programs and putting them in kiosk and disposal boxes. we do directly with each individual that comes into the sites. we have also done focus groups to help us understand how can we improve syringe disposal with our participant. we listen to those and consider new ways of addressing them. one thing that we can say as 100% of the syringes that we know about get cleaned up. that's an improvement. we have lot better communication i think now with them pick-up crew as a number that people can text. we get information through 311, etcetera. we've improved that side of it too where people can make their concerns known and clean them up immediately. in some ways we're at 100%. we have the capacity to do that now. you're also bringing something up that is really important. we need to continue to improve.

we do have pattern partners. we really try to upstream factors. how can people dispose of their syringes in ways that fit for them and daily lives. that's why increases in the kiosks and syringe boxes are a result of that. >> you ever hand out syringe boxes to individuals? >> we do. every person who gets syringes is offered syringe disposal box. people like to have them. we also are outreach team. when they clean up syringes, they provide syringe boxes so they are provided through the syringe program through the outreach and through the pick-up crew. >> chair fewer: supervisor

mandelman. >> supervisor mandelman: i'm not sure that in this context. i do think that we're very significant population unhoused people, percentage of which are using drug who are being moved throughout the city regularly by public action. it is going to be very hard to get that with the best effort. all the needles that are given. i don't think we should be giving out fewer needles. we're making it harder to access those needles. i do want to applaud the aids foundation for creating a second government, public works does this, u311 a needle and get public works to come pick it up. but the aids foundation independently established,

recognizing this problem, second alternative way of getting needles disposed of and getting a rapid or within an hour of response. it's not acceptable that i'm not sure that there's a way to -- you should try to get that number higher than 62%. the way to get it higher is to get more folks off the streets and into programs and into housing. that should increase their ability to get dirty needles back. >> thank you for that. we take any input and suggestions. one thing i didn't mention is the navigation centre also have disposal opportunities there too. >> chair fewer: the 62% of the 5.8 million that you distribute? they are telling people, these

pick-up they're approximately 4 million needles that are picked up on the streets. i agree that i think 62% you could approve upon. we're seeing unprecedented numbers in san francisco of people who use injection drugs. can you tell me how that scope has changed throughout the last couple of years? >> 5.8 million syringes distributed in the last year. can you tell me from the years before what your distribution rate were and pick-up rates were? >> i have 2017 right here. 2017 was 5.3. our pick-up was little bit less than 62%. i'm trying to do math. probably around 60%.

but similar. prior to that, it was lower. i don't know if i have that. it's true that districts of syringes has increased of the last several years since the program began. this is the most we've ever distributed. i think this is -- i can't say the return rate if it changed. it wasn't such a similar problem in the previous years. in the last five years, this is our best return rate. >> chair fewer: we see that the number of syringes that you're distributing has increased. we can agree number of people injecting drugs has increased in san francisco. can you shed some light on basically what some of the solutions might be?

you're doing outreach and you're offering services, this number isn't increasing. shed some light on it. when this comes back before us again, are we going to see a triple amount? tell me what kind of efforts are being done? >> you mean for disposal or distribution? >> chair fewer: what are we doing for city and department of public health around the issue people injecting drugs? if you're telling me this is increasing, we can keep supplying more and more and picking up more and more but what are we doing really proactively to sort of combat this issue? >> i appreciate that question. it's actually -- it's a national issue. i think it's looking at all of the wrap-around or supportive

services that we need to think about for people who inject in san francisco. there's a meth task force beginning soon that will be addressing that it a certain degree. we look forward to the community coming together and thinking about that. that will contribute. i think you're right. we need to look at this as a larger problem. , larger issue. what is putting people in a situation where they are using substances injecting substances with all respect to them and their choices, what are the ways that we can provide the supportive services here in san francisco to prevent injection drug use in the first place and provide appropriate treatment services. you don't have an actual answer for you. i think we are working in the health department. it's a priority. we're part of where we're thinking with other city

departments. i think we can share with you what services are available specifically in behavioral health and other parts of the health department. >> chair fewer: i realized it is the $35 million question. stefani? did you have a comment. >> one way we're trying to address the health issue. we received $2 million per year grant from cdc recently as part of pilot project. we were funded to reach people who are experiencing homelessness and people who use

