Skip to main content

tv   BOS Full Board of Supervisors 22316  SFGTV  February 28, 2016 6:00pm-7:31pm PST

6:00 pm
developers? and perhaps we should have nonprofits building vast did have another comment. there were talks about building units. so expensive is it possible to build no-frills units? i notice in the chronicle three weeks or an architect from italy when this big prize because he developed public housing and it's kind of like bare-bones public housing. as your fortunes rise you can add things. so i think this is something to consider. anyway, i urge the board to support supervisor kim and peskin's proposal. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> first of all, i like to thank supervisor aron peskin for his eloquence and passion and also supervisor avalos, kim,
6:01 pm
and campos. my name is marty says on and i am here because my story is very personal, and while you people are throwing around facts and figures and numbers, people are out there in san francisco six, in pain and dying. i am a senior. i'm 73 years old this year. i live in san francisco over 50 years. longer than some of your ages. i've lived all over in every district and this is now the 10th year that i've had to endure this terrific housing crisis could 10 years. first i was convicted in 2006 from my home, my rent-controlled home of 21 years. i was so distraught i developed cancer in the middle of this move and i almost given up on finding anything affordable after year of looking. i'm a local way.
6:02 pm
i've written for some of the major magazines and newspapers here. that small businesses in this town. i currently now, because my age i'm on social security of $618 a month. i would like to know which one of you people here could live on that anywhere. not even in detroit. i have 10 pages worth. how much longer can i do? i've taken housemates to make the rent because now i am being-i'm getting evicted by the market rate increase. by landlord has raised the rent last two years $1350 per month in the last two years. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> we appreciate your comments
6:03 pm
and understand where you are coming from. next speaker, please. >> ma'am, i'm sorry. ma'am. i'm sorry. next speaker, please. >> my name is patrick kennedy, developer of rental housing. been working for 25 years here in san francisco the last three years. i'm passing out a sheet that shows how much construction prices gone up in the last six months in san francisco. lowrise construction is going up 11%. this work
6:04 pm
arrival from culpability. missed your attention because i like you to remember that we cannot build new housing and adopted new requirements in a vacuum. i think we need to exactly what's going on in the community. an arbitrary requirement that doubles the set-aside requirement without taking into effect, without taking into consideration the massive increase in construction prices here in san francisco will actually reduce the amount of housing that is produced. berkeley has a set-aside requirement of 10% and is produced roughly triple the amount of moderate and low income housing in san francisco. as a per capita production of its population. i would also like to remind you that if this legislation passes without some kind of equitable
6:05 pm
grandfathering provision, and the consideration for feasibility is quite likely the ordinance will indeed be challenged and result in a legal disqualification of the cities set-aside requirement altogether because legislation passed in 1999. correctly, on the legality of the set-aside requirement here in san francisco. finally, i like to encourage you to adopt the affordable onus or affordable housing bonus program is producing more housing in the city. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, supervise. tim: we have three of the members of the san francisco action coalition. said many times. we support the maximum amount of affordable housing being built but i think one of the issues that has not been
6:06 pm
discussed here is that in order to do that we have to build a lot of housing. the concern i have with this well-intentioned charter amendment is that the number, it doesn't seem to be borne out by any analysis. any formal analysis. this is a problem because if by moving it forward overall housing production is reduced, the city's affordability worsens and its displacement in crease. the city was. it's incredibly important to get this number right. it's not a trivial matter. i don't like making apocalyptic statements. no one can foretell the future, but the 25% is more or less a one-size-fits-all number that treats all housing alike which is not in the city. when of the chief fears we have is that by saying because someone can pay
6:07 pm
25% we should put it in, the fear is this warhammer production of smaller scale or cost construction outside the urban core. we don't have a prayer of ever getting a handle on the affordability crisis up for doing it. i think in some folks mind there's this project is prototype project that's super wealthy and because that all projects are they the same. your discussion about 5m. this is not a one-size-fits-all. i'm disappointed there wasn't a deal able to be made on economic feasibility and grandfathering because i think we shouldn't kid ourselves that things can't get worse. we can make things worse. the housing affordability crisis is largely of our own making 30 years ago. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is tony rodriguez. her present local 42. i'm also
6:08 pm
a native and resident of san francisco. i would like like i said at the other meeting, my parents come here from foreign country. they're able to buy a house and raise four. i was able to follow the same thing. i met my wife was able to buy a house and raise for girls. unfortunately, just like a lot of people here sure people here, our kids are not following having the same dream we have. at two daughters that were nurses. one of them could not afford to stay in the cities of it but house in oakland. the other moved in to help her pay the rents. my other two daughters one is a teacher. one is a teachers aide. both going to school both living at home. they can think about buying a house let alone paying the rent to move out. so i do work with-which i hope homeless people all the time. all the stuff we are tonight is true. we have a crisis. for all
6:09 pm
different groups. but you supervisors are a safety net when it comes to making laws that are kids, grandkids are going to have to live with. i've never seen something like this go before the board of supervisors and you voted in without doing the feasibility study. i brought a lot of stuff on the opposite nothing supervisors kim says what would make it work. so, i just don't understand how you could vote something into law cannot do a study could and if it does get voted into law i would suggest you do have something that goes in the chart of the basically says, you feasibility studies to make it go up or down. >> thank you. next speaker, please. betook
6:10 pm
>> minus kelly johnson. >> my name is kelly johnson. i am telling you that this is not going to go [inaudible]. the 25% [inaudible]. pushed around by a devil here. i am telling you this is going to change.
6:11 pm
[inaudible]. we will have some shelter. we are going to build houses. when not going to be playing games with you. [inaudible] time to kill all the people in the world by taking our food away. i am not going to have it. this has been discrimination. because of somebody can take the world and take everybody else with it. [inaudible].
