>> okay good afternoon. the meeting will come to order. welcome to january 22, 2023 of the land use transportation meeting of the san francisco board of supervisors. i'm supervisor melgar, chair of the committee joined by vice chair dean preston and board president aaron peskin who is joining us remotely. the committee clerk today is erica major and are i also like to acknowledge michael (inaudible) at sfgovtv for staffing this meeting. madam clerk. >> the board and committees are convening hybrid meeting that alloy inperson attendance and public comment while providing remote access via telephone.

the board recognizes that equitable public access is essential and will take public comment as follows. first taken on each item. those in person will be allowed to speak first and then move to the remote call in. those watching on tv, you can see the number streaming across the screen. the number is 415-655-0001. again, 415-655-0001 and enter the meeting id24845342047 and press pound and pound again. when connected you will hear the meeting discussion but muted and listening mode only. when the item of interest comes up and public comment is called those in person should line up to speak and those on the telephone should press star 3. on the telephone please remember to turn down your television and radio and listening devices . we will

take public comment for those in person first and go to the public call in line. you may submit public comment in writing to myself, the land use transportation clerk. erica.majar (inaudible) made part of the official file. you may also send your written comments via u.s. postal service to city hall. the address is 1 dr. carton b goodlett places room 244 san francisco california 94102. finally items acted upon today are expected to appear on the board of surprisers agenda january 31 unless otherwise stated. madam chair. >> thank you so much madam clerk. please call item 1. >> ordinance amending the planning code to allow night time entertainment as principally permitted use in the folsom street transit

district removing certain restrictions and affirming appropriate findings. members of the public who wish topoid comment on item 1 call the number on the screen. 415-655-0001 and meeting id is 2 (484) 534-2047 and press pound and pound again. if you have not done so and like to speak just need to prez press star 3. >> thank you so much madam clerk. so we welcome supervisor dorsey to the committee. i understand we have aaron star here to make a presentation but before we bring him up, supervisor dorsey, the floor is yours. >> thank you chair melgar and supervisor peskin and colleagues for having me today. to talk about something i'm exciting to see moving forward. the legislation i'm here to move forward today is a much needed planning code update to support night time entertainment in western soma, which is home to one of the

city core night life corridors and home to ledger and lgbtq cultural district. prior to the 1960's a handful of bars and queer night life establishments popped up throughout the city. in 1962, the first leather bar in soma opened and in the year's following more queer night life and retail establishments opened in the south of market, tenderloin and castro. folsom street in my district became the anchor for a virgining queer community with more dproget growth in the 70's. the two decades of growth are fallowed by decades of struggle. one local magazine declared the death of leather and the declaration was prematureed but foreshadows to come that played a role in the city history with the convurance of the aid crisis and dot com

era. the nub (inaudible) entertainment within 200 feet of residential districts. with soma many residential alleys, these buffers are de facto moratorium on new entertainment. one may be surprised to learn in a neighborhood with history of bars and entertainment new establishments are not permitted and existing establishments are not able to get entertainment permits. on a more optimistic note in 2018, the leather lgbtq cultural district was created by a unanimous vote by the board with the vision preserving enhancing and advocating for continuity and vitality of the queer communities. while the zoning and buffer restrixzs are prohibitive for much night life, we must be cognisant of the fact south of market transformed into a residential neighborhood too. one

enriched by children adults and seniors, and while the leather district would like to expand boundaries kwr footprint of bars and night time entertainment there is a desire from the (inaudible) to make sure that soma is friendly to seniors and are children as well. so, there are larger conversations still need to be had about these occasionally competing desire jz what it mean frz the future of downtown but provide to say the two groups are in support of the proposal. the ordinance will permital night time entertainment for properties fronting folsom between 7th street and division street and properties fronting 11th street between howard and division streets. areas with existing night time entertainment. it also exempts the area from the buffers. as aaron star will share, the commission recommended some substantive amendments so after discussion we'll need to continue the item. but i want

to say thank you to the cosponsors mandelman and (inaudible) and suppose this is first effort of the gay caucus here and excited to see what we'll do in our work together on the issue of queer entertainment and beyond. this ordinance will have a immediate impact on businesses. myophilus office has been contact with who failed to get entertainment permits due to the grandfathered zoning. i hope to have your sporetd on the legislation that help the leather and queermunities about vitallow of downtown. with that, happy to pass it off to aaron star from the planning department. >> thank you supervisor. you did a very good job what was in the ordinance so here to say the planning commission heard the item january 12 and recommended approval with what we consider to clerical

corrections but substantive in that they expand the scope of the ordinance and understand supervisor dorsey will be introducing the amendments today and consideration for the amendments and happy to answer questions you have about this or any other aspect. thanks. >> thank you mr. star. supervisor dorsey, would you mind reading them into the record so we can get that in before public comment and i would be happy to move after we come back from public comment. no problem. sorry, i think i have them in front of me also. maybe it was-go to public comment and we'll read them into the record after. >> thank you. any members of the public who would like to speak? seeing none we'll move to remote call in and we have zero callers in the

queue. >> okay. i got this from your aid-sorry, public comment is now closed. so, i think the change mr. star is on page 7 line 25 adding properties fronting folsom between 7th--what are the changes? the planning commission recommended. that we are amending. go ahead. >> so, i believe it is on page 7. properties fronting folsom street between 7th and division street and properties fronting 11th street between howard street and division street.

>> city attorney, can you help us out? >> i wasn't given a hard copy or wasn't sent the amendments. i saw them earlier in the office but don't have them with me. in any evept the amendments are substantive so you can act on them today and the public will have a full week to look at them. but you can generally describe them. either mr. star or supervisor dorsey if you want to generally describe them i think that is sufficient. >> i can describe them if you like . they are addish footnotes to the nighttime entertainment controls one for the regional commercial district so i believe that is page 6 line 2. the text and on the property said fronting folsom between 7th and

division street. and then on page 7 line 6 and permitted on properties fronting folsom street between 7th and division streets. and then on page 9, line 23, putting a footnote after nighttime entertainment, the footnote is one. and then adding the footnote under that district which is wmuo district. see buffer restrictions and exceptions for nighttime entertains in sections 823c9a. and then a similar footnote for the sally district page 10, between line 14 and 15, adding footnote one for nighttime entertainment and see buffer restrictions for night time

entertainment in section (inaudible) >> thank you, mr. star. i are like to make a motion that we amend the legislation as per what mr. star just read into the record. on the motion, supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> supervisor preston. >> aye. >> supervisor mel gar. >> aye. >> 3 ayes. >> i like to make a motion we move this-approve the item as amended. >> continue. >> and continue it to next week. >> on the motion to continue moved by chair melger [roll call] 3 ayes. >> thank you so much and thank you so much supervisor dorsey. madam clerk, please call item number 2.

>> item 2 is ordinance amending the planning code to authorize replacement of elegacy general grocery use with general grocery use excess of 4 thousand square feet in the polk street neighborhood dist rcktd. members who like to speak on item 2 should call the number on the screen, 415-655-0001. the meeting idicize 2484, 5842047 and pound and pound again and if you have not and would like to speak on item 2 just need to press star 3 and you will hear the system indicated you raised your hand. madam chair. >> thank you very much madam clerk. president peskin, thank you so much for introducing the item. the floor is yours. >> thank you madam chair, supervisor preston. this is a no retailer change to the neighborhood commercial district for polk street to allow by right to move into the old real

foods location on polk just north of broadway and expand into an adjoining space. the current neighborhood commercial district legislation for that area is designed to preserve the fine grain small scale nature of neighborhoods commercial storefront. this is a narrowly crafted exceptional. the planning commission while they did recommend this actually called for a broad expansion beyond this neighborhood commercial district, which would have required the supervisor to go and outreach to numerous organizations and individuals and supervisors and i did not have the time to do that because i would like by right to hurry up and open their location. it is scheduled as a committee report because we would like to get this done by the end of the month

with a hearing tomorrow at the full board and on the 31 (inaudible) available and on this call in this meeting can begin his work and have a great grocery store on polk street for the benefit of that neighborhood. i'm available to answer any questions and commend this legislation to you colleagues. i do have by the way a amendment which i circulated to all of you with the appropriate findings, which i can read into the record prior to public comment should you so desire madam chair. >> thank you president peskin. is sam going to make a presentation or he's just available-- >> i don't know what sam desires to do. i told him not i i thought everybody would be delighted as to the amendment. it is a change in the title that says that we were making findings of public

necessity convenience and welfare pursuant to planning code section 302 and the actual language is on page 2, a new subsection 3 from lines 3-7 that says pretty much just that and i welie on the clerk to put in the appropriate planning commission resolution number and supervisor file number which i currently black in that subsection c. >> wonderful. we have any questions? okay. did you want to say something? >> thank you chair melgar and are thank you president peskin for the overview of the ordinance. i just wanted to emphasize the planning commission did hear this item on december 1 of last year during which time they unanimously recommended approval with modification to expand the general grocery provisions to all neighborhood commercial districts. i also want to

emphasize president peskin shared an amended version with the revised section 3 02 findings so this concludes the report and available for questions. >> are thank you. with that, let's go it to public comment. >> seeing no members in the chambers we'll go to remote call in line and looks like we have 6 listners with one person-8 listners with one person in the queue. again, this is item number 2, so just press star 3 if you like to speak and let's take that caller. you have two minutes. hello caller. >> linda chapman from nob hill. i certainly don't see anything against having a larger grocery store. i never was able to find out what store it was or where it was.

i had trouble getting into the hearing today. i assume it is russian hill. i have heard something about molly stone, i don't know if that's what this one is and that might be fine for russian hill. we certainly can use grocery stores and are large grocery stores in the polk neighborhood commercial district. in my part of the polk neighborhood commercial district which is farther south, we might go up to market there. that is for sure. it could be. some of the wealthier people of nob hill might use market like molly stone's or whatever that (inaudible) whole foods or whatever it is up there. we really lost a large grocery stores in our area and (inaudible) was taken away the supermarket and putting in trader joe's. i spoke against that. ours is a neighborhood where

people came from the tenderloin and from china town and people of nob hill mostly aren't rich with lower then average income neighborhood when we did census data because they are small units and a lot of older people. all those people stopped being served. you don't see them anymore in the supermarket. at 1300 bush i guess is, there was a agreement when high-rise built, a safe way was eliminated and (inaudible) nob hid representative handling that one and the agreement she said i suppose it was a conditional use there would always be a large grocery store in that place. two independent grocers went out of business and allowed (inaudible) >> are there any members of the public left in the queue? that was the last caller in the queue.

>> sam, i dont know if you want to add anything. i know you are on the call or were on the call. this is your opportunity to jump in if you have anything to say. >> hi. i got a call in, right? >> you- >> i wasn't planning on saying anything unless anyone had any questions for me directly. >> i don't think we have any questions, but wish you good luck. >> thank you so much. i appreciate it. >> with that, public comment is now closed. president--go ahead supervisor peskin. >> thank you chair melgar and president peskin, thank you for your leadership. please add me as cosponsor and i did want to say that we have buy right in our district on

divisadaro and creative efforts to use a ground floor of existing build to stage out of and use that facility and think by reports from the neighbors it has been very successful model there, so i support this and just wanted to recognize buy right as a good neighbor and sure will be similarly in president peskin's district and not just a good neighbor around the operation of the store but just always being there for the community around most recently having half the staff out at a holiday delivery event and a lot of works that goes unrecognized often in public but very much appreciated by those who's lives are impacted so wanted to thank them for that

work. >> thank you supervisor preston and i just wanted to say to the public commenter that unfortunately we are all delighted by buy right moving to poke street this isn't the (inaudible) molly stones was supposed to be coming in so as a result so they say of the pandemic abandoned that plan at the old limbardi site to the south of this site. >> thank you president peskin did you want to make a motion? >> thank you chair melgar. i'm happy to make a multi-faceted 3 part motion to adopt the section 302 public convenience findings on page 2 and to send the item with recommendation as a committee report. one big motion should take care of it all. >> through the chair,

actually because you are remote i assume we have to take roll call on each motion. >> i'm sorry. victor didn't make me do that this morning. >> oh, victor. >> i shouldn't say that. >> on the motion to amend as read into the record by president peskin, on the motion- [roll call] three ayes. and on the motion to recommend as amended as committee report- [roll call] you have three ayes. >> motion carries. thank you. >> thank you. >> let's call item number 3, please madam clur. >> item 3 is resolution supporting the development of

permanently affordable housing at the sfdmv field office, 377 fell street and urge the state of california to prioritize affordable housing on the site in place of or in addition to the dmv field office. members of the public who wish to provide comment on item 3 call 415-655-0001. the meeting id is 24845342047, pound and pound again and if you have not done so and like to speak press star 3. madam chair. >> thank you madam clerk. supervisor preston, please add me as a enthusiastic cosponse. i see we have sheila (inaudible)ism before we bring her up the floor is yours. >> madam chair, please add me as a cosponsor too. >> thank you both very much. thank you chair melgar and thank you for calendaring this today. there is a lot

of things to bring before the committee, but very much appreciate this one being on the agenda and colleagues, in november introduced this resolution support ing the development of affordable housing at the dmv site in my district and calling on state officials to make use of what i believe to be a perfect opportunity site for affordable housing. this is especially important as we are discussing what will be expected of our city under the new housing element the next autom on the agenda in fact, and i welcome the targets of affordable housing in the next 8 years and if we are serious hitting our goals developing the dmv site should be part of that plan. this is a large lot most of you are probably familiar with it. you have probably been there at some point as it is

