Transcripts For SFGTV BOS Land Use And Neighborhood Services Committee 20240713

Disciplined me and raised me and helped me through, yes, i love you too, randall. And the fact is the fact is that because this community took care of me and took care of my family, and i knew as supervisor that these conditions still existed in so many of our Public Housing developments that there was nothing that was going to be more important to me than trying to do Something Different to get the work done for the people who live here. [applause] so we set out on a mission. And it was scary. You know, joyce remembers when we went around and we did all of these meetings with people. And heres the thing we talked about r. A. D. And what it would do, and of course, people were very fearful. They were like am i going to bit displaced . Is something going to happen . Whats going to happen . And, sadly, we had a bunch of people who never set foot in any Public Housing development come in and try to invoke a lot of fear amongst the residents. And let me tell you, i appreciate the fact that you all trusted me. And that you were all patient with us as we went through this process. Because it was important that we developed a new Funding Source in order to pay for what we know were so many problems in these developments. The Housing Authority would get about 12 million maybe from the federal government to help with maintenance. And they had over 200 million in deferred maintenance. How were we going to make any change . And so thats why this program, when lee was our mayor, when olson lee was a director of the housing, and i was your supervisor, we aggressively pushed this program forward. And now here we are not only celebrating the completion of i know what was probably a challenging time for all of you, the renovation of over 200 units here at rosa parks, but so far over 3,600 units throughout San Francisco of Public Housing. [applause] it is so amazing and i see a lot of the folks who live here that are here today. Im so happy for you. And im so grateful to you for trusting us, for your patience, because i also know that it was very challenging to go through this renovation process. We know that that can be difficult. But i really want to thank the partners that we have and you will hear from some of them today. Tndc, thank you so much, don, who is here with us and your team at tndc, for your understanding and your sensitivity to the fact that we have people who are seniors, who live here on fixed incomes. We have people who have disabilities. We have people who work here every single day and being considerate towards the folks who occupy this space on a daily basis. And thank you to many of you may know bethel. A partner in providing and working with the community to help with Affordable Housing. Pastor shaw isnt here with us today but we will have someone speak on his behalf. And, again, thank you to this incredible community. The Mayors Office of housing. Dan adams is here as the acting director. So many people worked so hard. And we wouldnt be able to do this without the appropriate financing and so thank you so much to bank of america for continuing to work on all of these incredible r. A. D. Projects. Its like were like the dynamic duo when it comes to getting this work done and we appreciate the partnership that comes from bank of america. So here we are on an amazing day, celebrating an amazing milestone for San Francisco. And i am reminded of, you know, because ed and i worked together closely and im grateful to him for working with me to make Public Housing a priority. He knew how important it was to me but also truly important to him. And one of the things that he said on a regular basis is that its not it cant just be about making new promises. It has to be about fulfilling old promises. This community has been promised so much over the years and now today is a great example of a promise fulfilled. Thank you all so much for being here today. [applause] thank you so much, mayor breed. This truly is a fulfillment of a vision and its hard to understand or recollect eight years ago what was in your mind and mayor lees mind and to see this come to life is really amazing. So please next join me in welcoming sister stephanie. [applause] good morning. Thank you mayor london breed for coming. My name is sister Stephanie Hughes and i wanted to take a minute just to share a little bit about myself and what this build in the Community Means to me. I was born and raised in San Francisco. And i grew up here and i knew this area but the pink palace, but i dared not come over here. I was so afraid of the space. My mom was like, she was killed if we would come over here. It had such a Bad Reputation and so much danger and so many things happening in the community that were just traumatizing if i shared it with you. But i moved to bayview when i was 18 where i raised my five amazing children. Nine years ago i had the opportunity to and back to the western edition. And when i moved into this place i actually got a little scared because it was so quiet. I used to walk down the hallways and literally i was so not used to the quietness, it scared me. And me and my mom we would laugh when we were walking down the hallway. We both going, somebody behind you know, teasing each other about it, because its so different from what we knew growing up in the community. But i love this community. I love my community family. I call them all family. My asian family and my russian family, and my rosa parks family. My neighbors call me sometimes and try to speak to me. And i dont even know the language and its just funny. But somehow some kind of way we still communicate. We still communicate because theres so much love. You know, amongst us. And the staff here have been very supportive, we do an array of programs here. I do field trips, barbecues, and art therapy with the families here. And they the staff has just been amazing and the Tennis Association has been amazing and very, very supportive. And trying to provide things to bring us together as one family and loving and nurturing one another. Since the renovation, i love my space. So im now in a two bedroom. When i moved here i was in a one bedroom. And me and my son, and my dog, keeva, cant leave her out. So now were in a bigger space. And im just enjoying it. I am right there so i can see the courtyard, on the second floor and i can yell out of my window, hey, what are you doing today. Hey, come here. You know, i can holler out your name and, you know, i love it. I love being able to see what is going on over here at the center and the parking lot. You know, i dont have to come outside and i can get sunshine ancoming into my apartment. And then i can walk my dogs. Its easier for me because i can go down the stairwell and im right by the stairwell, a couple doors from it, and i love it. But im a little nervous, you guys, i dont know why. But i am. So let me finish. For one thing that i do like the about the renovated spaces though is that i like the way they did our cabinets. I like that the curtains are gone. Because that was costly to have to take your curtains to the washroom for me. But its nice and its neat. The shades that we have now, its nice and neat and all you have to do is just dust them off a bit. But what this space means to me is more than about cabinets and courtyards and my dog. Its about safety. My safety, the safety of my community, and the safety of my sons who come to visit me. My children of color who visit their mom. Its not easy finding a space where you can feel safe with your young men of color in the city. But here in this particular community, my children can come visit me and i am very happy that they feel safe and i feel safe allowing them to be able to come to see me. And for that i am very grateful. So thank you all on behalf of the residents and the Tenants Association of rosa parks and thank you for making this all possible. [applause] thank you, sister stephanie. Reverend shaw was unable to be here this morning because he was called out of town. And he is the pastor of Bethel Church. So here to speak on behalf of reverend shaw and the church, please welcome mr. Bobby sisk. [applause] i was given a 24hour notice, so i wont be long with you. Madam mayor, thank you for being here and to our partners, thank you. And to each of you and certainly to the residents. The Bethel Church has a 167year history in this city. 47 years ago they sponsored and built freedom west. Nearly 400 units that are situated around the church. Once that became 97 occupancy, the church moved out and the board of directors took over. But bethel didnt stop there. It went on to buy several other Affordable Housing properties in this city. When this whole notion came with the San Francisco Housing Authority selling off its inventory, our church became very concerned as to what would happen to persons, particularly in this community. We needed to find someone who would listen to us and have an appreciation that were a faithbased organization. Were interested in people. Were interested in people having safe and Affordable Housing. Although we own several buildings our mission is clear, that we want safe Affordable Housing. So speaking the others at the Neighborhood Development community, i always get that wrong but, anyway we decided that we would forge a relationship and we would do two properties together. So kennedy and the rosa park. We are delighted to have that relationship, that friendship, that allows us to have a say as to what is happening in this community with respect to Affordable Housing. Reverend shaw is about two years new to the San Francisco bay area. Prior to him being assigned, we had a pastor by the name of reverend jay egabor who was here for 22 years and was very instrumental in our housing portfolio. I believe that if reverend shaw was here today he would be overwhelmed by seeing a sea of individuals that are here, seeing this beautiful building, knowing that millions and millions of dollars were spent to get it to this level. And all of you that are here today. I want to thank you for letting us to be partners in this venture and say to you that anything that we can do, we are just situated there on the corner of golden gate, and we are here to serve, we are here to do all that we can to see that particularly division Affordable Housing is a priority in this city. Thank you. Thank you for this opportunity. [applause] thank you so much, mr. Sisk. Bank of america has been a partner not only here at rosa parks apartments and throughout much of the Public Housing reenvisioning that mayor breed referenced that has been a longtime partner in many different projects. Please welcome joy mccarthy. [applause] thank you, everyone. Thank you for having me today and its such a privilege and an honor to be here. The mayor and i have done some of these grand openings together and i will tell you that her passion runs deep. She doesnt miss a grand opening and thats a true commitment to the work that we started, but that she continues to carry out on a daily basis. So, again, bank of america, you have heard that has financed a lot of these projects and its called s. F. Ready. And i rad. And i want to make you understand that 2. 