kim: thank you for having me. tell us where he grew up. supervisor kim: i grew up on the new york city. my parents immigrated to the u.s. i actually started becoming active in the community in high school. ed i went to stanford. i went to stanford. when i graduated, i move to san francisco. my first job, i started working developing economic policies for low-income communities statewide in california. i worked with young people, parents, families are around issues that concern our neighborhoods, whether it was communities, affordable housing, public schools, or just planning issues in neighborhoods like parks. i did that and actually ran for the board of education here in san francisco. i got a term on the school board working for families in our public school system and actually worked for the lawyers community and i came to the board of supervisors. why did you choose to live in san francisco? supervisor kim: you know, i do not know if i have a good answer for that. i
thank you. are there any members of the public that would like to speak on the item, if so please come forward. seeing there is no one interested on speaking on public comment. is there a motion to approve item 2? thank you. this we go. $2? thank you. this we go. madam clerk please read item 3. i m here to report on how things are going with the legislature. i have a couple things that i want to alert you to the edition of the matrix and i want to cover those first. also it s appropriate to take stock on what s happened to the legislation. i will quickly cover that. first the changes to the matrix on page 4 we ve added ab 41 from san mateo, a new taxing authority to fund opportunities, authorizes sales tax to be voted upon within that mpo region. we are recommending a watch and we ll know better how it looks like it s going to go. this bill has bounced from natural resources to rules committee to local government. so it s been a bouncing bauchl ball. it s on a matrix and
than 30 day rentals as 30 days is not considered short term in san francisco. ridiculous if you ask me. hasn t stopped the conversion in my building and i am sure others. they have basically taken the units off the market for san franciscans and one worries that the landlord will not comply with hud and with no one rent to section eight where will i go? they got rid of the rats here and over flowing bathtubs and et cetera and i am in a building that has rentals for over $2,000 in the tenderloin. how can a senior utilities afford to live here in this is not workts the price tag that the authority agreed to v it s over the payment standard. hud has raised the standard in reason 10 years but rent is going up. historical they re charging so much rent here. i have lived here 11 years and inundated with construction and much without permits and a electrician that rewired the building with no license and broken elevators and because i have a section eight voucher i can t take them
some of the core benefits that are part of the compensation package because the actual agreement between the commission and the candidate is negotiable. the application process, we did not put a closing date in there yet after our stakeholder engagement and after reviewing the preliminary diligence, we felt our timeline might have been too quick with a closed date in 3 weeks. we think it s a little bit too short of a window. we want to expand it by an additional 3 weeks. we would like approval to add additional 3 weeks to allow the staff to make those judgements in order to keep us on path, but making sure we can do this exhaustive national search and i think it also has the obvious advantage for us as well because it gives the if you have a short window of recruitment, then the expectation is just the opposite of what commissioner campos was talking about is the perception of the marketplace would be, well, they must have someone in mind already because they are not keepin
would also ask staff to work with all the folks who came out today to make it real. there s this great preamble in this but it s not manifest in the code. there s a lot of things we ve learned from plans about restricting certain uses and restricting bedroom sizes. and i think that as the central corridor process is coming up we want to make sure we talk about corridor. this project needs the code requirements as they were laid out. on the commission i think it s our job to apply that code and those recollections to the projects as they come before us. i ll leave it there for now yes. i m sorry. just to follow up commissioner wu i think the coordinated takes in the eastern boundary of the youth and family zone so certainly we ll have to take into consideration seriously in terms of commissioner comments from board and also commissioner wu with respect to reexamine the special district. i was reading the special use district legislation on my phone here and i was kind of sur