the meeting will come to order. welcome to the thursday, may 2nd meeting of the government audit and oversight committee. i'm gordon mar, the chair of the committee and i'm joined by vallie brown and aaron peskin. i'd like to thank corwin sfgovtv

for staffing the meeting. mr. clerk, any announcements? >> clerk: please ensure you silenced your cell phones and other devices. speaker cards should be submit issed to the clerk. items acted upon will be on the may 14th board of supervisors agenda. >> supervisor mar: number one? >> clerk: resolution declaring the intention of the board of supervisors to establish a property-based business improvement district known as the downtown community. ordering and setting a time and place for public hearing of the board of supervisors sitting as a committee of whole on july 16, at 3:00 p.m. approving the form of the notice of public hearing and assessment ballot proceeding. directing environmental findings and directing the board to give

notice as required. >> supervisor mar: i'd like to recognize helen mar and andrew from the office of economic development for a brief presentation. >> thank you, good morning. helen mar, project manager with workforce development. i work on the team that provides oversight to the cbds in the city. i'm here to present on the resolution. this project has been a multiyear process with initial formation dating back to 2007. the original cbd was stopped by the recession of 2008. the steering committee came together and decided to reinitiate a campaign. the expanded cbd steering committee worked to determine the appropriate services to deliver and the appropriate assessments for the services.

this was done through considerable outreach, including a survey to all property owners and stakeholders in the area. this outreach guided the creation of the formation documents attached to this resolution and call for assessment of 10 cents per building square foot and 8 cents for vacant lots. the service areas which the cbd consultant will present in greater detail on sidewalks, management, which is 77.45% of the budget, district identity, marketing and public space development and management. 5.16% of the budget. program management approximately 14.2% of the budget. and contingency, 3.19% of the budget. the total district budget will be approximately $4 million with approximately $3.8 million by special assessment dollars.

the district encompasses 669 parcels and their services will benefit property owners, business owners, residents and the area as a whole. the downtown cbd has reached their 30% threshold necessary to trigger a special election and the cbd will have 15-year term from january 1, 2020 through to december 31, 2034. if there are no questions from staff, i would like to invite marco to present. >> thank you. >> thank you, supervisors. supervisor peskin, i hope you're doing well today. always a pleasure to see you. supervisor peskin and i have been doing this for 15 years now, been through a lot together. i'm going to go through the

power point presentation. will it show up here, helen? just to give you an overview. as stated, we had started this -- am i doing something wrong here? so, this shows the activities or milestones we're working on. the background on the financial district as helen mentioned, we started this effort back in 2007-08. and because we knew that was the financial district is really, as far as -- i work throughout the state, so i -- really throughout the country, this is most significant business district in the entire west coast. it's one of the greatest ones,

great density. and we started the effort in 2007. as you all know in the fall of 2008, everything collapsed. the effort to try to get to the petition drive through our old efforts just stopped completely. so what we decided to do was go on hiatus. april 2016, we began to discuss it again with a few people as led by clint reilly, myself, jim lazarus of the chamber and commerce and we wanted to figure out was there support to do this. so we had the first meeting of the property owners in june 2017. we sent out a survey to property owners in august 2017. the petition threshold was reached december 2017. and now we're moving forward -- excuse me, the survey petition threshold. the survey has to demonstrate to the mayor's office that there is support enough to go to the management phase. we wrote the management plan in

march 2018 and cbd petitions were mailed out -- we met the threshold -- i'm having problems with this thing, helen, so... we sent out a news letter to all the property owners in april 2018. threshold was met in march 2019. presentation to the board of supervisors is today. the resolution is anticipated for june 2019. public hearing july 16. the new nonprofit corporation managing the district will be formed between august and september. and the contract with the mayor's office in probability october 2019. first transfer assessments this december and the cbd services will begin early 2019. you might want to just stay

