Transcripts For SFGTV 20240622 : comparemela.com

Group housing and we expect to see more in the pipeline. We think its only fair for the development in the tenderloin to be affordable to some of the people who live in the tenderloin. On that level, we support keeping the ami 55 . Even that amount isnt affordable to a lot of tenderloin residents, but 90 certainly would be affordable to even less. In the sort of process of approving this Group Housing project, at 145 leavenworth and 351 turk a lot of tenderloin residents showed up. A lot of people showed interest in keeping the neighborhood affordable and being engaged in a planning process that has excluded them. So hopefully you will be listening to those voices and encourage the fact that residents want to get involved in planning and let the city know we support Affordable Housing. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi,supervisors thank you for hearing us today. My name is colleen rebecca. I work at subpoena st. Anthony foundation and we have submitted letters of support both to thes Planning Commission and to the board. Not having talked to our folks at subpoena st. Anthonys, i could not imagine we would be in sunday support of that type of amendment. A lot of our social workers at st. Anthonies help people who have very, very very lowincomes. I always get tripped up on low, extremely low, whatever especially since my income is very low, according to ali. Ami. People at 90 of ami can. Doing backoftheenvelope math, it will be challenging to afford sro at market rate without that support. So i cant imagine that we would support changing the ami. But we are in support of the legislation in its current form. Thanks. Next speaker. Hi. Jennifer friedenbach, were an organization deeply rooted in the tenderloin and been there the past 27 years. For the tenderloin community, we have really deep housing problems. And they tend much towards the very extremely lowincome. I would guess that just about every garage in the tenderloin is occupied. We have a lot of overcrowding. We have of course, a tremendous amount of people who are tenderloin residents without housing. You can see that any day, the effects of the severe housing crisis in that neighborhood. I dont think anyone imagines highend housing and i would imagine that the real residents of this highend housing would actually not be permanent residents, but would be used as corporate rooms for corporations who are housing people temporarily at those highincomes. I cant imagine that they are living there yearround as San Francisco residents. With that said, you know, we really support the legislation by kim and avalos. We think its kind of a nobrainer. Like they should have to have some at least a small percentage of the units be affordable. This is the first hearing about the amendment by supervisor wiener. And without having gone through a process, i can say that we would definitely oppose that. We are quickly looking at it and 90 of ami would be marketrate. And that is already those folks are able to and are renting Residential Hotel rooms. That have gone up in price already. So there is really not a strong need for that level of housing. There is a strong need at the lower ends, at least below 55 and from our perspective, lower than that. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. Hello again. My name is chidog, from the Mission Collaborative and dolores Street Community service, but speaking as a born and raised resident of the tenderloin. First of all, i want to thank supervisors kim and avalos for putting this forward. And we want to say yes to this legislation without any amendments. What we are seeing in the mission at a lot of sros are a raise of tech dormitories and startup communities. One former sro that we used to have tenants in has now been fully converted and selfdescribed as a queer tech commune, and does not rent to any of the sro tenants that we know. Were also seeing other sros at risk of being solid sold and converted into Group Housing. We hear are there are Real Estate Agents coming into their rooms for purposes of conversion. As highend Group Housing is growing around the city, we need to close this loophole, add more actual belowmarket rate housing that is affordable. As a nonprofit worker in San Francisco, i cant afford 90 ami. And so we ask you to pass this legislation and move this legislation forward without any of the proposed amendments. Thank you. Good afternoon, again, supervisors. My name is Fernando Martin with the council of Community Housing organizations. Thank you, supervisors avalos and kim for introducing this piece of legislation. It is muchneeded and we hope that will you will recommend it to the full board for passage would you tell us the proposed amendments. The First Amendment raising about income and whether its an appropriate place for that kind of level . Frankly, i would like to say that raising the ami level for Group Housing