Skip to main content

tv   Full Board of Supervisors 91316  SFGTV  September 23, 2016 2:00am-4:01am PDT

2:00 am
house sg the highest priority for everyone. as policy makers i hope the board can see one cannot sime ultaneously claim to support the rent control cyst squm fight the affordability crisis and allowing the demolition of this kind of sound and affordableerant rent controlled unit. every demolition is a direct attack on the tenants right. it attacks the integrity and what it represents. enforce the policy and protect the units is a root cause of the affordability crisis. the controller office tells us we have lost more than a thousand of these in-law unit in the past 2 years, all most all attached to single family homes like this one. every supervirez here at one time or another has rightly
2:01 am
talked to talk of wanting to fight the affordsability crisis and talked the talk of supporting the rent control system wanting to keep the poor and less aflew want in our city. well, this is where the rubber meets the road and where you walk the walk and show the talk that is made is more than just empty words. that you care get displacement and you our board of supervisors will do what is right and and are the check and balance against what is a unchecked real estate speculation in our residential neighborhoods. the departments new analysis is wrong and full of excuses. it offers incorrect legal analysis, the removal of a stove and signing of a lease does not alter the characteristics of the unit. if the
2:02 am
units are rent controlled, if the units have been occupied for years, pulling out the cuchen and signing a lease doesn't change that. if that were true, that will be in front of you over and over again. these are only excuses to put this project through and allow the destruction of the existing housing and more profit for developers. these excuses are not policy. if you think about these excuses they are always present. the development community will squamble to sign leases and recharacterize units and get letters from the tenants and say we are not displaced and agree to leave and don'ts mind you take away our housing. there are 4 bedrooms currently occupied in this unit. if you remove the kitchen on a whim and suddenly say well, that unit never existed, the
2:03 am
photographs clearly show that's not true. if you allow these excuses to sway your decision than you support the exkoos excuse and exception that doesn't exist and that will swallow the policy and that is for the retention long term retention of this kind of sound naturally affordable rent controlled housing. the purpsh of these policies is to conserve and protect existing housing and the general plan says that over and over again. there is no exception for creating additional units. there is no exception for creating active commercial. if there is a conflict in the policy the existing units have to be preserved and maintained to preserve the cultural and economic diversity of our city. that is what this case before uis is
2:04 am
about and that is what our appeal is about and ask you to spirit the community and neighbors and support the appeal. thank you. >> thank you mr. williams. any questions for mr. williams? supervisor campos. >> thank you mr. chair. mr. william just a follow up question on the issue of the in-law unit and can you talk about from your perspective what is the relevance of the question of whether there was a kipen kitchen and there are pictures. can you address what the point thatia that you were making earlier? >> certainly. the new definition of what comprises a independent unit requires it have a kitchen so the stove here has obviously been removed. we submitted letters from former
2:05 am
tenant in the unit and said yes there was a stove i cooked on it and lived there independently. you can see that this is your typical in-law in the garage attached to the building and fully built out. i dont think there is significance as the department was swayed by the disappearance of the stove. that is common. if you want to make a unit disappear you pull out the kitchen. this is so clumpy they didn't take out the range hood and the gas hook up. the stains from cooking are still on the wall. the board should look and say, was this a viable unit and was this a viable unit used for many years. the answer is obviously yes. the long term owners had a elderly tenant before they moved out and that is what these units
2:06 am
are for. >> in terms of the analysis mr. williams, what is the time period you look at in terms of whether or mot there was a kitsch thrn and whether it was a in-law unit? was it before or now or does it not matter? >> i don't think that is particularly relevant that-they are renting this out at a thousand dollars a bedroom on craig's lest they are not trying to cover the amount thatd they paid for the building. they are biding their time. it isn't relevant when that came out because it came out without a permit. you cant remove the kitchen anymore than you can put it in without a proper purnlt. permit. >> thank you. >> supervisor tang. >> thank you. in your remarks you stated the rent board said the home is subject to the the rent ordinance is that correct? >> yes. >> i read in the packet
2:07 am
something different so wondering if anyone is here from the rent board to clarify that? my understanding was that is still under potential investigation. >> the department can see if there is a second unit that it is covered by the rent board. >> can i ask someone from the rent board to speak to that matter? >> robert collins acting at the rent board. the jm gentlemen may have interacted with the rent board have no putension or fipeding finding so don't have communication by the rent board so maybe what he is referring to is communication but i'm not away of finelding or letter he received from us. maybe he called the counsel line or got information what will happen but not aware there is a determination by us. >> i mean just for the record, how would one go about getting
2:08 am
conformation about whether this property is subject toerant control? i dopet want us to-i know this is-there is conflicting nrfgds so information so don't want to mischaracterize what this is subject to. >> well, assumes everything is covered by rent control unless someone proves it is not. having a petition filed by the landlord or 10 wantant which has not occurred and have a hearing where people present testimony and documentary evidence and then the administrative judge will weigh the evidence and make a determination. that is the process. the rent board for a decision and jurisdiction. >> okay. so, that process hasn't started for that formal determination. >> the developer is-it sup to the
2:09 am
developer. we call thd rent board and said yes single family home is covered under the ren ordinance. if you look in the department materials that is what it says and what he just said is that the they assume it is under the rent ordinance unless the developer files a putension to take it out from under the rent ordinance. >> i think the issue here is yes, you are at the rent board. at the rent board the administrator by the rent board. the only people who have standing to file a petition is the landlord or tenant. if it is concerned neighbors they don't have standing so maybe that is they called the rent board to figure out the rules which is different than making a determinationism such a determination hasn't been made. i can try to
2:10 am
answer general questions but have no determinations specific to this property. >> i think there is also one slight distinction, which is, a rent board ruling that says single family developing with illegal unit consstutes a two unit building and is not exemp from rent control unless both are rented together as a single tenancy. >> that is correct . what he said as far as the information from the rent board is correct. if there are two units regardless of legal status that would be two units and therefore they would not be exempt from price controls per sunt to the cost of housing act. it doesn't matter whether both are legal and one is illegal and one is legal, if there is more than at one unit the unit rented-if it
2:11 am
doesn't have a separate title to any other unit it doesn't injie the exemption: >> just to clarify were the units rented separately or individual? >> our individual is they were and submitted >> they are separate or together? >> the appear tonight rented together to the lease that was signed after the application fimeed. the letter we submitted from former tenant shows it was rented separately when it had a full kitchen. >> okay, may second question is regarding the kitchen issue. i know that you had said there is a focus whether the kitchen stove was remiveed in the planning packet material it says the criteria the planning department used are based on 2, the whether the
2:12 am
living or sleeping space is used as a separate sleeping space andologist it dependent on the physical character whether there was a separate entry to the unit. so, i maybe center to getd to this when yee we talk to planning department but want to make sure we are clear if this is hinging on the kitchen stove or 3 criteria that the planning department used for evaluation. >> we believe all the factors necessary are present to establish as a separate unit. >> okay. supervisor peskin we i move to supervisor mar. >> thank you mr. williams for providing the photo's and what looks like the removal of a stove and of that housing unit in the back. i know as planning comes to the presentation i know i'll have a number of questions about
2:13 am
