>> clerk: thank you. you may have a little time left. >> no, i think we're okay. thank you, guys. >> clerk: okay. >> okay. thank you. >> clerk: so we'll now hear from mr. sanchez. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. just a couple of points. first, the proposed deck does not look directly into the adjacent unit. that is -- the adjacent unit is shown on the plans. it's somewhat unique, and that's the level, that second level is split between the two units. there's the permit holder's unit, which is on the ground floor, and a portion of the second floor, and that second floor is shared with the other unit, and then, they have the top floor, but the deck does not look into those windows, and that's shown very clearly on the plans. that's set back a few feet, probably 3 feet from the windows of that other unit.

you know, the deck does meet our design guidelines, it's set back fairly substantially from the adjacent property lines. i know the board here has heard quite a few appeals about deck yards and privacy concerns, and some projects that do have the deck right up at the property lines, and in this case, it's set back from all lot lines. it is a small lot, and, you know, perhaps for the size of the lot, it is a generous size deck, but it is within reason for a deck in san francisco as we've seen it, and it does meet our design guidelines. so with that, i'm available for any questions that the board may have. just confirming, it's code compliant, does not need modifications, and i'm available for questions. >> clerk: okay.

just -- i don't see any questions from any of the commissioners, so we will move onto chief building inspector duffy. do you have anything further? >> no, nothing further. i'm available for any questions. >> clerk: commissioners, this matter is submitted -- we do have a question. vice president honda, do you have a question? >> vice president honda: i don't have a question. i was just raising my hand for commissioner comments after. >> clerk: okay. this matter's been submitted. >> president lazarus: commissioner honda? >> vice president honda: thank you, president lazarus. so commissioners, what's before us is whether this permit was properly issued. you know, in remembrance of our late commissioner -- or our commissioner that moved onto the planning, frank would have had a ball with this, but in this particular case, you know, this is san francisco. we do live in an urban environment. you know, granted, that the

permittees actually had additional process to this matter. my opinion is that we would accept the appeal and condition it on what inspector duffy recommended. >> clerk: okay. commissioner swig? >> commissioner swig: i was going to say the same thing. thank you. >> president lazarus: any other comments? >> clerk: i would like clarification from inspector duffy. he referenced two boxes that -- >> vice president honda: 9-a and number 9, and to eliminate roof -- number 19 was to horizontal. correct, senior inspector? >> that's correct, yes. >> clerk: so box 9-a should say yes, box 19 should say

horizontal? >> you could check the people that pulled the permit, but it's a two-unit. i believe it's a two-unit building, but on the application, they have listed as single-family. i believe it's a two unit, so it should be corrected to say two units. >> clerk: geddes, are you still there? hello? geddes? >> i just wanted to clarify, this is a two-unit building, that is right. >> yes, i'm still here. >> clerk: it is a two-unit building, correct? >> yes, there are two units there. >> clerk: thank you. and inspector duffy, just to be clear, you wanted it corrected on the permit if that is an

exterior deck offver the first floor, not over the roof? >> correct, it's not a roof deck. >> okay. we can make that change. >> and then, box number 19, julie, it's to say yes on that one. >> clerk: yes on 19 and yes on 9-a. >> 9 to 9-a, just from one to two. >> clerk: okay. okay. so who's making this motion? >> vice president honda: that would be my motion to grant the appeal and condition the permit that the foregoing corrections be made on the permit. >> clerk: okay. we have a motion -- >> that's good language. that's fine. >> clerk: okay. we have a motion from vice president honda to grant the appeal and issue the permit on the condition that it be revised to require the following changes: that they remove the reference to a roof

deck. it's an exterior addition of a deck over the existing first floor, and box 9 should change from 1 unit to 2 unit, and box 19 would be horizontal, and on the basis that these correct the errors on the permit and permit application, correct? >> can i add one other thing? >> clerk: sure. >> box 7 and 7-a should not say single-family dwelling. >> clerk: okay. box 7 and 7-a should not say single-family dwelling. >> yes. >> clerk: okay. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that motion carries, 4-0. thank you. i'm going to hang up on you now, okay? okay. thank you. okay. >> vice president honda: before

we get started, i think we should congratulate -- i think we have the acting chief deputy building inspector in our midst right now. >> clerk: yes, we do. >> vice president honda: congratulations was it deputy chief inspector -- so does that mean that we're going to lose you here at the board of appeals now that you're the big shot? >> no, i'm not the big shot. i'm just the acting chief building inspector. >> vice president honda: congratulations, joe. >> clerk: congratulations. >> yeah, i'll keep at the board of appeals. >> clerk: okay. excellent. okay. so we are now moving onto item number 9-a and 9-b. these are appeal numbers 19-135 and 19-137, brian raffi and roxanne davis versus department of building inspections

concerning the buildings at 40 and 50 alta street to jerold balzer. proposed work includes industrial moment frame at ground floor, plywood sheer walls and foundation. the same work is to be performed at 40 alta street under permit 20170909596929, so we will hear from the appellants first. since we have two appeals, we have 14 minutes. so mr. raffi and miss davis, who would like to go first? >> i hope if i got the time right, cheryl takes part of the other.

good evening. any time? >> clerk: yes. so do you want to take seven minutes and miss davis take the other seven? >> yes, and i'd like to eat into her time because i know her statement is shorter than mine. >> clerk: okay. is that okay with her? >> i don't know. >> clerk: miss davis? miss davis? miss davis. >> i'm here. yes, that's fine. >> clerk: okay. so we'll give you a warning when seven minutes comes up, and you can decide what you want to do. >> yeah, i'll give you a seven-minute warning when it comes up. >> okay. so good evening. i hope that everyone's family and friends are healthy during this time. i know that this is the fourth time that the board has heard this case, and the board is conscious of the time spent on this. i'll just introduce myself.

my name is brian raffi. i'm a native of san francisco. [inaudible] >> until march 15, when lots of employment ended, this march 15, i trained medical students at ucsf and also led walking through tours celebrating two of our neighborhoods, san francisco and north beach. i say this because i love the city, and i've given back to it. 50 alta is only my second adult apartment. i didn't plan on staying, but i've lived here 34 years. it is my home, and i'd hate to be displaced from it because i cannot afford to remain in san francisco. i know this hearing is now only about the two remaining permits. the other two permits scheduled

for today have been dropped by the appellants. i want to remind the board that our appeals were never ever about appealing everything as is falsely stated by the defendant's attorney in our current brief. we are here because we as 40 and 50 alternate -- we as 40 and 50 alta do not want to be displaced from our homes. the first plans approved ultimately stated there would be no tenants in the building during the construction. we welcome the seismic upgrade. we agree the seismic retrofit is necessary, and it's mandated by the city and law, but the board of appeals has the ability to revoke this permit because of the landlord's malicious intent and dishonesty. san francisco code 37.9 states an owner can do capital

improvements in good faith without intent. owners and their attorney have argued that the reason they explained our ignorance, they made a mistake in the plans and the filing. specific examples are on record at prior board hearings regarding this property and their briefs. one example, if this was a simple mistake, there would be no tenant in the building during construction. it should say there would be tenants in the building. why did they wait until the last minute to withdraw that permit? it caused tons of confusion and we put tons of hours into something essentially moot at

that time. if for whatever reason the ownership and management had changed, and they start open and honest communication and do everything they can to keep tenants in their homes without harassment, we welcome that. however, only time will show if these stated changes are lip service. i really thank mr. balzer and leafi leavitt for getting many of our questions answered. [inaudible] >> -- if the sterile work is no longer required, why does the unit need to be vacated? there is no documentation that this is necessary. it is also read that the tenants may be evicted for a seismic retrofit? why is 50 alta a unique case? they've withdrawn permits for

other work and just want to proceed with the retrofit. that suggests to today, they've been misleading the boards and other tenants. [inaudible] >> they sent a short letter stating they were revoking the stairwell permits but no other information by only mentioning the new intentions for temporary evictions in their brief, there is a stated lack of transparency the last few years. in an e-mail dated may 8 by their attorney, ryan patrick -- [inaudible] >> why did their attorney say there were no plans? after us and julie and you pressing, they admitted there were no plans, and we got them

late friday, so that communication remains unchanged. owners and management are delaying the process -- [inaudible] >> to change the nature of the discussion. they want to make sure the appellants cannot provide a concise argument and they want to make sure the board of appeals don't have the information they need to make a decision allowing the management and the attorneys to argue at the hearings that the tenants are misinformed and don't have any evidence. the tenants don't have the need to have a law firm on retainer 24 hours to handle submittals. last-minute changes leave us

scrambling. is this intentaional strategy? the fact that no notice by e-mail or letter about the plans for 50 intentional or unintentional? does that mean that the april 8 e-mail applies only to 40 alta and not 50? i mean, should it be the policy for us to constantly chase and correct the owners and management's constant mistakes? >> that's seven minutes, if you want to continue. >> i have about two minutes left. thank you so much. i can forward you a copy of that e-mail if you want. our fears have not changed, and the questions we now ask ourselves is did they change their strategy about how to empty the building because we resisted?

have they figured out some other way to get rid of us? they did take a rental unit off and put their office in their illegally? are they planning to make life unbearable by having the seismic work drag on and on. these are not unreasonable concerns of ours given the past history. all the wonderful talk sounds great in the moment. a dog that's abused by its owner always remains cautious and trusting when the owner gently holds out his hand and talks gently, saying that's okay. why? because the dog knows that he was abused previously after the owner's words. mr. balzer e-mailed an answer, which is great. we thank him, about the timeline, which would be the same outlined in the first

package, but upon a day's reflection, is that answer realistic? has anyone talked to the construction crew about the plans, if they change anything? does social distance change anything? it would be better to get an actual timeline from the construction team to address covid-19. mr. ryan twisted and misrepresented the intent of working out in good faith some monetary assurance to make sure we would not be displaced permanently. secondly, mr. ryan existed the reality of what i said. the lawsuit was unjust and without merit, therefore, the holding of the check was not allowed. in closing, i would like to say again, all of us welcome a real change in the owner's intent and actions, but we are skeptical. we trust the board's decision regarding the issuance of these permits with or without restrictions or in whole. i thank you for your time.

>> clerk: thank you. miss davis? >> okay. thank you very much. thank you. okay. well, first of all, i'd like to thank the board for your patience and just for your being there to help us. you know, help us refer to the facts that help us make our lives safe and fair. i'm grateful that you've given us the opportunity to state our case and to defend our tenants rights. i'm also grateful that the owner has decided to cancel the work outside of the mandatory retrofit so that we tenants don't have to be displaced, especially now with the world sheltering at home. in order to keep our discussion relevant, i want to stick to or bring up two concerns just for the record, the transparency and the timing. this is a little bit redundant because the transparency, even though jerold balzer says they will stick to the retrofit work

only, his history of keeping us off balance so our arguments with always irrelevant, so they don't have any trick up their sleeve, we want the building to be safe, and we don't want to lose our home. so as for the timing, it's concerning because out of the 12 units, two have been under construction, under renovation for two years, and, like, there's no urgency to complete. it's just like there's no end date. even before the lockdown, these units have been empty and off the market, and what's concerning, without a deadline, the work could go on indefinitely. it should take four to 12 weeks to do the retrofit, and then, is there a way to ensure a completion date for the retrofit within, like, standard building requirements so that

the job doesn't languish, you know, into infinity? so these are unprecedented times, and i'm hoping we can come through this healthy and with the necessary rebalancing that needs to occur. just a little kudos, san francisco has done a good job of keeping the numbers down. i feel blessed to live in this beautiful city and beautiful neighborhood where i've lived for almost four decades. and it's exceptional and welcomed. i'm a teacher with the san francisco school district. this is my son's -- my son was raised here. he's not living here at the moment, and we want to do whatever we need to keep our home life focused on fairness and safety, and we thank you again for helping both the city and us tenants. thank you very much. >> clerk: okay. thank you, miss davis. i also want to make an announcement. i see a lot of people who are on this zoom meeting, and if you're here for public comment, we're only taking public comment by phone, so you need

to go to our website and call in on that phone number. so i don't know -- i just see a number of names, and i don't think they're direct participants, but if you're here for public comment, we do have a phone number and an access code that you need to call from our website. go to sfgov.org/boa, and all the information is there, so thank you. i just want to -- i'm giving you time to do that now because we're going to hear from the permit holder. mr. patrick, you have 14 minutes to respond, and we're going to put you on spotlight. i'm going to unmute you. one moment -- maybe we're doing it at the same time. >> can you hear me now? >> clerk: yes, i can. thank you. >> good evening, commissioners.

thank you for this opportunity. it's good to see you're healthy and well, and you guys are doing a great job. doing a hearing like this presents a lot of logistical difficulties, and, yes, thank you for your efforts to keep the gears turning during this whole crisis. i'd just like to clarify what's at issue. it's whether or not the seismic permits for 40 and 50 alta were issued properly. there hasn't been any evidence to suggest that these permits were issued improperly. t what the permit owner is asking that you deny the two appeals and approve the two seismic permits. there's going to be displacement of the tenants of 50 alta and un one, ain unit o temporary, for 17 days. [inaudible] >> we've tried to, given the

long history of when we first got here, presenting everything we wanted to do to upgrade this building to streamlining it, to say okay, well, because it's going to be such a battle and because there's going to be all of these logistical hurdles, how can we stream line this to make it as -- to take care of these safety issues, and that's what we've done here. if the project has moved and been refined, it's because we want to take care of the mandatory seismic, and that's it. and that's where we are here today. i asked jerold balzer here if you want him to answer any questions. i also have our architect to speak to any questions, and i'm also available to answer any questions. thank you. >> clerk: okay. are you -- are you finished? >> yeah. >> clerk: okay. i'm not seeing any questions from the commissioners -- yes, i see commissioner swig has a question. >> commissioner swig: thank you.

let me actually put my -- unmask myself. i'm confused about displacement. is there going to be -- in this new set of permits, is there going to be displacement of tenants or not, and if so, how long? >> mr. swig, the displacement is stated in our brief. the work -- the seismic work will cause the temporary displacement of one tenant, and that is the tenant in unit 1 at 50 alta. neither of the appellants will be displaced. >> commissioner swig: okay. and in hearing the appellant's testimony, something concerned me, and in previous hearings,

we've been through a number of hurdles and things have changed and there's been switches in the past, and it's been fairly inconsistent. so i -- but now you have a hurdle that none of us anticipated, which are new construction rules, and those new construction rules including social distancing. so in your -- in your plans and in your timing and timeline spreadsheet, what is the difference and is there a difference between what is represented in your brief and a new reality that is associated with social distancing and new construction? >> well, we're all dealing with the uncertainty of social distancing and emergency orders, and i -- ideally, the construction's going to have to start after these emergency orders and the social distancing stuff is lifted. that's the only practical way to deal with this.

