once d.b.i. collects that information, once they issue a comment, they issue c.c. to the oner. you're sending it to the design professional regardless discipline, but the owner gets to a copy. that can be immediate approval.

secondly, speaking to the new permit centre, if it's brick and mortar what we're looking at, our agency has the largest number of staff there. there's a director who has been hired to handle all those issues our understanding is, health department will have a presence. the whole idea is not to have an applicant go knirl else to get their brick and mortar3related permit. they need that information the permit centre as well. even though it's not permit. it's a start of deciding whether you want to do business in san francisco or not. there will be presence in that s.f. permit centre. i hope that answers couple of questions. >> president mccarthy: thank you

for that comment. >> any public comment on item 6? >> good morning. deputy director lowery did define a serious problem and it deals with managing thousands orateds o -- or tens of thousans of permits of responses from designed professionals. i like to echo commissioner lee's comment, obvious solution is the workforce solution. one thing a tardy report by department could be issued weekly or monthly and sent to that department. you can kick them in the butt. other is commissioner lee mentioned it, if there was visibility through the citizen

portal, which is supposed to be delivered, a citizen or professional could go into the portal and clearly see the status of their permit and if there's an obstacle. i think the bigger issue here really is, performance standards. you can manage and you can report but if you don't have a standard to report against, you're reporting the standard versus performance. that's one of the issues i can h b.i.c. would address. are they doing things against the standard correctly. it's always the 80-20 rule. thank you. >> president mccarthy: thank

you. >> any additional public comment? seeing none. item 7, update on s.f. permit accela permit project tracking system. >> good morning. i'm from department of technology to give update on the s.f. permit implementation project. when i was here last month, we were just in the third day of our user acceptance testing round. as stated on the report, we completed that round only april 4th. out of that round, we had 328 issues and that was on the fourth. as of this morning, we're into the period of fixing and retesting the things that were reported as issues. we're down to 260 issues. this process of fixing,

retesting will ensue over the next few week as we work that number of open issues down to zero. these are severity one or two issues which will prevent d.b.i. from going live. that number needs it come down to zero open issues. that will be our entry point to be able to start what's scheduled to be our last round of testing. we're going to add into our acceptance testing process that next round from end to end and business simulation testing. just to show that permit and involving the various divisions in d.b.i. a large project can come in and c.p.b. staff takes it in. it goes through initial checks with fire and planning and gets routed to t.p.c. the reviews ensue, reviews

conclude and permits gets issued back again. everyone is dedicated across the department staff, they are participating as well as the project team. we're also have our dusting off what has been our plans for the three weeks of training prior to go live. in prior month report, the external stakeholder outreach which includes this commission and city hall constituents as well as the contract community and what we're calling now our

resident community to make sure that all of those plans are firmed up and in place. >> vice president walker: it's all heading in the right direction and i want to also applaud our discussions, the commissioners as we have gone through this process with accela we sea how important it is and having access to all the data in a cohesive way. it's nice to be able to talk about our processes a we talk about rebooting this system. i'm hopeful. i like that.

thank you henry for pushing this through. i know it's kind of pushing water in pail. we're headed in the right direction. >> president mccarthy: i'm the one that comes to presents. >> there's a busy team supporting this project. both within the department and project team itself. >> president mccarthy: thank you for coming this morning. >> any public comment on item 7? item 8 is director's report, update on d.b.i.'s finances.

>> you have a financial report that provides revenue and fortunes from july 2018 to marc. i'll go over couple of highlights. on the revenue side, if you look at the first page, you'll see that we're still projecting to be better than budget. that's a good thing. we've been extremely conservative since the fee reduction in 2015. we plan on experiencing slow downs. i want to be clear that there's going to be a slow down. we're better than budget. we are seeing that number less than prior year. we are seeing revenues go down. it's just a combination of our very conservative budgeting and some activities still going on why we continue to exceed the budget. we are going collecting less money. for charges for services, that's basically our fees. the fees are a lot lower.

