i'm susan ryan, the principal of john rope aye an school. i'm pleased to be able to speak on this proposal. we have at our school a partnership with the public utilities commission that's been in progress for 2.5 years, and we have students from 9 through 12 grade that are working with p.u.c. experts and teachers that are going out for sternships at the p.u.c. to build curriculum that has the academic skills but also the career readiness to be able to enter into skilled trades pathways that were preefg mentioned by kathleen curtis. so the p.u.c. and wastewater, we have 55 families that resides in the bayview. really excited to hear about the community center and how there'll be this aalignment between sfusd and the public utilities commission and city college. and that is what we've been doing at o'connell.

we're really hopeful if you have any questions of me. it's really exciting to see our students working right now with green infrastructure. we have 8th and 9th graders designing homes, anticipating what would happen with earthquakes, and we have students working on -- in our environmental technology pathway working with green power and thinking about wind power and solar power as these applies to careers and academics, so thank you. >> well, it's so nice for you to take your time to come to us and tell us about all of those wonderful things. >> thank you.

[inaudible] >> -- continue in scale and replicate this program, so thank you for your work. >> we also don't get an opportunity to thank the public school principals very often for the work that they do, so thank you for your time. >> yeah, thank you for coming. [applause] >> all those in favor? [voting] >> opposed? motion carries. of course it would. next item, please. >> clerk: item 22, authorize the general manager to negotiate and execute a purchase and sales agreement and any relates documents with the state of california department of transportation for the purchase of approximately 1.7 acres of unimproved real property located at 2 rankin street in san francisco, for 8,991,000. >> i'll move the item. >> second. >> public comment on this item? all those in favor? [voting] >> opposed?

the motion carries. next item, please. >> clerk: item 23, approve the terms and conditions of and authorize the general manager to execute a five-year lease with a single three-year option to extend the term, for an annual rent of 118,332 for the first three years and annual rent of 121,882 for the fourth and fifth years of the term. >> i'll move it. >> second. >> public comment on this item? all those in favor? opposed? the motion carries. next item, please. >> clerk: item 24. approve and authorize the general manager to execute amendment number one to the september 28 memorandum of agreement for the bay area regional reliability drug contingency plan extending the plan by 36 months for a total duration of 75 months. >> i have a question.

the parties to the agreement include bawsca, but it doesn't include hayward and alameda, which are two alameda -- alameda, and the city of hayward. those are two entities that are going to be pretty important to any kind of regional cooperation that it talks about. the question, i'm not sure how to ask it and i'm not sure how the answer -- >> one correction. it does include the alameda county water district. >> it does? >> yeah. >> and hayward. >> well, it depends on how the tie is interconnected. they are very interested in any discussion. i'm -- i don't think that any future thing would actually go necessarily through that same kind of plumbing on that intertie. that's their biggest concern.

they're an interested party here, but they're not putting resources into it. >> well, i guess that's my concern. i mean, as we've looked at various ways, if we deal with desal, regional desal, water has to get to that area, and hayward is in that line. >> it's an option, but it's not a particularly attractive option compared to los vaqueros expansion and the aqueduct, coming all the way around. it has some challenges, as well, but certainly, hayward will be a part of any discussion on actual use of that project. this is particularly built around a grant that we obtained from the bureau of reclamation for looking at a regional water marketing program and trying to find opportunities there that work. >> okay.

that's probably good enough. my concern is that they are key players in all of this, and i would like it better if they were more explicitly involved in this process. that may not be possible at this point, but i will hold out hope for that and hope that anything that can be done to include them productively. >> and i would recommend we have some offline discussion about hayward and all of this. >> okay. thank you. i'll move it. >> i'll second it. i can do that. any public comment? all those in favor? [voting] >> opposed? motion carries. >> next item. >> i want to go on record saying i, too, do have some similar concerns just because of the timing of it all, but -- but, you know, here we go. >> about hayward?

