it is sort of a generic gift card or incentive card. supervisor maxwell: thank you. any further comments from colleagues or questions? seeing none, any public comment on this item? >> thank you very much. espinola jackson from bay view hunter's point. i would like to agree with supervisor mar. when we had solar put on our church, they worked in training two days, and then they worked four days putting everything on top of the roof. these young people, the people that are there, they don't even have lunch money. what we did, the church, we had to feed those people because they were there working free. i think there should be a stipend for these people at least to eat while they are in training and have bus fare to

go back and forth for the training. i am not saying how much that stipend should be, but i think it would be very good for the young people. some people are saying i am not going to do this for free. they don't know if they are going to get a job later on after the program is over with a contractor. so i think it would behoove you all if you talked about having a stipend for these young people. they definitely need it. thank you. >> any further public comment? seeing none, would you speak to that, please, the transportation part? >> absolutely. i apologize, i am not familiar with exactly the program that this woman was kevin garnet to, but i would be happy to chat with her afterward as well. we do have need for additional services, support services like transportation and food vouchers and, like that. it is one of the things that is

more challenging to fund through some of our federal sources. actually, the funds that the board is looking at today do provide some of those more flexible dollars. i would be happy to speak to thatoff line as well. >> what you are saying is you would be able to use some of that money for food vouchers and transportation? >> absolutely. >> i agree. i have been working on that for a long time. i think we should provide something to people. it is a lot of time out of your life, and you are not getting anything for it. great. thank you. did i close public comment? let me close public comment at this point. supervisor mar? >> mrs. wallace, i had a question about the first grant of $750,000 from lowe's. it looks like it is sort of transferring from the previous -- let me try to think about

this. was this a previous enrichment through home depot and now threw lowe's? >> right. >> on the grant, i see their act be c.e.o. is cedina holmes. there were some concerns when the previous director, derrick tolliver, was let go abruptly. what is the status of that? >> i am not able to speak to that, only in general. i know they are searching for a new executive director. i can speak to this grant, however. their spending rate and status has remained very consistent, inline with their performance. in fact, as they have moved through this process, working

with lowe's -- as you said, it previously was an agreement with home depot -- that y.c.d. had that, and it was transferred to lowe's as the facility actually changed. they have actually exceeded their hiring goals with regard to retail employment both for folks in the main targeted neighborhood as well as the surrounding neighborhoods. i know they are actively working on seeking new leadership. supervisor maxwell: thank you very much. anyway, as you heard, they are doing that. thank you for that. any further public comment on this? thank you. then, colleagues, items one through four as a committee report without objection. so moved. thank you. item number five, please? >> item number five, resolution authorizing the port commission to accept and expend a grant

for $1 million to assist if a shoreside power facility. >> i can speak to that. there has been a discussion for some time now about the development of a new cruise ship terminal at pier 27. part of that development would involve the installation of a shoreside power facility so that we can have green and clean power to help power up the crudes ships that are going through that. this is a resolution that would authorize our port commission to accept and expend a grant from our federal e.p.a. of $1 million under the emissions reduction act. it is something i strongly support. supervisor maxwell: thank you. public comment on this item? do you have any questions for him on this item? >> i was just going to say it looks like this is $1.9 million

from the air quality management ten, $1 million from e.p.a., another from the port. >> yes. supervisor maxwell: public comment on this item. seeing none, then public comment is closed. colleagues, without objection? so moved. item number six. >> madam chair, can we refer to the committee report? maxwell yes. >> item number six, ordinance designating the redwood tree at 46 stillings avenue as. >> we are exciting that the property owner is here today to talk about the tree as well as

another from the department of environment, who is the urban force coordinator, who can provide you some background on how we got here today and pictures of the tree. thank you very much. supervisor maxwell: bring the tree on. >> good afternoon. i have a picture of the tree right here. thanks for hearing this legislation before you today. i staff the forestry council as mentioned. i want to thank you for hearing this legislation. the urban forestry council has determine that the tree meets the landmark process. it is a very beautiful tee. it has great form, healthy and growing well in the place where it is located. supervisor maxwell: where is it located? >> as a redwood tree located at

