setting forward in new construction only these kind of limits. and i would encourage the construction community, the industry itself, to really weigh in on these things. i mean, i -- i agree that there needs to be more outreach with people doing the work to make sure that everybody understands this. the construction industry is going to be a big participant in these kind of changes that will help us with climate change. and so, i mean, i want to be very supportive of this. i am. and i also will be supportive of anything that comes from the industry that will make it more affordable, efficient, and realistic. so i don't see anything in here that will do that. i mean, it means changing -- giving up gas. and i, you know, with all we're seeing around the issues around climate change and how it

affects the fire risks and so many other things, it's really important that we do this. as well as the atmospheric conditions around it. 30% of our atmospheric issues are affected by this. it's huge. it's -- it's as big as or equal to the auto emissions. and, you know, we take big steps around that. and i feel like this is a big step. so thank you for bringing it forward and working on this. >> thank you. >> yeah. >> if i could just say, you know, i agree. thank you for bringing this forward. and, you know, the difficult conversations with shadows and things like that, like those are coming because we have chronically underbuilt using the land of this city. you know, we know that two-thirds of it is a single-family home only zoning. we know that's a major reason for the drastic climate

horribleness that has happened, driving places, not living near transit, not dense housing. and so those will be difficult conversations. but they're coming whether or not, you know, this one ordinance goes through or not. i'm glad that you brought it up. because i think it's something we're all going to have to get -- yeah, we're all going to be talking about a lot. so thank you. >> you know, mr. hooper, i'll close out my comments. i echo and support everything, of all of the commissioners here. this is where we're going. this is where the city needs to go. and i do believe in this. once again my probable is the -- my problem is the knock-on effects. this legislation could do with some amendments in there, that would be reflective of potentially calling out the concerns that we would see on my side of the industry anyhow, that need to be owned and recognized. we're back to the situation i do

not want to be part of legislation being passed. that really can't get done, because we just don't sit down and take the time, because sometimes i think legislation is written and it's really not the problem of the legislator at that time. it's somebody else's problem down the road. particularly in the dbi scenario, i see a lot of problems here with this. fundamentally disagree with your numbers, because i do the numbers myself every day. it is more expensive to build a single family, all-electric home. but that's not what i'm pushing back on. i'mish pushing back on that it's not very well talked through, particularly in the planning issues. and particularly in how we do get enough solar panels on our roofs, that will meet the criteria and things like that. i see a lot of issues from the building point of view, because we're a land locked town. our zoning has not been good for this. now we're trying to adapt.

so i cannot support it today. it's not i can't support it in the format it's written. i do believe you have the votes. it's not ready for prime time. thank you, mr. hooper. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we call for public comment already. we'll do a roll call vote. is there a motion to approve? and a second? >> move to approve. >> clerk: is there a second? >> seeing none. >> clerk: no second? okay. so what do i do? >> take the vote. >> if the movement is you've considered the motion, at this time do not support it. then that would be the alternative motion. deputy city attorney. >> okay. >> clerk: so the motion to not move forward? >> is there an alternative

motion to present? >> what was the way you framed it, sorry? >> i believe the president mentioned possibly having amendments to the issue or to the ordinance. if you have proposed amendments that you can recommend or the board can say we do not -- we consider but do not recommend. >> at this stage, i think it's a lot of work to be done to consider but not recommend. >> and deputy city attorney again. to be clear, i believe a digest that wasn't included in your ordinance. and i believe there's a lot of information presented here. but the ordinance itself specifically just makes a distinction of a 10% additional efficiency over a standard building for mixed gas. there are no solar requirements or all-electric requirements. it's just an additional performance requirement for mixed fuel. >> yeah. and duly noted. the point that i would like to, make, let's get it right from

the start. this could do with a lot more help in find of foreseeing the potential knock-on effect down the road. that's all we're asking for. obviously it's a lot to consider here. and if there needs to be done meetings on this, and we have a timeframe, i'm fine with that. this is happening. i get it. it's just in the way it's written right now, it's too lucy goosy for our industry. >> i think the alternative motion then would be that you do not recommend the ordinance, as is. >> as is written. >> yes. >> or you can also not do anything. >> well, you have to close the item out, either saying you've considered it or not. you can't have a motion saying we've considered the ordinance, but pass on no recommendations. >> i can't. sorry. could you repeat that, the last sentence. >> the board can't say we've considered the item, but do not have a recommendation. >> oh.

