remaining $260 million will become available over the next six years. participants in the past program

will be required to record a declaration of restrictions that requires permanent affordability. and to maximize the affordability and minimize the use of public resources, the maximum average rent and income limit will be 80% ami and capped at 120% of ami. and we expect that the program will predominantly be serving low-income households, although it will allow for a mix of affordability levels and create an internal cross subsidy as well as expand the universe of qualifying projects. pass is designated to be a flexible and nimble preservation tool as it has to be to be a useful tool as acquisition program. the eligible uses will include acquisition in rehabilitation, seismic strengthening and the

preservation of affordable small and large buildings, including sro housing. what is not eligible are new construction or acquisition without rehabilitation. this is an example of a project that is a good candidate for the past program. the 4830 mission street project sponsored by meta with 21 units of residential housing and six commercial units was acquired in july of 2018. and we're expecting to originate approximately $11 million in financing for this project. the project serves mostly low-income households with an average affordability of 73% of

area median income. and this really sort of represents how the past program complements our existing preservation programs like the small site programs, which i have to say is one of the really excellent preservation program that we've developed to date. it's preserved 26 projects with over 184 units. the past program will have financing in two different models, direct financing for acquisition and rehabilitation, as well as permanent takeout financing. and the financing is really competitive and it will allow our sponsors to compete in the market place to really execute on strategic preservation opportunities within the city. most of the loans in our pipeline we expect to be

structured as permanent takeout financing as in the case of the 4830 project i mentioned on the slide before. and to achieve the lowest cost of capital we expect to blend the interest rates through a combination of the below market rate and market rates financing sources. and loans would also be structured with term of up to 40 years. this table summarizes the initial round of funding, the $75 million. the bond proceeds available for loans are expected to be approximately $71.5 million. and you can see the estimated cost of issuance and other associated costs here. the current anticipated pipeline includes approximately $59 million of loans for 30 projects

with about 325 units. as well as if we were to issue the full $75 million, additional capacity of about $12.5 million for additional lending. the typical project in the pipeline really is the small sites program project. so they're smaller projects, average 11 units, and also smaller loans, average size of $2 million. also serving really our priority at-risk populations, including seniors, persons with disabilities, low-income households and households facing evicti eviction. looking forward to the future issuances we have already identified 11 sites with nearly 90 units and approximately $20 million in lending and we expect to expand the program to include both small sites as well as larger sites over 25 units.

and in aggregates we expect that over the entire course of the program, we two be able to preserve 1400 units of affordable housing. the -- we're on an aggressive time line to get to the market in february and hopefully can take advantage of low interest rates available today. assuming that we close on the bonds in february, we would expect to begin our first rounds of closings in march. and in terms of next steps, we are working hard on accomplishing the first issuance expected in february. we're operationalizing and marketing and rolling out the program itself.

we're working already with our sponsors, processing their applications, and preparing for the first rounds of closings. after that, we'll begin the compliance monitoring, reporting and program evaluation. as well as planning for the second round of funding which could occur in 2021 or 22 or sooner if necessary. that concludes my remarks. i'm happy to take any questions. >> supervisor fewer: do we have any questions, colleagues? seeing none, i think we have another presenter from the controller's office. thank you very much. >> good morning, committee members. thank you for hearing the items. i'm from the controller's office of public finance. i'll speak about the financing parameters for the bond. we're asking for authorization

of the proposition c bond program in the amount of $260 million. which is the remaining amount of bonds that were originally authorized in the 1992 proposition a seismic loan program. they were reauthorized by the 2016 proposition c to be used for affordable housing related loans as just described in the presentation from the mayor's office of housing. we're asking for issuance not to exceed $75 million. with eestimate that the -- we estimate that the sale of the bonds will based on a conservative estimate of 5.35%, require debt service payments over the anticipated term of the bopped and total interest cost of $13 million approximately. the debt service estimates assume a 40-year term, by the office of housing in consultation with the city's

municipal advisors determine would most closely align with the loan repayments. while the loan repayment is not intended to be security for the bopped, we're expecting the -- bonds, we're expecting the payments received would offset the cost for the bonds and we've cal claeted the net impact of the city's tax rate. we expect for an owner of a residence and homeowner exception of 700 -- exemption of $700,000, it would range between 19 cents and 10.19 per year over the life of the bond. the city charter imposes a limit on the bonds outstanding. please stand by. please stand