and inject drugs. but to think about how our system can change to meet their needs. it's not always going outside and developing the health that you know about and other services outside. also how can we look at our primary care and behavioral health services to ensure the threshold is low. that funding will help us take a look at the needs. we were one of two cities in the nation to get that grant. >> supervisor stefani: i have a question for the deputy city attorney is there any way the resolution can be amended to add reporting requirement so we can have them report back to report what they are doing in improve return rate and to services so that people no longer need syringes. any way we can add a clause? i don't know if it's a yearly

report. it's something we're thinking about all the time. >> yes. you can amend the resolution to impose oreporting requirement. the resolution would say, what needs to be reported and how often. those reports will be submitted in writing to the clerk. upon receiving the report, any board member can call a hearing if you want additional information. >> supervisor stefani: i like to explore doing that. i don't know if you, chair fewer, if you have any interest in that. i think given the final questions that we have and the importance of this subject that this is something in the amount of the contract. the good that's being done with the contract too to stay in touch on this so that we know what's going on, that we can

help provide guidance. i would feel more comfortable? that. i don't know if we can work on that language now. >> it's up to you. the cleanest is to send it out today and we could work with the department to prepare a new clause for the resolution. you could introduce on tuesday. that would not trigger a continuance or delay. >> definitely. i think that's a really good solution. between now and when this comes to the board of supervisors, i can work with you and my colleagues, brown act. we can work on an amendment that would have the language that we agree to and hopefully that would pass at the full board. >> chair fewer: supervisor mandelman. >> supervisor mandelman: i have

some discomfort with this. i think it's putting lot on needle access and distribution. to put on that the requirement to report back about the city success reducing injection drug use or injection drug use among unhoused population. i think those are things we want to see but i think connecting those to our needle access program is something i'm uncomfortable with. i think having a regular report back requirement on that is troubling to me. i have some concerns. >> i definitely understand those concerns. we can work out something and at

least explore what you doing to improve the return rate. obvious thly what you do to get people in recovery. than is much harder question. not one i expected to be reported back on. >> supervisor stefani: this is a huge issue. this is a huge issue for my constituents. i hear about this all the time. supervisor mandelman brought up the needle exchange. that's not where we're going. that would affect the health of so many people. we don't want to go back there. but at the same time, i think that if we do have a reporting requirement or something that we can agree upon or at least examine between now and the full boarding maybe we'll talk. i won't have an amendment on that. given the line of questioning, given how important this topic is, given your responses back to us in terms you thinking that there might be ways to improve

upon this, i think to stay in constant contact giving amount of the contract, would be good government in my opinion. >> i understand the interest behind that. what i would like to suggest, we can also come back on regular basis and talk about what we're doing to improve disposal. it's a focus everyday. i can tell you that. working with individual -- every level, individuals community, structural changes that we're making. some of it is beyond -- it's beyond structure as we talked about the national issue. i think i would like to throw in. the 38% or whatever that we don't see back in our collection, it is getting picked up in most cases. if we can get them from not being put there in the first place, i think that's what would

make san franciscan's happier. we're more than happy to share data and think through how to improve the best way of doing that is obviously up to you. we're working on it on a regular basis with our providers as the health department, the staff that you see here today but also with the san francisco aids foundation and subcontractors. and also community members also people who are concerned about syringe litter. i love to figure out any way i can to continue report that to you. >> chair fewer: let's pass this out of committee and then if you have an agreement to work together to bring an amendment on tuesday. i like to make a motion to move this with the positive recommendation. can you tick that without objection? thank you very much. please call item 7.

[agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. i believe we have andy wong. >> good morning supervisors. i'm am development specialist with the office of community investment and infrastructure. the resolution buffe before youy $68 million to pay for the construction in related development cost for 691 china basin street apartment. bank of america will serve as the limited partner and tax credit investor as well as construction lender and purchaser for this project.

the project will provide 152 affordable rental units to extremely low to low income families. it include 10 studios, 34 one bedroom you units, 39 three bedroom units, one bedroom unit. 38 of 152 units will be set aside as public housing replacement units for households relocating from sunnydale. the project average affordability level 56% of the area median income which translates to roughly 66,000 66- $66,304 for family of four.

the board approval of this bond issuance will keep us on track for close of construction financing and construction to start at end of april. this project will be complete and ready for occupancy in the spring the 2021. that concludings the -- concludes staff presentation. a representative from mercy health california is available to an answer questions. >> chair fewer: there's no b.l.a. report on this. let's open up for public comment. are there any members of the public that like to comment on item 7? public comment is closed. like to move this to the board with a positive recommendation. can we take that without objection? thank you very much. please call item 8 and 9 together. [agenda item read]

>> chair fewer: thank you very much. i thought we had sarah -- we have bill miller today. >> hello. mayor's office direct. i wanted to come before you. thank you so much for the item. we have these two items which relate to hope s.f. it's sort of every moment for

hope s.f. is historic opportunity to come before the board of supervisors. it'sly to reemphasize the commitment we made to residents of sunnydale. i'm going to briefly set up context what hope s.f. is and sunnydale. we have colleagues from the mayor office of housing and community development as well as mercy. just as reminder, hope s.f. is something that our city should be proud of. it's nation's first large-scale public housing. transformation initiative that's designed to create vibrant, inclusive mixed income communities without the displacement of our original residents. we intentionally use the language of reparation in terms of preparing decades of public policy has enacted upon our communities. these are four neighborhoods in southeast san francisco approximately 2200 households, 5000 residents and sunnydale being the last two site sites aw under way. they are under construction.

we'll be building new streets, new parks, entirely new infrastructure without the displacement of our families. we've started this process. we are incredibly proud of our results. each of you have been committed to hope s.f. i wanted to start with that context. i will get out the way on behalf of mayor breed and the three administrations that supported hope s.f., we thank you for your continued support for this important work. >> good morning supervisors. i like to present item number 9 before item 8. it's speaking of authorizing mayor housing $28 million infrastructure loan with sunnydale infrastructure l.l.c.

this will allow the development time to move forward on the compliment--committed made ten o the community to provide safe and affordable homes for everyone. it reverse long-term investment of infrastructure resources in the sunnydale community. i won't go into the background. i will provide context to the site in the first infrastructure phase. sunnydale hope s.f. site is located in visitation valley. it's bounded to the north. the first infrastructure phase shown here included moving 120 households within the infrastructure footprint to rehab units on site. demolition of 16 buildings across the 5.5-acre site so limit squatting and security issues. the new infrastructure will include realignment of the

street grid. once completed the infrastructure will support the first vertical affordable housing development. which is 167 units. as well as sale of market rate price known as bloc 5 which will cross subsidize next sunnydale affordable housing project. this work will support 284 future phases on site. demolition has started and expected to be completed shortly. when work for bloc 6 affordable housing development will start. we will be glad to answer any questions you may have. on behalf of hope s.f. and project developer we like to thank you for your consideration today and your continued

support. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. item 8 does not have a b.l.a. report, item 9 does. can we hear from the b.l.a. please. >> item tim is a resolution that approve gap funding $28.5 million for infrastructure development. summarized. sunnydale hope s.f. is a 58-acre project. this is infrastructure development for about five acres street and some other improvements for the initial part of the project. i think there was a map shown to gives that picture. block 5 is the market rate housing development. the $28 million that is being requested in gap financing would pay for this initiate phase of the infrastructure work. sources of funds included.

we summarized those on page 31 of the report. comes from 2015g.o. bond, housing trust funds, moneys from the california specific medical centre and low moderate income housing asset fund. we summarized funds there. $11 million is allocated to block 6 of the vacant leverage some tax credit equity for that project. i think the one thing we do point out as policy consideration is the extent to which these public moneys are used to benefit a portion of the market rate housing. we had discussions with the department about that. there's an expectation when the block 5 parcels are sold, it would add to the value of the land. those money will come back to the mayor's office of housing. block 5 is also under the jurisdiction of the housing authority and it does not come

