part of the building. i heard you say the issue isn't necessarily the size of the addition for the partial preservation alternative. it's how much you're changing the existing been. so building.it had to do with ws happening to the existing structure that would constitute, perhaps, a partial preservation alternative. so maybe less changes to the existing been that would meat that. meet that. >> absolutely. although -- unless i'm unaware of some really extraordinary character-defining feature on the interior, i'm a little less concerned about losing some of that. i get it that structurally it doesn't make sense. i think it's the effect of the design on the structure of the existing resource that i think

the most troubling. that's where i'm having the biggest trouble and that's the project and preservation alternative. >> we'll be up against a lot of projects on south market. we have the opportunity to figure out how to design vertical additions over historic buildings and how our city thinks these should be -- what the glanc guidance provided to o that. i don't think the guideline guis design but conceptual framework. that's what our policy on retained elements is trying to address and these are ones we can learn from and test different approaches. commissioner so? >> i actually agree with all of my fellow commissioners have put forward, their point.

commissioner perlman mentioned the partial preservation part and wear looking at what is required for this commission. but then commission high listen had a good point about -- i do agree when we're looking at character-defining feature, it the embodiment of the contextual responsiveness to the neighborhood and culture and community. so with the gentrification, it is important to understand the design. i'm looking at the project versus the project preservation, how we interpret the character-defining feature that presented to us for the base of the building and how do you

translate it to the totally different language on the top? versus we're presenting today with this partial preservation, the approach is more of a conventional take on adding anything to a three-story brick warehouse. so i don't have suggestions here today. but i found that we don't have a good solution to today's project that is presented to us. about bubut i would say that thl preservation proposed call of the massing is looking very -- it's truncated. it's not really there.

the facade we're looking at today is so drastic versus the two alternatives that wer we goo live with. i think we have to go back to some more analysis. >> let's open public comment back up. >> i'm the applicant for the project. i just wanted to clear up a few things. originally, we went to planning director directly, said, hey, we're going to develop this property. we know of several folks here before us, that for whatever reason bought the building and sold it. so we had heard lowe's wanted to do a four-star hotel. so we went back to planning and said, hey, we think a hotel, four-star, high-end, a brand that's not san francisco and it will work with folks who have been wanting to get in here for

25 years or more would really represent the city well, be a beautiful spot in all of the tourist areas. so everyone in planning said that's fine. so we designed a building, gorgeous building. it was modern and it was to take the whole building down. and then we found out there were historic issues. so we said, ok, we hire paige and turnbaugh. we found out when the sisters did an analysis document in 1968, in '72ish, bedford properties h who had the buildig weren't in for plumbing or kitchen remodel permit and stripped the whole facade. so what you see today is not how the building was built. the brick was for the insulator. the whole thing was cladded in plaster, had cornises on top.

they found pictures of it. i think i got mine on the internet and from the building that used to be next to us and it showed that we put it in a report that we originally submitted to planning. i don't know if you have seen that. so the three consultants we paid for who work for the city, too, said in reality, it's not historic but over 50 years and has the brick and all of that. so recently, we found out that the resources could be a big issue. so we said, had we known this now or known this then, we would have met you two and a half, three areas agthree years ago ae talking. the act text architects designed there were finishes that coincide with the neighborhood.

so just to let you know, we have been a great neighbor. wear from the city. weawe're not a bunch of east gu. i'm a fifth generation of north beach -- actually third, they took my great grandfather to to angel's camp. we go way back. and, you know, hear we are trying to be politically correct. do you think for the neighborhood. we went to the golden gate tenant's association and no one opposes the neighborhood. so that's how we've gotten to this point. i wasn't sure if you were aware of a lot of the facts that lead up to the meeting. >> great. >> commissioner john's? >> commissioner had an interesting phrase, a context at

large which i just would like to change around to the larger context. you know, if we could go back. i remember when that was the produce district. all those buildings and they were torn down and there was an off-ramp and on-ramp to 280. and that neighborhood, that was, what, 50, 60 years ago? and that neighborhood, the context changed dramatically. it changed from horses and wagons and produce carts to cars getting off and on and moving into. if you look at the street pattern down there, you see that there was supposed to be no

contact between the pedestrians and those streets. the whole thing is a floor above. and a lot of the buildings on the north said is a rather whimsical thing that it has more in common in the context of the 1960s. although, that, i think was i in '70s or early '80s building. so we have this ree relic. i had been coated with plaster and i would mention that, that. that we are really talking -- maybe we're misleading ourselves here about this historic resource. and the facade of the historic resource because it's not all that historic. it was coated in plaster.