>> additionally act the city intends to designate the bond is as a social bond. the proceeds will be used to finance socially beneficial projects through the acquisition and conversion conversion of at-risk buildings to affordable housing through market rate and below market rate loans. it is a city charter policy intent to make designations of these bonds as applicable. we also intend to amend the sale

resolution, which is file 181219 , substituting amendment of the hall. there is no substantive change in the sale resolution, they are just typical amendments from the city attorney's office, removing brackets, filling in blanks with values, and removing exhibit b, bond council had left that with state regulations in section 5852.1 of the california government code, and we have addressed those in the staff memo. that was no longer necessary to retain in the resolution. if you have any further questions about specifics of the changes, the city attorney is here to answer any of those. >> okay. >> assuming approval of the committee from the board as was described in the previous presentation, we anticipate cell door sale and closing of the bonds in february, 2019. i will take any questions if you have any.

>> any questions? yes. supervisor mar? >> thank you for the presentation. i just had a question just because i want to understand this better. is one of the pieces of this resolution authorization of the -- up to $260 million repurchasing what was originally for the 1992 designated for seismic now to affordable housing, site strategy -- >> right. this is the first issuance in this new prophecy program. we need to authorize the full use of the amount of bonds that are authorized. so it is just a one-time resolution. the next time we come with a sale for this program, the

250 million has already been authorized. so we just ask for the sale resolution for the next sale. >> and the prophecy that was passed in 2016 -- >> it was november 2016. that's right. >> i was just curious why it has taken two years for this to come here, or has there been other stuff that has happened in 2017 and in 2018? >> yes. there has been a long process. there has been a development process about how exactly this program was going to be utilized to conform with the intent of that proposition. earlier, last year, last fall, there was another resolution that went to the board to approve a whole set of program regulations which would guide the development of the program, and i know jonah lee worked on that as well as colleagues. he can speak a little bit more. my understanding is over the

last two years it has been a process of developing guidelines , and targeting projects that these funds would be used for. >> i would add to that it has been a long process, but it has been the one that we want to get right, and the good news is right now, as we are going into the market, rates are looking very favourable. in the meantime, we have also been able to work with our sponsors and partners to generate the pipelines. we wouldn't want to go out into the market and issue before we were ready to use it, otherwise a city would be incurring a significant debt service expense without having the loans ready to close. right now we have a significant pipeline that we are ready to make loans to, and it is quite timely, although of course, had we been able to do it a year earlier before that, we would have.

>> thank you. >> any other questions? singing none, let's ask our budget legislative analyst for her report. >> yes, this is authorizing $260 million in remaining bond authorization for loans to affordable housing programs and for seismic safety upgrades. if you look at page 20 of the report, table one, you will see how these are allocated. there are about $100 million for below market rate loans, and the balance of a hundred $56 million would be for market rate loans. that has not been much demand for those. they are for seismic safety upgrades. the idea, on my understanding is that the they think it would work to combine the below market rate loans in the market rate loans that would create to the combined interest that would be an affordable loan for these developers. the below market rate loans are subsidized. that developers have paid back one third of the city's cost.

principal plus -- plus one third of the city's cost. two thirds would be subsidized by the property tax rate and the market rate loans are not subsidized loans. it would depend on how the loans are issued. there is a variation in the annual property tax rate which was discussed. about 19 cents a year, to little more than ten dollars per year in terms of the impact. if you look at the appropriation , because you are approving the appropriation, it is $75 million for 2019. we summarize how those funds would be used in table two on page 2 of our reports. it has been mentioned. but to call out there is a limit on how much can be issued each year. and it is restricted to 35 million allocated between market rate rate and because funds were not issued since 2015 , there is an accrued amount in 2019 of $75 million.

