tv Government Access Programming SFGTV November 18, 2019 8:00pm-9:01pm PST
and way for us to contribute back to our community. there is money that could be made, opportunities that could be made and also showing the different face of business when it comes to cannabis, which use to be a taboo. >> thank you, next speaker. >> hello again. even though everything has already been said, i would like to say and let the record reflect and let the city know that i am also too impacted by the war on drugs being born and raised in bay view, hunters point but i'm not necessarily looking to be a dispensary. i'm not looking to be a cultivator, so i'm being left out of the movement because those are the only things lined up. i am an educator. i have spent 30 years of my life going to school trying to be an
educator, an activist and voice for the community. the funds released could help me start the california let's talk cannabis movement. i didn't initiate that. that came out of california. that's the movement that california, the public health is using to get the conversations going so that we can educate the youth, so that our youth won't be thinking they can drive around smoking weed. i don't need to be a dispenser, but i do need to benefit from the aftermath of the war on drugs. thank you. [applause] >> good morning, my name is rami. i am an equity applicant. the city's concern for this piece of clean up legislation is in vain until funds are
dispersed from the community investment fund through the office of cannabis for the purposes of workforce development, commercial real estate, and investment funding. thank you. >> thank you. if there are any other members of the public that would like to speak, please line up so we can go one right after the other. thank you. next speaker. >> good morning supervisorser terrance allen, served as your three year chair of the cannabis legalization task force. i've been taking time to build my own equity business in the castro. i come before you because there are three legs that you're hearing the community speak of. one is the need to release and invest in the equity programs that you all established so carefully. the second is one that i thought i would never stand in front of a public body and say, the need to begin the conversation about moving those that remain in the unregulated market into the
regulated market. we have a very draconian policy that says if enforcement hears that you're in the unregulated market, then you're banned for 10 years. that draconian policy does not afford the opportunity of the cannabis, the office of cannabis to move people into the regulated market. we need to give them the power of coercion, suggestion, and the beginnings of enforcement for that to happen because those who have been waiting in line for the regulated market are running out of resources to do that and those who maintain 1 foot in the unregulated market seem to have an unlimited amount of money due to black market sales. so, with those two things, i urge you to move this forward and the third, the office of cannabis was never designed to handle 300 permit applications.
we have to give them immediate resources to get this project moving, whether a city department can give up those resources after they have them is a question for the future, but if we don't afford those resources now, this entire program continues to grind as opposed to ushering forward a new day for san francisco and their equity members. thank you very much. >> thank you, any other member of the public wish to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> supervisor walton. >> thank you. first of all before i make a motion, i do want to say that i share the same concerns about not allowing cooperatives, but in this case we're bound by state law so we're making a change and hopefully that changes in the future. this is definitely administrative to being in line with state law. i do have a quick question. can i move to duplicate the file and amend a new file with the circulated amendment or do i
have to do them one at a time? >> you can duplicate the file as a single supervisor, you don't need to make a motion to that. just say i like to duplicate the file and then you can amend either one or the other. >> i like to duplicate the file and amend the new file with circulated amendments that strike the reference to the name change in the new file. >> thank you. >> oh, to amend. i wanted to make a couple comments. thank you. i, i just wanted to -- i do think we have to make these amendments in order to comply with state law. i wanted to echo a lot of the concerns i heard from the public, particularly the community re-investment fund,
anxious to get that funded and distributed so that we can make equity real in this industry and right the wrongs of the failed drug war that has decimated so many communities. so i just, you know, i don't think we should stop these cosmetic -- well not cosmetic changes, but these changes to comply with state law, in order to get to the meaty work we need to do in order to have some reparations injustice in these communities, but i just wanted to make that comment that i'm anxious to get that work under way and it's a huge priority as well. with that, i will second the motion to amendment the duplicated file and without objection that motion passes, and then the original -- or that duplicated file is the one then that we will send to the full
board and i'm happy to make a motion to send that with positive recommendation. without objection, that motion passes. [gavel] >> thank you very much. >> and the action on the original file? >> and the original file, if we could leave it in committee to the call of the chair, that would be great. >> that will be continued to the call of the chair. >> thank you, we are very encouraged by your remarks over the community re-investment fund and funding it because i think it's very important and needed. >> thank you. so. -- so much. >> make sure i have this correct. the file has been duplicated. the original file has been continued to the call of the chair. the duplicated version has been amended, and referred as amended to the board. >> yes, that's right. >> thank you. >> thank you so much. and if you could please call item number 7. >> item number 7 is an ordinance amending the administrative code
to affirm the county agricultural commissioner's authority under state law to certify and inspect farmers' markets and producers, and to enforce state law governing the direct marketing of agricultural products to consumers. >> thank you, claudia, the director of the real estate division. before you is an ordinance amending the administrative code dealing with farmers markets, including the city owned and operated a main any flea and farmer's market. it's the longest operating farmer's market in california. most are operated by non-profits and receive public funds or private fundraisings efforts.