>> and about this item, and you know, since we're in the middle of our v.s.a. negotiations and whatnot -- about desal. >> all right. well, if we can do that at another time. that's all right? >> yes. >> next item, please. >> clerk: item 25, adopt a conditional finding of sur plas for sfpuc sewer and streetlight easeme easements in the s.f. project site. >> move approval. >> second. >> any public comment? all those in favor? [voting] >> opposed? motion carries. i would like to make an

announcement before we go into closed session. we're going to read the closed session item and go to public comment, and then, we're going to take a ten-minute break. madam secretary? >> clerk: item 28 is an unlitigated claim antera investment and trading l.l.c. versus city and county of san francisco. [agenda item read] [agenda item read] [agenda item read] [agenda item read] [agenda item read] [agenda item read] [agenda item read].

>> is there any public comment on the items to be addressed in closed session? seeing none, may i have a motion whether to disclose? >> motion to assert. >> assert. >> second. >> all those in favor? [voting] >> opposed? the motion carrie >> the commission has reconvened into open session. the renouncement following closed session is item 28, settle items 29 through 36, no action. may i have a motion whether to disclose. >> move not to disclose. >> second. >> all those in favor? [voting] >> opposed? the motion carries. other new business? seeing none, meeting is adjourned at 5:15

>> chair peskin: good afternoon and welcome to the land use and transportation committee of the board of supervisors, our first committee of the new committee structure of the new year. monday, january 28, 2019. i am the chair, aaron peskin, joined to my right by supervisor 5 hsha safai and shortly to be joined by supervisor and new committee member matt haney. our clerk is erica major. we are joined in the audience

by planning commissioner dennis richards. madam clerk, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes. [agenda item read]. >> chair peskin: do you have any other extraneous announcements that you would like to make, madam clerk? >> clerk: i do not. >> chair peskin: okay. i thought you wanted to make an announcement about emergency evacuation procedures? >> clerk: that would be in the case of an emergency evacuation. >> chair peskin: thank you. madam clerk, i would like to welcome the counsel to this committee, counsel john give mer. welcome, mr. givner. madam clerk, the first item,

please. [agenda item read]. >> chair peskin: thank you, miss major. and let me just start out by saying when i became the chair of this committee, i found out that there were actually a number of landmark designations that had been recommended by the historic reservation commission that were on the backlog of this committee's calendar, and i intend to bring them forward to this committee, including several at our next meeting on the 11th day of february . and this measure has been sponsored by supervisor mandelman. and i see his representative today. sir, if you'd like to come back on behalf of supervisor mandelman. >> thank you, supervisors. i am here to speak in support of the historic landmark

designation for the property at 22 beaver street, one of the oldest homes in the duboce triangle of district eight. the home originally built in the 1870's is one of the few structures in the neighborhood to survive the 1906 earthquake with minimal renovations to the italian style exterior. it is our belief that the duboce triangle neighborhood and san francisco at large would benefit from the designation of this property, and i ask that you support the history torque designation. i thank you, supervisors for your time. >> chair peskin: thank you. and on behalf of the planning department, miss ferguson. >> good afternoon, supervisors. janet ferguson, planning department staff. i'm here to present the historic preservation commission's finding.

the department received a community sponsored landmark designation from the property owner in june 2018. the landmark designation report was prepared by the planning department preservation consulting, and the h.p.c. initiated designation on september 19, 2018 and unanimously recommended landmark designation on november 7, 2018. constructed circa 1870, it's architecturally significant as a very early and well preserved italian villa within a garden setting. in contrast to the much more italian eight row houses, the house has italian detailing on three of its four destinations,

indicating that it was meant to be appreciated in its garden setting. out buildings include a historic carriage house and nonhistoric garage. character defining features include the exterior as well as that landscape garden setting. the property owner is very supportive of landmark designation and also planning commissioner richards has been very involved in helping with the landmark designation. the department believes the building meeted the established eligibility status, and the designation is warranted. this concludes my presentation. happy to answer any questions. >> chair peskin: thank you, miss ferguson. before i bring up mr. verplank who prepared the report, i'd like to bring forward our esteemed planning commissioner dennis richards, mr. richards. >> commissioner richards: thank you. dennis richards here as an

individual citizen because the commission did not hear this item. this house was a special house. i see -- i live directly across the street and i've been looking at it ever since i've lived in my house. people walk up the street and marvel that this house survived. it was on an 80 foot lot, and a 20-foot section was cut in 1953 as per the case report. the palm tree on the next door lot is also going to be coming before you as a separate landmarking of the tree because it was original to the house -- i think it was built in 1869. people walk up the street. it's an amazing house, even on the inside. we have the owner of the house, miss geiling, who's been in the house since 1966, and against all odds, in the '60's and '70's, and the federal government came in, and we were

