trans identity is and manny is a great employer, skaterring to the needs of others and creating an environment that is open and comforting and empowering. he has created a blue plinth how to think out of the box and understanding and cooperation and to transform the city of san francisco he is not a trade to ask questions and he is passionate about making it a beacon of hope and a refuge for many and preserve the spirit of such a progressive city. he is qualified and diligent with his responsibilities when it involves the community and

helping to he has experience and having worked for the obama and clinton administration and locally for mark leno and chief-of-staff and on contributing to the bicker picture and what is good for all and not just some. he is the dedicated small business owner and waiverring. >> next caller, please. >> good afternoon or it's just about afternoon, chair, ronen, commissioner stefani and march, and i'm helping seniors and adults with disabilities get access to free and low cost transportation services.

i had the great pleasure of working with fiona for six years on transportation advocacy in san francisco. and when i learned that she was nominated i just thought, what the heck, what an amazing appointment and how did this not happen sooner she's fantastic and she's smart, really hard-working and easy to work with and not only she's that rare person that understands the experience of users, of our transportation system, but the policies, political structures and the agencies that create and regulate the systems and that is rare in an advocate and a board member and incoming board members for sure and she has such a deep understanding of the disability community faces and in terms of our transportation system and she's seen firsthand how changes that the mta makes

nor groups or modes impact folks with disabilities, for instance, the city's protected bike lanes and they have been a great boone for a lot of bike riders but have really caused some challenges for people walking and fiona has been involved in making sure that those designs, of the bike lanes, work for everybody. just really adding a lens that the sfmta doesn't really have now and during this pandemic we're seeing a burden of people getting around. these photographic at risk aren't as comfortable using muni right now and fiona understands this. i encourage you, i urge you, to approve fiona's nomination will make the city's transportation system better for everyone who gets around in our city. thank you for your time. >> thank you. just for members of the public,

if you have not already done so, please dial star 3 to be added to the queue to speak. for those on hold, please continue to wait until the the system indicates you have been unmuted. can we have the next caller, please. >> hello, chair ronen and supervisors mar and stefani. pretty well echoing what everybody else about manny to be appointed to the sfmta. i'm a past president of the council of district perch ants h ants and i've been working for bricks and mar to be to be on this committee and we do care about transportation and small business, it's a partnerships we have to work with and he really cares and he is amazing. i haven't seen anybody who has got as much energy as manny does. and he does care about all of us and not just the small business

and transportation but the community at large. he is tireless, passionate, dedicated for small businesses so i urge you to please appoint him to recommend his appointment to sfmta board of directors. he is a great guy and i admire him and i hope he is appointed. thank you, very much, this is hendrik, bye-bye. >> thank you. can we have next caller, please. >> hi, my name is tracy and i'm in the mission. i've been serving on the board of the mission merchants association for eight years and a delegate with the council of district merchants association serving on the legislative committee and i'm calling to publicly lend support for manny's appointment to the sfmta board and the small business community would be thrilled to

have someone that understands the needs of small business and participating in decision-making and community outreach. as a personal note, i want to say that i've worked with manny in the neighborhood for outreach and personally reached out to him for support in areas that i was looking for more additional information on and i have to say as busy as he is, he is always taken the time to pick up the phone to call and to be a real community leaders and i would like to support manny in the position of a board member of the san francisco mta. thank you. >> thank you. >> next call,er please. >> i am born and raised in san francisco. i'm committed to san francisco.

and our ka lino and i'm a hammy owner and points we have sur viced this panned through many changes and it's been a big part of it and i really strongly feel it's important to have small business owners representing us on the board and i want to say that in all the years we've been there it's very rare to have someone is snow by and get to know us and ask us how we're doing and ask us our needs and it's been great. i want to commend manny and support his nomination and he has gotten to know us and he stays in touch with us and he is test us and e-mailed us and calls us and asks us how we're doing and what we need and he thinks about it and thinks about

all the things we need and he is gone far beyond and sometimes because of gentrification and valencia street and all the things that have happened there, it's great to hear him say to me many times do you want me to sit down with you and him so he is a definitely unity bringer to thank you for the shared space and everything you've done. you brought out block together and get us all talking and helping each other to make it through these tough times. there you go. thank you for your time. >> can we have the next caller,

please. >> hi, everyone. this is den and i am the founder of the san francisco bar owner alliance and the president of the entertainment commission and i'm speaking on my own opinion today not theirs. i'm speaking in support of manny as commissioner of the mta and no matter how bad we think things are for small business right now in san francisco, i guarantee you they are worse and they're going to get worse even. part of the rebuilding process is going to be drastically involve or very crucially involve decisions that will be made by the mta both on shared spaces, use of outdoor space and helping on businesses recover from this unprecedented disaster and i don't think there could possibly be a better person to fill the position and help us than manny. everybody -- [please stand by]

>> -- in fact, when it was originally senior action network, and i have to say that because rarely have i seen two candidates i feel very qualified for this position. not only qualified but actually willing to do the work. fiona, i've worked for her for at least five or six years, she was part of our transit coalition group. she's been a very thoughtful, very creative with ideas about

how to solve issues. manny, i've only known him a few weeks, but i'm impressed with all the work that he's put in and his knowledge. i'm very impressed. he's really serious about that, and that's impressing me quite a bit, so i really hope that both members get forwarded to this committee, and i'm really grateful that we have such qualified members put forward to the board. thank you. >> operator: thank you very much. can we hear from the next caller, please. >> hello.