2 billion is the number that bank of america committed to and its only out of 4 billion nationally. So San Francisco is a very important part of what bank of america stands for. And they started in 1904 and financed projects like the golden gate bridge, the bay bridge, the Ferry Building and our commitment to San Francisco has never been stronger. So this is our purpose. Our purpose is to help, where help is needed, and whether asked by our city to step up, we make sure that we find the resources to do it. I see smiles on faces today and we know that no matter what we do to build a building, it doesnt matter except if it matters to the people who are in it. And im so happy that so many of you are here today. What it means is the relocation happened for a good reason. Like, you were able to come back. I know that theres gardens and i know that theres extra spaces and i think that i saw an elliptical machine over there. This is a place that you can call home. Its safe. Its for you. And we are so happy that it happened. Pretty much on schedule. I think that it was mostly on schedule. But, again, it is a wonderful project and there are 29 of them in the city and were so happy to keep doing this time and time again to make sure that folks have the resources they need, but, more importantly, to have a community they can depend upon. I heard your words when you say said that its safe to come home and maybe its not quiet but that its peaceful and you and your dog can have a great time here and meeting other people in the community. Its meaningful to us. Bank of america really tries so hard to make sure that we are part of everyday life in community of San Francisco, helping those who need it most but we want to continue to reach out and to continue to work hard on the projects that are yet to come. We know that we can provide financing but we know what we cant do and we have Amazing Community partners. So when we reached out to don and emily, we reached out to so many people to help us with things that we maybe are not thinking about when the financing came to be and we were so lucky to make sure that our Community Partners worked with us in lock step to make sure that this happened. So thank you again. Were so happy to be here today. I cant wait to keep touring the buildings and i look forward to our next project. Thank you again. [applause] its hard to convey the complexity, and the difficulty and the number of problems involved in undertaking a project this vast. And in these kinds of projects, one person is at the center of all of it and that is the project manager. I hope that people will give a warm welcome to emily van loom. [applause] thank you all for being here to celebrate the rededication of rosa parks. Ive had the pleasure of seeing this building through construction from 2016 to today. You know that theres a long list of folks who contributed to the success of this project and we couldnt have done it without you. Theres a couple of organizations that id like to call out for their invaluable efforts here. The Mayors Office of housing and Community Development, as well as the San Francisco Housing Authority. Hud as well as bachtio bank of. And our partners at bethel a and e. Our contractor kay hill. Los angeles as our architect, leevy Design Partners and the residents here at rosa parks. These folks were here every step of the way and they were great teammates. I also cant pass up the opportunity to thank my colleagues at tndz, past and present, for their hard work here. Thanks for your support. Your advice. And for trusting me to get this job done. Id like to focus on a couple of the big successes that weve experienced here at rosa parks. All of which you should check out today. First is the webster street Peoples Garden which was added to the plans during construction and paid for out of savings. It produces 100pounds of food every two weeks and it is home to the only greenhouse which provides plant starts to all of our nine gardens and farms. [applause] yeah. Rosa parks also has a Fitness Center that was upgraded during construction with help from residents and we chose Fitness Equipment that works for seniors here, including a treadmill that operates at lower speeds and the seated arm cycle that is perfect for folks in wheelchairs. And there were also a few traces of rosa parks past that were softened during construction. We have redesigned the entry lobby and reception desk, removing floor to ceiling security glass and creating a warmer space to welcome our residents home. And as don mentioned, an occupied rehab can be really be difficult on residents. We have an active construction site here for 24 months with 50 units under construction at any given time. This was a really big project. And theres a certain amount of noise, dust and stress that cant be avoided during a project like this. But despite this, the team here at rosa parks worked really hard to minimize the impacts on our tenants. My favorite example of this was when kay hill installed doorbells at each end of the long hallway under construction so that our residents could signal when they needed to pass through to get to and from their homes. It was creative and it kept everyone safe. And it also provided some laughs when residents ding dong ditched our contractors from time to time. [laughter] it was it was a great pleasure to work with the residents here at rosa parks. Thank you. [applause] thank you, emily. I want to take the opportunity to share just a few closing remarks. And i want to start by asking all of those who live here at rosa parks, the tenants heres, please raise your hands if you live at rosa parks. Would you raise your hands. Yeah. [applause] so we entered your homes. And i want to thank you for being so gracious and so helpful and for suffering the way that people suffer when youre undergoing a renovation. You are truly our partners and we could not have done this without you. I wanted to do another raise of hands as well. If you participated in the development in any way, if you touched rosa parks between 2016 and now, will you raise your hand for people. Can i ask all of the people who worked on the project to raise your hands . Right on. So thank you. [applause] so its just really important for me to recognize explicitly that it plays a role and we are only one of many. These developments do not happen but for an entire community of people who are working together to achieve a vision. And in many ways these events that we do to celebrate are events of gratitude. So i want to thank you all who worked on bringing this to fruition for your efforts. And then i guess that i want to also reflect that dndz in many ways were not only guests here in your homes but we are guests here in the western edition in rosa parks all together. And im just so grateful for the way not only that bethel and the entire community here has welcomed tndz to be a part of bringing our competencies and our resources in order to make something good happen. And for me that is what i see as part of the role. We are a part of a much larger important ecology to make the city and county of San Francisco better for the people who live here and im just so grateful for the opportunity to play that role. Finally, i want to invite you not to miss the opportunity that there are units open on the second floor and the 10th floor. And you can see the not only the garden but the urban farm outside. And enjoy the food afterwards. Thank you for coming. [applause] 3, 2, 1, yay [applause] i have been living in San Francisco since 1957. I live in this area for 42 years. My name is shirley jackson, and i am a retirement teacher for San Francisco unified school district, and i work with Early Childhood education and after school programs. I have light upstairs and down stairs. Its been remodelled and i like it. Some of my floors upstairs was there from the time i built the place, so they were very horrible and dark. But weve got lighting. The room seems lighter. They painted the place, they cemented my back yard, so i wont be worried about landscaping too much. We have central heating, and i like the new countertops they put in. Up to date oh, and we have venetian blinds. We never had venetian blinds before, and its just cozy for me. It meant a lot to me because i didnt drive, and i wanted to be in the area where i can do my shopping, go to work, take the kids to school. I like the way they introduced the movein. I went to quite a bit of the meetings. They showed us blueprints of the materials that they were going to use in here, and they gave us the opportunity to choose where we would like to stay while they was renovating. It means a lot. Its just that ive been