people at risk of taking their own lives, due to the despair and the displacement and this is bad, and this is bad for san francisco, and this is bad for neighborhoods and it is bad for human beings, and i want to say here, that i am also a real estate professional. every week i have clients come to me to ask who they can call to solve their problems, i direct them to the same situations that i explored for myself and sometimes, they have the out come, and often there is not, and it is like everyone is waiting for the problems to go away, is that what you are doing and what we are doing? and the kind of city that we want to live in? the city where 39 percent of the condos are owned as (inaudible) by foreign entities and by the 1 percent, if you had the opportunity to help, why wouldn't you? i respectfully ask that you support the program, thank you.

>> number one i thank your mayor's office was made and the comments about the people worried about eminent domain and then it was expressed and the people with the fear of the domain but i want to make it clear that the people stay in their homes the whole time and it is the mortgages and so that needs to be set, over and over again and the mortgages that are acquired. >> and it is also voluntary. >> yeah, totally. and also, working on it and i think that there was an expression about how do we know that the home owner is going to pay with the new loan? or it is going to work out, but we get everything worked out ahead of time, the qualifications and etc., before the acquisition of the mortgage and everything from the new loan is set up ahead of time and the qualifications of the home owner and all.

>> it is pls loans and on that point, someone talked about modification and a couple of your speakers and the speakers that you had where were extremely, ill eloquent. and they had the wrong information and they were stating that the modifications have already occurred, for some of these loans, and well, and they have the years to come and this is not going to solve the problem, and... >> and if i may reinforce that point. >> yeah. >> i have had a loan

modification myself, and it extends the loan for many more years, which i think that it is commonly done but the lower interest rate is brought back up, and my commitment to change and if you want to pay for my mortgage. >> and when you are older and you are on a fixed income and people are not, are going to have to have these huge, you know... >> and that is, and would that total modification. >> (inaudible). reduction, exactly. >> and i also wanted to say that the concern about the credit rating and yet it is so out rate yus and i went to dc and i talked with the civil rights lawyers and if they dare, and if wall street and if the banks dare try to limit the credit to home owners in the city, and i assure you, that the civil rights lawyers are going to be all over it. and because, red lining, red lining of neighborhoods is illegal to red line a whole city is even more illegal and that is something that to be afraid of that is turning back the times and or the turning back the time and going back to

say red lining and it is a fear. no we have to stand strong for how far we have come and make sure that we go further and lastly i would say that none of this would be necessary at all, and if the banks would just come to the table. and you know, we have been calling them to come to the table, and there is home owners that are covering and struggling and the people hanging on by the fingernails and they are not able to pay for their kids school supplies and not able to fix the repairs in their homes and some not able to, you know, to pay for meals.

>> a quick questions and just as a follow up and i think that we will learn more of the city next week and next tuesday and we will have a session and more information. and but someone mentioned that whoever it was and forgive me for not understanding the political structure in richmond or where you are in the electoral process and that there are there are all candidates running for mayor are opposed to this. >> and actually that is not true, and one of the candidates for mayor is a long time richmond council member who does not support this program and he has been known not to support anything progressive in the city. and the other one, did or does support this and he has knows that it has stagnated and we are looking for this and he is kind of like i don't think that he basically said, we don't know where it is at and it is

not front and center and he is a resident and obviously to run for mayor and he has not played a strong role in the richmond politics and i don't know why and what his position is and why. but the fact of the matter is that the local elected officials, and the nation over, and i am on a local, and i am on a national board with supervisor avalos called local progress, and there are local officials and we have a membership of 300 and i think, i am sorry. >> supervisor mar is also on t >> yeah, so the people are bringing this to their and to the attention of their whole bodies and trying to convince the other council members and their bodies and i think that it was mentioned that newark is moving forward and they are very clear and they grabbed on to and they are moving forward. >> and that is, and i appreciate all of that. and i guess that my question is more if we look to turn into a

jpa with richmond itself and someone can research this in front of tuesday and if the mayoral candidates and the future, that we need to answer my own questions about and the national movement and we do in the city have to look out for the own interests. >> i can get you a letter of support from the one candidate i think that right now he is just kind of in a place, that he has voted for it every single time, and i think that he would, if he knows that there is a partner coming up, and his optism will change. >> that sounds great, thanks for being here. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we will close public comment? the public comment is now closed and so colleagues, this