i'm rick lobshire, and i'm the chairman of the board of the union square foundation as well as the chair of the better market street c.a.c. i'm a native who grew up in my family's small business on market street. i'm here to give my personal support for both nominees, manny and fiona here. manny will bring more of the forward thinking needed as we move more into an uncertain future. fiona brings deep experience and knowledge to both general and mobility issues that are more important now than ever. i'm proud to add my support to all the others you have heard from today. thanks. >> operator: thank you. can we have the next caller,

please. >> good afternoon, chair ronen, supervisors mar and stefani. my name is paul valdez, and i'm going to add a different perspective to all the other comments. i'm a pedestrian, transit rider, and a person who has biked for over a decade in our city. i'm an active member for the san francisco bike coalition, and a participant in the simon biking event, in celebration of those we lost in biking accidents. in addition, i was one of the initial volunteers in working with manny in jump starting the valencia street shared space program. as you can see, from the safety

on our streets, it's paramount, and with the exception of fiona's statement, i didn't hear too much about street safety. i want candidates who are well rounded and who can see transportation strives and joy -- strifes and joys, and i want candidates who can see all perspectives when we put them forward for a vote. thank you. >> operator: thank you. can we have the next caller, please? >> can you hear me now? >> operator: we can hear you. please proceed. >> great. good afternoon. david pilpell. i support both of these appointments. i don't know many well, but i met him once at an event. i think he would be a good

board member. you heard from him and others in support. i do know fiona well. we served together on the sunshine ordinance task force. i found her to be thoughtful and not a rubber stamp for staff and, you know, in both cases of manny and fiona, i think they would not be a rubber stamp, would listen to the public, ask questions, and provide oversight. m.t.a. has serious fiscal and planning operations issues, and the public needs to be heard there. and as someone who's followed them forever, the public does not always feel heard or is heard there. back to manny for a second. we may not agree on everything. we disagreed on prop h, but you know what? that's okay. we did so respectfully, and i don't want to agree with everybody all the time, and i

think healthy debate and discussion in the city is important, and when we lose that, we lose more of the city. by the way, it was nice to see the obamas stopping by behind manny. please send them regards, and happy hanukkah. since these are not listed at committee reports, i presume they'll be before the full board of supervisors in january, nevertheless, i hope the nominees will follow full board meets until they're confirmed, which i expect, and i think they'll do a fine job, and i think they're both outstanding nominations. happy to support. thanks very much. >> operator: thank you. can we have the next caller, please. [speaking spanish language]

>> clerk: hi. we can hear you. please proceed. >> my name is doris campos. [speaking spanish language] >> chair ronen: this is doris campos, and she's calling to support manny yekutiel.

she she works across the street from manny's, and she's known him for two years. and in these two years that i've known him, he's demonstrated to me what an incredible human being he is. he has a character that makes him the best candidate to occupy this position. [inaudible] >> chair ronen: he is a young man who negotiates with hope.

i think he's an incredible leader that many people don't yet even know exist, and manny inspires the best of people with his actions and his words.

ever since manny came to 16 street, the street has glowed. he came to the street -- i've been there for 40 years, and he went business to business to lend his hand and to support us, and since he came, the street has been glowing. that's why i'm calling in. i'm calling in because i want to support this incredible

human being who is going to do such a wonderful job in the position that he's been appointed to. and i just want to thank you all for your time and for listening to me and for the translation. >> operator: thank you. can we hear from the next caller, please. [end [end of translation]. >> operator: madam chair, that completes the queue. >> chair ronen: thank you so much. i just want to thank all of the callers who -- gosh, i think it

was exclusive support. it was one person after another supporting these incredible human beings, and i just want to thank the mayor for makes these wonderful appointments. i want to thanks miss hinze and mr. yekutiel and the effort that you give to serve in this capacity. stepping up during this time is a heroic act because you're not stepping into an organization when it's thriving, you're stepping into an organization when it's in crisis, and that willingness to take on this role is just incredibly admirable, and i really appreciate you both for that. and with that, i was wondering if supervisor stefani would

like to make the motion on these items? >> supervisor stefani: absolutely. i strike the word rejecting, and approve the appointment of emanuel yekutiel and fiona hinze to the municipal transportation board. >> clerk: on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: the motion passes without objection. >> chair ronen: thank you so much. mr. clerk, can you please read item 7. >> clerk: item 7 is an ordinance amending the campaign and governmental conduct code to update the conflict of interest code's form 700 filing

requirements by adding, deleting, and changing titles of designated officials and employees to reflect organizations and staffing changes, and by refining disclosure requirements fore designated officials and employees. and this is an action item. >> chair ronen: thank you. and we have city attorney shen to present on this, and we have representatives from d.h.r. as well as representatives from the airport and p.u.c. mr. shen, would you like to present this item? >> yes. good afternoon, chair ronen, supervisor mar, supervisor stefani. thank you so much for making the time on this agenda. i realize it is the very last

committee agenda of the year, so thank you for making this something we could get to this calendar year. this is a routine update of the city's list of form 700 filers. under state law, we are required to do this process every two years, and we actually started several months ago with extensive help from the clerk's office, as well, that i should mention. i don't believe there will be anyone from the clerk's office today present at this meeting, but i want to specifically thank angela calvillo and eileen hugh from the clerk's office for their help in serving. we also have, as supervisor ronen has mentioned, representatives from d.h.r., who met extensively on the

meet-and-confer process, as well as representatives from the airport who have been added to the city's list of form 700 filers. we have some very minor amendments that we would like to present now. if you'd like me to do that now, i can go ahead and do that now, or i can do that after everyone else speaks. >> chair ronen: go ahead and do that now. >> thank you. the first is we missed one requested change from the [inaudible] this position is currently vacant, and it was something we just missed when we were going through the legislative process. the second is after the meet-and-confer, the p.u.c. had a chance to take an even closer look at their changes and made some tweaks to their requested positions or requested changes, actually removing some

positions and changing categories for some 700 positions. we also made an amendment that will actually take effect in the beginning of 2022 that will facilitate the ethics commission's electronic filing of form 700 submissions. it will make the process move along a little bit more smoothly, so thank you to the committee for their consideration. >> chair ronen: thank you so much. and did anyone else from the representatives wish to present? okay. just here to answer any questions. supervisor stefani or supervisor mar, did you have any questions? no no? okay. let's open up this item for public comment. >> clerk: yes. members of the public who wish

to provide public comment should call 415-655-0001. the meeting access code is 146-961-6060. press pound, and pound press, then star, three to be entered into the queue for public comment. mr. tue, do we have any public comment? >> can you hear me now? >> clerk: we can hear you. please proceed. >> great. david pilpell again. so this [inaudible] categories.