46 stillings. supervisor maxwell: in what district? >> that one is in district 8. supervisor dufty's district. it is providing some significant environmental benefits to the city and neighborhood where it is located, and the urban council strongly supports the tree becoming a landmark and urges the adopt it. supervisor maxwell: the tree is in someone's backyard? >> yes. the home owner is here to speak. she nominated the tree. supervisor maxwell: let her speak to the tree. >> supervisors, it is great to see all of you again. i am a native san francisco resident, second generation. i have lived in glen park for 52 years. we bought our house there when

my daughter was about to be born, sarah, who is also going to speak if there is time. i've always wanted to have the tree landmarked, and i didn't do it. i finally decided i am getting older. my daughter is going to live in that house. it's a beautiful tree. i have a great garden. my son is a gardener and landscaper. so i just ask for your support. it is a beautiful tree. it will be going for me, the neighborhood and the city, and it would be a wonderful honor to give the tree. supervisor maxwell: thank you. any more public comment on this item? >> one more thing to show you. it wasn't submitted in the pictureses, but it may be hard to see from here -- supervisor maxwell: put it there on the screen. ma'am, help her. >> this is a picture of my granddaughter who is older now, standing on my deck.

supervisor maxwell: would somebody save that picture, please? take the picture, put it back where it was. >> do we have an overhead. >> sftv, if you could show the projector? supervisor maxwell: it will come up in one second. we have to tell the folks downstairs to show the picture, and come up. >> there is rachel blowing bubbles under my tree. she spoke at the first urban forestry meeting and said she has had birthday parties under that tree, and played under that tree. anyway, i thought it was such a great picture, i wanted to share it with you. supervisor maxwell: thank you. that is what this is all about.

>> thank you. supervisor maxwell: why don't you come up next? >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am sarah, rube stein thomas. my mother said most of what i would have said. i think the other thing that i noticeded in the papers that you have in the file is the tree is unique in a backyard setting. it is veble -- visible from other areas. my mother has in some ways compromising the land value by designating the tree a landmark. it's a win-win for the city. i heard a program on the radio that talked about the impact of trees in an urban setting on

young, low income kids and just the general population and the sort of soothing effect that the greening of a city can have on its population. we have always lived in the city and are city slickers through and through. but living in a green environment does bring a little bit of the country to all of us. i appreciate your intelligence, and any questions you have, direct them at us. supervisor maxwell: thank you all for bringing it to us. we appreciate your commitment. any further public comment on this item? please come forward. >> good afternoon, my name is terry mill, and i am a member of the urban forestry council. we had a meeting about this several weeks ago, and the council has endorsed this for a landmark tree. i would just like to say to the supervisors now i know that supervisor maxwell has several

landmark trees in her district, but i would invite all the supervisors. we need more. this is only the 22nd landmark designation after 25 or 30 years. we could should use a lot more in other districts. thank you very much. supervisor maxwell: thank you. >> walter paulson. ♪ he was born in the summer of the city-city year commissioner newlin: coming home to a play he had never been before commissioner newlin: he left yesterday, and you saw the trees commissioner newlin: and you might say he was born again commissioner newlin: you might say he found a tree for every door. ♪ and the city on high. and i know you would be so glad

to see it go high. and i know he would be a poor guy if he never saw a tree grow high. see the trees all-around in the city. see the trees around and it sure looked pretty ♪ maxwell shrank you. any further public comment. seeing none, public comment is closed. well move this forth. supervisor mar? supervisor mar: i was just going to ask are different species of redwood trees rare? i like the redwood growth, but are they rare, and are they looked at with more attention than other trees? >> redwood aren't necessarily rare in san francisco. there are some pockets of them

in the park areas. they are definitely not common for backyard areas in san francisco. they are big. >> and her tree can be seen from the street. >> yes. supervisor mar: how old do you think the tree is? >> it is hard to say. the tree is not going to grow as tall as they might grow in the woods because it is starting alone. the trees protect each other from the wind. a building is protecting this tree from the wind, and vice versa, but that is going to keep the tree from growing much higher than the build. it is hard to tell without doing a coring sample, and we don't want to do that. supervisor mar: thank you supervisor maxwell: did i close public comment -- >> in response to his question. i am 51. the trees were large when i was a kid.