resolution is not initiating a program and it is actually allowing the city to go into negotiation to create a program. and it is not a final step and it is actually just really a baby step in creating a jpa. and clearly, the city of richmond as well, has a pathway leading to go on to approve the joining the jpa, and so, we are really just having a discussion more than anything and creating an idea. we need the tools ta we have to address the housing that is home owners who are in under water or have the distressed mortgages and this is a great pathway to do that. >> moeflt of san francisco is not seeing these in the neighborhoods but we have a

concentration of the distressed mortgages that are in the south east and the southern part of san francisco and we know that the economy is physical and we have dips and turns and the dips have happened in the 15 years are pretty deep and the last one was terrible. and that could happen again. and our city is doing a lot of great work to prepare ourselves for what is considered a down turn in the economy and we have created it, and it has about 130, or 140 million dollars in it and we have a new, larger side and a general fund reserve that is about 58 million dollars and we have a rainy day reserve as well and that is actually smaller than those amounts and so we are preparing the city for that economic down turn, why can't we prepare ourselves for the crisis that will be inflicted on many, working class, and middle class, and the people of the home owners in the city and i think that preparing for that future, and in that will be incumbent upon us to do so, and i hope that we can actually take this baby step and come in together and with the idea of

creating a joint powers authority that will create a tool that is certainly not done elsewhere because we are really doing things outside of the box and housed in the traditionally done with the banks and wall street. but the ways that the banks work do not work for us but this is a way that we can actually create some leverage to be able to support these communities that are a vital part of every city, and in the nation, and especially san francisco. and so, where our economy is a regional economy and our issue with the real estate industry is a regional issue and those that losing the housing in here, go to the east bay and a lot in richmond, california and it makes sense that we go into the living in and how to stabilize the home owners in the regional way and so colleagues, i really hope that we can move this forward, and i am okay to move forward without

recommendation, we have a debate to go through and i urge that we will have a motion to move it forward without a recommendation to the full board. >> thank you, supervisor avalos and i will let supervisor mar speak in a second and i am happy to support that motion and i think that i maybe the three of us have more questions and so forth, and look forward to explaining it. and this week on my own and continuing to learn and next week at the full board, but i appreciate that and everyone who calm out today and everything, and so happy to support that motion. >> supervisor mar? >> i appreciate supervisor farrell's effort to move it forward and i would like to move it forward with the recommendation and i would love to hear more dialogue, and information, but, i wanted to say, that the residents from richmond, and san francisco, and oakland, that have spoken today, have made it very clear that this is a resolution that will help san francisco move

towards the additional tools that will help the people who are struggling to stay in our city and being pushed out of our city in many ways and i think that it is an example of the tremendous organizing by ace, and by the other community based organizations not only for the policy on richmond california but also to i am power the people who are facing foreclosures to give them a voice and to build that power so that we make sure that the city is diverse and we maintain the neighborhoods as well. moving forward without recommendation is okay, but this is one tool that will help to maintain the neighborhoods especially the african american and low income, asian pacific islander neighborhoods in the city and i would support the motion but i would hope that it

will be a stronger recommendation with a positive recommendation, but that is my two cents. >> okay. >> but, thank you, supervisor mar. >> and so, we have a motion on the floor. >> what is that? >> can we take supervisor avalos motion without objection? >> okay. >> so moved. >> madam clerk, could you go to item one? resolution approving amendment no. 2 to contract no. apt 591.01, light rail vehicle (lrv) doors and steps reconditioning and systems rehabilitation, between the city and county of san francisco, through the san francisco municipal transportation agency and ansaldobreda, inc., to remove the doors and steps and air supply unit work from the project scope and shift the balance of the money to rehabilitate the trucks of 41 lrv's with three options to rehabilitate the trucks of 24, 24, and 23 lrv's, respectively, if funds become available, for a total contract amount not to exceed $104,263,354 and to extend the term of the

contract to no later than october 31, 2018. >> thank you very much, thank you for being here and waiting, much appreciated. and if you want to go forward. >> supervisors, my name is elson (inaudible) from the sfmta and the item before you is to asking, and it is asking, for the contract with the current contract with (inaudible) and i have a very, very short presentation here to give you a background. and the reason why we are making the change, okay so basically in october of 2009 we awarded a contract, and we have received, and our lrvs and the, and we targeted 6 major for the lrv to be reout dated and on june, 2010, we have, and we had amendment number one to overhaul 34 (inaudible) of the trusts of the lrv. and this item before you is

