so we're seeing relatively large g.p. equity contributions on our deals, so the numbers look a little bit better athan the aggregate. a third kind of fee is a developing fee that would be earned over time out of the cash flow of the first 15 years of the project. if the project has a section eight contract that is throwing or money that may be advantageous for the city to agree to a deferred fee, as well. but it is capped per our policy on the cash side. but sometimes when you see our budgets, our fee might look large principlely because either of the general equity or the deferred fee. >> supervisor peskin: and then last question, followed by one last comment. when do you guys expect to

start construction and when do you expect to finish? miss character kirk patrikirk w the answer. >> if we receive your approval today, which is an important milestone in meeting our finances closing and construction start schedule, we'll start in april 15, april 30. we're continued today, i'm concerned that we won't be able to build this important affordable housing and we'll risk losing the other financing that we've gotten? i know -- sorry to take this moment -- >> chair fewer: excuse me, miss kirk patrick. can you please repeat that and can you speak loudly into the microphone. >> okay. can you hear me? >> chair fewer: a little louder, please. >> so if we receive your approval today, we will be able to continue with financing and

start construction april 15 or april 30. if we don't receive your approval today, i'm concerned that we will lose that deadline that we have with all of our other financing partners, and we will have to reconstitute the project. >> supervisor peskin: i thank you for that. i take you at your word. i really appreciate the chair's sentiment that we might want to slow down so we can get the information that we want, but i also think that we have the unlimited power of inquiry, and that you will produce that information any way, and i'm happy to call a hearing so that we can have that public policy information. i really just wanted to use this as an opportunity to start bringing those issues outlet. the other thing i want to say for the record, and this is really to your department or office and to your executive director, which is two years ago, i went to then-mayor ed

lee and wanted to temporarily use this site as a navigation center, very much like happened at 1515 south vanness in supervisor ronen's district, and the mayor was receptive to that issue. he actually said that he had to convince my neighbors and constituents that it was a good idea and indeed had a community meeting on broadway a couple blocks from the site with over 200 people and bless the good liberal people of district three, across communities from the northeast waterfront to chinatown, people were very excited about that. public works was -- actually made a presentation of what it would look like. and ultimately,' the mayor's office of housing convinced the mayor that this was going to be

a project that started in september of 2018, and i said that will never happen. it probably won't be until the spring or summer of 2019, which guess what? would appear to be the case, and i could have had that nav gas statinav -- navigation center 1.5 or two years. the navigation center was never meant to get in the way of public housing. not due to lack of effort on your part or the board's unwillingness to approve things sent to the committee today. with that, i really thank the committee members for their indulgence. >> chair fewer: thank you. supervisor mandelman. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you, chair fewer. sorry. i do have questions, and not to belabor this item.

one comment in hearing the description of developer fee and the various funding sources, i -- i am -- it -- it occurred to me that we have done with affordable housing development kind of what we've done with health care in this country where we make it as complicated as trouble and lacking in transparency, and we sort of had single pair at one -- payer at one point in this country, and we gave it up. and now we have these extraordinarily complicated processes that require thinking about how -- you know, what can get into basis and, you know, which funding sources can get layered and how do we maximize this amount or minimize this amount without any regard to the actual goal -- well, with some regard to getting the housing built in an incredibly sort of complicated and nontransparent way, but it is

the fault of the federal government, and actually republicans in the federal government. that rant aside, i'm wondering if you can come -- if you can come back up and explain those particular financial transactions again, just really, really briefly. where is the money coming from, where is it going? who's on the hook for what? there is a private lender here. the private lender is transferring the money to the city. the city is transferring that money back out? no, then come back up here and explain it. >> sure. i can talk about this project. it also applies generally, so if you want to hear from the housing director, that's fine, too. the mohcd loan is a compilation of funding that we have from the affordable housing trust fund, inclusionary fees and other mohcd directed money that is used to subsidize the construction of new affordable

housing, so that many will be -- money will be used for construction purposes. >> supervisor mandelman: city funding is going in in excess of $10 million not backed by -- okay. got it. >> and the project you mentioned is roughly $10 million, and there are other funding from the city, so that does include the income from the housing investor, which is bank of america. we do have some construction financing in addition to mohcd's funding that is provided in this case by bank of america. >> supervisor mandelman: so there are loans that are getting made by the city and secur loans getting secured by the city, but that's only on the tax side. >> the loans are funded through the housing trust fund and other sources like that, and

they are secured by a deed of trust on the property, so the term is 55 years. it can be extended if the affordability continued to be extended by this board or any other actions. ideally, in perpetuity is our goal as an agency. >> supervisor mandelman: okay. i can't imagine why this board wouldn't want to know -- >> yeah, i think your concerns are -- >> supervisor mandelman: and i'm really curious about how it got -- i mean, was it in the area of redevelopment that these loans were being made by the redevelopment agency or it -- somehow seems peculiar that we're -- nope, not that either. at any rate, thank you. >> chair fewer: okay. supervisors, any other comments? okay.

