>> good morning and welcome to the rules committee for today, november 1, 2021 i'm chair peskin joined by supervisor mandelman and ms. chan. our clerk has announcement? >> the board recognizes that the public access to city services is essential and invite public participations and public comment will be invited on channels or streamed or the public numbers the stream.

opportunities to speak during public commentary are available by calling 1-415-655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 2482 090 9351 then press pound and pound again. when connected you'll hear the meeting discussion but will be in listening mode only. when your item of interest comes up press star 3 to be added to the speaker line. best practice is to speak clearly or slowly and turn down your video or audio and you can e-mail to the rules committee clerk if submitted by e-mail it will be forwarded to the supervisors and included as part of the file. written comment may be sent to city hall.

>> thank you, mr. young. could you please read the first item. >> naming the city hall press room for barbara a. taylor] . >> thank you, mr. clerk. colleagues, i won't speak about this very long because we unanimously the full board of supervisors passed a resolution urging that the city hall press room be named after the late barbara taylor the dean of the city hall press corps from the days of mayor mosconi to almost the present. she died exactly one year and one week ago today. i want to once again offer our

condolences through her widower and her family and i want to thank supervisors for their sponsorship insofar we voted to the full board for the naming of the press room. are there comments from members? seeing none, is there any public comment on this item? >> yes, members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item call 1-415-655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 2482 090 9351 and press pound and pound again. if you haven't already done so press star 3 to line up to speak

and a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand and wait until it indicates you have been unmuted to begin your comments. i believe we have one member of the public in line it speak at this time. >> first speaker, please. >> can you hear me now? >> yes, we do. >> david papel just speaking in support. thanks again. >> seeing no other members of the public comment. public comment is closed and motion to send this item to the full board with recommendation. roll call, please.

on that matter. supervisor chan. >> aye. >> vice chair mandelman. >> aye. >> chair peskin. >> aye. >> the motion passes without objection. >> next item, please. >> 2. 211031 [administrative code - request for sheriff's services] sponsor: safai ordinance amending the administrative code to authorize the sheriff to contract with private entities to provide supplemental law enforcement services. >> this is brought to you us by supervisor safai. the floor is yours. >> all right. good to see you.

is supervisor safai going to join us? tell you what, sheriff, do you want to say something? >> yes, good morning, yes. i appreciate the opportunity to talk about this. i was under the understanding supervisor safy would be here and i don't want to speak for him but i do want to say as the sheriff's office and being a part of this legislation is fully support all of us here and we also have information to share with you in regards to our preparation to carry through on this legislation and just wanted the opportunity to share that information with you, time permitting. >> you're welcomed to do that. i'm going to make a suggestion they know supervisor safai has

offered some -- ah, better late than never. >> thank you, sir. >> yeah, i'd like to say opening remark and i'm going to call the sheriff up and call up chief bill scott as well. thank you for getting this on the calendar in a timely manner. i really appreciate it. i wanted to give background and context to how we got where we are today. last year when i was running for re-election, got a lot of calls from members of my community, small business owners, merchants themselves as well as particularly seniors and they

said they were seeing brazen theft in our local drug stores particularly walgreens on a scale they've never seen before. so i went down to talk to the merchants myself and check in with them and see how things were going and seeing if what we were seeing on social media and hearing from the individuals calling was as it was described and unfortunately as i was there witnessed 10 people -- 10 walk up to the walgreens with empty bags and stood there in disbelief as one stood outside kind of monitoring and within less than two minutes they were out laughing and high-fiving and walking out with their bags full. i knew this was something that i had never seen in over two decades i've lived here in san

francisco and it seemed blasent lawlessness was happening on a scale that needed to be addressed. last spring, in public services committee we had we heard from many retailers from safeway, walgreens, the gam, cvs where one of the executives said san francisco was one of the epicenters of organized retail crime and 85% of their laws was a result of that organized retail theft. also learned that many of the people that were being used to do this crime often have many of the same issues we talk about frequently in the city, they're battling addiction, they're battling through rehab. we did a hearing on that as well. and talked about how many people that were recidivists had an

underlying drug addiction that motivated us to put forward in the budget last year which we funded our therapeutic community that was abstinence based we're excited and launched and looking forward to seeing success happen there. and these products stolen end up on secondary markets, amazon marketplace, ebay, and plea markets in the east bay and in -- flea markets and in the east bay on market and mission street. we wanted to look for a solution. we put together an organized retail crime working group where we asked chief bill scott and the sheriff and the chamber of commerce and council of district merchants and many organized labor, united food and commercial workers that represent life front line workers to join and come up with

ideas. from that working group we were able to get consensus building off the success and our programs where officers are hired on the retailer's dime to supply extra security and what we heard the demand out strips the supply of available officers for this program the pending program. we appreciate the work that chief scott has done. again, i think it's over the work we've done in the last year and commitment and focus they re-dedicated resources to the program and put a lieutenant in charge and added additional ways of monitoring the program to make sure it's being assigned not just based on where officers want to go but where the highest

demand and need is based on criminal activity and the supply of those officers still falls short. that's how we were able to put forward this program together which is an expansion of having law enforcement present and available through the 10a program is what we're calling it and allowing deputy sheriffs to be hired as well. in addition to the reducing crime we believe it will provide the presence needed to redirect people into the right rehabilitation program. i do not believe and i'm still a firm believer that we're not going incarcerate our way out of this problem. we're not going back to the time of the early '90s and '80s where we're going send people to prison but having arrest and

directed into the right rehabilitation programs ste goal and the naacp was part of this working group and signed off on this legislation as well. so that is it in essence. i can get into some details. i will say right off the bat that we took off the table and sheriff can talk about this any of the sheriffs assigned will not be allowed to carry tasers. only standard-issued equipment and we're conscious from the fiscal perspective not allowing any of the officers, sheriffs to call in stick or use their comp time and then access this program. you won't able to lack of a better word, double dip, those that's what we'll do call that

out. i have amendments i think we circulated to your offices and can go after that after the sheriff is able to present and we'll call you have chief scott and let him say a few words and then we can get into questions and public comment. if sheriff is here i'd like him to give a short presentation on san francisco deputy cans help deter commercial retail theft in the city and he and i are available for questions and we will go to chief scott after sheriff miamoto. thank you for your hard work and working with us on this and thank you to our city attorney who spent tike working with us to get the legislation right? all the individuals that gave input and feedback from the council district merchants to the union square and commercial district and benefits

association, fishermen's wharf, all the members of the commercial retail crime working group that participated in vetting this and helping put this forward. thank you to my co-sponsors already. thank you for your co-sponsorship and thank you to supervisor mar for your early co-sponsorship. thank you, sheriff, miamoto. >> again, good morning, everyone. thank you for the opportunity here. supervisor safai mentioned we've been working together, hand in hand with the police department and the community to make sure the implementation of this is going to be successful and responsive to the needs of everybody in regards to this challenge and problem we have. i do have a presentation i gave

to victor. it will be we should be able to share that and if not, if you have the presentation, victor. i'll keep this short and be happy to answer any questions that arise from the information we share right now. the legislation labelled 10a is something we feel strongly at the sheriff's office that will be a good fit to supply security to the businesses being challenged. as also mentioned the legislation is very consistent with the language of 10b and the current program we have for the police department as we have done with other things we worked together with the police department to make sure we adopt best practices. one thing unique to us and feel say strong fit especially for

deputy sheriffs is currently with a lot of our contracted service we have in the community we have deputies to fixed post assignments slightly different in terms of answering calls for we have deputies used to being at fixed post assignment being there with whoever we're contracted with. that's one thing we have done for years that fits with the 10a program. we're familiar with meeting law enforcement staffing needs as shown in the next slide. this is who we are and what we do and i'm sure you're fully aware of what the programs are about and what we have is four divisions, our field operation and custody operations division

and main divisions that have operations involved with our staff and that's where the bulk of our staff are. we have a criminal investigations unit which will be well suited to work with the investigations team related to any arrests and charges that are brought for our 10a work and our contractual commitments for law enforcement services listed here. we currently work with other departments and cities and county and a lot of are fixed post and some have to do with our field operations division but we are very well positioned to deal with this kind of challenge. special events at city hall and third-party contracted services and we work with other agencies

obviously for mutual aid request. we have deputies that work for the 49er games. we've been doing it a number of years and feel the 10a would be the next step in the progression of something we already provide. and for those not familiar with the training our deputy sheriffs have, i want to highlight training in terms of being a peace officer is consistent with post standard basic training. we're also mandated to have additional training because we deal with incarcerated justice involved persons. we have additional training depp deputy mandated to take and our advanced training every year we train them at a minimum of 24 annual hours for basic continued

professional training like skills or range time or defensive tactic. we training our people up for 48 hours a year instead of the required 40 hours and in addition to the training program we have additional training for our staff. a lot of it has to do with direct supervision and dealing with people and dealing with people in crisis. most importantly though right now we have and we have postcertified de-escalation techniques and a force we currently have and i've mandated all staff go through this. we've had over 200 staff members go through this already and on pass to make sure our staff has the required training. it's consistent with what you see in the police department and the chief is about to come on and talk to you more about the partnerships. the training is consistent with the post-training for cit that

everybody gets as a peace officer. and lastly, i guess we can go to the last slide, victor, our planning profits is outlined here. our department is working on the 10a policies and procedures that will be consistent with what the police department already has in place for the general orders. we're reviewing the manual procedures for consistency. we're consulting with the police department active and current staff and retiree have worked the program. we have scheduled meetings and already met with please department command staff to adopt the best practices and already met with and talked to i believe d.e.m. on a communications plan. one thing that's great is we're on the same radio operation system so there's not going to be any need for creating any sort of other path on communications. as i mentioned earlier also our staff are familiar with managing the schedules contracted services.

we have the ability to do that through our field operation division and on the last point here, as with us mentioned by supervisor safai anybody working the overtime will have their basic equipment, nothing specialized or anything like that to assuage concerns about tasers or anything we have. that's everything in a nutshell. hopefully i did that not too fast. i have a tendency to move fast. >> i appreciate that. just want to over emphasize for the committee, one of the l of the things we've been doing since the conversation began, we asked sheriff miamoto and chief scott to talk about coordination. one thing chief scott will talk to you about when they have

reorganized the internal of the 10b program looking at assignments on the highest need based on crime data not just the demand the officers and where nay might like to go. -- where they might like to go. we asked sheriff miamoto and chief scott to coordinate assignments and it will take time to ramp up on the sheriff. we'll do targeted assignments and there'll be constant communication and coordination between the two departments. one of the things we're continuing as we have very targeted meetings with our organized retail crime working group, we'll continue those on a monthly basis specifically to deal with the conversation about retail theft.

i know supervisor mandelman is digging in deep with the issue at the safeway at market street and have seen reduced hours at target and as stated with safeway it's the only locale on where they're having massive reduced hours. there's been a lot of debate with the walgreens closed whether it's based on internal profit margin numbers and return for investors and we would be naive to say it's not a piece of the equation but we also be naive to say retail theft is plaguing our cities where these places are having to choose to reduce hours and in this scenario there's a demand for on-site enforcement.

i want to emphasize this is not about incarceration but putting people in the right rehabilitation type programs and i know safeway's looking at creative ways with the union for look at how people can be retrained and put in training programs to redirect them into opportunities so theft will not be attractive to them and utilized by the network. thank you, sheriff and for your commitment to making our city safer and protecting retailers and protecting the jobs because at the ends of the day, there's a lot of front line workers that worked through the pandemic whose jobs are on the line because this is happening on such a large scale. >> thank you, supervisor safai.

chief, good morning. >> good morning, chair peskin and good morning to all the board. thank you for being patient. i was greeth a brand new academy class. i appreciate your support on that as well. i'm going to be brief with my remarks and i know with this legislation 10a i just want to put in context how i see this. we've had significant challenges as you all know with retail theft and others that require companies to hire our sfpd officers and we've not been able to fulfill all the requests. this legislation will help alleviate that. i talked with sheriff miamoto

and i won't speak for the sheriff but i know we're both committed our agencies working together and communicating with whoever wants to hire off-duty personnel to make sure we are all acting in the best interest of our city and that's what it's all about what is in the best interest of our city. there's a demand we've not been able to fulfill and we want to make sure when people reach out to our city for assistance particularly in police and security and keeping our city safe we're able to meet that obligation and demand. to me, i think i'm always in the best interest of the city and i'm available for any questions you have.

>> sorry, i'm on my iphone, my computer keeps knock me off. i know you've been dedicated since we start the conversation organized retail theft, you've been doing this for years but wholly recommitted to this issue getting the 10b program and looking at the ambassador program and retired officers and having them present in the areas where crime is happening on the highest scale and working in partnership with working with the city attorney and myself to as we look at the statistics in turning the theft around for this our city. don't have additional questions, chair, for chief scott and

sheriff miamoto. i know chief may have to leave in a little bit but if anyone has question for chief scott you may want to start with him first and a can talk about some of the amendments we're going to it make today to clarify the legislation. >> thank you. i do not have question for chief scott but appreciate the fact that both of these law enforcement agencies are working in the interest of san francisco and san franciscans because i realize that underneath this there are thorny concerns in the house of working people and with the deputy social services and police officers and the fact that you, supervisor safai and chief scott and sheriff miamoto were able to bridge that and the

issues are noted and appreciated and i think constructive and great when we can work together and not let unfortunate issues get in the way and that did not happen here. well done, all three of you, and with that supervisors, mandelman or chan, any comments or questions. supervisor mandelman. >> thank you, chair peskin and supervisor safai. i think it's important and good legislation in response to a very real need. i think we've been hearing now from multiple retailers around the city it's not just walgreens or cvs or target or safeway it's all of them seeing something very troubling. when it hits a store like the castro safeway as it done in unprecedented fashion over the last six months that's a

challenge for lots of folks of course for the workers who work in the stores and need to be save and have jobs and also a problem often for lower-income communities and folks that may be getting their food, their prescriptions and may need to go to safeway at 2:00 in the morning because of an unusual work schedule. you can step inside one of these stores as supervisor safai did and see extraordinary and bad things happening i think this is a smart solution. i know from some of the walgreens where they put in a 10d officer it makes a difference when they have them but we know there's not enough officers to go around and this helps to meet the neat.

going forward there's going to be issues to worked out and they're going in eyes wide open and will continue collaboration between the two departments and the community but thanks to the sheriffs for being willing to step up and keeping us safe and there'll be an important addition in dealing with this problem city wide and we have more to do. the is one piece of it. this an important piece but i think it's going to take the retailers stepping up and the police and sheriff and the d.a. and everyone and we have to get a handle on the problem because it is awful and something we have to fix. thank you, supervisor safai. >> thank you, supervisor.