what's kind of offsetting that little bit is that interest in investment over the past few years, we've been budgeting $500,000. we collected over $2.2 million last year in interest in investment. we projected top the same amount the charges of services are going up and interest of investment is going up. that kind of offset it little bit. that's on the revenue side. on the expense side, we're higher. we've seen uptick in salaries. we are constanting hiring. we're getting a ahead of it. we're able to keep up little bit more. we're doing little bit more hiring than to retiring. we're seeing uptick in that. we transfer money from our regular operating budget to project fund. you'll see that big number also be attributed to that.

that's all i have only the march year to daylight. i wan-- date.i want to give updn affordable housing. there will be a hearing today. the budget analyst have a report. based on their conversation with the mayor office of housing, they're anticipating about 15 small affordable housing sites that will be impacted by that fiscal year 19-20. for the affordable housing sites, and average that's about $15,000 per project. for a.d.u.'s they're projecting about 200 over that 14-month period. the average we have from audio is there $3200 in fees. that will be waived. then for the large scale affordable housing projects, the average that is about $150,000. based on the numbers that were

provided to the budget analyst they're estimating about that amount. the only caveat to that is that once again, because we don't normally collect all the fees in the same fiscal year because of you will file one year. the impact may not be the full 1.9. this is just an estimate. based on those projects over the life of the project,s, they're estimated $1.9 million of fees being waived. we don't have other details. hopefully we'll have to have them by may because the budget will be done in june. only the rent is in the budget not all the other items. those items will be costly.

it will be onetime start up costs. hopefully by next month budget presentation, i will be able to tell you what impact that will have on the budget. happy to answer any questions. >> president mccarthy: on that decrease in 3.2% from 19 to 18, page 2 there, how do you look at that decrease? do you factor in it could go to 5%? in your long-term thinking. when you see trends like that, i'm not sure if you have the answer for me. how do you look at the world when you see that obvious decrease happening? >> actually, this report looks at year over year. when we did the budget, we've gone to 2014 or 2015, that's when you were in uptick.

we seen it's $2 million or it $3 million. not just the year over year to look at the average. for new revenues, we're also looking at -- i talked to the cfo, they are seeing increases. although it's a 3.2% over jeer over year, for our budget in 19-20 revenue, we reduced it lot more than that. for charges of service. that's where the fluctuation is. in fiscal year 14-15, we're at about $78 million in fiscal year 14-final. just from charges of services. next year we're going to budget about $15 million. we're basing it on a trend that we see over a number of years. it's going down. but in report only does a year

over year comparison. >> president mccarthy: thank you. >> you mentioned we've had some increase in staffing over the retirements. do you happen to have the figure how high we are in terms of our proportion to full staffing? >> i think right now we're about 281 or something like that. when i said an increase if -- in staffing, i should clarify that. it hasn't been a huge increase but it's meaning we've been able to catch up when not hiring two but two people retiring. lot of times these things get itself out or somebody gets a promotion. in some instances we've been able it will slow down on

retirement. >> commissioner warshell: 280 is compared to >> our full f.t.e. is full 300. it's very close. >> commissioner warshell: second question regarding the issue coming up at board of supervisors tomorrow, i know we sent a great deal of comment and we're recommending something such as deferral of fees, which is especially would benefit the large-scale projects. as far as you know, there's not been any movement on that? >> yes, as far as i know. the average fees i cited, these are fees that included in the legislation. plan review fee and building fee, records retention fee and

site surcharge fee. only fees that are included is the d.b.i. fees. >> commissioner warshell: no other departments are waiving their fees. >> at this time. no other departments are waiving their fees. >> item 8b, update proposed or recently enacted state of local legislation. >> good morning commissioners. bill strong, legislative public fairs. to that last point, we'll be covering the g.a.o. hearing tomorrow to see if there's any discussion. your letter which included certain conditions that were preferred is certainly before them.

we haven't been told anything indicating that it was going to be a modification of the proposal. i think from the mayor's office perspective, they're looking to see how this works out in this pilot year. keep in mind with that ordinance, about 12 months before the year ends, which means roughly end of next year, january, we'll have to send a report to the board that will say, how many projects came in so we'll know what it total fee waiver was because of the way some the 100% affordable revenues come in. they wait until the project is actually completed, the number may be less than the anticipated roughly $2 billion in d.b.i. fees. i would mention also, the new

ordinance by supervisor fewer on vacant storefronts takes legal effect april 22nd. which is next week. the supervisors invited director hui to join her in the richmond district for little media announcement about that. as of april 22nd will then be on 30-day clock for owner registration, code enforcement has told us over the last few days, the word about the new ordinance seem to be getting out. we are getting more self-registrations of properties that we've had in the past. right now we have nearlial thousand vacant storefronts on our list. total number of actual registrations is still very small.