it would be restricted to for 35 million per year that they could be sold. in terms of a question that was asked about the 40 year payment, the interest payment on $75 million is 113 million over 40 years. so the total principal and interest would be about $188 million over the 40 year term of the loan. some of that is paid back through the loan repayment, some of it is on the property tax. we recommend approval. >> thank you very much. any questions? seeing none, mr gibbon or -- mr gibbon or -- gibner i would like to hear your opinion. >> you can make the amendment and pass a resolution out of committee today. >> let's open it up to public comment. are there any members of the public would like to comment on these items? seeing none public comment is now closed. colleagues, no questions for mr

lee at all? i have one question. as we look at the site that we see, none of them are on the west side. so we were just wondering, we are all supervisors on this side , about the geographic equity and the disbursement of these funds. >> that's a great question. supervisor fewer, we are totally aware of the unmet need across on the west side, as well as other neighbourhoods at the city and our programs work in collaboration with sponsors. we really are doing our best to work and support our sponsors to actively locate sites all across the city, and meet all of the unmet need to. we done two sites on the west

side. most recently in december, the 2,899th avenue project. it would have been on this pipeline, certainly all of those other projects would have qualified for past funding. the reason why that 289 ninth avenue is not on the past pipeline is because it got such great financing from east west bank. >> we are thankful to them. >> we are as well. we really are doing everything we can to support our sponsors in locating and identifying sites, and this program funding will really be able to make a difference in reducing the borrowing costs to make those other transactions more financially feasible, and i think there is also some alignment in the proposed legislation for the community option for purchase. >> we hope that passes. thank you very much. thank you. any other questions, comments?

would anyone like to make a motion on this item? if not, i will make a motion to passes out of committee with a positive recommendation as amended. >> would you like to accept the amendment? >> yes. can retake the amendment without objection? that's great. we would like to pass this to the full board with a positive recommendation as amended. thank you very much. can you please call eight times nine, ten, and 11 together. >> item number 9 his resolution authorizing the mayor's office of community of housing and community development to execute a grant application under the department of housing and community development affordable housing and sustainable communities program, as a joint applicant with balboa park partners, housing partners for the project at 2340 san jose avenue. item ten is resolution authorizing the mayor's office of housing and community development on behalf of the city to execute a grant application under the program is

a joint applicant with turk 500 associates for a project at 500 turk street, and item 11 is resolution authorizing the treasure island develop its authority on behalf of the city to execute a grant application under the program is a joint applicant with mercy housing california, a.c. transit, or the san francisco county transportation authority for the affordable housing project at treasure island parcel project. >> thank you very much. i believe we have sarah from the mayor's office of housing and community development to present on the sight them. >> thank you, good morning. i would like to note we have amendments 49 and ten that we would like to submit at the end -- we have amendments for nine and ten that we would like to submit at the end. >> do you have those in writing? >> sure.

>> we assume liability for three affordable housing projects in the city. the first is 131 units of family housing located at 2340 san jose avenue, also known as balboa park upper yard. the second is 107 units of housing located at 500 turk street, in the third is 135 units of family housing was 66 units for homeless families at treasure island. the program funds projects to support infill and compact development that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. the fund is established by the state and is known generally as up and trade funding. in order to be competitive, the project will be submitting direct applications with the city for $20 million each eric it is broken into two major

components. the second is a grant to go towards transportation improvements for the associated greenhouse gas reduction measures included in the application. for balboa park upper yard, the award request is for $14.5 million. they are applying for $14.5 million. for 500 turk, that request is for $13.9 million and the transportation grant is for $6.1 million, the treasure island parcel is requesting $14.7 million in housing funding , and $6.6 million for transportation improvements. the program requires the applicant for the project will be held jointly and liable for completion of the projects. this means that both parties are liable for the completion of the entire project and the entire project may need to take additional steps to have the housing, or transit portion completed. either party needs to take that. balboa park upper yard was

purchased in august of 2008 through a jurisdictional transfer process and is located across from balboa park station at geneva and san jose. it serves as an sfmta employee parking lot and the team expects to begin construction in spring of 2021. for 500 turk, the site is a tire and automotive services store located on the corner of turk and larkin. they purchase the site with the defence and will develop it as 100% affordable housing, and the team expects to start construction at the end of december. the treasure island parcel is provided to the city through tee ida. the site is a vacant site within the treasure island redevelopment area and they expect to start construction in march of 2021. thank you for your consideration for each of these resolutions. to apply for funding -- thank you for your considerations for each of these resolutions too polite to apply for funding.

funds that would have otherwise come from the city to fill the gap. we are excited to try and leverage these funds to see affordable housing folded into the solution for greenhouse gas reduction and combating climate change through smart growth practices. the teams are working to complete the funding application by the deadline to february 11 th 2019. after which, if awarded, we will be returning to committee to accept and expand these funds. this concludes staff presentation. the sponsor and staff are available for any questions you may have. >> thank you very much. colleagues, any questions? seeing none, i don't think this is -- there will be a report on this item. can we please have the opinion on the city attorney of these two amendments that have been put before us. okay, it would be helpful if the city attorney had a copy.

