dorian. i live across the street as well. i am all in the mix there. how this got started is we produced a cabaret show, two performs on saturday nights for five minutes each song and that was it. we needed a permit. we applied for the permit. we did all of what we needed to do to get the permit and we actually held happy hours for the neighbors to hear any issues they had, anything like that. nothing came. one person come and supported it. we thought everything was going how it was supposed to go. then weep got the appeal for the dr. the dr said we were building another bar. we are not building another bar. we are trying to get an entertainment permit to do cabaret. we are a restaurant first, not a

nightclub. busy bar on the weekends friday and saturday nights. we are not the only bar in the neighborhood. across the street is the horseshoe and five or six other restaurants down the street. we are the corner where everybody mingles. it is not necessarily the dorian. i can't control across the street what happens in the door doorways. what we are trying to do is we are a neighborhood bar trying to additional element to it to bring in more people, to bring in more people to the neighborhood to have the neighborhood people join us more often, add another experience to it. we don't want to do crazy bands to 4:00 a.m. we have another nightclub. we are not that. we are a restaurant with a jazz band on thursday night during happy hour, not doing craziness.

that is not our plan. other than that, we are just trying to support the neighborhood and move forward. >> anyone here to testify in support of the project sponsor? come on up. >> thanks for listening to me. i am liz miller speaking on behalf of myself as neighborhood of the dorian. we are a neighborhood organization in support of housing, transit and strong local businesses. i have a personal connection. i have been a patron of live music for my life and i am part of the social group of thousands who enjoy artistic expression, live music, socializing and coming together to connect as humans.

i appreciate new artistic ideas around the city. san francisco is known throughout the world or we have been known for our wonderful nightlife and our art that is always leading the rest of the world in our expression in the ideas we are able to incue bait here. it is extremely important that this culture continue especially in this time we have now where isolation is so common and people are not going out to meet up with each other and connecting with one another as you probably know this makes for a stronger community and stronger society as a whole. not to mention live music draws tourists and people from other towns as well as bringing us in the neighborhood out to these events to meet up with friends and patronize local businesses. if you are going to hear a nice jazz band you are more likely to patronize businesses for coffee or food. this does support or local

economy as well as really helping our community. i am seeing a lot of bars close and a lot of artists struggle in our city. as a san francisco resident, obviously, this brings me dismay. i want to support the dorpian. i would like to -- dorian and move forward with the project. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i am dana. i support the project because i am a huge fan of entertainment. entertainment helps artists and musicians get paid, helps small businesses bring in customers, brings neighbors together and enriches the callingtural scene. i think -- cultural scene. i think we need to revisit the entertainment permitting process. it is broken. i was talking to a business owner the other day who wanted

to add an entertainment use and he was like really confused about the whole process. this is after talking to planning. is it really necessary for planning to like have a parallel thing with planning and entertainment doing the same thing? it should be easier for businesses to add entertainment. that is a good way to adapt. it is a tough environment. >> anyone else in support of the project sponsor? come on up. anyone else in support of the project sponsor? >> i am jackie. i work for serious leisure as manager of the parent company.

i live in the area marina. >> did you work for or with the project sponsor? >> yes. >> you are part of the project sponsor team. if he would like he can provide you with the two minute rebuttal at the end. you will get two minute rebuttal later on. anyone else in support of project sponsor? seeing none, we will hear a two minute rebuttal from d.r. requester. >> i would like to ask mr. davis what is involved. >> speak into the microphone. >> i would like to ask mr. davis what is involved in the two six minute music sessions. >> two cabaret performances by

two women that dance and it is one song. they play a song. that is it. the song is over. they hang out for about 45 minutes. then about 45 minutes later they dance to another song. that is it. >> that is what i thought. there are rumors on the street that it is a semi-strip show. it is definitely live dance. i am sorry. we don't need this. i don't quite know what to do. he indicated that they had done community outreach for a happy hour. i did not get anything in our building. we are directly across the street and nothing was sent to our building. kathleen lives across the street on fillmore. nothing was sent to her building. i am not quite sure what segment of the local population was invited, but it didn't include

either of our buildings. i don't know what else to say except that we will not be liveable. how much time do i have left? >> 20 seconds? >> forget it. okay. you have had it. thanks. >> thank you. project sponsor you get two minute rebuttal. either one of you can take the time. >> again, we are not trying to become a nightclub. we just want to be able to have live music when we can corporate events. who knows if we are doing a cabaret show. that was not rumor on the street they were semi strip show. it was definitely not that. we invited all the neighbors.

my building got for the happy hour everybody in the neighborhood was invited. as far as noise, the noise level will not change. we had entertainment commission come in and do a sound check. we were way under be the sound. we have a doorman at the door already that checks ids every friday and saturday night. the doors are shut and windows are shut. i have been here for two years and running solo 8 or 9 months. i live across the street. if there was a complaint it would come to me. i have got one complaint in the last six months because the door man left the door open too long. i don't have other complaints from neighbors. i haven't gotten them. if there was a complaint, we would take care of it. >> public comment section is

closed. commissioner moore. >> this seems to be tales of two different worlds. i haven't quite figured out the common denominator. i would ask staff are there complaints about this business you are aware of? >> we did look into that. there have been complaints since the 311 notice went up. we don't have on our complaint list on our property information map we didn't have any complaints logged on to that system. >> it is hard to discern on the street with a lot of restaurants and other places, bars if you have at a corner people gathering there is noise. it is hard to discern. we want to be fair and sensitive to this. i have not gotten a clear feeling there are complaints,

particularly targeted toward this business making a lot of noise and we do not feel comfortable. i would need to hear that to take a position one way or the other. i am kind of trending. i would like to work it out with each other because you are going to be neighbors for better or for worse now and in the future. i have found the list of the outline that was handed to us very reasonable. i am wondering what my fellow commissioners feel about that. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you. i would echo those comments. you are all neighbors for a long time, and whether you feel no matter how you feel it is imperative to the success of the business and the livelihood of the neighborhood to come to some

agreement. in the past when we had these types of uses before us we had businesses come with a plan for cleaning up the sidewalk with a plan for liaison that neighbors could call who is on duty to respond to issues that come up. also a recommendation around hours. then also more detail about some of the planned activities that are going to happen. i think that is absolutely reasonable in this case, and you know i hope you do work it out and come back with an outline of those weighs in which you can have the staff that is already checking folks in at the door also be thinking about the street around your space. in addition have somebody on staff that people can call. i would agree that it makes sense to take time for you all

to work it out. i see other commissioners to share. >> commissioner fung. >> entertainment commission do they have conditions as part of the permit? >> they can have conditions. if this commission would add conditions we have a referral from the police department and this goes before the police commission. those conditions would be added to the permit if it were approved as well as referral back to the police commission. >> they have been having performances however long or short, i presume. they said something about entertainment commission out there doing sound tests.

>> as part of the process of submitting the application you have to get a building permit and check plumbing and sound that there are certain decibel levels. >> i understand that. that was done by the entertainment commission's sound tester. >> correct. we brought someone out. >> that is a requirement before you go to the police commission. >> the entertainment commission's thresholds are quite high and so whatever they have and i have seen this before, it winds up that it is still audible. the problem here is this building, this space has to vestibules. when the door is opened and you can throw out any type of sound. i am not so supportive of this

in the sense that if there is no plan to control all sound within the facility, then i don't think it is allowable for them to be bothering other people. >> commissioner imperial. >> i would like to echo on what commissioner moore and commissioner johnson had laid out. this is definitely -- i understand the community especially the senior folks that live around the area and i understand that this corridor as well is filled with other types of businesses, and the cabaret show sounds like it only lasts six to seven minutes. i guess my question for the project sponsor in terms of

corporate events how long are the corporate events? >> they can vary. it is three to four hours. alongest five hours. that would be somebody that wants to rent a band, dj, something like that. again, our music levels are the same level as that because they would plug into our systems. they are not bringing outside speakers. the level of the sound would be the same. >> i understand that you did happy hour outreach and you invited other folks as well. >> we invited and jackie can speak on that. >> i have the list that says the community members. i filled out the labels and sent out a stack this big of the letters.

>> my only thing is that the happy hour outreach may not be appropriate for all of the people. it might be best to do it other types of outreach as well. >> we had reached out to the planning commission about it and they said that we should do it at a time accessible to everyone. they agreed 6:00 was great and do a happy hour to make it more inviting rather than just having them up to the second floor bar. >> it was one outreach event? >> that's correct. we only had one person. >> i think it is interesting case for me. i would definitely try to see if you guys can do a memorandum of understanding where if there are complaints from project sponsor that there is a person to go to

and also, you know, a lot of limitations in terms of your hours. something i look at something reasonable. it is good to have other communities. that is my comment. >> commissioner diamond. >> i would be supportive of continuing for four weeks. they don't need six weeks to see if they can workout agreement along the lines from the neighbors and merchants and they address not only cabaret but corporate events as well, too. that is a motion. >> second. >> nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to continue this matter to marc

march 12th. to work out details to satisfy both parties. commissioner diamond. (roll call). >> so moved that passes unanimously 6-0. item 16 is continued placing us on item 17. 2018-007012drp, 134 hearse avenue discretionary review. >> welcome to the commission. david winslow staff architect. the item before you is public initiated request for discretionary review for 2018 to construct a third story vertical addition and four foot rear

addition with front façade and excavation of ground level to provide accessory dwelling unit to existing two story single family dwelling. the d.r. requester at 130hearst avenue is concerned the height and depth, the rear addition does not provide adequate set backs and that the scale is incominnot compatible. it is not to minimize impacts to light and air and extensive excavation could pose structural instability to add jay sent properties. proposed alternative to provide side set backs at the rear of the proposed building. public comment department

received no letters in support or opposition. the advisory team found that the height and scale of the building is compat i believe with the neighboring buildings. rear did not comply with residential design guidelines related to articulating the building to minimize impacts to light, air, privacy and maintain access to open space against the d.r. requester's property. we recommend following modification. be revised to provide five foot side set back that begins no further than four feet beyond the existing adjacent neighbor's rear wall at levels two and three at the proposal. this concludes my presentation. thank you. >> we are now going to hear from the d.r. requester first.

