Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  May 21, 2019 10:00pm-11:00pm PDT

10:00 pm
charles? >> actually, this is going to be spoken to by dave meyerson. dave is the project manager for the san francisco public utilities commission who are directly managing the emergency firefighting water system. dave? >> thank you, charles. dave meyerson, project manager, sfpuc. for eser 2010, we continue to work on the
10:01 pm
10:02 pm
10:03 pm
10:04 pm
10:05 pm
10:06 pm
we have a very super heated marketplace. we can't necessarily anticipate or rely on a lot of favorable responses to our solicitation to bid. i will tell you that this project went through one of the most rigorous cost cutting exercises that i've ever been a party to. the goal always was to sustain the functional integrity of this project. we didn't want to sacrifice this because it is a generational facility. it won't be attempted again for another 50, 60 years, so we felt compelled to get it right the first time and to do whatever it took to get it there. but that said, as i mentioned, we have a deficit all the same. we'll be able to -- perhaps the next time we report out to you be able to give you a more complete understanding of our circumstances. as i mentioned, that will be towards the end of the buyout
10:07 pm
of all the trade packages that we have to offer to the bidder community. there's other things out there as regard to challenges. certainly, the -- the -- how shall i put it? the trade war with china, we don't have a handle yet on how that might still resonate. we do have expectations for an increase in the cost of steel, but then again, one never knows what else is going to be coming out of wash shall that might resonate on the local level, so we are watching that with great interest, i should say. and last as a challenge to the project in part has been the relationship with pg&e. pg&e has been a very reluctant participant in assisting us with regard to how we need to cooperate with them as the
10:08 pm
principal provider of power, but there are other projects that require their participation. we have a security perimeter around the site that conflicts with their infrastructure and we've been in communication with them for years trying to bring their cooperation forward so we can overcome those conflicts. i'd love to tell you that that's all been settled, but it hasn't. that is not an immediate threat to the project. there are things i won't bother you with that are a little bit more in the weeds that is -- are still challenging, but we think we can reconcile those so the delivery of the project isn't affected too much, but this barrier conflict is one we have time to address, but it's been a challenge, a real challenge. there's been, as you probably know, a hearing from the board
10:09 pm
of supervisors regarding pg&e intransigence on refusing to cooperate with the city and public works. so we'll keep you updated particularly when we need to have resolution realized. in regard to our financials, as you can see for eser 2010, you can see we're essentially complete. fire stations 9 and 16 were the lion's share of what remained to be accomplished, and those are done, so to speak, so we're near completion. there's some other projects that sherry mentioned that are of the focus skilled nature, but percentage wise, a very small percentage remains that
10:10 pm
needs to be completed. i will tell you the traffic services project which is the largest project really contributes to how much we've been able to expend to date. all the work of eser 2014 will be completed within approximately two years, and in that respect we're on the heels of launching another eser bond program. some of you know that eser is being proposed for the ballot in march of 2020. there is abundant work to do for first responders, public safety, police, and fire. and we would like the opportunity to go before the voters again who have supported the eser program by about an 80% margin at the ballot box. and we would hope that the good work that's been accomplished
10:11 pm
thus far on behalf of the first responders to continue to motivate the voters to support the eser bond program. i do want to conclude for your questions, but i want to acknowledge the assistance of deputy fire chief anthony rivera in the realm of fair operations. thank you. >> before we go on to questions, for the new members, department of public works and i guess p.u.c. now, but department of public works in particular often acts as the public managers and coordinators of these bonds on behalf of the departments like the police and fire department and other departments, so we'll often hear from them as their oversight role, but the real beneficiaries are the police and the fire department. so i think it'd be great to hear from anyone from the
10:12 pm
police and fire department, please. our concerns are on time, on budget, and meeting the needs of the voters, so that's our governance role here. >> good morning, everyone. happy monday. assistant deputy chief tony rivera. i think overall, fire is very satisfied with the progress that we're making not only on the fire houses but to quote mr. goldberg here, the bread and butter projects which are the roof replacements, bay doors, exterior components such as roofing and painting to maintain a level of readiness. i will also add and reinforce what charles stated. the construction market is super hot. it's tough to get a lot of these contractors out here for these city projects. also, the rain has caused some
10:13 pm
delays, but we have been very diligent as a public safety entity to be able to respond, but it is great to be back in our houses and our response areas. so with that being said, we absolutely understand the challenges that d.p.w. is dealing with, and we support them. and we have really strong communication lines with d.p.w., not always happy or fun, but we -- we get the job done. so i would just say that we're very satisfied at this point as fire department. >> thank you. >> i'm the liaison from the police department and i can see from the police department's perspective anyone that's lived through a remodelling now's the
10:14 pm
