[♪]

>> my family's starts in mexico in a small town. my parents are from a very, very small town. so small, that my dad's brother is married to one of my mom's sisters. it's that small. a lot of folks from that town are here in the city. like most immigrant families, my

parents wanted a better life for us. my dad came out here first. i think i was almost two-years-old when he sent for us. my mom and myself came out here. we moved to san francisco early on. in the mission district and moved out to daily city and bounced back to san francisco. we lived across the street from the ups building. for me, when my earliest memories were the big brown trucks driving up and down the street keeping us awake at night. when i was seven-years-old and i'm in charge of making sure we get on the bus on time to get to school. i have to make sure that we do our homework. it's a lot of responsibility for a kid. the weekends were always for family. we used to get together and whether we used to go watch a movie at the new mission theater and then afterwards going to kentucky fried chicken. that was big for us. we get kentucky fried chicken on sunday. whoa! go crazy! so for me, home is having

something where you are all together. whether it's just together for dinner or whether it's together for breakfast or sharing a special moment at the holidays. whether it's thanksgiving or christmas or birthdays. that is home. being so close to berkley and oakland and san francisco, there's a line. here you don't see a line. even though you see someone that's different from you, they're equal. you've always seen that. a rainbow of colors, a ryan bow of personalities. when you think about it you are supposed to be protecting the kids. they have dreams. they have aspirations. they have goals. and you are take that away from them. right now, the price is a hard fight. they're determined. i mean, these kids, you have to applaud them. their heart is in the right place. there's hope.

i mean, out here with the things changing everyday, you just hope the next administration makes a change that makes things right. right now there's a lot of changes on a lot of different levels. the only thing you hope for is for the future of these young kids and young folks that are getting into politics to make the right move and for the folks who can't speak. >> dy mind motion. >> even though we have a lot of fighters, there's a lot of voice less folks and their voiceless because they're scared. citybe . >> the hon. london breed: well, welcome, everybody. my name's london breed, and i am the mayor. weren't we here just last year,

celebrating the victory? first of all, i was at turkey day, and i didn't necessarily sit on lincoln's side to pick sides, i sat on lincoln's side somehow. i don't know how that ended up happening, but i think that i was your good luck charm -- oh, i was with you. many of you know i mean to galileo high school, and i am a big fan of our high schools and a big supporter and a fan of making sure we continue to uplift young people when they're doing something great not just as athletes, but we know you also have to keep your grade point up in order to play football in the first place. so to balance that at turkey day, and emerge for the second year in a row as state

champions is absolutely an incredible accomplishment. when you came here last year, i was really excited, but this year, i'm even more excited because i've got a special surprise for all of you. usually, when you win the super bowl, what do you get when you win the super bowl? exactly. we're going to make sure that each and every player gets a championship ring this year. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: so you get to design them yourself and figure out what you want on them. it's going to take a few weeks for them to get ordered and set up, but we are committed to supporting your championship ring so you can wear your rings with pride. and i'm really excited that you all are here today because we want to make sure that we honor you. and coach, come on up. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: come

on up. >> thank you. >> the hon. london breed: i just feel like i was your good luck charm because i did the coin toss and all that. it was a great day, and it was so fun. >> i would like to say, kerry bader, he said no mayor has been out to flip the turkey coin. so i hope we can make it a tradition and you'll be out when you get the chance. >> the hon. london breed: but i think it's really important. it's important that we support young people that are staying focused and positive, and the fact that this team has come together as a team and accomplished something so amazing under your leadership is really -- it's a testament to what you do. because i know they hear from you every day, they hear from their parents, telling them the

same stuff every year, to focus and to put on your gear. you know, i was like a lot of young people here, and i would tune it out and tune it out. but today is a great opportunity to let you know that your city supports you, that your city stands behind you, and we wanted to do something really special to make it clear we are proud of each and every one of you for putting in the hard work and getting to this point. and so today is about all of the young mustangs that really put san francisco on the map in a whole nother way. so thank you for this, coach, for this incredible opportunity, and we are looking forward to you designating whoever you want to coordinate the ordering of the rings and how you pick out what you buy. so you can have your school and your year. you know what we do. >> we'll do that.

>> the hon. london breed: congratulations. >> that's awesome. [applause] >> thank you so much. it's a great gift. it's totally unbelievable, and i really appreciate that. but we have something for you. >> the hon. london breed: for me? >> so basically, you know you went to galileo, so we have to make sure you're representing us when you walk-through the city. >> the hon. london breed: oh, you guys are so lucky. we didn't have this kind of stuff growing up. >> just a couple -- couple things just about this here. it shows the legacy of what we have here. >> the hon. london breed: oh, wow. >> this is called dedication, discipline, and desire, and we've been running the program for 19 years since i've been here. you have the dedication to run

something every day, you have t the -- dedication to run a program, the discipline to run it every day, and the desire to be a champion. >> the hon. london breed: wow. that's a lot of years. >> and so many travels that you go through, this was unreal. just kind of a different team than the year before. i tell everybody last year's team was a ferrari. you could do anything with it. this year's team was a buick. we had to run it out. it's amazing we did this, and it's amazing for them because they bought into what we were selling. the best thing is when we went up to mariposa, it's the

championship. none of on us kids have been -- none of our kids have been out of san francisco. what's that smell? well, that's cow smell. we rented a room to sit in before the game. and we went to this game. and here we are, asian, african american, white. different group against a predominantly white culture. and everyone was thinking we would be the ones who broke down, we would be the ones who pointed fingers at each other. we would be the ones who screwed it up. and you would be proud of us, mayor. we didn't screw it up. unbelievable. people there, unbelievable.

what we did just awe stirring for me. it's just amazing to see the guys pull together and be like that and represent your city so well. so that was amazing, and for that, we're going to give you the state championship hat because the nor-cal championship, we had to win that to get this. >> the hon. london breed: thank you. >> when you're walking around, make sure you represent that. >> the hon. london breed: what's that on your finger? >> that's last year's. >> that's last year's. >> the hon. london breed: look at that. undefeated. well, this year, i'm getting the ring. >> hold on. right on. we'll get that. >> the hon. london breed: thank you. and the last thing i want to say is, you know, soak up this mome moment. enjoy every single minute. you're going to look back at

this time and realize this was one of the best moments of your life. i know there's some folks from lincoln, so raise your hand if you're a lincoln alumni. they wish they were the age you are right now, in their seats right now. coach, you want to introduce your players? i'm here to enjoy. >> thank you. we have one young man to speak for us. it's an interesting story. simani came to us from another school his junior year, reardon. he went through a lot of stuff to get on the field. it was unreal, and his parents are great people. so timani, it's your turn. >> i was just trying to say

thank you to all the parents and all the alumni and all the coaches and, you know, making this year great, and helping us restate again and helping us and having our back this whole year. most importantly, my teammates because we did it again, especially the last year, all the seniors this year. we had all the odds against us. we weren't projected to win like we were supposed to, and we had a lot of people, you know, going against us and saying that we wouldn't make it, and we proved them wrong. >> so at this time, for our first group of eight players, brian pinto. [applause] >> jonas francovich.

luis quinteros. tyree cross. [applause] >> eduardo garcia. [applause] >> xavier abrams. [applause] >> jack lau. [applause] >> and at this time, i'll take a photo.

>> our next group of players is john tursano. thank you. [applaus [applause] >> diego ramirez. [applause] >> jeffrey franco. [applause] >> andres montano.

[applause] >> tony crossland. [applause] >> all right. take our next group of photos right now. next group of students, dean batar. [applause] >> nicholas walker. [applause] >> darren erfrey. [applause] >> michael leon.

[applause] >> tamani morris. [applause] >> alex mchugh. alex? [applause] >> our final group of student athletes, philip acuna. [applause] >> alexis velasquez. [applause] >> jonathan chow. [applause] >> sicoti manunua.

[applause] >> leonardo gallegos. mikha . [applause] >> mikhail hicks. [applause] >> and james wish. [applause]

>> so we're going to present certificates to the managers and coaches, and once we do the presentation of certificates, we'll take one big group photo here. i think we'll do it near the steps. all right. here we go. to the managers, cassandra matana. [applause] >> crystal pimentel. [applause] >> sharina gutierrez.

[applause] >> and elise hammond. [applause] >> and reilly zuleta wong. [applause] >> thank you, managers. >> and last but not least, our coaches. coach pereno, of course. [applause] >> coach andre walker thomas. [applause] >> coach greg wood.

[applause] >> coach edison zau. [applause] >> sheri bader. [applause] >> and coach mark walker. [applause] >> and again, i'd like to invite principal sherry bellisi to come up for a photo.

>> the hon. london breed: again, thank you to all the players, the coaches, the managers, the principal, the teachers, the alumni, the parents, the friends, the family. congratulations again, and i think what we're going to do at this time, since that concludes our program, we're going to go probably take a -- go down to the rotunda at the beginning of the stairs and take a picture. in the meantime, stay focused on your grades. make sure you don't give your teachers and parents a hart time this year. walk around like champions because you are champions, and

make sure that everybody knows it when you step in the room. thank you, and congratulations.

the department of emergency management declared this local emergency really to help us prepare better for the city to coordinate and respond to a potential outbreak. the declaration of a local emergency allows for much faster mobilization of city resources, accelerated emergency planning, streamlined staffing and coordination across the city. it also allows the city to be reimbursed from the state and federal governments. and it raises awareness throughout san francisco about how everyone can prepare in the

event that covid-19 appears in our community. also santa clara and san diego counties have taken the same action, similar declarations to bolster their preparedness. i'd like everyone to note that cruise ships visiting the port of san francisco come from domestic location, as well as from canada and mexico. the u.s. coast guard routinely reviews passenger records to document travel history of the vessel, passenger and crews, the coast guard has issued guidance on reporting it passenger symptoms, for passengers or crew. additionally, the cruise line international association has implemented preventative measures for all cruise lines to limit potential exposure. the federal government has worked to contain the virus and the health department is monitoring hundreds of returning travelers. it's important to remember that the risk of the virus is based on travel history and contacts, not race, ethnicity, or culture.

to stay up to date, please go to www.s fdph.org. i'll remind everyone in our city government, we have weathered other types of crisis before and the most important thing is to listen and stay up-to-date, not to panic or worry. but to instead stay informed and there will be more information as the situation evolves and our mayor is on top of coordinating the city and her departments and working with all that -- we'll be providing resources to us. so please stay up to date and informed and know that you will have good information as it's available, so please keep an eye on www.sfdph.org. and that concludes my executive director's report. >> thank you. is there any public comment on the executive director's report?

>> seeing none. >> request -- item 10-b, the port's fiscal year 2021 and 2021-2022. >> so moved. >> second. is there any public comment on the concept item? seeing none, public comment is closed. all in favor? >> aye. >> resolution 2009 and 2010 have been approved. >> item aa request approval of the port's fiscal year 2020-2022 and 20212022 biennial capital budget. >> torch a, commissioners. i am traity, the port's deputy

director for finance and administration. i'm here this afternoon to ask for the commission's approval of the port's capital budget for fiscal years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022. commissioners you had a number of questions for me and my staff two weeks ago. in response, we have provided you with additional information to help with your consideration of this budget request. that information includes a list of all projects that were submitted for consideration in the five-year c.i.p., a list of currently appropriated capital projects with balances, a more detailed description of the forced ranking process, that staff used to select projects for the c.i.p. and additional information about the waterfront beautification fund. so to address the two final

items, just to give you a little more information on how we prioritize projects for inclusion in the five-year capital improvement program. the deputies met as a group to review the projects. and we used a forced ranking process. and so what this was was every single project that we considered, we needed to decide whether that project was number one. when we came to the second project, is that project number one or number two. the third project. number one, number twoer or this three, so on and we made our way through 49 projects. at the end of the process we came up with a ranked list. we ranked our life safety projects first as a group on its own. and then we reviewed and ranked all of the other projects and considered items such as the projects useful life, whether or not it had to possible to generate revenue, what the return on investment would be,

the importance to the port's public trust, whether or not a project could feasibly be delivered and the urgency of that project. finally, just a little bit more information about the southern waterfront beautification fund. when staff reviewed the allocation to the beautification fund, we realized that the original appropriation request did not include a set-aside for the revenue we expect to collect in the southern waterfront over the next two fiscal years. so, as a result, we revised both the capital budget request and the staff report to assume that there will be an additional allocation of $2.5 million over the next two years, to conform with the port's southern waterfront beautification policy. so those are the highlights of the additional information in and the changes that we made and i am glad to answer questions

from the commission. >> thank you. can i have a motion? >> so moved. >> second. >> commission -- >> public comment. >> i'm sorry, is there any public comment on this item? we haven't had any public comment. [laughter] is there any public comment on this item? seeing none. >> i have no further questions, thank you. >> commissioner? >> i have no further questions. thank you for all of the material that we asked for. >> i have no questions. again thank you. this is feasible. >> sorry. vice president? >> katie, i have got about ten questions here. [laughter] >> i thought i'd shake you up a little bit. i know how shy and you are. i'm good. i have no questions, thanks. >> thank you.

>> katie, thank you so much. i want to thank you and your staff. because this is a lot of information. i know it takes a lot to pull it all together. and i really appreciate you adding the additional charts and responses to the items. and i just have a couple of questions. >> okay. >> and that is i'm -- so i guess what i was trying to understand is what was previously funded, if all of that has been completed or what is still incomplete or what still needs more funding? so we've got a lot of charts. but it's hard to really figure it all out together. and so, i mean, we can do a one-off and you can just, you know, walk me through that later. and then so on -- so what we're funding this year is

$84 million? 8877? >> no. >> go ahead. >> yeah. so for both fiscal years, for fiscal year 2020-2020, we're finding $55 million. in fiscal year 021-2022, yes that is -- >> so then the table three, with the proposed 2020-2021 budget, $54,000,689 and $29,000,589. >> i'm just finding this in the staff report.

>> this is table three. it doesn't have a page number. but it's before page 16. and after page 13. so it must be 14. >> so the $84,270,000. no. yeah. the 84278 is -- sorry, commissioner. so it's off by 3.1. pardon me for a moment.

>> commissioner, the total amount that we are proposing to fund in the next two fiscal years, for all appropriated projects, is $84.278 million.

that includes an additional $2.5 million for southern waterfront beautification. >> okay. so the chart on page 14 is the correct one? >> yes. >> okay. and then -- okay. so the attachment 1, where it has prior appropriations. what period is that over? >> i cannot answer that question. so it's over multiple fiscal years. >> okay. >> so projects can be appropriated -- capital projects are appropriated and they carry over from year-to-year, the money rolls forward. and because of the transition of

the financial system in 2017, it has become somewhat challenging for us to look back prior to fiscal year '17. >> okay. so -- so from this chart, these are projects submitted for capital funding. and this could be for like the last ten years? well, i guess from me it will be easier if the prior appropriation were for a period certain, whether it's the previous year or the last two years. >> right. >> so we can really understand. i think what i was really trying to figure out is how do we do last year? as far as what was appropriated, what was completed, what still needs to be complete or, you know, that was really what i was trying to figure out. so this sheet leaves more questions than answers.

