>> good afternoon everyone. this meet willing come to order. welcome to the january 14, 2019 regular meeting of the land use and transportation committee. my name is supervisor ahsha safai chair of the committee. to my right is supervisor aaron peskin and matt haney. today is our clerk. our clerk is erica major. i like to thank from sfgov tv. madam any announcements? >> clerk: please silence all

cell phones and electronic devices. items acted upon today will appear on the january 29 board of supervisors agenda. >> supervisor safai: please call item number one athleticism three today. >> clerk: revise map one to include 1650s1660, 1670 and 1680 mission street in the c3g area and making promote -- appropriate finding. item two is revise map one of the octavia area plan to change designation of 1650, 1670 and 80 mission street from np3 and c3g area plan. item number three is ordinance amending planning code to resume

1650, 1660, and 1670 mission street from their current designation and c3g and affirming appropriate funding. >> supervisor safai: unless there's initial comments, call up mr. aaron starr from the plan planning department to speak on item one and two. >> good afternoon. manager of legislative affairs for the planning department. there are three items before you today. the first two change the general plan and the second one changes the zoning map. this is a package of ordinances intended to rezone the properties from 1650 to 1680 from their existing zoning which is nct3 and through cg3 which is downtown general. the general plan amendments are being done so that the zoning

maps will be consistent with the general plan. they were spurred by the department of real estate ordinance which proposed to rezone the subject properties. the planning commission heard these three item on their october 25th hearing and voted unanimously to recommend approval. i'm here for any questions you may have them. >> supervisor safai: any questions from committee members? >> supervisor peskin: for real estate but not more planning. >> supervisor safai: item number three. >> good afternoon chair safai i'm director of real estate. i'm here in connection with the planning department to ask for your consideration and approval of the rezoning of these parcels

to the c3g designation. as hinted at by mr. starr this rezoning was part of the sale of two buildings. the 1660 and 1680 properties which were used to help fund the 49 south van ness project. >> supervisor peskin: welcome to new member haney. i want to thank you and your staff john gavin for meeting with me earlier and these are not questions about the rezoning but questions around the purchase and sale agreement and the appraisal i wanted to determine for the record and hopefully with some evidence for the record that the highest best use in the appraisal was for c3g or office if you will and that

was set forth in the purchase and sale agreement. >> thank you for meeting with us earlier supervisor. it was our pleasure to speak with you this morning and to your question, based upon your inquiry, we did go back and look at both the purchasing sale agreement and the appraisal. we believe there are evidence in both of those documents that support your assumption and your assertion. i would first going to the appraisal report, the report was done by -- they indicated they used the comparable sale approach. if i may quote from that report. it says in quote, in the sales comparison approach, the value of the subject is estimated by comparison with recent sales of

similar office buildings in the subject market area. most appropriate unit of comparison for office property is priced per square foot basis of building area. the appraisal went on to use nine comparable sales. all sale were office. most those sales had c3 zoning. the price had a range $600 per square foot which was reflective of an always use. the appraisal was subject to review appraisal pigeon clifforn clifford who supported the use and the comp. we return to the purchasing and

sale agreement. first the franchise price that was included in the purchase and sale agreement is reflective of the appraisal. secondly in section 5.8 of the purchase and sale agreement, subsection b i quote, the staff of the real estate division will cooperate in good faith with buyers. by this cooperation paragraph, it's clear that it was contemplated bethe party that would be rezoning and because of timing, the city wanted to enclose this transaction use those proceeds for the 49 south van ness project with the rezoning to lag behind.

>> supervisor peskin: thank you through the claire for those responses. obviously when a property is owned by the city zone p and so far as we know longer own them, which seems appropriate those of us were members of the board at the time of that sale was cognizant of the purchasing sale agreement. i appreciate there was an appraisal and office comps were use and independent review of that appraisal and have no further questions. i'm subject to public comment, happy to forward these items to the full board with recommendation as a committee report. >> supervisor safai: thank you supervisor. unless there's any other questions any members. let's open it up for public comment. each speaker will have two minutes. please state your name for the record.