challenges of -- knows the challenges of construction. the police facilities are operational during this whole time. certainly there's been some challenges, but on the whole, there's been tremendous goodwill and cooperation both between the department and the contractor. so i think the department -- the best case would be that it's been done and there's no impact, but they've been able to work together in a very cooperative way, and i think at least from the police department's position, they're very satisfied with the work that's being done and how it's accomplished. >> okay. questions? >> yes. i'm the new liaison to this bond program, and i want to thank this presentation for bringing me up to speed. i just have a couple of questions from today's presentation. one is about fire house 5. where is it and you mentioned
10:15 pm
that you didn't use state of the art, but that was sort of the implication that it was a very high functioning fire station that you thought could be rolled out to continuing fire station improvements. >> fire station 5 is at turk and webster. it was a replacement facility. sometimes with a facility that you're looking to renovate or otherwise upgrade, it doesn't recommend fixing the existing because it can approximate 75 or 80% the cost of replacement, so if you have the resources as we did for 5, you commit to replacing it. >> chief tony rivera. can you just repeat that -- >> yeah. it sounds like you're very pleased with the fire house 5
10:16 pm
rebuilding renovation. can some of those improvements be rolled out to future fire house renovations to bring them all up to a higher level versus this is a one-off that we can't afford to do? >> so the short answer is absolutely yes. as we continue to replace fire stations, we're learning how to not only make the stations more efficient but to incorporate a lot of the needed requirements that a lot of the older fire stations don't have. so for example, a lot of our new stations now have training areas or like a classroom area which can be a multiuse area. but if there's a new piece of equipment, in the past, we'd have to go out on to the sidewalk, start these saws. we're really -- it was really -- it is really challenging in a lot of our older fire houses just for
10:17 pm
space or a quiet space to have our firefighters study for a lieutenant's test. in my 30 years, walking into station 5, it's like walking into the future of firefighting. the level of attention to detail and just having all of these features is unbelievable, and we definitely will incorporate a lot of these features in upcoming fire station projects. >> okay. thank you. >> you're welcome. >> and then back to charles, the traffic station i noticed in the detail that you provided for that meeting, part of the deficit was to defer a police and fire projector maybe it was more than one of each. can you just tell us more about that, which projects will be ke deferred, how are those projects chosen?
10:18 pm
what are the pros and cons of doing that? >> there have been four projects identified. two from fire, two from the police department. they approximately total about $9 million. the direction came from capital planning to suspend those projects pending the outcome of the bid -- the complete bid of the traffic services. there's a small possibility that we could bid where we would not need to avail ourselves of that $9 million which would then allow us to go forward with these four projects. the four projects which are considered a priority would be accomplished in a subsequent bond, so for example, like eser 2020. >> so did the capital services -- >> government planning
10:19 pm
committee. >> government planning committee pick those and not the police department or the fire department? >> well, the police department did not have the number of projects pending sufficient to address the approximate goal of $9 million, so the request -- a direction came to suspend two fire projects that would allow us to get to the $9 million sum. >> okay. and was the fire department involved in that decision making? i'm just wondering how capital programs is still prioritizing how the bonds are implemented? >> yes, they were participants in the outcome of that. >> they were participants or they made the decision. >> they were asked. >> okay. >> because the way -- >> they were asked, and they accepted. >> okay. >> they were -- well, i'll leave it at that. >> okay. i have no further comments.
10:20 pm
i think the program looks strong. i'm learning and getting up to speed, but i have nothing further to say already. >> one thing i would like to go back to for a second is we're very residenolute as we go for we learn on the prior experience, the lessons learned from prior delivery of projects. we have assembled a fire if you will a guideline of standards for design so that any project that should follow can rely on an understanding of what works best that's been tested from the delivery of actual fire station and related projects. we're doing something comparable for police although we haven't had the ability as yet to assemble and do a police station project. we are setting about creating the first version of guidelines and standards for design of police stations. i would say that in recently
10:21 pm
time, there has been conversation regarding future facilities in areas of new development, whether at treasure island or candlestick. often the developer wants to understand what constitutes a comprehensive facility for police or fire. this gives the city a position, if you will, on what the expectation of a new facility will contain, rather than relying on someone to make sure it's whole or complete as necessary or needed. just parenthetically, you read about station 13, on sansome and the city, in conversations
10:22 pm
with the developer, we have been sharing the conversations we've garnered and we feel that puts the city in the best position to assert its prerogative which is to expect a full and complete facility no matter who provides it. >> great. thank you for such a thoughtful response. thank you for bringing up the pg&e and how that's going. that's -- this is not the first time that we've heard that, actually, and we don't meet that often, so we don't talk about bonds that often, so the fact that we've heard it multiple times i think is interesting. i think as we look at the work plan or the c.s.a. draft work plan, we can look at that.