>> good afternoon. i hope you are still with me. i am karen brat, d.r. requester who resides next door 130hearst to the proposed property. i believe the planning departmendepartment er r.e.d. we residential guidelines are not adhered to as evidenced most recently by planning's request for modification. while i agree with mr. winslow's proposed modification, i request the commission further modify the proposed project by making changes to reduce the rear of the building by the proposed four feet extension. i have listed a number of reasons in my dr application as

to why there is a need to take a look at the proposed plans. i will not repeat all of them but focus on the main issues. i am hopeful you will find a workable solution to sustain a living environment that considers the property of long time neighbors in relationship to the affects of the mass and scale of the rear of this building project will have to our properties. unfortunately, throughout this process the owners of the project property at 134hearst avenue have not once been present to address our concerns and thus have not allowed informal dialogue or mitigation of issues with me and my neighbors. the project sponsor's response to my dr application fails to meet me concerns and that of neighbors and does not adhere to the san francisco residential

guidelines and planning code section 101. the proposed project is to add another story to an existing two-story house, expand rear another four feet, construct decks in front and back at new third level addition, get rid of existing set backs, come close to property lines, gut and remodel interior and excavate rear and garage to include another housing unit. the proposed plan calls for increase of doubling size of existing building to 2707 square feet for an increase of 1455 square feet. the height will increase to 31.h increasing 4 feet. my house is 825 square feet. the neighborhood consists of

single family homes with wide back open yard mid space. according to san francisco residential guidelines, design principals include ensuring the building scaling is compat i believe with surrounding buildings. that is building respects the mid block open space, maintaining light to add jay sent properties by providing adequate set backs. i am requesting modifications to side set backs. per the san francisco design guidelines, the design should respect the existing pattern of side spacing. this is not the case with the proposed project. i am requesting modifications to the depth of the rear of the proposed building by not going back four feet. reconsider adequate light and space to the rear of my property and neighbors. i am requesting a possible solution to reduce the footprint and move the front setback

forward to compensate for the loss of footage in the rear. a façade change in new ground unit plans were submitted after the preapplication meeting. i am requesting the new proposed staircase to come straight up next to my front window be moved over a bit to give privacy to the front of my property. i am also concerned with structural instability in relation to the massive excavation for the ground unit which may have substantial impact to th to the adjoining properties at the rear of the property. as stated in my dr, the design of the proposed structure does not apply adequate set backs in the rear with the plan of coming 10.5 inches of my property. there is approximately 4.7 feet set back for approximately 15 feet. current structure of 134 where my kitchen begins.

the proposed wall will be 10.5 inches and run from the end of my kitchen for 18 to 20 feet beyond the end of my structure. >> ma'am, your time is up. you will get more time later. you will get two more minutes later. we'll have you back up after we her from the project sponsor. you will get two more minutes. >> anyone here in support of the d.r. requester? >> good afternoon. i live directly next door to karen. i won't repeat anything that she said. i am sure that is not necessary. i ask the commissioners consider the quality of life of the

neighbors that you consider both the privacy and the direct light. my backyard, the direct light there will be directly affected by this extension as will my privacy. thank you. >> thank you very much. seeing there is nobody else here. would anyone else like to speak in favor of the d.r. requester? seeing none. project sponsor, your time. >> good evening. i am benjamin mcgrief. >> speak into the microphone, please. as you can see -- [ inaudible ] >> the property is identified with the balloon at 134 hearst.

the d.r. requester property is above that and the supporting owner's property is above that. as we sort of slide this out as best i can, you can see that the houses below the subject property are all built out in a similar degree to some extent even greater. than jan and peter's property and to the east of the support supporter's property you can see the blue residence that is more or less maxing out the vertical development. what we are proposing in this design is as was previously outlined a horizontal expansion to the rear yard approximately four feet. this awning you can see here is

functionally the shortest peace is the four feet. extension would be removed. vertical addition footprint of this that you see here. the vertical addition would provide 8-foot ceilings. what we are providing is a three bedroom home for a family of four, two kids that are soon to be teenagers and 70-pound shepard. in addition to adding a.d.u. at garage level. in the back here we are describing a thre three story he that is currently one story. when we talk about massing and changing the rhythm of the rear yard, i would make the case that variation already exists. the mid block open space is significant. one of the decisions we did have to make as a team is whether or

not to create the square footage to allow for the program on the bedroom on the stop floor and ex institution deeper of 17 feet before the setback or create the square footage by expanding horizontally which we are capturing the side yard. the footprint of this house is quite efficient. one of the qualities of the home that we described to our clients efficiently when there is very little hallway. we have a corridor. this is the top floor, by the way. proposed top floor plan. the two bedrooms in back.

there is a small balcony on top of the four-foot expansion of the entry level below. bedrooms are side-by-side. by carving out five feet as suggested in the revision, we are truncating the width down to a size that is difficult to pull-off two flanking bedrooms and will more than likely result in us having to relocate the second bedroom to the bottom floor which was intended to be the location for the a.d.u. if there was a lighter suggestion in terms every deduction from the side yard set back, we could retain the depth of 17 feet below the already required set back or in addition to the set back and still keep two bedrooms on the top floor without using the a.d.u. that we so hope to include. thanks. >> anyone here in support of the

project sponsor? seeing none. >> you have 20 seconds. >> hello. i am jennifer wall the owner of 134 along with my husband peter. thank you for considering the new renovation. we purchased in december 2012 to add space for a growing family. >> we can't hear you. you are not speaking into the microphone. you will get another chance. >> later or now? >> later. >> dr requester two minute rebuttal. two minutes. >> i basically left off talking about the wall. i am actually going to.

>> please speak into the microphone. >> i don't know exactly how to put this. i will put it this way. this is the existing wall now, and this is going to come back another four feet. the bottom one shows my property and then the wall. the top one is a view from my property, from my kitchen of what is now and then they are going to go up another level and back another four feet, taking out my entire garden area. i have another photo. it shows that as well. per the san francisco

residential guidelines rear yards are open spaces of land between the back of the building and the rear property line. when expanding a building to the rear yard, the impact of the expansion on light and privacy of the at butting structures must be considered. it is not in line with the san francisco residential guidelines and will have a substantial impact on light and privacy for my property and the property at 130 hearst avenue. i feel take planning was wrong. it was to provide air privacy and convenience of access to property of san francisco. do i get more. >> seven seconds. >> planning code 101 and the general plan objectives include the neighborhood character

beacon served and protected. >> your time is up. >> i just want to say i am a native of san francisco. >> everyone gets the same amount of time. >> you have two minutes, project sponsor. i am the owner of 134. my husband and i and two children and large dog want to live there. the odd layout is too small for our family. we love 134. it has a large yard, our kids go to school two blocks up. when we first started this in 2013 with our neighbor we were met with resistance. her family was experiencing hardship. wetageed the plans to later. her circumstances changed we want to proceed with building

our home. we appreciate the plans are approved. we are at an impasse with the neighbor. we have tried to be good neighbors. we replaced the fence and removed the overgrown ivy from her yard. there was no financial participation from the neighbor. we were fine with that. there was a long 18-inch dime diameter branch that hit our home. the tree company dragged the limbs through our basement as her access was brocked. it is our intention to build our family home afternoon continue to be to be good neighbors. we are working within the planning guidelines we hope to get this completed. the extension is only on the ground floor. the upper level is not extended that far. thank you. >> we are down to public

comment. move to commissioners. >> commissioner moore. >> i have a question for mr. winslow. that question has something to do that i am a little bit concerned the quality of the a.d.u. given the expansion of the building is the issue here doesn't seem to be quite considered that we have a 16-foot undercut between the proposed expansion and where the a.d.u. is. 16 feet is a lot. given there is excavation that brings you to a very kind of dark zone looking north. that is an area where you would have --uled never have sun. i am wondering as to whether or not you have thought about potentially holding the building back because of expansion of the

living level is quite generous and by holding the expansion back by 5 feet to bring it more in line with an over hang that would make the a.d.u. more liveable and would bring, obviously, the impact on adjoining property much more in line than what is currently proposed. i would also then if you are and i find the suggestion of staff quite reasonable to cut the believe back from the eastern property line, reduce that cut in from 5-foot 10 to three to still maintain two bedrooms. those bedrooms instead of losing 5 to 10 or six feet would only collectively lose three feet. i wonder if you have thought about that. i am concerned we need a balance

that indeed the a.d.u. has reasonable light and be function. i do not believe that is 16-foot makes that happen. >> i had not in fact thought of that particular solution. in looking at the a.d.u., it appears the proposed use label for the rear portion is storage and mechanical and not inhabittable spaces that may benefit or become happe happeni. it is up to the project sponsor i suspect. with respect to reducing the extension by how much did you say? >> you would move it back by 5 feet. >> the second level? >> you would move it back by 5 feet on the proposed level

two, correct. >> proposed level two is only proposing to expand four feet. >> take it back five feet. by doing so you would line it up with the level three dropping the terrace on the west side. you would have a solid rear building wall, a cut back on the east side but you would not basically have five foot cut back but three foot cut back to protect the bedrooms. the family has two grown children and wants independent bedrooms which i fully support. >> i mean those measures would become parable with what i think staff was suggesting in terms every leaving the massing against the d.r. requester. i would caution against taking

more than what exists. in other words if the expansion at the second level is only asking to go out four feet, maybe the motion should be retaining the existing rear building wall at that level rather than than i am than subr than addition. >> i can see that. at least we are staying within something which is already there, but we are making a cut in on the side in order to accommodate for being off the property line. >> part of the move of the side set back. the building extends well beyond the adjacent neighbors to the east including the d.r. requesters, and so the side set back is somewhat more effective

means of that massing than reducing the extension of the rear, which was minimal at that level, four feet at the ground floor level at th the rear yard. that wasn't considered as much the problem as the expansion towards her property line. i suspect that in combination with a smaller side set back may accomplish a similar goal. >> commissioner fung. >> i would agree with your last comment to a certain extent. i think the side set back on the top level, the side back on the top level is probably the most crucial element with respect to the d.r. requester. i am not so supportive of the reduction of the second floor. i don't think that does

anything. a three foot reduction still allows 22 feet for the two bedrooms. >> if i may also offer an opinion. we typically don't look at the inner workings of the floor plan. the programmatic desires of the sponsor were to attain three bedrooms. there are three bedrooms on level three plus again usually sized. master bath and closet that is equivalent to again usually sized bedroom. i wonder if there is a configuration to allow three decent sized bedrooms and master suite bathroom closet that can take into account the proposed side set back.

in other words the deal is the master bed and bath and suite to the rear to more easily accommodate those side set backs and the front two bedrooms can be side-by-side. i think there is enough room in here to get three bedrooms and still have the side set backs as requested. >> that makes sense. >> commissioner moore. >> i make a motion that to approve the project with the conditions to work with mr. winslow to modify the floor plan pulling the upper level back and maintaining the side set back that is not five foot ten but reducing to three. what you outlined and commissioner fong repeated is what would make a better building. >> commissioner diamond. >> could you clarify what you want done with the a.d.u.?

>> the a.d.u. stays as proposed except it will not have the 16 feet over it. the rear wall pulls back. the same line. >> would it be proper to ask the project sponsor to ask what their intention is for the a.d.u. and what the condition currently designed is for clarification? >> as david had identified and commissioner moore as well, the layout of the a.d.u. is all front loaded such that the

daylight in terms of access from the street side given the very obvious concern of issue in the overhang in the back. that is why the use of the space is intended to be for storage rather than some sort of living usage. i am curious with the flipping of the square footage upstairs and holding back 10 or five feet there is concern if we can't achieve the three bedroom arrangement on the top floor during our conversations we would have to consider the potential of losing the a.d.u. >> commissioner moore. >> i am not quite sure if i read the plans connectly.

i feel that the general expansion of living and bedroom space is sufficient to achieve the program that i believe is suitable for the family with two children and it is in the interest of this commission not to -- given the significant expansion you are planning to let the a.d.u. disappear. that is my position. we are in an rh-1. with that said, i think what we are asking, we are sitting here with enlargements similar to what you are asking for. we are always trying to encourage people to havena larg- have that large vision. i would like to find a way to get what you need and uphold our objectives and meeting the neighbors' concerns. that is a difficult position to

balance. >> mr. winslow. can we ask if you would be able to work with the d.r. requester a little more so we can shape the building to meet the objectives that i think the commission has expressed? >> i would be happy to. >> your motion with the clear direction of parameters for me to follow up with that conversation with the project sponsor. >> find away if it is flipping the bedrooms or making the two bedrooms smaller to accommodate three bedrooms, pulling the building back to the lines we had established, and that is basically four feet, and

consider that the cut back from the eastern wall is of sufficient depth to meet your objectives so the two buildings are not crowding each other, and three feet is a dimension which we frequently use. >> commissioner funk. >> commissioner moore. i think i stated that the four feet expense on the second floor does not bother me that much, but the three foot reduction at the property line on the third floor is the crucial element to that. >> for me personally it is the depth of the overhang which is just doesn't make the a.d.u. a very good addition. >> that extension toward the

rear has nothing to do with the a.d.u. it is only storage space. >> i think we should even consider flipping the a.d.u. because the a.d.u. has a window to the street. however, it is also sitting pretty much hidden underneath the stairs which takes up whatever six plus feet in width. i am prepared to see the bedroom moved to the quiet part of the house and have the office be to the front in order for the livability of the unit in the totality for the long unit. i would encourage that we make the building shorter, expansion shorter.

