so if any members of the public would like to make comments on item 7, please do so. any? seeing none, the public comment is closed. next item, please. >> clerk: item 7, new busines business. did someone say something? okay. item 7, new business allows commissioners to introduce new items by the commission discussion item. >> any commissioners have any new items to suggest? seeing none, are there any members of the public who would like to make comments on the items that we did not recommend? seeing none, comments are closed. next item, please. >> clerk: sfgov-tv, show the

office of small business slide. >> we will end this meeting with a reminder that the small business commission is the official public forum to voice your opinions and concerns about policies that affect the economic vitality of small businesses in san francisco and that the office of small business is the best place to get answers about doing business in san francisco through the local emergency. if you need assistance with small business matters, continue to reach out to the office of small business. >> clerk: item 8, adjournment. >> i move to adjourn. >> second. >> clerk: motion to adjourn seconded, roll call vote. commissioner adams. >> he left.

>> clerk: commissioner jully? yes. commissioner healey. yes. commissioner laguana. yes. commissioners, it passes 5-2. with two absent. and the meeting is adjourned at 4:30:03 p.m.. >> thank you, everyone. see you in two weeks.

good morning, everyone. the meeting will come to order. this is the may 20th, 2020, rescheduled budget and finance committee meeting. i'm sandra lee fewer, chair of the budget and finance committee. i'm joined by committee members shamann walton and rafael mandelman. our clerk is miss linda wong. i'd like to thank lawrence bryant from sfgov tv for broadcasting this meeting.

madam clerk, do you have any announcement? >> clerk: yes, ma'am. the board of supervisors, legislative chair and committee room are closed. however, members will participate in the meeting remotely, at the same extent if they're physically present. public comment will be available both channel 26 andsfgovtv.org are dreaming the number across the screen. each speaker will be allowed two minutes to speak. comments or opportunities to speak during public comment period are available via phone, by calling (888)204-5984, access 35010083501008. -- code 350-1008. and then press pound and pound again. when you're connected, dial one then zero to be added to the queue to speak. you'll be lined up in the system in the order you dial one and zero. 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 mute until their line is open. everyone must account for the same time delays and speaking discrepancies, coverage and streaming. best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly. and turn down your television or radio. alternatively, you may submit public comment in either of the following ways. email me at linda.wong @sfgov.org. if you submit public comment esaw email, it will be included in the legislative file as part of the matter. written comments may be sent via u.s. postal service through 1 dr. carlton b. goodlett place. items will be forwarded to the full forward for consideration on june 2nd, unless otherwise

stated. >> commissioner fewer: can you please call item number 1. >> clerk: yes, madam chair. resolution authorizing the human services agency to execute a grant agreement between the city and county of through the human services agency. in the am of $144 million. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item shoulded (888)204-5984, access code 350-1008. and press one and then zero to line up to speak. >> and today we have with us our guest. i'm sorry if i mispronounce your name. director of ihhs. and then we also have mark burns, executive director of homebridge. and we have joe nielsen, h.s.a.

deputy director of programs. and david, h.s.a. contract manager. and i believe christa is up first. >> hi. good morning, chair fewer, supervisor walton and supervisor mandelman. i'm the director of in-home services, the program of disability and aging services. today i'm here to present for your consideration a request from the human service agency to enter into a contract with homebridge for the provision of contract mode ihhsbeginning julh june 20th, 2025. ihhs is a medi-cal benefit, san francisco general fund will cover $27..5 million. please note that we originally submitted a resolution for $144,160,580. but agree with the recommendation to amend the

legislation to reduce the contracts not to exceed amount to $142,000,265. >> commissioner mar: ihhs is a critically important entitle program that provides home care for low-income, older adults and individuals with disabilities. in san francisco, our ihhs program assists nearly 23,000 consumers and living safely in the community. the department of disability and aging services operates this program on behalf of the state. and our department is responsible for carrying out standardized assessment with ihhs recipients to offer as program elgibility and allocate home care hours for household assistance such as laundry and meal preparation. to support all san francisco, ihhs is utilizing the program, we operate a robust range of

supports designed to meet the tiered needs of our consumer population. this is the ihhs continuum of choice and support. contract mode is an essential part of this continuum. if the services help some of our city's most vulnerable residents to live safely in the community, specifically homebridge provides supported and supportive home care to roughly 4% of the ihss consumers, who can't direct their own home care. consumers of contract mode often do not have any other support systems in their live. and without services from homebridge, would be a significant risk of eviction, hospitalization, and long-term institutionalization. during the covid-19 emergency, homebridge has further demonstrated their value role, through the implementation of the caregiver response team or as they call them sert.-- the

rapid creation of this team required great flexibility, ininnovative thinking to ensure worker and consumer safety and effective provision of services in an ever-evolving team. the team is operating seven days a week in emergency site tallahassee are supporting homeless residents to shelter-in-place in. the duties range from supporting wellness checks, emergency on-call. i want to thank you for your time and consideration of this resolution. in addition to contracts and budget staff from the human service agency, as you said, mark burns is the executive director of homebridge is available to answer any questions you might have. >> supervisor fewer: colleagues, any questions or comments? seeing none, we'll hear from the b.l.a., please. >> good morning, chair fewer, members of the committee.