10:23 pm
>> yeah. the challenge ultimately is if we have to expend funds or seek to expend funds to accomplish work that we really believe is be-holden to pg&e to provide, that puts us in an uncomfortable position of having to collect satisfactions through some legal action which may not yield your point, i th
10:24 pm
the same letter went to the mayor and the governor as to the board, from my experience, gets more attention. >> if it's okay with you, i'd love to talk about this when we get to 7-1-d. >> i have a question. >> yeah. >> in terms of earthquake response, one of the issues
10:25 pm
that's come up i don't know that there's anything in either this bond or any future bonds to address undergrounding wires that would otherwise present a hazard for responses. >> i'm going to turn and look at dave meyerson from p.u.c. to see if he has any information regarding that. it's okay to say no, dave. okay. what i know about undergrounding wires is it's enormously expensive. there was an effort a number of years ago to do that. there was a test project -- i'm going to characterize this as a very high level -- a test project to estimate the cost, and the cost was so great it was determined to be one that the city chose not to pursue.
10:26 pm
i can't say much more than that with authority to provide what happened in that particular case. there is no current attempt within the context of the city proper as opposed to new development areas, if you will. new development areas, everything is being undergrounded, but in existing service speak, there is no program that i'm aware of to pursue that in any near term. >> i raise that because to my own experience, working in the mayor's office, responding to the '89 earthquake, and in the '89 earthquake, we had areas that were inaccessible even to firefighters because of downed wires, so if you talk about the cost of undergrounding, you have to balance that against the cost of neighborhoods going up in flames, which is a pretty
10:27 pm
big issue. also issues that have come up in the past are whether or not our fire stations and our police stations are being designed to be gender neutral. in the past, we had problems assigning women firefighters and women police officers to some stations. has that problem been pretty well resolves as a result of new bonds? >> well, we've certainly developed new facilities, we're doing what are the gender parity is required to accomplish or pursue. with existing facilities, i would say it's a mixed bag at best of how that's being accomplished. maybe the chief will have to respond to it, but all departments are doing what they are based on the physical limitations of their
10:28 pm
facilities. just the lack of facility for all officers, let alone distinguishing between genders. in that respect, then, we have much work to do, and we work forward to future bond measures giving us the underwriting, if you will, to address those inequities. >> we're talking about capital planning and others who have input on what's going into the bond, is providing bathrooms regardless of gender a priority? >> maybe i'll step away here and ask chief rivera -- actually, i have captain amanda
10:29 pm
o'brien here that can answer that. >> some problems were experienced in assigning officers and firefighters to stations because of the lack of facilities that were gender neutral or which handled women as well as men. >> so i've been in the department for 20 years, and we have many transgender, you know, identity -- you know, gender identity -- various police officers across the board, and when we do have an officer coming to the station, we make it abundantly clear that we will make concessions and changes to address their needs as they come into our station. as far as making a blanket change across our stations, each station operates very differently and has different
10:30 pm
sized, you know, amount of officers. so right now, like, at central station, the women's changing room at central station, approximately four to five people could fit in there. central station is a station since the 70's, and it was predominantly male. our female numbers have increased significantly since then, especially at central station, and the female officers change in a bungalow outside the station in a parking lot. that is just female-male. so to accommodate somebody, we try to do the best we can and find solutions. there have been times that officers go to a different station because it's more gender neutral? we have gender neutral bathrooms on the first floor, but it's central station.
