tv Government Access Programming SFGTV October 7, 2018 7:00am-8:01am PDT
back into their apartments in a four-unit building after a fire that happened nearly two years ago. the tenants in a 16-unit building who are scared because there are constantly electrical problems that the landlord refuses to fix or many tenants displaced this last year throughout the richmond. so many that it is hard for us to track down all the tenants once they have been displaced. having a better system of accountability is essential. once a tenant is displaced by fire it often takes years for the owner to fix the damage so the tenants can move back in. the additional fire safety notice and order is a huge step in the right direction. so, we in housing rights committee are in full support to make sure they are working together to make sure tenants don't continue to live at risk of displacement or having their possessions or lives threatened by fire that could have been
prevented. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you. >> public: hi. from the housing rights committee. this measure is a no-brainer. it may not be what i would like to see happen in the long run, which is fire sprinklers in all building but it is an important step in the direction. we know that sprinklers save lives. landlords with fire code violations that go unheeded for years should be required to put in sprinklers. every day these landlords continue with business as usual, lives of the tenants the are at risk. we have seen what can happen when they ignore violations. who knows if that fire at 22nd and mission would have happened. i have been with housing rights for 18 years. tenants debt displaced by fires and end up out of their homes for much longer than they ever imagined.
sure, tenants have the right to return if they are under rent control. if you are out of your place for two or three years, what does that matter if you have to find another apartment? are you really going to come back to your apartment? so, major displacement happen with fires and a lot of tenants don't know they have the right to return even though they do. i hope this committee will vote to send this legislation to the full board with an absolute positive recommendation. as i said, it's a no-brainer folks. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you. i want to make sure that anyone who wants to testify who has a mobility challenge, feel free to just jump the line at any point. >> public: good afternoon, supervisors. we are in full support of this legislation. we feel if this legislation was in place maybe five or eight years ago we would have saved many lives from 22nd and mission and two 2 on 24th street where e
was a father and his small daughter who died in that fire. i think the most important thing about this legislation is of course saving lives of those individuals or having these people displaced, families spread out throughout the city or other parts of the bay area. it is far reaching. it is important to keep families in place when they leave, they lose their services. they lose the school their children are going to. they lose the connections with their families and the neighborhood. it is very far reaching. this is a very important piece of legislation to make sure these families are kept in place and safe. thank you. >> public: thank you, board of supervisors. my name is mel beetle. i live in the ramon hotel and member of the central city sro collaborative. i am speaking on behalf of the
central city sro collaborative tenant organizers. and you see us all standing. [applause] >> public: although i don't live in a private apartment building, i strongly support this legislation. because i live in an sro, i benefit from the strong standards of the 2002 sro sprinkler ordinance legislation. i want to make sure that all the tenants in san francisco are safe from fires in their buildings. i support this legislation because it takes preventive action against negligent
landlords. please take note of what i have said. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you so much. >> public: hello. afternoon. special thanks to supervisor ronen and supervisors fewer and mandelman who are helping get this legislation through. my name is cathy lipscomb and i'm a tenant at 4220 cesar chavez street. just this time last year my faucets kept dripping in the sink, kitchen and bathroom. i notified my landlord several times and the situation wasn't remedied. so, i called building inspection and within pretty short time, an inspector appeared at my door and she noted the faucets were indeed broken and said to me as i was leaving maybe we should walk through the building. would you like to come with me? i said of course. to my astonishment -- not so much because the building is not the worst building in the world
but it is not in great shape. it is a framed building on a windy hill. there were 12 housing code violations in the building. half of which were fire related. the most astonishing one was a storage space on the fifth floor which dedid not have a sprinkler and there was a presence of excessive storage. personal items including fabric, plastic bags, metal and wires were stacked to the top of the storage closet. there were two exits which were -- which did not have lighting that was in good shape. [bell] >> public: there was a need to remove an egress obsess on one floor. on the first floor, the rear exit door did not close properly. on several floors, exit sign lighting was inoperable. that's enough. i think you get the point. i certainly notice that this
hearing the difference though between the treatment in noe valley and those in the mission and that's pitiful. work on this legislation and thank you very much for recommending it to the full board. >> public: good afternoon. theresa. thank you so much supervisor ronen. this is wonderful. it is about time and as tommy mecca said, it is indeed a no-brainer. this is a way landlords with protect the human beings and animals in their buildings and hopefully that is an investment in human kind. i'm still waiting for my friend to be able to return to her home of 74 years that was burned four years ago. there's been another fire since
on powell, that corner on to columbus where i happened to be sitting in a restaurant right around the corner when the fire broke out. i was grateful that there weren't any people in there at that time. but that could have been yet another horrible tragic story. so, i'm so happy also that the folks in stockton and pacific were able to return to their home after the fire. that meant that they were without their home for two years. but two years they were able to move back in and to a beautiful remodelled area. be back in their community again. so, not to lose people through death, through fire. not to lose housing. not to lose community. this is so important. thank you and i hope you all will of course recommend this to the full board. thank you.