>> sue hester. this is the first hearing on the new board. you have proposed to send out something to the board tomorrow without full understanding what you are doing. in the packet for the third piece of legislation, it's my letter to the planning commission when they did this. it details the issues. basically, we had a precedent that was set in 2002. it was changed by an appeal of a zoning administrator's determination by the board of appeals to 1.3 million square feet of preexisting office space. what that meant was a gift that they developer dent have to pay

for the conversion of the merchandise marked, two offices, housing fees, and child care fees. you're going to do the same thing today if you do this without thinking. i ask for the staff from the planning department to pull it up. my letter stated august 29, 2018. i was involved in both this case when it was originally approved at the planning department. i was involved in the merchandise mark. we had a big battle in the city to institute housing fees, transit fees and child care fees. didn't come out of the --

>> supervisor safai: can you give the speaker an additional minute please? >> i have a press release that i used in merchandise mark. when the merchandise mark didn't do this drill. it allowed the buildings to be called preexisting office space. they lost $25 million to litigation fees. there is no records for these buildings in the record. everyone will go to the building department and say, same to same, preexisting office to office. they don't know if the building department, city offices are not preexisting offices.

in the permit it says office. i think it's reasonable to slow down on number three, push the general plan amendment through. let's stop the zoning until you have the facts what are the legal uses of the buildings. i can't figure out what it is because planning department -- the files are obliterated. they basically -- [indiscernible] i can't pull up the history. you should pull it up for all of the buildings. it went to city offices. 1660 was built city offices.

1680 was legal industrial. it was an m zoning. it was not legal office. you're cheating the city out of funds. child care, housing and muny. thank you. >> supervisor safai: don't go away if you would be willing to stand for another moment. the chair will indulge me. >> supervisor peskin: i apologize for my ignorance. are you saying pursuant to the voter approved initiative of 1986 proposition m that because these were government offices -- explain the argument. >> before there was proposition m, voters huged the board of supervisors and didn't allow the

downtown plan to be adopted until the board of supervisors adopted housing fee, the transit fee and a child care fee. this happened in '85 before the downtown plan was passed. it was hijacked by the people in the city. the board adopted fees that preceded prop m. prop m is different. but the fees is further from that. the fee have been the bas basisr the city since. it was blood on the floor for couple of years.

slow down number three, which is zoning. get the information. >> supervisor peskin: i heard that. i'm happy for more information. if these were built prior to 1985 when those fees were adopted, we can look up and see when they were constructed, they would have been exempt from said fees at that time. >> no, they were not office. because they were not preexisting office. they have been converted to office use. that is a way we get conversions of industrial to office in districts six and district nine. not district three. >> supervisor peskin: weren't these office uses by the government? >> the whole thing around

merchandise mark is city offices are not offices. they are public use. just because the city get a office anywhere it wants to, doesn't convert the space to legal office. legal office is separate. that has been a zoning administrator's determination. so the city offices do not make an office -- do not make a space an office. so the city can take over hundred thousand square feet and not have to pay fees >> supervisor peskin: this is interesting. i would like to -- ms. hester, we entered into a good faith contractual commitment with a purchaser of that property which i earlier referenced.

i would like to give the planning department -- i would like to hear what the planning department response is. >> supervisor safai: we're still on public comment. we can come back to that. my other members wish to comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. mr. starr, supervisor peskin has some questions for you on this. >> supervisor peskin: you heard the question. >> thank you for noting i'm not the zoning administrator. there are two issues. i think -- we discussed this at the planning commission hearing. ms. hester was there. only disagreement we had was the city -- the zoning administrator

determined that these are considered office per prop m. for them to change it to general office, they need to do a change of use application. whatever fees are subject to that change of use will be triggered at that time. >> supervisor peskin: they are still subject to the various fees that ms. hester brought to our attention? >> correct. >> supervisor peskin: ms. hester disagrees with that >> that's point of disagreement. i was just texting the zoning administrator. he confirmed that the old and new zoning, they confirmed that yes, they are subject to change of use fees from going from public facility to general office use.