>> would you like know go through the amendments? >> yes, please. >> it has been circulated to all members of the committee have been deemed by the city attorney as substantive so they'll require at least one-week continuance and we'll give this november 8. >> thank you, on page 2 in the definition of requester we'll strike event organizer and replace it with requester through the so where event organizer we'll strike that to indicate who is asking for requesting for the service. the amendment under definition 10a.1 we're going strike on

lines 8 through 10a .1 after the word requester lines 3 through 5 we strike the entire definition of event organizer and it's just requester now becomes means of private individual or private entity seeking additional personnel, equipment or materials of the department at special events or occurrences that happen on an occasion basis for law enforcement throughout the city. that becomes the entire definition who have is asking for that and that then becomes consistent everywhere throughout the legislation. not only are we striking the definition but add special events and occurrences that happen on an occasional service after requester a few times

throughout but particularly on line 17 through 18 on page 2. finally, also under security plan, and that is under the security plan definition, we write security plan means a plan draft the requester that adequately addresses the safety of persons, property ed with the event or occurrence that is the subject of the request for department services. this definition of security plans does not limit to impose more stringent requirement for security plan as circumstances may warrant. the next amendment is under section 10a.2. same thing. we talked about that already.

that's the definition of special events and occurrences and talk about special requester through out and the last amendment are restrictions on the department member eligibility to provide supplemental law enforcement services intended to clarify people will not be allowed to be on sick leave or comp time and access this program. we go into a full definition of that and it talks about what members would be ineligible to perform the services if they're accessing any of the following and talking about regularly scheduled work, anyone that's used over 20 hours of sick leave within the prior three months, it goes over all the different things we've listed in terms of what are exclusions under sick leave. that's it, mr. chair. all of that is intended to clear

define the requester and also who is ineligible for performing these services. that is it. is our city attorney here? >> yes. >> is my summary of who is disqualified and sick leave, do i need to read all that or did i summarize that okay into the record? do i need to read it all? >> no, it's a helpful summary and note the changes. >> great, thank you. through the chair, thank you. >> are there any comments or questions on the amendment from the committee members? seeing none, why don't we open it up for public comment. >> yes, members of the public

who which to provide public comment call 1-415-655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 2482 090 9351 and press pound and pound again and press star 3 to line up to speak. the system prompt will indicate you raised your hand. wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and begin your public comment. we currently have seven listeners and three in line to speak. >> first speaker, please. >> can you hear me? >> yes, we can. >> my name is michael greener i'm a lieutenant with the sheriff's office and live in san francisco. i'd like to thank you for the opportunity to address you. everything that has been said is true as unprecedented. i live in the dog patch and shop

at the safeway on potrero. up until there's no shopping carts and gotten really bad. i don't know there's much more i can say than the sheriff has already said is that you give the police department this opportunity people have an immediate affect on the crime going down. we have a unique relationship with the incarcerated population in the city and county of san francisco. there isn't a better agency to provide resources. most sheriff deputies are going to know those who come not store who commit crimes because we're there. we're going to be able to have a

presence and i think it's significantly reduced crime and made it better for a lot of people to be shopping. and it gives the police department more resources as well as the sheriff's office. i'd like to thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning, board of supervisors. i'm juan garito i'm a resident and happen to be a deputy sheriff for 20 years and i want to call in and show support for the 10a program and my concern is with the walgreens and cvs store and a lot of elderly

utilize them for medications and for small items. so yes, i think this program would be very effective and policing for the elderly as well as the residents. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good morning, board of supervisors. i'm president of the d.s.a. i want to thank supervisor safai for all his hard work on this and bringing it to the table and co-sponsors and supervisor mandelman and supervisor mar and i want to thank the rule committee for look into this and chair peskin and to thank the hard work of sheriff miamoto putting a lot of work into this and doing an excellent job and thank you chief scott for your support and would like to highlight a couple things. chair peskin and chief scott

brought up that everyone working together to increase public safety in san francisco is the goal and i think it's a beautiful thing everyone has come together to do this and san franciscans are the priority and they deserve more public safety as well as any visitor to san francisco. thank you all, you're all doing the right thing and i think this is fantastic. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, this is milton huhn. we're fully in support of this legislation. >> good to hear from you, milton. next speaker. >> hello, board. my name is christian cavasares and i'm required and served in

the san francisco sheriff's office for 20 years and it's a great instance where the association is completely behind this. the city has an untapped source in the sheriff's office and provide safety to those shopping in these stores and to any visitors who may come to the city and shop at these location. it's a win-win for everyone involved and for all residents of the city and speak agencies a 51-year resident of the city. thank you for your time. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public to spoke to this item? >> i believe we have one more caller at this time. >> next speaker, please. >> can you hear me now? >> this is david filpao, i'm not a deputy social service. i have brief questions or comments.

i'm wondering how this relates to the new sheriff's department oversight board as to alleged misconduct not that there would be any and if there were any in a store or location where services are being provided. i'm wondering if requesters could shop between the police and sheriff's department if there's a cost difference between the 10a and 10b program and if that makes sense for them to be able to shop in that way. i'm wondering if there is or should be a deadline to request services prior to an event or prior to starting to provide services. the version i was reading was specific to an event. i understand that's being amended. i'm wondering if the security and staffing plan referred to in the legislation would be subject to public disclosure or maybe an applicable exemption to

disclosure or basis for withholding. i was going to ask if this is only for events and for not ongoing service or works but sounds like the next person is going to address that so i was unclear how this would address retail theft and have no objection to the legislation or intent just interested in the details of making this work. thank you for listening. >> thank you. >> thank you. any last speaker or speakers on the item? >> i am checking. one moment. that was our last public commenter. >> public comment is closed and supervisor safai if lewd like to respond to the last speaker, if not, you can incorporate those into your comments next week but would like to start by making a motion to accept the amendment

on the motion and a roll call please. >> on the motion to accept the amendments, supervisor chan. >> aye. >> vice chair mandelman. >> aye. >> chair peskin. >> aye. >> the motion passes without objection. >> mr. clerk, i'd like to be added as a co-sponsor and then i would like to make a motion to continue. supervisor safai. >> briefly, i appreciate the last caller and all the callers that called in. thank you for calling in in support. one of the things that we did talk about in the course of drafting the legislation and working on it was the fact that there will be an oversight committee put in place ahalf -- half aboard the board and mayor

and gives an extra level of assurance this will be monitored in a proper way with the office of inspector general. that will add the additional layer of oversight and wanted to make clear this not just for special events and clarify that. but the oversight was important and the coordination was important so that is something that we thought about and i'll have additional comments next week but thank you, for your co-sponsorship and support and thank you for the whole committee and as i said, thank you, jenna clark and deputy city attorney and all my staff and jeffery more -- morris and i'd be remiss if i doesn't recognize the san francisco travel and hotel council and the council of

district merchants for their hard work. so i'll have additional comments next week but thank you everyone for your support and thanks for the comments today. >> thank you. why don't we continue this item one week to november 8 on that motion to continue the item as amended a roll call, please. >> yes, on that motion, supervisor chan. >> aye. >> vice chair mandelman. >> aye. >> chair peskin. >> aye. >> the motion passes without objection. >> thank you. thank you supervisor see you next week. clerk call the third and final item. >> item 3 a hearing hearing to consider appointing six members, terms ending june 6, 2023, to the immigrant rights commission.

(clerk of the board) there were some applications withdrawn. >> in so far one of my staff sarah sousa is an applicant to re-appointment i'll do what happened last time this was before the committee ask to recuse myself and turn the gavel to vice chair mandelman. >> on the motion to recuse supervisor peskin, supervisor chan. >> aye. >> vice chair mandelman. >> aye. >> thank you. >> supervisors peskin is recused

from item 210479. >> we have applicant to hear from and thank you for serving and those interested in serving. i'm going to work my way through the folks as they appear in the agenda and if you have questions put yourself in the chat.

mr. paz? >> uh-oh. mr. clerk. >> looks like he logged off we can come back. >> i believe he had to leave at 11:00 so he may have left but if he's hearing us and want to come back he can come back. >> hello. my apologies. my computer kicked me off. >> you two minutes. >> thank you, honorable supervisors and members of the rules committee, i'm mario paz i'm the director of the good samaritan research center we're a 127 anchor institution founded as a settlement house for

newcomers and that continues steadfast. i'd like to show my support for sarah sousa and our great chair. they have shown exceptional leadership and it's been a privilege to serve by their side. i want to thank you for your consideration of my re-appointment and including the residency waivers. it's been an honor to serve on this commission. i've worked hard to assure all immigrant in our communities continue to be able to pursue their dreams and feel welcomed and continue to feel safe in san francisco and that we continue to fight and advocate so they can be successful in our shared society and continue to thrive and prosper. there's been many challenges over the year and covid especially and the multiple hearings from daca to supporting immigrant communities during the

pandemic crisis and work with other partners we were able to again show that san francisco's a leader not just in the state but in the country around immigrant rights and advocacy. thank you again for your consideration, supervisors. >> thank you. with that supervisor chan has any questions for you we'll let gou to your 11:00. thanks for coming by. >> thank you so much. i'm available for questions. >> i think we're good. i think you're done. >> thank you. bye-bye. >> now i understand do we have

rene ramesh. >> do i not see him logged in at this time. >> if he does get on let me know and we'll take him. how about david lat. >> good morning. your hand is up. you're ready to talk. we need to get you unmute. can you unmute yourself? >> hi, supervisor mandelman and supervisor chan and peskin. thank you all for the opportunity to be in front of the board to discuss my qualification and my interests of joining the immigrant rights commission. i know supervisors here before me and it's been an honor to be

considered even being here today as an immigrant who came from burma when i was 12, i never knew i'd be here in front of the board to be seeking an appointment. it's quit a big moment for me. i want to thank you the supervisor for the opportunity. a little bit about myself, i am current director of government relation for s.f. state. i'm proud to represent and serve as spokesperson for the university that is recognized as the third most diverse in the country. i'm proud to work with a lot of daca students on campus and having a robust dream center with daca students.

in my senior life i worked very closely with immigrants and i was in that role for most the trump administration and it was difficult. being from san francisco we have some of the most robust and strong sanctuary policies that makes us a target for the trump fury but it's been incredible to work with the commissioners who are on this call. commissioner connelly and director pawn who has been so in terms of working with our office and being able to navigate through the challenging times during the i.c.e. raids and i'm interested in working with the

commission now because in my role in work with immigrant and to acknowledge the commission's current work on stopping a.p.i. hate. i've met with a professor from s.f. state one of the co-founders of the stop a.p.i. hate center and i think the commission is incredible and the fact that we even have an immigrant rights commission is exceptional. i think i have a lot of to add and i want to leave some time for questions. if supervisors have any questions for me, i'd be answer them. >> thank you mr. latt for your willingness to serve and reaching out and talking to me on friday and i appreciate the conversation we were able to have and i don't have further

questions. supervisor chan, any comments, questions? no. looks like we're good. mr. latt you can go back to doing the work for san francisco state and have a good morning. >> you too, supervisor. >> great. okay. working my way down my list, i think next up we would be taking jane pak but i think she has withdrawn her name from consideration. next we have in come celine kennelly. >> it's lovely to be with you and see you this morning. thank you for having us. so it's been my honor and privilege to serve on the commission since 2012. i was elected to the position of vice chair by the executive committee in october of that

year and have had the distinct horn of serving as chair since january 2015. in the past nine years, i believe the commission has held comprehensive community hearings gathering testimony from the diverse immigrant population on a variety of issues including quality of life, housing, education access as well as roundtable with local staff to understand the issues that presented to the office. from language rights to the sanctuary ordinance, shining a light on the economic opportunities and take lead role on equity the immigrant rights commission has worked with community partners and city departments to ensure inclusive, fair policies and conditions that make san francisco a safe and welcoming place for all people to thrive. it has been my honor to lead a diverse, engaged hard working commission who are committed to

our immigrant communities to language access and to racial equity. they bring a combination of professional and personal experience with commitment to making immigrant lives better and i too would like to put my name in support of the re-appointment of vice chair and commissioners sousa. and in terms of my own role on the commission, as my day job i'm the executive director an organization supporting the irish community in san francisco and the bay area and i've had the distinct honor in my role. i'm an immigrant and director responible for the day to day operations of my organization and community organizer.