why planning were not able to figure that out and in some ways what the responsibility of planning is to in their analysis. i want to say mr. williams you're representing the san francisco community empowment center and thank you to theresa decay and others. you represented a number of residents in the richmond two years ago in 2014 around conditional use appeal of 395, 26th avenue and was the proposed demolition i believe one and a half units of housing and a small business space in a similar structure. i wonder what is the relevance of our boards support of that appeal to this case? >> the situation is identical in my
2:14 am
estimation. the destruction of the rent controlled housing in favor of constructing 4 stories of new housing is on opinion. point. it is also in a commercial district and think degoes to the point housing is protected in the commercial and residential districts. the neighbors tell me there are 20 other building like this on san bruno avenue wait toog be demolished if this is. >> i was going to wait till the departments presentation to ask questions asked by supervisor tang but since those issues were raised i want to go back to the rent board. my understanding is that you have at some point you did have several leases here and maybe before i ask the rent board maybe i can ask the planning
2:15 am
department. my understanding is there are multiple leases to the property at some point and are in the record. >> good afternoon. ann marie rogers planning department staff and didn't have benefit to review the lease at the planning commission hearing got leases from the project sponsor. when the appellate provides information about the craig's list adit looks thrike the posting fs employing was rented together. we didn't call this into question until after the hearing and requested more information from the project sponsor and they praided the lease in [inaudible]
2:16 am
>> how many leases do we have? >> one from 2014, one from twnt 15 and one from 2016. 3. sorry, there is a 4th lease from 2015, 2016 as well. >> thank you. going back to the rent board, do you have any-just clarify, different leases for different tenants, is that-i want to clarify that from the planning department? separate leases for seperal tenant? >> the leases-this is one the critical issues for the board to consider is when you try to figure out how important the existing housing and the benefit it provides the public versus the housing provided in a new project and in this case whether it is
2:17 am
or is not a unauthorized unit is not in my opinion the most important thing because if it is a unauthrise unit that affords the highest protection which is how the plans xhilgz reviewed it. you only need to change the findings if you felt the unit was not an unauthorized. can you remind your question? >> my understanding is there is a lease in 2014 that there are two looses in 2014 2015? >> the leasing and part of our replays talk about it being rented as a single family house. it is not the most compelling bit of nrgz but it is different information than we had when we said that we were considering it a unauthorized unit. between the lease and rental it looks like there was
2:18 am
shared use. the bedroom said were labeled not outside unit but bedroom 1 bedroom 2 and bed 3 and 4. >> so, there was separate leases for separate tenants? >> yes, there were separate leases for separate tenants at time. it appeared to be rented together. we don't know if we have access >> student all the leases mptd >> i think that is a challenge here. going back to the the rent board, in your experience how do you-we have a single family home with separate leases, how do you treat that in terms whether it is rent control or not? >> thank you supervisor campos. we do have a number of cases where the issue is whether a property that would be covered byerant control broadly
2:19 am
speaking meaning a single family home built before 197 9 but the issue in this petition is whether it is exempt from price increases due to the cost of hawken's rental housing act. what we are trying to fish out is whether this space is separately aminiable for any other dwelling unit because the exemption applies in situations where the property-the dwelling units has a separate title to any other dwelling unit. if we found-it could be the rooms were rented with separate leases. the ordinance regardless of legal or zoning status is trying to cover illegal unit. we do make the
2:20 am
findings often and say if we found separate leases that is a strong indicator it is used as separate units and therefore it is not from the title to another dwelling unit. so i say generally that is strong piece of evident that shows it is separate. >> final question because i think part the challenge here is that there is as you noted the neighbors don't have standing to go to the rent board to ask for a determination, it is the landlord and tenant. has that acured here? has the land lord own tenants asks the rent board for determination? >> no, i just checked before i left the
2:21 am
office. one hof the problems for the rent board is the parties before us here don't have standing to file such a petition and so that goes both ways. we are not speaking individually to the property and trying to give general answers but nothing is filed that i'm aware of what so ever. no eviction notice or anything. >> for purpose of rent control you said the general approach from the rent board is that thereis a presumption it is subject to rent control unless it is proven otherwise? >> that is correct. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. okay. we will open it up to public comment for any members of the public who like to speak only in support of the appeal. can you please line up too my left, your right if you cht to speak in support of the appeal.
2:22 am
>> rea [inaudible] as it is my intention to attend board of supervisor meetings when given a opportunity such as this, i will comment as i feel appropriate. looking at the documents posted on the website associate would this agenda item, i noticed the planning department seems to have spent the last weekend shorting upen the case. the facts present thood to the board today are different from those presented to the planning commission when it approved the project. several documents listed on the agenda items as post packet material. this was proneted after the packet was indicated and as a result the appellates didn't have a opportunity to deal with any of those which were [inaudible] by the planning commission to late to get into
2:23 am
the packet. instead of being impartial the planning department became participants on behalf of the developer. i question both the propiety and legalality of using city resources. i'm having it god government guide quoted to me as the city policy and it basically says bodies have to give the appearance orphfairness. you are considering dunlts that the appellates never got a chance to see ton untul one was dated today. one was dated yesterday. basically how can the appellates do a fair presentation and get a fair hearing if they are dealing with documents that they center never seen? basically what this person said representing them verifies that fact. i believe this should be supported and it basically is as many of the
2:24 am
members have said, going to come up again. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon supervisors. >> please speak directly into hadthe mic. >> michael wrong. i am a practicing e [inaudible] since 2003. next to the building on 2785 san bruno avenue. the building is like 4 stories 40 feet mixed use and the buildings on that street are usually one story, two story, 3 story building only. and the new building will be 4 story qu
2:25 am
will not blend in the neighborhood and stick out like a sore thumb. the neighborhood is mostly blue caller families. it is ethnic diverse neighborhood. the propose project is more affluent resident and display lower income families. the existing building is single family. it sufordable rent control unit. once rent control building is lost it is gone forever. we in san francisco need more affordable housing, not less. therefore we should oppose the proposed building on 2785 san bruno avenue. i would like to mention that i met my neighbors emily bradley and sons bob and [inaudible] from 2005.
2:26 am
emmy and son live in the main house and older son lives and sleeps in the illegal unit. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is paul [inaudible] i live in the por toly district. i have a business on san bruno avenue directly across the street from the building in question. the affordable housing issue is critical for most people that are struggling along in the city. i think we really need to keep what we have. i noted-i have been in business since 1970 on san bruno at 2780 so have seen
2:27 am
the changes and i share the feelings of my neighbors about wanting to keep housing, affordable housing that we have. i think we run into a real critical question of presidents and as we speaker that began this talked about this, maybe we have 25 other single family dwelling that certainly will be subject to removal. so, i support the idea that in this particular case the housing is very affordable and we really need it and it really lend a lot of character to our neighborhood and we want to hang on tathat. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is emelia
2:28 am
bradley. [inaudible] for 5 years. i moved in 2005 and moved out 2010 and my son is my second oldest son moved into the unit in the back the same time i move in. that's it. [inaudible] one bedroom, one mini kitchen and one shower room in the back unit. myosin paid $500 for that but the front house where i lived occupied for $1 thousand.