>> public: good morning -- or good afternoon supervisors. my name is rosa maria. i'm the program manager for tenderloin housing clinics code enforcement outreach program. i'm proud to have worked on this legislation with supervisor ronen, with caroline, with tommy and joseph from housing rights committee. i am also a private apartment resident of the tenderloin who has awoken many a times to the jolt of a fire alarm going off in our building. i wholeheartedly ask for your support of these fire life safety amendment legislation that i really do think will strengthen the measures against negligent landlords. rosa, rafael, victoria, veronica, virginia, olga, miguel, these are just some of the names the fire impacted
individuals our outreach program has assisted and counselled. i share with you their names so you may understand there's been real life tears and real life heartache that has been felt by those that have been fire displaced and trauma that actually does come from it. many of these individuals are seniors and low-income families. i want to express that there is definitely this power that you guys have by passing and supporting this legislation. it will prevent others from experiencing this kind of trauma and struggle families have faced. i do believe again that this legislation is a step in the right direction towards strengthening the expansion of fire safety prevention. i hope we can count on your support and i can't wait to work towards future strengthening of this legislation. thank you very much, supervisors.
>> supervisor tang: thank you. >> public: p good afternoon. my name is dina. i'm here to support the fire life safety sprinkler legislation. we are supporting the recommendation of this legislation as it encourages property owners to remedy issues that otherwise ignore and can result in permanent loss and displacement of population. i believe this legislation also clearly identifies mechanisms for department of building inspection, department of fire department can hold others accountable. we want to acknowledge the legislation amends fire building and housing codes ensure that landlords that have incurred multiple violations remedy these issues in a timely manner. we also appreciate the consideration that these improvements in quality and safety should not be at the cost of tenants, but that are
responsibilities of habitability standards property owns should already be adhering to. thank you. >> public: good afternoon. tony robles. our organization supports this legislation. the expression is a pound of prevention is better than a cure. we hope this prevention will ultimately be the cure for what others have called a no-brainer. i know people, myself, that have lived through fires and were not able to return to their homes. it shows responsibility on the part of the landlord to take this seriously. that this legislation is a strong message to landlords that habitability is -- this is a part of habitability and this is a life and death issue because
people's lives can be lost in a fire of course. and taking preventive measures can make the difference between life and death. thank you. >> public: good afternoon. brook turner with the coalition of better housing. i have been asked to speak. we are generally supportive of the ordinance and thankful for the outreach that supervisor ronen and her staff did to our industry. we believe that the ordinance adequately targets the bad actors and does not punish property owners who act in good faith and work diligently to maintain their buildings. we agree mandating updates in some buildings which posts
risks. we also believe this ordinance targets the buildings and residents that are truly at risk without mandating huge construction projects which costs hundreds of thousands of dollars for small property owners city wide. one point of concern of course comes at the issue of cost pass throughs. the ordinance departs from the existing city law and rent board policy by prohibiting pass-throughs for fire upgrades subject to an order by dbi and fire. we would ask the committee and board of supervisors to consider a provision to bring it into accordance with the capital improvement law. it targets truly problem mat hick buildings in giving dbi discretion about what sort of upgrades to mandate, we are generally supportive of the ordinance. and we believe it strikes an
