We call phase 1 of that. Phase 1 of our rental assistance program. It is a program that is new, quite frankly, to hud and to all of us. Because when we got together with supervisor breed and with all of our people in the city we no longer wanted to have a Housing Authority that would build and maintain poverty isolated housing. We wanted to invest in the people first. We had to make people believe that we are going to do a new model. Something that involved them in their futures. So that we could try to do and demonstrate, what i think is a discussion all across the country. How do you and intergenerational poverty and needed to ask not just have poverty go from generation to generation, from kids to the grandkids, and it takes an entire village to do that. Housing is a great part of it. Affordable housing is a great part of it, and thats why we have a 310 million commitment on the ballot, opposition a to use that money, to use that resource to rebuild Public Housing but also in the pr
I understand that in article 25 that that is not required to that multi lingual notice be given but i think that maybe this body should recommend to the board of supervisors given the diversity of San Francisco and given the intensity of some of the ethnicity thank you very much at 917 in the evening since 6 oclock that morning my brain gets shadow but neighborhoods within San Francisco maybe many body should send a memo to the board of supervisors for review on the on that notice issue bus given the 50 percent of at least by ascertaining maybe not having the english only the board of supervisors should review that issue hell let someone else put forth the motion. For consistency we that this permit was issued in error the same motion unless someone else want to make that guess not. Commissioner honda your motion to grant the appeal and deny it on the base it was defective commissioner fung commissioner president lazarus no commissioner wilson commissioner swig that motion carries and
Larson sfwr sfgovtv for broadcasting this meeting madam clerk madam clerk, any announcements . Questions all electronic devices. Completed speaker cards and documents to be included should be submitted to the clerk. Items acted upon today will appear on the october 27th board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. All right. Thank you so much call item one. On ordinance for 10 61 to change the sidewalk at the westerly at silver and portions of Rearview Mirror here and we have oh, possible if dpw and then i building a representative from the School District to comment mr. Harry from the department of public works this is a standard sidewalks legislation louis a drop off in front of the willie l. Brown middle school went through the standard calibrations and city planning as approved the task and Fire Department so all the major groups have agreed on the legislation and moving forward to the board any other questions i object to answer them. This is clean and straightforward repr
Required to legalize the changed use or occupancy and this is been confirmed by the Planning Department and the building inspection law doesnt provide for some sort of different process because the unit is quote unquote illegal a Building Permit is required to change the use which is exactly what the permit holler holder is doing when he plans to remove the unit from housing use and evict my client navigate hes tried to evict my client a permit holder has filed last month filed an unlawful detainer a lawsuit to evict my client weve demurred because the planning permit was not the proper permit to remove from the housing use youve heard prosecute your experts the permit hordes response to the demur he stated 31st his intent in filing the plumbing permit to remove the unit to change its use to change its occupancy navigate he also stated in his restraining order response to our demur a no permit was necessary well, the; is that right testimony and the Building Code says otherwise the cou
Client a permit holder has filed last month filed an unlawful detainer a lawsuit to evict my client weve demurred because the planning permit was not the proper permit to remove from the housing use youve heard prosecute your experts the permit hordes response to the demur he stated 31st his intent in filing the plumbing permit to remove the unit to change its use to change its occupancy navigate he also stated in his restraining order response to our demur a no permit was necessary well, the; is that right testimony and the Building Code says otherwise the court is looking for guidance we have a ruling from the court the judge stated the proceeding and ruled if the permit is denied or rejected hell sustain the demur meaning the unlawful detainer can be dismissed the plumbing permit at issue cant be used to change the unit use or occupancy the law requires a Building Permit we ask you revoke the plumbing permit because it cant be used to remove the united from housing use and also to r