so they are at least 51 years old. in terms of the rarity, i will note from the urban forestry council, and it has been indicated it is rare for a redwood tree of that size to be in a backyard setting in the city, for what it's worth. supervisor maxwell: let me close public comment. colleagues, without objection, we will move this forward. item number seven? >> ordinance approving exceptions to requirements of the seismic safety loan program to allow for a $15 million loan to the arlington residents at 480 ellis street. supervisor maxwell: staff? >> good afternoon, chair

maxwell and supervisors. joel lip ski from the mayor's office of housing. in this item we are asking for an exception to the existing requirement associated with the seismic safety loan program to relieve one project of the requirement to mean the loan to value ratio of 95%. the current requirement indicates that in order to make a loan to this building, we would not be permitted to provide any more than what would bring all of the loans on the building to a level of 95% of its appraised value. we are asking for an exception to that because under the current circumstances, this doesn't really apply either to this type of project or to the type of lopez that we would be making. there is some existing debt on the building, but there is committed dead from the state and some stimulus funds that

have been awarded the project through the state tax credit allocation committee. if you add them all up, that would amount to 235% of the appraised value, rather than 95%. our loan for 15 would raise that to 266%. there are two reasons why a and a loan like we intend to make, why the loan to value ratio is not really a useful tool. essentially, loan to value ratio is something that a lender would use to assess the rivercat -- risk. in the event of a default, the risk of losing their money because the building may not be worth enough to resell it and recoup the money for the money.

this wouldn't work for this project, and this is the case for all housing in the city. first off, the existing loans, and the loans from the state, as well as our loan, we have some money on the property already. all of them come with deed restrictions that survive the payment of the loan, suppressing the income to the building and making it affordable. particularly in a building like this. the targeted income for the people who have lived there is extremely low income. solo that the long-term plan would be to provide subsidies through the department of public health, who would be making refrls to this building. the second reason that it doesn't really work is that the value in this case that we need to assess is not so much its monetary value on the market, but its value as a public benefit as affordable housing

for folks who are at high risk of homelessness or homeless. the regulars provide something. that would be to look at the entire portfolio of the borrower, in this case, mercy housing of california, and we looked at that. but mercy's portfolio itself is so deeply affordable, and it has so much soft debt on it already that we couldn't get there by going that direction. we also looked at reducing the scope to a much lower level to again try to meet this requirement. we weren't going to be able to do that and still obtain the state and tax credit money. if they come in, they put the building way over the 95% ratio. looking at this smaller scope

proved to not be feasible. the building is fairly old. it has been owned by the st. vincent paul society for a long time. we have a plan to bring it back into full service with long-term assistance from the public health department. the smaller scope we could have done would only prolong its life four or five years. the basic systems, in addition to seismic upgrade, it needs new plumbing and ventilation services. it is an old style who tell with bathrooms down the hall for most of the units, which has proven to be a less stable environment for the population we are trying to serve than one where folks have their own bathroom and acked to cooking. for these reasons we are asking specifically for an exception for the arlington hotel of this

specific requirement. in our mind, the risk to be assessed is whether or not we will be able to count on it fulfilling its public purpose for the length of time we would be making this loan. it would be a 55-year deferred payment loan like all of our own loans. the question to ask would be whether mers could, with the assistance we put in place for operating costs, would they be able to do that. they have a very strong track record of serving this population. in any event, if they for some reason went out of business or were able to continue to serve the population we have in mind, we have in our loan documents the right to replace with with another service provider and owner. for these reasons, we ask your approval on this ordinance. we have someone from housing here, and someone from m.o.h.

