units when they're unrestricted units. i think it's fine to state that that's what we are building, because the whole concept of hope sf is you have mixed income communities, but i wouldn't state that they're moderate income unless they're deed restricted. >> thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: yeah. you said -- what hole would the housing authority play? i know that the -- the major goal of this proposal is to -- i mean, these are going to be -- this mercy is going to be essentially managing the property for the remainder of the development. is that -- is that correct? >> right. so the housing authority, as you know, owns the improvements, the buildings, and the land that makes up sunnydale public housing. so their role is to basically provide over sight to make sure

we're providing the public benefits. we have a master development with them that in some ways copies the development agreement we have with the city. but their role would be basically to maintain ownership of the land underneath the affordable housing developments. we would execute a language-term lease very similar to the mohcd and the o.c.i. structure. so the housing authority would maintain ownership of that land, execute a long-term lease with us so that we could build new affordable housing on that land. in regards to the market rate sites, we would be assisting the housing authority in selling those market rate sites to interested developers for development of market-rate housing, and so they would no longer own those sites. and they would also -- prior to that would also be executing a long -- or excuse me, short-term ground lease with us so that we would be able to construct the

new streets and utilities on a certain area of land. and then once the streets and utilities are constructed in a given phase and accepted by the city, then, the housing authority would convey that new right-of-way to the city. >> supervisor safai: no, i understand all that. what i'm asking is why are we the city claiming the quitclaim interest to the housing authority? >> because when the area is vacated, it's going to create a portion of the development site that we need to combine with the rest of the area to create one parcel for development of block six, for example. so what's not really clear in these diagrams is if you imagine we have a segment of the existing block sale right-of-way coming, and it's literally sitting on the block six

development site, we need that portion to be vacated because we're actually going to be building a new set of streets to serve that block six and other portions of the area. so we need that to be vacated right way to be quitclaimed by the city to the housing authority so it can become part of the block six site, and then, the housing authority can lease that site to us for development. >> supervisor safai: okay. so who can be -- is the city going to still be responsible and have ownership and responsibility over the streets and the sidewalks? >> once they're vacated, no. >> supervisor safai: so the city will no longer have any control over the streets and the sidewalks in this proposal? >> once the d.p.w. director approves the vacation within a phase -- >> supervisor safai: no, i understand the vacation for the necessary land for the development, but i don't understand the vacation of the streets and the sidewalks. what's the necessity for that for this development to go forward? >> so the existing rights of

way, it's a little hard to see, but the diagram on the right, there's a certain gray area that shows existing rights of way. there's about four within sunnydale site. they actually under our master plan would become new housing sites. >> supervisor safai: i get it. i understand you need some area that's under the city's right-of-way to build on, but what is the city's interest to vacate its interest over the streets and the sidewalks. you don't need that for this development. >> since i'm not successful in answering this, i'm going to invite up javier to answer this. >> supervisor safai: okay. >> so they will go over what are currently existing streets. those streets go away, they will create new streets. those streets will be offered for ded indication later in the future, which the city will have control over those streets, like any other streets in the city.

>> supervisor safai: the city will have the control over the new streets and the sidewalks. >> at the end of the day, yes, sir. >> supervisor safai: that's what i was trying to determine. because if the proposal was the city was not going to have control over the streets and the sidewalks, i would not be in support of that. >> no, they will. they will have to go through the warrant period, and they will be dedicated to the city at the end of the period, just like any other development that creates new streets near a right-of-way. >> supervisor safai: so that spelled out in this resolution, that the new streets will be dedicated -- will be handed back to the city? >> you know, not to my recollection, i don't think, but i do believe there's a development agreement that does spell this whole plan out. >> supervisor safai: i understand, ybut i wouldn't wan this resolution to conflict with this development agreement.

i think it should say we're vacating this for the purposes of development. but it should state clearly that the streets and sidewalks are going to come back -- the new streets and sidewalks that are going to be constructed will come back to the purview of the city. >> okay. we can make those updated. >> i don't know. maybe the deputy city attorney can answer this, but i do see on page one of the resolution, lines 17 through 20, it says that this street vacation procedure shall be in accordance with the applicable provisions of california streets and highway code and such revisions as adopted by the board of supervisors. does that essentially refer to the d.a. then. >> mr. givner: deputy city attorney jon givner. it doesn't sound like what supervisor safai is an explicit mention of the plan going forward in the d.a. i think what might make sense as an approach here is to pass the

resolution which just sets out the time lane for a future committee of the whole to consider the ordinance. the ordinance has more detail. on january 15, when the board considers the ordinance at the committee of the whole, perhaps then you could amend in a new section, explaining the provisions in the d.a. regarding the streets. >> supervisor safai: i amy fine with th -- i'm fine with that. i'm just, from having worked at d.p.w. and been in the role as supervisor now, when we're trying to deal with streets, right, and we had a situation in this chamber where there was some private streets that were not under the purview of d.p.w., and it caused a lot of confusion and problems. so i would not want there to be any confusion going forward that the city is responsible for maintaining the streets, has ownership over the streets and sidewalks, so on, so forth.

>> yes. i think there's sufficient time to add it to the ordinance. >> supervisor safai: okay. and i saw that supervisor cohen's office was still here, so we can -- i think that they hear that loud and clear, and the ordinance will come in january , at the committee of the whole. so i just wanted to point that out. thank you. sure. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. colleagues, any other further questions or comments on these two items? okay. seeing none, then, we're going to go to public comment on items 4 and 5. any members of the public who wish to speak in okay. seeing none, public comment on items four and five are closed. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor tang: it sounds like we're going to send item five to the full board for the meeting. -- >> are you going to take a motion on the amendments that

were offered? >> supervisor tang: oh, yes. and so the amendments as was stated by supervisor cohen's office earlier apply to both -- no, it's just the ordinance, i believe. >> and the resolution would have the committee of the whole date inserted into the blanks? >> supervisor tang: okay. so we'll insert the committee as a whole date for item four, and for item five, it would be the amendments as previously stated. can we get a motion on those two? >> supervisor safai: as -- so moved. >> supervisor tang: okay. so we'll adopt the amendments to both items as stated. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor tang: and then, let's see, motion to send item four out to the full board with positive recommendation. >> supervisor safai: all right. sure. >> supervisor tang: we'll do that without objection. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor tang: item five to the full board without recommendation pending committee of the whole. >> i'm sorry, to the january date. >> supervisor tang: to the january 15, 2019 date.

>> supervisor tang: all right. we'll do that without objection. okay. madam clerk, item six. >> is an ordinance amending the health code to revise the regulation of massage practitioners massage establish, massage out call services and sole practitioner massage establishment. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. so i am sponsoring this item on behalf of the department of public health, and they will be up here to present on this item. over the years, the department of public health, i definitely want to commend