tv BOS Budget and Finance Committee SFGTV July 14, 2021 10:00am-3:01pm PDT
>> everything is done in-house. i think it is done. i have always been passionate about gelato. every single slaver has its own recipe. we have our own -- we move on from there. so you have every time a unique experience because that slaver is the flavored we want to make. union street is unique because of the neighbors and the location itself. the people that live around here i love to see when the street is full of people.
it is a little bit of italy that is happening around you can walk around and enjoy shopping with gelato in your hand. this is the move we are happy to provide to the people. i always love union street because it's not like another commercial street where you have big chains. here you have the neighbors. there is a lot of stories and the neighborhoods are essential. people have -- they enjoy having their daily or weekly gelato. i love this street itself. >> we created a move of an area where we will be visiting. we want to make sure that the area has the gelato that you like. what we give back as a shop owner is creating an ambient lifestyle.
>> candlestick park known also as the stick was an outdoor stadium for sports and entertainment. built between 1958 to 1960, it was located in the bayview hunters point where it was home to the san francisco giants and 49ers. the last event held was a concert in late 2014. it was demolished in 2015. mlb team the san francisco giants played at candlestick from 1960-1999. fans came to see players such a willie mays and barry bonds, over 38 seasons in the open ballpark. an upper deck expansion was added in the 1970s. there are two world series played at the stick in 1962 and in 198 9.
during the 1989 world series against the oakland as they were shook by an earthquake. candlestick's enclosure had minor damages from the quake but its design saved thousands of lives. nfl team the san francisco 49ers played at candlestick from feign 71-2013. it was home to five-time super bowl champion teams and hall of fame players by joe montana, jerry rice and steve jones. in 1982, the game-winning touchdown pass from joe montana to dwight clark was known as "the catch." leading the niners to their first super bowl. the 49ers hosted eight n.f.c. championship games including the 2001 season that ended with a loss to the new york giants. in 201, the last event held at candlestick park was a concert by paul mccartney who played with the beatles in 1966, the
stadium's first concert. demolition of the stick began in late 2014 and it was completed in september 2015. the giants had moved to pacific rail park in 2000 while the 49ers moved to santa clara in 2014. with structural claims and numerous name changes, many have passed through and will remember candlestick park as home to the legendary athletes and entertainment. these memorable moments will live on in a place called the stick. (♪♪♪) >> when i first started painting it was difficult to get my foot in the door and contractors and mostly men would have a bad attitude towards me or not want to answer my questions or not include me and after you prove
yourself, which i have done, i don't face that obstacle as much anymore. ♪♪♪ my name is nita riccardi, i'm a painter for the city of san francisco and i have my own business as a painting contractor since 1994 called winning colors. my mother was kind of resistant. none of my brothers were painter. i went to college to be a chiropractor and i couldn't imagine being in an office all day. i dropped out of college to become a painter. >> we have been friends for about 15-20 years. we both decided that maybe i could work for her and so she hired me as a painter. she was always very kind. i wasn't actually a painter when she hired me and that was pretty
cool but gave me an opportunity to learn the trade with her company. i went on to different job opportunities but we stayed friends. the division that i work for with san francisco was looking for a painter and so i suggested to my supervisor maybe we can give nita a shot. >> the painting i do for the city is primarily maintenance painting and i take care of anything from pipes on the roof to maintaining the walls and beautifying the bathrooms and graffiti removal. the work i do for myself is different because i'm not actually a painter. i'm a painting contractor which is a little different. during the construction boom in the late 80s i started doing new construction and then when i moved to san francisco, i went to san francisco state and became fascinated with the architecture and got my
contractor's licence and started painting victorians and kind of gravitated towards them. my first project that i did was a 92 room here in the mission. it was the first sro. i'm proud of that and it was challenging because it was occupied and i got interior and exterior and i thought it would take about six weeks to do it and it took me a whole year. >> nita makes the city more beautiful and one of the things that makes her such a great contractor, she has a magical touch around looking at a project and bringing it to its fullest fruition. sometimes her ideas to me might seem a little whacky. i might be like that is a little crazy. but if you just let her do her thing, she is going to do something incredible, something amazing and that will have a lot of pop in it.
and she's really talented at that. >> ultimately it depends on what the customer wants. sometimes they just want to be understated or blend in and other times they let me decide and then all the doors are open and they want me to create. they hire me to do something beautiful and i do. and that's when work is really fun. i get to be creative and express what i want. paint a really happy house or something elegant or dignified. >> it's really cool to watch what she does. not only that, coming up as a woman, you know what i mean, and we're going back to the 80s with it. where the world wasn't so liberal. it was tough, especially being lgbtq, right, she had a lot of friction amongst trades and a lot of people weren't nice to her, a lot of people didn't give her her due respect.
and one of the things amazing about nita, she would never quit. >> after you prove yourself, which i have done, i don't face that obstacle as much anymore. i'd like to be a mentor to other women also. i have always wanted to do that. they may not want to go to school but there's other options. there's trades. i encourage women to apply for my company, i'd be willing to train and happy to do that. there's a shortage of other women painters. for any women who want to get into a trade or painting career, just start with an apprenticeship or if you want to do your own business, you have to get involved and find a mentor and surround yourself with other people that are going to encourage you to move forward and inspire you and support you and you can't give up.
>> we've had a lot of history, nita and i. we've been friends and we have been enemies and we've had conflicts and we always gravitate towards each other with a sense of loyalty that maybe family would have. we just care about each other. >> many of the street corners in all the districts in san francisco, there will be a painting job i have completed and it will be a beautiful paint job. it will be smooth and gold leaf and just wow. and you can't put it down. when i first started, it was hard to get employees to listen to me and go along -- but now, i have a lot of respect.
>> chair haney: this meeting will come to order. this is the july 14, 2021 budget and finance committee meeting. i am matt haney, chair of the budget and finance committee. i am joined by supervisors safai and mar, and our clerk is linda wong. madam clerk, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: if you'll allow me,
mr. chair, through to the clerk, the minutes will reflect that members participated in this meeting through video conference to the same extent as physically presence. the board recognizes that city services are essential and invite public participation in the following ways: watching on cable channels 46, 28, and 79 or by watching on sfgovtv. comments or opportunities to speak are available by phone call by calling 415-655-0001. again, that's 415-655-0001. the meeting i.d. is
146-161-0659. that's 146-161-0659. press pound, and pound again. when you're connected, you will be able to hear but in listening mode only. alternatively, you may submit public comment in either of the following ways: e-mail budget clerk linda wong, email@example.com. written comments may be sent by u.s. postal service to city hall. that's 1 dr. carlton b. goodlett place, room 204, san francisco, california, 94102. items acted on today are expected to appear on the board
of supervisors agenda of july 20 unless otherwise stated. finally, budget interpretations are available until 5:30, and chinese interpretation is available until 7:00 p.m. today. members of the public who need interpretation services should call in early to determine if interpretation services are available. if you have technical difficulties, call 415-554-4164, and someone is standing by to help you with your issues. i will now ask the interpreters to provide interpretation of this statement in their respective languages.
>> interpreter: thank you. >> clerk: thank you to our interpreters, and one more note on public comment. each speaker will be allowed two minutes to speak for today's public comment on every item. that concludes our announcements. back to you, mr. chair and madam clerk. >> chair haney: i think we were going to do one minute of public comment. >> clerk: yes, apologies mr. chair. each speaker will be allowed two minutes to speak unless otherwise stated. >> chair haney: great. can you please call item 1? >> clerk: yes. item 1 is a lease agreement with a.l.d. development corporation. resolution approving lease
between a.l.d. development corporation and the city and county of san francisco for a term of 12 years with two one-year options to extend and a minimum annual guarantee of 3.1 million. >> chair haney: thank you, and welcome, miss bolek, from the airport. >> good morning, supervisors. [inaudible] a.l.d. development corporation doing business as airport dimension. staff conducted an r.f.p. process, and two proposals were received, with airport dimensions scoring as the highest responsive and responsible proposer. they plan to partner with local
nonprofit la cocina to showcase their dishes and chefs. airport dimensions would pay 3.1 million in additional annual base rent. consistent with the airline lounges, rent is set at $1 per square foot rate and adjusted annually. the b.l.a. has recommended approval, and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> chair haney: thank you, miss volek. is there any b.l.a. report on this? >> yes, chair haney. severin campbell from the budget and legislative analysts. this is lounge space in harvey milk terminal 1. the lease is for 12 years with minimum annual guaranteed rent sent by the base and charges set at $3.1 million in the
first year. this provisions are shown in table three of our report. estimated revenue over the 12-year term is $37.2 million, and we recommend approval. >> chair haney: thank you. not seeing any questions or comments from my colleagues. are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this item? >> clerk: yes. members of the public who wish to enter public comment now, please press star, three to enter the queue. for anyone else, please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. are there any callers on the line, please? yes, mr. mendoza, are there any callers in the queue for item number one? >> operator: we have three
>> operator: i'm circling back to the first caller. >> clerk: thank you. >> we're waiting to speak to a different item. item 17. >> clerk: yes. please press star, three to lower your hand. we'll take your call at a later time. next speaker, please. >> item 13, as well. >> clerk: thank you. next caller, please. >> hello. is this about the 2550 irving project? >> clerk: no. we're on item number 1. please press star, three to lower your hand, and we'll take your comment when item number 17 is called. thank you. miss mendoza, are there any
other callers in the queue for item number 1. again, this is approving a lease between a.l.d. corporation and the city. >> operator: there's no more callers in the queue. >> chair haney: okay. i want to make a motion to move this item to the full board with a positive recommendation. madam clerk, roll call, please. >> clerk: yes. [roll call] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chair haney: this will go to the full board with a positive recommendation. madam clerk, will you please call item number 2? >> clerk: yes. resolution approving terminal two retail market and harvey milk terminal one specialty
retail stores concession lease between m.r.g. and the city for a term of 12 years and a minimum annual guarantee of 2.3 million. members of the public who wish to enter public captain should call 415-655-0001 -- public comment should call 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 146-161-0659, press pound, and pound again: press star, three to enter the queue, and wait until the system has been unmuted to begin your comment. >> chair haney: thank you. miss volek.
>> thank you. the retail market will feature local gifts and craft brands. the term is for 12 years and a minimum annual guarantee of 2.3 million for the first year of the lease. although [inaudible] is current suspended due to the impact of covid-19 on air travel, it will be reinstated when travel is back to 80% of 2019 levels. this is a correction from what was stated in the b.l.a. report, which stated 2013 levels. the b.l.a. has recommended approval, and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> chair haney: great. thank you. we hear the b.l.a. report on this item? >> yes. chair haney, members of the committee, as miss volek noted, this is a new concession lease between m.r.g. in the airport. there are three locations in terminal two and harvey milk terminal one.
>> clerk: yes. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chair haney: thank you so much, miss volek. >> thank you. >> chair haney: madam clerk, will you please call item 3. >> clerk: yes. item 3, ordinance approving health service system plans and contribution rates for calendar year 2022. members of the public who wish to enter public comment on this item should call 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 146-161-0659. press pound and pound again. press star, three to lineup to speak. please wait until the system has been unmuted, and then you may begin your comments. >> chair haney: great.
i believe we have supervisor chan to present this item. >> supervisor chan: yes. [inaudible] as the board supervisor representative to the health services board. the ordinance before you, colleagues, today, is to approve the san francisco health service system health, vision, and dental rates for active and retired employees for the calendar year 21-22. the b.l.a. has issued a report to approve this item, but the heavy lifting goes to the health services director, abbie yen, and she and her team are here today to answer any questions that you may have, so
i will let her take it from here. director yen? >> good morning, supervisors. i am pleased to present to you the total package for the health system. we do have workers from our team here. we do, in summary, have a 1.28 aggregate increase in benefit costs for calendar year 2022, which is really excellent. the medical plans themselves were about 2.12%, which is well below industry benchmarks, and we have no significant plan design changes to report for this year. the ordinance before you does two things. one, it approved the plan and contribution rates for the calendar year, and it also sets the amount that the city contributes for the active
employee and retiree health premiums. we look at the most populous counties in california, and we set the coverage for the health plans and employees. this year, it's $757.31. the table on this slide really breaks down the component parts of the total package, and i will go through each of these in the next slides quickly because i know we're on the clock today. kaiser is a partner, a long-standing partner with us. they have two plans serving our active and early retirees as well as medicare plan for those that are 65 and those medicare eligible. so the active plan increased by almost 5%. it was 4.96.
again, really an excellent rate, considering the trends this year, and it represents a premium revenue requirement. there's no design changes. the medicare plan does have a decrease, and this, for those who follow health trends with k.p., the way they set their rates is a projection based on what the federal government will issue in october, and this year, we are expecting a rate decrease. the blue shield is on the next slide. we have access and trio. these are both h.m.o.s. trio is a little bit narrower program than the blue shield. we did a competitive bid, yes, in the middle of the pandemic, and we are changing the
administrator of the p.p.o. plan who has been united health care plan for many years, and it will now be blue shield, and it comes with many services that will help this population of folks, the group of around 3,000 people that have selected this plan and often have services that can be supported by these services. the next represents united health care plans. united has been our second plan that we offer to our retirees. it has a very small increase this year, and that was through a guarantee last year that we were able to secure a low rate increase. and also, they will be sticking around, if you will, to aid in taking care of some of the companions that are in the united health care medicare that are not medicare eligible.
the only people that will be eligible are those that are companion to folks that are enrolled in the medicare plan. the next plan is the most significant plan that we have to offer is a new plan administered by healthnet, in partnership with canopy care with partnerships with some of our very large health care organizations that you can see on the slide. i think the offering also offers a new and much asked for benefit that will include services at zuckerberg san francisco general hospital. it's my understanding from my predecessors in the department of public health that zuckerberg has not been an offering for city employees for about 20 years, and through a lot of work over the last
several years, this service is now available. it's limited to obstetrical services and there's plans underway to expand that as capacity allows at zuckerberg. the plan slide is the plans that we offer, less significant from a dollar point of view, but certainly, from the utilization point of view, medical care, dental care, and vision care. we have reviewed the budget analyst's report and have approved that and therefore request approval of this package. >> chair haney: great. thank you for the presentation and for your work. is there a b.l.a. report on this item? >> yes, chair haney, members of the committee, supervisor chan. the proposed ordinance approved a health service systems and
rated for 2021-22. it was fairly stated the plans and rates, but on page 24, we show the cost to the city, and calendar year 2022 is approximately 744 million or an increase of 9 million over the prior year rates, or 1.2%, and we recommend approval. available for any questions you may have. >> chair haney: colleagues, questions or comments? not seeing any. thank you, supervisor chan, for your leadership and work. i think part of the -- our lack of maybe questions or concerns is our trust in your leadership and representation in this process, so thank you for being here and for -- and for leading
on our behalf in ensuring that these plans are the best for our city and our employees. with that, can we open this up to public comment, please? >> clerk: yes, mr. chair. d.t. is checking to see if there are any callers in the kwee. members of the public who wish to provide public comment, press star, three to enter the queue. for those already in the queue, please wait until the system indicates your line has been unmuted. miss mendoza, could you let us know if there are any callers in the queue for item number 3? >> operator: we have one caller. >> clerk: thank you. please unmute the caller. >> thank you. esteemed members of the budget and finance committee, my name is sandra barton. i wish to protest the authorization of the tenderloin development neighborhood corporation --
>> chair haney: to clarify, this is item 3. it sounds like you're calling in for a different item. if you'll please wait until that item is up. >> okay. thank you. >> chair haney: yes, thank you. >> clerk: yes. miss mendoza, are there any other callers in the queue for item 3? >> operator: there's no other callers. >> clerk: thank you. >> chair haney: public comment is closed. not seeing any other colleagues wanting to make any -- have any questions or comments. i want to make a motion to move item 3 to the full board with a positive recommendation. madam clerk, a roll call vote, please. >> clerk: yes. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chair haney: thank you very much. this moved to the full board with a positive recommendation. madam clerk, will you please
call item 4. >> clerk: yes. item 4, resolution authorizing the public utilities graemt to execute amendment number three to agreement number cs-247-r for continued meter data management, billing and customer care support for the clean power s.f. program, increasing the agreement amount by 13.8 million for a total not to compete agreement of 32.6 million and to end the term of the agreement by three years, for a total agreement duration of nine years for a total term of november 1, 2015 through october 31, 2024. members of the public who wish to private public comment on this item should call 415-655-0001, meeting i.d.