but reel getting back to my initial point here, in the contexcontext of this neighborhd the way it has developed and with this particular building, i don't see that there's anything that can be done of a preservation tape. type. i appreciate the elucidation which means you keep something. it's a continuum of the retained element's thing. my thought is that the preservation alternative isn't much as i have understood the term. as i have come through today's

hearing to understand the tell, it does preserve something. it preserves some of the bricks. but if that's all we're doing, then i say the project seems to me to have a lot more benefits than the alternative. >> you think what we're trying to maintain and we're had conversations around this and that is the urban context and so, once we get into this project, it's not a preservation project any more but understanding how can we retain the context of the street scape and pedestrian experience.

>> so when there is an element that's retained, i see this as a pattern and a struggle when wear lookinwe're looking at alternat. realistically, i might ask miss shunt to comment. but searc they're mitigating im. so demo of a historic resource is an impact and it's supposed to mitigate that. so the one alternative that always occurs is no project because by building no project, you mitigate that automatically and the full presence preservath is how much can you build or

modify, alter a project and still meet the secretary of standards and have a historic resource at the end of the day. the partial, in my history of work on this, has been there because when you only do the full and when you do the no, there's this ask for what's in between. the full preservation very rarely hits all tenants. so the partial is the in between. so i realize what the struggle that you guys tend to have is when the project itself starts pulling from elements of what a partial would normally have lent itself to do. so when they keep pieces of the building or elements that are historic and then how do we crest that and analyze that. >> so mann?

>> i think rich did a great job of explaining that. i do think just to clarify, what you're being asked to comment on today is the range of alternatives, not on the design per say. i realize that there's a fine line there. but it's important for them to hear. one option i heard is because of what rich just said, that the project yoursel yourself is it , perhaps you don't do a partial. but it's something with less of an impact on the records resour. >> yes, that's exactly right. trial t.we need a range of any alternatives. as rich has stated, the no-project, we have a full preservation because that avoids

the impact. we can also have alternatives that seek to reduce but don't avoid the impact and that's where the partial comes in. as rich has stated, to reit rate, it'reiterate, the partialt avoid the preservation impact but will reduce it significantly. and i think my observation would be and others have observed this, as well, the proposed project is probably pretty close to what we would have come up with had the complete demo project been proposed. and so i think we sort of got to that through our urban design review and this retained element's policy. so we've got, basically, a partial preservation as the proposed project. >> before we get to are perlman, i want to go back six years and

remind everyone of the planning commission not really understanding the dialogue that our commission had around the draft eirs. that's what started about asking for more diagrams, more images. this is all we got six years ago, one page, and it didn't articulate. it was be the massing. this is evolving. i think that they're looking to us for advice and that's what we're getting better at doing. >> i just wanted to reel look at this in a dus different way, ths the only building in that area that according to the owner and

commissioner john's didn't actually even look like this. all of the buildings around it, the one next to it is a 1980s building. the one to left of it, as you're facing it is a 1980s or 1990s building. across the street is a parking garage, as i understand. so what are w pray pra preservi. have a building that isn't there at all, like the 450 ofarrell. if it's not really much of a historic resource, propose a project that doesn't have it there. because that would be a full dem lugs. demolition. >> even though a building has been changed from what it was originally, alterations after the fact become significant. >> that is exactly my point.