the only dmv field office in the city. it is the lot is nearly hundred thousand square feet with a huge parking lot that occupies a entire city block in a incredible transit rich area and a area which has historically welcomed affordable houdsing development eager for more of it, and above all this site is own ed by the state which dramatically reduces the up-front cost of potential development by eliminating the need to acquire the property from private hands. there is history here. in 2008 the california dmv issued a rfp to develop affordable housing on the dmv site and a developer won the bid they were unable to move forward with the mixed use project proposed according to state

officials. in 2021dmv submitted request for funds to replace the fell street field office noting the 60 year old site has significant seismic and structural issues. unfortunately no plans were considered for housing uses at that time and this past year funds were allocated from the state budget to move forward with a field office replacement that would have preserved basically a big parking lot there. when my office learned of these developments at the state level we introduced the resolution that is before us today urging the state to consider affordable housing uses for this site and our office worked closely with assembly member phil ting who districts includes the dmv. assembly member ting and also his senior field

representive naome (inaudible) have been instrumental moving these plans forward. assembly member ting office facilitated meetings with the dmv and department of general services of the state who partnered with our respective offices to try to find a creative solution here and we were thrilled last month when dmv went ahead and released after this resolution, they released a request for interest for the development of housing on the site and the rfi makes clear dmv is open to either affordable housing on-site coexisting with the dmv or rebuilt dmv office or converting the site to affordable housing and moving the dmv to a new home in san francisco. so, this is a really positive development and i want to note something that happened pretty quickly. we are often see government move

slowly and this happened shortly after the meetings assembly member ting and my office were a part of. this is a neighborhood that strongly supports affordable housing on this site in particular and what is clear is that back in 2008 housing was a good idea on the dmv lot and in light of the new ambitious affordable houdsing target a even better idea now. assembly member ting office and our office have been doing out reach and encourage anyone listening to do the same thing to make sure folks know about this opportunity, particularly connections with affordable housing developer so if you are a developer listening and interested in this project, please submit response to the rfi or reach to the state agencies with any questions as soon as possible. there is is a tight timeline on the state's rfi. as i know the dmv is eager

to get this long overdue project for a field office done as soon as possible. before i wrap up i are want to thank again the assembly member ting, mrs. (inaudible) without whom none would be moving and not the pace it is moving and also sincerely appreciate the openness from the state partners, i thank them, including anna lasso executive director of dgs and staff including matthew bender, jason kenny and lisa (inaudible) and then also the director at dmv, matt gordon and his team including berry steinhart, robert crocket and cristmer (inaudible) this is a i think a great example of partnering with state and local officials to find creative paths for more affordable housing and urge your support and appreciate the cosponsorship. my

understanding is both planning department and mayor's office are here and available for questions. the state agencies are working collaboratively with our office and assembly member ting and the purpose in the resolution wasn't to have a full blown hearing on the details of development. i think that is premature and that is the point of rfi. the point was to make clear by resolution the board of supervisors support the basic premise here making the dmv lot affordable housing site. my understanding is planning department and mayor office are here. colleagues if there are any questions, but not to make presentations today. thank you. >> thank you supervisor preston. that is very very exciting. did you have a presentation? no. i realize this is a resolution and you

know, there have been other examples of state properties also in your district being developed into housing. that is very exciting, so if there are no other questions from colleagues we can go to public comment on this item. >> thank you madam chair. seeing no members of the public in the chamber we'll go to remoted call in line. we have 10 listners with two in the queue. let's take the first caller. you have two minutes. >> good afternoon commissioners. jake price on behalf of the housing action coalition. we are tremendously excited at the prospect of housing at it dmv site and very appreciative of the efforts by supervisor preston and the sponsors to move forward with this resolution. and as we move through the process here, just wanted to call attention to a requirement laid out by the dmv in the rfi

which would preserve 110 parking spaces. in addition to the parking mandate being inefficient and environmentally detrimental use of land, the high amount of parking that is currently required will really drive up cost and make it more difficult to bring affordable housing to the site, so as we move through the process, just wanted to call that out. we hope it is addressed as this exciting prospect moves forward. thank you. >> thank you so much for your comments. let's take the next caller. >> good afternoon supervisors. allen (inaudible) here a resident of destricate 8 where we are very proud of our supervisor mandelman. clearly we need housing that is affordable here in san francisco. we keep hearing the term affordable housing and i want to take a moment to be clear what this term affordable housing means for us. it is

covered in several articles in newspapers here recently. so called affordable housing was suck subject (inaudible) ryan murphy policy of eviction dlfs collaborative was quoted saying black tenants and other racial minorities are evicted at higher rate and treated more harshly. so called affordable housing was subject that outlined multiple failures of bmr inclusionary housing where supervisor melgar was quoted saying this creates mistrust in the bmr program. who will want to participate in a program like this? finally, with regard to so acalled affordable houds ing, san francisco chronicle entitled broken homes, the

author noted that so called affordable housing in the tenderloin "because san francisco leaders for years failed to meaningfully regulate the non profits (inaudible) many buildings descending in the pattern of chaos crime and death the investigation found.". so, in closing i like to say, we clearly need housing that is affordable but think we should stop referring to the housing you are pushing here is (inaudible) that is what we need to describe this housing is soul destroying housing and not affordable. thank you. >> thank you so much for your comments. just wanted to make a small announcement. are you present for item number 3? we are taking public comment now. okay. great. let's take the next caller, please. >> good afternoon.

this is (inaudible) race equity coalition. we are delighted to hear about the opening of this site. the possibility of a site in collaboration with the state and supervisor preston's good work. let's get to it and let a affordable housing developer take on this project for our community. thank you. >> are thank you so much for your comments. we have one more caller in the queue. let's take that caller. >> good afternoon. my name is (inaudible) i am a volunteer with san francisco (inaudible) live in district 5. i'm grateful to see my supervisor preston bringing this resolution forward and

i'm proud to see there is is progress on more affordable housing in district 5 in particular. i live not too far from the dmv and i think this is a great location close-as others said, especially supervisor preston, close to transit, close to many amenities so i'm highly supportive of affordable housing, especially in district 5. thank you. >> thank you so much and that completes the queue madam chair. >> thank you madam clerk. public comment on the item is now closed. supervisor preston. >> thank you chair melgar. i just had couple brief questions. i did see we are joined by planning director hillis. i feel this is a thing where all the conversations whether it was with state partners or city

partners have been very positive and at risk of never want to jinx anything but a lot of folks who seem to be on the same page but a lot happen more quitely so did want to make sure to through the chair to give mr. director hillis the floor. if you can briefly comment on this as a potential affordable housing site and a good neighborhood for this use in your opinion for housing or any other comments you might have on it. >> good afternoon supervisors. i know we have some of the staff online remotely with specific answers to some questions you had about the zoning, but the bottom line is yes, this is a great site for housing and

affordable house. i was with the city a decade plus ago when the prior iteration of this tried to move forward and unfortunately didn't make it through and we got no housing. i would say one thing i would be concerned about as we move forward is how this gets-if this is a mixed use dmv and housing it makes it challenging given the site and are height limits there. dmv also offered a opportunity to find a different site for dmv so there is a swap opportunity where we could locate a different site for dmv that may be less amenable for housing development and use this for housing. so, that's the one area i have some-want to raise caution about is the ability to use this for the dmv and their requirements to have parking and places for testing et cetera as well as

housing sites. this swap opportunity may be a better one, but we'll explore that moving forward. i know you had specific questions. do you want those addressed? >> sure. i think that's the heart of it and appreciate you bringing that up and that was one thing i encouraged about in the rfi that came out was the openness of state dmv to hearing proposals either as you say that involve mixed use on site which pose its own development challenges because you have to have a developer who is rebuilding a dmv site as part of that and that adds quite a bit of cost. i was really encouraged that they really left open explicitly very clear that that was one path they take proposals on and there are also open to proposals that would relocate that dmv office and exclusively use that for housing. >> just our estimate on the number of units

is anywhere between 200 and 350 units of housing on the site. the lower end, 200 if we have to accommodate a dmv and required parking, 350 if there is a swap. >> thank you. and i would add, there is obviously a lot of-goes into proposals on this. i will say we are all doing outreach to folks who may be interested trying to encourage that. it is also a pretty tight timeline the original rfi was 30 days so hopefully folks can get at least start expressing interest even if there needs to be requests for additional time. i do want to add and this is less about the development of the details of development and more to your point on the on-site versus

relocating the dmv. sthr there is a lot of different issues wrapped up in that decision and ultimately the state's call on that. i will say as i shared with our state partners that this is an area that's both transit rich and also literally has the main connector of the main east/west bike root route of the city on fell street. we have done a lot of work building out the green transportation infrastruck that that runs right by a site and the juxtaposition of that and all the work in there with mta and others along fell and trying to do something similar on oak street that are literally both sites sides of a site where hundreds and hundreds of cars are coming to it every day and i know you're intimately director hillis familiar with the neighborhood and we have a lot of folks who are very eager to invest in safer,

slower streets, but also recognize dmv needs a office in san francisco and want to be respectful of that. thank you for your partnership on this and looking forward to getting proposals and moving this forward and i think in the mean time just having the board on record. i hope we get to unanimously. i appreciate the cosponsorship of the committee members. thank you for all the work. >> thank you so much. do you want to make a motion? >> yes. >> did we take public comment? >> we did. >> did i close it? public comment is closed. >> closed twice. >> are thank you. like to move to full board with recommendation. >> on that motion-as committee report? >> yes. [roll call] >> you have three

ayes. >> motion passes. thank you. madam clerk please call item number 4. >> item 4 is ordinance amending the san francisco general plan by adopting the housing element 2022 update as the housing element of the general plan and making conforming amendments to the air quality commerce and industry and environmental protection and urban design elements of the general plan and make appropriate finds. members of the public who wish to comment on item call 415-655-0001. the meeting id is 24845342047 and press pound and pound again and are if you have not done so already and would like to speak on this item you just need to press star 3 and identify will hear the system indicate you raised your hand and conformation. madam chair. >> thank you so much madam clerk. we have director hillis here and maryam (inaudible) who will make a

presentation. before i turn it over to you i just wanted to mark the moment and say thank you to mrs. (inaudible) specifically because i know you did a lot of the heavy lifting of consensus building and incorporating the feedback from the race equity all planning coalition, for a (inaudible) folks who are in very different places when it comes to land use in our city and somehow you were able to make everyone feel heard and incorporated into the draft. on friday we got a letter from hcd certifying we are in compliance. this draft is in compliance so that is not a small feat so proud of you and so glad everyone in the department put in the work and got us to where we are today. i don't know who is

making the presentation but i wanted to say thank you to all staff and particularly mrs. jung. thank you. director hillis, is it you? go ahead supervisor preston. >> thank you. i just wanted to add some introductory remarks before the presentations and i want to start by congratulating on the preliminary approval from the state and tremendous amount of work that's gone into this and i will say, in these remarks i have concerns but i will say they are much more about the process and the box with which we operate in rules set by the state then comments by performance within that space by the-director hillis and his team. i will say one thing that is clear from hundreds of pages of the housing

element that remain-related appendicis is just the sheer volume of work that went into this and i want to add my voice to the thanks for that effort. this is a huge amount of time investment from the whole planning team and appreciate it. i also want to thank planning for incorporating a lot of the changes. my office and a lot of constituents provided and that is the same with in 11 districts and in my district that included listening to japan town stakeholders and resolving issues they raised and committing to a community lead process for future neighborhood developments and also some things that came out at the other hearings we had around referencing for example the prop i funds more explicitly as a potential sort for affordable housing

funds to reach our goals. as previously noted and won't repeat, accept to just applaud the broad range of strategies that are here including housing stability strategies, rent relief, land acquisition, land trust, pages and pages, but it is important these are in the document. i think the overall concern and what i want to flag at the out-set of this discussion is looking at the enforceability of any of these goals, and the concern is that this could in terms of impact be more a detailed plan to upzone and deregulate for the purpose of maximizing market rate housing and falling short of like any commensurate level of detail of how we are going to achieve the affordable housing

goals and how those goals are going to be enforced. i want to be clear and for background for folks who are not as intimately familiar. in the most recent rhna cycle where the goal was to produce 16 thousand units of affordable housing, we barely hit 50 percent and may have done better then neighboring jurisdictions but still only hit 50 percent of the goal and now increasing that target by a factor of 3. instead of 16 thousand units we are talking 46.500 affordable units in the same 8 year time period and not seeing anyone at the federal level, the state level or local level putting together a real plan to fund and create the scale of affordable housing. i fear that our state certainly and to some extent our city are not serious enough about meeting the affordable housing goals regardless of what's written in this

document and that i don't want to conclude, but i can't help but conclude that the process and the structure are in many respects set up for the city to fail. for the city to fail to meet the goals. there is-anyone paying attention to the local real estate market there is a capital strike now with market rate housing development in san francisco with deals falling apart left and right and lots sitting empty and whatever the intent the practical impact of the market rate goals in the climate is force deregulation, strip out community benefits and perhaps even go so far to ramp up direct subsidies for for profit developers. something first time i have seen it in a article last week thin chronicle and pretty shocked to see that being seriously suggested by developers. and i think the state authors and champions of really unrealistic targets for market