>> if it is excavated, i believe you have the deck up above. that doesn't qualify as bedroom space, is that correct, mr. winslow? >> it is my understanding the building code is any bedrooms in particular have a nine foot maximum nine foot over hang do not qualify for the purposes of obtaining light and air. >> i think that is correct. >> however, in this scheme i believe and this is where it becomes -- i think somebody from d.b.i. has to opine. that has double doors opening to a landing leading to a stair well that has what looks like in the renderings access. it is open to the sky at that point, is it not? so the question is whether or

not that would allow that room to qualify as a bedroom with the overhang of the upper floor not with standing. it may well. maybe the project sponsor could. >> if i recall as well. once the projection extends beyond 10 feet it no longer can be allowed to be considered a habitable bedroom, the overhang. >> commissiocommissioner moore d be an item staff can workout with the project sponsor. >> is the condition to make that portion of the a.d.u. allow it to be habitable space rather than storage space regardless of how it is labeled correctly. it seems to be the direction that you are going with respect

to trying to pull the upper floor back to enable the lower level to become more usable for the purpose of the a.d.u. >> can the department work with that as a direction? >> is there a motion? >> it sounds like we are taking dr. i am not clear what we are requiring other than the project sponsor continue to work with staff. >> mr. winslow can you formulate what you are going to be doing? >> continue to work with staff to find rearrange the building to enable a three bedroom, pull the rear wall at the second floor four feet back with the intent of making the rear most

portion of the a.d.u. adaptable for habitable space, and provide a side set back of up to three feet on the eastern side adjacent to the dr neighbors on the third floor, not necessarily the second floor. >> i think what i have understood is that the direction is that it is the policy of this commission, if there is an a.d.u., at some point if they have moved out of the house or whatever, in the future it could be livable space. so the idea is to do whatever we can to make that have the potential of livable space but also that the rear expansion isn't so much of an issue so much as the side. instead of bringing the extension in four feet, really

focus on the side set back and then also doing what we can to make the a.d.u. liveable. >> much better than i could have put it. >> commissioner diamond. >> if i understand correctly, we are not saying bring it back four feet. if you have to bring it back to make the a.d.u. work at the back, the minimum amountness you need to bring it back. we are not saying you have to bring it back four feet independent of anything else. >> staff's recommendation was a side set back at second and third floor, both levels. >> i would still agree with that. >> it sounds like there is some form of motion. would someone second. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners, on that motion to take the approve the project with modifications

directing the project sponsor to work with staff to make it had beenitable and provide side set back three feet on the east side. (roll call). >> do you have a question? (roll call). >> so moved commissioner that motion passes unanimously 6-0. we are adjourned.

>> so with that i wanted to introduce our speaker, katie macdonald, as mary just said, is our vice president and the strategist for the chief investment office of bank of america. katie is responsible for the analysis of economic and football market trends and her focus on international economics and the political economy. so i hope that you will join me in welcoming katie macdonald. [applause] >> thank you and thank you to the san francisco business times for inviting me to speak here today. and thank you to the mayors. so after a volatile year in terms of global trade, business investment and weak manufacturing, the bay area --

oh, -- sorry, let me get my slides up -- i don't want you to see my face all the time. there we go. okay. so the bay area economy continues to grow at some of the fastest rates in the country. so this slide shows the 20 largest metro statistical areas. and the san francisco oakland metro area has the second fastest growth rate, growing by an average of 7% in nominal terms that. is quite strong and remarkable when you consider that the 7% growth is off such a large base. so combined with the nine counties that make up the bay area, contribute almost $1 trillion in economic output. california and the bay area are what we call high data economies, they grow faster than the national average during expansion but retract more during recession. so now we're in the 11th year of our economic expansion. but in terms of the economic

cycle, age is just a number. and despite this being the longest economic expansion in history with yesterday showing that the g.d.p. posted another quarter of growth, we believe that we are not at the end of the cycle. growth has been much more sluggish than past cycles, as you can see from this slide, with the bottom red line showing the recent cycle. and this is our recession indicator and currently we think that recession risks are low. and we think that instead of being at the end of the economic expansion that we're at the beginning of an upswing during this expansion. importantly, low inflation expectations have helped the feds to become more accommodated and keep the interest rates low to extend the economic recovery. and despite the slowdown, the services sector have held up. strong u.s. consumption as shown on the chart on the left, is enough to drive both the u.s. economy and the global economy, given the outsized importance of

u.s. consumption and california consumption in the global economy. also household balance sheeting are in the best shape in decades so consumer debt as part of the g.d.p. is a cycle low. and also household debt service payments on the right are at historic lows. and so these strong consumer trends should help to drive growth in 2020. that said, there are potential risks to this outlook and we are carefully watching the spread and severity of the vs. vs. in china and the globe and uncertainties such as middle east tensions and global trade wars and a yield curve inversion. but as far as the manufacturing slowdown, we haven't seen it seep into the services sector yet which is crucial, because we think that u.s. growth can continue as long as the service sector stays strong. in the bay area specifically the majority of employees work in services with professional and technical services being the

largest employer. followed by health care. and in terms of g.d.p., over 80% of the bay area economic output comes from services. these are real estate, health care and education, technical services, information services, and just 10% of the output comes from manufacturing. that said, the bay area is not immune to global shocks. so i will cover that later in terms of the trade wars impact on the bay area. this slide here, i just want to hit home on the fact that we are at full employment. we've never seen a tighter job market in 50 years. in the bay area, almost -- or all of the counties are below the national average of unemployment rate and last year we saw solid growth. however, because of this tight jobs market we think that employment growth should slow next year. and given this job market, one of the top concerns in the

states is they can't find workers. so in california we have over -- or almost 800,000 job openings which is more than the number of unemployed people who are looking for work in the state. and another issue of this labor force is the fact that the labor force participation rate has fallen since the crisis. part of this is due to the aging of the population. but in terms of having the entire population of california participating in this strong jobs market in the bay area growth, this remains an issue. the chart on the left is encouraging. it's encouraging to see the national participation rate starting to pick back up again. as rising wages and a strong economy has incentivized the discouraged workers to come back from the sidelines and re-enter the jobs market. the california rate remains low, near historic lows. another issue with this strong employment growth has been that there's been a lack of supply of housing to keep pace with the growing workforce in the area.

the bay area home values are well above the national averages. i believe that i showed this chart last year and we're seeing a slight decline in the home values but still above the national averages. this continues to be a tough challenge for inequality but also for businesses looking for work. as it's becoming increasingly hard to find low and middle-income workers who can afford to live in the area. so now switching over to the financial forecast in terms of this slide, it shows state and local finances. on the right-- or the lefthand side -- we see that the top source of california state revenues in terms of tax collections come from personal income taxes. and this makes the economy much more -- or makes the state's finances much more economically sensitive. also what's incredible is that the top 1% of income earners in california account for almost half of the income tax collection. yeah, that makes the finances

vulnerable and volatile in a recession and it's also a risk that california is now seeing outward migration as residents are relocating in search of lower tax burdens or the lower cost of living. and the recent state and local tax deduction cap will only exacerbate this trend. so taking a step back at this near-term outlook and looking more over the long term, the key thing that we'll need to see in the economy in order to keep this economic expansion going is productivity growth. this has been very weak since the last financial crisis. productivity growth rates have been very low but we think that forces could drive productivity to keep the expansion going. one of them being a tight labor market and stricter immigration policies. and the second one being rising trade barriers. the logic being that a tight labor market could incentivize the businesses to invest in

productivity and whether it's artificial intelligence and machine learning and so on. but higher levels of policy uncertainty have hurt this business investment as we have seen over the past year. businesses have stalled investments, so it's a key risk to the outlook. in terms of which state is driving productivity growth, it's no question that this has been california driven by the bay area. as you can see on this chart to the right. california continues to be the largest contributors to the national productivity rates in this country. i'm going to skip this next slide and just conclude that this is the outlook for the total exports. now to date we have not seen signs that manufacturing has seeped into the services sector but it could be a key risk in the years ahead. despite this relatively healthy economic back drop there's a high level of uncertainty in

terms of trade tensions, despite the phase one china deal and there can be issues ahead as well as the vs. vs coronavirus t on china. and it matters to the bay area. the largest importer of our goods is china. as well as in alameda counties, they are the largest exporter of goods in the bay area. sending $18 billion of goods overseas which is about 15% of alameda's g.d.p. so it's related to goods and warehousing and transportation and so on. so companies -- another interesting set is that of the companies that export from the san francisco area, 91% of these were small and medium-sized exporters. which is a serious consideration for the local communities. and even for the service economies, more trade barriers, more trade barriers and investment barriers can start to have an impact.

whwhile they may seem more insulated from trade tensions we may see it seep into the services sector. when you think of industries such as product design, marketing, financial services, extending loans, that's what i mean when i say that manufacturing can seep into the services sector and spill over its weakness which is a key dynamic to watch in the years ahead. thank you. [applause] >> katie, thank you, that was interesting and valuable information. we appreciate that. so for our next forecaster and after that we'll have a conversation with our mayors, we're delighted to have the chairman of the fisher center for real estate and urban

economics, and school of business u.c. berkeley and hear what the future of real estate holds. welcome, ken rosen. [applause] >> thank you, mary. well, as you know, i only have 10 or 12 minutes and some of yu have been to my talks and they're usually an hour and a half. so i'll do it fast. and following up on what katie said, the most important thing that we can talk about is jobs. it's jobs that drive our economy and produce the income for everyone, including the progressives in san francisco. we need jobs. and the idea that jobs are bad is just a mistake. so let me show you -- this has been 10 years of job creation in san francisco. so much greater than we had during the boom of the late 1990s. that's the last boom that we had and this boom is so much greater, so much bigger, and this job creation generates demand for housing, but also

retail sales and tax revenues to fund all of the thingsa we want to do. and the east bay issued very strong jobs and i commend both mayors for being here. jobs -- they're very good. they're both very good on the job front, knowing that we need this to happen. and the east bay includes oakland, of course, as the main job generator. as katie said, the upemployment rate is at record lows. nationally we're at 3.5%, the lowest in 50 years. and for the bay area, we're talking about in the 2s. so labor shortages are really the issue here. and we have a labor shortage that we've not seen like this for 20 years. what is driving this economy? it's the innovation economy. the san francisco bay area is the innovation economy. and there's silicon valley and san francisco or the east bay, it's innovation. half a trillion dollars, add those numbers up, half a trillion dollars, has been

poured into start-ups and venture. with the center of this here in the universe. and we have 60% to 70% of the money that stays here. the companies are here and the money is here. so that drives booms and, as you saw from katie's numbers, we have the biggest boom anyplace in the country. not only do we have a start-up culture but huge companies -- google, facebook, apple and sales force and many others who have huge market shares. and that could be a problem for them. because we're talking about investigations today about privacy issues and anti-trust issues. so these companies have dominated the market and we do expect to see them -- their growth slow. we have seen that with fac facek and we'll see much more regulatory environment for these companies. we also have the unicorns. we're the unicorn capital. no one has ever seen one but they're all here. [laughter] and as you know,