for example, page 18 of the packet, let me go there, page 17, legislation still has clerks and secretaries at d.b.i. listed, notwithstanding in their alleged digest that the code should not include employees who carry out clerical or ministerial tasks. i assume they're carrying out clerical or ministerial tasks, and if not, they should get reclassified. and then, at h.s.a., it listed managers by title, and at

p.u.c., it lists managers by general service crafts. whichever way we're doing it, i think it should be consistent across the various departments. there are also some deputy directors at various departments who aren't listed, and i think they should also be category one. finally, two last points. the new commissions and departments approved by the voters in november need to be reflected, and i guess we'll pick that up in the future. but if they're picked up before the next two years revision, i would ask that they be named to cover the streets and sanitation and the sheriff's oversight board. and i still support the ordinance that makes the

necessary changes, and i hope for more consistency in the future. thanks very much. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next speaker. >> operator: madam chair, that completes the queue. >> chair ronen: thank you so much. public comment is closed. deputy city attorney shen, i just wanted to ask if you believe that any changes should be made based on the comments of mr. pilpell in public comment? >> not at this time. as you can imagine, the deputy director in another department may have different responsibilities than the deputy director in another department. there will be some changes that will be made by recently enacted measures.

thank you so much chair ronen. >> chair ronen: okay. thank you so much. well, with that, i would be happy to make a motion to amend the ordinance as described by deputy city attorney andrew chen. >> clerk: yes. on that motion to amend -- [roll call] >> clerk: the motion to amend has been approved without objection. >> chair ronen: thank you. and now, i'll make a motion to forward the amended item to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> clerk: yes. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: the motion passes without objection. >> chair ronen: thank you so much, and thanks, everyone, for being here with us and sticking it out for the long meeting to

answer questions. appreciate you all. and mr. clerk, do we have any other items on the agenda? >> clerk: that completes the agenda for today. >> chair ronen: then the meeting is adjourned. have a good day, everyone.

>> hi. my name is carmen chiu, san francisco's elected assessor. when i meet with seniors in the community, they're thinking about the future. some want to down size or move to a new neighborhood that's closer to family, but they also worry that making such a change will increase their property taxes. that's why i want to share with you a property tax saving program called proposition 60. so how does this work? prop 60 was passed in 1986 to allow seniors who are 55 years and older to keep their prop 13 value, even when they move into a new home. under prop 13 law, property growth is limited to 2% growth a year. but when ownership changes the law requires that we reassess

the value to new market value. compared to your existing home, which was benefited from the -- which has benefited from the prop 13 growth limit on taxable value, the new limit on the replacement home would likely be higher. that's where prop 60 comes in. prop 60 recognizes that seniors on fixed income may not be able to afford higher taxes so it allows them to carryover their existing prop 13 value to their new home which means seniors can continue to pay their prop 13 tax values as if they had never moved. remember, the prop 60 is a one time tax benefit, and the property value must be equal to or below around your replacement home. if you plan to purchase your new home before selling your existing home, please make sure that your new home is at the same price or cheaper than your

existing home. this means that if your existing home is worth $1 million in market value, your new home must be $1 million or below. if you're looking to purchase and sell within a year, were you nur home must not be at a value that is worth more than 105% of your exist egging home. which means if you sell your old home for $1 million, and you buy a home within one year, your new home should not be worth more than $1.15 million. if you sell your existing home at $1 million and buy a replacement between year one and two, it should be no more than $1.1 million. know that your ability to

participate in this program expires after two years. you will not be able to receive prop 60 tax benefits if you cannot make the purchase within two years. so benefit from this tax savings program, you have to apply. just download the prop 60 form from our website and submit it to our office. for more, visit our website, sfassessor.org,

>> recognition of all veterans this coming veterans day, december 5. >> that's great. >> i am a carpenter supervisor. >> we're here with public works. >> division manager of operations.

>> material manager for the substance lab. >> i am the coordinator for the wireless and surface mounted mobility program. >> i am currently supervising the alley cleanup team program. >> financial analyst for a couple bond program projects. >> my name is a 5310 survey assistant. >> i am a construction inspector. >> i am one of the construction engineers at the state moscone project. >> i served over 20 years in the marine forces reserve. my special was a logistics for various combat units. >> i went in the navy on my eighth year, i went to desert storm. then i went to four years in the air force. i was at travis air force base. >> i'm a desert storm veteran. >> my service started in the united states marine corps, and i discharged in 2015 as a sergeant. >> on board u.s.s. enterprise with the u.s. navy, i was

deployed to 13 countries. i was also part of the iran hostage situation 1978-80. >> sergeant in the marine corps. i was an m-1-d-1 tank mechanic, and proud to serve. >> i served six years in the u.s. navy, the majority of which was on board the u.s.s. bunker hill. went onto deployment to the gulf. >> joined the united states air force right out of high school. went in as a generator mechanic, and then through that i've gotten placed in a civil engineering squadron. >> got drafted in february 1971. i was assigned to batallion in hamburg, germany, and i was in the u.s. army.