>> this gets into retained developments. this is about showing an early 20th century what the street escape was.

i'm appreciative of commenting early. that's the point of the change we've made. so i'm grateful for that. i think the problem we're having is that we all think that as designers do and we're concerned about the visual effect on the resource. and that's really the essence of this discussion. but i 'd do think if our job iso assess whether these are reasonable range, they are. i think the range of alternatives is reasonable here. >> i'll just close, i guess, by saying, i'm not -- i support heritage's position on facadism and i always have when commissioner haas was on the commission. so i would support retaining the

significant elements of the building, but the new design needs to speak to it. and so i'm just offering that i think this design, even the proposed project or the partial presencer vacation can speapresn a better way and still be contemporary. >> i think the project sponsor gets clear direction and i'm not sure where they are. so i heard two different proposals. i heard one proposal that says this range of alternatives is appropriate and i heard another proposal that said don't do the current partial, but actually do a scheme in the other direction with no retained elements. and i wonder, is that something that the commission wants do? i think you have to decide? >> we stepped into this, you think, because we had that joint meeting with the planning commission when we asked them, are we doing a good job and when

it came to things like this, they said no. wear not satisfied with you saying this is a range of alternatives and an analysis that raises the appropriate issues. that doesn't help us. what we really would like you folks to do is to make some suggestions for how it could be done better. and now we find ourselves on the one hand saying, well, wear being asked to decide whether this range of alternatives is reasonable didn't on the other hand, what a lot of people are struggling with, i sense is, we want do what the planning commission said it wanted us to do and that is make some suggestions for the betterment of mankind and perhaps we can't do both of those things. >> i mean, maybe that's in response to my comment earlier.

so maybe i can clarify. i do think there's two different things that you have been asked to do and one is to look at the range and separately and perhaps more in an advisory capacity to the commission, look at the designers. design issues. your comments on the design issues could be incorporated as the project moves forward, but i think more specifically, with respect to the eir so to develop this to move forward with the eir. so i think both things are legitimate. i'm not suggesting you shouldn't do the advisory role. >> it's more of a challenge on this project because we're talking about a very difficult design problem. when we have a larger project site where there's some historic resources and we have a lot of dusdustdifferent options, we cae them for direction. if you move this tower over here, it might work better.

so we can give more direction. what i would propose, my recommendation is that the partial preservation be further developed, closer to the proposed project and articulate some more design elements that the tie poling responds to the historic building. we would have one they would like us to build and one that responds to the context. >> that answers one question lurking in my mind. you said the preservation alternative should retain significant elements. my question was, well, do those significant elements have to include anything in the

interior, any of the wooden beams? >> no. >> we get back, i don't want to offense heritage but it's some versus of the facade is what we're talking about. after we cross that bridge, what do we put on top of them or under them? >> my response, it's a design exercise and need knee needs toe responsresponsive. mr.asif you keep it, the new den needs to respond to it. whether there's an opportunity on the interior, like the auto row buildings that were a problem or a challenge back then becoming the entry lobby to the new hotel, right? here we don't have that

opportunity. the interior doesn't have any suggestiosuggestionsignificance. so i wish i could see something that design-wise was coherent as opposed to a new building plopped on top. >> you're saying no matter what alternative, that's what you would like to see? >> indeed. >> i wish the proposed project would do that. >> so if that's the situation, then, perhaps, if i could interpret what you're all saying, this range of alternatives is just fine for an overall bulk standpoint but more relationship with the design and new part. >> right on the for example. >> quantitative assessment and qualitative. we think this is reasonable quantitatively. i think we have concerns about how it affects --

>> ok. >> i agree with commissioner highlands, with what he just said. >> do we eliminate the partial alternative and talk about design because it's not alternative, because it's odd, no matter what and so much the same as the project and then let's just focus on the design of it. will this come to the arc? >> no, we're bringing it to the full commission. >> i'm saying the design will not come back. >> it's not a lan landmark.

>> could it be satisfactory if there were an alternative masked the same as the proposed project but had a different design on the facade? >> they can respond more -- they're architects and they know what i'm talking about. [ laughter ] >> so it sounds like you would be ok with not having a partial preservation but changing the design in more of the direction you designed. >> it can still be contemporary. jusjust the massing and articulation can respond. >> how about if we leave the option with the project sponsor to continue. here is what i'm worried about, is what if it gets to the planning commission and they

have better drawings and a better understanding of all of the agen adjacencies and someboy complains about a cast shadow. if you want to pursue a partial as a way of communicating different impacts, then i would say we leave that up to you. >> or just leave it in the way it is and follows the project. >> yeah. >> that's clear. >> that would be clear. >> i wouldn't want -- >> do we have concurrence? just concurrence that the range of alternatives are good and from a qualitative perspective, we want to advise the project sponsor and planning commission that the current design of the proposed project can be better designed in context. how is that? >> find. fine.