one of the biggest ones that we had, uber, went public. so unicorns are private companies borgt over a billion dollars and virginia very few of them make any money whatsoever and it's a problem. uber went public and losing $2 billion a year and its stock went down and it's sort of stabilized now. we saw that with lyft as well. but the window has been closed. and the reason is we work -- we work supposedly with $47 billion worth, and it was a concept basically that didn't make sense. locking up space long term to get short-term high rates to non-credits. so they couldn't go public. their valuation dropped dramatically and it was bailed out temporarily by soft bank -- by the way when i showed you those numbers, you have to add another $100 billion a year in for soft bank that supported many of the companies that don't make sense, wag.com, dog walking app worth $650 million. and as you know the start-up

robotic pizza company. it doesn't make sense. the head of soft bank, actually, went to berkeley. has a b.s. in economics. in 1980. did not take my course. [laughter] and if he had, he would have done some of these real estate start-ups in particular. [laughter] so what has this driven in the real estate market? well, we have the lowest vacancy rates in 20 years. south of market there really isn't much vacant space and overall in the market it's 5.8% for vacancies in the end of 2019. again, you may not remember it but i was here then in the late 1990s and we had even lower vacancy rates. so it's a very strong market. and it's quite different this time. there's big companies taking to the stage and not just the small start-ups but the big companies as well. and rents have now surpassed the peak 20 years ago. and we did have it $80 a square

foot and we slowly have built back up in $86 a square foot again, this is data from christian wakefield. and east bay, we've had a very strong economy. you saw the job numbers and the vacancy rate comes down substantially. and, again, the difference is rent is -- while it's doubled in the east bay in oakland, it's still much lower than san francisco. so we're seeing a lot of companies look at the very big advantages of the lower cost of housing and great transportation network and change in the environment and i think that it's here to stay in time and thank you mayor, thank you governor brown. remember that governor brown started all of this stuff. i had an hour conversation with him this week. and he really helped to start this. but the mayor has carried this on in a way that we're seeing a lot of relocations. in terms of housing, that's the crisis that we all talk about. and we've seen a lot of housing production. i know that no one believes

that, but these are the highest housing productions for rental housing that we have seen in a long time in san francisco. and i would say this vacancy rates are basically non-existent. 4% is essentially a transactional vacancy rate and there's some vacant spaces and people move around. but this is basically close to the lowest vacancy rates that we have ever seen. and rent growth has slowed in san francisco. it was three our foreyears ago 10% a year and only 2.5% a year. so katie's charts show that san francisco has become somewhat more affordable. totally unaffordable, we know that, but a little bit less unaffordable. [laughter] the east bay, oakland, has a huge amounts of development going on in the apartments. there's about 8,000 units going to be delivered within the next couple years. and that has put some pressure upward on vacancy rates. there's some concessions being given as to the leased out space. remember that the new space is

much more expensive than the existing space. so there's some pressure there. but we see affordability issues everywhere, but as we get all of the new space delivered it will take a while to sort out the marketplace. rent growth has been higher in oakland for quite some time. and you can see that it's essentially almost doubled in the last decade and a half. but it's much more -- or somewhat more -- affordable than san francisco. finally, house prices that katie's chart showed that we had a huge surge and then in 2018 it was our peak year. last year prices in the last couple years the prices have slipped back here in and the silicon valley. the reason is that we got to levels that were unsustainable. so we expect that to go slightly up and slightly down and did not expect another surge in house prices in the next year, year and a half. east bay has been stronger, again, we're starting from a much lower level. a little bit stronger. but essentially the same news is

there -- each market and sub-market is different. finally, katie mentioned this, and this is a big issue -- the bay area has a number of issues and we'll look at those risks in a second. we've had net outmigration of people that are already here, this is domestic. so you add the numbers of people coming in and the people moving out to texas, nevada, portland, and salt lake and this is the first time that we've had this massive outmigration. i think this is real. i know that the governor, our present governor doesn't want to talk about it, but it is a problem. we have international in migration to california and here's the net, but there's still net movement out of jobs and people. now let me just say that we are the center of the innovation economy and that's what makes this so exciting. it's not just in consumers and dot coms but corporate merveg, uses our research and economic

activities and our great companies that we have here. we're the innovative center, not only in the u.s. but the world. and corporate giants dominate this, though we have an active start-up culture. but the strong demand is created housing shortages and we know that. so here's the risks -- and i gave you these percentages last year. we think that the likelihood of recession this year is about 25%, and i think that it's higher than katie's number, and next year 40%. but let me talk about the risk for the bay area. and the number one risk is the black swan event. the coronavirus. we don't know, this will this be a pandemic? it's been doubling every seven days. china is trying its best to stop this, but if you look back at history of the pandemics, very hard to stop. what makes this so worrisome is that unlike the 18 1819 spanishu

that came over by boat and it took a while. now we can spread this with our air transport systems. we have much better medical care and these things, but i'm worried that we don't know the outcome here. the stock market is somewhat worried about this and the bond market is very worried about it. and china is the second largest economy in the world. and the relationship to the bay area, as katie talked about, is really vital. both imports and exports. we're the center of that connection. and if they are in a sharp slowdown or recession -- and, remember, that a lot of the economy there is closed at the moment, i'm quite worried that will reverberate on us here. of course we know that the housing issue, it's the crisis that we all talk about. but we don't talk enough about the middle. we talk a lot about the low end and the homeless and we'll talk further about that, but the missing middle worries me a lot. we've got to raise our definition of affordability. because prices are so expensive that even if you make $150,000 a

year it's hard to live here. so i think we really need to expand that definition. i think that the quality of life things that we talk about are overlooked. we all know about the homeless, but is it really compassionate to leave people under freeways and off-ramps? or on the street? i think that it isn't at all. i hate to say this, but we need to change. we need to write a shelter law of some type. [applause] we need -- [applause] and i have seen it in many other places. we need mental health and substance abuse treatment. we can't leave people on the streets. it's just not right. [applause] i have to give both mayors credit, they have a lot of political courage, but we need to go against some of the ideas that this is a free right of people to choose to do this. it's not good for the people who are on the street and, of course, it isn't good for the quality of life for everyone else. the other issue is traffic. and, again, we have very much an anti-car culture.

but traffic congestion, i have never seen anything like this. we like more public transit and more bicycles, i really don't think that we should have any scooters but that's another story. [laughter] without helmets, i mean, we're just asking for trouble. but we really need to work on this. and i know that a lot of people are doing that. in terms of local policies, i think that we have a very good difference between san francisco and oakland in terms of costs to get something done per unit. the fee structure. and oakland has benefitted from this, keeping the fee structure down and san francisco is hurt by this. but california as a whole has this problem. also to think of office space as a bad thing, which is a lot of people's discussion, as you know that 25 years ago we passed proposition m. which limits the amount of office construction and it hasn't been an issue until recently. now we're against that limit and

it's an attempt to put something called proposition e on the ballot which discourages construction. it's a terrible mistake. we need to house the job workforce, we know that. but we need the jobs. also in san francisco we have gone backwards in terms of the board of supervisors. this tax on vacant rental space. that is a stupid idea. no one wants to keep their space vacant. that's something that no business wants to do. there's an attempt to put proposition -- i guess the supervisors to pass an ordinance of some type to impose rent control on corporate housing. again, a mistake. we want to make it easier for companies to move here temporarily and we're making it harder. and all of these taxes that we put on to fund specific programs, prop c is one of them, again, i think that it's a mistake. it should come out of the general fund. don't target the job producers.

that just isn't the right thing to do. and there's other risks out there and katie talked about this, but the state and local tax deduction has been limited to the federal level to $10,000. this is a very big deal for california. and new york and illinois. and it's causing people to relocate and firms to relocate. and, again, this was a targeted attempt by the trump administration to make it more difficult for people to live in states that actually fund their programs. the launch companies have been booming for a long time but the regulatory environment is changing and we could very well see a large capital market correction and that would mean a slower growth rate. as katie pointed out, 1% of the population in california is 46% of all of the tax revenue. we need the 1%. otherwise, we're going to have a big, big deficit. lastly, interest rates at some point -- i've been saying this

for as long as you have known me -- are going to normalize and they're going to go up and cap rates could go up. and, lastly, i don't want to mention this but we could -- we will -- have a major earthquake here and that will -- could well be a disruption factor. so, again, thank you for having me, san francisco business times and i look forward to hearing from the mayors. [applause] >> thank you, ken. also very illuminating. so we appreciate you being with us again. and we're about ready to invite our mayors up and our moderator, managing editor jim gardner. i neglected to introduce two people i want you to know. two new reporters on our team, so you have to stand up, ryan

rinker, with start-ups and health care. and laura waxman, real estate. [applause] so take them to lunch. or they'll have to buy you lunch. [laughter] all right. so we're delighted, again, to have our two great leaders of our two great cities here with us in conversation with jim gardner. so i'm going to actually have our sponsors are going to introduce each mayor. and so because we're in san francisco, we'll introduce mayor schaff first. so i invite bill esposido, a partner at the corporate side at wendall rosen. come on up, bill, to welcome the mayor. [applause]

>> good morning. thank you to the business times for giving us the opportunity to come up here and to speak. i am bill aspivado and i'm a partner at the practice group. zach is normally here and many of you in oakland would know zach very well. because he wears pretty much the same thing all the time. he has a wonderful hat that he likes to wear and that's his distinctive thing. so i'm very, very excited to speak on zach's behalf. unfortunately, he had an event today that he could not come. but that does not diminish our excitement for our mayor. been in oakland since 1909, you have probably heard that, and the firm has seen a lot of mayors over the time. and we were very pleased and excited to say the least when the mayor started helming our wonderful city.

we have seen many wonderful changes in oakland. some are tangible and real and from our office we are seeing many cranes in the sky. there's a new energy on the streets. and there is an excitement in the business community as well as our long-standing communities, people that live there and love oakland for this wonderful city that it is. and i can tell you that i am most excited about oakland because, like most people that i meet in the bay area, i'm not from here. i'm from new jersey. and new jersey is an interesting place because it's also a place where it embodies some of the wonderful qualities that oakland has. we have an excellent, beautiful climate. wonderful diverse people. we have many industries that make stuff. and as you can see from the

stats, we export a lot of stuff. and in new jersey there's a sign that trenton makes and the world takes. well, i would say that is also true of oakland. oakland makes and the world takes. so in that regard i want to say that as excited as i am about oakland i can only tell you that you'll hear many wonderful things from mayor schaaf today. and chief amongst those i congratulate you on the chief resilience officer that you recently appointed and i'm sure that we will hear about that, so i won't steal your thunder. i allow you for the honor of introducing mayor schaaf. [applause] >> welcome mayor schaaf. and to introduce mayor breed, please welcome dr. -- i'm sorry,

physician in chief for caser permanente san francisco. and became the chief of the cardiology department, so welcome dr. ensar. and come on up -- after this you will take it away. maria, i'm sorry. >> thank you, mary. kaiser permanente is a proud partner with both of our mayors. we began 75 years ago here in the bay area and we have been part of the fabric of this community for 75 years. we look forward to another 75 years as we continue to innovate the way that health care is delivered. and support a healthy community. it is my distinct pleasure to introduce mayor london breed, the mayor of my hometown, san

francisco. mayor london breed is the 45th mayor of the city and county of san francisco. she is the first african american woman in the city's history to be mayor. [applause] she is a native san franciscoian raised by her grandmother in public housing in the western edition neighborhood. mayor breed is committed to an equitable and a just san francisco, and strengthening opportunities for all. please welcome mayor breed. [applause] >> thank you, good to see you. good to see you.