amendment number two and what we would like to do is to remove the (inaudible) steps and the air supply unit from the regional project, and then, also, offer to (inaudible) requirement and move the (inaudible) and use the money to overhaul the 41 (inaudible) of lrv initially with the options for 71 more and the reason why we are doing this is because... what happened? okay. it is because in the rehab process, and we looked at the effect of the rehabation process in our, and with the, in order in the liability of the lrv and we what we found out is that the steps rehab, and it is increased their liability by 13 percent, and very supply units did not

really improve the reliability, and they increase it by 50 percent and the arctic (inaudible) and they increased it by 76 percent and the (inaudible) and rehab increased it by 75 percent and one of the trusts and received a (inaudible) rehab and increase it by 86 percent, and so basically what we found out from the data and we said, okay, what is the best way to spend our money, and what we said is okay, so since the trucks give us the best bang for the buck and what we should do is move all of that money that we are saving from removing the steps from the project, and put it on the rehab. and so that basically is why we want to modify the contract. and i am available for any questions. >> thank you very much. >> colleagues any questions at this time? >> mr. rose, could we go to

your report? >> yes, on page 2 or page 5 of our report, details the sources of the uses of the request of not-to-exceed the contract increase of 35 million, 535,833, and on page six, we noted that it should evaluate the performance of the rehabilitation of the first 41 light rail vehicles under the proposed second amendment and report back to the board of supervisors before exercising three contract options to rehab tait the additional 71 vehicles. they have the sole authority to exercise the options and we do not believe that should stay in the legislation and so our recommendation on the bottom of page six is that we recommend that you amend the first resolution to reduce the contract not-to-exceed amount, from the interested

not-to-exceed amount of 14263354, to not-to-exceed amount of 74649614, and the state that the three future contract options will require board of supervisor approval prior to the director of transportation, exercising the two option and we recommend that you approve the proposed resolution as amended. >> thank you. >> colleagues any questions >> okay. >> any objections? >> no objections. >> okay. so we will open it up to public comment, anybody wish to comment oit em one? >> seeing none, closed. could i have a motion to accept mr. rose's amendment and then, pass the underlying item as amended? >> so moved. >> motion by supervisor avalos and we can take that without objection. >> and madam clerk, could you call item two?

>>resolution declaring the intent of the city and county of san francisco (city) to reimburse certain expenditures from proceeds of future bonded indebtedness; authorizing the director of the mayor's office of housing and community development (director) to submit an application and related documents to the california debt limit allocation committee (cdlac) to permit the issuance of residential mortgage revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $60,000,000 for 588 mission bay boulevard north (also known as, mission bay south block 7 west); authorizing and directing the director to direct the controller's office to hold in trust an amount not to exceed $100,000 in accordance with cdlac procedures; authorizing the director to certify to cdlac that the city has on deposit the required amount; authorizing the director to pay an amount equal to such deposit to the state of california if the city fails to issue the residential mortgage revenue bonds; approving, for purposes of the internal revenue code of 1986, as amended, the issuance and sale of residential mortgage revenue bonds by the city in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $60,000,000; authorizing and directing the execution of any documents necessary to implement this resolution; and ratifying and approving any action heretofore taken in connection with the project, as defined herein and the application, as defined herein. >> okay. pam >> thanks for being here. >> good afternoon, farrell and supervisors i am pam sim. and a development specialist in the community investment and sometimes i forget, the resolution before you will authorize the application for the bonds to pay for the construction and related to the development costs and associated with the mission bay, south, block 7 west and located at 558, mission bay boulevard north, mission bay block seven partner ss comprised of related companies of california and the chinese tent center and they are the project sponsor, and when completed the block 7 will be a

200 unit development comprised of 71 one bedroom units and 129 two bedrooms, and managers units and they will be targeted to house holds of no more than 60 peshs of the income and 58,258 for a family of four. and mission bay is one of three former redevelopment project areas, and approved to move forward by the state department of finance. these transactions are financing only which do not require the city to pledge the payment of the bonds and anticipate the application to the california debt limit committee on october tenth and if awarded, returned in march of 2015, for the board of supervisors approval to issue. and with construction anticipated to begin shortly there after and the complete construction in early 2017 and we appreciate your support and look forward to seeing you at a ground breaking event. >> thank you, any questions at this time? okay, we no analyst report.

anybody wish to comment in seeing no public comment, closed colleagues could i have a motion to send this item forward and we can take that motion without objection. >> do we have any other business in front of us. >> no, mr. chair. >> thank you, everyone, we are adjourned.