[laughter] >> sorry to hear that. so at the beginning of the staff report, we do note the projects that we completed in fiscal year 2018-2019. >> i saw that. i saw completed projects. okay. and then -- but it was the appropriations. so i wasn't sure if these were all the projects from last year, with -- or if they were the projects projects from last year that had remaining balances? so on page 4 of the staff report, we list six projects that we completeed in fiscal year '18-'19. >> okay. so what list are they on? >> they're just in the text. they're not in a table. >> got it. got it.

so there's no dollar amount. there's no cost associated. but these were -- >> those are the projects that we completed. >> thank you. >> the projects that we note on page 8, in table 1, are projects that have been completed over some past potrero. -- past period of time, not necessarily in the past year. we as finance staff need to get a little bit better working with our colleagues in the engineering division to go through and close out projects, when the projects are completed. unfortunately what happens now is when a project is complete and the funds aren't necessarily pulled out of the project and closed to fund balance. we need to just go through on a regular basis, probably on an annual basis to do that work to close outed funding. so the projects that are listed in table 1 on page 8 have likely

been complete for some period of time. >> okay. okay. so i think it's -- for us who are not part of the finance staff, do not deal with this on a daily basis, when we see it two, three times a year. i think it's easier for us to be able to understand it if we can see a history, as well as a projection. but really understanding how we're doing with our projects. so the projects that we're approving this year, so next year -- when and where will we see how those projects will progress. >> right. >> that's what's missing for me. that's what i was trying to get a picture of. >> okay. >> you know, how are we doing? and are some of these projects that we're trying to fund, were they previously funded or is this new funding? you know, just trying to understand the progression.

so i'm -- okay. and then amador street sewer and pavement repair. it was appropriated some time ago. >> yes. >> is that a project influx or in progress? >> yes, it is. and i at some point may defer to my engineering colleagues on this. am score street is has received multiple multiple over the last five years. in the most recent capital appropriation processes, we were reviewing am score. it became clear that we are still doing due diligence to understand what the total scope of that project needs to be. we've been working with d.p.w.

it's a sewer improvement project. and it -- as we were as staff doing -- having a call for projects and then doing analysis on those projects, it became clear that am score street likely will need more money. but we don't know yet how much more. and so we chose for now not to include additional funding in the budget. >> okay. but that $7 million is still set aside? >> yes, it is. >> we don't know how long it's been there? we don't know -- we don't know when we're going to use it? >> we can analyze how long it's been there. so we can analyze how long and what years that there was appropriations to am score street. the issue has always been the design on am score street. we need to do the sewer differently and the stormwater management differently.

but getting an actual project design -- so this is a project that's been stuck in design for some time, getting a good design that the department of public works signs off and would accept am score one day as a city street, is where we've gotten caught off guard. so the design has continued to go on and with different types of solutions. but the money sitting there is similar to it sitting in fund balance, in that whether it sits in a project or sits in unappropriated fund balance, has the same result, more or less. but i think what might be useful is to have a capital conversation and informational item, where we give you what you're asking for, which is to look at what was appropriated, what projects we funded last year and how they're going. and what projects are still open and into the closed. some of them are new projects, from a year or so ago. and some of them will be much, much older, like pier 35

substructure, where we've been thinking about that for years and waiting on an army corp match. i think we should schedule an informational item to dig into capital. it's a good time to do so. two budget cycles ago you funded a project management office and so we've been taking a lot of efforts internally to deliver capital more efficiently, with the small staff we have. so it's a good time to update you on what -- on the questions you're asking. >> right. that would be wonderful. and then my last question is south beach harbor. >> yes, ma'am. >> and the $7 million. and just wondering if whatever we're going to spend this money on, would any of this be taken care of in the r.f.p. that's been put out, or with the resiliency? >> no. so south beach harbor has been set up as its own little enterprise within our -- within the port enterprise. so these projects are specific

to the harbor and their needs for the marina and you're just about to get an informational report from the director of that marina. for pier 38 and 40r.f.p., that's a separate process to try to bring in private investment and repositioning of those piers. and resiliency is tackling other issues related to the seawall and flood on the line of the embarcadero. so these projects are related to providing an a-plus customer service to all of the recreational boaters, doing maintenance and repair, dredging on the harbor, operationsself. and we've structured it so the money the harbor earns is the one the harbor spends. and they've -- i keep calling them "they." they're part of our family. we've applied the capital set-aside policies and discipline to make sure the harbor generates enough revenue to take care of itself. >> right. okay.

i think that's all my questions. does anybody else have any questions? okay. thank you, katie. i really appreciate this. all in favor? >> aye. >> resolution 2011 has been approved. >> thank you so much, commissioners. >> 12a, informational presentation on the financial and operational performance of south beach harbor. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is joseph monroe. i'm the harbor master of south beach harbor. >> joe, can the pull the mic right up to your mouth. >> i'm here to give you the presentation on the financial performance of south beach harbor. all right. south beach harbor is a full-

service marina consisting of 700 disciplines. third largest in the bay. we have a guest dock, the south guest dock. we provide commercial access and also recreational access as well. slips consist of up to 30 -- excuse me. i'm sorry. 30 feet up to 100 feet. back in 1986, the harbor was constructed and managed by the san francisco redevelopment agency. and in 2012, the port of san francisco assumed operational responsibility. in 2015, the commission approved transfer of assets and operation to the port. in april 2019, the transfer was finalized, when the cal voting documents were approved. some of the partnerships we have down in south beach harbor, south beach yacht club, that's a

500-member, all-volunteer club. they're known for their great races that they put on each year and they're known to draw up to 40 vessels during the summer. and they also provide a nice junior sailing program for the youth. and that really helps get our youth out on the water and hopefully provide us with new recreational boaters in the future. we also do work with the san francisco bay keepers. they specialize in outreach and education on keeping the bay clean, which is very important. and they also put on an annual parade and a run in which they use harbor facilities. some of our operators that come down to the harbor, commodore, bay cruises and events and also horn blower cruises. we get into south beach harbor

pier 40 shed, we have a number of on-shore tenants. some of those are spinnaker sailing and city kayak, boat washington, to name a few. actually have a knew photos i wanted to go over with that. okay. here we go. when the port took over management of the south beach harbor marina and pier 40 shed, the decision was made to have the department take over the tenant leases and management of the property. some of those improvements have been made over the last few years. and t-we updated and re-signed leases with all of the onshore tenants. we added a new alarm system with cameras inside and out of the shed. we also divided the bay -- i'm sorry, the shed into bays to provide new space for new businesses along with adding new storage lockers for rent. here is a perfect example of some of our public access we have down at the harbor. right here what you see is the

south promenade on the shed. there it overlooks the harbor, gives you a nice view and you can see oracle park. in the view. also if you are looking to the left toward the end, you'll see the bay bridge. it definitely provides a nice area for the public to come down and enjoy themselves, also providing benches and things that of that nature. if they want to walk out with their families, they can do that. we look forward to continuing rcbc improvements. some of those include resurfacing and adding guardrails, so they can -- the public can further go around the back end of the pier 40 shed and enjoy that wonderful view. earlier we were talking about some of those projects that we're working on we have in the cue. one of those is a north guest dock. as you can see here, we need to go ahead and replace this dock.

if you were down at the harbor any time over the last year or so, you'll see that the docks are actually not there. this is an old picture. but we hope to add 350-foot dock, while also providing a better commercial landing space for some of those cruise-ins, like the commodore and things like that. and also we plan on adding a kayak dock for public use. this project is estimated at around $3.5 million. here's another one of those important projects right here. there's the baffle wall. the port maintenance team, the divers will be taking care of this for us. we were looking at the slide, you'll see that we have a lot of those panels that are off-level. so we need to raise and realign those panels and fill in the gaps to make sure that we get no more seepage of silt and build-up coming from the north side into the south side. you know, so once we do that,

that will decrease the need to dredge, which is something we're also looking at. this project is estimated at around $300,000. right here one of the most important parts of this presentation is the financial slide that shows the progression from 2012 and 2013, moving all the way up to where we sit currently. since the port of san francisco assumed management of south beach harbor, several steps have been taken to streamline and stabilize the harbor financial situation. in 2013, we increased the berthing fees by 22%, and we spread that over three years. we also had exodus come in and manage our insurance program. we increased the fees and on wait-lists and our landing fees. most importantly we were able to pay off the balance of a bond debt. since the port took over

management of south beach harbor, we've gone from a net negative of a million dollars to a net positive $1.4 million, while also paying off that bond debt, which as you can see earlier in the presentation, it's very important that we put those funds back into the harbor. and provide a nice harbor, for not only the tenants, but the public that comes down to the harbor. so our goal is simple. we want to continue to enhance the harbor while maintaining our status as the top marinas in the bay and make sure that the harbor is providing for our tenants and the public for years to come. this completes my presentation. and i am open for questions. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, commissioner gilman? >> thank you for the presentation. and your great work to move it -- the operations forward, so we have positive cash flow going through. i have one question which i hope

-- a couple of months ago, maybe six or nine months ago, there was some emails to the commissioners around issues around the restroom situation and the public restrooms at pier 40. i was wondering if that had been resolved? >> yes, ma'am. we are speaking on the restrooms inside the pier 40 shed or carman's? >> i thought it was within pier 40 shed? >> inside the shed we have the v.i.p. heads. and so those are -- you know, we have a code. if we're not using the code, we're using a key. >> those are adequate for the tenants and they're feeling good about it? >> yes, ma'am. thank you so much for the preparation. congratulations again on moving forward. to a positive cash flow. >> thank you. >> thank you. commissioner woo ho? >> thank you very much. i think i have seen this really great journey since we first took it over and all of the issues and it seems like it's on a steady path. that's great progress.

thank you very much. so i just want to correlate. because we just went through the capital plan and there was money that was previously spent on south beach harbor. you're talking about this $3.5 million. and then looking back at the capital plan, you know, we have $3.1 million. and part of it also, as i remember when we inherited this bcdc at the times i recall the estimated capital improvements, they insisted that we undertake was something like $10 million. so i'm just trying to understand how much of the bcdc requirement have we met and how much of the proposed new improvements, that you mentioned in your deck, are part of the bcdc or are they in addition to the bcdc, to improve the south beach harbor? >> we're going to get you help, joe. [laughter] so i'm going to start it and diane ocean is going to help us with more. so we had -- the redevelopment agency had some unmet bcdc

requirements on the break water. and we've been working with joe and with bcdc to change that permit requirements, to yield us better access to the facility. and diane ocean can come up and give an update on how the process is going. long and short, we haven't provided public access on that break water. but we're working with bcdc to change that requirement. come on up. >> that's not part of all of this funding that we're talking about? >> it is not. >> hopefully that $10 million overhang is not the same as we thought it was? >> i'll have diane give you an update. >> good afternoon. >> my memory is correct, $1 million? >> absolutely correct. >> we are in the midst of a permit amendment request. and it would reduce the -- what we're basically proposing is that we put in more water

recreation-related public access benefits, instead of the high cost pier apron public access, that was required under the redevelopment agency's permit. and so we are in the process of getting cost estimates for what would cost, which would be at a much lower cost point than what the original obligation was. and assuming that we can make sure that we have a financing strategy to cover those replacement obligations, our intention is to go forward and to square up our -- >> bcdc at this point sort of receptive to our proposals? >> yes, they are. >> okay. that would be wonderful. >> thank you. >> and then i guess you can now answer the numbers that seem like different numbers i see here. you have $3.5 million. there's $3.1 million. what we spent already and what we have in the capital plan. so are the numbers all squared away the same, similar? >> so, commissioner, so the

numbers that were included in the capital budget, that you just approved, are -- we are planning to appropriate over the next two fiscal years $3.1 million. that's for capital work at sought beach harbor. >> okay. so okay then going forward when we look at this income statement i guess, or financials, right now the capital improvements are not listed under the expenditures, right? these are just operating expenditures. >> yes, that's correct. with the assumption that the net falls to fund balance and then is appropriated for capital work as necessary. >> before we get so excited that we have all of this extra cash, it's really totally used up? >> yes. [laughter] yes. the deferred maintenance need at the harbor will more than absorb the $1.4 million in net revenue. >> and in principle, i don't know that we've made a firm

policy decision, but we are basically saying whatever we generate in net is being reinvested in south beach harbor and not diverted to any other capital projects? that's a policy that we have adopted, correct? >> that's how the port is managing the facility. i don't know if you have affirmatively adopted that policy, as a commission policy level. but that is how we're managing the harbor. and i do believe that when we discussed taking the facility from the redevelopment agency, we discussed the importance of paying down the debt and investing on that revenue and capital to make sure that the facility continued to just be such a good value to the customers. but when we got the facility, it was getting into -- the life cycle where investment was going to become more critical. so we were very eager to pay down the bonds, so we would have adequate capital to keep the facility up. i don't think you've adopted a formal policy, the net revenue

from the harbor supports the capital work at the harbor. that's how we're managing the operation. >> we've always asked periodically to get a sort of update, stand-alone on how south beach harbor operates in terms of -- and i think it's really great to see that we have paid off that loan, because that was sort of a -- sort of a middle stone around our neck when we inherited. it's great to see the negative numbers. we knew that when we inherited it, we were inheriting something negative and to turn it into a positive. my last question is technical. if we have boats that want to come in that are over 100 feet, where do they dock? where do they go? so like if you have a super yacht come in. >> that's for joe and andre or dominick if he's here. >> yes. so we do have the south guest dock, which can accommodate on a transient or just a special

excursion landing. it can accommodate those south -- a accommodate the vessels. for super yachts they have docked at other piers along the waterfront. so pier -- what comes to mind, pier 15, pier 35 north. if there aren't berthing conflicts at some of the cruise terminal facilities we can accommodate larger yachts there. then in the southern waterfront as well, at pier 50 and at the shipyard. >> okay. i don't know whether there's an opportunity for us to continue to attract them? and i know in certain ports that are popular in the mediterranean, they make a lot of money off the docking fees. >> yes. i don't know if that's an opportunity for us to continue to think about that? >> we've had prelim discussions on it in the southern waterfront. >> the last question in the staff report, you mentioned 90% occupancy on the slips. and there's a wait-list. so what's the 10%?