>> so sorry we put you through this. this is very good conversation for us and as a city, we're struggling with this retained element. and we'll have a lot of projects coming before us. so this is going to help us to get better at it. thank you. are we all set? are we done? we're adjourned.

>> the new friday farmer his market is in the u.n. plaza. it features the best of san francisco. grab fresh foods and veggies from the heart of the farmers' market. shop from marker -- local vendors. engage in free diy craft sessions and grab lunch representing cuisine from around the world. [♪] >> we offer 60 varieties of organic fruit and 30 varieties of conventional. one of our best sellers so sellers is our manager in. it is super sweet. we sell 600 pounds a week. one of the things they like about the market as i get to see my regulars on a weekly basis. i get to meet their families and kids and it is really good to be here. san francisco won my heart. >> one of our vegetables that is

very popular is kale. a lot of people go for dino kale our mission is to make sure we have access for everybody to get organic foods, no matter your financial status. >> we make greeting cards, invitations, enamel pins, and we do workshops. i am participating in this market because it is a great opportunity for local makers to sell to a really diverse community of people in san francisco. >> they partnered with the market here and invited us to come out and reach out to the public. we are going to do a full event of workshops where you get to arrange your own bouquet. we will teach you all the tricks and techniques and you will be able to take home a bouquet of your own. you. [♪] >> we really are wanting to bring opportunities to the community to introduce these local makers to a larger audience. >> this is my own pakistani recipe.

it goes with rice, chicken, lamb we have a very delicious drink. we have a lots of variety of foods. [♪] >> we do lots of different curries. we do three different types of wontons. >> spring rolls, too. that's right. >> it is really great they are bringing out local artists from around the city to participate and really help us making our business more successful.

good morning, everyone. the meeting will come to order.

welcome to the september 30th, 2019, meeting of the rules committee. i'm supervisor hillary ronen, chair of the committee. seated to my right is rules committee vice chair shamann walton and seated to my left is rules committee member supervisor gordon mar. we are joined by supervisor aaron peskin. our clerk is linda wong, filling in for victor young. and i'd also like to thank jesse larson and kalina mendoza at sfgov for staffing this meeting. ms. clerk, do you have announcements? >> clerk: please make sure to silence cell phones. complete the speaker cards and documents are included should be submitted to the clerk. acts acted on today, will be appear on the board of supervisors agenda on october 8th. >> thank you. >> clerk: item number one. an ordinance amending the administrative code to add a preference in city affordable housing programs to tenants temporarily evicted from rental units for capital improvements or rehabilitation work.

and requiring landlords who regain possession of such rental units to provide evidence of complying with a tenant's right to re-occupy such tenant's rental unit. >> thank you, colleagues, for hearing this item last week, where we heard testimony from the community about the impact since 2017 of some 400 -- over 400 temporary capital improvement displacements or evictions. many of which have gone well beyond the three-month time limit for temporary displacements. as to supervisor mar's question, i believe that we actually were able to provide data later last monday. and the temporary evictions have largely and often become permanent displacements which have had the added effect of not only pushing tenants out of their homes, but also taking rent-controlled units if permanently off of the market.

i tried to solve for both of these issues in this legislation, but after some discussions with dan adams, from the mayor's office of housing, we've really been trying to collaboratively brainstorm to see how we can best address those concerns. so today i'm going to ask you, colleagues, to duplicate the file and leave the chapter 47 parts here, as to neighborhood preference. and to forward -- and then make some amendments to the chapter 3 parts, which i believe the city attorney believes are substantive and will require a one-week continuance. all of this is not to say that we don't have a responsibility for our rent-controlled tenants, we do in the same way that we have a responsibility for our school kids and for -- my point here is that it's not just inclusionary units and b.m.r.s