i look forward to the opportunity of the work the commission is doing and recently had an hearing on haitian and afghan refugees and look forward to bringing recommendations this the berd -- board on that hearing and held a hearing on anti-aapi hate and well we look forward to continuing that topic for further discussion in the new year as we come back and revisit and take stock on how we have fared as a city and community on that issue. language access, of course, is another issue that's been of huge importance to the commission. we are the overseers for language access compliance through the office of civic engagement and immigrant affairs. it's a topic that appears on our agenda almost monthly and this year we held two hearings on

language access. we have done work on reviewing the ordinance to make recommendations on how it might be strengthened and have taken community feedback to make sure that we are hearing from community and know what is happening. i'm delighted to say that our committee with immigrant affairs are currently analyzing response to our survey from over 2,000 residents of the city and county. so we are out to the community as much as we can it understand what their concerns and needs are. i look forward to at your pleasure serving on the commission for another two years and i thank you for the opportunity. >> thank you, chair kennelly and threw for your work on the commission. i know language access is of importance to all of us and championed by supervisor chan

and i'm sure she is appreciative of your work and with they think we can let you go. have a good day. >> thanks a lot. >> you're welcome, thank you. >> and next up we have commissioner nima hahimi. >> thank you for considering my re-appointment. i've that'd privilege of serving on the commission since 2017. we spent several years hearing about the atrocities against our immigrant communities. i'm a first generation immigrant. my parents moved here when they were in their 20s to go to school and because of the iranian revolution and war with iraq they pivot and started

their lives here and were able to find opportunity in the united states of america but also had to struggle as immigrants to learn a new system. my goal on the commission has always been to be an advocate for immigrant communities and recognize intersectionality of our cause and causes and it would be an honor and privilege to continue serving. i serve on the executive committee with chair paz and chair kennelly and look for re-appointment of chair bragon and vice chair paz and thank you for your time and i'd be happy it answer any question. >> i do not have questions but thank you for the service and thank you for being willing to sign up for another term. >> thank you, both. >> thank you. commissioner rahimi. >> i forgot to mention

commissioner sousa. >> and i see director pon and i think lucia obregon was not able to attend and i believe mr. tanaka has withdrawn and brings us to chair pon. >> i'd like to support the appointment of our five current commissioners and one new applicant including commissioner kennelly and commissioner rahimi

and commissioner obregon and souza and for seat 4 which was vacated earlier this year we support your consideration of david latt. we can use his extensive knowledge and how it impacts local immigrant communities and would be an excellent addition to the i.r.c. thank you to the leadership of vice chair pon and all the s. the commission has been extremely active and productive over the past several years when we need them during an anti-immigrant administration and especially now in economic recovery. so you know, they held over 10 special hearings and issued over nine resolutions and policy

advice letters. they've been very busy and productive. the last two were on forwarding the legislation for paid time off for domestic workers in san francisco. they were behind it many years ago and of course the removing the sunset on non-immigrant voting on school board election. thank you very much for your consideration. >> thank you, director pon. it's my honor to get to chair this item. it is incredibly important to san franciscans and as a grand child of immigrants i think i'm proud of the city and the leadership it's been able to provide on immigrant affairs including allowing non-citizen immigrant to participate in our local democracy.

at any rate, supervisor chan do you have any comments or remarks or thoughts to share? go ahead. >> thank you, vice chair mandelman i appreciate your leadership and i appreciate all the candidates coming forward. it feels like we just really -- i think we literally recently appointed the body and i think that it's critical for them to continue the work they did. i'm happy to propose a motion in that we can possibly propose a motion and open to public comment and with that i also appreciate the comments and i agreed that today i would like to make a motion to appoint david latt to seat 4 and mario

paz with the residency waiver and ms. kennelly and souza to seat 10 and jane pak to seat 11 and happy to hear public comment before we do the roll call for the motion. >> thank you. we'll include in that motion the residency waivers required for david latt and mario paz and open this to public comment. >> yes, members of the public should call 1-415-655-0001 and meeting i.d. is 2482 090 9351 then press pound and pound again. if you haven't already done so,

press star 3 to line up to speak. the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comment. when we get to public comment at this time we have one listener but nobody in line for public comment. >> public comment for item 3 is called. call a vote on the motion. >> supervisor chan. >> aye. >> chan aye. vice chair mandelman. >> aye. >> mandelman aye. peskin excused. the motion passes with member peskin being excused without objection. >> do we have more business today? >> that completes our agenda for today. >> then we are adjourned. bye, everybody.

>> shop and dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges residents to do their business in the 49 square files

of san francisco. we help san francisco remain unique, successful and right vi. so where will you shop and dine in the 49? >> i'm one of three owners here in san francisco and we provide mostly live music entertainment and we have food, the type of food that we have a mexican food and it's not a big menu, but we did it with love. like ribeye tacos and quesadillas and fries. for latinos, it brings families together and if we can bring that family to your business, you're gold. tonight we have russelling for e community. >> we have a ten-person limb elimination match.

we have a full-size ring with barside food and drink. we ended up getting wrestling here with puoillo del mar. we're hope og get families to join us. we've done a drag queen bingo and we're trying to be a diverse kind of club, trying different things. this is a great part of town and there's a bunch of shops, a variety of stores and ethnic restaurants. there's a popular little shop that all of the kids like to hang out at. we have a great breakfast spot call brick fast at tiffanies. some of the older businesses are refurbished and newer businesses are coming in and it's exciting. >> we even have our own brewery for fdr, ferment, drink repeat.

it's in the san francisco garden district and four beautiful murals. >> it's important to shop local because it's kind of like a circle of life, if you will. we hire local people. local people spend their money at our businesses and those local people will spend their money as well. i hope people shop locally. [ ♪♪♪ ]

i would like to remind everyone to please mute yourself if you're not speaking. the first item on the agenda is roll call. [roll call] commissioner moss is excused and we have a quorum. our next item is item b., the

oath. all parties giving testimony today please raise your right hand. do you swear the testimony you're about to give is to the best of your knowledge? >> i do. >> clerk: thank you. also, i wanted to state for the record regarding the appeals, the department will present their case. next, there's public comment and members have three minutes each to speak. lastly, there's rebuttal time of three minutes for the department and the appellant. and the public comment for the session will be two minutes. in addition, any members of the public who would like to call in, the public comment call-in number is (415) 655-0001 and

the access code is 24857522144. to raise your hand for public comment on a specific agenda item, press star three when prompted by the meeting moderator. okay. our next item is item b. findings to allow teleconference meetings under california government code section 54953(e). the board will discuss and possibly adopt a resolution setting forth findings required under the assembly bill 361 that would allow the aab to hold meetings remotely according to the modified brown act teleconferencing set forth in the ab361. >> thank you. can you hear me?

>> clerk: yes. >> president: i think we all know prior to covid, we were not allowed to have web-based meetings. that has changed because of the emergency orders, but as those kind of go away, we need to have these new rules and notifications if we intend to have the next meeting on a web-based platform. and my understanding of the law is that we have to do it every 30 days. if we're in october now, if our intention is to have a web-based meeting in november. if we want to do it in december, we have to notice it in november. this will be part of our agenda as we notify the public if the next meeting will be in person or web-based.

and so as you can see in the resolve, the -- i'm just going to read it. it says abatement appeals board in the state of emergency due to covid-19 pandemic. at this meeting, the abatement appeals board in the state of emergency as described above to recommend measures to promote physical distancing. other physical distancing and some settings and measures because of the covid-19 pandemic conducting meetings of this body in person would prevent eminent risk to the safety of the members and attendees. and be it further resolve for at least the next 30 days, meetings of the abatement appeals board will occur via

teleconferencing and technology. such meeting as the abatement appeals board occurred by teleconferencing and technology public comment will be provided by the public comment. and statutory and constitutional rights of parties and the members of the public attending the meeting via teleconferencing. and the abatement appeals board is going to place this on the agenda of a future meeting within the next 30 days if the abatement appeals board does not meet in the next 30 days, the secretary is placing it on the agenda of the next meeting. i want to hand it back over to you, sonya, to kind of walk us through the process. >> secretary: thank you,

president alexander-tut. i believe we would need to do public comment to adopt the findings. so is there any public comment on this item? >> no. there's no public comment. >> secretary: okay. thank you. so then, commissioners, do i need to do a roll call vote on this item? can it just be a uniformed vote. >> we need to have a motion to adopt the resolution and then a finding and then a vote. >> secretary: okay. is there a motion of one of the commissioners to adopt the findings. >> to allow teleconference meetings in the next 30 days. >> secretary: is there a second? >> commissioner: i second. >> secretary: so there is a motion and a second by commissioner tam and then commissioner bito.

i'll do a roll call vote. [roll call] the motion carries unanimously. thank you. our next item is -- i'm sorry. i did the oath already. yes. i can hear you. thanks. okay. so now we are on to item d, approval of minutes. discussion and possible action to adopt the minutes for meetings held on june 16th, 2021, and july 21, 2021.

and prior to requesting a motion on this, i wanted to make a correction. for the roll call vote on the june 16th, 2021, meeting, commissioners raquel bito and commissioner angie sommer were in attendance of the meeting and so that will be added to the minutes. so at that read, is there any public comment on the minutes? >> no. there is not. >> secretary: okay. is there a motion to approve? >> commissioner: i can make a motion to approve. >> commissioner: i second. >> secretary: okay. there is a motion and a second. and the minutes -- the motion is to approve the minutes with that correction. and are all commissioners in favor of the minutes?

[all say aye]. >> secretary: the minutes are approved. our next item agenda is 8e continued appeals. order of abatement. number one is case number 6881: 5 lunado way. owners of record and appellant. action requested by the appellant. do you know if the appellant is in attendance today? >> i believe so. i believe henry carnilowits. >> secretary: okay. henry. thank you. i see him there. okay. would you like to do the staff presentation and he will go? >> yes. thank you.

good morning, commissioners. my name is maurice hernandez, chief building code enforcement. i have a case here, case number 201710051 in regards to a building that is a single family home. they said to have about 1,300 square feet on the property in profile. the case in question is framing a new roof without a permit. which calls for only exploratory for roof damage. this work was exceeded on the rear facade and was supposed to be fully removed. a permit with plans and planning department permit for a new roof. which actually, if you look at the summary report, the inspector issued the notice of

violation on 10/10/2017. a final letter was issued 4/30/2020 in regards to this. i do want to point out the original permits were revoked and also the framing work without a permit and also exceeding the facade changes. the appellant's request is to reduce the assessment cost for case planning and delay process due to covid closure. i do want to point out this notice was issued before covid, way before covid. the permits were revoked before covid. at this point, staff commission needs to uphold the abatement and impose all the assessment of cost. i think this is all i have for

my presentation. thank you. >> secretary: okay. thank you, chief hernandez. monique, i believe that henry carnillus will be representing the appellant. so if you can unmute him. >> okay. mr. carnellowits, you are unmuted. >> okay. thank you very much. good morning, commissioners. so this is a project from quite a long time ago as inspector mauriceo just mentioned. so we've had to go through a number of meetings with planning and building and all that. it did not get issued until january 22nd, 2021, if you look at the appeals. it's at the stage where it's all pretty well finished up, but we're waiting on some

fixtures right now that are taking forever to get. these items are plumbing, electrical, fixtures. we expect to get them in the next two or three months it looks like. so we're requesting a continuance on this in the order of abatement and so i feel that after all the work that's gone into this to get this done, it's going to be a nice property getting fixed up and all that compared to what it was before and i guess that's about all i'm asking for at this time. a 90-day continuance for the obeyance of the order of abatement. so i'll live it up to you, commissioners. thank you. >> secretary: next, we have

public comment. is there any public comment on this item? >> there is a hand raised by ms. wayet. >> secretary: okay. you can unmute her. >> caller: apologies. i want to speak to 214 state street. i raised my hand too soon. thank you. >> secretary: okay. thank you. if there's no public comment on this item, then we have rebuttal. so, chief hernandez, did you have any rebuttal? >> i just want to point out that the original notice was issued back in 2017 and the final warning was issued in 2020. it was almost three years later we issued the warrant letter and started the enforcement process giving the benefit of the doubt of the owner and trying to work with the owner. as you all understand, we have to continue with that

enforcement process and, you know, i understand covid and everything, but we've got to understand that the work that was actually started was started under a permit just for exploratory purposes. if you see the pictures, it was way beyond the scope of work. >> secretary: okay. thank you. mr. carnelowits, did you have any rebuttal? >> on the time element and the allegation has been made. we had to go through planning, the 311 process, we had to meet with neighbors. this is really a long drawn-out process. like i said, the work made about, i believe there was a permit inspector hernandez just mentioned back in 2017 on the drawings.

but i think it gets sorted out eventually. but that being said, it was a long drawn-out project and so it's being corrected now and very close. >> thank you. >> commissioner: what mistake do you think the department made, mr. carnelowits? >> there was a difference in the height of the building and it wasn't -- it was like 6" off or something i believe which under the building code, you

can be off by that amount and so they got planning code involved and all that. they had to correct this slide difference in the elevation from what i recall on it. and, you know, the owners did work with the building department to get it resolved. if you work for the building department, the work of planning, the work of everybody to get this done and finished. they certainly don't want to take any longer than it's taken either. they want it up to code and that's what's being done. that's where we sort of come from. >> commissioner: thank you. do any other commissioners have any questions? >> commissioner: madam chair, if i may?

