so i just thought it was important to say that for the record. mr. tom, any concluding remarks before my colleagues get more mad at me? >> no, i think we looked at this matter today as much as we can, but we can certainly make ourselves available, whether it's within these chambers or in your office or with other agencies together. >> supervisor peskin: okay. and you are aware that there is a unit owner who was not interviewed by a.b.b. who has spoken about hearing creaking for long before that window cracked, just f.y.i. -- just, mr. strong is aware. okay. to be continued madam chair. if there is no public comment, i would like to continue this to

the call of the chair. >>clerk: there is. >> supervisor peskin: oh, there is, mr. gilberti. >> tom gilberti. hearsay, john rahaim, planning commissioner. successful building is one that won't fall down. it may not function, commercially or residentially, because to create an earthquake proof building would be financially beyond profit making. i wish we could develop that a little bit more. we had cracked beams over fremont street. do you see cracked beams visually or do you need an x-ray machine? i imagine these tall buildings that won't be functionable, you might have to take x-rays, too, to see where the stresses have

gone. i'm concerned about glass, too, and not the cracked glass here, but that just leads up to it. how many glass panels and windows are going to fly out of buildings if we have an earthquake downtown? if it rains right after it, water gets in the building. the worst thing for a building is water. and then, we have 1200 -- the 1200 block of fourth street, where we have sinking sidewalk and street. and that was done by experts, too. i would also like to have the fire department here. what do they expect to happen when all this glass starts falling from the sky in an earthquake? questions. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, mr. gilberti.

i just have one other question for mr. tom. mr. tom, when your inspectors were in unit 36-b, inspecting that window, did they observe any cracks in the ceiling? i'm informed there are cracks in the ceiling in said unit. >> supervisor peskin, i would have to go back and find out. i was not -- i was not made aware of anything of that nature. >> supervisor peskin: mr. strong? >> maybe i can add because chief building inspector o'reardon did look into that dplant when i received it from our colleague at nbc, and there is no cracked ceiling marks to be observed is what i was told. >> supervisor peskin: okay. a disagreement amongst experts. with that, if there are no questions from staff, thank you -- i mean, my colleagues, thank you for your continued

indulgence of this supervisor's quixotic mission to make san francisco chamber. >>clerk: through the chair, would you like to close public comment before you take item on this item? >> supervisor peskin: i would close public comment. >> supervisor kim: we have a motion to close this item to the call of the chair. i want to thank supervisor peskin's work, and all the department's work on the tall building safety strategy. it's good that we are first to engage in work like this. as we go forward with the central soma plan, and we approve this, i think this board needs to know that we are putting together a plan that ensures the safety of all of our workers and residents, including new workers and residents that will be moving to this area as

building higher and more densely in the south of market area. so i'm hopeful that we can begin to implement a lot of the administrative changes as soon as possible because as soon as we pass a plan, many of the large projects we'll be moving forward for their individual approvals, and i would hate for them to move forward without these changes. i have to say i'm probably more concerned about existing buildings than new construction. i think the millennium has scared developers with good cause. i am very concerned about existing buildings. in particular, landlords that can't or may not feel that they can afford to make the safety improvements, and then, how these buildings then impact the safety of other buildings and of course, the neighborhood. what supervisor peskin brought up about the ownership changes i think is really critical.

in fact we have very few ownership changes because they've figured out that if you do under 49%, they don't have to pay the real estate transfer tax, and they don't trigger a number of different is -- criteria. i'd hate to see us build more and not put the precautions in place that we've studied. but i think this is really good work, and i'm appreciative to supervisor peskin for leading this charge and for all the departments for putting together this report. so we have a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair, and we can do that without objection. all right. mr. clerk, can we please call items five and six. >>clerk: agenda item number five is a resolution dlarging the intention of the board of