>> supervisor peskin: in item three amendment to the planning code sane the zoning map, does not in and you have itself change the use. they would have to file a building permit which would trigger the change of use and trigger the fees? >> you're correct. >> supervisor peskin: ms. hester would you like to respond to that? >> this determination by the zoning administrator is not in your packet. it never came back and the planning commission. i have no idea what this is. i don't have a lot of confidence in the building department or that level. the planning department when projects are not rooted them. if a developer looks at a place and puts a tenant in and converts it to office and doesn't -- building department

is not going to look at anything other than, oh, there used to be city offices here. the building department is not going really grounded preexisting offices as offices. prop m does not apply to the city. the city can do anything it wants without a prop m application. that's the way it was written. preexisting office is a big deal on 1650 which i know -- >> supervisor peskin: that was helpful. thank you ms. hester. i certainly will be the first to admit that it is entirely possible somebody could come to that change of use, relative to this property to the department of building inspection, they might not properly route it to

the planning department. it could issue and any fees that are due and payable, might not be paid. i understand that concern. there may be, i'm now looking through the clair chair deputy y attorney, to deal with the subject ordinance to make it clear any and all fees are due and payable when a change of use is filed. should that issue and without the fees being paid, there will be an ordinance that clearly shows that the fees are due and payable. what do you think about that? i have alternatives. >> i'll respond one at a time. i think either way, -- i think that your suggestion is doable. tomorrow rather than than today.

it would be a statement that effectively -- any change of use, the property owner and project sponsor will be required to pay the feeings required by the code. sound like you're suggesting maybe those fees are not paid that the zoning changes made in this ordinance would be rescinded. i don't think that's something we can do. >> supervisor peskin: i was not suggesting that. i was suggesting a written instrument that would make it clear that in the event change of use issued and the fees weren't paid that the intent of the city was to collect them and that sue hester or somebody can bring to our attention that her fears were realized and that the property owner still owes the city. >> yes.

>> supervisor peskin: we don't like crafting words on the fly. colleagues, i think we have couple of choices. one is to continue item three for a week in this committee. the other is to send it out as a committee report and have language that we would introduce as an amendment tomorrow. i think either one of those is fine. mr. starr, if we can get a letter or electronic centr elecm the zoning administrator. if you can draft language like this for introduction tomorrow, i will be comfortable in sending all three items out as committee reports today. >> i think that makes the most sense. >> supervisor peskin: for the record, ms. hester has a storied history making sure that the

city is properly paid in many planning instances and we owe her debt of gratitude for millions of dollars that we have collected. want to thank her for bringing this to our attention and hope that language should be enough surety to make sure that is indeed what we all intend and will happen and with that, i will make a motion to send all three items, items one and two with recommendation. item three as committee report without recommendation subject to the amendment that he will prepare by tomorrow. >> supervisor safai: can we do that without objection? >> clerk: item four is ordinance to change zoning code for nonretail sale and service uses in the c3r zoning district.

>> supervisor safai: supervisor peskin. i will hand it over to you since this is your legislation. >> supervisor peskin: thank you chair safai. this has been heard in committee for a number of times and i know that you are familiar with it. for our new members edification, i will talk little bit about the fact that this is the product of a couple of years of informational presentations and collaboration between the planning department, my office and the always of economic and workforce development. really entered around trying to preserve our destination retail zone in san francisco and union scare, commonly referred to as the c3r zoning district. which has been under pressure from the amazon effect and particularly as it relates to the push to convert upper floors historically have been retailed to office.