>> commissioner swig: okay. so your -- if this construction is now allowable, and construction is starting, there's no restrictions on you to start this project. but are you representing here that you are going to complete this project when we are no longer under this -- these new rules or these current rules and stick to that amount of time that you represented? >> yes, and, i mean, i think it would be completely unreasonable to go ahead and start a major construction project while everybody's sheltering in place. just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. >> commissioner swig: okay. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. is there -- i'm looking to see if there are anymore questions. i don't see any questions at this point, so we will hear from the planning department.

mr. sanchez? >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. so the subject property, we have two properties adjacent to one another, 40 and 50 alta street. both are located in rh-3 zoning district. at issue, what's left before the board today are two permits related to seismic improvement. these permits were issued in error because as the plans that are before you, they contain work that were required review by the planning department, and that review was not obtained. the permit holder was made aware of that fact after the appeal was filed and has been working diligently with our staff to develop plans for the soft story work that did not require review, and i believe they've submitted those most recently to the board of appeals on may 8, and those plans have been reviewed by our staff and find that they don't

require our review. it's a little bit odd we have to take a look at it to ensure we didn't need to take a look at it, but that's where we are, so it would be the position of the planning department that the board should grant the appeal and adopt the revised plans that were submitted last week. they still maintain the required seismic work for both buildings, but they've been changed in height and scope such that nothing would require our review. the two permits that were initially reviewed at some point originally required our review and could not be changed in a way to not require our review. i think those permits were originally issued in 2017, and stated no occupants in the building, but we informed also the permit holder that those two permits were invalid

because they weren't reviewed by the planning department. i think everyone would have preferred that they would have been cancelled a little bit sooner because we advised them shortly after the appeal was filed, but given with everything that's happening now with covid-19 and the city's response, they did ultimately get those permits cancelled, which is what was required. last summer, they did submit a certificate of appropriateness and building permit for each property for another scope of work. those permits are still on file. the scope of work on each -- permit for each property is pretty similar. a remodel of entry lobby, the four unit repair of decks and floors, including new access stairs, so that is still under review by our department. that's not been approved, but i think that may include -- or

they can include some of the work that they've been proposing in permits that have been cancelled in one permit that's been appropriately reviewed by all city agencies. but what's left before you tonight, it does need to be changed to the revised plans that they submitted last week, and that would address our concerns, and i'm available for any questions. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, mr. sanchez. are there any questions for mr. sanchez? yes. we have a question from commissioner swig. >> commissioner swig: got to unmute myself. sorry. >> clerk: okay. >> commissioner swig: just for the benefit of the appellants, what -- it is really -- what our discussion has to do with tonight is whether these -- whether the plans and the permits coincide, and whether you approve of the plans to

move forward. the issues of how long the construction lasts is not really our issue, but how do we give, given the -- the obvious lack of cross which exists between the two parties, how do we advise coexistence during this period, and how do we put at ease the anxiety of the tenants with regard to the displacement at least of one tenant? >> excellent question, and i don't know that i have an answer for you. i mean, this is an ongoing issue it has been with communication. i don't know that that can be resolved by the board of appeals here. maybe things have improved over the years this has been going on. i don't know that that is the

case, but certainly i think, you know, highlighting -- the board highlighting the need for the parties to communicate and to try to resolve things in a cooperative manner to communicate effectively to make clearly known what the timeline is, i think that's going to be important to the parties. i don't know to what extend the board can condition the approval of the soft story permit on communications other than perhaps a statement that the board encourages the communications to continue. and i don't know if your deputy city attorney has any other advice that may be appropriate or perhaps advice to that, as well. but it's a question of communication and transparency. >> commissioner swig: and given the one very good point amongst many was made by the appellant, which was when they pointed out

that -- that current and previous improvements on the property that should have taken very short periods of time have gone on forever without closure, and -- and they are concerned that, likewise, a simple soft story retrofit project which should take a specific amount of days in a range will go on for an inordinate period of time. is there anything that this board can do to add some protection so that a -- you know, a -- i'm just going to pick a number -- a ten-day project doesn't become a 100 day or 200-day or two-year project? >> there's nothing in the planning code that i can point

you to as a tool. perhaps senior inspector duffy does. i know they have certain guidelines that they have to complete the work, but those can be extended. i think those guidelines in the code are probably longer than anyone would like to see, any way. so maybe your city attorney has some other advice or comments, or other board members, but i apologize. i don't have a better answer for what the board may be able to do in terms of conditioning this permit. >> commissioner swig: yeah. my intent is full transparency and also bringing comfort to the appellants, so that's why i ask the question. >> clerk: thank you. are there any further questions for mr. sanchez at this point? i don't see any, so we will now move onto the department of building inspection. chief inspector duffy? >> this is joe duffy, d.b.i. both permits are for the soft story retrofit of the buildings. they're under mandatory order,

and actually we -- d.b.i. has two notices of written violation for failure to comply, so they're actually under violation, as well. obviously, with the appeals and stuff like that, we do give them some time. but the permits themselves, from a d.b.i. point of true, have been properly -- point of view, have been properly reviewed and issued. there's a lot of buildings in the city getting the soft story work done. the delay in countering the permits, i can take responsibility for that. probably blame it on covid, because i think i had an e-mail back on march 13 from the architect, mr. leavitt, asking us to cancel the permits, and i can take responsibility for that. there was nothing underhanded done by the building owners, because i told them at that time that d.b.i. was only doing essential -- we were actually closed for a time, but that was the reason for the delay.

it was not their fault, i can assure the tenants of that. as soon as we got a chance to do that, we did. in regards to the -- the soft story ordinance does allow for the tenant landlord issues to be resolved. the rent board gets involved, and there is language in the ordinance that also protected the tenants. also allows the landlord and what has to happen on the severance if anyone has to move out for a while while the work's done. i want to encourage them to get the work done as quickly as possible for convenience for the tenants that are remaining in the tenants and to get the tenant back. the permits themselves are good for 12 months, and that's the time. we do not have anything in our codes to make them go any quicker. and they also -- in relation to the health order, they can work

under the health order. there's an appendix in the code b-1, which i imagine this would fall under. they could follow all of the guidelines in that if they so wish. mr. patrick said probably wait until the health order is lifted. i don't know when that's going to be, but there is an allowance to get the work done if they so wish, and there is an order to follow the protocols. there's a sign-in every day. they have to have, you know, sanitizers, masks, so there's about four pages in there. you have to have the signs posted on the building. so there's some new things that they need to take care of if they do, indeed, to start the work if the health order didn't get lifted for a long time. hopefully that helps a little bit, and i'm available for any questions. >> clerk: okay. see if we have any questions for mr. duffy.

and i don't see any questions. i just want to make sure that miss davis is back. she got apparently knocked off the meeting, and she's called in. miss davis, is there yis you o phone, ending in 3272? >> no. >> clerk: no? okay. okay. i just want to make sure that one of the appellants, roxanne davis, is back on. alex, did you hear from her? >> she's trying to log in right now. >> clerk: okay. if anyone is here for public comment, we're only taking public comment by telephone. i'm not going to accept public comment via zoom. >> the appellant is going to try to call in. i think her internet went out, so she's going to try calling. >> clerk: okay.

thank you for your patience. we're just waiting for miss davis to call in. alec? >> yes. >> clerk: maybe you can call her and just hold the phone up to -- >> yeah, i can do that, too. >> clerk: on speaker? >> yeah. let me give her a call. hold on. >> clerk: okay.

okay. i believe, miss davis, did you just enter the meeting on your phone? oh, sorry. wrong person. miss davis, did you just enter the meeting on your phone? >> i did. >> clerk: okay. wonderful. we can hear you. okay. we're moving onto the public comment portion. are there any callers who called in for public comment? press star-nine now, and i know that you want to speak. we're only taking public comment by telephone. press star-nine. okay. i don't see any callers in for public comment, so we are going to move onto rebuttal.

mr. raffi and miss davis, you have six minutes total. how do you want to split that time up? three minutes each, or -- okay. i'm sorry, mr. raffi, go ahead. >> i was just asking roxanne if you want to go first, and there were -- i don't know if they gave up. there were at least two people that wanted to speak, one tenant and someone else. i don't know if any others officially. >> clerk: okay. i think somebody's trying to call in. hold on one moment. >> yeah, i think somebody was trying to dial in when we were trying to -- >> clerk: okay. so let me -- >> let me try to text that tenant now. >> clerk: if you have that phone number, we can try to call them. who is trying to call in? are you part of the zoom meeting? is it teresa?

can you just call in? okay. maybe we should just take you via zoom. it's getting late, and let's just do that, okay, because it's getting late. >> unmuted? okay great. >> clerk: okay. so go ahead, you have three minutes. >> okay. i am teresa flandrick. i've actually been working with these tenants since 2018, when they were first asked to take buyouts because there would be some seismic retrofit work done, and we discussed at that time how rarely does anyone have to move other than maybe someone at the ground level. so they started watching the permits, and as has already been stated, the first permit that was of great alarm was the fact that it was stated that there would be no occupants in the building. so i just -- a lot of this has already been said by the appellants, and i just want to say that i have witnessed them

being -- you know, this has gone over a long period of time, and it has been with delays, it has been with last-minute withdrawals of permits, etc., which has been very confusing for everyone both i know at the commission as well as for the tenants. so i am really happy that planning will be reviewing things now. that was initially not the case with over-the-counter permits? i also want to say that regarding the temporary relocation of the tenants in apartment 1, as we've said earlier in other hearings, there are havevacant units in building, and for mr. balzer to show good faith, he could, as stated in the rent board

ordinance, offer a comparable unit, and certainly one in that building would mitigate a lot of the -- the impact on these tenants in apartment 1. it would also mean moving without risking the lack of social distance? it would be also an incentive for mr. balzer to get the work done as quickly as possible so that they could return to their home. so i just want to say that -- that i hope that, indeed, the owner and management will attend to the work. it's very important to get this work done, as well as attend to the needs of the tenants in no one being displaced for any unnecessary length of time. so thank you. >> clerk: thank you. is there any other public comment? any other callers?

if you're here for public comment, press star-nine? okay. so we're moving onto rebuttal, and miss davis, i believe you're going to go first. we'll give you notice when three minutes is up, and then, if mr. raffi wants to take the remaining three, he can do so. >> okay. >> clerk: so go ahead, please. >> okay. >> clerk: okay. >> i just want to say thank you. i'll let brian take over. it's okay. >> clerk: okay. mr. raffi? one moment. okay. please go ahead now. >> great. i really have no rebuttal. i just want to reiterate, i appreciate your time. and also, the questions from the board concerning our

concerns. honestly, we wish we didn't have to deal with this. none of you take offense, we hope we never see you again in this situation, and that would be a good thing because there would be nothing going wrong. i guess the only questions that i have, and i understand it's not -- that what would be the notice once -- it's a 12-month permit, so they're going to start sometime in the future. what is that notice going to be, and i just want to make sure it comes in a timely manner so we can do everything that has already been outlined in some e-mails that you and the board were privy to in the last couple days. thank you for your time. i hope that things work out and that things have changed. >> clerk: okay. thank you, mr. raffi. okay. let me see if there are any questions at this point. one moment. okay. so we will now move onto mr. patrick. you have six minutes for

rebuttal. let me make it -- i'm sorry. unmute you. okay. go ahead, mr. patrick. >> it sounds like all of us are in agreement that the -- the seismic work needs to go through. i've heard both appellants state that. they have not highlighted any reason, legally basis -- they haven't highlighted a legal basis to stop the permits. the permits were properly issued, and they should go forward. >> clerk: okay. thank you. i don't see any questions from the commissioners at this point -- oh, yes. vice president honda. >> vice president honda: good evening, counselor. first of all, i'd like to commend you for working this out with these guys. it's been a long and winding road, of course with the board of appeals. and i agree that even though

you're allowed to do work right now, 9:30 to 4:30 with a small crew, and having people sheltering in place would more exacerbate the situation. as the public comment says, is your client willing to relocation the tenant to another unit in the building? >> i mean, i haven't talked to my client -- >> vice president honda: although you guys are looking good right now, i would like you guys to be good players continually. i would wish that you would contact your client, and if you have vacant units in the building, it would only make sense to relocate that

particular displacement in the building. >> i hear what you're saying, and, you know, we're trying to act in good faith. the last thing i want to do before you and before the board of appeals is make a promise that i can't keep. this is not a conversation that i've had with my client, and i don't want to promise to put somebody in a unit that's not done or still being renovated or something like that. >> vice president honda: understood. it's not a threat, but as the guy mentioned before, i would prefer not to see you again because if we do, it probably will not be a friendly get-together. thank you, counselor. >> clerk: okay. let me see if there are any further questions? there are no questions, so planning department. mr. sanchez, go ahead.

>> nothing to add, just that the plan go forward with the plans that the project sponsor submitted last week. >> clerk: thank you. we have a question from vice president honda. >> vice president honda: so not trying to throw a monkey wrench in this, but what kind of controls are you going to have over this project, mr. sanchez, because, you know, they removed the permits that -- that they overlooked. i know you touched on that, but i'd just like a little further elaboration. >> thank you. so what would be approved if the board does take this action tonight would be the seismic upgrade of the building, which, you know, our whole reason for taking review was to make sure they didn't need our review. they are required soft story

seismic upgrades to the building, so that would be the department of building inspection's purview. they do have separate permits on file for work in the future, and i don't know if that's something they intend on still pursuing, but they have a permit for each building that requires a certificate of appropriateness that we would be reviewing, you know, over the coming months. so then, we would be reviewing it for compliance with the planning code and by the planning department. >> vice president honda: so we would have way to see keep our eyes on? >> yes. they could potentially cancel those permits and potentially proceed with only the seismic work, but assuming they do pursue that, there would be

permits that would be reviewed and issued and those would be appealable to the board of appeals. >> vice president honda: okay. thank you. >> clerk: okay. i don't see any further -- oh, president lazarus? >> president lazarus: yes. i just want to clarify with the new plans that have been submitted, if we condition the permit, do we have to approve and condition the permit on the new plans? >> yes. that's the standard practice of the board. >> president lazarus: there's kind of a disconnect between the permit and the plans, so i just wanted to make sure they are linked. thank you. >> clerk: so there are no further questions, so we'll go to the department of building inspection, mr. duffy. >> yeah, joe duffy, department

of building inspection. there are a lot of good information for frequently asked questions. for tenants that have to move out, this ey have to notify th owners. there's a lot of information on the d.b.i. website, and as i said earlier, we are dealing with literally hundreds of projects in the city. as i said, they are going really, really well. with owners there needs to be good outreach, good p.r. by the owners. if there's an issue, it needs to be addressed quickly, and in district 15, the inspection will be done by inspector g. lancy. if the tenants have any issues during construction, they can contact d.b.i., and inspector

lancey will address that. i think i've covered everything. >> clerk: thank you. we do have a question from vice president honda. >> vice president honda: so joe, senior inspector duffy, so if they decide to reinstate the permits, is there a b.b.n. or will the tenants be notified in case there is an alteration? >> a b.b.n. -- >> vice president honda: or is that a planning thing, i'm sorry. >> a b.b.n., that's a planning thing. >> vice president honda: okay. future permits. >> d.b.i. would only do their things on certain types of permits, and then, planning inspection. >> vice president honda: thank you. i believe mr. sanchez wants to jump in. >> i believe there's a b.b.n. on one if not both of the properties, so the b.b.n. would

be triggered by any permit that's subject to planning department review. i don't have it available exactly who has the b.b.n. on file other than i can see that there's one at least on i believe on both of the properties. i just can't see who has that. >> vice president honda: thank you very much. >> thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. commissioners, this matter is submitted. do we have another question? i don't see one. commissioners -- i'm sorry. we're not taking anymore comment at this point. thank you. >> just a question about permits -- >> clerk: okay. okay. i'm sorry. we can't take comment. commissioners, this matter is submitted.