here. what we have here is the times that we met. we had incredible participation. we've done nine districts. my company has in the city of san francisco. the one that had the most participation before this was tenderloin. i did that in 2005. this one had has had 30 to 50 people talking about this plan. this is the survey results. you can see when we do a survey, we list what the properties are, supportive are green, red are people opposed. yellow are people stated no opinion. and based upon this, we met our threshold of properties. the survey demonstrated that the biggest services that people really wanted to fund -- because

the cbd really is just a financing mechanism. and it's supposed to fund only special benefits. so is marketing promoting the area to create new demand. rincon, union square, everything surrounding the district was marketing and promoting it. if you google financial district, there is really nothing there. we decided as part of the survey, because we had property managers that represented jackson square, that they wanted jackson square included too. but it alone would not generate the revenues to make an impact. we mixed jackson square in the financial district. providing daily maintenance and cleaning services in the public rights of way, where the city and count are currently providing, including traffic control officers provided over and above those provided by the mta. one of the greatest problems is

trying to cross market street from 4:00 to 6:00 to get to the 880 or the 80. we know that everybody commented that when the super bowl was here, it was easy to get across market street, because there were officers at each intersection. we want to figure out if there is a way to do that with mta also. not managed by signals, because if you know the area, it backs up heavily going southbound on the north side of market. so one thing that everyone was adamant, we need to have people get out of the financial district so they can be just as competitive as the people in soma or the greater rincon district. connecting people to resources. that is something that i think every cbd is trying do. securing safe passage of employers. re-branding the historic nature of the cbd to remain competitive

with the massive development south of market. and retaining staff to oversee new services and ensure effective practices are being deployed. so the final map now that we agreed to was, one, we made an adjustment for chinatown. supervisor peskin, as you recall, we put the boundary around there. we also have, it looks like a missing tooth on the south side of market. that's the federal reserve building because we knew it would be difficult for them to pay into the district and we want didn't to -- didn't want to provide services if they weren't paying in the district. this does not include the embarcadero center. there is interest in having it expand to the ferry building and other places in the portside, however, we figured that could be phase two and possible expansion in the future. on the west side it runs parallel to union scare.

on the south side, it's a jagged edge, which is where the rincon is. we tried to fill in all the gaps. the budget, as helen mentioned, we call them civic sidewalks and mobility management and that's where we would be working with mta to facilitate the traffic flow north and south of market street. it's about $3 million. it's over 77% of the budget. district identity which is promoting the district, creating a website, social media, trying to develop public spaces, et cetera, is around 5% of the budget. program management is about 14% of the budget and that is doing the multitude of tasks that are necessary to oversee the 82% of the special benefit services and then we have a contingency of 3% budget, giving us 3.8 almost $3.9 million. the civic sidewalks and mobility

management, the services that are included, and they could shift from year to year, hiring employees or service providers to perform regular sidewalk and gutter sweeping, removing trash overflow from current reaccept receptacles. and hiring nonprofit or private case workers to connect homeless individuals with necessary resources and services. continuing in the civic sidewalk, because this is over three quarters of the budget. considered live well live safe program that will benefit those who access the public rights of way. the whole point is to try to make the curb to the property line as enjoyable as possible. whether you're going from bart to the building, all the way to jackson square, or just trying to make it so it's attractive. and it's in everybody's best interest to enjoy the public

rights of way. news racks, remove or consolidate. most of them are empty. advocacy for increased resources to improve traffic management. and then traffic and mobility efforts to share parking, possibly valet program and curb cuts. district identity has to do with branding the financial district in jackson square. and finding a website, development and updating it. funding an app to help people get around the financial and jackson square. management and coordination of social events. hiring a pr firm. installation of holiday decorations. creating a banner program to tie the district together. planning of art displays. funding logo development. funding local space design and improvements and creating programs that fund business

attraction workshops and fairs to ensure that owners have a good inventory of prospective tenants to choose from. program management is basically staffing. it's paying for staff. it's advocacy for the improved traffic management, office related expenses, financial reporting. legal work and relation with the other cbds in the city. so that is the overview of what the intent of the financial district or the downtown cbd is. and we would just encourage the committee to move this forward so we can do our -- this has been 12 years in the making, so we'd finally like to see it happen at the beginning of 2020. and i'm available for any questions that the committee members might have, but there are some other speakers too. i can take a seat or should i

