countenance, upzoning the rest of the city, 80% of the city's subsidized housing in the last ten years has been built in two supervisor districts, which means nine supervisor districts split the other 20% and that's wrong. it's economic segregation, it is wrong. so i cannot tell you how thrilled and proud i am that this body is competing to move forward with something that will facilitate integrating all the rest of the neighborhoods. and echo what laura said, keep your eyes on the prize. if we mess this up and can't get this before the voters, something a real goal for everybody here will be lost. i have noticed that supervisor peskin will characterize the fighting as fighting between the board and the mayor and i think the public is going to feel, is going to interpret it that way. that really is what it looks like.

up here, there was a lot of discussion before public comment but there were no points raised, actually. there was a lot of purposeful confusion between allowed and requires, the mayor's charter amendment allows projects up to 140, and supervisor fewer repeatedly claimed that that meant it required, all projects to be 140. there's a big difference between allows and requires, and when you meld those things together, people in the public hear that you are being insincere and it really makes it sound like there are no reasons that this is just fighting. i was disturbed by the cavalier attitude supervisor ronen had towards waiting 100 days. one # hundred days is a big deal. if you run out of your time -- >> good afternoon, supervisors,

robert, i live in district 5 and money for affordable housing is hard to come by. one supervisor said the real need for resources, money for building and acquiring land. good news is that the mayor's proposal would help with that. it would lower construction costs, it would streamline affordable housing, i mean -- the real question is like are there actually streamlining issues. the answer is yes. in your committee packet today there is a memo and says in the year and a half since the effective date of senate bill 35, which allows for streamlined approval of affordable housing projects, six 100% affordable housing projects have gone through the discretionary review project and paid fees. they expect 8 to 9 annually. people are filing discretionary reviews and if you are a neighborhood group you can do so

for free. i think this is pretty -- this is patently ridiculous. if we think there's no problem with discretionary reviews, it should be uncontroversial to get rid of them. and if you don't like the mayor's proposal, which i support, i would hope to see legislation which gets rid of discretionary reviews, apparently not a problem, from the office of the controller. i think overall there is a real need that's just being confused here. this is not about building studios for everyone, this is -- this is about actually providing funding for affordable housing somehow, like although i will say i would be happy if we upzone west side in any sense of the word. thank you.

>> good afternoon. my name is susana parsons. thank you for the opportunity to provide comment, particularly on the mayor's charter amendment. on behalf of spur, i urge you to support placing this proposed charter amendment on the ballot in order to streamline the review and approval of 100% affordable housing and housing for educators. we believe the passage of the measure will have a real impact on how quickly and cost effectively the city and industry will be able to produce the types of housing urgently needed in san francisco. we know that the full board of supervisors supports creation of housing for educators and low and moderate income households. this measure will address our infamously complex approvals process that provides many opportunities for opposition to delay or halt affordable housing. all at the expense of our city residents. the measure will require the city to create a more efficient

and less risky approvals process, resulting in quicker delivery and less expensive production of exactly the kind of housing san francisco needs. we urge you to refer this measure to the full board and give our supervisors the opportunity to show leadership on housing in san francisco. thank you. >> good morning, laurie, inner sunset resident. delighted that lawton and 7th avenue is a site for 100% affordable educator housing. i support affordable homes for families and educators now and oppose the mayor's charter amendment. public land is a public resource that should be reserved to serve the greatest need not to enhance developer revenue. homes for public educators, including very low paid support staff, are vital to supporting

public education itself. it is shameful that the mayor's office would use widespread support for affordable teaching housing as cover for buy right market rate development and offer affordability upwards in the same breath. there should be no buy right development on public land and no public subsidies for market housing. who are we leaving behind? i would add, why are we leaving them behind and on whose behalf are we leaving them behind. returning to the 7th and lawton project and the questions of affordability levels. one proposal for this location is 325 square foot studios. two people or more in 325 square feet, that is not a home, that is temporary shelter. it is frankly tire some that we continue to hear from the mayor's office the mantra that rarely used discretionary reviews are the reason for high housing costs. when will they decry speculator