appropriate balance to target problematic buildings without punishing good actors. thank you. >> public: hello. i'm a tenant at 634 powell street. i urge the committee to support this legislation. i want to thank you for your diligence and detailed wording in the legislation. san francisco's the largest landlord is veritos operating a business model that makes a compelling case for this legislation. since 2007, it has acquired more that 250 rental controlled buildings, many in which have years or even decades of
deferred maintenance. rather than make sensible and sustainable improvements for the benefit of existing tenants, it has rolled out a business plan to renovate these building for the supposed benefit of new market rate tenants. at 634 powell, i have seen multiple neighbors leave our building through hazardous conditions. once they leave, verits gets a new unit, washer, drier, new microwa microwa microwave. i know this because i'm now displaced for the third time in unit 43 in my building due to hearing jackhammering. [bell] >> public: needless to say even throw with the electrical upgrade, the circuit breaker goes off because there's not
enough power. in january 2018, a neighbor of mine experienced a spark -- outlet sparking from her electrical outlet. sorry. sparking in her unit. the building was built in 1912 and we have -- [bell] >> public: anyway. thank you so much. >> public: good afternoon supervisors. david elliott lewis. jim a tenant advocate with the central city sro collaborative and i work with tenderloin people's congress. i'm a three decade resident of the city and i have lost friends and neighbors due to fires. fires that were preventible, building that didn't have adequate protection. as i recall, even a former supervisor here lost her home and a neighbor due to a fire.
a fire in a small building that she rented that did not have adequate fire protection. so, it's touched even this board. this legislation will help. it doesn't solve the problem but it will help deal with some of the negligence by private landlords in not providing adequate fire sprinkler warning systems and sprinkler infrastructure. so, i hope you will support it and pass it to the full board as proposed. thank you so much, supervisors, for doing this. we really appreciate it. >> supervisor tang: thank you. i want to call the remaining cards. ray sullivan, i think it's lorena. rick chavez and kevin. thank you. >> public: good afternoon, supervisors. my name is ray sullivan. i'm speaking on behalf of the housing rights committee in san francisco. i moved into my current apartment building located at
709 gary street in december of 2016. since that time, san francisco fire has been called out to the building. for example, a dryer fire caused the basement to be filled with spoke and the motor system also caught on fire. both of these fires submitted smoke. when i moved into my apartment, my kitchen window allowing egress to the fire escape was also painted shut. veritos failed to install safety lighting fixtures along with illuminated exit signs. failure to have these critical fire safety fixtures installed in san francisco apartment buildings and painting windows to fire escapes shut posed a clear and present risk to lives. we have no way of escaping
during a fire emergency when we may have only seconds before succumbing to smoke. we need to pass this to keep large corporate landlords accountable and responsible for the health and safety of all their tenants. i wanted to take a motion on behalf of the san francisco first responders, the firemen, the brave men and women of san francisco fire that go into these buildings to evacuate tenants in a fire emergency. i stopped by their fire house and they asked me to speak before the board today. really because their lives are in jeopardy along with tenants when these fires come up. thank you for considering this legislation. >> supervisor tang: thank you so much. >> public: good afternoon. my name is kevin stall. i live in a private residence. about three weeks ago i was in my apartment and all of a sudden i hear the fire alarm going off and i thought oh-oh, this is it.