supposed to be a redevelopment 2.0 area, she actually participated in the federally assisted code enforcement program known as face. it also created the landscape that we have in duboce triangle that many, many people including tour buses drive through the city and can't believe how lush it is. a couple of other things. this house, in its setting, plus most of the rest of duboce triangle is a california registered district. we had, as a planning department, determined in 200 # when the market octavia program was passed, several of us are going to be getting duboce triangle on the historic register because if it's on the california register, it is exempt. and i'm also working with several other folks from several other neighborhoods that are also eligible

districts to get them on the register. one last thing, if this esteemed committee or the board of supervisors can hold a hearing on s.b.-50 and its actual impact on san francisco because i've read the legislation and i've seen all the places where it points to, and you really need to understand it. it's -- it's going to rezone everything again, so thank you very much. i support this landmarking. >> chair peskin: thank you, commissioner richards, testifying in your capacity as a citizen of the city and county of san francisco and the matter that you just brought up is not before us, so we, as you know, pursuant to the brown act, cannot discuss that, but thank you for edifying us on the history of this property. with that, mr. verplank, who wrote the case report on this, please come forward.

>> thank you, chair peskin. justin sevplank. i want to thank the owner of the property, miss te tess geiling. without her effort and the effort of her husband, john, this property would be a stucco home or parking lot, no doubt about it. they painstakingly preserved 22 beaver street, but they've also put the personal touches on the property in the time they've owned it, which is why we decided to call it the benedict-gieling house. >> chair peskin: thank you, mr. verplank, and thank you for all the work you do on behalf of historic preservation. you do it scientifically. miss gieling, if you want to

come forward, and if you don't, i see just want to thank you for stewarding the house since before i was born, but if you'd like to come forward, we'd like to hear from you. right there. there you go. miss gieling, the floor is yours. >> i'm jean gieling. i've owned beaver street, 22 beaver for more than 60 years, and i think i've seen it at its worst, and i'm beginning to see it at its best. in the beginning, the house was

in such miserable condition, it was rumored that it would become motel. well, nobody on the street wanted that, and when we bought it, the neighbors came one by one to tell me how grateful they were that we would be able to restore the house and to live there. i've been in restoration for more than 60 years, but i'm sure i can finish it. and the neighbors told me a great deal about the beginnings

of the house. but what i've been seeing is the fact as i've worked on the house to bring it up to standard, the rest of the neighborhood came with me. beaver street had been left more or less neglected because of the rumor that it would become a park, a -- well, it was to become something they did not want, either a motel or a nursing home.

and as i've worked, the neighborhood has improved. everybody has painted his house and made it the street it is today, which i think is one of the best, most livable places in the entire city. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you, miss gieling, for your stewardship and for resisting the worst of development. and to my two new colleagues on this panel, that i've serve off

and on on this panel for their part of a generation, i would like to see that we will see landmark designations come before us, some of them with the support of landowners, some of them with the vociferous opposition of landowners. of course, within our laws, we can landmark a building with or without support of property owner, but when a property owner like miss gieling comes forward and wants to do the right thing for the next seven generations, i personally want to salute her and people like here. to people like dennis richards, thank you for making this happen, albeit, it probably ads value to your property across the street, but you're doing it in your personal capacity so you have no conflict. mr. givner has assured me of such. with that, is there any public comment on this matter?

you already spoke. seeing no public comment, colleagues, would we like to allow commissioner richards to speak again? without objection, mr. richards, the floor is yours. >> commissioner richards: i just want to say one thing about mrs. gieling. she is a living part of san francisco history. she is a metallurgist. some of her friends were imogene cunningham, who was a photographer of past, as well as ruth isawa, who helped her restore the house. >> chair peskin: thank you very much, commissioner richards. miss gieling, if we could

preserve you, we would. colleagues, is there a motion to forward this to the full board? >> supervisor haney: so moved. >> chair peskin: motion made by supervisor haney. we'll take that without objection. thank you, one and all. madam clerk, next item please. >> thank you. [agenda item read]. >> chair peskin: thank you, miss major. colleagues, i do believe that supervisor vice chair safai is very familiar with what is a major encroachment permit, and i do not know, before i do not