last monday this committee adopted an amendment that seeks to actually achieve a compromise for applications to convert office space on the third floor buildings which was the source of concern, contention from property owners in the c3r zoning district. the complie compromise is a poly choice that really prioritizes retail and permitted uses while allowing limited conversions when the physical characteristics of the site are not conducive to retail. just by way of background, we do duplicated the file. this one has a $4 conversion fee that's supported by a study that's referenced in the legislation. we had a duplicate file that has a $6 conversion fee which

requires rereferral to plan napping is not before yo -- to . by unanimous vote we imposed interim zoning controls pending the approval of this legislation and what's before us, lift internal codes at the board put in place by.a year. i want to thank all the parties involved for reaching this compromise and hope that subject to public comment and any statements that mr. starr has made repeatedly is welcome to make again that we can move this to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> supervisor safai: supervisor peskin, can you remind us why you chose the third floor? >> supervisor peskin: a lot of this actually -- mr. starr, you might want to jump in -- lot of this really came -- there were slew proposals to convert upper stories in the union square c3r

zoning district to office ranging from properties macy's own and macy's men@ç store, properties on 200 block sutter street. at that time, the department really expressed concern about doing that and we looked at the building topologies. the first incarnation of this actually said no conversions of the third floor. we made them impossible. my office really listened to the union square business improvement district and others as well as retail brokers and really sought to have some flexibility in the limited physical circumstances that were the subject of last week's amendment. i will defer to mr. starr if you want to add anything to this long-running conversation.

>> you covered well. the staff report was initially to prohibit floors. the commission felt that we needed more flexibility on the third floor given the nature of retail and the dealty of leeing spacespace -- leasing spaces ou. >> i understand they felt what was the difference between third and fourth or fifth floor. why did they not like it being capped at the third floor. >> my understanding, retail -- people generally don't want to go up elevators or escalators to go shopping. third floor is difficult to rent to retail operators because of disconnection from the street. we're very concerned about preserving union square as a destination shopping centre. we don't want it to be degraded

either. we don't want the buildings to be vacant. >> supervisor peskin: they did survey and found a relatively healthy occupancy rate. i think that kind of went into the staff's original recommendation for a strict r prohibition at the third floor. we rhet struck a compromise lan. >> supervisor haney: how floors defined? some of the places have a very open atrium. the second floor might not be up

until 40 feet. i'm curious how the floors were defined in instances. >> t >> there are definitions for floors. based on that definition, there's a mezzanine definition. i think in some cases that counts as a second floor. it depends on certain characters of the building. >> supervisor haney: union square boundaries, i understand you have them laid out here. physically where does the union square downtown zone end? does it end at market street? does it capture the west field mall across the street. is not capturing the mall? >> i believe it does extend to west field and the old bloomingdale. it's not just union square but the neighborhood we know has union square. >> supervisor haney: what would

happen to the upper floors potentially? >> they could convert to office on some of them. >> supervisor peskin: on the third floor, with this compromise along, that's before you. >> supervisor safai: men's clothing tend to be on the up floors. bloomingdale, nordstrom, they all tend to be on the upper floors. >> i think that's changing there. they got rid of the macy's men. >> supervisor haney: can we write in the amendment to protect men's clothing?

>> supervisor peskin: about the boundingries of the c3r, we can pull up the map. >> supervisor haney: let's do that. >> supervisor peskin: you can go to planning.org and tab on the like has the zoning map to pull that up.

>> it has a movie theater and the office. >> supervisor peskin: there it is. well done aaron. i don't mean this aaron.

there you go. i want to show that cursor around union square. >> it's this area here. this lighter pink. it does include the properties across market as well. >> supervisor peskin: those are the two parcels. if you get sfgov tv.

through go. there's the answer to your question mr. chairman. >> supervisor haney: thank you. >> supervisor safai: thank you mr. starr. we'll open up for public comment. please come forward if you wish to comment. state your name for the record. you have two minutes. >> my name is william levine. i'm a fifth generation san franciscan. i was not aware of your compromise. i think the compromise is excellent. anything above the third floor will be disastrous. we used to have a store building union square that question did e did rent. it's very hard.