6:12 pm
>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is jeffrey-local san francisco residential development firm. we recognize the critical importance building more housing specially affordable housing to keep her city diverse and combative and we've included that always and he's valid project that was having a higher 24% requirement may sound a solution to this problem is that may suppress the production of housing we intend to stimulate. it is therefore critical we conduct a proper economic feasibility study. our firms focuses on smaller 50-100 unit input projects which should not have the ability to sort a to x increase in requirements. the majority of our current projects would be financially
6:13 pm
infeasible and not be moving forward as they are today. it's also critical that we are responsible grandfathering provisions well projects girardi filed applications are made significant financial investment to move forward on the original rules that relied upon when applications were submitted. to not do so would open the city to lawsuits and show investment in the city more broadly it has investors wouldn't void environment were rules are perceived to change quickly and unpredictably. thank you for your time and hope we can reach move forward cautiously and thoughtfully and carefully study the stability maximum out of housing at all levels. betook thank you. next speaker, please. >> >> i'm the chairman of the admiralty fun. i remain deeply concerned that if we increase the affordable acquirement to 25% will actually have a decrease in the number of affordable units being produced in san francisco. i vastly
6:14 pm
summative lots of-when i did the pro forma i was really trying to find out-i asked the four largest contractors the cost to build a 16 story high-rise i sent the pro forma to the four largest afford housing providers in san francisco. 24 largest developers i did my very best to come up with an economic analysis and i talked with for major lenders. right now, it is exceedingly difficult to build housing with 25%. i don't think it can be done. we can argue but the numbers but the best exhibit obscene for the somebody is 72 s. venice and their budget is $900,000 to build 100% affordable housing units in san francisco. that's $900,000. so just be really careful. i presume that gets
6:15 pm
past that we work with a trailing ordinance there really allows grandfathering and the looks of the economics with 25%. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, supervise. my name is brian spears. on the smaller local native san franciscan builder did i grope in the trades. i typically build smaller projects, former gas stations were buildings. the gloucester economic value. my concern is that 25% is one-size-fits-all. to me, as a builder enough to demonstrate use make some profit and go out and get alone. at 25% with no increase in height or bulk than the existing zoning humid place that monies me subsidize his remaining 75% of that building.
6:16 pm
that means, market rate housing, the very least needs to remain where it is or go up when you can get on. it's as simple as that for me. i can't make it to them until i can get seven more stories and i know there's a lot of other builders similar situation. what concerns needs is one-size-fits-all. i do applaud the intentions of more formal housing. i've always been on set. i just recently built 23 affordable units at the corner of market and franklin so i've been there. i've done a bit i was proud to do that but i'm very concerned that moving forward of a 25% one size fits of you i think the goal cost the city is a high level of affordable housing became begun the same way at every site would be my main concern. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is ivan, resident
6:17 pm
and committee organizers for the tenderloin neighborhood. i'm just here to voice my support for supervisors kim and peskin's inclusionary housing amendment. i do believe this is a good step in addressing our housing crisis. this is not the only step. we have a lot of people that need housing. i do believe we can be the san francisco by the city that actually solve this problem because all other urban errors are going to the same issue as we are. why can't we be the first window housing for everybody? was in the homeless, middle-class, and folks making lots of money. i think this is a good step but i hope we continue finding more solutions in terms of having real inclusionary housing which includes everybody in san francisco. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. my name is juan carlos. local developer could., longtime san franciscan
6:18 pm
resident. i wanted to refer to something that one of the previous speaker said which is that you have a moral imperative to act in i would agree but i would add if a moral imperative to act cautiously and carefully when making a very big change to the rules that are in place for the city is all. you heard from many speakers and people care passionate about housing in this. i would include myself that were compassionate passionate about green market rate housing and affordable husband you can't double the performance for about many projects in the pipeline and may projects coming down the pipeline in later years. we are very afraid of for our cities that you're taking very drastic step that if not carefully considered going to find ourselves here are 5-10 years
6:19 pm
down the road with a worse problem with a worse crisis where more people will not have access to affordable housing boxes to any kind of housing. so, i urge you to carefully consider the key provisions being discussed to amend the charter amendment or at least discuss trailing ordinance is that can put in place adequate grandfathering for existing projects and feasibility. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is daniel my renter in there. basically on for removing the percentage of bmr from the charter and doing a feasibility study. would sound like everyone on the board was sort of on that page. i think we need to stop focusing on those maximizing percentage of affordable housing. in maximizing we do need to focus on the maximizing the amount of it which is subtly different but not exactly the same thing.
6:20 pm
prince's nephew of 40 in a building and make 50% of it then you wind up with six inclusionary units. view 100 unit building need to 12% you wind up with a 12 inclusionary units was actually twice the number helps bring up the price at the type of market pulse. i don't have a specific percentage want to recommend but i think we need to draw both about propositions and do a study, feasibility study to figure out what we can do to maximize the wrong number of inclusionary units we can build in the city. some people also mentioned alternatives for way too fund the turn of husband: product three. while we taxing insane runs? why don't we tax that end-users pay for inclusionary housing. people that get capital gains from houses they bought a long time ago especially landlords to
6:21 pm
make a killing after they sell the building. let's tax that. last but not least maybe we could increase the property tax rate on houses are such that more than $1 million. i knows were not short on $1 million houses. job the percentage on the charter and let's do a feasibility study and maximize the number of inclusionary units. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. my name is moses see in this of the simple and quick. we need more affordable housing now. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i like to thank supervisors kim for this proposal and peskin my name is jesse john spent on long-term resident of the tenderloin. a maypole. i'm the founder of tenderloin-the
6:22 pm
people's congress. more poorly on one of the growing number of people eager to take back our lives. please do this on about and we will win. the stronger proposal just give us an opportunity to do so. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> this inclusionary charter amendment is a tool in the fight for affordable housing. it's not the cure but it's a tool in the fight. it doesn't keep in mind the numbers that we keep talking about can keep this from seeing the human side of our situation. we are talking about numbers but were also talked about people. but keep that in mind. the many seniors that are priced out of the city. felix the senior cost-of-living index a senior who runs a one-bedroom apartment needs $1250 to pay the rent
6:23 pm
by the senior investment 2011. those numbers were off the charts. they're much high. many seniors have two choose between medicine and food. in the low-end of a my 50%, 67% is an attainable to many seem. we need to redefine what affordable is according to the reality of what were seen on the ground. that's not studied this problem any further. were out of balance in our housing goes. that is clear. was doubled inclusionary requirements. double is doable. i will repeat again, double is doable. 25% is modest. we need much more. let's hold accountable to the developers. that's what this is about. withhold developers accountable. i appreciate the energy and passion that i've seen on the board about this issue. the back-and-forth, i mean the heat of it almost is the most like tarzan versus jane. i do appreciate it and that's make the right decision.
