succeed >> 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. so quickly a little context on this site. it is important in that what we have in front of us, this conditional property exchange agreement is a little more than what we put out to the marketplace so the site itself is shown in red at the corner of sansome and washington. adjacent, a site that is highlighted in black, it is a privately owned parcel, it is an important parcel in that the developer that we are bringing forward to you today to be our partner on this has secured an option for that property and by including that property has given us a greater better urban form development for consideration. the area also shows the context

-- that is a 16 story building, 22 stories kitty corner from the site, 22 stories also in the opposite direction, so 2022 stories seems to be a theme, and here we have the zoning at 200 feet or approximately 20 stories. let me review for you the process that brings us here today. back in january, we issued a prospectus that solicited those proposals for development of 530 sansome. four proposals were received. we did not -- we then headed team review those proposals, rank them, of those four, you see the four that were received and the bidders made them and the ranking. this was the more complex of the projects. this was the more robust in terms of gross square footage,

and therefore, this also had the greatest yield to the city. to fold, one in terms of just straight revenue for the sale of the property, and two in terms of fees that would be generated by the project. let's talk a little bit specifically about the proposal in front of you. this would replace the fire station, that was one of our key drivers. we have an existing fire station , fairly robust, and it was built in the 1960s, but could use some further seismic strengthening, more importantly, it is a bit dysfunctional because the age of the facility, and so this new fire station will address health and safety issues that we have heard loud and clear from the members to make it more functional on the ground floor, and ensure that we provide for safe and efficient services to the neighborhood. >> i have to inject that it is not old enough to be historic.

>> thank you. [laughter] >> the new fire station will be 22,572 gross square feet peak. it would be on four floors versus three, there will be two subterranean levels under the station and the adjacent residential mixed-use development. the first lower-level serving the fire department members, 18 spaces, which was the requirement that we put in the r.f.p., and then the lower-level serving the hotel and condominium, and that's a very small amount of 22 spaces, approximately in the current massing plan. what is proposed as related by the developed partner is a 200 room equinox hotel and an equinox health club, as well as 35 market rate condominiums. how would that look on the site? here is a cross-section looking vertically at the site. do you see the fire department

in red with its facility, the one below level, the four levels above, on top of the station would be one level of improvements that would be privately owned that would be retained via cross easements. it is an extension of the health club that rises from the lobby up to the top of the fifth level then you see the hotel levels above that on the tower, in the residential above that. i want to quickly jog back to that map because sometimes is a little hard to get that perspective. so what's being proposed is a station physically moves from the corner of sansome to washington, to a midblock location. the fire department gets ready access off washington, with rear access to merchants for a smaller vehicle that can make that turning radius and allows the tower to be built on the corner with a fire station -- where the fire station is now. a different way of looking at it , this is in no means a design

, this is simply massing, so this gives you a sense of what can be stacked on a property. you will see the fire department in red, the health club with the hotel above and to the condominiums above that, there's also a rooftop area that sits on the fifth level, a portion of that will be granted directly to the fire department for its use, for its continued use as they do on fire stations for training purposes. they will have access to that off washington on the fifth level, which would be one of the more extensive training opportunities from a fire station that are normally two or three stories at the most in height. so now when you talk about the agreement that is in the board file that is truly in front of you today. that is a conditional agreement, that means it is subject to further board of supervisors ratification post ceqa approval stood that occur. should not should that not occur to be a substantial modification that is unacceptable to either

the developer or the city, this agreement simply goes away, and we take another run at developing the property. what this accomplishes, as i mentioned, is a new, more resilient, better functional fire station, the cost cap is $25.5 million. let me explain that a bit. what you're getting here is a privately delivered public asset the department of public works is working with me, of course, on this. this is very similar to the process we use with the expansion project of fire station one that was redeveloped as part of that project and delivered privately to the city pursuant to its specifications. we are following that process and frankly, learning from things that could have gone better on that project. we've already addressed those upfront here. we are getting better at this as we continue. the 25 by $5 million reflects the anticipated full cost of delivery of this fire station,