to 90 ami is quite ludicrous. If you take 60,000, which was quoted as the ami level, or the income level for someone at 90 , divided that by 12 for 12 months, divided by a third, you would be expected to pay 1777 a month for Group Housing situation. So if i could have the overhead slide, if possible . So you are saying fernando, you are saying that 1700 is unreasonable for group house that anybody should pay . What i have got on the slide . Overhead, sfgovtv. Down a little bit. What is the new panoramic, which is about to open micro units a little bit above that 90 level. If you want to share a house in nob hill its just above 90 ami. Just to say that is fine right now. As soon as the market changes the Mayors Office of housing will be stuck trying to rent an ami unit when Group Housing may be going for something lower than that. And second about the christensen amendment as sue hefter pointed out earlier, it really needs to go through a process that the Planning Commission has a chance to review the legislation and understand it. Nobody has seen it yet. Thank you so much. Supervisor kim . Supervisor avalos. Thank you, its my understanding that the christensen amendment has been discussed and seen at the Planning Commission and just to get some clarification from deputy City Attorney john givner. Im sorry, supervisor, i would like to close Public Comment. Seeing no other members of public for public testimony, Public Comment is closed. Thank you. What has happened relative to amendments proposed . I believe christensen amendment was discussed at the Planning Commission. I was texted by Planning Commission members while the discussion was going on i didnt get to the text until i got into cell phone range, but there are also amendments from supervisor wiener that are due as well, that werent discussed in planning and just your thoughts about what can go forward and what cant . Sure, deputy City Attorney john givner, if you make any of the amendments, yours, supervisor avalos, et cetera, or any combination, you will have to continue the item for additional Public Comment which will be noticed with all of the language of those amendments. As to planning the Planning Commission does consider supervisor christensens amendments in concept. The proposal was described in the staffs report to the commission and the commission discussed it, but concluded that they needed more information and the Commission Said that it wanted to hear the item again and to bring it back before it goes to the board. Legally the board of supervisors has to sends back to the Planning Commission any material modifications that the Planning Commission hasnt had the opportunity to review. Here the Planning Commission has had the opportunity to review the proposal, although they didnt have the draft language in front of them. You could, as a policy matter, send these amendments back to planning for additional review, but you are not legally required to. Supervisor wieners proposed amendments were not specifically discussed at the Planning Commission. But those amendments would have the effect of making less restrictive rules on the Property Owners in terms of the affordabilitylevels. So the idea is that the Planning Commission consider changing the ordinance from no inclusionary requirements, to full inclusionary requirement, and got into some of the weeds about the levels of affordability, as one of your amendments discussed, supervisor avalos. And supervisor wieners proposal is somewhere in between, no inclusionary and inclusionary matching all other housing. So consistent with our usual advice about what a material modification is. Supervisor wieners proposed amendment would not require additional planning review either. So that was a lot of words, but the bottom line is any of these amendments would require another hearing at the board and none of them would require going back to planning. Thank you. Again, i have already been discussing the amendments from supervisor christensen and i actually have been okay with them as they have been described to me. But the new ones from supervisor wiener, i dont really believe fit the spirit of what were trying to achieve, especially well be creating what seems to be a new standard for what inclusionary housing and ami would be for inclusionary housing, rear view mirror relative to Group Housing, but would change what our inclusionary housing is. And to clarify that inclusionary housing applies to Group Housing and not create a special category for grown Group Housing. So my hope for the committee to accept the amendments that i have proposed. Im supportive of supervisor christensen s amendment and hope that the Committee Moves it forward. Supervisor kim. Thank you, i want to clarify that the commission heard supervisor christensens amendments, even if they werent written out. I got a copy of the language. I was curious and knew there were concerns expressed, but were there specific concerns