>> fire station 35 was built in 1915. so it is over 100 years old. and helped it, we're going to build fire boat station 35. >> so the finished capital planning committee, i think about three years ago, issued a guidance that all city facilities must exist on sea level rise. >> the station 35, construction cost is approximately $30 million. and the schedule was complicated because of what you call a float. it is being fabricated in china, and will be brought to treasure island, where the building site efficient will be constructed on top of it, and then brought to pier 22 and a half for installation. >> we're looking at late 2020 for final completion

of the fire boat float. the historic firehouse will remain on the embarcadero, and we will still respond out of the historic firehouse with our fire engine, and respond to medical calls and other incidences in the district. >> this totally has to incorporate between three to six feet of sea level rise over the next 100 years. that's what the city's guidance is requiring. it is built on the float, that can move up and down as the water level rises, and sits on four fixed guide piles. so if the seas go up, it can move up and down with that. >> it does have a full range of travel, from low tide to high tide of about 16 feet. so that allows for current tidal movements and sea lisle rises in the coming

decades. >> the fire boat station float will also incorporate a ramp for ambulance deployment and access. >> the access ramp is rigidly connected to the land side, with more of a pivot or hinge connection, and then it is sliding over the top of the float. in that way the ramp can flex up and down like a hinge, and also allow for a slight few inches of lateral motion of the float. both the access ramps, which there is two, and the utility's only flexible connection connecting from the float to the back of the building. so electrical power, water, sewage, it all has flexible connection to the boat. >> high boat station number 35 will provide mooring for three fire boats and one rescue boat. >> currently we're staffed with seven members per day, but the fire department would like to establish a new dedicated

marine unit that would be able to respond to multiple incidences. looking into the future, we have not only at&t park, where we have a lot of kayakers, but we have a lot of developments in the southeast side, including the stadium, and we want to have the ability to respond to any marine or maritime incident along these new developments. >> there are very few

>> i came to san francisco in 1969. i fell in love with this city and and this is where i raised my family at. my name is bobbie cochran. i've been a holly court resident for 32 years. i wouldn't give up this neighborhood for nothing. i moved into this apartment one year ago. my favorite thing is my kitchen.

i love these clean walls. before the remodeling came along, the condition of these apartments had gotten pretty bad, you know, with all the mildew, the repairs. i mean you haven't seen the apartment for the program come along. you wouldn't have believed it. so i appreciate everything they did. i was here at one point. i was. because i didn't know what the outcome of holly court was going to be. you know, it really got -- was it going to get to the point where we have to be displaced because they would have to demolish this place? if they had, we wouldn't have been brought back. we wouldn't have been able to live in burn. by the program coming along, i welcome it. they had to hire a company and they came in and cleaned up all

the walls. they didn't paint the whole apartment, they just cleaned up the mildew part, cleaned up and straighted it and primed it. that is impressive. i was a house painter. i used to go and paint other people's apartments and then come back home to mine and i would say why couldn't i live in a place like that. and now i do. [♪] >> i really believe that art should be available to people for free, and it should be part of our world, you shouldn't just be something in museums, and i love that the people can just go there and it is there for everyone. [♪]

>> i would say i am a multidimensional artist. i came out of painting, but have also really enjoyed tactile properties of artwork and tile work. i always have an interest in public art. i really believe that art should be available to people for free, and it should be part of our world. you shouldn't just be something in museums. i love that people can just go there, and it is there for everyone. public art is art with a job to do. it is a place where the architecture meets the public. where the artist takes the meaning of the site, and gives a voice to its. we commission culture, murals, mosaics, black pieces, cut to mental, different types of material.

it is not just downtown, or the big sculptures you see, we are in the neighborhood. those are some of the most beloved kinds of projects that really give our libraries and recreation centers a sense of uniqueness, and being specific to that neighborhood. colette test on a number of those projects for its. one of my favorites is the oceanview library, as well as several parks, and the steps. >> mosaics are created with tile that is either broken or cut in some way, and rearranged to make a pattern. you need to use a tool, nippers,

as they are called, to actually shape the tiles of it so you can get them to fit incorrectly. i glued them to mash, and then they are taken, now usually installed by someone who is not to me, and they put cement on the wall, and they pick up the mash with the tiles attached to it, and they stick it to the wall, and then they groped it afterwards. [♪] >> we had never really seen artwork done on a stairway of the kinds that we were thinking of because our idea was very just barely pictorial, and to have a picture broken up like that, we were not sure if it would visually work. so we just took paper that size and drew what our idea was, and cut it into strips, and took it down there and taped it to the steps, and stepped back and looked around, and walked up and down and figured out how it would really work visually.