trends and fashion changed in the last 20 years. i remember when i first started working, everybody wore suits. now hardly anybody wear suits anymore. >> supervisor safai: just us. >> i think only in department stores, do you want to go anything above the third floor. i think the third floor is a good compromise and you're allowing that situation to occur where you can have offices on the third floor standard type buildings. not department stores. i commend you for that. any other cleaning in that let m--change in that let me know. >> supervisor safai: next speaker. >> good afternoon supervisors. i'm karen flood executive director of the union square bid i want to say thank you to supervisor peskin for working with us. i know it's been a long road up. did hear us on the third floor.

it makes a difference. we care about union square. we wanted it to be as much retail as possible. it creates vibrant downtown especially on the lower levels. this has been really important to us and we appreciate the introduction of the fee for conversion from four to settlement. tha-- fourto six. so thank you. >> supervisor safai: thank you. >> supervisor peskin: i thank my staff who did all the hard work. >> sue hester. basically i'm a broken record. please use every opportunity you have to require the landlord to install lighting on the exexterior aexsteer-- exterior .

the landlord, the building owner, should have to install exterior lighting. assumption that everyone had that the zoning of the first floor was retail. it's not safe now. if you're not firm especially if you're older, dark sidewalks are really impediment to feel comfortable in the public realm. the persons that have to do the improvements are the landlords. not the tenants. they should have to install led

lights or whatever to light the sidewalks and not relay on interior lighting anymore from retail. you have an opportunity, use it. if building owner is going to take advantage of having more lucrative space, put the burden on them to light the sidewalk for the public. thank you. >> supervisor safai: any other members wish to comment? public comment closed. supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: i want to say that, this will raise million dollars for improvements in the c3r. i want to >> president turman: thato put . i want to acknowledge my staff and parties planning. representatives of the property owners in the c3r and would like to make a motion to send this to

the full board with a positive recommendation. >> supervisor safai: great. can we do that without objection? it is so moved. any other items before us today? >> clerk: there's no further business. >> supervisor safai: we are adjourned. thank you. [adjourned]

>> my name is randy shaw and i'm a director of the tenderloin housing clinic appeared eight years ago, in january of 2011, i realized there was something really wrong with the tenderloin , that we don't have enough lights period people say they don't feel safe in the tenderloin at night, and it is because we don't have streetlights. just coincidentally with that, see pmc was planning on building a new hospital -- cpmc was

planning on building a new hospital. and i thought the biggest impact would be all the cars driving up the street to get to the new hospital so that it was really important for the pedestrian safety of the tenderloin to have more streetlights, so i asked mark aronson, who happens to be here today, a professor at hastings, if his class would do a study analysing the existing streetlights, and here on february 6th, 2011, they did this beautiful ten page study, which became the basis for our request. i also asked a member of the p.u.c., an engineer, for the per light cost, so i could -- took those numbers, and asked the then mayor, ed lee, if you could get us the money from cpmc. we figure the cost of adding lights would be $3 million.

so i asked the mayor to ask for $3.5 million figuring there would be some bargaining. they would bargain with us, and i thought well, we asked for $3.5 million, we are pretty safe to get $3 million. if you know ed lee and how much he loved the tenderloin, he met with cpmc, and he got us $4 million. a million more dollars than it we needed. he said randy, i want to make sure we have enough money. he was smart. so what happened was a board of supervisors approved at all in 2012, but then cpmc had to downsize the project, and it started again in 2014. in 2014, we had a little bit of a conflict with city officials. you see these beautiful teardrop lights qantas everyone like

those lights while we are a historic district. we had engineers who said we are not putting in those lights. we are putting in the modern lights because they work better for lu d. we are having an argument on taylor street of august 2014. and i said to him, let me put it to you this way. mayor lee wants teardrop lights. do you want me to tell the mayor you are not agreeing to what he wants? he did the same thing to mayor breach. you get mayors who really care about the tenderloin like them, in the city bureaucracy starts listening to the neighborhood. that is what happened. it took a very long time. i used to joke about harland kelley at the p.u.c. that whenever he saw me across the street, he knew i would harangue him about the delays. i have e-mails from the staff saying, randy, we are really sorry, but worse case scenario, it is finally going to open in the end of 2015.