expressed beyond that they didnt have more time to consider it . Planning staff. I dont believe so. It was mostly the concerns was about not having the ordinance before them and also that it was not necessarily completely related to the Group Housing amendments. But nothing that i can recall. So maybe this is a question for the City Attorney. I do agree that there are two different types of legislation, although both under the inclusionary Affordable Housing program. If you could just make some comments about including both in this legislation . Deputy City Attorney john givner again. Under our city charter, every ordinance must relate to a single subject and that has been defined bless you defined by the courts to mean that they are reasonably germane to a single subject. And here, certainly these amendments are reasonably germane to the same subject of Affordable Housing and Group Housing. And so they can move forward in a single ordinance okay. Great. Thank you so much. Just to add on to the conversation about supervisor wieners amendment and i made my comments that i feel this conversation is more appropriately had when we introduce dial. Because it allows developers to produce more units at a lower subsidy, or to produce lower income units at deeper subsidies and fewer of those. I think that is the time to have this conversation and that whatever we decide, should impact all types of housing development, not just Group Housing. I wanted to add on to what fernando said, that we have units that are marked at roughly 90 ami and so if we allow Group Housing developers to provide inclusionary Housing Units at 90 , i think we should be consistent. 55 ami is what we require onsite at 12 is what we require of all housing developers. I dont think we should differentiate between Group Housing and other types. I am a strong supporter of ensuring that we are building more Affordable Housing. I will give an example where the community negotiated with the giants on 40 affordable and middleIncome Housing and key in the negotiation was that they ensure they provide 12 that every market rate developer has to provide. 12 of the 40 is going to be market the to individualss and households at 45 and 55 of ami. It was a key part of the negotiation and that there was a consistent standard across the board that all of our marketrate developers have to comply with. I think we should ensure that we do that here in Group Housing. There are other ways to be creative about increasing our moderateincome type of housing. At seawall 337, 28 of the units will be for individuals making 150 ami. This is unprecedented and we have never, ever built this much middleIncome Housing and i support it. Supervisor wiener. Thank you and i really appreciate those remarks and the good discussion and the fact that were producing even though this have been some projects recently coming forward with moderate income, were producing very little moderateIncome Housing overall. And in terms of consistency, right now, Group Housing is completely exempt from the inclusionary Housing Ordinance and its being proposed to be brought in and we know at least one Group Housing project has now converted to nonGroup Housing because it no longer penciled out for them. In addition to providing moderate Income Housing im glad that the dial discussion is happening of its long overdue. That will happen when it happens and im sure it will be a great dialogue. Right now, we have before us this Group Housing ordinance and i think 90 is a good number. Supervisor kim, before we acknowledge you, i want to ask a couple of questions of you. When do you anticipate the dial legislation to be introduced . Our office is currently in conversation with the Mayors Office, and supervisor farrells office. This has been a discussing since the Housing Trust fund in 2012 and that legislation is coming to form actually now in this month. So i anticipate introduction this month or early in the fall. So is it currently being drafted . It is currently being drafted. Okay. I know the Mayors Office of housing would like to introduce it before the legislative session ends. So this conversation is literally coming on the heels of this amendment that is before us today. What i wanted to respond to is the comment that were making a change and that Group Housing was completely exempt. In the 2002 ordinance the board expressly stated that Group Housing would comply under the inclusionary ordinance. What occurred later with the interpretation by the Planning Department, which i completely understand its not to lay blame on the Planning Department, but our code has multiple definitions and the Planning Department did the best that they could to interpret the ordinance. It really didnt have to interpret the ordinance until recently when we had Group Housing projects come before us. So there was a long period of time, when that question didnt come before the Planning Department. To say that we