this -- the resolution would approve a new contract between homebridge and ihss for services for the five-year period from july 2020 to june 2025. homebridge was selected through a competitive process, but they were the only responder to the process, as i recall. but they also have been providing these services for a number of years now. we summarized the contract expenditures on page 4 of our report. as you'll see, this is a budget we were provided by the department. the expenditures are about $142.2 million, which is less than the amount in the resolution, so we do recommend a reduction -- to amend the restore deuce to the amount provided in the contract budget. and we recommend approval. >> thank you very much. any comments or questions from my colleagues? seeing none, madam clerk, let's open up item number 1 for public comment, please.

>> clerk: yes, madam chair, operation is checking to see if there's callers in the queue. if caller ares ready, if you have not already done so, please press one and zero to be added to the queue. for those already on hold, please continue to wait until you're prompted to begin at the beep. >> madam chair, there are no callers wishing to speak. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. public comment is now closed. i'd like to make a motion to move this item to the board with a positive recommendation. madam clerk clerk, could i have roll call? >> clerk: excuse me. >> supervisor fewer: yes. and i can make a motion to approve the amendment brought forth by the b.l.a. could i have a roll call vote, please. >> clerk: on the motion to attend item number 1. supervisor walton? >> aye. >> clerk: supervisor mandelman? >> i three ayes.

>> roll call vote, please. >> clerk: on that motion, supervisor walton? >> aye. >> supervisor mandelman? >> aye. >> chair fewer? >> aye. >> clerk: the ayes ayes are thri ayes. >> colleagues, we'll move to item number 3 first. >> clerk: item number, approving and updated conditional property change agreement for property change agreement. under the jurisdiction of the fire department, in exchange for a portion of the property at 425 to 439 washington street. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call the (888)204-5984.

>> also available to speak are san francisco fire department communications and outreach coordinator olivia and mark from mohcdand jonathan. so right now we're going hear from our director of real estate, mr. endrico. >> good good morning, chair few, supervisor mandelman and supervisor walton. again my name endrico and i am the director of real estate. i'm seeking your positive recommendation on the updated conditional property exchange agreement or cpeafor the potential exchange of city-owned property located at 530 sansom street for a privately owned parcel, which is a portion of 425 to 439 washington street. this exchange is part of the new

fire station 13 project. i have a presentation, if i can share the screen? hopefully you can see that? >> supervisor fewer: yes, we can. >> just a bit of legislative history. in june of 2017, the board authorized the use of the air rights at 530 sansome for the development of affordable housing. the board authorized soliciting a proposal to develop market-rate housing and a new fire station at 530 sansome street, with the revenue dedicated to affordable housing at 72 pacific avenue. in may of 2019, the board conditionally approved the original cpea again conditional

property exchange agreement, to facilitate the new high-rise development and the new fire station, both at no cost to the city. since that time, the project has been redesigned to better meet the needs of the fire department and the anticipated demands of the marketplace. these changes are substantive enough to warrant a new conditional approval, which we are before you today seeking. the changes from the original proposed cpa are as follows. the four station has been increased in size to 20,300 square feet. the original size was 19,266 square feet. this marks an increase of a little more than 1,000 square feet and a land partialel allocation increased by 26%. the developer is now swapping out 35 for-sale condos for 40,000 square feet of office. in addition, the developer is

adding a voluntary fee of $1.6 million. the fire station delivery cost has increased to $31.2 million. and we also added an additional apparatus bay for the fire station. and i'll walk through the details of those changes. in the fee structure, the prior proposal included both the job housing linkage and in-lieu fees. with the removal of the condos or office, switching to j.h. fees would result in less fee revenue. in order to offset this decrease, the developer has agreed to add an additional fee to capture those reduced revenues of $1.6 million. that's making the city whole for that change. the developer is also agreed to cover the increased cost for the

delivery of the first-class, next-generation fire station. the cost increase was $5.7 million. fees allocated to 772 pacific affordable housing project will exceed $5.9 million, which is sufficient to complete the financing gap of that project. originally budgeted $4 million for this project. now we're at $5.9 million. again there are no fiscal impacts to the city, due to these changes. the condition of project exchange agreement is also subject to the board and mayor's ratification post. that's the action that you're taking today is not the final approval of this project. with you will -- you will have another opportunity to review and approve the project, after the process. the efficient delivery of the new fire station, be it private delivery at no cost to the city,