is it because you're waiting for people to -- how does that 10% factor in, the fact that you have a long waiting list? >> correct. we have about 25 transient slips. so we keep those open. and then not to mention we're still -- we have people that -- the slip fees rise, we do have some folks that are exiting the harbor. so we account for that by people that are exiting the harbor and people coming off the wait-list. >> so the 90% is really we are at maximum occupancy? >> yes, ma'am. >> the others are transient slips. >> we're repricing every year now? >> we have. yes. we've set our c.p.i. and reprice every year. and joe with his team has instituted a fee to be on the wait-list to clean up that wait-list. when we started managing the harbor, there was no cost to be on the wait-list. and kind of no one ever left and the wait-list was very, very

long. so with some of the changes in operation, i think the wait-list is smaller and reflects actual interest. and we have slightly more turnover since we've increased the rates to market. >> correct. >> thank you. >> commissioner makras? >> thank you for the presentation. no questions. >> vice president adams? >> joseph monroe, this is the first time i've ever seen you here. is this your first presentation? >> yes, sir. >> you did a great job. >> thank you. >> i noticed my years being a commissioner, and herb on the -- and everybody on the staff, eyes just move or look at mike martin. just very -- they look that way. and definitely rescue them. i really appreciate the history. i didn't know at one time that redevelopment had owned it. and just the history is quite interesting. in your job as the harbor master, where do you see the

port going, especially with the south beach harbor, like commissioner woo ho said like trying to get bigger ships in? is that something you think we can do and make more money? >> yes, sir. i definitely think that. when we do replace that north guest dock, a portion of that dock can be used for those larger vessels. and as far as where i see the harbor and where we're trying to push it, we definitely need to push it on the more technical side. you know, stepping into the future, just with how we provide service to the customers. so if we can do that, especially with the younger crowd coming up, we want to make it easier for them. we just want them to be able to come out and just enjoy their vessel, you know. and make things easier for them, where there's technically when they're dealing with the office,

administratively, things of that nature. >> you mentioned the yacht clubs, the gatekeepers, excursion operators. does this allow like kids from the community or school kids to come down and have access to the port and see these things? >> yes. definitely. so i highlighted the south beach yacht club. you know, every year in the summer, the entire summer they have that youth sailing program. and they get kids out and usually what i do is i'll go over and i'll speak with them and kind of explain what i do. you know, because not only do we want folks on the water, but we still need folks on the technical side as well, because i know that i have friends and family that some folks that they don't know the operation of a harbor or what a harbor master is. so i try to educate them on that. >> okay. well, thank you. congratulations. >> thank you. >> on your new job. >> joe, thank you so much for

this report. this is extremely encouraging. and good to know that the harbor is becoming self-sufficient, not totally. but becoming. so i want to thank you for all that you've done to make that happen. just have one question. that is regarding the boating loan. how much longer do we have that? or do we have to pay that? >> many years. [laughter] i think we have at least 20 years left on that loan. >> oh, really. >> yeah. redevelopment took a 45-year term with cal boating. >> wow! nice. okay. >> andre is whispering behind me, 2036. 15 more years. >> okay. that's not as bad. thank you. i just want to say i think joseph is doing a phenomenal job at south beach harbor. and not only is he the harbor master, he sets up tables and chairs and does whatever needs to be done to make everyone

happy. i appreciate your preparation. >> thank you. thank you. >> clerk: item 13 a, request authorization for staff to enter into a 99-year ground lease for parcel e2 at the praised value of $5 million. >> good afternoon, commissioners. rebecca beicini. i direct projects at the port. happy to be providing the follow-up to the february 11th presentation we had two weeks ago. i want to acknowledge some folks in the audience who may help me answer questions. you'll see me eyeball them for support. christine from the port, mike and annette. also want to acknowledge kelly presser who is here in the audience from brookfield and tim rundy who was the peer review appraiser on this project. i'm happy that tim was able to join us today. i'm going to go through slides that are going to be a little bit familiar to you from two weeks ago. i want to point out, as i'm going through, that the decision or the request we're making of

you today really focus on that action item. you'll see that it's the -- we're trying to provide ourselves and the developer the opportunity to transact on a parcel. we're trying to spewed transaction on another parcel. and we really feel this is the best path we have and a limited set of options that are set out in the pier 70 framework transaction document. i'll try to keep coming back to the action item that's before you today, as there's a lot of detail that i know can get -- can blur the vision in terms of what you're looking at today. here's an overview of the pier 70 site. pier 70 is a three-phase project, well under way. construction started in 2018. the horizontal construction started in 2018. we have highlighted for you the seven phase-one parcels, blue means office, yellow means condo or apartment/residential, red means flex cultural, the big red

box is the only building that's under construction. the two parcels we want to speak about today are highlighted in the dark blue, a at the top of the screen, e2 at the bottom of the screen. both of the sites haveup gone quite a lot of design work. e2 is a multi-family residential apartment site. it's about 281 units. 20% of those are about 56 units are affordable to households making 80% of the area median income or below. parcel a is a commercial office building. you might have seen sop arms about it. it has a unique mass timber construction type, that's sort of renewable and more sustainable construction type. it's about 350,000 square feet. the d.d.a. that governs the entire pier 70 transaction, that we have with brookfield, sets forth the process by which brookfield has the opportunity to exercise options. thank you very much the option -- they have the option of the

19 parcels of the site. they can lease or buy, whether a condo or leased site. including parcel aand e2. the the jointly selected appraisaller from a list approve where had the d.d. a.. we came up with the department of real estate and with brookfield. we jointly select an appraiser. the d.d.a. then goes -- allows the appraiser to go through the process of drafting. we provide comments back to them, all transparent to one another. we can only communicate, so longs we're on the same email chain or phone call. at the end of the process, the d.d.a. allows the appraiser to set the value. if the value is above the down market thresholds, that's the

value generally that we thought each parcel would be worth, if it's above the threshold, brookfield can exercise the option or decline their option. we can take it to market. if it's below that value, then that triggers sort of a decision point for both parties in their sole discretion. that's why we're before the port commission, because in our sole discretion, we can take this action. we only come to you with the hard questions. so we're here now. we have appraisals for both sites. you can see each site appraised value and its down market threshold. e2 is shown here. it's down market threshold was $11.3 million, parcel a, down market threshold was 12 $8 million, aphrased value $66 million. on an individual basis, we now have a potential down market on one and a very well above market on the other.

the total on the write is just for comparison purposes, at approvals we thought the two parcels might be worth $24 million. turns out one appraiser thinks they're worth $71 million. i talked a little bit about what the process is in the d.d.a. but i want to take a moment to talk about what the appraise did. in particular for e2 and for a as well. the instructions state that the appraiser must continue a lease two approaches to value. one of the approaches to value is called the residual value analysis. and then they can select another. they can select a cost approach or a sales comp approach or another approach that they deem appropriate. they can do more than two as well. the independent appraiser initially came with a $1 million value for e2. we had many, many comments to get it up to are $5 million. ultimately it's important to note that they -- in this

analysis, the residual value, which considers the cost and the value of construction, they came up with a negative $13.4 million value, with that approach. they then also looked at the sales comp approach. they ultimately selected three land sales between 2018 and -- that occurred between 2018 and 2019, that were most comparable to the site. using that analysis, they came up with the value of $10 million. so this is a really important bracket exercise that they did. they thought the site is worth somewhere between negative $13.4 million or $10 million. and they create that bracket and they ultimately decided that taking into factors that are particular to the site, that the value should be about $5 million. i want to point out that the residual value analysis, they're looking at construction costs, they're looking at rental rates, they consider all of the important factors and the reason they didn't respond to our comments, as much as we wanted them to and going from the $1 million initial value to the $5 million, they noted was -- to

a couple of things. construction costs they think are going to keep going up. rental rates they don't think are going to go up. the 20% on-site inclusionary units is somewhat higher than some of the comps that they were looking at. also the pier 70 tax it's not -- it's not a huge tax, but it's relatively unique in san francisco. and the other item with the special tax, that just creates a little bit of risk for the developer, they have to pay on a date certain, regardless whether the building is built and occupied. those are the factors they cited in noting how they were looking at the valuation of both of the approaches. what do we do now? do we considered our paths really, really carefully. the one we are ultimately recommending to you is to transact the parcels together. the reason we came to this is a couple of things. first, i think that we felt that

it was really important. these are the first two parcels is pier 70. it's really important to us to get money into this deal. and to start to create that community, that the horizontal construction is creating. i think it's a really important policy outcome for us. the other key thing is that by tieing the two parcels together and moving up that high-valued office parcel, they could have transacted it up to 18 is months, we moved that all the way up to no more than 180 days. in this case, time is really money for the port. we're accruing about a $1.4 million return on the amount of money that brookfield has spent on the horizontal, the faster we can get money into the deal, the better. it allows us to start bonding. we need to sign to get the c.f.d. bonds. we also available the down

market delay on the two parcels. if we're able to tie them together and sign this letter, that would require them check the option within 120 days, then they would not be able to call down market delay in the document. if they call down market delay on the two parcelser the timing of a and e2 is suspended until we have an appraisal above the down market threshold for e2. the one drawback of this is that the e2 land value is lower than the port expected at approvals. we tried to make this pill a little easier to swallow by moving up the a parcel and ensuring they'll transact on that in the 120 and 180 -- they have to exercise the option at 120 days, close on the parcel in an additional 60 days, up to 180 days total. we considered very seriously the alternative path. and this is a little bit of a, you know, game theory process. we also have the alternative set forth here, which is we can

dispute the e2 appraisal. brookfield could do the same. that then sets up a sort of process of arbitrated appraisals, where two additional appraisals are brought ontoward. if they're not closed with one another, we have a appraiser who breaks the tie and can determine the actual value. that could result in one good outcome. and that is that we get a higher value on e2. that would be what we are seeking in doing that dispute. there are job acts. we don't know whether or not the new appraisal -- how much higher it might come in, or if it comes in higher at all. we think, based on our conversations with our appraisal consultant, who is here today, that it is unlikely to get up to the $12 million value. even if it did, we would lose out on the value we've created by putting the two parcels together, because a would be

closing on its normal timeline of potentially up to 18 months. so we would lose out on that value. we might gain something in an e2 value. we might lose something by losing the time benefit that we have in the deal, before today, which is moving a. up. according, it's just a general delay in the project. it would delay the housing units coming online and, of course, we talked about any delays are -- time is money for the port. so we looked at this really seriously. and i'm as much of a betting -- i like to roll the dice like anybody else, the two paths, one created too much uncertainty. the other one created more of a certain path. where at least we have the opportunity for both of these parcels to head to the finish line together. so this just sums up, the slide sums up a little bit of what i said. the rationale for taking this path, we follow the process in the d.d.a. we worked very hard to try to get the values up. the appraiser, who looked at

both parcels, use as very similar approach on both parcels. and then the outcomes rationale is that the deal we've tried to put together, for your consideration, it's gaining us a lot of outcomes we want. two parcels going at once, instead of one and then another one being very uncertain. spieds up the office closing, which is a value to the port of about $6.5 million, relative to how long they can take to close. that's a clear financial benefit for the port. we also ensure that the apartment parcel isn't left behind, if things went through the dispute process and they didn't reach a down market delay threshold of the $12 million for e2, then the office parcel could potentially go and e2 would lag until the appraisal came up. so overall we thought the alternative path could potentially cost us money and it had some uncertain benefits that really rely on how the appraisal process comes out. here's the request for you today. it's to approve the resolution. the resolution would allow the port to offer brookfield the

option to transact on e2, below the down market threshold and provide us the opportunity to deliver the balanced office and residential start to phase 2, phase 1 vertical development. should brookfield choose to exercise the option. if we get that approval today, this is the process that would go forward. we'd offer the option in exchange for speeding up parcel a. we'd linked two options together. if they elect to exercise the option, 120 days from now, we'd enter those contracts within 60 days we'd have to close on those leases. if that 120-day mark comes along and they don't exercise both options, then both parties revert to the existing rights that they have in the documents today. so we would be in likely a dispute scenario. we'd still get to roll the dice then i guess. so that's the presentation i have for you today. happy to answer questions. >> thank you.

can i have a motion? >> so moved. >> second. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner makras. >> i have a couple of handouts here. if you could pass them down. a couple of handouts for everybody. thank you, president brandon. i am happy to share my views of the agreement, both in terms of strength and weaknesses. at the time that we are asked to inject our oversight to the development agreement. this is the first opportunity to do so. we are acting in the interest of the public now and in a future, none of us will live to see. we cannot focus on the immediate term or failure to give weight

to the long-term represented in our decision today. pier 70 and the development agreement, the san francisco port entered into with brookfield properties, a project that i support. i will honor and oversee implementation of the development agreement from time to time, as required by the agreement. i will not support a 99-year lease at $9 million reasonable value. i will support a 99-year lease at $28.2 million, fee simple value. i believe $28.2 million is the fair-market value for parcel e2 at pier 70. what is being asked of us today is to approve a per-unit value at $32,000, when comparables are valued at $100,000 per unit. what we are being asked to do today so approve a land transaction at $5 million, where

the true value is approximately $28.2 million. i believe a weakness in the agreement was a decision to accept a fully pre-paid grounds lease for parcel e2. i believe a better disposition of the parcel would have been a standard lease with annual rent payments. a rent schedule on a fixed term for 30 years to allow the developer to fully pay off a standard 30-year loan, then implement a market rental value with escalating rents, in accordance with land value, adjusted from time to time, like every five years or ten years. this would yield the port a more index value, it would create a cash flow for the san francisco port and would yield substantially more money over a 99-year lease. if we were to set a land value at $28.2 million and take a

simple 3% annualreturn, we will yield $846,000 annually. over a ten-year period, our income would be $8.4 million. in 99 years, without any rent increase, our lifetime income would exceed $83 million. with some rent increases, it can well exceed $100 million. i do not support taking $5 million, as is suggested by the appraiser, in exchange for foregoing $8.4 million over the next ten years, or $100 million over the lifetime of this lease. let me share my view in another way. if we were to get $846,000 in annual rent, we can debt surface over $20 million of our capital project each 30 years. so this cash flow can effectively pay for over $60 million in capital projects

over the life term of this lease. this is a much better use of parcel e2, at pier 70, than a one-time payment of $5 million. i will share a few facts that support the value of parcel e2 at pier 70 at $28.2 million. i submit for your review 22 sales of entitled projects that have sold in san francisco. these are sales in 2017, 2018, and 2019. i put all of my weight on the five sales that took place in 2019 for the sole purpose of this evaluation. the prior years are secondary consideration. the five sales are large parcels ranging in unit count from 118 to 418 units. parcel e2 at pier 70 is a 282-unit entitled project.

sales of these parcels range from $10 million to $78 million. the per-unit price range is $54,000 to $233,000 per unit, rounded off to the nearest thousand dollars. i believe the best comparable for parcel e2 of these five is pier 70, partial k north, which the port of san francisco told -- sold for $24 million or $95 million per unit. and 14 otis sold for $40 million or $95,000 per entitled unit. for a point of reference only, i submit for your review 13 sales of entitled projects sold in oakland. that's page 2 of what i handed out. these are sales for 2017, 2018, and 2019. i put my weight on seven sales

that took place in 2018 and 2019. the seven parcels are sales of large parcels, ranging in unit count from 130 units to 450 units. the sale of these parcels range from $7 million to $42 million. the per-unit range is $49,000 a unit to $93,000 a unit, again rounded off to the nearest thousand dollars. the comparables on face value demonstrate the appraisal before us is inferior. who would ever believe an appraisal for a san francisco-approved project was appraised for less than a similar sized project in oakland. in support of my belief for a $28.2 million value, i refer you to the appraisal. that is the second handout that i provided. on page 144 of the appraisal,

the appraiser uses a land value at exactly $28.2 million value or $100,000 a unit. their own statement of value in this section of the appraisal supports my conclusion of value for parcel e2 at pier 70 at $28.2 million. i do not believe we are or the public would be best served by accepting an appraisal that is not based on market or comparable values. i would encourage the commission to reject this appraisal. thank you, madam president. >> okay. rebecca, would you like to respond? >> i think -- thank you for the comments. i've distributed some of the material to some of the folks that are here today to help me out, if they have comments in digesting the information.

the one comment i think it's important to make, it was an interesting, have deinteresting calculation of what we might do with the money. the commission might recall that the structure of the deal requires that all of the leases are pre-paid. while brookfield has outstanding developer capital. practicalfield has about $100 million of investment they've put into the site in dodge construction, that -- site in horizontal construction. so every lease until that is paid off, has to be pre-paid, 99-year pre-paid lease. all of the money from the pre-paid ground lease goes into repay the horizontal construction cost. so that isn't an option unfortunately under the transaction terms, they invested the money in the horizontal order in order to be repaid through the vertical and through subsequent bonds. i think on the valuation, if i could pause for a minute, and we hear other comments, while i confer with some others to look at the comps and see whether or not there's any response that we can provide.