>> well, mayor schaaf, mayor breed, welcome, good morning. thank you for joining us. i was just talking to a few people after i arrived this morning. i don't know if it seemed this way to you, but it's hard to believe that we are still only ending the first month of 2020 and it has been pretty much non-stop news whiplash since the start of the year. whether that's the coronavirus as dr. fisher was warning us about, or the impeachment trial, which is coming to perhaps a premature close on the national -- on the national and world level. and here we've had news events from the housing situation in oakland to the public corruption arrests this weekend in san francisco, to all of the things that have happened with sb-50.

so i'd like to drill down deeper on some of these bigger local stories. so let's begin. mayor schaaf, as the visiting mayor this year will pitch the first question to you. when you look at housing in oakland, there's a lot of good news to report. you have completed more housing in 2019 than san francisco for the second year running. that the pipeline has gone from almost nothing a few years ago to 9,000 units now. what seems to be lagging behind though is affordable housing, even after an impact fee was added to address that specific issue. so where is the hold-up and how do you ramp up affordable housing in oakland? >> my latest numbers is that we have 9, 300 units under construction right now and another 10,000 in the pipeline. so, i mean, we are doing our fair share of adding to the bay area housing stock. [applause]

and affordable housing still remains a challenge. i'm excited that this year we'll announce that we're back on track to make the goal that we set four years ago to create 4,700 new units of protected affordable housing. but i think that we're recognizing that we need to actually create more deeply affordable housing if we're really going to address our homelessness crisis. and in oakland, it's been creative. we have issued our own local bonds. we have invested in what i call a conversion strategy of actually purchasing existing -- you know, product, renovating it, and putting affordability protections on it instead of always just building new. but nothing has replaced redevelopment. when redevelop pent wendevelopmy that was the end to our biggest pipeline of affordable housing funding. so i know that senator bell has

legislation once again to try and to bring kind of redevelopment .0. we all -- 2.0. we all admit that we had a round of sins with the first redevelop pent, though it was fun to see jerry brown then take redevelopment away when he paid the governor. but i think that we need to look at bringing that back because, you know, we're scrapping it together -- impact fees and density bonuses, we're doing it all, local bonds. i'm very excited about a bay-area wide bond, or potential revenue measure that is made possible by ad-14. your bay area will have a financing authority, something that has been extremely successful in new york. that is exciting. but none of that really replaces redevelopment. >> okay, okay. mayor breed, a lot of good news in san francisco as well. more than 4,000 homes completed

in 2019 which was the highest total in three years. 10,000 units in the pipeline for first time in recent memory, if not ever. but it's important to remember that the figure that you tend to see for san francisco is that we need 5,000 units a year just to keep growth -- pace with job growth and population. so we're still not to that level yet of stopping the problem from getting worse and much less making it better. how do you make sure that the 4,000 units that were completed last year becomes a starting point for something in the future, rather than what happened last time. we had good years on housing that turned out to be a blip. >> one of the things that i talked about is that we hired a housing delivery director. and justin is here with us today and he's hit the ground running. and the reason that we've been able to move forward with these developments is better collaboration amongst departments, looking at where we

are stalling with the production of housing, especially those housing developments where we can anticipate thousands of new units. we need to get those projects moving and figure out what are the delays, and how do we move them forward. but, more importantly, with everything that we have in the pipeline, with all of the challenges that continue to persist around development, you know, we need strategies that help us locally here to address this issue. it's really tragic that fb-50 did not pass. and what i tell people, you know, we all remember 207 that didn't pass before, that was a compromise. one of the things that i made clear to people, especially on the west side of town, i asked, how many of you grew up in this city? tons of hands grow up. and how many of you raise your kids in the city? tons of hands up. and how many of you have kids that still live in this city? hardly any hands go up. and we can't be afraid of

density. and the fact is that we can't also be afraid to cut the bureaucratic process. because it shouldn't take 10 years to get 86 affordable units built that are within the existing code. not asking for height increases and not asking for any additional setbacks. and we still can't get 100% affordable housing done? [applause] in a timely manner. and the fact is that politics, sadly, does play a role. because on the local level you constantly, of course, you have constituencies and, you know, who want what they want and that's why i think that it's so important that we look at a state-wide solution to aggressively produce more housing. because we -- i mean, i can't even believe that mayor schaaf is able to do as much as she's able to do under the umbrella of a county where there's difficulty in even getting

funding in the first place for affordable housing. and so we need -- what i believe are real changes on a state-wide level. that's where the business community can provide some support to helping us with the kinds of things that we need to put forward -- solutions to help to speed up the housing production. >> so let's look -- >> announcing that there will be a housing production bill passed this year. for a city like oakland we want to upzone a number of our neighborhoods but it would take us two or three years to go through the process. with what the state can do with a stroke of a hand. at the very least they should do an opt in process where those of us who actually want to have the benefits of an sb-50 can opt into it. i thought that scott wiener made compromises and recognizing this tension between the desire for local control, which i think

that can sometimes be a dog whistle for something else, and a need to really meet our regional responsibilities. i'm really frustrated that sb-50 went down, but, you know, scott has just been so persistent and so, you know, just focused on that angle, i don't doubt that he'll try again. maybe the fourth time will be a charm. >> i think that, you know, we need a lot more support from the business community. because we know that, you know, for example, the business community assists with the development of housing and, i mean, as we can see now with proposition e and the challenges there, how are we going to keep up with the pace of office space and housing production if we can't get housing built fast enough? and that's why the state controllers office put out this report. we're talking about over the next 20 years a loss of $26 billion to our economy in

san francisco as a result of this. and what that means is that we have to make significant changes. and we need support to make those changes. i mean, i had a calendar ballot measure to proposition e and everyone was quiet. no one wanted to step out to support me on that ballot measure which is why i dialed back and i hoped that this community would be brave enough to try and help to defeat proposition even. because this -- proposition e. it will be bad for the city and the business community. it's not a us versus them. the business community consists of people who live and work in the city and the bay area. we need those jobs. our economy is thriving because of it. because people want to be in san francisco. and so i think that part of it is trying to change the narrative and looking at creative ways and how we can work together on these issues. it distribut doesn't always havn

us and versus them. and oftentimes you only hear certain groups of people at city hall controlling the dialogue and creating the divisiveness and creating the tension and sometimes when i'm out there as mayor and i'm fighting these battles i'm hike wher like, whey backup, and my cover and my support. and that's where as mayors we could use that for help. and it's not just about supporting the business community. it's about protecting our cities and our economic stability. detroit wishes they had an economy like san francisco. there's so many cities that are suffering financially. and so we need to be able to maintain that. [applause] >> we hear whispers, rumors, rumblings, that perhaps as soon as next week you are preparing a local ordinance that could pick up some of the key parts of

sb-50 and implement them in san francisco. >> hearing rumors? >> hearing rumors. [laughter] what can you tell us about that? >> well, i can tell you that during my inauguration speech when i was sworn in, i made it clear that i'm on a mission -- i'm on a mission to get more housing built in san francisco by any means necessary. and what that means is that when i can't get charter amendments and other things passed through the board of supervisors, i'm going to need to take my case to the voters of san francisco. and when i do that, i'm going to need the support of this community. so i'm prepared to put myself out there. i'm prepared to fight these battles and to campaign and to do whatever is necessary to try and to move our city forward, to save not only years of production time for housing in general, but also to save money. that saves money. and it could potentially provide more units of affordable

housing, in fact. so i'm prepared to do that. we need to in the next 10 years at a minimum build 50,000 new units with 17,000 of those units being affordable. and so if we're going to be able to do that, i'm going to need to put forth bold solutions that require passage at the ballot box. >> does that include a san francisco-style sb-50 light measure? >> you will see soon enough. [laughter]. >> okay. [laughter]. let's talk about homelessness. there's rising alarm among businesses, residents, pretty much everyone in this region about the trajectory of home littleness. and i -- homelessness. and i want to say in both of your cities it's been a key issue. i know that mayor schaaf, along with the businesses and donors,

you have been building cabin communities and i think you're up to seven now. mayor breed, you have added a thousand shelter beds in the last few years and several navigation centers. which is all beneficial. but if you look at numbers homelessness is still increasing sharply in both of your cities. it's hard to argue that it's sufficient. what are the measures that you are prepared to roll out in the near future to tackle this problem? >> well, i'm going to start with that, because i just have been living and breathing this issue really for the last year. and i have been very honored to serve on governor newsome's council of regional homeless advisors. i'm your bay area representative, so bring me your ideas. i will tell you that i think that there's an idea that is far more effective than right to shelter. i'm not a fan of right to shelter. because our end goal should not be just be moving the problem out of sight and keeping people

in an undignified limbo that does not help them to get back to self-sufficiency. our goal should be preventing people from ever experiencing the trauma of homelessness and to rapidly to rehouse people, to get them a living income. have them re-house permanently. and so i, along with the co-chairs of the council, mayor steinberg in sacramento and in los angeles, we have proposed something called legally enforceable mandate to end homelessness. currently, there is no clarity at any level of government about who is responsible for what aspects of ending homelessness. no jurisdiction is required to have a plan and to be held accountable to actually delivering results in homelessness reduction. new york has a right to shelter.

they have a huge homeless population, they're just indoors and just not on the streets. that is actually not solving the problem. it is hiding it. and so we want to be clear that it is government's job to not tolerate the humanitarian crisis and really offense of in the wealthiest regions of the wealthiest states of the wealthiest country, that somehow anyone could find it acceptable that people call the streets of our cities their home. [applause] >> i have a slightly different opinion about this, because san francisco, for example, over the past two years, we helped over 2,000 people exit homelessness. we still, of course, saw our homeless population increase. and i think that one of the biggest challenges that we have

is that we would like, of course, for everyone to be housed. we'd like, hav of course, for everyone to be self-sufficient and to be able to take care of themselves but we are, sadly, always going to have people with mental illness and people with substance disorders and always have people, unfortunately, who have issues aroun around povert. and the question is, you know, how do we provide at least a place for people to be in the process of trying to figure out what we need to do and how we can continue to expand on those services. and from my perspective, you know, just, you know, trying to build upon those things, clearly, we are doing so much to do that, and it's still not working. it's not working. it's not working, no matter, you know, we could add -- we are adding a thousand shelter beds and helping people to get housed and reconnecting people with their families and master

leasing buildings for people to provide folks for people to live and paying people's rent. we have over 10,000 people that we are basically subsidizing as it relates to housing who are not getting government subsidies. as hard as we work, we still see the challenges on the street. and so part of what i made clear after reaching the shelter bed goal that i had for a thousand new shelter beds is that we also have to just have places for people to go. and we have to meet people where they are. and the reason why i support a safe injection site is because, you know, when you have an addiction and some of you may have experienced this personally or with your families or what have you, people who are addicted to drugs, because you tell them they need treatment doesn't mean that they'll accept treatment. because you tell them that you'll pay their rent for housing doesn't mean they'll go to that place they live every single night. so this is why i'm pushing for meth sobering centers and safe