i think there's been two requests here. one is the exact number of loans, and i hear you can get us that information in a timely manner. would two weeks be enough time? [inaudible] >> chair fewer: excuse me. speak into the microphone? >> no, i don't think so. i think we'd need at least 30 days. >> chair fewer: and then secondly, the name of the supervisors that the mayor's office of housing has actually spoken to about conceding some of the this power -- some of this power that the board has. we can get the names of the supervisors. so two items that we are requesting today, and that is the exact number of loans and then also the names of the supervisors that the director of the mayor's office of housing has actually spoken to about this, and then, i believe

my colleague, supervisor peskin would be holding a hearing. in light of miss kirk patrick, that you had mentioned that this is a timely matter, and this could postpone. so we hear this quite often, and occasionally, it is not accurate, but i am going to take your word today that it is accurate information. i have no reason to think that it wouldn't be, and so i'm willing to move this -- make a motion to move this out of committee and separate as you requested the polishcy issues d other things from the funding school so you can get these things built. there are people that need homes. so having said that, i would like to make a motion to move items eight, nine, ten, and 11 to the board with a positive recommendation. >> clerk: excuse me, madam

chair, there was a previous motion made by you to continue those items. could you please get rid of those items? >> chair fewer: yes. i'm getting rid of that. the new motion, can i take that without objection? thank you. that passes. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: madam clerk, can you please call item number 12. [agenda item read]. >> clerk: would you like for me to also read 13? >> chair fewer: yes, item 13, too, please. [agenda item read].

>> chair fewer: thank you very much. we have mara blitzer from the mayor's office of housing and community development to speak on both items. >> thank you. so i'm back. >> chair fewer: welcome back. >> items 12 and 13 are resolutions that authorize mohcd to apply under the city for welcome back loans, for noncompetitive funds and competitive funds. the state of california created the program specifically for persons with serious mental illness that are homeless, chronically homeless or

potentially homeless. as part of the application, mohcd requires that the county submit a resolution from the local governing body that authorizes the county to apply the funds. mohcd will be applying as an alternative county designee. upon award, we will return to you with a request to expend the funds and we will also return to you again with respect to a specific project to which we would make a loan, too, since we are effectively a pass-through agency and the loan itself will be from mohcd. we are requesting two grammatical corrections to the resolutions. on page two, line four, the state has asked us to add the words his or in front of the

word her designee. and on page two, line 15, to strike out the word is at the end of that line item. we ask the committee to accept these amendments and forward the item to the full board on tuesday. >> chair fewer: thank you very much, miss blitzer. so there is not a b.l.a. on this, but let's open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public that would like to comment on items 12 or 13? seeing one public comment speaker, you have two minutes, sir. >> great. i'm not sure if it was a public comment moment for item 11 before you hit the gavel, but in any ways, regardless, i think it's all kind of tide together. i was curious, how was a determination made to circumvent the formal procedure and also did the decision impact the extension of federal dollars in grants loans or overall volume. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. any other members of the public like to speak?

seeing none, public comment is now closed. there is not a b.l.a. report on this. i believe those two changes to the amendments are not substantive, so i'd like to make a recommendation to bring this with a positive recommendation to the full board as amended. thank you very much. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: okay. now madam clerk, can you please call item number 14. [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. i believe we have angel cordez from the office of economic and workforce development. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is angel cordos, and i serve as director for the san

francisco small business development center. our program is funded in part by the small business administration, and we are hosted by the office of economic and workforce development. we help aspiring and existing entrepreneurs start and expand businesses in san francisco by providing no cost consulting and business training. since the program launch in 2015, we've is theed over 1,800 unique compliants and trained over 690 individual participants. we've created over 1,000 jobs and sustained over 600 jobs. finally, thanks to our services, our businesses have increased their sales by over 120 million and accessed more than $50 million in capital. in 2018, the state of