this is going to be a big fire. i'm going to be displaced. turns out it was somebody who cooked their food a little bit too much and it set off the fire alarm. it could have been a lot worse. unfortunately, my studio doesn't have sprinklers and i can only assume the rest of the building is the same. we live in a very dense city. this is -- my apartment is mid--block on mission street and there's two other apartment building right next door. if that fire was really a bad one and spread to other apartments, it could have been a very serious situation. this legislation is crucially important for people not only because i wish it was putting springing lers in all -- spring clers to make it -- sprinklers
to make it safer. i hope this legislation has enough teeth to make sure this gets through. i really hopefully in the future that we could work on getting all buildings everywhere have sprinklers. please recommend this to the full board and thank you for all your hard work. >> supervisor tang: thank you so much. >> public: hi. my name is linda and i'm a tenant at 634 powell street. i urge this committee to pass this legislation. i want to speak on a pattern we have noticed about the fire safety legislation passed by the board of supervisors in 2017. in recent board hearings, veritos tenants have been able
to document how this landlord passes on cost. a fire alarm upgrade as capital improvement. in a recent board -- rent board capital improvement hearing for 621 stockton, tenants testified the new alarms were not fully functional and that the landlord didn't satisfy the rent board competitive bidding requirements. tenants uncovered the company's responsibility for the work aec alarms was founded in 1972 by the father of veritos ceo. tenants also raised objections to related project managers costs that were a part of the fire alarm upgrade. unicorn consulting according to
a secretary of state statement of information is headed by the ceo's brother. prevent rent increase on the basis of fire safety work. i urge strong enforcement and i hope this body will work with the rent board to pursue new legislation around ethical bidding of work to avoid conflicts of interest. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you. >> public: good afternoon supervisors. i work for the mission economy. [please stand by]. important to
born in this town, and i've watched it changed over the years. hopefully, it's getting better. slowly but surely, but my main concern is to get this passed. politics and money, heck with it. the main thing here is saving lives, and that's what we need to do. thank you. >> thank you. if there's anymore speakers who would like to comment on this item, if you could lineup. >> good afternoon, all the supervisors. you guys are doing wonderful job. thank you. my name is gunmun shah. i urge the committee, this land
use and transport, for 550 and pass it -- i'm sorry. 12-26-2006, we had a fire in the building that started in elevator room. went all the way to the fifth floor. it was right the day after the christmas, and we have no elevator service from 2006 to 2010, and the fire department shows up, and -- i'm sorry. i'm getting nervous. and the manager is not on duty to let the fire department in. so since i could not sleep, i rundo run down stairs when i hear the fire, and open it, and let the fire department in.
thi thing manager on duty is not where he's supposed to be to let the fire department in, and i had to do it. now this last friday, there was a power fuse in my building, went off. i was just making little tea, and the whole electricity went down all the way from the first floor to the fifth floor. as of this date, he has not responded to my text message. a week before that, he shut off the fire entrance -- to -- the entrance to the building where there was no way in for one week, and i urge --
[inaudible] >> thank you so much. is there any other member of the public wouho would like to spea? seeing none, we can close public comment? >> all right. public comment's closed. >> fantastic. i wanted to thank everyone for coming out and giving your really thoughtful, impactful comments, thank you so much. thank you for all your work developing this legislation and for your bravery of coming out and telling your stories today. with that, is there any questions or comments? >> i had just -- was asking, supervisor ronen, i know this issue came up, whether installation of sprinkler systems would qualify as a something that would be a capital improvement that would qualify for a pass through, and i was wondering if you could explain that, and the thought process behind that.
>> supervisor ronen: sure. if we had required this of all landlords of more than three unit older buildings, then, we would have allowed that pass through. but because we wanted to spare that expense for good acting landlords that are not creating fire safety in their building, this is legislation to landlords that are not acting in good faith. we'd like this to be a deterrent. while sprinklers are the safest possible condition, if all fire safety exits, if alarm systems are up to date, and if all the fire safety codes are overwhelmingly maintained, then, the likelihood of a fire is much less. so we'd like to see people following the law and maintaining their buildings in safe conditions, so it didn't make sense to us to allow this pass through, given that we're
targeting particularly bad actors. >> thank you for that. and i do want to agree with some of the comments made earlier. from what i read, it sounds that -- i mean, it's not mandated that you install new fire sprinkler systems. that is one of the potential solutions that might be issued from, i guess whether it's d.b.i. or san francisco fire department. so fire sprinklers, improving existing sprinkler system or upgrading installation of fire alarm or fire detection system, so i do feel that it is very fair, and especially since you're only asking for this after the issuance of the two. n.o.v.'s, so i just want to say i agree with your legislation and will be happy to support it today. >> supervisor ronen: thank you.