>> hi. welcome to san francisco. stay safe and exploring how you can stay in your home safely after an earthquake. let's look at common earthquake myths. >> we are here at the urban center on mission street in san francisco. we have 3 guest today. we have david constructional engineer and bill harvey. i want to talk about urban myths. what do you think about earthquakes, can you tell if they are coming in advance? >> he's sleeping during those earthquakes? >> have you noticed him take any special? >> no. he sleeps right through them. there is no truth that

i'm aware of with harvey that dogs are aware of an impending earthquake. >> you hear the myth all the time. suppose the dog helps you get up, is it going to help you do something >> i hear they are aware of small vibrations. but yes, i read extensively that dogs cannot realize earthquakes. >> today is a spectacular day in san francisco and sometimes people would say this is earthquake weather. is this earthquake weather? >> no. not that i have heard of. no such thing. >> there is no such thing. >> we are talking about the weather in a daily or weekly cycle. there is no relationship. i have heard it's hot or cold weather or rain.

i'm not sure which is the myth. >> how about time of day? >> yes. it happens when it's least convenient. when it happens people say we were lucky and when they don't. it's terrible timing. it's never a good time for an earthquake. >> but we are going to have one. >> how about the ground swallowing people into the ground? >> like the earth that collapsed? it's not like the tv shows. >> the earth does move and it bumps up and you get a ground fracture but it's not something that opens up and sucks you up

into haddes. >> it's not going anywhere. we are going to have a lot of damage, but this myth that california is going to the ocean is not real. >> southern california is moving north. it's coming up from the south to the north. >> you would have to invest the million year cycle, not weeks or years. maybe millions of years from now, part of los angeles will be in the bay area. >> for better or worse. >> yes. >> this is a tough question. >> those other ones weren't tough. >> this is a really easy challenge. are the smaller ones

less stress? >> yes. the amount released in small earthquakes is that they are so small in you need many of those. >> i think would you probably have to have maybe hundreds of magnitude earthquakes of 4.7. >> so small earthquakes are not making our lives better in the future? >> not anyway that you can count on. >> i have heard that buildings in san francisco are on rollers and isolated? >> it's not true. it's a conventional foundation like almost all the circumstances buildings in san francisco. >> the trans-america was built way before. it's a pretty

conventional foundation design. >> i have heard about this thing called the triangle of life and up you are supposed to go to the edge of your bed to save yourself. is there anything of value to that ? >> yes, if you are in your room. you should drop, cover and hold onto something. if you are in school, same thing, kitchen same thing. if you happen to be in your bed, and you rollover your bed, it's not a bad place to be. >> the reality is when we have a major earthquake the ground shaking so pronounced that you are not going to be able to get up and go anywhere. you are pretty much staying where you are when that earthquake hits. you are not going to be able to stand up and run with gravity. >> you want to get under the

door frame but you are not moving to great distances. >> where can i buy a richter scale? >> mr. richter is selling it. we are going to put a plug in for cold hardware. they are not available. it's a rather complex. >> in fact we don't even use the richter scale anymore. we use a moment magnitude. the richter scale was early technology. >> probably a myth that i hear most often is my building is just fine in the loma prieta earthquake so everything is fine. is that true ? >> loma prieta was different. the ground acceleration here was quite moderate and the duration was moderate. so anyone that believes they

survived a big earthquake and their building has been tested is sadly mistaken. >> we are planning for the bigger earthquake closer to san francisco and a fault totally independent. >> much stronger than the loma prieta earthquake. >> so people who were here in '89 they should say 3 times as strong and twice as long and that will give them more of an occasion of the earthquake we would have. 10 percent isn't really the threshold of damage. when you triple it you cross that line. it's much more damage in earthquake. >> i want to thank you, harvey, thanks pat for roll

call. item no. 1, roll call. president adam. catherine dooley is absent. commissioner mark dwight. here. commissioner white? here. >> commissioner paul sarkissian? >> here. irene yee riley. mr. president you have a quorum. >> great. next item, please. >> next item is general public comment. o