146-161-0659. press pound twice, and then star, three to enter the queue to speak. a system prompt will indicate your line has been unmuted, and you may begin your comments. >> chair haney: thank you. we have julia alman for this item. >> good afternoon. julia alman from the clean power utilities commission. [inaudible] which provides data and ad stiff services to the clean power s.f. program. clean power s.f. is san francisco's community choice agregation program which provides claeber energy supply to over 380,000 businesses and residents in san francisco. through this agreement, clean power energy solutions provides a number of technical services to clean power s.f., including
maintaining a customer information database, processing customer billability through services with pg&e. these services are highly technical and involve processing hundreds of thousands of data points per day. the contract scope also includes operating clean power s.f. support center and now as a mature program, clean power s.f. has taken over customer service duties, and starting this month will be supported by five city positions. this transition of service will reduce contract costs by approximately 2.7 million over the remainder of the agreement, and cal pine energy solutions will continue to provide services that are consistent with this data and billing operations. finally t would increase clean power s.f. outreach
capabilities for those customers who prefer a paperless option. the board has previously approved one three-year extension, so the item before you today is the second and final extension of this agreement which would run through october 2024. thank you, and with that, i'm happy to take any questions. >> chair haney: great. thank you, miss alman. is there a b.l.a. report on this item? >> yes, chair haney, members of the committee, as miss allman noted, this is the third extension of an existing agreement between sfpuc and cal pine for existing power management services through clean power s.f. the amount of the contract would increate by 13.9 million and the term would extend by three years until october of 2024. on page 19 of our report, we
show the basis of the increase in the agreement amount, and we recommend approval. >> chair haney: great. not seeing any questions or comments from colleagues. can we open this up to public comment, please. >> clerk: yes, mr. chair. d.t. is checking to see if there are any public callers in the queue. members of the public who wish to provide public comment, press star, three to enter the queue. for those already in the queue, please wait until your line has been unmuted. miss mendoza, could you please let us know if there are any callers wishing to speak to item 4. >> operator: there are no callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. >> chair haney: public comment is closed. i want to make a motion to move this to the full board with a positive recommendation. roll call vote, please. >> clerk: yes, on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are three ayes.
>> chair haney: great. [inaudible] thank you so much, miss allman. madam clerk, will you please call item 5? >> clerk: yes. item 5 is a resolution retroactively authorizing the police department to accept and expend a grant in the amount of 61,437 from the california governor's office of emergency services for the paul coverdel forensic science improvement program to procure ammunition for forensic testing and controlled substance handheld raman spectrometers for the krilg laboratory for the project period entering january 1, 2021 and ending on december 31, 2021. members of the public wishing to provide public comment on this item, press star, three to
enter the queue and if you're already lined up to speak, please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. >> chair haney: yes. this item was originally scheduled to be heard next week, so i would make a motion to continue this item to the july 21 budget and finance committee meeting. madam clerk, roll call vote, please. >> clerk: yes. on that motion -- [roll call]
. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to provide public comment on these items should call 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 146-161-0659. press pound twice, and if you have not already done so, press star, three to lineup to speak. if you have already lined up to speak, please wait until the system indicated you have been unmuted before you begin to speak. mr. chair? >> chair haney: great. we have brian chu from mohcd to present on this item. >> good afternoon, chair haney and supervisors, i am here to present a short presentation on this item. i don't see the share button to share my slides -- oh, there it
is. i'm going to see if i can do it. all right. okay. can you see my screen now? >> chair haney: yeah. >> all right. so i'll just very quickly take you through it. as you know, each year, we receive formula allocation from h.u.d. for these four federal programs. i'm here today to just go through the program, which will be used for funds in the upcoming 21-22 years. for the community development block grant program, we were fortunate we did not receive any significant decrease. you can see that our usage of those funds will be $11 million for housing development. another 481,000 for our capital program, which improves community facilities. we have approximately $5 million for the mohcd community
development program grantees. we also provide a little over $3 million to the office of economic and workforce development for their economic and workforce development program, and then, we have a little under $5 million for program deliverly for the mohcd program. the emergency grants services program is another lighted by the h.s.h. -- is utilized by the h.s.h. department that goes to the department of homelessness and supportive housing. the home program is used by our department to construct new housing. the cdbg housing program is for rehab. the home funds are for new
construction, and you can see it's just under 4.6 million for housing development, and the last program is our hopwa housing program, housing program for persons with aids. we get just under 13 million. it's used for a variety of purposes. a large portion is to cover the on going operating costs of our residential care facilities for people with chronic h.i.v. another portion is used for long-term rental subsidy, and then, a final portion helped to create units set aside for people living with h.i.v. we do have a retroactive memory row just because our program begins on july 1 and we're coming to you today. we delayed our process so we could focus on the general fund in the month of june, which is when we usually go forward with this. on the cdbg side, which is the
side that provides most of the community grants, i think we've already communicated with your offices a couple of months ago when we went through our general budget process, and you have the complete list of grantees in your attachment there. the procurement that we went through this last period will be good for at least a two-year period, so it's very likely when we come to you for next year, it will just be a roll over for the mohcd grants for that period. i know that was quick, but i just wanted to give you a high-level overview of our funds. we respectfully request approval of our funds. we will submit an action plan to h.u.d. in the next few weeks, and that will allow us to formally receive the funding from h.u.d. happy to answer any questions that you might have about any
of these h.u.d. funding sources or uses. >> chair haney: great. thank you, mr. chu. is there a b.l.a. report on this item? >> chair haney, we do not have a report on this item. >> chair haney: great. colleagues, is there any questions or comments on this set of spending plans? not seeing any. madam clerk, is there public comment on this item? >> clerk: yes, mr. chair. members of the public who wish to provide comment on this item, please press star, three to be added to the queue. for those already on hold, please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. miss mendoza, could you tell us know if there are any members of the public who wish to comment on items 6 through 9? >> yes.
is this regarding the tenderloin community development corporation? >> chair haney: no. it is later in this meeting. >> thank you. i apologize. >> clerk: miss mendoza, are there any other callers in the queue? >> operator: there's no more callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. >> chair haney: great. public comment is closed. supervisor mar? >> supervisor mar: thanks, chair haney. i just had a quick question, and thank you, mr. chu, for your presentation. you showed money for housing in the budget. i'm just wondering, is that money already budgeted for certain projects and what -- for this particular pot of affordable housing dollars, what is sort of the focus or the priority?
>> right, so these -- it was already 11.4 million for cdbg, and it's scattered through a variety of programs. i'm happy to work with our director of housing development, and we're happy to get back to you how these funds are allocated for housing development. we shift these around to figure out how these are all allocated, but we're happy to get back to you with how these funds are allocated through the particular projects. >> supervisor mar: great. thank you for that. >> chair haney: thank you to supervisor mar. all right. i want to make a motion to move items 6 to 9 to the full board with a positive recommendation. madam clerk, roll call vote, please. >> clerk: yes. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chair haney: great. these will go to the full board
with a positive recommendation. madam clerk, will you please call items 10 and 11 together. >> clerk: yes. item 10, resolution approving and authorizing the execution of a loan agreement with ambassador ritz four percent, lp, in an aggregate total amount not to compete 44 million for a minimum term of 55 years for a portion of the loan amount and maximum terms of 15 years, 28 years, and 40 years for other portions of the loan amount based on the requirements of the funding sources to finance the acquisition and rehabilitation of an existing 100% affordable multifamily rental housing project for low-income households, known as ambassador ritz 4%, consisting of 187 rental units in two buildings located at 55 mason street and
216 eddy street, and adopting findings. item 11 is resolution authorizing the execution and delivery of a multifamily housing revenue note in one or more series in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed 56 million for the purpose of providing financing for the acquisition and rehabilitation of a 187 unit multifamily rental housing project located at 55 mason street and 216 eddy street, providing the terms and conditions of the loan. members of the public who wish to provide public comment should press star, three to
lineup to speak, and those already lined up to speak, please wait until the system indicated you have been unmuted before beginning to speak. >> chair haney: thank you. i believe there's someone here to speak. >> there's two existing buildings. one at 55 mason street, the ambassador hotel, and the other at 216 eddy street, the ritz hotel, these are 187 units, all s.r.o. units. hndc will be executing a hybrid tax credit project. these two requests specifically pertain to the 4% component of the project, which is comprised of all the units at the ritz and 98 of 134 units at the ambassador. at also mentioned, the project
is going to be receiving a pretty significant rehabilitation, including seismic strengthening of the building, upgrades to kitchens and baths and other resident related quality of life measure in addition to taking care of very key and essential life safety. no residents will be displaced, but temporary off-site relocations to facilitate housing for the residents. we're going to be consolidating a bunch of old debt on the
project for about 36.1 million of old debt. the second component of that is we're going to be providing a new senior financing loan, our preservation and seismic safety loan project when it converts to permanent financing in early 2024. [inaudible] to close by the end of next month, and then, construction will wrap up by the end of 2023, at which point, we'll convert and execute on the [inaudible] portion of the loan. i respectfully request that you approve both items 10 and 11, and i'm happy to answer any questions that you have about this ambassador ritz project, as well as i'm joined by the project sponsors, tenderloin neighborhood development
project, who can answer questions, too. >> chair haney: great. thank you for your work. i'm obviously familiar with these buildings and appreciate the work that's being done. is there a b.l.a. report on this item? >> yes, chair haney. we reported specifically on item 10, the loan agreement. so this resolution approved the amended and restated loan agreement between mohcd and the ambassador ritz for acquisition and rehabilitation of a portion of the ambassador hotel and the ritz hotel for 187 s.r.o. units. the loan amount is up to $44.5 million. we show a table on page 24 that shows the loan components of 43.3 million and then the difference to 44.5 million is a buffer for the preservation and seismic safety loan. total project costed are about
110 million, and sources and uses in the table are on page 26. and then in terms of the fiscal feasibility, we did review the 20 year cash projections for this project. the net [inaudible] debt service ratio of 1.1, and we recommend approval, and i'm available if you have questions. >> chair haney: great. thank you. colleagues, are there any questions or comments on these items? okay. can we open this to public comment, please. >> clerk: yes, mr. chair. d.t. is checking to see if there are any public callers in the queue. members of the public wishing to comment on these items, press star, three to enter the queue and for those already lined up to speak, please wait
until the system indicated you -- indicates you have been unmuted before you begin your comments. miss mendoza, could you let us know if there are any callers in the queue. >> operator: there are no callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. >> chair haney: thank you for your support of these projects. i want to make a motion to move items 10 and 11 to the full board with a positive recommendation. roll call vote, please. >> clerk: yes. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chair haney: great. thank you. so that [inaudible] with a positive recommendation. madam clerk, can you please call item 12? >> clerk: yes. item 12, ordinance amending ordinance 49-17 as amended by ordinance 209-17 to change the timeline for the payments of a
2.7 million gift and 9.75 million from the project for of the project at 950-974 market street to the 180 jones street affordable housing fund, amending the administrative code recording use of the 180 jones street affordable housing fund. members of the public wishing to provide public comment should press star, three to lineup to speak. those already lined up to speak, please wait until the system indicates your line has been unmuted before beginning to speak. >> chair haney: thank you, and we have someone here to present
on this item. >> good morning, chair haney and supervisors. i'm here to present on item 12, which would amend previous ordinances 49-17 and 209-17 related to 950 to 974 market street, also known as the project. the purpose of the ordinance amendment for you is to change the timeline of the payments for a $2.7 million gift and 9.7 million from the project sponsor and two, to amend the administrative code on account of challenges presented to the covid-19 pandemic, the completion of the 19 -- of the
950-974 market street project has been delayed, and the project sponsor has requested to further amendment the payment timeline to facilitate completion of the project and associated financing of the jones affordable housing -- 180 jones street affordable housing project. depending on an allocation of tax exempt bonds from the california debt limit allocation committee and tax credits from the california tax credit allocation committee. 180 jones street is a 70-unit affordable new construction project located on the corner of jones and hyde street. 50% will serve low-income adults and the remaining will serve adults earning 25% to 40%
of the area median income. project sponsor plans to return to the board in early 2022. i'm also joined today by -- with my colleague, amy chen, and project sponsors of both the market street project and the 180 jones project. we're very happy to answer any questions the committee may have, and thank you very much. >> chair haney: thank you, miss len, for the presentation and the work. i've had the opportunity to learn a bit about this situation. i think it is -- maricopas sense and it is fair. it's my understanding -- makes sense and it is fair. it's my understanding that when the city will use these funds and receive it is still -- gives us time before we
actually require the funds and can use them. is that correct? >> correct. >> chair haney: all right. with that, not seeing questions or comments from colleagues. is there a b.l.a. report on this item? >> chair haney, we do not have any report on this item. >> chair haney: is there any public comment on this item? >> clerk: yes, mr. chair, d.t. is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. members of the public wishing to provide public comment on item number 12 pregnancy star, three to enter the queue. those already lined up to speak, please wait until the system indicates you have been
unmuted before beginning your comments. >> operator: there are no callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. >> chair haney: great. thank you. public comment is closed. i want to thank miss len and also the project sponsors who [inaudible] i'm looking forward to all of this getting done and thank everyone for their work on this. with that, i want to make a motion to move this to the full board with a positive recommendation. roll call vote, please. >> clerk: yes. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chair haney: great. thank you so much. this will go to the full board with a positive recommendation. madam clerk, will you please call item 13?