supervisors to establish city and county of san francisco special tax district for special soma and determining other items in connection. item six is a declaration of the intention of the board of supervisors to secure bonded indebtedness for city and county of san francisco for central soma and determining other matter nz connection there with. >> supervisor kim: thank you so much, mr. clerk. we will not be having a presentation on this item today because i will be continuing it to our special g.a.o. meeting of next thursday, october 25. i did want to make some cleanup amendments so the members of the public can see that. i will be introducing these amendments, but i have handed out copies to my colleagues and to the clerk and city attorney. they're very minor amendments, adjusting numbers on page two and on page nine i believe --

i'm sorry. page eight. and then, on pages 10 and 11, adding that -- the board of supervisors declares its intent to enter into an agreement providing for the advance and reimbursement of the funds if it is determined by the director of public -- i'm sorry, public what? okay. we should -- it's not in there. so i'm going to verbally orally add that. it is determined by the director of public finance to be in the best interests of the city because that would be a very strange directive. and then, adding in our supervisor file number 180652 on page 11. on exhibit a, adding in under neighborhood stablization and community services, small business development and workforce development. and then, within exhibit b -- i

believe this is at the end, on page 13, that after the response -- adding the words on which at least one parcel was categorized as a tier c for sale residential square footage shall be categorized ad tier c -- as tier c. so those are the amendments that i'm introducing today. before we take a motion for adopting them, i'm going to open up public comment on items four and five. seeing no public comment, public comment is now closed. colleagues, can we take a motion to adopt these amendments. >> supervisor peskin: so moved. >> supervisor kim: we can do that without objection, and we will be continuing these to the thursday, october 25 government and audit over sight committee

meeting. are there any questions before we take that motion? seeing no questions, thank you to lisa and josh for very patiently sitting through this long hearing, and we will take that motion to continue this item. mr. clarkerk, are there any furr items before this committee? >>clerk: there is no further business. >> supervisor kim: meeting is adjourned. [ gavel ] sustainability mission, even though the bikes are very

minimal energy use. it still matters where the energy comes from and also part of the mission in sustainability is how we run everything, run our business. so having the lights come on with clean energy is important to us as well. we heard about cleanpowersf and learned they had commercial rates and signed up for that. it was super easy to sign up. our bookkeeper signed up online, it was like 15 minutes. nothing has changed, except now we have cleaner energy. it's an easy way to align your environmental proclivities and goals around climate change and it's so easy that it's hard to not want to do it, and it doesn't really add anything to the bill.

>> we broke ground in december of last year. we broke ground the day after sandy hook connecticut and had a moment of silence here. it's really great to see the silence that we experienced then and we've experienced over the years in this playground is now filled with these voices. >> 321, okay. [ applause ] >> the park was kind of bleak. it was scary and over grown. we started to help maclaren park when we found there wasn't any money in the bond for this park maclaren. we spent time for funding. it was expensive to raise money for this and there were a lot of delays. a lot of it was just

the mural, the sprinklers and we didn't have any grass. it was that bad. we worked on sprinkler heads and grass and we fixed everything. we worked hard collecting everything. we had about 400 group members. every a little bit helped and now the park is busy all week. there is people with kids using the park and using strollers and now it's safer by utilizing it. >> maclaren park being the largest second park one of the best kept secrets. what's exciting about this activation in particular is that it's the first of many. it's also representation of our city coming together but not only on the bureaucratic side of things. but also our neighbors, neighbors helped this happen. we are thrilled that today we are seeing the

fruition of all that work in this city's open space. >> when we got involved with this park there was a broken swing set and half of -- for me, one thing i really like to point out to other groups is that when you are competing for funding in a hole on the ground, you need to articulate what you need for your park. i always point as this sight as a model for other communities. >> i hope we continue to work on the other empty pits that are here. there are still a lot of areas that need help at maclaren park. we hope grants and money will be available to continue to improve this park to make it shine. it's a really hidden jewel. a lot of