it's probably less than 100. we're hoping that is the supervisor's intent, with this stronger penalty if you don't register within the 30-day period, you'll be subject to four-time penalty. meaning the registration fee will go to about $2700. that will be an incentive for more registrations and we'll have a better more accurate account of how many vacant storefronts are out there. in addition, i would mention that the mayor's proposal ordinance on emergency shelters has passed. we're now waiting on the m.o.u. details so different departments would have guidelines. that law takes effect may 3rd.

with that, i'll take any questions from you. those are the highlights. >> commissioner warshell: back to the g.a.o. thing for tomorrow, we're saying this is a one-year pilot on the reduction. i could really understand how somebody considering an a.d.u. might be able to really decide to do it and we might see an increase this a.d.u. filings. given the time frame on the large projects, do we have any reason to believe that for one-year pilot program, we're going to have any kind of result that really could be tangible and relevant to who did this?

getting large projects to show interest? >> it's tempting to speculate, i don't think we know. part of that came out of the grand jury report a year ago. that had a recommendation calling for the city to do a study. the budget legislative analyst did do a report and they generally came to the conclusion, if you reduce fees, you probably will stimulate more especially a.d.u. production. again, we don't have the data yet. i think until we get through

facilitate some financial reliefly to encourage peopl -- o encourage people to legalize and create new a.d.u.s, boths are very desirable and the cost benefit is fairly compelling. my concern is much more with the very large amount that is involved for the large-scale projects that seem to be at odds with the kind of time frame that one-year pilot might be able to entail. that's just really where i see a disconnect. >> understood. keep our eye on it and we'll keep you informed as with go

along. >> commissioner warshell: thank you. >> president mccarthy: thank you. >> item 8c, update on major projects. >> ron thomas i'm the director. compared to report between february 2019 and current one is an increase of 6.3% in total construction cost. that breaks a trend that we've in previous reports. >> president mccarthy: thank you. >> item 8d, update on code enforcement. >> good morning again commissioners. building inspector. i'm here to report code enforcement and d.b.i. monthly activity specifically for the month of march.

5,932,000,000,000 inspections were performed in the month of march. what was up 900. it probably represents more activity after the winter months and february is 28 days. it's quite substantial increase over the previous month. it's 900 more inspections that we had in february. we received 393 complaints in the month of march. of those 393, 382 were responded to within 72 hours. 190 were closed without a notice of violation. 41 of those complaints received a notice of violation. in regard to code enforcement section, all 124 cases were sent to director's hearing in the month of march, 40 orders of abatement were issued.

number of cases that were abated was 165. the code enforcement inspections performed was 332. that's up substantially from the previous month. which was 260. i'm available for any questions. >> any public comment on the director's report items 8a through d? seeing none. item 9 review and approve special meeting march 20, 2019. >> move to approve. >> motion and second. >> is there public comment. all commissioners in favor? >> aye. >> any opposed? minutes are approved. next item is 10 motion to

adjourn. >> president mccarthy: big welcome back to john. i want to close this in memory deputy director sweeney's father, mr. edward sweeney who died last week. he was of great age. he was a tremendous character. one of the finest irishman ballroom dancers you'll see. he lived full life and one of the greatest characters of the irish community. our talks and prayers are with him and his family. that should do it madam second. >> thank you very much. we had our motion to adjourn. it is now 11:46 a.m. thank you.