2:29 am
thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is sherman lee, i live in the neighborhood for all most 50 years. i have seen the neighborhood changing here and there. i'm disabled and if this goes through, that means the rent will go sky rocket, so to save low income can't live there anymore. i moved to san francisco lived on [inaudible] at the corner of wayland and san bruno for all most 50 years and that is pretty much what i have to say. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> my name is tiffany
2:30 am
[inaudible] located on 2798 san bruno avenue. low income families apply for housing and support the future. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> [inaudible] i live in san bruno. >> tom i live in san francisco community [inaudible] i will betranslating for him. i will be the interpreter. i support the appeal. >> thank you, sir. next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is [inaudible]
2:31 am
i support the appeal. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is lisa [inaudible] and [inaudible] my name is [inaudible] i live in the san bruno district and i support for this building. >> thank you. thank you both. . i'm done right here. thank you.
2:32 am
>> [inaudible] my name is eugene tong and i hope we remain this type of affordable renting control housing. tlt st. high priority. once this kind of housing is gone we want to ask you supervisors [inaudible] and
2:33 am
save this unit. [inaudible] two units affordable rent controlled unit. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is [inaudible] i'm the [inaudible] in san francisco and [inaudible] for all most 10 years. i have been around the neighborhood for a long time and i saw the single house been there a long time. i'm coming tupe the support the neighborhood and [inaudible] and make the neighborhood more problems and accord toog the mayors on announcement on february 2014 and the mayor say he
2:34 am
would like to restore building for lower income for housing for low income people. [inaudible] tried to help a lot of seniors to get the housing and affordable housing and get into like a affordable housing to live. right now i do not agree that build never higher cost and luxury expensive building for that neighborhood. we would like to keep the neighborhood the same as now and make the people affordable to live in the area and then i'm coming here to ask donot agree to let the house go and keep the tenant have more place to live. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. so, my name
2:35 am
is jeffrey and i liveen the neighborhood all most 20 years. i'm going to opponent out the most direct problem we have in the neighborhood. it is parking space for the pest 20 years i have been living there and people just can't find a place to park, so building a story that tall like 4 story high, it will create like more problems for parking. i really in my opinion city is sfozeed supposed to build a parking lot in our neighborhood like other neighborhoods have a parking lot. i don't like a building that tall. maybe 3 stories may be okay. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is theresa [inaudible] i'm a executive director for [inaudible] i think a lot of
2:36 am
people come out today is that we feel that we [inaudible] have been working for the low income family and 30 people low income family every day come here to look to houses and apply for houses. i think it is a crisis now and everyone knows about it. what happens if this-i know that planning department two months ago we asked to talk with the developer. we delay two weeks and the planning department knows it is too late. yes, last week just last week the lender, the developer e-mailed to me saying i want to have a meetic with you. i say okay, but it was on friday and friday we already have plans, so she say 4 o'clock. i say 4
2:37 am
o'clock we can meet and ask the people so that we can have a meeting but she say she works. so, it is only for 445. how about monday? monday cannot because i have to work. can you think of the characters of this? did she list toon us and really want to listen to us? this is what i want other supervisor vote this time with your heart and really support us, not to build any big buildings in our neighborhood. thank you so much. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public who have not spoken that like to speak in support of the appeal? please come forward. seeing none, public comment is closed. now, we will up to 10 minute for a presentation by the planning commission. >> thank you. [inaudible] i'm
2:38 am
joined by jeffrey spears who is project planner and robert collin who is the acting director of the rent board. the decision before you is whether to uphold or overturn the planning commissions aprubl of condition use to demolish and construct a new 4 story mixed use building with 3 dwelling units and two commercial units. the appellate raising 3 issues. does the property contain unauthorized unit. is the praurnt subject to rent control and were the appropriate findings made. the 4th issue is policy issue that is the heart of the projects is the proposed project better for the neighborhood? the question is central to every conditional use authorization. let's review those questions.
2:39 am
first, is the rear space an unauthorized unit? this is tricky issue because it is difficult to establish the facts and because city law has done a 180 since this application was filed. entitlement was filed 2014 city law required the demolition of unauthorized yunlts, now the city encourages the unit retained. city law doesn't prohibit the removal of the units it requires any proposed removal is considered through conditional youth authorization and that is what the commission did thmpt commission found the rear structure was unauthorized and then they approved the dim ligz along with the main structure. demolition of unit may be approved as long as the body considers all the demolition criteria in section 317 and then finds the now project to be necessary
2:40 am
or desirable for the community and compatible with the neighborhood. as the board considers the appropriate findings let's revee review. since the new laz became effective protections are afford able for a unit established as independent and it needs to be independent boleth in the physical characters and in the use. meant to insure unauthorized unit don't use protection because cooking units are removed and these corrections are not time sensitive they will be invoked at any time in which the space were to be established as independent. determining independent use at any point in time is very tricky.