>> thank you. commissioner woo ho. >> it's not an easy transaction. i think that commissioner makras has pointed out something in isolation, in terms of his technical analysis and we appreciate that he went to the great extent of his research. i guess when i have reviewed this project and looked at it in terms of holistically, in terms of what we're gaining in terms of tieing the two parcels together, and as i recall from last time when we talked about it, the difference in value at that time was made up in terms of the timing of the closing of the escrow that the port would make up in terms of from a cash basis. so from a value basis, i'm not in a position to debate with the experts. because i'm not an appraiser myself. and i think that we have obviously have both the port, brookfield and a third party and we would ask the consultants

maybe to comment, to help us respond to some of the comments. so i think that, you know, we've worked on this project and i think the concern that i would have is that if we were to not accept this amount in terms of the value, what it does to the transaction and obviously brookfield is here and they could tell us what they would do. and endanger the continued development timeline of this project, which has been something we've worked on for i don't know how many years now. >> long time. >> for a long time. it's a very important project. it's one of the key projects of the port. along with mission rock in terms of the whole development. so there are some consequences that i think we have to think about holistically. what i think that -- while i'm not going to debate whether $5 million is right or wrong, i think what i did see in the presentation and in the staff report is the fact that the other parcel is coming in higher than what we had anticipated. and helps to offset.

so i think that the offset and i think, unless we can see say that the offset is insufficient, that i think that we are economically not worse off in this transaction. though there may be some, you know, we cannot go back and change the terms of the pre-paid leases rebecca has just mentioned. i think we have to look at the transaction holistically. are we going to move this development forward and tieing the two transactions together help us to get back on track. or are we going to now jeopardize what the future is. i guess i would ask that question. are we jeopardizing the future of the development if we do reject this appraisal? >> i can make some comments. so what we're asking you to do is to allow us to transact the housing or apartment parcel below the strike price. and that strike price was developed really to protect ourselves, because we did not

want the developer to move forward with projects, if the market was so bad or downmarket delay, that market wasn't right for development. and that strike price is important to protect the port and make sure we want the developer to transact and the economics are working. so we're not asking for you to approve the appraisal. the appraisal process is set forth in the agreement, the lbda. and we have a third-party appraiser, a certified third-party appraiser, who has done two types of analysis, residual land value and comps to conclude that the value is $5 million. what we're asking is to be able to transact below that strike price of $11 million. $11.2 million. and we're asking you to do that, because we want to deliver brookfield to deliver housing and office in the first phase.

the same appraiser using the two forms of analysis confirmed that the office was $66 million and the strike price is four times less than that, what is the strike price on office, retaining wall? >> -- rebecca? >> i know it's five times the strike price. >> five times the strike price. it's $12.7 million. and so when we were able to negotiate also a reduction in the closing costs, when we look at it on balance with office coming in so high. we find our way to say we would -- we prefer and recommend strongly a phase that delivers both parcels and that the economics for the port is preserved or preferred here, because it is in the port's interest that we move the project forward and transact. because we are holding and paying an 18% return for the

developer's cost for infrastructure and soft costs. so that is why we're asking that you give us authority to transact with brookfield, below the strike price on e2. and as rebecca has described, in addition to preserving the port's economic interests in the project, it preserves a really important policy goal, which is to deliver this apartment, affordable housing, 20% affordability. so we want to get the housing in the ground. >> do you want the consultants to come in at all? >> i think mr. rundy would like to make a comment, based on his three-minute look. [laughter] that's what you get when you get pull into a commission meeting. >> good afternoon. my name is tim rundy. and my role in this process was not to appraise the property, but to provide review of the

appraisal that was completed. this is a complicated assignment. it's not as simple as, you know, just a simple land appraisal. there probably isn't any such thing as a simple land appraisal. it's the hardest thing to get right in the world. and to commissioner makras' point, i started in the same place frankly. it's like you can't have land worth zero, near zero. that just doesn't make sense. but when i dug into it, what i realized was that we're at a point in the market where -- and i've been appraising san francisco real estate for 30 years, the bay area realty for 30 years. i have never seen a market where all of the fundmentals are so strong and yet a type of project is not financially feasible. but rental housing right now in san francisco is not financially

feasible. almost no one is going forward with it. unless they have legacy projects, have other reasons for doing it. it just doesn't pencil out. most of the sites are trading for condominiums. pretty much the only residential projects that are feasible are very, very high-end luxury condos. so, you know, as an appraiser, i put my hat on and go, well, the highest and best use of this property should be a condo site. well, that may be the case or you hold it until the rental market is better. the problem is we don't have that option here. we're locked into a rental project, number one. number two, we're lock into a rental project with b.m.r. on site. that's more expense than paying the in lieu fee. we have an onerous b.m.r. requirement of 20% of the units at 80% of the a.m.i.

now compared to one of the two comps that they had on there, which was 13.5% at a 50% a.m.i., that's almost a $35,000 cost -- i'm sorry, that's about a $10,000 cost to the project. the third or fourth thing is we have the special tax, mentioned as well. well, actually if you do the math on it, it's about a $35,000 hit to the value of the property compared to everything else in the market, that doesn't have that. taken together the b.m.r. and the special tax requirement knocks about $45,000 off the value. if you start at the $100,000 kind of benchmark, for a market-rate unit, you get down to the $55,000 range pretty quickly. then you knock off the lease holds value that they -- because it's not a fee-owned project. it can't be. and suddenly you get down to

this $10 million range or so. now is $5 million the right number? i don't know. is it within the range of reasonableness for this project, given all of the complexity of it, i think it is. i think particularly -- and i'll be honest. i don't like residual approachers. i don't like developer approaches. they're not -- i'm not saying any of that happened here. i think the appraisers did a confident job and we have a lot of back and forth, productive from all parties involved in this, in trying to figure out what's the right number. but when you come up with a land residual that points to a significant negative value on

the land, it says right away we're not going forward with this. the market uses residual approaches all the time. they can't get financing, loan committees won't approve it if it doesn't meet the flesh holds. just circle back for one second to say if any other -- a site that was not in this particular situation, where it had to be a pre-paid ground lease, had to be rental, had the higher b.m.r. requirement, all of these other factors, you could simply sit and wait. you could say, well, we'll just park on it for a while and wait. or we'll pursue different kinds of entitlements. we don't have that option here. the only option you have, you either go forward with it now or you wait until later.

which, you know, in san francisco for 30 years, there's, you know, land values have only gone up, except for one property type. they've actually started to crater a bit for multi-family residential, because the b.h.r. requirements are getting onerous and for all types of real estate, costs are significantly outpacing the escalations in rental rates. rental rates are flattening out. more units are coming online than getting absorbed. vacancy is pushing up, concessions are coming up. not just in san francisco, but throughout the bay area. because i worked in silicon valley as well. in fact, they had rents go down a little bit, .3% in santa clara county. so what's happening now is you've got a dynamic where it occurred to me the other day, rental housing is not viable or feasible in san francisco, without some sort of a subsidy.

that means that if you have to build rental, maybe your land isn't worth anything in terms of a market-value analysis. that seems a little bit hard for me to understand. it seems to be where the market is at. i'm not sure -- if you keep having 6%, 7%, 5% to 7% construction cost increases every year and rents are starting to flatten out or maybe only going up 2% a year and the projects were marginally feasible before, they're not going to be feasible going forward. so it may be -- it's entirely possible that we may not see a time where market-rate, multi-family housing, on a rental basis, makes financial sense. i'm not saying that's the case for sure. we may have a downturn that may change the dynamics of the construction trades and all that. the disparity between costs and

rents. we reached an affordability threshold. a ceiling in terms of how much even -- there's only so many high-paying tech jobs that will pay $3,000 for a studio. >> okay. >> $4,000. >> i think that's adequate. thank you. >> so i just want to end it and i'm going to cede the floor to the next commissioner. i think that was very, very helpful to hear that. i think you have given some background and important background substantive of how we got to the $5 million. i still stand in terms of believing that i think this project needs to move forward. we need to look at it holistically. we may not be technically totally correct, as you said, very hard to predict the future. it's a question of whether we want to move forward or not. i vote to move forward. >> thank you. commissioner gilman.

i absolutely think we need to move this project forward. i think right now i'm aware of hundreds and hundreds of residential units that are permitted and waiting and folks i know in the for-profit development community are not moving forward with residential rental, due to a variety of reasons. one, our requirements to construction costs. i don't see -- at least in the fallacies i -- in the analysis i see. i think it's critical we move forward and capitalize on a strong, strong office component right now to make that possible. so the questions i had are just more for my own knowledge. i just wanted to check in since i wasn't here when we approved the d.d.a. i wasn't on commission. i'm assuming the phasing is part of the d.d.a., the phasing cannot be changed? >> that's correct. it can only be changed by coming back to the commission. >> okay.

so do we anticipate -- when you say mid-term versus near-term, on your slide 3, i'm curious what mid-term means and if we anticipate seeing this as an issue for building number 2? >> very good questions. i put up the slide that you're referring to. the near-term are buildings that are either in construction, building 12 or have approved designs associated with them. and that's e2 and a. we expect building two and d to come next. we have begun design on both of those buildings. one is a equipment, one is an apartment -- one is a condominium and one is an apartment. and c2b is the longest-term condominium, we don't believe -- we know brookfield is eager to move forward to get the phase complete. i put it in that category. it doesn't have a design associated with it, it's the next term of parcels.

>> okay. >> but they're all part of phase 1. >> rebecca asked the question in a different way, apologize. is mid-term that you're back in commission in six months, 12 months, 18 months? i guess my question is, if the market is having such a downturn, are we going to see the same problem with building number 2, no office to anchor it? >> very good question. so i think we anticipate building 2 and d. and c2a to -- 2 and d. to come this year. c2a-- we expect the developer onboard soon. and then c2b towards the end of the year. your point is well taken. we may have a similar problem with building 2. we expect some sort of creative solution with brookfield. we don't know yet what we don't know until we do the appraisal. anything to add? >> i think -- i just want to address. it's looking like why did we agree to pre-paid leases.

and i think we use the concept with mission walk and this project. it was an innovation that we used. and that was to help us and, of course, depends on where the market is in the cycle. but that was to help us, as i recall, conceptually, to give the port greater value, so that we could -- we could offset against the developer's capital and return. >> yes. >> i think we should not forget that concept. now say, oh my goodness, if we haven't used that, we could use the normal lease value. at the time it appeared that that was a way for us to offset being able to pay back the developer's return faster. so that was some economic value to the port. >> gotcha. >> am i correct? >> absolutely. do not forget that concept. that's the reason we did about it. i think we started with mission rock? >> absolutely true. there's a lot of -- we're talking about the challenges of

transacting and sort of difficulties in the deal. but there's actually a lot of value and benefits in the deal you approved. one is that we can be having this conversation to transact an apartment in this economy, when no one else can do so. so we're able because this project is on public land to look at the office, plus the apartment and make a decision to go forward with both. and the c.f.d. taxes that we're concerned about holding back value, those taxes are critical for us to repay infrastructure and provide sea level rise protection. so if we look at the deal on balance, and furthermore port staff is incentivized more than any party to transact quickly. because we want to see the projects move forward. so we can repay the developer investment. so there are many things about this transaction while we're struggling with this phase today, that are incredibly innovative and we're able to be in the marketplace when other

private sector, similarly situated parties are just not able to do so. so absolutely the pre-paid concept was to maximize the port's ability to pay back the developer quickly, to get out of the 18% return. and there are multiple sources of revenue to the port from this transaction. rent but also the taxes as well. so i did appreciate your comment in remembering why we chose pre-paid leases. >> so do you anticipate a similar problem when we come back with building 2 and building d, building dwill be -- the valuation will be out of whack and much higher, because condominiums are what people can build and the rental housing is going to be lower? >> we're looking at that right now. and i -- i don't want to get too far ahead of myself. we're definitely anticipating this. and bringing this deal to you, we're looking down down the roat the next couple of parcels and trying to be forward-thinking.

>> is there an affordability requirement on building 2? >> yes. all of the rental at pier 70 has a 20% inclusion. >> average a. m.i. of 80? >> i really appreciate the remarks from our third-party appraiser. thank you for laying the ground work of what sort of the market is in. i have a lot of friends in the for-profit real estate market. and no one is moving forward on their transactions, due to the climate. most people are sitting on their entitled properties right now. so i am very supportive of us moving this forward. >> thank you. vice president adams. >> first of all, i want to thank commissioner makras for his presentation. i told president brandon, my whole issue was it was a lack of conversation prior to coming to the public. i had an issue with that.