[♪] >> my theme was chinese heights because i find them very beautiful. and also because mosaic is such a heavy, dens, static medium, and i always like to try and incorporate movement into its, and i work with the theme of water a lot, with wind, with clouds, just because i like movements and lightness, so i liked the contrast of making kites out of very heavy, hard material. so one side is a dragon kite, and then there are several different kites in the sky with the clouds, and a little girl below flying it. [♪]

>> there are pieces that are particularly meaningful to me. during the time that we were working on it, my son was a disaffected, unhappy high school student. there was a day where i was on the way to take them to school, and he was looking glum, as usual, and so halfway to school, i turned around and said, how about if i tell the school you are sick and you come make tiles with us, so there is a tile that he made to. it is a little bird. the relationship with a work of art is something that develops over time, and if you have memories connected with a place from when you are a child, and you come back and you see it again with the eyes of an adult, it is a different thing, and is just part of what makes the city

an exciting place. [♪] better. san francisco department of environment is a place where climate hits the street. we know that we don't have all the answers.

we need to support our local champions, our local community to find creative solutions and innovations that help us get to zero waste. >> zero waste is sending nothing to landfill or incineration, using reuse and recovery and prevention as ways to achieve zero waste. the grant program is a grant program specifically for nonprofits in san francisco to divert material from landfill. it's important to find the san francisco produce market because there's a lot of edible food that can be diverted and they need positions to capture that food and focus on food recovery. >> san francisco produce market is a resource that connects farmers and their produce with businesses in the bay area. i think it's a basic human right

to have access to healthy foods, and all of this food here is available. it's a matter of creating the infrastructure, creating jobs, and the system whereby none of this goes to waste. since the beginning of our program in july 2016 to date, we've donated over 1 million pounds of produce to our community partners, and that's resulted in over 900,000 meals to people in our community, which we're very proud of. >> carolyn at the san francisco produce market texts with old produce that's available. the produce is always excellent. we get things like broccoli, brussels sprouts, bell peppers. everything that we use is nice and fresh, so when our clients

get it, they really enjoy it, and it's important to me to feel good about what i do, and working in programs such as this really provides that for me. it's helping people. that's what it's really about, and i really enjoy that. >> the work at the produce market for me representing the intersection between environment and community, and when we are working at that intersection, when we are using our resources and our passion and our energy to heal the planet and feed the people, nothing gets better than >> good afternoon, and welcome to the land use and

transportation committee for the san francisco board of supervisors for today, monday march 11th. i am the chair of the committee and i am joined by committee member mattei haney to my left and shortly by our vice chair. miss clerk, do you have any announcements? >> silence also phones and electronic devices. completed speaker cards and any documents to be completed as part of the file and submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the march 19 the board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you. please call the first item. >> item number 1 is an ordinance amending the planning code to require all projects using the state density bonus law, regardless of environmental evaluation application dates to pay the inclusionary fee on any additional units or square footage allowed by the state law and affirming appropriate findings. >> thank you. to supervisor haney, by way of a little bit of background, a long

time ago, in these chambers in 2002, supervisor mark leno passed the first inclusionary law which required a certain percentage of housing and new construction to be affordable, and over the years that number changed and went up. in 2012, and what i always thought was an ill-fated deal between the mayor's office and advocates, they actually put -- they lowered the percentage and put it in the charter where the board of supervisors could not adjust it, and i think at my first meeting back on the board in december of 2015, i introduced a charter amendment with supervisor jane kim to take it out of the charter, and that led us to our current inclusionary regimen that we now have, and at some point,

supervisor breed, kim and i figured out the roadmap to peace , and that has kind of been the lay of the land ever since, that there has been an outstanding issue as it relates to collection of fees for state bonus -- the state density bonus projects, and in 2017, we had amendments to capture that, but when we cut our branch deal, we had a category of projects that were grandfathered based on the date of their environmental application date, and when mayor breed came back to the board and wanted to extend that, i made it abundantly clear that i would attempt to capture the fee value