6:24 pm
>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. my development background in san francisco includes one of development in [inaudible]. i agree the city's affordable housing policy is very important proof in terms of economic and human impact. maybe san francisco is a leader in this regard. the unjust public housing to inclusionary housing and public-private partnerships. however, once each of these tools reaches a saturation point we need to try other approaches. as a fix mandate schools can lead to negative unintended consequence. recent efforts is baited the roundtable on income inequality. to the palace and could economic from stanford and uc berkeley they shared a number of key insights which is
6:25 pm
in or it could raise the cost of living driving out middle-class residents creating a bilevel income distribution and decreasing affordable housing production. >> please speak directly into the microphone >> the board would [inaudible] given impressive mechanized prior to voting i encourage the board to do an in-depth study. first, as to the separate categories of housing tabs. sizing and location should be more level for medium-size project than traditional labor district the same or different than those for downtown high-rise. large-scale office component gets second semester the production curve, this is become infeasible jeopardizing the production goes. as [inaudible]. i will point to consider adopting a broad-based
6:26 pm
tax to to use as well as aligning interests of the community at large to sport these public benefits. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i currently with an outer richmond. i like to plot the supervisors for the heart of this legislation bumper faxed and honestly confused about why we put it. i think the 25% is very spicy number in this election year but i do not think it's been studied well enough to actually understand the fact that it's going to have an rc. we look at increasing the number of affordable units and this could harm our angle created more affordable housing in the suit. early doing purge the board to look at an economic feasibility study. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is sonia-speaking in favor of supervisor cohen's amendment because i really do think that getting the number
6:27 pm
wrong could result in much fewer affordable housing units being built. user housing units overall. i like this club because i feel like everyone in this card is asking for more in the amendment i like to see is an amendment that provides the up zoning. and the density increases that many people are saying would allow us to get to 25%. i don't really understand why it's so hard to just build more. the book resort is a good example. being mentioned earlier. huge site with a lot of potential but even though-there's no displacement. it's a parking lot. but despite that, the muscle through a redundant community advisory committee which makes the process take longer. so, it's
6:28 pm
going to be as 90s three or 30 affordable units there. we are going to wait another romance maybe who knows, your foray. for it. when the affordable housing bonus program comes vote in favor of that austrian disco wind up being as default for up zoning everywhere because if we have 25% and everyone else take advantage of the state density program. i'm looking forward to seeing what happens with that. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm an architect with many projects in affordable housing in the suit. i'm really concerned that 25% is arbitrary. if it turns out double is not doable and projects are canceled 25% of no project equals no affordable housing. i think i would've chilling effect on construction and the
6:29 pm
people that support that. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm a vice president at plant construction. we've been in san francisco for 70 years we build a lot of things but we build housing a lot. i work for developers could have done projects very large, 30 story. the economics monk lines of projects are very different. i kind of think you do need to look at things in different ways for different projects and see what works. i was new there was a housing problem in san francisco. i think was very highly of it to myself tonight as well. there's no doubt there's a problem and something needs to be done. we just want to do it in a way that doesn't
6:30 pm
make it so that you have 25% of nothing. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is john want. i've been a resident of san francisco for over 62 years. i am here to, in fact, speak on my perspective the benefits of market rate housing. it's a discussion about her to get some way put my perspective on where this comes from. in the 70s as with gordon chan at international hotel resisting when my hair was longer. that john won't you still need. but i also am the son of immigrants from parents who'd immigrated to san francisco the time when you couldn't leave poor child.