we finally thought it was going to open earlier in 2018, twice the wrong hardware was delivered , and barbara hale who is the assistant, since i don't know how this could happen. it is never happened before. twice they sent to the wrong fixtures, were finally, on december 21st, they were installed, and they're all in all the north-south streets, and eddy street, and i think it is all really fitting in perfectly with mayor breed overall strategy for the tenderloin. from the first week she came into her job, she was here on a friday in the tenderloin. in the last 12 months, we have seen more police activity in the tenderloin then we have seen in years. we know it is a mayor who is paying attention. and the police are working hard to, but the mayor, as a team, i want to thank mayor breed for joining us today and for her support for the tenderloin.

>> thank you randy. i am really excited to be here today. i know i have only been mayor for a short period of time. i think throughout the time, i have been in the tenderloin almost every single day. i came out here because first of all, a lot of the folks that i grew up with live out here and spend a lot of time here, and they want their community to be safe too. we have to make sure that the resources that this community needs, so kids can get to school safely, so that folks who live here and especially our senior community, so they feel safe in their community, i want to see him clean streets in the tenderloin, i want to see safe streets and the tenderloin, and i want the people who live here, who spent time here to take care of the tenderloin too. this is an effort that is so critical to the success of this

community, and i say yes, community, because there are so many people from so many parts of san francisco that live here, that enjoy this community. some amazing park space, and part of what our responsibility is is to make sure that the resources that this community needs, they get. that is why this opportunity for lighting, and i know people are thinking, well what is the big deal about lighting? it is a big deal. every community in this city, they want pedestrian lighting. they want teardrop lighting. lighting fixtures that look this beautiful. the tenderloin, we have made it a priority so that this community knows it is a priority , that we are going to continue to make sure that the resources are brought to this community on a regular basis. i want to thank cpmc for their community benefit package that includes funding for not only

pedestrian safety like these lights, buffer housing opportunity, for job opportunities, they are a part of the tenderloin community and so they have invested in the tenderloin community. in addition to all of that, there will be free services and care at the package to take care of the residents of this community. it is absolutely amazing. is a true testament to a real partnership between cpmc and the city and county of san francisco i can't wait to be there in march when we cut the ribbon to open the new hospital on van ness avenue. i also want to thank harland kelly and the guys and gals at p.u.c. for your work. thank you so much for finally getting this job done, because a randy, not only did he harass the mayor at the time, he harassed every mayor of the board of supervisors, and that is why we finally have got it done, and yes, in less

bureaucracy years than typical. i also want to thank the san francisco police department. thank you for so much for the officers who continue to walk the beach and develop relationships with the community on a regular basis. it definitely means a lot to have community policing so that members of our community feel safe when they are walking the streets. thank you to so many folks who are a part of really the driving force. they are the reasons why we, as a city, pay a lot of attention to providing resources to the community, starting with randy shot in the tenderloin housing community clinic, essential safety s.r.o. collaborative, thank you so much. [cheers and applause] >> u.c. hastings, and unite here local two. incredible partners. people who are fighting and advocating for the tenderloin. i have made a commitment as i have said to you all before that

we will continue to invest, invest, invest in resources. in fact, many of you heard about the significant amount of money that we actually came into recently. it is a one-time fund, and my proposal with conversations with so many people here today includes a significant investment, especially in the tenderloin community. make sure that you pick up the phone and call your supervisor and other supervisors to let them know that the tenderloin will get its fair share of resources, and will not be forgotten. we will make it clean and safe for all of the residents and visitors alike. thank you all so much for being here today. [applause] >> thank you, mayor breed. as the mayor pointed out, the reason we have lights, the money came from cpmc, and one of the interesting things about the experience, there was a whole big narrative about how difficult it was for cpmc to

