around the mixed income projects, around the broader roll out and all these different areas and those will include the legislation pieces more details on funding and continuing to work with our state and federal government on this problem. >> thank you. i just had within more comment that i'd like to be included. one is the long-term maintenance plan for the affordable development. as you are i'm sure familiar with, specifically in district five under redevelopment, many of the affordable housing developments were created without a clear long term plan of rehab and we've run into a number of problems in terms of being able to properly develop systems by which we could afford to rehab those units or risk some difficulties that

hud -- for example, hud requires that our co-ops maintain at a certain level and when those maintenance needs are not met then hud find them in default, we run into some difficulties and the city gets involved to try to resolve those particular issues, but eventually it costs the city money. i know that's part of the mayor's portfolio, but as well build null it is important that we make sure that there is some clear maintenance component that's a part of maintaining these properties so we build them and because we know we're going to -- just like a house or places where

we are building other properties they're maintained. there's usually an hoa and money invested in maintenance so we're not experiencing some of the situations that we are experiencing now with some of our dilapidated units and some of our public housing developments. i think it's important as we build new and as we look at ways to be creative that we think about long term maintenance because that will save us more money in the long run. secondly, it is important to think outside the box, which it looks like we're doing. i know that our options could be limited in terms of the ability to funds these developments and the subsidies and the tax credits and the creative things we can come up with in order to make a project financially feasible and move it forward in a timely manner but i think

that there's a possibility of partnerships, public, private, in other ways, things we've been doing in order to get, you know, for example the rad program which the jury is still out on whether or not that's going to be really effective, but there are other ways in which we can partner to rebuild or rehab developments. i want us to take those things into consideration and reach out and try to develop those partnerships. a perfect example would be west side courts and the housing dechlts has been adopted by the city as a priority, which i'm happy about, but there were plans to do work on west side court similar to what was done at the north beach public housing development. they have built retail space underneath, there's a trader joes, there's a number of businesses. and then on top

of that there's public housing and it's really been an amazing partnership. the property is well maintained and i think something similar can be done for west side courts. we're looking at rehab, which will force us to wait another 15 years when the property really needs to be torn down and rehabbed now. it's one of the oldest, along with holly court, public housing developments in our city and those are two that should be completely redone. i have a list of the challenges. i know this is a new responsibility of the mayor's office of housing and you all have stepped up to the plate including looking at ways to

increase your capacity in looking at the portfolio to move this schedule forward, but i want to think about creative ways, public private partnerships and things we can do in order to develop new revenue streams that could successfully support not only the rehabbing or the rebuild of these developments, but the long term stability of maintaining these developments into the future. so thank you. >> yeah, absolutely. thank you. thank you both. >> we are going to open this item up to public comment. are there any members of the public who'd like to make public comment at this time, please step forward and you can also line up to my left. >> good morning. i'm happy to be here to witness and document the

wonderful work that my supervisors are doing here. what i question, just like the supervisors, the mayor's tactics, the mayor's people that are involved with the so called working group. now, this working group, as you know, supervisors has been put together a couple years ago. working grum. group. working together for the people of san francisco, all people. but particularly when dealing with the housing authority it deals with, as you know, supervisor, the african american population, it's -- the majority of our people stay in public housing and that's a known fact. we're talking about the history in which we have gone through. now i see the mayor has reached over to a supervisor to ask for sb 1404. look that up. that's where lill is helping

the mayor and hud [inaudible] and the the stress the mental things that we in the community have suffered, supervisor, because not no fault of anybody here, but because of the planning fathers of this so called urban renew al. but i'm here to witness and tell you it is negro or black or african removal. i'm not here to pull a race car, but i'm here to stress to the city and county, that we as african americans are in a state of emergency. not only because my brothers have to hold our hands up for the police. economically health, and in this city and county which mayor knows all about it [inaudible]. >> thank you mr. washington. are there any other members

of the public what'd like to provide public comment at this time? please come forward. >> good morning, congratulations on your recent election. i'm charles, former chair of common cause, but i'm representing myself today and i've used rarely when i could, this opportunity to tell you about a project which is 100% affordable, 100% for profit here in the city and i don't know if either of the supervisors here today have seen the project, but i suggest that you might want to see it. it's an old project, you may already know about it, so pardon my advocacy but if you haven't seen it i suggest you go see it.