here so long. Most people that enjoyed their life would love to always retain that life and keep that lifestyle, so it was a peaceful neighborhood. The park was always peaceful, and i dont know. I just loved it. I wanted to be here, and i stayed. Good afternoon and welcome to the land use and Transportation Committee of the San Francisco board of supervisors for today, monday, february 24, im the chair of the committee, aaron peskin joined to my right by vicechair safai and to my left by supervisor dean preston. Our clerk is ms. Erica major. Ms. Major, do you have any announcements . Yes, please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices. Completed speaker cards and copies of any documents should be submitted to the clerk. Items will appear on the march 3 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. Thank you. Can you please read the first item . Item 1 is a resolution authorizing assets from the office of Community Investment and infrastructure to the city and county of San Francisco. Placing parcels under jurisdiction of public works and Mayors Office of housing and Community Development and adopting appropriate findings. Thank you, ms. Major. As you will remember, for many decades in San Francisco, we had something called redevelopment, which was a creature and function of state law that allowed in essence, local taxing districts and reinvestment in those communities when governor jerry brown became governor of the state of california, evinced the state legislature to sunset convinced the state legislature to set a sunset law. And San Francisco then created the office of Community Investment and infrastructure, which today is before us to transfer some remnant parcels from oc o. C. P sworn examinatn examination p by line by p5 as it from oc ii as it is commonly called. I was to thank the city administrator and mr. Penik from real estate for humoring me all week long as i insisted that the former creature known as the Redevelopment Agency should convey the parcels not by quitclaim deed but my grant deed. And i had a number of other questions which have been answered. Good afternoon. Im the director of real estate. Thank you for giving me the time to speak about this item. We are seeking your positive authorization. If we could have the screen. I will explain which city departments are receiving the parcels and why. Lastly, i will explain some minor edits that have already been referenced by supervisor peskin wherein we propose to accept the transfer of these parcels, via grant fee versus quitclaim deed. Transferringof oci assets to the city. As u. S. C. See from the slide, oc ii has been in the process of winding down the Redevelopment Agencys business and assets for some time. And this is not the first transfer we have received from them. [please stand by] [please stand by] [please stand by] [please stand by] as you can see, all of these are adjacent to public right of ways or public streets. They consist of the city and the public has already streeted these areas. To take the necessary steps to incorporate these adjacent areas into the right of way proper. Right now for purposes of the assessment, they are treated as privatelyowned parcels outside of the right of way. So to take it a little bit further, once they accept, once public works accepts these as public rights of way, the assessment of 4,000 will go away . Not quite. Its a twostep process. But in essence you are correct. The first step would be for the city to accept these parcels from ocii but in doing so, they would still remain a private parcel in public ownership. D. P. W. Would have to take the second step and incorporate, merge these two lots into the right of way. And at that point, what you said is true, it would no longer be subject to the assessment. Do we know how long that process takes and whether public works has that on their list of things to do . Weve had discussions with public works. It is my belief that the first they are aware of this fact, and second it is my belief they plan to incorporate this into the right of way once accepted. There is a little bit of a technical issue, because streets and sidewalks have to be have to meet certain specifications, so d. P. W. Would have to assess the sidewalks to make sure that they were, they met city standards. And now you are raising another question, which is have they done that, and what would that cost public works, and if we are accepting this, and it comes with an out year capital liability, is ocii going to pay for it Going Forward . I cannot speak for ocii but the proposal that is before us is the transfer of these to the city which would then become a city responsibility. Through the chair. It seems to me that thats fine, you can answer the question in a moment, but it seems to me that the analysis should be done, whether or not these will meet the specifications. As i understand that process fairly well, that you have to go through an acceptance process. I know it goes through the bureau of streets and mapping, and they have to determine whether or not it makes city specifications. But if it does not, right now you have listed that the city will be taking on this cost. So we have to ensure i would be more comfortable knowing that its going to be accepted, and the city is not going to have to reduce its allocation. Im Development Services manager at ocii and i appreciate the supervisors question. Its true, in our active project areas where we actively have obligations and funding to build infrastructure, those follow acceptance process. These sites are a little different in that they were completed many years ago and closed out, and we have no further authority under disillusion to do any improvements to them. While we certainly understand the citys concern to assess and make sure they are in a condition, our Disposition Authority is to transfer for governmental purpose as is, since we have no authority to expend funding on these essentially. So you are not paying the bill currently . There is no bill currently. Theres no bill to the Community Benefit district . Sorry. The two parcels, the sidewalks, we are paying the c. B. D. Assessments. Thats the question at hand. So if you transfer and all of a sudden it doesnt meet the specifications, who is going to pay that . Post transfer, it would be city. So i dont have a better answer than that. So i would say it would make more sense to find out if its going to be accepted. We have that answer before we make the transfer. I understand that. I assume we are talking about standard width sidewalks, the curbs, gutters . Correct. These were all improvements that were built at the time. All right. Is there anybody here from d. P. W. . Okay. Well, im sorry, we dont call it d. P. W. Anymore. But the charter does, and we are people of the charter, so we do. Thank you, chair peskin. I want to go back to the sidewalk issue at the end of the presentation but i wanted to continue on to the last proposed transfer of the day if we could have the slide. And that is the proposed transfer to the recreation and parks district. And i saw mr. Keens memorandum where he indicated on behalf of rec and park although rec and park hasnt verified that that would be no additional Maintenance Cost to them given the fact they maintain the rest of the park . Thats correct. They have been maintaining this portion of the park as well as the rest of the park for some time. Mr. Keen may have also informed you and for the benefit of the public, the rec and Park Commission has also passed a resolution accepting this parcel or recommending its acceptance. It makes sense that this parcel would go to rec and park because, one, they have been maintaining it for some time and also because the area has been dedicated for open space recreation. Going back to the ongoing cost, as was stated earlier, these transfers are at no cost to the city. Basically that means that the city is not paying a Purchase Price for these parcels. Ocii indicated that the only incremental cost for the operation and maintenance associated with these transfers is the issue of the c. B. D. Assessment which also happens to be the parcel that is related to whether or not d. P. W. Can accept those parcels as part of the right of way. So there is a cost balancing on either side of the equation for the acceptance of those street parcels. One, the payment of a 4,000 per year assessment, which is a known cost, versus an acceptance of those streets as part of the right of way which has an x factor as a cost. That cost may be zero or it may be some significant sum. I dont know if the board is willing or comfortable with moving forward with this resolution while those issues are being resolved. I have a proposal for you. Yes, chair peskin. I need mr. Spitz first. Jeremy. I have one other question, which is a simple question. It may be an ocii question. I think it is. Which is that this resolution applies to the aforementioned rightsofway in the Grocery Store and the park and any future additional assets not listed in the list of former agency Real Property would be brought back to this board for consideration. I just wanted to know, is there, i think only ocii can answer this. Is there any other Real Property or assets that are not listed in the list of former agency Real Property . Yes, there are. There are a known number of finite assets, and i can list them for the committees pleasure including the fillmore heritage center. There are future transfers of assets in our active project areas, for example parks that have yet to be completed, the Mission Bay Parks that are being built out which we leased that land from the city. So we would be terminating that lease. In some cases there are c. B. D. Funds that go with those maintaining those entities, the facilities. Those are fullydisclosed in our p. M. P. Document which is the finite list of what we have Disposition Authority for, but i have a summary if it is of interest to the board. I would love to have