6:31 pm
never learned to speak english though they were here for well over 70-80 years. but there was was their ownership of market rate housing and the ability of increase in value that allowed my sisters and me to attend college, to allow them, even though their social security is very modest to survive in a very happy life until they passed into their 90s. so, my comment is i am fully in support of san francisco and san franciscans being a broad spectrum of individuals of different economic backgrounds, social backgrounds, but the reality is in this discussion it seems to be demonizing the opportunity that san franciscans should have two build a life for themselves and for their children and grandchildren
6:32 pm
>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> could even get minimus team santa. i live in an sro in the tenderloin. i'm a member of pl votes and the people's congress. i just have to tell the supervisors number one, thank you for letting me speak this evening. but you must be doing something right. before you even take a boat looks even got two people threatening a lawsuit if you don't vote the way they want. in the presidential election this year, several candidates are running on exclusion. exclusion is not what our country is about. now, is your opportunity to vote for inclusion. treating people as less than does not make a hero. a hero hopes his fellow man, especially that fellow man that may be in need. this is your
6:33 pm
time to be that hero. thank you for your time. please be the hero transport the inclusionary measure. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is lou vasquez., native san franciscan, resident attendance. i'm a developer. we have about 300+ units of affordable housing in our pipeline comic. it's good to build affordable housing we need to build affordable housing. but where justin, that's four years in the making. if we rush to this kind of legislation is pretty
6:34 pm
binary. you can get it right or you get it wrong. if you get it wrong as very chilling affect on the market. this a very chilling effect on the production of affordable and market rate housing. we need to get it right. take the time to do the analysis. hansen has 40 years to get here. if you change it to 25% today or 3-4 years out from delivering another affordable unit. there was currently in the pipeline. there's no rush here. get it right. do it right. produce that housing how people move into it and help alleviate the problem. don't make it worse. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> yes, let's get the number out of the charter and put it in the hands of the legislators that we have elected. instead of a document. supervisor kim said 60% of our current san
6:35 pm
francisco residents qualify for affordable housing. right now. last i heard housing was a human rights. feasibility studies can be spun in a lot of different ways. nobody knows the future. let's consider that our real estate investment market is international. san francisco is cheaper than any comparable or most any comparable cities around the world clearly places like london. we need to control our real estate and make it serve us not be controlled by market forces that are about money. developers are the ones who fail to build. people like me stood here and beg for housing for years and years. the developers want to build office buildings. so, now here we are. this proposal can effectively produce much more affordable
6:36 pm
housing than the contorted so-called density bonus housing. if market rate reduction slows soak it with party made the goal for market rate housing. so it can probably think of some other creative ways to do this like maybe have a minimum size-we certainly see how people will adjust to the number of units but let's get the number. let's get the number out of the charter and into your hands. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> peter cohen. i have copies of a letter here for you all. buford from a lot of folks. we have therefore the housing crisis. we all know it. there's reports of their studies is media news piece. this all kinds of proclamations. what we need are solutions. i would argue what you have in front of
6:37 pm
you is one solution not the only solution. get inclusionary housing one way to create affordable housing. the proposition a bond was asleep. the housing trust fund in 2012 was a solution but i would argue you start looking at that short-term rental paxman. there's lots of solutions. the proposal before you is very simple. take inclusionary backout of the charter and into the hands of the board would should not belong to last for years and ensure there's a process to do a full inclusionary update and in the meantime have some interim goals and then going forward conclusion i can be updated as often as we need to. good supervisor yee resolution of. i thought it was beautiful. some measure of grandfather and some feasibility analyses in the regular updating in a nexus site. it's all there. the only difference whether it's baked into a ballot measure which
6:38 pm
puts us right into ballot box planning or whether we see that resolution the statement of intent and go to businesses. that's what were committed to working with on this board, all of you and other stakeholders in the commit. developers side and otherwise. i gave you a copy of the letter. there is also beset the one i think mentioned shane economic development agency. etc. and many many to meet readers. please, move this forward as it is with no amendment. let's get it to the voters >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> chris do want to meet pulsing director. pay for the opportunity to weigh in on proposed changes to san francisco's inclusionary housing. as you know spurs big
6:39 pm
sport of affordable housing involved in inclusionary housing since it was instituted in san francisco. we believe it's important tool, one of many, help grow san francisco for the housing supply you with many others in this room is room to raise the bar. however, financial feasibility is key. too low a requirement not ask enough and too high developers wonder producing less housing volatiles that we'd like. what make sure the requirement hits that sweet spot with some projects are viable rightly increased requirement of affordable housing want to make sure housing projects can compete with parking lots and other low intensity commercial pieces for land. housing is not the only thing that once when i want to make sure it's competitive. based on what we seen we do not think 20% is workable as a baseline. we urge you to stylish process including a inclusionary carmen on financial feasibility and we also urge you to establish a grandfathering date project sarti negotiated land deals in already in the pipeline.
6:40 pm
without grandfathering only to lose would lay thousands of units in the pipeline would also cause the loss of thousands full-time jobs the short and long-term. some don't believe in the role that market rate has to play in the housing affordability crisis. but as the legislative analyst office points out, that made it so great though never be able to subsidize housing for the entire population. if it is 65% amount of money would cost is astronomical. most of us will not win affordable housing lottery and we need to figure out to fix the market to address those needs. going overall supply is when the other pointed out will make a difference >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is legion. gross san francisco small development firm in the suit. and also
6:41 pm
residentcan but while we recognize the city does have a great need for affordable housing the proposed amendment is not the solution. we urge you to establish a proper process for change in inclusionary housing requirements get the 25% [inaudible] is just not a sound approach to policymaking. an economic feasible essay will allow you to truly understand what level inclusionary housing is appropriate without exacerbating current housing shortage in increasing our cost of living for san francisco residence. the need for such an academic study is a critical it cannot be ignored. it needs to be adopted now. second, we urge you to adopt a grandfathering clause for the projects that's
6:42 pm
already in the pipeline that translates to about 8000 units. significant number when you compare to a 20 year historical average. the loss of 8000 pipeline units simply means higher rental rates, higher housing husband higher cost of living for the san francisco residence. if you intend to increase inclusionary housing supply alleviate overall holocaust of living incorporate grand father closet now into the proposal. lastly i want to address the issue here is not whether not we need more affordable units. we all agree we do. if you go to address this issue that's what you gather to come up with some solution but sustainable as well as that file for all the communities to include affordable housing income units and i support the goals and development for san francisco in a sustainable way. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> minimum income level of
6:43 pm
people the world over is about $20 a day. the reason people in america make more goes collectively subsidized particular income and well-being. course we can subsidize every. we do it every single day. while subsidizing ourselves. i lived in a house i first moved to europe and of course there was no housing problem for you is. it was endless types of land and this housing in the sunset had not been built yet. the reason we have a problem now is because that ship has sailed. we have to start in a thoughtful way to protect allowing the things that we have given to each other to allow it to go to everyone. lower income people also. i lived in a house. he was in the ward in. if victoria. his bills by large
6:44 pm
wealthy family and of course it was inclusionary housing. the entire bottom of the house rooms for the staff. in terms of units it was a third percent conclusion. 800% and that was in 1915. terms of square feet it was 40% inclusionary. 25% is not enough and that's just a start. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is wendy i want to speak about development affordability. whether they can afford it or not, people in the city of san francisco are now getting increasingly unaffordable rent. i also want to add the numbers and figures that have not been spoken about.