>> clerk: yes. item 13, resolution approving for the purposes of internal revenue code of 1986, section 147-f, as amended, the issuance of obligations pursuant to a plan of finance by the california statewide communities development authority in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed 450 million for the purpose of financing and/or refinancing the acquisition, construction, equipping, improvement, renovation, rehabilitation, and/or remodelling of senior living and related facilities by front porch communities and services. members of the public wishing to provide public comment, dial
star, three to lineup to speak. for those already lined up to speak, please wait until the system indicates your line has been unmuted before beginning your comments. >> chair haney: great. i think there's someone here to present the item. >> thank you, chair haney. [inaudible]. >> clerk: mr. chair, i believe the screen is frozen. okay. now we can hear you, i believe.
mr. trevetti? >> can you hear me now? >> clerk: yes. thank you. >> i'm sorry. one moment, please. >> clerk: perhaps you can turnoff your camera? i do see mr. john woodhart -- >> i apologize. [inaudible] just one moment. all right. i apologize. i was -- there we go. all right. i apologize [inaudible] the
it twice. colleagues, is there a b.l.a. report on this item? >> chair haney, we do not have a report on this item. >> chair haney: is there a representative from supervisor stefani's office who wants to speak any further on this? >> thank you, chair haney, thank you, members of the committee. supervisor stefani is a cosponsor. this is andy mullen, her chief of staff. i know that presentation was hard to understand, so i'm happy to answer any questions you may have, and i know you have a long agenda. thanks. >> chair haney: thank you, andy. i don't see any questions or comments from -- from colleagues. can we open this up to public comment, please. >> clerk: yes, mr. chair. d.t. is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. members of the public who wish
to provide public comment, press star, three to enter the queue. for those already lined up to speak, please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. miss mendoza, could you let us know if there are any callers in the queue? >> chair haney: thank you, and mr. trevetti, i don't know if that was something with your technology or with us, but if not, hopefully, you can fix whatever is wrong with your system, and we can get it better next time. with that, i want to make a motion to move item 13 to the full board with a positive recommendation. can we have a roll call vote,
please. >> clerk: yes. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chair haney: great. item 13 is moved forward with a positive recommendation. madam clerk, can you please call item 14? >> clerk: yes. item 14, a resolution retroactively authorizing the department of public health to accept and expend a grant increase in the amount of 1.6 million for a total amount of 2.6 million from the health resources and services administration for participation in a program entitled ending the h.i.v. epidemic, a plan for america, ryan white h.i.v. aids program parts a and b, for the period of march 1, 2020 to february 28, 2022. members of the public who have
not already done so, press star, three to lineup to speak. for those already lined up to speak, please wait until the system indicates your line has been unmuted before beginning to speak. >> chair haney: thank you, and we have dean goodwin here to speak. >> thank you. chair haney and supervisors, dean goodwin with the department of public health. today, we are here for an accept and expend request that we have received for ryan white part a ending the h.i.v. epidemic grant funding. we received a five year award for our e.h.e. grant beginning march 1, 2020.
we came before this committee last year for the accept and expend at that level. this year, we received a grant for 667,000 and an increase which requires another approval. h.i.v. health services is utilizing this h.i.v. funding to enrich our existing san francisco h.i.v. system of care to support and create innovative programs that focus on serving h.i.v. african americans, people experiencing homelessness, trans persons, with a focus on women trans people of color. these people face more
challenges in obtaining care. the goal of the program is to work effectively with the target populations to address these health care disparities. thank you for your time. i'm happy to answer any questions you might have. >> chair haney: thank you for that, mr. goodwin. i appreciate your work. is there a b.l.a. report on this item? >> chair haney, we do not have a b.l.a. report on this item. >> chair haney: thank you. can we open this up for public comment, please. >> clerk: yes. d.t. is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. members of the public wishing to provide public comment, press star, three to enter the queue and for those already lined up to speak, please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. miss mendoza, could you please indicate if there are any callers in the queue for item
14. >> operator: there are no callers in the queue. [inaudible]. >> clerk: yes. on the motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chair haney: okay. this'll go to the full board with a positive recommendation. thank you so much, mr. goodwin. appreciate it. madam clerk, can you please call item 15? >> yes. ordinance amending the park code to allow the recreation and park department to continue setting nonresident adult admission fees for the japanese tea garden, the coit tower elevator, the conserveatory of flowers, and the san francisco botanical garden by flexible
pricing, and affirming the planning department's determination under the ceqa act. members of the public wishing to provide public comment, press star, three to be able to speak. for those who have already lined up to speak, please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted to begin your comments. >> chair haney: miss ketcham, thank you for being here. the floor is yours. >> i do have a presentation. i don't know if it's possible for me to put it up or i can do it without it. i'm not enabled to -- thank you very much.
okay. teams has changed. okay. there we go. thank you. good morning, still, supervisors. i am presenting on the flexible admissions prices on our gardens and coit tower. some of you may remember, in 2019, we first presented this flexible pricing concept, which i'll go into in more detail. the board added the following requirements. they asked us to provide a report how it was used, which we provided in spring of this year, and they provided a sunset clause in 2020 for it to continue, and that's why we're presenting it. what was the provision? the provision applied to our four major locations.
it allowed adjustments to nonresident adult rates only of increased of up to 50% and decreases of up to 25%. it does not apply to san francisco residents, and it does not apply to nonresidents, seniors, or youth. in addition, there are a variety of free admissions to all, including, the gardens, in the last year have joined not just the san francisco for all admissions but the gardens for all that provides four free admissions to anyone with an e.b.t. transfer card meeting the standards. so whether you live in the city or not, if you are low-income, you're able to come into these gardens. just a reminder. the botanical garden is open to everyone for free, and the gardens have a variety of free days and times. for coit tower, the gardens and murals remain open for all.
on the japanese tea garden, we had a $2 increase, only applicable in march and october. at the conservea tory of flowers, $2 increase fridays through sundays. please note that facility was closed for nine months due to covid, and at coit tower, we have not been able to implement it. it was intended to be implemented starting in the spring summer of 2020. coit was closed for covid, and it was closed continuously until literally a few weeks ago. now that we're back open, the gardens and murals are free to the public. at the $10 to $12 rate for nonresident adults, we are significantly bigger value compared to other countries --
other cities and similar types of activities. thank you. i'm happy to answer any questions, and we respectively request that this ordinance be approved. >> chair haney: thank you. is there a b.l.a. report on this item? >> chair haney, we do not have a report on this item. >> chair haney: colleagues, any questions or comments? any public comment on this item? >> clerk: yes, mr. chair. d.t. is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item, please press star, three to enter the queue. for those already on the line, please wait until the system has indicated your line has been unmuted. miss mendoza, could you please let us know if there are any callers who wish to comment on item 15? >> good morning. my name is del maxwell, and i'm
chair of the san francisco botanical garden society board of directors and a 21-year volunteer at the botanical garden. i'm here to speak in support of the flexible pricing. our gardens are special places, much loved by visitors as has been shown by record attendance during the pandemic. even though the pandemic decimated our nonresident visitation, resident visitation has accounted for a combined 500,000 additional revenue since 2019. admission remains free to san francisco residents at the botanical gardens and discounted for the other three locations. initial worries about flexible
pricing have not been borne out. we have not had documented visitor complaints about the fee in flexible pricing. compared to other botanical gardens around the country, our fees are relatively low. i hope that the nonresident admission fees and the flexible pricing programs will be continued, and i thank you for your consideration. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> hi. this is lisa cerwin, and i also wanted to support the nonresident fees continuing at the garden. i would only add to what del said, that our gardens are incredibly special places that require upkeep and care and
maintenance, and these fees are an important contribution to the garden. there have been no complaints. there's been no decreased visitation, and we are still well below the rest of the country. san francisco deserves and wants a beautiful botanical garden, and i hope that you will consider voting in support of this motion. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> hi. hi. this is mary ellen hannibal, and i've been a long time member of the san francisco botanical garden, and i would like to add my voice in support of the flexible pricing. the botanical garden received record setting attendance during covid.
our botanical garden is a unique garden among all botanical gardens in the entire country, and we are able to grow plants that aren't able to grow elsewhere because of our unique climate here in san francisco. so we have plants in our garden that are threatened and endangered in the wild, and they're very important as communicators, as ambassadors of biodiversity, loss, and climate change to the public at large in a way that we can really see and feel how much we love biodiversity and the need to protect it. gardens need to be cared for, and they can't just be cared for on their own. the motto of the garden is everybody's garden.
it's among the most democratic institutions in our city. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> hi, can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can hear you. >> okay. thank you. my name is diana strolly. i'm here for another item, but i care about this item, and i want to say i remember when all of these items were free for everybody, including the zoo. you go in with a family of four, it gets a bit pricey [inaudible] i'm sorry. i just think it's pricey for a lot of people, and i think it would be great if we dropped
prices to be free for everybody and found funding from other items. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next caller, please. >> i think that everyone should be able to wander to and from these parks, and i think that this environment should be open to everybody without a fee? it doesn't mean that i don't think there should be services, and i think there are some in these parks already? and maybe these parks can subsidize this specific need, but i do think that having it be more open and more free is open to the park. >> clerk: thank you for your comments, sir. miss mendoza, are there any other callers in the queue? >> operator: there's no more callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. >> chair haney: public comment
is closed. i want to make a motion to move this item to the full board with a positive recommendation. can i have a roll call vote. >> clerk: yes. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chair haney: this'll go to the full board with a positive recommendation. thank you so much, miss ketchum. miss clerk, will you call item 16? >> clerk: yes. item 16, ordinance waiving certain first year permit, license, and basis registration fees for businesses that commence engaging in business within the city from november 1, 2021 through october 31, 2022, have estimated first year san francisco gross receipts of
2 million or less and have a registered business location that is for storefront commercial use and not formula retail uses and refunding any waived fees paid to the city. members of the public wishing to provide public comment, dial star, three to lineup to speak. for those already lined up to speak, please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted before you begin to speak. >> chair haney: thank you. supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: hi. i am pleased to present legislation that will make it free to start a new small business in san francisco. i want to thank supervisors safai and haney for your sponsorship of this measure. for immigrants, women, people of color, and working class san franciscans, small businesses are often an alternative to
minimum wage jobs and can be a unique path to building wealth for their families and their communities. however, we all know that this past year has been brutal on them. while most small businesses managed to stay afloat, there are many that did not make it. unfortunately during the pandemic, neighborhoods across this city were seeing a proliferation of empty storefronts. the budget and legislative analyst's report indicated that almost 20% of shops were behind on rent to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, far beyond what the city could backfill. we need a package of solutions that include assistance with lease renegotiation, activating the storefront vacancy tax and speeding up the process. all of those are in the works
and will encourage new entrepreneurs to take that step of removing the empty storefront. i'm introducing amendments today that clarify and strengthen enforcements. i will describe the program, including those amendments. first year free will be available to new small businesses and as amended to new locations for existing small businesses for the period ending november 1, 2021 through october 31, 2022. small businesses are those businesses with estimated gross annual receipts of $2 million.
formula retail will not eligible. an enrolled business will receive a welcome package with instructions on how to charge will not and permit fees. the business will then provide applications for licensing and registration fees. the controller has estimated the cost to the city to backfill permitting department's revenue between
million and 17 million in fiscal years 21 and 22. in return for that investment, we will see increased tax revenue, new job opportunities, and multiplying effect of revitalizing commercial corridors. the legislation includes a report to board on april 15 that will give us time to consider this impact during next year's budget
negotiations. my chief of staff, amy finehart, who i also thank so much for being the chief architect from our service on this legislation, she presented this to the small business commission on monday and received unanimous and enthusiastic support from the commission. we've also worked very closely with the treasurer and tax collector's office, the office of small business, the office of workforce development and the controller's office. special, special, thanks to the following individuals who are here today to answer any questions from the committee.