that are our responsibility. but what i'd like to do here, with your support, is to duplicate the file, leave the -- take out the chapter 47 neighborhood preference items. and then make a few changes that are before you as to the role of the administrative law judge and the findings that they would have to make, as well as some findings as to their role and applicability, which is set forthright now in section 4, which that it should apply and include any rental unit where a notice to vacate or notice to quit has been served, as of the legislation's effective date. so those are the amendments that i would like to make. and if a subject to public comment member of the committee is willing to do that, we would leave the chapter 47 parts here in committee and call the --

move those to the call of the chair and send the chapter 37 -- make the chapter 37 members and continue at one week. >> supervisor ronen: sounds good. you keep calling it the neighborhood preference. you mean the new preference. >> the new preference. right. >> yes. >> supervisor ronen: the city and county is laughing, as i was. >> the temporarily capital improvement eviction preference. >> supervisor ronen: thank you. okay. that makes sense. if there's no comments, we'll open up this item to public comment. if there's any member of the public who would like to see. seeing none, public comment is closed. does anybody want to make the motion requested by supervisor peskin? >> so moved. >> supervisor ronen: and if we can take that -- would like to say anything, supervisor mar? no. without objection, that motion passes. [gavel]

i will make a motion to continue this -- so there's now two pieces of legislation. i'll make a motion to continue the substituted piece of legislation to the call of the chair. and a motion to continue the other part -- the original file to next week. >> clerk: committee report. >> supervisor ronen:. >> chair peskin: no. we can't send as a committee report today, because mr. givner deemed these amendments -- >> supervisor ronen: sorry. i didn't hear you. it's not a committee report, we're just continuing the original file one week to the next rules committee meeting. >> clerk: thank you. >> supervisor ronen: did i get that right? without objection, that motion passes. [gavel] thank you. miss clerk, can you please read item number 2.

ordinance amending the administrative and planning codes to establish the south and market community planning advisory committee to advise city officials and agencies on implementation of the central soma plan. advisory committee and the eastern neighborhoods citizens' advisory committee. >> supervisor ronen: thank you. we're joined by abigail from supervisor haney's office. hello, good morning. >> good afternoon, chair ronen and supervisors. i do have the amendments with an applicable chart, with all of our suggested amendments, if i may hand it to madam clerk. thank you so much. the legislation that is going to be shortly passed to all of you today would establish that the south of market planning community advisory committee, the c.a.c., and amend provisions of the eastern neighborhood citizens' advisory committee and the soma stabilization fund,

citizen advisory committee. in going through the process, we have been very thoughtful and engage, both the soma c.a.c. and the eastern c.a.c. in several meeting. and received continual input on this legislation, to make sure their voices were heard throughout this process. we also worked closely with planning and mocd in considering the amendments that are before you today. since the current city members -- within the respected groups, we found it essential to incorporate their feedback and their suggested amendments. we honored those amendments as best as we could and believed the version that is before you this morning, incorporates that feedback. this ordinance would also create the 11-member south of market community planning advisory committee, the soma c.a.c. the general purpose of the soma c.a.c. would be to improve input in the city's decision makers regarding implementation of the central soma plan. , the western soma area plan and

the east soma plan. the soma c.a.c. would also provide advice regarding the following community improvements projects and other public investments, funded by the central soma infrastructure impact fund. improvements, projects and other public investments, related to transit, parks and recreation, complete streets, environmental sustainability and schools and childcare ra also reflected there. if we turn to the chart that i have provided to all of you this morning, it does have some cleanup amendments in modifying certain residency requirements with the soma stabilization c.a.c. clarifying that the soma planning c.a.c. members and alternate members serve as pleasure of the respective appointing authority, clarify that the members and alternate members again serve at the pleasure of the -- of the authority and that same idea would apply to the eastern

neighborhood c.a.c. there's some clarifying amendments that we worked with with the city attorney, which should be that alternate members of the soma planning c.a.c. must meet the standards set forth in the voting members and subsection 5.26-2 section a. it clarifies that service on the soma stabilization c.a.c. of two more years of a term, shall be deemed a full-year term. we also removed the language reference in the charter administrative code regarding the conflict of interest provisions, applicable to st. joe's stabilization c.a.c. and lastly, we clarified that the at-large member of the eastern neighborhood c.a.c. i, appointed by the mayor, may represent mission, or central waterfront neighborhoods. again all of the amendments before you were presented at planning commission. it was unanimously voted in favor. we had a strong showing at