answer questions. okay. >> supervisor mar: thank you. and ms. mar for the presentation and the good work. colleagues, any questions? >> supervisor peskin: no, this thing has been kicking around since the first time i was on the board of supervisors and happy to have lived long enough to hopefully see it come to fruition. >> supervisor mar: why don't we move to public comment. i have speaker cards. you can line up on the right-hand side and speak. you have two minutes for public comment. >> good morning, on behalf of the realtry trust. we represent the 555 block of california street and they're expressing their support, to put

it mildly, they're behind this. >> supervisor mar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning. my name is sheyna. i work for all house, i'm a property manager and i just want to say i fully support this. i've been involved with the group for the last couple of years and i really hope we can move forward. thank you. >> supervisor mar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning, i represent cbre downtown and i was involved with the uptown district in oakland when was kick started on the board there, and i'm looking forward to having the same success here in the financial district. >> supervisor mar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> morning. thank you for having us today. my name is frank holland, clint reilly organization. we have a number of buildings in the financial district and in jackson square primarily historic buildings around the california street and montgomery

intersection. and this has been a long time coming. before i begin, i have a short statement, but i would like to thank city staff for all of their help, particularly chris, who isn't here today, but really did a phenomenal job of guiding us through the process and thanks to marco as well. you know, since 2004 when the city augmented the improvement district law with article 15 of the business tax regulations code, we've seen this flourishing of the districts throughout the city and they've done innovative things in helping increase the vibrancy of the neighborhood. as so many other neighborhoods have seized opportunities afforded by this structure to partner with the city on behalf of cleaner streets, public art, place making activities, public safety, the financial district -- which historically has been the heart of the city

dating back to the gold rush -- has failed to do so. so our project to bring the cbd, which as supervisor peskin mentioned, dates back to over a decade. it's nearly complete and we need it now more than ever before. the city has evolved dramatically over the past decade. more challenges than ever confront us and this allows an opportunity to be proactive, coordinate with the city and address them. we've worked hard to the steering committee over the past two years to develop a thoughtful effective management plan that will administer the revenues. on behalf of the neighborhood and partnering with the city -- [bell ringing]. >> supervisor mar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> i agree with everything

you're doing and i would like to see it in granite by the board of supervisors here. but also, i'd like to see you expand and take it a step further than what you're doing. with this type of budget, $3,873,491, you could build 144 units of apartment building complex for $56 million. i'd like to see you help take care of the homeless problem by means of building and investing and building a brand new apartment building complex to help the most vulnerable people in the city that need housing. there is also a 68-unit building being built for $57 million. i'd like to see you get involved in building apartment building complex of that magnitude, too.

that don't mean for people to get these types of buildings and price-fix them and make it in order for the tenant to be eligible claim as affordable housing and then do price gouging and price fixing and making the eligibility for the tenants to have income of 80, 90, $120,000 a year like mission rock. there is going to be bad consequences behind that, because that it is price fixing and price gouging. you have rules in the mission rock instruction packet that says 15% of those apartments are supposed to be for low-income bracket people. it's 1500 units in that building and that rule 410.2 says part of that construction and redevelopment of that land is supposed to have low-income bracket tenants. that means 225 of those units -- [bell ringing]

>> supervisor mar: thank you. any other persons who wish to testify? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, can we recommend this item to the full board without objection? >> supervisor peskin: so moved. >> supervisor mar: great. mr. clerk, can you please call item number 2. >> hearing to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the retroactive nature of the board of supervisors approval of the grant agreement between the city and county of san francisco and the tenderloin housing clinic and review of the agreement. review of other contracts to which the city and county. in spite of the lease