>> that would not be necessarily saying it shouldn't go forward, saying we've considered the item. >> so i'd like to make a motion that we consider the item and not recommend to go forward, as it's written, is that correct? >> yes. your motion would be we consider the item, but do not recommend approval, as written. >> as written. and can you have the caveat we're open to amendments to be made? is that not necessary. >> you can. the board -- so responsibility here is to consider the item. and to weigh -- present your consideration. >> i'll second that. >> thanks. >> clerk: okay. so there was a motion and a second. i'll do the roll call vote. president mccarthy? >> no. >> clerk: vice president walker? yes. >> excuse me.

>> clerk: yes. do you need to call that question again? >> clerk: would you like to state it? >> the motion is that you've considered but do not pass along recommendation, as written. and so that's the motion that was proposed and seconded. and the first vote was -- >> take that count again. >> clerk: okay. president mccarthy? >> yes. >> clerk: vice president walker? >> no. >> clerk: commissioner clinch? >> yes. >> clerk: commissioner moss? >> yes. >> clerk: commissioner warshell? >> yes. >> clerk: okay. so the motion carries 4-1. okay. thank you. next item is item 7. direct's report, 7a update on dbis finances.

>> good morning, commissioners. deputy director for the department of building inspection. and before you are two financial reports. the first is the september 2019 financial report. it's the financial report for the third month of the fiscal year and i'll go over a couple of highlights. basically our revenues year-to-date revenues are first three months of the fiscal year at 17th million, compared to $17.3 million last year. so pretty much equal to where we were last year. for the expenditures for the first three months of this fiscal year, we're at $13.2 million, compared to about $12.1 million last year. and that million dollars increase is primarily due to an increase in salaries. so next report that we have, the second report is the actual

fiscal year 18-19 which was last fiscal year, the year in the report. basically the controller's office has not officially closed last fiscal year. but we have been monitoring the system and we noticed a lot of changes that we wanted to bring to you as timely as possible. if there are any other adjustments that are made, we'll come back if they're major. this is a summary of where we are now. so for fiscal year 18-19, basically for our revenues, we collected about $13.4 million more than budget. so we came in at $84 million, compared to $80 million from last fiscal year. that increase is not because of our fee revenues going up, it's primarily due to interest. so if in fiscal year 18-19, we collected $4 million in interest, compared to $2.4 million the prior fiscal year. and then also because of city

attorney litigation. we collected about $3 million in city attorney litigations over last fiscal year. the takeaway is the revenues are higher, but not because of our fees. our fees are pretty much normal, actually flat. our fees are flat. we haven't seen them going down year-over-year, but they haven't gone up either. meaning our fees -- our fee revenue. on the expenditure side, we were at $71.8 million versus $79 million in the prior year. and the reason that that is a little bit lower is primarily because we have a $10 million last year, we put about $10 million in our opep. we have the two reserves and we've funding one reserve at 100% and trying to get to 100% in the opep reserve.

and that reserve is basically other post-employment benefits. it's like retiree -- for retiree funds that we're setting aid side. and $10 million of that was moved last fiscal year. in the current -- in 17-18, in 18-19, we didn't need $10 million to be moved to that. so that's why it looks like we're spending actually less. if you look at the actual salaries and other expenditures, we're actually spending more. so what we have done with the controller's office, did do this year, is that instead of using money from our fee revenues, to funded remaining $5 million to get us to fully funding opep, they closed out old projects and used the old project money. right now we're fully funded at the full $32 million. now we finally made it to be fully funded in both of reserves, that were actually set up maybe back in 2015 or so. so both are fully funded.

and i think that's it. overall revenues are leveling out. they're flat. and expenditures are going up slowly, primarily due to our expenditures in salaries. so i'm happy to answer any questions. >> see none. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you, deputy. >> clerk: neck item is 7 b, update on proposed or recently enacted state or local legislation. >> good morning, commissioners. bill strauss-kahn, legislative and public affairs. i just hit a few of the highlights, based on the distribution that i've given you. we have the triinnial code renewal that's coming up. actually met with supervisor peskin, chair of the land-use committee, just yesterday. most of these i would say -- all of the code changes are coming,

fall into that kind of technical correction notice, not particularly substantial. we expect it to be heard next week at land use. and i'm not expecting any difficulty there. so we should be in good time to make the end of the year, where we need to revoke the existing codes and adopt the new ones, with the san francisco amendments. and then everything will start as of january 1. so good news is we're on track with that. also land use will be appear heating modification in the housing code, that supervisor peskin proposed. that, too, had a waiver of the 30-day normal fee or time period. so that the board could consider it on a faster track. and that really has to do with changing the hours so that people don't find themselves in