and and i was very frustrated with that. sometimes we jump a couple of stems -- steps ahead. as commissioners we have an obligation to the public and sometimes we get ahead of ourselves. when we held this thing over, you know, i listened to the $28 million and we had this conversation and stuff. i met with mike last friday and we talked and we waked through this issue. i was very frustrated. i told mike, that's not a lot of money. we talked about it. and he just -- he was just very honest about it. where it's at right now for the value. and i think maybe in some worlds, i can appreciate what commissioner makras said, we can get $28 million. in this situation, we're not going to. i think we have to make the best out of it. it's just -- kind of how it is right now, right. it's kind of like how the world

is now with the coronavirus, right. a lot of things just happening now in the economy. a lot of things. that's kind of how it is. i'm going to support it. because i looked -- i think last week commissioner woo ho really dug down into it and i was really starting to understand it. i think it's both pieces together. and when you look at the big picture and plus i'm for affordable housing. so i'm in favor of supporting this. and i want to appreciate the guy that came up and laid out a couple of other things that i kind of got a clear vision of it. and just as a port, this is our job and our business as commissioners, right. but it is what it is. so i don't know if at some point it will get better. but i'm going to support this. >> thank you. rebecca, thank you very much for this presentation. and i know a lot of work has gone into this. and i know there are a lot of questions. and i just want to say how happy

i am that we have commissioners that ask questions. that, you know, really want to know what it is we're doing and why we're doing it. so i really want to thank you for the work that you've put into this. and looking at this and everyone has said, it's a complicated project. it's a complicated deal. i think that we are extremely lucky that the office environment is doing so well. >> yes. >> and that we have that little hedge. you know, as tim said, when you think about it, you know, how does that much land have a value of a million dollars. how is that even possible. and the fact that we were able to get up to $5 million, i think that's wonderful. now if i thought we could get anywhere past the $11 million, i might say let's hold this over. [laughter] but i think at this point it's been gone over with a fine toothed comb and this is where we are. and if we want to move forward,

then we need to do something now. but what i do want to say is with the mid-term phase, the next phase, i think you guys should bring it to us sooner rather than later. because if it's a discussion, like we've had over this one, it's going to take time to find a resolution. it can't be we're losing money by not moving forward. so i'm just saying be prepared for the next round to come to us sooner rather than later. whenever the appraisal is done and whenever we need to start negotiating. but i, too, right now will support this moving forward. and so with that, i'm going to ask for the vote. all in favor? >> aye. >> any opposed? >> no. >> the resolution has passed with four and one no. >> item 13 b, request approval of port-related transaction documents for the california barrel company llc. mixed-use project located on the former potrero power station site bounded by 23rd illinois

and 22nd streets and san francisco bay. including port of san francisco shoreline and adjacent lands referred to as portions of sea wall at 349, pier 72 and 23rd street, including 1, consent development agreement between the city and the c.b.c., two, approval of lease with c.b.c. to use port lands for public parks and open space and publicly accessible ways, including an option to impress public trust easement on privately owned shoreline land and a portion of 23rd street leading to the hor line. three, delegation of a authority executive directer to enter into one or more memoranda of understands with various city agencies, including the san francisco public utilities commission, the san francisco public works department and the department of public work inspection relating to each agency's role and responsibility perform and four, adoption of environmental findings, including a mitigation, monitoring and reporting program and a statement of overriding

consideration pursuant to the california environmental quality act. >> good afternoon, commissioners. david with real estate and development. i'm joined here today by the potrero power station team enrique, aaron and tina. and also joined by city staff and port staff, including john from economic and workforce development, mike martin. and i just want to show my appreciation for eileen, carol and sam who have been extremely helpful in pulling this together. i was in front of the commission at the last commission meeting two weeks ago. i'm going to try to keep the meeting -- the presentation brief. but just wanted to give you an introduction to the project. the port's role in the project, the location and the plan. and then the actions that you'll be taking today. so pier -- the potrero power station is located south of the pier 70 project. that you just were considering.

it's in a 29-acre site. mixed-use development and many aspects, very similar to the pier 70 special-use district project. within the 29-acre project site, there are several different owners. the blue, which is the primary portion of the site, is owned by california barrel corporation. part of the potrero power station team, the purple which includes 23rd street and the areas along the shoreline are the port projects, which are subject to this approval today. and then there's some other areas, including the red area, which is -- will be essentially craig lane, which is alley way that splits the property both between potrero power station and port land, also a part of the approval today. as discussed last week, the land-use project is a mixed-use project. the yellow is the residential with approximately 2,600 units.

the blue is the commercial office, life science and lab space, approximately 1.5 million square feet. the hatched area is either hotel or residential at about 240,000 square feet. and there's about 100,000 square feet of ground floor retail spread throughout the building. and approximately five acres of parks illustrated in green, including those on if the port property. the potrero team at the last commission meeting covered all of the community and port benefits. obviously housing is a big one on the site. there are several community facilities planned. there are the parks and the extension of the blue greenway, transit, childcare, and, of course, jobs. the approvals today include a consent to the development agreement, along with the city and the developer.

approval of the lease, which comes with an option to impress the public trust on the area outlined in yellow, which is both a portion of 23rd street and additional shoreline parks. delegation to the executive director to enter into an m.o.u. with other city agencies regarding permitting. and then, adoption of the environmental findings consistent with the seqa. that concludes my presentation. myself and the project team are available for any questions. thank you. >> thank you. -- there is public comment on this item. cynthia gomez. >> hello. my remarks are brief. research analyst with local 2. we are the hotel and hospitality and workers' union.

and we are in support of this mixed-use project. commonly known as potrero power takes station. hotel use is contemplated at this project. and a very creative use of some of the building use of the power station. with the project sponsor, regarding the jobs of this eventual hotel, specifically a guarantee for a fair and neutral process for the eventual hotel workers, if they wish to be represented by a union. griefs -- agreements such as these create for those in the hospitality industry to fight for respect and dignity on the job, affordable health care benefits, a -- we ask that you grant all the necessary approvals for the project. thank you. >> thank you. keith goldstein. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm the chair of the the eastern neighborhoods c.a.c.

i'm a potrero booster board member and also president of the potrero merchants' association for the last 230 years. [laughter] lived on potrero hill for 45 years. and a couple of weeks ago i sat on a planning commission, where they listened to this project. there are about 50 community members that spoke in support of this project. it really was quite inspirational. there was nearly a voice in descent. it's not something i have seen before. this is because of the remarkable community outreach that the developers have undertaken. i often walk around the neighborhood and see that the developers chatting with any member of our community. they'd have these office hours in our local hubs and coffee shops where anybody could come and chat and talk about their concerns and they listened to them. and we don't just have what we typically expect a project at

the waterfront, the green space, the bay trail. tremendous affordable housing. 2600 units. 30% affordable is fantastic. it's what we all ask of everybody, in our neighborhood. but they're actually coming through, you know, with so many of them low -- low level of income. the preservation of building a, the wonderful building. i've been a contractor in the city for over 40 years. i know -- i didn't expect them to preserve that building actually. because it's tremendously expensive to do that. the homeless prenatal program. you know, coming up with ideas like this. two childcare centers, a 25,000 square foot ymca there. this is a tremendous project for

our waterfront, for our community, and for the whole city. and i hope you feel the same way. thank you very much. >> thank you. is there any other public comment on this item? >> hello, commissioners. thank you for taking the time. i'm a dog patch resident. i live three blocks from the project site. i've been in dog patch for 18 plus years. and keith and i have served on the eastern neighborhood c.a.c. together. so good to see you keith. we are both in support of this project. i don't want to go over all of the details, because keith has done a great job of saying them. the community around the project actually really supports this, not only for ourselves but for the south, the neighborhoods to the south, as we look toward developing more of the waterfront as a whole. >> please introduce yourself. >> bruce. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you again. >> is there any other public comment on this item?

seeing none, public comment is closed. >> a motion, right? >> we have one. >> oh, okay. can i have a motion? >> a motion. >> second. >> commissioner woo ho? >> well, thank you. i think we had a very planning commission -- very impressive presentation. i don't have that many questions going forward. i have seen the site previously. so we actually did look over and see your site, which is right next door. we were actually looking at the orton development rehabilitation. so they're all together. so it was impressive to see and it would be wonderful to see how the whole neighborhood will come together and it does seem like it is coming together and a lot of collaboration and planning together. i guess just based on the previous conversation and given this project is really not within our purview and ask out

of curiosity, in terms of the fact a lot of residential housing coming up and the affordability has been mentioned, 30%, whether there's any concerns, looking similar to what we just went through with the discussion of whether this can move forward, because of the situation with multi-family housing development and the market right now. >> commissioners, john low with the office of economic development. yes, we've tried to adjust the uncertainty of the market conditions in a number of ways. one is there's a 30-year term, which is clearly a long period of time for one of those development agreements. secondly, it's about -- the program is balanced, the residential and commercial. so with over 1.5 million square feet of office and/or life science in the entitlement, as

well as up to 2600 residential units, with the inclusion of the pg&e property, we feel there's there's room to be flexible and selling to market conditions. we've actually placed a mechanism in this agreement, that ensures if the market is only there, for building and office for a time, that there's still a b.m.r. requirement that accrues and owed at certain points to the city, with that office development. so, yes, given almost certain uncertainty, if you will, and the future, we tried to bake in certain kind of basic parameters in terms of city benefits and b.m.r. in a market that is exists, as it does now, at least for housing an life science. i don't know if you want to add any more? >> no. well, i think it sounds like you're taking a flexibility approach and we're obviously not here to examine all of the numbers. we're just talking about slivers of port property.

given the heated discussion we just had earlier, just concerned about how this project is addressing the same issue. that's all. >> understood. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner gilman. >> thank you. the presentation was wonderful last time and great to see you back here for an action item. and i support it. >> thank you. commissioner makras? >> no questions. i'll be supporting it. >> vice president adams. >> commissioner woo ho said you heard about the debate heated debate. this is a prepreliminary of what's happening tonight in south carolina at the presidential debate. no, i'm good. i support it. >> thank you. david, thank you for the presentation. i don't think much has changed since the last presentation. but i just want to say how excited i am about this project. and the fact that it has almost a billion dollars in community benefits. i think that's phenomenal. so i, too, will support this. >> yes.

>> all in favor? >> aye. >> any opposed? resolution 2012 has been approved. >> item number, new business. >> new business. we will be scheduling an informational to go over the capital budget of last year and our achievements, as well as open projects for discussion. is there any other new business? >> is there any other new business? any public comment on new business? >> motion to adjourn, madam president? >> all in favor? >> aye. >> we are adjourned.

>> chair ronen: good morning, everyone. the meeting will come to order. good morning and welcome to the february 24, 2020 meeting of the rules committee. seated to my left is supervisor gordon mar. seating to my left for supervisor catherine stefani is matt haney. our clerk is gordon an youyoun

i'd like to thank sfgovtv. mr. clerk, do we have any announcements? >> clerk: yes. please silence all phones and electr electron electronic devices. items acted upon will appear on the board of supervisors agenda. >> chair rone >> chair ronen: thank you. can you please read item one. >> clerk: would you like to excuse supervisor stefani? >> chair ronen: thank you. yes. [gavel]. >> clerk: now would you please read item 1. [agenda item read]. >> chair ronen: and we have supervisor peskin. hello, supervisor peskin.

would you like to make any opening comments? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, chair ronen, supervisor haney, and supervisor mar. as you're aware, the board of supervisors gives the board the power of subpoena which was seldom used but was used a couple of times in the millennium tower to subpoena a couple of individuals. it is a lengthy and cumbersome process where the testimony doesn't happen in real-time. by the time you send the subpoena to the full board,

four to six weeks have gone by. a change to the board rules requires an eight-vote super majority, and we fell short by one vote. i felt at this time insofar as the board has the limited power of inquiry and inquiring minds want to know -- of course not to interfere or impede with ongoing civil or criminal investigations, i thought it was time to bring this board back. i know the clerk of this board has some comments or changes. i had a productive conversation with the board's attorney, miss pearson, yesterday, as it related to the administration of oaths in section 3.1, which i would like to actually collapse into -- and i do not

have language before you, but i'd like to collapse that 3.2.1, administration of oaths into 3.3.2 so that anybody that's subpoenaed would be administered the oath. it would not be done abtemporarily, it would be done for any and all individuals who are subpoenaed. and i know that chair ronen also wanted to potentially suggest an amendment, as well. >> chair ronen: yes. but let's first hear from the clerk of the board, angela calvillo. >> clerk: good morning, chair ronen, and thank you for allowing us to make a few

changes. page 6, line 2, we would like to say during a public subcommittee. on-line 7, that would -- as supervisor peskin indicated, that the clerk of the board would sign the subpoena. on line 8, you would add that first word, subject. and after that, you would remove the "s" after hearings and make the final -- a small "f" instead of capital "f." >> supervisor peskin: say that aga -- okay. >> clerk: the last request

that we have is that on-line 13, 4.27 is instructing or authorizing the board to have oral motions for a -- i guess this would be for an oath of the full board for an oral motion, there is an existing board rule -- i believe it is 6.7, which is about subpoenas -- and we could collapse the language that you have here into 6.7 of the board rules. so basically, just have organizational requests, nothing substantive. >> chair ronen: okay. just so we don't lose track here, can i entertain a motion to approve changes articulated by the clerk of the board? okay. without objection, that motion passes. [gavel]. >> chair ronen: okay.

first, i wanted to make sure i fully understood supervisor peskin's amendment, which is that in order to administer the oath, the person would have to be, prior to that, subpoenaed by the board. >> supervisor peskin: at any point, a vote, pursuant to an oral motion, directed the issuance of a subpoena, the individual who was subpoenaed would testify under oath. as compared to the way it's currently written, which is in section 3.3.1, it says that the members of the government audit committee could decide whether or not the oath should be administered or not. and so the question that ms. pearson raised with me yesterday is what's the standard? and in reality, the handful of subpoenas that have been issued, all of those individuals testified under oath.

so, i mean, this is not going to happen very often, one would presume. >> chair ronen: right. >> supervisor peskin: and if it's somebody coming that's that weight, a subpoena's been issue, i think under 3.3.2, they just all testify under oath. >> chair ronen: okay. that makes sense to me. okay. so i was one of the three people a few years ago who voted against this almost identical law. >> supervisor peskin: and you're now a cosponsor. >> chair ronen: and now, i'm a cosponsor, and i wanted to explain that. three years ago, i was brand-new to the board, and i thought that it was -- this is a very serious power. the ability to subpoena someone under the penalty and power of

percenta perjury is quite serious and should be taken carefully, the power. and my concern is all the corruption that has been uncovered in san francisco, you know, with all the news stories, that journalists have uncovered, with the admission by our mayor have now involved at least four city departments. this is incredibly serious, and unfortunately, the board has a very limited capacity to do anything about it. not only that, we don't even know what investigations are potentially taking place. we know that the city important is investigating, but -- we know that the city attorney is investigating, but we don't know about the investigation. we don't know if the district attorney is investigating, we don't know if the f.b.i. is investigating, and we don't

know if the ethics commission is investigating. that is because all of those parties have to do so with a degree of confidentiality, and the board of supervisors isn't any more apprised of what those investigatio investigations encompass than the members of the public. i've had constituents ask me -- word of corruption has been there at city hall forever, and why haven't you done anything about it? and it's frustrating to us that we don't have more power to do something about it because, you know, as someone who believes in government's basic ability to take care of people who cannot take care of themselves, we cannot have the faith of people if there is low level or

high level corruption happening at all times. unfortunately, it's become such a part of the culture in this city and county that we must use all the power at our disposal to root it out once and for all. that is why i have changed my mind on this piece of legislation, so much so that i am now a cosponsor of it. having said that, it makes perfect sense to me that city employees are exempt from this power. city employees are protected by unions, are protected by laws, and the h.r. department, and there's various ways to deal with problems that are deeply part of our lives here in san francisco. but i do not understand why department heads are not included in this. department heads have

inordinate responsibility in our city and county. they are the managers and should know what's happening in their departments, and i think that we should add them as parties to this law where the board of supervisors is able, when appropriate, to subpoena department heads and administer the oath of office where the government audit and oversight committee thinks that possible. i know there is some concern about overuse of this law, and what i would say is that let's see, let's try it out. let's see what happens. does the g.a.o. overuse its power? well, we can scale it back if we need to. but right now, it is incumbent on any city official to root

out the widespread corruption in this city once and for all. we must restore the faith of every san franciscan, and our process must be above board. so i'd like to see what everybody thinks about it. supervisor mar? >> supervisor mar: thank you, chair ronen. actually, i'd like to thank supervisor peskin for bringing this motion forward. as current chair of the government audit and oversight committee, i agree with you and also with chair ronen about the importance of this motion and in really streamlining the board's ability to issue subpoenas and administer oaths at this point. and i -- you know, i wholeheartedly agree that, you know, right now, you know, with ongoing and -- and widening investigation into corruption in multiple departments in the

city, you know, and in the investigation by multiple parties, it's very important for the board's role in providing oversight and even looking at new policies to address the widespread corruption here at city hall to -- that these stream lined power of subpoenas and administering of oaths is very much needed right now, so thanks again for bringing this forward. i would like to be added as a cosponsor. >> chair ronen: supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: thank you, and thank you, supervisor peskin and ronen, for bringing this forward. so i want to understand a little bit more of this piece around the city employees. so currently in the legislation, city employees are completely excluded or --

>> supervisor peskin: so through the chair to supervisor haney. no. the board has unfettered power to subpoena any employee. when this came through previously, board local 21 was concerned about -- not about department heads, who they do not represent, but about rank-and-file employees, engineers, architects, and the ability of a subset of the board, namely two of three members of the board who are members of the government audit committee, having that file over rank-and-file employees.

so we added that to local 21, but the board has unfettered power to call city employees. i absolutely support modifying this again to make it clear that government heads would be responsible to a government audit subpoena. >> supervisor haney: that makes sense, the change, and i'd love to be a cosponsor. >> supervisor peskin: so colleagues, i think we have a number of changes, and if they are acceptable to you, we can have miss pearson craft those between now and your next meeting. >> chair ronen: that sounds great. miss pearson? >> deputy city attorney ann pearson. may i ask a question? there is a restriction to

administer an oath to a city employee, but i don't see a restriction currently on the power to issue a subpoena. i want to clarify that to the extent that you are trying to make clear that you may issue a subpoena to a department head, the restriction is not currently there. >> supervisor peskin: good point. i think what we would like to do is make sure the subpoena is applicable to a department head. >> chair ronen: can you explain that again, supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: thank you for that catch. why don't we make it clear that the committee could administer the oath for a department head but not other city employees.