>> veterans day today means a lot to me, especially since i served. >> it's not just a three-day weekend. >> we celebrate the participation and the historic role that the military plays in the security of this country. >> it's really great to take time out to recognize those who have served, those of us that like serving. >> it's a day to celebrate and remember what people have accomplished and sacrificed for this country. >> actually, i recognize veterans each and every day of the year, but i'm proud that we as a country come together and recognize all veterans for their service. >> it's about paying respect to the ones that have fallen. >> i always reflect on my connection to people that i have served with. >> i think being a veteran gives me some pride in knowing that i did help out somewhere. >> i feel very, very proud to be

a member of public works and also the u.s. navy. >> coming to public works give me another opportunity to help the public. >> you have to know the people that you're supervising. i think that ensures they go home better than when they arrived to work. >> all of that comes into play here. >> it was about discipline, it was about following instructions, and these are things that i've learned to do in my adult life. >> when i was in the marines, i saw camaraderie, a big part of our organization, and i see that in public works. we help each other, work with other departments, and do what it takes to get the job done. >> good team work, family oriented. they're all here to get the job done. >> you're all here serving your community and trying to give back and make the world and your back and make the world and your community a better

ok, well, remember last week when you hit vinny in the head with a shovel? [chuckling] i do not recall that. of course not. well, it was too graphic for the kids, so i'm going to have to block you. you know, i got to make this up to you. this is vinny's watch. >> good afternoon and welcome to the land use and transportation committee for the san francisco board of supervisors for today. december 14, 2020 i'm the chair of the committee supervisor aaron peskin joined by supervisor safai. emergencdo you have any announc? >> thank you. due to the covid-19 health emergency and to protect board members and the public, the board of supervisors legislative chamber and committee room are closed.

however, members will be participating in the meeting remotely. this precaution is taken per student to the state wide stay-at-home order declarations and directives. committee members will attend the meeting video conference. public comment will be available on each item on the agenda. both channel 26, 78 or 99 and sfgosfgovtv.org are streaming te call-in number across the screen. each speaker will be allowed two minutes to speak. you can call the number on the screen, 415-655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 1465627595

then press pound and pound again. you will hear the meeting discussion. but you will be muted and in listen mode only. when your item of interest comes up, please dial star and 3 to be added to the speaker line. written comments may be sent to u.s. postal service to city hall room 244, san francisco, california. items acted upon today are

expected to appear on the board of supervisors agenda january 5, 2021. unless otherwise stated. mr. chair? >> thank you ms. major and thank you for your service to this committee and the board of supervisors during this challenging year and best wishes to you and your family for the holidays. could you please read the first item. >> clerk: thank you. item number one is an ordinance planning code to extend from january 1, 2021 and january 1, 2022. members of public should call the item on the screen, that's 415-655-0001. meeting item is

1465627595 and press pound and pound again. >> supervisor peskin: this item that has been brought to us before is sponsored by the mayor and cosponsored by supervisor mandelman. it dates back to an amendment that i made to then supervisor malia cohen's legislation wherein we allowed medical cannabis to convert to the prop 64 cannabis and this is a request for a one-year extension. ms. rodriguez from the office of cannabis. are you present to present? >> yes, thank you very much. good afternoon chair peskin and supervisors. i'm director of office of cannabis. i'm here with associate director

law. legislation before you extend the date of planning code section 190 to january 1, 2021 to january 1, 2022. session 190 provides pathway them to make this important transition. given the unexpectedly high number of applications submitted, in other city agencies and administrative capacity challenges not to mention the challenges brought to you by the pandemic across all city agencies as well as my own office. we are needing to extend the state. we are happy to let everyone know that we were able to make it through our entire backlog this summer and are gone on to

other tiers for processing. our next tier will be the m.c.d.s. i'm hoping in q1 of next year, we'll be able to start processing them. we need to be extended for one more year in order to do so. just an extension date is what is requested. >> supervisor peskin: thank you ms. rodriguez. you're in front of us, this is an opportunity to just talk about the numbers, can you quantify those different trajectories? >> we were able to clear the equity backlog.

>> we're hoping by this time next year we would have reached parody. with respect to them, there are about 27 to 30 businesses and the reason it's fluctuating, some are getting back their permits unable to stay afloat. we have about 27 that we will be processing. after equity applicants our next batch is incubator applications. then, those who are federally forced against, couple there and who are viable, folks needing to find locations until they can't move forward until they do. after we're done processing, all

equity applicants make their way through and we continue to process them. we have about two new applicants who applied and the rest will be m.c.d.s. we have 160 permit holders. >> supervisor peskin: thank you for that. just to slow it down and break it down, 14 in the first traunch with the remaining approximately 14? is that correct? which could be equitable for the second trajectory m.c.d. conversion traunch that is about 27? is that what you said? i would love -- i rarely like powerpoint presentations.

>> i think that's right. it's fair to say that, there are probably about 14 that were actively processing and then, -- >> supervisor peskin: 14 approved and 14 being processed? >> that remain upon processed. >> supervisor peskin: why don't we start ath the top. the first traunch is equity applicants correct? >> that is right. >> supervisor peskin: how many have been approved in that first year? >> 14 have received permits from our office. over 100 and maybe 15 have been sent to planning. we processed. 30 are still being processed by our office by going through our o.o.c. process to get prepared to sent to planning and d.b.i. we have maybe two waiting in line to get picked up who are equity applicants.

there are several who are incubators. there were a number of there are probably about 22 incubators but it's taking some time -- most of them jumped in with their equity applicant. but now there are a few who remained and still want to be incubators. we are processing actively about two or three of those with a fair number still looking for >> supervisor peskin: ms. rodrig uez, what i'm trying to drill down into, relative to what i think the board is agreed on which was equity first. that universe as i think you just explained it, is about 150 of which 14 have been approved. and hundred are at planning, 115. is that right? >> the universe for equity

applicants is about, let's say, 100. 14 of which have been approved. we have in total sent 115 to planning. >> supervisor peskin: there's hundred left at planning? >> relatively maybe, just under maybe under 75 or so. i was including those that have been approved that have their permits. >> supervisor peskin: which is 14? >> that's correct. >> supervisor peskin: the second traunch is m.c.d.s? >> yes. it goes incubators and then federally forced and then m.c.d.s and temporary permit holders. >> supervisor peskin: so the universe of one is you are saying approximately 115?

