tv Planning Commission SFGTV April 27, 2021 7:00am-9:31am PDT
there. this was the work we were trying to do at 180 jones. there are a lot of people who want to do this work together with you who are experiencing homelessness and it would be huge for the city of san francisco. huge. put away your sinisterism everyone. it would be huge if we said no more do we allow people to live in crisis on the streets. we have aaccountability meeting, baseline needs and we're doing this as a team and that's what st. francis aall about is working together with people. >> your time has elapsed. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is catalina and i live in district 4. i'm here to impose what's in place for all legislation. over 60,000 per year per tent to run.
that's 100% cost. almost double the cost of the market rate permanent housing with intensive support services which is 34,000 per year per household. providing a tent for every san franciscan would easily cost 200 to $300 million. that made them more expensive than other options. it needs to be on housing and other permanent solutions, not a temporary solution or like tents in a parking lot. people at a quarter of the cost of the sleeping site. one tent spot for 60,zero would house four people through the hotels on community housing. shelter for all and the availability of shelter beds are often use zed as a justification to criminalize the acts of the loophole martin deboys. this legislation would not
present housing solutions, but it also gives people in the city to place its most vulnerable in the communities. people on the streets already face. we don't need another level of justification to harm them. it's an attempt to force every unsheltered san franciscan what amounts to a 60,$000 tent in a parking lot. anti-homelessness laws. the city will have the ability to criminal punishment. san francisco can and must reach a much higher bar than tents for all. >> thank you for your comments. there are four callers in the queue. next caller, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors.
i oppose this measure. the last thing we need right now are more police encounters for people experiencing homelessness. i live near two safe sleeping sites and support them and the city can create more of them without the legislation if needed, are but this is not what voters continue plated when we passed prop c. this legislation will lead to more harassment of homeless individuals and will use significant funds to not provide real services and actual housing with walls and rooms which is what we voted for in prop c. it simply doesn't make sense to spend this much without adequate services. it's a cold and windy day out there today which indicates how much we need real housing and not this legislation. thank you. >> thank you for the comments. next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is greasy, i live in district 7. i grew up in san francisco. a place for all prioritized
needs to house people over the needs of the most vulnerable people to have space and decent housing. if the needs of unhoused people were put first, we'd be looking for ways to get people out of homelessness. when we passed prop c our city our home in 2018, san francisco's voters chose to double the city's investment in solving homelessness and to spend 50% of investment on housing. in 2020, they doubled down bypassing prop k allowing san francisco to build or require up to 10,000 units of affordable housing. voters have made it clear, they want the city to invest in permanent housing. choosing to invest instead ignores the will of the voters. shelter for all and the availability of shelter beds are used as a justification to criminalize through a loophole in martin versus boise. this would also prevent solutions. but it will also give the city
even more freedom to police and displace people living on the streets. we don't need another level of justification to harm them even further. safe sleeping sites are not a one-size-fits-all solution and are not appropriate. this legislation is an attempt to force every unsheltered san franciscan into one of the most expensive but least service dense solutions available. what amounts to a $60,000 tent in a parking lot. laws provided by a place for all, the city will have the ability to use the threat of criminal punishment to forcibly round people off the streets and into those crowded camps with few resources. san francisco an incredibly wealthy city can and must reach for a much higher bar than tents for all.
rafael mandelman -- >> your time has expired. >> next speaker please. >> hi. i'm a d6 resident. in these commons, small business owners and people from the so-called nonprofits who are making money off homelessness who are in support of this legislation. while people experiencing homelessness and those working alongside those who are oppose this. hearing people talking about sleeping on the sidewalk. but i live by civic center. and sleeping on the sidewalk is exactly what state sleeping sites are only with more rules and surveillance for a lot more money. housing, not tents. public housing now. we have been running and unless we keep lining the pockets, we could house everyone who lives
on our streets. thank you. >> thank you for the comments. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. this is charles head. i'm the president of the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods. not just of some san francisco neighborhoods, but for all san francisco neighborhoods. csfn has packed this idea of the safe sleeping sites since supervisor mandelman first floated it. he has spoken to our general assembly and many delegates from our member organizations have supported resolutions to further advance this legislation. a place for all advances the city's housing first policy is not an either or thing. people deserve shelter when housing isn't available through prop c and federal health. there's plenty available for this. so i would ask you to support
this and further this legislation to the full board and we support it. thank you very much. >> thank you for the comments. are there any callers in the queue? >> there are no more callers in the queue. >> thank you. >> all right. public comment is now closed. thank you so much to everyone who called in and for your participation, your input, your concern. you know, i'm going to make a statement first before i turn it over to my colleagues who i'm sure have things to say as well and probably questions potentially for the author. i do want to say just that, you know, i agree with what most of the callers said which is that, you know, this is an absolute humanitarian crisis on our streets.
it is an embarrassment for a city that is as wealthy as ours that has as many caring smart people to not have real solutions for a crisis that is so endemic and has plagued our city for so long and impacts so many of our residents. so i just want to appreciate the fact that most of the folks who called in or everyone who called in that your concern was actually putting forward solutions in trying to solve this problem and trying to help. i think that, you know, i want to say a few things about how i view this legislation and also respond to some of the things that people said when they called in. the first thing is that, i do think that we all agree that the solution to homelessness is housing. permanent support of housing in particular is the pathway to solve homelessness. that has been the position of the city. i don't think that anyone intends to change it because it
is common sense and it's obvious and i think it was reflected in what most of the folks said. i do think that that is where our focus should be. that's where our resources should primarily be, that's where our strategies should be and we are in an unprecedented moment to actually pursue that at a scale that the city has only dreamed of in the past. prop c gives us an unprecedented opportunity to address homelessness via housing that we've been waiting and that the voters and the residents of the city have given us the mandate for and i think that's where we need to put most of our energy and i hope for the folks who called in and everyone listening or supporting or proposing that we can all work together on that. with that said, i do strongly
agree we need to have temporary housing temporary shelter. everyone on our streets right now should have a place to go. there is no doubt about that and that's something that i have believed and fought for alongside all of the members of this board for the last few years, but there are things that we've learned about what works with that and what doesn't work with that. what sort of services in places that are needed when it comes to transitional housing. over the last few years, this city has pursued a navigational model which has been in contrast to the large shelter model. the reason for that is navigation centers will transition people off in the streets. job placement, the goal is to transition folks off of the streets.
