>> are we protecting profits for the real estate industry in are we prophetting th profits for te companies so that they can continue to maintain profits

working downtown? we have no dignity homes. financing for this playing a public bank, a robust public bank, boom, boom, boom, and a california public bank, please. changinchanges are in the air. maybe we can accommodate seniors that can't maintain their homes or physically go up the stairs to their home. dignity homes, again, they should be placed in all developments. navigation centres, i would like to repeat what supervisor kim said months ago, that we actually do better when they're removed from their neighborhoods where they're struggling.

other california added 3% more to global climate change. our freeway, our society have become rivers of poison. this our democracy and where our capitalistic system change. thank you. on another subject matter, considering teacher residency at a predominantly asian and hispanic school which ranks 2,302 out of 2,480 schools in california according to school digger. poor performance demight a despa

student-teacher ratio, so as i understand this, to previous teacher or educational coursework or no cut-off score or analog test and the administrators may assess the course work. the mat thinks a anlitticcally. the city has arrived at a new-found financial windfall so i lean toward the opinion of sousupervisor kim and can be spd

as a matter of priority. ipublic matter is closed. please call the committee calendar items 28-36 out of record. >> were introduced for adoption without reference to committee. a unanimous vote is required on first reading today. alternatively any member may require a resolution go to committee. >> ok. would any of the colleagues like to sever any items some. >> can we sever item number 33?

>> thank you. >> colleagues, can we take the rest of the items, same house, same call? without objections, these resolutions are adopted unanimously. madam clerk, could you please call item number 33? >> 33, resolution to support full parody for mental health patients and clinicians at kaier permanente. >> supervisor ronan. >> colleagues, the resolution before you is about mental health parody and patient health. i want to thank supervisor the s for working with my office on this resolution and to push for mental health parody, one of the

most pressing issues facing the city today. as i have stated repeatedly, san francisco is facing a crisis of untreated mental illness, where everyday people are left to wander the streets being very ill. both our private and public systems have to step up and do more to increase availability of services and ensure that we are coordinating with each other across departments and agencies and systems. we have all been hammering and several hearings to ensure better care and availability of services. similarly, this resolution urges kaier permanente to step up their game. state and federal laws require the healthcare providers like the county of san francisco uphold full parody for mental health care services on par with

medical care for the body. this is the law and sadly they have fallen short. as a lifetime, kaieser member, i can tell you this hmo has a horrible reputation amongst healthcare services. just this past month, one of my very dear friends whose teenage daughter was expressing thoughts of suicide had called kaiser to make an appointment for her daughter and toll that the first availability was two months away. nothis was just this month. i had to intervene to get her daughter an appointment urgently. we got the letter from the hospital council hand heard from the executive director there and some of the points that they

make, that it's inappropriate to call out kaiser, one medical adviser in the city and to promote one vision, you know, that's backed by frontline workers on how to increase availability of services, that there's a nation-wide labour shortage. i'm just not convinced by any of these arguments. first of all, kaiser represents close to 4 million members in northern california, 4 million members. it think i it's appropriate for this body to weigh in on a legal issue about the mental health care by this major private provider of medical care in our city. the fact that we worked on this resolution, i believe, is incredibly appropriate. unions are the one way for

frontline providers that are actually on the ground doing the work everyday to have a say in a corporate establishment over how that work should be done and how it can be improved. and i take their word and their opinion on this very, very seriously and i think it's completely appropriate to work with them to develop ideas and suggestions for improvement of services. and finally, while there is a labour shortage around some workers and especially around workers with bilingual language skills, every single year that they can do more to provide both wages and benefits to attract more of a workforce. now while i've made a few

amendments to the resolution, i passed them all out to you. and these are non-substantial amendments, is to acknowledge that san francisco is basing a shortage of bilingual and a look at how to best improve mental health care access. it is time to take action and make sure that both private and public sectors of the healthcare system are doing their fair share to build the mental health system we need and i ask you to please join me in voting yes on this resolution today. thank you. >> supervisor ronan, would you like to add to your amendment to just delete one word? yes. >> i make a motion to introduce the amendments as stated and