from allstate density bonus projects, and so that, because most of the pipeline has been cleared out, it actually only applies to one project, which the planning department thought was unfair. i actually did not even know what the one project was, but i have since come to learn where it is. i'm not picking on anybody in particular, but as you can see in the record, the planning department recommended their commissions that we do not do this for one project which would raise about $1 million for affordable housing. i respectfully disagree with the commission on the department. we decided to bring it to the panel to see if we can take it -- we always hear the stories about how there is no money for small sites, no money for affordable housing, here is $1 million. it will not cure all of the ills of the world, but it is a step in the right direction. it is a project on, and staff is

here from the department, i think it is on mission and 14 th, i believe, the access project, i think. >> good afternoon, supervisors. the project in question is 34,414th street. it is on mission and valencia. the current parking lot, no demolition going on as part of the project. i don't have all the details in front of me. it is mostly residential and also has a small enterprise workspace going in as well. >> thank you. is there public comment -- yes, we can ask staff more questions. i wanted to see if there's any members of the public would like to testify on this item. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am here on behalf of the san francisco housing coalition. it is our understanding that the proposal today and the fee on the units are illegal under state law. thank you.

>> seeing no other members of the public, we will close public comment and supervisors, it sounded like you had questions for staff. >> i have a lot of questions, i heard your introduction, i think it was fair to say the things that you said. we worked for almost a year to come up with what we decided was a grand bargain at the time. we did talk about state density. it was a vexing issue. the thing -- if you can cut go through some of the technical proposals and what this would mean and how it would affect an interplay with this, that would be one of the questions that i have. the other question that i have is i just want to be 100% sure -- how many projects have invoked the bonus program? i have a note here that there were 36,.

>> we have already passed law saying mr. smith cheshire comments notwithstanding that we are capturing fees from state density bonus projects, that is already the law. this is just about the grandfathering and there were a handful of projects that were in the pipeline that were covered by the grandfathering, one of which is left, which is a state bonus density project that we could capture the fee on. >> this is really about one project. >> that is correct. >> when you originally proposed to this, was it about one project, or had you been given information that it was more of one -- more than one? >> originally it was half a dozen projects. what happened is that when the mayor made the proposal to actually extends the grandfathering, supervisor kim and i made a number of amendments about how -- we kind

of split the date in half and we ended up with december 2018 date >> that is what we're doing recently with the board at the end of the year. >> right. at the hearing, i wanted to add this provision, but the city attorney could not prepare it in time so i made it clear that that was the last element of that chapter and it which trail, and it is now here before us today. >> can you tell us more, through the chair to the planning department how many units are proposed of this particular project? can you give us more information >> absolutely, supervisors. you are correct, there's about three dozen projects that have invoked this bonus, this number is now up by a couple more since we wrote the report. that is the total amounts that have invoked the bonus. only six of them were before 2016. of the five, that is how we got to one.

>> and that one remaining project is -- it would be subject to the ordinance if it were passed. to extend the fee just on the state bonus density portion of the project to project before 2016, and this is separate from the overall grandfathering of inclusionary terms of on-site. [laughter] >> we are adjourned for the time being. >> we will reconvene the land use and transportation meeting for march 11th. we were in the middle of item number 11 when the fire alarm went off and i think that jacob was at the microphone and supervisor safai may have been asking him questions. but as i said before, i mean, this is to me a matter of

treating everybody consistently and in this agreed to liberalize the grandfathering so here's a chance to recapture value. >> thank you, supervisor safai, i think that you have asked about the one project affected by this. and i just had a couple details from the case report for that project. as i said it would be at 344 equip 13th street, a 56-unit project. and then there is 60 square feet of p.d.r. and the workspace and the current site is all surface parking. yeah, that's the detail that i got on that. again, it wasn't singled out by the way that the code was written, it just is the only one with a site not written yet. >> how many units? >> 56 units. >> and then all of the p.d.r. that you described and the fee is a million dollars? >> a little shy of a million.