>> yes. >> supervisor peskin: and the universe of two, which is incubators, is that correct? >> correct. >> supervisor peskin: approximat ely two or three because most of them are hooked up with the first traunch? >> there were originally 20 something and that went down to two or three to be processed. quite a few are still looking for locations. >> supervisor peskin: okay. as the second traunch, which is really just the hand full, how about we do this. ms. rodriguez, how about we approve this item, i don't think anybody has any issues with it. we'll open for public comment. maybe we can do duplicate the file and bric bring you back whe you can actually lay this all out in the four traunchs, approved, remaining, timeline.

i think that will be really helpful and i love to hear from my colleagues. are there any questions from supervisor safai or preston or comments? >> supervisor preston: i have none. >> supervisor safai: no comment. >> supervisor peskin: okay. is there public comment on this item? >> clerk: i have james from d.t. confirms that we have ten listeners but none of them are in queue. just remind folks, if you like to be in queue for item number one, all you need to do is press star and 3. the system will indicate that you have raised your hand. i will give folks a second to see if there are anyone in the queue. james, can you confirm? we have confirmation that none

of the listeners would like to be in the queue. >> supervisor peskin: okay, public comment is closed. ms. rodriguez i don't know if you have a handy slide. >> i don't think i have a handy dandy slide. let me double check. i can e-mail you the numbers relatively easy. >> supervisor peskin: this is not for me. this is for the public. >> sure. let me see what i can find here. >> supervisor peskin: ray is working on it. i can see his light blinking at the bottom of the screen. [laughter] >> we have some outdated -- the numbers change daily. >> supervisor peskin: i don't need -- this is not like covid. i don't need today's numbers. i need -- i would like to see round numbers as the fur

traunchs, what's been through, what's in the pipeline, what remains. >> we'll send that back. >> supervisor peskin: i'll tell you what, in so far as public comment is closed and we got one more item that dean preston has been waiting for a week. how we defer the vote for this and that will give you time to put the slide together and we'll get back to you, supervisor preston, how long do you think this will go? >> supervisor preston: good question, it's not short. i think there's a presentation that i anticipate at least 15 or 20 minutes from departments as well as we've doubled that in >> supervisor peskin: ms. rodrig uez, you got an hour, at least. >> at least an hour. okay.

>> supervisor peskin: we will without objection, continue the vote on this item pending a report on that which has been discussed. madam, clerk please call item 2. >> clerk: item you 2 a is hearing on strategies to maximize creation of affordable housing on public land with goal of 100% affordable including a review of public land housing. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on item 2 should call the number on the screen, that's 415-655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 1465627595 press pound and pound again.

if you like to join the speaker line, press star and star 3. >> supervisor peskin: supervisor preston and sorry for the delay last week where we went for four to five hours. >> supervisor preston: no need for apology. thank you for accommodating -- having the hearing today and apologies to the members of the public and the department staff who were waiting patiently last week. hopefully you can join us again today. before we get started on this, i want to thank you chair peskin, vice chair safai and madam clerk, ms. major on our last agenda item for the year. i wanted to thank everyone. not just for all their work this year but also for welcoming me as a new supervisor a year ago

on to this committee. it's constantly a learning experience and one that i enjoyed despite or maybe because of many of the things we've all been dealing with this year. thank you all for making the time and using chair peskin to carving out the time. we got this one, from the title -- >> supervisor peskin: i reserve to right to call it special. >> supervisor preston: fair enough. [laughter] as you noted in terms of your question on time, this is a topic that we can devote quite a bit of time to and hope here really is to surface some issues and start a conversation. i do want to thank president yee for co-sponsoring this hearing.

i called this hearing to maximize affordable housing on public site. an issue that's essential importance as we work to ensure that folks from all walks of life actually can afford a place in this city. i requested the hearing the same day that the full board voted on the balboa reservoir proposal. a project that as you will recall, combined affordable and market rate units on public land. i heard from a lot of constituents and stakeholders with concerns about including market rate housing on public land. when i relaid those concerns and questions to departments, around could there be higher affordability levels or not, given this is public land, we

were told repeatedly that wasn't feasible or doable in this project. that was in the late stages, obviously when we were on the verge of approval. it left me to question why are we approving market rate housing on public land in midst of affordability crises. can we do better in terms of leaving more afford the on public land. how and when can the board of supervisors and public that will weigh in about affordability on projects on public land. how do we do that early in the process, not when the board is presented with something that folks worked on for five years or more. i want to be clear that although this is announced upon the passage of the balboa reservoir and that the hearing is really about more than a single project and i think we more broadly to

understand what strategies we can employ as a city to get the most affordable housing possible on public land. i understand mocd and planning are here. they have prepared a presentation to start the conversation and i appreciate all their time and attention and answering my many questions leading up to this hearing. i will leave bulk of my comments to questions that will follow presentation. i do think that terms of providing a framework for the discussion, i like to pursue three broad areas of inquiry. how do we achieve 100% affordable on public land? what are the challenges leaving thaachieving that opportunity. are we properly identifying surplus and underutilized public properties for housing.

what's third, what creative strategies like acquisitions, land banking, are we utilizing or should we be considering so we have more opportunities to achieve our affordable housing goals. with that overview, i like to turn it over to o.e.w.d. or mocd staff for their presentation. >> supervisor peskin: thank you supervisor preston. going back to balboa, one of the underlying questions you're asking about ground lease relative to a fee simple conveyance, is that part of your questioning? >> supervisor preston: i think we can get into that and which structures facilitate more affordable housing. i would say that can be part of the discussion. >> supervisor peskin: all right.