>> supervisor tang: colleagues, any other questions or comments on item 8? >> supervisor safai: i had a question. >> supervisor tang: supervisor satisfy si safai? >> supervisor safai: so you said how many notices of violation? >> supervisor ronen: two. they're different violations, and then, in addition to that -- >> supervisor safai: two separate violations of the building code? >> supervisor ronen: yes. and in addition to that, a letter to the owner that they're in the risk of having this fire safety life notice issued. >> supervisor safai: so there's two notices on two separate issues and a letter notifying them that you're about to have this shall so it's almost like three warnings, right? >> supervisor ronen: absolutely. >> supervisor safai: okay. i just wanted to clarify. and then, a team comes out -- so -- i'm more concerned -- i think this is great. i'm just concerned about the
implementation. i'd like to hear about that. >> supervisor ronen: sure. so assuming there's two notice of violations, then, either a d.b.i. inspector -- >> supervisor safai: i was going to say, are those complaint driven so someone would call -- call in the complaint? >> supervisor ronen: yes. yes. >> supervisor safai: okay. >> supervisor ronen: so then, what either the d.b.i. inspector or the fire safety inspector would do is come and post a fire and life safety order on the building, and also send, by certified mail, this notice to the building owner. it would clearly outline what the landlord needs to do in order to abate the notices of violation, and by when. and then, if that -- that owner wanted to appeal the order, they could appeal it. if they lose the appeal, then, they must comply. if they don't comply, the department will then refer the
case to the city attorney, and it is recorded as a lien on the property, and that's where the enforcement measure comes in, and what is different from what is possible now. >> supervisor safai: because right now, you can't record it as a lien. >> supervisor ronen: i don't believe so. and if the landlord continues to be negligent or ignores the order, the city attorney's office can not only sue them, but they could force them to install the sprinkler system or alarm system. it creates safety in a building that's unsafe. >> supervisor safai: so currently, they can keep issuing n.o.v.s without consequences, just to over summarize. >> supervisor ronen: that's right. >> supervisor safai: thank you for that. i think that's important for
everyone to understand, and i just wanted to hear it myself, that there's two separate notices for two separate violations. then, there's a posting -- and certified mail. we've gotten into this conversation in this body, certified -- >> supervisor ronen: yes. >> supervisor safai: -- mail to the registered own. and then, there's a process for appeal so due process is dealt with. >> supervisor ronen: correct. and the other thing to note is if there's buildings with two or more communities, sprinklers are required. there's much more onerous requirements on buildings, but we going backwards on buildings that have already been built were just asking for these additional safety measures if the building owner is not maintaining the building in safe conditions. >> supervisor safai: right. thank you. >> supervisor tang: so colleagues -- >> supervisor safai: can i make a motion -- >> supervisor tang: we have to refer this item, just so you know, to rules committee.
>> supervisor ronen: since you're already hearing it, you want to waive that requirement, mr. chair. >> supervisor safai: we can do that. we can do that through a letter. i think we've had sufficient hearing today, so since i'm here, we'll send a letter -- do i need to send a letter or can i just say it on the record? >> supervisor tang: deputy city attorney. >> mr. givner: i would suggest you refer it to rules today and then confer it to the clerk about the appropriate steps. >> supervisor safai: all right. thank you. >> supervisor tang: all right. so we have a motion to refer it to rules committee. >> supervisor safai: yes. >> supervisor tang: all right. thank you, supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: thank you. >> supervisor tang: madam clerk, call item number nine. [agenda item read] >> supervisor tang: thank you. and i believe we have a representative from public works
here. >> hi. yes, good afternoon, supervisors. my name is deanna colleros, representing san francisco public works. i'm here to authorize san francisco entering into an agreement with the state of california for routing state highway 80 to state highway 801 and adopting environmental findings under the seek with a act and authorizing official acts. recently, reconstructed y.v.i. -- >> supervisor tang: sorry. hold on one second. if everyone could just exit a little bit more quietly, that would be great so we could hear the presentation. >> -- existing 1951 gri agreement which was limited to the portion of then designated
state highway route 68 from state highway route 101 to a point near fifth street. the california transportation commission in its h.r.a. 15-01 adopted the portion of route 80 from 0.1 miles east of 5th street in san francisco to 1.7 miles west of west grand avenue in oakland. subsequently, caltrans has prepared the 2018 gri agreement to supersede the 1951 agreement in its entirety and to adopt the full state highway route 80 in the city and county of san francisco. the friday agreement is necessary due to the project's closure of the old westbound on and off ramps and new configuration of web on and off ramps. this agreement will be used as a basis for establishing a