is currently estimated at $31.2 million, which as i said before is an increase from the original cost. private delivery put the risk of those cost escalations on the developer and not the city. upon completion of the project, any cost savings in the station delivery are realized by related, except that any savings below the original cost of $25.5 million will be paid to the city at the close of escrow. , in other words, this risk is bracketed. the city in any event will certainly get the value and benefit of the original $25.5 million price. however, if there are savings between $31 million and the original $25 million, those savings go to the developer. on the other hand, if there are cost increases over the $31.2 million, that risk is born by the developer.

all housing job linkage fees, which were estimated to be $5.9 million, will be dedicated to the 772 pacific avenue affordable housing project. this project will also require transferable development rights, which will be purchased by the city, which will generate an additional $5 million in general fund revenues. the project also requires prevailing wage and other city requirements, that would apply not only to the building of the new fire station, but the hotel and office development. the developer is increasing its financial participation, while at the same time our updated appraisal shows that the city's property value has actually declined. the project would next proceed with entitlements. so if the approval is obtained, we anticipate permitting in

2021, 2022 after the final agreement is ratified and the ancillary documents. construction will begin in early 2022 and a new project should be completed by the end of 2023. just to give you a visual of what the project looks like in your orientation. what this picture is, it's not a very good one, i apologize. what it's intended to show is the pink box in the upper right -- let's go back. how do you go back? one second, please. there we go. the pink box is the current location of the fire station and it's on the corner lot. the new fire station will be located in the block that is bordered in black-out lines. just to give you an orientation from the neighborhood. you see that the new project

will be facing sansome street, it will be bordered by washington and merchant street. this is a diagram view of the stack of the project, as currently envisioned. you'll see the fire station in the lower right-hand side. the high-rise hotel office tower sits to its left. and you can see that portion of it is over the fire station. this is a rendering of the north elevation on sansome street, facing the project. you can see the fire station in the lower left. and the high-rise tower above it. again noting the cantilever over a portion of the fire station. you'll also note that there are four bays in the fire station, when the original proposal only had three. next steps. the developer has made significant design changes.

we believe that these changes favor the city and they produce a better project for the fire station. it is also in favor of the developer, because these changes deliver a better project, that is positioned to be successful in tomorrow's marketplace. and specifically switching out the office for the condos. that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any of your questions. i also have with me jonathan, the senior vice president for related california. i believe mara from the mayor's office of housing and community development is also on the line. and olivia scanlon from the fire department are also available to answer your questions. thank you. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. any comments or questions from my colleagues? mr. pinnic, i have one clarification. in your presentation, you

mentioned about a couple of facts. you mentioned that our city property has -- the value has decreased. and and i think you gave a -- verbally you said a some of -- i think it was before that. the page before that one. yeah. you said -- $5 million and you have $3 million plus. so is it, indeed, $5 million? >> i'm sorry. could you repeat the question? >> supervisor fewer: on the second bullet point, when you read it out loud, we're reading, resulting in additional general fund revenues of $3 million plus. and you gave in your verbal presentation $5 million. >> chair fewer, i must have misspoken. we anticipate that the sale of

t.d.r. will generate a little more than $3 million. >> supervisor fewer: okay. shucks. okay. i thought it was the $5 million. >> no. the linkage fee prime minister $5.9 million. additional $3 million in t.d.r. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much for the clarification. any comments or questions from my colleagues? seeing none, there is no report on this. so madam clerk, can we open up this item for public comment, please? >> clerk: yes, madam chair. operation 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 one and zero to be added to the queue. for those on hold, please continue to wait until you're promised to begin at the beep. >> yes, madam clerk, there are no callers wishing to speak. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. and thank you, mr. pinnic, for your presentation and all of your work on this. colleagues, i'd like to make ha motion to move this to the board with a positive recommendation.