>> commissioner swig: i think that what was suggested to approve the permit with the condition that -- >> clerk: the revised plans be adopted? >> commissioner swig: yes, the revised plans be adopted on the basis that those revised plans be properly issued. is that correct, scott? >> yeah, granting the appeal for both cases and adopting plans as submitted last friday by the project sponsor to show that the seismic work did not require review by the planning department or does not require review by the planning department. >> commissioner swig: exactly what i said. thank you. >> vice president honda: that's exactly what you said, rick. >> commissioner swig: yeah, exactly. darryl, do you have any further comment?

>> vice president honda: no. we seem to always be ringing the same bell. >> clerk: okay. is that your motion, commissioner swig? >> commissioner swig: yeah, that's my motion. darryl, do you want to add anything or supplement it? >> vice president honda: no, i think this is covering it. i'm just hoping we don't see this again, to be honest. got to have some faith, right? >> commissioner swig: yep, i guess. >> vice president honda: have some faith. >> clerk: okay. so we have a motion from commissioner swig to grant the appeals and issue the permits on the condition that they be revised to require adoptions of plans that were submitted by the project sponsor on may 8, 2020 for the hearing today on the basis that the revised plans do not require approval by the planning department and are code compliant. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so that motion carries, 5-0 -- 4-0, excuse me.

and that concludes the hearing. >> commissioner swig: thank you, julie. julie, thank you again for your hard work and herding cats and mastering the technology. thank you, alex.

minn the health emergency, the commission chamber and city hall is closed.

furthermore, the mayor and governor have issued emergency orders suspending select laws applicable to boards and commissions, making it possible to hold remote hearings. on april 3, 2020, the planning commission received authorization from the mayor's office to reconvene remotely until the end of the shelter in place. this will be our sixth remote hearing. i am requesting everyone's patience in advance. the merged platforms are not perfect and at times will seem clumsy. if you are not speaking, please mute your microphone and turnoff your video camera. do not hit any controls that may affect other participants. to enable public participation, sfgovtv is streaming this hearing live, and we will receive public comment for each

item on the agenda. sfgov is streaming the toll free numbers across the bottom of the screen. comments and opportunities to comment are available via phone by calling 888-204-5984 using access code 3501008, pressing pound, and pound again. when you are connected, and the public comment period opens, please hit one and zero to the added to the queue to speak. each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes, and when you have 30 seconds remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. when your time is up, i will announce your time is up and will take the next person queued to speak. best practice is to speak from a quiet location, speak slowly, and mute the volume on your

television or computer. at this time, i would like to take roll. [roll call] [inaudible] >> clerk: -- that you may be watching because sfgovtv broadcast is delayed by a good 60 to 90 seconds. so if you are going to turn your microphone on, please turn on your computer speaker or television speakers. thank you. [roll call] >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. first on your agenda is items considered for continuance.

item 1, as 440 through 448 waller street, proposed for continuance to june 4, 2020. item 2, at 2001 37 avenue, conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to june 11, 2020, item 3, for the arts activities and social service or philanthropic facilities as temporary uses is proposed for continuance to june 25, 2020. we have received multiple requests for continuing the hub items onto your regular calendar for item 10, case numbers 2015-000940 env,

2017-000871-env, 2016-000168-env for the hub plan, 30 vanness avenue project, 98 franklin street project, and hub housing sustainability district, item 11, 2015-00940 env, market octavia area plan amendment, and items items 12-a through e,

as well as item 13 at 10 south vanness avenue, a mixed use project final environmental impact report. are all proposed for continuance for one week, commissioners, to may 21, 2020. i have no other items proposed for continuance, and we should receive public comment on these matters. chan, let's open up the public comment. >> operator: your conference is now in question-and-answer mode. to join, press one and then zero. >> clerk: so i would remind

callers that this is your comment time. press one and then zero to enter into the queue. just for the benefit of the public, through the chair, you will be limited to one minute. >> operator: no calls so far. >> clerk: chan, please let us know if any callers do enter the queue, as well the first item. commissioners, the matter is before you. >> operator: we got one call right now. >> clerk: okay. very good. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> hello. this is miss iovannopolous, and i would like to support the items proposed for continuance. there needs to be more involvement and equity involved in the plan. thank you.

>> operator: you have zero questions remaining. >> clerk: okay. commissioners, now the matter is before you. we will allow for additional public comment. >> president koppel: commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: thank you. i move to move items 10 and 11 to the dates specified and items 12 and 13 to may 21. >> vice president moore: second. >> clerk: there has been a motion to continue. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously,

6-0. commissioners, that'll place us under your consent calendar. all matters are considered a consent calendar and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no discussion of these items unless a member of the commission or staff so requests. in which case, they will be removed from the calendar and be considered as a separate item at this hearing or a future hearing. item 4 at 3813 24 street and item 5, 667 folsom street, 120 hawthorne street, and 126 hawthorne street. these are amendments to the existing conditions of approval. chan, why don't we go ahead and

go to q&a? >> operator: your conference is now in question-and-answer mode. to summon each question, press one and then zero. >> clerk: so any member of the public like to public any of these items off of consent, this would be your opportunity to do so. do we have anyone in queue? >> operator: no. >> clerk: commissioners, the matter is before you. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: move to approve. >> commissioner diamond: second. >> clerk: very good. on that motion to approve items under your consent calendar -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously,

6-0. >> commissioner johnso >> operator: jonas, i got one on-line. >> clerk: commissioners, through the chair, should we take that call? i would suggest we do. >> president koppel: yes, let's go ahead. >> clerk: okay. chan, go ahead and patch them through. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> is this where i speak on the hub? >> clerk: no, it's not. the hub matter has been continued until may 21. >> okay. thank you. >> clerk: all right. thank you. commissioners, commission matters, item 6 for consideration of adoption draft minutes for april 30, 2020. chan, why don't we go to q&a? >> operator: your conference is now in question-and-answer mode. to summon each question, press

one and then zero. >> clerk: again, for members of the public, this is your opportunity to submit testimony on the minutes. >> operator: no calls. >> clerk: thank you. commissioners, the matter is before you. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: move to approve the minutes. >> commissioner fung: second. >> clerk: thank you. commissioners, on that motion to approve the minutes of april 30, 2020 -- [roll call] >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. item 7, commission comments and questions.

>> president koppel: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: thank you. i just would like to bring to attention and also ask the planning staff since there are actually state bills that are moving right now, and these state bills will absolutely affect san francisco, so i'm wondering or i'm asking if the planning can do analysis of these upcoming state bills such as the sb 902, ab 2345, and to look into this analysis as to what it is these bills do, and how do they change our existing land use standards? also, what kind of -- and how

are these bills also override our local procedures and sessions both demonstrably and figuratively so we can know how it will affect our decision. also, it will be great to see how these bills interact and add to already existing state law that san francisco already needs to comply. example, like how sb 902 would behave with the state ceqa analysis. these are fast moving, and i think these are going to come up in state by may 28. so if it would be possible to have this kind of information

analysis in the next week or two, so yeah. >> president koppel: commissioner moore. >> vice president moore: commissioner imperial has taken the words out of my mouth. it's particularly the 902 that i'm particularly concerned about it and i would like to hear about it. among the coronavirus, we forget there are things moving in sacramento and we need to stay on top of them. i think san francisco has been in front of everybody else in the state, and i hope that director hillis will appreciate and dedicate some staff hours to doing exactly that. and at this point, i would like to raise -- i don't know if that is the correct moment, i'm

looking to our clerk, jonas ionin, whether we're able to get any documents to help us not go through the same pain that we just did with the hub project, which was extremely difficult to review, given oth size of the documents and our inability to post stickies on the document. i would like to encourage that e.i.r.s and large documents are given to us two weeks before being heard. this is an item that is being continuously impressed on president koppel and myself. second ionin has acknowledged it. i -- secretary ionin has acknowledged it, but i just

wanted to make it known. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: i want to support commissioner moore's request, with particular emphasis on the response to documents, draft e.i.r.s, and any plans. thank you. >> clerk: director hillis? >> director hillis: just to quickly respond, as the process continues, we can thank you, commissioner moore. staff has been great in the past on reviewing these and giving us information on how they will continue to affect san francisco.

we will continue to get you that work and move forward on their ability to continue to impact us. >> vice president moore: thank you. >> commissioner diamond: thank you. >> clerk: okay. if there's nothing further, commissioners, we can move onto director's report. >> director hillis: two items quickly. one, i don't know if you read in the chronicle, there was a disaster involving service workers, and over 300 workers are being deployed in disaster service. one of our planners was featured in the article, and we've had over 30 workers featured in disaster service workers. also, next week, we are getting budget instructions from the mayor's office and the budget office, so how do we react to

the budget shortfall. the mayor's office has updated their numbers to show that a $1.7 billion for the rest of this year and the next two years; there's about a $250 million shortfall for this year. so not good news, and we'll have to respond to that, and we'll certainly be back to you as that process unfolds, and that's my report. thank you. >> clerk: seeing no questions, i can move onto item 9, review of past events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals, and historic preservation commission. >> hi, all. this is aaron. at the full board this week, supervisor peskin's ordinance

on intermediate length occupancy passed its second read, and commissioner ronen's ordinance passed its first read, and that concludes my report. thank you. >> clerk: okay. if there are no questions for mr. starr, we can move onto general public comment. at this point, members of the public may address items of subject matter jurisdiction of the board except for items on the agenda. each member of the public may address the commission up to three minutes. when the number of speakers exceeds the 15-minute limit, public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. chan, why don't we go to the q&a. >> operator: your call is now in question-and-answer mode.

to enter, press one and zero proceed again. >> clerk: again, for members of the public, this is your opportunity to present public comment. to get into the queue, press one and zero. >> operator: you have two questions remaining. >> hello. this is jonathan randall. last week, supervisor peskin asked why no one else had tried to propose anything having to do with the residential planning threshold. it's time for the planning department to propose amendments to planning code section 317 that are in line with creating more affordability. things have changed since planning code 317 was written. part of it was old housing is

rent controlled and newhousing is not rent controlled. it's not always the case that old housing is more affordable if the new housing provides more housing services. there's a change -- the premise has changed because sb 330 from last year contains a costa hawkins exemption, projects that create replacement housing. we should amendment 317 to protect the tenant protection from the neighborhood character. in the tenant protections, we should look at sb 330 and see if those protections are good enough for san francisco. if those are good enough for san francisco, we should follow 330 instead of having our own planning code 317. now for the other part of planning code 317, which is

neighborhood character, that, we should put into design guidelines rather than 317 because 317 is kind of a mess at protecting neighborhood character. it doesn't really do it, so, yeah. i think the planning department should start looking at how we can amend 317 to protect tenants and separate protect neighborhood character. thank you. >> operator: you have two questions remaining. >> oh, hi. good afternoon, commissioners and everyone. this is georgia schiutish. on sfgovtv, on april 30, 2020, following the public comment regarding the budget, president

koppel asked director rahaim, just a quick question. if there's anything, those democacs, because he emphasized emphasized -- [inaudible] >> so what i wish former director rahaim had advised to the commission was the following: commissioners, you can adjust the democalc's submission at any time. section 312-b is in the code to

protect housing affordability. that is my suggestion. if you have nothing else to do than to watch that exchange on january 23 at 3:56:25. that's my request. stay safe, and bye-bye. >> operator: you have two questions remaining. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is katie bindleman, and i'm here to support s.p.u.r. s.p.u.r. is a partner -- [inaudible] >> market octavia has created thousands of new in-fill housing units and visibility improvements for the public to enjoy. in the years since march

octavia was adopted, it's become clear that the city has not produced sufficient housing for those who want to be here. the hub is a strategic effort today to increase capacity in a central transferring location that is appropriate for both jobs and housing. even during the covid-19 challenges, this is a great place to live and work because of the ability of public transit and biking. we urge the planning department to embark on a new set of area plan, setting all three housing concepts outlined in the housing strategies report. continue to did he right lane the op the area plans for the east side, grow opportunities on transit corners across the country, and the call to increase density across the residential neighborhoods. in a time of great uncertainty

on many sides, the approval of this plan will help set up this city and its surrounding area for a future of success. >> you have one question remaining. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is anastas anastasia iovannopolous, a district 8 resident. the previous speaker has her agenda and most of the members and equity partners have slightly different views, so we'll take that up next week. as far as review of state bills, you've got two commissioners who are requesting a review of state bills that are pending. on may 20, all the assembly

bills will be in committee heard. the following week, the state bills will be heard at the housing committee. it's the job of the people there on staff -- you have the resources -- to look at these bills, analyze them, and bring them up to the public what is coming. select the ones that deal with housing that would impact us and tell us about them. thank you. >> operator: you have zero questions remaining. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. that will place us under your regular calendar which has, in its entirety, been continued to may 21. therefore, we will move onto your discretionary review calendar for item 14, case

number 20818-005918-drp at 254 roosevelt way. is staff prepared to present? mr. winslow? >> can you hear me? >> clerk: we can. >> thank you. good afternoon, president koppel and members of the commission. david winslow, staff architect. the item before you is a review of housing permit application 20 -- >> clerk: david, it appears as though you've frozen. >> -- 19 --

>> clerk: david, i believe you have a bad internet connection, and you may need to begin your presentation or we can move onto -- okay. yeah, i just got a message from mr. winslow that he has lost internet connection. commissioners, my suggestion is staff report has been provided to you. at this point, up until the time mr. winslow can reconnect, we may want to go to the d.r. requester and project sponsor presentations, but unfortunately, now that i think about it, mr. winslow would have had those presentations. christine, do we have those presentations?