rate housing development have a lot of explaining to including why they wouldn't tie any of these goals to things like feasibility, need, vacancy rates. many other factors that should be relevant in setting our market rate housing goals but really are absent and are considered by this document by state law irrelevant to setting goals, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. but here we are and i want to focus on what matters most to the residents of san francisco i think. that is affordable housing for the working class for homeless people, for educators, retail workers, muni drivers, bartenders, seniors family and not seeing the priorities reflected with urgency funding or enforceability in what is before us today and interested in hearing more and exploring that. i am seeing it reflected in a lot of words on the page about what our

priorities are, but in terms of meaningfully figuring out to achieve those with respect to affordable housing i'm left feeling skeptical so thank you and looking forward to the discussion today. >> thank you: i going to save my remarks for after the presentation, but since you opened up the conversation,b i did want to say that i want to caution us-san francisco is 7 by 7 squares mile and it is a very very diverse city and what development looks like in district 5 doesn't necessarily reflect what development looks like in district 7 or district 4. i think that this housing element presents the change for the west side. we are up-zoning, indenseifying a lot of commercial corridors

on the west side and looking at development in places that have not seen development before. places that had traditionally been kept low density on purpose through a combination of our zoning and federal investment through market mortgage backing. a lot of the policies were racist policies that sort of lead to the development patterns we have in the city today. some of that in this housing element is right and just and i do think that in this time of economic uncertainty we are going to see some challenges in making sure that our hopes and aspirations actually get channeled in the correct way and given the priorities have evidenced in this document and not just what the market will

bear. so, i do think it is appropriate for us to think about infrastructure issues especially on the west side as we look at more development and more densification, and we also you know, make sure that we are keeping to our climate action goals. our electrification goals, our seismic safety goals. there is a lot of things that the west side of town has had because we have planned for it, we have-our development patterns are transportation infrastructure is built a certain way the west side does not have, so i just wanted to say i'm hearing from my constituents and neighbors that they see the need for housing at all income levels being developed on the west side. we want to make sure there are places for

folks who are aging out of the houses they have and want to downsize to be able to have a place go, which currently we have very very few apartments on the west side and at the same time have enough affordable housing and middle income housing to make way for the next generation of teachers and nurses and the folks who have always called the west side home. set roots, have families. i do think this aspirational plan does a lot of that. i am worried about the implementation but i guess we are in this together. i wanted to say that because i do-i appreciate your comments supervisor preston. i think there are different needs and different parts of san francisco in this one plan has to be comprehensive for all of us, but as

i said, i do appreciate that you took the time and energy to gather input from all districts and from all constituents who are worried about our future together and the crisis of housing that we are in in our city right now. so, president peskin did you want to add a few words? >> i will be brief because suffering from covid and gasping for air, but let me say supervisor preston, i like to associate myself with the words of supervisor preston who articulated my thoughts and feelings just right, and then say something i have been saying for the most part of 20 years, which is i believe in density equity and as you said chair melgar, this housing element

does achieve that as it relates to the western part of the city and county of san francisco. the devil is going to be not in the housing element itself, but actual implementation along the way, which is going to be a lot of work and is easier are said then done, but that is the lot that we find ourselves in and i look forward working with all you and colleagues and the public in the planning department and going down that road. i look forward to the questions and answers during this hearing. >> thank you president peskin. director hillis. >> we have a brief presentation. i'll make a few remarks and (inaudible) do the bulk of the presentation. i appreciate your words and supervisor preston

and president peskin. it has been an amazing effort by our team and also want to thank (inaudible) it was one of the first meetings i had all most 3 years ago when i started planning is is to talk about the housing element. (inaudible) wanted to make this a document that was both useful and also aspirational and had a-if you are -it could have been a box checking exercise. they were somewhat everything to everyone and didn't have a strong point of view so thank our team. it is a large team is and grew over time and including many other departments getting us to this point. not only is it aspirational but it presents very specific actions on how we can address our housing challenges. we sought out and listened to communities throughout the city, especially black american indian and communities of color throughout the city. folks that

wouldn't necessarily you wouldn't see here at a board of supervisors meeting or planning commission meeting and got their input and advice and concern where we are going. and we heard from them they wanted to see real specific solutions putd forward rooted in social and racial equity that will truly address our housing needs and affordable housing challenges so we hope this draft does that. i know we have been given very specific and difficult requirements by the state to meet such as the rhna targets, but i believe the goals and actions in this document regardless of those targets make good policy sense, they make good planning sense and you pointed out a couple of them. do you want to pause for a minute? >> i wanted to give a shout out before they leave to the students from saint brendan. welcome to the people's house and glad you came on this

day. that's all. >> no problem. thank you. you pointed out some of those and we'll touch on those but rezoning the west side and looking denseifying the west side, especially along the commercial corridors on the west side. improving our process, especially for code compliant projeblths. we know it takes a long time to get approval for projects for affordable and market rate. affordable housing building the amount of affordable housing called for is tremendously difficult. we know we need not only additional city resources but additional state and federal resources. in the need to engage in real community planning, in cultural districts like soma, japan town, bayview and other neighborhoods we prioritized, fillmore concern addition and excelsior so we know implementation will be a challenge and lot of

work. our work-our department is focused on implementing the housing element so look forward working with you all and with that i'll turn it over to mrs. jung. >> good afternoon. good afternoon chair melgar, supervisor preston and peskin. thank you for such a substantial and generous introduction. i'll just jump into a brief presentation where we just want to for the benefit of the public give a brief summary of what the housing element includes, what it means, and then share with you some of the changes that were introduced into the plan after we were here at the board and we were in close conversation with the

state agency, department of housing community development and some of our stakeholders. next, please. so, just brief--so, starting with the values, you have already made reference to that. we have in front of us a housing element that ask addressing the challenges that we are facing right now that we are facing today, but historic challenges that many of our communities have encountered. this is a plan that is focused on center on racial and social equity and it-the goal is to eliminate community displacement. that requires that we consider affordable housing choices for everyone in all neighborhoods, and as you mentioned, the housing solution is not just the building, it is about the

neighborhoods, so addressing how housing relates to thriving neighborhoods in ways that we become more resilient to the climate changes that we are facing every day with the recent rain and the health crisis, the pandemic we just experience. the housing element is complex and as supervisor preston indicated has many hundreds of pages, but the bottom line, we started with the community, community dialogue to get to the goal objective policy and action. that is what the plan is. what staff has done is we have done some of the analysis and drafted the policies in response to that and we conducted the environmental analysis that is required, so those are requirements by the state, so across the state all cities provide the same level of response

analysis and solutions and in this case it just require an additional effort to address some of the specifics. you indicated too, the state has placed more substantial requirements on how to do this housing plan. it has emphasized the affirmatively furthering fair housing component. this is a housing plan, but we know that the people who are struggling with housing are communities with less resources. it is a issue of scale. is this the right scale, is this the right number? i think we all agree the city region and state has not delivered the housing our community needs, and so right now this is three times the amount that we have had in previous cycles. the

sites inventory meeting figuring what places we have available. if we were to build housing today what could we build? it has required a lot more detail. we needed to provide a lot more information and again, the last item, we have been asked to do things better, and i would say more then deregulation, it is adjusting the regulations so we actually do what we need to do in the time appropriate for our communities. this is a big task and as you all have indicated, a big task requires a big dialogue, and we have probably spent 3 our 4 times the amount of time and resources engaging folks in their own territory in their own communities and our thanks go to them. some conversations were complicated because they have not heard from our government

agencies a reasonable response for many decades because they struggled with many issues. there was a wide gamut of conversations across communities, across geographies. there are many pieces of analysis, but this is one picture that describes our challenge. among our rentsers across all races our folks are paying more money then they should be paying for housing, which means that other expenses are compromised. but when we look at over-crowding and unhoused population, it is very clear american indian, black communities, native hawaii and pacific islandser (inaudible) taking the brunt cht these are people on the streets that have-sharing very

small units multiple families and some of the housing conditions are very poor. this is just to identify how we are centering our solutions towards these communities. so, in order to address that, it is not just across races but across geographies. this priority equity geography is a very important geography identified by department of public health are areas where health outcomes are much more challenging. incomes are lower and where we have concentration of communities of color. we also have as many other geographies but this is a crucial one. we also included areas at risk of displacement and the solutions the problem is big but the solutions need to be targeted to the specific communities in terms of race, in terms of history and also in terms of geography. next. one

important geography to develop this solution have become our cultural district and this is part of your input as the board of supervisors, this is what we heard from our communities. there are many strategies these communities are proposing and there is a framework for that. this is the process of consultation. another geography that is important to identify is what is labeled as well-resourced areas and this is geographies coming to us from the state and it is a regional assessment of what are the census tracts where we find population with higher incomes, with better health and with better resources. so, these are the areas where we want to identify housing opportunities, and as you have indicated, the housing opportunities are different at this time. it is more of the medium and small

size to address the specific needs of the community and this is what we are hearing from our residents. this refers to some of the numbers you have also mentioned. the numbers have tripled and this is just a comparison of what would we need to do in a average year in relationship to what we have produced in the past and the numbers in orange are bigger across the board. but you can see for moderate income housing, we produce more then half of that, but for the other two, for moderate and very low we barely made it to a quarter of the target that is in front of us, so that indicates again where we need to target our efforts to address this housing challenge. overall, when we need to address our rhna targets we take into account what is in the pipeline. what projects being proposed and are filed. we have about

45 thousand that can be counted towards rhna because they are likely to have it in the 8 year cycle but there another 35 thousand units that will need to be created through rezoning efforts. this is just a overview of the structure. there are 5 goals that you have seen in the document and it goes from recognizing the right to housing, this is the first time the city is making that statement. repairing the harms of historic racial ethnic and social discrimination. fostering racial socially inclusive neighborhoods. sufficient housing for our residents today and tomorrow and neighborhoods that are well connected with community culture. this unfold to objective policies and programs. this is a complex structure and as you indicated there is a lot in this plan and there are more then 300 actions but

there are three areas if i can orient you to have the implement actions have been organized. affordable housing. there are a number of actions under that. centering communities of color and vulnerable groups. and housing production and neighborhood infrastructure. the point as you indicated we have diverse city of neighborhoods, diverse communities and this plan is only successful if it can meet the needs of the residents . so, a little on what happened after we last were here engaging with you in conversation and how your input was incorporated. as you indicated there were a number of vocal grume r groups from our city that engage in conversation with us but also with the state and the state took into account many of the specific comments. one of which was how do we

know we will be making substantial progress? how will we be accountable to the communities and the state? that became the cycle checking point, which indicates, if we haven't permitted enough units, half the units required to rezone, we need to adopt new strategies. depending on where the gap is. this assessment needs to be done by income groups, so it wouldn't be sufficient to say we have adopted 30 thousand units or we have received-approved 30 thousand permits. we need to break that down by income. if the gap is in the low or moderate income, we need to figure out what is the additional funding, what are the additional strategies and support communities have on non profits or

agencies to deliver the housing. if the gap is above moderate we might need to consider additional rezoning and additional capacity for private investors to deliver on that front. so, there was also specific points that the state required-ask us to include related to additional funding, so if we don't have the appropriate funding, the city will need to step up and identify additional resources and similarly land banking will need to be considered very specifically at that point. again, the affirmatively furthering fair housing metric the state put a lot of emphasis on making it more specific. it wasn't enough to just have that as a goal, it needed to have a specific factor. two other points, affordable housing funding and sites. we are very mindful of the point that we don't have the money we need for 46

thousand units, but what we have in the plan is a set of strategies that create the foundation how we do that, and one is identifying what are the existing resources including prop i as discussed at the board, but also identifying what are the vehicles to bring those additional resources and those additional strategies. we don't have the money, but we also need to get organized in a likely different way to produce the housing or retain the housing we need. we need to as a city become more efficient, we need to lower the cost of housing in order to address that. so, towards that you requested that the interagency working group and affordable housing leadership group both form early 2023 by march. there

were also a lot of emphasis on clarifying public land and housing program requirements and lastly, the point already mentioned, you did want us to take the cultural districts as a substantial platform for implementation. those were some of the comments that were addressed in the tail end before it went for approval at the planning commission. moving towards the implementation, the public engagement, the community engagement needs to work very closely with equity communities to identify their own priorities and are paths as well as engagement with communities that will experience substantial change as the zoning increase capacity and provide new housing opportunities. next, please. so, in closing, this is here in front of you today.