it, and any of those would have to be brought back to the board of supervisors for approval. That is my understanding. Our Disposition Authority is granted through the approval of the p. M. P. Which the Oversight Board approved. My understanding is it is a city requirement for the the supervisors for the by citi can accept that property on the citys behalf. Thats what it seems to say here at the bottom of page 2 at line 25. So it is written. Mr. Spitz. If this committee were to forward this item to the full board, you would have eight days to figure out whether or not this is going to cost nothing, a little bit or a lot of money to accept. And while he said on the one hand if we dont accept it, we just have to pay 4,000 a year, i think these streets should be accepted because they are parts of public rightsofway, and that is the right thing to do separate and apart from the 4,000 per year fee. But i would like to know if public works can, between now and a week from now, create and write down the potential cost of what it would take to accept these. Thank you, chair peskin. We will certainly do that as soon as possible. I havent gotten a time estimate from any of our staff, but i will do that right away to try to get that as soon as we could. So we have two choices here. We can continue it here in committee and wait for that, or we can send it to the full board with the understanding that until we get that information well just continue it at the full board. Its kind of six of one, half a dozen of another. And ill defer to my colleagues on that. I have a okay. I have a question about the Grocery Store. I want to add for the record that i have reached out to the district 10 Supervisors Office with regard to 345 Williams Street where the aforementioned Grocery Store would be transferred from ocii to the city and county through the Mayors Office of housing and Community Development. And it is my understanding that the district 10 supervisor is in support of that so i just want to put that on the record. That was one of my notes. Supervisor safai . I wantedd to ask a question about the Grocery Store. So can you tell a little bit more about that . I guess it sounds like it has a deed restriction. Is the lewis use is the use limited only to grocery . Is there anything that happens in this transfer . It was purchased with Community Block grant money, and i think if we were to change the use, we would have to refund the 4 million of cbg money . Is that correct . Theres two forms of encumbrance on the 345 williams project. One is the lease. There are termination provisions on that lease. For default i would leave that to a conversation with the City Attorney but there are provisions for default. The options for extension are at the tenants discretion provided they are in good standing. They pay approximately 325,000 a year . 325,000 a year. So thats the lease. The other restriction if you will, its not a deed restriction per se, its that the property was purchased with c. D. B. Renewal. So the proceeds, right now the lease proceeds, solis revenues all go from occii to Mayors Office of Community Development. They program that for services in the bayview currently. So thats what i those lease revenues are going to, 100 of them. Those are, thats a process that mohcd controls through the cdbg process and annual plan. Should the property be sold at some future date, those proceeds would be income also, so they would go through that same programming process that the lease revenues currently go through. So it doesnt restrict the use per se of the property, but the proceeds that would be generated. Right. Does that answer your question . I understand that portion. I guess what i was beside the source of funds being cdbg, what was redevelopment . The cdbg funds, how did the Redevelopment Agency get involved . What was your interest interest in the property . There was an initial food desert essentially in bayview, and there was an ask to interest the safeway had closed, and there was interest in helping attract a fullservice Grocery Store to the community at that time. Did the Redevelopment Agency put money into the property . Thats what my question is. We did. We put some tenant improvements into the property at the time. It was an existing building from 1964 i believe. So it was built in 1964 and you bought it in 1990 . Right. And we had a small, i think it was a few hundred thousand, it was not a significant tenant improvement loan. Im asking if the bulk of the funds were cbgg why was the property under your jurisdiction and not the Mayors Office of housing originally if all you put in was tenant improvement money . I wasnt there at the time so i dont know the origin of the original ask. It was a survey project area. It was not a project area at the time. So why now are you transferring it . We are required to under dissolution law. I know you dissolved but you have a list of properties. Are there an existing list of properties that have been completed that you have not transferred yet . We are trying to transfer all our completed assets because you dissolved how many years ago . We were dissolved in 2012. We could not transfer anything until our longrange Property Management plan was approved in november of 2015. So thats when we then had authority and we started, the city with our partner, we have to work in tandem together to transfer those assets. Thats my question. I understand it was dissolved years ago, about five years now. Why are we bringing this one in particular . What is the process by which you decide over the last five years and Going Forward existing assets since your dissolution, that you are deciding to transfer . So under law, we are required to transfer everything. These are the completed, we are trying to transfer all our completed assets, otherwise obviously in mission bay, transbay, we cant transfer those yet. We work in tandem just as we developed the Property Management plan in consultation with our city partners, we try to plan that work plan together, so we are prepared to transfer everything as quickly as we can, but we Work Together to manage that work flow. Thats the best i can answer. They are working their way down the list. Before we figure out what we are going to do with this thing, are there any members of the public who would like to comment on this stimulating item, number 1 . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. What is the sense of the board as to my 6of one, half a dozen of another . Have you had time to assess that . We think we would be able to do it before next tuesday or within a week. All right. Well, then, colleagues, if there is no objection, i would suggest that. May i be heard . Yes, of course. The one last thing i didnt get to in my presentation was the amendment. I was just about to do that for you but go for it. Thank you. I submitted to the clerk, red lines of the resolution, the form of deed and the assumption and assignments. And they have made the changes that you requested to make those documents grant deed and reference a grant deed by a quitclaim deed. So it asks that the board make findings on the revisions as well as the item. I was just about to do exactly that, so for those of you who do not know, the difference between a quick claim deed and grant deed is a quick claim deed is an instrument by which property title is transferred where in the transferrer, the seller, if you will, makes no representations to the buyer as to what they own or what encumbrances are on that title. As compared to a grant deed wherein that as a matter of law makes representations that the seller actually owns it and that it is generally free of many encumbrances. And i felt strongly that because this is a transfer from a former creature of state law to a city that i thought the successor agency, ocii should make those representations, the city and county of San Francisco. And thank you as i said earlier, for humoring me on that, and we will, if there are no objections, colleagues, make those changes. Well scratch quitclaim and insert grant deed. And if there is no objection, send this item as amended to the full board with recommendation pending information from public works as to what acceptance will cost and we will do that without objection. Madame clerk, can you read the next item . Item 2 is an amendment to the planning code to aallow yards and usable open spaces if they meet the specified requirements and allow bay windows that dont meet the specified requirements to apply for a waiver. She has a new, better revised Powerpoint Presentation on section 136 of the code. Another earthshattering piece of legislation. The floor is yours. Thank you, supervisor peskin. The San Francisco Planning Department. I also have with me maya small, designer of the urban plan team, and hopefully i have a Powerpoint Presentation. Bear with me for just a moment. There we are. Today we are here with a Planning Commission sponsored ordinance. It would amend code 136 which permits pay windows that dont meet the standards of section 136 to apply for a Zoning Administrator waiver. The first change would be to architectural projections. Currently they may be horizontal in nature. The vertical projection may not be longer than two and a half feet. At roof level they can extend no more than three feet over the allyways and setbacks and every other level they may extend no more than one foot over the streets, allies and setbacks. We have examples on the slide. The issue is under the current standards, many types of decoration encompassing new and traditional design do not qualify as permitted obstructions. So we have some examples on the slides there. So why this change . The Planning Department has received numerous proposals that incorporate interesting and high caliber architectural decorations. However due to strict nature of the code, they cannot approve them. New Energy Code Requirements often prompt the use of sunshades, however because they are largely