are suddenly exempting something had that wasnt exempt thank you very much. I appreciate the discussion. So lets see, as a matter of order, lets take supervisor christensens amendment first. I will move adoption. Thank you very much. Move for adoption. All right. Supervisor kim seconds that. So that motion is unanimous and passes. [ gavel ] i will move supervisor avalos amendments as well. All right, supervisor avalos amendment and i believe that is going to be a unanimous decision as well. Both of those amendments move forward. That leaves supervisor wieners amendment. I move the amendment that i described earlier, regarding 90 ami for rental, 120 for ownership. Thank you. Roll call vote on this. Supervisor avalos has something to say. Im just not clear on the language on that, how it will be done . I know our ordinance doesnt actually list ami, but it references the Group Housing<\/a> project, at 145 leavenworth and 351 turk a lot of tenderloin residents showed up. A lot of people showed interest in keeping the neighborhood affordable and being engaged in a planning process that has excluded them. So hopefully you will be listening to those voices and encourage the fact that residents want to get involved in planning and let the city know we support Affordable Housing<\/a>. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi,supervisors thank you for hearing us today. My name is colleen rebecca. I work at subpoena st. Anthony foundation and we have submitted letters of support both to thes Planning Commission<\/a> and to the board. Not having talked to our folks at subpoena st. Anthonys, i could not imagine we would be in sunday support of that type of amendment. A lot of our social workers at st. Anthonies help people who have very, very very lowincomes. I always get tripped up on low, extremely low, whatever especially since my income is very low, according to ali. Ami. People at 90 of ami can. Doing backoftheenvelope math, it will be challenging to afford sro at market rate without that support. So i cant imagine that we would support changing the ami. But we are in support of the legislation in its current form. Thanks. Next speaker. Hi. Jennifer friedenbach, were an organization deeply rooted in the tenderloin and been there the past 27 years. For the tenderloin community, we have really deep housing problems. And they tend much towards the very extremely lowincome. I would guess that just about every garage in the tenderloin is occupied. We have a lot of overcrowding. We have of course, a tremendous amount of people who are tenderloin residents without housing. You can see that any day, the effects of the severe housing crisis in that neighborhood. I dont think anyone imagines highend housing and i would imagine that the real residents of this highend housing would actually not be permanent residents, but would be used as corporate rooms for corporations who are housing people temporarily at those highincomes. I cant imagine that they are living there yearround as San Francisco<\/a> residents. With that said, you know, we really support the legislation by kim and avalos. We think its kind of a nobrainer. Like they should have to have some at least a small percentage of the units be affordable. This is the first hearing about the amendment by supervisor wiener. And without having gone through a process, i can say that we would definitely oppose that. We are quickly looking at it and 90 of ami would be marketrate. And that is already those folks are able to and are renting Residential Hotel<\/a> rooms. That have gone up in price already. So there is really not a strong need for that level of housing. There is a strong need at the lower ends, at least below 55 and from our perspective, lower than that. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. Hello again. My name is chidog, from the Mission Collaborative<\/a> and dolores Street Community<\/a> service, but speaking as a born and raised resident of the tenderloin. First of all, i want to thank supervisors kim and avalos for putting this forward. And we want to say yes to this legislation without any amendments. What we are seeing in the mission at a lot of sros are a raise of tech dormitories and startup communities. One former sro that we used to have tenants in has now been fully converted and selfdescribed as a queer tech commune, and does not rent to any of the sro tenants that we know. Were also seeing other sros at risk of being solid sold and converted into Group Housing<\/a>. We hear are there are Real Estate Agents<\/a> coming into their rooms for purposes of conversion. As highend Group Housing<\/a> is growing around the city, we need to close this loophole, add more actual belowmarket rate housing that is affordable. As a nonprofit worker in San Francisco<\/a>, i cant afford 90 ami. And so we ask you to pass this legislation and move this legislation forward without any of the proposed amendments. Thank you. Good