>> yeah. and it's on a portion of the building from the density bonus is what we charged the fee on. >> and have you had -- >> i wanted to make sure -- have you had conversations with the developer to determine whether or not they can do this project, if they're faced with this fee? >> we did not -- we did not ask them this question. rather, when we started this analysis our first reaction was simply that we're kind of going back on the policy retroactively was our first concern. then as we dug deeper and realized that it only affects one project that was another concern in terms of the impact on this change itself. so we didn't get into a feasibility discussion with the project sponsor. we were simply looking at that kind of on our own side and thinking about process and how we apply these things consistently over time. >> so let's talk about the retroactivity of this. and i than we had conversations. we struggled -- i don't want to say struggled -- but we spent a

significant amount of time trying to get our inclusionary update correct. there were a lot of compromises made and this is one of the pieces that was remaining that was outstanding as it pertained to the state density bonus. as you said for the record, about three dozen projects have gone through the process and only six were ones that are really affected by this. and i think that the question is -- and i think that from the supervisors' perspective, not to put words in your mouth -- but the idea is why has it taken so long for them to move forward and to begin to pull their permits and file their applications so they would not be impacted by this? because i think that the other five are not impacted because they moved forward and this one has not. i mean is that fair? >> yeah, i mean, i wanted to capture the entire universe but they got their site permits before we got this legislation through the system. and that is what it is. but fundamentally we actually -- they would have had to do more inclusionary had we not extended

the grandfathering. and so -- >> well, this one was one of the few projects that was not entitled and it's still not entitled so it didn't get the grandfathering extended on the component. and they have already -- in fact, one of the reasons that they're continued at the planning commission is they had to go and readjust their inclusionary information to reflect the fact that it's not grandfathered for on site. so they'll do the 18% rather than the grandfathered 16%, because it was in the u.m.u. district. >> so that's on the inclusionary portion? >> correct. so they'll do 18% on site as a project. and this grandfathering was separately written just for the state density bonus -- >> without the state density bonus, how many units would this site get? >> right -- i believe 11 of the units were coming from -- around 45, i think nine units. i don't have it right in front of my so a 35% bonus.

>> and the 11 are not without and the fee is an additional -- >> yeah. >> it's the equivalent of an additional, what, three units? >> um-hmm. >> there you go. so we opened up public comment and closed public comment and, colleagues, if there is supervisor haney. >> supervisor haney: to be fair, how many units on site are affordable? >> well, the project is having to revise that because they did lose their grandfathering. there had been -- let's see he here... excuse me. i'm slipping between different case reports that have come out. so they were going to have seven. so the base project was 42 units, supervisor safai, i had wrong. and so 18% of 42 would be eight

units, would be on-site and in addition to that they'll get another 14 units through the bonus it appears. and that floor area is the part that would have the fee applied to it that then go into the affordable housing fund. >> because it's just 14 market rate and then pay a fee on it? >> that's right. a fee on that whole floor area that came through the bonus, whatever amounts it was. >> got it. >> yeah, that's how the fee is set up. so we will do that for the projects that came in after 2016, which is 30 and growing and it was just a question of the six that were given the grandfathering when the inclusionary ordinance was recently amended and the question was simply whether we should be changing the metric for those projects. >> supervisor haney: got it. so i would just say now that i have learned that it's not entitled at all and that this fee applies to other density bonus projects, just seeing no reason that we should not capture this one. so, colleagues if there's no objection can we send to the full board with a positive

recommendation? seeing no objection, that will be the order. next item, please. >> clerk: item 2, to enact expedited and streamlined permit process for solar energy systems and affirming appropriate findings. >> supervisor safai: thank you, miss major and before we hear from the department of building inspection i'd like to thank the former supervisor katy tang who handed this off to me before she left and we're finally getting it there. and with that i do have some amendments that are before you, colleagues. that are on pages 5, 6, 7 and 8, all of which further clarify that this would not apply to historic resources. so with that, mr. strom?

>> thank you very much, supervisor. bill strom, the department of building inspection. yes, this actually -- this legislation will codify a long-standing practice at the department which is to expedite these solar energy permits. as i know that you know, the state has a law here a couple years ago requiring all jurisdictions to do that, even though we were doing it, we aren't codified it and we tried to introduce it. and then it kind of got lost. and we're very happy that you're willing to resurrect it now. but, yes, i think that we'd love to see it move forward and finish the codificatio codifica. >> supervisor safai: any public comment on item number two, seeing none, public comment is closed. and is there a motion to adopt the amendments that i mentioned on pages 5 through 8? supervisor safai. and on the item as amended, can

we send that to the full board with a positive recommendation? without objection, that would be the order. madam clerk, next item, please. >> clerk: an ordinance for various sections of the building code, the existing building code, plumbing, electric a elecd housing codes to correct or clarify the existing code language. re-enact a long diagnose standing permit requirement for fences with the finding required by the california health and safety code and enforcement provisions for the building inspection and maintenance program. >> mr. strom. >> thank you, supervisor. d.p.i. these series of mostly non non-substantive corrections made through our technical services group working closely with the deputy city attorney and we're just cleaning up the code as we go along here. especially as we get ready for the new code cycle.