violate the brown act, whether supervisor haney knows what a major encroachment permit is. but over the last couple of years, my office has endeavored to make sense of a pellmell scheme around major encroachment schemes where in private parties have a license or right to the public right-of-way, and there are many of these that have issued over the last 150-plus years in the city and county of san francisco. and i want to thank the number of interns who actually assembled a list of major encroachment permits that had issued. and there was no real clear way in our code as to how they should be revoked. and with the help of the city attorney, we actually created

some changes to the major encroachment law which were unanimously passed. i believe supervisor safai was on the board and voted in favor of that. but as with all pieces of legislation, this is an evolving area of law, and akin to a piece of legislation i passed i think in 2002 or '03. the change that is scheduled before the board of supervisors would allow us to schedule a hearing before the board regarding revocation of a permit when the director of public works has not timely scheduled and held a hearing or issued a decision regarding said revocation. i am happy to explain this. and before i do that, is there

anybody here from the department of public works who would like to speak to this item? thank you for coming here this afternoon, and i do not know your name, so if you could tell me what it is, i would be happy to announce that. >> thank you. my name is jeremy spitz. i am in the director's office, and i work on legislative affairs. >> chair peskin: jeremy spitz, like as the swimmer, mark? >> yes. no relation. the director of public works has reviewed this legislation. there is no major change, and it is a policy direction to the board. >> chair peskin: thank you, mr. spitz. i look forward to getting to know you, and thank you for coming this afternoon. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you.

that's always music to supervisor peskin's ears, when he hears the director has no objection to his legislation. so i have a few questions. we worked on this last year. we moved forward, but i know we sent this back to committee to have further conversations. one of the things i wanted to talk about on page 3, line 23, when it talks about the director shall mail notice of this decision, i wanted to know if we could add language, by certified mail just so -- >> chair peskin: upon filing of the notice -- no, line 21. >> supervisor safai: page 22 and 23. >> chair peskin: excuse me. >> supervisor safai: you're on the wrong page. >> chair peskin: within a reasonable -- this is the subsection b-1.

>> supervisor safai: yes. >> chair peskin: within a reasonable period of time after the administrative hearing, this is for anybody who's watching, old language -- the director shall issue a written decision on the permittee's cure, if any, and the public revocation petition and fine based on the public interest that the director will reject the petition, approve the petition or initiate revocation of the permit on the grounds -- on grounds other than those identified in the petition. the director shall mail notice of this decision to the lead petitioner, the permit holder, and you are suggesting at line 22 that the director shall do this by certified mail? >> supervisor safai: yes, just based on problems that we've had in the past based on individuals not receiving. that's a friendly amendment. >> chair peskin: i personally do not care. there are many notice provisions, and there are many definitions of notice, and i will ask deputy city attorney

jon givner to opine about the definition of notice. >> mr. givner: deputy city attorney jon givner. i'm not sure whether in article 15 or elsewhere in the public works code, there's any requirement for the director of public works when providing mailed notice to do it by certified mail. i can check. you can certainly make this amendment next tuesday at the board. >> supervisor safai: yeah. i guess i started a little bit later through the chair. i started -- no longer a question to you, deputy city attorney, but my question would be i sounded like you had interns do a lot of research. one of my questions was how many, if any, have ever been -- how many major encroachments have not been revoked? and i would imagine because we're talking about, when often times -- just for the public's edification, i know you're

aware of this. often times when you're doing development, some of that development leads into or has a relationship in the public right-of-way, and that's what the minor and major encroachments are for. very often, it's required, not necessarily anticipated, but it's required by the planning department or those that are designing the projects on the frontage or on the side of the property, depending on where it lays in the alley and so on and so forth. one of the ways they often will solve for the problem is to ask the folks that are developing something to -- they pretty much require a major encroachment. so it becomes part of the overall development. so my question was, in a lot of instances, this is essentially part of the design and part of the overall building or envelope and so on. so you don't have to answer this now, and i'm sure we would get that as part of this process. but i would imagine that we

