tv BOS Land Use and Transportation Committee SFGTV November 11, 2021 5:30pm-8:21pm PST
meeting. madam clerk, do you have any comments? >> clerk: yes. the board recognizes public access to city services is essential and invites public participation in the following ways. public comment will be available on each item on this agenda and sfgovtv.org is streaming the call-in information on your screen. the number is 415-655-0001. the meeting i.d. today is
94102. >> supervisor melgar: thank you, madam clerk. please call the first item. [agenda item read]. >> supervisor melgar: thank you, madam clerk. we made substantive amendments to this item last week. today, we have the legislative aide to supervisor chan here today. >> hello, supervisor melgar and supervisors. thank you for hearing this
items, and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> supervisor melgar: okay. colleagues, do we have any questions? i don't see any names on the roster. madam clerk, do we have any callers in the queue? >> clerk: members of the public, if you have not already done so, press star, three to enter the queue. for those who have already done so, please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. madam chair, we don't have any callers in the queue. >> supervisor melgar: okay. do we have a motion on the item? i see supervisor peskin making a motion. okay. madam clerk, go ahead and call
the roll. [roll call] >> clerk: you have three ayes. >> supervisor melgar: the motion passes. thank you, miss gross, for being here through this process. madam clerk, will you please call item 2? >> clerk: yes. item 2 is an ordinance accepting the irrevokable offer of a 12 kilovolt power line and associated facilities servicing the seawall lot 337 and pier 48 mixed use project. members of the public who wish to provide public comment should call 415-655-0001, then enter meeting i.d. 2499-520-1468. then press pound and pound
again to lineup to speak. madam chair? >> supervisor melgar: thank you. welcome, mr. keane. the floor is yours. >> thank you, supervisor melgar. i just wanted to give you a background on the mission rock development, which most of you are going to be familiar with. we've got the previous depiction in the top left, where we currently are in the top right, and then the future of the project's down at the bottom there. what we're talking about is
mostly going to be impacting phase 1, which is currently under construction. next slide, please. so the k.v. line, it's a permanent but still temporary power line completed by the developer at the developer's office, and this is to be able to tie into sfpucs line for the project. this line is mostly operating for construction purposes but will actually be able to power until the permanent installation occurs, which will be happening in the near future. so then, the 12-k line as i was mentioning will be the building phase and development, and then, it will be completed by the developer of the project.
next slide. just a quick rendering, the overall site. phase one has commercial plus affordable. you'll see the current existing above ground line. over to the left, you're going to see the blue dash line is going to be the future facility. to be completed by the developer in the future. it will also go through a separate dedication process, and as mentioned previously, the yellow line above will actually be removed at the developer's cost. next slide. so basically, the acceptance
process is this: that the mission phase one public improvement agreement included provisions in this line. the developer has completed the line and the improvements, and the notice of completion was recently accepted by public works. there are exceptions to the regulations by public works because this is a public line but this will eventually go underground in future phases. the sfpuc has entered into an m.o.u. for the land rights to this line, and basically, sfpuc and port staff are recommending approval. next slide. last point on this, and the temporary and what will be the future line allows to provide permanent gas to hetch hetchy
and phase one, both commercial and residential. there's also going to be -- most of you should have seen this amendment came through. there's a technical amendment to the ordinance that's going to if to approve the ceqa findings and so as part of this, we respect approval of the actual ordinance itself but also prior to that, if we could also propose an amendment to cleanup the technical items that were in there. and as mentioned, we have members of our development team and technical expertise from both the sfpuc and technical experts here if you have any questions. >> chair melgar: thank you so much, mr. keane. do we have any questions for mr. keane or any of the other staff, colleagues? supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: yeah, i did not get the amendments
until literally this very second. in a fast moving environment on mondays, it would be good if port staff wouldn't just send them to my staff but also send them to me personally, and that way, i would read them before the meeting rather than as i am right now. so if you could tell that to mr. [indiscernible], i will see what amendments you're talking about. >> duly noted, and i will, supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: no problem. >> chair melgar: we're going to take public comment, but these are not substantive? >> that's correct. the legal interpretation -- >> supervisor peskin: okay.
i'll look at them -- i'm looking at them right now. >> that is correct. it is my understanding, as well. they were filling in blanks that were left as place holders for motions and dates. >> chair melgar: okay. so if there are no further comments or questions, let's go to public comment. madam clerk? >> clerk: thank you. d.t. is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. if you have not already done so, press star, three to enter the queue. if you have already done so, please wait until the system indicates you have been
unmuted. madam chair, maria indicates there are no callers in the queue. >> chair melgar: okay. would someone please make a motion? supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: so moved. >> chair melgar: madam clerk, can we take a roll call on the amendments? >> clerk: on the motion as stated -- [roll call] >> chair melgar: thank you, and miss ford, could you please turnoff your camera until your item is called? >> i'm sorry. thank you. >> chair melgar: okay. i believe that motion passes. >> clerk: on the remaining balance? >> chair melgar: yes. can someone please make a motion on the amended -- great.
supervisor peskin has made a motion. can we take roll, please, madam clerk? >> clerk: on the motion to recommend as amended -- [roll call] >> clerk: you have three ayes. >> supervisor melgar: thank you. that motion passes. let's please call item 3. thank you, mr. keane. >> clerk: item number 3 is a hearing regarding a six-month status update on the implementation of expanded compliance control and consumer protection provisions per building code amendments enacted march 26, 2021, reporting on the list to the building inspection commission, referring liftees to state licensing boards, publication of the list on the department
of building inspection web -- website, and notifying all parties listed. madam chair? >> chair melgar: thank you. we are now joined by the sponsor of this item, supervisor hillary ronen. supervisor ronen, the floor is yours. >> supervisor ronen: thank you so much, supervisor melgar, for hearing this item. a bit of background on the type of incidents that lend me to prepare the legislation. in may 2020, structural engineer and formal building inspector rodrigo santos was
arrested and charged with bank fraud. the city employee already had a court case against him, and nevertheless, he continues to be an active participation on recent projects across the city, particularly in district 9. in another case, our office has been working with the city departments to resolve a problem in the portola neighborhood where a team of developers got a permit to construct ten residential units but instead constructed 30, creating a tangle of violations. and then, there was the case of a demolition on [indiscernible]
street. while planning considered it an unpermitted demolition which required it to go before the commission for post demolition approval, d.b.i. determined it was not an up lawful demolition, and just a year ago, the city paid a settlement for a development in bernal heights with slipping foundations and more. these are just some examples that we have in district 9. i know some of you have cases in your districts, as well. there are laws in place to penalize serial offenders after the fact, but i'm working on legislation now to make sure the penalties fit the crime, but i think we all know that
even those who have clear histories of noncompliance are still engaging in construction outside or beyond permits. what the expanded compliance control and consumer protection ordinance has done is to direct the actions of d.b.i. response to future applications. those parties whose violations get onto the internal tracking documents three times in 18 months must then be considered by d.b.i. for expanded compliance control. the legislation also very intentionally stated as well that in the case of the egregious violations, the department could, in consultation with the city attorney, add a party to the expanded compliance control for
any single violation and not have to wait for the three in 18 months threshold to be met. once a party is on the expanded compliance control list, d.b.i. is required to report any professional placed on the list to the state licensing board and provide regular reports to the building inspection commission. and lastly, the legislation established standards for internal d.b.i. staff accountability through training and guidance. i worked on this legislation with much input from d.b.i.s leadership. we passed it in march and it became effective in april. now six months past the
effective date, i'm curious to hear how these measures are working. >> chair melgar: supervisor peskin has raised his hand. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madam chair, and i want to thank you for scheduling this. i have a copy of that september 21, 2021 letter from mr. o'riordan to myself based on which projects mr. santos was still the engineer of record or permit expediter for. but i really think this is not
just about one person, this is about a class of bad actors. there's a small percentage of players in the industry, but they account for a huge amount of complaints. they're frequent flyers, and what i'm asking is i understand they have to be fair, and i understand the california board for professional engineers, land surveyors, and geologists doesn't take action to revoke their state license, then they can continue to do business, and i appreciate the elevated standard that supervisor ronen brought about.