and that is everything, soup to nuts, is my developer partner is here with us today who has said we were just short of noting the thread count on the linens for the beds, but it is very detailed in terms of the needs to be delivered beyond just the fire station itself. it will be a fully functional turnkey development. if we have cost savings, and we certainly will do everything we can to do that, let's say it is $24 million all in to develop the station, that $1.5 million gets paid to the safety at the close of escrow and is also applied to the affordable housing project at 772 pacific. inclusionary housing fees come from two sources, if you will. the housing linkage fee that is driven by the hotel, one by the inclusionary housing fee that is delivered by did 35,000 square footage of condominiums, and all told, that is approximately

$9.1 million that will flow into the 772 civic affordable housing project. ted adams is here to address any questions you might have about that project and its timeline, but we have tried our best to sync up the timing of the permits that would be secured here, which triggers the payment of those fees and the readiness of 772 pacific to begin immediately thereafter. there's also a requirement of transferable development rights to address the f.a. are requirements on this site, that is a benefit to the city. the developer here will be paying the city for those transferable development rights estimated just over $3 million. lastly, because this is a development on formerly owned city property for housing purposes, you may recall that the board adopted an ordinance not too long ago that very specifically required such a development to add certain provisions. one prevailing wages, two, a car

check requirement, and that will flow through to this development because it is happening on formerly owned city property for residential purposes, even if a portion of the property is or residential a residential and the after condition, so you will find that as a condition of the agreement in front of you today. what do we hear from the fire department. we may two presentations to the fire commission and we'll continue that dialogue during this design process. very strict specifications provided before we went out with this. i will thank deputy chief rivera , chief nicholson for some very hard work getting the specifications to a status that we were very comfortable with. seventy said yes, i will build that for you, and we could say yes, we will take that. also, i have to closely coordinate the construction start and the construction timeline to ensure that the logistics made sense of the temper a springing to other

locations. to make sure it's safe delivery of services to the downtown area during construction, and bring them back to the finished site. and then lastly, there is a concern, and a valid one by the fire commission that we have very strict penalties for any delays, and that if there are financial penalties as a result, because the cost, the burden is on the fire department, those particular streams of revenue should go to the fire department we concur conceptually with that , also with -- we consulted with the city attorney with that and intent to count that as part of the ratification process once we get to that point post ceqa. what is next? after this, we will enter into that entitlement process. if ceqa approval is obtained, will be back right here with the ratification of the final agreement. there be several other ancillary documents around architectural, general contractor, associated cross easement rights, as you

can see, this is very complicated, vertically integrated, there's a lot of adjustment that will flow from this. we will have all of those packages for the board, hopefully to consider on one very long day, but perhaps a bunch of them -- and that will be sometime in 2021. we would anticipate construction beginning by late 2021 and delivery into the new project in 2023. there are opportunities to accelerate that timeline. we will take advantage of those wherever we see them, but this is a conservative, realistic schedule to help you understand when this delivery would happen. i'm happy to answer any questions you might have. >> thank you. i think that was very thorough. this is obviously remarkably complicated, and i really appreciate your thoroughness. i'm actually amazed that we've gotten this far. i don't know if there any questions from committee members if not, mr. adams, is there anything you would like to add a relative to the 772 pacific

avenue side? >> thank you, supervisor. i would only like to add that we are excited to see this project going forward, and its correlation with 772 pacific. obviously it is in our pipeline. we are anxious to getting it going and having semi- diked if -- identified funding through this project development is super exciting to us. it is not complete the gap commitment needed to, but it is a good step towards that. hopefully this will give us a project to work with. we are very excited. thank you. >> supervisor haney? >> so is there -- on 772, is there a plan for timeline on when that would break ground and what is the funding gap there? >> we are in a little bit of a reactive mode. we have to see if this project moves forward. we're in a position where we can adopt our timeline once we have funding identified and we can select a developer and move forward pretty expeditiously, so