pass them out to you. >> and to include that one word on your further resolve clause. it's just a typo. >> oh, ok, sorry. >> page 4, line 1. >> yes, thank you. >> colleagues, loose a motion to amend this resolution and is there a second? >> seconded by supervisor brown? and then amendments pass. colleagues, can we take this resolution, item as amended, same house, same call? this resolution passes unanimously. madam clerk, please read the in

memorium. >> today's meeting will be adjourned on behalf of supervisor walton for the late miss ruth passin, on behalf of supervisor peskin for miss edna fong and on behalf of supervisor stephanie for the forever wonderful january blum. >> that brings us to the end of our agenda. i know you won't know what to do with your spare time. madam clerk, any other business for today? >> that concludes our business for today. >> thank you, everyone. this meeting is adjourned.

>> my s.f. dove -- government t.v. moment was when i received a commendation award from supervisor chris daly. then we sang a duet in the board chamber. [singing] >> happy anniversary san francisco government t.v. happy anniversary to you.

happy anniversary san francisco government t.v. anniversary, anniversary, happy 25th anniversary to you. anniversary to you. [♪] - working for the city and county of san francisco will immerse you in a vibrant and dynamic city that's on the forefront of economic growth, the arts, and social change. our city has always been on the edge of progress and innovation. after all, we're at the meeting of land and sea. - our city is famous for its iconic scenery, historic designs, and world- class style. it's the birthplace of blue jeans, and where "the rock" holds court over the largest natural harbor on the west coast. - the city's information technology professionals work on revolutionary projects, like providing free wifi to residents and visitors, developing new programs to keep sfo humming, and ensuring patient safety at san francisco general.

our it professionals make government accessible through award-winning mobile apps, and support vital infrastructure projects like the hetch hetchy regional water system. - our employees enjoy competitive salaries, as well as generous benefits programs. but most importantly, working for the city and county of san francisco gives employees an opportunity to contribute their ideas, energy, and commitment to shape the city's future. - thank you for considering a career with the city and county of san francisco. welcome to the land use and transportation committee meeting of the san francisco board of

supervisors or today, monday, april 22, 2019. i'm the chair, aaron peskin, joined by matt haney and shortly by safai. our clerk, do you have announcements? >> be sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices. any documents should be submitted to the clerk >> supervisor peskin: thank you. could you read the first item. >> item number 1 is ordinance ordering the summary street vacation of the 900 block of francisco street as part of the development of francisco --% approximate -- >> supervisor peskin: i think actually -- >> i apologize.

ordinance amending the plumbing code to add a requirement for the placement and minimum size of building traps and affirming the appropriate findings. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. who do we have here for this earth-shattering piece of legislation? >> steve, from dbi, chief plumbing inspector. this was a clerical error that was missed. it's always been in the code. it's something we're re-entering back into the code for the amendments. i have this section here. put up here, if you want. section 1008.0, building traps, it gives you everything required for a 4-inch vent and the requirement of a trap. the legislation that we're going for right now is above the 1001.155 that, the location of

the traps. >> supervisor peskin: any public comment on item number 1? seeing none, public comment is closed. motion to send this item to the full board with recommendation? moved by supervisor safai. we'll take that without objection. next item, please. >> item 2 is ordering the street vacation of 900 block of francisco street as part of francisco park. >> supervisor peskin: before we hear from mr. banks, i wanted to put this into context and then i'll say more words about this tomorrow, but this is the long vacant piece of p.u.c. property that was the francisco reservoir that has not been used as a reservoir longer than any of us have been alive in this room.