afternoon, again, supervisors. My name is Fernando Martin<\/a> with the council of Community Housing<\/a> organizations. Thank you, supervisors avalos and kim for introducing this piece of legislation. It is muchneeded and we hope that will you will recommend it to the full board for passage would you tell us the proposed amendments. The First Amendment<\/a> raising about income and whether its an appropriate place for that kind of level . Frankly, i would like to say that raising the ami level for Group Housing<\/a> to 90 ami is quite ludicrous. If you take 60,000, which was quoted as the ami level, or the income level for someone at 90 , divided that by 12 for 12 months, divided by a third, you would be expected to pay 1777 a month for Group Housing<\/a> situation. So if i could have the overhead slide, if possible . So you are saying fernando, you are saying that 1700 is unreasonable for group house that anybody should pay . What i have got on the slide . Overhead, sfgovtv. Down a little bit. What is the new panoramic, which is about to open micro units a little bit above that 90 level. If you want to share a house in nob hill its just above 90 ami. Just to say that is fine right now. As soon as the market changes the Mayors Office<\/a> of housing will be stuck trying to rent an ami unit when Group Housing<\/a> may be going for something lower than that. And second about the christensen amendment as sue hefter pointed out earlier, it really needs to go through a process that the Planning Commission<\/a> has a chance to review the legislation and understand it. Nobody has seen it yet. Thank you so much. Supervisor kim . Supervisor avalos. Thank you, its my understanding that the christensen amendment has been discussed and seen at the Planning Commission<\/a> and just to get some clarification from deputy City Attorney<\/a> john givner. Im sorry, supervisor, i would like to close Public Comment<\/a>. Seeing no other members of public for public testimony, Public Comment<\/a> is closed. Thank you. What has happened relative to amendments proposed . I believe christensen amendment was discussed at the Planning Commission<\/a>. I was texted by Planning Commission<\/a> members while the discussion was going on i didnt get to the text until i got into cell phone range, but there are also amendments from supervisor wiener that are due as well, that werent discussed in planning and just your thoughts about what can go forward and what cant . Sure, deputy City Attorney<\/a> john givner, if you make any of the amendments, yours, supervisor avalos, et cetera, or any combination, you will have to continue the item for additional Public Comment<\/a> which will be noticed with all of the language of those amendments. As to planning the Planning Commission<\/a> does consider supervisor christensens amendments in concept. The proposal was described in the staffs report to the commission and the commission discussed it, but concluded that they needed more information and the Commission Said<\/a> that it wanted to hear the item again and to bring it back before it goes to the board. Legally the board of supervisors has to sends back to the Planning Commission<\/a> any material modifications that the Planning Commission<\/a> hasnt had the opportunity to review. Here the Planning Commission<\/a> has had the opportunity to review the proposal, although they didnt have the draft language in front of them. You could, as a policy matter, send these amendments back to planning for additional review, but you are not legally required to. Supervisor wieners proposed amendments were not specifically discussed at the Planning Commission<\/a>. But those amendments would have the effect of making less restrictive rules on the Property Owners<\/a> in terms of the affordabilitylevels. So the idea is that the Planning Commission<\/a> consider changing the ordinance from no inclusionary requirements, to full inclusionary requirement, and got into some of the weeds about the levels of affordability, as one of your amendments discussed, supervisor avalos. And supervisor wieners proposal is somewhere in between, no inclusionary and inclusionary matching all other housing. So consistent with our usual advice about what a material modification is. Supervisor wieners proposed amendment would not require additional planning review either. So that was a lot of words, but the bottom line is any of these amendments would require another hearing at the board and none of them would require going back to planning. Thank you. Again, i have already been discussing the amendments from supervisor christensen and i actually have been okay with them as they have been described to me. But the new ones from supervisor wiener, i dont really believe fit the spirit of what were trying to achieve, especially well be creating what seems to be a new standard for what inclusionary housing and ami would be for inclusionary housing, rear view mirror relative to