6:45 pm
extremely low income is defined that 30% of area median income. that is up to $21,400 a year. that equals $1800 a month approximately. very low income is from 31-50%. that starts approximately from $22,000-35,007 on her dollars. low income some 51%-80%, is $36,000 to approximately $57,000. moderate income is filled within the affordable housing definition. of up to 120%. that is that is between
6:46 pm
50,080 6000. new income is $86,000 to start with. my question is, is middle income considered affordable now? for someone who's living on social security extremely low income >> thank you. thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> are there any other members of the public which provide public comment at this time seeing none, public comment is closed. >>[gavel] >> colleagues, supervisors cohen betook
6:47 pm
>> i want to thank all those folks are came out for public comment and sat through this hearing. i appreciate your remarks and i think the word remarks that are very common themes and this is very important and this is a crisis and it deserves 110% attention. the gentleman that offers opportunity to sleep under the bridge, i'll think about it. i don't see a mania but i deftly felt his compassion and urgent. with that said, they to withdraw my previous amendment and have circulated a new set of amendment to substitute him. them. it includes the planning departments desire for study by december 31, 2016. i think
6:48 pm
that's it. >> yes, i'm sorry. i'm reading the amendment i just got like 2 seconds. beat it your professional as a mic and that's what we do. >> yes. supervisor peskin >> through the president to supervisors cohen, can you read right what the changes are in the new item you've introduce? >> supervisors cohen >> yes, supervisor. the controller will present the proposed ordinance. what including the planning comment to meet in the study. complete the study to meet in the study. complete the study by
6:49 pm
december 31, 2016. the controller will come back with the proposed ordinance to the board of supervisors. the board shall hold a public hearing to adopt, rid reject and/or adopt with amendment for the ordinance. the controller's office-maybe you could discuss the amendment further if supervisor peskin he delivered more we pick >> oscar the city attorney after my colleague is done with her request. >> i want to ask it for a point of clarity. why is it necessary to include this in the charter amendment were proposing and not do it separately as its own ordinance? >> alder for my answer to >> i will defer answer to been excuse me, nikki we can >> nicole elliott for mayor
6:50 pm
bede's office. in response to question the goal of having this in the charter amendment is to it obtain certain tea that it will be done. in the future, now and in the future looking for. >> supervisor peskin >> then, perhaps to ms. wheaton, because it appears-ms. elliott, my apologies-it appears you're attempting to speak for these sponsors. maybe you can respond to why the first amendment's was defective to because that's what it was. and wife through the supervisory put in a second and white believe it's not legally defective? because it gets to the essence of-this charter amendment was introduced on december 15, 2015. on july-on
6:51 pm
january 19 the mayor introduced his fiscal feasibility bout initiative. turned it in at 424 in afternoon prior to our second trend the second initiative. what has happened, is that the amendment to the charter amendment that having district and supervisor kerry is actually a violation of the charter. was never reviewed by vehicle cancel and cannot be defined. that's actually what's going on you. >> thank you supervisor peskin. supervisor campos >> just a quick question. has this amendment been reviewed by the city attorney and approved by the city attorney to pick? >> yes, the amendment has been reviewed by a office. we can
6:52 pm
sign the charter amendment approving it. >> just for clarity, what is different between the previous amendment in this current amendment why the current amendment is acceptable and the other isn't? >> there are few differences. some that don't rise to reels legal cigarettes but among others the new version passes both the controller and planning apartment with preparing studies that previous version. the new version requires the controller along with the reports by december and everything years thereafter submit a proposed ordinance to the board. the new version would require the board to consider that ordinance am a hold a hearing, it will be within the discretion of the board to adopt, reject or adopt
6:53 pm
some other version with amendment did the original proposal acquired the controller to prepare reports and then required to the board to adopt an ordinance effectively moment in the recommendation about reports. essentially, that version dictated to the board of the content of an ordinance that would adopt in the future where is this version just gives the board a report and recommendation in the board can act on its own discretion. >> thank you for the card. supervisor peskin >> i rise to respectfully urge you colleagues to vote down the amendments to the charter amendment. it is my hope that between now and 2 pm on tuesday, march 1 that there'll be a meeting of the minds that the two ordinance will be
6:54 pm
dropped. that cooler heads will prevail. that will all agree to supervisor yee. >> on-site debate is happening on the has up inside. second by supervisor tang okay. supervisor peskin >> is my profound hope by 2 pm on march 1 cooler heads will prevail. the two versions of the ordinance will be withdrawn . that this charter amendment will move forward to the ballot , wherein the 12% be taken out and that we will have at least at a high level conceptual agreement between the executive branch and the makers of this charter amendment and hopefully broad-based buy-in on issues
6:55 pm
like grandfather in, use it or lose it, and what have you moving forward which, i for one would like to adopt prior to the passage on the june 7 ballot of this charter amendment , but respectfully urge you colleagues, let's get the job done. with our people mistake of 2012. let's vote amendment to the charter amendment down >> thank you. seeing no other names on the roster, and i am going to need a two-minute recess in order to review this because i'm trying to run this meeting and understand exactly what were being asked. at this time, i will take a quick two-minute recess so i can
6:56 pm
>>[gavel] >> we are back from recess. seeing other names on the roster a chance to review the amendment i just want to say a couple things. i think the whole point forward trying to publish youras you get this language out of the charter and in the hands of the board. i think this is adding another layer that are not comfortable adding. i think we could accomplish what we're trying to accomplish by doing it separately from this charter amendment and separately from this process. i'm definitely committed to that and looking at grandfathering, and looking at feasibility and the kinds of things that are important to make sure that we put the appropriate number forward looking for. with that, colleagues, unfortunately i'm not comfortable supporting the change in this capacity but i am comfortable with alternative
6:57 pm
legislation that is language of the statement included in it in the future. with that madam clerk seeing other names on the roster please call the roll on the amendment >> supervisor tang aye, wiener aye, yee nay the obelisk nay, breed nay campos nay, cohen aye, farrell aye, kim nay, mar nay peskin nay. there are four aye and seven no with in the dissent >> the amendment failed >>[gavel] >> with that madam clerk see northern names on the roster on item number 35 please call the roll >> >> item 35 supervisor tang nay,
6:58 pm
>> may rise to a point of information and only allowed to be dick imus i. supervisor peskin >> rising for point of information. believe under the charter the board has to sit until march 1 and i would suggest we continue it until march 1. >> so, with that, supervisor peskin has made a motion to continue item 35 to the meeting of march 1, 2016. moved and seconded. colleagues, take this without objection. without objection this is continue to march 1 >>[gavel] >> madam clerk, let's go to the next item. >> next item madam president his public comments.