>> good afternoon and welcome to the land use and transportation committee for the san francisco board of supervisors for today, monday april 29th, 2019. i am the chair of the committee, joined by vice chai -- vice chair supervisor safai and matt haney to my left. please make any announcements that you have. >> please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices. completed speaker cards and copies of any documents can be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk

items will appear on the may 7 th board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you. please read the first item. >> yes, item one is an item submitting the ministries of code to require report of residential hotel status and disclosure of the report to the buyer and transferee prior to the sale or transfer of a residential hotel and affirming appropriate findings. >> insofar as the second item also concerns a similar subject matter, could you please read item two as well? >> item number 2 is an ordinance amending the administrative code to revise the conversion ordinance and affirming appropriate findings. >> thank you. colleagues, members of the public, as many of you know, over the past several years i have introduced a number of pieces of legislation to protect and preserve stock of affordable housing, particularly single

resident occupancy housing. low income residents and parts of the east side of the city, district three, the south of market area, district six, as well as the mission district for decades have tried to keep them housed in the city. this is a law that dates back to -- i'm speaking to number 2 back in the 1980s, and after a fire in 2017 at 801 pacific avenue in chinatown, we realized that our hotel ordinance and fire safety and sprinkler requirements needed some updating. part of that in 2016, i introduce what became props see, which was repurchasing of seismic safety bonds, and as we know, the mere touch office of housing is now releasing those funds and they are available.

today's legislation in item number 1 is intended as a follow-up to the increased building fire code safety requirements that we rolled out in the past few years by ensuring that potential purchasers are aware of the true cost of necessary life safety upgrades, and not just relying on projected rent rolls. this legislation requires full disclosure of any and all life safety and health violations for transfer or sale so that ultimately the buyer will have to you,, within 12 months, purchase those -- purchase and secure those problems. given historic nature density and susceptibility of s.r.o.s to fire, i am particularly concerned about this type of housing stock in chinatown and north beach as well as in the south of market and the mission. this is not merely a disclosure requirement, but will require actual updates and repair to ensure building safety codes are in place at the time of the inspection.

habitability and life and safety upgrades are buried into the details of the building sale a new owners are often not aware of the critical, costly, and comprehensive work that must be done. it often leads to doing just enough within the law to remodel the building. we have many law-abiding owners. where strengthening protections for them as well. new owners should know what they are investing in and what would be required for them to keep their resident -- residents safe as to item number 2, i would like -- first of all, to item number 1, i have an amendment that the district attorney has given me that just further elaborates -- excuse me this is long, it illuminates the long title and i will pass that out

to you, colleagues, and with item number 2, what i -- it is an amendment to delete references to section 302 and general plan findings given that we have confirmed with the city attorney and planning that they, in fact do not need to be made and the second is an amendment to refer to the fact that even, though legislation amendments shifts from a 32 requirement to 32 dates, it supersedes the code as it is currently enforced, in other words, seven days. i would like to make a motion to amend and continue item number 2 for 1 week, but we will do that after public comment. >> so moved. >> we have a motion, but we will not take that until after public comments. with that, if there are no questions from committee members , i would like to open up items one and two to public comment.

>> good afternoon. my name is jordan davis and i am a current s.r.o. tenant. definitely in support of this legislation right here, both pieces of legislation, you know, there's been a lot of changes and i feel like basically we need to make sure that owners are following the law and not pulling any b.s. to throw tenants out, and making sure that everything that we have the highest level of fire safety given the age of these buildings in the cramped quarters that we live in. there is a little bit of concern that i have about the lack of community engagement of s.r.o. tenants. i did not even hear about this until a couple of days ago.

and there's just not many -- i don't see many s.r.o. tenants here right now, and you need to contact stakeholders when big things like this come up, and also -- i mean i serve on the body that deals with s.r.o.s, and we should have had a discussion, and i feel like we need to -- overall, and very supportive, and we need these things explain to us, so please work on your committee processes , thanks. >> if i made to the speaker, i actually introduce this in 2017, that has been kicking around for a couple of years, but we got distracted. it was actually part of a community package that was brought to my office in 2017. it has been around for a couple of years, i just want to say. speaker, please. >> good afternoon, chairman and pat -- and supervisors.