Group Housing<\/a>, but would change what our inclusionary housing is. And to clarify that inclusionary housing applies to Group Housing<\/a> and not create a special category for grown Group Housing<\/a>. So my hope for the committee to accept the amendments that i have proposed. Im supportive of supervisor christensen s amendment and hope that the Committee Moves<\/a> it forward. Supervisor kim. Thank you, i want to clarify that the commission heard supervisor christensens amendments, even if they werent written out. I got a copy of the language. I was curious and knew there were concerns expressed, but were there specific concerns expressed beyond that they didnt have more time to consider it . Planning staff. I dont believe so. It was mostly the concerns was about not having the ordinance before them and also that it was not necessarily completely related to the Group Housing<\/a> amendments. But nothing that i can recall. So maybe this is a question for the City Attorney<\/a>. I do agree that there are two different types of legislation, although both under the inclusionary Affordable Housing<\/a> program. If you could just make some comments about including both in this legislation . Deputy City Attorney<\/a> john givner again. Under our city charter, every ordinance must relate to a single subject and that has been defined bless you defined by the courts to mean that they are reasonably germane to a single subject. And here, certainly these amendments are reasonably germane to the same subject of Affordable Housing<\/a> and Group Housing<\/a>. And so they can move forward in a single ordinance okay. Great. Thank you so much. Just to add on to the conversation about supervisor wieners amendment and i made my comments that i feel this conversation is more appropriately had when we introduce dial. Because it allows developers to produce more units at a lower subsidy, or to produce lower income units at deeper subsidies and fewer of those. I think that is the time to have this conversation and that whatever we decide, should impact all types of housing development, not just Group Housing<\/a>. I wanted to add on to what fernando said, that we have units that are marked at roughly 90 ami and so if we allow Group Housing<\/a> developers to provide inclusionary Housing Units<\/a> at 90 , i think we should be consistent. 55 ami is what we require onsite at 12 is what we require of all housing developers. I dont think we should differentiate between Group Housing<\/a> and other types. I am a strong supporter of ensuring that we are building more Affordable Housing<\/a>. I will give an example where the community negotiated with the giants on 40 affordable and middleIncome Housing<\/a> and key in the negotiation was that they ensure they provide 12 that every market rate developer has to provide. 12 of the 40 is going to be market the to individualss and households at 45 and 55 of ami. It was a key part of the negotiation and that there was a consistent standard across the board that all of our marketrate developers have to comply with. I think we should ensure that we do that here in Group Housing<\/a>. There are other ways to be creative about increasing our moderateincome type of housing. At seawall 337, 28 of the units will be for individuals making 150 ami. This is unprecedented and we have never, ever built this much middleIncome Housing<\/a> and i support it. Supervisor wiener. Thank you and i really appreciate those remarks and the good discussion and the fact that were producing even though this have been some projects recently coming forward with moderate income, were producing very little moderateIncome Housing<\/a> overall. And in terms of consistency, right now, Group Housing<\/a> is completely exempt from the inclusionary Housing Ordinance<\/a> and its being proposed to be brought in and we know at least one Group Housing<\/a> project has now converted to nonGroup Housing<\/a> because it no longer penciled out for them. In addition to providing moderate Income Housing<\/a> im glad that the dial discussion is happening of its long overdue. That will happen when it happens and im sure it will be a great dialogue. Right now, we have before us this Group Housing<\/a> ordinance and i think 90 is a good number. Supervisor kim, before we acknowledge you, i want to ask a couple of questions of you. When do you anticipate the dial legislation to be introduced . Our office is currently in conversation with the Mayors Office<\/a>, and supervisor farrells office. This has been a discussing since the Housing Trust<\/a> fund in 2012 and that legislation is coming to form actually now in this month. So i anticipate introduction this month or early in the fall. So is it currently being drafted . It is currently being drafted. Okay. I know the Mayors Office<\/a> of housing would like to introduce it before the legislative session ends. So this conversation is literally coming on the heels of this amendment