>> i think if you just give me one moment. >> clerk: okay. so good thing, as a back up, we also provide my staff with presentations, and as soon as miss silver can share her screen with the d.r. applicant's presentation, d.r. requester, you will be provided five minutes to make your presentation. are you on the line and prepared to make your presentation? >> yes. >> clerk: very good. so as soon as my presentations team is able to push your slides forward, i will indicate that your slides are on the screen. and then, if you would be so kind throughout your presentation if you want to go to the next slide, please just indicate next slide. >> okay. very good. i'm actually just e-mailing

christina a copy of it in case she doesn't have it. >> clerk: so for the benefit of the public and the commissioners, as a result of the hub plan and associated matters being moved to may 21, by one week, it will most certainly impact your future calendars, as well; and other projects will be pushed out further as a result. again, appreciate everyone's

patience at this time.

>> jonas, this is david. can you hear me? >> clerk: we can hear you. >> okay. should i start presentation over? >> clerk: i think that would be best.

>> okay. very good. the item before you is a discretionary review of 2018-005918drp-02, to construct a three-story horizontal addition at the front of an existing three-story building with three dwelling units. the project will also include a new roof deck at the front of the building on the third floor, which will be accessed from the unit on the third floor. building's historic resource is a category c, no historic resource present. there are two d.r. requesters. the first of 250-268 roosevelt way, the adjacent neighborhood to the west, and 248 roosevelt

way, the adjacent neighbors to the east. the proposed alternate is to create a proposed larger light well to the side windows against her property line and reduce the third level deck to either a juliet balcony or set back. mr. helman and kerr are three things. [inaudible] >> -- the proposed alternative

are to remove the height for the parapet for the deck, provide a side set back from the property line to match the adjacent neighbor, reduce the size of the third floor deck, screen the second floor balconies from these two back ended windows, and relocate the side door adjacent to the light well. to date, the project has received five letters in support of the d.r. requester and five letters in support of the project. the project sponsor has

answered back. it was deemed that the deck at the third story did present impacts to privacy to adjacent properties due to its size and location. the project has been modified from the design sent in the 31 notification in the following ways. one, there is a one-foot side set back to the west, the reduced parapet at the front, and there is a relocated door from the side yard adjacent to light well of neighbor to the east. therefore, staff proposes taking d.r. to memorialize these changes. that concludes staff's presentation and i'm happy to answer questions. >> clerk: thank you, david. is the first d.r. requester prepared to make their presentation? david, do they have a presentation to share? >> yes, they do.

bear with me while i share that. very good. can you see the screen? >> clerk: yes, we do. so the first d.r. requester, phyllis shiman, please make your presentation. you will have five minutes. >> okay. is the slide show on? >> clerk: it is. >> it is. >> okay. thank you. thanks, guys. good afternoon, president koppel and members of the commission. my name is kate mcgee, and i am a consultant representing the d.r. requester, phyllis shiman at 268 roosevelt way. phyllis is a senior disabled widow who maintains the building on her own and is aging in place. bel below her, in 258 roosevelt way, is a family living in a

rent controlled unit. mark and andrew own a three-unit building adjacent to the property. they house josh and matt in one unit and kathrin and her cat, lizzy, in another. it's important to note that in addition to these eight people, there are 11 others in reside on ten properties on the block that are currently opposed to the project as proposed. here is a map that highlights the properties in opposition. it's important to note that while the proposal serves a 3,000-foot home, the neighbors are not opposed to the entire

development but support improvements made to support the current family. [inaudible] >> slide 6. on this slide, you can see the proposal. the southwest wall blocks all side facing windows. our request is to modify the expansion to respect the windows of the adjacent property. recognizing that the third bedroom is being proposed on the upper story and provides the proposal the only opportunity to provide a family sized unit. the focus has been to request modifications to the solid wall which currently proposes bookshelves. slide 7, please. you can see on the floor plan a better description that shows the southwest wall doesn't

propose useable liveable space but a mezzanine-library that hoe houses books. slide 9, please. side windows can be respected and applied to modern architecture as seen here in a building a couple of blocks away also on roosevelt way. slide 10, please. the other area of concern is with regard to privacy with the proposed roof deck. impact studies hawere performe at the request of the neighbors, however, no revisions were made to remove the impact. next slide, please. -- or slide 11.

this slide shows the d.r. requester's master bedroom and the current roof deck proposal, which is on the same floor -- actually, i'm sorry. that was the previous slide. slide 11, which is what you're on now, is what we believe will be presented today, which is a modified roof deck, however, it does not mitigate the privacy impacts with respect to the master bedroom. and slide 12, here's another slide just to demonstrate where the roof deck is in comparison to the master bedroom. you can see that on the top left corner. slide 13, please. we request the following design alternatives to mitigate the stated proposal.

final slide. i want to thank the staff for working with us in preparing the report and endorsing the report, however, we would like to have a few more revisions, even with the department's suggested modifications. one, to provide four or five-foot set back and provide external stairs to match, two, reduce the third floor deck, three, provide peek-a-boo spaces, and four, making sure that the tenants that currently live there are protected in the spaces that they live in. thank you for your time. >> clerk: thank you. is the second d.r. requester ready for their presentation, and david, if you could push their presentation forward. >> very good. i have the first slide up.

can you see it? >> clerk: i can. >> we are the second d.r. requesters. can you hear us? >> clerk: we can, thank you. you will have five minutes for your presentation. >> thank you. >> great, thank you. beginning with slide one, andrew kerr and mark perlman. we support the redevelopment of 254 roosevelt but not at the expense of our three rent controlled homes, and not at the loss of privacy, light, and quiet enjoyment of our homes. we have requested four modifications from the 311 drawings that will not harm the developer's ability to deliver a profitable project to market. slide 2, please. we would like to note that the developer has not lived in the property for nearly a decade,

and the sponsor is a known real estate developer who owns multiple properties of which the project is just one. the developer has frequently communicated conflicting statements to us about the speculative nature of the development versus her intention to move back into the property. we don't know the fate of the developer's current tenants or that the developer will apply for an exemption from rent control based on the significant amount of demolition and new construction. slide 3, please. in effect, the proposed development will be market rate housing when completed with significant demolition, the replacement of facades, and a complete reconfiguration of the existing units. since this is essentially new construction, the developer could have easily incorporated a request, but at each step, the developer rebuffs us. slide 4, please. we're grateful that mr. winslow

managed to convince the developer to match our light wells. david, could you please skip to slide 6. we're moving onto the unit two level two roof deck. we ask that this deck be removed as suggested by mr. winslow at our january 2020 meeting. this roof area should be redesigned so that it can't be used for any other purpose. the deck is on the property line, and people will have direct lines of sight into our properties 9 feet away. slide 7. we ask the developer to modify the proposal with a privacy screen. as you can see, the deck does not block direct views into our home. slide 8, please. we do not mind the windows that

remain in the redesign. windows are to be expected in a compact city with zero lot lines. david, could you please skip to slide 11? moving onto the large roof deck on level three, unit three, mr. winslow asked the developer to spin the deck so it doesn't extend at far toward the street. 11 feet from the facade is better than the 21 feet that the developer wants but still does not solve our privacy issues. the deck is still closer to the property line, and the red arrow show that people standing on the deck can easily see into a bedroom window and two living room windows of our homes. we ask that the deck be scaled

back to 4 feet from the facade of 254 and pulled back from the property lines as shown by the red rectangle. slide 12, please. with mr. winslow's intervention, the developer created seven privacy impact studies at three-feet increments starting at 21 feet from the project's facade all the way to 3 feet from the facade. we spent a lot of time working on these privacy studies with the developer, but when she didn't like the results, she jettisonned them and did not include them in the packet. she threatened us with a breach of confidentiality here if we shared them with you. we have another option, showing the winslow option still shows a significant loss of privacy from our unit. we request the deck be shrunk from 4 feet from the facade as

the developer's own privacy study shows it will be the point at which our home will be protected from cloep-up views. slide 13, please. thank you, commissioners, and we request that you consider our four modifications to the project. we're available for questions. >> clerk: great, thank you. is the project sponsor prepared to make their presentation? >> can you hear me, everyone? >> clerk: we can. you'll have ten minutes. >> and can you see the slide up? i can't see it, but i'll just be referring to the number in the lower right hand corner. okay. thank you. thank you, everyone. hello, everyone. my name is nahag baresh, and

i'm an architect. the project sponsor did not live in the project, but she lived in the project until 2010. the owner is holding off on doing this renovation for years as the lower unit had been rented to the same person since 1965. roosevelt way is an ecletic mix of residential fabric. the predominant materials include stucco, metal, and glass. there's a predominance of the square window finestration which serves as the base of our proposal. there are three buildings on the street that are largely constructed from wood slats and

feature large glazed windows. the majority of the houses extend to the street on roosevelt way. of the 25 houses shown in this street elevation, the subject property and one other are the only ones that can be set back. slide 5, please. along the same street of 25 houses, there are only four with set backs from the side property line. this meaning the side set back is an family on the street, not the rule. slide 6, please. our project would include the following. currently liveable and affordable family units, maintaining the units at an affordable price, creating a unit for the owner to age in place, continuing the street wall, and working with the existing context, including the mass and finestration to create

something exciting. here, the concerns expressed by the two d.r.s, item 6 show up in the two d.r.s, and items 2 and 4 only after months of concessions. we provided the calculations to andrew and mark and senior planner linda hoagland. this project is approved as a horizontal addition. the second issue is due to privacy concerns from a modest balcony that is under 4 feet in length. the d.r. requester asks for a

privacy screen on the side of the balcony to limit the sights back to their property. we did two studies with the screen and found it effective in protecting the privacy for the -- [inaudible] >> -- while we feel that the screens are necessary due to the distance from the house, we offer this as an option as this issue remains unresolved as the d.r. requester disagreed with the option of their own suggestion. the proposed patio, there's no loss of privacy to the lower level window on 250 roosevelt.

slide 13, please. a third concern was to review our exit egress from the third level to avoid any privacy and/or concerns to the light well at 250 roosevelt, shown here at the top of the image. they did these claims directly from the egress door. [inaudible] >> what is shown here is in the 211 plans and in keeping with the character at 258 roosevelt. it's 28 inches below the deck at 258 roosevelt which overlooks the subject property. over the past four months, we have prepared a series of studies for the neighbors, which included the reduction of the roof deck and alteration with proportions and have also proposed to bring the deck in 10 feet from the property line. what is shown is in compliance with the modified roof deck

guidelines, contains a 6 foot set back between the property and 258 roosevelt. in further conversation with david winslow, the roof deck was adjusted by rotating its geomet reback to reduce the view angle back to the adjacent properties. this leaves a 14' 8'' from the side property. this is a view from the unit in 206 roosevelt and its view to the describe line with the extensive roof deck highlighted in blue, and you can see the area surrounding it which is a

very small view surrounding this level. next slide. this is a refrom 250 rose -- view from 250 roosevelt way. we feel that the final proposal mitigates impacts, and is one-third the original proposed roof deck size. 17 please. [inaudible] >> the d.r. requester asked for a lowering of the parapet, which we adjusted the length of the property. [inaudible] >> 258 roosevelt way d.r.

requester asked us to set back from their property due to the set backs on the streets. these are the four windows in question. [inaudible] >> 258 roosevelt's ways rooms receive ample light from the large floor to ceiling southern exposed windows, we've introduced a length of set back along the property line for a distance of 21.5 feet from the rear facade to establish a separation between the two buildings.

the final issue was a concern for the entryway 258 roosevelt being dark. we've directly addressed this by changing the direction of our building vestibule and stair exterior opening up an additional 4 feet of space between the buildings as well as supplying light in the area to address any concerns. this shows the street level opening between 254 and 258 roosevelt way. this shows the area that we've carved way to open up more distance and light and the distance to the building faces shown here between the two buildings. slide 29, please. in conclusion, we feel that the d.r. requester's concerns have been adequately addressed. we ask the commissioners to not take d.r. and to leave the code

compliant project as originally planned, but if you had to take d.r., you support david winslow's recommendations and accept it with these modifications. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. commissioners, i believe we should take public comment at this time. why don't we open it up to q&a. >> operator: thank you. your call is in question-and-answer mode. >> clerk: members of the public, this is your opportunity to take public comment by hitting one and zero, and we should take the first caller. >> operator: there are no callers at the moment. >> clerk: great. if that's the case, d.r. requester number one, you have

a two-minute rebuttal. >> thank you. kate mcgee, representing 258-260 d.r. requester. can you hear me? >> clerk: we can. >> okay. great. just in response to the project architect's presentation, there were a couple of items that came up. one was with regard to the views from the master bedroom to and from the proposed roof deck. one slide showed that actually the angle that that was taken from was assuming that a person who was standing in the bedroom was not actually at the window but standing back behind it, which i don't believe that that's an adequate representation of what one would really see, which is when you're standing in front of the room, looking across onto the roof deck. in addition to note there, the master bedroom actually has two

windows, one in the front and one on the side, and so much like the other adjacent neighbors who are concerned about people standing on the roof deck and looking into the -- into the front windows, that is also a concern for us, so there's -- in my presentation, i highlighted the view going onto the side window, but there is that additional view issue that goes into the front of the bedroom window with regard to the roof deck. and then, just the -- one other thing i wanted to comment on with regard to the architect's presentation was the building's side set back. what is shown, just to note, is the 258-260's current side set back of 4 feet, but what is shown is with the existing

buildings. he's showing they're willing to add a one-foot set back, so a total of 5 feet, and our willingness to abide by the exterior entryway is consistent with the residential design guidelines. thank you. >> clerk: d.r. requester two, you have a rebuttal of two minutes. >> great. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. >> great. we'd like to state that our position was stated in our slides today, and it was presented to the project sponsor when we submitted a project request to the planning department. there's an ample back yard at the 254 property that satisfies any outdoor requirements, and the decks do not -- are not

utilized to meet the outdoor space requirement. regarding the unit two, level two deck, it should be noted that that unit of the 254 project has, you know, stellar views of the city skyline within the unit, and the deck isn't necessary to access those views, not that views are even a protected item. and, in fact, that unit two deck is 12 feet away from our bedroom window, not 25 feet. the project sponsor chose to choose the center living room window for their measurements. regarding the screen, we offered this as a suggestion to help the project sponsor realize its goal of having a deck, and when they provided the view studies, it showed that the screen didn't block the views, and so we didn't accept that compromise. the sponsor also refers to the no view asset in referring to

unit one in our building, and we're referring to units two and three. unit one does not have a loss of privacy. more importantly, with the level three deck, the views that the sponsor shows are potential views from the inside of our unit. they weren't in our community at all, but that's not what we're concerned about, what we see. it's about what's seen from that roof deck into our building, which is a potential loss of privacy, being able to see 9 feet deep into our bedrooms and living room. the developer could have addressed this in their submission, but they chose not to. thank you. >> clerk: project sponsor, you have a two-minute rebuttal. project sponsor, are you prepared to rebut? >> can everyone hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can. >> thank you. well, first of all, i want to

point out that the project sponsor is not a huge developer. this is their only rental property in san francisco, and the reason for the elevator is they want to age in place. i think it's being characterized as a luxury development, and that's not the case. in regards to the balcony that's looking out that mark and andrew were concerned about, it's definitely not 12 feet. we have a very detailed 3-d model based on survey measurements. we took the midpoint of the balcony to the midpoints of the three bay windows. 25 feet is the width of the current property, so it's not nothing. in terms of the roof deck, the current proposal what we're showing is one-third of the size what we originally submitted and had approved before 311 went out, so we brought down the size significantly from the original proposal. we've rotated it to mitigate it

back from the two units, and from our standpoint, there's very little view you can see significant views into those apartments from here. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. i'm just going to get real quickly if there is anyone in queue, chan. >> operator: no. >> clerk: very good. commissioners, the matter is before you. commissioners, you may need to unmute your mics if anyone would like to comment on the item before you. commissioner johnson?