vertical in nature, they do not qualify as a permitted obstruction. So give you an idea of what we are proposing, its fairly simple. We are deleting the word horizontal. So that means a projection may now be vertical, diagonal, anything in the middle. And to change that at roof levels we are going from 3 feet to 4 feet. And at every other level its from one foot to four feet. And i just wanted to clarify that all of our residential Design Guidelines and urban Design Guidelines and all the review processes would still be applied to this new change. So a second change is not necessarily a change in standards but a change in process. It is bay windows. So a bay window, we have very, very specific standards to qualify as a permitted obstruction, which are here on this slide. If a proposed design doesnt fit within the limitationed outlined, the applicants only other option beside redesigning the project is to seek a variance from the section. And so we have some examples on these slides here. Both modern and traditional. None of these by todays standards meet our Design Review for section 136 guidelines for bay windows. So why do we want this change . The required finding for a variance are very difficult to meet for bay windows. Its because of the fact that bay windows unique design is not necessarily the result of an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance applying to the property but rather a product of architectural design. The Zoning Administrator has expressed a desire to develop an alternative to variances for bay window designs that dont meet the standards of section 136 but are considered desirable due to their highcaliber design. So what would this look like in the code . We would be changing the process. So if a proposed window design doesnt fit within the limitations, they must seek a variance, instead we would say section 307h allows these types of designs to go seek a Zoning Administrator review. They will still need to meet the same massing requirements, so hopefully they will not turn into giant bay windows. Those controls still apply. Design review still applies. This is a Planning Commissionsponsored ordinance. So this is going back to 2018. They then asked us to hold some Community Meetings, so we did that, and we did receive support from the Community Meetings that we held. The Historic Preservation commission heard this item in september of 2019, and they approved it, as did the Planning Commission who heard it on october 4 of 2018. So that is our presentation. But both myself and maya small are available for questions. Thank you. Thank you, audrey. Are there any questions or comments from members of this committee . Are there any members of the public who would like to comment on item number 2 . You must all be here for something. We will close Public Comment. And thank you, audrey and maya for meeting with me earlier relative to the one issue i raised, which was that i hope as we give architectural flexibility and expand what these no longer horizontal architectural features can be, that you will be smart and sensitive, particularly in finergrained building typology about inadvertent shadowing of sidewalks. But i think you will be smart about that. And if theres no objection, we will send this item. Can i Say Something . You may i wanted to say i appreciate the work being done to facilitate both the historic design and modern design in this regard and to make it more userfriendly for the architects and project sponsors. So i think this is although it might seem small, it does save staff time, does allow for your staff to focus on other items rather than dealing with lack of clarity in the code and or inability to do things that are more forwardthinking, so i really appreciate the work. Thank you, supervisor. And i should also add that this was initiated by the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission ultimately recommended this to the board unanimously with one member absent. And with that, we will send this item with recommendation without objection for hearing next week at the full board. Madame clerk, could you please read the next item. Item 3 is an ordinance amending the planning code to create the intermediate length occupancy residential use characteristic amending the administrative code to clarify existing law, prohibit the use of rental units for temporarily occupancies by nontenants, requiring the controller to conduct a study and affirming appropriate findings. Thank you, ms. Major. This legislation is the result of many years of city efforts to effectively and appropriately regulate what is commonly referred to as corporate rentals in residential dwelling units in San Francisco. I am not the first supervisor to take a run at this. I think the late greatter rance rance terrance did so. Supervisor tang did so in the late 1990s. And of course we have all grappled as recently as 2016 with the issue of Short Term Rentals, rentals under 30 days, that i was proud to work with then supervisor campos on that is now the law of San Francisco. Theres a lot that i would like to say and talk about and let me start with this, which is in the almost 20 years that ive been on and off this board of supervisors, i dont think ive ever introduced a piece of legislation that has engaged the interest of virtually every singled registered lobbyist in the city and county of San Francisco. This legislation has done that. On behalf of all sorts of different interests in a rapidlyevolving field, and i want to share with you what ive shared with all of them who came to my office and met with myself and my chief of staff, which is that this type of housing is an absolutely necessary and legitimate use in urban settings throughout this country and throughout this world, whether you are an employee who is relocating, whether you are punching artist who is here for a performing artist for a play or a visiting nurse, there are many, many Different Reasons that people use this kind of housing. As youll hear momentarily, from our budget and legislative analyst, who issued a report today, which i would want my colleagues and the public to have time to think about and consume, so im going to offer some amendments today, but i do not want to vote on this today. I want to continue this conversation. I want to get this thing right. But what youll hear from the b. L. A. Is that in the last decade, this type of use has grown by a remarkable percentage, not only in San Francisco, but in the United States of america, no surprise as the internet has made this type of use more accessible. So ill drill down into the legislation and the amendments that im offering today and hear from members of the public and parties ranging from folks who and companies that have done this for decades to new entrants in the field like saunedder and zeus and others we have met with. I wanted to start first by thanking sonny for the tremendous amount of work that she has put into it as well as the team from the City Attorneys office, yang and pradon who have been working on crafting, honing and refining this legislation over the last many months. And with that, i would like to thank fred and the budget and legislative Analyst Office for their remarkably thorough report and turn it over to you for presenting the b. L. A. Report. Thank you, fred. Copies of this, you will announce, are available to the public online. And we can disseminate copies to anybody who would like a hard copy. [off mic] good afternoon, chair peskin and supervisor safai and supervisor preston. Fred from the budget and legislative Analyst Office. As supervisor peskin mentioned, we have issued a report that he requested this morning. And you should all have hard copies as well as copies of this handout. And the topic of the report was intermediate length occupancy housing in San Francisco, also known as Corporate Housing. And ill just give a quick overview. The industry, it is in San Francisco, there are many uses of this type of housing, and supervisor peskin mentioned a few, though its called Corporate Housing, there are many people who have a need for temporary housing in San Francisco or elsewhere. And these types of Housing Units are available for that purpose. A quick overview of the what we know about the National Industry and then a little bit about San Francisco. And unfortunately we have a lot more information about the National Industry than about San Francisco. And ill explain that in a minute. But the National Industry has an estimated 71,201 Housing Units throughout the country, dedicated to this purpose. And its grown since 2010 when there were 58,259 units. You can see the graph here which shows the uptick from 2010. There were more in 2007 and there was a decline during the great recession. But it has come back, not to the same level, but its definitely been on the increase since 2010. In the u. S. The average daily rate for one of these units is 161 . The average length of stay, 78 nights, and the average occupancy rate, 86 . So thats a fairly good occupancy rate if you compare it to the hotel industry, it is certainly something that would be desirable from the commercial lodging perspective. In San Francisco, the Corporate Housing providers association, National Grade trade group, did a survey, they do one every year, and 2018 is the most recent. So for 2017 they found the average daily rate here, 231 per night, higher than the national, not surprising, given the relative cost of housing here. And a similar occupancy rate, 86 and an average length of stay of 71 nights. In terms of how these units are used, and heres a pie chart that portraying, again, the National Industry from 2017. Corporate relocations is the top use, 33 of the uses in that year were for that purpose. Next you see at 21 , projects and training. So this could be, for example, a team of consultants that comes to the city like San Francisco, and is going to be here for a twomonth project, and they would stay in this type