demands for sky high returns on their investments. finally, supervisors, thank you for your work with the unions representing our public educators, exactly how work force housing should be envisioned and enacted. [please stand by]>> i want to

thank the board for standing up for the ability of the board to assert its own legislative authority. as i see it, the charter amendment basically bypasses the legislative branch of the government and we still have a belief, i think, in the separation of powers. and what the unfortunate thing about the charter amendment is, reminded me of prop 13. how installed and california constitution was linkage between commercial property and residential property, and it has become impossible to change that and the results are devastating to california. idea of installing buy right for developers under the false front of teacher housing in our constitution is another way of bypassing the legislative

authority which actually represents more of the people of san francisco than the mayor's office. and i just think that i want to associate myself particularly with supervisor fewer's remarks at the opening, i feel like they covered the realm of what has really been happening and echoed by those of you up there. and i hope to see frankly that the overwhelming majority of the board supports -- [microphone cut off] supervisors, my name is ken tray, served san francisco unified school district from 1985 to 2017. most of those years was as a classroom teacher teaching social studies. working with the children of san francisco. i'm here today representing uesf, a staff member of the

union in support of the initiative. there was some illusion earlier to whether we worked with the mayor's office or with the supervisors. i think uesf would say as up front as we can that we started good faith negotiations with both sides of the legislature here in city hall. we did meet with the mayor's office, talking about the charter amendment. never really had an opportunity to talk about their initiative. at the same time as we told the mayor's office, we were invited into discussions with the board of supervisors, and we, in fact, did work very closely with the board of supervisors on the initiative that we are speaking in favor of today. at the end of the day, what the board of supervisors came up with in intense discussions with san francisco's teachers and para educators, is policy that will cover affordable housing for our lowest paid para

educators to our most veteran teachers. it will allow for a scope of housing which includes 2, 3 bedrooms and not jamming in the members -- and provide support -->> speaker time has elapsed. >> good afternoon, supervisors.

peter coen. council committee housing organizations is very pleased to see the board's proposed affordable housing and educator housing and family housing initiative. teachers have been working with several board members since the beginning of this year on legislation to build on, if you recall, last fall's very successful legislation with the south market sally district, industrial area and legislation specifically to allow affordable housing on the sites. overlay zoning approach. we wanted to build on that, and the density bonus programs and apply the policies city-wide to all residential districts, neighborhood commercial districts and importantly, our public sites, public lands. for 100% affordable housing. this is baseline zoning. rezone all up front, don't have to go by one by one, that's the biggest time delay, zoning and the e.i.r.s triggered.

a huge boost in what's called geographic balance. everybody says let's build housing on the left side, let's do it, a goal we believe in. money now in the housing bond this november. we all agreed on that. but an entry level question. where, and what sites? we don't have those sites. the fundamental value to rezone the sites up front. and it sounds like the yimbis agree on that, too, fantastic. let's do it. also pleased to see that educator housing have been included in this initiative so we can really start focusings on that particular population group. we know you have choices before you today. maybe even some competing ideas, but we encourage you to pick the board's measure, well thought out, we work together the educators and move together all together as a ballot what we have heard today. more sites for more housing. thank you.

>> supervisors, steven boss with m.b. action. i like some who spoke before me, thrilled there are competing measures to upzone the west side as we have been advocating for for years. we need zoning equity for affordable housing on the west side. i want to note the only actual affordable housing developer who is out today supports the mayor's proposal, i think that's worth really soaking in, really, you know, taking credence and support for that. and i also want to talk -- well, supervisor fewer, i was frankly offended by what you said, you said two people living in the studio, that's not -- that's not acceptable, basically is what

you said. i've lived with my partner in a studio, 500 square feet. i, you know, lots of people live in small studios with their families, with their partners, and to imply that that's not a real acceptable way to live is the height of privilege. you are insulated from these problems as a homeowner, of course. but the rest of us have to deal with our housing shortage. it's also the height of privilege to kill the mayor's proposal here and not let the voters decide. this is a very small cross section of san francisco. we have all taken off work, most people can't do that. the people most affected by this can't be here. so let's let the voters decide, bring them both to the ballot, and i mean, i'm hopeful, i'm hopeful that the voters will make the right choice. thanks.