2:41 am
the departments tool is affidavit signed under penalty of perjury. the project sponsor signed a affdaichbt pledging to the best of their knowledge a unauthorized unit isn't on the property. in this case however, staff was concerned about the rear structure and so we also conducted a site visit and the viz lt confirmed the rear space is physically independent. the first criteria. it can be entered from the street. staff observed used as sleeping quarters and for these reasons staff determines the space is a unauthorized unit. since the planning commission hearing there have been new facts called into question whether this space is truly independent in the use. these new facts include the craig's list ad and lease which seem to
2:42 am
the tenants had access to the space. the cooking facilities seem to be removed in the past, cooking facilities are not prohibited in a single family home are no longer part the criteria of the independent. again, the commission fully considered the rear unit to be an unauthorized unit and wnt to approve the demolition of the main structure. if the board disagrees with the commission, and if the board believers the rear structures functions with the primary structure and not independent use the board may alter the findings. after determining if the rear structure is independent, the main question remains, should this be grant frd the demolition the structures so the new project may be built? if that
2:43 am
wasn't hard let's go to question 2, does rent control apply? this is a important consideration weighed to remove the existing dwelling unit and inf the board believes the outdoor space is unauthorized the pelshz application of rent control should apply to this unit as well. this question can only be answered by the rent board and while at times the application of rent control may seem obvious as we have heard under circumstances it isn't intuitive. rent control as it is commonly understood is a powerful tool to remain affordable. price protection is set tomarket rate when the unit is vacant. these factors need to be cr considered and commission approve the project where the rent control does notd apply. if the board believe the it does apply they
2:44 am
can alter the findings. if board wants to approve or des approve should respond to the the planning code requirement considering whether rent control applies. let's talk about the findings. did the commission make the appropriate findings to approve the removal of the dwelling unit and rear unauthorized unit? this is a bit of a red herring. whether it comes to the number of units the commission approved the most expansive possibility that the existing building contains a dwelling unit and unauthorized unit. the commission made the appropriate finding to enable the demolition of both and the new construction. all finding are in the first response and incorrect what is necessary and qu can give more details if you like t. is important to note whatever finding the berd
2:45 am
determine said are appropriate can be made in relation to approval disapproval. the the board believers there are different facts and believes more desire frbl the community. discuss the policy question, is the new project necessary or desirable? this quegds was at the heart of the commissions deliberation and focus of public comment at that hearing. it is in the zoning district to produce 2 to 4 stories building. this kwibes the existing san bruno avenue. the commission found on this block a 4 story building will compliment the cairbt as there are many 3 stories building in a nearby 4 story. the building was well designed and
2:46 am
fit into the context. while 1 commissioner did feel parking should by added to the project, the majority of the commission felt the ground floor retail was a better aadditional to the neighborhood. the commission found an attractive mished use building will add to the the vibrancy of the street. on the issue of the benefits of the existing housing verses proposed housing t is appropriate to weigh affordability, the potential application of rent control and quality of both existing and proposed dwelling units. this project incruseing the number of housing units and number of bedrooms and adds store front to the neighborhood. for these reasons the commission approved the project and asked staff to leave the question in the hand of the board. >> thank you mrs. rogers and spl supervisor campos. >> thank you i don't want to belabor a lot of this. i know there may be other
2:47 am
questions from colleagues but i just go back to a couple of points. can you explain how it is that the planning commission could on one hand say that this was essentially a unauthorized unit and then say rent control did not apply? >> yes, i'll answer that quelgz. i think this is a case in the very awkward circumstance where the planning code requires staff to advise and the planning commission to make findings on something that is both beyond our expertise and beyond the authority granted by the rent ordinance. as we heard today only the rent board with make the definitive call and it is not always clear. >> in light of that, in light of the fact there is-you are asked to ask something not within your expertise, why would the planning
2:48 am
commission air on the side of aing, no application of rent control opposed to application of rent control? that's for the rent board how they approach it. rent control appliesinous it is otherwise proven >> baits oden what we heard today i recommend you a-mind those findings. >> how is it you have a process for determining that it was a separate unit and now saying it is a single family dwelling? how did that happen and what prompted planning staff to make that determination and what is the process you follow because you have something
2:49 am
here where it is very confusing for us on the board of supervisors. you have staff at some point questioning what the commission concluded, the commission concluded it isn't a single family home and staff changing its original questioning of the commission. it is really haven't seen that before. >> yes. in this case we do have new information that is provided they called into question the use and will go back to my original comments which is new law that came into effect april this year and previously there was much more emphasis on the existence orpha kitchen. if there is a kitchen you require removal and this permit would have been legalizing what the city previously would have required which is remuchbl removal the kipen
2:50 am
kitchen and unit . it looked like they were trying to comply with the law. as the law changed the construct we reviewed them was unfamiliar and not intuitive, so in looking at it, our staff was very concerned because it looks like sleeping quarters and so that was a recommendation that in fact the unit should be considered an unauthrazzed unit and that is how the commission considered. now this caiz being raised we had zoning with the administration and down and appellate provided new information and it became clear there are two criteria under the existing code and the ones i described so we need to not only focus on is the structure independent physically but has it been used independent as a main structure i that is where there is conflicting information. at
2:51 am
any point you have evident before you that they were used completely independently, then it meets the definition under the code and the law of the day of the independent unit and should be afforded those protections. >> which is why i'm asking why you are saying it is not. >> because the evident we have seen in the craig's list cals it into question. i would say it is unclear and there is no evident provided it has been operated independently that you get the information coming in very late. that is how the response was very late so may have new information you that indicates there was ainate use and if there was that is the determining factor. >> what about the lady who talked about how she lived in that unit in
2:52 am
the back and there was a kitchen there, how do you see that? >> how do i see that? i see that as the lady who had the son who use it? that was non definitive. if it was leased separately i believe she said it was and never heard this testimony before but that would lead to us believe to say it rfs independent and the commission was correct considering it to be a unauthorized and independently function and structure unit. >> just-maybe we can get more clarity when the project sponsor comes but one thing i found very confusing and wonder what your thoughts are is that on one hand there-i guess i'm not sure what is
2:53 am
accurate but at some point the project sponsor labeled the room a workshop so can you tell us what you make of that because i'm confused what is fact or not. >> that was the first indication that drewtuse have concern so because it was labeled workshop but appeared separate and a bathroom that is what drove staff to confirm is this at this time a unauthorized unit that should be removed or is this some part of the existing house. that is confusing and seems misleading. even though we had a affidavit which is another piece of evidence from the project sponsor saying no unauthorized unit staff believed there was evidence that it was. we had this conflicting
2:54 am
information and it is a struggle for staff and commission and now the board. >> thank you. >> thank you sfr visors campos. with that, we will low up to 10 minutes for the project sponsor or representative to come forward at this time. >> thank you. i'm david silverman appearing on behalf of the wang family who owned the house for the last 2 years mptd they bought the house vacant. at the time they bought it when they viewed the separate building in the back it looked to them to be a workshop. that is why workshop was put on the plans. at that time no one was living there in the house. i want to oppose the appeal and i appreciate the
2:55 am
questions asked by spl visor cam campos and hope i can answer all your questions. the approved projwill add housing and ground floor commercial space in a neighborhood commercial dirsricate that abuts the 101 freeway. i don'ts think there is a fear of gentrification on this particular street do the the procimity of the freeway. this is a extremely positive contribution to the neighborhood. the paept raised rent control as a issue. we ininvestigated that came with the rent board. the compliance officer in the office name josh fineman. he advised single family homeerize not subject to rent control ordinance. on further investigation we turned up the rent board bulletin submitted to the
2:56 am
board and that bulletin provides that even if you can show there is a unauthorized unit and legal unit connected with a single family house or on the same property that is exempt from rent control so long as there is one house holds. there is one house confirmed by ann marie. the wangerize here and can testify and will tell you the first lease fsh a single lease. it was signed by a group of college students. anyone who has been to college or in a group housing situation knows when you move in there is one lease whether there are 4 or 5 students there are, everch wale people start to leave when they leave they are replaced by their friends or by the other roommates friend. each of