could i have a roll call vote, please. >> clerk: on the motion, supervisor walton? >> aye. >> supervisor mandelman? >> aye. >> clerk: chair fewer? >> aye. >> clerk: three ayes. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. thank you very much. madam clerk, can you please read item number 4. >> clerk: yes. to enter an agreement between the city and the county for microsoft cloud software and enterprise products for a 39-month term from june 1st, 2020, through august 31st, 2023, in an amount not to exceed $40 million. members of the public who want to provide public comment, should call (888)204-5984, access code 350-1008. and. >> supervisor preston: -- press one and then zero to line up to speak. >> supervisor fewer: today we have linda from the city and

executive director from the department of technology. good morning, board members. i'd like to share my screen. ready? we're ready to go. thank you for your time this morning. and thank you also to the financial team, policy team and, of course, sfgov and the clerk's office for the virtual meeting. of course, this is new for all of us. but it's working well. thank you for this opportunity. d.t. is requesting authorization and approval for a three-year, citywide enterprise agreement for microsoft products. and i'll talk to you a little bit about what that includes. this enterprise agreement is a contract with -- for the purchase of microsoft products, software licenses, maintenance and support and training. these products include our

productivity tools, office 365, server and server for our databases, as your cloud storage and server processing and cybersecurity. this was a competitive solicitation. we are piggybacking on the riverside contract, which means we're leveraging that contract with microsoft. and it was negotiated on behalf of the state of california. it's negotiated at a government-level "d." importantly it also includes a minus 2% discount. there is no other state in the u.s. that has received a discount over and above the level "d" pricing, let alone the extra 2% discount. we created a pool of 10 qualified microsoft resellers and conducted an r.f.q. for these resellers and zones was selected as the lowest

responsive bidder for this procurement. a bit about enterprise agreements and why they're so important to the city. this enterprise agreement represents basically 26 contracts for 26 departments in the city. all in one contract. the departments can order licenses immediately and pay annually. d.t. maintains a pool of licenses available to the departments and even order, if handled separately, would have required a procurement process, as opposed to this pool of licenses, that is available to our departments. this enterprise agreement really helps us with transparency and visibility on the total city spend for this contract and for this technology. so we have much more efficient procurement and vendor management. and, of course, there's savings as we negotiated better

discount, because we had a volume purchase. so the savings is definitely in the work that it takes to bring through procurements much more efficient. we are able to control total spend and we definitely have savings through our volume and similar terms and conditions. the term of our contract with zone is 39 months. it's a minimum commitment of $32 million. the previous contract cass -- was $32 million. it includes $4 million projected annual products, for additional products. so based on historical usage, we know the amount will go up or down. we're projecting $4 million. and $4 million reserved for email enhancement security.

about the security enhancement. that serve is -- would be dedicated to the threat protection product line from microsoft. the enterprise mobility security suite and both of these new capabilities, with the microsoft lines, would allow us to replace some current products that we have right now. of course, this procurement would be subject to future appropriation by the mayor and board of supervisors. so a bit about how this contract was negotiated and the savings that's in this contract. first, of course, we pooled all of the microsoft licenses to obtain that volume discount. again each department used to purchase their licenses individually. so they have -- this allows us to be much more efficient in our use of licenses and minimizes that license use. we also have successfully negotiated a lower contract price. the government-level "d," minus

the 2%, which resulted in the $700,000 contract savings. also this includes unified support, which is the support, training, troubleshooting from microsoft, which was a 15% of contract value and we reduced it with negotiations to 7%. that's a $1.2 million contract savings. and also most importantly, again is this management of our licenses across the city. so we monitor the usage of the microsoft licenses, and we're proactively with our departments to deactivate licenses that are not being used. we were able to reduce over 6,000 licenses, which resulted in a $1.5 million contract savings. key benefits of the microsoft product line. of course, we're all familiar with the productivity tool, the use of power b.i. for our dashboards and visualization, teams, which has been so

critical to our telecommuting for file-sharing, chat, video conferencing, share point for document management. i just looked at some new statistics. and for over the last nine weeks, as we have been in our emergency, we have saved over 1 million documents into over 200 new -- 200,000 new sharepoint sites. so we've been very busy. and, of course, accessibility. the microsoft product line provides closed captioning, speech-to-text, dictation, and various integrations with pointing devices. i would like to point out microsoft's role, as we have partnered with them in our covid response. definitely our virtual meetings are all possible because of microsoft teams. it has been used in the department of technology for our -- the vision meetings, every meeting, keeping in touch with

our clients, as well as our staff. they were very helpful when we had a security problem that needed to be resolved quickly, like in 24 hours. and they put their very best engineers on it immediately to work with sysco and oracle, which enabled our virtual private network to over 15,000 remote workers. so we appreciated that support. they have been providing free training workshops and webinars on microsoft teams, sharepoint and one drive. and that has helped all of our workforce come up to speed quickly on these tools. and other initiatives such as security -- a security application that we built with power apps at the e.o.c. d.p.h. covid dashboard was built with power b.i. a shared application for inmate exposure tracking has 100 users and was built with power app. so all of these tools help us be

very effective and efficient and serve our community during this crisis. sop i'm ready for any questions and i also have on the line mike, who is our chief information cybersecurity officer. brian roberts is our senior policy advisory analyst. our d.p. contracts manager is on the phone and our soft contract leads is on the line. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. any comments or questions from my colleagues? seeing none, could we have the b.l.a. report, please? >> yes. good morning, members of the committee. this contract -- this resolution approves the 39-month contract between d.p. and zone l.l.c., as was said. it was selected through a process.