>> is there any other member of the public who wishes to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. so, colleagues, perhaps -- i want to see if anyone wants to make any comments before we vote on the three items before us. looks like supervisor fewer would like to start us out. supervisor fewer. >> thank you, chair. so, i think that in listening to public testimony we have heard people ask me so who are we leaving behind. i actually think that we should probably vocalize who we are leaving behind. according to latino parody report of 2016, household medium yan for white house holds, 106,000, 919. asian, 105295.

latin x, 70,000. and blacks, 46,000. blacks resident experience poverty three times the overall poverty rate in san francisco, 46% of black children living in poverty in comparison to 27% of pacific islanders children, 15% latin x, 10% of asian, and 3% of white children. nearly 40% of san francisco households that bring in less than 30% of a.m.i., or asian american, or pacific islander. the majority of latin x households in san francisco make less than 100% of area median income with the largest population latin x households falling in the 30 to 50% a.m.i. designation. between 1990 and 2014 and 15, decrease of low income workers living in san francisco, 30% increase in median rent

associated with 21% decrease in low income households of color. correlation not seen for low income white house holds. as housing prices rose, the share of low income black households in san francisco living in high poverty rose 41% in 2000 to 65% in 2015. in comparison to low income asian, 27% latin x, 19% and white house holds 12%. when people ask who are we leaving behind, and it is not a requirement they build at 140% of a.m.i., it is allowable to build at only 140% of a.m.i. so, when people ask who are we leaving behind, when we don't require affordable housing levels to be built at every level, these are the people we are leaving behind. they are our friends, they are

our family members some of them, they are our neighbors, our educators, they are social workers, they are people who are working every day jobs to serve those in san francisco. by our own analysis, the average black worker in san francisco makes 60,000 a year, compared to the average white worker that makes 156,000 a year. so, who are we leaving behind if we say that we allow developers, and again, not require, developers to build affordable housing at 140% of a.m.i. these are the people we are leaving behind. and this is why this issue is so profound. it is not simply about streamlining because both of these initiatives i think also allow for streamlining. it is about redefining what we

are requiring developers to build when we identify what we identified as affordable housing, and then giving those developers streamlining to build that type of housing for just this group of people. so, people also ask me who am i protecting. i am protecting the same people that we are leaving behind. i think that, and i just want to also speak to the comment that the public commoner said, i didn't say it was unacceptable for two people to live in a studio. i just said it is unacceptable to assume that it is -- i just think some of the speakers today were absolutely right. we have two competing issues here. we want one of them to get on

the ballot and of course being on the boarding it should be the board's initiative. i think -- i agree, i hope that the mayor's office and the supervisors come together and work together as we had during the city budget as well as the housing bond, and i have said to the mayor's representative that i hope the mayor will come on to ours, the one that is actually being supported 100% by educators in san francisco. i believe that educators know best about what they need for their work force, and as i said, as a former school board member, i work closely and i was a school board member for eight years and all three of us actually have been on the school board, all three of us have been presidents of the school board. we know intimately how hard it is to retain and also to recruit teachers. this is a truth that has been true for a very long time, and

whose responsibility to build the housing, quite frankly.

>> i say it is envy. it is inclusiveness in my backyard, people of color, of all chick groups. people of san francisco, and, hopefully, the good people of san francisco will see that in order to actually include everyone, we must include in this crazy housing market, we must include different levels because people in this city actually earn incomes at different levels. we must mandate it, as we must always mandate things for people of color and also poor people. so i don't have a vote on this committee, but i am urging my colleagues to do what we were elected to do to represent the people of san francisco that we

are a city of diversity, economic diversity, racial diversity, diversity of thought the it is a slippery slope to redefine what affordable housing is at such a level and in such a way that we will not require developers to build at any lower rates. i think what the board of supervisors has brought forward this initiative is very well thought out. i think it is with our stakeholders who we are designing this for, it allows flexibility. i would like to see this get on the ballot. i hope my colleagues agree with me. >> thank you, chair and colleagues. i am sure that most of what needed to be said has been said. i will be brief in my comments. i want to thank the mayor's office of housing and everybody