the real estate division, which took over responsible from the parcel and the operations of the mark over a decade ago increased fees because they have not been increased for over a decade and cover expenses for the operation of the site and the markets because it runs as a deficit. that would close the gap, but it wouldn't completely get rid of it. we did a survey of other markets in the area and for example, a heart of the city, which is in the u.n. plaza, a non-profitly run but received a lot of gifts and private funds charges $55 a stall per day. that's more than what we're proposing. we sent the proposed change in fees to the city attorney, who then under took and rewrote the
entire sections because it hadn't been done in so long and there were things that needed to be cleaned up. it relasz places the agricultural commissioner. the agricultural commissioner is not a building or facility or land management person. it doesn't have the resources to operate and manage the facility in the markets. the real estate division has been managing and operating the land for over a decade. it transfers responsibilities from the agricultural commissioner to the director of property to approve applications for permits to sell products at the city operated farmer's market. it allows the director of permits or suspensions there of.
it allow it is director property to impose fees and to appoint and form an advisory committee for the alamani farmer's market and guidelines to rule the market. the heart of it is to increase the fees that an individual farmer and/or flea market vendor would pay. currently it's $50 a day, just during the summer, we would like to raise it to $50 a day all year round. it wouldn't go down $10 during the winter months. if a farmer went everyday that the farmer's market is open and it's open every single day, every saturday of the year, they only closed once, that particularly farmer would pay an additional $240 a year in fees. the vendors, which are usually food trucks, would pay $85 a
day, up from $60 a day, pretty much what they're having to pay in other markets. that's why we went to that. the fees for the flea market vendors would be $50 a day, which is just every sunday, up from $45. the revisions also increase the certification fees paid by the markets themselves. so the markets have to be certified. we are a certified farmer's market. that certification is done by the agricultural commissioner under the department of public health. they are recommending that the farmer's markets with less than 16 vendors stay at $500. markets with 16 to 45 vendors go up to $1,000 per year from $500 and markets with over 45 vendors would be $1,500 a year, up from
$500. the department of public health can wave the fee for city operated farmer's markets. we would ask them to allow us to wave our fee. it also authorizes the agricultural commissioner to charge $113 per hour for inspections unrelated to the issuance modification or renewal of a farmer's market renewial certification. and also fining the illegal use of the premises. there have been car shops and others that go on to the property because it's a huge vacant space and actually set up businesses and try to run businesses on the market. we had to kick them out when there wasn't a law to do that, it was very difficult to have the police enforce it. we just asked them to do that. we're putting up gates, which we
think will prevent anything from occurring in the illegal use of the site. the agricultural commissioner had to leave, he had another meeting. i'm here if you have any general questions. >> yes, i'm wondering what outreach you done to the farmers themselves. i know in the relative scheme of things, not the hugest increase, but it could be substantial. >> so there wasn't any formal. we don't have that committee anymore. it was years ago, i think it was when it first came over to the real estate commission. we had a committee which consisted of the various people that the mayor chose and farmers and the manager. people left, other people didn't want to do anymore and it was no longer in existence. that's why we're putting it back
in the code so we can have it under the direct property. both the manager on site and the manager, her supervisor walk the stalls every saturday, basically. so when we kind of did this, i think they did an informal test of it and they know who will be there during the winter and who isn't. not all the vendors sell during the winter because they don't sell winter crops. they get other vendors that come in to do it. they didn't seem to be bothered and half of them felt they were paying that any way. they didn't know they were being charged less during the winter months. they didn't think it would be a very large issue. >> supervisor walton. >> thank you, just along those lines, why the additional 244 vendors that are there more frequent? it seems that you said vendors
who are there more frequently -- >> well, that's just if a farmer went every saturday, the whole year round, that would be the additional cost. most of them don't go all year round. you have summer ones and winter ones. >> got it. >> thank you very much. really appreciate it. thank you. we will open this item up for public comment. feel free to come forward if you like to speak. good morning, or good afternoon, i keep saying that. >> good afternoon, my name is ashley. i'm speaking on behalf of what this lady is just talking about. i lived -- my family lived at 376 bradford street since 1962. i was born -- i was raised right there at the alamani's farmers market. i feel this is overblown as far as the outrageous changes in the prices and the opportunities for