>> good afternoon, everyone. welcome to the meeting of the rules committee. my name is safai, chair of the committee and to my left is catherine stefani and norman ian, our vice-chair will join us shortly. our clerk today is linda wong. i'd also like to thank samuel williams of sfgov tv. madam clerk. >> clerk: please silence all cellphones and devices and copies of any documents to be included as part of the file.

items acted upon today will appear on the october 23rd board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. great. are the applicants for the eastern neighborhoods citizens advisory committee on item number 4, are they here? kevin ortiz and heather phillips. we're going to take item number 4. call 4 first. >> clerk: yes, item number 4 a pointing two members terms ending october 19, 2019 to the eastern neighborhoods citizens advisory committee. there are two seats and two applicants. >> can we hear from kevin ortiz first. >> hello, supervisors. limit your comments to two minutes, please. >> thank you for the community to speak today. i'm thankful. my name is kevin ortiz. i am a san francisco born and

raised mission native. when i was 10-years-old, i was actually evicted from the mission district. it was tough for me being a second generation native whose grandparents came here to the city in the '50s. my perspective is shaped by real-life experience. during the first.com above was displaced. this story is not unique and it's all too com on the common. i moved back to the city after high school to jump back into gentrification displacement that the city was facing. since that time, during the prop i campaign -- during 2015 i was activated during the proposition eye heart campaign, where i worked on helping to try to have a ballot measure that would stop gentrification displacement in the mission by eliminating market rate units for two years

with an addition to an extra year that came on of the since i time i worked with the united states emission on working with projects and developers in order to fight for committee benefits and during that time, we have garnered over a couple hundred community benefits. $50 million in community benefits just with the impact of project alone. and that experience has given me a lot of time and order to learn how to work with developers. my professional experience, i'm actually a tech worker. i take this time and i'm able to see both sides of the rope. work with all sides in order to really collaborate and fight for community benefits from both the community side and also the industry side as well. i thank you again for this opportunity. i'm open to any questions. >> great. thank you. any questions from the committee at this time? seeing none, we'll call you back up. thank you. ms. phillips. >> good afternoon, supervisors.

i just want to thank you for the opportunity to be here today. thank you to supervisor kim's office for the nomination. i came to san francisco 15 years ago to work with young people in the south of market. i have had the privilege to do that. working with young people and families in a neighborhood that i've been able to call home. i don't have a lot of formal experience when it comes to policy making or development agreements but i've learned a lot over the years working with the ever changing naked in soma and helping to talk about what the community needs. i'm excited about the opportunity to work with the eastern neighborhood's citizens advisory council just to be a voice for folks on the ground in soma. families, neighbors. i know what it's like to walk up and down sixth street everyday. i feel like kind of on the

ground information is important as developments continue to move quickly through our neighborhood. so just, thank you for allowing me to be here today. >> great. thank you. any initial comments? seeing none. any members of the public wish to comment on this item, please come forward. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'll be fast. my name is michelle. i'm with the united players. i'm also a soma resident. i could not support ms. phillips seat. this is a time that is super important for our neighborhood. it's changing quickly and it's important that people who know what it's like to really live there day in and day out, serve the people day in and day out are on this board and know what is going on. i could not support her more. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> next speaker.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. >> really good to see you. >> my name is brigitte and i'm president of the board of trustees of city college. i'm here in a different capacity. i'm here to support kevin ortiz. he is been my go-to person for land use and housing issues. i can't think of a better person to be on this. both of the candidates sound great and it looks like you have your work cut out for you. i really support kevin ortiz. >> next speaker. >> just for clarity we have two seats today so they're both going to be appointed. >> hi, my name is brandon. i'm an activist in many different ways but i want today come out and show my support for kevin ortiz for this position. i've been working with kevin for the past two years on a lot of great work. on affordable housing and

housing rights. we did a lot of work within the california democratic party together. i've seen kevin put the work in and advocate for justice and for affordable housing, which i think everyone in this room would like to see more of. kevin is a hard worker. he is willing to work with many different sides of the aisle and always has a great attitude when doing his work. i would really love to see him take this position. thank you, so much. >> next speaker. >> hi, my name is jack. i work at the coalition on homelessness and i live in the mission. i i am speaking in support of kevin ortiz, specifically to his 'em path i can understanding of view points and his critical analysis and his personal experience and