on behalf of the san francisco s.r.o. hotel coalition, and numerous other individual owners of s.r.o.s. we felt -- we filed a law a letter which you have before you today, we are here to object to number 2 on the proposed amendments on a number of grounds which have been discussed at length before. procedurally, the city has failed to give notice as required by law. the planning commission still does not meet the recommendation and there's a hearing on the merit and the litigation this friday so the question why this is being rushed through at the last minute right before that hearing. proper environmental review has not been done. instead of completing an initial study, the planning department has written itself a memo and instead of completing an e.i.r., the city his relying on negative declarations from the 1980s. one of the negative declarations is older than i am and i say the circumstances have changed dramatically in my lifetime. even if things haven't changed, none of those negative declarations reviewed the

potential impacts at issue here. they look at procedural issues and replacement construction impacts, not displacement of occupants in homelessness and urban decay and life. these are real impacts that the city is poised to cause, which brings us to the big question. s.r.o.s work as a business model because they are able to rent rooms by the week, rather than by the month. if you impose a 30 day requirement, you will be taking away their business. s.r.o. operators have no choice but to take the rooms off the market and occupants will not be able to afford the rent and security deposit for monthly tenancy. i'm sure the city means well, but the consequences will be terrible. we urge you to vote no. thank you. >> good afternoon. i oppose the minimum 30 day room

which is -- most of our tenants cannot afford to pay the first month and last month deposit and we will not be able to rent rooms. i understand that this is what san francisco has relied on s.r.o.s for housing the homeless and the low income, but we are still hotel at the end of the day, we are not an apartment building. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am one of dozens of family-owned s.r.o. hotel owners and operators that are being impacted by the proposed s.r.o. hotel changes. the changes to 32 days or 30 will change our small hotels into apartments, completely changing our operations. this will also make it difficult for people who can only afford to pay weekly and cannot come up with the security deposit plus

the last month rent. this will exacerbate the housing situation. we urge you to work with us as a multi- generation san franciscan who has lived and worked in our privately owned building for decades. this is legislator that will work against us. if these changes are about stopping s.r.o.s converting, then these changes go too far and affect dozens of other hotels that do not fall under this category. if this is about housing the homeless, then this is doing the opposite of what it wants. we as private small business owners are caught in the crossfire. please ignore the change and work together on a proper solution for san francisco. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am an operator of an s.r.o. in the city and the former operator of two other s.r.o.s. i'm here to oppose item number 2

and i really feel like this rule really impacts us tremendously in that it changes us from being a hotel to basically being an apartment building. if we have to rent for 30 days and we have to check their credit, we have to make sure that they are able to pay their rent, we would require first and last -- we would require a deposit as well as first month's rent, many people that we rent to don't actually -- are actually to come up with those deposits and first month's rent. we rent went to a lot of people by the week, and these people will not be able to come in and rent rooms at our property. i feel like this is a fundamental change to our hotels we wouldn't even need to have the word hotel in the front of our hotels, they would just be

changing tremendously to our business model. so there is a letter that has been submitted by some individuals, and i wholeheartedly agree with that letter. please vote no on number 2. >> next speaker. >> hello. i am the manager of the hotel. our business is renting rooms to guess by the week. we will not rent rooms by the month because it is not possible to rent tenants by the month. you will have to take these rooms off the market and you will be taking away our businesses. many of our guests cannot afford to pay rent by the month. this means that even if we did offer rooms by the month, they cannot be able to afford to pay the rent. we are able to rent rooms by the week without requiring a deposit

and a full month's rent up front because there is a last first in renting rooms. is someone who is staying for a month, we would have to take deposits and two months rent upfront or the risk of significant final -- financial loss is too high. for many of our guests, it is impossible to come up with a deposit and a month's rent in advance. they don't have access to that kind of capital, which is why they are renting by the week. if we require a minimum stay of 30 days, many of them will be unable to rent rooms and/or become homeless. i agree with today's letter, please vote no. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> hello. i'm here as a former s.r.o. resident, and i would just like to say that there are some good

s.r.o. owners, however i have been in some places where they have subverted the law, they have used loopholes to cheat people on the street, they have used the 28 day name where they put you out for two or three days, so i think these things need to be put in place. i understand the cost of them, but also, i have been around the delta when it burned down, and i was around the rose when it burnt down. if we don't keep these things in place, we don't -- we will end up housing more loss than just a little bit of income. i suggest you keep these things in place and find a way to work with the s.r.o. owners to make sure that both sides don't suffer. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello. i am an s.r.o. operator in