[names read] >> supervisor ronen: -- so that we could consider this item in the budget. i want to thank everyone who has been working hard to make this a possibility, and i can promise you this was not easy legislation to get to this point today, so diligent work is very, very much appreciated. i know for every one of you, saving small businesses is a top priority. san franciscans are trying to keep their beloved small businesses alive. we value your contributions, we recognize the obstacles before you, and we are here as a city to make it easier for you.
colleagues, before we begin with your questions or comments, i'd like to make a motion to accept the amendments as provided to you today. the city attorney has informed me that they are substantive, so they will have to return to committee next week, and thank you for your questions. >> chair haney: great. supervisor ronen, first, i want to move to accept the amendments. if we can have a roll call vote on that, please. >> clerk: yes. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chair haney: great. the amendments are accepted. i just first want to thank you, supervisor ronen, and your staff, and everyone who works on this. it's huge importance as we
reopen our city and the need to support small businesses and fill vacant storefronts. the and small businesses, as you said, are overwhelmingly owned and started by immigrants and people [inaudible] for me and for this committee or the committee that you're a part of, and we want to thank mayor breed and her budget team for prioritizing this and understanding the value and importance of it, and i'm happy that this will move forward, and we will be able to provide this really forward thinking
visionary approach to supporting new small businesses in our city, and that we appreciate you and thank you for your leadership, supervisor ronen. supervisor mar? >> supervisor mar: thank you, chair haney, and i want to thank supervisor ronen and your chief of staff, amy finehart, and everybody working on this proposal to provide support for small businesses and the recovery, and i think this really is just tremendously needed and important, and it kind of follows on our other work that we've been doing. like, last night, we spent a lot of time discussing and eventually acting to make this shared spaces program permanent. i've been really encouraged by some new small businesses opening up in my district in the midst of the pandemic and even this year, and also, there's a number of businesses
that have been operating in our outer sunset farmers market weekly that are now looking into opening up a storefront in our neighborhood, but in my conversations with all of these folks, they do talk about the great challenges that -- financial challenges that they're looking at in starting a small business, including the -- the high fees that they have to pay, so this is really important, i think, in helping to support these folks that are willing to make that commitment and opening new businesses in our commercial corners and cities, and actually, i would love to be added as a cosponsor to this. >> chair haney: thank you, supervisor mar. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: yes, just want to echo the colleagues of -- the comments of colleagues this morning. supervisor ronen, i think we have an entire package of
things that we're doing, shared spaces, programs that the mayor set up, at the suggestion of you and others funds to help small businesses survive. i like that you narrowed this to a real universe of businesses that are mom-and-pop, small businesses, gross receipts under $2 million, nonformula retail, people that are really trying to make it in this world, and i think we've heard how difficult people feel it is to own a business in san francisco or start a business in san francisco. just really want to appreciate your staff and the small business community that you have named, many of whom are commissioners, that provide tremendous insight and voice to that small business world, so really appreciate that. i'm happy to be a cosponsor and really look forward to seeing
this implemented. >> chair haney: thank you, supervisor safai. is there any public comment on this item? >> clerk: yes. d.t. is checking to see if there are any callers on this item. members of the public wishing to provide public comment, press star, three to enter the queue to lineup to speak. if you have already lined up to speak, please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. miss mendoza, are there any callers in the queue for item
16? >> operator: there are no callers in the queue. >> chair haney: public comment is closed. supervisor ronen, any further comments? >> supervisor ronen: no, just thank you to all of you for your tremendous support for this legislation. >> chair haney: okay. madam clerk, do we need to continue this? >> clerk: yes, mr. chair, i believe since the amendments were substantive, we need to continue this to next week. >> chair haney: okay. i make a motion to continue the item to next week. >> clerk: on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chair haney: great. this item is continued to next week, and we'll see you later, supervisor ronen. all right. here we are. madam clerk, can you please
call item 17? >> clerk: yes. item 17, a resolution approving and authorizing the director of the mayor's office of housing and community development with 2550 irving associates, l.p., to execute loan documents relating to a loan to provide financing for the acquisition of real property located at 2550 irving street and predevelopment activities for a 100% affordable multifamily rental building, in an aggregate amount not to exceed 14.2 million, proofing the form of the loan agreement and ancillary documents, ratifying and approving any action taken in connection with the property, granting general authority to city officials to take actions necessary to implement this resolution as defined here in, and finding that the loan is consistent with the general plan and the priority policies of planning code section 101.1. members of the public wishing to provide public comment
should call 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 146-161-0659, then press pound twice. to lineup to speak, press star, three, and wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted before beginning to speak. mr. chair? >> chair haney: thank you. we have jacob [inaudible] from mohcd to present on this item. >> good afternoon, chair haney and supervisors. my name is jacob noonan with the mayor's office of housing and community development. this is an item to approve a $14,277,516 loan for site acquisition and predevelopment funding for a new 100%
affordable housing unit at 2550 irving street in district 4. the funding would be from proposition a which authorized $600 million in general funding for housing in sections of the city that have experienced limited housing investment -- [inaudible] >> chair haney: excuse me. somebody needs to mute. excuse me. i don't know who was -- >> that was miss blitzer. >> chair haney: okay. miss blitzer, you need to mute. >> okay. i'll just back up to say that $30 million of that financing of proposition a was reserved
for districts of the city that have experienced limited housing investment and high rates of relocation. tndc submitted a proposal for 2550 irving. tndc was the only responding organization, and the request was one of two requests that tndc submitted. the other request was the other acquisition for senior housing at 4200 geary in district one. the 2550 irving funding request meets the goals of proposition a and nofa, both of which aims
to address san francisco's low-income and affordable housing and creating new housing opportunities for those in greatest need. the 2550 irving site achieves the geographic equity goal of proposition a and mohcd nofa and would provide housing for low-income households. the citywide loan committee reviewed and unanimously approved the loan request on april 2 of 2021. tndc has been actively working in the community to create a building concept based on city affordable housing goals and policies, and the project has been underwritten to best meet the requirements of state funding utilizing the zoning and density allowances that are available at the site to
optimize the number and the size of the units to achieve a family housing project that is competitive for state funding and is viable over the long-term. as conceptualized, 2550 irving would be a building serving 95 families. 27% of the units would be reserves for families previously experiencing homelessness and they would be filled using the neighborhood preference. in addition, affirmative marketing would be used throughout district 4 to ensure qualifying households in the district are aware of the new housing opportunity and able to sign up for the wait list. now, the resolution before the board today again is a request for just for the funding necessary for tndc to acquire the 2550 irving property and to complete all predevelopment activities including all continuing work in the community toward the final project. joining me today are amy chan,
also with the mayor's office of housing and community development and we're happy and available to answer the questions that the committee may have. >> chair haney: thank you. before we do that, i want to turn it over to supervisor mar. >> supervisor mar: thanks, chair haney. actually, if i could hold off on my remarks and comments until the b.l.a. presentation. i believe they're going to present on this item. >> chair haney: great. of course. can we hear the b.l.a. report on this item, please. >> yes. chair haney, members of the committee, the proposed resolution approves a loan between the mayor's office of housing and 2550 irving, a subsidiary of the tenderloin development corporation. the loan amount would be for
14.3 million. page 39 of our report shows the sources and uses of the proposed loan. we found this loan to be consistent with mohcd policy, and we recommend approval. -- oh, actually, i do want to admit, we do have a recommendation to recommend the whereas clause to take that it's the city's intent to enter into a purchase and sale agreement in which the city will take ownership of the land at 2550 irving and enter into a ground lease with the nonprofit sponsor operator. we recommend approval of the proposed resolution as amended. >> chair haney: great. thank you. supervisor mar? >> supervisor mar: thank you, chair haney. and actually, thank you, miss campbell and mr. noonan, for your presentations, and thanks to mohcd and tndc for bringing this project forward. colleagues, i just wanted to
present some brief remarks, and then i also did have some questions for mohcd and the b.l.a. what we often see is a citywide need for more housing, and i'd like to include my district in this conversation. the sunset has been a beacon for working and middle class families, a place to attend a good school, start a small business, and enjoy the open parks and spaces -- small spaces. but in fiscal year 19-20, there
were 4,430 applications for affordable housing for my constituents, over 3,000 in the 94122 zip code, where 2550 irving is located. only 30 applicants were placed in affordable housing, and because we have underinvested in affordable housing, they all moved out of the sunset. it's quite literally like winning the lottery. this is a case for all of our city's affordable housing developments, and we need the courage to do better for our communities. last year, we conducted a community needs assessment as part of sunset forward, our neighborhood community planning process, which aims to stabilize low and moderate income families and seniors in the sunset. we learned that 64% of residents think that housing in the sunset is unaffordable, and 40% their think few -- think their future housing needs will not be met. district 4 has the lowest
cumulative housing balance in the housing balance report due to extreme loss of protected status units. in the last decade, we've lost 461 units of rent controlled housing. for many who remain, rents are too high, homes are too overcrowded, and conditions remain unsafe. 2550 irving is a way to restore the balance by increasing opportunities for families with children and others currently unable to afford market rate housing. it embodies our priorities of stabilizing and prioritizing families, and it's important that the project is successful, not just for the future residents or future neighbors who will live there, but for our neighborhood, as well. as the sunset's second 100% affordable housing project, after shirley chisolm village,
it's important that we get the details right as it will shape the future of affordable housing for seniors and families that we also need to build here on the west side and that i'm very committed to championing. this is why i've been clear and consistent with tndc and mohcd that they commit a robust community process, seeking community input into the project design and proposal before the application is submitted to the planning department for formal review. this proactive neighborhood youst reach is especially important for 2550 irving because the city approval process will be streamlined through s.b. 35. i thank tndc and mohcd for bringing this project forward, and i also want to thank the many community members in the sunset and throughout our city
who have already shared your perspectives on this community project through community meetings, letters, postcards, petitions, and more, and i know we'll be hearing from many of you through public comment today. i just have a few questions, and i'll try to keep it brief because colleagues, i know you'll probably have questions or remarks, and i know we'll have a lot of public comment today. so my first questions are around the public financing of the project, and frankly, the high per-unit cost. the b.l.a. analysis highlights that the projected cost per unit is $960,000, which is significantly higher than the $784,000 average total cost per unit of other mohcd projects, so to mohcd, can you provide an explanation for this significantly higher cost and a
rationale for approving this project? >> thank you, supervisor mar. amy chan from mohcd, and i can take this question. the costs outlined in the b.l.a. report are estimated costs. there are many factors that affect the total development costs, including the development and design cost of a building, tax credit pricing, and construction cost, so please note that these are just estimated costs, and as you get into the process of the development timeline, those costs will be more accurate. so these estimated costs, i think the b.l.a. report has noted that it's higher than an average mohcd project.
some projects do not have ak which significance -- acquisition costs, and then finally, 2550 irving will be the site of a family housing project, and the total development costs will be higher than a project for just single adults because of the larger -- the greater amount of bedrooms for the two bedrooms and the three-bedroom units that are more expensive to build for families. so with that, those are the reasons why you're seeing those costs. >> supervisor mar: thank you, miss chan. and does mohcd have standards for how high over the average per-unit cost that you would
determine to be reasonable, since this one seems to be significantly higher? i understand they're family sized units, so that's one reason, and acquisition costs for the site is higher, but do you have a standard for what might be deemed too high to be really reasonable for a development? >> well, mohcd would only move forward with a project that is feasible, that we would deem to be feasible, and i think that is under consideration in an evaluation of a site in our nofa process. we need to know that the site would be competitive for other sources of financing, so we kwont move forward if we didn't didn't -- wouldn't move forward if we didn't think the project was feasible. essentially, we would not move forward with the site if we didn't think it was feasible.
>> supervisor mar: thank you. and just one -- another follow up question on -- to that point. you -- your assessment is that the financing plan is feasible for this project and that it has a good chance of qualifying for the bulk of the funding, which is from the low-income tax credits because it's in a high resource area and other factors, but do you believe the high cost per unit and the land acquisition cost might also impact the eligibility for the competitiveness of this project for this low-income tax credit dollars, which is the bulk of the financing? >> so supervisor, as you mentioned, you know, the state financing is extremely competitive, and we have had projects in our pipeline that have had some difficulty securing funding, but as you've noted with the irving site, it is a site in a high opportunity area, and we're proposing a
family project, so it would be very competitive for state financing for that reason, and there are -- you know, the state financing regulations have been in flux, but we believe that the project would be well positioned to secure state financing, and we would work very closely with the tndc to make sure that is the case. [please stand by]
>> we are advocating to make sure there is funding for affordable housing across the state and not leaving projects in cities like the bayarea behind because costs are different than other parts of the state . >> chair: i had a question about that cost, like it's about $9 million and it has been mentioned both in the long evaluation and also the analysis that i acquisition costs for affordable housing development given the size of the lots so can you explain the
high cost and again, how that relates to the developments of this project. >> i think just jump in as your closer to this than i am but the acquisition cost when you calculate its estimated. acquisition cost per unit is estimated in unit, based on our underwriting assumptions. that would be comparable with other projects of similar size but jacob, couldyou add more to that ? >> that is correct. when you look across the portfolio in general you're factoring in projects that don't have an acquisition cost. when you look at sites where we had an acquisition cost included with construction costsfor the project , this project is a parity with other projects in terms of per square
foot of lot area and unit and otherfactors . >> supervisor mar: i have a question more for the bla because you look at the appraisal that was done and could you provide your analysis of that. >> this is mick minard from the budget analyst office. we did review appraisals and transactions such as these and we did see any kind of outline issues here in this appraisal. there are acquisition price and the loan here is consistent with the appraisal that we reviewed andthat is of course our positive recommendation .
>> supervisor mar: i also have questions around environmental contamination on site and the response plan . this is one important issue and april 25, 1950irving , maybe just to say for the record there be dsc has confirmed there is toxic contamination on the site specifically pge found in a paper on site as well as in the surrounding neighborhoods likely due to higher use of the dry cleaner and the credit union and dtc both have voluntary cleanup agreements. under the terms of this agreement pt sc will address on-site contamination and fleet credit union will address on-site contamination originating from the 2550 irving site under the oversight of pds c and also as a result
of the environmental testing for the 2550 irving site, pte has been detected at the parking lot across the street and it's likely associated with a former drycleaner so dsc is working with the family trust that owns the property to establish a third voluntary cleanup agreement and i understand pte contamination is common in sites like these because old dry-cleaning operations it's also found in many household productsand air fresheners . nonetheless there are concerns in the neighborhood about this relatively new information. pte in the soil, in the vapor on these sites and now it's kind of spread to the surrounding neighborhoods so i guess i just had a question
about ... this could be to the mayor's office if you could explain how your handling this, the pte contamination in the soil on-site and how that relates to the proposed affordable housing development . >> so on the specific response plan, i will ask tndc to provide an overview of that plan but i'll note the project tndc has been communicating with the psc and the state department and you mentioned dtsc has been briefing stakeholders including yourself and the communitygroups ,
neighborhood groups and they have an engagement process tha they've been following . the response which i will let lamont has been removed renewed by dtsc and is out for public comment andeverything we know about the response plan is available .there has been a process that's been going on for the course of this year around the environmental outlets and dtsc will speak directly to the response plan. >> thank you jamie and supervisor mar and safai for the opportunity to you today. i'm going to summarize briefly from the document called a committee update it was actually just emailed out to sites, mailed out that
addresses both owners and occupants of the property within the radius of the site . the response plan that has been reviewed and approved by dtsc staff and is out for the final steps in theprocess will include five components . the first is to install a vapor intrusion mitigation system that is part of the foundation of the future building. it consists of an engineer barrier and piping that allows vapor to be vented into the atmosphere above the building where it will naturally dissipate. the second component is to install clubs around underground utility corridors and ceiling utility piping to provide vapors from traveling off-site. the authorities collect samples to confirm the laborand mitigation system is operating as designed before we move people into the building . the fourth is to include a land-use covenant to allow residential use which would
notify future owners of the property that the system is in place and needs tobe maintained and that is monitoring and maintaining the system to ensure it remains effective . >> chair: iq for that. this proposed response then to the on-site pte contamination and dtsc's mitigations made public were released earlier this week and then dtsc opened a public participation process that is going to last 30days starting this week . so i think i appreciate the response plan that was developed by community and oversight that dtsc is providing to the important environmental cleanup issues on-site and bus ... the timing
of the public participation process sorting this week will depend on august 13 and then following that i know dtsc will review the comments and issued their final evaluation of the response plan for the on-site contamination and that's probably going to happen sometime after august 13 . the timing of the board approval of the $14.3 million on before the dtsc oversight to the response plan in their final approval of the response plan is very problematic. and i just wanted to say that it seems like it would be better and more respectful of the public participation process that just opened this week and more respectful and in
support of the dtsc response for the environmental cleanup plan for us to continue our decision on the loan agreement until after that happens. i just wanted to get a response from the mayor's office to this because i'd just say i would ask you why wasn't this, the timing of these important pieces of more, better. why couldn't the dtsc oversight and their approval of the response plan happen before the loan approval was being brough before court consideration ? >> thank you supervisor.
i'll note again the public comment period as you noted remain open but the public engagement process actually began much earlier in that year and has involved many key stakeholders and i'll let katie lamont that engagement process but dtsc has beenengaged in . i'll note there has been for this project since tndc was selected there's been a lot of engagement with you and your office. the community members across the board and that we will continue to do so and the project sponsor will continue to do so so although the specific public comment period opened recently the actual engagement around the environmental piece and engagement around the site selection and the development of the family housing hasbeen for the last over the last year . so with that i'll ask katie to speak specifically to the engagement.