>> chair ronen: okay, great. before we move on, i wanted to open this item up for public comment. is there any member of the public who wishes to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed -- oh, wait, sorry, yes, we do have. come on up. >> good morning. my name is jerry dratler, and i served on the civil grand jury twice. we do know that city attorney herrera is not an objective investigator. i support supervisor peskin's motion to expand the subpoena powers of government audit oversight committee. i believe the expansion needs to include all city employees. further, the idea that a corrupt city government can investigate itself is illogical. san francisco needs to bring a

private investigator with sterling reputation and integrity to root out corruption that currently exists. this is the only path forward for restoring the public's confidence in city government. thank you very much. >> chair ronen: thank you. next speaker? >> thank you so much, supervisor peskin, for introducing this legislation. we are facing one of the most pernicious situation in san francisco, the homeless crisis that we're facing, we do see department head acting improperly and irregularities

are about, so we do need your legislation. however, as my colleague noted, we do need to have the power to subpoena city employees. when you're investigating a department such as d.p.w., we want to know who knew it, when they knew it, and what effect this knowledge had on city affairs. to echo what mr. dratler said, we actually filed complaints regarding d.p.w. and their law splits several times and the city attorney actually dismissed it. so in events like this, who are you going to subpoena to find out what went on? i will bring to you another situation, that only weeks after this investigation started, mayor breed appoints mr. hillis, rich hillis was utterly unqualified, you know, for the job. the two qualifications, minimum requirements that were posted

for this job was never met. this was unfair to women of color who applied for this job, and they deserve to be heard. that's why we implore you to investigate how mr. hillis was appointed to this job. why is it that, you know, someone didn't have 12 years of planning experience, city and regional planning, that was cited in this job? >> chair ronen: thank you. next speaker. >> good morning, supervisors. anastasia yannopolous. i support the motion. it's wise to bestow authority on the government audit and

oversight committee to issue subpoena duces tecum and to produce documents, records, and other tangible objects that are relevant to an authorized investigation. however, unless supervision to exempt government employees is removed, it's weak in this climate of corruption that you've all noted today. so i ask you to remove this exemption. we're still reeling from the appointment of rich hillis as the director of san francisco's planning department and ask why was he appointed without the required educational background and experience while women of color were passed over? thank you.

>> good morning, supervisors. thank you for addressing this crisis, and i do not think it's too strong a word. i think we do have a crisis. and also thank you for extending the proposed legislation of department heads. i would like to ask while we respect the independence and the rights and privileges of our bargaining unit employees, where there's a level of senior staff below department heads that's not represented, i don't know, but whether there's a level of senior staff that are below senior staff but not represented, as well, so we need to be reaching as department as we can in to staff when we extend this power. thank you very much. >> linda chapman. i'm going to speak for the late, great nob hill

homeowners. for 14 years, 15 years, when i was the principal organizer, i'm not aware of any situations except or -- for one or two. i became again after our membership director unfortunately decided to dissolve the operation because we were no longer meeting at city hall every week. we suddenly had these groups calling themselves lower polk neighbors, for example. what could be more corrupt -- i started by telling the supervisors good people were driven out. sent us corrupt managers, chris schulman, and whoever his

assistant was. and they tell us those are community stakeholders, you know, the most corrupt people that could possibly ever be, and people had no chance if they went to the planning commission. people at the planning commission were nodding their heads in agreement, that they were agreeing to do things that these corrupt people would go in, make a vote. i couldn't be a member. they wouldn't let me pay dues because then, i could vote. they were being paid to do this. they were making money, and in many cases, they were being paid by the city like now. these corrupt people who claim they're stakeholders and doing things against the neighborhood, and being encouraged, also, by the innocent -- >> chair ronen: thank you so much. is there any other member of the public who wishes to speak on this item?

seeing none, public comment is closed. miss pearson, you're clear about the amendments -- fantastic. so i will make a motion to continue this item to the next rules committee -- >> clerk: you'd like to accept the amendments first? >> chair ronen: well, can we do that or do you need to draft them first? >> if they have been sufficiently described here, you may vote on them, and i will draft a motion that states the vote. >> chair ronen: okay. can we make a motion to do that? okay. then the motion passes. and we will hear that next on. >> clerk: march the 2nd. >> chair ronen: march the 2nd. >> supervisor peskin: see you

next week. [gavel]. >> chair ronen: mr. clerk, can you read the next item. [agenda item read]. >> chair ronen: thank you very much. and i'll call up the applicants, and if you could keep your comments to approximately two minutes, that would be great. and i'm going to call you in order. is hanley chan here? and then next, we'll call up jason chittivong. >> good morni >>. >> chair ronen: good morning, mr. chan. >> good morning, supervisors. i want to thank you for the opportunity to reapply for the veteran's commission. i spent my school here, former navy, former national guard. i want to continue my work. i'm working on an ad hoc

committee, working on getting a paid park. san jose, our next-door neighbor city, happy hall ooll park, if you show a veteran's i.d., you get in for free. basically, that's what we should do for our veterans. i want to continue working on housing for our veterans and much, much more to do. i'll actually make it brief. i'm supporting my partners, and thank you.

>> chair ronen: thank you. jason chittivong, and next we'll have william barnickel. >> thank you, supervisors. i'm here to announce my candidacy for the commissioner. i was a combat marine in 2000-2004 during my initial push in iraq. during my time at san francisco state university, i have pushed to help veterans with student housing and assisting them with other aids as in vocational materials and stance. i am currently right now working with the veteran justice court serving as a mentor coordinator, providing education as well, and benefits, to help them through their treatment and rehabilitation. my objective to be part of the v.a. commissioner is to provide reports, updates of our

treatment program and see if we can provide more assistance and services to them. and also, housing, because one of the biggest issues that we've been facing with all of our veterans going through treatment is the challenge of them having a stable home. i've been a board member of the bay area student leadership council here in san francisco. i've served two years as leader of the national san francisco chapter, and i'm also here in support of mr. bill barnickel. thank you. >> chair ronen: mr. barnickel, and we'll hear from douglas boullard. >> good morning, commissioners. i thought i had three minutes -- >> chair ronen: we have two minutes because we have so many candidates. >> okay. good morning. i'm bill barnickel.

i'm a retired united states air force. duty, honor, and country, and our core values in the air force are integrity force,' excellence in all we do, and service before self-. these are words that i have lived by in my civilian military and also before that, in my military career. after church one day, i asked the father if he was ever in the military? he said yes, i was a gree green beret. if you remember pat tillman, he was in the nfl, and he wanted

to be a green beret and join his brother. people said, why would you give up $5 million a year? he said it's my calling. well, this is my calling. i want to thank my veteran's office and others for all their support. without them, i could not accomplish my mission. i have organized two jobs a year, city college and others, and we placed over 400 part-time jobs and full-time jobs. in collaboration with the institute on aging which is the lead agency with the department of insurance and attorney of justice, we started a veterans

program. these efforts earned us a 2017 aging innovations award and a national award for our program. [inaudible] >> during my four years, i have not missed a meeting. [inaudible] >> i have also received an award from my district 4 supervisor, gordon mar. and also, in 2019, i was acknowledged veteran of the year by state senator wiener. supervisors, it's great getting all these awards, but the biggest award and biggest accolade is i can get a call from a wife and say thank you

for your help getting us benefits. as you can see, supervisors, this is my calling, and i want to continue my journey and i request your approval. >> chair ronen: thank you so much. thank you for your service. >> thank you. >> chair ronen: next, douglas boullard, and then after that, eric deng. hi. >> thank you, chair ronen, supervisor mar, supervisor haney. thank you for giving me a minute to speak. some of you may know me as the junior rotc director at lowell, and i've been doing that 22 years. frankly, it's the joy of my life, probably more fun than anything i got to do in my previous 23 years in active duty as an army engineer officer.

my last assignment as active duty was in 1992, at san francisco state university, and i now consider san francisco home. i got my instincts for serving from my dad, who served in monmany positions in the town and served on the school board there. i have a passion for serving those that are kind of on the margins, and oftentimes, our veterans find themselves there. and so i -- i really want to have that opportunity to serve them. i've been a member of the v.f.w., the american legion, the ausa, and many other

activities. most recently, i was part of a contingent to go to the philippines to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the letay landing. i look forward to this opportunity, and i thank you so much. >> chair ronen: thank you. good morning, mr. deng. >> my name is eric deng, and just a little bit about me. i spent five years in the air force, just separated about a year ago. i'm a son of two immigrants, and my parents moved to the u.s., like probably most immigrants, in search of a better life and in search of the american dream, and hopefully to provide a better life for their children and future children, as well.

part of that, why i served, i wanted to preserve that opportunity for others. part of my wanting to serve here today is to making sure that we extend that opportunity to our veterans and folks who have put their time and energy on the line. my background is in program management, team management, but i do have a lot of experience in cross functional team management, creating a space for folks and a space and environment highlighting what are the key issues, and distilling those items into key action items that we can enact, move forward, and make things better. i'm definitely no stranger in terms of coordinating across different teams and different organizations with different incentives. additionally, i think i can provide a unique perspective to the veterans affairs commission seeing i just completed my transition out of the military just about a year ago and am working for a nontradition

education system here in the city, and i think i'm just a little bit closer to the challenges that veterans face when they first transition and leave the military. so if appointed, i'd really like to focus on workforce represent, create a workforce across the city as a whole to allow veterans to connect across all experience levels. i know the value that city college provides for our veterans, and of course the office of economic and workforce development with the mayor. so thank you so much for your time and for your consideration, and i appreciate it. thank you. >> chair ronen: thank you so much. randall knight, and then we'll hear from courtney miller. >> hello. my name is randall knight. i'm originally from new york,

and i served in the military from 19 t98 to 2005. i've noticed that there has been a similar pattern of housing needs, medical services, and a total unaware that there are benefits and resources that are out there to veterans. a lot of these organizations are started by other veterans themselves, and are privatized. government -- i have found out that government institutions are allotting this money to those who are interested and who know how to get those helps to those individuals who need those helps. in these last three years, i've become a san francisco resident, and i consider this to be my home. i enjoy it here, and the people that -- the connections that i've been making with other vets has been outstanding. i've taken the time to branch -- make a podcast as well as reach out to other

veterans needing housing, as well. i feel honored to serve, and continue to fight for others like myself. >> chair ronen: thank you so much. courtney miller and then daniel shaffer. good morning. >> good morning, supervisors. after commissioning from west point, i've spent my first five years on duty serving in the army's light active division. during that time, deployed to both afghanistan and iraq. after returning from my old deployment, i was selected to serve in arlington, and the tomb of the unknowns there. in response to the challenges that i experienced during my

transition, i cofounded an organization focused on supporting female veterans transitions both before, during, and after, and i'm confident that the lens i would bring to the commission is unique, recent, relevant, and would be incredibly complementary to those that are currently serving on the veterans commission. thank you. >> chair ronen: thank you so much. appreciate it. daniel shaffer and then robert wining or wining. sorry if i'm mispronouncing your name. hi. >> good morning, chair ronen and members of the committee. thank you for having me here today. my name is daniel shaffer, and i'm seeking appointment to the san francisco veterans affairs employee. i held various positioning, managing organization ones ranging from 40 soldiers to

2500 in various ranges of service. i am now here with the hope of continuing my service to the veteran community. my transition from the military was difficult. i left the service as a disabled veteran, unsure of how you would simulate into civilian life. i felt alone and new little of the benefits available to me. this feeling has been shared by my friends and soldiers, pushing them towards isolation with nothing but their memories to keep them company. moreover, i've lost many friends to the demons they brought home with them. i believe my service is relevant to the commission because of the challenges of my transition. i know what it's like to have a disability that people cannot see. we are facing an epidemic that we must do better by people that have served our country.

my goal is to make sure that every veteran can understand and can achieve all the services that are available to them. when i reflect on the mentors that i've had and the number of mentors that i've had, i can't help but think of the number that are underserved because they don't have the right knowledge or know the right questions to ask. thank you for your time today. >> chair ronen: thank you so much. robert wining, is he here today? i don't see him. kyle zeck is not here, either. okay. unless there are any comments from my colleagues, i'll open this up -- any members of the public wishes to speak? and are applicants allowed to comment on other applicants? >> clerk: yes, they may.

>> chair ronen: okay. you may comment on other applications but not your own. >> bill barnickel. i'm in support of hanley chan. he's one of our newer commissioners. he's done an incredible job. it's important and paramount that we have a person like him. he's very active in the community. number two, jason chittivong. he put together a team of mentors for veterans who have been inkocarcerated, and they' done a great job rehabilitating them. it's imperative that we have people like jason aboard. doug miller, i've then for a while now, and it's imperative that we have people like him on

the board. these three people, if we miss them, we miss having them on the board, and i just feel it's imperative. thank you. >> good morning. i'm here to speak on behalf of eric deng. he's a friend and colleague for about a year. i see the way that he works and shows leadership and respect to his team and nurtures new ideas and hears new points of view. i think he'd be an excellent addition to this commission, and i hope he gets a chance. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is edgar de leon. i'm a cofunder for reach across america where we remember veterans over the holiday seasons by placing wreaths on their headstones. i'm also the sound producers for the san francisco national

cemetery here in the presidio. i'm here to support bill barnickel and doug boullard. they're great advocates for what i do in the community at large. i've known bill over the last two years. he's provided his services as emcee for the ceremony. he's garnered certificates fromcrfrom catherine stefani's office, district 2, and helped our wreath programs by garnering the help of our rotc cadets here in san francisco.