i might invoke henry george before this is done. to oewd now. >> thank you chair peskin and good afternoon supervisors preston, safai and peskin. thank you supervisor preston. thank you for the opportunity to discuss public land. i am with the office of economic and workforce development. i'm joined by colleagues from the mayor's office of housing and community development, the sfmta, the planning department and the real estate division who will be available for the questions and discussion following the presentation. i'm going to bring up the slide. assuming that everyone can see my slides. i'm going to get started. public land in san francisco is

under the jurisdiction of a variety of city and non-city entities. within the city, department such as the real estate division and public works, own city streets, pleases, office buildings, libraries and public safety sites. the city's enterprise agencies also own property and most are required to pursue revenue from real estate assets to fund agencies and missions. non-city agencies own land throughout the city. there are a number of city policies that have established goal and directives for building housing on public land that is not being used for city purpose. these policies promote building housing on public land with high levels of affordability and maximizing the production of affordable housing in the city.

public land is located all across our city. we can expand our reach to be able to maximize the provision of affordable housing, to achieve geographic housing balance, target historically underserved populations and meet the city's range of affordability and programmatic housing needs. next few slides will cover the process and criteria that we look at for housing. site selection fall into two main categories. surplus sites are the underutilized parcels that are identified through the annual surplus land report. these sites are prioritized for affordable housing and are analyzed by mocd for feasibility. they tend to be smaller sites

and the other category is joint development sites, which are larger, multiacre sites and have a recent or active ongoing enterprise agency use requiring investment. we can categorize the sites that are good candidates for country% affordable housing. these are sites with five stories with a unit yield about 100 to 130 units. this building site is optimal for leveraging our existing affordable housing funding sources, tack credits and mohcd

funding. >> supervisor peskin: can i interrupt with supervisor preston's indulgent. how do we differentiate between surplus and 100% affordable candidates? >> well, it's a great question. surplus is through the city's surplus property ordinance are directed to mohcd for feasibility. >> supervisor peskin: that's only if a department declares them to be surplus? >> that's right. >> supervisor peskin: that requires an affirmative action by the department? >> yes. they put it on the list. it gets included in the property surplus property report that is distributed and presented to the board. >> supervisor peskin: which generally are little slivers of useless land? >> they do tend to be very small

kind of oddly shaped parcels that don't have an active use. that's right. however, when we look at what sites what's good for 100% affordable housing, that's not limited to the surplus property report. we look at, specifically single building that are generally great for moving forward as 100% affordable housing. they do overlap clearly but we sort of look -- we start with the pieces of how much affordable housing can we build on a piece of property regardless of how it comes to us, surplus or otherwise. >> supervisor preston: if i can jump in, i will resist the urge to jump in. i know you have hundred slides to get through. at least for some clarification, just on the first part of that

slide around the 10,000 square foot minimum, can you just explain -- is that ideally, my understanding there are a number of parcels in the 8000 or 9000 square foot that can accommodate 60 to 100 affordable housing units. i'm wondering if those are off limits in terms of setting or if it's they are not ideal? >> it's the latter, supervisor. they're not ideal. we can have a more thorough discussion about that after. we really look to figure out how to maximize unit yield within 100 to 130 unit frame. generally, given the kind of planning and zoning criteria that exist throughout the city, a 10,000 square foot minimum is kind of our good -- we would use

it as a guide, not a hard line. >> supervisor peskin: i will not interrupt again, sorry. [laughter] >> this is an example of a 100% affordable project on public land. the 1950 mission, 100% affordable project was built on 36,000 square foot parcel. it was owned by sfusd and transferred to mohcd if i 2013. the building is complete with 157 low income units. the total cost for the development was $105 million.

the second category of sites that we can talk about are sites that are good candidates for mixed income and mixed use. these are generally sites that are multi-acre. they require significant new infrastructure or neighborhood amenities or sites within active public use. these sites it carry high overall development cost and far beyond the scale of a typical mohcd subsidy. combination of uses or having market rate with affordable housing, brings in private einvestments that can makes the project feasible. in the case of enterprise agency sites, mixed use development may provide revenue for the agency's need. good example of this is recently

approved balboa resident. it is an owned site. the 550 affordable units will be if yoif youfunded by a developm, affordable housing grants and includes about $45 million in mohcd gap funding which will equate to 187 affordable units out of the 550. this is a similar amount of money from mohcd with a similar unit yield as the 1950 mission project. the development process follows the same path for 100% affordable or mixed income projects whether they are identified through the surplus land report or put forward by an

enterprise agency. first, is the formation of a partnership between the relevant city departments and the land owning agency. here today, there's m.t.a. planning and and oewd and real estate divisions, you can see lot of departments are involved in these projects. the city formal solicitation process move in tandem as the project details are developed. once the program is determined, the project can finalize its environmental review process, pursue city approvals permits and final implementation. one more minute on this slide to supervisor preston's point at

the beginning, a number of these processes include formal and informal public, touch points. the developer selection process includes the public request for proposals and that generally includes obviously a public process where a selection is made as well as meetings all the information is public another point at which there's public processes is prior to the start of environmental review, most of these projects are required to come to the board for a fiscal feasibility finding, which when the board has an opportunity really prior to a lot of the formal predevelopment work to weigh in and make a decision as to whether it's a worthwhile project to pursue. when you get to the city approval stage, there are a whole number of meetings and hearings. those are just couple of points

i wanted to highlight in terms of more formal public engagement processes. >> supervisor peskin: lee, i promised not to interrupt. when you say fiscal feasibility, are you talking about chapter 29? >> i am. yes. >> supervisor peskin: that would be a dollar threshold over what was that, i can't remember? i'm the author of that chapter. it's getting on 20 years. was that a minimum of $50 million? it was a lot of money. >> $25 million i believe. >> supervisor peskin: okay. sorry for the interruption. >> no problem. i do have that in my notes. >> supervisor peskin: basically, that's an early read by the board? >> that's exactly right. it's required affirmative resolution by the board is required before ceqa is begun.