under the city requirement either for appraisals under the administrative code or any kind of board of supervisors' approval of the sale of that property. it does not come under the city's jurisdiction. because of that, we want to add to our report. we want to add an amendment to the resolution. we have discussed with the mayor's office of housing. basically what we want to say is to amend the proposed resolution to submit a written report to the board of supervisors on the sale of block 5 once it is finalized. because we want it see how this infrastructure project -- what value that brings back to the city. then that report should include the process where advertising the availability of that property the selection of the purchaser and the criteria for

selecting the purchaser. >> chair fewer: would you actually add a at the end of that sentence and the repayment of the loan? >> for the block 5. this is direct sales proceeds to the city. it would go to the housing authority >> chair fewer: it was my understanding that this is actually borrowing some money from the affordable housing block 6 to actually help to pay for some of the infrastructure for the market rate housing on block 5. is that correct? >> the entire site is for the $28 million. the infrastructure portion that is attributed to block 5 accountings for 6% of the entire amount. because that's the only -- that's the square footage block 5. it's not borrowing from the

affordable housing. if anything, the amount of money that affordable housing component considers aside from the right-of-way is about $12 million. we can only leverage $11 million with tax credit allocation committee. it's not actually borrowing from the affordable. it's actually part of the bigger picture of infrastructure work with the streets and everything else. it's not taking from there. >> chair fewer: colleagues, any questions or comments on this? let's open up for public comment. any members of the public that like to comment on items 8 or 9? seeing none. public comment is closed. actually, i was under the understanding that actually this was a loan and sort of a loan to help to pay for the

infrastructure cost for block 6 and block 5. block 5 had, i think about $1.6 million gap. what i heard from the b.l.a. it was funding this gap. that's not what this is? >> the way that the d.a. has taken the infrastructure is to do the whole site, the 5.5-acre, right-of-way account for about 53%, block 6 is about 43%. then for block 5 it's about 5%. in the grant of $28 million, $11 million is assigned to block 6 as a loan. the rest of it was to be initially forgiven once the city has accepted the new righ

right-of-way street improvement. >> just to add to the broader context of this. i understand the focus the market rate. there's no such thing as a market rate street and affordable street. the entire development is a mixed income development. it is very important for the long-term sustainability of the entire neighborhood development for us no to disaggregate the market rate. it's it is part of the hope s.f. model to ensure that the mixed income model stays in tact. we have various folks who can speak to that model. we've come before the board and d.a. to talk about that mixed income model. i'm very reticence to try to incouple ber any of the market

rate parcel so it will limit our ability. this is an infrastructure that we're coming to the board for the entire development. these parcels are mixed in, sunnydale, hahn, these are one street. it's not like a market rate street and affordable street. >> chair fewer: what i believed it to be was a parcel 5 that was -- there's a parcel 6. parcel 5 is market rate and the parcel 6 is affordable housing. what i thought these funds were used for is not for the street but actually for the foundation of both of these blocks. that there is a gap of $1.6 million on block 5. that actually needs to be closed. using some of these funds to actually close $1.6 million gap. i wasn't aware that it's for

streets, for things like that. i thought it was actually for the foundational work only the actual blocks. >> it is for the foundational work. >> chair fewer: is if for the foundational work for the block 5? >> it is for the foundational work of block 6, 5 and 284 future units as well. >> chair fewer: what you're asking for today is for -- you're saying it's not a loan? you're saying that actually that all of this is one big project so all the funding, any funding that goes into block 5 or block 6, actually just is part of the whole development? >> correct. >> chair fewer: i'm not comfortable passing this out of committee today. i like to continue this item to the next meeting please.

if i can take that without objection, i like to make a motion. >> supervisor mandelman: i want to hope s.f. folks is there timing constraint issues or deadlines? >> yes. the next item actually -- this infrastructure work is supposed to start around the end beginning of may and it will be completed by september. block 6 cannot actually start construction until infrastructure work is completed. >> chair fewer: i would be happy next week to hear this in committee. if need be, pass it out of committee if we would have to. i like to continue both of these items, item number 8 and 9 until the next budget and finance

committee meeting. can i thaek that without objection. call items 10 and 11 together. [agenda item read] >> chair fewer: williamson and christine from the san francisco board. >> good morning i'm here representing the port as the

project manager to talk about reimbursement resolutions for both the pier 70 and mission rock projects. first pier 70 in fall of 2017 the board authorized pier 70 mixed used project. it provides for approximately 1600 to 3000 residential units up to $1.75 million gross in office uses and nine acres of open space. the project has public benefits package it includes more than 470 affordable housing units, historic rehab of buildings 2, 12 and 21 and new arts building just to name a few. next, mission rock project in