2:57 am
those people signs a lease. but the original lease was a single house lease and that is a important point which the planning staff confirmed. in terms of the illegal unit or claimed illegal unit at the property, we have investigated with the current and former tenant of the wang's who owned the property since 2014 and found no evidence of illegal unit. there is a bedroom that is been in use fairly continuous use but it doesn't have a kitchen. there was a kitchen or may have been a kitchen 6 years goy. there is no kitchen there now. i reviewed a letter today i believe submitted by mr. williams from a tenant who lived there in 2010. that tenant claims there was a
2:58 am
kitchen in the garage. so, let's assume that is true for the sake of argument, there was a kitchen there. at that time time 2010, any owner who left a kitchen in their garage chs subject to a penalty of $500 a day under the planning code for maintaining an illegal unit. that owner was mandated by the planning code to remove the illegal unit thmpt reway you remove a unit is get rid of the kitchen. that is what that prior owner did. it isn't my clients, the wangs it sutin waited and further owner who took out the kitchen. they took ouz the kitchen because it was required by law at the time. under current law, adopt in the last year the city encourages illegal unit. that is well and
2:59 am
good. no legal education is necessary to know that a law adopted in 2016 couldn't have applied in 2010. so, that owner at that time was obligated by law under severe penalty to remove that kitchen and they removed it years prior, years prior to the wang's purchase of the property. i'd like to also address the claim by mr. williams that we need to keep someone living in the garage because this affordable housing. it is not. the lease submitted to the
3:00 am
planning department, which ann marie has shows the currents rents is $3780 a month or . this is not affordable by any measure. there is no affordable housing being lost. so, in conclusion, the rent boards bulletin says that a single household even with a illegal unit is not subject to rent coal control. the kitchen was removed. i think we can all agree there was a kitchen in the garage at some point. a prior owner removed it required by law at the time. had they not done
3:01 am
so ann #34u marie could have lev aeds a fine of $500 a day so they did what they had do and no one ever presented evidence the wang family did anything wrong. they bought a vacant house and rented it out and the garage was used as a bedroom. that's the end of it. there is no kitchen. there hasn't been a kitchen for a long time. happy to answer questions. >> thank you. supervisor peskin. >> i would refer to the district supervisor but just like to say for the record that i appreciate if counsel would rerf to sit a staff not by their first name but my mrs. roger. >> thaurng thank you. >> thank you, with that we will-supervisor campos. >> thank you supervisor peskin
3:02 am
for pointing that out. just a quick question. why not-given the issue oof whether it is rent control and findings by the rent board is so central to a lot of the discussion that keeps coming back. why didn't you go to the rent board and get a determination since only the landlord or tenant has standing because that can resolve many questions raised? >> first of all, we have a very clear rent board bulletin that covers the situation and have submitded to the clerk and supervisor peskin quoted it earlier. >> the bulletin covers this specific property? >> it covers the specific fact situation. >> what does the bulletin say?
3:03 am
>> singm family dwelling unit with a illegal in-law unit also constitutes a two unit building and not exempt from rent control unless both units are rented together as a single tenancy. that's what- >> for someone to determine around the case. there is a general statement buzz r dut doesn't say we reviewed the iscaand believe that that the facts of the case meet this bulletin. >> there has been no prime aphasia case presented by mr. williams. i don't think there is reliable evidence that will lead to the conclusion this is ever rent control. >> that is for us to determine. why didn't yoi you go to the the rent board if knrou feel strongly that applies to this case why nat
3:04 am
go to the rent board? >> to us there was never a case for any rent control here. it is a single family home, which is not subject toerant control or single family home with a bedroom in the garage which is still not subject to rent control. i don't think there is anything to query the rent board about. there st. nothing there. i think mr. williams very skillfully took a lot of half bake spaghetti and throw it against the wall to see if it will stick. i don't think anything stuck. anything further? >> no more questions. thank you. >> thank you supervisor campos. with that we will open up to public comment to members of the public who want to speak in opposition of the appeal. are there any members of the public
3:05 am
who would like to speak in opposition please come forward? seeing none, public comment is closed. okay, the appellate has up to 3 minutes for rebuttal. >> thank you president breed. thank you members of the board of supervisors for listening to our appeal. there is lot to cover here. this is a time and day for brand new arguments at the hearings and papers handed to you just minutes before the hearing. what you heard from mr. silverman is new that the prior owner took out the kitchen. that is now where in the brief or in the record. where is the permit to remove the kitchen? it isn't vaguely referred to in any of the materials he submitted. he just submitted a
3:06 am
brief saying there is no kitchen and never was a kitchen and this was never a unit and it was a workshop. we know that isn't true because at the same time the clients subcommitted plans they were renting it out for habitation. the presentation by the city was equally filled with all new material. the planning commission was never advised and never came up in any way shape or form regarding rent control. there is no findings in the material in front of you from the planning commission on rent control accept for a single sentence which says, there is noerant controlled unit. it is single family home. i didn't represent these neighbors at the planning commission, but when i was handed this file and said a single family home is prime aphasia under the rent troll
3:07 am
ordinance until someone says it isn't. i call thd rent board and conformed that and so if the planning commission had been told this is a potentially rent controlled building i think their decision would have been much different. they were not told that and wasn't mentioned in a hearing, i watched it couple times and there were no findings anywhere in the material. necessary and desirable you heard from the community they want this building retained and want to keep the cairblth character of the neighborhood and keep this inexpensive rental. there are folks across the street that are ready to rent it. the new facts clearly this independent unit existed. the summary in the department and developers would have you disbelieve your eyes. you can see there was a stove removed.
3:08 am
we provided the photo's. there is no telling what the stories would have been if a neighbor walked in a week ago and taken the photo's including the photoof the tenant who are there now. the evidence is clear, this is two unit of separate housing and has been for decades probable and needs to be retained. >> thank you very much. okay. colleagues this hearing has been held and is now closed. this matter is in the hands of the board of supervisors. with that i like to recognize some visor david campos. >> thank you madam president and thank you colleagues for the listening to this item and i want to thank our staff both from the planning department and the rent board for being here.
3:09 am
i'll keep this veer very brief. the thing about this project that became clear from the moment that i began to review the record is that even though this is not a large project relative to what usually comes before the board, where believer the issues in the appeal are issues that can have a impact on city policy. specifically on the issue of rent control and the demolition of controlled unit. to me that is a very serious issue and have to be careful in how we handle these issues. to be honest, one of the questions that qu asked myself when i look at a decision by the planning commission is is there a way to cure some infurmety in
3:10 am
terms of the decision and for me there are so many questions about how this decision came about. so many questions about how planning, the planning commission, the planning staff they do good work with all due respects i think are questions how they addressed the issues raised. i'm not convinced that we hand lds it the way that we needed to handle these type of issues. i believe that there is enough evidence in the record here that actually confirms what the planning commission said, which is there is a second unit here. i think they actually got that right. i don't think they got the issue of the rent control applying correct. i dont think as a matter of policy and
3:11 am
principle we in this board should approve a project that leads to the demolition of rent control unit. i think we have to bow be careful how we street treat those. i don't believe the project sponsor has met the burden of giving a green light it is okay to proceed with that demolition and it disturbs me that the project sponsor could have gone to the rent board and gotten a determination if they feel strongly the bulletin covers the fact of the case that is what they should have kun. i feel bad for the sponsor because i feel counsel should have done that . with that in mine rbs i believe the findings show that the planning commission got it wrong, i do believe this isn't a single family home and is rent control
3:12 am
and don't believe it is in the interest to proceed with this project so make a motion to move table item 23 and move item 24 and 25 forward thereby disapproving the conditional use authorization and preparing findings along the lines i explained. >> supervisor campos made a motion to approve item 24 and 25 and table 23 and seconded by supervisor mar rchlt colleagues madam clerk could shd should i do roll call vote on this? >> yes. >> john gibbener, since i'm the person work ing with the clerk if the motion passes just to confirm or clarify the board will consider the written
3:13 am
findings when i come back to you. the conclusion st. the project isn't necessary or desirable under section 303 based in part on consideration of the various section 317 factors that the rent board-planning commission considered but specifically that this building is subject to rent control and flipping that finding in the planning commissions motion and based on the factors including the rent control determination it was a unauthorized unit the project isn't necessary or desirable? >> that correct. >> thank you. >> okay. with that, on supervisor campos's motion, madam clerk can you call the roll. >> yee, aye. avalos, aye. breed, aye. campos, aye. cohen, aye.