to talk more specifically about the project itself if you want to hear that. supervisor maxwell: colleagues, would you like to hear that, or any more comments or questions? i think we are ok. let's open this up to public comment. >> walter paulson. i hope you fix this building. in case the earth moves under our feet. and the ski tumbling down. i want you to fix it up all-around. because buildings break down, and we need it fixed. and i hope you do it quick. i feel the earth move under my feet. >> i feel the sky tumbling down. fix it up all-around. supervisor maxwell: thank you. any further public comment? seeing none, then public

comment is closed. colleagues, then without objection, we will move this forward with recommendation. so moved. madam clerk, item number eight? >> resolution establishing an area plan infrastructure committee to supervise a consultant study regarding infrastructure finance districts. >> colleagues, this is the next step in an important conversation that we started in the context of our planning work for the eastern neighborhood. it started with the discussion that the cost of all neighborhood improvements in our plan areas would exceed revenues generated. we need to be focused and creative in identifying additional financial tools to meet our objectives. i want to thank everyone for their hard work to get to this point. it is now time to broaden our discussion to cover all the adopted plan areas in the city,

and i look forward to a more detailed exploration of the infrastructure finance district idea. i would also like to ask for an amendment of the whole. i would offer it -- which would add a more robust description of the needs, analysis and back ground for the market, octavia area. >> thank you, chair. supervisors, in your packet you have a resolution from the planning commission. they did consider this draft resolution as well as another introduced by the mayor. this one, as supervisor maxwell said, discusseses facilities

districts. the planning commission did recommend that you approve it, but they wanted you to take special consideration to two issues. first, they wanted the board or other decision-makers to seek additional funding to extend this pilot program to all the eastern neighborhoods. in addition to the pilot. f.d. resolution proposed, it is important this knee committee be tasked with the development of eafer i.f.d. for the neighborhoods area. funding will be identified in the short term by the committee. this neighborhood has existing forecast deficit, and the city could better address this by establishing an i.f.d. in this area. the department continues to look for grant funding for such a study, but we encourage you to keep this need in mind if you have access to any other funds. the second issue they wanted to draw your attention was to

ensure the committee studies the long-term effect on the general fund. i didn't really describe what the infrastructure district does, but for those of you who are familiar with re-development law. the i.f.c. allows us to capture a portion of the property tax. as property values rise, that increment of rise is captured for the district. i wanted to ensure that as we capture this new increase in property values for the benefit of a specific limited geographic area, be aware that necessarily diverts funding from the city an general fund. a portion of this new commitment is made possible by the zoning changes in the eastern district areas, but only a portion of the property tax revenues should be diverted to the area plan needs. this would enable continued

money to the general if you said to ensure city-wide services. the commission recommended this committee study the effects on the general fund revenues and to ensure the city as a whole maintains a well-funded base. supervisor maxwell: is there anything in the resolution that would prohibit that? do we need to call it out specifically? i thought in some ways when we said it is now time to broaden our discussion to cover all the plan areas in the city and look forward to a more detailed exploration of the finance district, that that would go a lock long way to covering those issues? >> it would be. that would be a nice resolved

clause or a whereas clause, whatever your preference may be, but encouraging the committee to keep in mind the impacts of this diversion of fund to this specific geographic area. that would be part of their study. they are tasked with studying those sorts of issues, and that would be important to call that out. supervisor maxwell: city attorney, would there be a problem in adding that? so could you give us some wording on that, and we could add that? gnawed gnawed supervisor maxwell: ok, d [inaudible] supervisor maxwell: ok, perfect. colleagues, i would like to open this up to public comment if you have no questions or comments? public comment then on this issue. jamie whitaker? one card. one card. >> good afternoon supervisors. >> good afternoon supervisors.