10:31 pm
it's almost impossible to accommodate everybody. >> i think what he's asking is are there enough facilities for women to use the showers and bathroom. >> no. >> and is that going to be going forward, are women firefighters having input into what they need? >> as we move forward and change the stations and hopefully get new stations that are seismically sound, absolutely, those situations are going to be addressed. and our department -- not only the officers are speaking loudly about our accommodations, from female-male to transgender to everything in between. we are doing the best we can with what we have, which isn't very much right now. and every station tries to
10:32 pm
aada adapt accordingly. but the new stations, i don't know what they've done as far as gender neutral -- >> it's not gender neutral, it's adequate facilities for all genders. >> oh, i thought it was more gender neutral -- >> just that there are -- in the past been limited facilities for women serving in the function. that wasn't going to change unless there is a new station. i'm looking at the bond money and is the bond money going to be used to fund things at those stations or is it not going to be used for funding things like that? >> you know, moving forward in design, i know that is one of the top priorities for officers to don and doff and you know
10:33 pm
have accommodations to store our equipment and not store it in our car. tenderloin is one of our smallest stations. we have a lot of construction there, and officers have been having to park their personal cars on the streets. we've added lockers to the hallway, added bungalows to the parking lots, and i know that going forward, d.p.w. is talking with us all the time, how many lockers do you need? how is this being addressed, so it is being addressed. >> good morning again. chief tony rivera. so to answer your question, when i first started with the fire department, every fire station bathroom had a sign that you would move from one side to the other, and when you go in, i'd go in, i'd put it to
10:34 pm
men. when you go out, you'd move it back to the center. since then, all facilities have -- locations have facilities for men and women except for station 35, the fireboat, but it's going to be added to with this floating fire house where we will have facilities for not only male-female but also all gender facilities. all of the new stations that have been recently done, for example, station 16 and 5, not only have all men and women, they also have all gender facilities. so we don't have an issue at our stations with gender like we did years ago. >> and women firefighters are having input into the design at
10:35 pm
these fire stations so there will be adequate showers and facilities that can be kept separate? >> no, absolutely. we do have a very high standard when it comes to our fire houses which are considered essential facilities. but what we have learned is that we incorporate a lot of the comments from the firefighters. there may be a station that does more water rescues. another station that does more urban wild land interface, so we have to get comments from these firefighters. one station may need an area to hang up their wet suits where another station is doing something else, they have a wild land truck. so we do incorporate members' input and ensure that the needs are being met during the design process. >> i don't want to keep taking up time, but i just have one other question. on the waterfront, the require station where the boat is, there was a problem getting the
10:36 pm
boat out to service needs because of the -- the engine out to service needs because of traffic on the embarcadero. has something been done, and if not, what can be done with the infrastructure out and into service? >> so i'm not aware of that issue, but i can look into it and see if there was. i know there was a recent street design change on i believe it's harrison and embarcadero that may have impacted the egress of the fire engine from the station, but i'd have to talk to the captain of the station and find out if they are having issues with response. >> i guess the larger question is whether or not the fire department is in conversations with d.p.w. and others about streets as they're being redone
10:37 pm
so the engines can get out to service. >> the answer is yes. we have a captain in my division that reports directly to all street design changes meetings. he works with the m.t.a. and gives fire department operational input. and actually, we have a flow chart where all of these design projects actually have to go through, and we've learned from our past experience. we need input from everyone to ensure that not only the streets are safe but we have public safety access for our larger vehicles. >> thank you. >> all right. >> okay. >> i just have one question. first of all, thank you very much for your presentation, and i wanted to thank you again for providing a tour for myself and
10:38 pm
other cgoboc members, especially the liaison. if you haven't seen any of the buildings that we're discussing, it really helps to have a tour. i have had a tour of the public safety building as well as the medical examiner's building, and i can say that especially the medical examiner building, it was kind of state of the art, and so please take advantage of it. i'm sure mr. tagaris is willing to give a tour if you're interested. but just one question. i was reviewing the quarterly report, so i'm going to make reference to these two spreadsheets in the back, attention to two. what i notice is that the 21 projects that are laid out in the timeline, there are 15 projects, some of them complete, and they show zero