who came out today to speak. i especially want to thank my friends, public school educator here from usf especially on your summer break to be here advocating for something that you shouldn't have to continue to keep showing up to fight for. our educators as has been said do some of the most important work in our city. to have to have a conversation about whether you all can afford to stay here in the city that you have given and continue to give so much to is one of the greatest shames that we have as a city. it is something that i know as former school board member, school board president alongside supervisor few errandual ton that you have been fighting for for a long time. when people tell me that you don't understand how housing works or you don't understand what is best for you, i know

that nothing could be further from the truth, that it has been our teachers, educators showing up again and again saying you have to address the housing crisis our members are facing and up to do it now, and it is the city and school district as well that is slow to respond. when i first got elected to the school board, one of the main things the teacher said we need you to address housing. it wasn't for years after that that we finally moved the conversation forward and have our first project moving forward. there are a couple things i remember from the experience of being involved in the francis scott key project. and supervisor fewer said this. it was always not just a priority but requirement to our educators that it be available to their members at a broad

range of affordability. that was always one of the most important things they fought for. they said we ca cannot leave para-educators out. that was something that they always said was a requirement. if we are going to move forward a policy and initiative and charter amendment that claims to be for the educators, let's make sure to include what is a requirement for them which is access for educators at a broad level of affordability. the other thing that was always important for the school district that we had these parcels that are now being discussed for a long time, and what happens on those parcels, who gets to live there, how they are used on this public line is incredibly important. this is a huge decision that is being made right now how we use

this land. i know supervisor fewer can attest we have been talking about what to do with that land for a long time now we want to build housing for educators on that land. i think maintaining that principle that is part of the conversation not just at the city but at the school district is important. i would like to see the school board more involved in the conversation. one of the concerns i have had is that they haven't been able to weigh in on this including the city college board of trustees, as the publicly elected bodies. i think there ar are basic principles that under lie the proposal that we put together as a board. i also want do say i am really happy we are at a place where the city and school district and city college this is at the top of the agenda we want to put

more money into educator housing and rezone for educator housing. that is a huge change from a few years ago. that is due to educators fighting and advocating to make sure we address that with the urgency it deserves. there is a lot of agreement here. there is a lot of agreement to rezone much of the city to allow for 100% affordable housing to be built. that is in all of the proposals. there is a lot of agreement and potential for moving forward. i think there are essential requirements that need to be in the initiative which includes access at a broader range of affordability including lower end and make sure we use public land for educator housing 100% for educators. with that i guess it is no

secret i support the board's initiative. i am a co-sponsor. i want to thank colleagues for their leadership and working so closely with the stakeholders. i thank the mayor and mayor's office of housing. when we make the changes and come to compromises and go to the voters we will be in a much better place and we will see hopefully in the near future hundreds hopefully thousands of units of educator housing come on line in the near future. >> supervisor mar. >> chair mar: i want to offer brief remarks. i really struggled with these issues, both the policies and politics of it. i want to thank everybody that came out today to share your perspectives on either side of the issue and the many that have communicated directly to my

office and to my colleagues. i think this sort of contentious nature that we have gotten to around the proposals to streamline affordable housing highlight how complex these issues are and there are a lot of different perspectives to best address these problems. it highlights how important it is to get the details right and to consider the specific details. i think the presentations today, thank you so much to the mayor's office of housing and planning department as well. the presentations have been helpful along with public comment in clarifying my thoughts. i want to say that i am proud of the board of supervisors measure. it will rezone and streamline affordable housing sites across the cities specially the western neighborhoods serving a wide

range of people without pitting it against low income housing needs. it is just the kind of mixed income affordable housing policy we need. i look forward to working with the full board and the mayor and educators and the community to see that this leads to more housing city wide for low and middle income households. regarding the charter amendment, i do appreciate the effort by the mayor office office to explore new models and to address the housing needs of middle income residents which is a high priority for me and my constituents. i have a number of significant concerns about the policy and process of the mayor's charter amendment which leads me to oppose moving this forward today. my main concern is that the charter amendment is not needed. as stated affordable housing including educator housing