that is before us today. What i wanted to respond to is the comment that were making a change and that Group Housing<\/a> was completely exempt. In the 2002 ordinance the board expressly stated that Group Housing<\/a> would comply under the inclusionary ordinance. What occurred later with the interpretation by the Planning Department<\/a>, which i completely understand its not to lay blame on the Planning Department<\/a>, but our code has multiple definitions and the Planning Department<\/a> did the best that they could to interpret the ordinance. It really didnt have to interpret the ordinance until recently when we had Group Housing<\/a> projects come before us. So there was a long period of time, when that question didnt come before the Planning Department<\/a>. To say that we are suddenly exempting something had that wasnt exempt thank you very much. I appreciate the discussion. So lets see, as a matter of order, lets take supervisor christensens amendment first. I will move adoption. Thank you very much. Move for adoption. All right. Supervisor kim seconds that. So that motion is unanimous and passes. [ gavel ] i will move supervisor avalos amendments as well. All right, supervisor avalos amendment and i believe that is going to be a unanimous decision as well. Both of those amendments move forward. That leaves supervisor wieners amendment. I move the amendment that i described earlier, regarding 90 ami for rental, 120 for ownership. Thank you. Roll call vote on this. Supervisor avalos has something to say. Im just not clear on the language on that, how it will be done . I know our ordinance doesnt actually list ami, but it references the Inclusionary Program<\/a> elsewhere its an oral amendment and the City Attorney<\/a> would draft it and it would specify that bmr Group Housing<\/a> units for rentals would be affordable for those applicants make up to 90 ami and for owner, 120 ami. An oral amendment. Thank you. Colleagues, i do appreciate supporting the amendments that i brought for and supervisor wiener, i cannot accept the motion from supervisor wiener. So the motion has been made by supervisor wiener, seconded by supervisor cohen, roll call for this vote, please. Supervisor kim . No. Kim, no. Supervisor wiener . Aye. Wiener aye. Supervisors cohen . Aye. Two ayes one no. Thank you, this motion passes. [ gavel ] i move to forward the ordinance as amended to the full board with positive recommendations all right. Im sorry, i move to continue the ordinance as amended by one week one week. All right. That motion is moved and seconded. Madame clerk, does that work on the calendar . Yes. So that move to the 20th that is correct. Unanimously supported. Madame clerk, is there any other business before this committee . There is no further business thank you everyone. This meeting is is adjourned [ gavel ] [horns honking] announcer the first step to getting into college is finding someone who can help. For the next steps go to knowhow2. Org. Welcome to hamilton recreation and Aquatics Center<\/a>. It is the only facility that has an integrated Swimming Pool<\/a> and Recreation Center<\/a> combined. We have to pools, the citys water slide, for little kids and those of you that are more daring and want to try the rockslide, we have a drop slide. Exercises for everybody. Hi have a great time. The ladies and guys that come it is for the community and we really make it fun. People think it is only for those that play basketball or swim. I have been coming to the pool for a long time now. It is nice they are sweet. In the Aquatics Center<\/a> they are very committed to combining for people in San Francisco<\/a>. And also ensuring that they have public safety. There are a lot of different personalities that come through here and it makes it very exciting all the time. They, their family or teach their kids have a swim. Of the gem is fantastic, there is an Incredible Program<\/a> going on there, both of my girls have learned to swim there. It is a fantastic place, check it out. It is an incredible indication of what bonn dollars can do with our hearts and facilities. It is as good as anything you will find out why mca. Parents come from all over. There are not too many pools that are still around, and this is onestop shopping for kids. You can bring your kid here and have a cool summer. If you want to see some of the youth and young men throughout San Francisco<\/a> play some great pickup games, come wednesday night for midnight basketball. On saturdays, we have a senior lyons dance that has a great time getting exercise and a movement. We have all the music going, the generally have a good time. Whether it is awkward camp or junior guard. From more information visit","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia601207.us.archive.org\/29\/items\/SFGTV_20150714_000000\/SFGTV_20150714_000000.thumbs\/SFGTV_20150714_000000_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240629T12:35:10+00:00"}