10:39 pm
discrepancy in the three categories of baseline budget, current approved and current projected. so that's a good mark. that's a high percentage where there are no -- no -- no deltas in the way show our budgets. however, i notice that three of the 21 projects as i was looking at the same statistic, and this would be baseline budget, current approved, and current projected, there are three projects where we show substantial changes in this statistic changing from 61% to 21%. and i'm not asking for specific explanations, but i was wondering if you could comment on how we could have that much of a zero discrepancy and then
10:40 pm
for three projects, you would have in my opinion a substantial one? and i did notice that the ones that had the discrepancies in the different definitions of the budget, they've been pretty much -- they were completed this year. >> so you're talking about the fire station project, i imagine. >> 36, 5, and 16, is that correct? >> yes. >> okay. 36, actually -- >> between 2010 and 2014. i kind of looked at them in bulk or for the -- >> sure. i can give you very concise -- >> i was just wondering. th -- wondering, this seems to have been a clean-cut of them, and then some of them had some substantial ones. >> so at a high level but hopefully sufficient to address your concern or the essence of your question, fire station 36, rather, was a project that --
10:41 pm
that just took on new life after it was completed. the department wished to have additional cooling capacity in that facility, found that what had been designed was not helping them in peak moments of heat in san francisco, which you know is fairly rare, but when it does happen, you wish that you had air conditioning. so we provided supplemental air conditioning to the space. it had not been intended initially based on the unique set of circumstances at 36. so the facility was already done and occupied, but we kept the contract open, so technically, it was not complete until we closed it out, but it was for that element or aspect of of work that came in at the very end of the job. >> so this was a need subsequent to after the project completed and not anticipated in the original -- >> it was not anticipated as
10:42 pm
part of the original project, but accruing to the department's preference for avoiding those peak moments where it became untenable to reside in the facility, we provided a supplemental cooling. on station number 16, that project was, it seemed, cursed by the challenges that are present in the marketplace, but the builder found it difficult to align with the schedule in a way expected that we sought to compel. a and he struggled -- the facility was completed to satisfaction. it is performing according to need, but it took a heck of a long time to get there. sometimes that happens, a
10:43 pm
builder just finds it very difficult to get on top of the situation and deliver the project according to expectation. the consequences that they learn, what we call noncompensable time, which covers the cost of the city beyond what was expected or allowed. so in that particular case, we are intending to impose liquidated damages for the time that was noncompensable, where it resides within the responsibility of the builder who failed to perform. number 5 -- fire station 5, absent the difference in schedule delivery -- as i said, the project is enormously successful, this was a project that was compounded by a host
10:44 pm
of unforeseen circumstances that emerge sometimes. you dig into the ground and you find things that you would have as soon not have found. there was a lot of rain delay on this project -- not just this project, other projects. but this was an encapsulated description of why these projects did not progress according to schedule. >> just for the new members, if it seems like there's a lot going on and it's really hard to govern, that's because it is. it is written this way when it went to the ballot to do a whole bunch of things and be prioritized or i guess it was written in the bond that way, but it's one of the challenges that we have as goboc, is the
10:45 pm
way that these bonds are written. when you look at are we on time or budget, how do you even determine that if projects are coming in and out of the portfolio? so that's something that we've been challenged with for a while. is there any public comment? thank you. >> my name is jerry dratler. as a former cgoboc member, i'd like to share some things that i learned about monitoring expenditures for the new cgoboc members. many of the projects are going to be similar to what you see in prior projects. in your meetings, please ask what are the prior lessons learned in prior police and fire station remodels and road repaving projects?
10:46 pm
there is no sense in repeating the same projects. please ask what changes are anticipated in the bond expenditure scope if there is an expenditure project. a cle a -- also, when project funds miraculously appear available from other bonds, please ask what was removed from the scope of that bond to free up those funds? thank you. >> call the next item. >> pardon me? >> can i call the next item? >> yes. >> item number 6, presentation from the mayor's office of housing and community development about the 2015
10:47 pm
affordable housing bond and 2016 housing bond and possible action by the committee in response to such presentation.