it's called yerba buena commons. it's about 280 units of affordable and it was built for profit. the template in the financial package is really impressive so i suggest you might go take a tour of that project because it might give you some ideas on how the private sector can work with the public sector and put such a project together. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public who'd like to provide public comment at this time? seeing none public comment is closed. i want to thank both miss hayward and miss foster for coming here today and providing the update. this hearing was held primarily as i said because the civil grand jury made a recommendation. we, at this time, president tang, i'd like to table this

hearing. however, this does not preclude us from having future hearings about housing and specific relevant things that are important to moving this plan of 30,000 new and rehabbed units forward for our city, so thank you again, and is there a motion to table this hearing? >> i also through the chair just wanted to acknowledge the work from mo hcd staff. i know our office has been working very closely with you and planning to figure out how to better solve the affordability issues especially for middle and moderate income levels and that's something really important to me an our district residents so look forward to continuing that work despite tabling this hearing. with that, i second your motion and -- >> okay without objection, this hearing is tabled. madam clerk, can you call item 2? >> item 2 is on ordinance amending the [inaudible]

received further social securities. >> okay. so i want to open this up for public comment. are there any other members of the public who'd like to make public comment on item 2, please come forward? >> my name is ryan patterson and thank you for the opportunity to speak. this is an interesting proposal today. we're here under fairly unique circumstances where there was perhaps an inadvertent misrepresentation during the passage of the original law last year misrepresentation about what that law contained and the provision is that's issued today is whether people who provide permit consulting services must disclose to the public how much they charge, what their fees are for each

permit. there was a promise to make that right after the law was passed and make sure that the law that was enacted ultimately reflected what everyone at the table understood was going to be the law and in the proposal. so we were looking forward to this coming up today. we were disappointed to hear that it was tabled and really hope and ask you to take it from the table and consider it and pass this ordinance. the disclosures at issue here are harmful. they may cause us

>> i make my business doing

construction work in san francisco. i believe most of the time i'm exempt under the rules, but the rules are not very clear when engineers are providing services so i'm very concerned about having to disclose my competitive advantage as, in most of my clients view me as a contractor, which i'm not. i'm a licensed structural engineer, but i'm going to be asked to disclose my compensation to the public so my clients can look? i'm at a loss what benefit it does. now, also in comment to this, most permit consultants are engineers, contractors, architects. they're not raising hundreds of thousands of dollars. they're in the construction industry. there may be another group of people that i don't see doing something, but i'm basically doing construction and having to disclose what i get paid

so everyone can see it it's kind of an unfair competitive advantage. maybe there should be some rules for lawyers doing this, but most permit consultants are architects or engineers. this is going to harm the industry. thank you, are there any other members of the public. please come forward. >> good day. my name is erik jacob son. i i was involved in the writing of this legislation towards the end. i had a number of conversations with david chiu at lents and his assistant. and i feel that this portion of the legislation was approved in error. we had a number of conversations and we were promised this portion of legislation was going to be removed after it was passed. i was told by the legislative

aid that it was approved in error and there was going to be an effort made to repair this legislation. it now seems that this is being tabled and we're not really being heard out. as it's been said by some of the other people in the community, this hurts our competitive advantage and it basically publicizes to other contractors and people who are exempt from the legislation, what our fees are. it gives them the opportunity to roll our services into their proposals. we provide a variety of services. we do cold consulting. we really provide a description of the process to our clients and often what we charge for those services wouldn't really reflect what it is that we do. we would disclose what our rates are for a specific project and that all appears

to be compensation for permit consulting when really what we're providing is a variety of services. this legislation doesn't take that into account. it was hastily drafted and really doesn't understand what it intends to regulate. i would appreciate it if you'd take that into account and could revisit this at some other time. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public who'd like to provide public comment at this time? >> good morning, my name is [inaudible]. i'm a licensed contractor for 25 years and i do the permit consulting and i don't want my budget to be publicly -- what happened to my privacy. i have -- at the end of the year i pay my taxes.

between a client and me we write the check, i have all my checks deposited. at the end of the year, i have a partner we pay uncle same whatever we have to pay him. this is invasion of privacy for what i do for a living. besides that we have five, six of us over here who have been dealing with this for the past five to seven years. what about these people not involved in this, they have no clue. they're creating a huge chaos in planning department and all kind of things is going to get involved and i don't know where to begin. we need some guidance, we need somebody to tell us what to do, what to write. what do we have to report. how do we ref have to report it? as a contractor do i have to

report a job or do i have to report the owner's income. it's going to be chaos and we appreciate to put this one aside. thank you. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public who'd like to provide public comment can you please line up i was at both

meetings and i wanted to be witness to that. thank you very much. >> are there any other members of the public who'd like to provide pb at this time. seeing none, public comment is closed. supertang. >> just a couple questions. say this legislation was not going to be tabled, it was only going to be addressing the requirement that but all of the other requirements that were put in at the end of june will still stand. >> yes. >> okay. so i mean i hear the public loud and clear and i