multi-unit buildings, where the heat isn't on in the middle of the night. and this is based on some constituents going to supervisor peskin and saying, haney, at 3:00 in the morning, i can't get any heat here. so it's a slight modification. our housing inspection group has looked at it. and we're quite supportive of moving that forward. the only other thing i'll mention is the select dbi fee waivers on adus and 100% affordable actually did go into legal effect as of this past week. we had been putting notifications on both the website and at the counters to make people aware of this. i think right now we probably have a total of about 40 projects that probably fall into the pilot year period. as i think you may remember, it will run from june 1st of this

year until sunny 1 -- june 1st of next year. and looking at the statistics, we're able to gather and provide as a report to the board, the board will then make a decision about whether to extend this or to terminate it sometime next year. i think the only other thing i'll mention is the soft story, as you know, with all of the the earthquake activity going on. the director has been busy doing interviews to talk about how successful the soft story program has been. and we are still in the midst of tier 4, which is about 1,000 buildings with a commercial spaces. and that has caused some ongoing difficulties for people in those buildings. even though they were deliberately placed in tier 4 by the mayor's original program,

that started in 2013. in order to give people plenty of time to plan and so forth. there may be a need to extend that time period a bit. we've had a request from the small business commission about that. so we are going to have some discussion and we are open obviously to try and work with the owners of those buildings to make sure we get to compliance. so with that, if you have any questions. yes, sir. >> on the bdu and 100% affordable, the one-year pilot, do we have some targets as to what will constitute success in raising the numbers? or will that just be evaluated at a later date? >> there aren't any goals from the mayor's office, as the ordinance was proposed. i think the thought is that even if it's limited to these four

dbi fees, doesn't involve any other agency fees, as you know. that may or may not be enough incentive for a lot of people to understand that, yeah, we need more housing and adus are certainly one potential source of getting it. i think the idea from supervisor mar and some of the other supervisors is, they would like to see if even a limited incentive, such as we're offering, -- stimulates more construction that way. >> oh, sorry. commissioner walker. >> regarding the soft story, what is the current deadline scenario? it's past i believe. >> yes. this past september was the deadline for everyone to have submitted permits. >> right.

>> applications. they then have two years to complete. >> okay. >> that work. and that's been true for each of the tiers. >> right. >> and, you know, as the president mentioned in some of his earlier announcements, we've had a 98% compliance rate on the permit application, plans being submitted, we're right now at about 65% to 70% completion rate. so we still have, especially in tiers 2 and 3, which were the larger number of buildings, 1500 and 3500 in each of those respective tiers, out of the nearly 5,000 buildings. so those are the ones that are still coming along. and, you know, some of those -- the time issue has been very active building environments. hard to get contractors, hard to get engineers, et cetera. so we understand that. and we have deliberately tried to work with owners who are, you know, taking steps to move

forward. >> great. thank you. >> just commissioner moss. >> one of the one clarification. i know with the pending ordinance on the transfer of sros -- or residential hotels. i know that the report needs to be disclosed to the buyer. is the report from dbi disclosed publicly to -- is there -- i just -- i'm not familiar with it. i was just wondering. >> actually i'm not aware of that one myself. i'd be happy to look into it. >> i think it's probably more important for the public to know it, than the buyer. >> i'd be happy to look into it and find out. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. strachan. thank you, sir. >> clerk: next item is 7 c, update on major projects. >> all right. good morning. tom hui, department of the building inspection for the major project. the period is roughly increased by 4.9%.

due to the filing of the permit, because the co-change. >> co-change. >> clerk: okay. our next item is 7 d, update on code enforcement. >> good morning, commissioners. ed swinney, deputy director inspection service. i'm here to report on code enforcement activities and with dbi's update of september 2019. for complaints received, 571. complaint response within 24 to 72 hours, 568. complaints of first notice of violations, set at 118. complaints received and abated 288. second notice of violations referred to code enforcement, 14. housing inspection services, housing inspections performed,