3:14 am
farrell, aye. kim, aye. mar, aye. peskin, aye. tang, aye. wiener, aye. >> this is disapproved. madam clerk can we go to back too the central market community business district please? >> yes. the returned ballots voting for the modification of the management district plan and the engineers report for the stl market is saerfb 1.75 percent and returned gaerns the modification oof the management district plan and engineer rortd for the central market community benefit district was 28.25 percent. indicated there is no majority protest.
3:15 am
>> there is no majority protest can you please call the roll on item 27 the resolution modifying the district plan and modifying the management district plan and engineering report. >> yee, aye. avalos, aye. breed, aye. campos, aye. cohen rsh aye. farrell, aye. kim, aye. mar, aye. peskin, aye. tang, aye. wiener, aye. >> the resolution is adopted. madam clerk let's go to jenroom general public comment. >> the public may comment on items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the board to include the items on
3:16 am
the without reference to committee calendar. public comment is not allowed knh a item is previously subiect to public comment. direct remark tooz the board as a whole and not individuals and to the audience. speakers uses translation or interpretation assist nss are allowed twice the amounts of time and fou if you like to display your document say such and remove the document when the screen returns to live coverage of the meetding. >> first speaker, please. >> [inaudible] today i want
3:17 am
3:18 am
toshow you for the last two months our newspapers doesn't give us nice news. only like what you see in [inaudible] the young lady [inaudible] that scandal in oakland in san francisco and richmond and other. [inaudible] police officers doesn't [inaudible] who waiting for him in his home. [inaudible] for me or you who [inaudible] they dopet don't care about the badge. [inaudible] ladies
3:19 am
and gentlemen, i have [inaudible] to tell to the the mayor ed lee, [inaudible] we need to see where the money [inaudible] from our city and other city. [inaudible] how
3:20 am
many police officers we have after them? let us know what we do and [inaudible] >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon supervisors. all 6 of you remaining here, 7. i'm peter warfield executive director of library users association and glad to see supervisors avalos and yee in particular. on august the 2 ugaisk a sweetheart deal to friends of san francisco public library lasting as much as 25 years. this is a same friend that we have sfounds keep more than 90 percent of what they take in for their expenses and 6 figure
3:21 am
salaries. it is the same friends that take heavy subsidies from the library such as book collection locations at every branch and mine library. store space for a dollar a day and prime space at the main library. step sales that are made from free materials and other things. largely this was accomplished i believe through the concealment of what the library was doing with this sweetheart deal for the friend. what is the rosen we are taking free space at brocks hall and substitute [inaudible] with 35 year extensions that is more than $26 million. supervisor yee and committee asked is there a reason for leaving brooks hall as it is free and luis huh rarea replayed brooks hall
3:22 am
isn't subject to practical alterication. i believe it st. sig cnts increase the rent has to play on the van ness locationment there was nothing in the discussion that indicated they also have to book sales and also have the their book collection there and it was never approved by the library and never commission and never openingly discussed. please reconsider. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i will use a number of slides and request sfgtv leave the slides on until i take all of them off. i agroogree with the prior speaker. this is the one i showed was a prior year and got
3:23 am
this from the library. couple days ago. so, in the lease you agreed to last week i spoke regarding a fraud perpetrating on the city of san francisco in the citizen. this approved a lease [inaudible] for gift of $720 thousand in realty this was a much smaller, 410 $410 thousand. contributions from downers totaling 309, 800 falsely creded to the friend. if you take the contribution and divide the estimated spendsing over the year basically 6.8 percent of what they raising goes to the library and 94 percent is going to the friends. basically what i said before is the library commission many times
3:24 am
is what we get for cont bushzs to the friends is the friends. if you just take a example like this a basic membership othe froned is $60 a year. that $60 if i contribute to the friends by buying a membership, 4.08 conets to the library and 52.90 cents goes to the the friends to raise funds. and sue blackman library commission stated the srf library or library commission had any responsibility for the deal. >> thank you mr. heart. next speaker. >> [inaudible]
3:25 am
3:26 am
>> thank you. next speaker. >> [inaudible] we should ban them from america because america is for the people by the people. another is [inaudible] santa rosa 13 years old,
3:27 am
check it out. here is the deal, there are two realm i'm living in [inaudible] i got here 2530 years ago and have a real god and wait for real riches. after 20 years of homeless you took my sleeping bag and wouldn't give it back for 2 years. i went on the top of twin peaks and i lived for 5 years but i i got up there god said you didn't are a break in here i rose you above the city. you have lowered me physically and socially. i'm the one who rose up god rose me and will be risen so if you hear this you mayp to rerise me. >> thank you.