planning from all of the c.a.c.s that came out during public comment in support of the recommendations that are before you this morning. thank you very much. >> supervisor ronen: thank you so much. if there's no questions from my colleagues -- oh, i -- hello. good morning. >> good morning. i'm just here to convey that the planning commission heard this item on september 19th of this year and voted to recommend approval, with modifications. we thank supervisor haney for considering those modifications in this ordinance. my name is aaron star, manager of legislative affairs. thanks. >> supervisor ronen: thank you, mr. star. if there are no questions from my colleagues, i will open this item up for public comment. please come forward. good morning. >> good morning, supervisors. i'm john albing, the taco group. i would greatly appreciate if you would send this up for action today. this c.a.c. legislation is one of the final pieces of the

central soma plan. it's taken a year since you approved it last year to get to this point. it will ensure that there is a really robust community participation in the south of market from now on, for implementation of the central soma plan. and all of the future decisions that that will affect the course of all of south of market to come. it will empower the community and the stakeholders to really have all of the information they need from the city agencies, to be effective and, of course, many of those issues will come to you for final action. i really appreciate the work of the city to get us this far. the legislation was introduced by supervisor chen last year originally. and now supervisor haney's office has worked at taking it all the way through to this point. so please support it. and we'll see you. >> supervisor ronen: thank you. next speaker. >> hi, good morning, supervisors. my name is allen sampson manolo.

and i am here to represent the soma stabilization fund c.a.c. i've been the chairperson of the -- of this particular c.a.c. for about three years now. and have been a member for about nine years now. oh, my gosh. i can't believe that. the c.a.c. has been around for 1 -- 13 years. it was representing the south of market families, the non-profit organizations, and the cultural workers to help them make decisions on how the stabilization fund should be implemented. it's been quite successful. our process has always been open to community members. and they have done so much good work in their suggestionser in these 13 years. we provided seed funding for the bishop, the housing project, which has placed more than 400

households to date. we did -- we provided funding for united players, so that they can acquire their offices and their clubhouse to prevent eviction. we've also administered soma community action grants to help our neighborhood acquire some funding for some of the community engagement activities. we even had a small-sized acquisition project and saved a couple families there from eviction. so i thank you for listening and hope you can support. thank you. >> supervisor ronen: thank you so much. is there any other member of the public who wishes to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] anybody want to make a motion? >> excuse me. i move that we send this forward of positive recommendation from the committee. >> supervisor ronen: as amended. >> as amended. >> clerk: would you like to

adopt the amendments first. >> i move we adopt the proposed amendments. >> supervisor ronen: without objection, those amendments are adopted. [gavel] >> my first motion is we move this forward with a positive recommendation. >> supervisor ronen: as amended. without objection, that motion passes. [gavel] thank you. thank you so much. miscellaneous clerk, can you please read item number 3. >> appointing one member indefinite term, and three members, terms ending april 29th, 2023, to the children and families first commission. there are four seats and four applicants. >> supervisor ronen: thank you so much. i will call the applicants up one by one. i just would like to note that joan miller is not able to make it today, due to a medical appointment. she did send an email and i'll just note in my opinion, exceptionally qualified for this position. for seat 6, linda asato here?

good morning. >> hi. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is linda sasat. pronoun, she, her, hers. i have a statement of qualification i'd like to give to the clerk. thank you. appreciate the opportunity to just highlight some of my qualifications for re-appointment to this seat. my entire professional life i have focused on serving children, youth and families, my current position i am an executive director of an organization that focuses on children, youth and families at the state level. and i'm very familiar with policies and practices. and use that information to support what i do here on the commission. i also have a long history serving san francisco as a non-profit e.d., focused on

early childhood. so, yeah, i appreciate your consideration for my re-appointment. thank you. >> supervisor ronen: thank you. if there's no questions from my colleagues, we'll move on. thank you so much, mrs. eights. we're really grateful you're willing to serve in this capacity. next is suzanne giraudo is here. good morning. >> good morning, supervisors. i'm happy to be here and request my re-appointment to the commission. my experience is i am a practicing child and adolescent psychologist. i'm the director of california pacific medical center's child development center and have been for a number of years. just for information, we have about 18,000 visits of children