and it was subject of a jurisdictional transfer treatment between the public utilities commission and the parks and rec department. i wanted to acknowledge and remember jan blum, one of the leading forces in that movement, who volunteered in my office from 2001 to 2009 and passed away last week. i just wanted to thank jan blum and her colleagues in their tireless effort to turn this into san francisco's newest francisco park in the middle of those properties which by the way have yet to be transferred by the p.u.c. to the rec and part. it's a paper street. it's never been built. but it only exists on paper this is summary vacation of that. and with that, on behalf of

public works specifically the county surveyor, mr. stores who is over there, mr. banks, the floor is yours. >> thank you. good afternoon, chairman peskin as well as distinguished members of the board. this legislation is to conditionally vacate francisco street. currently this portion of the street is underdeveloped dedicated public right of way tt that is bound by accesser block 0046 to the north, and accessory block 0047 to the south. the vacation is part of the process of creating, as you mentioned, a new francisco park which is located at the site of the reservoir. by vacationing the street, the rec and park department will be able to create a single parcel for the park by merging ab0046

and assessor block 0047 and the vacated area that will allow rec and park to maintain the park. the vacation is conditioned on the successful transfer of the abudding parcels, 0046 and 0047 from the san francisco public utilities commission to the recreation and parks department. now, in the event that the abutting parcels are not transferred to rec and park, the vacation and the transfer of the street shall not occur. the jurisdictional transfer is expected to occur by 2026. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, mr. banks. any questions or comments from committee members? any comments from staff or supervisor stefani, within whose district this falls? any public comment on item number 2?

mr. banks, i think we're opening it up for public comment. you're go to go for now. mr. wright? >> i agree with the improvements for the park. this is not the first time i've done this. i've done this before to remove a person's name by the name of feeling from two locations within the city. his name was on the street within san francisco and his name was in a park that is located in san francisco. as a result, a hearing took place that started off just like this and ended up going to the board of appeals and the appeals court ruled in favor of the petition. which was led by the president of the board of supervisors now. as a result, mr. feeling's name was taken off a park, because of his history of racism against asian people and making statements he wanted california

to be all white. i spoke up to that. my problem is, why do we have feeling statue on the inside of the front two doors of the building here at city hall? i made that point before and i'm stressing it again. there is no way his statue should be on the inside of the two front doors of city hall when we removed his name from the city street and the city park because of his history of racism. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, sir. are there any other members of the public who would like to testify on item number 2? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, is there a motion for item number 2? moved, i will assume that is a motion to send this to the full board with recommendation made by supervisor hay. can you read items 3 through 5 together. >> item number 3 is ordinance

approving the agreement between the city and county of san francisco and syts investments. item 4 is establishing the cayuga special use district. one more. item number 5 is an ordinance amending the zoning map to change the zoning district and making it appropriate -- making appropriate findings. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. so these three instruments have been brought to us by supervisor safai. i've been briefed by the office of economic and workforce development. this is an exciting project. with that, supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you, mr. chair. i'm going to say some opening remarks.

i want to point out first we're going to make a slight legislative adjustment recommended by the planning commission. it was noticed later in the process, items 3-5, the first two ordinances talk about establishing the cayuga special use district and we amended the zoning map and the planning code, but there was erroneous reference to two lots, 039 and 011c. and there is only one, 011c. we've stricken it and it's recommended by the planning commission. wanted to point out that technical thing. that was a slight adjustment. >> supervisor peskin: i assume because we're deleting a numbered on not adding new numbers, no new notice is required?

city attorney is nodding his head in the affirmative. >> and speaking in the affirmative, yes, this does not require a continuance. >> supervisor safai: so it's now just one lot. i want to say this is a pretty momentous event. this project has proposed and will build 50% of its units below market rate. that is also one of the most aggressive bmr projects in the city's history. we are beating the ami levels in the project of the proposed home sf program. 10% will be at 65, 10% at 80, which is better than the home sf program. this family has done work in this neighborhood, but never a project of this scale. owned this parcel all the way back to 2009 and always talked about doing special for the

residents of this neighborhood and the city as way to give back. as an immigrant family that started with pretty much zero in the 80s and started out small-scale development is now doing projects all over san francisco. but this is a legacy project for the family and i wanted to take the time to recognize the family for what they're doing here. it's a major gift to the city of san francisco. and the citizens and the residents of district 11. we will fight for neighborhood preference, 40% of the -- set aside for neighborhood preference. there is no public money in this project. and it will be the first family affordable housing ever in the history of district 11. we do have some wonderful projects in the pipeline, that are 100% affordable with government funded, but this will be the first. in all the affordable housing in district 11 over the decade, it