i can give you the names of the three or four bad actors but they don't seem to get any punishment by the city. i can give you the article of commission president mr. murphy, and now years after the settlement, the permit issues remain unresolved. you would think that a former commission president who got sued by the city attorney would be held to the highest standard. i would like to understand this beyond mr. santos -- i don't want to prejudice the matter, but he seems to be in some sort of significant trouble with the united states of america. it would be nice if we could clean our own dirty laundry without the f.b.i. having to do
it, and d.b.i. seems to be where the rubber hits the road. thank you, madam chair. >> chair melgar: supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: mr. duffy, i think you have a short presentation? >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm joe duffy, senior inspector at d.b.i. today, i'm here to provide a report on the expanded compliance control ordinance. next slide. this codified and strengthened d.b.i.s expanded quality control program, which we've had in place since 2018. it is a key element of d.b.i.s overall reform initiative which was formally launched in late may. these reform initiatives are
designed to improve our processes, create additional checks and balances, develop our staff, and enhance transparency to the public. the reforms actually touch every aspect of our business, including best practices, hiring, on boarding, and submissions. also establishing more transparency, accountability on our inspection and control services. that means more spot checks more guidelines for offenders, and more guidance for customers. we are pleased to work with the board on this measure. we are currently conducting an internal audit of projects associated with individuals named in criminal complaints.
these investigations will use the permit applications, building plans, inspection documentation, and site visits to confirm that the projects were designed to code, built to plan, and inspected for quality at every step of the way. if we do find projects that are out of compliance due to questionable permitting and construction approvals, we are working with the property owner to understand what happened and how best to address the issues. any notices of violations that we issue resulting from the audit that make the expanded compliance control criteria will be added to the tracking site, and we anticipate this will result in more names being added to the compliance control list. next slide, john. under the expanded compliant control ordinance, d.b.i. tracks significant n.o.v.s and the names of associate individuals or entities.
the ordinance calls out several specific types of violations, including, but not limits to the plans to circumvent review requirement, architectural or structural work beyond the scope of permit, and also work that was done by individuals without the required licenses. we review that file every month and track individuals with three problems within an 18-month period. when we identify a violator, we review the permits and their
applications. finally, the permit must have a designated licensed contractor prior to issuance. next slide, john. so the department also refers any lessee to the applicable licensing body, such as the state board of engineering, and it also lists all the parties on the application of the expanded compliance control requirements. this includes building owners, other contractors, or anyone listed, and lets them know why their project is subject to any extra review. anyone who gets on the list will stay on it for five years, unless they receive another
n.o.v., in which case, the clock would start again for them. next slide, john. the ordinance also requires that d.b.i. post the expanded compliance control list on-line and provide quarterly reports to the building inspection commission. both of these reports start when we put our first individual or entity onto the list. next slide. so the ordinance also requires that d.b.i. post the expanded compliance control list -- sorry. i'd like now to show you the implementation status. and per the ordinance, we have already provided training to our plan review staff on how to review and flag the permits that identify potential abuse at the time of intake and review. that means that staff are now
getting training to try to spot some of these violations at the early stage. if someone applies for a permit and they're trying to get around d.p.w. or something, staff can flag that. we will conduct follow up training on a quarterly basis, and it will be integrated into our on boarding process. we developed office policies and procedures to ensure consistency and transparency in the application of the program. we have developed and implemented a system to automatically flag the permit applications in our permit tracking system. that means when a permit is entered into our system and a name is entered, that permit application will have a pop up window that says it is subject to the expanded compliance control. in other words, a block on the system, so before the permit is
issued, it has to be reviewed, so that's a really important step that we never really used for a person's name. we always had it on addresses but never on entities. next slide, john. so we're now six months into the first 18-month violation window. to date, we have listed 34 n.o.v.s, listed 75 individuals or entities on the tracking side. one individual, no surprise, rodrigo santos, has met the three n.o.v. thresholds, and we are in the process of adding him to the compliance control list per the ordinance. we sent him a letter, notifying him he was being considered for expanded compliance control.
the next step will be we are preparing a report for the interim director with our findings who will then make a determination whether the facts merit placing mr. santos on the list. if placed on the list, mr. santos will have the option to take that to the board of appeals -- or the building inspection commission. the next step -- thank you -- d.b.i. has identified several process improvements as we move forward in the process. we're really looking to find ways to make this implementation more efficient because we're finding enacting some of these quality control procedures is going to be resource intensive.
the tracking of the individuals associated with the n.o.v., it has been challenging for us because we want to make sure that we are listing everyone on the violation that's associated with it, and this -- it is particularly challenging in situations where the work has been done without a permit. that means there's no contractor there, maybe they started this work, and we're look at way to see improve that, such as notifying people -- we're now doing staff reports on a lot of these cases, as well, and we are finding that that has been challenging for us. also, our tracking file is on excel spreadsheet, which is working okay, but as it grows,
it will become more difficult to manage, so we're working with our i.t. team to develop a more automated database, and that's near the end of the process. that's the end of my presentation, and i'm always happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> supervisor ronen: thank you so much. i have a few questions to start off with, if that's okay, chair melgar. [indiscernible]. >> supervisor ronen: thank you, chair melgar. it's good to know that you are potentially going to put one person on the official list. i wonder if you can tell me the status of your internal tracking list. not naming names, but letting me know how many people are on
that internal tracking list with significant violations? and were there any names that you weren't expecting to see already? you're on mute. >> someone muted me. that's okay. sorry about that. very good question, supervisor ronen. so there are a few entities that we find that are on the tracking side twice. so what we are doing, we're putting a tracking on their name, so we are on that. in regards to your question, are we seeing some names, there's a couple of names that were on it that we sort of expected to see on it.