ceqa is really the beginning of the entitlement process. there's generally two to three-year period once the board has weighed in for the project to be developed. >> supervisor peskin: who would have ever knowned that a piece of environmental legislation would have led to this public policy conversation. all right. >> how can we maximize affordable housing on these public lands? certainly, an overarching directive in developing housing on public land is to maximize the provision of affordable housing. it's the essential question we start with each time. we're always looking to find ways to create more affordable units, whether that's through bringing in market rate investment or expanding mohcd funding. this slide outlines few broadways to maximize affordable housing and we're looking forward to a discussion on these. first and most important, increasing funding for the 100%

affordable pipeline. we fund our affordable pipeline in the city through a combination of state funds, voter approved bondings, philanthropy, market rate development all in the city's budget through the trust fund. increasing the funding we have available will sort of directly catalyze additional units in many cases. second, we can reduce total development costs, which would allow limited subsidies to build more units. third, expand developer capacity so that we can do more projects, especially in underserved communities. fourth, to further leverage market rate development to increase affordable unit units t are built throughout the city. that's the conclusion of the presentation. i thank you for your attention. my colleagues and i are available for the discussion and for your questions.

thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. supervisor preston, please proceed as to who you want to call on. >> supervisor preston: thank you. thank you for the presentation. i do have a number of questions and i try to raise these with you before the hearing. hopefully, not surprise to hear. some things to kind of get on the record for the public to have a better understanding of the context. first just to check in on where we are in terms of affordable housing on public sites since within the last five years.

can you tell us how many affordable units we have built or approved on public sites in the last five years and then also how many market rate units have been approved on public land. please include any kind of public land whether it's enterprise agencies or not. >> absolutely. my colleagues from mohcd is also here. i would love for her to join in the conversation as she see fit. we did compile a list of the projects that have been built on public land in recent years. i say that we in terms of foote, this is mayb-- affordable unitse

approved projects on sfusd, p.u.c., m.t.a., court, d.p.w., real estate and public health and public land. we really have looked through the entire city's land holding to see what we can make possible. we have approved, this is not necessarily that are built, we have approved primarily 100% affordable projects. let me just total this up for you. >> supervisor peskin: this is confined universe, is there a map oa or a chart you can share with this committee? >> i sure can.

>> if i may, may i interrupt? >> supervisor peskin: lydia, you can interrupt. >> i'm happy to join you all today. we did provide a little bit of information ahead to folks about the number of projects and number of units we've done as lee mentioned a number of different settings. city, state and federal surplus lands. to date we've done 1774 units. they're in predevelopment. actually couple of these are actually complete. depending on what goal post we're setting when we want to start the count.

>> supervisor peskin: if you can share with us federal, state and local. only thing that's kind of under our control, the charter gives business enterprise agencies like the p.u.c., autonomy, unlike general fund agencies from the legislative branch. if you can break down the federal state, local and the time frame for the 1774 units, that would be helpful. >> i will say the earliest project that i have on the list is broadway samson. >> supervisor peskin: i was there when the earthquake happened. i was there when state senator quinton cop passed legislation for $1. i was there when willie brown wanted to utilize those three

properties for different uses. they are now all being used for affordable housing. they're not all 100% affordable housing supervisor preston. broadway samson will be the first in that list. you're going to 2005, 2010. >> that site was actually went from caltrans to d.p.w. to mohcd. we purchased the site in 2006. >> supervisor peskin: that's why i used 2005. >> our timeline spans several years. i don't have it in front of me. i would guess just 2010 maybe 2011 when that was done. >> supervisor peskin: mayor brown wanted that to be a police station. >> that's the oldest one. the newest one would be a

project in construction now 1068 mission. this is on federal land. we bought this land from the feds for i believe $1 from the f.s.a. 256 units for homeless individuals, 103 those will be seniors. i think that's probably the one that's kind of most up to date. we do have a number of units that are in development agreement or reservoir, mission rock. these are all not necessarily surplus land projects but public land projects that are in predevelopment or we have haven't even broken ground yet. >> supervisor peskin: we'rand nt necessarily 100% affordable? >> that's right. in the case the three i

mentioned those are combination of affordable and market rate. those happen to be the largest projects. >> supervisor preston: back to my original question, total number of affordable or below markets and total number of market rate on public land broadly defined since 2015. 1774 the number of below market units? >> yes, that's the number of blow market units. that does not include pier 70 mission rock. it does include the reservoir just because that d.a. is inked and we're going to get started on predevelopment for the first project. >> 1774 affordable and 550 market rate which are all in balboa.