we will have the full board will have the hearing that the full board tomorrow and on 31 and this includes amendments to other elements of the general plan. as you know, january 31 is going to be a busy day, so if everything goes as expected, the board will approve the plan, then the document will have to go to the mayor for her signature and then it will have to go through hcd for certification. it usually takes them 60 days to do the final certification. in light of the process and the fact we haven't-we are not making any changes to the plan, we are seeking certification the same 31 or february 1. as you

already mentioned we received the pre-certification letter that places in a good path. i want to thank our colleagues at hcd who work very hard before we took the housing plan to the planning commission. they workshoped some of the specific points. they got substantial comments from very different communities and they provided some very specific guidance. i also want to thank the three of you and the board of supervisors for the leadership that has been guiding this housing element. you have engaged with us, you have provided substantial comments as you all indicated we have a extraordinary staff within the planning department and in our partner agencies, ocd, hsh, oewd. they

worked very thoroughly in the development of this plan, but the big thank you goes to our communities. they have taken time away from their families, from their work to engage in this conversations. they have been very honest, very forceful but also very clear and have brought much hope to our city in terms of creating new possibilities for housing our people in the way they expect. housing our people today and housing our communities tomorrow. thank you very much and we are here for any questions you might have. >> thank you. that the extent of the presentation? any questions colleagues or more comments? go ahead. >> thank you chair melgar. i did have questions. thank you for the presentation mrs. jung. starting

with the-you were refereranceing the mid-cycle and reviewing where we are in terms of our progress and it makes good sense to not wait until 4 years in or 8 years in and to try to figure out strategies, but i do wonder just focusing for a second on the affordable housing commitments and correct me if i'm wrong-my analysis is based on current or even near future foreseeable we will not be hitting a target 4 years from now. when i see things like we will look 4 years from now, see where we are and then consider whether we need to do land banking, site acquisitions, some of those strategies, which i think are in there as general strategies anyway, but i guess i do wonder

why we would be waiting till that-we are not. go right ahead. especially on acquisitions. especially in this market and we talked about this, if there was a market where we could be acquiring property for affordable housing this is it now. private market ground stand still, we have these sites and can be acquiring them. is that ramped up acquisition strategy something that we only do when we are failing 4 years in or start yesterday? >> we start yesterday, and the point for emphasizing those strategies is if we get to the mid-point and we have not acquired the sites we think is-if we haven't approved the housing units for low and moderate, the land acquisition, rb the site acquisitions and additional production of affordable housing will need to be strengthened and expanded beyond what

we are indicating in the plan at this point. >> thank you. do we currently as a city have an acquisition strategy and land banking strategy? >> we do. we should invite our ocd partners if they want to add additional comments, but if you want to understand some of the numbers we can provide perspective on that. we do have the programs but the point is we need to expand those programs. we need to strengthen them programs and secure more und ifing for those programs. >> thank you. i don't know chair melgar if we are planning to have a presentation from ocd and want to questions only for planning or is there overlap? just want to- >> i don't have a presentation from ocd. >> director shaw is available to field some of the questions as well. >> thank you. >> thank you. so, i'm not aware of a

acquisition plan for the city. this is a point of frustration for our office. frankly we raised a ton by going to voters for prop i to fund acquisitions and can't get movement from the administration around acquiring significant number of properties. maybe director shaw can-is there a acquisition plan in terms of land banking in terms of acquiring properties for the development of affordable housing in terms of small sites acquisitions, an acquisition plan and how do we get our hands on it? how does the public see it? >> director shaw, are you on? >> i am. can you see me? >> nope, not yet. >> i apologize. >> there you are. >> there you go. through the chair, supervisor preston you are asking if there is a acquisition strategy for the city?

>> that is one of the questions, yes . >> okay. i think right now the answer is yes, we are still developing as part of the nofa and understanding land banking that has come up. the idea now is the strategies still support our preservation through copa and through the other mechanisms there. we have resources available you are aware of in that space and trying to understand the additional resource to support the preservation strategy. also what has been shared, sbc, the new number of sites that are identified through the housing element and understanding the other priorities that mrs. miriam shared relates to meeting the planning goals around high resource i income and cultural district and also thresholds and are availability of funding set by the state we continue to refine and understand

the unit counts, the properties that will be feasible for receiving gap financing from the city. the challenges of acquiring and holding other properties when we have a full pipeline and so i will not say we have particularly a plan, we understand the challenges, thresholds and opportunities that are-that exist now within both this market but as we think 4 years from now, do you build each actually implemented development of properties that will be acquired? so, we are understanding the levers of impact, the ability to successfully get state financing to build-to get the gap finances for the units of housing we want and we are understanding the thresholds rubric and constraints for how we identify the sites

that would be best competitive for state financing. so, it is not a any site comes on board and we buy it, the question in the end, because we are reliant on state financing and understand the implementation of the housing policy goals and housing element how we make sure those align to get the housing built versus just have land for housing. >> thank you director. i have a number of questions and just want to make-i think i want to get some pretty basic things on the record. i want to say, it is okay if we don't have these things. we can all work together to create them. just to follow up around acquisitions, do we have a-does ocd or any other department have a list of sites where

development has stalled and the owners can be approached about selling the property to the city or to an affordable housing developing? is there a list of such sites? >> we have been getting those ad hoc lately and working now to formize similar to what we did for project home key, which is one e-mail where these potential acquisition opportunities will be received and evaluated by ocd. that should be available hopefully within the next week. i have been talking to my staff about that, but since we are committing to transparent and competitive process, we are trying to make sure now we are not willy-nilly and have them in one place for evaluation. i do want to say once again that we are resource constrained. we have

a full pipeline. now the idea is that a building comes in and we can buy it. it will take the appropriate vetting. we dont want to set the market. we also want to understand that entitled projects meet the housing mix and the competitiveness for state financing and so i want to make sure in the end and we all understand that as we understand the opportunities coming in and centralize that we will be evaluating based off competitive for state financing, meet the unit policy goals and meet the unit count for policy goals. so, i think we will have a very decerning eye to these products as they come in and understand if they meet the policy goal jz financing goals for both the state and city. >> are we currently land banking? let me be clear, it is one thing to say that there are limits in terms of the pipeline in terms of ability to fund the actual construction, the idea

of land banking is you get ahead of that. you actually are acquiring sites. you are banking the land, holding the lands until you run the ballot measure or get the state money or whatever it is or frankly sell the property later because you can't do that but you buy up property now without regard to the availability of resources to develop it now. is the mayor office of housing currently engaged in any land banking? >> we have some sites, the one on van ness the former mcdonald through a land dedication. if we get land we want to build on it so think we have been focused on the idea of production and not the idea of buy and hold. >> okay. >> (inaudible) build as quickly as possible. a buy and hold is not been the priority at least for me as director. it has been buy, hold and build as soon as

possible because we understand the deficit we have in terms of unit production raised by planning. >> thank you. i want to get clarity on that point. the site you are talking 600 van ness is our office negotiated and worked and thank you all for your involvement in that. that is a example of land banking. is that the only one or are there other sites we are acquiring without being limited by what we can develop immediately? >> no. we don't have-we are try ing to make sure we receive state financing mr. supervisor. we are understanding now i think you know, even with our buy hold and build we were not able to build for a while because we were not competitive for state financing so we are trying to make sure we are not only seeing opportunities sites but maximize either

location or unit count to insure they are competitive for the resources that come in because we understand there is a full pipeline and limited resources right now for the next bond. also i think you know as well, there is a huge carrying cost for the developer or the city when we buy and hold and don't really work diligently to accelerate that development piece. so, either security, for safety, for interim uses, we really want to make sure that the property is moving into-moving into that development timeline and applying the state resources and city resources as fast as possible but we know there is a constraint on the part of the city in terms offunding we have available and we know that we are still continuing to advocate

and get clarity around how to be competitive for state financing. >> thank you. and i would argue that some of these constraints are self-imposed but we'll get to that in a minute. i just want to note that what i think the disconnect here as we are talking, we have a housing element that is proposing strategies to meet unprecedented affordable housing goals and we are saying to do that we have to ramp up as of yesterday, right, our acquisitions and strategies like land banking. what i hear from the mayor office on housing is that is not the strategy they are employing. they are not land banking. that isn't a strategy. i guess my question, there is a

disconnect. does planning need to have a more proactive role in a land banking and acquisition strategy because it doesn't sound that is the ocd strategy? yet it is in the housing element as something we need to be pursuing. >> to answer your question, the biggest problem is resource constraints. we are looking for-one problem but we are looking for additional resources and pointed to additional resources here and you can make the choice between lands banking or developing existing sites. i think given the limited resources that are available, ocd is caught making a decision between improving-using their resources to improve a site, or to go out and land bank. the examples of 600 van ness or 1945 mission where we change the code in a one-off sense to allow for land dedication, we

can explore that and look at that on a broader scale. that is a trade-off between you give up inclusionary housing in order to get land. but, certainly it is a option and a tool you used here at the board to acquire sites. if we want to do that more broadly we could explore that within 415 to allow for land dedication. >> if i may madam chair and supervisor preston if i can jump in. it is a little disappointing to think that we are not considering this as part of the overall strategy over time, and yes we are financially constrained, but land today is cheaper then land tomorrow and in so far as this is a plan for 8 years and much longer then that

whether through land dedication in certain instances or out-right purchases in others it is a investment and one is probably better off doing that when the market is such that that is a more economically favorable and feasible investment in today's economy then in the future economy. it is a conversation worth having and the notion if you are not ready to go in the ground and dont have capital to put the sticks and brick up you walk away from those opportunities, i think is short-sighted for what it is worth. >> mr. peskin i want to clarify once again, we are-the buy hold policy is expensive, but we are coordinated with planning as well. we are trying to understand the feasibility of these sites. understanding the idea of scale, so as a planner myself i do think in the longer term. i just know that i am here in the

office and directed from the mayor and board around as much housing as quickly as possible. i think that both and do exist. i'm excited about the issuance of nofa for acquisition but it is exercise understanding how not just to have sites but understanding now how we set up success for the sites eve in in the future and also acquires advocacy at the state level around just getting certainty around the state financing. some creativity as director hillis brought up around other ways to amend code to not only expedite (inaudible) it is a both, and. i do want to say that, but the directed from the mayor and sense of urgency of her community and you all has been around getting as many units

on the ground as fast as possible but it is both and. >> thank you. sorry to butt in colleagues. >> thank you, i want to talk about resources because the idea the resources are not there. i'll start with prop i. the excuse of there are not the resources. there would be the resources. now raised over a quarter billion dollars of which the mayor budgeted exactly zero dollars in any budget given to the board of that for affordable housing and it has been a battle every step of the way to appropriate and get 8 votes we need each time to force the appropriation of funds for affordable housing. prop i is a projected to raise $119 million in the upcoming year. that is lower then normal years where it is more like 170, $180

million, so i would like to get on the record through the chair, director shaw, do you support using prop i revenue for affordable housing? >> so, through the chair, i think that we are looking at all resources available to support the acceleration of the pipeline agnostic of the color of money. we want flexible money and want to figure out the resources to do that. but i think the other piece in this too is, i differ to the mayor and her leadership on where those resources go and how the resources come. we coordinate closely with the mayor budget office and the mayor for her to understand the pipeline and the need and make sure she has the analysis needed to make the decisions she makes and pritorties for the budget. >> i'll take that as a

no at this point. >> okay. >> the-there is a statement that we would be doing these acquisitions engaging in this strategy if we had the resources and are i get that we dont have the resources to scale up to the level we need but the problem is we do have some resources to the tune of hundreds of million dollars ocd can be used to acquire sites and that is not happening so no reason to think a we can go to voter jz ask for more money if we are not spending what we got and b to think we are serious meeting those goals if we are not using the funds we got. let me related question, director shaw you mentioned the cop deal, certificate of participation, that was the last budget cycle after the mayor refused to budget the prop i revenue for affordable housing for exactly these acquisitions. the mayor the board of

supervisors, myself, budget chair ronan struck a deal or supported unanimously by the board for hundred million debt financing to raise money now to do affordable housing. $40 million for acquisition of sites and the next step in the process is the mayor's office issuing a nofa these funds were available. that was last june. none of the nofa have been issued for any portion of that deal. we talk about being eager and excited to do acquisitions with that $40 million, or $12 million for educator housing in that package or $20 million for public housing in the package or $10 million for sro elevator repairs all that was mayor office of housing desk as of beginning of before last summer and not a

single notice of funding availability is issued so folks can apply and we can start acquiring those sites. why 8 months later we have no nofa and when will those nofa be issued since this seems like these acquisitions are a key part of our strategy? >> mr. supervisor we are finalizing the drafts right now. in consultation with agency partners and the mayor budget office. >> and can you tell the public when since i have not been able to get a answer when those will be issued? >> i can't give you a firm date but we are finalizing those and hopefully be out shortly. >> thank you. i want to say and i won't belabor the point but we are losing deals, losing sites and i got to say, it is like it isn't just a disconnect, it offensive for us to be seriously put all this

work into the planning department, come before the board passing this kind of housing element, claiming housing acquisition for affordable houdsing development is priority for the city and how we reach the robust goal jz have a site like 400 devis dareo former gas station where the seller is ready to sell, the city could buy it tomorrow with these funds, the city could buy the site tomorrow or do a nofa, that could be 150 units of affordable housing, half for formally homeless people and you won't issue a notice of funding availability or otherwise acquire the site. so, i'm a little-if you sense frustration it is the disconnect between realty of saying we don't have the funds and even when the activist and voters create the funds here or the board gets creative with the cop deal to create the

funds here, the mayor office of housing will not acquire the sites. >> sorry-mr. preston i know you have acquisition on the mind. our staff is happy to celebrate the fact we are breaking ground on a number projects. i know we are thinking acquisition but the idea right now is we probably have the most number of units under production this year and so buy hold and build we are building and that is exciting. and i think that as we understand how to meet the need to get the shovel in the ground, get people in these units, we are do ing that work and making that happen and also doing that concurrently with aligning with advocacy, doing the appropriate analysis, do interagency coordination to make sure that any acquisitions that are