probably haven't ever revoked any major encroachment. i know that that authority is there, and it lies within the ability -- i know one of the projects that we worked on when i was at public works was a home, and it was in the san jose gulch, where they took, by eminent domain, many of the parcels, and then, they left some of the parcels adjacent to existing structures. and so one of them was a property that the actual yard or the open space, it seemed as though it was adjacent, but actually was a major encroachment -- >> chair peskin: in the driveway. >> supervisor safai: no, this one was not. it was the entire yard, and at some point, d.p.w. was considering revoking it, but then, they formalized an agreement. but in that agreement always rested the authority if necessary in the future, the director of public works had the ability to revoke that. and that was understood and it was disclosed in the property. so i just wanted to make sure if we were going to go down

this route, and i would imagine there would be a very few situations that we wouldn't get into -- adding that would be more like a friendly amendment. >> chair peskin: sure. let's take the first and the second issue. the first, i think the director has the authority to send it by certified mail should the director desire, so we can let the city attorney drill down on that between now and next tuesday. >> supervisor safai: yes. >> chair peskin: but with regard to revocation -- and this is related to the new member of this panel, the difference between minor and major encroachment permits, minor can be issued by the director, and major encroachment permits can only

be issued by the body. there are tons of minor. if you would like to put a planter in front of your house or apartment building on the street, and you want to do it properly, you actually go and ask for a minor encroachment permit. a major encroachment is much more akin to a license or right, but the city retains in that instrument the ability to revoke it. and there actually -- and i would be misrepresenting if i told you the number of major encroachments that would be revoked in my intern's research of 2.5 years ago, but there actually have been some that have been revoked by the city for a variety of reasons. but insofar as they are granted by the elected body, i want today make sure -- >> supervisor safai: we have the ability -- >> chair peskin: right. we have the ability to revoke

them. in this particular amendment, the issue is a fine-tuning of what we voted for unanimously after some back and forth and rereferral to committee, and that is what i would call justice delayed is justice denied which is to the extent that the director, whoever he or she may be now and in the future does not issue a written decision or does not hold a hearing that five of us, as we do in the case of conditional use authorization appeals can bring that matter before this board. this is really a due process issue. >> supervisor safai: right, but. >> chair peskin: and with that, i hand it back to you, supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: thank you, mr. chair. that is almost 100% of the story, but it also -- if members of the board don't agree with the decision, you give us the ability to appeal. so that is one step beyond. so we have that -- >> chair peskin: the court of last resort, the people's

court. >> supervisor safai: the people -- for the people. >> chair peskin: i'm not running for president of the united states, i'm just chair of the land use committee. >> supervisor safai: in same section, right above that section on page three, section 2-a-ii. >> chair peskin: got it. >> supervisor safai: begins with if the director accepts the petition, the director shall schedule an administrative hearing no earlier than 60 days and no later than 90 days after the date of the petition acceptance in order to provide the permit holder with an opportunity to cure the problems associated with the permit as identified in the petition. at the administrative hearing, the director shall provide the petitioner with a chance to provide proof that the problems have been cured in the

petition. in the next section, prior to any administrative hearing in the petition, the director shall develop an estimate of the cost -- [inaudible] >> supervisor safai: -- shall shall bear the cost. it is a party other than the permittee. i just wanted to ask mr. spitz to come back up. through the chair, i wanted to ensure that 60 to 90 days on this situation -- if the director was going to be making this decision because his decision is based on two factors that we then have the opportunity to move past, one of which is determination of successful cure or whether or not engineering design is factored in. those are the two factors of which the director has the ability to deny the petition or determine. and i just wanted to know, in your opinion -- and it makes me a little wary that 60 to 90

days might not be enough time to develop a cost estimate. so i wanted to be sure that there could be some language that there would be an additional period of time -- a small amount of time to determine whether or not this is a right time frame to give a cost estimate on who the -- who the responsible party, the permittee, the cost estimate associated with the revokation and restoration of this major encroachment. so first, i'm happy to hear what the chair has to say, but i also wanted to give an opportunity to public works -- but if you'd like to go first. >> chair peskin: i'd very like to hear mr. spitz. in that no less than 60 and no more than 90 days, what the department has to do is develop a cost estimate of the cost of revocation and number two, identify the responsible party. >> supervisor safai: and associated restoration. >> chair peskin: yes, costs and -- well, that's the costs.