10:48 pm
>> good morning, members of the committee. i'm the finance committee at mayor's office of housing and community development regarding on the 2015 affordable housing bond. i'm filling in for our c.e.o., benjamin mckloskey, who is out today. the bond was approved in 2015 for a total of $310 million. so far, we've issued two bond issuances? the first one for $75 million, and the second one for $142 million respectively, and we are preparing to issue a last issuance in the late summer-early fall of this year. we have three categories of expenditure. public housing, low-income
10:49 pm
housing, a portion of which is set aside for the mission district, and middle-income housing. and you'll see in the upper portion of the slide a sample of jobs that this bond is intended for. we are very pleased to report to you that we've made good progress in spending down the first issuance. as of march of this year, 97% of the first issuance funds have been encumbered, and 80% have been spent. we expect to fully expend the first issuance by early next year. the second issuance was issued on may 2018. almost half of the second issuance funds has been encumbered and almost a third has been spent. we expect the second issuance
10:50 pm
will be fully expended by late next year. so with regards to unit production, out of the 1501 projected units, 43% are in predevelopment, 52% are in construction, and 5% are counted at completed. you might see that there are two projects -- two new projects funded by the second issuance from the savings in 1990 follow systsom and 88 bro. from 1990 folsom, which is the project in the mission district, we are funding 681 florida. and from the savings of 88 broadway and 735 davis, we are
10:51 pm
funding 482 geneva. we note that we are not assigning any unit count for 681 florida since we are only contributing predevelopment funds. so as of today, we've -- we've actually potrero block x is already completed and inaugurated. we expect to complete sunnydale parcel q and several of our small sites this year, and we've also broken ground on 1296 shotwell, 990 folsom, and 88 broadway. we expect those to be completed next year. and beyond that, we have 3830
10:52 pm
mission, and others. finally, here's a chart of our projected spending, and that concludes the report on the 2015 bond. thank you. >> before i start on the second presentation, i wanted to give the members a chance to ask any questions on the first one? >> did anybody get this? >> toward the back. >> i didn't -- sorry. >> why don't we do the second one and then we'll ask
10:53 pm
questions. >> great. good morning. jonah lee from the mayor's office. i'm the director of portfolio presentation, and very happy to be here today to present on the past program. so just a quick background, some key milestones. there's a lot of history that dates ba being to wh dates back to when robert was sitting on the iron throne. 1992, the original bond was passed, and only about $90 million was spent, and that was what led to the repurposing of that bond authority, proposition c. the funds remaining, about $261 million were repurposed specifically to preserve affordable housing, and
10:54 pm
acquisition of affordable housing in san francisco. fast forward to where we are today. we're successfully marketed and sold our first issuance of about $72 million, and we've also closed on the first loan within the program. just a brief overview of the past program and i'll go into some more details a little bit later in the presentation. past, the preservation and seismic safety program essentially offers low cost and long-term permanent financingtor low-income housing developments, a debt that's really not available on the conventional mark. it really is a fundamental component of san francisco's response to the -- the displacement and affordability crisis in the city, and it really is structured in a way that complements the other existing work that we're doing for instance through our small sites program, the additional
10:55 pm
funding that's been allocated through eraf recently, and recently some new funding that's passed through the community funding act, all different tools in the toolkit, if you will, to allow our affordable housing sponsors to be able to compete in the market to preserve affordable housing in the city. so what is an eligible use? acquisition, seismic retrofits, s.r.o.s. so why? i think as everyone is aware, there's been a widening of the
10:56 pm
affordable gap. it's between what rent is and what san franciscans can afford. i don't know if you can see the slide you have there in front of you. it's just depressing. the current average median income for a four-person family in san francisfamily -- two-person family in san francisco is about $94,000 a year. and the affordability gap is over $1,000 a month. another way to look at that, instead of affordability gap is rent burden, and that's what percentage of a household's income they have to pay to cover their rent.
10:57 pm
and in that case, it would be about 44%. you can see on this graph, we're talking about rent burdens ranging from 55% and even higher, and a huge need. it's a huge need, and what -- you know, if we looked at -- if we looked at what the affordability gap is for the households earning less than 80% of area median income, it's even worse. and i say that one of the things that sets one of the results of the widening of the affordability gap is an increase in displacement. this map is sort of the heat map that shows -- it shows
10:58 pm
concentrations of displacement over the last eight years mapped over -- over household income. and what we can see here very clearly is that formal evictions are truly concentrated in our neighborhoods of our lowest income residents. and that is destablizing our communities, it's causing housing insecurity, especially for those households of low-income. so that's really why we feel like this strategy to preserve existing housing, to remove it from the speculative market is such an important part of the -- our work. and i have an example up here on the screen, 270 turk. this is one of the projects that's in our expected pipeline. we're expecting to close on the
10:59 pm
financing for this in 2020. tndc, the tenderloin neighborhood development corporation has already acquired the property, and they're doing the renovation right now. what i have on the slide, you can see a side by side comparison of what the financing would look like if this had to be done with conventional financing versus if there was financing available through the past program. i felt like this really sort of demonstrates the value add that this program is bringing. so just to sort of run through this, this is the rental income, the restricted income that's coming in is about $1.4 million per year.
11:00 pm
and that leaves after expenses of $660,000 of net operating income which would -- could be used to support debt. maybe let's talk about this like this was your own home, and you were looking at buying your own home. so affordable rents would essentially be your paycheck, how much money you're bringing in, and your operating expenses would be your health care costs and your net income would be what is left over after that. now if you had to go out and purchase your own property -- reduce some of the zeros to make it applicable, but you'd have to raise $27.5 million, the senior