>> supervisor peskin: any item on number 3, seeing none, comment is closed. colleagues can we send this to the full board with a positive recommendation? without objection, that is the order. next item. >> clerk: item number 4, ordinance dedicating property under city jurisdiction and located on the portion of state trust parcel 2, commonly known as mission bay park p5, and adjacent to eldoor aido street north and el dorado street south between channel street and long bring street as open public right-of-way in motion bay south naming the new park mission bay dog park accepting and recognizing the findings. >> this is parcel 5 along channel street in mission bay. and for what i think has been nearly a year this park has appeared to be complete to most of the neighbors, many of whom

are very anxious to use it and it's gone through what has certainly felt like a lengthy approval process is and the ordinance before us today allow the city to accept the park from a developer so that we can open it for public use and this is still something that comes up all the time. and my office gets calls about it. you can imagine how hard it's been to have a park that's right there that looks done, that is fenced off and this will finally allow us to open this park for neighborhood use which i can assure you that there are many people who are about to break down those fences if we don't open it soon. so, thank you, everybody, who has worked on this. i think we have a couple folks who are going to be here to explain how we got here and what the next steps are. >> on behalf of public works, miss moore. >> good afternoon, supervisors. just putting this into the record that the project is located in the mission bay south redevelopment plan area and it's part of the infrastructure plan

for mission bay. and i think that as supervisor haney mentioned that the park is beautiful, and i don't know if people can see the graphic that i put up there... we even have a fire hydrant on both sides of the park. >> (indiscernible). >> and this park is part of a network of 40-acres of open space in parks and the mission bay area. and this great dog park is right here. improvements were constructed with the mission day park plan specifications and the department of public works had an issue of it being complete and ready for its intended use. the planning department has determined that the construction and acceptance of the mission pay park 5 improvement are consistent with the city's

general plan. the eight priority policies of the planning code section 101.1 and it does not trigger any further ceqa environmental review. the office of community infrastructure and investment determined that the construction acceptance of the park, improvements are consistent with the mission day south redevelopment plan and planned documents. and the operations and maintenance costs will be funded through community facilities district funds managed by the offices of community investment and infrastructure. we request that the land-use committee approve and recommend approval to the full board. >> supervisor peskin: any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. and supervisor haney do we have a motion? >> supervisor haney: yes, one quick thing if maybe somebody can address this and i think that this -- this could also go to mark. can -- can you explain quickly why this took so long? i get asked that all the time. >> i think that a lot of things that people can't see that are

sort of in the hands of the developer -- documentation, test results, city agency review. i think that mark wants to add more, i'd be happy to have him... >> good afternoon, mark sutken, project manager. i think that there was some construction problems that we had to work through. i mean, there's a.d.a. slope ramps that were not properly slopped so they needed to be repoured a couple times. i know that was one of the reasons. but it looks done way before it is done. there's, you know, just 90-day plant period just to make sure that the plants take. there's a lot more that has to happen, i think that in this case it was the grass that gets rolled out. so it's just -- it adds to the aggravation and it's hard to convince the neighbors otherwise that there's still more work to be done. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. with that a motion? moved to the board with a positive recommendation.

okay, we will do that without objection. and madam clerk, could you read items 5 and 6 together. >> clerk: yes, item numbera 5 is an ordnan amending the building code to adopt standards for constructing homeless shelter ands to create an alternative approval procedure for homeless shelters during a shelter crisis, and affirming the appropriate findings. and item number 6 is an ordinance amending the administrative code and planning code to streamline contracts for homeless shelters and siting of homeless shelters by, among other things, authorizing the department of homelessness and supportive housing. >> supervisor peskin: mr. chin, is there something that you want to say? no, all right. i want to thank the clerk's office for accommodating these two items which were transferred to our committee and scheduled very, very quickly at the