what i hope to see the mission's future look like too. >> great. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. peter cohen. i know this isn't a competitive position, but like the speakers before, i want to say a couple words about kevin ortiz, who i've gotten to know over the last year-and-a-half. you know, he is a young guy. i think it's really important, as i'm aging in our housing advocates. the folks who are willing to get into the weeds and understand the technical questions. kevin is one of these young people who has disciplined them themselves. i've served on the cacs and this is not just the kind of head talking panel, these are people who become colleagues to staff so it requires a willingness to get into the details and be thoughtful and not just be there. he will be a great addition to the c.a.c. thank you.

>> great. any other members wish to comment. public comment is closed. i'll just say, before we make a motion, i also have had the opportunity to work with ms. phillips, and she's been active in the soma community. she's been a strong advocate for families in need. just add my voice to the chorus here and speaking in support. i think and i also have heard wonderful things about mr. ortiz. anything else? supervisor -- >> i just wanted to add, obviously we have two strong candidates and i also wanted to thank heather for her work with united play as they do such incredible work. i've worked with them in the past. prevention work and gun buy-back programs. i saw your shirt and you had my vote. >> supervisor yee, do you want to make a motion? >> this is tough. two great candidates and we only have two positions. [laughter]

i'm make a motion to apoint kevin ortiz to seat five and heath phillips to seat 10. >> we can do that without objection. congratulations. thank you for your service. [applause] >> let's do item number 1. >> item number 1, ordinance amending building fire codes to authorize the building and fire departments to require the installation of a new fire safety system or upgrade of a system to current code requirement this is a residential building of three or more dwelling units to remedy continuing fire hazards that substantially endangerer the health and safety of the residents or general public. >> before we call up legislative aid, this is a small room. so ever whisper and everything you guys a echos up to us and

we're trying to hear the presentation. it's a little different than the main chamber. this is like a real echo chamber here. i also want to say we had attempted to ensure that we didn't have to hear this item. i sit on the land use committee and we were to slightly so we will send it out with a positive recommendation. we sent it as a positive recommendation from the land use committee. i heard all of the arguments. this is very well thought out many of this is a smart piece of legislation. i think our colleagues agree. we give carolyn the opportunity. i wanted everybody to know that we're 100% behind this and if not for the fact that i didn't say it on the record at the time. i would have waved the opportunity to have this heard today because i heard it in the land use committee. i did it via e-mail. because we made the motion in committee we had to hear it

today. that's the only reason this is in front of us today. we've had a full vetting of this item. if carolyn wanted to make her comment and people want to say something it's fine. it's not necessary in this situation. carolyn, please proceed. >> thank you so much. supervisors, my name is caro line and i'm a supervisor hillary ronan's office. thank you for the wonderful news. thank you to all the communities members who have come out today and supported this legislation. again, what we're talking about is providing the city with additional tools that we need to protect the lives of residents in san francisco. particularly those who are most at risk of displacement, injury or death due to residential fires. we have seen fires in the past years lead to massive property damage, tenant displacement and some indication cases loss of l.

the most horrendous fire in our district was at 22nd and mission. 58 men, women ex children were displaced and one person tragically died. that building is still a hole in the ground and people have not been able to return to their neighborhood or their home. and so what this legislation does, it's really focusing in on negligent building owners. we know there are many responsible building owners in the city but what we're doing is focusing in on those putting tenant's lives at risk. the legislation is triggered when the building owner has been issued or more n.o.v.s for violation and the separate fire safety requirement and fire hazards continues to exit the violations are extensive and of such a nature the health and safety of the residents is endangerrered and the property owner has failed to mitigate the violations in a time a timely . it enables the city to create a