one of them is someone who claimed that they were hired after the issues, and we did have a couple of cases where some homeowners just went completely off and did all this work without inspections, absolutely covered everything, no electrical inspections, no cover-up inspections. we put them on the track in five. i don't think we'll see them again. that's a one-off, so to answer your question, there are people that are on it twice, and there are people that we don't expect to see on it again. >> supervisor ronen: okay. and in terms of numbers, we're just talking a handful? >> yes, two. >> supervisor ronen: okay. and i'm wondering if you looked
well, why isn't this person on the list, why isn't that person on the list? on the project that you were talking about, we were able to put a block in the system and note preissuance inspections. the problem is the violations don't start until after the issuance. >> supervisor ronen: so i understand it would be a tremendous amount of work to go backwards on every single project that's ever involved in an n.o.v. in recent years, but
i'm wondering about this specific project. there's an upcoming planning commission hearing on this property, and i'm wondering if this doesn't rise to the level -- if the san bruno property doesn't rise to the level of a single significant violation that justifies addition of those involved on this list, i'm not sure what would. so i'm wondering if you or perhaps the city attorney either way can discuss a little bit about, you know, what would be the type of cases that are so severe and so egregious that they might immediately go onto the list and not have to have three n.o.v.s in 18 months? >> well, i know that we started enacting this on april 26. we started collecting the
n.o.v.s and the expanded control file. we didn't go backwards on it to put someone on the list. we had scrutiny on it, but we did not put them on the list. for us, it was april 26 through whenever we started the tracking violation list. >> supervisor ronen: so are you saying that there would never be anything that would reach the level of egregious enough -- >> supervisor, i will say that if we saw something like that, it would go straight onto the list. that's as bad of a one here -- we haven't seen anything like that since april 26, and i hope that we never would again. that's the one where the director, obviously, has a final decision, but in my
opinion, it would be one that would automatically go on the list. >> supervisor ronen: okay. i understand that. i guess -- i mean, obviously in the long run, the desire is that nobody is going to be on this expanded list, but we have this piece of legislation actually helps weed out unethical contractors and engineers and anyone who wants to scam the city on a project. that would be the best case scenario, but i am a little concerned about the ramp up, and that it's not quite as robust as i want it to be in the face of such brazen misconduct. i guess you can ask this question -- let me just -- i'm going to repeat back what i'm hearing from you, and you say
if it's correct. because of resource limitations and because of wanting to be forward looking and doing this right, you've decided not to look backwards but only forwards, and so it's the initial ramp up that's perhaps making this feel a little slower than i would otherwise hope? >> you know, it is -- like, the resources to do this, the preissuance inspections, a lot going backwards. the one thing i would say, to give you confidence, the ordinance is working really well in my opinion. i've been working here over 20 years. to look at a spreadsheet and see different entities on it, we're making progress. now we've got this list of
names, and as that improves, and the database pops up, we're going to get this. i think if anybody tries to do this, we're going to catch them, and we're going to catch them quickly once we have them on the list. it's pretty impressive when you see the list and the number of entities that we're getting. i've had conversations with people who we've given them a notice of violation when you tell them about this -- i had one who was recently a geotech on this. he was amazed we were doing this. and i said, you were the geotech on this. you may not get another one, but just to have that tool, it is very effective, so i -- i'm kbrezed by it so far. i think -- just -- i think we need a little bit more time to
get the database up, and as it gets forward, it'll be better. >> supervisor ronen: okay. well, that's certainly good and encouraging to hear. >> chair melgar: i had a question, supervisor ronen, if that's okay. my question is how you're keeping the data for this list, if it's by individuals or construction companies? we know that sometimes folks reincorporates or they have several companies under one company or they put the company in the wife's or son's names. i think whenever we create a system, people find wayed to get around the system, so i wonder if you could talk about
that. >> certainly. supervisor melgar, as i said, we are doing it on a spreadsheet, and you can see the names going across from the engineer or the sponsor or the architect. if people change names or -- say one person has three companies, that's -- that's harder -- it is harder to catch, but i think the staff knows that. we have one individual here who has four companies, and we all know that they're associated. we're going to say hey, we know that you use company a and company b, and we've identified you as the entity.
there could be things like engineering license numbers or other things, and our data team has a way of finding that, so hopefully that'll answer that. >> supervisor ronen: is it back to me, chair? >> chair melgar: yes, supervisor. >> supervisor ronen: thank you. i just had a couple more questions, and then, i'll wrap up. i wonder if you have considered having a building compensation for expanded compliance control into your fee structure, given what you've talked about in terms of, you know, the man-woman power involved in doing extra work? >> sorry, supervisor.
i'm charging extra fees for this? >> supervisor ronen: mm-hmm. >> well, they are subject to the enforcement fees that are in the code and for any of the violations. we are exploring avenues to recoup some of our inspections, those fees or for expanded plan review fees, as well, and that discussion, we haven't initiated that yet, but it is something that we are exploring. >> supervisor ronen: okay. i'm going to be curious about that throughout -- you know, as we move forward. and then -- and i want to make clear that these should be specific fees for the higher -- for the bad actors. i want to make clear that this is not for the good actors.
>> yeah, yeah. >> supervisor ronen: and my last question for you, i'm just wondering if you've particularly looked, given the -- you know, just the very public and very troublesome charges against rodrigo santos and bernard curran, that if you have scanned those projects where there were significant violations and either of these two were involved, to be added at least to the internal tracking list. >> thank you, supervisor. we have begun an audit control within d.b.i. here. we're putting together a team -- we've actually got a team together. we're working on addresses with both associated names, senior inspector curran and mr. santos. we are going to go back over projects that both of them were
associated with in regards to both of them separately. it's a big project. we have put a team, a senior inspector and two inspectors together. we are collecting at the minute a lot of the addresses, and i mention it in this light. there's going to involve, looking back at permit applications, inspection history, plumbing permits signed off, electrical permits signed off, sprinkler systems. we are in the early stages of it, and we are developing different lists because what we find is that some of them crossed each other, some of them were separate, and currently, we're going back from 2020 back to 2017. we're putting together criteria. we are developing or database -- our database, as
well. we've been speaking to our analyst, and we've been speaking to the city attorney, as well. if we go out, and we find that someone gets a notice of violation, and that property was built wrong and inspected wrong, well, they're going to have to be added onto the tracking file. there is a little bit -- we are conscious of the fact that a property may have been sold, for example, to a new owner, so there's a sensitivity on that, and we're going to have to look at it on a case-by-case basis. it wouldn't be fair if there was a property five years ago, and they were involved in it, and it was sold, and say hey, your inspections weren't clear, and your plumbing inspections shouldn't have been signed off. just giving a notice of violation, that's not fair, so that's where we're going to have to work with them on ones,
but we will consider it for the list if it's a bad enough violation. >> supervisor ronen: okay. thank you. those are all of my questions. thank you. >> thank you. >> supervisor peskin: madam chair? >> chair melgar: yes, go ahead, supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: so regarding this letter that mr. o'riordan, director of d.b.i., sent me, i have some questions, and i guess i'm asking you to speculate, mr. duffy, because in some instances, mr. santos
is the engineer, and in some instances, he is the agent. i believe the legislation that supervisor ronen successfully passed, that applies to both categories, right? >> yes that's right. >> supervisor peskin: and i would assume, given the long illustrious history of mr. santos, they've got to know. this doesn't require any advanced search other than clicks on a key board.