the work from outside the scope of the original permits, correct? that's why you went through the planning process to correct this because originally it was allowed on the original permit. so now the timing that you're referring to is the time that you needed to correct this and planning and get the new plans approved and what was issued on january 2021 was the new permits reflecting the new work or the additional work that was performed, is that correct? >> there's corrections too i was proposing initially. so there really wasn't that much change in the scope of the work. what was included in the original drawings also. but there's in discrepancies like the elevation and a couple other little details. there really wasn't a major change on the scope of the work. >> commissioner: got it. chief inspector hernandez, can

you chime in on the general work. from what i see, it wasn't a roof repair was allowed and from what i'm seeing from the report here was that they tore off a complete roof and redid a whole roof. >> correct. i do want to also point out that planning also issued an enforcement notice of violation in regards of the work and the misrepresentation of the existing conditions. >> commissioner: got it. so they redrew the plans to reflect or misrepresented the existing conditions. is that what you're kind of saying? >> correct. >> commissioner: thank you. thank you, mr. carnelowits. that's all i have, madam chair. >> chairman: any other commissioners? >> commissioner: if i may,

madam president. my understanding is that the original permit shows something. the construction needed to be different than that substantially, so this is an issue it sounds like mr. carnelowits is saying there was minor differences. mr. hernandez is saying more than minor differences. obviously, we're not looking at the plans, but that's the issue that we're talking about today, right. it's just the -- this is what the violation is for? it was for something being different from the permitted plans, you can't do that. please resubmit. it was resubmitted. it's in the process now of being completed, but it sounds to me like the original notice of violation is correctly given for the changes that were being

performed. >> chairman: yeah. commissioner, i think in your question, it's maybe not a question but raising another question for me, when there's a violation, there is a period that someone's allowed to steer the violation before it goes to abatement. chief hernandez, could you walk us through what is the process when someone receives a violation before it gets to be abatement and reassigned. can you walk us through that process? we have some new commissioners on here. i myself am pretty new. >> yeah. so the process of abatement is pretty straight forward. in this scope of work and going beyond what he was approved for. the district inspector should notice the violation with a timeline to comply. that's 30 days to file the permit, six days to get the

permit issued, and 90 days to complete the work. a lot of times it doesn't happen that way, but the department works with the appellants or homeowners to give it more time because sometimes these permits go through planning or other divisions that need sign-offs. so it is actually on the inspection services determination whether the owner is in good faith working with the department. if the department finds out that there's no moving forward with it and then afterward this case is a little bit peculiar because it got another notice of violation because once planning confirmed that the original permit went beyond the scope, planning requested to revoke the permits. so it became a little bit more of a concern. so therefore the district inspector said to send the final letters and sign the

abatement against the property. so after that, the homeowner gets a notice for the hearing and you need to explain why you haven't taken action on this case. after that, the hearing officer makes an order of abatement with assessing the administrative penalty fees. and, basically, then the owner has a right to appeal that and that's what we get here. >> chairman: city attorney, if you could weigh in, our role is to basically decide, was the process followed correctly or was the process not followed correctly? is that my understanding? >> so under the building code section in the administrative code section that gives the abatement of appeals board jurisdiction, your role is to review and decide whether to uphold, modify, or reverse the order of abatement and

assessment of cost. basically, you're looking to see if there was any error of the department in issuing the order of abatement as well as there was error in the calculation cost. >> chairman: thank you. so understanding that's what we're looking for is an error from the department or an error in the calculation of cost, does any commissioner have questions or clarification on any of those points? >> commissioner: i just have one more question, madam chair. thank you. chief inspector hernandez, i think you mentioned there was multiple notices. i think this is tied to agenda item number two on this particular property, is that correct? >> correct. >> commissioner: madam chair, in my opinion, i don't find that the staff has done anything in error and, you know, my recommendation would be to uphold the order of

abatement. >> chairman: would you like to make that motion? >> commissioner: i'd like to make a motion to uphold the order of abatement. >> secretary: okay. is there a second? >> commissioner: second. >> secretary: was that commissioner sommer? thank you. most of us who order the abatement include the assessment of cost. >> that's correct. >> secretary: okay. thank you. is there any public comment on this motion? >> there is no public comment. >> secretary: i guess i will do a roll call vote on the motion. [roll call]

thank you. the motion carries unanimously. our next item is item two, case number 6882: 5 lunado way. owners of record and appellant duke nguyen and leona c. nguyen. action requested by appellant. >> this second case is connected to the first case. this case is 2017-10081 and it's connected to a violation in regards to the discrepancies under the facade changes that were supposed to be fully removed z. the photo shows evidence which were deviating from the approved plans. the building height and the excavation in the approved plans reflect the work under

the original permit which was 2015-100081. and the subsequent 100216. the revised plan to reflect the actual condition of the site. revised plans are needed for roof framing, alternative to a lesser condition, and this one here, this is where planning department confirmed most of the findings as while requested, the revocation of all permits. as you can see with the permit history of this property, there was two permits revoked. and one of the 2021 permits to correct the violation was to increase the value of the work as it was undervalued as well again, this is to approve the

existing permit and also revoking permit 2015-08103792. again, the appellant's request to review the assessment cost to this case for final sign-off due to d.b.i. and planning late due to covid. staffer condition is to uphold the order of abatement which in our opinion was issued according to our process and, again, i go back to saying that these two violations were issued way before covid which, again, even to the point that the cases were not referred to our code enforcement process until three years later. and we do have planning enforcement as well.

so the department will continue to request to uphold the abatement and include all the assessment costs. thank you. >> secretary: would the appellant like to speak? can you unmute him? >> just one second. >> hi. this has been an awful long time. there were discrepancies on the drawings. we did have to go through planning. it does cost the owners a lot of money during this period as you can imagine for the years it's taken to get there. but getting back on the fees, we did go ahead and it's been

changed, the amount of the construction costs and that was paid for some time back now. so we did increase that and i think we've already paid that, at least that part of it that's been done. >> secretary: okay. thank you. is there any public comment on this item? >> there's no hands raised. >> secretary: okay. thank you. next is rebuttal. so, chief hernandez, did you have any rebuttal? >> no. >> secretary: mr. carnelowits, any rebuttal? >> i think i pretty much said what i wanted to say on this and i would happy if -- by the way, we increased the valuation on june 23rd.

so -- to a higher fee and so that was taken care of then. i have it right here in front of me. but if you want to get it done, we want to have everybody happy on this and because it has been a biggest thanks to the owners as well on this process. so we'll be asking for some leniency. thank you. >> secretary: thank you. president alexander-tut. >> president: i'm muted. i have no questions at this time. other commissioners? >> commissioner: madam chair, so just, you know, with regards to this being tied with the other agenda item earlier and

seeing that planning is also head enforcement now, i don't see any error on the department or on the staff at all. again, my motion would be to uphold the order of abatement at all costs. >> commissioner: [inaudible] i have a question for chief hernandez. i'm just wondering about the violation issued. is there some pieces that would have been more tied together? in what condition would you issue multiple ones for the same project for similar violations? i'm just sort of curious on that. >> so there are cases and scenarios where the notice of

violation is amended so everything needs to be tied into one. so in a sense, this violation, once we got in and reviewed it, it seems that the district inspector found that planning has requested to revoke the permits and therefore a new notice had to be issued for that to include the revocation with the permits as well. >> commissioner: got it. so this one's a little unusual because of the timeline and planning and involvement. got it. >> yes. >> commissioner: thank you. >> secretary: are there any other commissioner comments? if none, is there a motion on this item? >> president: i think there is a motion on the floor that needs a second. >> secretary: oh, commissioner -- sorry vice president tam made the motion. >> commissioner: i will second the motion since i interrupted you. >> president: not at all. good question. >> secretary: okay. thank you.

so there is a motion by vice president tam and a second by commissioner sommer. is there any public comment on this motion? >> there is none. >> secretary: okay. i'll do a roll call vote. [roll call] thank you. that motion carries unanimously. and, again, the motion was to uphold the order of abatement and include the assessment of cost. okay. so our next item then is going to be item three, case number

6884: 214 state street. owners record and appellant: 214 states street llc. appellant requests that the board take jurisdiction over this matter filed after the expiration of the 15-day appeal period. if the board grants the request of jurisdiction, the appellant requests that the board reverse the order of abatement. >> madam secretary through the chair, so i would be requesting myself to be recused here by my fellow commissioners. i was involved in a deposition with mr. dennis richards and mr. bosavic and mr. dratler some weeks back and there was a

summary that was leaked to the press. the point i'm trying to make was that this project was brought up in the deposition and i was asked a lot of questions on it in reference to mr. dennis richard's deposition. so i think it would be best if i recuse myself and if i may i would respectfully request that someone would make a motion to have me recused on this and take a motion. if that's okay, madam chair. >> president: absolutely. is there a motion to recuse mr. mccarthy? >> commissioner: i make a motion to recuse. >> commissioner: i second. >> secretary: there's a motion and a second to recuse commissioner mccarthy of this item. are all commissioners in.

>> commissioner: so what i will do is i'll leave the room here and shut everything done. and my internet is very dodgy today, so if i'm not showing you my face all day, that's one of the reasons. i'm getting better outcome by just using my audio versus having the video on as well. okay. thank you. >> secretary: thank you very much. >> president: we have two issues before us. the first is the question around the jurisdiction. >> secretary: i believe that's correct. is that the case, deputy city attorney? >> so in the notice of appeal that was filed in this case, the appellant checked the box and requested jurisdiction. so there needs to be some clarification. once the board gets past that question, if it does find that there is jurisdiction in this

matter, then you would consider the merits of the appeal. >> president: and, is there a process similar to the -- you know, like do we -- is there a set process in the same way there is for the hearing abatement appeal for this jurisdiction? like do we hear from the department and then from the appellant? and then the rebuttal? do we do that or is it a little more open? >> it's in your discretion how you want to share argument. under the administrative code, it leaves out your jurisdiction on the request for jurisdiction and normal circumstance is when the appellant files the appeal outside the 15-day deadline in which case the appellant would have to request that the board take jurisdiction despite the

fact that that line is not complied with. so that's basically the parameters of it, but how you want to hear the argument is up to you. >> president: okay. my proposal is that we hear first from the appellant to understand the request for jurisdiction and if there's of clarifying questions from the commissioners acting upon directly and if there's anything staff wants to add, we can then, if it feels appropriate, we need to hear from staff and then we can open it up to staff and then rebuttal. does that sound like an okay process, commissioners? wonderful. madam secretary, could you bring the appellant forward to explain? and, please just stick to the jurisdiction question because that's the decision we can make right now. that's the only decision we can

make right now. >> secretary: thank you. please unmute kevin. >> good morning commissioners. my name is kevin chang. >> secretary: sorry to interrupt you, mr. chang. just want to make sure you heard president alexander's request to make sure you stick to the issue of jurisdiction. >> yes. i heard. >> secretary: thank you very much. >> chair last month requested presentation documents since we delved somewhat into the issues and the circumstances around jurisdiction. and so i believe it's been forwarded to you, a presentation document. if we have that document, please refer to page seven of

that document and that way i can walk you through what had happened and why i believe there was an error made by staff and the circumstances surrounding such that our project sponsor was unaware that the order was being recorded and the liens hence being filed in an untimely appeal given that there was no knowledge of this was being posted much less recorded against the property. so if members of the commission have that presentation, please refer to page seven. >> secretary: you can go ahead and read what you'd like to present. >> so what we heard back in january of this year was i approached members of the staff and indicated that i was unaware that the order of abatement was being recorded against the property and that

liens were being recorded as well. what occurred was in 2018, there was a number of back and forth between staff and project sponsor around what was the monitoring fees, what were being abated and how those fees were to be charged and trying to work with staff on that. prior to that, there was already a director's hearing on the matter. it was continued and went back between code enforcement and inspection services and the notice of abatement went back and abatement and what occurred if you refer back to that e-mail on january 2021, i cited a number of issues for which i requested that the recording of the abatement much less the lien be reversed. and in staff's report, there are two certified mail documents one was the notice of

the director's hearing and one was the notice of abatement. if you notice, the package was returned back to sender. in one case, it was being mailed out of san francisco and then it was returned back to the sender. i subsequently most recently looked online for these two tracking numbers and i cannot find this information. to replicate the process today, it would be difficult because the u.s. postal service does not have updated information for these two tracking numbers. but in january of 2021, i was able to clip the result of the mailing of that certified mail pieces. those both were returned. what's curious is at this time, i've been contacted with staff they were to indicate direct a

steering and much less the notice of abatement. they could have just e-mailed. i understand the process is to notice via certified mail, but in this case, it was returned. normally, there is also information on p.t.s.. the continuance are noted on p.t.s., but the subsequent hearing which heard a few months also over a year -- neither of the notice of the directorings much less the recordings are recorded on p.t.s.. it seems like those two are deficient providing the disclosure for the notice. and i believe that the recording lien was done in error because i have an email with chief voting inspector hernandez where after the

appearance for the b.i.c. and those documents are available in the packets there's a recording of the minutes in those meetings on why were things being sent to special liens. it was being approved by the b.i.c. to be forwarded to the board of supervisors to then subsequently being recorded. so those were supposed to be taken off. document and communications with staff saying they were being taken off and that liens were being refunded. if that were the case, why would they record it in the first place much less liened. i believe all that constitutes a confusing circumstance that

would warrant jurisdiction at this time because the option i would draw, is you work with your bank, you seek forbearance, you seek some kind of program to work it out with them, they acknowledge it, and before you know it, there's a foreclosure and you're out of your house. perhaps it may not be that extreme but the left hand and the right hand don't know what they're doing but & that's why i would ask you to step forward and allow this appeal for this hearing be made. >> president: thank you, mr. chang. can you repeat your last name for me? >> chang. >> president: thanks. my apologies. thank you, mr. chang. at the last meeting, we had had

a conversation about the notification we're going to and including notifications for this meeting and my understanding was that they were being mailed to the same address. there was not a change in the address. is that correct? is that still correct? >> that is correct. can you hear me? >> president: yes. and so what we're trying to understand is that there was a notification -- did you -- was there a justification for not receiving the 15-day -- the original information about the order abatement in order to meet the 15-day appeal. and it's your position that those were never received because they were bounced back? because of what you included --

that they were returned to send are by the u.s. postal service? >> well, not only that. i appeared at the first hearing and the continued hearing. right. so this notice that was being sent in january 2019 which was actually the account for the hearing is a bird hearing. so i got the first one, knew it was continued. appeared to the second one. the third one after some period of time, they called for a third hearing. i was not notified of that third hearing. okay. and so if there were other meetings have notifications such as if you receive -- on page three of the presentation, throughout 2018 in between the first and second hearing in 2018, there was a number of e-mails to staff which i've provided only a small sample of

communication with staff where we're trying to work out the issues around the assessment and ongoing attempts to work out the abatement which is to get new permits to replace the old permits. so staff was aware that we were in communications and these matters were being addressed. however, i was unaware, project sponsor was unaware that in january of 2019, a third director hearing was being called. and, to be clear, throughout this entire period, you would think staff is saying according to our process, we still have to call a third hearing. in followup to your first two. while we may follow a process of sending a certified piece of mail, you should be aware of we have to where there are time limits, we still have don't this process. that was not made known.