3:28 am
next speaker, please. >> caren [inaudible] san franciscan for police accountability and speak in support of supervisor cohens motion to have a hearing before the full board on the blue ribbon panel transparency accountability and fairness in law enforcement. earlier today justice for mario woods and joined by alex nietos family and [inaudible] jessica williams and san franciscan for police accountability visited offices for urge your support. san francisco has a long history of terrible crisis in our police department followed by studies and reports that then gathered
3:29 am
dust on a shelf until the next crisis emerges and it is time to end that pattern. justice for mario woods continue tooz request a civil rights pattern and practice investigation and sfpd officers charged with murder for mario woods but can tell we will goat a pattern or investigation any time soon so in the interim we have a detailed blue print what needs to change. there is so much racism at sfpd this report is 249 pages long. my friend [inaudible] 81 recommendations into a mament matrix of what is heezy and moderate and dif cut butd need the political will from your attention to this matter to make sure that these recommendations actually get
3:30 am
limpmented. we are hosting on saturday at the library. i urge you at home all you to join us 10 a.m. so we can discuss this blue print and strat jz how to get- >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you president breed and all the little conspirators. christopher doll rr and live at christopher and howard. i wish to comment on diesel exhaust. that is the fuel of price for heavy loads. the trucking industry is dependent to deliver those goods which make our lives so convenient. our public transit system dependent on it to deliver or cherished sevls
3:31 am
to the destinations and the mercedes for high torque and low cost. that ignores the fuel and environmental cost. between the pollution from nitrogen oxide squz car kingynic pollution diesel is a disaster [inaudible] openingly exposed her glut ening which she asked to developer a mu sadeies. i dont think she was joking anymore than i i didn't think donald trump is joking. betairl of district and our city. when the rest simply vote for diesel powered google buses or tour buses or muni buses you betray
3:32 am
your district and city that any of you claim the title of environmental champion however is a joke. accept the joke is on us. thank you for your time. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> good evening. mike bouleer prezden of san francisco heritage to speak in support of supervisor peskins for mta retaining the van ness avenue street lamps. the vanness street lamperize the third and last of the street light designs in san francisco after the pass of light standards both protected as san francisco city land marks. the van ness area plan which is adopted as part the general plan states the street lamps maintains and enhanced to
3:33 am
contribute to the special identity and the eir for the project conclude that the support poles and street lighterize the only notable infrastructure element occurring along van ness that displays dephrine and esthetic intent. heritage is first priority is insure the feasibility of retaining street lamps is evaluated before any decision are made. well, recognizing their significance the eir doesn't include a single preservation alternative. all alternatives evaluated frathe process propose said removal of the street lamps. only now after the historic preservation commission raised issues regarding the sivic civic center street lamp is that taking place. the eir is very clear regarding replacement design
3:34 am
should the street lamps be replaced. the eir acknowledges there is a potential significant visual and esthetic impact by removing this one feeching that units all van ness avenue and prescribes mittgration measure m-ae 2 requiring the replacement support poles and street lights retain the stite oof the support pole and street lights. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon supervisors. i'm speaking in support of item 34. i'm lynn [inaudible] president of pacific heights resident we support anded supported the rt. we hosted and attended community meetings presented bay mta and reviewed design altturnatives from brt and heard no hint the 200 plus historic
3:35 am
street lamps would be destroyed. mta's plan for the lamps went under there radar. as cities go san francisco husband a short urban history but evidence in the beautiful room in this beautiful building we treasure our public architecture. that's why it is ironic that a city that saves historic street lamps in other areas and rep ricus on streets like dolores, deviz dareo and octaveia that was a freeway is considering destroying over 2 miles of north of market history on van ness. it is also ironic and a eliteest the only section of van ness where the destruction of the street lamps is discussed here thip civic center where
3:36 am
the street lamps are icing on the cake. the only induring element of beauty and pride on the rest of van ness are the historic street lamps. please support the resolution before you and help preserve this part of our beauty and civic pride for generation s of visor its and san franciscan to come. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> god evening. for those who dopet know what is san francisco buft is it is a organization founded in 1947 to stop the demolition of our iconic cable cars. since that time we have started a city wide-we were the first organization to have a sate wide tree planting program. we saved the
3:37 am
wind mills on ocean beach and lit the palace of fine art and also fath fought to preserve the lights along market street. i come before you to urge you to support supervisor peskins resolution on the historic lamps on van ness boulevard. the unique beauty of these lamps are just one of several geo graphic markers that sep rate san francisco from other cities around the world and those types of geographic marks like the lamps and cable cars show up in pictures that is they are in san francisco and something recognized world wide. van ness is
3:38 am
undergoing massive change. these historic lamps enhance the street by created a history to the new concept for van ness. a beautiful marriage of past and future. we urge you to respect san francisco history by saving the lamps on van ness and do reuse and recycle instead of throwing them away. >> thank you mrs. brown and before we go to the the next speaker i want to recognize supervisor campos. >> thank you. just want to thank the district of portla wait toog speak and thank you for being here and the support means a great deal and you don't have to all speak if you want to limit that but i want to say thauchck for thank you for waiting. >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> hi. [inaudible] and i'm
3:39 am
here representing the san francisco victorian alliance. [inaudible] our organization supports the preservation of these street lamps. the beauty not only today but for the future generations. so, these iconic features are important to the identity of our city and we would like to see them continue in their grand fashion. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. i'm greg scott. today i'm speaking as the
3:40 am
treasurer of coalition for san francisco neighborhood who voted 92 endorse and support supervisor peskins resolution to preserve and keep these histtoric street lights. they are a important part of character and should be maintained. the very modern light fixtures the mta is proposing to replace is inappropriate and it is [inaudible] please keep in mind the coalitions support for this as well. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is joan keeny and i'm a member of the justice for mario woods coalition and i would like to try to emphasize and remind you or at least bring something to mind that has to do with the true murder and this was a
3:41 am
murder of mario woods. many of you have already seen the video on television and what is clear from the view of the video and from the newspaper that there were a semi circle of 5 policeman facing him against a wall or building and behind him were a larger gathering of san francisco policeman. and unfortunately whether mario woods had a knife in his pocket or knife in his hand, he was shot and killed by the 5 policeman who put 20 bullets in him and i just want to tell you how emoral and unnecessary,
3:42 am
unnecessary that was. how could a group of 10, 15, 20 policeman -thank you. >> you have 28 seconds. >> how could they not subdo this man? thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. dan weaver and speaking about the van ness avenue light standards. trying to landmark them in the past after the golden triangle lights were marked with san -i
3:43 am
find out the eir which is the policy for this project is no longer relevant which is a very puculiar process of city government in eir life i must say. want to mention that the report observes that the street light standards are at their best in front of city hall on van ness avenue because the architecture and lack of signage, but also because it demonstrates the connection between the building of the civic center and the light standards and also reflects the history
3:44 am
of the 1915 exposition. they go on to say they shouldn't be moved but could be changed the changes are add 5 feet to the height of the pole and sidewalk light and street light on the pole. rebuilding it completely so they look like they do now with those additions would fine. i also support supervisor peskins motion. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is mojumeal and [inaudible] chair of middle polk neighborhood association. speak in favor of the this resolution supporting street lamps of van ness. all of us supporting this are in support of the project. we are not trying to delay the project
3:45 am