>> iq for the question supervisor. so we have a robust public participation process. they produce public participation plans and actually sent out the first set of mailers in february so i'm going to read from the section of the plan that describes the public participation to date . february 2021 we met with the fort supervisor mark and his legislative aide the district family network, our sunset merchants association and the sunset neighborhood association to provide them with an update on the environmental activities and dtsc public participation process. in june 2021, dtsc held to drop in interview sessions where they spoke with five respondents. the agency also house a another reading with 18 board members from the mid-sunset neighborhood association and with district supervisor mar's
office and in addition to those meetings idescribed , there was also a community survey that was instituted in april 2021 so that happened between the initial briefing infebruary and before the follow-up interviews in june. and then now we're in the final stages of the public participation process . >> supervisor, i'd like to add the projects response plan has also had been reviewed by dtsc and has been preliminarily approved and that happened prior to the opening of the public commentperiod . we have coordinated the closing of the loan with the approval of the different agencies so that the due diligence period could flow concretely together. and get us to that closing date for site acquisition that it's working towards. >> for the responses and just i
guess again my question is why it seems to me that it would be better to for us to have the dtsc oversight process and their approval for the response plan completed before the loan agreement is moved forward. it's supported by the sport so i guess my question is why wasn't that, the sequencing of these important pieces plan better. >> thank you for that. as i said before the public engagement piece as been over the course of the 2021 year katie had mentioned and on top of that as jacob has said the due diligence of the site is done corporately with the bringing the site forward to the board. so that it's time leading up to
the acquisition of the site. they overall around the site acquisition has happened over the course of the year since tndc was selected so i want to maybe just reframe a little bit in that the community engagement piece weather around this environmental piece specifically or around the site selection in the project element has been actually quite lengthy and will continue on that engagement acquisition. unfortunately with the board timing the board will be in recess in august and there is a deadline with the purchase agreement to acquire the sitein august . so unfortunately it does not at this point we don't believe there would be any new information coming from dtsc. the response plan has already
been reviewed and preliminarily approved and there won't be any new information coming from that process which will include in mid august and we want very much the board to site moving forward and to tndc to meet their acquisitiondeadline by the end of august . >> supervisor mar: i support being able to meet the site acquisition deadline. and on moving forward with that controlfor affordable housing on-site , and again, it's very frustrating that there are very important environmental oversight and response plan and the official signoff by the state department control what that didn't happen sooner so that we wouldn't be in this awkward situation .i just have one final question on this and in this relates to the
financing project and you see that on the contamination on-site as well as the contamination in the surrounding neighborhood. the two separate agreements that the tsc has four oversight and cleanup of their contamination on-site. is thatgoing to , with that potentially impact the competitiveness of this project again for the most of the financing which is the state income tax credit. >> i don't think so. for the project moving forward we do need site control. that's the first step in the process so that's what we're trying to get to right now. after we had site control we
will continue to engage with the community around the development of the project and assess how to best position the project or the state funding sources includingthe credits and the bond and really positioning the project to be competitive . i don't believe that there would be an issue and correctme if there's anything else to add to that . >> the type of contamination that's been identified is very common and in organized areas and this response is also has been done often so people understand theissue , know what to do and the fact that the tsc is overseeing it and approving the response plan will give all lenders and investors credit. >> one last question, this is just the mayor's office. have there been other affordable housing developments
that have been on sites that ever required cleanup of toxic contamination and oversight by dtsc? and if so, i'm just trying to understand the conflict. >>. >> i think katie has mentioned this kind of issue is common as the project is located in urban areas and the site is the assessment for each site is different depending on the site conditions but this particular issue i think is common because of the sitebeing in an urbanized area . >> are you saying that there have been other mohcd subsidized projects that have been on sites that have required response plans or remediation plans for toxic contamination western mark.
>> for these type of site conditions i'm sure there are. in terms of specific sites that have gone through this process i would have to get back to you and see whether or not there are specific sites that we can but certainly the conditions are common. and that's not something that is unique to 2050 april 25, 1950 irving. >> we do have other sites paper barriers andjust , there's not a cleanup that's proposed here in this environmental plan. it's not that type of plan. this is in response plan based on one, one of the test sites at 66 registered just about screening level so there's requirements or these paper barriers. that is a common approach on urbanized sites for new housing. especially when you're
converting a commercial to a residential view whereas i think it'simportant to point out that the commercial use would not require any kind of plan or approach . so it's that converting the site over to residential does require the cap to announce th potential for papers to come up into the building .>> great. thank you for your responses and i'll leave it at that. thank you. >> thank you supervisor. i had a quick question about this issue of the dsc process. i just wanted to be clear in my understanding that the closing of the loan itself is conditioned upon dtsc approval
of the response plan so if we were to approve and we were to pursue now , that there is still this conditioning of the actual closing of the loan on the approval. is that correct. can you clarify what is included and what it in terms of the conditioning of the actual closing of the loan austin mark . >> yes, that is correct. it is the final approval from dtsc. dtsc has provided preliminary approval of the plan that started their public engagement process on monday the 12th. that will conclude on the 13th and following that, they could provide their final approval of theresponse plan. that is a requirement of the loan funding .
>> got it, thank you. all right. i know we have a lot of people i'm surewaiting to give comment . we also have amendments but we can take those after public comment. i have some further comments on this but i can save it till after public comment and supervisor safai will do the same. i appreciate you supervisor mar for your leadership and i greatly appreciate the work you've done to engage the community and neighborhood around this project. so with that, not a clerk can we open this for public comment? >> yes mister chair, there are approximately 91 colors listening in the queue. members of the public who wish
to provide comment, please press star three to be added to the queue and wait until the system indicates you have been a muted area i believe you would like to provide one more color. >> chair: we will have one minute per color. >> clerk: please unmute the first caller. >> caller: can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. >> caller: my name is lauren chin,fifth-generation san franciscan and member of the community coalition . i support building the maximum number of units in the affordable housing development without any delay. i grew up spending a lot of time in the sunset and i know
how special the district is and i know how hard it is for families to move into the sunset or thepeople who thrown up to stay in their own neighborhood or even san francisco because of the lack of affordable housing and i'm heartbroken by how opportunities for housing for people of color are limited in neighborhoods that have a history of disinvestment . the housing development will expand opportunities for working families by creating a safe and stable home. i urge you to support the maximum number of units and ensure the buildings for families at the lower end are at the city's disposal. i join my community and demanding that the city invest in affordable housing starting with 3050 irving. >> thank you for your comments. >> caller: my name is erin goodwin, born in sanfrancisco and i'm living in the outer sunset with my father and stepmom .
i have a bachelors degree in mathematics and am currently a doctoral studentand even with a stipend againstsalary , i would not be able to afford to live in the outer sunset . it's clearly indicate that something is broken. people who aremaking the minimum wage should be able to live . i support theaffordable housing unit at 2550 irving street . make it as affordable as possible with maximum occupancy and for it to be approved today. i support political democracy, economic democracy and that means our city needs to be affordable to its citizens. i thinkaffordable housing is key to a livable city . thank you very much. >> clerk: next speaker please.
>> caller: my name is ray carella and i live three blocks from 2550 irvingand and an ardent supporter of the irving project and affordable housing in general . i'm calling to express my support area 2550 irving is an affordable investment for san francisco. it critically addresses the affordability crisis and supporting it meansdoing our part to make san francisco affordable to working families . last saturday tndc hosted a tour of affordable housing locations and i was afforded the opportunity to go on that tour. i saw firsthand how well-built and well-maintained these affordable housing locations are as were the other attendees. it was an eye-opening experience. this is why i'm asking all our supervisors to approve this loan and deliver this family affordable housing to the sunset. thank you very much. >> next speaker please.
>> caller: i'm proposing this project because mohcd has no consideration for aplan that has less impact and we can build more housing faster . also, i have a 76-year-old oncology patients living right next to the building. she needs to have some therapy, she's homebound and this will cause a serious health risk to her and she has had an institution in 2010, that's 1.5 times her body volume this will be detrimental to her health because a tndc study shows all your long ourhousing will be in
shadow . overwhelmingly 90 percent of neighbors are opposing this project as proposed according to data .>> next speaker please. >> caller: good morning supervisor.>> clerk: if you have a radio on, could you turn that off so that we can hear you clearly? much better. >> caller: i'm an expert on affordable housing.there is one item which is has been overlooked here by the sponsor. this vote will be in violation of san francisco administrative code to a .53.
i'll be back, 28.53 which stipulates a separate public hearing is required on all controversial issues as is the case with the contaminated site and the vicinity with a young cancer-causing chemicals. the authorization of funding for the site purchased with disregard and preempt consideration and imperative of public health. the cost of remediation of this highlyconcentrated condition , this aspect must be accounted for which has been my grossly oversimplified by the dtsc and its project sponsors. the vapor intrusions.
>> caller: i am a lifelong resident of the sunset district and i'm opposed to the approval of this loan because it's unnecessary and there are no physical metrics developed to ensure success and protect the working-class taxpayers. the neighbors don't want this project. there's already plenty of affordable housing.there are 1500units left and $2000 a month and in the city if you look at craigslist.why is the city providing a $14million loan to buy a $9 million property without any independent validation . why was there no market rate completed to independently validate the cost of the project . why was there no competitive bids . there are no metrics developed nor were there any metrics on the ongoing cost of development. this project and loan needs to be stopped because there's no fiscalresponsibility developed for this ideological project . how can we askthe working-class
taxpayers to buy a property that has no control over the money to guarantee its success. iq . >> next speaker please. >> caller: my name is steve ward, i'm from the playa part coalition and i am a neighborhood supply park village which is just west of the mid-sunset neighborhood. and besides adjusting to the whole project, i'm careful of the consequences that it will have for our neighborhood in terms of pointing a wrecking ball towards our neighborhood next .especially in that site on 43rd and june at church which is the most elegant building in our neighborhood which can be purchased for things like senior care, child care, community center and then free up space in the new teacher housing for proposal
for a medical clinic which we need all these services.and so i'm opposed to this building and it does not comport with the general outline of the amphitheater. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. >> caller: my name is permits, i live in the sunset district since 1993 area i support the city and county providing alone to finance the affordable housing project at 2550 irving street. providing the funding is a good first step. i know there are issues to
resolve in the future but this is an importantaffordable housingproject so the first things come first. please support and approve the funding for the affordable housing project at 2550 irving street . thank you . >> clerk: next speaker please. >> caller: i'm a renter in district 2 and i lived in an expensive one-bedroomapartment . i think the city definitely needs affordable housing, especially affordable housing for working-class people and that's why i support the proposed housing development at 2550 irving street. the whole city needs to work together to invest in affordable housing and i see four apartments and i think we need staff to delay and people in the sunset benefit from
living in the city.if they didn't want to live in the city they could move to the suburbs. we need to fund buildings and stop building buildings and apartment buildings etc. and people that have are fortunate enough to have these stop other people from living here and can make it affordable but it will be under invested andwe've invested a lot in affordable housing in this district and across the city . >> clerk: thank youfor your comments, next speaker please . >> caller: my name is ann, i'm a sunset resident and a staunch supporter of the affordable housing site built with the maximum number of units at 2550 irving. as everyone knows fs has become increasingly difficult to support for working families and it's critical we support our neighbors.
housing is a human right and everyone deserves to have faith in the stable places to live in a dream and thrive ina communityespecially one as vibrant and welcoming as sunset . it would greatly saddened me if our city passed up the opportunity to help somebody in need while we have the resources to do so . thank you and please vote yes to approve this loan. >> clerk: next speaker please. welcome caller. perhaps we could circle back to the scholar and take the next. >> caller: my name is steve leads and i'm a resident of the sunset district for 40+ years and a member of the westside
community coalition. i support the 2550 irving street project being built maximum capacity and serving those with the lowest and middle income without delay. a lot has been spoken on this issue and an important question is what kind of city will sf be in our future. our city is in need of deeply affordable housing and at 2550 irving is start with a significantnumber of vulnerable sunset residents are going to pay their rent and stay housed . deeply affordable housing is needed in every district and every neighborhood tomake sf san francisco a more just and caring community for all of us . supervisors, i urgeyou to reflect your deliberations about the question i raised . san francisco can and must do better. thank you and vote yes. >> caller: >> clerk: next speaker please.