projects like the outer sunset educator housing are already eligible for streamlined review through sv350. what is needed are the zoning control adjustments in the boards ordinance which i look forward to support as it moves forward to the november ballot. i look forward that the key project is able to take advantage of the streamlining from the board's initiative if passed so that 130 teachers are able to move into affordable new homes up to 18 months sooner. finally, i look forward to leveraging re-zoning in the initiative ordinance and streamlining 350 to aggressively move forward with the district four affordable housing strategy i have been developing with my

constituents and looking at the four public sites and three dozen private sites we identified for affordable housing development. thank you. >> thank you so much, supervisor mar. i want to appreciate everyone. when you listen to the stories of educators and what they are dealing within san francisco right now, it is just really hard to keep it together. i am a parent of a child in public school, and i know firsthand what her teachers and all of the paraprofessionals at her school are facing. they are leaving. there is so much turnover every single year. it is a true crisis. i have no doubt that we are all -- the mayor' mayor's office the

planning department and the policy office and the mayor and all members of the board of supervisors, we want to fix this. there is no doubted we all want to fix this. there is a fundamental difference of opinion how to do that. on the one hand, you have the majority of the board of supervisors that the educators themselves who believe that with the precious resource of public land that is in such short supply the minute we build on it will be gone forever should be reserved for affordable housing. there is a little difference what the a.m.i. levels are that constitute that. the major difference here is what should that land be for?

how do we build the amount of educator housing we need the quickest way possible? i believe it is to fight for public funding at the state and local level and at the federal level again to preserve that precious resource for 100% affordable housing for teachers. we are starting that with francis scott key. with the $20 million in the bond for teacher housing. we are not going to stop relentlessly fighting for that funding. i believe that is the fastest way to get us there and the right way to get us there. on the other hand you have the mayor's office and a few members of the board of supervisors who believe the best way is to convince private developers that have a profit motive to, you know, as long as we give them 66% of the land to get the top dollar they can get for the commercial space and the luxury

housing that they build that they will be willing to build 44% of those units of educator housing at the highest level. that is a real disagreement. it is not worth fighting each other. i think supervisor fewer said this. we want to attack each other. that is not it. we are fighting for how we can get to the greatest amount of educator housing the quickest way possible. we have a major disagreement. there is a lot of talk and accusations going around. that is not what we are doing to each other. the mayor is not doing that to the board of supervisors and the board of supervisors are not doing that to the mayor. our intentions are right. we disagree how to get there. i want to say that i agree with many of the speakers who i disagree with on the best way to

get there, that we have progress here with the willingness on both sides to rezone the city for affordable housing on public lands, and i think that is great. today i will be supporting supervisor fewer's -- well that is just a hearing. when it gets to the board of supervisors, i will support supervisor fewer,ual ton, haney and peskin's charter amendment for housing. supervisor walton. >> thank you. i want to thank everybody for being here. i know it has been a long hearing this morning. the one thing for me that i truly understand after listening and sitting through this morning's hearing is that we

have a lot of people here in san francisco that are dedicated to addressing the affordable housing issues here in the city. that is important, and it is exciting. i know a lot of you in this chamber have taken off work today, taken time away from family and summer vacations. i want you to know we do appreciate you being here and understand your commitment to addressing some serious issues we have in the city. i do have to say it is always concerning to me to support a charter amendment solely dedicated to what we do in times of crisis. it is hard to reverse when change is needed. this locks us to a very high a.m.i. for years to come. regardless of whether or not the economy changes and there may be need to decrease the high point. we need to address this issue legislatively and as a unit.

the charter amendment is divisive at this time. i prefer to work with the executive branch and educators to legislate this like we should. in addition, we have to be very careful how high we make a.m.i. levels through the charter. things change. 140% of a.m.i. cannot be the speak standard for affordable housing in san francisco. my family lives. i know how hard it is to live in the city. like supervisor fewer stated. i live in a small bedroom and three of us and sometimes four of us when my eldest stepson who is an adult is with us. we are on top of each other. i lived in public housing growing up. i have lived in studi studios. my mom and i have had to stay

with friends. it is not ideal to be in the situation my family lives in. we love san francisco. we work hard in san francisco. i want to work hard to make sure people don't have to live on top of each other, particularly people raising families here in the city with less options than people may have. i also know there are thousands of folks that have it worse than me. we all have to think about their needs as well. a charter amendment, this amendment will redefine 100% affordable housing to raise income levels requirements, create definition of teacher housing. not supported by the former body that represents educators in san francisco and allow market rate development on public owned land. that is a major issue for me and a lot of my come leagues.