6:59 pm
>> please read the public >> at this time the public comment may adjust the board to include the minutes and the items on the adoption without reference to committee calendar items 38 and 39. pursuant to the board's rules of order not to individual supervisors and not to the audience. speakers using translation assistance we about twice the amount of time to testify if you like to display your document on the overhead projector priestly state such to sfgtv and remove the document when the screen returns to live coverage of the meeting. >> first speaker, please. >> >> good evening, it's 9 pm. do you know how many people are wealthy san francisco public library excludes from full use
7:00 pm
of the library. remember, this is the collaborator whose budget you approve each year. san francisco current budget is more than tripled the average of lavish serving a similar number of people by far the highest budget. well, san francisco's stop borrowing privileges for anyone owning more than $10 in fines and fees. through the elaborate users association information request we weren't the following. as of january of this year, more than 57,000 current library card holders cannot borrow physical so-called materials. they cannot borrow books. 57,000 new cannot borrow magazines. 57,200 cannot borrow laptops where
7:01 pm
available and cannot request materials from interlibrary loan or link plus even if those materials reference on the. 47,000 people of relatively small amounts ranging from $10-two under one dollars. that could be one or two books plus some fines or fewer lost books. we ask you to stop the restrictions on service based on money owed except perhaps an extreme case. we ask you to stop the fines for lateness, though not for lost materials. and we ask you to allowed non-cash payment for book fees. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is roland, taxi driver. i come to these
7:02 pm
meetings frequently. yesterday made three dollars after paying for my captors. i want to put some documents on. this is green. they are green in it. there are company. their owners. they pay the city the medallions. again another owner of the company. i mean it's just crazy. he's one of your supervisor same ridesharing services like uber and left have a positive impact on transportation san francisco. these people and their same we should change state law to have innovation. with not innovative about these people who spent their life dedicated
7:03 pm
to getting chant people in san francisco transportation where they are from. they start with nothing. why should this guy here with these elastic mustache project sir, can you speak directly into my car >> wide event of a $250,000 to permits like other taxi companies quick look at how much money they have. that's like $1 billion. you guys should charge them. why wouldn't you charge billionaires and millionaires the same thing you charge community members? what is this guy different from someone who runs do so get wise he treated differently we pick this another million dollars. one he was also medallions. it's not that hard. there was just a uber killer. went back to work. people, to make crimes you don't regulate.
7:04 pm
>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> other to project something. i know it's late and appreciate your time and attention. we are here again. we are here again appealed to the board of supervisors to allow a fair hearing the landmark case of the stork tree on 46-san francisco. many of us here were here tonight to hear that urban poor street meeting that address supervisor farrell's address to we review this. the urban poor street committee disrespected the supervisor's intent and timely request by canceling this important meeting 24 hours ago. we are here to ask supervisor farrell now to take the matter back and sponsor its nomination at the next board meeting on march 1. thank you supervisors for extending the truce addiction
7:05 pm
period to 90 days. however, now down to 60 days production into the failed urban poor street meeting tonight, and by law, this tree cannot be extended again. time is of the essence. because the final decision on this when mark ordinance rests with you. and must be made within the next 60 days. supervisor farrell, we are requesting for you to bring this to the meeting on march 1. if you won't do it, we ask someone else please bring this up. it's very important that knowledge this committee's passion and love for the street to keep it for generations to come. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm here to share some of the stork evidence for the 46 cook st. on. the planning department hoppity information map indicates the building located at 46 cook park type a
7:06 pm
historic resource. in the book, here today which was published in 1960 by the junior league of san francisco and whose findings were adopted by the board of supervisors in 1970, george j smith is referenced as a legend original owner of the property. it states he was the director of the-printed history with many trees that he obtained from a cemetery. today that other means is a one-story tally and eight home in carriage house. further research notes and photos taken by the junior league, for the book, in 1966 can be found in sf public library archives could note state some of the trees mr. smith obtained from the cemetery planted on his estate still surround the house. here are some photos. you can
7:07 pm
see in the photos the trees here behind the house. the tree has been historically documented by the same resource the event planning department and board of supervisors adopted to determine the stork eligibility of building structures objects or sites. i just like to add that the 1946 photo here also shows the tree the arbors have confirm the size of the time of this to be the place of origin around the same time as george smith. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is sarah comstock.