or shut it down. we cht it to go forward however with the care and thoughtfulness about our history. we have a tonight opportunity to fix a oversight. i think it is a easy fix. for our neighbor jz have 7 muni routes. people use transit and want better transtd but don't need to throw our history under the bus so urge the supervisors to support it today. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> david [inaudible] resident of the [inaudible] southeast. here to show my support and that can the board for their consideration for the naming of the portla. thank you very much. as a resident i say there is a deep history, rich history of garden
3:46 am
identity and i think as you can see from the support there is a growing emergence of a idea that celebrates the history both in current features of the neighborhood as well as vision for the future. thank you for your consideration. >> thank you. next speaker recollect please. >> bona bridges and i am a resident the port ladistrict. i am here to and and for your support naming the district a garden district. i love happening in the neighborhood with all the gardening and have a robust garden to ur. our garden is on it 3 times so i wanted to just say thank you supervisor
3:47 am
campos for bringing this to the table and i strongly encourage you to spirit support this. j >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is alisa [inaudible] also a resident hof it portla district for 8 years and i think a lot of people will talk about the history of the neighborhood so i want to talk about the people who are there now and all the groups and effort that have been going on for years there including the annual garden tour, the neighbors group that transformed a hill side and maintained it ever since. the [inaudible] bee farm along a strip along the freeway thmpt green house project represented here today. there is help mclaren park and greening committee who created a
3:48 am
greening plan for the portla which includes planting and art and other structural impacts. on behalf of all the other neighborhood organizations we are thrilled about the resolution, thank you supervisor campos and we are excited to see the city support for the port la district which is long over looked in civic investment. >> hi. my name is shay england and coowner of [inaudible] with my husband kevin. we have a small brewly on san bruno avenue and bustling corridor. in a short time we have been there we have grown to love the neighborhood and the local resident who reside their. they take such pride forming the committee
3:49 am
mpt i heard long time members of the portla neighborhood lument how beautiful it was known as san francisco garen. with 80 with 101 built it is separated from the greater part enough city. i center customers who ask where am i? is this still san francisco? and see little green space and in support of designated the portla as the garden dirsricate. it attracts teepal people to stop and frequent and fall in love with it just as we have. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. tom hayden, i'm a resident of the portla and delighted to be here with neighbors tonight. my family and i live on wailened street a block is a half from the gran
3:50 am
house plot. wuns our neighborhood was covered with green houses. my block before my house was built in 1948 was a block. to this day when i work the garden with my young children we find remanence of the history. shards of glass left from a green house. water pipes that carried water down to the crops and flowers that beautifulide san francisco. the portla changed a lot ovthe last 70 years but a neighborhood of gardeners. quh quh when i look out the window and see a secret garden, is sea of green. you can't see from the street but all our
3:51 am
neighbors garden. we have the original lemon tree . the neighbors are loquat trees. i grow [inaudible] and beans along with parsley and sage and carats. our neighborhood is changing with the rest of the city it will change more but one think has not changed but we are gardeners and the garden district and appreciate you recognizing that fact. >> thank you. >> good eechb evening. thank you for the opportunity. cell a [inaudible] a second generation san franciscan in the sec generation port lowen. my father and siblings all 13 of them were born and raised in a house on dredge street at man slfelt growing up we lived next door on brussel street and spent a lot of time at my grandmothers house. it is a much different neighbor now
3:52 am
than it was back then. there is a majority of the vacant lots and green housing are filled with housing. in the city that provides itself on diversity incredible architecture and fabulous open spaces i am here today push for revitalivation our roles as neighborhood steward curbing infill and revibeing our identity as the garden district. our area no longer feeds the cityicize as in the past, but the idea of feeding our families from public fward garden space is exciting. we believe firmly as neighborhood care takers. caring for our place provides examples for the young people the neighborhood and beyond. port luare interest in neighborhood pride
3:53 am
and have the desire and ability to transform open space into vibrant color ful garden that combine beauty and utility. many have the education to care for the public spaces. we can do it, we already have. we are not buno heights or the mission or bayview, we are the port luand support this measure. give the porta back the identity as the guardsen district. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is barbara [inaudible] a 40 year resident of san francisco. been in the port lusince 1999 after evicted from apartment in the first dot com boom. all i grow in my yards is weeds about greatly appreciate the garden district designation for the port lubecause it will get us
3:54 am
recognition, it will help with our economic development and it might get us included in the map up in the tower of the [inaudible] you may recognize we are part the city. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> ceb [inaudible] resident of the port lu. a new transplant from the castro [inaudible] when i moved to the port luit was a nerve-wracking because i did chbt know that was a neighborhood to be honest. what i noticed was there was very few trees so i jumped in and raised fund. i got spote from neighbors and raise funds for 12 trees planted in the neighborhood. from that i was invited to join the portia urban greening committee and we have been
3:55 am
wurbic diligently to add elements of buty and greening in the neighborhood and excited to be a part hof it neighborhood that is so devoteed to its identity and i really urge you to pass this resolution. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker recollect. >> hello, my name is robin hui. my family are long time resident of inport lu. my dad grew up on [inaudible] and grandma would grow lemons and apples. it does speak to identity of the neighborhood. we relied on the fruits. i grew up next to [inaudible] family and [inaudible] green houses. i am a few resident in the neighborhood lucky to grow up within the history of the gren housing and to learn from folks quhoo cultivated the
3:56 am
neighborhood and originally lived in the neighborhood and built it up. i support this resolution because it is the next step strengthening the neighborhood and honoring the histly and legacy to the city . i studied landscape architecture in college and just graduated and a lot the neighborhood is a part of me so i'm fully in support of the resolution and hope it is something help future generation learn about the history and be active in the garden identity. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker please. >> alisha bishop. thaumg for hearing us. i am a supporter of the garden district. i live in the port luand have a 9 year old boy and speaking of the trees we were lucky to
3:57 am
plant one of the trees. this is a tree. he is on wailened street. if you want to check it out. i'm from iowa and we grow a lot of things there, but i didn't become interested into garening until i muchbed to this area. we live close the green houses and the history of the neighborhood is fascinating and beautiful getting to know the residents there a long time and finding whout is there and want my son to learn about that and love the diversity we have there and hope that you do pass the measure and we are the garden district. j thank you. >> alex hobs a resident of the
3:58 am
port lu. i had a speech but i'll skip that and speak from the heart. my partner moved to the the port luabout two yoors gow eand priced out of the cast row. we didn't know whut we were getting into but connect would our neighbors so quickly through events like the port lugarden tour and the garden at the end of the street and spen more time hanging out in the port luthan we do on castro street which is a surprise. it all came through gardening and we have our next do neighbor susan 75 years old and chinese and doesn't speak english and i speak no cantonese butd we connect in the garden. it is rare to live in a community that is a vaiberant working class community with roots deeply in the agriculture past.
3:59 am
we support it and since i'm up here put a shout frup the lights on van ness. when friends come to visit i opponent out the loilths and think they are cool so please save them. it is what makes san francisco san francisco the same as the garden district. >> thank you. >> may name is [inaudible] and i'm the program manager otthe green house project and want to give a thanks to supervisor campos introducing the resolution. there are so many community members out here today that she this as a key step to build thg neighborhood and recognizing not only its rich deeply rooted history but aults the contemporary culture taking on a new life so want to saw they think again and i urge the board to sporetd support the resolution and to the team, we will take a photooutside after we are done. thank you so much.
4:00 am
>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> tom gillbirty. two minute to influence change the direction the city seems like it is a green party day today. happy to be involved with it myself. global warming the city plans to issue bon bonds in 30 years. take care oof that problem. police issues. police officers. involved with community involvement. how about police men and women living in the city, their kids going to school and becoming friends with our kid rchlt peace officers, how about casual light police belts? starting some