>> -- that they had while they're on active duty, and even injuries that happened out of the military. he spends his time -- i always say be a lot more like bill. bill spends his time taking vets to the v.a. center for ptsd counseling. he'll stop and talk to a stranger and then connect them with services, so he kind of goes above and beyond outside the meetings to connect veterans in the community that

he doesn't even know, somebody that doesn't wear a hat, doesn't wear a shirt, or doesn't wear a pin. bill spends a lot of his time going to the san francisco cvso, helping veterans file claims, with the g.a., with food stamps, with community services, with housing, education, the veterans justice corps. kind of stays with them and keeps them from falling through the cracks. i'd say, you know, this commission, i served on it in 2012, and it had a tendency to surround people that are like minded. i would say those three

veterans push the limit, and they go beyond, and they challenge. it's a war on -- but they actually do -- [inaudible] >> chair ronen: thank you. >> good morning, supervisors. i'm a member of the veterans commission, and i'd like to say i'm impressed by the candidates that we have this time, which i think is a good boding for the veterans affairs commission. i'm here to speak out in support of douglas boullard in his application for the commission. i think he has the work ethic and character to be a positive addition to the commission. as a vietnam era veteran, he has the ability to link very well with others, and for those of you that know him, doug can talk to anyone, and he frequently does. all over the place, all the time, to endless detail.

now, i make fun of him about that, but he has the ability to connect with many individuals. he has been serving as an instructor at the university and high school level for a number of years, and he wants to take those efforts and focus them on those leaving the military, as well. i think doug has the collaborative mindset, the work athick, and the personal nature that will make him a very positive addition to the veterans affairs commission. in addition, i'd be remiss if i didn't submit my colleagues, as well, bill barnickel and hanley chan, for their reappointment to the veterans affairs commission. thank you. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is david chen, and i am a small business owner in approximate bayview-hunters

point. i am a veteran of the united states coast guard. i know hanley chan, and i did not know there were any services available to me. he brought me to the veteran's affairs offices, and helped obtain services for me that i didn't even know were available. i believe that he would be -- his work continues -- he needs to be there. that's it. thank you. >> chair ronen: thank you so much. next speaker. >> i am the executive director of the a. philip randolph association of san francisco. i'm here in support of hanley chan. a lot of people don't realize i

was born in san francisco, and the hospital that i was born in no longer exists. my mother was an active duty petty officer in the u.s. coast guard when she gave birth to me at letterman hospital. so i'm truly a military brat, a san francisco native, and as you guys just heard from my other half, david, i'm also married to one, as well. but i supported many community members and leaders on various city commissions whose work impacts the community that i serve, and i'm really proud to stand in support of a friend and colleague that i've gotten to know over the last year because his office is a block away from mine -- actually, his office is across the street from our. i know hanley is a veteran and builds relationships in the

black community. he's the only veteran that's reached out, come into my office and extended knowledge, relationships, resources to not only educate me but any of the clients i serve. so, you know, now we know about business resources, health care opportunities for veterans, and i think that speaks volumes to his character, so i thank you for your consideration. thank you. >> chair ronen: thank you so much. good morning. >> good morning. good morning, supervisors. my name is ken lomba, and i'm the president of the san francisco deputy sheriff's association. i'm here in support of hanley chan. he's been very instrumental for our union. he's actually helped us make connections and contacts for our veterans members and also been instrumental in setting up information events. as well as we are in support of bill barnickel, jason

chittivong, and doug boullard. i believe they'd all do an excellent job, and i'd like to thank them for their service while i'm here. thank you. >> hi. good morning. my name is gilbert dare, and i'm here in support of bill barnickel. my father is a combat veteran from world war ii. he was awarded a purple heart, and little did we know, he was entitled to benefits for his service. on his own, i believe about 12 years ago, he went out and got his benefits. a few months ago, i met bill on a business call. one thing led to another, and i let him know that my dad was a veteran. immediately he asked me, does your dad receive any benefits, and i said he does. he goes, are you sure he's getting what he needs? and i said well, what do you mean by that?

so in typical bill fashion, in his heartfelt, caring way, we discussed his needs and, you know, his experience. and he says i think your dad is entitled to more benefits. and so my dad's 95, and through bill's help, we -- we've received in-home nursing care, physical therapy, new hearing aids, and increased benefits. so i'm here in support of bill, and he's a very heartfelt man, and i would like to see him continue in his role as a commissioner -- [inaudible] >> clerk: thank you. next speaker. >> supervisors, it's an honor to be before you again to speak up for the candidates that you have, and i know you have a tough job ahead of you for deciding who's going to be on the board because there's only

four slots. commissioner william barnickel is a seasoned, experienced veteran who's currently on the commission for reappointment. through commissioner barnickel's due diligence, he was able to get and keep 14 veterans from being rehoused due to the landlord building home commission. commissioner barnickel has also, through his merit, earned the distinguished san francisco veterans of the year award for his mutual help on this within our community here in san francisco. commissioner chan is a seasoned and experienced u.s. navy-national guard veteran who is presently a veteran's affairs commissioner who is up for reappointment. commissioner chan has reached out to me the other day to come

and show appreciation for the military veterans from the san francisco sheriff's department. commissioner chan is very in touch with the veterans community, and in process of working with two areas of interest in the san francisco community. the first one is getting free access to the state parks and recreation, and the state level recreation b.m.r., as well. jason is currently managing the veterans justice court as a men tar coordinator. -- mentor coordinator. i was so impressed with sitting down with both --

[inaudible] >> chair ronen: thank you. thank you so much. thank you. next speaker. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is linda yee. i hope you don't just consider bill barnickel for the next four years as a commissioner, i hope you appoint him. i can't say how much he did for my 96-year-old dad who served in the borna war theater. i helped him through the application process. it was really difficult. we waited, and we waited. two years later, no word from the veterans administration. so i finally contacted congress woman jackie speier's office, and they said my dad did not qualify. so i appealed that decision. still, no answer. then, a year later, i

accidentally met bill barnickel, and through a mutual friend, i told him his story. he told me to contact and set up a meeting with those kind folks at the san francisco county veteran's service office. i don't think it took more than a few months, and he got the award, so it was really a big learning process, but it was something my dad earned because he fought for this country from 1942 to 1945. my dad was finally getting his pension at age 93. today, he's 96. he would have been here today, but it's difficult for him to get around. he fully supports bill for helping him. i don't see how you can have anybody else do the job that bill did for my dad and other elderly veterans just like him. so do the right thing, reappoint bill as a commissioner of veteran's

affairs for san francisco. thank you. >> good morning. my name's carl pang. i'm currently employed by the city since 1962, served in the marine corps. i applied for my veterans assistance. the first time i went out to the hospital, the doctors had the nerve to tell me yes, you do have cancer, but you're making too much money because you're still employed. i ran into bill about a year ago, and i told bill my story. bill says that's ridiculous. so i was able to go out with bill. and i judge a person not by what they say, but what they do. bill really pushed everything through, and just not quite -- not quite a month ago, i got 100% disability from the v.a. so i really appreciate

everything that mr. barnickel has done, and they're all good commissioners. thank you. >> city leaders, neighbors, and veterans of san francisco, thank you for taking the time to support san francisco and its people. my name is nicholas, and i live in ingleside. i'm a combat wounded veteran, decorated with a purple heart, operation iraqi freedom 2004. right now, i volunteer with jason. i met jason at sfsu where he led veteran students to access benefits and service. he's personally assisted me in accessing my benefits and care. he's organized and educated veterans at sfsu about the city

and federal options for care. thanks to jason, i will be a homeowner in 60 days through the b.m.r. program. jason was promoted to look at sfsu veterans office to officially work in a capacity to help veterans get through the education system. for the past year, jason has volunteered without pay at the veterans justice court first as a peer mentor and then as a peer mentor coordinator. he assists the most destitute among our community to access health care and housing and apply for their benefits and engaging with the veterans administration health care system through the city's

department of health and human services. jason will be an invaluable asset because of his continuous self-less service in the community. he urges veterans from any situation to get on their feet and get to a better place. i think jason chittivong will bring our veterans home. further, i'd like to add that bill barnickel -- [inaudible] >> clerk: speakers time has elapsed. >> chair ronen: thank you very much. thank you so much. next speaker. >> good day, supervisors. my name is irwin umbau, and i'm a managing supervisor of citibank. i'd like to support bill barnickel about three years, and i think the three words that can describe him are

dedication, motivation, and commitment. my nephew, who recently separated after seven years from the air force, came to me and said i'm separating into civilian life. bill took him by the arm and walked him through the process of getting all his benefits. bill and i study martial arts in the same school. there was a veteran there who separated from the navy, and he walked him through the whole process of getting health care, education, housing, and career development. i participated in a lot of his efforts, and i look forward to participating with him in the future. i have not been with him socially where he has not found a veteran to help. i hope that helps you.

>> good morning. my name is gordon tan, and i'm born and raised in san francisco. i'm here in support of hanley chan. i've known him for many years, and i know his dedication with the commission. he's always hard working, has a good network of people that he knows, so i think he provides good support for all the veterans out there. thank you for your time. >> chair ronen: thank you so much. next speaker. >> good morning, supervisors. my name's vern glen, and normally, i talk about nothing but sports. i'm a t.v. guy. thank you for the applause. but i'm here for hanley chan, so i'm going to step out of the sports land and talk about him. we go back 20 years, and i've never seen him stop. i don't know where he gets his energy from, but you watch him work a room, you watch him fight for you, and it will just be unbelievable. paul mayamoto went for sheriff.

how did that work out? got sworn in about a month ago, and when he needed help, he called hanley chan, and we saw the end result. he's the kind of guy that just will not stop and just continue to fight. you need him on your team, you want him on your team, so hey, hanley chan, just remember the name. >> chair ronen: great voice. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is vernon xi. i'm a product of san francisco. i was born and raised in san francisco, product of the rotc program in high school. shortly after i graduated high school, i enlisted in the united states marine corps. after i separated, i was very unaware of my benefits, and i've been out for four years,

and i have finally started applying for benefits. after i met hanley chan, he's constantly reaching out, making sure i'm speaking to the right people, getting the kacare i need, so i support hanley chan. thank you. >> good morning. my name's bob vicari, robert vicari officially. i'm here to represent bill barnickel for one main reason. he got me what i deserve. i'm a veteran in the korean war. i ran into bill in the sunset,

and he had heard i ran into trouble with the v.a. getting hearing aids. he said you should be getting hearing aids. you're a combat veteran. he took me down to the city, at 2 vanness. i met a guy named gallagher, and then i went to the v.a. center, met a lady by the name of liz. i had a couple of interviews, down in texas, got veterans evaluation services, got into the mix, and not only -- i got my hearing aids, but they treat me very nicely over at the v.a., and the only thing i can say after everything has been said thus far is that he's your man, and he's my man for sure. thank you very much. >> chair ronen: thank you so much. >> good morning, supervisors.

my name is victor olivari, and i'm the chairman of the veteran's association. i don't envy your job. this is the second year that we've had a ton of overwhelming candidates. i did try to make your job easier to commence a rules committee to review all the applications and then recommended them to the commission. the committee is recommending douglas boullard and courtney miller. the only job we're responsible is advising the board of supervisors and mayor about policies that might affect

veterans. if there's a fifth person that you really like, please let us know, and we will do our best to make sure that person gets in front of the mayor's office. the commission right now is made up of 11 men and three women, which i think is something very important to note. we have eight people of color, that's four a.p.i., one african american, one hispanic, one middle eastern, and one lgbt. what we are missing is gaps in experience. we need subject matter experts, and this is well beyond public comment or any support of candidate. we have gaps in workforce development, education, housing, project management, and employee resource group development. so with that in mind, beyond the official recommendations of the board, i wanted to highlight the applications of three other prospective applicants in case you do not

wish to fill those other two seats. those are eric deng, daniel shaffer, and jason chittivong. thank you for your time, and i'm available if you have any questions. >> chair ronen: thank you so much. next speaker. >> good morning. my name is ralph martinson. i'm here supporting bill barnickel. i met bill, and he got to know me a little bit, and he said, marine, i'm going to help you. that was difficult for me. it's sometimes difficult for some of us to reach out for help. i know that after i was discharged, honorable discharge

in 2006, operation iraqi freedom combat tours, immediately went to graduate school, got married, things were looking bright, but i was carrying some things that hadn't been resolved just yet, and bill was there for me. bill said i'm going to take care of you, marine, and he dogged me out. i was trying not to go to the best of my ability, and he just stuck with me every step of the way. to this date, besides the ratings and benefits, just the help received, whatever it is, the mental health counseling, the supports, financial help, i think it really stopped me from going in a really wrong turn in my life, and i always appreciated him for that. >> chair ronen: thank you so much. is there any other member of the public who wishes to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed.

[gavel]. >> chair ronen: so you all have left us with an impossible task. it is just incredible to see the breadth of dedication to one another. i want to thank you all for your willingness to serve. all -- both of my colleagues want to speak. i will just say that i am very in favor of reappointing hanley chan to seat nine and william barnickel to seat three. clearly, you are going above and beyond your duties in providing support to fellow veterans, and i just want to thank you so much for doing that and explain -- and support your renomination to the commission. i also believe that women are underrepresented on this body,

and so i would like to support courtney miller for another seat on the commission, and then, the remaining seat, it's very difficult to say, but i wanted to hear from my colleagues before making a decision. so supervisor mar? >> supervisor mar: thank you chair ronen. i also want to thank all of the very impressive applicants for not just your willingness and serving on the veteran's affairs commission, but for your service to our country and your dedication and service to san francisco. as the son of a veteran and somebody who has family who are veterans, it's just inspiring to me to see all the different ways you're helping in our city. i -- yeah, i guess i -- this is

a really hard decision to make, you know, as chair ronen has stated. and i -- i also support the reappointment of hanley chan and bill barnickel. i have worked very closely with both bill and hanley on veterans issues and been really impressed and inspired by all of the direct work that both of you are doing to support individual veterans and families navigating -- to navigate our challenging service systems and bureaucracy. but also, you've done so much to educate me and other city leaders on the needs of our veterans community and towards improvement to our system and towards services to veterans. and i -- i also am supportive of doug boullard as a new appointment to the commission.

doug is somebody that i've gotten to know very well through his work as a jrotc program at lowell, but also citywide through the jrotc program, so i'm impressed by doug and his dedication to young people and his mentoring of young people through the jrotc people and what he's done to bridge the work between the veterans and military and the commission. >> chair ronen: thank you. supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: yes. i also want to thank all the folks that came out and applied. it's amazing to hear about everybody's extraordinary service and how you continue to help people in the community,

especially veterans in our city. i know for bill and for hanley and for all of the members of the commission, you all go above and beyond, and it's just extraordinary how many people you're able to connect with and support and be there for. so i just want to appreciate all of the members of the commission, and everyone who applied, for those who wanted to be on the commission, because we have a limited number of spots, i hope that you continue to be engaged, and i hope that there are ways for the commission to promote and support your leadership in the meantime, and hopefully, you'll have a spot on the commission at some point. i also just wanted to give a shout out to hanley who's somebody it seems like most of us know, and just thank him for being everywhere and for educating all of us and elected officials about the needs of veterans in our community.

and then, i also wanted to speak to doug boullard. he's somebody i got to know very well when i was a school board member and have always appreciated his role especially working with young people and just the professionalism and the effectiveness with which he does his work for jrotc. even when there was disagreements with the school district -- sometimes there are -- he always was an effective voice for leaders and veterans on the jrotc. i'm a guest on this committee, so i would defer to the chair on the final recommendations. >> chair ronen: okay. so listening to the comments, i will make a motion to move forward with positive recommendation william barnickel to seat three, courtney miller to seat six, douglas boullard to seat eight, and hanley chan to seat nine.

and if i can take that without objection, that motion passes unanimously. [gavel]. >> chair ronen: thank you so much. [applause] >> chair ronen: for those of you who didn't get a seat, please reach out to the mayor's office, and commissioner hanley can be helpful with that. thank you so much. mr. clerk, can you please read item three. >> item three is a hearing considering appointing one member, indefinite term, to the street-level dealing task force. >> chair ronen: thank you so much. give you a minute -- if you could please take the conversations outside, we still have business. i'd appreciate it so much. thank you. thank you. supervisor haney, do you have any opening comments?