906. complaints received 341. complaints responded in 72 hours, 320. abated complaints and n.o.v.s 374. number of cases sent to director's hearing, 34. routine inspections, 127. code enforcement services, number of cases sent to director's hearing, 139. number of order abatements issues, 32. number of cases under advisement, 14. number of cases abated, 193. code enforcement inspections performed, 203. cases referred to bic litigation committee, two. and we're not meeting with the city attorney this month. code enforcement outreach programs remains the same, because they report quarterly. and total people reached out 42,000 for the last quarter.

counseling cases -- for the last quarter. community program participants 2,050, the last quarter. and cases resolved 173. >> thank you, deputy. >> thank you. >> clerk: okay. is there any public comment on the director's report item 7a-d. okay. seeing none, item 8, review and approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of september 18th, 2019. >> move to approve. >> clerk: is there a second? >> second. >> clerk: okay. thank you. is there any public comment on the minutes? seeing none, all commissioners in favor? >> aye. >> any opposed? the minutes are approved. okay. our next items are -- we're going to call both items together, prior to going into closed session. the first item is item 9, discussion and possible action on the annual performance evaluation for the director,

continued from the september 18th, 2019, bic meeting. and then the next item is item 10, discussion and possible action on conference with legal counsel. is there any public comment on agenda items 9 or 10? okay. seeing none, we are now in closed session. it

>> a way of life in san francisco. when the next major quake hits, the city hopes a new law requiring seismic upgrades to five story buildings will help keep more residents safe and sound. tell me a little about the soft story program. what is it? >> it's a program the mayor signed into law about a year and a half ago and the whole idea behind it was to help homeowners strengthen buildings so that they would not collapse. >> did you the soft story program apply to all buildings or building that were built in a certain time frame? >> it only applies to buildings built in the time frame of 1978 and earlier. it's aimed at wood framed buildings that are three or more stories and five or more units. but the openings at the garage level and the street level

aren't supported in many buildings. and without the support during a major earthquake, they are expected to pancake and flatten ~. many of the buildings in this program are under rent control so it's to everybody's advantage to do the work and make sure they protect their investment and their tenant. >> notices have gone out to more than 6,000 owners of potentially at-risk properties but fewer than one-third have responded and thousands might miss an important deadline in september to tell the city what they plan to do. let's talk worst case scenario. what happens in a collapse? >> buildings have the tendency of rolling over. the first soft story walls lean over and the building collapse. in an earthquake the building is a total loss. >> can you describe what kind of strengthening is involved in the retrofit? >> one of the basic concepts, you want to think of this building kind of like rubber

band and the upper three floor are very rigid box and the garage is a very flexible element. in an earthquake the garage will have a tendency to rollover. you have to rubber band analogy that the first floor is a very tough but flexible rubber band such that you never drive force he to the upper floors. where all your damage goes into controlled element like plywood or steel frame. >> so, here we are actually inside of a soft story building. can we talk a little about what kinds of repairs property owners might expect? >> it's a very simple process. we deliberately tried to keep it that way. so, what's involved is plywood, which when you install it and make a wall as we have done here already, then you cover it with this gypsum material. this adds some flexibility so that during the earthquake you'll get movement but not collapse.

and that gets strengthened even more when we go over to the steel frame to support the upper floor. >> so, potentially the wood and the steel -- it sounds like a fairly straightforward process takes your odds of collapse from one in 4 to one in 30? >> that's exactly right. that's why we're hoping that people will move quickly and make this happen. >> great. let's take a look. so, let's talk steel frames. tell me what we have going on here. >> well, we have a steel frame here. there are two of these and they go up to the lower floor and there is a beam that go across, basically a box that is much stiffer and stronger. ~ goes so that during the earthquake the upper floor will not collapse down on this story.

it can be done in about two weeks' time. voila, you're done. easy. >> for more information on how to get your building earthquake >> good morning this. is the october 16, 2019 budget committee. i am supervisor fewer. i am joined by supervisor mandelman. i would like to thank sfgovtv. do you have any announcements? >> please silence cell phones and electronic devices and complete speaker cards as part of the file submit to the court. items today will appear on the

october 22nd board of supervisors agenda. >> please read item one. >> resolution authorizing resolution and acceptance to a lease for the real property located at 350 rhode island street north for a rent credit at $2.6 million in consideration for a waiver of certain real estate expense passed through protections for the city under the lease. >> today we have the department of real estate. >> good morning, chair fewer. director of real estate. today we are seeking your positive recommendation for a resolution to authorize a first a mend to the lease with lexington lion san francisco for the property at 350 road a