>> commissioner johnson: did you call on me? sorry. i heard a weird noise. >> clerk: yeah, go ahead, commissioner johnson. >> commissioner johnson: okay. just need a little clarification from the project sponsor before we get into the project. it looks like the top unit was at least listed for rental in 2016 and 2017. can you clarify the tenant occupancy and whether or not there are any tenants and what happened to the tenants? >> yes, of course. all of the units are currently rented, and they're rent controlled, and there's no plan to evict the tenants. the tenants have been informed of this project all along the way, and there's -- they've been totally in understanding of it, and there's no kind of threat to them staying or -- if they choose to. >> commissioner johnson: okay. so the plan is for them to stay on-site while all of this happens? >> it's their decision, you

know, in the end, but we've just laid out what is happening. >> commissioner johnson: okay. thanks. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: i'm prepared to take staff's recommendation and would move to take d.r. with the recommendations proposed by staff. >> president koppel: second. commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: i would like to clarify and see mr. winslow refer to attachments 4, 3, and 2, which are the 3-d modifications not

reflected in the drawings. mr. winslow, could you please go over that with the commission? and i would like to ask you, on balcony number two, i have a couple of questions on that. would you lead us through the small space balcony. >> sure. can you hear me? >> vice president moore: yes. >> the items that you're talking about are the modified items included in the packet. >> vice president moore: yes. they're also shown in 3-d, but they're shown in sketch format. >> sure. i didn't catch the other number, but were you referring to the roof deck, and then, there was a second roof deck at the second level. >> vice president moore: correct. >> let me get to these in these plans, which is this level

here. i don't know if they included plans in that roof deck. >> vice president moore: it does show 3-d, which was a screen. >> which it was back here, i believe. here's the patio. so as the three dimensional. >> vice president moore: right. my question is i think the north facing screen will not do anything to deal with privacy issues, but i kind of personally believe that while that may remain, like, a peek-a-boo as far as setting the living room back and having, like what looks like a balcony, make it a nonoccupied roof and have no people step out into it. i believe it is quite close, and i believe there are reasonable concerns about that privacy once you stand on that particular opening.

>> so the -- >> vice president moore: you have to pull up the drawing a little bit in order for -- >> can you see this drawing? >> vice president moore: no, you're showing the existing condition. is that what would be? >> correct. >> vice president moore: yeah. >> just the plan for purpose of clarity. >> vice president moore: yes. now, we can see it. and instead of making it a stepout, you can make it with operable doors doors, but you step out because i believe by simply adding doors for those looking at the north. >> a screen proposed for this wall here. the look back into this bedroom window would be mitigated. >> vice president moore: i think that is not enough.

somebody is speaking in the background and that's not part of our -- >> i'm sorry. that's my -- --- daughter. >> vice president moore: hello to her. i would like you to take us to explain the reducing of the set backs. could you go up to -- yeah. why is it 3'6" on one side and 3'8" on the other side and 6 feet on the other side? >> i think this is a question best asked of the project sponsor. i think it relates to the interior of the third floor, but it still maintains 5 feet or more between property lines. >> vice president moore: okay. and that is mostly what we're

looking at. >> correct. >> vice president moore: i like the idea of turning the deck the way you're suggesting it. the one deck size certainly fitting with what we are recommending to the reduction of roof decks as a metric, and i believe that in those conditions would be added as the manifestation of the d.r. and in response to commissioner diamond, i'm supporting the d.r. with those modifications. >> clerk: david, could you please clarify that those are part of staff's modifications. >> so the recommendation was -- the only thing that's not part of my recommendation is the item that commissioner moore brought up with respect to that

second-floor deck. in other words, why this brief set back was part of my modification to take d.r. and memorialize this? the reason being is additions into roof decks could be applied for after the fact over the counter without a thorough vetting of the previous issues that occurred here today, so -- >> vice president moore: if i may add, mr. winslow, i would also say that this front portion of the decks at 14-8 would have to be called out as a nonoccupied roof and those would have to be called out in those drawings so, as you say, they would not go unnoticed. >> that could happen. that would be part of this recommendation. >> vice president moore: is part of your recommendation also the drawing that you

showed relative to the one of the door coming from the kitchen, to move that from the north so that it does not interfere with the light well? >> yes. >> vice president moore: then my only point, in response to the question of secretary ionin's, is the commission prepared to support the second-floor balcony not to be an open balcony but rather an unoccupied roof? it. >> clerk: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperia

-- commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: i would support that motion. >> commissioner diamond: i don't have any problem with not being able to step out on the balcony on the second floor, so i would not include that in my motion. >> operator: jonas, we have one caller. >> secretary ionin: okay. we're well into this deliberation, but i think to exhaust all due process for the public, commissioners, we may want to just take the call. >> president koppel: yeah, jonas, go ahead. >> clerk: thank you. go ahead, chan. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> hi, commissioners. thank you for taking my call. apologies. there's a delay between watching it on the screen and knowing when i can call for public comment. my name is matt delaney, and i

live in unit two. and my particular unit has a rear facing unit with a rear bedroom. adding an additional story to 254 potentially blocks that light into our unit. we only have one window that comes into our unit from that light well, and i haven't heard anything acknowledged about that impact, and i'm curious about whether or not that was addressed. >> clerk: okay. is there anyone else, chan? >> operator: no. >> clerk: commissioners, so we did leave off after deliberations with a motion that has been seconded. shall i call that question? >> president koppel: yeah. >> clerk: very good. there has been a motion with second to take d.r. with modifications seconded and

proposed by commissioner moore. commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: one suggestion. i am supportive of commissioner moore saying that we need to add a top deck -- >> clerk: no, that was implied in the modification, and if not, he will certainly clarify that in the plans. thank you. >> commissioner diamond: okay. [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0, and due to the continuance of the hub matters, that is all we have for you today. >> commissioner diamond: thank you. >> president koppel: thank you.

>> vice president moore: thank you. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners, for your patience today. >> hello, good morning, everyone, the meeting will come to order. this is the may 13th, re-scheduled budget and finance committee meeting. i'm sandra fewer, i'm the chair. and i'm joined by committee walton and supervisor mandelman.

i'd like to thank sfgov-tv for broadcasting this meeting. madam clerk, any announcements. >> clerk: due to the covid-19 health emergency and to protect the board members, the city employees and the public, the board of supervisors with the city chamber and the committee room are closed. however, members may be participating remotely at the (indiscernible) and public comments are available for each item on this agenda. channel 26 and sfgtv.org are streaming the numbers across the screen. and each speaker is allowed to two minutes to speak. and the opportunity to speak during the public comment period are via phone call 888-204-5984. and access code 3501008. and then press pound and press pound again. and then you're connected to 1,

and then 0, to be added to the queue to speak. you will wait and the system will be silent. and the system will notify when you're in line and waiting. all callers remain on mute until their line is open. and the (indiscernible) and to speak clearly and slowly and turn down your television or radio. or alternatively you may submit public comment in the following ways: and email me at linda.wong@sfgov.org. and via email it's included in this legislative file and as part of the matter. and written comments may be sent via post office sense to city hall 1 doctor carleton b., room

244, san francisco, california, 94102. and finally items today will be forwarded to the full board for consideration on may 19th unless otherwise stated. >> president fewer: thank you very much, mad 578 clerk. call item number 1. >> clerk: the airport professional services agreement, 11, for the san francisco international airport, an and te partners to increase the services for to not exceed $38 million for services and to extend the term to july 7th, 2023, to commence following board approval. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call the 888-204-5984 and access code 3501008. and press 1, and then 0 to line

up to speak. >> president fewer: thank you very much. last week we continued this item for more information from the san francisco international airport. and i am pleased to say that we received such correspondence clarifying the budget situation. and do you have any comments to add? >> chair fewer and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to share some of the airport recovery plans with you. i just wanted to clarify that i stated last week that there was an 18-month recovery plan and as supervisor fewer stated, that is probably prettyop optimistic. i received clarification that was part of the correspondence with you this week that our capital plan that has been revised for 18 months, the airport finance staff does indeed have a three-year economic recovery plan that will be part of our budget process, the revised process that will go

through our airport commission and the board of supervisors in a couple of months. so i just wanted to clarify that. thank you. >> president fewer: thank you very much. colleague, any comments or questions? we heard the report last week so let's open this up for public comment. any members of the public to comment on item number 1? >> clerk: operation is checking to see if there's any callers in the queue. and please let us know if there are callers that are ready. if you have not already done so, press 1, and then 0, to be added to the queue. for those already on hold, wait until you are prompted to begin to speak. >> madam chair, there are no callers wishing to speak. >> president fewer: thank you very much. and i'd like to make a motion to move this to the board with a positive recommendation, can i have a roll call vote. >> clerk: on that motion, supervisor walton? aye. walton, aye. and supervisor mandelman? aye. mandelman aye.

chair fewer? aye. three ayes. >> president fewer: can you call item 2,. >> resolution authorizing the san francisco airport commission to accept and expend a grant in the amount of $2.9 million and any additional amounts up to 15% of the original grant that may be offered from the california air resources board for the carl moyer memorial air quality standards attainment program grant, to purchase and install electrical ground service equipment charging stations and supporting infrastructure for the proposed project period of june 2020 through june 2021. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call 888-204-5984 and access code 3503501008 and then press 1 and then 0 to line up to speak. >> president fewer: miss widener, you're on again. >> thank you, chair fewer and members of the committee.

the airport are seeking approval to accept and expend a california air resources board grant to purchase and install electrical ground service equipment, charging stations, from june 2020, through june 2021. and the airport submitted this package to the board of supervisors early in the process to prevent the need for retroactivity. at the time of the agreed grant amount up to a possible $2.9 million. and at its meeting last week, the bay air quality awarded the grant in the amount of $2,345,297. however, the airport staff continues to be in discussions with the district on this specific line item. this amount may go up, which is why we are requesting to amend the resolution to include the up to $2,746,298 amount. and this is recommended also as part of the budget analyst

report. this grant program is implemented as a partnership between the air district and california 35 local air districts, including the bay air quality air management district. the airport's proposed project is the first phase of an airport-wide ground equipment and electrification strategy to equip all gates with electrical infrastructure necessary to operate the service equipment to reduce the fuel use and diesel emissions. again, the airport agrees with the budget analyst recommendation to amend the proposed resolution to collectly state that the grant amount is up to $2,746,298. a revised resolution has been provided to the clerk's office for the file. and i would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. >> president fewer: thank you very much. colleagues, any comments or questions. seeing none, can we have a daily

report. >> good morning, chair fewer, dan gontra. item 2 is a proposed resolution to authorize the san francisco airport commission to, one, to accept and expend a grant in the amount of $2,746,298. and any additional amounts up to 15% of the original grant that may be offered from the california air resources board for the carl moyer memorial air quality standards attainment program grant. to purchase and to install electrical ground service equipment, charging stations and supporting infrastructure for proposed project period of june 2020, through june 2021. to commit to providing an estimated $3,650,397 in matching funds and affirm the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act. the airport's proposed project is the first phase of an airport-wide ground service

equipment, electrification strategy to have the infrastructure necessary to operate reduce the fuel and diesel emissions. total budget is approximately $6,396,695. and the carl moyer program grant will fund up to $2,746, 298 and the airport will fund $3,650,397 of the total project cost. per the carl moyer program. , the grant share is up to the total cost, and the total cost, which is is shown in table one on page 11 of our report includes items that are needed to complete the project but are considered ineligible for grant participation, including software and police staffing and construction contingencies. they are fully funded by the airport which is matching funds equaling more than 50% of the

total project cost. according to the airport staff, the california air resources board and the bay area air quality management district have indicated that the covid-19 health crisis has not impacted their carl moyer program grant funding. grant timelines or the milestones. the airport does not anticipate covid-19 to have an impact on the scope of work, however, a significant delay in when contractors can return to work due to the current covid-19 shelter-in-place order may impact the completion timeline under the carl moyer program grant guidelines. all recommendations are to amend the proposed resolution to the amount of $2,746,298, and to approve the proposed resolution as amended. i can answer any questions that the committee may have. >> president fewer: any comments or comments? seeing none, let's open this up for public comment. any members of the public that would like to comment on item number 2?

>> clerk: madam chair, operation is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. let us know if the callers are ready. if you have not done so, press 1, and then 0 to be added to the queue. for those already on the line please continue to wait until you're prompted to begin at the beep. >> madam chair, there are no callers wishing to speak. >> president fewer: thank you. the public comment on item number 2 is closed and i'd like to make a motion to accept the amendment that is presented. >> clerk: on that motion, supervisor walton? >> supervisor walton: aye. >> clerk: walton, aye. supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> clerk: mandelman aye. chair fewer? >> president fewer: aye. i would like to move this to the full board with a positive recommendation as amended. the roll call vote, please. >> clerk: on the motion, supervisor walton.