>> -- they may have thought that they were going to get away with that one, and they didn't, i don't think. >> >> supervisor peskin: well, yes or no, and i appreciate you bringing up 1100 leavenworth, there were many other similar cases, some of which involve mr. santos and some of which don't, are all about tenant harassment and eviction. so in the case of 1100 leavenworth uses mr. santos and
by hook or by crook to get five or six tenants out. they pulled 1900 permits, of which d.b.i. has pulled a good chunk of them, but [indiscernible] is called out in your september 21 letter as being associated with santos as 311 11 avenue, so this is not -- so right there, i mean, seems to be enough to meet the criteria enough of unscrupulous project sponsor -- i think i can say this now -- crooked engineer permit expediter -- i know he hasn't been convicted yet, but it's just a matter of
time. so what is it that we can do? i think there are projects that d.b.i. can take over and send the permit back to the unscrupulous sponsor. this has been the driver for three pieces of legislation, and still, this guy is at it. if it was a right world, the city would crack down on this thing. what can we do to stop this behavior? >> so, supervisor peskin, the case of 1100 leavenworth, from
the e-mails that i've been privy to and the inspector, he's got a good handle on it. he and the gentleman are -- and our -- we feel a lot better about where they are with the permits. i haven't seen as much documentation about it. i do agree with you on the owner of the property. this is one of those where you've got your name in the system. we're doing a preissuance inspection, we're doing extra plan review, we're watching before we give you the permit. 311 11 avenue was before this, and i know things have improved out there, as well. we consulted with the city attorney's office and your
office, too. i know that both properties, they were a problem for us, but having the names in the system where there's a pop up window and then getting a chance to review their work, that they're remodelling a bathroom and not five bathrooms. we have revoked permits on these buildings, as well. >> supervisor peskin: yes, thank you, mr. duffy. and the owner is now listing
them as condominiums when they've never been divided, but that's a problem for the state real estate board to sue him. but any way, i appreciate what you're doing. >> thank you. >> chair melgar: so i have a question on that issue, if i could follow your questions, supervisor peskin, and if you could turnoff your camera now, i would appreciate it. thank you. which is i think that some folks hire folks like mr. santos because they know they can get away with it, but some folks hire them because they don't know any better. they don't spend their time watching us on sfgovtv, and they don't really know. and there are folks that will hire them because they speak
spanish, like mr. santos does, or they speak chinese. so my question is, what are we doing to get the information out to the public so when someone comes in and fills out an application, you can say hey, do you know your contractor is on this list? i know folks, too, who have hired folks on this list, and they just have no idea. it was, like, a cultural affinity. they think, you know, this guy knows, so i'm wondering how we get that word out. >> thank you, supervisor melgar. the expanded control website is actually ready to go, and because the ordinance requires that, the list will be on it,
and you're going to see mr. santos on it. that's something that mr. o'riordan, he is waiting on the report, and that should be by the end of this week or next week. if mr. santos is on, if we decide to put him on the list. that will -- list, that will be up, and people will be able to see that. that has happened to me over the years, where they said, i had no idea he would do that, and they've had to get somebody else. i've had that conversation with people, but i think with this, with the conversation going on, with the ordinance, we are able to put that up so people can
see. thanks for your comments. >> chair melgar: thank you, mr. duffy. back to you, supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: i don't have anymore questions. i just wanted to thank you for reporting. i, you know, will probably do any one of these hearings in another six months and get some more knowledge on how it's working. i was surprised to hear your conversations with people to help them be careful with on who they choose to partner with on projects and that they can trust to do a good job, and it's sort of self-policing in
the system. i'm glad to hear some unofficial reports of that happening and looking forward to seeing, you know, what happened going forward. obviously, this is one of many different reforms to d.b.i. that we're all working on, and so i -- i'm glad to see it happening and look forward to any future hearings we have. >> thank you. >> chair melgar: supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: thank you, chair melgar. the questions i had have been asked. i want to thank supervisor ronen for her leadership on this and thank mr. duffy for his candidness. i want to follow up on supervisor medical car gaez question on the outreach.
i'm glad that the website is going to be up and live and that those names will be available, but i think there was another part to that question, and another way of monitoring people on the list is by the website or will there be something else for people who want more information? >> thank you, supervisor preston, and as i was speaking, your mind starts working, and all those things come into my head, as well. i know here at d.b.i., [indiscernible] is our communications director, john murray, jeff buckley, we will staff those things, so i would be looking forward to sharing
all that, and at that point, the website will probably be live. it has to be done with multilingual, but those are certainly good ideas, and we will take them under our advice. john, do you want to address that? >> yes. [indiscernible] d.b.i. the owner, other contractor, if there's another authorized agent, everybody will know hey, so-and-so is subject to compliance control, and because of that, this permit will receive extra review, so that would be the sort of on going notification, but, you know, sort of ahead of that, yes, the
listed individual will be on the website, as well. >> supervisor preston: thank you for those clarifications. >> chair melgar: supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: thank you. that was my thought. this is why we want a different fee structure for those who need extra compliance control because it's another way of informing the public to pay attention. well, why am i paying more than this other person and what does this enhanced control mean? again, the whole idea is we rid the city of this list and these contractors altogether, so anything we can do to reinforce it just helps us achieve that goal, so we'll definitely follow up with you on that piece and kind of want to work
with you to get that separate fee structure set up. but with that, i truly am done, and after that, madam chair, however you want to do it, continue it to the call of the chair or table it. >> chair melgar: i think i want to continue it. with that, madam clerk, let's go to public comment, please. >> clerk: thank you, madam chair. d.t. is checking to see if we have any callers in the queue. for those who have not done so, press star, three to enter the queue. for those who have already done so, wait until your line indicates you have been unmuted. we have four listeners and two callers. maria, could you unmute the first caller, please. >> so my name is francisco
dacosta, and i would like to know whether the department of building inspection, d.b.i., is going to provide us with the language -- if i provide you with my e-mail, mr. duffy, can you provide me the language, because i find the way to discuss to be very convoluted. during this pandemic, some of the contractors are not wanting to get their hands dirty. supervisors are talking, and they can talk all they want to, but they don't have all the contractors. we used to have a contractor center run by the san francisco
public utilities commission. some of contractors could get help over there, and it had been closed. during the pandemic, we did not have access to your office. i would not like to go into a congregate setting and catch covid. so all of this website you keep talking about, you know, that the website, it's going to be posted on the website. who's going to post-it on the website? and if it is posted on the website, in what language is it going to be posted? you guys are presupposing things, everything is going to be in english. all of our contractors, do they
speak english or do they speak russian or do they speak other languages or do i have to listen to the translator? >> clerk: thank you so much. next speaker, please? >> this is sue hester. thank you so much, supervisor ronen, for bringing up the issue of leavenworth avenue. you need to add two things to your thought process. one is the merger of d.b.i. and planning department processing information. planning uses acela, a-c-e-l-a, to track projects. the board of -- d.b.i.
[indiscernible] at the board of supervisors level. i don't trust the b.i.c. to solve the problem. secondarily, and this commission and the board of supervisors needs to consider a charter over who gets on the b.i.c. the d.b.i. has shown dysfunctionality over the past couple of years. a lot of the people who had
complaints on them, including mel murphy and rodrigo santos, were with the department. i would ask you to go back and amendment the charter on who are the qualifications for being on the building inspection commission supervising d.b.i. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we had one caller pop up. >> hi, can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, begin speaking. >> thank you. actually, i think i'm -- no
comment. thank you. >> clerk: all right. and that completes the queue, madam chair. >> chair melgar: thank you very much, madam clerk. so with that, public comment is now closed for this item. colleagues, may i have a motion to continue this to the call of the chair? supervisor peskin. will you take roll on that, please, madam clerk? >> clerk: yes. on the motion to continue the item to the call of the chair -- [roll call] >> clerk: you have three ayes. >> chair melgar: thank you. that motion passes. thank you very much, supervisor ronen, for your leadership on this. >> supervisor ronen: thank you so much. i'm going to stick around for the next item, if it's okay. >> chair melgar: okay.
please call the next item, madam clerk, please, item 4. >> clerk: thank you. item 4 is a hearing on the city's need to address workforce housing across the full range of worker incomes as identified in jobs housing fit reports, including new and strengthened policies to support housing affordability and stability and requesting the planning department to report. members of the public, if you wish to provide public comment, dial 415-655-0001, meeting i.d.