7:08 pm
i'm also here in support of their marking the tree on cook should. can i use the projector? here is a very recent picture of the two. this of you be some context about prominent is in the neighborhood. nutley speak on my own get him interview couple letters from various people that were unable to be heard and status late tonight. this is from the san francisco heritage organization from one of their senior project managers. the buildings on the property are already deemed historical resources in the city as the last speaker just share. she wrote that we do think this property has potential to be designated as a landmark. encourage your group to consider the entire property as historic including the building and the landscape. my second letter i like to read is from prof. sehgal. phd. with a
7:09 pm
department of biology at san francisco state university. he wrote, i like to give my support to the efforts to save an old tree on cook street in san francisco. professor at san francisco state university my research focus on how d4 station affects birds and biodiversity. large old trees are critical ecological structures because relative to their size they are disproportionate to providers of resources crucial to wildlife. these trees are home to numerous species and other wireless in particular i believe the tree on cook street serves as a stop over point for raptors and other birds find between the presidio and golden gate park. i encourage all efforts to preserve this unusual tree in the richmond district. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is randy could i live in the richmond district
7:10 pm
also. i want to speak on behalf of the cook tree. it's a tree that you can see. i grabbed this picture because it's so far away that so parents held the stature of the tree in that neighborhood. i have such a tree in my backyard. similar size. not nearly as well preserved as this without much character. our old neighborhood changed but was taken down. both feeling of my yard. this tree is bigger, more important, has much more history is much more character and i think it's very important to the neighborhood. which is lacking in most of the history has been stripped away from the city and this ties back to fabulous buildings and it sits in front of a carriage house and the italianate house are both extremely important
7:11 pm
architectural pieces. it's right between them and the character of the landscape and the architecture are very rare in that neighborhood to be preserved as most have been redeveloped when i take out the cemetery. i think it's very important this tree and the buildings around it be landmark as part of the remaining character of this area. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> this was taken on sunday the little gathering around the tree. you can see it right there. my name is richard want to live on cook street. i'm reading a letter with some kids are great kids from cook street cannot take a picture with a sign. i want to read a letter from a neighbor that many of his grant-other 63 cook st. by background is a degree in business economics from uc
7:12 pm
santa barbara and mba from indiana university, huge believer in property rights. my point in providing this is not exactly what you would call a tree hugger or environmentalists. far from it. that's it, shopping anyone approaching the property at 46 but would look to cut down the tree on this lot. it has storable value good this tree has historical significance is being originally printed piece by the owner of the only remaining historical sites in the neighborhood. the tree itself provides a great deal of beauty and majesty to a high density housing area that's looked upon by the adjacent hills that removal would leave a huge hole in the landscape of our other properties land values. last, this is the biggest oxygen giving plant force next to the one next to one most traveled corridor in the city. the committee purpose
7:13 pm
that outweigh these benefits that the tree provides i urge you to not cut it down but work it into future development plans. >> to what thank you. >> next speaker, please. >>, director of the wildlife rebuild patient centers serving the fan bay area. as a wildlife rehab director as the importance of trees on a daily basis. to the wildlife patients. there specifies for migrating birds. their food providers for wildlife. most importantly their homes. that along night hearing that all people losing their homes. i'm here to talk on behalf of the trees that is historical and time is running out on saving this to greg there are only 60
7:14 pm
days left before it can be cut them but i hope you guys will consider saving the tree. because it supported local wildlife in a beautiful major component to the horizon in that neighborhood here in san francisco. we don't have a lot of trees like this (i really urge you guys to please take this up and help protect the street. my son wanted to say something. >> history is 100 years old. but it doesn't mean we can cut it down. it's important landmark . some people say that and it's also a home for animals. some animals might need a home. well all animals need a home of course. so it's important not just to us. save the tree for other creatures.
7:15 pm
>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. that's a hard act to follow. i came to tell you i'm extremely disappointed the urban forest st., council. the board of supervisors appoints them. their function is very simple. there divides this body. you asked a very simple thing in january for them to review this matter. i know that you don't ask much of the urban forest st., council but they let you down. we are here tonight come to you because we should have in talking to them. they could not muster a quorum to do one thing for this board of supervisors, one thing you asked them to do, they have flown you off. this
7:16 pm
is not appropriate. that is why people are asking you these questions to lean in, to take charge, because the urban forest st., council has given you nothing and this tree needs to have a savior. it needs a sponsor. somebody in this body here should stand up. i would love it if it was supervisor farrell because it's his district, leslie van marcus tree, put in a nomination. the clock is ticking. we need to have some action on this board. we've tried the council let you down. please, somebody here must be doing the job. i want to point out to you that this picture. this is the tree we would like to have landmark. he's other three trees have been chopped down. they didn't have the time. will be realized that the trees were going to go down. nobody realized any of this stuff. dallas wanted to
7:17 pm
remark the tree but nobody realized there was any urgency. there is today and we implore you to my please somebody nominate this tree sponsor it will be here to convince you again how important this is and why you want to do it. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you for your time and the ability to voice my opinions are made i don't have much to say but like many my neighbors i ask you landmark history. 11 cook st.) usf for the last three. tonight i should been writing my thesis but instead i'm here. supporting story tree that my neighbors asked that you believe we should landmark it in preserved his people piece of san francisco history. visibly want to be my block as i found it if not better. before i graduate and leave this wonderful city. thank you again for your time >> thank you. next speaker,
7:18 pm
please. >> tom gilbert t dirty four years ago i started a new career . those long learning curve. nicholas is and dimes first vacancy originally i could see something happening. i went from lower property to upper party could i have my lenses in my old friend who i knew souls of my old boots and i felt like a millionaire. three weeks later i woke in the dark, which was normal. get a head start on the day and i heard a voice in this way said mr. gilbert t, what are you doing? i said i'm going to work. they said, do you know where you are we pick?