california allocated funding for the technical assistance expansion program. we applied and were awarded $203,917.50 thanks to a consult of client oriented services and economic impact. the purpose of these funds is to both deepen and widen our services. the funds will allow us to invest more time in clients which has been historically challenging given our resources. it will also enable us to reach a greater number of businesses, increase the number of participants, and broaden the sstss we offer. we'll be able to include on-line training, which includes viewing existing workshops, finally, building an on-line library of prerecorded

training sessions for future viewing. we're excited about the opportunities this funding will allow us and for this reason, i request your support for the accept and expend grant of the small business technical assistance expansion program. thank you for your time and consideration, and i am happy to answer any questions. >> chair fewer: thank you very much, mr. cordoz. colleagues, any questions or comments for mr. cordoz? there is not a b.l.a. report. let's open it up to public comment. is there any member of the public that would like to comment on that? seeing none, public comment is closed [gavel]. >> chair fewer: thank you, mr. cordoz, for a very good presentation of what this matter is about. i would like to move this to the full board with a positive

recommendation. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: madam clerk, can you please call item 15. [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. we have jeremy spitz here from the department of public works. >> hello, supervisors. my name is jeremy spitz, from the department of public works. the original contract was from 1996 to october 2016. as the contract was coming to a close, public works put in an r.f.p. for a new contract, and j.c. decaux was the only respondent. decaux' design was approved by

the specific design review committee and arts commission, but we received some negative feedback from the members of the public, board of supervisors and historic preservation commission. there was some concern about the utilitiarian design. the winner of the competition was selected in may 2018 and since then, the design firm has been working with j.c. decaux into make the design a reality. the good news is we have now received all necessary

approvals. the contract is nearly complete, and we are on track to introduce it in march. i'm also joined by our deputy director for finance and administration, julia dawson, if you have any questions. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. there is no b.l.a. report on this. let's open it up for public comment. are there any members of the public that would like to speak on this item? >> i was just curious how many kiosks are guarantees under the contract. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. any other members of the public like to speak? seeing none, public comment is now closed. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: colleagues, any comments or questions for mr. spitz? oh, supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madam chair. i think i'm the author of this past resolution and the past several extension resolutions.

and i want to acknowledge that what mr. spitz says is correct. i was one of the supervisors that expressed concern about the aspects of the design and what have you, and i was pleased to see the competition. i was not around in 1996. this is far below what other cities receive what are really advertising contracts. these are not -- yes, there are some toilets involved, but the money that j.c. decaux makes is made off of the advertising kiosks. which, quite frankly, i've never really liked in the public realm. they add to street clutter, and as we've been extending this

knew for the three years that -- now for the three years that i've been back in office. i think the first extension has been november or december 2015. as barack obama said about same sex marriage, my thinking as evolved. and the whole way we are now actually using these facilities -- i'm talking about the toilets, not the advertising, is that we have moved -- thank you to former supervisor kim and her then-staff, sunny angulo, to a model of staffing them, the pit stop model, and i'm not sure we really need these auto mated toilets and all of the advertising. so i just wanted to kind of throw that out to the committee. i totally acknowledge that a whole lot of people have done a remarkable amount of work in good faith to bring this contract forward.

unfortunately, nobody knows what's in the contract because the department doesn't have to tell us until the contract's been negotiated and introduced. i cannot imagine that it could be remotely lucrative enough to justify the 20 years in which san francisco got hosed. but i just wanted to throw that out there. i'm getting more and more dubious by the day, and i'm glad this is my resolution. >> chair fewer: i'm glad because i have a lot of questions about this resolution. mr. spitz, so sorry. it does raise a lot of issues that we keep extending these contracts over and over. this is the sixth amendment to extend this. so i am hearing that there's some new amazing terms that are being negotiated for the new

contract, and quite frankly, i don't have any details about this amazing new contract that i am not pass this out -- this next extension without new information. and i think it's frustrating to be passing a sixth amendment to this. every time as reported by mission local that we extend this, that this company actually makes profits between 4 -- 3 and $4 million every time we do an extension. so i'm just wondering why do we keep passing extensions without new or better rates, and why doesn't the city just operate their own toilets?