island. -- rhode island. the board of supervisors approved this with the city as tenant to relocate the district of attorney from the hall of justice and 732 brannon. in most commercial leases the landlord is entitle to pass through a share of the property taxes to the tenants. when possible to protect the city we include provision we call a prop 13 protection. section 4.76 the current lease contains a provision to protect the city from pass-through tax increases based upon recessments if the property is sold prior to july 2021 in this particular case. the owner is planning to sell the property. this lease amendment seeks to remove the prop 13 protection in exchange for rent credit of $2.85 million. in other words, the landlord is seeking to buyout the city's

prop 13 protection. $2.85 million is a negotiated figure based upon the estimated sales price of $134 million. at that price, it is anticipated that the recessment will result in a pass-through to the city of approximately $55,302 per month. $2.85 million credit will be provided to the city during the next two fiscal years. alternatively if city doesn't agree the land lord will wait to sell the property until after july 24, 2021 where the city would have no protections from the tax increase. in your packet there is an amendment to the resolution due to additional resolutions we were able to increase the represent credit from $2.6 million to $2.85 million. that red line reflects that

increase in the credit. i would like to thank supervisor peskin for his efforts in negotiation. i would like to thank the bla for hard work and we accept their recommendation. this concludes my presentation. john updike is here and he and i are available to answer any questions. >> nick mennards from budget analyst office. this would approval the amendment for 350 rohode island. under the current lease if the building is sold prior to july 2021, lexington must pay the city the increased property tax passed through by the new owner. under the proposed amendment to the lease if the building is sold lexington would pay the city $2.85 million now that the

legislation is revised. regardless of what the property tax increase actually is. we looked at the original amount from $2.6 million. on page 3 in table one, it is equivalent to 47 months of protection. we calculated net present value of the potential tax increases at sales prices and considered $2.6 million sufficient to compensate the city for the increase in property taxes. we continue to remember approval of the resolution given the increased amount. >> thank you very much. any comments or questions? seeing none, public comment. any public comment on item 1. seeing none, public comment is closed. i would like to thank supervisor pegs kin for his -- peskin for his work on this. i would like to move this to the board with a positiontive

recommendation. >> i believe there is an amendment. >> i make a motion to accept the amendment without objection. i would like to move this to the board with a positive recommendation as amended. thank you, madam clerk. can you please call item 2. >> resolution authorizing the mayor's office of housing and community development to execute the restated loan agreement with block 6 housing agreement for $18.6 million to finance the construction of is a 167 unit multi family rental housing development for low income households sunnydale hope sf block 6. >> thank you very much. we have sarah from mo hcd. i went to comment last week at the budget and finance committee i continued this item. it seems as though i was working off numbers that were not quite

accurate. today we are getting a clarification. thank you very much. >> thank you. the bla report last week raised concerns regarding construction costs on a preliminary number for parcel q and the final cost. we see appreciate the opportunity to clarify the development cost and block 6 today for sunnydale. this project is part of the hope sf initiative, which is a transformation of the communities that have seen decades of disinvestment. we are not only rebuilding the e public housing to include the communities without displacement of other residents. to date we have committed and rehoused 353 families at allis griffith. because of the scale and the time it takes to develop the project, the board will see the

projects at different phases. the report for the parcel q cost is at the end of 2016. parcel q numbers were based on cost per square foot. parcel q received full entitlements in march 2017 and construction in february 2018. the numbers here updated

the project over two years ago. thanks for your consideration. we are here to answer questions as well as the director of public housing initiatives. >> thank you for the clarification. any comments or questions by collies? see -- colleagues. did we have a report on this last week? >> we did. i have nothing more to add except we revised the recommendation to clarify what we are recommending. we recommend the committee a the resolution to request a report by december 9th.

>> public comment is now closed. i make a motion to accept the amendment from the bla without objection. thank you very much. a motion to move this with a positive recommendation as amended. thank you very much. please call item 3. ordinance to seek approval from the board of supervisors and mayor to execute memorandum with the city with a term up to 20 years providing the issuance of mountain view of to revokable license for the land for public recreational purposes in exchange for mountain view's grant for the easement and agreement to perform other services. >> thank you very much. >> good morning, supervisors. we seek your approval of the memorandum of agreement with the city of mountain view for use of land owned by the city and