maintenance agreement,. the resolution also requests the board adopt environmental findings under seek with a. the san francisco county transportation agencieser dated december 13, 2011, of the seir-eis is provided. our recommendation that the board of supervisors adopt this legislation and the environmental findings and authorize the director of public works to sign the agreement on behalf of the city. thank you. >> supervisor tang: okay. thank you for your presentation. so -- and that was very thorough. i think -- so it's midunderstanding that basically because -- it's my understanding that basically because of the reconstruction, you had to look
back through the records and find out there wasn't any sort of agreement or adoption for that portion of route 80, so we have to do this. >> yet. >> supervisor tang: okay. supervisor cohen, you had a question for item nine? all right. colleagues, any other comments or questions on item nine then? if not, we'll go to public comment on this item. okay. seeing no public comment, item nine public comment is closed [ gavel ]. >> supervisor tang: okay. colleagues, is there a motion? >> move to send the item to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> supervisor tang: okay. and we'll do that without objection. madam clerk, call the next item. [ gavel ] [agenda item read] [agenda item read]
[agenda item read] >> supervisor tang: thank you. and supervisor cohen has joined us for these items. >> president cohen: thank you. good afternoon, ladies and gentlemens. thank you, colleagues for hearing this item. i appreciate the time, and before we go any further, i just want to refer my predecessor, sophia maxwell is in the chamber to share her thoughts. thank you, madam chair for allowing me a few minutes. i've got a few amendments that i want to make in the definition section which i will read into the record for public comment. last week i was here and listened to this item.
supervisor kim raised a couple of thoughtful questions that i want to just support back on. we've made some progress. first, i appreciate the question raised during the committee last week -- >> supervisor safai: go ahead. >> president cohen: i appreciate the questions raised during committee last week as there were issue areas that i had been in conversation with with staff in discussion with on this particular project. first, the planning department aways most recent housing balance report shares data on housing production between the third quarter in 2008 and the second quarter of 2018, so that is a ten-year span of data. this ten-year period resulted in a net addition of approximately 6,500 affordable units to the city's overall housing stock, and i think this is an important point that i will come back to later on in the hearing. of the new housing stock, approximately 1,500 affordable
units are inside district ten, and just to orient you, if you have the documents in front of you, you can see planning table document three, which is in tab one. this same report shows that district ten is carrying over 40%, over 40% of new -- of net new -- that means new -- affordable units in the city's entire pipeline. most of which are, quite frankly, under construction. bayview-hunters point alone has 1,136 affordable units in the pipeline that are at 55% a.m. i. or below. the current structure, and this is what i'm concerned about and want to have a discussion on today. the current structure is creating a circumstance of concentrated poverty inside district ten, and we have done this, and we have made this mistake before. when you concentrate poverty, it
makes it difficult, it almost chokes check prosperity for the -- checks prosperity for the entire district. we're struggling to maintain a grocery store. and we've pivoted from keeping public housing all in one section, and the reasons why is we're breaking it up. you see now we're building public housing -- just as a side note, the city's four largest public housing are in district ten. we are breaking up the housing. you have missed income housing units being built as we are in the process of rebuilding public housing. one thing that i've heard over and over again from many residents in the community, particularly in the bayview and in the india basin communities is what is obvious is that you drive around the neighborhood, and the neighborhood is
struggling to sustain retail businesses. in order for the community to continue to grow and thrive in the current market, we need to be generating affordable housing opportunities, yes, that goes without saying, we we need to be building housing opportunities for multiearner as well as miding income households. in my mind, when i think of that, i'm thinking of two teachers and two children, a household of four. the community needs a grocery store, the food desert. we talk about it all the time in our talking points, but yet and still, i'm the one that's on the ground that's trying to make this happen. we've been able to bring two grocery stores in the bayview community, but both have been unis yo unsusta unsustainable. the community also needs retail spots, local retail. right now, the concentration of