>> supervisor preston: thank you. again, just stepping back and for context here, looking through the lens of our rina goals, can can you clarify where we are. how many unit of affordable housing and what income levels we would need to build annually to achieve our rina goals? >> well, there's a rina update on the way now. we don't have the final numbers yet. i think just even the methodology will be released at the end of the year. our goal for san francisco are 72,080 units, 26% of which are supposed to be very low income. that's 50% and 15% of those are

supposed to be low income. i guess 50% and over. then moderate income is another 16%. according to a recent progress report, we made about $4.4 billion to meet just the goals for the very low income category. obviously, we're behind. this is a huge challenge, huge numbers and we expect that once the update is done on those goals, we'll find a similar -- we'll see a similar number. >> just to make sure i have these right and for the public, you mentioned about 72,000 units without regard to the update coming up. looking at a goal of 72,000 units and is it around 40 or 41

of those that need to be in those below market categories? >> between the very low and the low income categories, the goal is 29,360 units. >> okay. the other below market category? >> those are the two below market categories. there's a moderate income and above moderate income. >> supervisor preston: right. how many in the moderate? >> another 11,910 units. >> supervisor preston: i was adding those together come to about 4 40,000 or 41,000. >> that's right. >> supervisor preston: we would to meet rina goals again without regard to revisions that are anticipated. we need to build as a city, 72,000 units of those 41,000

would need to be at below market level. over what period of time? >> i'm sorry, supervisor, i'll have to get back to you on that detail. >> supervisor preston: okay. back to some of the slades that were presented around funds, is the sources of funding for affordable housing. if you can elaborate on the housing trust fund, can you explain how much is in there? i'm assuming that's capped at $15 million annually. is our budget for that

$50 million annually and what are the restrictions on the funds? >> the housing trust fund is without of the more flexible funding sources that we have. when we find ourselves losing expected funding sources, for instance, this year at the beginning of the pandemic, a number of millions of eraf dollars we have anticipated, have to be pulled back. we will often rely on the trust fund to build those kind of gaps. looking at my budget here, i can tell you once my internet connection stabilizes exactly how much we had in a particular year. the housing trust fund does increase, it's ramping up overtime. this year, we're expecting about 23 million in new sources.

when i say this year, i mean in '21 and '22. we expect about $23 million trust fund to come to us next year. when we look at what we're spending it on, we have a number of pipeline project, one for homeless individuals, one for families, currently programs. we have covid stabilization activity that we're implementing mohcd. we'll use those funds for that as well. we pay debt service on the housing trust fund, several million a year. that's just an example of one of our sources. >> supervisor preston: are those funds, housing trust fund all committed funds? >> again, if we're talking about -- when we say current year, we mean '21, '22, yes.

i'll tell you what's left at the end of the year, about $3 million. i like to say also, in covid, we've experienced since covid, started affecting our affordable housing project, we do have less interest from investors and lenders in projects because of the financial uncertainty. we also have increased development cost, additional safety precautions and more risk around project delays in case of an infection. that's new construction and occupy rehab project. $3 million balance at the end of the year, that's almost like a contingency or mitigation fund considering most of our projects, we put $30 million or $40 million in two. $3 million is very insignificant.

>> supervisor preston: is our expenditures from housing trust fund money where those tracked? >> where are those tracked? >> supervisor preston: how would the public or any supervisor determine the breakdown annually of where those funds go? >> i can tell you, we make, i think, reports nine months of year to the board on various expenditures. we make quarterly reports on our pipeline and expenditures. i can get you the details to whom those are submitted and what form. >> supervisor peskin: they are submitted to the clerk of the board and they appear huge stack that the clerk gets. minus an affirmative hearing like this, are publicly considered. >> in so far as our budget is approved by the board, we'll go through the budget process and

etcetera. we'll look again here list of regular reports that we make. >> supervisor peskin: what i really love to see, we're going to hear from the folks at the office of cannabis relative to a visual presentation of numbers later in today's meeting. if you actually set forth that 1708 unit units from 2006 to the current day in a visual presentation later this meeting, that would be worth seeing. >> i'm happy to share that chart now if that will be helpful. >> supervisor peskin: if supervisor preston desires, i will defer to him.

>> supervisor preston: please. >> thank you, that would be great. >> it is two pages. here is a snapshot. you can see the project listed here and the owner agency. >> supervisor peskin: some of these are entitled. some of them are in the pipeline and some of them are built. >> that's right. >> supervisor peskin: is there a way to sort this list under those three categories? >> i don't think we can do it in the moment. we can do it later. we organized it by agency. we can certainly organize it

chronologically. >> supervisor peskin: some of these things have a lot of history on them and were built quickly. some of them were as francis scott key was the subject, a ballot measure that supervisor fewer put on the ballot that many of us worked to pass but is far from built. it will be interesting to sort it that way for what it's worth. if you do all of the affordable units and you get to the bottom line and scroll down -- >> i apologize in advance, there's no total. which is perhaps obvious oversight. >> supervisor peskin: i would love to have that list in an excel or whatever sheet that i can sort -- i can do this on this computer during this

meeting. >> i think we both did a total while we were on the peer. we came up with 1774 as the total there. i do think, the more -- originally supervisor preston asked for sites within the last five years. obviously, there's few things on this chart that are older than five years and the few things that technically shouldn't on the chart. let us know what in particular we can provide. >> supervisor peskin: i will turn this back over to supervisor preston. i've been doing this too long. >> supervisor preston: no apologies. great questions. that is the purpose of this

hearing. welcome any questions along the way from either you or our vice chair. it's interesting, i've been trying to piece some of this together. i think about the major step forward that the housing and dashboard represents in terms of accessibility to the public and to everyone around really looking at how we're doing in a more detailed way. just hearing the questions and thinking about the various ways to present these, it kind of begs the question whether we need a public dashboard public sites or using the housing dashboard and potentially breaking it out in that way. the public sites raise policy questions and discussions are different with respects from other sites. i do have some other questions and just i wanted to go back to

the issue in the presentation around the sort of larger sites versus smaller sites. first off, just getting at where is this dividing line between the site that we need to -- that the approach seems to be to rely on private capital market rate development to finance infrastructure or other aspects of the project versus those that we don't? are these guidelines published in any way, who is making that threshold decision on which side of this cut off point we're on? >> i can take a stab on the

mohcd side. as we're discussing our budget, it varies year to year. right now we're gearing up for really hard year, next year because inclusionary fees that usually come in during a robust economy. may not be coming in. we also have -- our budget is very variable and subject to market forces lot of the times. it ends up being in point in time assessment. it depends on whether other commitments have been made.