and so the only justification staff is making at this time is well, we sent it certified mail. and i'm saying you might of sent it certified mail, but those were returned back sender in both cases. the notice of the hearing and the abatement recording. in may of 2019, that's when i find out that it's actually being recorded for the lien. and, if you see on page four, immediately i appear before b.i.c. and at the main hearing, you can see the meetings on the may hearing and the july hear, i immediately turned around. so it's not like i waited more than a year after the 15 days. once this was made known and being liened and recorded against the property, i immediately appeared. one of the challenging issues is that there was a process to

take not only this lien against the property, but all properties that were in i guess the department's industry of liens to be forwarded as a complete set every year to the board of supervisors for approval for recording. that's how i found out the lien was subject to that and that's why i immediately protested and immediately asked the commission to step in and take it off. and that's why when you see on page seven in inspector hernandez's e-mail, he says he's taken it off the liens list. but if you look at page six, the lien gets posted nonetheless. right. so if it weren't for this lien

being recorded of the property, i would have not known that there were these hearings that were noticed for which i was told was unaware and could have protested appropriately at the right time. subsequent to that time, i immediately upon notice, upon realizing that these things were being recorded, i immediately filed for the commission and the department. so nothing was being done even though the commission asked that this not be sent to you, the special assessments lien list, i finally asked for jurisdiction in january of this year. and here we are. >> president: i can hold -- does any other commissioners have any questions or comments? >> commissioner: i do may. i was hoping to hear from

mr. hernandez. and i'm not sure, mr. chang, the document that you're referencing, i'm not sure if it's the one i'm looking at which is the one document for this meeting that we received. >> secretary: commissioner sommer, there was a document that mr. chang e-mailed. >> commissioner: oh. >> secretary: yesterday i think it was an e-mail. >> commissioner: okay. thank you. sorry. i'll find that. i guess i wanted to see because it sounds to me like the issue in question is the procedure of notification of meetings and when that is considered to be meeting the requirements and that there were three hearings, two of which the appellant attended, a third of which they were not aware and did not attend and that was the one where the notice of abatement

was issued. and it sounded like also there was one notice of abatement which was received and understood. the appellant immediately reached back out to initiate the process of trying to remediate it. and is that all accurate, mr. chang? >> for the most part, yes. >> commissioner: okay. sorry, it's a little confusing. but i wanted to hear from mr. hernandez. i appreciate in the supporting documentation there was a lot more flushed out timeline of the activities from the perspective of the department which was helpful. i'm not sure if there was any -- i'm not sure what the procedure is if the department sends certified mail that is not received. i don't know what that, you

know, if there is a rule to that. >> secretary: chief hernandez, could you respond to that. >> yes. i do just want to make a report. in my report, if you go to page 19, for the third hearing that mr. chang is saying he never attended. there is an attendant list. there's a gentleman by the name of todd maivis i believe and we also did provide this document to mr. chang including requirings of that hearing. so we did have somebody representing the property at the hearing and understood that the order of abatement was issued. second, the code only requires us to do a serving of the order when it's notified by mail. in my opinion, my department followed through with the whole code enforcement process,

office policy and procedures and we have provided enough evidence to mr. chang in regards to this. that e-mail that he's referring to in his report, i did explain to him clearly that the order cannot be withdrawn. what he's talking about is the special assessment lien list which is a delinquent lien list we have every year that we bring up in front of all the supervisors' office every year and that allows us to collect all the fees. that doesn't mean that the order of abatement is not in place. that means that the order of abatement is put in place and someone hasn't paid penalty fees and we go through this and it's sent to a tax collector to be assessed under the property taxes. that's where i intervened and i remove that case from the special lien list. doesn't mean the order of abatement wasn't put in place. in our opinion, the property owners were provided information, the building is

posted, it is mailed. unfortunately, we don't have control is a mailing is returned. the code doesn't really say that i have to provide e-mail communication to the customer every single time i issue an order of abatement. that's all i have, but i do have, like i said page 19 shows that on the third hearing, somebody did attend the hearing and there was somebody representing this property for 214 states. thank you. >> president: fellow commissioners, any other questions or comments? >> commissioner: madam chair, mr. chang? >> yes. >> commissioner: mr. chang, this gentleman that attended on this third hearing, are you aware of this gentleman or do you know of this gentleman?

what was the name again, chief hernandez? >> the person i have here on the attendance list is todd maivis. >> yes. i am aware of that person. let me be clear about a few matters. i think there is [inaudible] i'm standing on to the bird hearing. there is a notice of order of abatement. i'm going to answer commissioner sommers question about the part that i disagree with is that the order of abatement is not in dispute, it's the recording of the abatement in dispute. and once we get into the detailses around the substance matter about the procedural matters of the order of abatement which jurisdiction is being considered. more importantly, the subsequent matter is justified.

is the time difference here is that the notice director hearing was a continuance to give project sponsor a chance to resolve the issues of that order of abatement. right. and there are sufficient e-mail communications and that's why i pointed out to you in the prior pages in -- it's when staff perceived to record the abatement against the property and then recorded the liens against the property, that's what's being asked for jurisdiction here and being appealed. so when inspector hernandez says that someone showed up for that, if you look at the actual

tracking number for that one, that's the one where the director recorded there was no recording for the issue of abatement. >> commissioner: got it. for the order of abatement on the 19th, right. of may, did the department represent that this was restarted as a new appeal? or how was this handled? >> yes. it was represented. >> commissioner: you understand the appellant is relying on this. >> yes. but i kind of want to go back to the hearing. i just want to point out the third hearing happened on february 19th, 2019. so the order of abatement was issued afterward. so i just want to go back to

the process, which is issue of violation, issue of final warning letter, and preparing the case with director hearing. so i just want to focus on the concern my department has which is that the allegation was that the person wasn't represented at the hearing. there was somebody represented at the hearing which i understood there was a notice of abatement issue. there was affidavits in page 20 in regards to notices of the mailings for the hearings. there is affidavits that were posted and mail today the customer and we have receipts from the postal service. again, we don't have control over why is it returned to us. the code doesn't say i have to go back and redo a posting because it was returned. so in our opinion, we did provide enough information to the customer and like i said, including someone did appear at

that hearing representing 214 states and so i don't understand. and if you look at our website, that hearing shows -- and i'm looking at our website right now, maybe i'm missing something but it says 2/19/19 an issue of abatement was posted on 1/19. so i'm not sure if the owner or the customer found out in may for whatever reason, i'm not sure, but he could of tracked down like he was saying he doesn't see it on the website. it does show on the website when the order was posted and when it happened. >> commissioner: thank you. >> commissioner: i have a question. for inspector hernandez, at this director's hearing, was it

discussed that this abatement was going to be recorded? >> yes. when we send documentation to the owner in regards to a hearing, we explain what the hearing is all about. it's basically for the owner to show proof or cause why an order of abatement should not be recorded against the property or against the title of the property and our hearing officer actually made a at the same time which is recorded and we have like i said recordings of all those hearings. we do make attempts to record even any witnesses that want to come forward. but our hearing officers have a sheet they're going to and explain what's going to happen if the order of abatement is issued. >> commissioner: but to be clear at the hearing, it was made known that this abatement was going to be recorded against the property which is the current of mr. chang's issue that he's bringing forth

to us it was made clear at this director's hearing? >> correct. >> commissioner: who is maivis, mr. chang? >> yes. he's another partner -- another project sponsor or partner for the property. commissioner, i would like to bring your attention to this project which is the subject order abatement. the order of abatement that i just told you earlier, the prior one is identical.

to understand that, only one of these were recorded against the property. so we have two order of abatements that are identical and made known if these aren't addressed, you can see our e-mail communication working staff to try to address all aspects of the abatement much less assessment of the liens and the subsequent property to be liened against the property. if it's true that every order of abatement will eventually be recorded then why was the first one recorded and not the second one? it is a flawed process the

original one was recorded in 2015. the process in which it's made and how monitoring fees and other fees are liened against the property is at best uneven handly handed by the department. and if we get to the substance of this appeal, hence we just

went ahead and reported it. if project sponsor has been on top of this since 2014, how could that happen? is that a case where the department just go ahead and record this at this time when it was recorded when there's actually two identical orders in this process. >>. >> president: , can we ask inspector hernandez to clarify that for us? >> so in response to the department, you know, if he gives me a case number, then i

can actually explain. i do know and the department has that discretion if the owner's in good faith working with the department and they return cases back. so that's why that order of abatement was never recorded. you know, bottom line, the customer's given an opportunity toward the department following through correcting the violation. when that happens, yes, sure, in this case, the case came back after there was no resolution of the violation and that's when we restarted the

whole process again. given to the point that he was also given a continuance. and then in 2/2019, february 19th, 2019, he appeared in another hearing, like i said, a third hearing where we have to document a new order. that's basically what it is. it's just a new order number and then it was recorded. >> commissioner: so you recorded a second number what is the requirement? >> because the original order was requested and so therefore, we cannot proceed with the original one, we have to start process setting up documentation again and submit it. like i said, we provided three

hearings for this customer. the third hearing, there was a representative. we submitted documentation post of the building, so there was never any second order of abatement. there was only one notice so it only changeses the number. that's basically it. >> can i just repeat what you said? so the three hearings, were only about the abatement that we're seeing in front of us. there was the other order that or the other notice of violation has been discussed that you referenced from inspection services that never made it to the hearing level. >> so there's only one notice of violation for this case in 2015 and there's going to be an order of abatement number connected. since he was working with

inspection services, therefore we refer the case back. after they couldn't resolve the issue. service inspection has a right to return it so we can restart the process. that's all it was. >> commissioner: i see. >> can i ask one more question? so at this third hearing which todd maivis attended which is a partner of this property that order, that second order. >> so what happens on a hearing is that you hear the case, the notice of violation, the description, the summary, the corrective action and then you give the opportunity to the customer to answer why is it that this hasn't been resolved.

then, after that it becomes an order number and then it gets posted. we get 15 days before it gets recorded and then it's sent to the recorder's office. so that's basically the process. >> president: okay. does anybody have a motion on the question of jurisdiction? seeing none. >> commissioner: is it a question the jurisdiction? >> president: the question of

jurisdiction is after receiving the order of abatement there's an appeal. and according to our own rules, we don't have jurisdiction, we would have to waive that 15-day exception and hear the merits of the case. so we're making a determination as to whether or not to waive the 15-day jurisdiction to waive the 15-day limit that they have to appeal within. is that correct, mr. city attorney? or would you like to say it better than me? >> no. i think my suggestion to the board would be just as you did, whether you're going to grant or find there is no and there needs to be a vote to grant jurisdiction or not and, again,

the commission can grant jurisdiction beyond the 15-day appeal period only upon showing that delaying the final appeal was due to miss representation. so that should be part of your analysis. >> commissioner: madam chair, based on that it sounds to me if the 15 days we're talking about which there was a representative for the appellant, i don't see how missing that window would be however he just raised the fault of the department.

>> president: yes. that's all what i heard. there was a representative at the third hearing and even the noigss for these hearings are going to the same address. i don't see an error on the department's side at all either. >> may i add to that? i don't see an error on dbi's part, but i do understand the complications and having had something return back by mail when most people don't receive by mail. i mean, this has turned into a complicated discussion and finally getting to the crux of it which is a 15-day notice. the fact that he sent proof

that he didn't approve it, i don't think this is black and white. i think that inspector hernandez has done everything and he had the opportunity, but i also understand that things happen. and if somebody didn't really have a chance and it had a return notice, i'm trying to provide a balanced perspective on this. >> if i may to the chair, i'd be happy to hear the appellant. we go round and round in circles and make mr. chang repeat himself. you're talking about the notification but we're talking

about the 15-day period after that hearing at which a person from the appellant group was present. so what is the reason -- maybe that's my question. what is the reason the appeal wasn't submitted within the 15 days? because it wasn't known you had to appeal in that period? or i should say what was the error done on behalf of the department that would allow us to take jurisdiction for that reason? >> may i speak? >> president: yes. please. there are two orders of abatements. the department decided not to record and the passing gate, the gating mechanism is because

they sent a notice and the appeal was not made in 15 days. and the appeal was the project sponsor knew exactly the order of abatement was recorded. if this first one does not get recorded why would the project sponsor make a second one be recorded. it's not that clear. i would encourage commissioners to find out and tell them what are the consequences if certain procedures are not followed. more importantly, i don't know why this entire process was project sponsor's on how to work through the issue of the abatement and to avoid the fines associated with it. it is unfair when we when the

department issues and the department doesn't explain why it issues two identical order of abatements. if you put the two orders side by side, the only issue is the date. at all times, what project sponsor has to deal with is to address and work with the department and e-mail communications that we've been active throughout this entire period to work and address the order of abatement. even after appearing before the b.i.c. the department goes and records the order of abatement and the liens that go with it against the property we are trying to avoid this from happening. please work with us and their only defense is we followed our

procedure. and the procedure for the process is you have 15 days to appeal. that's the part that was missing. and that's why on behalf of project sponsor request to take jurisdiction can be heard. without that, you're not going to hear the substantive matters. which are in the same boat that do not get their and do not get fines assessed against them. the department wants to say this department was saying that those violations had occurred. you can point out other projects for which the department decides not to record much less not to record the lien. that's the crux of it here.