proposed are strategic and buildable and so, as we see these new units come out, we are learning more and more around what is secret sauce to get the state financing. what is the unit count. what is the location. what is the population mix. how does it align with the city. i know we are on this acquisition space, but i think the priority one priority for the housing element is to get the units built and we are working hard to get that done and very successful as a team in doing that. >> let me just follow up on the funds for a second here. does ocd have funds at its disposal that are not being committed or spent? do you have a balance of funds or is it when we talk lack of resources, is it that there is zeer er

zero there? if a site is available tomorrow is and neighborhood folks or someone comes and says this site maybe the city should buy this site, is it your position you don't have the funds to acquire those? >> i believe we have resources available through the preservation funds. we are trying to build the pipeline out as well but we have a pipeline of projects with funding associated with those for the successful development of them, but once again, i think we now as i shared in an e-mail sir, now we have a lot of other sites that may be feasible through the housing element and we are try ing to make this a transparnt competsive process where it isn't someone calls i says i scr a piece of land i want to sell you, if we have not run it through the process to make sure it can get built. i think we are

really pushing right now and that has been institutionalized more through this new nofa process or not the new process, reinforced by the nofa around the need to be strategic around the acquisitions and not just take what comes in my inbox and write a check. we want to make sure it can get built. >> we have just more specifically this board in all most two years ago allocated $10 million, social housing funds, then november that year did another $64 million, my understanding is out of the $74 million 100 thousand, $74.1 million over a year later in one case 14 months, another case all most 2 years a grand total of $500 thousand has been spent for most of for

small site acquisitions or other soulsh housing, $500 thousand has been spent and total of $10 million committed. in other words, we have literally $64 million for all most 2 years sitting there which we could have gone out and bought several sites for affordable housing if we are committed to land banking-not talking about the pipeline and what you can afford today, but if we were committed to land banking we could have bought those sites and instead those funds are sitting at ocd and reasons absolutely inexplicable not spent and never gotten a clear answer if that is the only case or have other pots where there is 10 or hundreds of millions for acquisitions we are not spending. >> i mr. supervisor i believe the intention is acquisition and preservation program which is when we called the small sites program. it wasn't the acquisition of new land. we have two

types of programs within our housing agency. we had new production and then we have preservation. we consider the acquisition of property that is not inhabited not housing to be production not preservation. so, the understanding was those funding was for the preservation formally small sites program. there was direction and commitment on the part of the community for needed reforms to the small site now acquisition preservation program to make sure we had a transparent and responsive program. it look longer to work with community. it took longer to work with developers. very happy that we finalized those guidelines in september. we have been working closely with development partners to understand opportunities sites through the acquisition and preservation program and we now have a new

director of preservation, bringing on a new small sitess manager as of next week to really accelerate that acquisition through that program. so, acquisitions for land that is not housing would go through our production of which that would be added to the pipeline of which we are subscribed all most over-subscribed. there is funding available through small sites which is the acquisition rehabilitation and rent stabilization which that money was for. there are two different intentions but with word acquisition still there. >> supervisor preston, i appreciate you pointing out some of the areas in which the specifics don't match are aspirations as stipulated in the housing element. i like to take a little of a step back director shaw, because

this housing element really is a roadmap for what we intend to do. rezoning, production. it is not the doing. that will come later. i wonder if the mayor office of housing and community development has anything like that. land banking, acquisition, preservation are some tools towards a end but not the only ones, and i just like in the housing element we say, 82 thousand units we get x from here, x from there. i wondering if the mayor office of housing and community development has the same. other-i know hsh just came out with a strategic plan where they talk about numbers and timelines. i don't think i have seen that from the mayor office of housing and community development. i know a few years ago when fred blackwell was the director of then

department of community development. he was the first to do it a little bit backwards. we looked at neighborhood need and what number of housing units were the gap in that neighborhood and then came out with sort of a number for the investment by neighborhood we needed. and wondering if your staff has done any such analysis and matched to the tools? i will also the repercussions for not doing right by the housing element, this commitment we are making in front of the state is a potential reduction in affordable housing dollars. (inaudible) affordable housing dollars which will absolutely effect our production in affordable housing so it seems to me that it behooves us to plan and so when i hear we are being strategic to me that is tactical not strategic. what i want to see, if the housing element-the goal is to

affirmatively further fair housing and we know in some areas there is no affordable housing production and some areas we concentrated all the affordable housing production, how specifically are we going to do that? how are we going to take tools supervisor preston was talking about and looking at the land prices in those specific areas? how are we going to make the acquisitions, build capacity among the non profits to do that? what is the plan or do we have a strategic plan? do we have a plan to do a strategic plan because to me that would be what would guide us in the implementation of this part of the plan around affordable housing. >> supervisor, there is close coordination between myself and director hillis. as i shared once again, i- >> director shaw- >> no. but i can tell you right now that

there has been-because we had a lot of resources. we have been in build mode. i think-i'm excited around the target that the housing element puts out. i'm excited ocd placed a regular role in identification of the strategies. excited that we are going to play a critical role on the committee of funding and for affordable housing coming out. and i'm excited that i wisay under the mayor's leadership and staff analysis in consultation with planning i think you have seen a significant increase in the amount of resources dedicated to what are identified as highly resourced areas in advance of the plan going out. 730 stanyan, 4200 gary,

2550 irving. understanding geographic equity of reinforcing racial equity and so a lot of what is in that plan are based off also input from ocd and my team and it reinforces orientation of our office under leadership of mayor breed and under my charge as the implementation agency for this work. >> thank you. no shade on the great work that you and your staff are doing. i realize there is production going on everywhere. i will just point out that those specific examples that you just stated, those were all opportunities driven. there was a opportunity to do something and the stars aligned. there was never like a plan ahead of time. yeah, we are going to go to the sunset and build x number of units of

affordable housing where there hasn't been. we are going to maximize density on gerry boulevard because the west side-just saying, as long as i have been in san francisco, mo has been opportunity driven. now that we have this opportunity and things are shifting with the state in the housing element perhaps we may want to reconsider how to do that and perhaps do a little bit of strategic planning in advance but thank you so much. >> i do want to correct you. i do want to say gerry and irving was housing on the west side. that tagted geographic equity and there is a number of resources to support building both the interest community

engagement and connections for our existing non profit house who may be oriented to other neighborhoods to understand the market in community and on the west side to do more work. so, we have been strategic and intentional in advancing both the racial equity and geographic equity goals that are detailed and affirmed in the housing element, and that are also reinforced by the funding strategies from the state. >> thank you director shaw. i'm not going to argue with you. as i remember it, the money for the capacity building was a opportunity that the supervisor of those districts at the time put forward working with your office, but what i'm saying is it want part of a overall plan. thank you so much. go ahead supervisor preston. did you have more questions? or

comments? >> maybe we could for a second switch back over to the folks at planning just on the enforceability side. just if we find ourselves like two years in and-there is four year mid-point-pardon my skepticism but everything i heard from director shaw is we are sort of doing okay, and we are kind of like going to keep with the same strategy. i'm not hearing strategy, i hear a lot of reasons why we are not land banking or not doing these other things. i'm not hearing, here is a new vision as part of this housing element of how we ramp up and be doing not just double, we are tripling the goals and only reached half of them so we need to-if not mistaken a factor of 6 increasing our affordable housing or 4. i see 4 from

(inaudible) so, i'm not hearing a strategy to do that. we are all trying to drive that strategy and basically running into whether it is a brick wall on the cop or a brick wall on spending prop i money or a brick wall and excuses on the preservation side. i agree with director shaw that there is preservation work and site acquisition work. the problem is we get complete obinstruction from ocd and mayor office on both fronts. we have money in the bank on the preservation side and generated funds from prop i they won't spend on site acquisition and this idea of basically only doubling down on one model of financing and there are plenty of others that they are not even exploring. but, so i think it is really clear from this conversation that despite what is in the housing element we are not on track to barring a huge change from the mayor's office and ocd and perspective. we are

not going to be anywhere near the goals we are proposing two years from now let's say. what does planning do? you put all this work and time and energy and create this document, it has goals. the state signs off on the goals. is the answer nothing? what happens two years from now if we are only meeting a quarter of the goals on affordable housing? >> thris is a iterative process and there is no silver bullet to solving our affordable housing. it is whether funding or how we do it and i think mr. shaw is correct, ocd was very much a part of drafting the very specific actions that are in this plan around finding additional funding for affordable housing whether it is local like vacancy tax or regional bond or prop 13 changing to go with the state or looking for additional federal

resources for vouchers or-some of the things we can't do on our own but it has to be part of a concerted effort by us. you all, the mayor and ocd to achieve this, because these are huge numbers that we are trying to get to for affordable housing. i think we have the elements of what chair melgar is talking about, our strategy we developed with the team that has been working on the housing element to start to get at the questions. it is looking how to reduce the cost of housing, how to partner with institutions, non profits philanthropy like ucsf to find and build affordable housing so it is yes to all of it and you should hold us all accountable, the mayor should hold us accountable in actually meeting the targets that we set out in this plan and in meeting the actions we set out in the

plan. hopefully the state can come and decertify the house element but i think it will be discussion here among the city team working on it, you as the policy makers, the mayor as a policy maker and figuring out how we get it. we published prior to this with housing affordabilityt strategy document and have to continue the work but the numbers are huge we have to get to to meet our affordable housing needs. >> thank you. and i will wrap up. let me just as i maybe often do, or do too often say this may be a bit of the elephant in the room what is not on the paper. it is like we are go-not hit the goals and talk about ways to get more funding or talk about ways to rezone or

permitting-all that. i will just say, as supervisor dedicated and tremendous amount of time and energy in the last few years to generating resources for and identifying sites for us to make good on some of the promises, it is not permitting delays, it is not zoning, it is often not even lack of funding that is stopping us from making the progress we need, it is political games and retbutions coming out of room 200 that has nothing to do with housing policy and frankly is obstructing us from achieving our housing goals. i dobt expect to see that in a housing element but i will say at hearing when we look at the strategies and how likely we achieve those, if we do not have a more collaborative approach from administration on

acquiring sites and land banking to work together to spend the funds allocated and view these as opportunities for us to come together to meet these goals instead of opportunities to drive wedges and have political fight, we ain't going to get there if we don't have that shift and that's not on your plate directly, but i would be remiss if i reviewed and went through a hearing on the housing element without identifying that very real barrier to achieving our affordable housing goals laid out in this document. thank you. >> thank you supervisor preston. i just wanted to pivot a little bit before we go to public comment and tell you about the things i really appreciated in this housing element and the work that your staff did in listening to me and my staff and incorporating our feedback. i want to thank you for the

attention to the commercial corridors and increasing the opportunities to connect housing to transportation and to look out for the health of the business corridors by adding more residents. i also want to thank you for looking incorporated areas you had not looked at before. areas in my district that have been rezoned or traditionally zoned for religious use that have seen under-used land for a lot. some of the areas where there is very low density that is close to opportunities, educational opportunities, job opportunities and i am grateful for that. i will say that for the housing stock in distrist 7 which is predominantly single family homes and single family detached homes, the process has

been an impediment and so we see all over the district folks who have these enormous houses and their kids left 20 years ago, their tax base because of proposition 13 is very low, there is no incentive for them to go anywhere, they want to downsize but no plans to go, and so i'm looking forward with working with you to revisit some of those process changes to make sure that people have the opportunity to age in place in the communities they love while also making room for new generation of west side residents, because i do think that the way that we use the land on the west side 40, 50 years ago is very different then how we will use it in subsequent years. i hope. i also one thing i did want to flag that i

would appreciate more opportunity to act on as we go forward with any rezoning or implementation is infrastructure particularly when it comes to the electrical load. the board has been on the same page with our relationship with non-public electricity provider, pg&e. i am increasingly becoming worried the electrification and new development that has all electric construction that to minimize our carbon footprint, will pose a risk to the infrastructure we have. the lack of infrastructure we have, so i'm looking forward with working with puc and other departments to solve for that issue on the west side. we are seeing in the housing element aside from the

up-zoning on the commercial corridors we are building out the balboa reservoir, stones town, park merced, and i'm worried about those thousands of units that we will be adding, some will be affordable, many will be affordable, but never the less, everybody uses power and everyone is hooked up to the sewage system and will need water, so i do worry about the infrastructure needs that go along with the plans that we are having right now. so, with that, i don't know if president peskin has questions or comments before we go to public comment? >> i do not. i think i want to thank both of you and supervisor preston in particular for the issues he raised and when we are looking at 4 fold increase and we have been failing on the moderate and low income numbers we have

as i said a huge challenge in front of us and it's-some is subject to market and some is within our control and we need to get our hands around those aspects that are within our control and for this supervisor i think land banking particularly short to mid-term land banking is part of that policy solution over the next decade. but we will continue to do that and i am hopeful that perhaps we can break the prop i log jam and set the money free and endeavor to do that in conjunction with mayor breed and her staff. >> thank you president peskin. >> thank you chair melgar and thank you to both you and supervisor peskin for the excellent

comments. i just--chair melgar as you were talking about the districts specific and think it is a fair point how these issues play out differently in different districts and are it may be just before we go to public comment just want to comment for a second on more specific district 5 stuff because wetened to get in the abtraction and talk about land banking and acquiring sites. my office-we released a report today on opportunity sites. i would hope there was like a acquisition plan, that is quhie i was asking about that before that our departments would be creating this list of opportunities, so we released this district 5 call to action of affordable housing opportunity sites and these are like in some ways the low hanging fruit in the district and look forward working with chair melgar and all

supervisors on stuff that is important in their district with these opportunities but i can speak to district 5. this is sites-these are sites for large scale development in a otherwise dense district with very little available land. we identified 6 sites that are publicly owned currently or have a owner that has expressed interest and ready to selleter to the city or affordable housing so that is 6 sites, the dmv field office, that is the touchless car wash, 400divisdero, 600 van ness, the other former mcdonald site, 730 stanyan which i think we are moving forward on and also the northern police station parking lot, a huge parking lot. absolutely no reason and discussed thin past and move forward with housing there and

proxy and beer garden site, dedicated parcel k for affordable housing 25 years ago and still haven't moved forward. i think it is important that all of us as supervisors are looking and the mayor office is supporting our efforts to say, we will take this pool of 46 thousand units and we will lean in and really try to make it happen and work collaboratively between supervisors, community and the mayor's office to make these sites realty. what i just mentioned those 6 sites, that brings you a estimated 1250 units and there is absolutely no reason in the next couple years we cannot have locked down these sites and move forward with entitlements, acquisitions and having a real plan for affordable housing and that doesn't touch all the other sites where development may have stalled, where we may be able to approach. i'm saying this as a supervisor of a

district in a lot of ways it is really built out. we have all most no single family. contrast to district 7, you can barely find single family zoning. i don't think we have any left in dist rict 5. single family homes but only zoned areaerize cut out by redistricting. and even there we can identify these sites if there is a shared commitment from the administration to move flward aggressively. what does that mean? budget the prop i money. i cannot believe three years later we are fighting about prop i money. this is like we have affordable housing goals, let's meet them. put prop i money in the budget for affordable housingism spend the stuff we allocate. respond the stuff sitting in a account because the mayor office of housing won't spend it and work together to generate the additional funds that we need so we can really scale up. thank you. >> thank you so much.