2499-520-1468, then press pound and pound again. >> chair melgar: thank you. presenting this item, we have supervisor mar. supervisor mar, the floor is yours. >> supervisor mar: as we are recovering from the pandemic, it's an opportune time to see how workers across the sector are impacted. today's hearing will be focused on the expertise and experience of the workers who make our city run because we know that policies can only be successful when individuals impacted by them are at the table and when they have the opportunity to speak and not just hear and spoken for. so we're very fortunate to have
report on jobs housing fit, calling for a jobs housing fit report by the planning department so we can systematically review this. without the public sector, the unregulated market driven by profit and speculation will never build enough housing to meet our needs. rather, it's activists that have led to the preservation and production of housing that truly addresses the needs of
our essential workers and their families. colleagues, you know that we've exceeded our current rhna allotment by 50% but have only met 50% of our housing goals. housing meeting the needs of single high income workers has been overbuilt, and we can see that playing out in the sunset district with three market rate developments sitting mostly vacant because the units are too expensive and not family
friendly. in contrast, we know that there will be overwhelming demand for the two 100% affordable units in the sunset, and we need to continue to fight for greater public investment, appropriate regulation, and equitable land use policies, and we must shape the housing community and secure the land and funding to achieve these ends for our communities. today, we'll have one 20-minute or so presentation with several speakers, representations from the organizations who authored the housing and workers report, and before we go into questions
and discussion among committee, members, and public comment, before we begin, i just wanted to see, chair melgar, if you or any other committee members have any opening remarks? >> chair melgar: thank you so much, supervisor mar. i am so excited that we are putting this first and having this discussion. i am grateful for your leadership and the leadership of the labor council. it's unprecedented that we have this kind of collaboration, data gathering, and thinking about solutions together, so i am grateful for your leadership, supervisor mar, and doing this, and also excited to the conversation of how we add tools to the tool box that work for all communities across the west side of san francisco as well as the east side and how
we collaborate with those communities so that we can add more solutions to our housing crisis. thank you so much, supervisor mar. >> supervisor mar: great. thanks, chair melgar. maybe we could go into the presentation from the report authors. so we have connie ford, dana cho, and peter cohen. thank you all so much for all of your work on this very important report, and connie, the floor is yours. >> okay. thank you. thank you, supervisor mar. my name is connie ford, and i am the director for a small nonprofit called s.f. clout. and thank you, supervisor mar,
for convening this important historic hearing, and also, thank you for your leadership. today, we're hoping to do all of the things that have been said previously, but mostly to shine a light on the city's housing focus in our city. as housing prices continue to escalate in san francisco, tens of thousands of workers who keep this city running are finding it harder and harder to keep a roof over their heads.
middle class jobs do not necessarily lead to middle class lifestyles in our city because the wages mostly have to go to housing. today, we are presenting this historic data driven report, and it does represent the collaboration between labor, community, and affordable housing advocates working with u.c. berkeley, and we studied the income and resident data for over 50,000 union members who work for the city. who are these workers that we studies? they are domestic workers, health care workers, whether they are in the homes or in the hospitals or clinics, custodians, janitor's, hotel and tad -- stadium workers, public workers and nonprofit
sector workers. we started with gaining stories from workers, from where they're at. we brought in workers and talked about their stories. we then developed the three points also mentioned by supervisor mar: land, funding, and programs as our -- as our basis for moving forward. as i stated, good jobs are essential for moving forward, so this emphasizes right off the bat the production of these houses must be built with skill, skilled and trained workers. 7%, 7% of union workers in this study can afford medium market
rates in this city. 7%. very shocking. what we found was that most unionized workers in our city need affordable housing opportunities. we need to reframe this critical solution of added housing to this job and expand the funding and programs to serve all of san francisco. we also consider this report a racial equity issue. union jobs have allowed, for instance, african americans to become homeowners in many areas of our city despite red lining and racial covenance that
happened in my lifetime, i must say. this report also verifies that more than 40% of our union members live outside the city. they have been forced to move. they're moving now to central valley. this is just incredible. this is bad for the workers and the time they commute, this is bad for the environment, for all the greenhouse gases and the climate change, and these workers that we are studying are the essential workers for our city, and they are living miles and hours away from the work, what happens in another crisis? what happens with another major
fire, a rain storm, all those kinds of things? it's amazing that we need these workers to survive. my very last paragraph, all these groups are proud of this report. we hope that the city look at it, the supervisors, and that you study it and we're able to move forward in these innovative housing complexes that we're talking about. i want to end with a few words that james jacobs ended with that i've always treasured. we want a city with shops and stores and houses and we want a city that produces a ballet sidewalk of opportunities for all of us. thank you. thank you so much for this hearing. >> supervisor mar: thank you so much, connie.
next, we have [indiscernible]. >> thank you so much, supervisors. my name is [indiscernible] and i work at [indiscernible] a coalition of community and labor organizations, and i'm here today to talk about [indiscernible] we conducted many interviews with worker industries that connie had mentioned, such as educators, in-home health care workers, teachers, electricians, and city workers. what made these stories really powerful is these workers drew from their experience. it's also given them a voice and space to share what it feels like to live in a fast growing city and it's becoming much more expensive for working families every day.
keep is a u.p.s. worker and in-house health care worker. he has to pay $1800 for rent and his day starts at 3:00 a.m. and ends at 7:00 p.m. another story that i found that i thought was really inspiring also, i connected with her personally also, her name is mary lou. she is another worker that we interviewed. she is a united local 2 member.
she is a single mom with three kids, and she got laid off due to the lack of work, which she lost the majority of money to support herself and her other three kids. during the pandemic, she and her three kids had to occupy a small room in her sister's apartment. her dream is to afford her own place with her three kids. our members are the essential workers. when essential workers have to travel two hours to work, thep we would have -- then we would
have problem. we need people to be able to stay where they work to keep our city healthy. what would happen if they have emergency and they were an essential -- >> clerk: i just want to inform you that you're at the three-minute limit for your presentation. >> thank you. i just wanted to finish this. the labor market, it's so hard for them to stay in the city. thank you. >> supervisor mar: thank you so much for your stories. next, we have [indiscernible] with the u.c. labor center
[indiscernible]. >> yeah, thank you so much, and i'm hoping it's okay that i share my screen. this part of the presentation follows really well after [indiscernible] presentation because this is the data points, which is a constellation of the stories. the data set is unique because it links worker occupation and income in tandem with the impact that commuting is having on their lives, less time with their families and less time for sleep.