injection sites and bringing people in and people may say that it's hiding the problem, but what we have on the sidewalks is not something that should continue to persist. so, yes, i want to do pop-up places where tents and sobering centers and places to bring people indoors, because that's a start, right? it's not a solution. it's a start. and it will hopefully to make a change. so that when someone is ready to get the help and the support they need, we have to make sure that we make that connection. so i made a commitment that finishing this commitment to do without new shelter beds is not enough. we need another 2,000 placements of various, you know, options whether it's a temporary or permanent or what have you, just to move people indoors for that next opportunity that could exist. but, you know, it's going to also not just take us as mayors trying to deal with this

challenge. i mean, we need state support. we need changes to conserver toship, more so than now. there's so many things that need to be done. and we need help from our state and federal government to do it. we're not going to be able to solve this issue and see a significant impact on our own. >> and i agree with everything that you just said and i also support safe injection sites. or we like to call them safe consumption sites. >> they change the name every year. >> a little more palatable. but i think that it is really important that people in this audience know that the homeless are not just struggling with mental health and addiction problems. that the recent increase in homelessness that we are seeing is driven by purely economic issues. [applause] yesterday launched an incredible

new organization all in the bay area -- that is where the class came from over there, the new director of the effort. yes, that was that table. tamika has worked for both the mayor's offices of san francisco and oakland, that's why she's so ready to take on this battle. but, you know, a very important statistic that they really pushed yesterday -- 41% -- 41% of our homeless and most at-risk of becoming homeless are employed. and so it is not just addiction and mental health we have to address. it is income inequality and housing shortage and housing affordability. all of those things are driving this issue. [applause] >> i don't disagree, i don't disagree with mayor schaaf on that, but i think that the problem that we see around homelessness is the behavior and the challenges that exist with that population. and i think that's really what

is becoming problematic, especially, sadly, the needles and the attacks and the drama that is associated with that, along with what you're talking about. >> and we know that housing first is the most effective way to heal people, get a permanent roof over their head and then we're able to address their mental health and addiction issues. >> so you have companies like kaiser permanente, and j.p. morgan and others who are committing tens of millions of dollars in the bay area to affordable housing, to homelessness. how can other businesses that want to engage on this issue, what can they do to basically to help address our homelessness crisis and augment what the cities themselves are doing? >> i'll put pout tw put out two. donating dollars to the great service providers. we opened up our seventh cabin community this week in oakland and our chamber of commerce has

been the main cheerleader, thank you barb leslie, has been the cheerleader to get companies and individuals. this cabin community 100% of the start-up costs paid for by 170 different donors. that is community coming together. [applause] but the other thing they want to challenge everyone on and kaiser is doing a great job of this and you're sighing it in the silicon valley businesses do this too, you know, ken talked about the missing middle. and i believe that companies need to start financing protected missing middle housing. because you can get a return on your investment. but as government, i need to prioritize our most vulnerable. and that's not the missing middle. we can do that through zoning changes. but as far as pure dollars into construction, i need to prioritize the most vulnerable. >> i think that contributions

are always helpful. we have a number of initiatives, including programs that support youth with housing and housing subsidies and so donations are always welcomed. that could help to support not just a one-time contribution but consistent contributions over the course of several years. the other thing is that prop c that passed around homelessness, if there's anyone whose company is impacted they could waive -- because the money is collected as we know and allowing the city to use those dollars and waiving your right to those dollars pending this lawsuit that is happening, it coul could be hell because we would invest that money into homelessness right away. and the other thing is that assisting in ballot measures and other things that we put forward that have everything to do with housing. so, you know, that is really going to be important over the next couple years because we're

going to need to make some significant investments and it's really -- for me, you know, talking about a $600 million affordable bond for seniors and middle income -- that is exciting. and people are like, sign me up, i want to invest. but when you say that i need a zoning change, then people are a little bit more skeptical about that. so those are the kinds of things that we need to do to reach the goals of getting people housed in the first place. >> that's a great suggestion. and the mandate to end homelessness will need to be on the ballot this november because it will require a constitutional change in california. and then also i think that one of most impactful things that will be on the ballot for the bay area will be the first revenue measure for our regional affordable housing financing authority. very important. >> mayor breed, you said a little while ago that you felt that the business community did not have your back on prop m

reform. i can tell you from talking to businesses that the feeling might be mutual. when you look at the new taxes, the new fees, the new permits, etc., that are falling on businesses in san francisco, we have seen mecasin pick up and move to texas. we have seen scwab move their headquarters to texas. and we have seen smaller companies that don't make the headlines but they're leaving quietly. and blue shield moved across the bay to oakland. [applause] what can -- well, you can take your victory lap here in a sec. >> i don't mind sharing either, by the way. [laughter]. >> what can san francisco do to be a more welcoming place where businesses want to remain there? >> help me to elect good members to the board of supervisors. [applause] how about that? so i don't have to raise all of

this money to fight all of these battles. but i will say that it's quite frustrating. and and some of the things that we need to do for businesses, and we don't have the support to get rid of fees at the board of supervisors but hopefully the resources and we're trying to invest into reimbursement and other improvements and support for small businesses to help to ease the financial burden on them. we're looking at reform to the gross receipts tax and how that might work so it's more fair and equitable. we're bringing the community in to help in that conversation. there were some people that wanted to put taxes in just blanket taxes for i.p.o.'s c.e.o. and that's not responsible without bringing the community together to have the discussion and to talk about the impacts. you know, so i think that it's

really -- you know, it is really challenging when, sadly, you have -- and i will say that there's a number of the members of the board of supervisors that have worked, you know, collaboratively, responsibly, and big picture and helping to lead these discussions so that we can collaborate better. but, you know, you all see the same stuff that i see and it is a real challenge when you have people who are obstructionists and are trying to make a name for themselves, which compromises what we actually need to do to work together in order to, you know, to make sure that we're not losing businesses because when we lose a business, we're not just losing a c.e.o., a c.e.o. is going to be fine no matter what. we're losing the people who are the h.r. folks and the receptionists and the janitors and the accountants. and people who are, you know, basically that missing middle,

folks who probably don't -- can't even afford to live in san francisco unless they're living at home and their mom and pod's, a.d.u. it's ridiculous that we're not thinking about the impact. and i'm always thinking about the impacts, not just because i'm mayor, but because as a native of this city and someone who has been so fortunate enough to get so many incredible opportunities, especially serving in this capacity, i should not be the only one. and i don't want us to continue to go down that path. so i'll continue to do what i can around changes to our policy. >> the last time that i counted and -- i did and count, i'm that kind of nerd -- there were 150 different permits in san francisco for businesses as a whole or particular types of businesses, probably with the office of emerging technology there's probably more permits since the last time that i looked. i know that you've been focused on trying to cut the red tape. but so are your predecessors. and the red tape still remains.

so why is the bureaucratic beast in san francisco seemingly so impossible to tame? >> well, your guess is as good as mine. but i will say that one of the things that i'm really excited about is the new building that's going to be opening, the permitting center, where planning, department of public works, and d.b.i., all of those departments, where you have to go across street and down the street -- we're bringing those departments together and we're bringing those departments together in a way where it will be easier, we're trying to streamline the permitting process. so that we make it easier for people to do, you know, simple over-the-counter stuff that shouldn't take weeks or months. and so that you don't need -- i mean, people might get mad about this -- the permit experindicters, but you shouldn't need a permit expediter to get permits. and hiring a new planning

director soon. and the goal is to try and to look at ways to -- i mean, a lot of this is proposing policies. and the question is, are we going to be able to get these policies through our legislative process? in many cases we won't. and what will we take to the ballot because it's necessary in order to speed up production? you know what we were able to do with a.d.u.s. it went from 18-month process to, you know, a six-month or less process. and that was just an executive order from me. so wherever i can do that, i'm going to do it. but, sadly, in some cases these are kind of legistated things. and, again, it goes back to making sure that we are paying attention to what's happening at the board of supervisors and who we elect to represent us. because there's a lot of power there. and it's not always used for the right thing. >> if i can blame the media a little bit. >> go for it. [laughter].

>> you guys always like write the story when a legislator introduces something, or comes up with an idea. you never actually look at whether that idea, in fact, did good. like, how has it actually manifested itself in real life, particularly on top of the totality of everything that already exists. so just, you know, for those of us who live with the consequences of, you know, people kind of chasing headlines, you guys could help us. >> that's a great point, mayor. [laughter] you can write a story about how successful a.d.u.s are since my executive directive. that's a perfect story. [laughter]. [applause] >> i'm sure we'll have an event where you ask the questions and i answer. >> i like that. [laughter]. >> mayor schaaf, i said that i'd let you take a victory lap here.

to some extent san francisco's pain in terms of the businesses leaving have been oakland's gain. you had blue shield and 2,000 others that we have counted. there's a huge investment boom going on in commercial real estate in oakland. largely based on the premise that this trickle is going to at some point to become a flood. some of this development is going on in oakland is of a scale and a scope that really hasn't been seen before. and some of it is taking place without any idea of who those actual tenants are going to be. so is there a danger that oakland is going to kind of get over its skis here and overbuild? or is this something that is just a long time coming? >> a long time coming. i think that we're great skiers. [laughter] black diamond all the way. it's been a long time coming. oakland is a phenomenal city. a great transit. transportation hub. beautiful weather. we don't get your fog in the

summer. >> i love the fog. [laughter] for my winter coat. >> you know, i did not anticipate quite the explosion that we've had. when i was running for mayor, you know, six years ago, people said what's your economic development strategy. and i said, you know, improve the public spaces and pave the damned roads and lower crime. and people said that doesn't sound like an economic development strategy. i said in oakland it is. because if we fix those things, the city speaks for itself. the city sells itself. it was very gratifying, i think that it was one of these events that i got to prove someone wrong who said no one will ever build an office tower in oakland on spec. ha-ha. [laughter]. >> well, the other thing that happened at this event last year is when we were sitting here last year, it seemed as though for the first time ever that the

fate of all of oakland's sports teams was settled. the raiders were going to move to las vegas and the raiders have moved to las vegas. and the warriors would move across the bay to chase arena they have done that. >> i think there's a curse -- no. [laughter]. [applause] >> you know what, you're right. there was a curse when the niners went to santa clara and now they have broken that curse. [laughter]. [applause] >> no, i love my warriors. >> we won't tempt the basketball gods anymore here. but the third part of that was that the a's would stay in oakland and build a ballpark. since then there's been a lot of confusion on that point in terms of how much help they would get from the city to get to the finish line and even between your office, the city council and the city attorney, who's going to be driving -- who is

figure to be in charggoing to bw they move the as. can you clear this up? >> listen, developing on the waterfront in the bay area is going to be complicated. but from my point of view, everything is going well. we're going to see the draft e.i.r. probably within a month and we should have the project in front of the city for approvals within the year. and, of course, it's complicated. oakland is full of passionate advocacy. and we have an independent elected city attorney and that has played some role. but i really do feel like we are all on the same page. it's another thing that people said that will never happen. you will never get a waterfront ballpark built in oakland. but i look forward to proving those skeptics wrong as well. because it is going to be fabulous. [applause]