issue of fire, life safety and notice and order that can be signed off by d.b.i. or fire. the order will make clear that not only the building own must resolve their outstanding n.o.v.s but they will be required to do one of the following. install a new sprinkler system, a new firearm harm syste alarm. to raise the rent on ten tents to pay for the installation. we believe this law will want the cost and safety improvements and will help landlords being insentavised to keep their building up-to-date. there are warnings as part of this law as well. so when the building owners receive one n.o.v. they will be made aware of this law and when they receive two n.o.v.s, they

will receive say specific warning letter letting them know they're a recipient of this fire life safety safety and order. we would like to thank you for your co sponsorship and the many people who worked with us on this legislation. rosemary and fire marshal dan and olivia scanland and jamie at d.b.i. and bill strong and special shout out to joseph and tommy at the housing rights committee and rosa maria of the code enforcement outreach team at tenderloin housing clinic. thank you to charlie for their work and providing feedback. >> great, any initial comments? >> i like the concept. what is the penalty when they

are at their latter stage and they have a notice of an upgrade a improvement and they do do it? >> this follows our d.b.i. enforcement process. what happens s. there is an appeals process if the building owner wanted to appeal this. if they lose they must comply. it's sent to the city attorney's and they would be required to pay up to $1,000 a day in damages related to this asper our current law but they would also still have to pay for the implementation of the the measures. >> thank you. >> thank you, we'll call up. i asked most of my questions. as i said, this is well thought out piece of legislation. very supportive of it and people

can come in and it puts the appropriate pressure on and we should be thinking about saving people's lives. can you add me as a co sponsor. some members already comment in the land use committee. if they want to comment again, please do if not we're in full support of this legislation. >> thank you, mr. chair. my name is winship hill area. i have not studying this legislation as you have but i think it's strange that a landlord might be required to replace a fire or spring ler system when that might not be the cause of their citation. it seems wasteful. >> thank you.

>> any other members of the public? >> good afternoon, my name is dan jordan. i didn't comment on the last one. i have seen two of our large hotels on sixth street burned to the ground. the old delta hotel and i remember seeing sky because there was no roof left. sprinkler systems are a necessity. they save lives. what is cheaper? rebuilding a building or installing the sprinkler system. i think installing the link ler system is the best bet. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is rosa maria and i am the program manager for the code enforcement outreach program of

the tenderloin housing clinic. first, i would like to thank you for sponsoring this legislation as well as mr. safai for also co sponsoring this legislation. and carolyn goosen for her dedication to see it to its fruition. in my five years at the tenderloin housing clinic i've advocated council and con sold 11 fire impacted tenants. i've seen the effect of our displacement and suddenly losing the comfort of getting to return to your familiar home at end of a workday. i wholeheartedly ask and appreciate your support that helps to identify and hold accountable the landlords who ignore and defer crucial life safety maintenance. i want to acknowledge the work that was put into this

legislation. our experiencing of the on going conversations we had with our community, greatly informed the language and intent of this legislation that you have before you today. i believe it's a step in the right direction towards reinforcing the fire life safety measures found today. thank you very much. >> thank you so much.

[ speaking spanish ] hello, my name is veronica and i live at 642 hide street. in january of 2015 at our home, we had a fire that impacted my children and we were in the middle of a fire. i had to get my children, my three children out through the window in which the firefighters arrived. my children remain traumatized to this day when they hear a fire truck and sense the smell of smoke. i don't want anyone else to have to suffer through these traumas. this is why i asked for your support today and appreciate your support. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors.