to get a sense of the current landscape, we averaged out the months between 2019 and 2021, and as you can see in the second to the right hand column, the median for a one bedroom was $3,289 over that time, and for a two-bedroom, 4,298. and by definition of the median, 50% of the housing stock is less expensive than this, and 50% more so, but for simplicity sake, we compared the median worker in each industry to the median rental price. the lack of affordable is most fairly evident in the first two rows of this table, our single earner families. a single worker family would have to make $130,000 to spent
roughly no more than 30% of their income on rent. for two earners, the bottom two rows, affording these amounts is certainly easier but still difficult. so looking at our data set, what can workers in our data set afford? to read this box spot, 20% of workers could afford rent as high as or less than the left-hand side of this box, and 70% of the right-hand side, and you can see somewhere between the 50 and middle 60 percentile can afford the immediate
we're not -- zip codes where ten or more workers reside. we're not showing zip codes with less than those for privacy. as you can see, 59% of workers live in san francisco, but also there's this dispersion pressure rippling out from san francisco. sanitation workers will come on a sunday evening, stay in a hotel and then drive home to be with their families on the weekend, an indication of what this geographic dispersion does for the workers' lives.
thank you very much, and i'll pass this over to peter. >> supervisor mar: thank you so much, tynan. the brief overview to the data analysis, there's a lot more detailed information in the report. and finally, we have peter cohan, the council for community housing organizations, and just wanted to -- yeah, the strongest leaders that we have for many years in our city for housing advocacy and development. yeah, thanks so much, peter. you're on mute. >> chair melgar: we can't hear you, peter.
to identify him through public comment. so peter, you can call the number that is streaming on the screen. that number is 415-655-0001. that way, your number will not show on the screen. i've also e-mailed you the direct conference call. >> chair melgar: what should we do, supervisor mar? it seems like we can't -- oh, he's calling. peter, are you calling?
>> supervisor mar: not very well. >> chair melgar: we could at the beginning, and then, you did something, and it muted you, so can you -- we still cannot hear you. >> here we are. >> chair melgar: thank you. >> as i was saying, it's an embarrassing technical breach. i'll keep this brief. i wanted to thank supervisor mar and melgar for having this hearing. it follows the hearing last week on co-ops as one of several things that we can start doing to create housing opportunities. this makes the case that we have a really wide and expanding number of families to
supervisor mar's earlier point, it doesn't just come from aspiration. we can aspire to house our workers, but the land we need in a very small city, where every square inch is contested and valuable. secondly, we need the resources which started with the city investing and showing the way. and lastly is the programs, the innovative programs that actually can be turned into some operational approaches, and we have a very incredible city staff. we're very lucky to have so many gifted people who work for the city and in the city as advocates and technicians, so i think if we're going to do it anywhere, it's going to happen here.
lastly, i want to say how great it's been to work with the labor committee. we've been colleagues on so many labor issues over the years, but i think we don't need to speak for the labor advocates anymore, nor to leaders. they're able to speak on housing, and they can speak for themselves. and i think that was really our mission was to help folks in the labor committee with what they need and articulate it, and we can be in the background. we'll take any other questions offline, but thanks for having me in the hearing. >> supervisor mar: thank you, peter, yeah, and so yeah, maybe we can just see if there's any questions or comments from the committee members, chair melgar, before we go to comment. i know there's some workers and
advocates that do want to share their perspectives through public comment. >> chair melgar: thank you so much, supervisor mar. i can't wait to hear from folks, and i think it's really appropriate. i just wanted to make a couple of comments, and that is i think it's really important for the workers to be able to live close to where they work, and it's important for our city because, you know, many of our workers, responders and all of that, but i think it's important for our city because they're community members. folks have all sorts of connections to schools, churches, neighborhoods, the ymca, all of those things are super important, but i think it's also important for the
unions to have a, you know, concentration of members, and i think it's important that we foster that relationship that comes from being a union member and being able to have that. i'm looking forward to coming up with more tools. i know that the years that i spent working at the mayor's office of housing, it was frustrating that we had just a couple options for folks, and now that i'm a supervisor for district 7, i am frustrated at what the options are for low and moderate housing incomes are for people.
it's important that we provide options, especially for families and workers who are contributing to the life of our city. so i'm excited that we're having this conversation and look forward to working with labor both in organizing but also to help you put your money where your mouth is. it's a union intensive project that's been important for affordable housing. so thank you very much, supervisor mar, for your leadership and presenters. i don't know if any of my colleagues have any questions or comments. supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: well, i do, but i think i'll wait until after public comment. thank you, supervisor mar, and everyone involved in this report. appreciate it.
>> chair melgar: let's go to public comment. >> clerk: thank you. matthew from d.t. is supporting us this evening, and he's checking to see how many callers we have in the queue. so if you have not already done so, press star, three to enter the queue. for those who have already done so, please continue to wait, and the system will indicate you have been unmuted. so we have 12 listeners and seven in the queue. matthew, if you could unmute the first caller, please. >> supervisor mar: madam clerk, just a minute. i see john doherty from ibew has joined us. john, are you going to speak during public comment? >> yeah, i'd like to. i don't know what the rules are, but i just texted in --
>> chair melgar: it's okay. mr. doherty, why don't you go ahead and make your public comment and then we'll go to public comment. >> well, thank you, chair melgar. thank you for listening to us on this very important matter. also want to say thank you to peter cohen, connie, and the whole team who put this report together. connie asked me to be a part of this a couple of years ago and it's been an on going research project, and what she stressed to me and i agree, it was important to have a building trades union involved in this discussion. we do build the housing, but also we are consumers of housing just like anyone else.
i don't want to cast aspersions, but we get a lot of grief, and we do make a decent living. if an electrician and a plumber and a firefighter and a nurse are having difficulty affording to live in san francisco, we need to make sure we address that issue. in addition, another reason i was eager to be a part of this, yes, we represent electricians, but this is just one of a broad array of classifications of people that we represent. our members repair the electrical transit vehicles in san francisco, they do the
communications backbone systems and on city properties. we have people that make sure that the runways are safe, so it's not just the electrician working on a construction site, we have a lot of different hats that we wear. we believe that we are essential. we went to work every day where there was work. we had people going to work every day throughout the pandemic. it's not easy, and that's for the group that everybody else says has it made, so i just want to say thank you for taking the time to review this report and thank you also to all involved with bringing this to the forefront, so thank you very much. >> chair melgar: thank you so much, mr. doherty. okay. so we can go to public comment now. thank you, madam clerk.