because of timing, this would not actually go to the board until the -- after june 1st. the amount of the contract is $40 million. we summarized spending by department over the 39 months in page 9 of our report. you'll see that the amount is $32 million. and there's a 15% tool-up for changes in the number of licenses required by city departments. all of this spending is subject to board of supervisors' approval and the city budget. there's also an additional more than $3 million set aside in the contract for enhanceed cybersecurity, that is discretionary and would be subject to board approval. we recommend approval of the resolution. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much, ms. campbell. any comments or questions from my colleagues? seeing none, madam clerk, can we open this up for public comment, please? >> clerk: yes, madam chair. operation 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 one and zero to be added to the queue. >> madam chair, there are no callers wishing to speak. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much, mr. cue. i wanted to say i think this is good work. it is much more efficient, it is much more effective and also saves us money. so thank you. and thank you very much to your team for this good work on behalf of the city and county of san francisco. having said that, i'd like to make a motion to move this to the board for a positive recommendation. madam clerk, can we have a roll call vote? >> clerk: supervisor walton? >> aye. >> clerk: supervisor mandelman? >> aye. >> clerk: chair fewer? >> aye. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. colleagues, let's go back to item number 2. madam clerk, can you please call

item number 2. >> clerk: resolution retroactively -- to accept and expends a grant in the amount of 190,000 from the california department of public health and participate in a program, for the period of december 1st, 2019, to june 30th, 2020. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call the (888)204-5984, access code 350-1008. and press one and then zero to line up to speak. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much, madam clerk. today we have with us katie from the department of public health. ms. berg. >> hi. thank you very much. my name is katie berg, i'm the viral hepatitis coordinator with san francisco department of public health and the population health savings. although i'm currently activated for the covid response in the community engagement and mitigation branch. we'd like to ask for the

approval to accept and expend the total $190,406 budget from the california department of public health. this is to support our hepatitis c activities. we've made significant progress in hepatitis c in treatment, hepatitis c testing and treatment access efforts in san francisco. these additional funds were awarded by a noncompetitive grant from the california department of public health, based on a formula that was at several different epidemiological points. we'd like to allocate money going to a community-based organization that will support microelimination of hepatitis c, among people living with h.i.v., by doing care and navigation and support. we'd also like to allocate $38,753 to l health for a temporary research project, that assesses perry natal hepatitis c

and vulnerability in san francisco. and an additional $86,223 -- that will help support both our hepatitis c surveillance infrastructure shift to be able to collect negatives, hepatitis c r.n.a. results and supporting planning with our community-based initiative on adapting our models to the covid era. thanks very much for your consideration. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much, ms. berg. colleagues, any comments or questions? seeing none, there is no b.l.a. at the moment. madam clerk, item number 2 for public comment. >> clerk: madam chair, operation is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. please let us know if callers are ready. if you have not already done so, please press one and zero to be added to the queue. for those already on hold, please wait to be prompted at the beep. >> madam chair, there are no callers wishing to speak.

>> supervisor fewer: thank you very much, mr. cue. and i'd like to make a motion to move to the board with a positive recommendation. madam clerk, can we please have a roll call vote. >> clerk: on the motion, supervisor walton? >> aye. >> clerk: supervisor mandelman? >> aye. >> clerk: their fewer? >> aye. >> there are three ayes. thanks very much. >> supervisor fewer: madam clerk, can you please >> caller: item number? [reading agenda item] members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item, should call the (888)204-5984, access code 350-1008. and press one and then zero to line up to speak. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. today we are kimberly from

mohcd. >> good morning, supervisors. i'm kim, a development specialist with the office of community investment and infrastructure. the resolution will authorize the issuance of up to $449,132,841. this project is located within the mission bay south redevelopment plan area, administered by oci. the project sponsors are bridge housing and community housing partnerships, block 9 will provide 141 units, including one dedicated manager's unit of affordable rental housing for formerly homeless households and on-site supportive services. units will be studios and resident amenities will include a large central court yard, community garden, bicycle parking and a community room with kitchen. the project will receive