county of san francisco under the p.u.c.'s jurisdiction and mountain view. the moa has several components. this results from over three years of negotiation between the staff and mountain view staff. if approved it will provide a model for future collaboration with other agencies. the p.u.c. has jurisdiction over parcels of real property in the city of mountain view. they are 80 feet line over which the transmission lines run. >> where is the picture? you can see the 80-foot right-of-way. mountain view uses a lot of our parcels for recreational uses such as parks, trails and a senior garden, and we allow these uses pursuant to seven

outdated rent free revocable permits. they dire to construct a -- they desire to construct a new park. in order to make this happen, we desire to enter into the moa before you with these components. the p.u.c. will issue seven new rent free modern licenses to replace the outdated licenses. these are for recreational uses on the p.u.c. parcels. the p.u.c. will issue a new n w license. these will have a potential term of 20 years. each will have an initial 10 year term and two five year extension terms to take effect unless the parties decide to terminate one of the licenses or mountain view is in default

under the terms of license. as consideration for the eight new licenses mountain view will provide the following nonmonetary consideration to the p.u.c. under the moa. first, mountain view will grant the puv permanent sub surface easement rights at no cost. in street crossings where the p.u.c. maintains pipeline and does not have doc you mentation of street -- documentation. they are at san mateo road and mountain view. by obtaining these easements the p.u.c. will avoid the risk and huge cost of being forced to relocate its pipelines within these street crossings. this has occurred in the east bay in the past. this is a situation we desire to avoid at all costs.

second, as consideration for the eight licenses mountain view will maintain a vacant p.u.c. parcel unless licensed to another party. this will save the cost of maintaining the property with trash removal and occasional weed removal. third, mountain view will remove 29 problem trees that prevent pipeline hazards on the p.u.c. parcels. mountain view will assist with community outreach to remove these trees and future encroachments pursuant to did encroachment policy. fourth, mountain view will reimburse for the property taxes the p.u.c. pays for the parcels that mountain view uses. currently the p.u.c. pays property taxes on all property in mountain view to the county of san mateo under our modern

practice. the revocable licensees are to reimburse us for property taxes. the taxes are so old there is no reimbursement. by entering new licenses we will recoup the property taxes for these parcels. fifth, the p.u.c. will pay for the cost of mitigation and removal of the mountain view improvements on the land if we need to disrupt improvements for. pipelines. moa will stay in effect so long as the licenses are in effect up to 20 years. based upon the substantial nonmonetary consideration the p.u.c. will receive from mountain view and property tax reimbursement. we recommend the board of supervisors wave approval requirements in 23.3 and 23.30

for this transaction. mountain view's recreational use is consistent with the p.u.c.'s community benefits to promote community health in the jurisdictions in which it has pipeline. the city of mountain view approved this in february of 2016 and commission approved it on may 28, 2019. thank you for your consideration. i am available for any questions. >> this opens to public comment. any members of the public want to comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> we are looking at this map that shows us the sites. these are all outdoor recreational sites is that correct. >> yes. >> is that area in green property of p.u.c. or just the areas with the recreation areas?

>> the area in green is the entire pipeline right-of-way we own. all but one parcel is licensed. we have a lot of agreements with private landowners for use of the right-of-way for uses like parking, landscaping, the rent comes back to the p.u.c. to defray the cost of operations. the parcels that are marked, i believe it is in yellow, are existing permits to the city of mountain view. you will see these are be loved recreational uses. >> so what i am looking at. there is a green line on our map. that green line is the pipeline. >> the property through which two pipelines run. >> our property we own? >> yes, the city and county of san francisco owns it under the

p.u.c. jurisdiction. >> all of this property here? >> yes. >> we have been given them this property rent free for how long? >> some licenses go back to 1970 when this was agricultural land. >> and then we are going into an agreement with them that says that they are able to use these areas for a park and that in-turn we have been paying taxes on this property that we own to mountain view, is that correct? >> no, we pay property taxes to the county of santa clara. mountain view for years reimbursed for some of the property taxes we pay. two or three of the existing licenses are so old there is no property tax reimbursement requirement in the licenses. >> for three-pieces of property there is no tax reimbursement?