>> president: the city attorney has a question. >> question, please: the city attorney. if we grant jurisdiction over there, i'm just unclear on what the action item is is that if we grant the request for jurisdiction, but not to reverse the order of abatement, does it give this appellant the chance to appeal it and to resolve it. >> i'm not sure i understand the question. so the threshold would be to other grant and deny jurisdiction. if you do grant jurisdiction,

you'd get to the merits decision on the case in which case you could either uphold one or reverse the order maybe. >> commissioner: i guess that's fine does that disallow the order to not be recorded against the property? because the recording of the property outside of that 15 days can be the crux of it for the appellant. is that correct? >> is that for the attorney or the project sponsor?

>> secretary: he's speaking to the city attorney at this time. >> can you repeat the question again. i'm not sure i understand. >> commissioner: well, this is such a complicated list of events and i'm just reading the action requested by the appellant. is for the board to take jurisdiction over the matter filed after the expiration of the 15-day appeal period. if the board grants a request for jurisdiction, appellant requests to reverse the order of abatement. i'm not supportive of the order of abatement. i am supporting that we grant a reprieve from the 15 days and if we do grant that reprieve from are the 15 days, does it allow the appellant to address this and not have that recorded against the property as i understand the discussion for the last hour about this case.

>> so i would say that just to be cautious about not completing the if the board decides to grant jurisdiction which gives a reprieve from that 15-day period, then you would get into a discussion about what to do. that goes to your second issue. >> commissioner: okay. we have to keep them straight. okay. >> exactly. >> commissioner: all right. i just wanted to express tonight to fellow commissioners that i'm supportive of granting the reprieve. i think things happen. what i've heard from the appellant is at least an earnest effort to try to resolve it. there's no excuse that he shouldn't have known because he had a representative there, but things happen and having something returned in the mail, that can be very frustrating.

we've all dealt with that on one level or another. so to the city attorney -- under the city attorney's advisement, i would be supportive of granting the jurisdiction and dealing with the order of abatement as a second issue. >> through the chair. i too would like to echo what commissioner bito just mentioned. you know, we do see consistency as far as the appellant trying to keep a dialog and moving things along here and having on top of that the returned mail doesn't sit well with myself as well. thank you. >> commissioner: but that motion is to suggest that dbi did anything wrong. i think they did everything. they went through the due process, but sometimes due process does have its kinks in

it. this is not to imply that in this -- in granting this reprieve that inspector hernandez or dbi was at fault in that process. i think things just happened. >> president: so there's not a motion on the floor, but if someone wants to make a motion. if we want to change the notification policy, i think that's fair for us. i have concerns about granting appeal broadly to think i just didn't get this piece of mail especially when we're not able to pull it up on u.s. postal service. i appreciate everybody's acting in good faith here, but i think what we're seeing is that maybe there needs to be a policy

updated around application and i'm open to that as a policy discussion and if it's appropriate, if we can schedule that conversation at a different future meeting. so i think that that, you know, a change in policy may be warranted. just from where i'm coming from. it's great we have a committee that can respectfully agree because i do see some of the concerns, i worry about consistency within the department and so i think that there's, you know, there's weight on both sides of this. so is there a -- does someone want to make a motion to grant jurisdiction. >> commissioner: i'd like to make a motion to grant

jurisdiction. >> may i ask a question i'm sort of with you, i see both sides of the argument. i see this is a little bit of a gray area with returned mail. the department did not follow their own procedures and i think i'm just coming back to i guess it's the letter of the law versus the intent of the law. and i'm curious from what he feels or if he can advise us regarding our leeway in this issue. i mean, the statement you read was relatively clear. it said we can grant

jurisdiction -- i don't know the exact wording if there is an error on the part of the department. a strict reading of that to me is there was not an error on the department. did it all function the way it was supposed to, potentially not. so i'm wondering where we have the ability or leeway. it sounds like other commissioners are willing to make that. i'm with you commissioner alexander-tut as well. are we following the intent of the rule and sort of our interpretation of that intent which, you know, that's a hard question. >> commissioner: but i think the issue that president tut raised is a policy that's not part of this agenda and she's raising that just in the future for consistency, but to try to deal with it globally.

i'm supportive of that. i think what we're just trying to do is get to the issue at hand which is making a decision as a commission on this particular case. did i restate that, president tut, correctly. >> president: yes. thank you. i do think it's helpful to also understand from the city attorney's perspective is do we have the leeway when we don't see an error in the department to make that jurisdiction question. so i would like to hear his response to that because i think this is a very good conversation. >> so under the code section, again, the misrepresentation or mistake or other error on the part of the. again, you would not subscribe

error. so you do have some discretion there. >> secretary: is there a second on the floor? if there's no second, the motion would fail and we would have to visit the next motion. there does not appear to be a second. so is there another motion? >> president: is there another motion? to presumably not uphold jurisdiction? i can make the motion not to

uphold jurisdiction on this item. >> secretary: okay. is there a second? commissioner sommer. >> it seems like we've got some people on the fence here. >> president: yeah. we do have to make a decision is that correct? >> yes. that decision has to be made. >> if you do not answer jurisdiction, then there's no jurisdiction. so you would not proceed with the appeal. if there's not an affirmative vote to grant the jurisdiction. >> president: i see. i can withdraw my motion because we don't need this motion because there was not a second to the affirmative to grant. i can withdraw that motion then and we can end the meeting. action on this item. >> secretary: can that happen

deputy city attorney? >> it can. the more cautious route to be to affirmatively find that motion that there is no jurisdiction if you wanted to clean up the record that way. again, i just want to reinforce you need four votes either way and there's only four commissioners participating. so it would have to be a unanimous vote. if you don't get there's no action and no jurisdiction. >> secretary: okay. can we -- >> president: we need a majority of the commission not a majority of those present in order to pass this motion? >> correct. you would need four votes. >> secretary: so even if we say -- i'm sorry. through the chair. >> president: yes, please. >> secretary: if i put forth a motion again to grant jurisdiction and then somebody

seconds it and not everybody votes on it, it will not pass and that will be the end of it. okay. i will do that. i will put forth the motion to grant the jurisdiction. >> secretary: is there a second? that's the same motion that [inaudible] >> right. >> secretary: okay. so is there a second for that? >> i mean, if the votes, we don't have four, it's not going -- it's not going to carry. >> secretary: it's not. i was just finishing the process. >> commissioner: yes. >> secretary: so there's a motion by commissioner sommer to grant jurisdiction and then a second by vice president tam. going to do a roll call vote on

this motion. [roll call] so the vote is 3-1, but in accordance with the city attorney stated, the motion fails. right? is that correct? doesn't carry. the motion does not carry since there's not a majority vote. >> correct. >> secretary: okay. so that is the -- is there public comment on the motion? are there any hands raised. >> there has been a hand raised. ms. wayent.

>> secretary: okay. if you can unmute her. >> you have been unmuted. >> good morning, commissioners. my name is gina wayant. i'm not sure if you're aware of this, but i represent the clients that are under contract to purchase 214 states street. my clients are aware that this property carries a heavy burden of unpermitted and out of scope construction. we are aware of the orders to abate and the n.o.v.s. and i want it to be made known here that the follow through on this is ultimately going to be with the new owners as we all understand these notices of

violations and these orders to abate follow the property, not the owner. so i would appreciate if some consideration were given to the new owners, friends. they plan on purchasing this property as partners and friends. they want to finish the construction on the single-family home for one of the partners and they plan on adding an a.d.u. in the back for the second partner. they want this to be their home. they have already reached out to the neighbors. i have made contact with jeff horn in the planning department on how to move forward with closing out honestly this mess

and. >> secretary: i'm sorry to interrupt you, if you can conclude your comments because your two minutes is going to be up. >> so just to -- we don't want to see -- have to deal with punitive orders on this property. we just want you to understand it is going to be under new ownership and please give that consideration when you're making your decision. thank you. >> secretary: thank you. is there any additional public comment? >> no other hands are raised. >> secretary: thank you. seeing none. if our votes are our votes, are we done with the item? deputy city attorney? there was not a majority, so that. >> right. so the result is the board did not grant jurisdiction over

this matter. >> secretary: okay. thank you. okay. then we are on to our next item which will be item f general public comment. is there any general public comment items that are not on the abatement appeals board agenda. >> there are no hands raised. >> secretary: okay. seeing none. our next item is g, adjournment. is there a motion to adjourn. >> commissioner: motion to adjourn. >> secretary: is there a second? >> commissioner: so moved or second. >> secretary: thank you. and we are now adjourned the abatement appeals board meeting is ending at 10:46 a.m. we'll take approximately a five to ten minute recess and reconvene as the building inspection commission. thank you. [please stand by]

watching. >> ever wonder about programs the city is working on to make san francisco the best place to live and work we bring shine won

our city department and the people making them happy what happened next sf oh, san francisco known for it's looks at and history and beauty this place arts has it all but it's city government is pretty unique in fact, san francisco city departments are filled with truly initiative programming that turns this way our goal is to create programs that are easily digestable and easy to follow so that our resident can participate in healing the planet with the new take dial initiative they're getting close to zero waste we 2020 and today

san francisco is diverting land filled and while those numbers are imperfect not enough. >> we're sending over 4 hundred thousand tons of waste to the landfill and over the 4 hundred tons 10 thousands are textile and unwanted listen ones doesn't have to be find in the trash. >> i could has are the ones creating the partnerships with the rail kwloth stores putting an in store collection box near the checks stand so customers can bring their used clothes to the store and deposit off. >> textile will be accessible in buildings thought the city

and we have goodwill a grant for them to design a textile box especially for families. >> goodwill the well-known store has been making great strides. >> we grateful to give the items to goodwill it comes from us selling those items in our stores with you that process helps to divert things it from local landfills if the san francisco area. >> and the textile box will take it one step further helping 1230 get to zero waste. >> it brings the donation opportunity to the donor making that as convenient as possible it is one of the solutions to make sure we're capturing all the value in the textiles.

>> with the help of good will and other businesses san francisco will eliminate 39 millions tons of landfill next year and 70 is confident our acts can and will make a great difference. >> we believe that government matters and cities matter what we side in san francisco, california serve as a model phenomenal in our the rest of the country by the world. >> whether you do not to goodwill those unwanted text told us or are sufficient value and the greater community will benefit. >> thanks to sf environment san francisco has over one hundred drop off locations visit recycle damn and thanks for watching

join us >> well to welcome to the november regularmeeting of the land use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisors . i am supervisor melgar joined by care supervisor dean peskin and we are waiting for supervisor erin peskin will join us shortly. committee clerk is erica major and i like to acknowledge that this is on sfgov tv forbringing it to your home and i'm sorry, do you have any announcements ? >> minutes will reflect the

committee members participated in this meeting through videoconference as though they are physically present.the board recognizes public access is essential and invites publi participation in the following ways . public comments will be available on each item either channel 2678 or 99and sfgov.org . the speaker will be allowed to minutes to speak. comments are opportunities to speak during the public comment period are available via phone by calling the number on the screen . that number is 1-415-655-0001. meeting id is 2483 727 9121. again, the meeting id is 2483 727 9121. then press poundtwice. after entering the meeting id . when connected you will hear the meeting discussion but you will be muted and in listening mode only.

when your item has come up press 2483 727 9121 to be added to the speaker line. best practices are to call from a quiet location he clearlyand slowly and turn down your television or radio . you may submit public comments by emailing myself the transportation clerk at erica major at sfgov.org. if you see it will be made part of the official file. written comments may be sent via u.s. postal service to city hall. one place room 244 in san franciscocalifornia 94102 . finally items of acted upon today are expected to appear on the board of supervisors agenda of november9 unless otherwise stated madam chair . >> president: can you please call item 1. >> item 1 is a resolution

adding the commemorative statement polytechnic way to 700 block of fredericksburg in recognition of san francisco's public high school and it's contribution to the education of thousands of and franciscans from 1894 to 1972. members of the public who wish to provide public comments on item number one can call the number on the screen. that number is 1-415-655-0001. meeting id will be 2483 727 9121. after entering the meeting id press pound twice and if you have not done so already please press star agreed to line up to speak. the system will prompt you have raised your hand. >> ecumenical. thankyou supervisor for introducing this item. please make your remarks . >> thank you chair.i want to offer some context and history

on the commemorative name designation of the700 block of street . to be named after polytechnic high school which as the clerk mentioned and introduced the item was the first public high school in san francisco. it was opened in 1884 and originally called for a commercial school in downtown san francisco. the school served thousands of san francisco students until its closure in 1972. shortly after its opening what was then the commercial school added academic classes in 1890, art and shop classes in 1894. and then changed its name to polytechnic high school in 190 . after the 1900 earthquake polly moved to its original location which was at bush and stopped into his home on frederick street. where students and faculty held classes in what were then known as the earthquake cottages

during the construction of the new school. the building was finished in 1915. and it was described in the 1915 polly journal which was the school here but as quote, the finest most modern school rest west of the rocky mountains. by the 1920s with approximately 2000 students polytechnic became the largest school in san francisco. in 1925 led by body president james law the third whose father was mayor of san francisco polly led efforts to build a sports stadium across the street from the school now known as key star stadium. it was the foundation of the school's athletic prowess especially in football between 1925 and 1968. the colleague parents one 39 city championships inhigh

school sports including 13 football titles. between 1942 and 1961 , under the late head coach asked the parents 145 straight games. three san francisco 49ers came from polly, alan beale, bob sinclair and gary lewis . in the 1950s polly was considered a blue-collar schoo . place where you could learn to earn a good living. in union heavy san francisco. at the most respected trade school in the city polly applied san francisco's numerous industries and trades withtrained workers , the schools shop buildings consisted of an auto shop, woodshop, machine shop foundry and large red shop. in the late 1950s the redeveloped agency began to demolishing thousands of housing units in the western tradition and many uprooted black families moved to the hate after he. by 1963 polly student body was