people to have an opportunity to make some money down there or be involved in it. it looks kind of like shedding people, shedding vendors out and other vendors come in. i don't really know. i do believe that to do this, they do need some type of committee, some type of investigation to find out the difference in what is going and what's not happening there because it is something that really worked for the people that are there, all the people that come there on saturday is awesome. so, i don't know how the vendors -- i don't really know. i just happen to be here to hear this, but i live right there. i know about performance market. she also spoke about the sunday where they do the flea market
there and -- my time is up, but a lot needs to be done in regards to the clean up, in regards to the stuff that's around there on sunday, if you would come by and see how that is. a lot more needs to be done and i don't know where, but i'll see what's going on. thank you. >> thank you so much. any other member of the public wishing to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> i'm going to comment because i'm the supervisor of the area where the farmer's market is. in my conversations with folks at the markets, they seen increases for some time. i think it will be okay and it's not going to dissuade people from selling at the market. i would also -- sorry, we're not allowed to have a conversation. i'm happy to talk to you after the committee meeting is over, but i also just wanted to let you know that this is a site in
the district that i had my eye on forever. it's both an incredible blessing for the neighborhoods on the two days that it's operating and can cause some issues on the five days that it's empty. we are looking into the possibility of what we can do to activate that site all the time without ever disrupting the market because it's such a historic and plays an important role in the neighborhood. to be continued, if you have a couple minutes to stay after. this is the last item. i would love to chat with you about it. moving forward on this item, i'm happy to make a motion to send this forward with positive recommendation and it looks like there's no objection. without objection, that motion passes. mr. clerk are there any other items on the agenda to? >> that completes the agenda for
representation because if -- political representation because if we under count california, we get less representatives in congress. it's important for san francisco because if we don't have all of the people in our city, if we don't have all of the folks in california, california and san francisco stand to lose billions of dollars in funding. >> it's really important to the city of san francisco that the federal government gets the count right, so we've created count sf to motivate all -- sf count to motivate all citizens to participate in the census.
>> for the immigrant community, a lot of people aren't sure whether they should take part, whether this is something for u.s. citizens or whether it's something for anybody who's in the yunited states, and it is something for everybody. census counts the entire population. >> we've given out $2 million to over 30 community-based organizations to help people do the census in the communities where they live and work. we've also partnered with the public libraries here in the city and also the public schools to make sure there are informational materials to make sure the folks do the census at those sites, as well, and we've initiated a campaign to motivate the citizens and make sure they participate in census
2020. because of the language issues that many chinese community and families experience, there is a lot of mistrust in the federal government and whether their private information will be kept private and confidential. >> so it's really important that communities like bayview-hunters point participate because in the past, they've been under counted, so what that means is that funding that should have gone to these communities, it wasn't enough. >> we're going to help educate people in the tenderloin, the multicultural residents of the tenderloin. you know, any one of our given blocks, there's 35 different languages spoken, so we are the original u.n. of san francisco. so it's -- our job is to
educate people and be able to familiarize themselves on doing this census. >> you go on-line and do the census. it's available in 13 languages, and you don't need anything. it's based on household. you put in your address and answer nine simple questions. how many people are in your household, do you rent, and your information. your name, your age, your race, your gender. >> everybody is $2,000 in funding for our child care, housing, food stamps, and medical care. >> all of the residents in the city and county of san francisco need to be counted in census 2020. if you're not counted, then your community is underrepresented and will be underserved.