my name is anna and i'm with the housing clinic. the code enforcement average program. i fully am happy that you are supporting this legislation. this legislation will enhance the prevention of fire safety and it will improve the quality of life of many of our residents in the tenderloin. i wanted to share that rose is not here, because of health issues, but she was one of the tenants displace the because of a fire at her building. it took three years for her to come back to her unit. roughly 44 units in this building and after only four of the units were by the original

tenants. 40 units people were displaced. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello. good afternoon, supervisors. i live at 555 apartment at tenderloin. >> my name is jeannie. she lives at 55 ellis street. in the tenderloin. she supports this legislation because it's a step in the right direction for private apartments and tenants towards fire life

safety prevention. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> i live at 44 tenderloin. i'll translate also. my name is cindy tran and i live in the tenderloin and i support this legislation because it will save lives. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> hello. my name is raquel. i work at the tenderloin housing clinic and i'm part of the code enforcement outreach program and i'm also a mission native.

i support this fire legislation because everyone deserves to live in a building with fire sprinklers and fire alarms that are working and up to code. as you all know, the mission has had many fires in the last couple of years which have displaced many working families. you all remember the building on 22nd and mission. my friend used to live in that building and it was his senior year of college and he lost everything. growing up, my mother would take us to the market to buy produce or get a treat when we received a good trade but now, it's all gone. after having so many fires in the mission at at once, i lost sleep due to fear my building would be next. two minutes is not long enough for me to tell you all the great reasons as to why you should support and pass this legislation, which you already support, thank you. as a housing advocate and mission native i am proud to stand here with your help, which it's all good now, this legislation will not only help working families stay housed but

also we are hoping keep the memories and stories we grew up with so we can pass it on to the next generation. those fire sprinklers would have helped that building that displaced a lot of people. it's important. thank you. >> thank you so much. >> good afternoon. tommy from the housing rights committee. just want to thank you for your support for this legislation. it really is a infor no-brainert looks like it will pass the board. >> joseph smith with the housing rights committee of san francisco representing the west side housing rights committee. we support the legislation. we're glad you do as well and just want to thank supervisor ronan and the colleagues for all their hard work on this legislation. thank you. >> great. thank you. any other members of the public wish to comment. any final comments. i think we've all pretty much

said it. >> let me say it. thank you for the presentation. thank you for the public making comments. i want to thank supervisors ronan's office for bringing this forward. i wish we had done this several years ago. in the last few years, as we heard from the public, it's been several fires in the mission and also in the tenderloin. it seems like knowing all details, that these fires could have been preventable if the buildings were up to code. it seems like there were a lot of electrical issues. we need some to make these landlords bring things up to code so it's safer for our residents. it's traumatic for people that have to go through that and the families to move and figure out what to do and they lose

everything and have clothes. thank you supervisor ronan and carolyn for working on this and i'd like to add it as a co author. >> great. anything else? i think we can make a motion to send this to the full board with positive recommendations. at this think just so everyone understands why sometimes this is heard in two different committees, carolyn referenced it, but one deals with the land use aspect of the legislation and importantly, the administrative code which is important here is that whatever cost the building owner incurse cannot be passed on. we don't want to see that happen in this situation. we want to encourage people to do the right thing and think about people's health and safety. besides talking about sprinklers, it gives us options

just for basic fire detectors, right. in some cases, even fire detectors would have saved people's lives and probably got the fire department there. i remember. i walked by it for decades on 22nd and mission and it's still a hole in the ground and it's sad. i know people's lives were impacted for the rest of their lives. this is such an important piece of legislation. thank you supervisors' office and thank you to carolyn for your hard work and supervisor ronan for her leadership. positive recommendation to the full board. thank you. congratulations. [applause] can we -- i think the folks get through item number 6 real fast. is mr. everyling still here? did he leave?

he must have stepped out. we have two items here both are sponsored by supervisor peskin. coming up. sunny. why don't we take item number 3 first. is that ok? sunny? sunny? let's do item number 3 first. we're going to call item 3. >> clerk: ordinance amending the administrative code exempt from the physical visibility or capital improvement projects under the jurisdiction of the san francisco municipal transportation agency that was support an increase on improvements in municipal railway services. >> supervisor peskin is not here but we're joined by his chief-of-staff sunny. would you like to make some opening comments about this item? >> sure. really briefly, my name is sunny from peskin's office. this is a straight-forward piece of legislation. chapter 29 of our code provides

that any department, city agency, board commission, if proposing a project that will require initiating environmental review if you believe the project is estimated to cost more than $25 million, and a million of that being public funds then you have to go through significant fiscal feasibility analysis. it's an impediment for large scale projects that are potentially eligible for competitive funding whether the state or federal level and so we have taken up this piece of legislation in order to exclude large scale transportation projects under the purview of the pfmpa to ensure we can be eligible for this hard to get funds. i know that is from sfmta is also here if the committee has has questions to address.