limitations set forth in section 9.118. >> supervisor mar: i would like to pass it off to supervisor peskin, who is the chief sponsor of this hearing. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, as stated in the request back in january, it came to the board's attention that one particular contract had been approved three times in violation of section 9.118 of the charter, which is a responsibility that i take and i know we all take seriously. i'll just read the most important part of 9.118, which is subsection b, which says unless otherwise provide for in this charter and with the exception of construction contracts entered into by the city and county, any other contracts or agreements entered into by department, board or commission, having a term in excess of 10 years or expenditures of $10 million or the modification of amendments to the contract or agreement having impact of more than half

a million dollars, shall be subject to approval by the board of supervisors. and in this instance, that did not happen. and so subsequently representatives from the human services agency explained how that happened. and identified one subsequent contract, the meals on wheels contract, which we retroactively approved. i think mr. roar and his department have scoured all of their contracts and found that these two probably due to a change in personnel at a particular juncture, have now been addressed. when i did this hearing request, i asked every department in city government to scour their records. and none of them have come forward to say that they have approved any contract in violation of section 9.118.

so i'm -- this is going to be a very quick two-minute hearing. i wanted mr. roar to come down and say it again for the record. and i want every other department to be sure that they follow 9.118 and bring any contract before it is entered into that is in excess of $10 million or 10 years to the board of supervisors for its review and approval or not approval. with that, i just want to turn it over to trent to say a few words and then we can file this item. >> supervisor, trent roar, human services agency, as supervisor peskin noted after discovering the contract in question, housing clinic contract, we did scour all of our -- probably close to 200 contracts we have entered into with the community based organizations or for-profit entities through department of aging and department of human services, which as you know, the three

departments that comprise the human services agency. we found one additional meals on wheels that we brought forward. i think what was important about the process, we saw gaps in our system of contract processing from procurement to approval and have since developed 15 differently measures to ensure we're following the proper protocols to ensure that we don't make this mistake again. and i'm pretty confident that is going to be the case. >> supervisor peskin: you might want to circulate that to the other 52 department heads so they can learn from your wisdom. >> sure. >> supervisor mar: thank you. any questions? before we move to the motion that supervisor peskin made, we'll take public comment. so you have two minutes to

speak. please speak into the mic. >> this goes and flows with the earlier demonstration. not only is this type of contract that was conducted by him, the same type of breach of contract took place at mission rock. now you got the giants caught up in it. they're laughing when i make that demonstration, but when i get you in front of a federal district court judge, the giants will be the first team to have a lawsuit filed against them. you're not following the rules in the instruction and that big bank of information pertaining to mission rock. i flashed that page and showed it to all of you, including you, bre, when you were president. that's are supposed to be for low-income bracket people. you further demonstrate you're not dealing with good faith. by the same response, you never

had intentions of reaching a legal agreement on this matter, because you take a female that is hispanic, latino, mexican descent be your pitch person on tv commercials pertaining to proposition d and have her explain she would love to be a tenant at mission rock. and then you have her daughter parade around with balloons and act like they're going to be eligible to live in that mission rock apartment building complex. then you take it a step further by having the female school teach say she would love to be a tenant. the female i spoke about is living in a boarding home. and the teacher doesn't have a high enough income to live in that mission rock apartment building complex. and you know that as a fact. and then you turn around and claim low federal tax credit as if you're putting low-income bracket people in the building,

but when you read the fine print, the lowest income is higher than all of the people on the low-income -- [bell ringing] >> supervisor mar: thank you. any other members of the public who wish to testify on this item? seeing none, public comment is now closed. any additional comments? >> supervisor peskin: i would make a motion to file this matter. >> supervisor mar: can we file without objection? done. mr. clerk, any further business. >> there is no further business. >> supervisor mar: this committee meeting is now closed.