totals 48 units, we will get 58 units in this project. we just wanted to say we're super excited about this. we spent a lot of time and effort into negotiating this, planning department, dan, aaron and their team, and the lead planner, veronica, and sue for managing the project and back-and-forth. and listening to the family and ending with the development agreement i think the city can be very proud of. we're very excited today about this project. i know it's moving forward in a way will help to shape and set the ground for other projects in the city. so, thank you, mr. chair, i'll

make additional comments, but i'm sorry, veronica flores. >> good afternoon, supervisors. planning department staff. so again these three ordinances relate to the residential housing project at 915 cayuga avenue. 70% of units will be family-sized units. the first ordinance relates to a map amendment to rezone all of the project site. currently, the project site is dually zoned rh-1 and this ordinance would create uniform zoning for the project site. the second ordinance relates to planning code and map amendment to establish the cayuga special use district.

the last ordinance relates to a focused development agreement the city will enter into with the project sponsor due to its very high affordability level. the planning commission heard the items last week on april 11 and adopted a resolution to approve said ordinances with the modification to clarify the lot references as supervisor safai had mentioned. >> good afternoon, chair peskin, supervisors haney and safai. i took my husband's last name, moving over to the port. i'm a project manager at the office of economic and workforce development. our director ken rich is here with me as well. thank you for your time and consideration of the 915 cayuga project and the focused development agreement. 915 cayuga is before you today

for two reasons. first and foremost, the project is delivering 50% affordability through a privately financed development. the delivery of the deeper affordability is captured through this agreement. historically, development agreements have been for large multi-phased developments such as pier 70. 915 cayuga is a single phased single building development. as the planning department shared, 11 of the units will be ami, 35 of the units will be at 100ami. this is in more detail of exhibit c of the development agreement. additional benefit from the focused development agreement is affordable housing performance schedule, exhibit d, to the development agreement. this predetermines review and response periods between the city and the sponsor and

requires the project sponsor to increase -- i'd like this note that 915 cayuga alone will increase the number of bmr in the community from 34 units to 92 units. nearly tripling the number of units in the neighborhood. and to echo what supervisor safai shared, this will be privately funded and will allow for neighborhood preference. with respect to the three tenants that are located on the premises currently, we're working with them to review commercial opportunities on the mission street corridor, with the goal of acquiring space prior to the issuance. the team will now present on the details and design of the project. thank you.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is sue, i'm one of the owners owners 915 cayuga. we're proud to offer 50% of the residential units at this project for san francisco's affordable housing market, thereby giving back to the city where my parents started their construction business 40 years ago. my father has been doing business here. our family business takes pride in our development projects which is why cayuga avenue will be kept in the family. we do not intend on selling it. my parents purchased the lot in 2000 9d. it was a few years ago they decided to offer 50% of the residential units, which is 58 units, for affordable housing in the below market rate

inclusionary program. this project is not staffing an offsite affordable housing requirement for another development. this is purely voluntary. this gift to the city of 50% of affordable housing units, the first of its kind in san francisco history, is twice as much as required by home sf. along the same lines, my mother is a passionate local advocate for homeless youth. during the past 20 years, she has been involved with many organizations that focus on giving a helping hand to vulnerable youth, including latino youths in need and mothers against poverty. erin weir marking five of the market rate units to foster a youth program. in summary, 915 will be a productive addition to the

community. i will turn it over to my uncle and rep of the design team. >> thank you. and bless your heart. >> supervisors, i'm also extremely proud to be part of the project and this family. and i'm going to make it quick for you. the biggest challenge in design, if i can -- if i may have the overhead, please, is the fact that on the north side, you know, we have a commercial district. we have put a shadow of a big building next to it. 65 ocean that is coming up. on the south side we're backed into rh-1 single-family zoning. so the challenge was to see how we can make this large building fit within this block and transition into the rh-1 zoning. this is what you see.