with that, madam clerk let's go to public comment. >> thank you. any members who would like to speak on item 4, line up to your right. the first person can approach the podium. those on the telephone line press star 3 to be added to the queue. only press star 3 once and you hear the system indicate you have raised your hand and taking 2 minute public comment today. first speaker, please. >> hello. my name is (inaudible) the director of housing rights committee of san francisco. this is frankly state blackmail and you all know this. we need to vote yes on this. thank you all for your work. but, the state is frankly passing the buck. they are tell us we have to build housing without giving the funding we need to build it and we need

to prioritize state, federal, local government money to build affordable and low income housing. our major concern of housing rights committee is displacement, and frankly demolition that in which situation we fast-tracking and putting out a carrot to demolish existing housing and frankly the most affordable units like the sheer number and the rate of the actual rents, lowest rents are in rent controlled housing. and, we often see seniors who can't afford the low income housing we build. they would love to stay in the rent controlled housing. they do because of our protections even though maybe sometimes are at war with their landlords. we are not seeing the solution is

just (inaudible) we need to regulate and we need to say we are not knocking down rent control housing and we are going to stop it and we-because otherwise this plan could be a disaster. we need more affordable housing and need to build things, but tenants are not interchangeable coggs in a system. you cant displace a thousand tenants (inaudible) vote yes on this. we have lot of work to do. >> thank you very much. take the next speaker please. you have two minutes. >> thank you. good afternoon chair melgar, supervisor preston and president peskin. may name is jane natoll i. thank sf planning for diggent work on this. i think all the questions that have come up show we still

have a lot of work to do. we know a lot has gone in so far. certainly a lot more opportunity i think that supervisor preston you are very correct in saying there is lot more afford able housing to build so have to get creative and do a lot more and this is beginning of the work together. i look forward to that piece but it doesn't stop here and a lot has gone on so far but we need to keep driving that and look at the ways we can do what we can do better within the city and also other opportunities we can take advantage of more funding where we can get it, but i think it is really incumbent to reflect on the work so far and move forward with that and then continue to do it, because a couple years from now if we are not hitting the marks the state will tell us. hcd isn't go ing to let us rest on our laurels

getting this passed even though they said it looks good so far from their perspective so encourage everyone, keep having the conversations. there is a lot more work to da. i live on the west side and certainly many of the comments from chair melgar were taken. i know a lot of those sites and those opportunities, but it is also going to be a change. it is a little different. we need to do a little more then i think one affordable development in the richmond every 10 years or so. it has to be a better pace. i look forward to all this. thank you for your work on this and please vote yes on this. >> thank you so much. any other members of the public who would like to speak on item number 4? seeing none, we'll move to remote call in line and have 25 listners with 17 in the queue. let's take the first caller. you have two minutes. >> good afternoon commissioners. jay price on behalf of the housing action coalition. here to talk about the housing

element which i believe was the subject that we started earlier. thank you for all the great work to the planning department, community groups and everyone involved in this process. it is a true testament to this work that we receive the preliminary approval letter by the state. as a result of that i urge to refer to full board because certification is just the first step as has been laid out and there is a lot of work that needs to be done. i was pleased to hear everyone on the committee address that implementation is really the crux of the issue at hand and the removal of-includes the removal of unnecessary constraints providing additional affordable housing funding and rezoning the city so looking forward to the work that is yet to be

done. thanks. >> thank you so much mr. price. next caller, please. you have two minutes. >> hello. my name is millo (inaudible) calling with (inaudible) and this is a big deal what's happening. that we agreed on a housing element. get certified. we are committing to building 82 thousand homes. it is huge, so congratulations for getting this over the finish line but as others said before me, now is when the real work actually begins. we need to figure how we are go toog do this and how we build the affordable homes and i'm a little annoyed when people are like the money and like, the gamesmanship. okay, there is a political gamesmanship. if you ask most of the people in san francisco,

would you trade-affordability is one side and going up against a height limit on the other side or going up against density controls on the other side, then affordability wins. affordability is the priority. let's loseen up the height limit and density controls and we can get the affordability we all say we are needed and all grand standing about, we can do it, woo we have the tools. specifically, i live near the church street corridor. church street should have big buildings on it with intense land use. now there is 3, 4 story buildings sparsely populated commercial uses. some businesses. not all store fronts. it is right on the j. this is a prime example of somewhere that would

benefit like vastly from high er intensity land use, residential land use, being more vibrant. it is already walkable to lots of schools and parks and services. it should be much more so. and then for some of the supervisors they talk about how regulations haveen been impediment. now again right by church near dolores park- >> thank you so much. let's take the next speaker. we are at 2 minutes. >> good afternoon. joseph (inaudible) west side opportunity coalition and race and equity planning coalition. it is critically important for the board to move the housing element forward and approve it so san francisco can be in compliance. however as discussed

through this hearing, this isn't the end of the story. the board has a critical role to the city hiring policy. currently the housing element leans towards unfordsable market base strategy meeting our mandates. as we have seen for the past 8 years, this approach is excess of market rate housing and shortage affordable housing, housing displacement and hardship for low income and communities of color throughout san francisco. the only way to course correct is focus resources and policies on affordable housing starting now with this year's budget. planning spnt months thinking through market rate upzoning, rather then working with communities on new approaches to affordable housing. the board has the power and responsibility to form working committees immediately to make budget recommendations quickly to establish a resource and land use plan now so we can aggressively purchase development sites and apartment buildsings

for long-term affordability. board members spoke in november about the state needing to help out. i want to bring up the fact (inaudible) rights equity all planning coalition has requested budget allocation from the state to san francisco affordable housing efforts. the board can support this request. once the board is focused implementation on racial social economic equity start to advocate for change in the rhna allocation. it is great to have goals but instead of force fed laughable mandates from the state let's start with making the financial district a resilient neighborhood with housing and commercial. it is a huge challenge. start with a fresh approach to affordable housing that puts us on track to house the homeless and stabilize the vulnerable communities and tenants. focus on the challenges (inaudible) >> sorry to cut anybody off but we are timing each speaker at two minutes. next

speaker, please. >> hi. this is allen (inaudible) long-term resident of san francisco living in eureka valley. i strongly support the planning department's new housing element. i think it's long overdue but i think it is really well crafted. shout out to the planning department for a great effort. i also like to-listening to this conversation we spent so much time on land banking i think it is a bad idea. we do not need to take sites and put them to keep them vacfront years and years like we have on some of the sites already. we need to take the money we have and get housing built. we do not need to buy empty lots. anyway, that's my 3 cents. >> thank you so much

for your comments. next speaker, please. >> hi. this is chris (inaudible) i live in sunset. i want to support the housing element plan and particular want to emphasize the need for density along our transportation corridors in the sunset. it's just ridiculous that we have run-down buildings with either no commercial use or limited commercial use. we are sitting because there are so many restrictions on building just to the current (inaudible) let alone increased height limits or anything else. there has to be serious attention to the extra zoning tools residents use to stop reasonable building to be built. thank you for your time. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon. (inaudible) san francisco land use coalition. the city has no chance of achieving rhna goals for affordable housing as developers make more profit on market rate housing, 30 percent versus 20 percent for affordable housing. there is no plan regarding mohcd financial funding plan. it is far from evident as so called streamlining a planning process will provide more equitable access to low income communities and to communities of color. again, it is evident that the modified processes will benefit developers as to racial equity and planning rep coalition has previously pointed out, streamlining or

other strategies dissempower low incommunities and communities of color while empowering for profit developers. scott wiener and david chui tried this with adu several years ago. they spent months on the legislation. some total of what they accomplished were two adu's, so small density projects will be very limited. no cu, no dr, no neighborhood certification. what is the gentle density? thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, my name is jonathan (inaudible) resident of district 2 and member of northern neighbors. excited about the housing element. thank you so

much for the hard hard work that especially the planning department staff put behind the housing element. and, despite all my excitement but hearing today is mainly continuation of the blaming between paulition its that seems to have been bogging down san francisco housing policy for years. instead what i see thin housing element is a vision for at least 82 thousand more homes and embracing you to commit to-asking you to embrace this vision and truly commit to achieving this. for this implementation of the housing element and all the plans laid out should start immediately. it is most importantly maximize housing to reach the equity goals and remove the inequities between our neighborhoods. make sure to remove constraints building as much as possible to make san francisco an attractive place to

build. i would love to see you all embrace the vision for san francisco as a true (inaudible) i know it can be not just a pretty suburb and with the housing element and density that comes with, the ability to support useful public transportation and get people out of their cars and really make progress towards our climate goals. thank you so much for planning and please support the housing element. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is (inaudible) with sf (inaudible) i want to thank staff for all the work they've done. it is frankly a miracle that they have a housing element that would be compliant if adopted in front of you. as you know, san francisco currently has multiple investigations being conducted by the state reg yulator into san francisco now, but

none the less because of the guarantees in this housing element, there is a path to housing element compliance. it will take constant vilgolog olog to make sure san francisco is in (inaudible) but this housing element is extremely important as a first step along that path. there is really no alternative to adopting a housing element. the alternative wooub would be loss of affordable housing funding and would cause displacement, so there is no alternative to adopting this housing element and it is a fantastic housing element for what it will do for san francisco. finally creating affordable housing options in rich neighborhoods like the west side that have opposed it for so long. thank you. >> thank you for your

comments. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon supervisors. members of the committee. my name is alex (inaudible) calling as a member of the housing stability fund oversight board. couple things. first of all, on the housing element specifically itself, i really do want to congratulate like everyone else the planning department staff. they really have the (inaudible) putting this thing together. it has taken a long time but i want to celebrate the housing element use of housing (inaudible) looking towards the west side as really our new growth area and strategically upzoning in order to allow more people to live on a patch of land. i also wanted to specifically note and call out supervisor melgar's comment about our life support system. the electric system and transportation, sewers, all these things. it is

absolutely critical those as we prepare for this next stage of growth. i was alarmed however by what really appears to be mocd unwillingness to use the tools at disposal to even attempt to meet the goals identified in the housing element. the fact is, i too am a planner and what i see as a planner is just all most a paralysis by analysis. (inaudible) we talked about this stuff two years ago and throughout this process trying to get a straight answer out of staff about how the money is being spent or how it is intended to be spent has been like pulling teeth. i'm not a dentist and dont like pulling teeth and rather see

us building and meeting the housing needs. enough hiding behind the process and twiddling thumbs and letting opportunities pass us by. we is a clear mandate, a political mandate, a financial resources to do these things- >> your time expired. >> let's asking our housing department to wake up (inaudible) >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> supervisors, let me advice the planning department you do a needs assessment. on the 20thousand units the academy of art has taken away, put them in place. we have over 65 homes vacant, and we have over 50 million square feet of commercial space

downtown vacant. you can do it in this key areas easily, but you all don't have the depth nor capacity building, nor tenacity, nor the fortitude to serve the poor. with this housing element is just going to serve the rich. we need now to focus on the poor. those who make below $80 thousand. that is your challenge. if you don't fulfill this this time you will never fulfill it in the future. this is more (inaudible) i represent them. you all have no respect for the indigenous people. you have no respect for people of color. you have no empathy nor do you have the heart to

uplift those that need help. thank you very much. my name is francisco decosta. >> thank you so much mr. decosta. next speaker please, you have two minutes. >> supervisor, this is lorraine petty affordable housing advocate for seniors. seniors are all most 20 percent of san francisco and some 50 percent of our homeless population. all races cultures and neighborhoods. most seniors have disabilities. we yuds used to be the middle class before rising rents took over. now we have-we are largely low income. we trusted when we reached old age there would be still a place for us in san francisco. land for our children and grandchildren. we have lost that trust.