25percent black . increasingly and apparently in reaction to the growing black population at the school white and roman of school began to decrease as some white families left the neighborhood orsend their kids to other schools . by the late 1960s san francisco polytechnic was more than 50 percent african-american and filipino enrollmentsdeclined differently. ask the student body grew more diverse , the city investments in the school decreased. a reflection of systemic racia bias and education funding . a structural investigation revealed all of the campus buildings accept the girls jim failed to meet field requirements for safety and polly would be declared unsafe and close in 1972 and the students were transferred to the new mac tier high school.

from 1973 to 1977 the school was the temporary home of mission high school while mission was undergoing renovation. in 1989 all except for the two gyms weredemolished . and after a long battle by affordable housing advocates, replaced byparkview commons , and affordable housing development for low to moderate first-time homebuyers . as of january 2018 former boys jim house is now the san francisco circuit center and former girls jim houses acro sports which both provide community focused gymnastics, circus arts and related programming to this day. i want to thank actually one of your constituents i believe chair melgar. polytechnic alumnus walter kaplan and other alumni for bringing this idea forward to

us and getting with our office. in recognition of the contribution of polytechnic high school and the students who attended san francisco's first public high school i encourage your resolution to add honorary street name to the city's official street names. >> thank you so much supervisor preston. thanksfor bringing this to the committee. let's go to public comment on this please . >> thank you madam chair. chair atkins, one of our staff members is checking to see if you have any colors in the queue. if you have not done so already press star three to be added to the queue. for those already on hold continue to waituntil the system indicates you have been a muted . it looks like we havefive

listeners with 2 in q . if you could unmute the first caller please . >> welcome caller. >> hello. >> you have two minutes to speak. >> my name is estella and i live at 635 frederickstreet . this has been myfamily home since the 40s . i agree that polytechnic high school did continue to be education of manysan franciscans . among them two of my aunts. today go parkview commons condominium complex sits where polytechnic once stood at 701 frederick street. at the east end of frederick street near the circuit center

located at 755 frederick is a plaque commemorating the existence of polytechnic high school . personally i do not think it's necessary nor practical to have the name of polytechnic way to the 700 block portion of frederick street. i think this will cause confusion and i feel that the expense incurred in making this addition or change can be used to finance more direneeds in our city .to clarify, to my knowledge there is no 700 block of red river street but last block of frederick street between willard and arbel street includes 600, the 600 to 700 numericaladjustments . so i don't know if this

resolution intends for proposals to add polytechnic way to the entire block or just the 700 numerical portion of the block. because if this resolution intends to add polytechnic way to the entire 600 to 700 block. the notice for this resolution hasn't been an incentive. >> colors, we are at two minutes that two minute mark we have to move on to the next caller let's take the next caller please . >> can you hear me now? >> we can hear you, go ahead. >> caller: david socal. i think wherever we can appropriately commemorate some

history of the cityit is useful . i think this commemorative street name doesn't take anything away from the 700 block of rhetoric which i believe is the last block of frederick when it breaks off from lincolnbetween lincoln and arguello . i think that would be entirely appropriate and fine and i was going to suggest a commemorative plaque one already exists parkview commons. i think that's fine and again the more attention we can talk to the city's history good, bad and otherwise explain, contextualize etc. i am in support and thanks to supervisor preston and supervisor melgar and i'll here for your work on this. >> next speaker please.

>> caller: linda chapman. i'm here for a different item but i was so impressed by the supervisorpresentation and it is important to commemorate this school . it would have been my district school i guess. i grew up in the inner sunset near the park and outside the boundary forlincoln and i coul have gone to polytechnic . i chose to go to washington instead which i hope will be your next landmark . but youknow, all the members of my family went to lowell other than me . but polly was an important institution and especially the industrial part of it. and things i'm proud of is we have that also. we were comprehensive school. not like lowell those silly industrial sciences were important and they are important.there are so few

qualified blue-collar workers compared to theopportunities and the wages that they can make. that is the kind of thingthat polly did inits time. then there was a huge controversy about what was going to replace housing and so forth . by thattime i was living ,i'm uphill i guess i used to take the streetcars to my old stopping grounds . and a wonderful resolution that they made their , i just arrived by andlook at it and thank god i would be happy to live there . now you have a similar controversy in my old stomping area on the 26th . and what, irving i guess? that can be similarly resolved to, with somethingthat's good for the neighborhood and still provides housing and that concludes my remarks . >> that concludes commentary today. >> thank you madam clerk. i would like to make a motion that we send this item out of committeewith a positive recommendation . >> thank you.

>> on that motion supervisor peskin . [roll call vote] >> that is a total of 3 aye's and we did close public commen . >> public comment is now close . thank you for joining us supervisor peskin .madam clerk, when you call the next item? >> item 2 is a discussion of the states inventory of unlimited equity cooperatively owned housing to assess capacity to support the financial housingsustainability and cooperatively owned own housing. members who wish to provide

public comment item tocall the number on the screen . that number is 1-415-655-0001. the meeting id is 2483 727 9121 . and press pound twice. if you have not done so already press star 3 if you'd like to item 2. the system prompt will indicate youhave raised your hand . madam chair. >> president: thank you colleagues. i call for this hearing on the general co-op specifically have long been an area of interest for me and i've always wondered how come in san francisco we don't have this as an option away that new york or washington dc, chicago and other big cities do. and we have built this hearing to start a conversation of how we should be supporting our existing co-ops and what we need to do to possibly create new co-ops someday.the three

goals that i have for this hearingtoday , the first is to assess a baseline for our existing co-ops in san francisco. number two is to recognize that for people to thrive and succeed in co-op housing we need to address and acknowledge the structural racism and sometimes paternalistic ways that we have looked at failures in co-op housing in san francisco and about how we go about supporting the organizing and professional development of boards and co-ops. what are the ways that we can build capacity to supportthe people and the co-ops and what are the current challenges? and number three to identify a framework . through which we can refinance existing co-ops if they need so that they can stay as low income co-ops serving the folks

that we need. and also to identify path for financing new co-ops. so with that we have a list of speakers who can add what they know about this topic. i will do an overview of what we're talking about to begin with. along with media lidia eli from the housing and rickshaw the director of mobile hcg. will you from his normalbrown who is a constituents of supervisor preston . and also serves on the california association of housingcooperatives lives at laura miller home . we will next year from reverend arnold townsend to as many of you know was a mutual participant in thedevelopment of many of the co-ops that we have in san francisco today . and then we will hear the visionchallenges and what our nonprofit developers need . from stephanie bailey, the san

francisco community land trust . who is the director of community realestate . and last but not least we will hear from andrew riker who is the executive director of the urban home assistance board in new york. who has done so much to advance the building and sustaining a preservation in co-op housing in new york. we will be closed up than by the council ofcommunity housing organizations . that lets start. madam clerk if you couldbreak up our presentation i'd appreciate . >> president: just one moment. >> colleagues, folks ask

sometimes what is that co-op housing. can you all see the presentation. there we go. so folks ask what we're talking about when we talk about co-op housing. we want to establish a baseline on what it is, where it is and how the city can support people in housing as well as assisting thepreservation and construction of new housing . this is a picture of st. francis square in chair preston's district which was still filled with financing from hud and the workers union. it is now a market based co-op having canoe continued off its mortgage entirely but houses the leadership of the labor movement in san francisco.

it's been a successful co-op. next slide please. so cooperatives are people centered enterprises owned, full and run by their members. and to reelect a common goal in the economic, social portal. cooperatives bring people together in democratic ways members and the customers and employees, users and it's cooperatives are democratically managed one member,one ruled out . they have equal rights regardless of the amount of capital they put into the inner right. they are driven by values not just profit and cooperatives share internationally agreed uponprinciples to act together to build abetter world through cooperation . those principlesare voluntary and open membership , democratic control, economic participation , independence , education training and information of their members.

cooperation with other cooperatives and concerns for the community. they generally provide long-term stability, jobs prosperity. next slide. so this is an example of a successful economic work on cooperative insan francisco. regal groceries in the mission . supervisor hillary ronin's district. next slide please. today we talkabout how we co-op in san francisco . do we have thousands of unitsin san francisco ? the last is the entrance to cathedral co-op in supervisor peskin's district at 1201 california. it's a market rate co-op that's been around for a long time and provides historic apartments and to the right is the glenridge co-op in supervisor

mandelman's district right across from glen park. it is in low and moderate income co-op that was filled with self financing as a rental co-op and was able to convert to owner occupied housing co-ops a few years after it was built. next slide please. i want to talk about a little bit of what the difference is between a apartment and a co-op. it can be a house within a development. with a co-op owner it has a share of the corporationthat owns that building. and that share comes with the right to occupy the unit in the building . we can see how that has advantages and disadvantages but the big advantage is that people can pool their resources together and they're also responsible for it in full, not just their part. they may not have social

security numbers because of their status in the country, it provides the advantage that they don't get a mortgage individually but they go in with other folks and it is a corporation that gets the mortgage to require the building. next slide please. this is one of the most successful recent co-ops that has been built in san francisco. it was a limited equity affordable housing co-op that received that funding from the mayor's office of housing and raise quite a bit of their own as well .it the tenants in this building in chinatown are haskins district pulled their resources together and working with cdc and agent caucus were able to purchase it their own building to stabilize their building and it's a very lively

healthy community that houses several families upstairs and the ground floor. next slide please. at this point i'm going to turn it over to miss lidia ely who is here to talk to us about the housing co-op from the mayor's office of housing .>> thank you supervisor. thank you chair melgar, vice chair peskin. can youall hear me okay. we're back in the office for the first time today . have our new equipment. so yes, i'm going to talk a little bit about our role in an understanding of the limited equity co-op environment here in sanfrancisco. if we can have the next slide . so i first kind of want to talk about the different divisions and how we kind of structure to

address the needs of the co-op. we have housing divisions of which i am the deputy. we have 25,000 rental units that kind of our plain-vanilla, mostly plain-vanilla rental units and we work on policies and programs tocreate stable safe and affordable housing . for community developments team works with community-based partners andorganizations . and we have a home ownership and bmr division that works specifically again on homeownership opportunities in the more classic sense and of course we have a finance and administration team and the reason i bring this up is because co-ops kind of fall across multiple divisions of most cd in the way we are set up now. the housing division has 25,000 units that are i guess classic

rental. and as we move through the presentation you'll see that the co-op units that we are talking about are not really following any of these buckets. in particular so here is a list that we have here and these are the low income co-ops. we wouldn't include light cathedral hill project for exampleon this list . these are mostly 1960s vintage larger multiunit projects. you'll see from the color coding that most cd only is involved in a couple of them as a lender and as such we don't have kind of typical loan agreements or regulatory payments that we often use to as a mechanism for working with owners and workingon compliance etc. .

the most recent project is from 2007. it's as supervisor melgar mentioned its 53 columbus. that did have a mohcd loan related to technical assistance for that co-op to get set up. but by and large these are projectsthat were funded with on loans. most of the 236 and 221 program , these programs are sunsetting, many of these programs have been sunset it and you'll see from the maturity dates it's kind of all over the map. here are the projects that have paid off on loans and columbus didn't have one in the first place. and so they kind of, the ongoing monitoring and performance requirements are

often lying with hud and not with the city. so often these co-ops are negotiating and communicating directly with hud in such a way that mohcd is not often aware and that can take us to the next slide please. so recognizing these housing units are a critical resource and that they are home for many many of our low incomeresidents , we do provide technical assistance and it's usually on kind of an as-needed basis. we do not currently have a kind of proactive program we are where we are going out and talking with lots and getting kind of ahead of what they the needs are. we hear usually when there's an issue of concern, we are either asked to intervene or we are asked to assist. recently for example on the freedom west project there's been an operating shortfall in our budget so we've given a

small multi-year grant to support that co-op as they explore options for a kind of a more ambitiousrecapitalization . most specifically the last couple of years we've funded enterprise northern california to go out and work with co-ops as needed to provide technical assistance on budgeting . rehabilitation needs, accessibility systems. board development, work training and then a lot of governments support. around elections specifically. and as i stated before, folks sometimes reach out to us to adjudicate conflicts perhaps with in an organization hour between the board and residents and we don't have the right to do that. although we may provide

resources to sort out those issues we don't have standing to get involved or to intervene. and we've actually been advised by city attorneys in those cases where we don't have that role that we should not opine on some of these issues and we really rely on a third-party expert . to act in that role. we also work with hud to problem solve when it becomes aware that the project need be at risk of compliance with hud and its requirements. if we could have the next slide please. so as i mentioned, we engaged in enterprise a couple of years ago and obviously with the pandemic there's are real limits to how much enterprise has been able to meet with residents either in obviously in person but even virtually. not a lot of logistic challenges around back.