mixed-use in san francisco and i want to say, i have a tenant because i have mixed use. i have permanent tenants that have been here a long time, but they have all gone through a prescreened background check, credit check on the deposits, which any other rental place in san francisco is definitely the safeguards they put in, not only for the property owners before the other tenants. i don't know if a lot of people you're trying to help her going to pass those things to get in the building. you're making it harder to get into my building than less. a seven day stay, if they wanted -- if they ended up liking me, they can stay longer than seven days, i don't kick anybody out of my hotel. department lee put someone and who will be a permanent resident , it is easy to get somebody in, but it is hard to get somebody out if it is somebody who is not mentally healthy or something like that and it affects other tenants, not only my business. these are safeguards for everybody. those things are going to be able to pass, i don't think a lot of those people you are trained to help will pass those

think -- pass those things. that would be it. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is deion and i'm the executive director of mary elizabeth in and i am standing before you today in support of item number 1, and i want to thank you for this legislation. it is very important to ensure that ordinances and building codes remain in place and one other thing i think that is maybe missing is full disclosure of the status of the building, even during the time of lease renewal negotiations. aside from that, i think this is an important legislation, it helps to preserve what is really the only affordable housing

option for san francisco's homeless population. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> david elliot lewis, i work with a central city s.r.o. collaborative. we try to aid people who live in single room occupancy hotels. it is as important as she said as is an important form of low income housing that was at one point before the hotel conversion ordinance and the city was down to about 27,000 units and now we are down to 19 -- 18,000 or 17,000 units, we keep losing them. some of them to tourist conversions, some of them to change of use. anything you can do to help preserve and protect this vital form of low income housing i would appreciate. it sounds like this initiative is a step in the right direction i fully support it. i hope you will pass it. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker.

>> you have two items going out one time, and it seems like both of them are conflicted. i can tell you right now it sounds like you're displacing the most vulnerable people who have a place to live that is based on their income. fifty% of me and 50% of me -- 50 % of me is against it and 50% of me is for it. barbara garcia put me in a hotel and the place was not up to code , and i got more done then the building inspectors got done in 31 years. i was the one who filed the complaints and then filed how -- the plumbing, the bedbugs, the roaches, the mice was all in the building, and as a result, the city attorney ended up getting my complaint and asked if she had permission to turn over my complaint to the district attorney and sued the slumlord for $150 million, and they

didn't give not one of the tenants one damn penny. but not everything is up to code then you get the lady who is the director at the building and has a recognition hearing claiming she took all the slumlords, when i'm the one who started that issue and got those people living up to code without all those violations of the health & safety code. i got more done in five months then she got in 31 god damn years, and you are giving her a big recognition hearing saying she did a good god damn job. the people living to my left were living with bedbugs and roaches for nine years. i'm the one who wrote the complaint and took all the pictures and went to the health department and had the inspectors come in here and reverse that building, and now it is looking brand-new. so you have low income bracket people finally living in a good housing conditions and paying

their income -- paying comparable to their income. i believe you should leave everything as it is. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you, supervisors. i'm with chinatown c.d.c. in support of item one and two. i want to talk briefly about item one. really looking and thinking about what happened at 801 pacific, and fires in an s.r.o. which are a big, big problem for us all across the city, in chinatown, but not only their and south of market and the mission, and the simple speculation that continues to happen, so having the hotel report with ddi so that anyone -- with d.b.i. so anyone who is interested in coming in and acquiring s.r.o.s as a clear sense and a clear sense of cost about what is taking over these

hotels, and what the situation in these hotels are according to this city, which i agree with residents, you know, that is one part of the equation, of course, there is a part about all the resident involvement, but i think that it really puts forward a clear plan for whoever is interested in acquiring these s.r.o.s about what can be done and what has to be done. and i think that that is so important to maintain our affordable housing stock and, you know, going forward, keeping s.r.o.s, not only affordable, but also safe for all of our residents, which i think is something that we all support. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is lindsey. i'm a community organizer at the central city after hours unit here to speak in favor of items