>> clerk: thank you, madam chair. so we have 15 callers in the queue. if you are one of those that have not moved over, press star, three to enter the queue and listen for the prompt that indicates your line has been unmuted. we will begin with the first caller in the queue. >> [indiscernible] the union that represents hospitality workers, and i want to say thank you so much to [indiscernible] and to jobs for justice and the labor council for putting together this report. as a research person, i live and breathe on data, and it's incredibly important to have access to this kind of data to inform the conversation, and i want to say thank you to the supervisors for having this hearing and having this
discussion. so i want to bring in local 2s perspective. it's one of the locals who was surveyed for this report and some of the perspective of our workers. the economic future of this city depends on a jobs-housing fit, and the market based housing system is failing a growing range of people, so those are incredibly important point that's we hope to address again and again. this is a terrible thing to have somebody living in sacramento and commuting into s.f.o. to work and to set an example for some of them. our workers in particular, median local worker would need
hello, caller. you are on the line. >> hi. this is kim [indiscernible] with the san francisco labor council. thank you, supervisors, for having this important hearing. on behalf of the 100,000 members of the san francisco labor council, we just want to really emphasize how important it is to build for the middle. we've had lots of talks about housing income and market rate, and we know that we're at 97% of a market rate in san
francisco. we're on the edge of having really rich and really poor and not anything in between. that is not a vibrant city, that is not a healthy city, that is a city that's in jeopardy of losing its identity. we know when we have a good mix of folks living in the city, the city functions better, and it's better for visitors, it's better for everyone. so i really want to emphasize how important it is for everyone, working men and women, to live in this city. that is the emphasis of our report. that is the emphasis of what needs to happen in san francisco, san francisco that we have always cherished. san francisco was built by working men and women and they're being pushed out. these are folks with really good jobs who at one point
could afford and buy and live in the city, but they're being pushed out, and we need to revamp the current housing policy so they can live back in the city and come back to the city. >> clerk: thank you so much. >> thank you. >> clerk: so we have ten folks in the queue. let's take the next speaker, matthew. >> hi. this is zachary from young community developers. it's important that the city prioritize housing based on the people that live and work here. our city must focus on housing that people can afford. middle class jobs in san francisco do not equate to
middle class life. it is paramount that we place racial equity at the forefront of our discussion. the economic future of the city depends on the jobs housing fit. if we want our city to rebound from covid and experience a strong return of business, restaurant, hotel sectors, we need affordable housing for our workers. policy exclusions include cooperative housing, union housing, investment trusts, and providing technical and financial assistance to support low and moderate income
homeowners, to expand their buildings. the solution to this problem has and will continue to be affordable housing. thank you. >> clerk: thank you so much. next speaker, please. >> supervisors, we need to focus on the empirical data. in san francisco today, we've got over 50,000 homes that are vacant, and over 120,000 market units that are vacant. and when i used to come to city hall and the developers would bring all the union members, and they would say, we want housing, and i heard those
remarks for over 25 years. so what have you supervisors done? have you studied your ten-year report on housing? have you gone by the federal building and seen the number of homeless people lying on the street there, dying slowly, doing drugs? have you seen the state of our city, how filthy it is, and have you -- are you paying attention to the 30,000 homes proposed to be build that's prone to liquefaction and contamination, and here, you have people talking in generalities. you all don't have the balls to provide housing. all these things that i hear, i participated -- what you are doing? you are just kicking the can
point. i've been here 18 years, but that's the only reason that i've been able to raise my two teenage boys on the salary that i make, and i can bike to work because i work at mission bay and i bike from hunters point to mission bay. so like i said, i'm blessed. but recently, there was a situation where -- a personal situation that threatened my housing, and i looked into rents and -- affordable rents, and like somebody said earlier,
a one bedroom at 2289, and a two-bedroom, we were terrified that we would go into a shelter if we were evicted, and the issue is still pending. so like i said, just nowhere -- at no time in my life have i seen the disparity that i see in the city today. driving up and down -- >> clerk: thank you so much. >> okay. thank you for your time. >> clerk: next speaker, please. we have 14 listeners with nine in queue. >> thank you, supervisors. i'm [indiscernible] with public policy and community organizing, an seiu 1021 member and formerly homeless and affordable housing member.
the people i work with are always asking why we are building a supply of more empty office buildings and luxury investment spaces when the demand is clearly deeply affordable housing. some co-workers commute from suburbia because they cannot afford to be san franciscans but they are working for san franciscans. >> clerk: thank you so much for your comments, next speaker,
please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is david sobel. i'm the executive director of the san francisco housing development corporation, a 33-year-old nonprofit community based organization in bayview-hunters point. i want to thank supervisors mar and melgar and preston and everybody who worked on this report. i am admittedly both disheartened by the report and inspired by the report at the same time. disheartened because obviously it's not wonderful to read about how many workers across sectors in our city can't afford to actually reside in the place that they work with only 7% of the workers who can
see this thinking, happening at sfhdc -- >> clerk: thank you so much. >> -- for providing affordable -- >> clerk: thank you so much, mr. tilson. next caller, please. >> thank you. i'm katie [indiscernible] the executive director for tndc. housing our workers means affordable housing, and we need a housing system that's based on the needs of the people that live and work here. affordability is really key, and we need to focus on housing that workers can afford.
woir neighborhoods, businesses, restaurants, hotels, schools, and health care, they need stable housing available here to support, attract, and retain workers that are here. our environment also depends on locating housing near workplaces and we need additive solutions and expanding funding and programs to serve the full range of the city's workforce. as i know clearly from the time i spent out working in the sunset, working with supervisor mar and in the richmond with
supervisor chan and really throughout the city. we know that there is a big need for housing at an income level that is not supported by the low-income housing tax program and most of the programs, and it would be great that if tndc and other housing developers -- we would love to are able to meet that funding. i'm grateful for the -- >> clerk: your time has elapsed. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. thanks for the report. this is georgia schiutish. i want to talk about a small arcane piece of the speculation project. i wrote a letter about this planning code 317 demo calcs and sent five photos an an
explanation. it shows one project approved as an alteration and there were at least five other alterations approved in noe valley flipped for $3.5 per house, totaling over $15 million total. these demo calcs were not set in stone. they can be adjusted by the planning commission. if the value's enumerated need to be strengthened to better prevent housing from veering into a demolition, that was the intent. however, the demo calcs have not been adjusted and should be adjusted and they're not
stringent enough. it's something that could easily be done by the commission to stop speculation. right now, the current demo calcs are a loophole to allow homeowners to demolish and impact price and all that stuff that you know about. so if the planning commission does not adjust the demo calcs, perhaps the committee can consider the file 20052 that was tabled last year. thank you so much. take care, and thank you so much for this very, very important hearing. >> clerk: thank you so much, next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. this is john avalos with the national union of health care workers. i had the honor of working
as a solution for housing working class for the city. the question is whether policymakers will continue down the failed path of prioritizing trickle do you know howsing or whether we as city will at long last listen to affordable housing, listen to workers, voters and do something different. that is scale up our efforts to preserve, protect and produce affordable housing. instead of exacerbating the affordability crisis. we have heard the details and urge folks to reads the whole report. it is a great and thorough report. only 7% of san francisco workers can afford median rent. union workers are cost burdened. so many of their hard fought
wage gains flowing not to bank accounts and family, but to landlords and lender. when workers are commuting hours to find housing for their families. 40% of the work force driven from the city, i see this report as a wake-up call. i think it is immensely helpful at policy level. it puts housing affordability with detailed stories. some called in and others whose stories are in the report. all types of workers, all income level drug struggling to -- struggling to afford a roof over their head. every day san franciscans who need help to see a future in the
city they helped create. we hear we are going to save san francisco through a particular initiative. this makes it clear exactly who we are talking about when we talk about the soul of the city. you know, in addition, i think the report provides crucial data to back up the call to action. the median income, some of the presentations market rate rent, ownership prices, concentrations of workers. it paints a compelling picture the private market has not and will not serve the needs of our working class. i want to put myself on record and really in full agreement with the conclusion of this report. the need to focus on the three
ps. protection, preservation and affordable housing production. you know, others have spoken on the resident protection issue, gentrification. in my working life trying to protect folks from displacement. we talked about the desperate need for affordable housing production. what is left out of the discussions that i want to elevate is the preservation issue. you know, it is all the more crucial, i think, right now in our recovery period. we are now hearing about the major spike in multi-family buildings put on the private market with covid notices
issues. what we are told by those who can help save and preserve the buildings of affordable housing. there are insufficient funds for nonprofit providers to acquire he's buildings. this is reflected in the report where the authors note that quote in san francisco where the rich ecosystem the main constraint to scaling up preservation is funding. i want to remind folks, i have put forth the emergency housing acquisition program to address this very need. that is what they propose to allocate $64 million, half of what they are bringing in this fiscal year to take the properties off the private
market. we saw the great recession in 2008-2009. we can take a step to make tangible progress toward preserving housing for the work force bypassing the emergency housing acquisition program. that will be heard next week on wednesday. more generally, and i will wrap up and thank you for the time, but more generally, i do want to note while it becomes common for all of us to hear calls for housing at all level, i think it is worth asking how to get there. you know, the rich get market rate housing in san francisco. the market serves rich folks well with many units that are there.