these def -- colleagues. we should not be giving away publicly owned land for market rate developments calling it affordable teacher housing. we know we can do this as city leadership. the director even mentioned that. costs may be different but it is something we can do. i want to read something for people who are accusing me and my lack of support for a charter which is hard to reverse. here are numbers. 7218, 3454, 2600, 2150, 574,

600, 1240, total proposed between 16,686 and 17,000 836 units with the mixture of affordable, working class and market rates. does anyone know what these numbers reflect? these are the units in the pipeline in district 10 alone. i have actually built 100% all affordable housing. i have also led successful proposal to build 164 all affordable housing units in district 10. i know a little bit about getting housing built. i would not call myself a housing expert but i would say i have good knowledge and practical experience in getting housing built in communities in san francisco. calling me a nimby is sort of

like calling donald trump a decent and moral human being. i played a role in building all affordable housing projects and making sure housing gets built. responsibly and with benefits to the community. thousands of units, some of which are under construction right now. we by ourselves also cannot say what is best for educators without the support of educators. we were able to get approval for the first affordable housing at francis co scott key. we have the ability to streamline through sb35. this changing the definition and increases the a.m.i. averages which is not responsible to do

through a charter. because of the lack of flex bill when the economy changes in san francisco. all projects proposed can be affected by the charter amendment qualify under sb35 for approval including francis scouted key. the land needs re-zoned which should have happened a couple years ago. the true reason for the dilatory removement at the francis scott key project is due to the developer that doesn't know how to work in san francisco and not truly chosen by the school district. this is the first project of its kind. they secured all most 60% from housing bond money promised by the late may or lee. with $44 million in 2017. that contribution from the city

allowed units to employees who make more than the low federal income limits at a max of 60% of media income. federal subsidies were availability to fund the rest of the project. this should have been awhile ago. we should have been way ahead of where we are when it comes to francis scott key as a project. the ordinance proposed by supervisors fewer, peskin and haney and i. affordable homes including educator housing created in partnership with teachers, with the teachers' union to serve the actual needs of educators both in the san francisco unified school district and the city college of san francisco. these educator housing units would be 80% i for those who

earn 30% a.m.i. some of the paraprofessionals only get part-time hours. it including everyone in the middle scale as we talk about middle range housing. it actually keeps us at income average of 100% a.m.i. the remaining 20% will be for educators earning up to 160% of a.m.i. the board of supervisors has also set aside $20 million in housing bond specifically for this new program. when we talk about possible increased costs, we are being thoughtful of ways to make sure we account for that within this ordinance as well. in addition to the housing bond we recently passed legislation to allocate 50% of all future

educator revenue from the state from production and preservation of affordable housing. we will now have $70 million from additional funds for affordable housing in this year's budget alone. we are working hard to fund more housing. it is a true obstacle to developing housing in san francisco, the actual financing which was alluded to today by the director of housing. this package of streamlining and funding will empower san francisco to put a dent in the affordable housing shortage by providing truly affordable homes to educators and family. i also appreciate the mayor's amendments proposed today. i support and encores our mayor. changing the charter is not the

right way. with that said i moves we table item 3 to discuss further and work to address concerns in the legislative and less divisive manner with all of the leadership here in san francisco at the table. >> before we take that motion there are a couple more comments. soon pesupervisor mar. >> i referenced sp50. it should be sp35 that makes the projects eligible for streamlined review. that other bill is on my mind a lot. i apologize foi apologize for t. >> i want to make it clear that i am in support of the initiative we offered together with supervisor walton and fewer