we have the south side of the building, we have set back t the -- so thinks the south side. we have set back 25 feet from the rear yards of the rh-1 zoned district homes. we have made sure that the way the units are designed, that they have their living room for most part open to the center court, so we can reduce the amount of issues with privacy and noise and all that. we feel this is a good project and we have worked with the neighborhood and especially the planning team, we have worked relentlessly for the last 2-3 years to get this through. i'm available for any questions you might have. >> thank you. i just wanted to underscore the point -- i appreciate you

mentioning it -- that five of the additional units market rate units will be dedicated to transitional aged youth. that is voluntary on behalf of the family and the work they've done with the john burton foundation. i know there is a few of the individuals that might speak here today. but that's a phenomenal gesture. on top of what is not even reflected in the development agreement here today. so other than that, if there are members of the public that wish to comment on the item, please come forward. you have two minutes to speak. >> you're on the right track, but i believe i can give information that will make the building more attractive and more housing opportunities. first of all, when you say below market rate and affordable housing, you're saying that it's below market rate at 55% of the median. 55% of the income scale is

$45,600. that means everybody's income that is below $45,600 is not included in the inclusionary ordinance that each and everybody voted for to put the inclusionary ordinance on the ballot and vote for in each and every one of your districts. what you're doing by not including these income brackets, which is the majority of the people in transit, are being discriminated against. if you claim you're equal opportunity housing organization, but then you turn around and discriminate and violate constitutional law whose citizens' income is below the income of $45,600. now, there is a 144 units being built for $56 million. and by the same response, it's for all incomes. okay, i move to have you use

this example right here and with $11 billion that you get in return in taxes -- [bell ringing] -- and also the $500 million that you're getting from newsom, you could build nine of these apartment complexeses. by the same response, you can build it on top of each other and make 27 story unit complex. that will not only put a dent in the homeless population, but veterans, amputees, people in wheelchairs and any other -- [bell ringing]. >> thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon. my name is wesley. i'm with john burton advocates for youth, founded by former state senator john burton. we work to improve the lives of youth, those in foster care, the juvenile probation system.

i'm here to speak in support of the project. this will provide critical support for former foster youth in san francisco. as you know, children and youth are in the foster system. in addition to the trauma, they experience additional challenges such as multiple placements and school changes. together, these experiences place barriers for foster youth to earn long-term financial security. this will provide five units for youth to live and provide a safe foundation for them to pursue their future. organization works closely with sf city college and san francisco state university. we expect youth will be benefit. a nonprofit housing provider will provide supportive services to ensure that youth receive assistance and support.

this model has been implemented across california successfully. thank you for your consideration of the request. i urge your support for this proposal. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm here in the advocacy for the foster youth for this housing project specifically speaking on behalf of the foster children -- or the youth that will be transitioning out of foster home into adulthood. there was a survey done on may 26, 2017 that said over 20,000 children who age out of the foster care system will become homeless. i was one of those children in 2009, specifically for los angeles. and speaking on behalf of someone who comes from los angeles, i witnessed that a lot of youth in foster care are people of color, african-american, latino, and

immigrant youth who face foster care. with this housing project and this opportunity to provide housing to youth who are transitioning out, it will prevent them from following what i had to do. i became homeless at the age of 18, right after my time in foster care. i had to get back on my feet. i had to find a job. i became homeless with my immigrant mother for three months and then i made the decision to go back to school. now i'm at san francisco state university. i am one of those youth who need housing and who needs this kind of opportunity. and i'm totally for this housing project and -- yeah, that will be my time. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i live in the cayuga neighborhood behind the proposed development. i want to thank supervisor safai for championing this project.

i think it's going to be a great addition to the neighborhood. my issue for this particular board, i already spoke in front of the planning council, is transportation. right now, there are 66 proposed parking spaces and green trip suggested that the real number to satisfy their criteria is more like 114. i think that it is part of this, there ought to be some consideration full consideration of the impact on the neighborhood of the parking that is there now. i spoke to merchants on mission and they say that people have no place to park, so there is a lot of boarded up places that could benefit from parking. competition for the neighborhood is outside of the city of san francisco, where there is downtown parking spaces. so just request that you seriously consider putting in additional parking structures