. >> i love that i was in four plus years a a rent control tenant, and it might be normal because the tenant will -- for the longest, i was applying for b.m.r. rental, but i would be in the lottery and never be like 307 or 310. i pretty much had kind of given up on that, and had to leave san francisco. i found out about the san francisco mayor's office of housing about two or three years ago, and i originally did
home counseling with someone, but then, my certificate expired, and one of my friends jamie, she was actually interested in purchasing a unit. i told her about the housing program, the mayor's office, and i told her hey, you've got to do the six hour counseling and the 12 hour training. she said no, i want you to go with me. and then, the very next day that i went to the session, i notice this unit at 616 harrison became available, b.m.i. i was like wow, this could potentially work. housing purchases through the b.m.r. program with the sf mayor's office of housing, they are all lotteries, and for this one, i did win the lottery. there were three people that applied, and they pulled my number first. i won, despite the luck i'd had with the program in the last couple years. things are finally breaking my
way. when i first saw the unit, even though i knew it was less than ideal conditions, and it was very junky, i could see what this place could be. it's slowly beginning to feel like home. i can definitely -- you know, once i got it painted and slowly getting my custom furniture to fit this unit because it's a specialized unit, and all the units are microinterms of being very small. this unit in terms of adaptive, in terms of having a murphy bed, using the walls and ceiling, getting as much space as i can. it's slowly becoming home for me. it is great that san francisco has this program to address, let's say, the housing crisis that exists here in the bay area. it will slowly become home, and i am appreciative that it is a bright spot in an otherwise .
>> good morning, everyone. this is monday, november 18, meeting of the budget and finance committee. i'm supervisor fewer. i am joined by supervisor mandelman, stefani, and peskin. i would like to thank sfgovtv for their assistance in broadcasting this meeting. >> clerk: please make sure to silence all cellphones. complete speaker cards and provide any documents to be included in the file. >> thank you very much. madam clerk, can you call item 1. >> clerk: motion ordering submitted to the voters at an election to be held on march 3, 2020, an ordinance amending the business and tax regulations code and administrative code to impose an excise tax on persons keeping ground floor commercial space in certain neighborhood commercial districts and certain neighborhood commercial transit
districts vacant, to fund assistance to small businesses; increasing the city's appropriations limit by the amount collected under the tax for four years from march 3, 2020. >> thank you very much. supervisor peskin. >> thank you, chair fewer, and members of the committee. i would like to thank you for convening two special budget and finance committees this week. of course we are getting used to the changed elections cycle. we normally have elections in june, but because of changes in state law this will be the firm time we have an election at this time. i want to if you for your constructive suggestions at last week's meeting in regard to this tax. today i am proposing an
amendment that i think addresses the concerns that supervisors fewer and stefani raised at last week's meeting, which is to address what happens when a small business goes out of business, but still has more time on their lease. while i think there's a fair argument to make that a lease in that scenario would become void or that the proprietor would be filing for bankruptcy or walking away from the lease, i fully agree that this tax should not be assessed against a lessee that goes out of business. an amendment i'm proposing is at 290 d lines 8 to 12 that says if a business has been open for eight months, a legitimate lessee, and goes out of business with more time on their lease, they should not be liable for the tax on the remainder of the lease. i also want to thank ms
ms. dikintreesee and the office for small business for the revised memorandum that they sent this morning that addresses the amendments that we made last week and contemplates this amendment as well. finally, i would like to apologize in advance for the fact that i will not be here on thursday, but thank you all for being willing to convene not only a special budget meeting, but a special board meeting in order to consider the possibility of putting this before the voters of san francisco in march of next year. with that, i'm available to answer any questions. >> any questions or comments? seeing none, we'll open this up for public comment. you have two minutes. please come forward.