low-income and poverty means that people cannot spend money on local businesses, so that means that the new cafe envy that we opened up who is the brain child of april spears chicken and waffles, is the income. the third street corridor in the bayview community is at an exciting point. we are attracting businesses. no longer are we plagued with the over proliveration of vacant storefronts. we are starting to turn the corner and get businesses on this local corridor, and that is quite honestly through a concerted effort and recruitment by many of the merchants already on the ground and looking to expand. in order to achieve the balance that will allow our existing community to grow and to thrive in place, of course, paying careful attention not to exacerbate the pressures of displacement as well as
gentrification, there are a proposal that i'd like you to consider for your -- for your vote. what i'm doing is i'm proposing the following mix of affordable housing levels. first of all, i'm proposing a 55% a.m. i. that's 5% b.m.r., which translates into 64 units. there's a -- the second band is between 80 and 1:20 a.m.i. that is -- 120 a.m.i. so in total, 28% of b.m.r. units will be dedicated to this
particular project. i'm happy to discuss the in lieu fee. right now, specifically it's at 26%. i heard from supervisor kim who expressed a desire to see that number increased. i'm hopefully with discuss that on the record, but overall, this project will yield 3 # 4 below market rate units to -- 394 below market rate units to the india basin bayview community. this project will provide first source job opportunities. supervisor safai, i'm sure that perks your ears up, for both construction and permanent on-site jobs. i also want to clarify that i remain enthusiastic about the opportunity presented about this project to bring an array of units and an array of opportunity to the neighborhood that will continue to revitalize an already beautiful neighborhood.
so colleagues, i want to talk a little bit about some amendments, and then, we can go to questions and/or public comment. first, at the recommendation of the planning department, i'm proposing to amend the language that defines final requirements and maximum individual a.m. i. so this change can be found highlighted on page 2, 3, and 4 in the draft that's before you, this draft right here on pages 2, 3, and 4 of the draft legislation that has been provided for you. i'm asking for your support. i also want to clearly state on the record i have a signed letter of intent for the india basin project. this is a signed agreement between the project sponsor, lou vasquez and tim paulson, who's the secretary treasurer of the san francisco building and construction and trades.
it's dated today, so the record will also reflect this. and that all of the opening remarks that i have at this time, supervisor tang, thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you, supervisor cohen. and just to clarify, so the amendments or the revisions to the average drk-the maximum average a.m. i. levels is contained in exhibit h to the development agreement. is that something that -- to the deputy city attorney, is that something that we actually amend here or is it just part of the supporting documents that will be incorporated later? sorry. just wanted to clarify. >> president cohen: i believe i should be reading the definitions into the record, if i'm not mistaken. i believe that's what the attorne attorneys advised me. >> mr. givner: deputy city attorney jon givner. the board would be -- the
committee would be taking a motion to accept the amended document into the file, and then, in your discretion, passing the ordinance onto the board without recommendation because the seek with a appeal is pending. >> supervisor tang: thank you for that clarification. supervisor kim? >> supervisor kim: i just want to acknowledge president cohen and thank you for working on greater specificity around the a.m. i. levels that are provided around the 25%. and i had stated last week that while the percentage of affordable housing is very important, the a.m. i. levels that the developer-project sponsor commit to are equally important as well because it is what reflects the developer's contribution to the public and to our neighborhood. i had -- and i'm so sorry if i missed this. i see the amendment for the rental units, and i'm wondering what the a.m. i. commitments are for the home ownership units
are, as well? >> president cohen: thank you. they're the same, but i'll -- >> supervisor kim: so regardless of home ownership or b.m.i., it will be 55% of a.m. i.? >> president cohen: i'm going to invite ann topai. >> regardless if they are rental or market ownership units, they will do no less than 55 is of a.m. i. they will do 15% at 85 to 120% of a.m. i. >> supervisor kim: and you had said -- and that changes a little bit. you said 15% at the 80 to 120%
of a.m. i., so 5, 15, and 5. >> supervisor kim: okay. of what is built on-site, 5% will be at 55, 15% will be at 80 to 120, and 5% will be at 140. >> correct. >> supervisor kim: i'm sorry. i'm going to have to reflect because i didn't realize you said rental or home ownership. there's kind of no -- >> we have not capped the amount of rental or home ownership that we can do. >> supervisor kim: okay. i'm going to try to wrap my brain around that. the second question i had, and i talked to the city attorney, and so i know that sections of the m.o.u. that don't -- that are not, i guess, articulated in the development agreement but do not