that is a motto that i have supported as have many of you. we built a number of navigation the in our city. you know, that, you know is something that i'm still pursuing and would love to have the support of everyone who is advocating for this legislation on that effort. but that is a particular model that is a longer intended stay into permanent housing and there was a lot of resistance to building these navigation centers all over the city. my district now has upwards of 2,000 shelter beds and navigation center beds and many more when you take into consideration the shelter-in-place hotels. and district 8 has 22 beds and
they may have increased slightly since then. that's 100 times more beds in district 6. we have, if we're talking about shelter for all or a place for all, there's a certain way to do that with a certain model and a certain challenge we have right now around geographic equity. in addition to that right now what i'm seeing and this is a reason why the experts, the service providers, even our own department not what's included in this legislation is that actually, when i'm out there in my district trying to get people off the streets the problem is not that there's nowhere for them to go. the problem is someone is escaping and i try to call to get jeff to help, the only thing we're offering them is a safe sleeping site. the only thing that they're
being offered right now is goff street which is a safe sleeping site and i think in the city that's as wealthy as ours, i think that's embarrassing and it's not working because many of the people will not go to the safe sleeping sites for the same reason they wouldn't go to the large shelters because these environments have not been effective in serving people, they're not service rich and they don't offer a pathway permanently off the streets and so they have been a failed approach in so many ways and they are not something new that i think we should be pursuing that has been proven in the data or evidence. in contrast to that, what we did learn during the pandemic is that the shelter-in-place hotels have worked. last summer, we had and tents are not always the best count of the people on the streets. we had 450 tents in the tenderloin and with the support of overwhelmingly the shelter-in-place hotels, we got
most of those folks inside and most people accepted the shelter-in-place hotels and many of them would not have accepted the safe sleeping sites. the shelter-in-place hotels, we proposed legislation at the beginning of the pandemic to truly have a place for all. we said everybody who's on the street during this pandemic should have a place to go inside. everyone who is on our streets should be inside right now based on legislation that we already passed. but the mayor refused to implement. at every level, when we attempt to expand getting in the shelter-in-place hotels, we were told that it was too expensive. respectfully by you, supervisor mandelman. so the idea that we don't need transitional shelter or transitional housing is not true. we do. the question is, is it service rich? is it a true pathway into
permanent housing? are they placements that people will accept? are they in some ways different from what we already have which are are the fair models of warehousing people warehousing them in a literal warehouse or warehousing them on a slab of concrete? and, all of this is within the context of a couple other things and then i'll pass it over to my colleagues. it's all within the context of the fact that we have now an unprecedented opportunity with prop c where we're going to be spending billions of dollars in the coming years and transitional housing, transitional shelter has to be part of a broader plan to get people permanently off the streets. in some cases, that needs to be immediately. but it needs to be in models that work, that are proven. this particular model, the safe sleeping site. we've had four of them in district six. one of them had to close because it was such a mess and a failure.
in every case, these models have served some people, but most people have been served in other types of placements and those are the placements that we should be pursuing and doubling down on whether it's transitional or permanent including the shelter-in-place hotels. the safe sleeping sites at a higher cost than the shelter-in-place hotels. at a higher cost than the navigation centers are not designed in a service rich way to transition people off the streets. so, we have choices here whether it's the services we provide, whether it's the support that's there, whether it's part of a plan that's already in place that's formed by the community, whether it's actually designed to transition people off the streets. we have choices within that and lastly, we have choices when it comes to cost. and supervisor mandelman, you
say, i want a place for all and they need to be all around the district. i would be the first to work with you on that and i do think we need that. but it should be to transition people off the streets in a service rich way across the city. i don't see that candidly in the plan you put here that relies not just on this unproven model of a safe sleeping site, but one that doesn't have any evidence across the country where cities have used this model of these permanent encampments as a way to address homelessness. i understand that people are deeply concerned about their unhoused neighbors on the sidewalks, in front of their businesses and want to see them immediately get help. let's get more of these sro hotels and get more shelter-in-place hotels and get people into there and then have a real system and plan and strategy that's funded to
transition people off of the streets. if we don't have that, i do think we are going to go and spend a lot of time on temporary approaches that aren't even going to work that are hugely expensive that i fear will be a distraction from this historic opportunity we have based on what we've already learned and what we already know and what we have in front of us with prop c to actually solve this crisis on our streets and more permanently in homelessness in our city. so, with that, i'm going to turn it over to my colleagues. i will give you a chance to respond, supervisor mandelman, but first, let me turn it over toll supervisor mar. >> supervisor mar: thank you, supervisor haney. and thank you supervisor mandelman for bringing this legislation forward. i want to thank the many during
public comment and those who e-mailed us on both sides recently about a place for all legislation. as chair haney stated, i do believe that we're all in agreement that a comprehensive strategy is needed to solve our homelessness crisis. and i believe this is reflected in prop c and in the our city our home vision and plan and in the consumption process. i do agree with supervisor mandelman, rescue sf and neighborhood emerging groups that there's a need to expand shelter options to offer the thousands of community members who remain unsheltered with safer, healthier, more dignified temporary solutions until housing is available for them and i think there is a role for thoughtful expansion of safe sleeping sites. drawing on the lessons we've
learned, piloting them during the pandemic and really as an additional tool in our transitional shelter plan and within our comprehensive and coordinated homelessness strategy that permtizes housing and supportive services. but as a coalition on homelessness and others have pointed out, you know, our transitional shelter system including any expansion of supervised tent encampments needs to be right sized to ensure it's aligned with our comprehensive homelessness strategy and especially it doesn't divert precious resources and undermind our focus on permanent solutions to homelessness from support of having rental subsidies to homelessness prevention programs. regarding the legislation, we're considering i do support some parts especially, you know, the requirements that hsh developed a plan to create a
sleeping site to serve 500 unsheltered individuals, if that includes an actual budget and an analysis of the cost effectiveness of this temporary shementer strategy. i am concerned about much of the substance of the legislation though and, again, how it would commit the city to major expansion and supervise tent encampments. to end homelessness by prioritizing long term solutions and i think as many have pointed out, you know, we really don't need this legislation to pursue thoughtful expansion of safe sleeping sites. so, yeah. again, thank you, supervisor mandelman, for bringing this forward and thank you for bringing forth the amendment today that have incorporated a lot of the feedback and
concerns that have been raised about your proposal. >> supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: thank you, chair. thank you to all the callers that called in today. any time we have an opportunity to really listen to people out on the streets talk about the situation that they are dealing with or experiencing or actually living. i think it's really important to provide that space. so i really appreciate. thank you, supervisor mandelman, for bringing the conversation forward. i know you've been talking about this and meeting with people over the last year and i know that this is something based on the volume of calls that we got today that's really important to you and your constituents, not to say that it's not important to other parts of the city but it sounds like it's extremely important
based on the call volume. i know that you did one of these at everett middle school. i think that what i would probably say in response is potentially reviving that opportunity for yourself. we experienced a similar situation for decades they had been talking in the city about doing safe parking. we asked. we did legislation. we did a community process. we got buy in from neighbors and different city departments and then we asked the controller to do an independent analysis. that analysis came back with including one-time cost at twenty-five,$000 a spot and after you got through the one-time capital cost, along with ongoing services, it dropped of the things that i'v
really targeting homelessness. you all supported my conversation to support hotels and using the experiences we've seen under shelter-in-place has been phenomenal. i think we're going to have about a thousand units that we're hoping to purchase. we're also using the subsidy program. we're also investing in a certain percentage of navigation center expansion as well as adding space to some of our existing shelters. all of those together add up to 3,200 in homelessness. we collected and won prop c and now we are aggressively beginning to implement that and those things will happen very quickly. with the home key program, we purchased 30, excuse me, 350
hotel rooms and hotel beds. those will provide housing and permanent opportunities for 350 individuals. we will be buying and purchasing more. we will be operating the subsidy program that will provide subsidies for those. so i would think that, you know, this conversation probably needs some more analysis. it definitely needs some more demonstration of success and i know that from some of the e-mails that i saw, some of your neighbors that were reluctant initially about having it at everett middle school embraced it ultimately and thought it was something more positive and so that would be my friendly suggestion. you know, go back and do this on a scale in our own district and work with the merchants that are there and the residents that are there. because the other thing that i see is i don't know how we pay for this proposal. i don't know where the money would come from and as others have said, it would take money
away from many of the thing that is there have been a lot of thought and effort put into hotel purchases, subsidies, navigation centers, and an additional short term shelter spaces. i am not supportive of spending $70,000 or $60,000 on a tent when it's not really as effective as some of the other opportunities that we have out there. and i know that you have spent a lot of time thinking about this and have been very thoughtful about it, so i just think that there needs to be a little more time. the last thing i would say and it's another proposal that i know that chair haney has said he's supportive of is our alternative sentencing program that will provide residential opportunities for those that have substance abuse issues to