>> my name is mark borsak. i'm a retail leasing broker and a real property attorney. i reside in supervisor stefani's district, and our property is on justin just across from the apple store. retail leasing is a troubled business. earlier this year our tenant filed for bankruptcy and vacated the premises. we have a highly experienced broker handling this space, and since april we received inquiries but only a few leasing proposals. in sum, we're not even close to making a deal with a digital native food provider or traditional food provider after almost eight months. the internet's introduction sealed the fate for many
retailers. in the late 1990s i predicted that the shift to online shopping would undermine location-based retailing. after the great recession, people increasingly shopped online shifting more sales from the store. dr. eagon's report notes a falling demand for physical space. particularly vulnerable are shopping street, merchants unable to offer customers convenience, goods, services or unique services. amazon's new next-day service offers yet another reason to avoid the store. in a recent study, i described the ongoing mayhem and its ongoing impact on many retailers and property owners. in san francisco, store front vacancies result from formula -- impact. iatrogenesis describes the
unforeseen harm caused by the dealer's practice. in this case, even more unstricted vacancies. in effect, the 2004 law are poisoning -- [ indiscernible ]. >> thank you very much, sir. your time is up. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am with the san francisco chamber of commerce. i spoke at the last hearing also, and i just want to say again we're really pleased that this legislation has been amended to try to ensure that the reason behind this legislation, which is to capture and discourage the bad actors who are intentionally holding their properties off the market, that by doing that we're not inadvertently harming all of the good actors who are trying to
fill their retail spaces as quickly as possible. i feel like the amendments are getting us there. this amendment is also very helpful. i still have some concerns that we are going to end up punishing people who are not able to fill their spaces due to no fault of their own, but i think that we're moving this in the right direction. i heard at the last hearing that the supervisor may be open to some trailing legislation, if should this pass we would be open to working with you on that. we do appreciate that this is moving in the right direction. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors -- morning, rather. cory smith on behalf of the san francisco housing action coalition. some of our members are obviously trying to lease up ground floor space. in my conversations with them about this, one of the ideas they brought up was continuing to find ways to incentivize ground floor uses that we're all in support of and that we want to have. one of the ideas that had come
up previously piece of legislation was to create ground floor child care units, where they would be able to live on the ground floor of a building and operate a child care facility out of there. we also are trying to get people into productive uses on a ground floor. if it's a piece of trailing legislation with be we want to do what we can to encourage some proactive amendments in order to try to get as many folks into those uses as possible. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> i'm ron mcgel. since 1938 our family has owned two buildings with ground floor retail businesses over 80 years. in spite of that, property owners and n.c.d.s were never notified of this legislation. we have been fortunate that neither of these spaces have
ever been vacant. however, i've been obligated to drastically reduce the rent on one of them and defer any increase on the other, despite rising costs. we're only one of a multitude of small property owners that work with their tenants at a time when the entire retail business concept is drastically changing. you see it with major businesses in the union square area, as well as our n.c.d.s. our retail is undergoing far-reaching transformation. this legislation attempts to put a band-aid on a crisis and fails to acknowledge our current and particularly future retail reality. the action is a slap in the face, a stick without a carrot. other approaches might be to allow small office space,
incubation space, p.d.r., or others which are now prohibited by code in n.c.d.s. the problem of serving on the planning commission was the pages and pages of detail regarding n.c.d.s that vary greatly from one to the other. sometimes us in san francisco try to seek control over minu a minutia. please look to the future. don't attempt to duplicate the past. it's not going to happen. >> seeing no other speakers -- oh. >> i used to engage in foundation research at the foundation center in the world affairs council building on behalf of the local non-profit. i would predict that the proposed ordinance amendment
would have the effect of increasing the volume of small businesses along select commercial corridors filing for bankruptcy when they are defunct. i believe that it is reasonable to predict an upsurge in bankruptcy filings if the proposed ordinance amendment were to go into effect. also, it might concretize existing vacancies while imposing holding costs. so i hope that you are prepared to offer evidence to support the assertion that the imposition of an excise tax across a narrow band of the commercial segment will improve the opportunity as well as the deposited outcome of restaurants, the food industry in general, or any other businesses. by evidence, i am referral to specifically but not exclusively, to a dataset of statistical evidence, a
probability study, empirical analysis based -- basically anything of merit to ensure restaurateurs and commercial proprietors that the imposition of the proposed excise tax is not based solely on vague hypotheses, knee-jerk reaction, or an invalid sampling of those few select storefronts. yeah, i'll just stop this. >> thank you very much. any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is now closed. supervisor peskin, any comments at all? >> yeah, i would like to make a few comments. number one, we can and we actually are, as supervisors, legislating carrots. whether it is the fee relief package that i spoke to last week at the board of supervisors in certain areas, changes to zoning. in north beach we extended the abandonment period. in other areas, people have