revocation and restoration is the costs, so if you have to remove the driveway, that's the cost, so same thing. so we're kind of replowing old ground here, which is that insofar as when this first came before earlier incarnation of this committee and went to the board and came back to this committee and went back to the full board, all of these issues were settled. what is really before this panel today is really a due process matter. so the department, which ultimately supported the legislation, which this part is not actually before us, was in support of the 60 to 90 days. the funny thing about this is this is mostly a theoretical conversation because as we both stipulated to, very few of these happen, and the

department is respectfully well resourced. but thus far, i have not heard any issues or complaints relative to the 60 or 90 days. but with that, mr. spitz, the floor is yours. >> thank you, supervisor peskin. supervisor safai, 60 to 90 days should be sufficient. >> supervisor safai: okay. thank you. and then lastly -- so -- well, i guess that's -- i guess my last question was just -- just maybe for the city attorney through the chair, on page four, just the first reference on -- in section -- in section 2-b, bullet number 2-biii, if the director rejects the petition based solely on

engineering design, is that defined somewhere in the code, engineering design? >> chair peskin: ah, i remember these conversations. mr. givner? >> mr. givner: deputy city attorney jon givner. the -- under state law, the city engineer, which is housed in -- works for d.p.w. has exclusive authority to determine engineering design issues. i believe that the -- that the term is -- i don't know if that specific term is defined, but the scope of the city engineer's authority is defined in state law rather than this ordinance. >> supervisor safai: okay. i just wanted to clarify. that was it. thank you, mr. peskin. it seems, mr. chair, that the only thing we'll hear back on is the issue of certified mail. >> chair peskin: well i said in the beginning, i'm okay with

it, but i could careless. okay. if there's any member of the public that would like to testify on item 2, please come forward. seeing no public comment, public comment is closed. colleagues, if there are no amendments, i would entertain a motion to send this to the full board with a positive recommendation, we can handle that on tuesday. >> supervisor safai: move. >> chair peskin: so moved by supervisor safai, and with that, we are adjourned. [gavel]

we are celebrating the glorious grand opening of the chinese rec center. ♪ 1951, 60 years ago, our first kids began to play in the chinese wrecks center -- rec center. >> i was 10 years old at the time. i spent just about my whole life here. >> i came here to learn dancing. by we came -- >> we had a good

time. made a lot of friends here. crisises part of the 2008 clean neighborhood park fund, and this is so important to our families. for many people who live in chinatown, this is their backyard. this is where many people come to congregate, and we are so happy to be able to deliver this project on time and under budget. >> a reason we all agreed to name this memorex center is because it is part of the history of i hear -- to name this rec center, is because it is part of the history of san francisco. >> they took off from logan airport, and the call of duty was to alert american airlines that her plane was hijacked, and

she stayed on the phone prior to the crash into the no. 9 world trade center. >> i would like to claim today the center and the naming of it. [applause] >> kmer i actually challenged me to a little bit of a ping pong -- the mayor actually challenge me to a little bit of a ping- pong, so i accept your challenge. ♪ >> it is an amazing spot. it is a state of the art center. >> is beautiful. quarkrights i would like to come

here and join them >> my name is amanda [inaudible] over see the girls sports program. when i came to san francisco and studied recreation and parks and towerism and after i graduated i moved to candlestick park and grain r gain adlot of experience work with the san francisco 49 and [inaudible] be agfemale in a vore sports dynamic facility. i coached volo ball on the side and as

candle stick closed down the city had me move in92 too [inaudible] >> immediate interaction and response when you work with kids. i think that is what drives other people to do this. what drew me to come to [inaudible] to begin with for me to stay. i use today work in advertising as a media buyer and it wasn't fulfilling enough and i found a opportunity to be a writing coach. the moment [inaudible] you to take advantage of how you change and inspire a child by the words you say and actions you do. >> you have a 30 different programs for girls through rec and park and fast ball, soft ball and volley ball. i started the first volley ball league and very proud what i have done with that. being a

leader for girls is passion and showing to be confident and being ambiggish and strong person. [inaudible] for about 5 years. programs offered thraw thirty-three rec and park and oversee thg prms about a year. other than the programs we offer we offer summer camp squz do [inaudible] during the summer and that is something i wherei have been able to shine in my role. >> couple years we started the civic center socking league and what an amazing opportunity it was and is it for kid in the neighborhood who come together every friday in the civic center plaza on green grass to run and play. you otonly see soccer and poetry but also see books t. is a really promoting literacy to our kid and giving them to tools to make it work