definitely defer to the sponsor of this particular legislation on any future conversations you want to have with the community or what you'd like to do in relation to this legislation. >> okay. thank you president tang. i was caught off guard by the number of e-mails i received in opposition to this legislation. as all of you know supervisor chiu is now assemblyman chiu and this is one of the pieces of legislation that he had planned to move forward. it was my understanding that the last line of the legislation was put into the legislation as somewhat of a mistake and this was legislation to correct that mistake. unfortunately i was not

prepared for a lot of the backlash that would come with bringing this legislation forward in order to help assemblyman chiu complete his agenda on the board of supervisors so i had agreed to table it because it wasn't a issue that i was actively engaged in and i didn't feel comfortable fighting for legislation that i was not instrumental in preparing and proposing. and so at this time, and hearing some of the feedback from some of the members here, i'm happy instead of to table it, continue this to the call of the chair in order to develop a more detailed understand and do more outreach to some of those individuals who have concerns about removing that line in the first place and make sure that i understand their concerns and understand the intent, not only of the folks

of assemblyman chiu, but i understand some of the folks that were instrumental in developing this legislation, i want to make sure they're comfortable with this legislation, and it's my understanding that some are not and that's what the problem is. i mean, the fact of the matter is i didn't think that it would be as time consuming and con tro ver ver shl as it was going fox which is why i agreed to take on the responsibility and since it has interfered with me to do my other duties as supervisor, i decided to table it. but at this time i'm willing to continue the item to the call to chair in order to invest some more time into making a decision as to believe it whether or not we

should move forward with the legislation and we will probably not bring this item back to gao until sometime in january. should we specify a date, madam clerk? >> you can specify or continue to the call of the chair and bring it forward. >> okay. president chiu, do you have any recommendations? >> i would just say that if we continue to call the chair without date specified there will be noticing requirements when it comes up but i think it gives your office or whor else is involved in the conversations the ability to be flexible with timing in terms of negotiation. >> with that, i move to continue this item to the call of the chair. without objection this item is moved to the call of the chair. madam clerk can you call item 3. >> item 3 [inaudible]

required to provide a response on the implementationings contained in the 13 #14shgs civil grand jury report entitled rising sea levels at our doorsteps. >> we have a number of folks here to talk about that item. mr. frank [inaudible]. >> from the mayor's office. >> oh, okay. >> we also have here and a number of other city staff department staff. >> can you say your name gej? again? >> roger kim. >> i don't know why i have you on my list. >> we have some folks who weren't able to make it because of weather. i'm stepping in to make a quick presentation. good afternoon. our office has been coordinating in response to this civil grand jury report, but also work around the city on sea level rise. so just wanted to give you a quick update on where we're at.

i know our office submitted written comments back to you so just want to spend a few minutes. and i also have colleagues here from capital planning committee, the port, the city engineer and the department of environment to answer any questions. so first of all, i'm happy to report that after the mayor asked the city to develop guidelines for how we're going to be addressing sea level rise that the city capital planning committee has adopted our guidance for incorporated sea level rise into capital planning into san francisco and this is a plan to assess vulnerability, assess risk, measures of adaptation, measures of moving forward and they were recommending that those implementations have been implemented and that's 1a and b. with respect to the recommendation that the planning code should be

amended to show areas that are at most risk to sea level rise, as we mentioned in our response, the port and the pec have already published maps depicting these areas along the bay and ocean shoreline, showing what the bay and zone could be that are vulnerable to future flooding. these maps have been incorporated by the planning department's gis system and [inaudible] to sea level rise and so we don't think that amending the planning code to include these maps is not necessary and that amendment to the planning code to prohibit development at this point are not warranted either. with respect to recommendation 3 with respect to the port building code, i want to report that we are continuing to work on this. the city planning department is seeking additional funding right now to add sea level

rise add da, dapation praning to its work program so we expect to come back in 2015 with more information on our path forward. that also applied to recommendation 12b, which recommends creating a local working group of citizens and stakeholders. we certainly agree that we want robust community engagement in our plans moving forward. that will be a part of our process in this and we'll come back in 2015 with how we plan to move forward. on 11d on requesting an insurance premium estimate from fema. they do not offer flood coverage insurance to municipalities only to private property owners. and according to the fee ma representative there isn't sufficient claim history so

we wouldn't compete for that funding so we woend won't be recommending implementation of that measure. ma representative there isn't sufficient claim history so we wouldn't compete for that funding so we woend won't be recommending implementation of that measure. >> is frank felipe here? okay come on up, please. just for clarity, are some of the departments here to make a presentation or are you handling the presentationover all. >> yes, we consolidated our presentation and responses together so what i've just presented to you is our group response. >> are there any members of any of the other departments who are going to be making a presentation