work with certain people in the city, but their representative, from the very first time i met him, he said of course, we want to do streetlights pick whatever it costs, we want to do it. that is a fact. that is what he said to. it may get him into trouble forgiving us so much money, but he said cpmc wants to increase lighting in the tenderloin. it wasn't like the pole or the fighting, it was great. let me introduce -- i want to make sure i get your name right. pamela kentucky -- kanaki. >> we indeed want to have safer streets in the tenderloin. so as you heard, i am the chief operating officer at cpmc. we have been part of san francisco neighborhoods for over 150 years. we are very excited, as mayor breed said to be opening our new

hospital and our new campus just around the corner from here, on march 2nd, less than two months. as a not-for-profit organization , centre health believes in getting -- giving back to the communities. and these lights that everyone is talking about are one of the ways that we are working with our neighbors, the city, to make our communities better, safer and healthier. in fact, a couple days ago, last friday, i was going to dinner in the tenderloin and i noticed the lights. i mentioned to my husband how beautiful the lights, how bright and beautiful they were, and so we are very pleased and proud to be part of the city, and the tenderloin. thank you very much. [applause] >> our last speaker, there is the empire market right across the way, which is benefiting from all these lights, and they have been a running that market for decades. she would like to explain what the lights mean to her. bora?

[cheers and applause] >> thank you very much. good evening everyone. my husband and i own empire market right across the street. my family, which includes my children who live in the tenderloin for many years. i work at our store at night so my family is happy to have additional lights that will improve safety on sidewalks. during the daytime, a business owner and resident, we walk through sidewalks all the time. we are faced every day with safety issues, however, i am glad to know that new lights will offer a much safer

situation. we will be able to know what is going on the sidewalk outside of our family business neighborhoods. thank you very much. [cheers and applause] >> it turns out that the lights actually got on before jane kim left office, within a few days. jane kim by unexpectedly, so she would like to say a few words. [cheers and applause] >> so it really is incredible that these lights have come on. just a couple of days before my turn was ending, only because this was one of the first projects i worked on when i came into office in 2011. it only took a little over eight years, but this did really begin in the community first, when the negotiations with cpmc began about the move of their hospital

to the van ness core door, and has a lot of questions about the impact that this hospital would have in terms of traffic to the neighborhood, in terms of economy, and many other things. it was groups like central city s.r.o. collaborative who had been working collaboratively on passages to increase adult presence on the streets as kids walk and back doors walk back and forth between school and afterschool programs, and i see many of our partners are here today. and randy, who talked about a study of how this neighborhood had the least number of streetlights at night of any neighborhood here in san francisco. so this, along with the pedestrian safety improvement really became the priority at the community and how cpu josie beat -- and how cpmc could make this neighborhood safer and stronger. there are many steps along the pathway to get here, of which they were not the major obstacle because they committed to this program so early on.

i can't mention how many neighborhood studies and community processes that our offices worked with so many of the community leaders here over the last eight years to make that happen. i want to give a huge shout out to the public utilities commission. i know the general manager is here. [cheers and applause] >> the staff really did a tremendous amount of work to move this money that has been committed to, which i should note, also went to the tenderloin museum that was standing behind here today, and we actually had to repurpose other city funds to come to help fund with cpmc originally, which is a street lighting funding program, and the p.u.c. made that happen. and whether the challenges we are getting, we need to connect it to our infrastructure, to so many other design challenges, and then different wants from the community. the p.u.c. really came out, along with the mayor's office of economic development, working alongside our community leaders to make sure that this happened within eight years.

so i just want to wish everyone a big round of congratulations. our neighborhood really does work together to make this community safer, and i want to thank our mayor for her strong commitment to making sure that the tenderloin continues to be invested in heavily and strongly , and prioritized over her time as mayor. thank you very much. [cheers and applause] >> and matt haney is out of town or else he would be here, our new supervisor. thank you all. if you have any questions or anything important to ask to folks, enjoy the lights. the darker it gets, the brighter they are. thank you all. [♪]

>> the municipal charter for the city and county of san francisco , this january 8th, 2019 inaugural meeting of the san francisco board of supervisors will come to order. we will begin with the roll call for attendance, pursuant to the role and we will begin at the top of the alphabet. [roll call]