at home. real fortunate to see the [inaudible] grow. >> girls get pressureed with society and i know that is obvious, but we see it every day, magazines, commercials the idea what a woman should look like but i like to be a strong female role for it goals that play sports because a lot of times they don't see someone strong in a female role with something connected with sports and athleticism and i love i can bring that to the table. >> soccer, poetry, community service. we now have field of dreams. we are [inaudible] all over the bay area and excited to be share our mission with other schools across the bay to really build the confidence and character of kids when they go out to play and close their eyes and think, why was [inaudible] we want to make sure-i want to make sure they remember me and remember the

other folks who [inaudible] >> get out there and do it. who cares about what anybody else says. there will be poopal people that come up and want to wreck your ideas. that happen today eme when i went to candle stick part and wanted to [inaudible] people told me no left and right. whether you go out for something you are passionate about our something you want to grow in and feel people will say no. go out and get it done. i can be the strong leader female and i love that

watching. >> ever wonder about programs the city is working on to make san francisco the best place to live and work we bring shine won our city department and the people making them happy what happened next sf oh, san francisco known for it's looks at and history and beauty this place arts has it all but it's city government is pretty unique in fact, san francisco city departments are filled with truly initiative programming that turns this way our goal is to create programs that are easily digestable and

easy to follow so that our resident can participate in healing the planet with the new take dial initiative they're getting close to zero waste we 2020 and today san francisco is diverting land filled and while those numbers are imperfect not enough. >> we're sending over 4 hundred thousand tons of waste to the landfill and over the 4 hundred tons 10 thousands are textile and unwanted listen ones doesn't have to be find in the trash. >> i could has are the ones creating the partnerships with the rail kwloth stores putting an in store collection box near

the checks stand so customers can bring their used clothes to the store and deposit off. >> textile will be accessible in buildings thought the city and we have goodwill a grant for them to design a textile box especially for families. >> goodwill the well-known store has been making great strides. >> we grateful to give the items to goodwill it comes from us selling those items in our stores with you that process helps to divert things it from local landfills if the san francisco area. >> and the textile box will take it one step further helping 1230 get to zero waste.

>> it brings the donation opportunity to the donor making that as convenient as possible it is one of the solutions to make sure we're capturing all the value in the textiles. >> with the help of good will and other businesses san francisco will eliminate 39 millions tons of landfill next year and 70 is confident our acts can and will make a great difference. >> we believe that government matters and cities matter what we side in san francisco, california serve as a model phenomenal in our the rest of the country by the world. >> whether you do not to goodwill those unwanted text told us or are sufficient value and the greater community will benefit. >> thanks to sf environment san

francisco has over one hundred drop off locations visit recycle damn and thanks for watching join us >> my apartment burned down 1.5 years ago in noba. my name is leslie mccray, and i am in outside beauty sales. i have lived in this neighborhood since august of this year. after my fire in my apartment and losing everything, the red cross gave us a list of agencies in the city to reach out to and find out about various programs that could

help us get back on our feet, and i signed up for the below market rate program, got my certificate, and started applying and won the housing lottery. this particular building was brand-new, and really, this is the one that i wanted out of everything i applied for. and i came to the open house here, and there were literally hundreds of people looking at the building. and i -- in my mind, i was, like, how am i ever going to possibly win this? and i did. and when you get that notice that you want, it's surreal, and you don't really believe it, and then it sinks in, yeah, i can have it, and i'm finally good to go; i can stay. my favorite thing about my home, although i miss the charm about the old victorian is everything is brand-new. it's beautiful. my kitchen is amazing. i've really started to enjoy

cooking. i really love that we have a gym on-site. i work out four days a week, and it's beautiful working outlooking out over the courtyard that i get to look at. it was hard work to get to the other side, but it's well worth it. i'm super grateful to the mayor's office of housing for having this for us.

>> hello, hello. good afternoon, and welcome to the january 29th, 2019 regular meeting of the san francisco board of supervisors. madame clerk, please call the roll. >> thank you, mr president. [roll call]