>> supervisor walton: aye. >> clerk: walton, aye. and supervisor mandelman. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> clerk: and chair fewer? three ayes. >> president fewer: thank you very much. call item 3. >> clerk: to approve modification number 6 to airport contract number 9254, airport shuttle bus services with s.f.o. hotel shuttle inc, to increase the contract amount by $27.9 million for a new not to exceed the amount of $123 million and to exercise the final two-year option to extend the term from july 1, 2020, for a total term of december 1, 2012, through june 30, 202 it. and the members of the public who wish to provide public comment should call 888-204-5984, and access code 3501008 and press 1, and then 0 to line up to speak. >> president fewer: thank you very much. miss widener, this is kathy widener again from the san

francisco international airport. >> thank you, chair fewer, kathy widener with the airport. the item before you seeking your approval to modify an existing contract with s.f.o. hotel shuttle to exercise the final two-year option to extend the contract through june of 2022. and increase the amount to $27,900,000 and the contract is the result of the 2012 competitive request for proposals process which was approved by the board of supervisors with the initial term of three years and seven months. from december 2012, through june 2016, with three two-year options to extend. the first two options have been exercised and this proposed modification will be the last extension of the contract. the airport contracts with s.f.o. hotel shuttles to maintain the airport and to provide the drivers needed to support various busing operations for passengers and employees around the airport. and this includes all bus

services to the long-term parking garage and various employee garages and lots. and aircraft parked remotely on the airfield and all services that are needed during an air train outage. this modification accounts for increases to driver salaries as permitted in the contract terms and the additional service to the oyster point ferry terminal which was added last year. this also includes the busing related to construction projects such as the airfield busing to remote aircraft parking terminals and the construction related to closures and the continued busing to the long-term parking garage until the air train station can be fully activated. this is one of the contracts that has been scaled back due to the significant decrease in passengers at the airport and the need for shuttles. although it remains an important service for the employees who go to work every day and the passengers who are traveling through the airport, during normal operations s.f.o. is a parking constrained airport,

making the shuttles a critical way to access our airport terminals. once the air train extension to the long-terming parkin-term pas completed, costs can be reduced by $500,000 per month and there may be other opportunities for reducing costs. because of these potential contract savings in the current decline in the passenger traffic, the airport agrees with the budget and legislative analyst recommendation to amend the contract, not to exceed amount by $7 million. if the air train project is significantly delayed and/or passenger traffic returns to normal levels faster than projected, we may return to the committee for additional funding through the end of the contract. a copy of the revised resolution has been provided to the committee clerk and i would would be happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> president fewer: thank you very much. any comments or questions from my colleagues? seeing none, can we please have a report. >> thank you, chair fewer.

item number 3 is a proposed resolution to approve the modification number 6 between the san francisco international airport and s.f.o. hotel shuttle. the airport provides free shuttle service to various locations including the long-term and employee parking garages and lots, remote airfield locations, and as needed emergency buses during air train outages and oyster point ferry terminal. in june 2012, the airport conducted a request for proposals to select a new provider. and the existing shuttle provider was deemed the highest scoring responsive and responsible proposer and was awarded a new contract. in november 2012, the board of supervisors approved a contract with s.f.o. shuttle bus company, now known as s.f.o. hotel shuttle, for a term of three years and seven months from december 2012, through june 2016 for an amount not to exceed $39 million. with three two-year options to extend through june 2022 for a total not to exceed of

$105 million. and the contract has since been modified five times as shown in table one on page 14 of our report. changes in contract scope to accommodate the airport construction have resulted in cost acceleration beyond what was anticipated in the initial contract, including additional -- the addition of airfield buses service and the addition of air train replacement bus service due to construction, and the discontinuation of the lot b shuttle service. in february 2020, they approved modification number 6 to the contract, the subject of the proposed resolution. because the original 2012 resolution provided for the airport to exercise contract modifications up to $105 million, the prior five mod iskses were not subject to the board of supervisors approval. the proposed mod iks number 6 increases not to exceed amount of the contract by $27,900,000, over the two-year extension period as shown in table 2 on page 16 of our report.

and according to mr. seth morgan, the airport service -- the airport senior transportation planner, sufficient funding is available in the airport proposed fiscal year 2020-2022, two-year budget, pending the board of supervisor approval. and due to covid-19, the expenditures on the contract are likely to be lower than the $27,900,000 over the two-year extension term. according to airport expenditure data, expected expenditures are $88,270,614. and, therefore, the budget and legislative analyst recommends to amend the proposed resolution for a contract not to exceed $116,1 on 09,116, rather than the amount in the resolution $123,181,617.

the controller has estimated revenue shortfalls in the fiscal year 2019-20, of $190 million to $220 million due to the reduced air travel. as a result of the covid-19 crisis. as noted in prior and budget legislative reports, there's funds to offset the lost operating revenues due to reduced air travel with $530 million in passenger facility fund balance, and $254.8 million in the cares pact funds. our recommendations are to amend the proposed resolution to provide for the not-to-exceed amount of $111 million, and rather than the amount in the resolution, of $123,181,167 and we recommend to approve the resolution as amended. i'm available for any questions. >> president fewer: thank you very much. i see no colleagues on the

queue. so let's open this up for public comment to any members of the public that would like to comment on item number 3, please join the queue. >> clerk: madam chair, operation is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. mr. coop, let us know if there are callers ready. if you have not already done so, please press 1 and then 0 to be added to the queue. for those already on hold, please continue to wait until you're prompted to begin to speak. >> madam chair, there are no callers wishing to speak. >> president fewer: thank you. colleagues, any comments or questions? seeing none, i'd like to make a motion to approve amendments offered by the b.l.a. a roll call vote. >> clerk: supervisor walton. walton, aye. and supervisor mandelman, mandelman, aye. chair fewer? your ayes are three ayes. >> president fewer: thank you. and to move this to the board with a positive recommendation as amended. roll call vote please.

>> clerk: and on that motion, supervisor walton? walton, aye. supervisor mandelman. mandelman, aye. and chair fewer. fewer, aye. there are three ayes. >> president fewer: thank you. can you call item number 4. >> clerk: yes. item number 4, resolution retroactively authorizing the department of elections to accept and expend funds allocated by the california secretary of state in an amount not to exceed $1.9 million to fund voting system and election management system replacement, for the period of february 1, 2019, through june 30, 2022. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call 888-204 888-204-5984 and the access code 35 on 01008, and then press 1 and 0 to line up to speak. >> president fewer: we have the director of the department of elections with us. >> good morning, supervisors. the purpose of this proposed

resolution is to amend an existing agreement with the state to allow the city to use grant funds $1.9 million total. $1.5 million is allocated to replace the voting related equipment and approximately $400,000 to replace or upgrade the management systems. the agreement, which is administered by the secretary of the state office, provides a 75% reimbursement for purchases that the city makes through june 30, 2022. the city entered a contract last year with the state to use these grant funds totaling $ 3 million for similar purposes. they are to reimbur reimburse t. $4.5 million of the total cost of $8.5 million which is more than half of the cost from the lease. potentially the funds could also be applied for purchases of on-demand systems, vote-by-mail

drop boxes and the telecommunication technologies such as voter registration and by mail sorting and processing equipment. last year the board approved a similar resolution which allowed the department to execute an agreement with the secretary of state's office to utilize the initial grant fund of $3 million. upon the board's approval the secretary of state will amend the agreement to include the additional $1.9 million. the amended agreement will modify the reimbursement ratio to 3:1 or 75% that i referenced earlier. and now i can take any questions that the supervisors have. >> president fewer: thank you. any questions or comments from colleagues? seeing none, can we have the report. >> yes, thank you, chair fewer. the proposed resolutions with amend to the existing grant and to authorize the department of elections to accept and expend funds a allocated by the

secretary of state to not exceed $1,949,85859.50 to fund the votg system and election management system replacement for the period of february 1, 2019, through june 30, 202. it allocates funding for the secretary of state to reimburse the counties for the cost of voting system replacement activities. counties are required to certify by resolution the approval of applications for funding before submission to the secretary of state. under the terms of the grant, a county can only be reimbursed for the cost of developing a new system if the system is then certified by the california secretary of state by july 1, 2023. on march 12, 2019, the board of supervisors retroactively approved a voting system contract between the department of elections and the dominion voting systems incorporated for a term of four years and three months from january 2019, through march 2023. and the amount not to exceed

$8,460,000 with two one-year options to extend through march 2025, for a total to not exceed $12,660,000. under the contract, dominion provides the lease of a new voting system, a license to use the voting system software, maintenance and support services. dominion is one of three firms that offer complete voting systems that meet the california secretary of state's voting system requirements. in april 2019, the board of supervisors approved a resolution to retroactively to authorize the department of elections to apply for, accept, and to expend grant fund allocated by the secretary of state in an amount not to exceed $3,110,50 for the period from july 20218 through june 2021. and the grant authorized by proposed resolution provides $

$1.5 million for activities to partially fund the contract between the city and dominion to lease the voting system through march 2023. and the grant requires a 3:1 or 75% to 25% match of funds by the city. which the city meets through its allocation of general fund money of $3 million to fully fund the contract with dominion. and the grant would reimburse a total of 53.4%, or $4,517,260 of the $8,460,000 cost of the initial four-year and three month term of the dominion contract. the remaining cost of $3,949,2a 0 is funded by the fund on table 1 on page 12 of our report. including to the department director, the grant fund can only be used for the purposes

specified in the grant and cannot be used to extend the mail-in ballots to all san francisco voters as required by ordinance 20-0400. pending before the board of supervisors. however, according to the department director, because the total grant funds of $4.5 million offset the city's existing costs for the dominion voting systems, the general fund moneys can be made available for ordinance that requires that all san francisco registered voters to be provided with a mail-in ballot. we recommend to approve the resolution and i'm available for any questions. >> president fewer: thank you very much. colleagues, any comments or questions? and let's open this up for public comment. any members of the public that would like to comment on item number 4? >> clerk: madam chair, operation is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. please let us know if there are any callers that are ready. if you have not already done so, please press 1, and then 0, to be added to the queue. for those already on hold,

please continue to wait until you're prompted to speak at the beep. >> madam chair, there are no callers wishing to speak. >> president fewer: thank you very much. i have a question. public comment is now closed on item number 4. i have a question about the mail-in ballots. you mentioned the general funds could be used for this. and is there sufficient funds in your current budget to do the mail-in ballots? >> right now we still have to move forward for the next fiscal year's budget so, no, right now we don't. but for the budget that we put forward to the mayor's office in february, we did not contemplate sending everyone a ballot, so that number of ballots have to be included into our budget for the next fiscal year. >> president fewer: okay. okay. any comments or questions from our colleagues? seeing none, i would like to move this to the board with a positive recommendation.

could i please have a roll call vote, madam chair. >> clerk: yes on the motion, supervisor walton. walton, aye. supervisor mandelman. mandelman, aye. and chair fewer? fewer, aye. there are three ayes. >> president fewer: thank you very much. madam clerk, call item number 5. >> clerk: yes, item 5, resolution authorizing the city and county officials to execute and to file on behalf of the city and county of san francisco any actions necessary for the purpose of obtaining state and federal financial assistance under various grant programs. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call the 888-204-5984, access code 3501008 and then press 1 and then 0, to line up to speak. >> president fewer: thank you very much. and we have with us mary langan from the department. >> chair fewer and members of the committee, marylanders from the department of emergency

management. the less that you have before you is the annual governing body resolution for emergency preparedness grantses that are applied for by our department. this year there are five grants in the list. the urban area security initiative and the state homeland security program. and the emergency management performance grant, and the local government oil spill contingency plan grant, and a hazard mitigation grant. the california office of emergency services requires that the date of the grant year and naming applicant agents appears annually and so this is our annual request for board approval. and funds are ongoing and usually submitted through the budget process and i'm happy to try to answer any questions that you may have. >> president fewer: thank you very much. any questions or comments from colleagues? madam clerk, let's open this up to public comment. >> clerk: yes, madam chair. operation is checking to see if

there are callers in the queue. please let us know if there are callers that are ready. if you have not already done so, please press 1 and then 0 to be added to the queue. for those on hold, please continue to wait until you're prompted to begin at the beep. >> madam chair, there are no callers wishing to speak. >> president fewer: thank you very much. any comments or questions from our colleagues? seeing no one in the queue and i'd like to make a motion to move this to the board with a positive recommendation. could i have a roll call vote please. >> clerk: yes, supervisor walton. walton, aye. supervisor mandelman? mandelman, aye. chair fewer. fewer, aye. there arely ayes. >> president fewer: thank you very much. and clerk, is there any more business before us today? >> clerk: there's no further business. >> president fewer: thank you very much. we're adjourned.

>> this is may 13th 2020 regular budget and appropriatations committee meeting. i'm sandra lee fewer, chair of the budget and appropriatations committee. i'm joined by committee members

[inaudible]. our clerk is linda wong. i'd like to thank sfgovtv for broadcasting this meeting. any announcements? >> yes, madame chair. due to the covid-19 health emergency and protect board members, city xwraoeps and the public, the board of supervisors, legislative chamber and committee room are closed. however, members will be participating in the meetings remotely in the same extend that they were physically present. public comments will be available for each item on this agenda. each speaker will be allowed two minutes to speak. comments are opportunities to speak during the public comment period available via phone call by calling 888-204-5984. access code 3501008 and then

press pound and then press pound again. when you're connected, dial 1 and then 0 to be added to the queue to speak. you'll be lined up in the system in the order you dialed 1 and 0. while you're waiting the system will be silent. the system will notify you when you're in line and waiting. all callers will remain on commute until their line is open. everyone must account for the time today and speaking discrepancies between live coverage and streaming. best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and turn down your television or radio, or you may submit public comments in either of the following way. e-mail me at linda.wong@sfgov.org. if you submit public comment via e-mail, it will be included in the legislative file as part of the matter.

written comments may be sent via u.s. postal service to city hall. to room 244, san francisco, california, 94102. and madame chair, this concludes my announcements. >> madame clerk, please call item number. >> yes, related updates for fiscal years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 and requesting the mayor's office of public policy and finance and the budget and legislative analysts to report. members of public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call the 888-204-5984 and press pound and then 0 to line up to speak. >> thank you very much. you may remember that this is

the long-awaited megareport on the state of our budget. and so today we have kelly from the budget office and ben rosenfield. >> thank you, madame chair. and members of the committee. i'm ben rosenfield, city controller. i can start the presentation, ms. kirkpatrick, as portions of it as well and where available for the committee, either during the presentation or afterwards. as you psychiatric, madame chair, it was about a month ago, a very long month ago that the three financial officers authorized [inaudible] and presented our march projections early in the days of this emergency regarding our expectations for financial impacts on the city. earlier today, it is now available on the web and each member of the committee has a copy of it.

woe produced updates of those projections. so, our may outline, our may projections. so we're here today to summarize some of that information for you. and take questions from you. very briefly, we'll walk through the current year shortfall projections and then those for the next four fiscal years. ms. kirkpatrick can then talk through projections of covid spending in revenues both for the current year and some preliminary thinking regarding next year and beyond and then i'll conclude with some discussion of risks and uncertainty that can continue to be incredibly present at the moment to close the presentation. so with that, to get to the bottom line of it, in march we had project add range of revenue losses that we expect to occur during the current and upcoming two years. that is the period for which you're now plan ago two-year budget. in march, we had developed both a more limited impact scenario and more extended one.