we will adopt our timeline to the identification of funding. the outstanding gap was given very early estimates. we still have approximately 15 to 17 million-dollar gap in addition to this $10 million. about $9.1 million that is identified here. this project and the fee that it generates as a complete picture, but it is a really important step forward. >> any other questions? question from you? >> no, i want to make a comment. i want us appreciate supervisor peskin. we had this conversation very early on, maybe a month or two into the election and we had a debate on the floor, and you took that debate and transitioned it to this particular property, resurrected something that he had been working on for almost a decade, and here we are, less then a year later, and we have a real opportunity to do something special, and we are not selling it as an opportunity for private

investment, but we are really looking for it to maximize affordable housing. i just want to appreciate your leadership on that. >> thank you. any comments from fire? >> chief rivera, chief nicholson >> good afternoon, supervisors. chief janine nicholson, san francisco fire department. we have been working closely with john updike and with the developers to make sure that all our operational and logistical needs are met, and we are feeling really good about it and we support this project 100%. >> a new station 13 and new station 35, unbelievable. >> bring it. [laughter]. >> chief rivera, anything you want to add? >> assistant deputy chief tony rivera. i would like to add it has been

a pretty good relationship with john updike and the team from related. i'm hoping that we will have a really great firehouse that will not only be able to help the citizens in the neighborhood to, but also bring us into the future. that firehouse should be replaced, and i think there's a great opportunity to see that come to fruition. >> thank you, tony. mr. wadey, anything you like to say on behalf of related? okay. why don't we open this up to public comment. other members of the public would like to speak on this item number 3? mr. wright? >> it sounds like a real good project, but it's just like the rest. the first speaker, s.f. viewer, please. the first speaker told me that they set the requirement medium at 60% of a.m.i., that's 48,000

$400 a year, said the lowest income that you accept to move in that apartment building complex, you have to make $48,400, that's 60% of a.m.i. that means everybody's income that is below that point cannot apply and be attendant in the building. this is a technique i have been demonstrating that is being used on every brand-new apartment building that comes out of the marital jaw office. it is a tracking device we discriminate against most vulnerable people who need housing, and by the same response, the income practice that is below this target that you are shooting for is a very same people that you campaigned that you wanted to help. by the same response, you are supposed to be incorporating rule for, ten-point to pertaining to redevelopment in the building a brand-new apartment building complexes

which says, the community redevelopment law, at least 15% of all new and rehabilitated dwellings within the plant area by the project of the agency shall be affordable as the cost to persons a families a very low , and low-medium income, not less than 40% of the dwelling units required available for affordable housing cost persons and families a very low and low- moderate income should be available at affordable housing cost to very low and low income households. you said -- you are setting that income at 60% of the requirement and not fooling -- following this rule and regulation. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> supervisors, thank you. we caught wind of this project a little late.

we have a long-standing organization agreement with the current property owner of the adjacent parcel 499 washington. on conversations with related earlier today and in good faith or discussions with them, and also the fact that the city will continue to review this project as it goes forward. we are ready to support this on the expectation that this project gives the same organizing guarantees that other hotel projects in the private sector as negotiated over the last couple of decades, so thank you. >> that shall come to pass, mr. lewis. are there any other members of the public here on this item number 3? seeing then, public comment is closed. supervisor haney? >> yeah, thank you. i just had a question. i think it is fantastic to be building additional hotel space as well, but the other three

proposals, it looks like we are -- are all residential. is the main reason why this one was superior was because the benefits that it provided for the fire station in having the additional parcel? or is there anymore you can say about these other three proposals and what didn't meet the standards there? >> thank you, supervisor, a really good question. because there was already a not quite entitled project moving forward adjacent to the fire station site for a limited service hotel, to be fair to those people who are not able to pull off an assemblage process -- project, we compared how would this block move forward in terms of fee revenue with two separate projects versus one consolidated project, and, in fact, it did prove out our intuition which is the consolidated project -- because