>> caller: i live in different for and i'm a supporter of the westside community coalitionand and a part of faith in action bay area . i support the maximum number of units at the lowest ami level for the proposed 100 percent affordable housing development at 2550 irving street and i encourage you to approve the resolution without delay area and a young adult who moved to the neighborhood a year ago renting in that 94122 zip code with four other young people in order for us to afford living in the neighborhood and in san francisco where i worked. as a new resident i want you to declare our heart and ensuring that longtime residents of this neighborhood can stay here especially our lowest income residents and immigrants this is a critical piece of the comprehensive need to keep families in our community intact.
our neighborhood must do our part and i look forward to welcoming our neighbors to move into the new development at february 5, 1950 irving. >> clerk: next speaker please. >> i live nearby the vast majority of the callers today and i'm for increased housing but it's sustainable and maximizes the number of units filled with funds. it will cost $11 million per unit. $400 million project requires five years to build. there's a dus which supervisor mar is a strong advocate of. they build houses but i've never seen the construction of the tower which is most expensive and fulfills this option. infrastructure perceived by some weather wrongly has alternatives options given by
those. what i'd like to address is last week on the report and follows up witha family with children and an elderly woman holding a sign says they want affordable housing . this is going to be an integrated unit. >> time has elapsed. >> clerk: next speaker please. >> caller: my name is robert hope, i'magainst the proposed 2550 irving street project. my family lives near the proposed project . i am concerned the proposed seven-story housing project is too big given thesurrounding neighborhood of small single-family homes and small apartment buildings . furthermore, the enormous size of the proposed project is not the way to buildaffordable housing.
i grew up in a six-story low income housing project in chinatown . as a teenager, i personally felt the stigma and shame of living ina massive housing project for the poor. when it comes to affordable housing , maximizing density is the dehumanizingand not the way to build . people who support maximizing density have never lived in this type of housing. 45, 50 irving should not be higher than four stories and it should be designed for respect for future tenants and the surrounding property owners. thank you and please vote number. >> clerk: next speaker please. >> caller: myname is leslie roffman , i live at 5058 for 20 years. i support 11 stories of deeply affordable family housing at 2550 irving. as a christian teacher i can
always afford a decent apartment and eventually i saved enough to buy a house on sunset. i focused on many papers and their stories are similar. i recently spoke to a married couple with three children. five of them live in this condo alone. the costs are more than my down payment on the hard work doesn't get you housing anymore. this situation isn't good for anyone. we must figure out how everyone can have stable housing area no one group of people on the sunset that we do belong to each other . we need to find solutions for housing and public transportation . thank you. >> next speaker please. >> caller: my name is sarah allen and i live in district 1 area and a supporter and member
of the westside community coalition. i support the proposed 100 percent affordable housing development at 2550 irving street . it's an important for people living in affordable housing to have that at the park and other important part of our community. we urgently need to address the underinvestment in affordable housing. district for falls behind every other district when it comes to affordablehousing having only 17 new affordableunits over the last decade . with hundreds of rent-controlledapartments, rising housing prices andthe community displacement of families . this project cannot be delayed . every day is another possibility for another family and up on the street . the development will expand access and opportunity for working families and renters by
creating safe and stable homes in our community. it will send as many families as possible and i urge you to support the numbers at 2550 irving street. >> there are 68colors in the queue and 103 listening. next color please .>> caller: where a member of the council ofcommunity housing organizations . i'm calling to express my support for the sunset community tndc and supervisor mar. this hundred percent affordable housing development at 2550 irving street expand access and opportunities for district force working families and their children to stay in their neighborhood. district 4: behind every other district when it comes to opportunities for affordable housing with only 17 new
affordable unitsadded over the last decade . san franciscans across the city including the westside agree with this mission of expanded affordable housing as evidenced by theoverwhelming voter support for proposition e , citywide rezoning and companion propositioning affordable housing bonds measures. securing the site acquisition is a critical first step providingcertainty for affordable housing to become a reality on the west side . thank you forapproving the sit acquisition funding for 2550 irving . >> clerk: next speaker please . >> caller: i'm a member of westside community coalition and i support you 100 percent affordable housing at 2550 irving and demand the maximum number of units for families at the lower end of and i as a chinese-american resident my visionfor this neighborhood is one that is livable and safe . especially given the racist zoning laws and segregation in
the city 2550 irving is one of many steps needed tobuild an inclusive neighborhood. this project can be delayed as it's becoming late with many families displaced and others at risk , rising prices and other apartmentslosing rent control status. district 4 lags behind every other district while the city's housing crisis hasintensified . we affordable investment starting with 2550 irving . >> clerk: nextspeaker please . >> caller: [inaudible] hello? >> clerk: you are on. >> caller: is it my turn? >> clerk: yes.
>> caller: i'm a sunset resident andi'm against this plan. my neighborsare also against the plan and also in the sunset neighborhood is already a working family neighborhood . it was never a rich neighborhood .they always come to sunset but low housing here is already for working family districts and then the rentis already pretty low. already . so the most important thing is that most districts, my neighbors areagainst this project . thank you . >> next speakerplease . >> caller: my nameis don kissimmee and i live in
district 1 and a member of the westside community coalition . i've been in community organizing in the richmond and thesunset district and i'm calling to support the proposed 100 percent affordable housing development at 2550 irving as a lifelong resident i can see how the city has historically enacted policies that have harmed our communities . my old neighborhood was raised due to redevelopment. especially affordable housing will not repair the damage but at least it's a check on the ongoing gentrification of san francisco and provides an opportunity for working families. this city has a debt to pay to our communities and all those who have been displaced from their onceaffordable homes let's start by enacting policies that promote affordable and not market rate housing
protections from evictions foreclosures as well as really from rent and mortgages people fought for last year. i wouldnot be here without aging and lgbt q community that has kept me safe in crisis after crisis . the fact thataffordable housing is a flight and nota right is an injustice in itself . this is why i'm fighting for 2550 irving . generations after me don't just struggle to survive but also can thrive in this beautiful neighborhood i love. i urge the board to move this project forward without any delay and ensure thebuilding as the maximum number of units as well as house vulnerable families at orbelow 30 percent ofthe a.m. i'm in san francisco . accu .>> clerk: next speaker please . >> caller: goodafternoon supervisors , i'm a member of the community coalition. i'm excited to address you in support of 100 percent affordable housing for families
at 2550 irving. while working in the sunset district for as a community organizer and counselor at the westside program ,we encountered the trauma and displacement that takes place daily in the sunset . people think this largely homeowner occupied action is immune to the displacement that's ravaged other neighborhoods . unfortunately these assumptions are false. longtime low income homeowners able to keep up with their mortgage and arebeing displaced at an alarming rate . tndc's proposal to build housing represents stability and affordability a chance for families to stay in san francisco. this is how you build strong communities.i urge you to pass this project moveforward withoutdelay. thank you very much . >> clerk: next speaker please . >> caller: my name is james and
i'm a codirector at the community housing organization at 21 affordable housing developers in san francisco. we've been leaning housing citywide and more affordable housing in the westside. san franciscans occluding westside residents overwhelmingly support affordable housing in their neighborhood as demonstrated by huge passage of proposition e and westside for, affordable housing and passing proposition 820 past affordable housing throughout the city. i want to thank tndc, supervisor mar, westside coalition in its effort to bring affordable housing to th westside residents and running in the neighborhood for their children so that the neighborhood can grow into the future . we've had tremendous success or
affordable housing and those successes have come through community organizing where people come and get out, speaking out for affordable housing. >> clerk: thank you, next speaker. >> caller: my name is renita hermanand i'm a homeowner that lives four blocks away from the projected project . it's outrageous to consider a seven-story building with no consideration for traffic problems local density . this area is already difficult for traffic and the infrastructure and parking are justnot able to handle that kind of density . you'll be preventing at least 8 to 10 homes from ever seeing the sun and preventing them from the ability to install solar energy on their roots which by the way is a city
requirement. for the city to spend 14 million on alone that will cost so many problems, more problems than it will solve is a mistake . the fact there is toxic land under this should be resolved and prior to any loan on this buildingand to associate parks with air fresheners is disingenuous to say the least. there are many better options that could be investigated including afour-story building instead . they were would work presented about two weeks ago at the mid-neighborhood, mid-sunset neighborhood association . iq .>> clerk: next speaker please. >> caller: this is helena this is from first-hand experience living at 26 and 30. density has reached an impasse with pedestrians and traffic. this corner is no place to go. adding additional population this size will increase the post covid stress.
the windshear can be strong. this new building will cheer the high wind and split cars onto both sides and the house next to the building. the house blocked from light becomes even colder. this large building massis too close to neighboring small homes . displaced residents, houses have been installed. the quality of life is not improving for us. 26 irving is overcrowded and people are not enjoying their residence additional means pushing beyond overcrowded . street pressure will increase already continues to be traffic noise all day . >> clerk: thank you for your comments, next speaker please. welcome caller.
. >> caller: i worked my way to becoming relatively more privileged through what i have done seeing the changes in sunset and the growing separation of low income individuals in sunset compared to where i was at, it makes my heart break we still can't have that communities still be in sunset and i'm hoping that we can still preserve the soul of what someone just mentioned right now, the soul of the sunset community and even more through mars leadership cases like the market and things like that. >> clerk: thankyou, next caller .
>> caller: i'm a proud resident of the sunset district and organizer withthe west community coalition . i'd like to read heidi smith's comments so i would appreciate extra time area the issue of affordable housingis very personal to me . i built a happy life for myself as aschoolteacher with affordable housing . when we talk about who's going to benefit from 98 units of affordable housing we're talking about who i consider friends, family, neighbors, mentors area when i worked in the neighborhood i see the lasting impacts of a peaceful history through world war ii sunset was closed to residents who were not white. segregation was enforced by racially restrictive covenants by neighborhoodassociations and lenders . the sunset is a key player in a racist history has had lasting impacts so we can begin to unravel this history starting
today byfunding the development of themaximum number ofunits, rent affordable to families at or below 30 percent a.m. i . we cannot delay this project . please free us today . can i read the comments? >> clerk: no thankyou ma'am. equity we are only allowing one minute per caller . >> caller: thank you. next caller please.>> caller: collingwood 100 percent of resolution item 210763 with no delay in approval. our city is long overdue for affordable housing development generally and this district in particular. the proposal for 2550 irving is a critical opportunity to correct this egregious oversight area as a proudnative
san franciscan and woman of color , it is deeply important to me that our city sees opportunities such as this project to do the right thing and create affordable housing especially given the severe and deleterious effects of working families, renters and our homeless priced out of any adequate housing since the ndc projects expand access, create safe and stable housing in our community is a true benefit to our entire city. i am urging support of the maximum number of units at 2550 irving and families at the lower end of ami. >> next speaker please. >> my name is alex campbell and my wife and i live in district 4 on 27th avenue. we have two little girls ages
five and eight are the next generation of proud san franciscans and also attorney legal services nonprofit where i represent low income clients and advocate for justice for working-class people generally and i am a residentalso of the westside community coalition . i support this development 2550 irving street the maximum number of unit and without any more delay. having grown up here in the city it means a lot to me and my wife to be raising our daughters in thecity . our family is here and our support network is all local i want to see my daughters grow up here and have the opportunity to be able to live here in the future but i want every family living in the city and the sunset to have those opportunities. we need to act urgently to create affordable housing in the sunset in particular . frankly it's embarrassing district 4 falls behind every other district when it comes to
affordable housing and thank you. >> clerk: currently there are 57 colorsin the queue, 87 listening . >> clerk: welcome caller. hello, caller. hello, caller. can you please takethe next caller and circle back to this one . >> caller: i live on 27th avenue at the proposed building and i aman advocate for housing for the homeless . but i don't want to see a
building and stories i go up and it's too big. if you walk around the neighborhood there's signs on many of the houses. we are not against the project, i've never heard anyone say anythingabout don't bring these people tothis neighborhood at all . what we're saying is it's too big . i think there's other alternatives to build different kinds of clusters of housing throughout the san francisco area but i don't want to see a seven story building go up right by my house area i don't think it will complement the neighborhood at all. >> clerk: next caller please. >> caller: i'm on the renter in san francisco and i'm a strong supporter of25 50 irving street . i'd like to remind the supervisors that district for as only got 17 units of
affordable housing in the last 10 years. they're asking for all seven stories of 100 percent affordable housing. look around. there's a seven story building already in the same corner as the development area to giant surface parking lots could become affordable housing and instead of this one project we should be debating how we can maximize the amount of affordable housing by developing the adjacent parkin lot , that's a surface parking lotuntil another seven stories of affordable housing . neighbors until they are securely house where fighting against this project. find it in your heart to all ouraffordable housing and please approve this $14 million loan . >> clerk: next speaker please.
>> caller: my name is megan and i live in sunset district 4. i fully support the maximum number of units andhundred percent affordable housing plan or 2550 irving . my neighborhood desperately needsaffordable housing . we are behind every other district in developing affordable housing.this area is dominated by small and expensive single-family homes and we cannot afford the high rent. the plan is a great start. we are facing ahousing crisis that can only be addressed with big plans and deliberate investment . delays hurt families who need affordable housing now. i'm in the westside community coalition and am urging you to vote yes and move us one step closer to housing for all without no delay >> clerk: next speaker please . >> caller: hello.
this is from asia and i am calling today to actually support the affordable housing project but request some level of due diligence and fiduciary obligations fromthe board of supervisors . i support supervisor mar's comments earlier today to continue this process and request a continuation until the dtsc assessment is completed. i love the appraisal supported the $9 million valuation and the appraiser merely stated on page 19 that they assumed the building site are clean of containment. the appraisal also on page 29 notices the comparable three using the appraisal has to have the purchase price adjusted once toxic contaminants is discovered. in this actuation if we were to use thesame valuation , the price of the purchase would
need to be adjusted from $9 million to 6 and a half million dollars. this is not a competitive bid process for this piece of land. i heard the mohcd city of san francisco to work with the seller to request additional time to complete due diligence. the board of supervisors had a hearing ... >> clerk: next speaker please. welcome, caller. hello, caller. >> caller: supervisors, this is peter callingwith the community housing organization
you've heard from my colleagues earlier . we just wanted to again reinforce that the proposed project on irving street is an incredibly important step in the right direction of funding affordable housing opportunities across the city including the westside, southside, east side, north side . the voters made it clear proclamation with received over 80 percent support we need to see affordable housing everywhere this is an incredible step forward and we encourage you toapprove the site acquisition funding . there's discussions going forward to get the best project but this is an important step and we're so glad our committee of housing organization can support one of our members in this groundbreaking project on the west side of san francisco. thank you for your support supervisor mar, supervisor amy
and supervisor safai as well as the mayor andhousing . >>clerk: next speaker please . welcome, caller. >> caller: hello. >> clerk: yes, you can speak. >> caller: my name is sherita emma and i'm a resident of district 4. i'd like to request that the board of supervisors complete full due diligence on this piece of property and this loan prior to engaging and approving this particular loan recommending it to the board of supervisors for full approval. the sellers should work with the city of san francisco was going to be the owner of the landto make sure all due
diligence is completed . the fact that there are toxic contaminants of the site and the dest has not completed its assessment yet the city will recommend a $9 million kiss of a piece of land is hugely problematic situation and the board of supervisors would fail its fiduciary obligations to the taxpayers of san francisco if they recommended this particular loan for approval without completingdue diligence . thank you. >> clerk: nextspeaker please . >> caller: on a renter in district 7 on the west side eking in strong support for the 100 percent affordable homes at 2550irving street . the westside needs to house more people. we're in a housing crisis area and how are we in this
situation denmark becausemany san francisco neighbors don't welcome more neighbors . most people these days say i understand we need more housing but the is why we're in the situation. we need more homes and we especially need these affordable homes on the west side. how many chances do we get to build 100 percent affordable housing one block on the metro train? we need to supportworking families in the city by putting our full support behind projects like this . build 98 affordablehomes. please approve this loan with no delay. iq . >> clerk: next speaker please. >> caller: my name is ashley and i'm a lifelong sunset resident and i live near the project site. i'm in fullsupport of approving the funding for 2550 irving
street . i'm a public service married to a teacher with two children and i know how difficult it is to find affordablehousing. it's imperative the westside contribute to the stock in san francisco. it's been so long we have not built housing . tndc has done a stellar job of outreach addressing concerns around issues the opposition is focusing on. i can't wait to seethe site built . i believe it's every person's right to live inaffordable housing . thank you. >> clerk: next speaker please. hello, caller. welcome, caller.