>> so thank you, chair fewer for the question and thank you, chair peskin for sponsoring this. i don't know why we operate our own toilets. i do know we have some of our own toilets, the pit stop toilets. as far as this, i was not around in 1998 when the original contract was introduced -- 1996, when the original contract was introduced. i was eight at that time. so i would say we have been working in good faith with j.c. decaux and the community to try and negotiate a new contract. really, all the delays and the source of the delays and the source of these extensions has been going through the process of getting a new design for the toilets. so when we started in 2016, j.c. decaux was the sole -- like, sole -- was the sole respondent to the r.f.p., and they came in with a design of their own, and we would have been pretty much ready to go

and we wouldn't have had to do any extensions at that point. we changed the design at the request of some members of the board of supervisors and the -- i forget which commission, the historic preservation commission, and we ran that design contest. all of that took a while, so that was the source of one of our extensions. and then, most recently, we had trouble getting scheduled at the various review committees that needed to review the new design, so that was the source of the second extension. so going forward, we're pretty much ready to bring the new contract to you, and you will have the opportunity to review it when it's introduced next month. >> chair fewer: okay. so i'm not comfortable passing this out of committee at a sixth amendment when i don't have any information about the terms of the new contract at all. i'd like to make a motion to move this to continue this item

to the call of the chair. can i take that without objection? supervisor mandelman? [inaudible] >> chair fewer: supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: so just before you vote -- i'm fine with that. i just wanted to ask a couple of questions, and i did meet with mr. spitz before this meeting. i was under the impression -- maybe miss dawson knows the answer to this. i was of the opinion that during the extensions, j.c. decaux had agreed to pay us at a higher ratet for the advertising. but mr. spitz assured me today that that was not the case and we're getting the same rate deal we've gotten for the last 22, 23 years.

>> supervisors, julia dawson, department of public works. i think we thought this agreement would be before you long before now, so we did not attempt to renegotiate the current terms because we are focused on getting the new agreement done, and of course it hasn't turned out exactly the way we thought it would, but i would say making additional revenue from this agreement is contingent on shifting from paper advertising to digital, which is something that has already happened in all of the other city advertising agreements, and i fully hear what you're saying about not loving advertising, but the reality of most advertising agreements that public -- that cities do -- new york, chicago, is that they have all gone digital, and that does generate additional revenue. so without being able to convert to digital, it would have been a more challenging conversation. but i do hear what you're saying, and i think we probably would have considered that, had

we known we'd still be here amending this agreement. we're really not expecting to be in this situation. >> supervisor peskin: and relative to the public commenter's question, how many public toilets? >> 25. >> supervisor peskin: 25 toilets for our 50 square miles. and in the current contract, we get how much money a year? >> it varies, depending on how much money decaux makes. it's 7% of their gross, and it has been anywhere from about 750,000 to 800,000. it has gone down in the last couple of years because decaux has been losing money to other advertisers in the area, like clear channel, who have digital on both the m.t.a. kiosks and the news racks that are actually public works news racks, so there's been an

emotion in decaux' market because they're not digital yet. >> supervisor mandelman: yeah. thank you, chair fewer. so i am hearing from my colleagues significant reservations about continuing our relationship with j.c. decaux, and i do not actually feel that i have had the opportunity to talk to folks in the castro who might be impacted by this, by my constituents who, you know, may be -- may be fine with getting j.c. decaux, and that may actually be the will of the city at this point. but i would like the opportunity to do some more consultation and hearing some other alternatives from the department. i'm comfortable not taking a vote on this date.

i would like this to come back on a date certain so it would enable us to have these conversations and get us better prepared whether we're ready to make that break. i just feel i like to do a little bit of thinking about. >> one thing i would like -- and i'm more than happy to come and brief the -- you know, anyone who's interested on kind of where we are and what the tradeoffs are, one of the things that i would say and the reason city went down this road in the 90's was it was a way to city of capital in exchange for digital advertising? it cost money to put them in, and there's mant tans that decaux supports. i understand -- maintenance

that did he taecaux supports. just so you know, if you don't support that, we'll no longer have 25 a.d.a. toilets in san francisco. to make that investment as a city is a significant amount of cash when we know we're wanting to fund many things and have toto make choices, which is what we want to do. >> chair fewer: sure. i don't have one in my neighborhood, and i'm sure they've requested one, which is not an issue today, so supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: i did have one question. the reason there was only one respondent to the r.f.p. was because the way the r.f.p. was written. are there other people, other companies in this field, can you address why there was only one respondent to the request

for proposals. >> so when we did the prebid conference, there were two companies that twaended thatte conference. one was clear channel, and one was decaux. i think you're familiar that clear channel was -- has the bus shelters at the m.t.a.? and it has not been a successful contract for clear channel? and they are providing the m.t.a. for shelters and main nance for shelters that i believe are at least even to their expenses, so it's a good arrangement for the m.t.a. and perhaps not as good an arrangement for clear channel. i think because that does not work out too well for clear channel, they are not always in the business of providing street furniture in exchange for advertising rights.