there is greater economies, there's greater gross square footage, even, though in terms of the parks and the whole was far greater. the revenue was higher and the fee revenue was higher with this proposal compared to the strict residential proposals tendered. they offered less money, and it delivered less affordable housing in lieu revenue. >> so less affordable housing in lieu revenue, but was it also less overall -- >> yes. >> well, affordable housing solution is 77 to pacific, so it is a question of how much inclusionary fee revenue each development would throw off. >> so none of the development have on site? >> no. that was not what our request was about, recognizing the difficulty, we were giving the developer to say, we have this

fire station, you have to replace it with a brand-new, robust, resilient, seismically category four fire station. knowing that, no project would pencil appropriately, so that's why we tied it very smartly to a project that was in the queue, but lacked funds to move forward on pacific avenue. >> and by way of background, this board of supervisors purchased that site, thank you mr. updike for your help negotiating that deal, 2.5 years ago for the price of $5 million. >> that's a great deal. >> mr. updike, one quick question. again, thank you, supervisor peskin, thank you to the department of real estate, fire, everyone involved. i want to underscore a point mre hotel, again, this is my first

opportunity to look at this, some really happy about that. i want to say for the record, it is a really important aspect, what about the health club and all the other things? because this is city property, will a card to check agreement to be part of the negotiated final outcome? >> as we understand, the card check issue applies to the hotel , the prevailing wage issue applies to the delivery of the project itself, so any aspect, contracting, subcontracting, that would apply, but i do not believe our legal analysis indicated a card check issue would flow to the health club. >> okay. we can certainly explore that further. >> we can tidy that up if that is an issue. >> that is an issue. this particular health club has been fighting card checks in san francisco at other locations, so i just want to say, for the

record, it is important that the developer knows and those who are involved in the conversation , they are aware of that and that is something that is important to this board, board, that we would tighten it up. someone here, are you from related? oh, okay. mr. wadey? >> i just wanted to say, for the record, that that is something that is really important to this board. i think supervisor -- i think supervisor peskin and breed. just pay attention to the health club as well. you will be negotiating card check for the hotel, so make it as a point to underscore that for the health club, that would be imported -- important. >> so noted. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> colleagues, while this has been the subject of two previous resolutions as mr. updike stated , because of related timeframe to actually close

escrow on the property next door , the future home of station 13, i am requesting that we send this to the board as a committee report for hearing tomorrow.

>> and with that, i will turn it over to mr. corg circumstance. >> good afternoon, chair and supervisors. thank you for hearing this, as well.

i'm the senior programme manager. the office workforce development. >> let me interrupt you. i have neglected my duty to say we've been introduced by supervisor normandy. if i turned my head to my left, i would have noticed that. >> i'm the office of economic and workforce development. i oversee an district on the county of san francisco. we're hearing the resolution to renew and expand the business improvement district. oewd to like to request two amendments to clarify typographical air. >> page 3, line 24 been should be page 10, line 15, read union business square district.

>> this the oldest b i.d. and formed in 1999 for a duration of five years and renewed under legislation by chair peskin from 2004 to five 2005 and 200 2008 o 2009. this item authorize ballots. to the budget will have an assessment budget of 6,036,001le $8.88. the total will be $6,000,009,000,095. this will be the largest property base by assessment revenue in the county of san francisco. unfortunately, thi miss flood hs lost her voice.

so with me is the director of public realm of the business district on the services, maps and vision for the renewed district. if there are no questions for staff, i would like to invite mr. silver to present on his presentation. >> if you, mr. corgus and i guess miss flood spoke to much on friday and lost her voice. i understand one of her other speakers for item number six is suffering from layer jointie communities. i won't keep too much of your time but wanted to go over a brief history of the union square bid and what we're all about, we're at 501-c4 founded

in 1999 and we are currently 27 blocks, about 622 parcels which makes up 1,000 storefronts. and, of course, being a bid by the property owners within our boundaries. currently our budget is about 3.7 million and i'll go over what we are proposing today. since inception we've raised $12 million. since 2010, those could be sponsorships, private funds, so on and so forth. we are bostonne boston bid govef directors and 50% have to be on behalf of property owners and 20% from businesses and elected by member. we're serving a ten-year term. and right now, we are proposing an