>> it talks about any project implementation for cost exceeding $25 million. it goes on to say that will cost more than $1 million in public money for pre development planning. what's the difference there? >> i mean, my understanding of the difference is that $25 million is triggered because of construction. for the capital side. the design cost in particular are often what are the most difficult because when you comply for these grants and the office having written letters of support for the agency and other departments to apply for state and federal money, often times they want to see pre construction planning and design. of course, if we're having to go through a fiscal feasibility analysis to actually initiate

that then that can cause significant delays with being able to apply. >> just for clarity, maybe deputy city council, so it's the $25 million capital cost and the cost that exceed a million dollars that trigger this financial feasibility study that has to happen in all instances. >> john gibner. under the rule, the ordinance requiring physical feasibility funding. it's a 25 million-dollar total cost with $1 million city cost. so what's the $25 million? it's what they're applying for? the million we're putting in on the city side. >> is that what you are saying? >> we need to have -- both conditions would a supply so the project is $25 million over and

a million city funds are being used for the project. >> what are we changing it to? we're just saying if there's an- >> the only thing we're doing is adding to the utility projects which already add. we're just adding large muni service and expansion projects. >> the large $25 million and above projects? >> yes. it would still apply. the dollars would still apply. it's adding one more carve out to the carve out section of the code. >> so, right now an existing law says it's under $25 million you wouldn't have to do a feasibility study? >> that's correct. >> we're trying to deal with the trigger. >> this revision does not have anything to do with a financial

trigger. all it's trying to do is add an ex conclusion to large transit projects. in addition to utility projects and prop k projects, which are already carved out. >> right. meaning basically we wouldn't -- it doesn't matter what the cost of it is. we're saying we don't have to do this? >> for these projects the board would not be -- the department would not need to come to the board for a fiscal feasibility finding. >> regardless of the costs. >> correct. >> that's what i'm hearing, ok. >> ok. >> any other questions? my public comment is closed. and we'll make a motion to pass the committee with positive recommendations. >> great. >> we do that out objection.

so moved. thank you. please call item number 2. >> item number 2 ordinance amending chan ter 66 and deleting 66a of the administrative codes con formed passage by the voters on november 8th, 2016 of proposition c finance acquisition and rehabilitation of affordable housing. >> great. so since supervisor peskin is not here again, do you want to hand it over to director hartly or say words. >> i will avail myself of this. supervisor peskin's office one more time. i know that deputy gibner needs to go to an oversight committee meeting for this next item and there are a couple of formatting revisions, technical changes that he would like to speak to and explain before we commence. >> great. thank you. i'm bouncing back and fourth a bit this afternoon.

we've prepared and circulated to you copy of anna mended version of this oi ordinance. this version that you now have just sticks to those formatting errors and also makes a few very clarifying corrections in the title on page one at the page two line 21 changing a word and a few clarifying corrections to the definitions at the bottom of page 5. after director hartly presents and public comment, we would suggest that you adopt those amendments and we'll have a clean format error-free investigation of the ordinance going forward.