>> good afternoon and welcome to the land use and transportation committee for the san francisco board of supervisors for today, monday april 29th, 2019. i am the chair of the committee, joined by vice chai -- vice chair supervisor safai and matt haney to my left. please make any announcements that you have. >> please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices. completed speaker cards and copies of any documents can be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk items will appear on the may 7 th board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you. please read the first item. >> yes, item one is an item submitting the ministries of code to require report of residential hotel status and disclosure of the report to the buyer and transferee prior to the sale or transfer of a residential hotel and affirming appropriate findings. >> insofar as the second item

also concerns a similar subject matter, could you please read item two as well? >> item number 2 is an ordinance amending the administrative code to revise the conversion ordinance and affirming appropriate findings. >> thank you. colleagues, members of the public, as many of you know, over the past several years i have introduced a number of pieces of legislation to protect and preserve stock of affordable housing, particularly single resident occupancy housing. low income residents and parts of the east side of the city, district three, the south of market area, district six, as well as the mission district for decades have tried to keep them housed in the city. this is a law that dates back to -- i'm speaking to number 2 back in the 1980s, and after a fire

in 2017 at 801 pacific avenue in chinatown, we realized that our hotel ordinance and fire safety and sprinkler requirements needed some updating. part of that in 2016, i introduce what became props see, which was repurchasing of seismic safety bonds, and as we know, the mere touch office of housing is now releasing those funds and they are available. today's legislation in item number 1 is intended as a follow-up to the increased building fire code safety requirements that we rolled out in the past few years by ensuring that potential purchasers are aware of the true cost of necessary life safety upgrades, and not just relying on projected rent rolls. this legislation requires full disclosure of any and all life safety and health violations for transfer or sale so that

ultimately the buyer will have to you,, within 12 months, purchase those -- purchase and secure those problems. given historic nature density and susceptibility of s.r.o.s to fire, i am particularly concerned about this type of housing stock in chinatown and north beach as well as in the south of market and the mission. this is not merely a disclosure requirement, but will require actual updates and repair to ensure building safety codes are in place at the time of the inspection. habitability and life and safety upgrades are buried into the details of the building sale a new owners are often not aware of the critical, costly, and comprehensive work that must be done. it often leads to doing just enough within the law to remodel the building. we have many law-abiding owners. where strengthening protections for them as well.

new owners should know what they are investing in and what would be required for them to keep their resident -- residents safe as to item number 2, i would like -- first of all, to item number 1, i have an amendment that the district attorney has given me that just further elaborates -- excuse me this is long, it illuminates the long title and i will pass that out to you, colleagues, and with item number 2, what i -- it is an amendment to delete references to section 302 and general plan findings given that we have confirmed with the city attorney and planning that they, in fact do not need to be made and the second is an amendment to refer to the fact that even,

though legislation amendments shifts from a 32 requirement to 32 dates, it supersedes the code as it is currently enforced, in other words, seven days. i would like to make a motion to amend and continue item number 2 for 1 week, but we will do that after public comment. >> so moved. >> we have a motion, but we will not take that until after public comments. with that, if there are no questions from committee members , i would like to open up items one and two to public comment. >> good afternoon. my name is jordan davis and i am a current s.r.o. tenant. definitely in support of this legislation right here, both pieces of legislation, you know,

there's been a lot of changes and i feel like basically we need to make sure that owners are following the law and not pulling any b.s. to throw tenants out, and making sure that everything that we have the highest level of fire safety given the age of these buildings in the cramped quarters that we live in. there is a little bit of concern that i have about the lack of community engagement of s.r.o. tenants. i did not even hear about this until a couple of days ago. and there's just not many -- i don't see many s.r.o. tenants here right now, and you need to contact stakeholders when big things like this come up, and also -- i mean i serve on the body that deals with s.r.o.s, and we should have had a discussion, and i feel like we need to -- overall, and very supportive, and we need these

things explain to us, so please work on your committee processes , thanks. >> if i made to the speaker, i actually introduce this in 2017, that has been kicking around for a couple of years, but we got distracted. it was actually part of a community package that was brought to my office in 2017. it has been around for a couple of years, i just want to say. speaker, please. >> good afternoon, chairman and pat -- and supervisors. on behalf of the san francisco s.r.o. hotel coalition, and numerous other individual owners of s.r.o.s. we felt -- we filed a law a letter which you have before you today, we are here to object to number 2 on the proposed amendments on a number of grounds which have been discussed at length before. procedurally, the city has failed to give notice as required by law. the planning commission still does not meet the recommendation