number 1 and 2. as we all know, s.r.o. house some of the most vulnerable populations in san francisco. people have lived in this city and for decades were no now elderly and disabled and on fixed income. in our current housing crisis, there's even greater incentive for these tenants to be displaced, and for operators to cater to a higher income population. the legislative -- the legislation proposed today works to ensure that s.r.o. -- s.r.o.s continue to remain affordable and safe housing stock for those as it is intended to serve. i echo the comments about disclosing residential status to preserve tenant safety, and amending the definition for its use to ensure that we are catering to a long-term population of s.r.o. tenants. thank you for your consideration >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> senior and disability action, in support of items one and two. as you know, s.r.o. hotels house thousands of seniors, not only seniors, but seniors with disabilities who live with very serious challenges and to occur on fixed income. we do need to make this housing affordable and safe. that does not happen all the time, so i think this proposal proposes to at least put this as a step in the right direction with the disclosure of residential statuses. again, we have many seniors, many disabled who are struggling big time to live day to day, and they need all the help that they can get. this is one of the things that can help. thank you. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public on items one or two?

seeing none, we will close public comments. why don't we dispense with item number 1. supervisor haney, would you see fit to sent item want to the full board with positive recommendation? >> yes. >> okay. without objection, we will forward item number 1 to the full board with a positive recommendation. as to item number 2, let me say a few things. first of all, i do want to thank and appreciate the work of lisa gibson and the planning department's environmental review unit, and the original 1983 negative declaration is in the file together with a very cogent and detailed analysis dated april 11th, which is also part of the file. i'm saying this mostly for the edification of supervisor haney,

this is legislation that, in conjunction with rosemary at the housing division of d.b.i. and extensive community input, i introduced in november of 2016, cosponsored by supervisor kim, he and others, and signed into law on february 17th of 2017 by mayor lee, which was a comprehensive set of revisions to chapter 41 of the administrative code. all of that is not what's before us here, what is merely before s. is the change from 32 to 30 days, and relative to the contention made by one of the members of the public, first of all, this legislation was actually introduced in january and has been before this committee before, and most importantly, it is actually not

going to be acted upon today, what is going to be continued for yet another week so it can be renoticed. with that, is there -- supervisor safai was going to make a motion. >> can we take that without objection? that will be the order. we will hear this again next monday. madame clerk, next item, please. >> item three is a resolution approving a conditional property exchange agreement with eq x. just can -- jackson s.q. holds company, a delaware limited liability company under the jurisdiction of the fire department in exchange for a portion of the property at 425 through 439 washington street. >> thank you. colleagues, the states back to my first tour of duty in office

over a decade ago when i tried to push the city to think creatively about using public land for affordable housing, and the idea back in those days was to sell the air rights over fire station 13 down on washington and samson as the high-pressure station that serves downtown, and the idea was to develop -- to either develop affordable housing above the fire station or monetize the value of that air parcel. i was ahead of my time, and all of those efforts came to not and the world changed. they actually voted on a couple of pieces of neighboring resolutions along the way, and today we actually have in front of us conditional property exchange and hopefully this will be a vehicle which will help us

fund some affordable housing not too far away in chinatown at 77 to pacific avenue, although that deal is far from done and has not been analysed under ceqa, but i wanted to first of all thank john updike, our former head of real estate and came out of retirement to preside over this quite complex deal, and then i really want to thank the fire department and chief chief haze white an white and incoming chief nicholson who will be the chief here and a handful of days , as well as the fire commission and deputy chief -- chief rivera for working with real estate, and finally, i want to thank the successful bidder who we will be hearing a little bit about in the moments ahead, but i can't tell you how delighted i am that it appears that this is coming to fruition a decade or so later, and with

that, the floor is yours. >> thank you, chair peskin, members of the committee. we can go to the laptop. very quickly, as the supervisor mentioned, we have been at this a while, and two prior resolutions were unanimously approved by the board. i -- i will outline them here on the slide. encourage the city to look at this area is an opportunity for housing development, and more particularly, after we did analysis on what could and could not go on that site for the resolution just last year, that sought very specifically to seek market rate housing at this location at 530 samson to leverage affordable housing at 772 pacific, which we acquired a couple of years ago. it is slated for affordable housing, but lacks funds to move forward as robustly as we would

like