each year from all economic classifications. i'm on the ground working with children and families and see the increasing need for support and access to services. i've been on the commission for a bit. i have served and continue to serve as president of the commission. what i'm looking forward to, as we move forward, is the request to align both the first five and the office of early childhood education, which is going to be essential to put the work of the city and county for our kids together in not siloed departments. the goal really is to focus this

alignment on evidence-based practices, not just what we think might work. so our focus for this alignment is on the whole child, both early education, health, behavioral health, and mental health, which has become an increasing need, always has been, but it is now very much at the forefront. and our goal is for prevention, also in these areas at an early age. so for these reasons, i do request re-appointment to the commission to be able to move this vision forward. thank you. >> supervisor ronen: thank you so much. and thank you for all of your service all these years. it's much appreciated. no questions. for seat 9, lynn merz here? miss merz? no. all right.

good morning. >> hi. i have a copy to put in the record. thank you. good morning, supervisor, ronen, mar, and walton. i request re-appointment to the children and families first commission. i have served on the commission for the past eight years and wish to continue to serve during this important period of streamlining and realigning all of the care and education services in the city. i currently am chair of the fiscal committee and a member of the program committee. i see the next four years as an exciting time for the commission, as we actively work with first five and the office

of early care and education to systematically develop a comprehensive system of services for all young children and their families in the city. i served as the executive director of the mimi and peter haas fund for the past 12 years. in this position, i'm committed to the goal that all children deserve access to high quality early education programs, that assure that they enter kindergarten ready to learn. i stand committed to guarantee low-income and new immigrant families high quality programs in education, health services, parent support, and human services, that build their children's social/emotional growth, as well as improve their academic performance. in my position as executive director of the fund, as well as

throughout my production -- professional career, i'm committed to achieving equity for all underrepresented groups. i open to be reappointed and ask your consideration. >> supervisor ronen: thank you so much for all of your service. thank you. >> any questions? >> supervisor ronen: thank you. supervisor walton has a question for miss giraudo. >> supervisor walton: thank you so much, commissioner giraudo. just a quick question. i know you talked about wants to combine the office of early education and children and family first commission. have you had conversations with the state about this? or is there going -- do you anticipate any issues with the state, because of how first five commissions are set up? >> it's not a merger. it's align aligning the two pro.

and we're very well aware. we've got two different streams of funding. and obviously we -- the first five is funded by the prop 10 funds. and so this is where we're looking at aligning the services, not merging them at this point. that would be a discussion with the state, with the city attorney and god knows who else. but it's really looking at the services aligned. and if, in fact, we even are able to cross staff is a work in progress, because the h.r. systems are very different. we're very aware of that. right now we have two different silos, two very different

departments. and a very confused public and community providers and who does what. and that's part of the alignment goal is kind of figuring out who is doing what. but that the services, in fact, are aligned and not two separate silo. yes. >> supervisor walton: gotcha. i just wanted to ask that yes. >> no. no. we've been asking it, too. walton it's a good idea. i figured it would be a little bit complicated, too. >> of course, it is. even in the city h.r. it's really complex. >> supervisor walton: thank you. >> any other questions? >> supervisor ronen: no. thank you so much. we will now open up this item for public comment. any member of the public, please feel free to come forward. hello, good morning. >> good morning, chair ronen and supervisors. my name is theresa, i'm the interim director of first five san francisco.

commissionerses represent a critical intersection of our work at first five san as you he already heard. with their expertise spanning child psychology, child youth and family services and the public, private and non-profit sectors. as you have also heard, they deeply understand the next phase of our work in this city, creating an enterated and aligned early childhood system. they are extremely committed to improving the lives of san francisco's youngest residents and their families, through equitable access to quality early childhood initiatives and programs. and they have worked tirelessly with us as commissioners toward realizing this goal. i also would like to add that joan miller was unable to make it here today, as you have heard. but she is also an important new partner, as the director of human services, children and family services and joint fnd