in our update, though, we've set it out by a single number of $1.7 billion and we'll walk you through those details. in a nutshell, the $1.1 billion estimate before and the more limited duration scenario really corresponded to a v-shape recovery followed by a quick rebound and given the world as we know it today, in our greater understanding of both the health and financial risks ahead of us, that no longer feels like a credible scenario to our offices. so, we have a single projection which we will walk through and a unfortunately it's at the lower edge of what we previously expected. starring with the current year, here's an update on our tax

revenue projections for the fiscal year ending in just a couple of months now. you can see here that property tax good news that we anticipated earlier in the fiscal year and continues to be driven by enrollment of prior year bills, supplementals and escapes by the assessor's office and continues to be strong. that's been somewhat off set recently given our interpretation that we'll lose penalties and interests and some other revenues in the current year that will affect property tax. property tax remains [inaudible]. the other numbers on this page are much worse. business tax is down approximately $200 million by the close of the fiscal year. that is being driven by both our expectations that businesses will begin to pay their quarterly payment at lower level, give than economic slosz occurring in the private sector as well as deferrals of

certain fees and taxes. so, we see the loss here and the business tax numbers that we'll talk about later assume that we receive those funds in the current per. the single most impacted industry in the city, and that corresponds to our tax revenue loss as welt is hospitality and that translated into a sharp loss of hotel taxes. $150 million on weakness versus the adopted budget. almost all of that in one quarter. so hotel taxes went from being worth $100 to $140 million a quarter in the assumed budget, we will be lucky to receive $20 million in hotel tax in the current quarter. and most of that will be attributable to the period before shelter in place took place in mid march. parking taxes and sales taxes

are very weak. and then all the other local taxes, some are up and some are down, about 1.4 million. so, that leaves us with a current year tax revenue loss of $335.8 million. our latest projection. obviously that is only one piece. that is the revenue -- tax revenue piece of the outlook. and there's obviously much more details in the report itself regarding what's going on with different departments and tax revenue streams and baselines and other things and to summarize it here, this is kind of where we expect to end the current year in the general fund overall. we started the year with $294 million in fund balance after the adopted budget, taking our local tax revenues and other tax -- other revenue losses worth viewing in the current year. we lose about $436 million versus budget baselines with shared in good news and also shared in bad news and that

means that general fund contributions to baselines that have been adopted dekleined by approximately $308 million. we do see department spending savings, which is in the report of $123.7 million. the majority of that was captured in the six-month report. prior to the pandemic. but there is additional savings detailed in the report related, broadly speaking, to slowing spending in the current fiscal year given the obvious challenges and hiring and those sorts of things in the current environment. that means we would expect to end the year with about $85.5 million in fund balance. which is about $246.2 million worse than what we had assumed in january. and so i know the mayor's office has indicated they intend to submit a rebalancing plan for the incoming weeks. at this point, that is a number they're solving around and ms.

kirkpatrick can speak to that. so, i will turn it over to ms. kirkpatrick as we move beyond the current year and then talk about the outlook for the next several. >> thank you. as the controller outlined, the -- our office intends to submit a rebalancing plan for the approximately $250 million of current year shortfall. by the end of next week to the board of supervisors. and just want to highlight and walk through the remaining shortfalls that will have to confront in the upcoming budget process due to, in large part, the revenue losses that the controller outlined. but there are some expenditure changes as well that i'll walk you through. but all that to say that, for the upcoming two-year budget, we now have a $1.5 billion projected shortfall compared to about a $400 million deficit that we had published in january.

the significant cliffs in the final two years of projection grow as a result of a loss of one-time fund balance, that one time money we applied to two budget years are helping to bring those costs down. but those sources aren't available and our projections are in the final two years and that is why it grows in the outer years of the projection. here's a bit of detail. underlieing that high-level rollup that i just showed you. you'll see the budget shortfall. the numbers match the previous slides. $215 the current year. about $700 million in each of the two budget years, resulting in $1.7 billion of which the upcoming budget will have to close at $1.5 a billion. the general fund sources revenue is the biggest loss cost it feels like and the

upcoming projections. some changes since march include additional revenue losses at the department of public health. which noticeably are driven by slowed revenue from medi-cal patients as well as lexive medical referral due to the pandemic. we assume that loss is one time in the first year of the budget and then resumption of the department's ongoing revenues by various state and federal waivers compared to prior years why those look like losses in the outer years and there is also other small revenue losses projected, notably the a.s.p. to the general fund as well as loss sb-1. that is our state gas tax that helps with road repaving so we

project revenues by lower revenue down below and there's other departmental revenues. and we assumed some losses there as well. contributing to the steeper decline than prior projections. baseline savings. that is to the fund it feels like. contributions were driven by the slowing revenues, but i do recognize that that means less money for those service areas so notably the city's three biggest service areas that receive baseline funding include the m.p.a. and children's services, noticeably decyf and oecd as well as library and rec park. changes in salary and benefits include both the wage delay that was triggered as of our march 31 report. a savings of almost $43 million.

in the first year of the budget. but because it's a wage delay and not a wage freeze or cancellation, it just pushes that cost out into the fiscal year 2021-2022. that savings in the first year is off set by increased cost for projected active and retiree health care that's providing health insurance will be more expensive in the years going forward. and finally, there is increased pension cost over the projection period. we assume current year losses due to the poorly performing stock markets and this is compared to for projection purposes in all years. we assume 7.4% return. if i could project the stock market, i wouldn't have this job. so, that is our best projection purposes and we'll feel that

loss again in actually the second year of the budget and that is fiscal year 2021-2022 and salary and benefits feel so steep. changes in city-wide operating costs are related to increases in lease and operating costs for city-owned facilities. there's holdover issues related to 30 van ness that will droiblt the costs to working with real estate in light of the current economic landscape to see if we can bring down costs by the time budget rolls around. and then we feel the offsetting expenditure savings and that will go road repaving. the departmentstal operating costs, the biggest increase in costs are notably due to changes and this is from march, i'm noting.

changes in our entitlement programs, including cow works and cap due to increased enrollment as well as the termination of -- i'm going to get the terminology wrong, but due to changes at the state level to be responsive and supportive of these low-income residents, there's no termination period on benefits. people will continue to receive them, which is helpful to residents, but feels like a cost to continue to support that. there's other assumed minor changes from mosconi, due to reduced convention center activity as well as some adjustments to the buffin projections that we made earlier in the year. next slide. thank you.

the next kind of piece of financial puzle that we spent some time working with departments and the controller's office on, just doing our best attempt at projecting. i think uncertainty is definitely a key issue that we're confronting but trying our best to provide estimates and bookends just to help give a sense of order of magnitude. so, based on current spending to date, as well as projected spending by departments through the end of this fiscal year, we are estimating about $375 million in direct covid spending by departments. now i know i've been coming to you weekly with this slide that is -- that has been highlighting the budget actual, which is checks cut and out the door. this is a projection of that forward-looking spending.

the departments are forecasting based on commitments they've made, leases they've signed, contracts they're pursuing. so that is why this number is over $300 million. the two biggest areas that i'll walk through on the next slide for covid spending should come as no surprise but it is health care spending to be responsive to the medical needs and prevention needs from the community in the health care lens and alternative house hoing makes them a significant portion of that. we do assume fema reimbursement, which is currently 75% as well as cares act funding. on the next slide,ly walk you through a kind of much more detailed break out of the spending areas and those sources that are known at this time.

based on these estimates, we will largely spend down our cares act allocations by the end of this fiscal year and we really wanted to that a lens, too, as we're thinking about the up coming two-year budget. what are some potential costs for covid spending with various variables around state and federal aid that we should be thinking and planning for. even if potential additional state or federal resources come to fruition as, you know, there are discussions in washington to that effect. but there is downside risks in terms of fema reimbursement, depenting on actions taken by the federal government in terms of the duration of the emergency declaration. i think -- yep. go ahead. i think i covered what i intended to. so we've highlighted four main

areas of response. as i noted earlier, the health system costs are projected to be about $1807 million. if we assume fema reimbursement, that would leave about $45 million in local costs remaining. the main spending areas within this category the biggest is personal protective equipment, p.p.e.ablable disinfect tanl, other cleaning and prevention supplies. these are both purchases to protect our hospital staff as well as frontline workers across the city. union workers and we're working essentially with the city administrator's office and d.p.h. to procure and distribute p.p.e. across the city. but this is a significant cost both now and projected to ensure that we can mitigate the spread of the virus in our health care settings. and in our essential work that must continue.

there is also significant spending projected and incurd due to medical staffing both planning for an ability to surge our nursing capacity as needed as well as overtime for medical staff. we assume the medical staff costs will be ongoing. but, of course, all of this is really will be shaped by the shape and evolution of the virus over the next year and the shape of the curve. we have medical transport testing in these costs. not included in these costs are a contact tracing unit which is definitely under way. we have the department of public health leading existing efforts and plans for the next year. the reason they're not included is they are working through a kind of projection for the next year.

but i do want to note that that could be additional cost here as well. simply, for shelter and housing, the vast majority of those costs, i would say 75% of them, are for all of our alternative housing. this is for 7,000 rooms, but i have in the report we provide the cost of 8250 rooms that would cost as well. and we assume reimbursement levels in alignment with the vulnerable population that fema will reimburse for. and this includes the cost of meals, supplies and staffing at the hotels. since the last discussion with hotels at the board, h.s.a. has endeavored to estimate the cost of adding nonprofit staffing in addition to workers that might have changed the

nightly room rate from the last reporting. the number is included here. for emergency operations and staffing we have included newly incurred staffing cost and overtime expenses for public safety employees. staff at the e.o.c., our clinics and testing sites as well as the cost of overtime for the department of public works to maintain clean streets. this includes technology services as well as emergency child care centers and providing meals for children of first responders. the reason why this cost is higher is that when there are certain expenses in here that are not fema eligible, our understanding is that the child care centers are not currently female reimable, but we'll have other sources to help support the programs that are not fema reimbursable. and i wanted to highlight the

number of programs that the city has undertaken. half is related to food security and meal delivery programs. one thing that i didn't nik wallenda my presentation, but detailed in the report is that the call for fema and others include philanthropistic or dedicated funding to date to committed state reimbursement. so, for the meal programs, the state has agreed to match and part for the great plaits delivered program so there is a small local match on that one. we also include the variety of programs for seniors serving community organizations, home delivered meals, grocery supported through give 2sf and other grocery purchases. we also wanted to outline the various small business programs

and trying to support undocumented and extremely low-income familieses is outlined in the report as well and finally in terms of sources of funding that will help us offset some of these net local, potential local costs. most notably is $150 from the cares act a. state and local government am allocation that can offset incurred costs and cannot offset lost revenue and has to be sent by december 2020. other allocations in here include $16 million of hud funding or cbdg and a e.s.g. as well as hopwa and other developmenttal-specific allocation include aging and disability services. the state has commited to $7.4 million to san francisco, through project room key, of which $6 million is formula

driven to offset costs related to helping individuals who are homeless and pay for other housing programs. all this to say, given these assumptions of projected costs, assumed fema reimbursement, state and local aid and philanthropistic funding, that leaves a $40 million balance of sources to help pay for costs beyond july. what are some projections for the next fiscal year? again, these are all our, you know, wanting to give, sense of order, of magnitude, the arc of covid in the community and the next fiscal year will really shame our costs, the scale and design of city programs will also determine the ultimate costs we will incur. but we need to flex up or flex down. if we're able to flex down from our current response levels, as

i noted earlier, we assumed fema reimbursement at 75%. but that is dependent on the foed ral state of emergency being in place and there is potential tlifk should the president decide to end the emergency or due to political pressures that might jeopardize fema fundingful on the other side of that, though, too, our report does not assume cal o.e.s. matching fund which is in the past have been 18.75%. so should those funds to feds match that, that would help offset some of that local match as well. and then, of course, there is the uncertainty of potentially additional federal aid to local governments. i was just listening to the governor at his lunchtime press conference talking about even at the state level, the importance of federal support and that conversation is just kicked off with the house democrats introducing a bill

yesterday and provided significant relief. but obviously it has to work its way through the house and then the nondemocratically controlled house but rest assured we recognize the importance of these efforts to secure federal funding and we'll try to do our best and encourage you all to recognize that importance. what we are trying to demonstrate here is if costs that are considered ongoing -- hotels, p.p.e., health testing, health care staffing, some level of e.o.c. staffing were to continue, the exact same right for the next year, and we apply the cares act balance and use 75% fema, that could be up to $500 million of additional cost and perhaps we can ramper down our response efforts and say we spent at 50% of what we are projected to spend through the end of this fiscal year.

the same kind of methodologies, about $200 million. if we spend at 25% of our current spending rate projections, up to $90 million. as anoted, there is upside and downside risks to all of this. these costs will obviously flex and change as information changes. but all this to say that these expenditures are not included in the current year shortfalls. wherever they land, should they be over and not offset by state and federal sources, these would be added to the deficit on whatever level they end up as being. with that, i'll pass it over to the controller. >> thank you. to briefly end our presentation, the two most striking things to me regarding the situation, is number one the speed and rapidity in which the city's revenue base has eroded and then, secondly and

perhaps more pronounced, is the incredible level of risk and uncertainty that faces us financially and otherwise looking forward. these are really fundamentally things that could alter this projection predominantly to the worse but we'll talk about places where it could be to the good. as we continue to update you about this and keep informed about the city's financial health. the first, of course, and that drives all of this is duration of the public health risk that continues to exist in san francisco and throughout the country past july 1. there is a risk here that we'll have a slower or later recovery than assumed in our projections. we talked a little bit about here about the level of the city response that will be required to be sustained in coming years. those numbers that she talked

about earlier are preliminary rages. -- ranges. they are not in the projected shortfall. i'm not the right speak tore speak to the duration and intensity of the public health risks in the time period after july 1. but here's a simple depiction that many of you may have seen from the ?r of infectious disease that speaks to the longer trajectory of covid as they understand it and see it in the longer term. so here we're talking about a two-year period, essentially and they're building these off past experience with other infectious diseases like the flu. that first scenario on the left, in all these cases i should say were on the far left at this point of these charts

but it is really what is the art of the disease going to look like going forward in san francisco in the state, the country and in the world. and there is great uncertainty about that. we know that covid-19 will continue to be present in our community until there is a vaccine or herd immunity is developed if that is even feasible and that will be some time. so we have different scenarios of peaks and valleys, the scenario, too, is one where we have a -- we have improvement this summer and you see an actually worse outbreak later in the fall. and then our goal really to get to scenario number three, which is a slow burn managing the disease in our community from intervention while doing what we can to return to the economy and our social state, a new normal. but that will be with us for some time. so which of these scenarios we find ourselves on is we go

obviously has a profound effect, not just on city services and broader society in san francisco but on our finances as well. that is the first and most pronounced risk and we'll don't live with this uncertainty, i think, for the next -- through the coming fiscal year. related to, -- related to that, as i said earlier, we're no longer expecting to see a rapid recovery, but we expect and project in these numbers that a recovery does begin late in 2020 and continues through the forecast period. the risk dove tailing off the previous slide is that additional public health interventions or rollbacks were broader economic dislocation that results from kind of the -- our current state. it means that we have a slower recovery than we're expecting here. we have about 3.8 million and

makes up our local tax revenue base. and these are in our general fund to that dynamic. on the right are just two simple number are what would it look like if the world is 5% worse than what we're projecting here and what would it look like if we're 10%? those are credible scenarios if we find ourselves having to retrench the next fiscal year or we see things worsen rather than improve. that is a tlaifk we should all be planning around. and aware of. kelly talked earlier. the key question is what level of city response will be required in future years. we now project to spend approximately $375 million in the current year and that will be largely covered by other nongeneral fund revenue sources. we also know that n doing that, we're largely depleting the cares act allocation that has

been approved by congress thus far, which will mean spending next year will be more exposed. but departments are working as we speak and i think these will be the key choice made by the mayor and bore in the coming year budget. what will spending levels look like in 2021 and beyond for the hospital system, for testing and contact tracing, temporary housing and shelter, and other strategies a. key unknown to us at this point. and then the last major risk relates to losses of federal or state revenue. so we've made no assumption here regarding loss of either federal or state revenue. on the federal side, the downside risk here is, as kelly talked about earlier, is the national emergency will be declared over at some point. at that point, fema turns off as a revenue source to

reimburse the very significant cost of you will likely don't incur 678 it is unknown when that will be. but it is a risk there. we remain hopeful that we'll see additional federal aid packages. the democrats in congress have are sbro* deuced the heroes act. the next proposed stimulus bill that would provide significant relief to local governments. but we just don't have any certainly at this point. and we'll don't keep this committee updated as we continue to look at what is going on with washington. on the state side, kelly mentioned cal o.e.s., and they match fema and provide additional revenue for us. we're hopeful that will occur. when it does, we will include those revenues in our forecast going forward. additionally, a bill has been

introduced in congress. ill would push the stay's reimbursement to 100% if it's approved and i'm assuming that's the reason the state hasn't enacted it because they're pressuring the feds to get to 100% reimbursement on the costs so that the state doesn't have to bear it. the last three major hurricanes in the u.s., ultimately congress approved 100% reimbursement so we remain hopeful for good news on that front. however, the kind of other big looming problem for local governments is the state budget itself. so tomorrow the governor is scheduled to release his may revised propose told the legislature which will then have to adopt a budget by june 15. the state now faces a very large budget shortfall of their own. $54 billion is their estimate.