operating support through the city's local operating subsidy program. and this bond transaction is conduit financing, which does not require the city to pledge repayment of the bond. additional financing sources include both state and federal low-income housing tax credits and award from the federal home loan bank affordable housing program and a loan from oci. the board's approval of this bond issuance will keep us on track for a close of construction financing and a construction start this july. the project would be ready for occupancy in december of 2021. that concludes the staff presentation. and i'm happy to answer any questions that you might have. we also have sarina callaway, representative from community housing partnerships on the line and available to speak. thank you. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. any comments or questions from my colleagues? there is no b.l. report on this. madam clerk, can we open up public comment for item number 5. >> clerk: yes, madam chair. operations is checking to see if

callers are in the queue. if you have not already done so, please press one and then zero to be added to the queue. for those already on hold, please continue to wait until you are prompted to begin at the beep. >> madam chair, there are no callers wishing to speak. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. i just want to say hurry up and build this, because we need it. [laughter] i'd like to make a motion. a positive recommendation. could i have a roll call vote, please. >> clerk: on that motion, supervisor walton? >> aye. >> clerk: supervisor mandelman? >> aye. >> chair fewer? >> aye. >> clerk: three ayes. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. >> clerk: item number 6, resolution authorizing the execution and delivery of a multi-f.m. housing revenue note in one or more series in an aggregate principle amount not

to exceed $67 million. 104-unit m housing project at 1049 golden gate avenue, known as the frederick douglas haynes. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item, should call the (888)204-5984, access 350-1008. and press one and then zero to line up to speak. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. we have christina with us today from mohcd. >> hi, good morning. i'm christina moon. i'm with mohcd. before you is the proposed bond, to fund the rehab of frederick douglas haynes apartments. it's an existing 104-unit family affordable apartment complex, located at 1049 golden gate avenue in the fillmore. the project, since you've seen it last fall, has not fundamentally changed. we presented you the inducement in september. it's a conduit financing with no

recourse to the city. 95% of the units currently serve households earning less than 80% of s.f.a.m.i. serving households less than 150% a.m.i. the substantial renovation includes replacement of roof, structural and dry rot repair, windows, a little replacing the heating and plumbing systems and provide new finishes for tenants. no residents will be displaced. however, there will be temporary relocation for up to seven months. and considering the current conditions, the sponsors are preparing relocation plans, that incorporate safety precautions for tenants under covid-19, including protocols for the moving company, pre, and post-occupancy moving, extends the move schedules to reduce risk of exposure. relocation team is actively working with d.p.h. on best practices to ensure residents are safe.

the sponsors secured the allocation from the state for $47,760,000. the project expects to close in late june, with construction starting in july and running through december of 2021. and the financing and legal team have prepared the final documents you see before you. the project will also continue to comply with all of our city requirements, including paying prevailing wages. with me i have the sponsor representative michael simmons on the line for any questions. thank you very much. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. any comments or questions from my colleagues? therapy is no b.l.a. report on this. madam clerk, we'll open this up for public comment on item number 6, please. >> clerk: yes, madam clerk. operation is checking to see if there are callers in the queue. please let us know if callers are ready if you have not done so, please press one and zero 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. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. i'd like to make a motion to move this to the board with a positive recommendation. could we have a roll call vote, please. >> clerk: yes. on that motion, supervisor walton? >> aye. >> clerk: supervisor mandelman? >> aye. >> clerk: chair fewer? >> aye. >> clerk: there are three ayes. madam clerk, can you please call items 7, 8, 9 and 10 together. >> clerk: item number 7, approving the fiscal year 2020 to 2021 housing opportunities for persons with aideses hopwa program and authorizing the mayor to apply and expand the fiscal year 2020-2021 hopwa program from the united states department of housing and urban development in the amount of $7 million and to expend program income and reprogram funds in

the amount of $3.2 million for a combined total of $10.2 million. item number 8, resolution approving the fiscal year 2020 to 2021 emergency solutions grant program, and authorizing the mayor to apply for, accept and expend the city's fiscal year 2020-to 2021e.s.g. program entitlement from the united states department of housing and urban development, in the amount of $1.5348. item number 9, resolution approving the fiscal year 2020-2021 community development block grant program. in an amount of $18.6 million and to expends program income and reprogrammed funds in the amount of $6.9 million for a combined total of approximately $25.6 million. and item number 10, resolution approving the fiscal year 2021

to 2021 home investment partnership program and the extend the city's home program from the united states department of housing and urban development in the amount of $5.4 million and to expended program income in the am of $2.4 million for a combined total of $7.8 million. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. supervisor walton, would you like to make a comment after we have the presentation from mr. brian chu? >> yes, chair fewer. i just wanted to state i'll have specific questions for item number 9. >> supervisor fewer: that's great. thank you very much, supervisor. so mr. brian chu is here from the -- he's the director of mohcd.