and peskin. the re-zoning done by that initiative together with sp35 will allow us to streamline and build 100% affordable projects. because of the defense as i mentioned in my comments the definition of teacher housing which is important to maintain at broad levels of affordable so that folks who are paraeducators can afford these units and maintaining the principle of 100% affordable housing on public land. i am in support of the initiative and not in support of the charter or other initiative as currently written. >> thank you. seeing no other comments. colleagues, if we can make a motion that we heard and filed

items one and two. can i take that without objection? without objection those motions pass. supervisor walton made a motion to file, is that the right language? table item 3. what i will say about that is that that is not usually my style of filing motions at committees. we are essentially a board of supervisors right now with quorum. the fact there are six supervisors in a quorum of the board in the in favor of the charter amendment i don't think it makes sense to be labor the point. we should start working together to figure out which measure we put on the ballot and have as much unity as possible moving

foforward. we have a bond and charter amendment to win and they are both important. i will take that without objection. that motion passes. >> is there any other items on the agenda. >> clerk: i want it to be clear it is the rules committee that tabled the matter and item 3 is tabled. >> any other items? >> clerk: that completes the agenda for today. >> then the meeting is adjourned. -

>> tenderloin is unique neighborhood where geographically place in downtown san francisco and on every street corner have liquor store in the corner it stores pretty much every single block has a liquor store but there are impoverishes grocery stores i'm the co-coordinated of the healthy corner store collaboration close to 35 hundred residents 4 thousand are

children the medium is about $23,000 a year so a low income neighborhood many new immigrants and many people on fixed incomes residents have it travel outside of their neighborhood to assess fruits and vegetables it can be come senator for seniors and hard to travel get on a bus to get an apple or a pear or like tomatoes to fit into their meals my my name is ryan the co-coordinate for the tenderloin healthy store he coalition we work in the neighborhood trying to support small businesses and improving access to healthy

produce in the tenderloin that is one of the most neighborhoods that didn't have access to a full service grocery store and we california together out of the meeting held in 2012 through the major development center the survey with the corners stores many stores do have access and some are bad quality and an overwhelming support from community members wanting to utilities the service spas we decided to work with the small businesses as their role within the community and bringing more fresh produce produce cerebrothe neighborhood their compassionate about creating a healthy environment when we get into the work they rise up to leadership. >> the different stores and assessment and trying to get them to understand the value of

having healthy foods at a reasonable price you can offer people fruits and vegetables and healthy produce they can't afford it not going to be able to allow it so that's why i want to get involved and we just make sure that there are alternatives to people can come into a store and not just see cookies and candies and potting chips and that kind of thing hi, i'm cindy the director of the a preif you believe program it is so important about healthy retail in the low income community is how it brings that health and hope to the communities i worked in the tenderloin for 20 years the difference you walk out the door and there is a bright new list of fresh fruits

and vegetables some place you know is safe and welcoming it makes. >> huge difference to the whole environment of the community what so important about retail environments in those neighborhoods it that sense of dignity and community safe way. >> this is why it is important for the neighborhood we have families that needs healthy have a lot of families that live up here most of them fruits and vegetables so that's good as far been doing good. >> now that i had this this is really great for me, i, go and get fresh fruits and vegetables

it is healthy being a diabetic you're not supposed to get carbons but getting extra food a all carbons not eating a lot of vegetables was bringing up my whether or not pressure once i got on the program everybody o everything i lost weight and my blood pressure came down helped in so many different ways the most important piece to me when we start seeing the business owners engagement and their participation in the program but how proud to speak that is the most moving piece of this program yes economic and social benefits and so forth but

the personal pride business owners talk about in the program is interesting and regarding starting to understand how they're part of the larger fabric of the community and this is just not the corner store they have influence over their community. >> it is an owner of this in the department of interior i see the great impact usually that is like people having especially with a small family think liquor store sells alcohol traditional alcohol but when they see this their vision is changed it is a small grocery store for them so they more options not just beer and wine but healthy

options good for the business and good for the community i wish to have more [ gavel ]. >> good morning, everyone. the meeting will come to order. this is the july 24, 2019, regular meeting of the budget and finance committee. i am sandra lee fewer, i am joined by supervisor catherine stefani and supervisor mar who is sitting in today. our clerk is ms. linda wong. colleagues may i have a motion to excuse supervisor rafael