request of the mayor. and with that, miss emily cohen, formally of h.s.h., and now of the mayor's office, good afternoon. >> good afternoon, supervisors. emily cohen with the mayor's office. thank you very much for hearing these items and accommodating the change of committee. i'm going to walk you through the two ordinances that the mayor has introduced as part of the shelter crisis package. and i'm happy, of course, to take questions. as everyone in this room, both sides of this room knows, we're are facing a crisis in our community, with 7,500 people experiencing homelessness and on any given night in our community, about 4,300 of those folks are living unsheltered. we have a growing number of seniors experiencing homelessness and we certainly have folks with mental health and behavioral health challenges experiencing homelessness. and, of course, with chronic health issues. it's a highly vulnerable

population and there's consistently over 1,100 people on our shelter waiting list each night. in 2018, it body and at the time mayor ferrell passed and signed the 2018 shelter emergency. and this ordinance was exceptionally helpful in opening up 340 new temporary shelter beds in three navigation centers that have served nearly 1,200 people since they opened, among those sites alone. so it's 1,200 people that we would have not sheltered but for the authorities granted in the shelter crisis ordinance. and we had one supportive housing building bringing 50 new unit thes of supportive housing online. this expired march first and, of course, unfortunately, our crisis continues. the 2019 ordinances, a pair of ordinances, build off the successful work in 2018 and expands it a bit further. so the first ordinance, which is

actually item number 6 on your agenda, the first in my presentation here, streamlines the contacting process for construction and operations of homeless shelters and programs. are removes the planning barriers to opening up shelters in certain zoning districts that currently have limitations or restrictions. extends the existing navigation centers beyond the two-year current limit that is currently imposed. and it would also require the department of homelessness and supportive housing to hold a robust community engagement process prior to opening up any homeless service site. the ordinance is intended to be in effect for five years, or until there's a 30% reduction in homelessness in our community, whichever comes first. and on the accountability side, the ordinance requires the public works and the department of homelessness to report to this body annually about exactly what contracts are entered into under these provisions. important to point out that this

does not change anything about the board's oversight over contracts, so the threshold that the board is required to hear contracts does not change under this. that would remain the same. >> supervisor peskin: only the charter can change that. >> exactly. and this was unanimously supported at the planning commission on february 28th. i'll move on to the second ordinance or item 5 on your agenda, and this -- this ordinance is focused on the building code. this ordinance activates the legislation that allows for jurisdictions to declare shelter crisis and to propose alternative building procedures during said crisis. in lieu of the discretionary building permit for homeless shelters, the ordinance has an alternative process which is between d.b.i., fire and public works and planning which outlines the procedures for written confirmation that the project complies with all

applicable health standards and is representative from each of the departments today who can answer any questions that might come up related to the implementation from the departments' perspectives. the other big thing that this ordinance does is that it adopts california state building code append appendix n which providea consistent and available standard with which -- you know, san francisco can develop emergency shelters and provide building standards for compliance. so these standards have been proposed and approved at the state and this ordinance was adopted them in san francisco for a very short period of time. the ordinance is tied to 8932, and the provisions allowed there, so this is currently set to expire in january -- on january 1, 2021. this ordinance was also unanimously approved by the building inspection commission on february 20th, and following passage from the board of supervisors it will require signoff from the department of

community and health department. we're not the first to do this, there were several communities sort of allowed -- sort of these authorizations in 8932, and a couple others that have taken advantage of it, so we have been sort of learning from those other cities as we developed this ordinance. and then i'm happy to take questions or defer to my colleagues in the department. >> supervisor peskin: all right, are there other departmental representatives to add anything, fire, d.b.i., planning? you're welcome to chip in, mr. decosio. >> good afternoon, supervisors. dan decosio, fire marshal. this is streamlining the process for the homeless shelters. in doing so it does not waive any requirements. for that reason on those grounds the fire department does support this. >> supervisor peskin:

excellent. >> good afternoon, ron alameda, the deputy director for public works. and i have nothing more factual to add. i think that the presentation covered things quite well. and there has been a track record in the last year of working together with all of the authorities having jurisdiction with the department of housing and supportive housing, to advance expeditious delivery of shelters while maintaining the care of life safety and permitting. so with that i'll vouch my support for the ordinance as well. >> supervisor peskin: good to see you, ron. maybe i'll get my navigation star that i have been trying to get for three years. all right, members of the public who would like to testify on this item? i have a number of speaker cards. the first one i think is mary kate and i can't read it -- dee

dee workman and sherry woolridge and nancy nielson. (please stand by).