of housing instead of a hotel. Other uses include attorneys who come for a trial, doctors, nurses who are here on a temporary basis, patients receiving medical treatment, individuals or families that are relocated by their Insurance Company because of a disaster or problem with their regular lodging. In terms of industry, down at the bottom of the slide, the top user industrywide is the technology industry, thats nationwide. Obviously that has some meaning in San Francisco where thats one of our major employers and one of our grows employers. So when you think of the combination of relocating employees and the technology industry, you can see how those factors would be important in San Francisco. And then others and individuals or other uses, professional services, which is management professionals from different types of industries, attorneys, and then government and military is the fourth most common use. In terms of the industry profile, which is one thing supervisor peskin asked for, what we found at the National Level and also true here is sort of two pieces to the industry. One is what well call the longerterm Stable Companies that have been in place for many years, actually many decades. And then in addition to that, there is a new brand of companies, and it is saunedders, zeus, blue ground are some of the names. Formed in 2010, all pretty much receiving Venture Capital to help them get started. And following a Business Model where they master lease units in the building for multiple years and then release them to tenants which could be a corporation or it could be individuals such as employees who are being relocated and have a fixed amount that they can spend for temporary housing when they first come here. Another characteristic of the newer companies is much greater use of information technology. So in terms the units are listed online. They can be negotiated and leases can be filled online. The arrangements for meeting the tenants when they show up are done online with entry codes sent via smartphones. And then requests for services, while the tenants are in the units can also be done online. So this is a change from what well call the old guard or businesses that have been providing this kind of housing for decades in the past. In the past i would characterize the industry as more relationshipbased. There were Property Managers and owners who knew Human Resources personnel in the companies that might need this type of housing had personal relationships with them or relocation specialists so that they would often make the arrangements through a phone call rather than any kind of Online Presence. And those businesses are still in place, and they still operate that way. Though most companies now have some kind of Online Presence and advertise the housing online though there may be people in the background who are making the arrangements by phone or through personal communications. One of the key questions that supervisor peskin asked for this analysis was how big is the industry in San Francisco . And there is no easy answer, unfortunately, to that. We went to all the likely city departments that might have this kind of information, which is department of building inspection, planning, the assessor, the treasury, tax collectser and even the rent board collector and even the rent board, and none of them identify housing in that way. When housing is built, it is classified as residential, commercial or industrial. And if it is used for intermediatelength occupancy housing or corporate rentals, it is simply classified as residential as it goes through the review and approval processes. So there is no count that way. So we went to trade associations to see if they had inventories, and we went to a number of providers so get numbers from them, some of them did share them, though we cant say we have a count from all providers. But using the trade association information, and that included mostly the San Francisco Apartment Association and the which is local and the Corporate Housing providers association, the National Group i mentioned before. The Apartment Association estimated that 1 to 3 of their members units are used for intermediatelength occupancy housing. And they have i think about 9,000 units if im remembering right under their excuse me, 90,000 under their within their membership. So the 1 to 3 shown here, the estimate of 2,705 to 8,115. The high numbers seemed very high from what we could gather, but theres a lot of listings and a lot of housing in this industry that doesnt appear online or wouldnt be immediately accessible if you didnt know Property Managers or have the personal relationships that i alluded to earlier. So we did review websites where listings are posted. We counted them, we identified characteristics such as what neighbors they are in and how many bedrooms the units had and what amenities they offered. And we have information about that in our report. But based on what we could cobble together, we come up with an estimate of at least 2,000 units. We easily got to 1300 with what was available from providers and websites. We know there are many that arent even listed that we couldnt see, but there are some being occupied now, for example, that wouldnt be shown as available. And then there are those that dont appear online. So we are conservatively estimating 2,000. Could be more. The Apartment Association believes there are more than that. So we end up with a range absent better data of between 2,000 and 2,700. Just a quick review from our sample. These are neighborhoods where we found 461 listings that are available and that were available in march of this year. And that was our test period. And we picked up the information on that. And as you can see, over half are in six neighborhoods south of market is the big one, south of market and rim done hill combined. Rincon hill combined. It mirrors what you see in the short term rental market, a lot of the same neighborhoods seem to be popular with this market as well. A quick question before you leave the neighborhood. How did you determine, through the chair, how did you determine this list . Did you find this list through the internet . Did you look at the Different Companies . Im just curious how you came up with the list. Right. We did get it off the internet. The companies have listings. That would be over 30day stays . Yes. And they all 30day stays so they are distinct from Short Term Rentals though a quick comment about that, airbnb does list a lot of corporate rentals also. And theyve actually started a separate business or initiative that is for business purposes entirely. So its possible that there are some units that are going back and forth between short term and intermediate. Essentially its through the company . Through the companies. And they are more explicit than Short Term Rentals in terms of what neighborhood they are in or in many cases listing addresses of the buildings. Thats something you wont find i did a quick survey of the neighborhoods, and i only see one that would be in my district. Interestingly. This is not a complete list. But in march these were the neighborhoods that we could identify from the listings. Okay. Thank you. From the sample, heres some information about rents being charged, broken down by size of the Housing Units, one bedrooms, they average from our sample per night is 159. A little less than we reported earlier from the 2017 survey. And for a twobedroom, 200 a night. So compared to market rents, which we took from zillow, and you can see that here, they were reporting a 3,580 average rent for a onebedroom and a 4,530 average rent for a twobedroom apartment. So the difference per night is shown there, 44 for one bedroom, 54 for two bedrooms. And then multiplying that out and assuming an 86 occupancy rate for the intermediate length units, we come to 4,239 a month for a onebedroom apartment. And you can see the difference per month there. 659 or over the period of a year, 7,900 more dollars than market rent. Or more a twobedroom, 802 more and 9,624 per year. Its important to note this would be offset by additional costs. The market rents are largely for unfurnished units. So if you go into the intermediate length housing business you need to furnish your apartments and provide services. It requires more of the owners time to meet the tenants and make arrangements, and theres more interaction with them required while theyre in the units as well. This is part of the appeal, by the way, of some of the newer companies because they do all of that. So if you are a landlord, you could do this yourself or you could make an agreement with zeus or blueground, and they will do this. May will pay you market rent, and then they take care of all the business arrangements for getting an intermediatelength occupancy tenant into the unit. And they incur the cost of the furnishings and so forth. Another point on this is sorry. I have a question. So that slide that shows the difference, doesnt that understate it . Because obviously for the market rents, if rented by longerterm tenants, then rent control on most of these properties is going to kick in. So over time that differential is going to be significantly higher, is that right . Thats right. That was the point i was going to get to now was rentcontrolled units. So this is for market rate. If a unit is converted from being a rent controlled unit to an interneed yachtlength occupancy unit, the intermediatelength occupancy unit, the difference is much greater. It could be a substantial jump. And you are absolutely right, then as it goes forward, if a tenant stays 78 days and leaves and a new one comes in, the rent can keep increasing at market rate. So it will just keep going up to whatever the will bear at that time. And these rents often are paid by a third parties. When you say why is the he tenant paying this much . If its relocating an employee, its probably the employer play paying. If its someone whose house was damaged in a flood, its their Insurance Company paying. If its patient visiting their medical insurance might be paying. But in most cases, its not the actual person who is residing in the unit who is paying the rent. Finally, we tried to get an estimate of whats the impact of whether this industry is growing or not. All signs are it is growing. Its certainly growing nationally. I mentioned earlier on that the growth rate and supply was 22 between 2010 and 2017. We dont have a baseline number for San Francisco, but we did this calculation by taking the San Francisco Apartment Association estimate of 1 of the Housing Stock being dedicated to intermediatelength occupancy housing and went back to 2010. So lets assume it was 1 at that time. So thats what this number is, this 2,486, based on multifamily Housing Units in place in 2010. And then we advanced it forward. To between 2010 and 2017, multifamily housing in San Francisco grew by 7. 