and there's a hearing on the merit and the litigation this friday so the question why this is being rushed through at the last minute right before that hearing. proper environmental review has not been done. instead of completing an initial study, the planning department has written itself a memo and instead of completing an e.i.r., the city his relying on negative declarations from the 1980s. one of the negative declarations is older than i am and i say the circumstances have changed dramatically in my lifetime. even if things haven't changed, none of those negative declarations reviewed the potential impacts at issue here. they look at procedural issues and replacement construction impacts, not displacement of occupants in homelessness and urban decay and life. these are real impacts that the city is poised to cause, which brings us to the big question. s.r.o.s work as a business model because they are able to rent rooms by the week, rather than by the month. if you impose a 30 day

requirement, you will be taking away their business. s.r.o. operators have no choice but to take the rooms off the market and occupants will not be able to afford the rent and security deposit for monthly tenancy. i'm sure the city means well, but the consequences will be terrible. we urge you to vote no. thank you. >> good afternoon. i oppose the minimum 30 day room which is -- most of our tenants cannot afford to pay the first month and last month deposit and we will not be able to rent rooms. i understand that this is what san francisco has relied on s.r.o.s for housing the homeless and the low income, but we are still hotel at the end of the

day, we are not an apartment building. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am one of dozens of family-owned s.r.o. hotel owners and operators that are being impacted by the proposed s.r.o. hotel changes. the changes to 32 days or 30 will change our small hotels into apartments, completely changing our operations. this will also make it difficult for people who can only afford to pay weekly and cannot come up with the security deposit plus the last month rent. this will exacerbate the housing situation. we urge you to work with us as a multi- generation san franciscan who has lived and worked in our privately owned building for decades. this is legislator that will work against us. if these changes are about stopping s.r.o.s converting, then these changes go too far and affect dozens of other hotels that do not fall under this category.

if this is about housing the homeless, then this is doing the opposite of what it wants. we as private small business owners are caught in the crossfire. please ignore the change and work together on a proper solution for san francisco. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am an operator of an s.r.o. in the city and the former operator of two other s.r.o.s. i'm here to oppose item number 2 and i really feel like this rule really impacts us tremendously in that it changes us from being a hotel to basically being an apartment building. if we have to rent for 30 days and we have to check their

credit, we have to make sure that they are able to pay their rent, we would require first and last -- we would require a deposit as well as first month's rent, many people that we rent to don't actually -- are actually to come up with those deposits and first month's rent. we rent went to a lot of people by the week, and these people will not be able to come in and rent rooms at our property. i feel like this is a fundamental change to our hotels we wouldn't even need to have the word hotel in the front of our hotels, they would just be changing tremendously to our business model. so there is a letter that has been submitted by some individuals, and i wholeheartedly agree with that letter. please vote no on number 2. >> next speaker.

>> hello. i am the manager of the hotel. our business is renting rooms to guess by the week. we will not rent rooms by the month because it is not possible to rent tenants by the month. you will have to take these rooms off the market and you will be taking away our businesses. many of our guests cannot afford to pay rent by the month. this means that even if we did offer rooms by the month, they cannot be able to afford to pay the rent. we are able to rent rooms by the week without requiring a deposit and a full month's rent up front because there is a last first in renting rooms. is someone who is staying for a month, we would have to take deposits and two months rent upfront or the risk of significant final -- financial loss is too high. for many of our guests, it is impossible to come up with a deposit and a month's rent in advance.

they don't have access to that kind of capital, which is why they are renting by the week. if we require a minimum stay of 30 days, many of them will be unable to rent rooms and/or become homeless. i agree with today's letter, please vote no. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> hello. i'm here as a former s.r.o. resident, and i would just like to say that there are some good s.r.o. owners, however i have been in some places where they have subverted the law, they have used loopholes to cheat people on the street, they have used the 28 day name where they put you out for two or three days, so i think these things need to be put in place. i understand the cost of them,