2018, the board authorized mission rock project. it provides for approximately 1400 to 1900 residential units up to 1.4 million commercial and 8 acres of open space. the project has robust public benefits package including 40% on sight afford ability, sea level rise protection and new arts building. both projects have a similar financing structure. under which developer capital, port capital, land proceeds and public financing can be used to pay for the public infrastructure cost for these projects. the goal for each project is to limit the use of the developer capital and accrue developer return by using public financing whenever possible and when public financing not available, advancing land proceeds or port

capital to fund public infrastructure. the items before you for consideration today are reimbursement resolutions which allow for reimbursement of land proceed advances and port capital with tax-exempt bonds when available. these resolutions are requirement of federal tax law have no budget impact and are consistent with prior approvals for both projects. that concludes the presentation. myself a as well as phil williamson the project manager, bridgare all available to answey questions may have. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. there's no b.l.a. report on these two items. i do have a question about the mission rock project. is there somebody here to answer questions for me?

>> good morning. phil williamson, port project manager for the mission rock project. >> chair fewer: when we had this conversation, i brought the issue of public schools in that area. do you have an update on that? >> i know the project team has members that are working your office and others in the office of school district to talk about and help plan and implement a school site in the mission bay neighborhood. it's not on this project site. but it's several blocks away in the mission bay community. i do not have an update at this time. i can get one later today or this week. >> chair fewer: that would be great. you have not had an update from any of the project sponsors? >> not in the last several weeks. >> chair fewer: i would request actually an update from the

project sponsor on this. colleagues, any comments or question about this item? seeing none. let's open up for public comment. are there any members of the public that would like to comment on items 10 and 11? seeing none, public comment is closed. like to move this to the board with a positive recommendation. thank you very much. please call item number 12. [agenda item read] >> chair fewer: thank you very much. i believe we have a representative here from the district attorney's office. >> good morning. or almost supervisors. happy to be here to request your support of the grant we received

from the macarthur foundation back in november of last year we've been winding our ways through the process to come before you today. as you maybe aware, it was a $2 million grant that was awarded to the district attorney office last year to help us find new strategies to approach new jail. multiple strategies for achieving that don't intend into here unless there are questions. it allows you to hire five f.t.e.s across the criminal justice agency. there's a point person within each agency to help us stay focused on safely reducing our jail population through the strategies we've identified. it will help us with data, there's some travel cost that covered by as well as community engagement opportunities for us through the grant.

it has been retroactive because the grant requirement did ask us to participate in two efforts prior to today's hearing. one was travel just in advance of the announcements being made which jurisdictioners were -- jurisdictions were selected. as well asal stresas well as a . macarthur identified the site agency. each go through a stress test where they go through the cases. one the big areas for improvement here in san francisco, trying to understand why case processing leads to so much jail population. we can move cases quickly through the process. those were the two expenditures that have been made in advance of today. >> chair fewer: there's no b.l.a. report on this. any comments or questions from

my colleagues? seeing none. let's open up for public comment. any members of the public that like to comment on item number 12? seeing it none. public comment is closed. you like to move this to the board with a positive recommendation that we can take that without objection. thank you very much. please call item number 13. [agenda item read] >> chair fewer: thank you very much. before we begin, i like to make some comments. colleagues, i'm thrilled to authored this legislation that has been many years in the making. i'm proud that it has 10

co-sponsors. the committee community to purchase actin acting is an a py designed to stabilize diverse communities in san francisco by preserving affordable housing. the legislation accomplishes this goal by granting qualified affordable housing nonprofits a first right to purchase multifamily residential building in vacant lots for preserving permanent affordable housing by giving qualified men profit first right to purchase and stabilize rent controlled buildings as affordable housing. we have the opportunity to challenge the notion that homeownership is the only secure form of housing. once nonprofit purchases a building, the building will be removed from the market. according to the planning department's latest housing balance support, less than 18% of net new units benefit in san