provide housing and abstun ens in a peer based program. that will get more for our dollar than a tent in a parking lot. and, i think this is always a difficult conversation to have, but i think we have some real solutions that are out there that are cost effective and that are leading us in the right direction. thank you, mr. chair. >> thank you supervisor safai. before i go back to supervisor mandelman, i did -- ms. campbell, if you are here. >> yes. i'm here. >> okay. >> supervisor haney: a lot has been said about cost and this is the budget committee. were you able to in had any way sort of hammer down what the likely or range of cost is for this if we were to vote this out? >> i think that -- i mean, we
gave sort of parameters and i would say more than what would be the direct cost of the legislation because there were still some implementation processes that had to happen. and we looked at how they're currently con figured and what the contracts are for those programs and the cost of those programs were $190 per night on average. and, then, if we looked at sort of the legislation before it said it includes the amendment sort of what some of the parameters were, we thought that would be more like $90 per night. and i want to put a caveat on this. those were contracts that currently exist. the other thing was the level of need and that's where we couldn't get a number. there was a point in time count, the last one was in january 2019. so we don't have any kind of existing numbers on all that's happened in this that two year period. we did make an estimate and i'd
have to go back, i think it was around $17 million if there was a need for 500 individual sites to be set up, that that cost might be around $17 million. it was a lower number in our report than the safe sleeping model. >> supervisor haney: did you have any data on how the cost of these sites compared to other nightly costs of shelters or navigation centers or shelter-in-place hotels? >> for the purposes of this report, we do not have current information. i think we had it from some old reports. if requested, we could certainly come up with that and bring that information to the board. >> supervisor haney: great. thank you. supervisor mandelman. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you, chair haney. and, thank you, colleagues, for
taking, you know four hours of your lives to talk here about street homelessness. and, i will say, you know, i am disappointed by the reception that the legislation has received. i want to begin by thanking again all the folks who called in. it did appear to me that many of the folks calling in opposition were repeating coalition talking points that are not actually accurate and i do think that some folks on this committee are repeating some of those same talking points. so this is not a proposal for tents for all. this is a proposal that the city and county of san francisco do something that has never been done before and do the analysis to figure out the fastest most expeditious and cost effective way to within two years provide an estimate from the streets for every
unhoused person willing to take it. now, navigation centers are time consuming and costly on a capital basis, but i see no reason why they could not be part of an overall build out of the system that had an exit from the streets for every person willing to take it. i also think as the callers who called in who are concerned that this will detract from the housing investment this city is going to be making over the next couple of years. that is impossible. proposition c requires us to send hundreds of millions of dollars on top of the hundreds of millions of dollars we already spend on housing exits. my estimate is we will spend those hundreds of millions of dollars, we will solve homelessness for many more thousands of people as we have over the last decade without seeing a measurable improvement in conditions on the streets and that is intolerable and
wrong, and i think we need to have an honest conversation as a board and as a city about what if takes to meaningfully improve conditions in the tender soma, mission, and the castro and other neighborhoods impacted by homelessness. i think doing more of what we have been doing and expecting that we are going to somehow get vastly different results reminds me of some of our conversations we've had in the public care health context. i think we need to look at exits from the street for any person willing to take them and we need to think about our willingness to pay a great deal of money for a more service rich model like navigation centers or and also weigh that against how investing in more service rich models and more capital intensive models.
i think that's what i would say in response. i guess that i would ask if you accept the amendments and i will continue working on you and my other colleagues because i think we have to do something different from if what we have been doing and i don't see it in the other plans that are coming out. i see great things coming out of the mayor's homelessness recovery plans. i see great things coming out of the our city our homework around. and i do not see things that i am confident will improve things for kids and families in the tenderloin, folks living in soma and small businesses in the castro and to say that the folks are squeamish about looking at poor people is to gaslight them in the most
offensive term. that is not what's happening in street encampments on the streets. there are horrible inhumane things happening for those folks in their unregulated encampments and there are intollerable things happening in which those encampments. i would respectfully request you do the amendments. and i call the chair for legislation. >> chair, i did want to ask you before supervisor safai just a couple of things. things that i brought up that i wanted to have your response to. first of all, i do want to thank everyone who called in. i want to thank you and your office for putting forward a solution or working towards the solution. i want to thank rescue sf. i do think we need everyone part of this conversation and working towards solutions. you know, i did want to ask you
because, you know, the hotels over the last year have been something that i as you know have been relentlessly focused on trying to actually achieve in what i believe to be the goal in place here. even if it's temporary, even if it's transitional. and, we passed legislation for the folks who really want to see this happen in many ways it should be happening right now and at various times when we try to expand that effort, or bring more people into these hotels, these are places that actually, the numbers show per night are cheaper even before you talk about the fema reimbursement than the safe sleeping sites that we pursued that and respectfully that wasn't always something you were supportive of in some
cases because of cost and, yet, now we have something in front of us that we know may be more expensive. somebody that doesn't have reimbursements over the long period of time and doesn't have a lot of uncertainty in cost. in terms of the budget committee, we wanted to bring everyone inside. we knew it was fema reimbursable. you and others had concerns about that from a cost perspective to get people off the streets right now. why not hotel rooms? why not a similar model is what we learned? and even now, why aren't you joining us in continuing to scream and yell about the need to get more people inside hotels as task reimbursed by fema? >> supervisor mandelman: i mean i am more interested in solving these problems than screaming and yelling. frankly, generated the board of
supervisors attack on the mayor 0 who in the midst of a pandemic was doing the best i thought she could. she used stand up hotels as quickly as was sustainable. i supported every measure that came before the board. and i think that san francisco went above and beyond other jurisdictions in using that resource effectively and i think we've learned a ton from it and partly based on your feedback i have incorporated the fact we will have fema reimbursement, but it will include hotel rooms in the shelter exit. one of the critiques of new york and boston's right to shelter is that they spend money on warehousing people in hotel rooms which are actually the most expensive form of shelter rather than housing. so as we look perhaps at moving -- if we're talking about that original resolution did moving 8,000 people into hotel rooms and then not releasing them to
the streets when we lose the fema reimbursement, that is a drain on the budget that vastly outstrips anything that safe sleeping sites would do. we've worked it into the legislation. because and if we want to look at, you know, i will work with you offline on potentially directing the department of homelessness in support of housing to do an analysis on what it would look like cost wise and to rely much more heavily on centers and how much of that can we get in the next two years. >> supervisor haney: thank you. i will say respectfully, this was from the beginning not an attack on the mayor, but an attack on the conditions on our streets and the reality that we have thousands of people living on the streets during a plague and, as i see it an actual concrete cost effective way toll accomplish the goal that
you've laid out here with hotels that have empty rooms with a federal government that would reimburse it. it was a real thing not only come back and report to us. we could of actually really got these folks inside and i think still could, you know, and i do think that i'm glad you supported it throughout, although there were a number of times where you thought we shouldn't bring more people in or shouldn't be expanding it. you know, i do think that when we have opportunities to actually get this done, i think there's a way to do it well and in a cost effective way and i'm trying to understand how this proposal in front of us relates to opportunities we've had in the past. in addition to that, the navigation center model and a model that is both service rich in some cases smaller in size and in intentional transition
to housing, i think is a model as a city, including our department of homelessness have wanted to move towards. so in terms the mayor and the department, it's my understanding they aren't supportive of this either and part of that i'd imagine is because they have a broader homeless recovery plan which includes certain types of temporary shelter transitions at which this particular model that you put forward is not part of that. so i understand that you're framing this we want to do something new. in some ways to me, this feels like something old that basically warehousing people in large whether it's on a slab of concrete or a large congregate shelter but not built within the transition needed to get people off the streets. this feels to me more like
moving backwards in terms of moving forward. i will give you the opportunity to respond and then i'll go to supervisor safai. >> supervisor mandelman: the concern that i have with the other plans, there are a lot of other excellent plans for making additional investments. i actually don't see the comprehensive plan that supervisor mar calling for. earlier, i don't see the guarantee that we are. that san franciscans are going to know that there's a safe place for unhoused folks in san francisco and that we are going to perpetuate this awful conflict between folks who are looking for a safe place to be and maybe suffering from very significant mental health and substance use issues and the neighbors in the neighborhood and the small businesses that are dealing with those folks
planning themselves next to them. again, not because those neighbors are squeamish because the impacts of those encampments are serious and real. i also just would say, i am open to looking at all sorts of models, but as we start talking about things like hotels and navigation centers, they both have very significant costs. we spent millions and millions of dollars before you even get to the operational costs that we're of the kind analyze in the blas report. and there's a time question. like, can you do it quickly. i don't want this to be perceived as my proposal to tents. or we can do it with almost entirely housing, but a dash of navigation center thrown in, then let's do it that way.