but also, i have been around the delta when it burned down, and i was around the rose when it burnt down. if we don't keep these things in place, we don't -- we will end up housing more loss than just a little bit of income. i suggest you keep these things in place and find a way to work with the s.r.o. owners to make sure that both sides don't suffer. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello. i am an s.r.o. operator in mixed-use in san francisco and i want to say, i have a tenant because i have mixed use. i have permanent tenants that have been here a long time, but they have all gone through a prescreened background check, credit check on the deposits, which any other rental place in san francisco is definitely the safeguards they put in, not only for the property owners before the other tenants. i don't know if a lot of people you're trying to help her going to pass those things to get in

the building. you're making it harder to get into my building than less. a seven day stay, if they wanted -- if they ended up liking me, they can stay longer than seven days, i don't kick anybody out of my hotel. department lee put someone and who will be a permanent resident , it is easy to get somebody in, but it is hard to get somebody out if it is somebody who is not mentally healthy or something like that and it affects other tenants, not only my business. these are safeguards for everybody. those things are going to be able to pass, i don't think a lot of those people you are trained to help will pass those think -- pass those things. that would be it. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is deion and i'm the executive director of mary elizabeth in and i am standing before you today in support of item number 1, and i want to

thank you for this legislation. it is very important to ensure that ordinances and building codes remain in place and one other thing i think that is maybe missing is full disclosure of the status of the building, even during the time of lease renewal negotiations. aside from that, i think this is an important legislation, it helps to preserve what is really the only affordable housing option for san francisco's homeless population. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> david elliot lewis, i work with a central city s.r.o. collaborative. we try to aid people who live in single room occupancy hotels. it is as important as she said as is an important form of low income housing that was at one

point before the hotel conversion ordinance and the city was down to about 27,000 units and now we are down to 19 -- 18,000 or 17,000 units, we keep losing them. some of them to tourist conversions, some of them to change of use. anything you can do to help preserve and protect this vital form of low income housing i would appreciate. it sounds like this initiative is a step in the right direction i fully support it. i hope you will pass it. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> you have two items going out one time, and it seems like both of them are conflicted. i can tell you right now it sounds like you're displacing the most vulnerable people who have a place to live that is based on their income. fifty% of me and 50% of me -- 50 % of me is against it and 50% of me is for it.

barbara garcia put me in a hotel and the place was not up to code , and i got more done then the building inspectors got done in 31 years. i was the one who filed the complaints and then filed how -- the plumbing, the bedbugs, the roaches, the mice was all in the building, and as a result, the city attorney ended up getting my complaint and asked if she had permission to turn over my complaint to the district attorney and sued the slumlord for $150 million, and they didn't give not one of the tenants one damn penny. but not everything is up to code then you get the lady who is the director at the building and has a recognition hearing claiming she took all the slumlords, when i'm the one who started that issue and got those people living up to code without all those violations of the health & safety code.

i got more done in five months then she got in 31 god damn years, and you are giving her a big recognition hearing saying she did a good god damn job. the people living to my left were living with bedbugs and roaches for nine years. i'm the one who wrote the complaint and took all the pictures and went to the health department and had the inspectors come in here and reverse that building, and now it is looking brand-new. so you have low income bracket people finally living in a good housing conditions and paying their income -- paying comparable to their income. i believe you should leave everything as it is. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you, supervisors. i'm with chinatown c.d.c. in support of item one and two. i want to talk briefly about item one. really looking and thinking about what happened at 801

pacific, and fires in an s.r.o. which are a big, big problem for us all across the city, in chinatown, but not only their and south of market and the mission, and the simple speculation that continues to happen, so having the hotel report with ddi so that anyone -- with d.b.i. so anyone who is interested in coming in and acquiring s.r.o.s as a clear sense and a clear sense of cost about what is taking over these hotels, and what the situation in these hotels are according to this city, which i agree with residents, you know, that is one part of the equation, of course, there is a part about all the resident involvement, but i think that it really puts forward a clear plan for whoever is interested in acquiring these s.r.o.s about what can be done and what has to be done. and i think that that is so