that's a niche that decaux has kind of carved out for itself in the advertising industry? generally speaking, those advertising companies don't provide capital furniture, you know, and maintenance often, although i do know that the more common mode for this is bus shelters, and i believe that in both new york and chicago, the decaux arrangement there is more around bus shelters in exchange for advertising than kiosks and toilets? but in europe, they have many of these kiosks in exchange for toilets, and in southern california, i believe there's other street furniture that decaux has provided to cities in exchange for advertising rights? does that help answer your question? >> supervisor peskin: it does. let me just ask this question a little bit differently. it seems to me there are two public policy goals here.

one is to provide bathroom facilities, and the other is to make the city money, right? is that a fair -- >> or get services in exchange that are worth something to the city in lieu of the cash, yes. >> supervisor peskin: and the source of the money is advertising. >> correct. >> supervisor peskin: so did it ever occur to the city, what if -- i'm not a big fan of this as i stated previously, but what if we just said hey, you can go build a bunch of digital signs on market street, put that out for bid, and take that money for 25 toilets of our own. >> we can simply look at advertising rights for that. i think that as i've said before, a lot of the reason that jurisdictions go down this road is they don't want to have to make the capital investment, and so it's the capital in

exchange for advertising? and i guess we'd need to decide whether we're comfortable. the thing about having the companies build and maintain these is then you are kind of moving that risk and that responsibility and locking it in for a period of time. and we all know that there's economic fluctuations, so from a city's perspective, they're guaranteed for a 25 or 30-year period. >> supervisor peskin: how much does a pit stop cost, and how much does it cost to staff? >> so i have the staff number readily in my head. it's about $200,000 a year just to staff one of these. i would need to look and get back to you on exactly how much it costs because there are

actually different pit stop models. i think you're familiar that we cover two rec and park facilities, so sometimes we already have a facility, but most of our pit stops are the mobile kind so i would want to be able to get you accurate casts for the trailer and truck -- costs for the trailer and truck driver, but i'm happy to do that. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. and i know you've been staffing decaux toilets, like the one at washington square has public works staff at decaux toilets. >> they're actually staff from a nonprofit through a grant, so it's not public works staff. the only public works staff that are working on the toilets are the drivers that are bringing the toilets in in the mobile program and then taking them and storing them, so those are actually public works employees. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. >> chair fewer: supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: thank you, chair fewer.

through the chair, miss dawson, is there a map where all of these bathrooms for? can you send one? >> of course. >> supervisor stefani: is there an established criteria for where these bathrooms go? >> so this was cited when the original agreement was put in place? they were determined on the following basis, where most tourists were and there were not readily available public facilities, so you'll see a lot of them in the fisherman's wharf area. there are some on the top of twin peaks where a lot of tour buses go. there's one in u.n. plaza, civic center plaza where there just weren't access ibibility areas to go?

there was, a long time ago, a sense that the toilet program could expand, and there was this ratio between the number of kiosks and the number of toilets. but later on, the voters passed an initiative that limited the number of kiosks, and so that is why we have 25 toilets today. we might have had more had we had a different policy decision? but that's what we have now. we could certainly look at relocating existing toilets if we felt. so there is one in the castro, for instance, there's one on washington and hyde square park, there's one at coit tower. in the one at coit tower, there's an a.d.a. accessibility issue? in coit tower, the space is

very constained, and an -- constrained, and an a.d.a. accessible unit could not be built, so that's why some of them are where they are. km . >> chair fewer: i have a question. j.c. decaux, do they service the toilets? >> they do. >> chair fewer: so we pay the staff, and j.c. decaux doesn't pay san francisco at all for staffing. >> no. at this point, j.c. decaux does not appropriate the staffing. the city administers it throughothrough a grant, but one of the pieces of negotiation in the new contract is moving it from a city responsibility to being a decaux responsibility but with