but most notably the last year or so, enterprise has worked with the residents and board at mlk garvey co-op apartments and have been working over the last i would say six months pretty consistently with the board there. one of the enterprises subconsultants the california center for community co-op cooperative development gave kind of an in-house training to city staff who are interested in learning more about how co-ops work, how they are financed and what the city's role could be in supporting those existing co-ops . that was earlier this year. could we have the next slide please? so in its work with the folks at mlk garvey i think there

were some findings that enterprise shared with us recently and i think obviously every co-op is different and the dynamics are different but because of the way co-ops were established and kind of assumed they would be ongoing national development of the residence and the board which is not always come to pass that there are kind of some general and common needs across co-ops that we should be addressing. specifically when we bring in third parties like enterprise are the co-op residents and board going to trust those kind of outsiders. how can we support positive power dynamics between the residence and the board who are also residents.and then how can we give support around record-keeping,decision-making , and the documentation that

the board needs to function. effectively and move forward to its duties. could we have the next slide? so one thing we talked about with enterprise and we're hopefully going to move forward with later this year is a large-scale study of the co-op environment. as you can tell from my presentation we like a lot of detail about what goes on in these communities and we're not embedded much in the day-to-day operations. the finances and all that. so we like to pursue a more in-depth study and kind of take the temperature of all co-ops and see who is living there. how are their finances, where do they feel they need help? how can we create networks among them so that they have mutual support system? then what are the government

structures and where can we work with those to us. in the co-ops. for the long term. could we have the next slide please? also, this gets to supervisor melgar's original question and what is it about san francisco that makes us not have that many co-ops and why have we only really built one new one in the last i don't know, maybe 20 probably 30 years, 40 years at this point. what is our ecosystem and how does it work and does it not work for the co-op community. and what organizations and resources do we have here in san francisco that could contribute to strengthening existing co-ops and maybe creating new ones. so if we could have the next slide. part of that question is what

is happening in other cities and how are other cities addressing these issues. one thing i didn't mention earlier is mohcd's role in affordable housing development really relies a lot on the leveraging of resources of funding so for example the tax credit program. and 40 percent of the funds of any projects that mohcd supports parental project comes from outside forces at a minimum so how can we get that same kind of bang for our buck in san francisco and leverage city funds if that's what we're going to do and really stretch that money as far as we can to createthese units ? these other models also in other cities and communities have used in tandem with co-ops around land trust so some co-ops are also built on land

trust models. there's also mutual housing which i know little about but i know that's another model that's been successful in other communities. we'd want to look to through this lens as well. and then next slide please. here's what i was talking abou . how we are always leveraging the funds that we do have that the voters have entrusted us with or have been legislated through our budget process. we're trying to stretch these dollars as far as we can and as far as we know now the funding landscape for new co-ops is really difficult and there's does not lend itself to leveraging. so we really need to be creative and dig deep to find a model that works financially. and also at this point the

presentation has hit five minutes i have one more sentence which is we don't have anin-house expertise at the moment . we had one staff person who was our go to person to work with co-op communities and she retired so we were going to rely on federal parties at this point in cooperation with staff to increase our knowledge base. and i think that's the last slide. >> if you could just hang out because i think there's going to be questions for you arthur. the presentations are over and to your last point, i want to introduce miss normal brown and welcome to our community. this brown is of course a resident of lauren miller home.

but she also is on the board of the california association of housing cooperatives. and i've been talking to miss brown about our issues and co-ops in san francisco in which she said supervisor we better hurry up because we are losing all the expertise that we have around co-ops by using new construction both are older, they are in the 60s and 70s and if we don't build up the new generation of folks that can do that we're going to lose the possibility sowelcome miss brown, are you with us ? >> i see her on a list. sheproceeded to turn her camera and mike on . >> i know ms. brown is dealing with family healthissues . miss brown, are you ableto join

us ? okay madam clerk, why don't we go to the next speaker if that's okay. that would be you reverend arnold townsend. icu drinking a cup of water and perhaps she can join usafter you're done with your presentation . >> thank you supervisor melgar, supervisor preston and peskin. thanks for inviting me and i hope you can give miss brown back because she is extremely knowledgeable . on the issue of co-ops and i've relied on her many times over the past year , andmyself for information and assistance . i'llbe very brief . it's only a couple of issues that i really wanted to present

to you today. and one of them is what miss brown told you of the importance of doing this and doing it quickly because of the age of people who are in the presence co-ops or the people who are knowledgeable about this but now what's important about that and my main issue today is miss brown and all the other peoplewho are in co-ops . they live there now and as they transition, their descendents, their children or grandchildren will be able to stay in the housing and in san francisco. i can't tell you how many friends i have that lived in st. francis where a group of black and primarily white labor. trade unionists, many many years ago in the early to mid

60s. they're in the fillmore district right next to those rosa parks school. i have friends there that are now third-generation. i knew them their parents, grandparents. iknow their parents and now i know them. they lived there. they're still in san francisco . but what happened to us during the urban renewal when theytook away much of the african-american homeownership . and they took our wealth and gave usmoney for it which is not the same thing . and then did not rebuild back the home ownership opportunity andpeople were stuck in rentals . what we're finding at the complex like the one i live in frederick douglass homes built bythird baptist church. friendship village , laurel

gardens. and so many others the problem with these places is people are aging and they move out or they pass on. and they may live with adult children. they may live with adult childrenthat's been taking care of them , helping to pay the rent but once they're gone as the leaseholdertheir children cannot inherit the property . or if they have built homeownership opportunities when they took them away 30 and 40 years ago that property would have and inheritable. so what happens is believed me when people move out of my complex, when they move out of other complexes like that. the people who replaced them, they don't look like them. they don't look like me.i thought about one time having my daughter moved in with me. now that i've gotten older, but

she couldn't.they said she could and they could put her on alease. but if i guide or i left the property she would have to leave . so what happens is it makes a lot because the excuse i don't mean excuse were always given that san francisco is just too expensive for four people. that is not true. poor people moved here to san francisco every day and they stay here because they live in the houses that we used to live in.if we had co-ops and we had placed in the co-op that many of us tried to do 40 years ago, and we only got king darby and lauren miller freedom west out of the process. if we could help done that. we would have been able to maintain all those residents in

san francisco which looked like a diverse and eclectic places that i came to 54 years ago . and that place no longer exist . but i want to caution you that if you're going to build co-op , make sure you supply the supportive services that they need. and especially when it comes to board training and ongoing board training because many of the original board members when they opened were trained. there no longer here. the people who replaced them don't know a lot about co-ops even though they live in one. and they treat them as though their rental properties. so that has to be built in to the structure because they kno , they have to know how to manage their management. the cause without that, then they really live at the mercy of management and management is

not always quitewhat it should be .i think those are for me the most serious issues when it comes to co-op and being able to maintain the same population in san francisco it's always been and if we want to keep it diverse, he got to do something aboutrental housing . and of course the other issue with co-ops is once you built a co-op, people are not always at risk of huge rent increases for one reason or another. and it's especially if you're not being built as an urban renewal property under hood funding.so you have to find ways to protect what we call rents and they call carrying charges and one of the bestways you can do that . >>.

>> one of theways you can defeat the rent doubters is with co-ops . >> i wanted you to know that's five minutes timer hasexpired. >> thank you reverend townsend and what we do have miss brown back on now with us . thank you so much reverend thompsonfor your participation. ms. brown, welcome to the lease and transportation committee . >> can you hear me. >> kenny perry. >> thank you. >> i don't know where the picture is. it's somewhere in the cloud. but anyway i want to thank you for having given me this opportunity to speak . about housing cooperatives. and i heard you say something about the history of housing cooperatives and i see that you have mister rice there. mister weiser and i see each other because i'm also on the national association of housing

co-op board of directors we see each other and if you want a history of housing cooperatives i think that's where half the information is. let me say that i've been working with affordable housing oh i guess it's since 1975. i started out working with ms. louise harvey at the time who was president of the california association of housing cooperatives so i got involved with her and then along the line of getting involved with the housing cooperatives commissioner leroy actually became my mentor when it came to housing cooperatives and louise harvey, mrs. mary jackson, they helped with the development of housing cooperatives and i'm sure ms. holmes is one of them. as far as the california association of housing

cooperatives , we do a lot of and i heard him talking about education and training. that is what the california association does. we do education and training for board of directors of housingcooperatives and we do this annually . the last year and this year we were not able to do that but hoping to get together probably in february. to talk about some of the issues we talk about funding. some of the housing cooperatives like i heard i think it was from mister hess, i'm not sure what but we talk about what's happening with the board of directors and whythey can't move ahead . the dynamics of the board. i've visited as i said i actually have been training, doing educational training 12

housing cooperatives in thebay area . so we've been doing a lot of training this year because we have some professionals from our national board who've been coming to the bay area to provide training. some of the problems sometime is the dynamics on the board. these members are not getting along with each other which has nothing to do with housing cooperatives so when you look and try to come in with okay, you're invited. participate, not to pass judgment but to understand what's going on the board that they can't move forward. and it's a lot of issues like saw martin luther king . i've been there several times trying to ameliorate or just to come in to find out what can i do to help. i have provided training.

i providedtraining every year . since forever. so what i'm saying is there's more to just being on the boar . there has to be what is best for the whole community. and that community in which you live and you want to be able to provide the best for that community.so this is where the basic training comes in. we have government, whenever we have a conference we have governors. we have a conflict resolution. we also have class this year nationally on ace day in your lane. whether you're a board president, management, shareholders, there is a lane for you and you don't cross those lanes. so what i want to do say for instance around our next

conference is to talk about ways that we can get some type of assistance from the city because we have co-ops now who are over 50 years old. take my co-op. we're going through our refurbishing is so and it's so out-of-control for shareholders trying to have that done while they are in the homes. it's really been very problematic. so we need to find a way to get some kind of assistance to help rebuild and sustain the co-ops without putting so much of a burden on the shareholders. so i intend to continue with the board training education training for the board of directors . i have about 12. i have about 12 but i'm sorry able park is not renew their membership.

they're in trouble.freedom west homes did not renew them. this year for education and training which i'm sure is part of the problem that they're having also . >> part in my interruption i want to mark we are at our five minute mark. >> if there's questions i may not be around but i enjoyed this and thank you for letting meparticipate and i will do so again . thank you guys are. >> thank you miss brown and we hear you loud and clear that our city should support your work. thank you somuch . next, we are going to hear from kathy bailey who is the executive director of the san francisco community land trust and an expert on all things co-op welcome miss bailey , the floor isyours . >> thank you supervisor melgar

and supervisor peskin for this opportunity to talk about co-ops. i think i need host or some sort of status to share my presentation. i don't have that at the moment . thank you so much. got it. okay. is everybody able to see my presentation now ? >> yes, go ahead. >> great. so i think reverend townsend really hit on the head. i think the three main themes that i'm going to our one, about making sure that the

historical community, the san francisco that makes it diverse are communities are able to stay and not just stay as renters but stay as homeowners. there's something very significant and different about being able to stay as a homeowner and the primary thing being an inheritable right. another thing reverend townsend it on the head which is if you're not able to pass your home off to your successors, you've lost notonly your individual laws , your own individual ability to create wealth but you've lost community wealth and an opportunity tocreate legacies . and the final piece is about education . co-ops require education. you have to know whatyou're inheriting .and what it is that you're stewarding going forward. a little bit about sf blts vision and strategy we were founded in 2003 and the

original mission was to create homeownership opportunities for those of moderate income. today we're emphasizing the creation of homeownership in sf through the lph three model. in order to address the decades of structural racism in the housing market that we spoke to earlier and reference thompson as well. today we own 12 permanently affordable properties. four of them are co-ops.70 percent of our residents today identify as bipod with an average ama of five percent. i want to explain for those who don't know how the modelworks with thecommunity round trust model. together we create permanent affordability . the clt owns the land . which then collectively owns the structures. the limited equity housing cooperative and that's a specific type of housing cooperative that offers an inheritable right. there's also the opportunity for long-term access and

homeownership opportunities as they spoke to earlier through this model and there's opportunities for democratic participation and governance. both through the healthy the resident boardand clt tripartite board so 33 percent of the clt board of directors is actually constituted by its president . i want to speak about the success story of an lph see in san francisco. as lydia mentioned there hasn't been a lot of co-opscreated in san francisco but theones , the last co-op created today in sf i believe is ours . that was created in 2009 columbus cooperative and i say this jokingly but i think it's something important to address. co-ops don't have to be a hot mess. i think there's part of the challenge that we face in san francisco is getting over the hurdle of the bad rap that co-ops have at the moment.and i think the success of columbus united really speaks to the way in which co-ops can actually be

highly effective increating affordable housing . highlyfinancially sustainable . and i want to speak a bit to that. puc i think is a success in the way that it's an early example of poc tenants or organizing against displacement. this is a 21 unit building in chinatown but residence being first-generation training immigrants fighting demolition of their building for years. wereable to turn it into 21 units of a limited equity housing cooperative . with all those entitlements that i mentioned for example that got it as an inheritable right. it's also a great example of a creative financing model that leverages dollars. so along with the city funding that was put into this propert , $200,000 of the equity was

contributed by theresidents themselves so they just set their share values at $10,000 each . it's all regulated by california code. it doesn't have to be $10,000 but the residentsdecided $10,000 represented something meaningful in order to appreciate that and create equity .so they managed to raise that $200,000 and in addition to that this is an interesting property because it's also mixed commercial use property. the asian law caucus also bought estate on that ground-floor part of the building it reallyrepresents this interesting blend of public , private and community funding . i think it's also a really great example of how a co-op can achieve financial sustainability. within the first year that puc was created it was converted into an