>> i believe so, yes. >> do you know how much we have paid in taxes for those three-pieces of property? >> i don't know. the city of san francisco acquired this property many years ago. our property tax base is low. we could come back with that information if you require it. >> i am trying to understand the agreement that we own this property but we don't own some of the right-of-way, and that is what they are giving to us. is that correct? >> so we think we own some of the property in the street

for this agreement. >> may i answer? >> yes, so sorry. >> mountain view is waiting for this. the p.u.c. has a long standing commission policy that we allow free parks on our land in the communities in which we have our infrastructure. the free parks are with long

standing policy. it is a plus and mountain view is giving us this additional consideration of the permanent easements taking down very problematic trees that would cost thousands of dollars for the p.u.c. to remove and obtaining modern licenses that include complete property tax reimbursement. >> so my question. is there a timeline on this? >> mountain view would like this yesterday. >> supervisor stefani. >> with regard to the free parks in mountain view, are we paying, also, to maintain those parks? >> no, under the p.u.c. licenses, the p.u.c. alleviates the maintenance by having whoever occupies the park

maintain the park. >> i was thinking of sterling park in my district. thank you. >> there is no bla report on this. any questions? my hesitancy is, i am not convincedded it is fair -- convinced it is fair value, quite frankly. i don't see any real numbers that show that this is sort of a fair sort of transaction and we are getting our fair share of what i think this is an agreement of convenience. i don't think it is an agreement that is actually monetarily to our benefit. i am going to be frank.

therefore, i think that we have had this long standing relationship in mountain view and they want it yesterday. it doesn't seem to raise alarm from my colleagues. i just want on the record i think this is an agreement of convenience and not to -- this is the budget and finance committee and not really an agreement that benefits us monetarily. having said that, yes. >> can i make a suggestion? >> i agree with your line of thinking and not having further information does feel a little bit taken advantage of, i don't know. if we can request maybe follow-up information, approve it. >> more in-depth reports on whether or not -- to meet your

concerns. >> i would just say that i just don't see -- this is the budget and finance committee so i normally like to see some numbers on this. the value of the land that we are giving to them for free and also the cost. i get we have these pipes and that it would be ridiculous for us to redo them, but i don't really see sort of this cost balance and how we are benefiting monetarily. i can have a further discussion after this about maybe some numbers that i would like to see, however, i am willing to pass this out of committee today. i would like to make a recommendation to move this out of committee to the full board with a positive recommendation on the agreement that i believe

ms. russell will come back and give us our offices or even through e-mail some mormon terry or he -- monetary or physician calling analysis of this agreement. >> thank you very much. i would like to make a motion to move to the board with positive recommendation. thank you very much, supervisor stefani for your assistance. >> can you please read item 4. >> resolution authorizing the department of public health to submit a one-year application for 2020 to receive funding for h.i.v. and prevention programs and requesting $7 million in funding from january 1, 2020 to january 31, 2020. >> supervisor mandelman.

>> thank you, madam chair. i am going to invite johnny mill car to tell us about that. >> i am the healthcare coordinator in the community health equity and promotion branch. we are responsible for the allocation of h.i.v. prevention funds in the city. what is before you is an application or resolution to authorize our application for continued cdc funding a little over $7 million for the year 2020. that funding is actually allocated in three different pots. there is a primary pot for just about $4.2 million for the core h.i.v. prevention services. a little bit over $800,000 for

epidemiology and surveillance efforts. $2 million for opt-in or special demonstration project for low thresholds services for those experiencing homelessness. i am here to answer any program answers you may have. >> there is no report. let'sopen up for comment. seeing none, public comment is closed. supervise other mandelman. >> i move for a positive recommendation. >> without objection. can you please call item 5. >> resolution authorizing the department of public health to submit application to receive funding for the emergency relief grants program for the administration and requesting $16.1 million in h.i.v.

emergency funding for the eligible area for march 1, 2020 through 2021. >> do you want to tell us about this one? >> good morning. i am the assistant director of h.i.v. services. we service the grantee and administrator of federal and state grant dollars to provide services to low income san franciscans with h.i.v. i am here to request support for our annual application of grant dollars of $16.1 million and change. you have the amount in front of you. this reflects this year's current award plus 5% increase, which is the maximum allowable application we could submit based on the calculation. when we receive the grant we take about 10% off for

administrative cost. the remaining dollars are split between the three county ema with san francisco receiving 88% of the funding based on the proportion of persons living with h.i.v. in the three county area. it supports health services for h.i.v. positive ranging from primary care to dental, food, legal, home healthcare, transitional housing and other services. this funding represents 43% of the $37 million budget that we used to provide services for low income under insured h.i.v. positive persons. we work with the planning council who was mandated to prioritize ana and to allocate. in the last several years it has been reduced as san francisco's

share of the total national h.i.v. caseload diminishes in