7:19 pm
i was paralyzed. that was the end to my street artists career. these past two weeks, high points in my existence here in san francisco. if you are lucky, happy valentines. if you're one of the few. also, my trusted pillow has survived to happy valentines day pillow fights. it's a great diversity and it's wonderful if you can get it and do it. it's great. the other high point chinese new year parade. spring is about ready to burst and just comes at the right time. i'm so thankful that san francisco is given that tradition over to meet but there's two things that upset me on this parade.
7:20 pm
one, the pre-parade is part of the parade that. when their part they have to cut off their diesel engines they have to illuminate electronic amplified let the drummers in the band play. >> species thank you. next speaker, please. >> cabin think about it and i was one of the people the last 6-77 pretty disturbed by this vote six-but that favor the more conservative side of things. another's potential for possibly six- 6-5 more progressive seem to be when did i think it's not optimal by a long shot two of those kinds of vote. but i think what ends up happening the forces outside of this board become either have
7:21 pm
either one side on their side or the other side. at this point this board itself is an entity, it's kind of become move from the decision-making. i think today we had a pretty huge vote and it was a extra vote there. i think you know there are a bunch of unique and unique life circumstances serving on this board right now with different kinds of futures each one is unique. i don't see why it has to pile up into cliques like that. i don't think that's done that way. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> to talk about the tenant
7:22 pm
and kim attending said. i'm tucker out the navigation set up. while is at the navigation center of skin generally called racial slurs, homophobic slurs, i was continuously criticized but the way i walked, i intellectual status, it seemed like management and staff gave very little about it. then, what happened was i was violently attacked the navigation center. what happened was, they kicked me out indefinitely and the person who violently attacked me and the lady who harassed me about my sex, who asked me about who called me racial slurs, they were allowed to stay with no type of kick out or anything.
7:23 pm
it was so bad that the police came. you see the documents here. i have filed for a restraining order could i have another one coming. as soon as i get the police report and it just seems like when they kicked me out it was pretty much like big to my things out on the sidewalk and called the police. right now it just seems like with the navigation system is set up there's no real checks and balances for the victims such as myself.. all the standards of care, of legislation, it doesn't apply to the navigation center. i just feel on some levels exploited by the navigation center back you like they would just do whatever they feel like to you whenever.
7:24 pm
>> thank you. are there any other members of the public would like to provide public comment at this time we pick you party spoken to mr. you cannot speak again. seeing none, public comment is closed. >>[gavel] >> next item >> item 38 and 39 are being considered for immediate adoption without any reference to enact these items. a member may object in summer and item and have it considered separately. peter i'm going to have you call 38. actually, there's only two items so can you call him. >> item 38 resolution to urge the chancellor of the university of california san francisco to rectify serious breaches of workers rights by hiring the impact group custodial workers employees. >> colleagues, there's a minor
7:25 pm
change to my clerical error to this item. on page 2, line 10, i need to make a change asked me local 3299 is a correction. right now it reads 2399. >> so moved >> moved and seconded. can we take the amendment without objection we pick without objection it passes unanimously >>[gavel] >> please call the roll on the item as amended >> as amended supervisor tang aye, wiener aye, yee aye, avalos, aye, breed aye campos aye, cohen aye, farrell aye, kim aye, mar aye, peskin aye.
7:26 pm
there are 11 aye >> the resolution was adopted unanimously as amended >>[gavel] >> madam clerk these cult item 39 >> item 39 motion to approve the final map 7993 67 rational unit and one commercial unit excuse condominium project located at 1450 franklin st. located at 1450 franklin st. >> can we take this item same house, same call? without objection the motion is approved unanimously >>[gavel] >> madam clerk, can you please read the in memoriam >> today's meeting will be adjourned in memory of the following loved individuals could on behalf of supervisor tang the late ms. mary brown could on behalf of supervisor wiener for the late mr. arron wimmer. on behalf of supervisor farrell for the late maj. keith alton often. on behalf of pres. breed the late mr. josé crosby
7:27 pm
and the rev. dr. james noel. >> colleagues that rings us to the end of our agenda. mdm. clerk any further business before us today? >> that includes business for today. >> thank you everyone. we are adjourned. >>[gavel] >> parks and places of communicated and thanks to the mayor and the department of technology and supervisor farrell and google. we had a very very unique partnership that was able to bring wifi to our most heavily
7:28 pm
used parks and squares. >> parks in particular are really important way of life and quality of life and so is connectivity. bringing those two things together in a project like this is right on target with what san francisco is and wants to be. >> it's all about breaking apart the divide. the people with expensive data plan can have access to information and economy. this is really breaking down the digital divide and giving people across the spectrum the opportunity to information and giving them mobility and freedom. >> particularly by investing in connectivity in park spaces we are also ensuring the connection to digital inclusion opportunities and parks are designed for all neighborhoods. >> people are on the move. they are no longer chained to their desk tops at home. people can accomplish a
7:29 pm
lot and we prefer them being here an enjoying the outdoors and nature. given all the mobile community and mobile information that's available. we thought it was important to make it for our parks acceptable for everyone and give everyone the opportunity to live and to work and be at the parks at the same time. >> our full mission in life is to give them access to the internet, give them access to information. in san francisco you don't have to be bottled up in an office. you can be around and enjoy your work anywhere. it's great for the local community here and it means a lot to me. >> in the park, you are people that can teach you about the trees in the park and you can go to parks and recreation .org and having wifi in our
7:30 pm
parks makes it more accessible. if you want more information about how to enjoy wifi in san francisco parks, go to [ gavel ] >> good morning and welcome to the government audit and oversight committee for today, february 25th. i'm supervisor aaron peskin, chair of the committee and to my right is supervisor norman yee and to my left is board president, supervisor london breed. the clerk is erica major and i would like to thank the folks at sfgtv for staffing this meeting. madam clerk, do you have any announcements. >> yes, please make sure to silence all elecic


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on