there. as far as the neighborhood is concerned, many of the families have live at home adult children that take additional parking spaces and also, there is a lot of ride-share drivers, über and lyft in the neighborhood that help to supplement their income. so it is a matter of making that space more affordable. thank you. >> before the next speaker, i want to say for the record, we spent a considerable amount of time working with the planning department and the project sponsor. there is the ability in the project and the development agreement to expand on demand as more residents move in to the development, to go to one to one parking. that is already written into the agreement, which means you could get up to 118 spots in the development. i want to say that for the record. i understand the desire to push away from parking in our neighborhood there because it's more of a family -- larger

extended family neighborhood. you have homes with multiple cars. because this unit in this proposal is more family style. the data suggests that there will be less cars in this, depending upon the age and composition of it, but we still wrote into the agreement, that they have the ability to expand and the developer has agreed in the development agreement on demand to expand and invest additional money for parking lifts, which they're investing and they can expand to greater degree. i wanted to say that for the record and i appreciate you coming out and highlighting that point. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm emancipated foster youth. i'm 23 years old. i entered the system at the age of 16. i'm going to refrain going into

my past because i'm still trying to gain psychological independence from everything that has happened. i've done a lot of wracking of my brain on this situation, and i believe having safe affordable housing is important for current and former foster youth to instill us a sense of agency in areas of our lives where we haven't been fortunate enough to have it. i believe it's given -- it's with this sense of agency one can use in order to gain control over other areas of their life, that foster youth are prone to experiencing instability. that's all i have to say. >> thank you for your testimony. any other members of the public wish to comment? if not, public comment is closed. just want to say, the planning

commission, we heard also from additional former foster youth and existing foster youth, and importance of that and the statistics of the propensity toward homelessness and lack of job opportunities and opportunities for their future. one of the most stabilizing factors is having a stable home environment and a roof over your head. so again i want to overemphasize the family has committed to do a minimum of five of these additional units on top of the below market rate. and to the point -- the previous point. the mix, the affordable mix, in terms of the 10% at 55, 10% at 80, 10% at 100, we used the bands that we've used in other conversations of inclusionary housing. there are people lower than 55%, they'll be eligible to access the units.

same thing on the 80%. as well as between 90 and 130 for the 100%. so we give that opportunity based on the previous conversations to one of the mental of the commenters. -- one of the comments of the commenters. >> anything you want to add on behalf of the department of city planning? mr. rich, anything you want to add that has not been said? okay. so public comment is closed. and i believe amendments as previously mentioned by supervisor safai as to all three instruments are in order, deleting the extraneous parcel. so that motion has just been made by supervisor safai and taken without objection by the committee and supervisor safai, would you like to make a motion to forward these to the full board for positive recommendation? >> supervisor safai: you just did it.

yes. >> supervisor peskin: so moved. >> supervisor safai: wait, it won't be next week, it will be in may, because we have to allow for the proper time. is it a committee report? >> supervisor peskin: no, not a committee report, but i think in the normal course of business, not tomorrow, but a week from tomorrow. >> supervisor safai: i just want to double check with the planning department. so a week from tomorrow would be -- is that the appropriate schedule? >> so we had to adjust the schedule because i'm traveling. i haven't had a vacation, so i need to be here to present on the item at full board, so we'll be at full board on may 14. >> no, you don't need to be. supervisor safai, the chair of this committee, i think we're okay. we can get this thing done. we don't have to wait until the middle of may. >> i will look to my boss, but i'm very happy to go on

vacation. >> supervisor peskin: go on vacation, your boss knows my word is my bond. thank you to the project sponsor. this is the kind of project that we like to see. with that, we'll send all three of these items with recommendation, without objection for hearing next tuesday -- not tomorrow, but the tuesday after tomorrow. that will be the order. madame clerk, please read the lasttime. >> item 6 is hearing of status report and updated work plan for a city-wide survey of historic resources in san francisco, and requesting the planning department to report. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. so before we hear from the planning department, and supervisor safai is going to step out for a moment. i just want to put this in a little bit of context. and we will hear a little bit. i want to acknowledge that