let's do the analysis. let's come and see what the cost and implementation looks like and think about that in four to six months. the board is not interested in me asking for that right now, i get it. >> i will plan to work with you. you know, we will talk about these things. i just want to say one last thing because i was recently out on the street when they were approaching people who were homeless on tide and turf and i was there with the hot team and what they are offering people right now and this is a case and most of the time when they approach people on the street in my district and it may be different elsewhere, they offer embassy south which is a very large and that's not working. i don't want people to believe that if we onto had a place to tell folks who were on the
streets to do, that's a very large shelter that isn't service rich that that is somehow going to be some dramatic, you know, change in the status quo. as far as i can tell, that's the status quo we have right now and i don't think it's working for anyone. supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: thank you, supervisor haney. supervisor mandelman, i did want to just get your reaction to, you know, the idea of scaling this down i know that you had it at everett middle school. you had current safe sleeping sites there. i don't think across the board, people are saying that this is a complete failure. i just think on the scale that you're asking for to your point about some of the other arguments that you made just a
few minutes ago about the cost long-term and having it be a good long term solution. i am in one hundred% agreement. if we only have one we need to have a place to be able to put people and offer them that's better than just being on the street. i think that that's -- as i said, i really believe that this was important and important to continue. i don't think we need legislation to ask hsh to come up with a better plan for that. at least for the 20 years this our city and the planning and energy that's being put into this conversation now is new
and it is so many different ways, we have some historic opportunity. the fact that the state of the federal program. we're going to put forth the resolution. there's going to be some announcements coming pretty quickly. we are going to be identifying, we asked them to come back with a list of top 15. for single adults and for families. we've never had that type of opportunity in the past and it will happen very quickly, but that still might not get to what you're say engine terms of the conditions on the street. maybe having the opportunity to do it through the model, maybe thinking about it, taking a step back, lessons learned and having a controller give an independent analysis like we did on the safe parking might build a stronger case for something like this, but i do believe that hsh should come
back and our city our home has been having these conversations and more recently, there's been a lot of research and work coming out of there about this issue and about making some permanent adjustments. i just wanted to get your reaction to the idea of scaling it back back and it's part of the reason why now why our city our home are talking about expanding that model wide. we will be using that to create hopefully between 100 and 200 parking spots about 45% of the people that were in those spots got transitioned in a few months to permanent opportunities. so i think there's an opportunity there for you. i just wanted to see what your reaction was to that.
>> supervisor mandelman: i guess the question is what we're scaling back. if the core of this legislation is having a place for everybody, that's kind of not scale backable. if the notion is we need maybe to explore more, you know, potentially more safe sleep sites, i think we probably do and i think there's general agreement about that and the budget committee will have the opportunity to look at the mayor's budget proposal. i'm sure the coalition which generally supports safe sites as part of a menu of options.
you know. >> it feels like it's endless and i've supported and continued to support directing more resources towards these investments. i think it's the right thing to do but i cannot guarantee or provide any confidence to my constituents but even with my $3 million a year going towards folks that they're going to see the kind of improvement in the city that will mean we're not, you know, a place where tourists come, look around and say, wow. i never want to go back there again. >> supervisor safai: no. and i don't disagree we need to have a plan to get people off the street. i think that and i believe those conversations are happening i'm sure your office
has and you have i think our city our home is moving that conversation forward and i think we're going to start to see a good positive result like i said, we're working that model city wide and just one site with 33 parking spots. >> thank you, mr. chair. >> supervisor haney: thank you supervisor safai. i think what we can do is take the amendments. i'm happy to move the amendments on your behalf, supervisor. and then -- we can continue to call of the chair. if that -- if you want to
continue the conversation. but let me first move to accept supervisor mandelman's amendments to his legislation. >> for clarification, mr. chair, would you like to accept the blas amendment? >> what was the bla amendment? >> request that the department of homelessness and housing and provide details to the board of supervisors for the sleeping program costs and a process to control cost. >> supervisor haney: but that would only happen if the legislation goes into effect, correct? >> yeah. i think we have provision for that in the controller analysis. [please stand by]
supervisor safai? >> you can continue. >> i want to continue this item to the call of the chair. >> on that motion, vice chair safai. >> aye. >> clerk: mohr. >> aye. >> clerk: haney. >> aye. >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> this will be continued to the call of the chair and hopefully get some of those questions answered. supervisor safai? >> i was hear during the debate you called i think item 5, 7 and 9 together, is that right? i didn't get a chance to vote on them because i had to jump off. is there anything we can rescind that real quick and vote on it real quick again? >> 7, 8 and 9? >> i can't remember which ones but i know you called a few of
them together. let me double check. s >> if we can do it real fast. if it takes too long, then that's fine. >> clerk: mr. chair, supervisor safai was absent on items 5 and 7. would you like to rescind those? >> i make a motion to rescind 5 and 7. roll call motion on 5 and 7. >> clerk: vice chair safai. >> aye. >> clerk: moore.
>> aye. >> clerk: supervisor haney? >> aye. >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> supervisor: a motion to move items 5 and 7 with a positive recommendation. >> clerk: on the motion, vice chair safai. >> aye. >> clerk: member mar. >> aye. >> clerk: chair haney. >> aye. >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> supervisor: fine, 5 and 7 with a positive recommendation. any other items in front of us today, madame clerk. ja there are no other items mr. chair. >> supervisor: we'll convene in 15 minutes. sorry. >> clerk: mr. chair, can you please adjourn this meeting. >> supervisor: sure. meeting's adjourned. -
>> shop & dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges resident to do their showing up and dining within the 49 square miles of san francisco by supporting local services within the neighborhood we help san francisco remain unique successful and vibrant so where will you shop & dine in the 49 san francisco owes must of the charm to the unique characterization of each
corridor has a distinction permanent our neighbors are the economic engine of the city. >> if we could a afford the lot by these we'll not to have the kind of store in the future the kids will eat from some restaurants chinatown has phobia one of the best the most unique neighborhood shopping areas of san francisco. >> chinatown is one of the oldest chinatown in the state we need to be able allergies the people and that's the reason chinatown is showing more of the people will the traditional thepg. >> north beach is i know one of the last little italian
community. >> one of the last neighborhood that hadn't changed a whole lot and san francisco community so strong and the sense of partnership with businesses as well and i just love north beach community old school italian comfort and love that is what italians are all about we need people to come here and shop here so we can keep this going not only us but, of course, everything else in the community i think local businesses the small ones and coffee shops are unique in their own way that is the characteristic of the neighborhood i peace officer prefer it is local character you have to support them.