today before you have a map for the future called the housing element. the roadmap is paved with good intentions, but no guarantees because our needs are being held hostage by the state laws that are embodied in this new housing element and demanded ransom is our self-determination. if we pay the ransom we promise some measure of security. in other words affordable housing. but wait, our coffers are bear and the money we voted for our security isn't spent to achieve it so whautss polk left? it is up to you supervisors to keep the pressure on. in the implementation we count on you to keep us from displacement. to preserve and add to

our affordable housing and the inclusionary programs we worked so hard to establish. we need you to insure our lives and our voices will continue to matter and be heard but we need you to keep us from being swept away in the wave of expensive housing that is-- >> let's take the next speaker, please. >> good day supervisors. i'm (inaudible) san francisco tenants union a member of the rep coalition. we engage in the housing element process over 2 years championing racial and social equity and final months planning incorporated some of our recommendation. the over-all approach planning has taken with the housing element silence low income and people of color communities deregulates market rate housing and are provides no concrete strategies or resources to meet the

affordable housing mandates which adds up to a housing element that violates the fair housing act and cause even more displacement and gentrification. it is up to us to work together communities of color and low income along with this board and planning to correct the dangers of the housing element during implementation. (inaudible) this board to turn language centered on equity into meaningful changes first by identifying and securing resources for affordable housing now. the board needs to form a multi-agency stakeholder body to develop recommendations to be included in the mayor's budget for fiscal year 23-24 and develop a full set of local regional and state federal funding strategies beyond fiscal year 23-24 to be completed by january 31, 2024 if we have any chance of meeting the state

affordable housing production mandates. this work has to start immediately. rep supports the resolution adopted by the housing stability funds oversight board requesting the revenue proposition i estimated to generate $170 million in fiscal year 23-24 be ongoing annual revenue source available to the city to assist in the achievement of the housing element affordable housing goals. we need to take- >> thank you for your comment s. >> bye. >> let's take the next speaker, please. you have two minutes. >> good afternoon chair melgar, president pesten and supervisor preston. chairly summer here policy director community housing organization. the hard work of planning staff to craft the housing element is forcing to reckon with our performance in

creating affordable housing. for too long our city relied on the system that is not up to par to tackle the affordable crisis we face. it is no longer a crisis in the most vulnerable communities,b it is a affordability crisis touching all most every sector of the work force. the labor council and jobs of justice documented (inaudible) according to california news group state wide affordable score card san francisco is d for very low income housing, c for low income housing and grade of c for moderate income housing. not surprisingly received a in above moderate income. we do not see a plan in place to achieve 46 thousand (inaudible) especially the deeply affordable housing that inclusionary units are not able to deliver. we urge the board of supervisor jz mocd to play a proactive leadership identifying

the resources we need. the housing element forming a stakeholder body to present funding recommendations, the board will have to form this group immediately so the mayor can incorporate the recommendations into there budget and must be front loaded to insure the city makes tangible progress in year jun does not fall behind. the board will consider the recommendation from reinvestment working group to establish the (inaudible) this new institution can be sustainable major source of funding through support for affordable housing but require early investment in capitalization to pay in coming years towards assisting san francisco to achieve our affordable housing target. (inaudible) >> thank you so much. let's take the next speaker, please. we have 23 listners and 11 in the queue. if you have not spoken

and would like to, just press star 3. >> good afternoon supervisors. (inaudible) rep coalition. appreciate the conversation today. rep advocate for racial and social equity in the housing element over 2 years and offered solutions in the city wide people plan so the city has a pathway for the goals. guided by the solutions and expertise of communities most impacted by displacement and affordability. we know this is a critical time and we need to move the housing element forward but as we transition to the implementation phase we know it is critical to get commitment from the city to make the language actions and policies in equity into real concrete meaningful change. we need to identify secure resources asap for affordable housing if we have a chance meeting the mandate. we need to prioritize exfreemly low and low income housing and

insure mechanics to fund the needs as this is housing principally occupied by protected classes in neighborhoods across the city. retain input and solidify leadership from communities of color, low income communities and cultural districts to insure we are not removing the voices of those who have been historically discriminated against and disenfranchised participating in the housing policy. we need to recognize and straess the pattern of falling short on affordable housing funding and construction while at the same time added streamlining process which lead (inaudible) help make the stated goals of (inaudible) in the housing element real and not just words on paper. prioritize issues and solutions we lay out work closely and show you commit to truly prioritizing equity. we have lot of work to do so let's actually do it. thank you. >> thank you so much. let's take the next

caller. >> yes, good afternoon. this is annette billing sly a member of the housing action coalition and at ths stage of the game i will be brief. everybody probably will appreciate that. hearten bide the good work by the planning department on the now state compliant housing element and urge this committee to recommend the housing element to full board for approval. thank you. >> thank you so much. next speaker, please. >> the call attention to the housing element and rep city wide people plan. a visionary blue print laying housing and land use policy that center on racial

social economic equity. without rem the city would not have any real pathway to the stated goal of centering equity in the housing element. following that the board gathered to discuss the draft housing element. back then there was time to shape the housing element for the better and rep accomplished that. while the time for talk is over, we need real changes now. the board the mayor planning and mocd needs to pivot now from business as usual. (inaudible) have a budget request and assembly member ting office. what has the city done to get funding from the state? i appreciate supervisor preston direct questions today about land acquisitions. planning can't just write land banking as a strategy in the housing element and give excuses about why they can't do it. the city can't sit on

hundreds of millions of dollars for affordable house. the city has knoun for years about the goals and 57 percent goal. so, what has planning been working on preemptively? working on rezoning that result in redevelopment 2.0 to encourage massive market rate development that demolish existing housing and small businesses. this is the wrong approach. we all need to work on policies that respect existing tenants from displacement and retain community input. in your remarks today tell us what you're taking on. work with us to make it happen and make real the housing element goals of racial and social equity. thank you. >> next speaker please. >> hi. i'm (inaudible) planning department staff for all your hard work. i wish this was not a state

forced process. sad it came to the state forcing and wish you all in the land use committee to do your job sooner to create (inaudible) affordal housing. we all know that not building houses cost displacement of low income housing and middle class priced out. please pass the housing element. maximize (inaudible) and please start a study for the social housing program as soon as possible. we all agree market rate housing doesn't solve the lack of affordable housing but it has to get the price down for the middle class. my hope is that by building at least 46 thousand market rate and affordable housing we can have a vision for both low income folks and reduce price for middle class instead of pedaling (inaudible) nimby home owners. start the work to hopefully exceed the rhna goals for both affordable housing and market rate housing.

>> thank you so much for your comments. next speaker. you have two minutes. >> linda chapman. first of all i want to honor the director and staff for the way that they did outreach. it was wonderful and i know they got completely different perspective whz they met with some of us from sga about the housing element. i had to drop out after that and couldn't (inaudible) i beg you do not do inclusionary housing in a mixed use development at least when condos and coops. i am a veteran of 17 years in the coop(inaudible) why did i have to drop out of this process? because i'm being sued by the hoa president telling the man down stairs to sue me for

punitive damages. i have a trial date on the 6 and trying very hard to get state legislation that give something like the rent board but when we were writing the (inaudible) we put administrative thing. besides which completely different income level s. people are the lower income people are hopeless. one building that is already built in our neighborhood, the wealthier people have 24 hour desk service, 5 full time equivalent employees for the poor person to pay. developers also produce units in those buildings that are not sold or not rented and on two buildings on pine street that have been approved they are completely uninhabable. against the law. no air, no light, nothing. all in a light (inaudible)

you cannot have that kind of thing. preservation of existing housing is incredibly important. when (inaudible) made a mistake and said- >> thank you for your comments. let's take the next speaker, please. >> good afternoon supervisors. bruce wolf with care community land trust the member of race equity in all planning coalition. d5 resident for the past 30 years. thank you all for your efforts and oversight on this urgent and imminent issue but it isn't enough just to be compliant with the state. we are san francisco, a trail hadf blazer. (inaudible) emerging non profit affordable housing provider. it has been difficult and frosterating to see how many eligible small sites that are actually eligible for acquisition funding go by every month by the

dozens, and this has been a constant since the beginning of the pandemic. release all the monies now and make it easier for smaller stakeholders to play a equitable part achieving the rhna goals and preventing (inaudible) the rep coalition organizations engaged in every part of the housing element process for nearly and 2 and a half years. we need permanent affordable housing with reference to section 3, preventing eliminating homelessness, rep finds there are too many actions focused on providing temporary shelter accommodation. it is critical that planning recognizes the fact expanding shelter accommodations is not a housing solution. san francisco housing element must focus on funding and land use solutions for providing stable dignified affordable housing for all. rep coalition demands the board of supervisors make the goals of centering racial and

social equity in a housing element real and not just words on paper. to do this prioritize the issue we and rep lay out and work closely with american indian black and other communities of color seniors and people with disabilities to make sure their needs are met first and foremost implementing the housing element. >> thank you. let's take the next caller. i apologize if i have to cut you off. we are at 2 minutes for public comment. let's take the next speaker. we have 7 in the queue. >> hi. this is gloria berry. san francisco native. i live in district 10. it is sad that the state is forcing our hand. therefore, let's use all local money available for deeply affordable housing. i would like to emphasize that i would like the narrative to

be emphasized as deeply affordable housing, not just affordable housing. my family was evicted for condo conversion. i extended military service because i had nowhere to come home to. i married someone just to get housing. later when i was homeless due to symptoms that were later diagnosed as cancer i was homeless for 3 years. i worked, was not on drugs and i'm a veteran. additionally, a lot of times when folks are displaced they are given vouchers but development will not accept them in the city attorney says he just gives them warnings. they need to be fined. we need to stop complaining about homeless when we keep having policies that are causing homelessness and districts that won't build deeply affordable housing. i'm going to say it 3

times, deeply, deeply, deeply affordable. anyone that needs a market late unit feel free to contact me. i will help you get a signed lease in three days. we need deeply affordable housing for the people that drive us around on buses, cook your food, provide security, work retail for you to shop and all below living wage jobs. thank you. >> thank you so much for your comments. let's take the next caller. >> good afternoon board of supervisor. my name is robert (inaudible) i am a volunteer [difficulty hearing speaker] the implementation we have now, it is really the hard part. glad to see there is a lot of focus on affordable housing funding. i think there also needs

to be a lot of focus on strategies which involve city raising money without-one big issue not discussed today is how feasible projects are considering many of the requirements in place. inclusionary zoning has not worked that well for san francisco considering the market is really unable to produce housing right now. it is not capital (inaudible) century urban (inaudible) century urban analysis showed that housing is just infeasible to build. we need a social housing program so we can use-(inaudible) to build and maintain

housing at scale for all residents of san francisco. if we engage in such a plan. a housing element does include a program (inaudible) i encourage the board to prioritize this plan so we can have a viable model for social housing. i think that we should (inaudible) we under not wait for the private market. just get a study going. start a social housing program so we can meet the state mandates. thank you. >> thank you so much. let's take the next caller, please. >> hi. my name is jessica (inaudible) your locreal estate agent. i want to thank the planning staff for the housing element. i have been following the last 2 years about it. now

that we are reaching our goals of getting it passed and hopefully in compliance and signed by the mayor i want to focus the most important steps is maximize rezoning the entire city, especially in the district 4 and 7 and 1. the well resourced neighborhoods so we can take advantage of the housing element and build 82 thousand new units of housing for the city. thank you very much. >> thank you for your comments. next caller, please. >> good afternoon supervisors. peter (inaudible) with the mission economic development agency. we are proud member of the race equity all planning coalition. first of all, we want to join others in thanking the planning department for the long hours of dedicated work on this housing element and

also for maintaining ongoing and open dialogue with residents and organizations throughout the process. we think it is important to recognize that this document did make some meaningful steps towards structuring equitable development. it is worth noting and building on in future housing policy as we want to make sure it is in line with all phases of the critical implementation. including the addition of affordable housing circuit breaker that trigger to expand affordable housing and land banking funding at the cycle half way point if not in line with targets. expansion of affordable housing geography in order to build a neighborhood that haven't been building affordable housing as well as recognizing cultural district jz priority equity geography maintain a community voice. recognizing areas vulnerable for displacement needs special relief from up

zoning streamline and other impacts. maintain inclusion era housing and state density bonus levels for the timebeing. recognizing our central freeway removal include impacted communities and recognizing special needs and blue caller spaces and are jobs they create especially in immigrant communities. we do share concerns for sherbet some of the elements that remain, such as the market rate housing circuit breakers. we do appreciate that there have been exemptions added to that area. we also share the concerns from (inaudible) demolition provisions we like to continue to work with the department around those areas. and finally we look (inaudible) make sure we meet the 46 thousand unit goal. >> take the next caller, please. >> good afternoon and thank you for this important hearing. my

name is richard (inaudible) i live in san francisco over 45 years. i live in district 9. i voted for proposition i along with majority of san franciscans and i want to thank supervisor preston for pushing to make sure that the funds get spent on what i voted for and don't understand why we are not using the money to acquire land now so we can build on it to solve this problem. i also wanted to say i agree strongly with supervisor melgar who talked about the need for a strategic plan. in my estimation we need to build 10 thousand units a year, and according to the cost estimates i heard it is $19 billion just to build the affordable units, 46 thousand units. so, where is the plan?