>> mayor breed, the report that came out this week on the department of public works makes pretty lurid reading. i mean, let's be clear, let's keep our presumption of innocence because they've not been convicted of anything yet. but even if a small part of what the f.b.i. -- and i have been through all 75 pages, again, i am that nerd -- it is clear that long pre-dating your term of office that there was a nest of corruption that was building up within a key city department. how do you make sure -- and are you taking steps to make sure -- that there are not other nests of corruption that have taken root within city hall? >> well, the first thing that i did when i was notified and our controllers office to ask for an independent investigation. and to look at contracts and to

look into certain departments and really explore whether or not there could be challenges that exist. and, of course, we are fully cooperating with the f.b.i. it's really unfortunate, as you know, and the fact is that we need to look at what might have happened and where we went wrong in order to make the appropriate correction to address this so that this doesn't happen before. i mean, happen again. it's sadly happened in the past over the years. and unfortunately have not taught people lessons what to do and not to do. i think that the city does a really great job in communicating its messaging around, you know, things that people should or should not do. and we need to continue to do that. we need to make sure that the appropriate checks and balances are put into place. and also just remember that, you know, there are a lot of people who work for the department of public works who are -- it's a really challenging time for them right now and they're the people who are helping to build our city and keep our streets clean.

i want to visit them yesterday in the morning and, you know, just a lot of sadness and frustration around what's happening and feeling targeted. and the fact is that i wanted to assure them that, you know, they are doing a great job. we appreciate the fact that they showed up at 6:00 in the morning to go and to continue to do their work. and that we stand behind them and when things like this happen, unfortunately, it impacts so many more people in such a hurtful way. and what we want to do is to hopefully to make sure that we're doing a better job of providing the safeguards to assure that it doesn't happen again. and that's really the best that we can do. we have in san francisco, you know, a lot of, you know, approval processes, clear guidelines and direction, independently elected city attorney, all of these things, but there might be more that we can do to avoid this in the future. >> in addition to the housing

bonds that you were talking about earlier, mayor schaaf, the bay area seems to be on the brink of finally thinking big and thinking regionally about transportation. there's going to be a carry on the ballot of all nine counties, i think that it's in november, $100 billion for transportation to really fundamentally change the way that we get around this area. >> that is not a done deal. they do not have legislative authority to place a measure on the ballot yet. and let me be very clear -- i do not support a transportation only measure on the november 2020 ballot for the bay area. no one is dying from sitting in traffic. people are dying from not having housing. and so the polling has shown that people are starting to get a little thin about all of our tax asks. and so i think we need to be very strategic and have our priorities in line. now i am very encouraged because

recent polling came out that showed that a single sales tax measure to fund both housing and transportation could pass on the nine bay area ballot. and that inspires me. because i think that we need to continue to drive the message that housing and transportation are inextricably linked and that's what i will be pushing for and supporting but i will not sacrifice housing for transportation. >> so you'd push back on a transportation-only measure? >> jim -- i know -- but to be clear about this, we spend our day together. in fact, i'm missing the m.t.c. retreat right now to be here with you. i am a regionalist. but i think that we actually benefit when he see these issues as integrated and invite the bay area to be all in on the two biggest challenges that we have right now. >> so what form would this

housing bond take? would it be a sales tax measure or something other? >> so what was polled recently was a single sales tax, a 1% sales tax increase that would be split between the transportation projects and housing needs. the thing that i like about a sales tax better than a bond is that you have more flexibility on how to spend it, including shallow rent subsidies which a lot is discovering is needed to combat homelessness. but the devil is in the details and there's two different campaigns and there's m.t.c. and abag, the authorities that must place it on the ballot. and there's the legislature. they have to by a two-thirds vote approve putting the transportation measure on the ballot, or a combined measure on a sales tax. >> why does the legislature strike me as the place that thing goes to die? >> well, last year ab-1487

passed and that created -- that authorized the bay area, nine counties and 101 cities for the first time to have an affordable housing financing authority. and authorized the nine county bay area to have a housing measure on the november 2020 ballot. again, the transportation advocates are trying to get that same act, although they will need a two-thirds because it will be an urgency action. so stay tuned, it's always exciting up in sacramento. >> okay. so i believe that you probably both would have noticed that we have an election coming up this year. >> really? you were both kamala harris supporters when she was in the race. since she pulled out, mayor breed you have surprised many by endorsing mike bloomberg. not to go through mr. bloomberg's entire agenda, but briefly, what prompted you

to go in that direction? >> well, first of all, i'll start with our conversation around stopping, and making clear that you won't make that mistake again. the fact is that i appreciate when i first came into office michael bloomberg reached out to me and provided a lot of support around homelessness. and worked with me and with my team over the years since i have been in office to help to invest in support around collaboration and being able to better address this issue. he's done that, not just for me, but for other mayors throughout this country. and what i appreciate about what he's done, not only as mayor, but what he continues to do is to really he understands that the cities are at the heart of where change happens and where we need to focus our resources

and attention because we want to make sure that our cities are successful. and the way that they're successful is with resources, it's with the support, it's with understanding the complex issues and being able to have -- to strengthen the people who are actually doing the work to run these cities. and i -- you know, i really -- i really appreciate his vision for wanting to see successful cities in this country. and what he has done to take on issues that aren't necessarily popular for new yorkers like messing around with their cigarettes and supporting the sugar tax even here in san francisco, and some of the issues that impact health, his action around climate. his understanding of business. i mean, i just think, you know, that the challenge that we face -- i mean, and to be clear, he's not the most charismatic and fun person to listen to. usually we want our politicians to be -- have to have this great

personality. but his proven track record of what he's done for new york, his ability to work with people and to bring people together, his understanding of business, and his willingness to take on unpopular issues that have an impact on people's lives is what drew me to him. and i do believe that -- i mean, he has the ability, and if selected as the nominee, to really take on trump like -- you know, like -- like no other. and, i mean, when you think about it and who we decide to be the nominee, you know, who is going to go on stage and actually appeal to those undecided voters? who is going to be able to go toe-to-toe around those issues and not turn anyone off because they're so extreme with their issues. and there may not be necessarily be realistic. so i'm concerned about what might happen and the challenges with our party. and i thought that from my perspective -- i mean, look, look at all -- all of the mayors

and especially many of the african american mayors who have been coming out to support him because he's also -- i'll also say this -- that i appreciate that he's talking specifically about an african american agenda. not necessarily just lumping african americans into a minority agenda. it's a specific african american agenda, because the challenges historically that have existed with the african american community -- and i'll just say this -- even in san francisco. you know, it's great. you know, african american first and the first mayor, but less than 6% of the population. and african american still disproportionately represents higher numbers of homelessness and higher numbers in the criminal system. it's clear that there needs to be a focus on that issue which is why he, of course, acknowledges, you know, the mistake of stop and frisk. and it's clear that he will

never make that mistake again and he'll have people like me and others to hold them accountable to that. but i also truly appreciate his rollout of his plan to really address these challenging issues. >> okay, not to change the subject, but i'm going to change the subject. something that i wanted to make sure that we dealt with during our time this morning is the coronavirus. it seems -- >> what? >> coronavirus. it seems a matter of when, rather than if, that it will arrive in the bay area with the links that exist here. trade, population, etc., with china. are your cities ready and taking measures to be ready? >> you know, mayor breed is going to answer that a lot better than i am because she's both a city and a county which also makes me jealous because you have such a better ability to respond to homelessness. you know, oakland is one of 14 cities in alameda county so we've been taking our direction from the county's director of

public health. >> for me i have reached out yesterday to our director of human services to even start messaging to our own employees who are understandably scared and how they can be ready and protected. but i will refer to the health experts that oversee how we actually respond to an epidemic. >> yeah, because we have a press conference this week and this is really updating the public about where we are and there's been a lot of confusion around flights coming into san francisco which we (indiscernible) as soon as we know what is happening. there is a system in place. if someone comes from that part of the country here and either on a flight or any other means to, you know, to quarantine people and to go through a number of tests if necessary.

and with public health and our airport and with others, we continue to be on high aletter and paying -- alert and paying very close attention to this issue and reaching out to various communities around the symptoms and people who have been in touch with people who come from that particular part of china where we know that there are challenges. so we remain focused on communicating as much as we can when the information becomes available. but we are prepared to deal with this. >> and this is something that could be tackled regionally than a collection of the cities and counties. are there any regional bills afoot with the coronavirus? >> we're in touch with the governor's office and making sure that we're communicating what is happening in san francisco and our goal is to, you know, to take their lead on any other kind of state-wide

plans. we have not necessarily heard of any details that they're doing. and so we are focused on san francisco and what's within our jurisdiction to control. >> okay. okay. mayor schaaf, i didn't want to run out of time here with at least acknowledging what is happening with the housing situation. it struck me as something that could have been handled better from the start. it was handled in the end. are there moves afoot in oakland to prevent further situations like that? i think that there's legislation that's going forward from someone that would deal with that? >> well, we've actually been working -- i mean, a tenant's right to purchase is legislation that other cities have adopted. in fact, san francisco has had it for a while as well as the community opportunity to purchase. and this idea of give us the

opportunity at fair market rent to take housing in particular off of the speculative market and either put it into the ownership of the tenants who have been living in that building or to a local non-profit affordable housing developer or community land trust. again, we know that we don't have the time or the money to build the sufficient affordable housing and so these are other tools to try to take existing housing stock and to actually put it into our protected affordable housing stock. >> okay. okay. i see from our time that we're starting to run down the clock here. so i wanted to ask both of you to look forward into the rest of 2020, and if you're sitting here next year at this time, what is

the one thing that you would want to say that you accomplished in 2020 that was most meaningful? whoever wants to take that on. >> i reduced homelessness. that people are not suffering on the streets of my city. that people are not suffering on the streets of the bay area. that people are not suffering on the streets of california. which currently has half -- half of the nation's unsheltered residents just in our state. i would like to say that i did something to stop that suffering. >> i would like to be here, of course, next year with, you know, exceeding my goal of 5,000 new units built in san francisco. and also i want to sit here next year excited that people are noticing a difference and see a change and the numbers are one thing in the terms of the drop in homeless nls buness but peope noticing a difference.

i want to come here next year and say that. [applause] >> so hom homelessness for bothf supriority number one? >> it should be everyone's number one priority. >> well, i want to thank you both. >> you didn't ask me one of the most important questions. >> well, what is it? >> who do i think is going to win the super bowl. [laughter]. [applause] >> is there a question of who is going to win the super bowl? go, niners. >> of course go niners. you have a bet going with -- so, yeah, a bet with the mayor of kansas city. so, of course, i said that i wanted barbecue ribs because i'm going to win. so i said send me some ribs so that's ribs and beer and other things. so many of you know the richmond

sun set area, and it's like garlic and crab, and it's one of the best anywhere. you know that we're known for crab. so my bet is that in the en end there will be a rum cake, because it's my favorite too. and i threw in beer because it's football. and so those three things are my bet and his is like ribs and some other things. but he's not going to get our food unless he pays for it because we're going to win. [applause] and i'm going to share my ribs with all of you. >> either of you going to the game? >> i'm going to the game. yes, excited. [applause] >> okay, i want to thank both of our mayors and it's been a good morning. and we look forward and wish you

the best of luck for the coming year. >> thank you. >> thank you. (♪) [applause] >> and i'll add my thanks -- really, really, it was so enjoyable. i had a great time out there listening to the both of you and i learned a lot. jim, great job moderating. so thanks again for sharing your morning with us and we wish you great success in achieving your goals this year and in the future. so thank you for being our great leaders. [applause] (♪)

>> all right. hello, everyone. my name is phil ginsburg, and i'm the director of your san francisco park and recreation department. in just 68 days, golden gate park will celebrate its 150th birthday. on april 4, 1870, the

california state legislature passed a law creating the framework for this amazing park and san francisco's own park system. for 150 years, san francisco's parks have highlighted the importance of place in san francisco, and golden gate park might just be san francisco's most important place. since the gold rush, it's borne witness to our remarkable history. from the post gold rush years to the 1906 earthquake and fire, from the international exposition to the summer of love, from the aids epidemic to the explosion of technology, business, and jobs, golden gate park has served as the city's pastoral oasis through its joy, sadness, and majestic restoration.