>> sorry about that. these amendments are nonsubstantive, so you can make them and pass the item after that. >> thank you very much. let's open it up for public comment. are there any members of the public would like to speak? seeing no comment, public comment is now closed. colleagues, would anyone like to make a motion on this item quite yes, i'm sorry. supervisor mar has a question. >> i had a question -- >> i'm sorry. i believe from sarah to answer. thank you. >> hi, i was wondering if you could describe a little bit about what types of community

members will be served by these three projects. >> sure. i can speak to balboa park upper yard and have the developers come up and speak to the 500 turk street or the treasure island one. balboa park upper yard -- so the city -- when you say serve, do you mean what residents will be living in the property? >> yeah, if it is targeted to specific -- >> in the city we have a list of preferences that are for all of our affordable housing projects i go through the lottery system. i don't know them all off the top of my head. certificate preference holders, neighbourhood preference, looking around to anyone else who can help me. any other preferences? live work is another one. those will go in order and those are all -- all the units will be set aside based on that depending on if they have additional funding.

for instance, balboa park upper yard may also have project-based vouchers from the housing authority, in which case those units would be set aside for waitlist residents on the housing authority. the difference would certainly come from our preference order in the city lottery system. i believe the same would be said for a 500 turk since i don't have additional funding. all of them will still go through the lottery system with all the liberals preferences. there are 66 of the families that are set aside for treasure island that have continuum of care. they will come through for their referral process for the rest of the units will go through the lottery system. >> thank you very much. any other questions from these colleagues? with someone like to make a motion? if not -- oh, yes, hello.

>> good morning, supervisors. i apologize, we caught one more error that needs to be amended for item number 10 on file 181221. it is a breakdown in the total application of funds. it should actually read as up to 13.7 million for the housing award and up to 6.3 million for the transit award. that should be nonsubstantive as well. we ask for your amendment. >> this is amending the amendment that you gave to us. is that correct while. >> no. it is an additional amendment for that file to show an accurate breakdown of the housing fund versus the transit funds that we will be applying for, the existing numbers are a little bit off. >> thank you very much. okay. can we have a motion -- >> i move that we accept the amendment as stated for the full

board with recommendation. >> can we take that without objection? and q. are there any other items before us today? >> there are no other items on this agenda. >> since there is no further business, this meeting is now adjourned. >> the goal is simple. it's to raise women's voices. >> learn a little bit about what you should be thinking about in the future. >> we had own over 300 -- over 300 people who signed up for

the one-on-one counseling today. >> i think in the world of leading, people sometimes discount the ability to lead quietly and effectively. the assessor's office is a big one. there are 58 counties in the state of california and every single county has one elected assessor in the county. our job is to look at property taxes and make sure that we are fairly taxing every single property in san francisco. one of the big things that we do is as a result of our work, we bring in a lot of revenue, about 2.6 billion worth of revenue to the city.

often, people will say, what do you do with that money, and i like to share what we do with property taxes. for every dollar we collect in property taxes, about 68 cents of it goes to support public sstss, our police officers, our fire departments, our streets, our cleaning that happens in the city. but i think what most people don't know is 34 cents of the dollar goes to public education. so it goes to the state of california and in turn gets allocated back to our local school districts. so this is an incredibly important part of what we do in this office. it's an interesting place to be, i have to say. my colleagues across the state have been wonderful and have been very welcoming and share their knowledge with me. in my day-to-day life, i don't think about that role, being the only asian american assessor in the state, i just

focus on being the best i can be, representing my city very well, representing the county of san francisco well. by being the only asian american assessor, i think you have a job to try to lift up and bring as many people on board, as well. i hope by doing the best that you can as an individual, people will start to see that your assessor is your elected leaders, the people that are making important decisions can look like you, can be like you, can be from your background. i grew up with a family where most of my relatives, my aunties, my uncles, my parents, were immigrants to the united states. when my parents first came here, they came without any relatives or friends in the united states. they had very little money, and they didn't know how to speak english very well. they came to a place that was completely foreign, a place where they had absolutely nobody here to help them, and i can't imagine what that must have been like, how brave it was for them to take that step