historic preservation commissioner kate black has joined us, along with the staff to the historic preservation commission, tim fry, and frar, there is a number of reasons the city might want to speed up its surveys of what our historic resources in the city. if for no other reason, not just to preserve the best of the rest, but to actually give stability and predictability to the development community as san francisco is struggling with a housing crisis. we're actually behind the times in san francisco. los angeles is far ahead of us and i think if you ever go to the pim. the planning information map,

that is on the website, which i commend to people, you immediately will see whether it's known to be historic resource, is not a historic resource, or what most things fall into, category b, nobody knows whether it is or is not, because it has not been surveyed. and i think if we could get our arms around that, we would be much better off. i want to thank historic preservation commissioner aaron hyland who brought this to my attention, unfortunately, he had an emergency today and was not able to join us. i know that commissioner black is here on behalf of the commission. to my one colleague remaining on the panel, supervisor haney, the way to speed this up will cost money. and so this is a timely moment to have this conversation in advance of our upcoming budget deliberations and i may have

actually already identified a few hundred thousands dollars in funding. the entire effort is going to cost much more than that. if it is okay with staff, would like to provide commissioner black with the opportunity to start or you can end, or you can do both. >> yes, thank you very much. i'm kate black, i'm a member of the historic preservation commission. i'm here today on behalf of aaron hyland who was unable to be here. i'm speaking on behalf of the whole commission. this is something that the commission discussed and voted on and we think is a really important priority. i'm using -- it's a bit of a mashup between aaron's notes and my comments. 25 years ago, san francisco was the historic preservation leader. other cities were copying us and looking to us for our guidance. our preservation movement was

born out of the massive urban renewal that happened in the western addition in the 50s and 60s and the realization by residents and city leaders, we were going to lose our architectural identity if we didn't do something quickly. in 1975, a survey was done. in 1979, splendid survivors was published and it was used to help inform the 1985 downtown plan. we were on top of our game. since then, i'm sorry to say that we just haven't been able to maintain that momentum. some areas have been surveyed. and we've made a little bit of progress in the mission delores and the dubose triangle area. in contrast, as supervisor peskin mentioned, the city of

los angeles between 2010 and 2017, the entire city was surveyed. that is 880,000 buildings and properties over 500 square miles. and the pim he was talking about is a very fast way for property owners to fast-track the identification of the work that they would have to do on their property and save themes a lot of -- saves them a lot of money. i also want to note that we've only done 20% of the city of san francisco that has been surveyed. so why is this so important? obviously, it's important from a historic preservation standpoint. and it's not just to retain our architectural e architectural identity, it's important from an economic standpoint. in 2017, that equated to 10.4 million visitors who spent the

night in san francisco. and they spent $7.77 billion in tourist dollars. that is b, billion with a "b". i don't have more updated information. i'm sure it's more than that now. they're not just here because of the golden gate bridge and fog. they're here in part because of the arc technical identity and these wonderful buildings atop clinging onto these fabulous hills. and the more that we lose that identity, the more we look like houston or denver, those tourist dollars will start to wane. so why the urgency? after many years of working with developers, i know that the one thing that can really matter to them is development certainty. they have a lot of hurdles to go through, especially developers

of units with affordable housing. and being able to know in advance whether they have a site that is a historic resource or not, will have a huge effect in them being able to target their developments, and compress the time line and costs of their developments. and there are two reasons why this is very, very important. and both of these are important goals that mayor breed has set forth. the first is development permit streamlining for everybody. every time someone wants to expand or make a large alteration to their property, they have to determine whether their property is historic or not. and that is expensive and it's time consuming and there are some people who just abandon the project or don't even start it, because it's too cost prohibitive for them. the second and more important

is, as already discussed, the critical need for housing, especially affordable housing. and every time a developer wants to demolish a building to be replaced by needed housing, they, too, run into this problem, but it's on a much grander scale. what we're asking is for the survey, the timeline for the survey, to be compressed. it would be a two-and-a-half to three-year time frame in lieu of 6-7 years. it will involve three ftes and one additional intern. these can be temporary term positions. the historic -- in closing, the historic preservation commission wants to urge the mayor and the rest of the supervisors to fund and support this effort, shift the resources, whatever we can

d