>> supervisor haney: sure. so i want to thank the rules committee for making the appointments previously to the street level task force. this task force has actually already started to meet, and unfortunately -- >> chair ronen: sorry. if there's any further conversations, if you could take those outside, thank you so much. thank you. >> supervisor haney: thank you. unfortunately, one of the members, janet hector, who was previously appointed, had to withdraw. so we have six applicants for this one seat. some folks are here today with us, and some were not able to make it. we've read all of the applicants beforehand and have

considered any applicants. [inaudible] >> i got myself back together, and now, i have my own office that i help people -- homeless people get -- acquire housing every day, and i'm standing here in city hall. and i just think i have a good outlook on how -- like, give a good information on open -- like, the task force and ways

to help either the people dealing drugs get programs or focusing on the drug aiddicts ttin programs. and thinking more of the drug dealers, getting help for them, seeing if they're willing to use their skills for other purposes, but that's what i'm here for. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. >> good morning. i'm kenneth kim. i'm a licensed clinical psychologist and senior directing programs at glide. i was really exciting about janet joining the task force because of its charge. she's someone who's incredibly knowledgeable about this information. for myself, i came into this work growing up in approximate government housing myself, being exposed to violent crimes

myself. most of my experience has been in foster care, so my experience in drugs have been through foster parents, mostly in contra costa county. impart i am part of the community advisory committee, and i think my strength is being a bridge between the mental health systems. i've managed medicare contracts for ten years, and really, the challenges on both sides. with my work in glide, i helped lead the safe injection sites, what they look like, and how to apply the principles. i've been involved in the 300 ellis block safety group, as well as becoming a member of

tndc to help them with their member services. so in a really short time, i've been all over and appreciate advocating for all sides and also creatively pushing for a systems change, which i know this group is charged to do. so thank you for your consideration and your time. >> chair ronen: is there any other applicants that is present? we will now open this item up for public comment. any member of the public who wishes to speak, please come on up. >> good morning, supervisors. i'd like to speak in support of nicholas parise. he is -- i work at hospitality house and have known nicholas for the past year. he has a lot of integrity and potential leadership. recently, he -- he presented to

our entire staff how to use narcan to save lives on sixth street, which he had done himself. so i would like to speak in support of his application. thank you. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is mike. i am the clubhouse director for the boys and girls club of san francisco right here in the tenderloin. i am here to -- i don't have the words today -- for dr. kenneth kim. i've known dr. kim for several years now. he is someone who's from the community in that he's knee deep in the work that we're doing on a system basis. if we're looking for someone

that has a multifaceted approach, multifaceted ideas, dr. kim is probably one of the best people i can think of. whether it's systems driven work, community driven work, dr. kim has done it all in spades. i think this committee is a -- or this task force is a great way to kind of get things started, and i think dr. kim's perspective in all this work will be beneficial. he has mental health and behavioral health background, and i think we all know that the levels of trauma that come from street level drug dealing is multifaceted. it's not just being against the rules or breaking laws, there's a lot of trauma that goes with street level drug dealing, and

whether it's the people dealing drugs, or the people using drugs or the community, dr. kim brings a specific experience to that work all at the same time. thank you. >> morning, supervisors. my name is kate robinson from tenderloin community benefit district. i'm here to support ken kim for seat number two on the street level task force. not only do i think dr. kim is extremely qualified for the seat, i also think it's appropriate to have the seat remain with glide in respect to their lead program and harm reduction programs. i think it's critically important to have glide and particularly dr. kim at the table for this task force. i've worked with kim in partnership over the last two

years with the block safety group and the 300 block of ellis, and his intelligence, his commitment to solutions, his ability to really bring people together with opposing views. i urge the supervisors to appoint ken kim. thank you. >> chair ronen: thank you so much. >> can i give you my card, too? thank you. good morning supervisors.

i'm associate director of the ucsf community engagement. through ctsi and ccsi, ucsf is striving to make our science more useful and applicable to keeping our communities healthy and safe. our approach is to promote health and health care equity and patient centered care through partnership and collaboration. for the past five years, i've had the honor to serve on the tlhip advisory committee, coordinated by st. francis hospital and foundation. it's a unique platform for stakeholders to collaborate.

i'm very fortunate to have the opportunity to build these bridges of health and health equity. the tlhipcac that i met ken kim. ken serves aresource and a -- as a resource and leader on drug addiction and drug use. ken's exceptional knowledge comes from the depth and breadth of his clinical administrative experience which in turn comes from a lived experience, living in public housing. ken's seemingly inexhaustible passion for better health care in district six drives him to help others, and my institute's included, to build their capacity --

>> chair ronen: thank you so much. is there any other member of the public who wishes to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel]. >> chair ronen: supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: yes. i'd like to thank mr. nicholas and dr. kim for applying. for anyone who wants to attend, there's sort of a more public feedback meeting that's going to happen this wednesday. the whole task force will be there. so again, i just want to appreciate you both for applying. i'm going to make a motion to appoint dr. ken kim to be appointed to sit in vacant seat

two. >> chair ronen: and without objection, that motion passes unanimously. thank you so much, both of you, for your willingness to serve. mr. clerk, can you please read item 4. [agenda item read]. >> chair ronen: supervisor haney, would you like to make any opening remarks? >> supervisor haney: yes. i want to thank all of the applicants, including those of you who are still around, for joining us today. the soma community stabilization fund was created in 2005, and its mission is to stablize the community and promote equity through funding recommendations and priorities that mitigate the impact of development. some notable highlights of the fund's investments include the build out of the soma child care center at transbay, seed

funding for the bill soro housing, acquisition for a new permanent location for soma playas, and much more. throughout the fund's history, the board of supervisors has always honors the recommendations of the c.a.c., and so it has real influence in shaping the neighborhood and prioritizing investments to stablize residents and businesses. it is critical this responsibility is held by people who know and have been invested in soma. their expertise, history, and relationships in soma will be critical in making decisions for allocating these public dollars. i want to thank claudine, adele, and we appreciate your years of work and dedication to

the c.a.c. and its members. today, we have eight applicants. one applicant withdrew their application, and i know some applicants are here and some are not. i know we've reviewed all the applications beforehand and reviewed all the information submitted by the applicants. so for the applicants that are here today, if you can lineup and approach the podium one by one and share a brief statement why you would like to be a part of the soma stabilization fund. >> chair ronen: come on up. >> hello, supervisors. thank you for the opportunity to present my qualifications for the soma stabilization fund. i will quickly run through the various small business projects that i have worked on over the last 11 years, the majority of which have been in or near soma. in 2009, i opened farm table, a little cafe that could, and a social experiment where everyone shared a single table.

in 2012, farm table built a community funded parklet, and in 2014, i was hired as a consultant by the american skefsh to conservetory theater. in 2018, i cofounded jolene's, located on the soma mission border. today, i'm also here as a representative of the leather lgbtq cultural district enforc

enforced by board president bob colfar. i am deeply invested in the preservation of soma's lgbtq culture to preserve, promote and protect small businesses in soma. >> chair ronen: thank you. next speaker. >> good morning. good morning again, supervisors. i apologize. i forgot to state my name. i'm allen sampson minello. i thank you for your time today. i work in your district, and i live in your district, so that's kind of cool. any ways, i -- i'm here today to speak as a current member -- or as a member of the soma stabilization fund. i served in the past -- the

past 15 years, i served almost ten of those years, and four of these years as the chair. i lived -- i've been living in san francisco for 30 years, and i -- 15 of those years have been working or living in the south of market area. i was the artistic and managing director of a performing arts center on sixth street for the filipino american community. i've also worked very closely with many of the soma community organizations as a voluntary supporter and community advocate including somcan, the oasis for girls, west bay, and of course the united players. i'm very proud of the work we have done as a c.a.c., and thank you, supervisor haney, for listing our accomplishments.

that's going to give me a little bit more time to talk about what we see for the future of the c.a.c. we're very excited to continue our work. there's still much more stabilization that needs to be done with many of the organizations in the south of market area. as you know, with the rampant development that's going on in soma, it's very crucial that the fund continues, and i am very excited -- i would like to continue my work with my colleagues on the c.a.c. reading the list of applicants coming in, it's even more exciting because we have some folks that are applying that have really strong integrity. i know that's my time, but i'd also like to speak on behalf of

chris roam asmasanta. she had to leave for a meeting with the san mateo housing authority. she is applying for seat four, which is the housing seat. she has served for -- on the soma c.a.c. for eight years. she lived in soma for eight years, also, and is familiar with the services and the nonprofit organizations. she has a background in urban planning and housing. she's worked for various cities and counties in the bay area, addressing the need for affordable housing. while at the c.a.c., chris worked with the staff and community organizations, along with the san francisco land trust to pilot our small sites on the natoma street. subsequently, this launched the city small site program. chris is excited to continue the work of stablizing low-income residents in the south of market area. thank you for your consideration, supervisors.

>> good morning, supervisors. i am here, applying for district six, seat seven. i think that i've been in san francisco for about 20 years and soma about ten. i think my connection to soma and the small business owners could add to the stabilization of the neighborhood. i think moving forward especially after a major purge happening now, we should potentially see some major growth and in moving forward, i would like to be an assess to the community as well as a valuable resource to the businesses and the community in the neighbors alike. i don't have a tremendous amount of spare time, but any free time that i could add and

help with the community and the growth is certainly appreciated on my side. i thank you for your time this morning. yea for veterans, and go task forces -- drug task forces, and thank you for your time. >> chair ronen: there's no more applicants here. we will now open this -- oh, raquel, come on up. >> good morning, supervisors -- still morning, right? my name's raquel redonidiez.

during the years when we foughtor the -- fought for the rebuilding of the elementary school and the park, i'm excited for the opportunity to help serve on this committee to prioritize funding for cultural preservation, community facilities, and the expenditure of fees for central soma. i'm also excited to serve with the other applicants, both those who have previously served as well as those who have put their names forward. it is a critical time for our community who's made our home here for over 100 years as we learn just how many community members we have lost in the last few years of hyperdevelopment and displacement in the neighborhood. we know we've lost half of our population since the last

census. but we are a resilient community and we will fight to continue to make the south of market a viable community for everyone. as with the rincon hill plan, this new phase of the stabilization fund must ensure that development fees from central soma are used to mitigate harm that will be caused by the luxury office and hotel developments and the great need for affordable housing. there must also be strong alignment with the stabilization fund and other soma advisory committees. i hope to serve on this committee, and lastly, i'd also like to contribute to having the c.a.c. play a larger role in weighing in with the board

of supervisors and also mohcd to address -- to, you know, not only on policies and strategies for community development but also to advise against initiatives that contribute to displacement and bring harm to the community. thank you. >> hello. my name is michelle olivas. i'm trying to say a lot really fast. so i am born and raised in san francisco. i have spent the last 20 years of my life in soma as a soma resident, and so my reasons for wanting to serve on this committee are both personal and professional. on the personal side of things, like, i've shared often my youngest daughter refuses to sleep in her bedroom because her windows open onto our alley, and she's traumatized by the fighting and the things she hears out on the street. in her 13 years, she has seen

more dead bodies on her way to and from school than i did in my entire k through college education, and i grew up in the mission when gang violence still had a way more significant impact than it does now, and that's unacceptable. there's a very different reality for folks who live in soma than those who come there during the day or have their businesses there. for me, it's important to have a resident voice on the committee. secondly, when the stabilization fund first started, we were squatting at the rec center and had about three or four staff program. we are now a 501-c-3, and we have a staff of 30. for me, it's important that we

take full advantage of this opportunity. the stabilization fund that was sunsetting was a great opportunity for folks to stablize their services. when we deal with folks and families daily, we need their c.b.o.s to be stable, so i'm ready to make sure that they are stable and not always in crisis because that ripple effect hurts our community just as much as the gentrification and the development does. thank you. >> chair ronen: now we will open this up for public comment. any member of the public who wishes to speak, please come on forward. come on up. you might be our only speaker, so come on up. >> take my time -- just kidding. hello. my name is paul barreira.

i work with soma filipinas. i'd like to say that the soma c.a.c. is a really important body, and i support everyone who's put their names forward. the body is a crucial place for soma projects and people to find their space for expression. i work closely with many of the applicants, including chris, allen, john elberling, raquel, kim -- let me make sure i don't leave anyone out -- caroline and misha, and even those that i don't know personally, i appreciate they're willing to serve in this capacity. i hope that the future of the soma c.a.c. can help address displacement pressures as well as enable the many facets of the filipino and working class communities in the soma, to continue to fluorish, so i hope that all of these applicants will find support from you. thank you.

[inaudible] >> chair ronen: seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: thank you, and thank you to all of the applicants, and for the folks who are serving on the stabilization fund now, thank you. what i am going to do is we have -- so there's seven seats and there's also a number of alternate seats. what i'm going to do is make a motion to appoint five members, s and then, for the applicants that aren't being appointed today, your application will remain active, and i'd like to bring this back in march to make the final appointments. i'm motioning for john elberling to fill the seat of a senior resident of soma, mish a, raquel to represent an arts or cultural organization in

soma, allen to fill the member seat who has expertise in employment development, and adam to fill the small business seat. so for the other folks, we will continue to have your applications be active as we make the final decisions at the next meeting. >> chair ronen: okay. >> clerk: madam chair, just so you note, the specific qualifications are not assigned to a specific seat number pursuant to the vacancy notice, so the qualifications for this body is floating, and that information is appreciated, but we still need to assign to a specific seat number. >> chair ronen: okay. >> clerk: thank you the qualifications for all the seats are the same, so they must -- >> supervisor haney: so i just need to assign a number to them? >> clerk: yes. >> supervisor haney: okay. so -- all right.

it doesn't really matter, does it? just in that order, john to seat one, misha to seat two, raquel to seat three, and adam to seat five. >> chair ronen: without objection, that motion passes unanimously. [gavel]. >> chair ronen: mr. clerk, is there any other items before us today? >> clerk: there are no other items before us today. >> chair ronen: thank you. the meeting is adjourned. [gavel]