embraced more flexible zoning, but only the voters can actually vote for the stick. as i said last week in committee, this is a tax that is absolutely avoidable and that we don't want to collect. it is an incentive for certain property owners who have not been the best actors to get it together. actually, what mr. mcgel said was really important, which is that he has managed, despite pressures from internet commerce to keep his n.c.d. ground floor commercial spaces occupied and admitted that is unfortunate but other people need to learn, which is in some cases there is going to have to be a reduction in rent if you're going to fill those spaces. so that was actually -- i understand that while he might not like the proposal, is precisely what this legislation
is aimed for other people who have not behaved as rationally and appropriately as the speaker to emulate. so i commend it to you and appreciate you holding not one but two special meetings to consider this legislation. i do finally in closing want to reiterate what ms. freed said from the treasurer's tax collector's office, which is should we put this on the ballot and should the voters approve it, it will not go into effect until january 2021 and the treasurer's office is committed to doing a large outreach. this only applies to the spines of our most important commercial corridors, be it supervisor stefani's union and chestnut street corridors, my polk and
columbus avenue corridors, clement street corridor, irving, terradale, some of the n.c.d.s in supervisor mandelman's corridor, but these only affect the vibrant or what should be vibrant commercial corridors in the city and county of san francisco. i commend the legislation to you, colleagues. >> thank you very much. any comments or questions from my colleagues? i also want to say that i think this amendment actually addresses the issues that supervisor stefani and i had last week in the questioning about whether or not -- who would be liable in case a business goes under, is it the tenant who is -- whose business has failed or the land or property owner. i also want to say, yes, i would love to see those spaces being
utilized for non-profits and child care, but they can't afford the $20,000 a month rent. it just is what it is. in my neighborhood, i have non-profits looking for space and dying for space, but at $20,000 a month, they just can't do it. i hope the legislation will bring the prices down and be an incentive for people to keep their tenants there that have been paying for 30 years. that they're not going to be slapped with a rent increase of four times the monthly rent so they can stay in the neighborhood and continue to be a business in our neighborhood for another 30 or 40 years. i am hoping that this is what this will do. i want to echo what supervisor peskin said, people who have been paying attention know that we have actually legislated many carrots and sticks. i think the mayor is also offering one to help small businesses get into these
storefronts too. today before us we have a simple amendment that i think we shall approve, and we will continue this until thursday. i make a motion to approve these amendments and to continue this item to the meeting on thursday, which is the 21st of november. can i take that without objection? thank you, colleagues. madam clerk, can you call item number 2. >> clerk: resolution authorizing the issuance and delivery of multifamily housing revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $84,840,000, in one or more series or subseries, for the purpose of providing financing for the acquisition and rehabilitation of a 202-unit multifamily rental housing project known as "eastern park apartments;" >> we have a little change in
the presentation. in each hand from the mayor's office of housing and community development, item 2 before you is related to the city's proposed bond issuance for 711 eddie street. the proposed issuance is conduit financing. the project is existing 202-unit affordable housing that is sponsored by the northern california prebs tooern homes. the project would entail rehabilitation of the residential units, common space, and some of the building-wide systems. the project serves households between up to 50 to 60% of the area median income. existing tenants will be temporary relocated and not replaced as a result of the rehab. in terms of the schedule, we will -- the project expects to be starting construction in early 2020. so we are asking the committee
to recommend approval of the issuance. i'm available to answer any other questions. thank you. >> there is no b.l.a. report on this? seeing no public comments, this is closed. >> clerk: would you like to send this item for a report? >> yes, i think that's necessary. we can take that without objection. madam clerk, can you please read item number 3. >> clerk: resolution authorizing the issuance and delivery of multifamily housing revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount scbrooipt
resolution; and related matters, as defined herein. resolution declaring the intent of the city and county of san francisco ("city") to reimburse certain expenditures from proceeds of future bonded indebtedness in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $80,000,000; authorizing the director of the mayor's office of housing and community development ("director") to submit an application and related documents to the california debt limit allocation committee ("cdlac") to permit the issuance of residential mortgage revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $80,000,000 for 2340 san jose avenue; >> this would secure an allocation of bonds as well to approve the d.d.a. status. we're requesting that this item be recommended as a committee report to go to the full board tomorrow to meet the deadline of december 11. not meeting this decline for this project would cost the city $11 in subsidy. the proposed bond issuance would be financing and will not require the city to replenish its funds to retrieve the funds. this will be a housing development and will include commercial space and a community clinic.