conflict with section 415, generally means that section 415 stands. so one really important section of our affordable housing or inclusionary housing negotiations last year was while we agreed to allowing for higher a.m. i. units at rentals or home ownership to be considered affordable housing, it was very important that studios or units for a single individual, not be eligible for rental units at 110 or above or home ownership at 130 or above. this is because at that price point, you're starting to hit market rate, and it's not much of a subsidy. so i just want to make sure that that portion of 115 will prevail in this development agreement. >> so that is a policy call for you. and if you want to make that amendment, we would, i think,
recommend that we make that clear in the document. >> supervisor kim: okay. so you would recommend that it be clear in the development agreement, even though it's in section 415? >> yeah, because we have specifically negotiated a.m. i. levels, and we've got a lot of language in here about that. you're proposing something additional, which is to say that certainly a.m. i. levels will not be permitted for studios or one bedrooms. >> supervisor kim: so just to clarify, that was a negotiating point. originally, we said that studios would be concluded, but at the end of the day, because sometimes two individuals will live in a studio, once you start hitting the household levels of 115 or 140 or two individuals -- i'll just read the language. for any affordable units with a purchase price that at 130% of area median income and/or above,
although the inclusionary policy does not allow for above, the units shall have an occupancy of a minimum of two persons. if that's okay with the project sponsor, i'd like to add that in. and then, finally, i know we had this conversation at land use. sorry. just had to refresh my memory on 415. it is true that the maximum affordable rents or sale price shall be no less than 20% below medium or rent for sail projects in the neighborhood in which the project is located. in 415, we don't define it by district, and so i was curious if there was some openness to just aligning with the language in 415 -- in section 415.6. and you don't have to respond to that at this very moment, but i just wanted to -- >> right.
so probably redirect to that after public comment. >> supervisor kim: no. that would be great. i just wanted to put my issues up front. >> thank you. >> supervisor tang: did you want to go to public comment at this point? >> president cohen: unless supervisor safai had something to say. >> supervisor tang: okay. let's go to public comment. >> there is another example of your price fixing. first you claim that you need higher incomes in order to support your restaurants in the community that's in question. then, you turnaround and give a multitrillion, billion-dollar company, twitter, and five other high tech companies, tax breaks and have already demonstrated well over several times that you've given them a minimum of $215 billion of tax free money, and it's a great deal more than
that now because a great deal of time has passed, and i don't have the quarterly reported money tax free that you've given them. then you turnaround and say you're setting the a.p.i. at 55% of the median. sfgov, please. 55% is approximately $44,400 a year, okay? now, you're claiming that that's going to be the lowest income and below. that's a lot. you're not going below that. when you accept the applications, everybody has to make that much money in order to put in an application through the mayor's office on housing. if you're dealing in good faith and having every intention of reaching an agreement on this matter, you would make that 55% target that you're talking about, you would push that at 20. because when you're doing now,
everybody's income that's below 55% is not included in the inclusionary rule. if you're cliing the inclusionary rule to not include the most vulnerable people, the people who are targeted by the inclusionary rule is another indication of how scanless you are. the inclusionary income was not made for high bracket people, it was made for low-income people. even your past demonstrations -- [bell ringing]. >> president cohen: thank you. next speaker is mr. paulson. i didn't realize you were here today. i would have recognized you. >> tim paulson, chairman of the terrific building and trades council. thank you, supervisor for putting what occurred over the course of the last weekend. we were in negotiations over the weekend to get a letter of
intent. and just to let you know what a letter of intent is, this is what biebnds us to sit down and negotiate an actual project labor agreement, which will be all talked about the same way you are talking about the exclusionary housing. we know we're not going to be breaking ground on this in the next six months or so. we're going to continue to negotiate in good faith. i want to thank building for becoming partners with us at two minutes to 1:30 today. >> president cohen: thank you for your diligences. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is michael ibanez. [inaudible] >> i'm strongly opposing the change of zoning which is happening in 700 innes avenue block, and i'm honestly surprised with the discussions whic