>> really notice the port this community we really need to kind of really shop locally and support the communityly live in it is more economic for people to survive here. >> i came down to treasure island to look for a we've got a long ways to go. ring i just got married and didn't want something on line i've met artists and local business owners they need money to go out and shop this is important to short them i think you get better things. >> definitely supporting the local community always good is it interesting to find things i never knew existed or see that that way. >> i think that is really
declared a local state of emergency related to covid-19, and on may 29, 2020, the mayor's office authorized all commissions to reconvene remotely. this will be our 20 remote hearing. remote hearings require everyone's attention, and, most of all, your patience. if you are not speaking, please mute your microphone. sfgovtv is streaming and airing this event live.
once the building inspection commission hearing concludes, sfgovtv will then begin broadcasting our hearing live. comments or opportunities to speak during the public comment period are available by calling 415-655-0001 and entering access code 187-181-1395. when you hear the item that you want to comment on, press star, three to enter the queue. when your allotted time is reached, i will announce that your time is up and take the next person queued to speak. best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak slowly
and clearly, and state your name. i'd like to take roll at this time. [roll call] >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. first on your agenda is general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. members of the public, this is your opportunity to comment on items not on the agenda. seeing no members of the public
wishing to offer public comment, public comment is closed. we are now on item 2, department matters. >> thank you, commissioners. i'd like to remind you that the public conference is open. it's going to occur virtually again june 8 from june 10. this is a great way to get your training underway, basically, your preservation that we track through the office of his torque preservation. -- historic preservation. that's all i have, commission. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. i do have a member of the
public wishing to speak. i will ask if it's appropriate at this time. member of the public, you have been unmuted. which item did you wish to speak to? >> hi, there. i wanted to speak in general public comment, but i couldn't get in in time. >> clerk: chair, should we open public comment up to let this comment back in? >> yes. >> thank you. my name is bridget maily. this is one of seven carnegie branch libraries in san francisco. the building has not been landmarked. i'm requesting today, during your commission comments and questions, you ask for a status update to this designation.
the report was completed by me on a pro bono basis, was thorough and complete, and i've heard nothing contrary from department staff. the report followed the layout of the six previous reports. one thing that i regret not including was the detail of the reading room. the six previous reports noted the spatial volume of the reading room was a [inaudible] this adjacent project will result in a permanent change to the interior aesthetics of the main reading room by blocking light to the south facing windows. i'm asking that when you finally receive the library
designation report, that you update the language of the character defining features of the main reading room, not just for this library, but for all carnegie libraries, to read, the spatial reading room and the natural light afforded by the generous windows at the room perimeters. let's amend the carnegie reports so that future projects will not have the same detrimental future impacts. let's not let the same thing happen to the other carnegie libraries. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. okay. members of the public, last call for general public comment. seeing no additional requests to speak, general public comment is closed, and we can resume our agenda.
>> i had a question for rich about the agenda. >> clerk: sure. >> rich, i looked at the agenda for each day, and i noticed there are a lot of important cabinets on the first day. will anybody from the planning department be presented? >> yeah. from what i understand, alison who is our lead from archaeo as well as ceqa is presenting on a mitigation webinar. we're actually just starting to get polled about what everyone else is doing since everyone else tends to do a little bit of their whole thing, but we'll gather up any of the issues that the staff are leading and follow along. >> yeah. i just wanted to know definitely if our staff would be participating. thank you. >> clerk: okay.
if there are no further questions for department staff, we can move onto item 2, department matters or announcements. >> i have no matters or announcements at this time. >> clerk: item 3, consideration of adoption of draft minutes for april 7, 2021. members of the public, this is your time to address minutes. we have no attendees, so public comment is closed. [inaudible] >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. i heard two motions and no seconds. >> second. >> clerk: thank you. on that motion to adopt the minutes -- [roll call]
>> clerk: thank you, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7-0, placing us on item 4, commissioner comments and questions. >> so i -- during public comment, we heard that somebody is interested in inquiring about the status of the golden gate valley branch library, so if we could have somebody from the staff provide us with a status report at our next commission meeting, that would be great.
>> sure, we're happy to do that at the next meeting. >> thank you. >> clerk: commissioner pearlman is requesting to speak. >> yes, thank you. i was going to ask the same thing, so i was just going to ask that. thank you. >> clerk: very good. if there are no additional comments from members of the commission, we can move onto your regular calendar for item 2021-002933-pca to simplify restrictions on small businesses. this is a planning code amendment. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes. laurel [inaudible] from the mayor's office will do an introduction, and then, i will do the presentation. >> thank you, sheela, and thank you, commissioners, for having us here today. this is the mayor's building
recovery act [inaudible] she asked planning staff and the office of economic and workforce development to come together to explore ways to further cut bureaucracy to cut red tape and [inaudible] and to provide protections and opportunities for entertainment establishments in san francisco. this large piece of legislation aims to achieve all three goals and specifically for the part that catches your purview, it will explore ways that businesses and historic spaces can get open more expeditiously. i'll leave it to sheela to explain the details. >> thank you, laurel, and i'm going to share -- ta-da.
did that work? >> clerk: we can see it, but you might want to make it full screen. >> i can do that. all right. is that look good? >> clerk: great. >> all right. good afternoon, commissioners. i am sheela nickolopoulos, planning department staff. as laurel said, there are three parts of this small business recovery act. one is to cut through bureaucracy by cutting through prop h and other elements by opening a neighborhood business. second, by implementing flexibility to support short-term recovery and the long-term viability of our neighborhood businesses. this will also support our shared spaces goals, and finally protections and opportunities for businesses
our arts. performance and art spaces were some of the first businesses to close at the start of the pandemic and will likely be some of the last to reopen. so i just want to give you some context of some of the precovid challenges that businesses were experiencing before the pandemic hit. so in the past year, with the option of on-line shopping, consumers want to buy locally what they can't buy on-line, and there were costs for retail establishments, including start-up costs and on going costs, particularly in an area with high cost of living, and we had several city reports that go into detail about these challenges, including the 2008 oewd state of the retail sector, and we had a 2009 study
on m.c.s. to highlight some of the changes that we've seen in this past decade, one retail sector has grown much more than any other, and that's dining. this uses data from the north american classification industry. the top four lines of the chart are blue is restaurants. the green is apparel, the dark green is groceries, and the other is personal care. restaurants were especially hit hard in the 2008 recession and again in this last year, during the pandemic. and then we -- i want to talk about some of our covid aspects that we've seen, as well.
in the dramatic way, it's affecting how we work, shop, and socialize, as well. downtown areas are relatively quiet right now. we are also seeing renewed interest in the 15-minute neighborhood. as workers stay home and transit is limited, it's underscoring the need of meeting daily needs more home. to go into more about the covid impacts for neighborhood patrons, neighborhoods vulnerable to the economic aspects of the pandemic are likely neighborhood based. neighborhoods where they've
seen dramatic changes in their patron base are more hit by the impact. some neighborhoods have seen dramatic move out rates. per change of move out data from usps, there's been a 600% increase of move-out rates from chinatown and nob hill. in san francisco overall, we've seen a rise in retail vacancy rates. on-line sales have increased as more people shop at home. there is an uncertainty about pent-up demand. some speculate that consumers are eager to return to old habits, while others are positive that new shopping factors will remain.
there's more than a year's worth of opening and closing have been extremely difficult. their doors were shut from march to november, closed again in december, and still operating at limited capacity. we've had more than 100 restaurants in san francisco close, and there's been a 45% decrease in small business openings per chamber of commerce, from the development department, san francisco and san mateo have lost 120,000 jobs, mostly in hospitality, but also in food service and
drinking. we've had fee deferrals for business season tax registration. the shared spaces has gone from less than 100 to more than 2,000 businesses operating these spaces. there's been an eviction moratorium, and there's been more than $11 million to support workers who have had covid and faced financial hardships. last summer, the -- following the shelter in place orders and anticipating severe economic impacts of the pandemic, the mayor created the pandemic tax
ordinance to identify tangible steps towards financial recovery. one was to focus on redesigning the permit process, extending and supporting the shared spaces program, rethinking the rules that reflect temporary arts, culture and hospitality and entertainment and catalyzing neighborhoods recovery through the arts. in the fall, voters -- 61% of voters approved prop h. i'm sure you're familiar with this, so just to highlight some of the key points, there's a 30-day permit for permitting commercial uses, and restaurants, limited restaurants, and other uses were principally permitted citywide, which really changed the landscape. now to give you some background, i will dive into the specifics.