francisco in the past 10 years have been affordable. for every two new affordable units the city built it lost one rent controlled unit to evictioningsevictionings -- evir condo conversion. this is a win-win for landlords and tenants. it also combats the speculative model by positive way for property owners to sell their property and preserve the existing residents rather than resort to speculator. it is a win for san francisco as it will help the city better meet its housing balance needs by preventing loss of affordable

housing and increasing its stock permanently affordable housing. up front investment in keeping people housed is more cost effective than rehousing homeless folks who have been displaced. it will give us a chance to preserve not only small sites but i s.r. o.s. this body secured $40 million for small site acquisitions for the last eraf funds i want to introduce legislation that will create affordable housing production from future eraf funds that the city receive. it is critical that we invest if both new construction of affordable housing as well as preservation of existing affordable housing. i would like to thank all the stakeholderrer groups who have worked closely with my office in crafting this critical legislation including the housing right committee, san

francisco community land trust, town and country, 46 housing development corporation, tender neighborhood and others. thank you to a amy chan and thak you staff for reviewing this legislation and voting unanimously to give it a positive recommendation. i like to thank supervisors ronen, haney, mar safai. >> good morning supervisors.

that was a perfect pronunciation of my last name. i'm with the planning department staff. just to give you a brief summary, the planning commission considered this. ordinance at a february 14th hearing. recommended approval of the ordinance in con concept. the concept proposed ordinance aligns with some key recommendations that came out of our department's work on the map 2020 project. the department and commission are very appreciative of your leadership on this issue. the commission did offer a couple of recommendup recommendations on the ordinance. the first commission full support of creating as many strategies to preserve affordable housing as possible. urges the board to work with other agencies to ensure ordinance results in strategy that preserves the maximum number of affordable units.

second, the commission recommended that the board continue to explore additional incentives for property owners would be subject to the ordinance. that concludes my presentation. i'm available for any questions. thank you. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. >> supervisor stefani: would like to add my name as co-sponsor. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. that makes it unanimous. fabulous. the amendments that distributed address feedback from the planning commission and stakeholders. change the right of first refusal so only applies to properties where qualified nonprofit has exercised their right first offer and was rejected. brought in the criteria for qualified nonprofits so that more affordable housing nonprofits can qualify. grant additional protections to tenants by ensuring they cannot be evicted from building purchase without just cause and provide a partial transfer tax

exemption to property owner who accept offer $5 million or more from qualify nonprofit. this parcel transfer tax exemption amounts to 66% tax discount. property owners are free to reject nonprofit that exercises their right of first offer. i hope i can count on your support for these amendments today. do we have a b.l.a. report on this? no, there's none. let's open up for public comment now. i have a few cards here. let me call out the names. curtis bradford, mary mcnamar mcnamara, jonny oliver, bruce wolf, alexander goldman, joseph

smook, cynthia fong and keith cooley. >> good morning. almost afternoon. i came in support of copa. i believe this is a great act. thank you for bringing this to us and all the work that everybody done on it. we need to access every tool possible to try and stabilize the housing and ensure affordable housing in san francisco going forward. we've seen some real destabilization. we lost units in tenderloins. this isn't a fix all and it's not going to change the whole big picture, it's one tool in whole list of tools we need to implement to address this crisis. i also want to say thank you for the amendment. i appreciate the additional tenant protection.

i'm glad to hear that everybody is supporting it. >> chair fewer: next speaker please. >> my name is mary mcnamara i'm here on behalf of the outer sunset working group which is actually a coalition of homeowners and renters. i want to thank supervisor mar for co-sponsoring this legislation. speculators and evicttors have invaded our neighborhood. there's no doubt longtime renters will be forced out. many of these people have devoted themselves to the betterment of our community. you may have noticed the gardens at the end of judah near the beach, many renters led the effort to improve the area and they also volunteered their time to maintain it. one the most urksome myths about

renters is they don't care about their community. nothing can be further from the truth. many of them are out of state are exploiting our housing resources and shredding the fabric of our community. all the while walking ought with enormous profit. this legislation is the first step is stopping this tragedy. i thank you all from the bottom of my heart for your effort in preserving this. >> thank you supervisors for hearing this ordinance. i want to say that united way mission we advocate for the health, education, financial stability of everyone -- every person in our community.