of revenue losses they expect to incur in the current fiscal year and upcoming year. so we face significant risk of reductions in revenue coming from the state. all tolled, federal and state revenue makes up 20% of our general fund. so, these are significant risks and we'll don't keep the committee updated as we know more. with that, we will stop talking and take any questions that you might have. >> ok. colleagues. >> so, can i -- >> yes. absolutely. how do we figure out how to budget -- balance our budget what you just said. [laughter]

seems like the simplest thing is to look at this year's first. can you go back to -- just for clarification, in terms of rooms, the rooms for 2019 and 2020, and you talked about the 7,000, 8,000, whatever it was unit interest and how you projected. did you -- did you make your projection according to the maximum number of rooms times foush months or something like that, three months? how did you do that? >> yeah. that is a great question. we worked very closely with h.s.a. staff and we -- they proud us with the projections of their spending to date. and their ramp up for the last, i want to roughly say two months.

and then for the remainder of this fiscal year, assumed reaching that 7,000 is the number here. in the report, we also provide additional cost of should we reach the 8200, what that additional cost would be as well. and then as we showed for the next fiscal year, we just assumed 100%, 50% and 25% based on that modeling, we didn't do an exact room breakdown, but for the current year it was the ramp up we've done so far in assuming the 7,000 and provide 8,000 in the report as well. >> so you're saving for the rest of may and june that we would have 7,000? no. ok. >> no. the model is basically a week by week model looking forward

as we continue to climb up the [inaudible] so by the end of the fiscal year we get the room targets that ms. kirkpatrick mentioned. >> ok. that's good. that is a maybe. from today that we'll have 7,000 rooms. the other question i had, you talked about child care a little bit, that cost. and we're paying for some of it. isn't the state reimbursing most of the child care costs? >> it was my understanding that there is a program perhaps to be determined, and let me follow up with you on that. for a certain set of workers, but recall off the top of my head but we can get that detail to you. >> what was the assumption then? that they wouldn't reimburse anything? >> that the majority was not

reimbursable was our assumption. i don't know if ben recalls better than i do. >> my memory, and we can report back to you is that the 0 to 5 child care being offered is largely being either reimburred by the state or absorbed within existing budgets. it significantly relates to the child care services being provided by the rec and park department, which is not reimbursable turn state program. but we can get you the breakdown of both of those programs. >> yeah. it's not that i have a lot of information. but i know for 0 to 5, it seems like that was going to be covered. >> that is my understanding as well.

>> if there is other people who have questions, [inaudible]. >> all right. supervisor? >> thank you, chair fewer and thank you so much for the presentation. just -- i guess my first question is do we have any indication of when cal o.e.s. resource will be available? is there an estimate and timeframe so local municipalitis can do some form of projection? >> caller: we have talked to the governor's office, supervisor walton. their focus at the moment is on pressuring the federal government to cover that chair. so i remain hopeful that either federal government will pick it up and if they don't, at that point, the state will active -- activate but i expect them to pressure the fed dos do it. >> let me ask a different

question. if some reason the feds do not provide the level of support that the state is asking for, do we know the support that we get from the state without the federal 100% reimbursement? >> if past history gives us a guide, if fema only reimburses to 75%, the state would match the 18.5%, leaving us with about 6%. the risk that i am concerned about would be that the federal government doesn't meet the state's request to go to 100% and the state faced with its own overwhelming budget problems would not activate the local match and leave that for local governments. so i just -- we don't have clarity on it at this point. >> my last question, from a historical standpoint, have we seen a crisis where the state has come through with some

level of reimbursement? >> i'm not aware of a natural disaster in the past that the state didn't ultimately active vaits their local match. it's also true, though, that the state has never had a disaster that was simultaneously active at every local government. no. i think they have always matched in past emergencies. >> thank you. >> any other questions, colleagues? >> yeah. sorry. i should -- i'm too slow at typing my name. on slide seven, when you started talking i kind of got lost with what these numbers mean. for instance, like the salaries and benefits.

on the users side. are you saying for 2021 the number looks like it would be -- >> $125 million. >> that an increase? decrease? i wasn't understanding that. >> yeah. sorry. i live in this table and i apologize. i recognize that it's not intuitive to folks who don't live and breathe budget every day. this table is a complaining the prior year. the three biggest components of that are wage increases, pension costs and they're all

three increasing compared to the prior year. this number is slightly lower because our larger projections triggered something that was agreed to with our labor unions so we're pushing cost out of fiscal year 2021 and the reason why fiscal year 2021-202 feels so large is that we're pushing that wage delay. >> ok. i think i got it. >> and additional pension costs weighs briefly on the current year and we'll feel two-years from now in the second year of the budget. so basically it's in terms of a negative here. the 125. it's really an a increase that causes a bigger deficit. >> yep. you got it. >> at first i didn't quite understand that. >> parentheses in the financial

world mean negative or costs. >> any other questions? colleagues? if not, i have a few questions as well. i want to thank you for the presentation. i note that we just received this presentation so i'm expecting that next week we'll have more questions about it. but on page 8, i see that there are significant deficits in some key departments, namely public works, h.s.a. and rec and park. and significant surpluss in other departmentses, namely police, sheriff, war memorial and [inaudible] a. there are details on the following page. but can you share more with the committee about the origin of this deficit? >> sure. let me pull up the report if i could.

>> and chair fewer, can you remind us on which department you highlighted? >> sure. there's significant deficits in some departments, juvenile probations, and significant surpluss in other departments through h.s.h., war memorial and human resources. so, just a little bit more detailed about it. >> absolutely. go ahead, ben. >> you were on page eight of the report. >> yes. >> at a high level, this shortfall, a juvenile probation is almost entirely driven by delays in claiming federal and

state revenue. grants that they have available. we reported this at the six-month mark as well. that number is coming down and i have a team of accountants that are assisting with that effort at juvenile probation as we speak. it is a function of their financial capacity there. they went through the summer with very little capacity in their finance shop. i'm hopeful, as we say in the text below, that they will be able to [inaudible] and 0 in the current year. in juvenile probation, that is partially off set by salary savings. they had a number of vacancis that have gone unfilled and they have some good news on the expense side leaving a $3.2 million debt. >> [inaudible]. >> so you are expecting that to

zero out. >> we're working hard to get that to zero. as of now, this is the projection for the end of fiscal year. >> ok. >> public works is predominantly driven by revenue loss related to the current revenues for other programming. it's basically stopped in the current fiscal year. given shelter in place so that's dr*if and majority of their revenue loss. wi expect them to be on the expenditure side. >> got it. >> and remind me the next department you were interested in? >> sure. h.s.a. >> sure. so, for h.s.a., it's on page 10 of the report. there is a i believe that summarizes some of revenue and

expenditure differences for their various program. most of the revenue loss here is related to changing levels of state reimbursements that are formula-driven for various programs they offer. so, lower matching for foster care and some of the general operating expenses that you see in that left column. they are coming in under budget on the expense side. but the participation of the feding and state with their programs is coming in lower than that. leaving that net-net problem. for rec and park, the majority of the revenue shortfall you see is really driven by, again, by our current public health emergency. we project approximately $11 million in revenue losses for the departments.

that's almost entirely amid cancellation fees and loss of facility rental fees, a lack of golf programming. some of the other department services that generate revenue. so all of those activities -- those revenue generating activities have stopped and that's led to a very significant shortfall in this most recent quarter and we do have some staffing and salary savings given the issues they have that's partially off setting that leaving them with a $9 million problem. >> you never see surpluses and i see [inaudible] explained, for example, the police departments, sheriff, that we are seeing significant surpluss in other departments that [inaudible]. >> yes. we're counting on savings in places you see it on those tables. for general pressure you see

across the city at the moment that is resulting in salary savings is hiring slowdowns and that is driven by the fact that it would be technically hard to hire anyone in this circumstance, remotedly. and not filling positions quickly or filling them at all so you see surpluses in a lot of places in the error. >> ok. and then i realize that the mayor's office is working on a new rebalancing plan for the fiscal year. but can you share whether services will be [inaudible] are par of the immediate actions that you are looking at. >> for the current year rebalancing plan, we are -- some of the savings you noted in this report has brought it down to the $250 million to all of those departmenttal revenue and savings have us at $250 million. our goal in the current year is

to identify savings that will mitigate any service layoff redunstings and looking for capital savings, freezing. freezing of capital that's funded by cash. if there is any debt savings in the current year and also looking to programs that haven't started. but we can pause and sweep those savings right now. those are really on the priority list for the current year. >> and the mayor's office [inaudible] directed nonessential hiring, is that right? do you know how many vacant positions this applies to and how many salary savings in the current year is [inaudible]. >> any vacancy projections for the rest of the current year are captured in the nine-month report.

so, the controller was noting we're assuming that they will be captured in the end of year departmental savings. i don't know how many vacant positions they currently have at the moment. but we could follow up if that would be helpful to you. >> yeah, it would be. >> i have some revenue questions. it looks like we don't expect a significant impact on property tax and the biggest impact we expect is sales tax and transfer tax. can you share a bit more about the tax and revenue picture in the coming two-years? >> i would be happy to and there is additional information in the report let ne get to the right page that i can point people to. and especially in moments of this, we want to be careful in

outlining our assumptions. they begin on page 25. there is a table that shares -- shows tax revenue detailed by revenue stream in the current year. and then the next page has it carried forward into the budget years. and then there is the text beyond that that speaks to the specific assumptions. generally speaking, kind of the economic picture that stood under all of these is one as i described. it's no longer a v-shaped recession. it is a current year assumption that the losses we feel continue into the early parts of next year and then we begin to see some recovery across our different revenue streams next year.

our property tax is holding up well in the current year. we expect to see fines next year. and there are values involving the longer term. business tax, there's a lot of inputs to what drives our business. but probably the single largest is represented to next year as kind of what's the underlying dimunition in payroll. across the board here, if memory serves, this assumes about an 8% decline in gross receipts and payroll across our entire business tax space. versus the current year. that is our current estimate,

looking to cross industries. we'll know more as we get additional employment information and see what is happening in months ahead by the time we're back to you in august a. we should have a fuller picture. but that is our current assumption that's under this and then some recovery beginning in years after. hotel, you can see on page 26 that we are assuming $163 million in hotel tax revenue next year which is less than half of the hotel tax that we have assumed in the current year budgets. so we took a steep loss. we know that the hospitality industry will be one of the slowest to recover. but we do expect here or project here some recovery in hospitality beginning next year. of all of the revenue streams, this is the one that we're keeping our closest eye on and i see the most downside risk in.

but the future of air travel, convention and business that drives hospitality may need to further losses above and beyond those that we have assumed here. and then if that's deliverable information you were looking for? >> yeah. that helps. and we ref received this and there is a lot to it and there's a lot of charts and reading and i expect next week that we'll have so many questions. but i do have one more question. obviously we know that our local businesses are struggling. you know, right now. retail, restaurants. but it has been categories of businesses and do you have an analysis with regards to business taxes? so, within those categories of businesses? >> we're definitely making specific assumptions about different rates of loss in

different industries and we can share some of that with you. they're based upon pretty early information. but i can say we know that losses in hospitality, for example, hotel, catering, restaurants, have been immediate and very steep. so losses in those industris are getting much sharper than, for example, office work. or technology. or professional services. those parts of our jobs that have continued to operate with losses, but not at the same level. largely remotely. so, we can certainly provide some more information about our thinking, about which parts of local economy are comparatively healthy and less healthy at the moment. >> yeah. that would be helpful. thank you. why don't i call for public comment and see if any members of the public would like to comment on this.

again, commission -- i mean supervisors a little bit more time to digest the report. so let's call for public comment on this item. are there any members of public that would like to comment on item number one? >> madame chair, operations is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. please let us know if there are callers that are ready. if you have not already done so, please press 1 and then 0 to be added to the queue. for those already on hold, please don't wait until you are prompted to begin at the beep. >> madame chair, there is no one wishing to speak. >> oh, really? ok. well, public comment is now closed then. colleagues, anymore comments or questions at all? seeing none, i'd like to make a

motion to move -- continue this item to the call of the chair. do i have a second? >> second. >> thank you very much. roll call vote, please, madame chair. >> yes. on the motion -- [roll call] >> thank you very much. so i'd like to thank the controller's office and the mayor's budget office for all of their work that they put into this. there is so many unknowns and i think there will be time to read through the report. it is very comprehensive. i think that a lot of work and effort went into this and i know that we're on sort of a short timeline for this. but this is a really good first snapshot of what we're dealing with. so i want to thank you very much.

for all your work on this and i'm assuming that every single supervisor received a copy of this. all right. madame clerk, is there anymore business before us today? >> there is no further business. >> ok. we're adjourned. thank you very much.

>> welcome to the san francisco historic preservation commission hearing for wednesday, may 6, 2020. before we begin i would like to enter the following announcement. on february 25, 2020, the mayor declared a local state of emergency related to covid-19. due to the health emergency to protect the staff and members of the public the commission chambers and city hall are closed. the mayor and governor issued suspension of select laws to policy bodies making it possible to hold the hearings remotely. on april 30, 2020, the commission received its second authorization from the mayor's offi