all of it still being the workforce development program and a community based program that it is today, so that will be part of the new graemagreem now remember, pit stops are decauxs, and there's about 20 pit stops now, but those are all -- the others are either mobile or to our rec park. >> chair fewer: okay. i think we've had enough discussion on this. i make a motion, then, to move this -- continue this item at the request of myself but also supervisor mandelman, giving a chance to speak to his community about this, to the meeting of march 13. can we take that without objection? thank you very much. thank you very much. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: madam clerk, can you please call items 16 and 17 and 18 together, please. >> clerk: yes.

[agenda item read] [agenda item read] [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. no kathy widener today. >> no. kathy widener asked to be here specifically, but good

afternoon. dea deanna kizon with the san francisco international airport. the proposed lease approvals are tweent airport and lady luck gourmet, host international, inc. i. the total minimum annual guarantees is $2,626,875 for the initial two year term. two of the initial proposers are headquartered in the bay area. notably, lady luck gourmet is the first filipino food vendor

in the airport, which is why i asked to be here. >> chair fewer: thank you. let's hear from the b.l.a., please. >> these vendors were collected through a request for process. each tenant would pay the greater of the minimum annual guaranteed rent or a percentage rent. the leases are expected to begin as part of the terminal one project. this is an early approval of them. if the tenants payed just the minimum -- paid just the minimum annual guarantee, the initial return to the airport would be 12.6 million. the airport assumption is they will pay the greater rent rather than the minimum guarantee, and we recommend

approval. >> thank you. >> chair fewer: let's open up public comment. is there any member of the public that would like to comment on this? seeing none, public comment is closed. any comments or questions from my colleagues? seeing none, i'll make a motion to move this to the full board with a positive recommendation. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: madam clerk, please read items 19 and 20.

[agenda item read] [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: okay. thank you very much. this is -- any comments, questions? nothing. let's go to budget legislative analyst, please. >> yes. the two pieces of legislation, they approve the commercial lease between the city and the department of public works for 101 hyde street, and they've approved the receipt of funding from the san francisco foundation in the amount of $1 million. this space is a temporary use pending use of the property for an affordable housing program. the lease goes through 2025. the la cocina would be expected to put in about $4.6 million in continuant improvements.

we -- tenant improvements. we summarize that in our report on page four. there's a balance of about 782,000. this has not been identified yet that would either be additional fund raising by la cocina or a bridge loan, and we recommend approval. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. and i believe you have a presentation for us. >> thank you, chair fewer, supervisors stefani, mandelman, and peskin. hello. lisa pagan from the office of workforce development. i have slides -- hopefully -- yes, thank you. i'm here with my colleagues, mara blitzer and amy chan with the mayor's office of housing and workforce development.

we have worked collaboratively on an interim use for 101 hyde street, which i'm here to talk with you about today. a little background on this really exciting project. between 2016 and 2018, the site at 101 hyde at golden gate nearby here was acquired by the city through a land dedication at 1066 market street? the land was donated. in addition to the land, there was a $6 million gift held by the san francisco foundation of which 1 million was dedicated for an interim use for the site while it was waiting the development to move forward for an affordable housing and 5 million for affordable housing which is still held by the san francisco foundation for that project. the city issued an r.f.p. for community serving interim use, and we selected la cocina?

this is -- this is at hyde and golden gate. so the proposal is -- for the interim use is 7500 square foot food hall -- oh, excuse me, did it not show? no, it's not showing. let's see...i'm not sure if that's my end or their end. sfgovtv? >> chair fewer: yes. we're just waiting for sfgovtv to show this. >> a 7500 food hall is proposed with a kitchen? there'll be one permanent and seven rotating food vendors. it'll be a welcome and vibrant

space on a very tough corner that our service has worked for many years on in the market c.b.d. so this will be really welcoming, a new affordable eating for the tenderloin residents. it will help with neighborhood outreach and serving as a liaison to the tenderloin neighborhood for this project, and i have a plan here, which is hard to see on the video, but hopefully, you can see it closer up front, with the kiosks and the commercial kitchen, you see the seating areas which would be available for the community for events, actually, as a community center type space. so the lease terms for this interim use as was explained by the budget legislative analysis, it's going to expire in -- december 31, 2025, so