without preservation and protection measures, low income renters and vulnerable renters are at risk of displacement. for all these reasons, united way barrier supports copa and ask the budgets and finance committee recommend that the board of supervisors approve it. thank you. >> my name is johnny oliver with mission economic development agency. we have through partnerships with both mayor's office of housing, 46 housing accelerated opportunity. we've been able to purchase 22 buildings. 23 of those are commercial and 154 those are residential.

we believe copa will help ensure every building has an opportunity to be review bid nonprofit like ourselves. one the challenges we face, when we're competing against a cash buyer, they are able to move quickly. we're not able to compete without a time line to certify 6, 10 or 15 units. this would give us an opportunity to offer the same market rates offer but give us the time needed to qualify the residents in the building. thank you for your support. >> good morning. alexandria goldman. i want to first thank interview fewer and staff and all the community activist who really worked hard on making this legislation possible. we were founded on the idea that

the best way to stop displacement is removing housing from the speculative housing market. our housing stock is different than the tenderloin. it's been harder for us to have the opportunity to purchase buildings. we were able to purchase one few week ago. we're excited that legislation like copa and hopefully some funding sources that will be evolving. we'll make it possible for us to purchase more buildings ander sure that tenderloin can rest of the city can remain a welcoming place for renting. thank you all for your support. >> good morning supervisors. my name is keith cooley. i'm here today with the san francisco community land trust. we purchased residential buildings and take buildings off of the speculative market and transfer them to community

ownership. stabilizing housing and preventing displacement. we're proud to be involved in developing this legislation and we support this legislation. it will provide us with an important tool to prevent displacement by enabling nonprofit developers to compete on more equal terms in the open market with buyers who speculate with people's homes. we urge the budget committee to pass this measure. thank you. >> good afternoon. chair fewer, supervisors.

thank you so much. this is excellent, fabulous, fantastic, amazing. my name is bruce wolf, i'm president of the board of directors of the san francisco community land trust. i'm here to represent our membership, our residents and staff and the board of directors and urging your support. it seems like almost everybody is supporting this. it is important that we find solutions for all areas of housing on the spectrum in the middle is sorely needed. this is where we can provide the most impact, prevent, displacement, especially for people with disabilities and people who are approaching senior age to age in place. really appreciate it. thank you so much. >> chair fewer: thank you. next speaker please.

>> good morning supervisors. i'm jesse oliver sanford. i'm a longtime renter in the castro. since 1990 according to the american university survey, san francisco lost approximately one in four of lgbt people. 94114 my zip code has declined from same sex cohabiting adults from 60%. one third to one-half to home legacy san franciscans identify as lgbt despite point in time count methodology undercounts our population. the community opportunity purchase act represents an important opportunity to bring housing to lgbt stronghold neighborhood such as mine lgbt individuals are much more likely to be below the median income and our community faces a

playing field when competing for san francisco limited housing supply. i do urge you to support this legislation. i would urge an additional amendment. as drafted, the legislation defines with three residential as more. i urge you to include builds that has two residential units. those buildings are really critical to the fabric of neighborhoods like the castro which as you know, is one the world's most unique recognizable neighborhoods. thank you. >> chair fewer: next speaker. hi kathy. >> i didn't hear my name. i did turn in a card. my name is kathy. i'm here to lend support. this sounds like -- it's been developed with lot of community input over a long time. it's urgently needed now

especially with that sb50 walking around sacramento. it scares me to death. more than half our teachers live out of town. few of us who are left here are worried about being displaced. i it's hard for young teacher to come in on starting salary and pay their rent. so far, our school and faculty we need it and d1 resident for 40 years, avery been luck -- i have been lucky to evicted once. it was an owner move-in. i was lucky enough to move into four unit place from seventh avenue to eighth avenue. i never thought i would be afraid as i approached retirement that you have to leave town. i am. i think this will help to ensure that i won't have to. thank you for all endorsing