72% of the units will be affordable to households earning no more than 62% of local median income. please note that this is the equivalent of 80% of tax credit a.m.i. no residents will be displaced because it's currently undeveloped. financing will close in 2020, with construction complete by august 2022. we will return to the board for the issuance approvals. i also have representatives from the project sponsor bridge housing to answer any questions. thank you for your support. >> there is no b.l.a. report on this. let's open it up for public comment. i would like to move this to the
full board. we take that without objection. thank you very much. madam clerk, can you please read item number 4. >> clerk: resolution declaring the intent of the city and county of san francisco ("city") to reimburse certain expenditures from proceeds of future bonded scbrooipt to exceed $80,000,000; authorizing the director of the mayor's office of housing and community development ("director") to submit an application and related documents to the california debt limit allocation committee >> we ask you to approval an allocation of bonds as well as to preserve the project's d.d.a. status. we're requesting this item to be recommended for the full board tomorrow to meet the application deadline of december 11, which if we were to miss it would cost the city $10 million in subsidies. thank you for this. the proposed funds will be bo
bonds. this will be a new affordable housing development located next to balboa park station. 67% of the units will be affordable for less than 50% of san francisco a.m.i. with a balance of the units affordable to less a.m.i. no residents will be displaced. it's currently a vacant lot. 39 units will be set aside for voluntary relocates. the project also includes an early childhood education center, ground floor retail, and a family wellness community resource center. financing should close by december 2020, a construction complete by october 2020. again, we'll return to the board for the bond issuance approvals next year. i have representatives from the project sponsor here to answer any questions you may have.
>> clerk: subject to the terms of this resolution; and related matters, as defined herein. resolution declaring the intent of the city and county of san francisco ("city") to reimburse certain expenditures from proceeds of future bonded indebtedness in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $80,000,000; authorizing the director of the mayor's office of housing and community development ("director") to submit an application and related documents to the california debt limit allocation committee ("cdlac") to permit the issuance of residential mortgage revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $80,000,000 for 2340 san jose avenue; >> this would lose about the $10 million if it would not make it down the line in december. thank you to the committee for helping us expedite this as a committee report. the project is a new construction project of 130 units of affordable housing that is developed by the mission economic agency and the tenderloin development corporation. this has a large range of units for families. they serve households from below to above the a.m.i. the financing is anticipated to close between june 2020 and july
>> clerk: resolution declaring the intent of the city and county of san francisco ("city") to reimburse certain expenditures from proceeds of future bonded indebtedness in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $20,655,000; authorizing the director of the mayor's office of housing and community development ("director") to submit an application and related documents to the california debt limit allocation committee ("cdlac") to permit the issuance of residential mortgage revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $20,655,000 for 190 coleridge street >> this would preserve the project's c.d.a. status and losing the d.d.a. status would cost the city $1 million. this proposed bond issuance is condo financing. it's an existing affordable housing property located in bernal heights, sponsored by the neighborhood center as well as bridge financing. the units will be reserved for households earning 60 to 80% a.m.i. there will be no displacement. residents can return after any temporary relocation. the rehab scope includes significant work, including replacing windows and the roof, modernizing the elevator, water-proofing, significant exterior work.
financing should close by november of 2020, and construction will be complete by 21. i have project sponsors here as well to answer any questions. >> thank you very much. there is no b.l.a. report on this. are any members of the public wanting to comment on item number 6? seeing none, public comment is closed. any comments or questions of my colleagues, seeing none, i would like to move this to the full board. we can take that without objection. madam clerk, do we have any other business for today? >> clerk: there is no business. >> we are adjourned. thank you. [♪] [♪]
>> good morning sh everybody. clvment. >> good morning, evening. november 14th special meeting of the sub safety and neighborhood servic services committee. our clerk is john carroll and i want to thank lawrence bryant and corwin cooly for staffing the meeting. >> please ensure you silenced your cell phones and other electronic devices,