>> good morning, chair fewer and committee members. brian chu, director of community development for the mayor's office of housing and community development. so i will take you through the four accept and expand resolutions we have before us. the first is our h.u.d. resolution, accept and expend our hopwa dollars. these are dollars that come to us on a formula basis. again we are now asking for permission to expend approximately $10 million of hopwa. the hopwa program has been a consistent program, which focuses on providing long-term rental subsidies to individuals living with h.i.v. we wish to maintain that ongoing obligation to those individuals. we have about 180 individuals that receive these permanent

subsidies. we also provide ongoing support to our five residential care facilities for the chronically ill. that is peter house, leyland house, the richard cohen, marketplace. we also provide support for san mateo county. our formula allocation covers both san francisco and san mateo county. so we then give a portion of our dollars to san mateo county, based on the percentage of people living with h.i.v., both here in san francisco and in san mateo. so that is that continuing hopwa program, that is largely maintained from what we've done last year. on the emergency solutions grant program, we have a spend of approximately $1.6 million. those emergency solution grant funds are actually administered now through the department of homelessness and supportive

housing. they will be maintaining their support for emergency shelters essential services. and a small amount towards homeless prevention services. again that totals about $1.6 million. focusing again primarily on homeless shelters from domestic violence shelters, from rapid rehousing services, and then small amount of homeless prevention services. on item number 10, which is the home dollars. home dollars are federal dollars that are allowed to be used for the construction of new housing. that's what we've asked for in total. the community development block grant funds can only be used for rehab and not for new construction. so we put all of our home dollars into a pool, that we can then use for future new

construction for projects. lastly on item number 9, we have our community development block grant dollars, the combined total of about $25 million. these dollars are allocated between our department mohcd and the office of economic and workforce development. as you see on the expenditure schedule, a portion of the funds goes specifically to a variety of workforce development projects, occupational skills training, sector training that are selected through economic workforce development. a separate portion is set aside for economic development purposes, small business assistance, and commercial corridor work. you can see that listed there under the different priorities. and then the majority of the grants, that go through the mayor's office of housing and

community development, are focused in the areas of primarily the eviction prevention and housing it place-based services. so this might look a little bit different from cdbg schedules that we have presented to you in the past, where we have block grant funds spread out across a broader vate of -- variety of agencies. as we look forward to how we best wanted to manage these funds, we had realized and we're responsive to a number of organizations about the heavier reporting requirements attached to the community development block grant program. so we chose to consolidate those grants with a smaller number of groups that had the administrative capacity to oversee these funds. and then instead allocate our general fund dollars, that have less onerous reporting requirements, to a number of those smaller community-based

organizations. that's why you can see on our expenditure schedule, we have approximately $3.7 million going out specifically towards our eviction prevention work, trying to keep people from being displaced. and then we also allocated about $900,000 under our housing place-based services. those go largely to organizations that are serving people in sunnydale, alex griffith and hunter's view and some of our work in the s.r.o. areas. we also needed to make sure that our cdbg funding qualified for services under the h.u.d. neighborhood revitalization strategy area. that's why we needed to make sure that their clientele, fit within the six priority neighborhoods, which are bay view, mid-valley, chinatown, mission, soma and tenderloin.

those are the strategy areas. so that's a quick overview of our funding strategies. this would allow us to move forward and have it approved by the board and submitted with our initial action plan submission. the plan is due to h.u.d. by june 15th. it would have been initially due by april 15th and we asked for a short extension, in view of covid and some of the challenges with the budgeting process. but the actual plan will now be due on june 15th. so those are the four resolutions we're asking for proposal and happy to answer any questions you might have. >> supervisor fewer: thank you, mr. chu. i'd like to call my on my colleague, shamann walton. >> supervisor walton: thank you so much, chair fewer. i just have a few questions.

and this is in regards to item number 9. can you share with the committee the process for selecting and distributing resources under this pot of money? >> sure. so the procurement for these community development block grant dollars was part of a larger request for proposals that was put out in the fall of 2019. that included both community development block grant dollars, as well as general fund dollars and housing trust fund dollars. it's part of that comprehensive process. we put it out, you know, in august. it went through a review and evaluation process. the initial recommendations were issued -- i would want to say

perhaps back in february. and while we are moving forward now with the federal portion, because those dollars were not necessarily affected by the city's own budgeting process, we have another set of recommendations that will be coming out at a later date, with the federal fund dollars. so although it was all one large procurement, we are moving this forward, based on the federal deadlines. and then the other general fund recommendations that were part of that same procurement will be finalized later on in this year. >> supervisor walton: is it true the r.f.p. -- yet only 20% of -- 2% of the 4 -- $42 million went to organizations. there was a focus on equity and where's the equity in that?