it's a dense piece of legislation, so i'll move through these one by one. this will expand the prop h guarantees. under prop h, the 30-day processing applied to all ground floor retail in neighborhood commercial zoning, and this will expand the process into all districts, including mixed-use and downtown; including planning, d.b.i., p.u.c., and public works. this ordinance would expand the benefits to more businesses. the 30-day permitting for processing permits benefits the city by reducing the staff time on principally permitted uses. secondly, to make this 30 days
possible, we are removing the 311 notification requirement for mixed use and commercial zoning. this is already in place for neighborhood commercial zoning, and would be expanded. this will help us implement the 30-day. lastly, we're going to make bars, night time entertainment, medical cannabis dispensaries, nonretail service, and chain retail [inaudible] that 11 but they are still a local enterprise. so dealing with category of further cutting bureaucracy, one is the elimination of the
abandonment clause. under the current regulation, if a bar with conditional authorization were to close and the space sits vacant for three years, an incoming bar will have to repeat that process. currently, a restaurant, limited restaurant, or retail applying for a conditional use authorization is required to provide a calculation for other businesses within 300 feet of their area. the difference between a limited restaurant and a restaurant per planning code definitions might not be clear to an applicant who's collecting the data. so the linear feet calculations don't always represent how one may experience the streetscape,
so it may not be a meaningful measurement. an important note to this is that under prop h, restaurants and limited restaurants are principlely permitted in almost all n.c.s for at least the next three years, so this will be in the 23 zoning districts that require n.c.s for bars and all of the n.c.s where formula retail requires a c.u. and then, the last piece on here is that the small business recovery act will reduce the time -- well, actually, so this one -- i want to move forward. so this one, i'd like to kick over to rich to talk through this proposed -- there's actually a proposed modification, and we had included a recommendation in the memo, and upon further review by staff, we'd like to alter that modification. and rich, do you want to talk through the specifics of what
this means and why? >> sorry. sorry. i'm having trouble with my video [inaudible]. yeah, i'm happy to chat about what this means. so when we were first chatting with the mayor's office, we wanted to reduce the minor permit to alter from 20 days to 10 days. in reviewing the timeline for these uses, we recognize that even having some noticing on a 30-day policy is challenging. that is an admin certificate of appropriateness or minor permit to alter. still has to follow all of the rules that are in article 10 or 11. it just means the staff are conducting an administrative review of the project basically, so right now, we're
currently working under a delegation that was adopted in 2019 for basically identifying the scopes of work that qualify for admin review versus full review by the historic preservation commission. since we've had the admin and minor process, and since 2012, we've had a little over 1,000 admin and minor permits to alter. of those 1,000, we've only received three requests for hearing, which is basically when a member of the public asks and challenges a staff definition of the staff review and requests the full h.p.c. to decide if a full certificate of appropriateness is required or not. >> thank you, and we can certainly circle back to questions about that following the rest of the presentation. so continuing on in our
category of enhancing flexibility. so first, prop h permitted outdoor areas in n.c.t.s with specific limitations, they had to be on the ground floor, waiting between 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., operating not in association with a bar use and where associated with i arestaurant or limited restaurant, the outdoor activity area had to include seating, not standing areas for patrons. this ordinance would principally permit rooftop uses with those same provisions where they're applicable. any rooftop operations during this would be subject to all health, safety, and egress requirements. secondly, this will allow restaurants, not just limited restaurants, to host catering businesses. this will give businesses and entrepreneurs more opportunity
to share space and operating costs. this change will offer another path towards recovery. submitting a.d.u.s in the rear of commercial space as allowed for regular dwelling units. so the -- this ordinance will allow a.d.u.s constructed in the rear commercial space a minimum 25 feet depth is maintained facing the commercial street front. it allows an a.d.u. to take space on the ground floor. in most cases, where the commercial space is flush with the sidewalk, this means that residential space can take over any amount of ground floor except the front 25 feet which has to be occupied with an active use. as a.d.u.s must be an accessory to residential, it would apply
only to commercial and not residential. we will also delete the unique definitions -- so this simplification reduces the overall number of separate retail definitions and is intended to decrease the need for change of use permits, particularly for permits that are so similar, like instructal gyms and services. on the ground floor, this change will not trigger any changes to the permitting of cad boarding gym or instructional service, but it will make trade shop more
specific in 1 and c. lastly, we get to our category of supporting arts and culture. so the first one is the -- this actually would permit temporary entertainment resources in outdoor areas, including temporary structures for a maximum of two years. this would provide artists and performers for recovery opportunities. this will create a new planning code section to add a j.a.m. permit to continue with added flexibility. this was implemented under the emergency declaration, and this program will allow it to continue. there's a proposal for a new c.u. to remove night time entertainment uses for two years. the c.u. for removal provides a
stopgap measure during recovery and is supported by the venue coalition. the small business recovery act will also remain planning code requirements to impose certain predetermined conditions in order to impose a c.u. for each project. the planning commission and entertainment commissions would still have the ability to impose any requirement they see fit. in addition, there's a few police code amendments that are also built into this that i'll just highlight quickly. [inaudible] without an entertainment permit. the second is to remove a restriction on one-time permits where they're currently limited to 12 days in a 12-month period, we're going to remove
that restriction and move a limited live performance from 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. to give asummary to the equity impact, it's to reduce the need for capital and open impacts. we recognize that simply removing these barriers does not lead to -- does not directly lead to equitable out comes, so we see all of this supported by all of the other support programs to support those who need it, whether it be individual businesses or neighborhoods and communities. for a.d.u.s, we hope this might be able to produce more affordable housing time that is embedded within neighborhood amenities, and i just want to note there's no prohibition against modifying anything against future desires so we
can continue to be responsive to neighborhoods' needs. i do want to note we received letters of support from the san francisco chamber of kmergs, the yerba buena community benefit district, the hayes c.b.d., the castro c.b.d., and the mission c.b.d. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, sheela. that concludes staff presentation. we should open this up for public comment. members of the public that would like -- if you would like to speak to this matter, please press star then three to be added to the queue. okay. we have one member of the public in the attendee list, but i guess they don't want to speak to this matter, so public comment is closed, and the
matter is now before you. and so this is a planning code amendment for your recommendation to the planning commission. we'll then approve and move it to the board of supervisors if it continues that path. >> commissioner pearlman, did you -- >> yes, thank you. am i correct in understanding there is only one item in this entire package that relates to the historic preservation commission? is that correct? >> that is correct. so we gave you the whole show so you could get the full picture. >> well, thank you. i do appreciate that. i do have a question about that one item. i wonder, did you entertain eliminating [inaudible] for the administrative of the acoa and the mpta.
we are able to modify it, and i think the current code currently outlines the process for administrative review toest to just ensure that property owners are taking the review of their landmarks according to, you know, the rules that the city has basically developed. so we still will kind of conduct the review of those proposals and sign off on them. we will just avoid the notice process in terms of processing the applications now. >> maybe i didn't understand. i was talking about the appeal. not that we should eliminate them, but the appeal -- if i'm understanding properly, there's still a ten-day appeal period for an issued acoa or mpcj. this to rich? >> yeah, that's correct. so with any appeal process,
there's still a ten-day appeal period. so because it's a discretionary action from the department, basically, it's something that is appealable unless, you know, instituted by statute. so i might defer to the city attorney for additional questions on this, but that's my understanding. >> i'll just chime in. this is liz watty, director of planning. should somebody want to appeal the admin for the minor, it's the same appeal body as the permit itself, so the idea is any member of the public can appeal any building permit, so if someone would want to appeal that individual or the minor, it would likely run concurrently with the appeals period with the building permit itself, so we're hoping, again, to pinch out any redundancy or notification time that we don't
feel is bringing any value to the end product. >> thank you. >> i had a question -- actually, two questions. so let's -- let's say just, for example, there is that legacy business that -- there's a legacy business -- sorry. i'm in my office with the dogs -- and they needed to take a break for a year or two years. are you saying through this new -- or through this revised amendment, they would be able to open again without going through any of the processes this that they would have to do previously? >> regardless of if it's a legacy or any type of business, if they had shut their doors
but they remained in a building, they wouldn't have to go through any sort of process. >> my next question is having access to this information for people who are not native english speakers. will this be available in various languages? >> yes. >> if a person who is maybe not comfortable speaking english has questions to go through this new process, are there humans available for that person to have a consultation with?