perhaps we can circle back to this caller and take the next one. >> caller: hello. this is rita goldberger and i'm a homeowner and i live half a block from the proposed site. i'm very much in favor of having 100 percent affordable housing built at that site. i think the proposal is a little too large. i think six stories would be better because that is what around their area my main concern is is the seller pushing us to buy this land now ? the whole reason is approved now is the sale has to be done before the board votes on vacation. why is the seller pushing to sell the land before the
toxicity report is out ? we need to wait until the toxicity report isout and then we will have to take the price . that's my main concern. i'm really concerned about the toxicity . we need parking for the housing and we don't want to do this until the toxicity reportcomes out and it'sstrange of the seller . >> clerk: next speaker please . >> caller: my name is nancy and i live at 27th avenue not far from this project. i speak in support of the project and approval of funds to develop the site. i'm getting tired of hearing fellow colleagues nursing assistants who can't afford to live here anymore and we are losing families and children . i am concerned about the tone that this has taken in our
neighborhood with many residents being called communists and people subjected to bullhorns and whistles because they do support this . so i am asking that we classified you happens are about the toxicity and the parking so hopefully those things can be worked out along the way but i think that i fully support this project and so we need affordable housing in san francisco, thank you. >> clerk: next speaker please. >> caller: corey smith on behalf of the housing action coalition in strong support. we have a really fantastic opportunity here. we're talking about family housing, talking about 100 percent affordable housing . we're talking about homes for
people a block from the park and a block from the n judah. there is quite literally the exact same intersection a 70 foot seven-storybuilding already there . so this fits within the framework of the current neighborhood and no matter what way you slice it, this is the absolute perfect project for the sunset and any delay is a clear message that building 100 percent affordable family housing is not important. do not send a message, please approve the loan. >> thank you for your comments, next speaker please. >> i live in clinton park here in san francisco and i am callingtoday in support of the project at 2550 irving . it's very important for our
city that we build more homes of every stripe and this in particular.we need to do something about that, we can't have a vibrant city without being able to live and this is exactly the type of project that is going to support our lower and middle class residents and allow them to stay here. we have to take bold action in san francisco to build more housing allacross our city in every single neighborhood and i really look forward to seeing more housing being built in my neighborhood . not for the super rich but for everybody. for teachers, for nurses everybody across the city .
>> caller: i grew up in san francisco. our family lost ourhomes when our rent was raised . i became unhoused. i hope my representativeswill approve it . thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments, next speaker please. >> caller: good afternoon, can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. >> caller: i'm calling to express support forthe proposal on the affordable housing development at 2550 irving street . all the other districts in the city, lags behind when it comes to affordable housing and as
someone who's experienced homelessness on the mother of two kids and i hope we invest in affordable housing and this will be the first step in securing the land and building affordable housing.i'm in strong support of 2550irving with the maximum amount . thank you. >> clerk: next speaker please. >> my name is aiden. i like some of these other colors and a member of the school district andi am a resident . at the district we do what we can for the students in san francisco but the on affordability of housing is taking a terrible toll on our children's and families and it's taking a toll on our educators and we just hope and
watch their talented teachers and administrators leave the district for more affordable locations. so i'm calling to ask for the boards support of this project at maximum capacity, thank you. >> clerk: next speaker please. >> caller: mine and name is gabby reese and i'm a platter at the community development enter, a faith-based organization in san francisco. we would like to express its enthusiastic support for the project at 2550 irving. we understand the dire need for more affordable housing options in all parts of the city and the past five years the majority of affordable housing developments have been in the city's easternneighborhoods . for example in a recent report
in district 6 san francisco showed almost 3500 affordable housing units added to its housing stock while district for showed less than 20 affordable units in the past 10 years. this 100 percent affordable housing projects will expand access and opportunities for district force working families and children tostay in their neighborhood . securing the site acquisition is a critical first step in providingcertain keys for affordable housing to become a reality . we ask that you please approve this project with no delay. thank youso much . >> clerk: currently there are 30 callers in the queue and 70 listening. if you would like to provide public comment on this item, please be reminded to press star 3 to be added to the queue and for those on hold until the system indicatesyou have been on unit .
hello, caller. >> caller: i'm john, i live in district 4 and istrongly encourage the assessment of this project . the average home price in sunset is over $1 million area it is ridiculous in this working-class neighborhood and i encourage this affordable project. >> clerk: next speaker please. >> caller: my name is python murphyand i live in outer sunset . i'm calling to give my support to this proposed 100percent
affordable housing development. at 2550 irving street . as a youth who's lived in outer sunset most of my life neighborhood gentrification has always ate a significant role and my perception of how urgently we need to cater and address the sunset residents and those have been displaced from living entirely in district 4, unable to complete rights. so the 100 percent affordable housing development at 2550 irving street will extend access and opportunities for working families and renters by creating space and stable homes in ourcommunity . >> clerk: next speaker please .
>> caller: i'm anita, i live i parkside and i'm calling to support the affordable housing project at 2550 irving . i think it's important to create opportunities for families to live here. it's so expensive to live in san francisco and so many people mentioned it's a working class community but the average home as $1.5 million here. where no longer the working-class community that people got to experience when they moved here and the only way to bring back that character and put those in the neighborhood is to build more housing area we haven't met those goals much longer than we can afford to . >> clerk: next speaker please. >> caller: i've lived in sunset for most of my life and i support the development of
affordable housingat the site for sunset and san franciscans and their families . it's easy for us to talk about the businesses and amenities that we enjoy in this neighborhood but we have to be able to help more workers and healthcare providers. i grew up in the outer sunset in a large low income family and attribute my success to being able to be in the sunset surrounded by other families. this is a chance for families and individuals to build a great foundation and i urge you to supportthe maximum number of units at 2550 irving . >> clerk: next speaker please. >> caller: i just want to voice my support for this project. san francisco has been doing an okay job on the east side but a poor job on the west side and it's unfair because on the east
side there's lotsof highways and stuff and it's not the same so i'd like to see more housing on the west side and this is of course the first encouragement . >> clerk: next speaker please. >> caller: i live at 26th avenue twohouses away and i want to do a reality check . there is pce contamination at 2550 irving. at present nobody knows how much it will cost to remediate the land to make it safe. the presence oftoxins should reduce the purchase price instead of doubling it to $9 million . nobody disputes the need for affordable housing. the problems arise when you look at the details of this project . the immediate neighborshave looked at the details. supervisor mar has taken a leadership position against
building on toxic land . he knowsyou can't decide on the loan before public comment and a dtsc response plan . the new information that dtsc will have is the public commen . you have to wait to see and we are not happy with the response plan because removing the toxics they're protecting the new residentsand not the neighboring homes where the toxic plume has spread . your deadline is important but it's not more important than our health. six of my immediate neighbors have cancer. residential use is not just on the site . thank you, next speaker please. >> clerk: my name is tina saint corrado and i live five blocks away from thehousing . i'm proposing this project even though i do support the affordable housing incentive. please consider all the issues
raised by the laborers that have not yet been answered by tndc. the first one is parking for the 100 units is invalid. also documents that will overwhelm thepublic transportation which has not yet been addressed . more importantly the toxic bloom will cause harm to the neighbors during the construction and of course the tenants after the building is the have not been cleaned. at no time in the neighborhood can we uphold another 12,000 additionalresidents . finally the project is way overpriced at $1 million per unit. my question is does the city even review a conservative successful?
>> clerk: thank you for your comment. the callers who have already provided their comments , would you please press star 3 to lower your hands. next color please. >> caller: i'm a san francisco resident and member of sf pd and i support the proposed affordable housing development at 2550 irving. we have a housing affordability crisis and the impact is present in all our lives from what you see every day walking in my neighborhoodto the working families struggling to make ends meet .the project will provide affordable housing units that the city desperately needs and we can't delay this project or another second.
we need the maximum number of units yesterday. do the right thing for our city and for the future residents working in this development . >> clerk: thank you, next speaker please. ... welcome, caller. hello caller. perhaps we can circle back to thecaller and take the next . i have lived in district 4 for nearly a decade area and supporter of the westside community coalition and i
support the proposal of 100 percent affordable housing at 2550 irving street without delay. i join my community and the coalition and demanding the city investment affordable housing by funding the maximum number of units at 2550irving and serving families at the lower end of a and i . >> clerk: next speaker please. >> caller: this is more in strong support. we had 60 people out saying how much this is such an important project. what i really want to point to is the need to approve this project without delay because we need more projects just like this one all over the west side. we need to set a precedent here that we are going to quickly and happily say yes to affordable housing projects
area the departments need to know that we have passed legislation that says we want affordable housing on the west side that we mean it andwe're not going to allow for delays that are really not based in reality . we need to show full throated support for moving quickly when we have opportunities like this and if we show our department that we're going to allow them to be hamstrung and to get chewed up by the entitlement process, they're not going to be brave. they're not going to put forward projects like this one and i've heard some of the anti-housing people say they're really worried that this is the first of many and that's the truth . this isthe first of many and we need more projects like this one . >> clerk: next color please. >> caller: i was born and raised in san francisco and i support this project at 2550 irving street. i know people are concerned
about theheight . i know people are concerned about people living in there. they are the everyday people who help you all. they go to hospitals and mail carriers. it's really allover san francisco.i understand people are worried about the size . these go to look at the 200 beautifulparks we have in san francisco which i do . if you need access ask for transit to help you but please don't deny housing because you feel uncomfortable in the four walls of your home. iq. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. currently there are $34 and 24 in the queue. if you wish to provide public comment rest star 3. next color please.
>> caller: my name is karen chang and i object to the matter before the committee. i support equitable public participation and residents should be given the opportunity to comment on the report. the committee should consider the public's response before it approvesthis loan. it is the committee's fiduciary obligation to do so . furthermore the observation of funding would violate the admin code to a 53 until public hearing is held on the controversy involving the contaminated site and its surrounding phone should be postponed. thank you. >> clerk: next speaker please. >> caller: [inaudible]
>> clerk: hello, caller. >> caller: we live within a few blocks of this project we do not support this project at its current status . seven stories is too much. for stories is more suitable. also i would hope that the board of supervisors usebetter due diligence . the site was a gas station as well as a laundromat so due diligence will be needed to restrict these, thank you. >> clerk: nextspeaker please . >> caller: i'd like to point out there's a problem with tndc's application. we discovered when tndc submitted its application in 2020 they intentionally decided not to notify the most affected
by the project including the neighborhood association and sunset community alliance. neither were notified for the entire year. the group that they did notify on the application did not include any neighbors. it is a violation of the requirement to submit a community engagement plan demonstrating the capacity for support. this alone should be sufficient grounds to table or continue from further hearings. if you live right next to the project it's very easy for you to say we support maximizing but please understand somerset is a beautiful city. we need moretime to discuss . we need time to let us do it right, not because of investors but because of us. >> clerk: next speaker please.
>> caller: hello. hello? >> clerk: we can hear you. >> caller: i just wanted to say seven floors is too big. 4 floors isokay . that parking lot is not enough. thank you. >> clerk: next speaker please. >> caller: i am steve martha, i'm calling in strong support of this project and many more affordable ones on the west side. i'm out here it's easy to forget about the housing crisis since we are removed from the visible homelessness of soma and the tenderloin but ifyou've ever driven around merced , you'll see there isa tremendous housing insecurity problem . the explosion of folksliving
out of their cars , we need thisand many more projects just like it to address it . supervisor mar brought up a great point, why is the cost so high? half of the projects like this are construction and building materials and the rest is permitting fees, legal fees, consulting fees and all the hearingsthat need to go into building thisproject so we need this project and we need to fix the process that makes this takes so long to be approved . >> chair: next speaker please . >> caller: hello. >> clerk: welcome, caller. >> caller: my name is kayla dimarco, a resident of the west side and i work for an affordable real estate developer and additionallyi'm a civil engineer and i'm coming to express support for this
project . i wanted to provide commenton the text of three of the items being discussed . the report indicates it's not uncommon for any partial not just in san francisco but in a suburban neighborhood as well . pce in the soil is not very alarming and the steps that were proposed are typical standard steps to take and it's improving to work. if you look at a lot of reports likethis , you seen the cost of these parcels and this is not something to stop affordable housing and the appropriate steps are going to be taken area as far as the height of the building i fully amin support of theheight . in a district that's no longer affordable , we need the neighborhood more than a seven story building. we're seeing homelessness increase and it's also going to change thenature of those neighborhoods . >> clerk: next color please.