8 . And if that were true also for intermediatelength occupancy units, they would have added enough units to get to 2,680. If they grew at the national rate, it would be 22 . And then there would be 3,038 units or a difference of 358. And the significance of that is what that would be doing is taking a disproportionate share of the new Housing Units that were added to the San Francisco Housing Stock and dedicating them to intermediatelength occupancy. So it would be more than its share, if you will, of the 7. 8 growth. Your report also references, and this was in the press, one particular brand new building on Market Street where the entire building was dedicated to that use . Right. 2100 market was taken over by sonder. They arranged an agreement with the landlord there for all the units. And that is unusual. In most cases, it will be, and the Apartment Association has told us that most owners will limit the number of units that can be used for this purpose to maybe 10 or so of the total in the building. So sonder, the arrangement at 2100 market was unusual. I think there might be one other in San Francisco at 21st and capp that is the same type of arrangement. But most of the companies are not doing it that way, at least at the present time, most of the landlords are not allowing for all units to be converted to that purpose. So that is a summary of the report. I think that we have more information in the document about job growth in San Francisco, the nature of job growth, the increase in whats highwage jobs that are particularly in the Tech Industry but also in professional services and how that dovetails with Industry Growth in the intermediatelength occupancy market nationally, we think its very relevant here, it seems to be growing. Theres certainly a lot of money to be made in it. One can look at this and say why isnt everyone doing it . I think for a lot of landlords, there are impediments, there are costs, there are some new costs and requirements that they would have to fulfill to move into that industry. But for many, they are seeing a great opportunity for earning more on their Housing Stock. So i will stop there. But im happy to answer any questions. Colleagues, are there any questions for him . And we all will have plenty of time to read all 28 pages of the report that was released earlier today. Once we make some amendments and continue this item, so if there are no questions i have some questions. Ill wait until after Public Comment. Go ahead. I wanted to follow up on the question about the source of some of the info. Im curious if theres any information from the Companies Listed on page 10 of the report about the number of rentals that they are doing, either voluntarily provided by any of those companies or through reports that theyve generated for investors or publicly disclosed . Right. So the information on page 10 is from and im just going to quickly look at it to make sure. Yes, so those companies, some of them did provide their inventory but most did not. We didnt talk to all of them either. The listings on the website were the source for the neighborhood distribution and the prices and other characteristics that we identified. Thank you. Supervisor safai, any questions for mr. Brew sew . For mr. Brusseau ill wait until after Public Comment. This is a complicated piece of legislation but i think supervisor preston put his finger on one of the most important moving pieces, which is theres a huge economic incentive as it relates to prix1979 rentcontrolled pre1979 rentcontrolled stock to push tenants out because it is more lucrative to have a interneed yachtlength intermediatelength occupancy model. I believe the ordinance precludes this type of use, nonetheless it has happened. And one of the fundaments of what im trying to do here in this legislation is to effectively ban corporate rentals in rentcontrolled housing. So i want to move that conversation, which as i said earlier, is a necessary and legitimate use, to post 79 housing. And ill drill down into that later, but i know we have a lot of people here who would like to speak, and Diego Sanchez is on behalf of the Planning Commission that heard this item not once but twice. So mr. Sanchez, if theres anything you would like to put on the record, and well open it up to Public Comment. Ill be quick and summarize what the Planning Commission, what action they took on januar. They voted unanimously to approve a resolution in support of this ordinance with two modifications, the first was to enact a interim control, be it a neighborhood notice c. U. Requirement or moratorium on new intermediatelength occupancy activity and collect data on the scale of this activity as we have been hearing. Data collection seems to be imperative given that the city doesnt have a definitive grasp on the scale or locations of this activity. This is an activity that may have multiple benefits but may also be detrimental to the housing supply in San Francisco. The second modification they approved was to clarify the proposed admin code amendments exempting nonprofit organizations from the proposed cap on ilo and add this clarified language to the planning code. So that concludes my presentation. And im also hear here for questions. Thanks. Thank you, mr. Sanchez. And so that brings me to corporate rentals which currently exists in buildings that historically have not been protected by the rent stabilization ordinance and those would be the postjune 13th, im making up that date but i think june 13, 1979. And the board actually recently passed legislation to extend the rent ordinances just eviction protections to these units, though they remain without price controls. And this has created a sort of what ill call middle bucket of dwelling units that this legislation seeks to reasonably phase into compliance under a new residential use designation, and after receiving feedback from planning staff as well as the commission about the desire to have interim measures to collect data and understand the true impacts of the industry, ive included planning code amendments to accommodate a reasonable and limited amount of these corporate rentals or interneed yachtlength intermediate length occupancies, i. L. O. S, that would be permitted through a conditional use process at the Planning Commission and operators and developers would have two years to come into compliance with this new designation. The underlying intent is that after those two years and the completion of a nexus fee study by the city controller in consultation with the board, that this board of supervisors could decide whether or not to impose permanent controls for future i. L. O. S, depending on what the data says. So we are obtaining that baseline data that mr. Brusseau is trying to figure out. This is also dependent on what kind of compliant success rate we have with developers and operators and whether or not they are willing to learn from the mistakes of the original disrupters in the short term rental market, and actually share their data, and as mr. Brusseau said, Many Companies actually did share data, some better, some not so good, some not at all, but that was helpful in trying to get our hands around what the right Public Policy regulatory fix is. And as i said before, i say that because i think there is a role for intermediatelength occupancy uses in San Francisco. Currently, the legislation has set a cap of 1,000 units to be legalized over the next two years, during which time corporations would come into compliance with the new i. L. O. Law and selfreport data to the Planning Department that would allow the city by and through the board of supervisors and the Planning Department and Planning Commission to set reasonable boundaries for the industry. That being said, im open to considering other ideas in addition to whats in the legislation, and i do actually want to make a couple of amendments, one to remove the exemption and the other to clarify that the intermediatelength occupancy designation only applies to this middle bucket of nonprice controlled units, and those in progress under construction that have not vested in the Building Permit process. So with that, why dont we open this up to Public Comment . I have a number of speaker cards if you want to line up to your right, our left. [calling speakers] good afternoon, members of the board of supervisors. My name is susan marsh. Several things came up listening to this report. The first is that very simply, the data on the information on exactly how many rentcontrolled units are being rented out as i. L. O. S is highly incomplete. The estimates that were provided seem to be lowballs, frankly. This should not matter as long as the possibility, the availability of this alternate alternative exists for landlords and speculators and property owners, they will be tempted to take it, and it is definitely an incentive for them to cannibalize the stock of rentcontrolled housing. Therefore im glad to hear that what is on the table is a total ban on such i. L. O. S. As for the rest, well, we have been told over and over again that we are in a housing crisis thats due to a shortage of housing. Weve been told this over and over again as an excuse for building housing that frankly doesnt serve the needs of most of San Franciscos population. The existence and availability of the alternative of turning i. L. O. S makes a mockery out of this. These are longterm hotels. These are not housing. They are what is known as nonhousing housing. They are speculative investments. So i would urge you to take that into consideration. Thank you so much, and thank you for introducing this. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Members of the board of supervisors, my name is greg pennington, i moved here at age 20 in 1977. Ive lived in the same apartment for 42 years. And to my horror, veritas just bought my Apartment Building about three months ago. During that three months, the water has been shut off ten times, the elevator is out of service, the intercom is out of service, there are workmen coming in and out all the time, endless construction, continual noise. Its been a total nightmare. And nothing like what i had my first 42 years. I live in district 3, aaron peskin, im very happy to have you as my supervisor. Thank you for putting forward this legislation. We need Affordable Housing in this city. Ill tell you right now, my entire life is here. If you allow veritas to put me out on the streets, which is what they want to do, im going to be on the streets. Im going to be joining the 7,000 living there now, because i have nowhere to go. So i would ask the board of supervisors to do everything they can to stop veritas and brick and timber from continuing to run amuck. We need Affordable Housing. So this is important legislation. I noticed the east cut only had one of those i. L. O. S, the east cut is where tens of thousands of marketrate housing the being built. Take those i. L. O. S out of market rate housing. Those people need to live in those neighborhoods. They dont want to live in neighborhoods like mine where there are humans shooting up drugs at bus stops. People shouldnt be paying high rents in those places. I support this legislation whole hearteddedly, and i spend on all of you to allow me to continue to live in San Francisco. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Linda chapman, and im representing old hill neighborhoods, because at the time we were dealing with Short Term Rentals as opposed to this. So i think this is a good way to refer to this as the bucket bill. It seems odd that, unless im reading it wrong, there are a lot of people who dont actually put down roots. We were concerned about people who put down roots, but even in the building where i lived, people came and went. Not that im opposing this but im puzzled. But my real concern is about Short Term Rentals. You passed legislation a while ago which might have been wonderful, i dont know because i wasnt able to find anything about it. In order to get something from the clerk, i need the legislation number, the agents i talked to not just in my Supervisors Office but the sponsors couldnt get the notion that there was such a thing as a dwelling unit or that we passed legislation at the same time as the Residential Hotel was passed. It absolutely outlawed renting a dwelling unit which you know is the thing with the kitchen, like the studio, for less than a month. And there was no problem in the court, you know, there was a problem of course with the Residential Hotel thing, and it had been written in a way, that was overturned, we had to rewrite it. No problem at all with the other thing. I live in fear that people are going to write something that prevents, that somehow grandfathers in things that were already done, because i dont know what you passed here. And theres some language here about things that happened before. I dont have time maybe to read it to you right now. Either it outlawed every single dwelling unit, renting less than 30 days or not, they werent corporate, right. They were owned, some of them, by governor properties, by his wife, and i just want to make sure. Otherwise my ghost will haunt city hall. I cant die happy. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. My name is bree and im the Vice President development and Strategic Partnerships for Ronald Mcdonald House Charities bay area. For over 30 years, Ronald Mcdonald House Charities partners with ucff to provide communities of support, access to medical care and the healing power of family and home for criticallyill children. Last year, Ronald Mcdonald House Charities provided 3,752 nights of lodging and more than 10,000 free meals here in San Francisco. The need for temporary housing is greater than what we are currently able to provide. Each year, thousands of children and their families travel to San Francisco seekingsaving treatment. Ucff is ranked the best in Northern California in five specialties including pediatric cancer and cardiology and cardiac surgery. The Clinical Services with the sickest patients requiring the longest lengths of stay, on average about 45 days. A recent assessment demonstrated that 25 of pediatric patients are inpatient more than 30 days, and 54 of families are less than 50,000 a year. And 40 ranked access to temporary housing and a place to rest as their familys greatest need during their childs medical crisis. As advocates we rely on flexible interneed yachtlength housing to keep intermediatelength housing. Our partnerships have allowed us to provide nights for families in the last quarter alone. We rely on these important partnerships to meet the growing need. I would like to share a quote from charlie scott, a recent recipient of a free corporate apartment. Coming from a rural city, life was a culture shock, but the apartment made us feel comfortable. Without the opportunity to stay in this apartment, it would have been difficult for my wife and i to spend time with our newborn child. Thank you. Hello. My name is kiana martinez, and i have been a volunteer with the Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco for a few months now. I just want to say that on the ground, going to see working with tenants every day, all of us together, we are seeing this firsthand, we have seen every building ive gone to, ive seen locks on the doors of the units where there is nobody living there. We have People Living there for short term, and we have around 7,000, as someone said, 8,000 folks on the street. So firsthand, we deemed this place either outside of the city who are longterm tenants who are contributing to this city and we have seen people who are ending up on the streets. And thats on the ground. That is what we are seeing. So i just really thank you, mr. Peskin, for putting this forth, and i hope that you all see that for longterm tenants of an San Francisco, this is really needed, and its clear that the Companies Like veritas and other developers are taking advantage of this. And its an extra incentive for them to evict longterm tenants. Its an extra incentive. So i hope that you take this onto consideration. And thank you so much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Thank you for putting forth this legislation. The Real Estate Industry is back with a new Business Model and a new disruption. We understand that there are the occasional rare case where theres somebody who needs temporary housing. But regular folks cant compete with the kind of money that can be made off these corporate rentals. These regular folks are the folks that ive been working with my for over ten years in San Francisco, folks with terminal cancer who wound up getting evicted because their landlords know they can make more money off their units, folks and whether its people who are trying to move in today or whether its folks who are trying to hold on to the units that they have, folks these folks cannot compete with these 5,000 a monthtype of rentals. In these situations where landlords are incentivized to rent to Companies Instead of people, to rent to these companies are not going to assert tenants rights, they are not going to ask for their repairs to be made, that are not going to stay, and instead just make as much money as possible off of our limited Housing Stock. Thank you so much for protecting our housing. Thank you. Mr. Shaw. Good afternoon. My name is shaw, i live at 698 bush street. Im a member of Housing Rights Committee. And i strongly support and urge the committee to move forward. I was a tenant with veritas, and their building at 698 bush street, 10 to 12 units empty for more than a year. They kept it empty, and we are having a housing crisis in the city, and they are talking about greed. They want to flip the property so the more empty the building is, the more they can get the money. So they are holding it on and on and on. And meanwhile, i live near the union square, people are homeless, and theres no help for them. And they bought my building. The real estate people told us they were going to buy this building so they can convert it to condos or Short Term Rentals and so forth. And if its shortterm rental housing, that much per unit. This is in a family zone. I will leave the copy to you guys. Thank you so much. Thank you, mr. Shaw. Next speaker, please. Mr. Weaver. My name is scott weaver with the San Francisco tenants unit. Thank you, supervisor peskin, sunny for making this legislation possible. In a sense, we shouldnt be here. It was the law in 1980 that corporate rentals were illegal. It was doubled down in 1998 that they were illegal. And somehow it got lost in the airbnb legislation. So this is our opportunity to get it right and to make corporate rentals illegal and to provide mechanisms for enforcing the illegal conduct, because what we are dealing with is actually a rogue industry. They didnt come here and take our rentcontrolled units with permission. They took it in opposition to the very laws that the city has passed. [please stand by]