because they were doing this in order to create an opportunity for their family. so my parents had odd jobs, my dad worked in the kitchens, my mom worked as a seamstress sewing. as we grew up, we eventually had a small business. i very much grew up in a family of immigrants, where we helped to translate. we went to the restaurant every weekend helping out, rolling egg rolls, eating egg rolls, and doing whatever we need to do to help the family out. it really was an experience growing up that helped me be the person that i am and viewing public service the way that i do. one of the events that really stuck with me when i was growing up was actually the rodney king riots. we lived in southern california at the time, and my parents had a restaurant in inglewood, california. i can remember smelling smoke, seeing ashes where we lived.

it was incredibly scary because we didn't know if we were going to lose that restaurant, if it was going to be burned down, if it was going to be damaged, and it was our entire livelihood. and i remember there were a lot of conversations at that time around what it was that government to do to create more opportunities or help people be more successful, and that stuck with me. it stuck with me because i remain believe government has a role, government has a responsibility to change the outcomes for communities, to create opportunities, to help people go to school, to help people open businesses and be successful. >> make sure to be safe, and of course to have fun. >> and then, i think as you continue to serve in government, you realize that those convictions and the persons that you are really help to inform you, and so long as you go back to your core, and you remember why you're doing what you're doing, you know, i think you can't go wrong. it's funny, because, you know, i never had thought i would do

this. i became a supervisor first for the city under very unusual circumstances, and i can remember one day, i'm shopping with friends and really not having a care in the world about politics or running for office or being in a public position, and the next day, i'm sworn in and serving on the board of supervisors. for many of us who are going through our public service, it's very interesting, i think, what people view as a leader. sometimes people say, well, maybe the person who is most outspoken, the person who yells the loudest or who speaks the loudest is going to be the best leader. and i think how i was raised, i like to listen first, and i like to try to figure outweighs to work with -- out ways to work with people to get things done. i hope that time goes on, you can see that you can have all sorts of different leaders whether at the top of city government or leading organizations or leading teams, that there are really different kinds of leadership styles that

we should really foster because it makes us stronger as organizations. >> take advantage of all the wonderful information that you have here, at the vendor booth, at our seminars and also the one-on-one counseling. >> i wouldn't be where i was if i didn't have very strong people who believed in me. and even at times when i didn't believe in my own abilities or my own skills, i had a lot of people who trusted and believed i either had the passion or skills to accomplish and do what i did. if there was one thing that i can tell young women, girls, who are thinking about and dreaming about the things they want to be, whether it's being a doctor or being in politics, running an organization, being in business, whatever it is, i think it's really to just trust yourself and believe that who you are is enough, that you are enough to make it work and to make things successful. >> good morning.

my name is sophia, i am a founding chair of women's rights san francisco. [applause] this is the first time i am the emcee, and the first time i am at an inauguration. it is the best one. it is my distinct honor to be the m.c. of the inauguration of san francisco's assessor recorder, carmen chu. loblaws. we have many distinguished guests in attendance today who had like to acknowledge. welcome to mayor london breed. [applause]

former mayor, willie brown. [applause] >> mayor act no -- agno. [applause] >> mayor frank jordan. [applause] >> mayor jordan's wife, windy baskin jordan, and the wife of the late mayor ed lee, and anita lee. [applause] >> the controller. [applause] >> on behalf of our u.s. senator , dianne feinstein, jim lazarus. [applause]

on behalf of u.s. senator kamala harris, daniel chan. [applause] >> state assembly member david chiu. [applause] >> on behalf of state assembly member evan lowe, patrick aarons [applause] >> san francisco board of supervisors peskin, tang, brown, he, mandelman, and walton. [applause] the treasurer. the city attorney, dennis herrera, district attorney

georgia gas stone, and his wife -- george gus cohen -- george gascone, and his wife fabiola. the former assessor, mabel tang. [applause] >> city college board members, rizzo, randolph, selby, and lee. [applause] >> bart board director, janice lee. [applause] >> honorable judges, tang and lee. [applause]

>> former california state senator, art torres. [applause] former district supervisor, bevan duffy. [applause] >> as well as the many commissioners, department heads, and community leaders who have joined us this morning. [applause] to begin this morning's ceremony i would like to introduce the lincoln high school jrotc drum corps. [applause]

[♪] [applause] [♪]