>> caller: my name is winston parsons, i'm calling in support of the affordable housing development and its seven-story form. my sister and i have had the great privilege ofbeing fourth generation san franciscans . my mom and grandmother grew up in sunset and it's antithetical to the san francisco values that i was raisedon and makes our city less family-friendly for those saying seven-story building will harm the character , i neighborhoods character is not determined by the size of its structures but the relationships in how neighbors treat each other and providing stable housing literallyend homelessness so you don't get to complain about homelessness and then opposed affordable housing . i used to work for the ymca providing mentoring and his mom
was constantly working her butt off she lived in a tiny unit in sunset and this man's bedroom was literally a closet. theydeserve to have the same opportunities for growth that myfamilies had me and my colleagues struggle to afford to live here . thank you . >> clerk: next speaker please. >> good afternoon, my name is annie helton and i'm with south home for the elderly. i do represent thousands of seniors every year come to self-help for the elderly for assistance withtheir housing applications . every time affordable housing unit opens up they come to apply but thousands of them always time after time are disappointed because they're just not enough affordable units for our seniors. so i heard the supervisors to pass this resolution today to support tndc to move to
acquisition and redevelopment of the project. the 98 units of housing for the sunset residents are desperately needed and asked supervisor mar stated only a handful of sunsetresidents , like 35.affordable housing last year who applied as sunset residents and they have to live in other districts leaving their home and community behind area i think that i have confidence that tndc and mohcd will overcome opposition. >> clerk: next speaker please. >> clerk: >> caller: i'm planning commissioner and i support you 100 percent affordablehousing development . we hear how the board of supervisors supports affordabl housing and this is a great chance to follow through . housing delayed is housing
denied and there would need to be a corresponding spectacular reason to delay the financing . when african-americans have a one percentchance of being affordably housed there's a crisis . please vote yes and approve this loanand move 2550 irving street forward . >> clerk: next speaker please. >> caller: my family is a long-term neighbor owner in the neighborhood. he needs to support residents in theneighborhood and the well-being of their neighbors this project is to be . it's not, it's currently not in the favor of the neighbors to get affordable housing. there's lots of vacancy right now in san francisco. we report over 70 percent vacancy we want housing right
now, you can give the money to the current people and they pay for the rent. that'sthe immediate housing that you look for. the project itself is unaffordable. it's a waste of taxpayers money . it's just using the funding to scratch the backs of the crony organizations that have been speaking out though i strongly oppose the project the way it is area iq. >> clerk: currently there are 15callers in the q and 34 listening . if you wish to comment please press star 3 to beadded to the queue . next colorplease . >> caller: goodafternoon supervisors, my name is robert pressman and i live in district 5 . the reason why the west side is no longer a working-class neighborhood is because housing
has become unaffordableand the reason it's become unaffordable is due to a lack of housing . in the last 50 years san francisco has had tons of jobs and not enough housing so we need affordable housing now to stabilize the west side and i support this project, thank yo . >> clerk: next speaker please. >> caller: i grew up in the sunset and went to college here and continueto live in the sunset . i love this neighborhood but we need tofocus on what'simportant . the neighborhood is unaffordable even for people who grow up here . even i wouldn't be able to stay if it weren't for rent control so i support this project wholeheartedly being built at maximum capacity and on schedule the sunset could be a more welcoming neighborhood and people could benefit from
>> caller: i live in district . i'm in full supportof this affordable housing project . my current work is in crime prevention policy and i just want to say that affordable housing and housing insecurity is a fantastic way to deter crime and have a true long-term impact on keeping not just neighborhoods butthe entire city safe . i look forward to having more neighbors and a more diverse neighborhood. that will come with this project. and i appreciate the public comment and hope we can have this project at 2550 irving roll out quickly and effectively. >> clerk: next speaker please.
welcome, caller area hello, caller. it's your turn toprovide your comment . please proceed. >> caller: can you hear me? ... [inaudible] we are already responsible forknowing there are serious site problems . the dsc plan is inadequate as proposed and it will affect the surroundingneighborhoods . please table the loan, allow public comment and call for the
delays. thanks a lot. i am looking forward to more of these proposals to come to realty. >> clerk: next speaker, please. [roll call] >> i am a member to call in support of 2550 irving. everyone all ways says i support housing until it is next to them. there is a housing shortage. district 4 has not built. in the last decade they built 126 homes. you will build that many homes
in one year. approve this loan and say yes to badly needed housing in the west side of san francisco today. thank you very much. i hope you approve the item. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i am a member of the west side tenants. i am calling to express support to housing in 2550 irving and moving forward. our city is in need of affordable housing. we hear about people who can no longer afford to live in the living. the homelessness is twice as high. anytime these projects come up people object to they don't want more people in the neighborhood. we need more developments like this throughout the city. don't force people to leave home for maid up reasons. i can't believe it is putting
people in homes. we need more housing. please approve this project. thank you. >> clerk: next speaker, please. >> caller: i am calling in strong support of the loan approval today for 2550 irving. as board member of uv action this is not just a san francisco problem. i live in richmond. this is the first affordable housing propose understand the west side in a long time. i can't wait until we talk about the project down the street. we cannot afford to go project by project. every caller highlighted the dire housing crisis we are in especially for affordable homes. people need these. our actions are not meeting the scale of our problem.
that is what we need leaders to do. we need more affordable housing throughout the west side. approve there and move to bigger and better projects throughout the west side of san francisco. >> clerk: next speaker, please. >> caller: hi, this is janine. i grew up sunset neighborhood. when i found about this project initially i support it. i live two blocks away. this is good. san francisco needs more affordable housing. as i find out about how much it costs, i am against it. i think there should be better options out there. there are different vacant lands in sunset as well. why do we need to invest so much money into this land that has toxin. why are we paying over market
value? there are a lot of questions unanswered. i live two blocks away. no one reached out to me for the survey. i never received anything, my neighbors didn't receive anything. my neighbors who live near me are against this. this project is shady. a lot of things not disclosed. other people in other districts can agree. they are not immediately impacted. i support affordable housing. i am against the project. we need more time to re-enter this to see why this costs so much money. also -- >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: good afternoon. i live in district 6. as someone born and raised in san francisco and working for
nonprofit and lived in multiple story apartments i support 100% affordable housing 2550 irving street. it has fallen behind in every other district. adding only 17. it addresses affordable practice. doing our part to make san francisco be affordable to working families. thank you, supervisor mar and everyone should have an opportunity to live in the sunset. this can knot be delayed. we cannot wait any longer in san francisco. the more we wait, the more we lose opportunities to help people. i urge you all to approve this loan and approve 2550 irving.
thank you. >> clerk: thank you. there are nine callers in the queue and 61 listening. final reminder if you would like to comment please press star 3 now to be added to the queue. please continue to wait until you are unmuted. next caller, please. >> caller: hello. i am julie phoning in district 4. calling to support 100% affordable housing. i am a san francisco native,
third generation. i believe affordable housing is the solution to combat homelessness in the city. we have now a reputation of unhoused people that we have more than enough power to help. please do the right thing. this is why i am asking for supervisors to vote yes and deliver the first ever affordable housing in the sunset. >> clerk: next speaker, please. >> caller: hi. i am chris harriet in district 8. i want to call in strong support of approving this loan as fast as possible. we are in a climate crisis. people here have half the carbon emissions from the east bay.
traffic is there and parking on site. environmental justice parks and schools around the corner. more importantly we talk about affordable housing. 98 families need stable housing yesterday. we love to talk about progressive values. it is time to put up or shut up. approve this quickly and unanimously. >> clerk: next speaker, please. >> caller: good afternoon. i am martin. bay area native living and working in district 7. i am calling in enthusiastic support for 100% affordable housing at 2550 serve irving without delay. no one can test the scale of the
housing scale in the sunset. i am sympathetic to neighbors who are securely housed and do not want a tall building. think of the kindness to a modest number of families. this is a rare and wonderful opportunity to share access to the neighborhood. please approve the project in maximum capacity as soon as possible. >> clerk: next speaker, please. >> caller: i am living in the sunset district area 4. i also oppose the project because we want a safe environment for everybody.
i want all to be aware of the situation and also the parking is only 11 units for 300 people. now we already don't have enough parking space. we really oppose this project. hopefully, supervisors are aware of safety for everybody and also i don't agree with this project. also, the per unit $1 million to build it. that is too much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: i am supporting
affordable housing at 2550 irving without delay. it is so important. providing more affordable housing will insure our city. i am familiar with the housing development and confident. [indiscernable] thank you. >> clerk: next speaker, please. >> caller: hi, i am jenny, district 4 resident. i support the 100% affordable housing development at 2550 at irving. i only afford my apartment because it is rent controlled and i live with three roommates. i love my neighborhood. i am so excited to welcome 100 new families to the sunset.
i am chinese american. it is opportunities like affordable housing that allow low income folks to make a home. i have had multiple friends with homeless because of housing insecurity. 2550 is an opportunity to address the crisis that has been going on for too long in our city. it is about safety, ability and help. our community cannot wait. every day is a possible for another person to become homeless. i ask the supervisors to vote yes and deliver the first ever affordable housing. >> clerk: next speaker, please. >> caller: i am a district 7 resident in favor of this
project. it is an amazing developer. we need transit oriented development, especially 100% affordable. we checked did boxes. cannot wait to see this built in district 7. thank you. >> clerk: next speaker, please. >> caller: i am district 5 resident. i am calling in strong support of the project. affordable housing near transit what we need in the city as we the west coast with extreme weather. the sunset is moderate in climate. it. [indiscernable] it is what we should be doing. transit without parking, affordable is the kind of development we should see in the city and i am proud to see this. i would be more proud if this
were approved and built as soon as possible. >> clerk: next speaker, please. there are six callers in the queue. >> i am sure re. i live in district 4 sunsets down the street from 2550. i am opposed to the loan approval. the massive size and density of the proposed building at 7 stories and 100 units will overwhelm the neighborhood. there are unresolved issues regarding toxic substances. the neighborhood public should be allowed to comment on the dtsc report before the loan is approved. serious financial red flags for the project acquisition costs and infrastructure costs which have not been resolved. the neighborhood residents in the sunset put forward an
alternative to create more affordable housing in the sunset than proposed for less costs in shorter amount of time. i suggest aways compromise is possible to provide needed affordable housing in the sunset and also takes into account neighborhood concerns. such a could pro myself will start a serious dialogue. >> clerk: next speaker, please. >> caller: hello. i just want to bring up the fact i am for affordable housing and i hope the project is built. i urge the board of supervisors and everybody involved in the project to not absolve your obligations to san francisco. your moral obligation to the residents of d4 to approve a
loan with toxic contaminants. there are health issues with the neighbors that will continue if these are not remead yaleed. as much as i respect the wishes of ore residents of san francisco. the fact the people in d4 are incurring health issues and terminal and fatal health issues possibly related to contamination is not investigated, it is a huge moral issue. i also urge that not only are the existing residents exposed, the future residents as well. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> caller: good afternoon, board of supervisors. i live in district 5. i am calling in support of this affordable housing development
in the sunset. there are way too few affordable housing units in the city. you enter a lottery one in 100 or one in a thousand chances to get a problem. to fix the problem make more affordable housing units. i say it is good the unit is big. we need them all over the city in the sunset which doesn't have any. we need as many as we can get this. is a great step if that direction. thank you. >> clerk: five callers in the queue currently. next speaker, please. >> hello, supervisors. this is naomi in full support of the project at 2550-inching. district 1 resident and work in a nonprofit organization. i can say that through the work
over the last four and a half years i have seen the crisis and housing needs our community is facing. that includes youth, families, seniors and unhoused neighbors. i see this project as great solution to this growing crisis the west side is facing. i think the city in general. i just urge you, supervisor mar and other supervisors to vote fully in support for this loan and this funding so that they will do what they are best at doing building affordable housing for the city. thank you so much. >> clerk: next speaker, please. >> caller: hi. i am christy. i am from the sunset community.
i am calling on behalf of the families. they are saying we are strongly oppose the building. we support affordable housing. seven stories is too high. the budget is way out of reach. it costs $1 million per unit. those are the prop a tax moneys. we need to use the money nor wisely to help as many families as possible instead of over pricing this project. according to the tndc proposal, appraisal confirmed the land is best used to build 75 units only, not 100. also, i want to correct that the tndc mentioned they have
actively seeked community engagement. this is wrong. >> clerk: next speaker, please. >> caller: hi. i was born in richmond district of san francisco. i work for the city now. i spend a lot of time there. i am a huge supporter of the coalition in support of the 100% affordable housing at 2550 irving street. it needs to happen as soon as possible. this crisis is dire. thank you. >> clerk: next speaker.
hi. i am sophie hayward in support of funding this loan. i live in district 1. advocates like supervisor mar have been working long and hard to identify funds and policies to support building affordable housing on the west side. supporting the acquisition of sites like this represents years long work come to fruition. please vote today to fund the loan that will secure this privately owned site to ensure it is developed as affortable housing. this is about securing the site. engage with the community on the project details. today vote to fund the loan to ensure it is developed as affordable housing. thank you. >> clerk: next speaker, please.
>> caller: i am a neighbor close to the site. we support affordable housing. i have a question who is eligible to live here. i looked into the details from the income restrictions. a lot of our teachers and firefighters and essential workers are not qualified for this project. while the promotional materials talk like senior faces on them. when you look at the details seniors are not allowed to live here based on my understanding. i want to make sure to confirm what is the case. i was told because of the large percentage of unhoused population that is the reason seniors are not allowed. i don't think we should be able to allow seniors to go to a housing project like this. we need to make sure a house
like this will allow teachers and essential workers and seniors to be part of the community. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> caller: it is too easy for people outside of the district to be in favor of the project. you have to talk to studied it who live near the project. if you look at the rendering i haven't heard a single architect say that looks good. it shows the mass. it ask three to four times bigger than any other building. you talk about the building across the street. that is about a third the size of this building. i know supervisor mar is concerned with afford annual housing and fairness. cancer is common. that doesn't mean you shouldn't take action to prevent it. the planning department has made
aware that the general plan referral was im parly issued. for such referral requires public hearing. there are many instances where i told the mayor and supervisor mar and others this is not consistent with the general plan. it is completely out of scale, jarring an appearance, the wrong location. you need to have a hearing. thank you. >> four callers in the queue. >> good afternoon, supervisors. matt haney. i wanted to thank mr. yee, supervisor mar, my apologies for resilience in this conversation with our city's conservative. i know that affordable housing is essential to our city's success and too long it is
opposed. the state mandates dictate realization many more units need to be built. they meteorresidential housing needs we need most of the west side. this is the beginning of a long and involved and large scale conversation. i appreciate the political will necessary to have these difficult conversations with neighbors and come to the realization the healthiest choice for all of us is build near where the jobs, transit, a suburban metropolitan which is the city of san francisco. i thank the supervisors for courage in standing up to these attacks and continue to support affordable housing for our city. >> clerk: next speaker, please.
of transparency. a lot of residents in our district didn't know this resolution at all. we know that almost 95% of the merchants living in this district oppose this resolution. also, collecting 2600 signatures. they are all opposed to this resolution as well. also, 800 residents oppose this resolution. we really think our supervisors didn't represent our wards. i want to say that the tndc didn't do a very good communication and also didn't do a good community outreach. i really think they