>> yes. >> thank you. >> are there any further questions? yes, commissioner nagaswaran. >> hi. i've read through some of these parts of this program. are some of them a two-year period and other parts permanent? can you please explain? >> what parts are permanent versus what would be temporary? so all -- everything will be
permanent except for a few things. in addition, the other one, the two-year one is the limited live performance piece, and that would be limited to two years, as well. >> thank you. also, how do people find out about these programs? do they go to the city website or how do they find out what it provides? >> the prop h, like, the 30-day
program. the city has done quite a bit to advertise that and reach out to associations, for sure, and then, oewd targets specific communities and populations, and they have strong ties with the neighborhood planning groups that can help disseminate changes, as well. >> [inaudible] are saying oh, hey, you're eligible for this. go provide through this way so you can access the 30-daytime line. so i think d.b.i., d.p.h., they're helping us get the word out to their constituents, as well. >> are there any other comments or questions from the commission? >> president matsuda, i'd like
to [inaudible]. >> me, too. >> [inaudible]. >> hi, thanks. the commissioner in me wants to comment on this, a whole lot of things are positive. something that i was happy to hear about was since the prop h location processing [inaudible] that was implemented in january, 75% [inaudible] and 42% are women-owned businesses, and that is -- especially in the retail sector, these changes support our racial and social equity goals, and so i hope that our social equity team will recommend further updates to further these goals next year. further, i want to acknowledge that a lot of this falls on staff, both the mayor's staff and the planning staff to
develop those code changes, and i know how hard it can be. but i just want to say that we as commissioners get it in that as planning staff have had to adopt to covid related changes, including working from home, and i was so impressed and kind of blown away by the volume and breadth of work changes you brought to us at the last hearing. i thank you for your flexibility and hard workup to now and also in the future because these were all really important goals for us as a city to recover. >> thank you very much. >> commissioner foley? >> you know, for someone who actually operates multiple businesses and works with a bull of small businesses and nonprofits, i think all of this work that you're doing is super great. i think trying to cleanup these
things and trying to get these businesses open up in a reasonable time i think kind of helps the fabric of our neighborhoods and our community but also allows the planning staff to do work that's more interesting. i just want to say thank you for all this hard work, and i really appreciate it. >> thank you. any other commissioners that would like to make comments or questions? commissioner so, please use the chat if you would like to make some comments? >> hi. thank you, president matsuda. i'd just like to say a few words about the [inaudible] between the planning staff and oewd. i'm all for streamlining these processes and cutting down the red tape that we can possibly do to make sure that our small businesses and community minority women-owned businesses can get their feet back on
track. it is very important, and i'm really happy that we are progressing to this point where we have a really untilable robust staff to review projects, and we have track records in the past ten years that we prove we can do it, and we are now ready to make things happen faster, and we can allocate to other sources to more needed projects and with the limited resources that we have. so i would like to motion to approve this recommendation -- is it motion to approve, right, or is it discussion only? >> clerk: the recommendation is motion for approval. >> i so want to motion that. >> second. >> second. >> i think -- do we need, since the modification that was outlined in the resolution is slightly different from what we have brought to you today, so i
just want to make sure that we're approving that -- the modification that we had discussed to -- >> i'm sorry, commissioner foley. did you have additional comments that you wanted to make? >> no, i'm done. >> clerk: okay. very good. if there's nothing further, there's been a motion that's been seconded to approve the
modification made by board members and staff. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0, and concludes your ever-so-brief agenda today. thank you for joining us, and apologies for interrupting your afternoon. >> thank you so much for joining us.
everybody wants to be at chase center, don't they. well, good morning still, everybody. i started real early so i don't even know what time it is. hi, i'm san francisco mayor london breed. really excited to be here with you all today here at thrive plaza, here at chase center, the home of the golden state warriors who for the first time tomorrow will be playing with
an audience of fans. what that says is we are well on our way to recovering in the city. we are well on our way to re-opening and gradually taking those steps. most importantly, as great as we have done here in san francisco, 64% of san franciscans have received at least their first vaccine dose and about 85% of those over the age of 65, we're seeing our reproductive rates decline. we are feeling good. we are feeling excited and happy and anxious to get back to our lives; but at the end of the day, you all know we're still in the midst of a pandemic. so as comfortable as we may be with our progress, let's make sure we continue to wear our
mask and follow our health directive so that we can finally get to a place where we can watch a game without our mask on. and, the reason why we are here is not just because the warriors are playing tomorrow with fans for the first time in almost a year, just think about it. last year, at this time, the city was closed. and, now, look at where we are. last year this time, we had a different president who pulled us out of the paris agreement to meet our climate goals, but san francisco didn't let that stop us. fortunately now under president biden who made a great announcement today for the country on earth day, we in san francisco are not only well on
our way to exceed the goal that he set for the nation. we are well on our way to exceed the goals we set right here in san francisco. in fact, we are 41% less in carbon emissions in san francisco since one thousand nine hundred ninety. this is six years ahead of the goal that we set initially. and it's the reason why we are so successful and the goals we set around climate change has a lot to do with partners like the warriors. this chase center is not just beautiful and fun and exciting to watch a game in. this is one of our very important environmental sustainable buildings in san francisco. this is the future. and some of the things that we did here in san francisco in addition to implementing clean
power sf, you all remember years ago that big push to get that program started. you all remember the conversations around making sure that in new buildings we ban natural gas. you all know that we in san francisco have a climate action plan, a plan that's not just a plan that discusses what we're going to do, it's a plan that actually puts into action the work that needs to be done to address climate change. this climate action plan is being revised as we speak thanks to the leadership of debbie rafael and the staff of department and environment. and what i am most appreciative is they not only are focusing on equity as it relates to geographic equity here in san francisco. they are making sure that young people have a voice in this
action plan which is why mayor from george washington high school is joining us here today. so, folks, san francisco should be proud. we're leading in the vaccination effort. higher numbers than the state and the entire country. we're leading in addressing issues around climate change with our carbon emissions and other challenges that we face and we're going to continue to lead. and it's time to start upping the ante and setting new goals. at the end of the day, san francisco has been a leader. we know that we can't just operate in our own bubble and make changes to support and uplift the environment without making sure that we are demonstrating how it can be done for others to follow.