where is the money and how are we going to secure that amount of housing? i don't say building it because i think we can repurpose a lot of office space, there is a lot of empty office space and empty buildsings in san francisco that could house people. police listen to goria berry's comments play over and over again in your head. deeply deeply affordable housing is what we need. people should not drive from modesto to work in san francisco in a restaurant. that's nutty. absolutely nutty. thank you and look forward to seeing some improvements. >> thank you so much. take the next caller, please. we have three in the queue. >> my name is mike chan a resident of dist rth 2, part of (inaudible) a group

for livable neighborhood. i'm asking you to please recommend this to the full board positively. i'm someone in my 30's and one big thing is people in my age and younger who will love-coming from all sorts of walks of life, new-comers and people who drew up here, they are people who-folks who of all different races, color, lgbtq and coming with a huge uncertainty whether they are able to stay here because housing is so unaffordable and so i think the housing element and ambitious plan to build housing especially for the (inaudible) will help create a path really enlarge the path for people to stay here and become residents long-term residents who want san francisco (inaudible) invest

also into san francisco. this is just a start and as evidenced by all the comment there is a lot of work that needs to be done. a lot of things, a lot of initiatives and so i are encourage everyone here and land use and supervisors that we should keep pushing, we should be looking for all strategies to fund low income affordable housing and let's get this passed. thank you to the planning staff and supervisors for your diligence on this. that is all my comments. >> thank you so much for your comments. let's take the next caller, please. >> hello. my name is (inaudible) [difficulty hearing speaker] living in oakland. my home town was from modesto. i support passing the housing element. (inaudible) and market rate units

in throughout san francisco not just pockets of (inaudible) an example of the wrong-doing sf has done in the past with discriminatory actions (inaudible) another example is eastern neighborhood plan of 2000 which that effected the mission district as we see today. supporting the housing element insure retain intended to 46k homes for low moderate income people by 2031 and this is important in western sf where i used to live. (inaudible) and help avoid displacement in places in san francisco where i'm seeing now and oakland and east bay and hoping (inaudible) keep themselves accountable to build the housing and (inaudible) displacement of minority people of myself and i see (inaudible) modesto my

home down. let's get this right. hopefully you all have a great day. supervisors, planning department and yeah, thank you. >> thank you so much. let's take the next caller. again, this is public comment for item 4. if you like to speak and have not already just press star 3, otherwise we'll take the last 2 in the queue. >> good afternoon supervisors. (inaudible) the state hcd requirements the housing element must further fair housing to bring the housing element in line the board needs to take leadership to work with low income communities. we must prioritize extremely low and low (inaudible) insure there are mechanisms to fully fund these needs. this is the housing

principally occupied by these protected classes: (inaudible) implementation and (inaudible) racial social and economic equity. thank you so much. >> thank you for calling. next speaker please. hello caller? >> hello. sorry. had to unmute. this is adam (inaudible) from district 6. i have seen san francisco go through its ups and downs and the one thing that is constant is lack of housing. over the decade housing availability in san francisco has gotten smaller and smaller, so moving this housing element especially one that is recommended by the state is compliant forward is a must do.

if we dont do this if this doesn't move forward all bets are off. we lose affordable housing funds, building remedy, the whole bit. that said, we do need to mike make sure we are working together. one thing that we have seen over the years in san francisco politics is neighborhood fighting over where housing goes. housing to be fair needs to be everywhere. we can't just jam it in one corner and think that is one thing the housing element prevents. this is a great start but it is just a start. following up on this is going to require a lot of cooperation which isn't something that san francisco is good at in politics but i think if we can make that change we can make this happen. if we don't, we are not going to be able to have affordable housing. if we just spend money on land but dont have a plan to build, then we are just going to have a birch bunch of land. if we give sites to

non profits without a plan, we are going to end up with stuff like 730 stanyan which was promised to be ultra-affordable housing and now when it goes live says that it is going to have housing at 110ami. that isn't ultraaffordable and only supported with a 15 year subsidy. we need to make sure affordable housing is affordable in perpetuity so we don't knock people out of homes when rent go up as we have seen in la which affordable housing expires so let's make the element happen and affordable housing happen- >> let's take the last caller er in the queue. >> hi. my name is mitch (inaudible) calling for san francisco housing development corporation calling to support the adoption of the housing element and say thank you to staff and all the folks who put so much

effort into this and exposed so many ideas. i potentially want to thank staff for including the circuit breaker that focus on (inaudible) land banking. (inaudible) we need to land bank in areas that are upzoned before they are upzoned otherwise land will go up 3, 5 times before the city can get in the game. (inaudible) i want to staitd we have 21 thousand very low income (inaudible) that need to be approved in the housing element as well as 12 thousand low income and (inaudible) we are always going need more funding to reach the goals. (inaudible) struggle to reach extra effort into that portion of it. once again, support the adoption and thank you very much to everyone who put so much work into this housing element. thank you. >> thank you so much for your comments. that completes the

queue madam chair. >> thank you very much madam clerk. so, i understand that supervisor-president peskin has left us. do we need to excuse him? >> yes, if we can take a motion to excuse him. >> motion to excuse supervisor peskin. >> on that motion- [roll call] >> two have two ayes. >> public comment is closed. any other comments from anyone before we take a vote on whether to send this forward with positive recommendation as a committee report? i think everybody had their say. >> on the motion to recommend as committee report- [roll call] you have two ayes with

one excuseal for president peskin. >> motion passes. thank you. do we have any other items? >> that completes the agenda for today. >> we are adjourned. thank you.

san francisco is surrounded on three sides by water, the fire boat station is intergal to maritime rescue and preparedness, not only for san francisco, but for all

of the bay area. [sirens] >> fire station 35 was built in 1915. so it is over 100 years old. and helped it, we're going to build fire boat station 35. >> so the finished capital planning committee, i think about three years ago, issued a guidance that all city facilities must exist on sea level rise. >> the station 35, construction cost is approximately $30 million. and the schedule was complicated because of what you call a float. it is being fabricated in china, and will be brought to treasure island, where

the building site efficient will be constructed on top of it, and then brought to pier 22 and a half for installation. >> we're looking at late 2020 for final completion of the fire boat float. the historic firehouse will remain on the embarcadero, and we will still respond out of the historic firehouse with our fire engine, and respond to medical calls and other incidences in the district. >> this totally has to incorporate between three to six feet of sea level rise over the next 100 years. that's what the city's guidance is requiring. it is built on the float, that can move up and down as the water level rises, and sits on four fixed guide piles. so if the seas go up, it can move up and down with that. >> it does have a full range of travel, from low

tide to high tide of about 16 feet. so that allows for current tidal movements and sea lisle rises in the coming decades. >> the fire boat station float will also incorporate a ramp for ambulance deployment and access. >> the access ramp is rigidly connected to the land side, with more of a pivot or hinge connection, and then it is sliding over the top of the float. in that way the ramp can flex up and down like a hinge, and also allow for a slight few inches of lateral motion of the float. both the access ramps, which there is two, and the utility's only flexible connection connecting from the float to the back of the building. so electrical power, water, sewage, it all has flexible connection to the boat. >> high boat station

number 35 will provide mooring for three fire boats and one rescue boat. >> currently we're staffed with seven members per day, but the fire department would like to establish a new dedicated marine unit that would be able to respond to multiple incidences. looking into the future, we have not only at&t park, where we have a lot of kayakers, but we have a lot of developments in the southeast side, including the stadium, and we want to have the ability to respond to any marine or maritime incident along these new developments. >> there are very few designs for people sleeping on the water. we're looking at cruiseships, which are larger structures, several times the size of harbor station 35, but they're the only good reference

point. we look to the cruiseship industry who has kind of an index for how much acceleration they were accommodate. >> it is very unique. i don't know that any other fire station built on the water is in the united states. >> the fire boat is a regional asset that can be used for water rescue, but we also do environmental cleanup. we have special rigging that we carry that will contain oil spills until an environmental unit can come out. this is a job for us, but it is also a way of life and a lifestyle. we're proud to serve our community. and we're willing to help people in any way we can.

[music] so, can you tell us what it was like for you during your first encounter with the san francisco fire department? >> yep. it was super cool! i got to learn about the dry standing pipe correction. it is actually called, dry sand piper just stand pipe. tomato. you know. yea. >> so, what is coming up next for what is that for? >> oh , firefighter backsterinvited mow to a fire station to see the cool stuff firefighters use to put out fires. you have seen the had doors open like a space ship from out of nowhere. i close my eye its is like i'm

there right now! wow! whoa. watch out, man. what is that for? >> what is this? these are fire engines they might look alike they are both red. white top and red lights on top. this is a new 2021 fire engine and this is an older 2014 fire engine. if you can't tell, this one is shorter and narrower than our older fire engines. they have cool things like recessed lights. roll up doors. 360 degree cam ares and more that is important as the city is moving toward slower and safer streets adding parklets and bulb

outs and bike lanes we need to decrease our footprint to keep us and the community safer on emergency scenes. >> what's back there? >> when is not guilty fire engine. great question. i want to see, sure. >> let's go back and look at the equipment and the fire pump on the fire engine. >> this is a fire pump. it is cool all the colors and all that. this fire pump and this engine holds 500 gallons of water that is a lot. >> a lot of water. >> it is push out 1500 gallons a minute of water. we can lose our 500 gammons quickly. why we use hoses like this to connect to a fire hydrant and that gives us unlimited amount of water to help put a fire out temperature is important we have enough fire engine in san francisco to put fires out. so we can reduce the injuries

and minimize loss of life and minimize property damage. [music] >> mr. will. mr. will. will! >> oh. daydreaming. thanks, everybody for watching! bye!

>> he is a real leader that listens and knows how to bring people together. brought this department together like never before. i am so excited to be swearing in the next chief of the san francisco fire department, ladies and gentlemen, let's

welcome, jeanine nicholson. (applause). >> i grew up total tomboy, athlete. i loved a good crisis, a good challenge. i grew up across the street from the fire station. my dad used to take me there to vote. i never saw any female firefighters because there weren't any in the 1970s. i didn't know i could be a fire fighter. when i moved to san francisco in 1990, some things opened up. i saw women doing things they hadn't been doing when i was growing up. one thing was firefighting. a woman recruited me at the

gay-pride parade in 1991. it was a perfect fit. i liked using my brain, body, working as a team, figuring things out, troubleshooting and coming up with different ways to solve a problem. in terms of coming in after another female chief, i don't think anybody says that about men. you are coming in after another man, chief, what is that like. i understand why it is asked. it is unusual to have a woman in this position. i think san francisco is a trailblazer in that way in terms of showing the world what can happen and what other people who may not look like what you think the fire chief should look like how they can be successful. be asked me about being the first lbgq i have an understands because there are little queer

kids that see me. i worked my way up. i came in january of 1994. i built relationships over the years, and i spent 24 years in the field, as we call it. working out of firehouses. the fire department is a family. we live together, eat together, sleep in the same dorm together, go to crazy calls together, dangerous calls and we have to look out for one another. when i was burned in a fire years ago and i felt responsible, i felt awful. i didn't want to talk to any of my civilian friends. they couldn't understand what i was going through. the firefighters knew, they understood. they had been there. it is a different relationship. we have to rely on one another. in terms of me being the chief of the department, i am really trying to maintain an open

relationship with all of our members in the field so myself and my deputy chiefs, one of the priorities i had was for each of us to go around to different fire stations to make sure we hit all within the first three or four months to start a conversation. that hasn't been there for a while. part of the reason that i am getting along well with the field now is because i was there. i worked there. people know me and because i know what we need. i know what they need to be successful. >> i have known jeanine nicholson since we worked together at station 15. i have always held her in the highest regard. since she is the chief she has infused the department with optimism. she is easy to approach and is

concerned with the firefighters and paramedics. i appreciate that she is concerned with the issues relevant to the fire department today. >> there is a retired captain who started the cancer prevention foundation 10 years ago because he had cancer and he noticed fellow firefighters were getting cancer. he started looking into it. in 2012 i was diagnosed with breast canner, and some of my fellow firefighters noticed there are a lot of women in the san francisco fire department, premenopausal in their 40s getting breast cancer. it was a higher rate than the general population. we were working with workers comp to make it flow more easily for our members so they didn't have to worry about the paper

work when they go through chemo. the turnout gear was covered with suit. it was a badge to have that all over your coat and face and helmet. the dirtier you were the harder you worked. that is a cancer causeser. it -- casser. it is not -- cancer causer. there islassic everywhere. we had to reduce our exposure. we washed our gear more often, we didn't take gear where we were eating or sleeping. we started decontaminating ourselves at the fire scene after the fire was out. going back to the fire station and then taking a shower. i have taught, worked on the decontamination policy to be sure that gets through. it is not if or when.

it is who is the next person. it is like a cancer sniper out there. who is going to get it next. one of the things i love about the fire department. it is always a team effort. you are my family. i love the city and department and i love being of service. i vow to work hard -- to work hard to carry out the vision of the san francisco fire department and to move us forward in a positive way. if i were to give a little advice to women and queer kids, find people to support you. keep putting one foot in front of the other and keep trying. you never know what door is going to open next. you really don't.

[cheers and [music] san francisco emergency home program is a safety net for sustableable commuters if you bike, walk, take public transit or shares mobility you are eligible for a free and safe roadway home the city will reimburse you up to $150 dlrs in an event of an emergency. to learn more how to submit a reimbursement visit sferh.