>> sounds good. >> director hartly. >> good afternoon, supervisors. kate hartly, director of the mayor's office of housing and community developmentment i am here today to introduce the seismic safety retro fit and affordable housing loan program. my colleagues, jonah lee, amy chan, caro line mccormick are here. they've been great work on this so i just want to give them that introduction. i wanted to say thank you and express our gratitude to the housing advocates who pushed for this repurchasing of existing funds that were not being utilized for anti displacement purposes. this action provides an amount of funding and the terms that we need, that is low cost loans over a long-term that will allow us, as a city and also the housing developers and owners who will be the ones putting this money to great use to achieve our mutual anti

displacement and preservation goals. with that i will let jonah and amy tell you about this program. >> can i ask a quick question. it's blocking my mind right now. on your presentation, which is going to -- this is mm like $35. >> that's a abbreviation for million. $350 million. two ms means what? >> millions. >> really? >> many millions. mm is just -- >> i've never seen it. >> next time we'll spell it out, sorry. >> good afternoon, supervisors. amy chan from the mayor's office of housing and community

development. so the proposed legislation creates the seismic safety retro fit and affordable housing by repurchasing the seismic safety bond passed by voters in 1992 as proposition a. proposition a authorized the city to issue $350 million in bonds to help homeowners comply with the city's requirement to retro fit unreinforced masonry buildings. specifically the proposition called for $150 million for below market rate loans and $200 million in market rate loans for this purpose. and after many years, only 95 million of funds were utilized which left us unspend bond capacity. so, as director hartly mentioned, in 2016, housing advocates identified an opportunity to rehouse.

to meet the goals of anti displacement, of bringing housing into permanent affordability and providing low cost and long-term funding for capital needs. the board of supervisors with legislation sponsored by supervisor peskin and then supervisor breed, placed proposition c on the ballot and it was passed by voters in 2016. so the proposition c language specifically added preservation as an eligible use of bond funds in addition to the seismic retro fitting. there are 104 for the below rate loans and 150 for market rate loans. all other requirement in proposition remaining, including for resource hiring. the legislation before you will

implement proposition c by amending chapter 66 of the administrative code. it adds at acquisition and rehabilitation as the eligible use. it designates our steed-wide affordable housing committee as the body that would approve loan applications. it also requires program regulations for this program to be approved by that body and then finally it requires affordability restrictions and tenant protections. i'll turn it over to my colleague, jonah lee. >> thank you, amy. the seismic safety retro fit pro voids low cost and long-term mortgage loan financing on a first-lean basis. the program has the flexibility to finance acquisition and rehabilitation projects or to be a source of take-out financing in conjunction with another construction lender.

we expect most of the loans, financed under the program, will be structured as permanent take outs. interest rates will be set based on the city's cost of capital. one-third of the cost for affordable projects and 100 basis points over the cost for market rate projects. to maximize the funding available for our affordable housing projects we expect to blend the program funding while still achieving a below market rate interest rate including small and large residential sites as well as s.r.o.s, mixed-use buildings will be eligible to receive loans provided that the majority of the improvements to those projects are attributable. speckle edge able uses acquisition and holding cost, take out, rehabilitation costs and the associated soft cost. project management or developer fees as approved as well as

capitalized reserves. new construction and acquisition without rehabilitation are not eligible uses. affordability restrictions will be evidenced by a declaration of restrictions that is recorded against the properties. permanent affordability look required on below market rate loans. market rate loans must remain affordable for the loan term. projects will be restricted at an average of 80% ami rents which is currently $2,131 for a two bedroom unit and household income will be 120% of area median income which is currently $127,000 for a family of three. market rate properties wills will be prohibited from passing along to tenants the rehabilitation costs associated with the loan. owners will be responsible for temporary relocation expenses

for both residents shall and commercial tenants. the program will compliment the small sites program. which is preserved 26 buildings with over 184 units to date. the 4830 mission project, is a great example of this. this was a project that was acquired in july of 2018 by meta with a 13 million-dollar acquisition loan from the san francisco housing accelerator fund. the expected permanent take out through prop c includes financing of 9 and a half million dollars expected to occur in the spring of 2019. we also expect that that prop c funding may reduce the need for gap funding under the small sites program. >> before you go onto the next slide. this is a good example where we can explain