this entire planet and the future of our planet and the generations to come, there's so much at stake here. i don't want the next generation of young people to look back and say, "what did they do? why didn't they act sooner?" you see this windy clean air we're breathing, it has everything to do with everything that we have been doing in san francisco. today, clean power sf our city's clean power program is going to beat our target of being one hundred% renewable by five years. all clean power sf customers will receive 100% renewable energy by 2025. and, let me tell you why that is so significant. when we first, debbie, you remember and, michael, you remember this too, when we
first launched clean power sf, there was just a little more money that people had to pay for 80% renewable energy and the super green 100%. now, by two thousand twenty-five, everyone gets, every one of our customers gets super green, but they don't pay anything extra. now, how significant is that? that is going to change the game for clean power in this city moving towards our future to a more seasonable, environmentally friendly city that sets an example for other places to follow. we're going to be introducing legislation that will update our climate targets to san francisco so that san francisco can be carbon neutral. instead of by 2050, when i'm
probably going to be real old and the rest of us will too. by 2045. is part of the paris agreement. and so, i know that these numbers and these environmental things don't seem like they're really cool, but they are really cool because the clean air that we drink, i mean, clean air that we breathe, the clean water that we drink, some of the best water that you could ever taste anywhere. you can drink it right out of the faucet without a filter. being able to see the green trees grow, everything has an impact. and that's why having partners like chase center working with us to make sure that they are
not only creating the incredible environment they do to make games exciting even though i know the players can do that all on their own, but this facility doesn't hurt. they have been partners as i said earlier in creating one of the newest green buildings in san francisco and i'm pleased to welcome to the podium kim stone, the chase center's general manager. >> thank you. welcome everybody. and, thank you, mayor breed. it is so important that we all work together to combat climate change and, at chase center, we value setting the example for others in san francisco. thank you to debbie rafael, the department of environment for working with us to become a
green certified business. these aren't -- these are high targets, but they are achievable targets so other private businesses that are listening in, i want to encourage you to join us here. be part of the family about being green certified business. michael carlin as well. his group at sfpuc for all the hard work ensuring facilities like chase center can be powered by clean energy. and, as mayor breed said, today, the stars are aligning for us because we get to celebrate this great achievement for chase center and tomorrow we get to welcome fans back to the building. we hope chase center can serve as an example to any size business that if we can do it, you can do it. let's go green together and inspire the private sector to do so. so how did we do this? what are we doing? so as chase center, we focus on sustainability from the beginning of this construction project. we are a lead goal certified
building design and construction that was during our three year construction process and then for ongoing maintenance and operations. we know being in california, the conserving water is critical for all of us in our futures. so we're designed to recover gray water from our laboratories and our showers. from the roof, we collect rain water and even just condensation and we are able to reuse that. and, through those collective efforts, we have reduced our water consumption by 84%. thank you. you can imagine it takes a lot of energy to run 1 million square feet and what we do for games and concerts. so this is another area we place high priority. our state of the art hvac system allows us to take advantage of this great climate that we have here to keep the building cool without having to
add extra energy to do so. we also integrated a highly efficient lighting system with customizable local controls that ensure that when you walk out of a room and it's unused for a certain period of time, the lights automatically go off. in a million square feet that is an important component to our energy saving efforts. so these features and a lot others that i won't go into the details on, but we can certainly provide them if you would like them, these have resulted in us saving 35% of our energy usage. lastly, i want to highlight our waste management program. trash is a beautiful thing and so we focus on this and so we have dramatically reduced our construction waste during construction and diverted 78% of our waste out of landfills. very proud of that. and, then, on an ongoing basis, we sort our waste daily and we
sort it after every game. the importance of this is that it ensures that we are reducing waste. san francisco has an amazing infrastructure for compostables, recyclables. it just takes that little extra effort and it has a big impact. and, materials aren't the only thing we're sorting. we are also since our opening in 2019, gosh, i can't believe it will be 409 days since we've had fans in the building. 2019 just seems like such a long time ago. but when the fans come at the end of the game, any of our unused food and raw ingredientsings, we give that to the food runners program and they reuse it and repurpose it. so we aren't throwing extra food into our compost. while we're excited to open our doors to fans tomorrow, i want everyone to rest assured that we operate in a sustainable and
environmentally friendly manner here. one last reminder for all your fans remember your game ticket is a muni ticket as well so you can reduce your footprint that way as well. thank you all and i want to say with leaders like mayor breed, san francisco will -- has and continued to be a global leader in the environment and we continue to be partners in if that environment. go doves. mayor breed. >> thank you so much, kim. and, thank you, for all that the warriors are doing to really protect our planet and that's what this is all about. one of the things that i'd like to, you know, tell debbie every time i see her because she's like, you know, i would call her "madam green." she's always looking for ways to save and support the environment and i'm always so proud about how much trash i don't have anymore. and, in fact, i share a trash
bin with two other people and every time they pick up the trash, it may be one or two small bags in the trash and everything is recyclable. your plastic bags. you put them all in a bag and wrap them. it's easy. once you start doing it just becomes habit. from the coffee filters. you just throw those in the compost. i have more compost and more recycles than anything. i'm proud in doing it, but also it's second nature and anyone can do it and i would just say that when your kids tell you to do it, make sure you listen to your kids. children are like don't put that in the trash. i'm like okay. good, they're starting early.
>> hi everyone. i've really seen the students value the importance of taking action towards climate issues and how we address climate issues is is clearly one of the biggest issues of my generation and we can't avoid this problem any longer. that's why at george washington high school, i'm really proud of our work of improving my school's waste management issues. we've taken small, but mighty steps bringing awareness to our community about recycling, composting and finding other ways to improve students' environmental habits and behaviors. additionally, i want to mention the students from academy high school for joining my school's environmental club for climate action month. our club's work has brought in many students to want to participate in more action based projects to see the
change that's needed. it's really exciting to see so many youth from across the city to join one another to amplify their voices. when the mayor kicked off a series of workshops and events, so many of us youth jumped in on the opportunity to provide more ideas. the process and courage so many youth to conduct their own plans within their own communities. another good thing, i want to commemorate the notable youth organization as they've been at the forefront of the movement this past year. and, during this pandemic, there's so many obstacles. they've had so many virtual workshops each month and keeps the momentum going. they've encouraged so many youth from all over the bay area to keep educating and fighting for climate justice. not only in the city of san francisco, but in our country.
while i'm inspired by all of this, the work of youth is not enough. thank you to the san francisco leadership, our mayor and businesses like the chase center who can actually see real change together and meet our city's new environmental goals. today, let's celebrate how far we've come this earth day and look forward to see the process ahead of us. i'm graduating really soon and heading off to college, so i'm really excited to take this transformative work with me. continue to inspire one another. and i look forward to seeing how san francisco continues to pave the way. thank you so much and i hope everyone has a good earth day. >> thank you, mary. wow, that was impressive. not just her leadership at washington high school, but you notice that she talked about collaborating with other high schools who have joined the efforts of washington high school.
and as a graduate of gallaleo high school. and, most importantly, that the environment is more important than our high school rivals from back in the day. right. but, thank you so much, mary, for your words and your leadership and good luck with college. we really appreciate that you're going to probably continue this work and it will be an important part of your legacy and you will represent san francisco well. today, we also have joining us and i mentioned debbie rafael and the department of environment as well as acting public utilities director michael carlin both are here to answer any questions if you have them about our new announcements.
>> reporter: [ indiscernible ] >> yes. debbie, you want to talk about that. i'm sure she's itching to talk about that. but the fact is it shouldn't be something that interferes with anyone's life. we are trying to naturally incorporate these changes to make it easy for people just like what i talked about as it relates to composting and recycling. but i'll let debbie say a few words about it as well. >> yeah. that is absolutely right. our goal is very simple for carbon neutrality. we need to be an all-electric city who's operating on 100% renewable electricity. what you heard the mayor say today is we will reach that renewable mark by 2025 and we are continuing under the mayor's leadership to transfer
off of fossil fuels and become all electric. her bold decision to ban natural gas and new construction is just the first step. so san franciscans will just see that the way they operate is sustainable because we make it easy, we make it the law, and we make sure that everyone is in it together. students, businesses, government we're all in this together. >> all right. any questions? thank you all so much for joining us. go doves!