ideally, the term would be approximately march 2019, depending on if the lease is approved -- or recommended for approval and then approved at the board. the monthly rent is $1,000 plus 5% of net income, which would begin upon the issuance of the temporary certificate of occupancy? la cocina is responsible for the tenant improvements and all costs associated with operating the premises under the lease that we have negotiated? so in addition, the project timeline is that the start of construction is estimated to be may 2019 if the interim lease is approved, and they'd like to complete the tenant

improvements by november, have a soft launch in december and open in january 2020 for the community? and then, the mayor's office of housing and community development is here to answer additional questions if you have about the proposed housing development? and there's also an accept and expend grant as part of this in order to release the $1 million from the san francisco foundation for this project. >> chair fewer: thank you. any questions or comments from my colleagues? seeing none, let's open this up for public comment. there are any members of the public that would like to comment on items 19 or 20. >> hello. i'm the director of the project. thank you, lisa. she captured it really well. thank you to mara's team, as

well. in addition to all those great stuff, we also expect to hire 30 to 40 people from the tenderloin area. we have a commit -- we have commit -- we are committed to hire 75% from the neighborhood, and we expect to create about $4 million in revenue through the market hall. i hope that the supervisors will approve this loan, this lease, skm we' lease, and we're very confident that we can make this happen. la cocina has been working with woman for the last several years in businesses. we have over 30 brick and mortar restaurants opened by women, which over 90% are still open. this is something that no other organization in the bay area

can claim to. so we hope to also be the provide of healthy food options in the neighborhood. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> jennifer fremont from the coalition on homelessness. there was a lot of concerns, much like the monster in the mission, and we were called -- calling it the t-rex in the tenderloin. the company was going to be -- the developers were making a lot of money and really doing the bare minimum. so there was a lot of work in the community to force the developer to do some stuff to mitigate. they were not too comfortable with having poor people on their site, and it ended up

buying this building and giving the additional money to san francisco foundation. now, the interim use stuff, from our understanding is a lot of folks that were involved in this was it wasn't going to slow down the creation of the housing. there were interim use, but things were going to move full steam ahead. with proposition c, there's an option to having this housing be put in quicker. i think there needs to have some conversations about that because i don't think any of us imagined that. also, two years have already passed, so this has been a very lengthy, long thing that is potentially going to be causing even further delay. so we'd appreciate some more conversation about this. thank you. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. any other comments from my

colleagues? so yes, this is a seven-year lease, and we love la cocina, however, this community was promised an affordable housing site on this site, and a seven-year lease is a very long period of time. and so i am not comfortable actually passing this out of committee today because what the community and the members of the board were promised during the last budget cycle, it was a two-year temporary use, and then, those plans were 100% affordable housing. so i think i'd like to have more conversation on this. i'd like to continue this item -- oh, supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: i just wanted to also add not just prop c, which is subject to litigation, but as we know, the mayor and the board are contemplating what at a minimum would be a $300 million general obligation bond for affordable housing on this november's ballot, so i just wanted to add

that to the conversation. >> chair fewer: excuse me one second. so i see supervisor haney, which is a cosponsor of this, is in the room. supervisor haney, would you like to speak on this item? oh, you can actually come in here, supervisor. >> supervisor haney: oh. >> chair fewer: miss wong. >> supervisor haney: sorry for crashing the party. i think that i support what --

your comments in terms of continuing this and spending a little more time working with the community on it and talking about the length of the lease. obviously, we want to see that site activated right away. it's really a shame of sort of what has happened to that block as it's been a building that is really shuttered, and the community wants to see it activated. with that said, there's a commitment to have affordable housing and some of the opportunities that we have for funding may have shifted a little bit with the bond and prop c and other things, so -- eraf. so i'd love to be able to have some time to spend with oewd, with la cocina, with mohcd and with the community to see what the right time frame is. we want them to happen now, but as soon as we're ready to build housing, we want to be able to do that. i would respectfully ask, as you said, be continued.

>> chair fewer: would the meeting of march 13 work for you? that's two weeks from now. >> supervisor haney: that would be great, yeah. >> chair fewer: so i make a motion to move this item to the meeting of march 13. >> clerk: for clarification, both items? >> chair fewer: yes, both items, 19 and 20. thank you, supervisor haney. madam clerk, are there any other items before us today? >> clerk: there are no other items. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. the meeting is adjourned. [gavel]