federal and state programs target those with low incomes. all those these programs don't give enough funds that have to be supplemented by local dollars. it is social housing that offers the commission for housing all workers including moderate wageworkers. we need to commit urgency. because of the wisdom of the voters in passing prop 5, we have an annual source of funds more flexible than a lot of these federal and state dollars. we need to allocate them for the intended pump to do so every year between 150 to $200 million per year. and we also fight for other funds. finally, the report says and thank you for your work and presentation that housing our workers is really a matter of
racial justice. our history when it comes to houses is clearly one of severe racial injustice with large scale displacement of communities of color across san francisco. we need to change course. i want to quote one other thing from the report. we need a housing system that supports working families and provides decent stable and safe affordable housing for the people who commit themselves each day to ensure the city keeps running. that is our challenge. this report is a very important step toward making that a reality. thank you supervisor mar and the advocacy community for helping us and the public understand what it will take to house our workers and for laying out what does and does not work to achieve that goal. thank you.
>> supervisor mar. >> thank you, chair melgar. thank you supervisor preston for those very strong and compelling reaction to the report. i concur with all of your points. i did want to ask the report coauthors for a very brief summary of the solution section in the report. they weren't able to touch on that in their presentation. some of the solutions that came up in public comment. i appreciate those.
>> we can't hear you. >> thank you for telling me you muted me. i thought i was going crazy. i will continue to do my phone call voice. it is now quite familiar. we use that purposely so that this is something that we can all grasp. it is the so-called three peaks. everybody has said no silver bullet to solving housing
affordability crisis nor production alone. supply is one part. three p's protect from eviction. a number of recommendations in this report. >> for the stories we herd. not everybody is a tenant. there are homeowners at risk of being displaced. the protection recommendations here started with keeping people in homes as first choice. then to the second of p. preserving existing housing supply. we have a first write to purchase policy in san francisco. it is the only city in california with one on the books that is effective. it is raised as could it be for a single family home because we
have the risk of displacement of some folks from existing single family homes, renters or low income homeowners. look at right to purchase policy and see how flexible to make it as well as infusing more money to preservation work as you might have heard earlier. very little money available for preservation and wonderful opportunities and people seriously at risk of eviction that we can't help because there is no real funding. the housing preservation is key piece of it. third p is production or simply increasing housing supply which tends to get most of the attention. to the point earlier from supervisor mar you need to secure land first. obviously the public land is easiest and most important to secure. proactively getting private land as it is available. the city is never great at land
banking to proactively securing private sites on the market to build affordable housing. it is something we recommend. flexible sources of financing. great hope that the labor community now being really invested in the housing solution might marshall some of the pension funding sources as well as us collecttively finding more public funding. funding from public sources is rigid. you have to follow under these specific kind of peg holes. we are hopeful that prop i funding in the housing stability fund will be one way to invest in the wider more innovative range of housing solutions including cooperative raised. lastly, suggestions on how to really focus on home ownership opportunities. we heard it loud and clear from a lot of folks through interviews and leaders that a
lot of folks works households are renters. they do aspire for home ownership with the solid wages. home ownership opportunities are declining so a lot more creativity in bmr home owner ship, down payment assistance and innovative ideas like cooperatives. lastly what came out strongly was the size of units. one thing you heard 40% of working households or workers and families don't live in city. part of that is affordability and partly because the type of housing that folks would like isn't available. building a bunch of studios and one bedrooms might be fine for younger workers. a lot of working families want to grow and they can't get family sized housing so they are compelled to move to suburbs. we have to get serious about
requiring and incentivizing two and three bedroom units to encourage family growth. that is the three-piece framework. >> thank you, peter and to all presenters for your work on this tremendously important report. really, thanks to everyone that called in during public comment. fostering public discussion to listen to your storys part of understanding the real unmet housing needs of the work force and allows decision-makers to consider housing and lending policies more strategic and impact full to address the housing affordability crisis. as peter and others touched on it is clear we need added solutions to expanding who is served by affordable and stable housing to the full range of the
work force without leaving low to middle income workers behind. there are powerful forces reducing the housing crisis to simplistic problem of supply and demand. workers on the ground and people we have heard from today know better. the communities represented in the cities low and moderate wage work force update red lining, urban renewal and denied access to equity. revering this cannot be done by relying on a marketed based system. it is failing a growing range of people especially essential work force. as demonstrated that peter summarized. there needs to be a
multi-approach. thank you, supervisor preston for your leadership with prop i and this proposal to replenish our funds for acquisition. thank you, supervisor melgar for leadership on housing inner ever novation and supervisor suppressston for protect rent controlled housing in the city. we need to meet the housing needs, a framework that reduces speculation and allows families and communities to be stable now and to the future. a framework for the reality of climate change and to reduce regional segregation and
extended commute especially of most vulnerable workers. colleagues, i would like to follow up on the important analysis of the report with another hearing or follow up hearing with planning department including discussion on jobs having the report that was recently released by planning department and also important policy processes currently underway, especially housing element update. in that hearing i would like to revisit policy recommendations discussed today and how they may be incorporated in the planning and development decision. i would like to request the committee to continue the hearing today. thanks again, chair melgar for this opportunity and your cosponsorship and leadership. >> thank you, supervisor mar for everything you have just said and for your report. i make a motion that we continue
to the call of the chair and we come back and have the conversation with the staff to move this forward. can you call that please, madam clerk. >> on the motion to continue to the call of the chair. (roll call). >> you have three ayes. >> any more business for the committee, madam clerk. >> that completes the business for this evening. >> thank you. our meeting is adjourned.
live and work we bring shine won our city department and the people making them happy what happened next sf oh, san francisco known for it's looks at and history and beauty this place arts has it all but it's city government is pretty unique in fact, san francisco city departments are filled with truly initiative programming that turns this way our goal is to create programs that are easily digestable and easy to follow so that our resident can participate in healing the planet with the new take dial initiative they're getting close
to zero waste we 2020 and today san francisco is diverting land filled and while those numbers are imperfect not enough. >> we're sending over 4 hundred thousand tons of waste to the landfill and over the 4 hundred tons 10 thousands are textile and unwanted listen ones doesn't have to be find in the trash. >> i could has are the ones creating the partnerships with the rail kwloth stores putting an in store collection box near the checks stand so customers can bring their used clothes to the store and deposit off. >> textile will be accessible
in buildings thought the city and we have goodwill a grant for them to design a textile box especially for families. >> goodwill the well-known store has been making great strides. >> we grateful to give the items to goodwill it comes from us selling those items in our stores with you that process helps to divert things it from local landfills if the san francisco area. >> and the textile box will take it one step further helping 1230 get to zero waste. >> it brings the donation opportunity to the donor making that as convenient as possible it is one of the solutions to make sure we're capturing all the value in the