important to maintain our affordable housing stock and, you know, going forward, keeping s.r.o.s, not only affordable, but also safe for all of our residents, which i think is something that we all support. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is lindsey. i'm a community organizer at the central city after hours unit here to speak in favor of items number 1 and 2. as we all know, s.r.o. house some of the most vulnerable populations in san francisco. people have lived in this city and for decades were no now elderly and disabled and on fixed income. in our current housing crisis, there's even greater incentive for these tenants to be displaced, and for operators to cater to a higher income population. the legislative -- the

legislation proposed today works to ensure that s.r.o. -- s.r.o.s continue to remain affordable and safe housing stock for those as it is intended to serve. i echo the comments about disclosing residential status to preserve tenant safety, and amending the definition for its use to ensure that we are catering to a long-term population of s.r.o. tenants. thank you for your consideration >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> senior and disability action, in support of items one and two. as you know, s.r.o. hotels house thousands of seniors, not only seniors, but seniors with disabilities who live with very serious challenges and to occur

on fixed income. we do need to make this housing affordable and safe. that does not happen all the time, so i think this proposal proposes to at least put this as a step in the right direction with the disclosure of residential statuses. again, we have many seniors, many disabled who are struggling big time to live day to day, and they need all the help that they can get. this is one of the things that can help. thank you. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public on items one or two? seeing none, we will close public comments. why don't we dispense with item number 1. supervisor haney, would you see fit to sent item want to the full board with positive recommendation? >> yes. >> okay. without objection, we will forward item number 1 to the full board with a positive recommendation.

as to item number 2, let me say a few things. first of all, i do want to thank and appreciate the work of lisa gibson and the planning department's environmental review unit, and the original 1983 negative declaration is in the file together with a very cogent and detailed analysis dated april 11th, which is also part of the file. i'm saying this mostly for the edification of supervisor haney, this is legislation that, in conjunction with rosemary at the housing division of d.b.i. and extensive community input, i introduced in november of 2016, cosponsored by supervisor kim, he and others, and signed into law on february 17th of 2017

by mayor lee, which was a comprehensive set of revisions to chapter 41 of the administrative code. all of that is not what's before us here, what is merely before s. is the change from 32 to 30 days, and relative to the contention made by one of the members of the public, first of all, this legislation was actually introduced in january and has been before this committee before, and most importantly, it is actually not going to be acted upon today, what is going to be continued for yet another week so it can be renoticed. with that, is there -- supervisor safai was going to make a motion. >> can we take that without objection?

that will be the order. we will hear this again next monday. madame clerk, next item, please. >> item three is a resolution approving a conditional property exchange agreement with eq x. just can -- jackson s.q. holds company, a delaware limited liability company under the jurisdiction of the fire department in exchange for a portion of the property at 425 through 439 washington street. >> thank you. colleagues, the states back to my first tour of duty in office over a decade ago when i tried to push the city to think creatively about using public land for affordable housing, and the idea back in those days was to sell the air rights over fire station 13 down on washington and samson as the high-pressure station that serves downtown, and the idea was to develop --

to either develop affordable housing above the fire station or monetize the value of that air parcel. i was ahead of my time, and all of those efforts came to not and the world changed. they actually voted on a couple of pieces of neighboring resolutions along the way, and today we actually have in front of us conditional property exchange and hopefully this will be a vehicle which will help us fund some affordable housing not too far away in chinatown at 77 to pacific avenue, although that deal is far from done and has not been analysed under ceqa, but i wanted to first of all thank john updike, our former head of real estate and came out of retirement to preside over this quite complex deal, and

then i really want to thank the fire department and chief chief haze white an white and incoming chief nicholson who will be the chief here and a handful of days , as well as the fire commission and deputy chief -- chief rivera for working with real estate, and finally, i want to thank the successful bidder who we will be hearing a little bit about in the moments ahead, but i can't tell you how delighted i am that it appears that this is coming to fruition a decade or so later, and with that, the floor is yours. >> thank you, chair peskin, members of the committee. we can go to the laptop. very quickly, as the supervisor mentioned, we have been at this a while, and two prior resolutions were unanimously

pr