stories wi stories aboutratio race, relig and equity, stories about nature and suffering, stories about art, music, food. stories about large gatherings and solitary strolls. stories about communities, neighborhoods, families, stories about each and every one of us. amidst this park's awe inspiring trails, meadows, lakes and groves, its ball fields and playgrounds, its museums and institutions, its amazing activities, both large and small, and amidst a few hundred of the 25 million people who visit this treasure every year and make it part of their lives, we're here today to officially kick off the 150th anniversary of golden gate park. [applause]

>> over the course of this year, we'll be joined by 150 park partners. we'll undertake park projects both big and small, and on april 4, we'll host 150 activities, including free admission to our cultural specialties and gardens. today, we begin with one of those 150 projects. we'll be planting 150 trees in this beloved park. today, we're joined by our mayor, london breed, our district one supervisor, sandy fewer, or paur park commission tod todd anderson, and we're also joined by our partner, drew becker from the san francisco parks alliance, and i saw liz

farrell, president of the sex alliance board. we're proud to stand with our volunteers in our organizations. it's our volunteers that make our parks beautiful year-round, and today, they will leave a legacy for the next generation by planting 150 trees that will thrive in golden gate park. i want to thank our mayor for asking parks alliance to lead golden gate's 150th anniversary celebration, for remembering what's right and important and for honoring our team of volunteers who ensure that golden gate park continues to thrive for the next 150 years.

i'm very proud to give you our mayor, london breed. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: well, first of all, phil said we're celebrating 150 years of golden gate park, and we have a laundry list of things we should be things about doing to highlight this significant milestone. and let me tell you, of course, what could i say but let's do it. let's do it because phil cares about making sure our parks are thriving in san francisco all over the various neighborhoods, issues around equity that he talked about include making sure that we are investing in communities throughout san francisco. and as we are celebrating such an incredible milestone in golden gate park, we are reminded that so many different people use this park for so many different things. and i'm so glad that miles is here today from the church of eight wheels because he

actually uses regular roller skates. i don't know if any of you have experience with regular roller skates where there's two wheels in the front and two wheels in the back. so some of my fondest memories of golden gate park is when my aunt, who was attending high school, would bring me to golden gate park because that's where she and her friends would roller skate. really, there were hardly any bikes. there was mostly people roller skating.

>> the hon. london breed: so i'm so glad i wasn't alive 150 years ago because i wouldn't be here today to celebrate, but i'm glad that i'm here with so many people to mark this incredible milestone. it is significant. this park has seen so many changes in our city, and as phil talked about, just our history, and how significant that is. and so that is a time we take a moment to reflect and pause to remember how far we've come, and to use this as an opportunity to celebrate, to celebrate with, yes, a large ferris wheel, with -- like it or not, i'm excited about it.

yes, to celebrate with free activities on april 4 to allow people from all over san francisco to come and enjoy the park. but really, i'm excited about the shuttles that will bring people from the various communities from the bayview and hunters point neighborhood who will friday families here throughout the year. i want to thank the 150 organizations who joined this effort. i want to thank all the folks that are planting 150 trees here at golden gate park. but you have to stop at 150. there's opportunities to plant other trees at other locations in san francisco. i want to thank everyone, especially nancy bechtel who's going to be chairing the committee, the parks alliance, and everybody who's concerned

about maintaining these parks, including the golden gate parks, so in 150 years, there's another group of people celebrating 300 years of this incredible milestone. thank you so much for being here today. [applause] >> so we couldn't be luckier to have the supervisor representing golden gate park. she is a fourth generation san franciscan. golden gate park is woven into her own childhood memories. she's an advocate for kids, and knows how important parks are for kids to remain healthy. and 70% of the park is within her district, and we have walked trails together and the

smallest of spaces to learn how to make this park more accessible for people from all communities. it's my pleasure to welcome supervisor sandy fewer fuia. >> supervisor fewer: i'm thrilled that we are going to be kicking off the 150th anniversary of san francisco's golden gate park. i am supervisor of district 1, and as phil said, 70% of the park is in my jurisdiction. we know how important golden gate park is to all san francisco residents and to our city. we are looking forward to the year-long celebration to highlight the beauty of the park and also as its legacy as a san francisco institution that demonstrates not only our commitment to open space, nature, and our natural

environment, but also has this park has remained a free and accessible asset to all who wish to enjoy it. it is true that i have lived out here for over 60 years, and this park is where i grew up. this is where i learned to ride a bicycle. this is where my children were raised, in this park, going to the academy of sciences. and i, like london breed remember field trips out here, family gatherings out here, indeed, many more memories that are soon to be added to our collection of memories as we embark on all these festivities. i'd like to thank the staff for rec and park for all its hard work and all of our organizations and volunteers to help make the park the wonderful place it is for everyone. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, supervisor.

so this celebration wouldn't be possible without the organizations that are joining together to make this a reality. we're so thankful to kaiser permanente, and target, and the more than 150 organizations that are so important to this cause. thank you very much. [applause] >> i want to also recognize -- i see ike kwan here from the academy of sciences, and scott mason, making the academy free here on april 4. thank you very much. [applause] >> and a word about another planet, about last year's outside concert, they worked with paul simon to make a donation to the friends of the urban forest and san francisco parks department. and because of that donation, part of that is funding the 150 trees that we're planting

today, so thank you very much to gregg and allen and other planters. [applause] >> of course, none of this happens without amazing civic leadership, and leading this is some of the most amazing cochairs who have some of the most undying love for san francisco, and are committed to making it a better place to live, work, and play. please welcome to the lectern nanny bechtel and robert fung. >> we're just negotiating who's going to go first. any ways, it is amazing that we're celebrating 150 years of golden gate park. when the mayor talked about roller skating in the park, i roller skates here as a kid, too. i don't know if anybody remembers this, but it used to have a lot of horses, and this

is where you would go to ride horses. anyhow, golden gate park had a rather auspicious start, when they invited olmstead who designed central park. well, he took a look at this terrible place, and he said, it's not going to happen, so that was not going to be the end of the park because the city leaders wanted to have a park here, so they turned to john maclaren who had a friend, john mueller, and he designed this absolutely beautiful park -- oh, here comes the rain. >> liquid fog. >> oh, it's just liquid fog. we as san franciscans know it's liquid fog. i have an umbrella here if anybody needs one -- everybody needs one. so when maclaren saw the park

or this land, he thought this would be an absolutely great place to have a park, but he felt very strongly that it would never be a great park if there was ever a sign saying keep off the grass. so i think you all know there has never been and will never be a sign that says keep off the grass. so any way, it's an honor to be involved with the celebration, the 150-year celebration of golden gate park. and i want to thank our sponsors, our volunteers, the tree planters, everyone who's involved with our park because it is a city treasure. thank you. [applause] >> i'll be very quick here because the rain's starting to come down, but -- but like many people here have grownup in this park, skinned my knee on that hill bike riding, skinned my other knee over here, skate boarding. like many of us, i love this

park. i think phil ginsburg has done an amazing job of transforming and growing this park, and i think he's going to do great things, so i just want to say thank you so much. [applause] >> thank you for supporting our mayor coming out and supporting us. i see ben davis who's made contributions to this park, as well. i want to say go golden gate park, go san francisco 49ers. [applause] >> thank you, nancy, and rodney, representing your other cochairs, charlotte schultz, mayor willie brown, and park and rec president mark buell who couldn't be here today. nancy, you should know that horseback riding exists. and on april 4, we will have free pony rides. next, i want to introduce another person who understands that parks are a power for social good.

he and his organization have become such incredible partners and enable us to, you know, really, really, really enable us to do great things. he's the chair of the parks alliance, and our partner in transforming all of our city parks and infusing our parks in every neighborhood with love and attention and resources that they need. i want to thank him for -- and the organization for their creativity and for always encouraging community. please welcome drew becker. >> thank you, phil. thanks, phil. [applause] >> i always like being introduced by phil. it's better than being introduced by my mother. it's awesome. thank you, mayor breed and everyone who have been involved in making this year-long celebration a reality. here's to more than 150 partners and community groups who have come together to honor

this amazing park we call golden gate park. today, our city has a narrative that is not as positive as it could be. today, we start changing that. i believe the 150th celebration for this iconic piece of land that we call golden gate park is just the piece we need. we need this 150-year celebration of what we do right. golden gate park is san francisco, and we need a model of this in every single neighborhood. [applause] >> i love all of our partners, and we look forward to working with you all year to making this a very special event. we look forward to working with the men and women of the san francisco park department, and thanks, and may the parks be

with you. >> board member laverde-levine: [applaus [applause] >> all right. what makes golden gate park so special is it holds the love and spark of our city. there is truly something for everyone here, from the individuals and families who explore every day, to the many cultural and exploration groups. we've got soccer, and boat enthusiasts, and yes, roller skaters. somebody who embodies this, yes, indeed is david miles, better known as the god father of skate, and an important part of our park and history. roll on up here, david. [applause] >> what about this weather. you love it, right? you love it because you're in the most fantastic place that you could possibly be. i have been skating in this park for over 40 years. this is my granddaughter here.

i'm trying to get her to carry it on the next 150 years in golden gate park. [applause] >> but what i want to say, when you come to san francisco, when you get involved in san francisco, there's a special energy about it that i think that i've tapped into it, and each and every sunday, right down the street here, i met my wife, rose roll, roller skatin years ago. and to this day, we still come out, we still have a fantastic time. the energy is just as strong now as it has always been. so when we do that celebration in april, oh, yes, we will have a skaters showcase in april. you will see skaters showing off their best talents, just an honor of being here, and honor of being in the best place, in san francisco. [applause] >> actually, you look right

across the street there. this is one of two outdoor roller skating areas in the country, but of course, we lead the way, san francisco. you can come here and skate each and every day, but we come out here on sundays from about noon to 6:00, and on saturdays, as well. and if you want to go inside, we lead by example. church of eight wheels, everybody. [applause] >> all right. so you want to join me back up here? before we kick off this amazing celebration with the ceremonial cutting of the ribbon of vines you can find here in this park, we want to thank everybody in making this year-long celebration a reality. i'm going to miss people, but i see stephanie linder from the san francisco botanical garden.

i see steven, i see john cunningham from the aids group, michael lambert from the library who's going to be having an exhibit at the library, and i think our summer reading program involves parks. we're going to have exhibits from the airport, tom campbell deyoung. we're going to have over 150 of them, and our support and leadership have been support so we can come together for golden gate park, and show how much we love it and how much we can invest in it for the next 150 years. our next thanks is for staff. you're the heart of golden gate park. if it weren't for you -- [applause] >> if it weren't for our working men and women who have cared for it for 150 years -- think about that. and for the sweat and tears our volunteers have put into this

for 150 years, it wouldn't be the park that it is, so let's cut our garland. thank you all. [cheers and applause]

>> directe[roll call] >> chairwoman: item three, announcement of prohibition, please silence your cell phones and all electronic equipment. they are prohibited at the meeting. the chair may order the removal from the meeting room of any person responsible for the ringing of or use of one of these devices. item for approval of minutes from the january 21st and january 28th m. >> board members, we have minutes from our last regular meeting, is there any public comment on this item? >>