>> i think the r.f.p., as we designed, included a number of targeted communities that were in alignment with our overall consolidated plan. that did include african-american communities, as well as immigrant communities, limited english-speaking populations, the transgender communities. so, yes, african-americans were a part of that target population we did receive, during -- we have a public hearing after we issue our preliminary recommendations. and as you're aware and your colleagues may also be aware, we did hear from a significant number of organizations, including a large number of black-led organizations, did feel as if the investment in their organizations was

insufficient. separately from this request for proposals, and in discussions with the mayor's budget office and with that coalition, we agreed to identify an additional $2 million that we would have -- that would have been part of next year's investment strategy. and we realigned those $2 million in a specific supplemental r.f.p., focused entirely on organizations that primarily serve the african-american community and/or are led by african-americans. we issued the first r.f.p. for that about a month ago. those proposals for that first $1 million were received just this past friday. and we hope to make our final decision on those proposals at the end of june.

we also have an additional $1 million that is going to be focusing on capacity building within the african-american community, that will be issuing once we get through this first initial process. so the fashioning of that first 1 -- $1 million was done in close collaboration with a coalition of black-led organizations that had initially approached us and working with the director of the human rights commission and we anticipate working with those organizations again, as we issue r.f.p. for the second $1 million. the other portion of our general fund dollars have not yet deny we've not made a final decision on that. the committee is aware that our department just received our budget instructions on tuesday. and we were asked to not finalize any decisions regarding our general fund portfolio,

until we receive those budget instructions. we just received those yesterday. so we will be working with the mayor's budget office to determine how do we best implement those budget instructions, as we move forward with finalizing that other set of recommendations. >> supervisor walton: and i know you say -- you heard me say this before, i think it's an absolute disgrace the way your department works to allocate resources, specifically because you prioritize certain populations in your r.f.p. and stated this is what you wanted to prioritize. yet very small percentages of resources went to the organizations that you stated you actually wanted to see as a priority. and now we're in the middle of a health crisis. a major pandemic, which is going to affect us economically. and even according to what you just said, organizations may be even impacted at a higher

disproportionate level, because they didn't receive resources on the front enterprise agreement. now organizations of color, because we're in the middle of a crisis, they're going to be more isolated and disenfranchised. i have to say this on record again that the racism that exists from the funding allocation is something that we cannot let continue. and i am aware of the additional resources that are being allocated, that are coming from the general fund, by the way. but i haven't heard from your department and i have talked to you about this. i have talked to gordon when he was there. i haven't heard anything about -- from your department that's going to tell us how you're going to address the systemic racism that exists. and continues to exist at o.c.d., particularly in regards to how it's in your funding allocation. we're the budget committee. we're going to approve -- we're

being asked to approve resources that are not going to be distributed equitably. and we're going for know that as we approve this. so what are you doing to address the systemic racism? you don't necessarily have to answer that now. we do know that it's been a problem for a long time. yet there's been nothing that i've seen or heard that is going to address the systemic racism. all you've done is allocate more resources to populations that you disregarded on the front end. the last thing i'll say, and thank you for the time, chair fewer, if we look at the area of community development. we know we have an obligation to support a smaller organizations, our organizations of color. and we just cannot have this department continue to ignore the equity focus of our city, the proposed priorities of its own -- of its own department and

looking at crisis like this, the inequity of our priority really rises to the top. we can't perpetuate the gaps, the don't impact of our community and organizations of color. the inequitable of resources can never, ever happen again in san francisco. and they should be ashamed as a city department to allow this to continuously happen from r.f.p. to r.f.p. thank you for the time, chair fewer. >> thank you, chair walton. supervisor mandelman. >> i would simply ask -- like i would simply like to ask to be out of the co-sponsor to item number 7. >> thank you very much. there's no b.l.a. report on this. let's, madam clerk, let's open these items up -- items 7, 8, 9 and 10 for public comment.

>> clerk: yes, madam chair. operation is checking for see if 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 one and zero to be added to the queue. for those already on hold, please continue to wait until you are prompted to begin at the beep. >> madam chair, i do have one caller in the queue. i will queue him now. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> caller: good morning, chair fewer and supervisors. dr. mow nobody, executive director. a member of the executive leadership of the s.f. black, the san francisco black-led organizations. we fully support supervisor walton's comments and join in demanding accountability. and equity for african-americans and how they get funding and how mocd and ask the question of how

they're going to address systemic racism. additionally, we believe that black-organizations and the black african-american community, it's unconscionable that on an equity platform, less than 2% of the funding went to black-led organizations. we are still waiting to learn about funding for our communities and that they've continued to keep us waiting, even while promising to address the need is unconscionable. we are here, we are watching and we will not be silenced. our communities are in crisis. and we demand action and response and thank you so much, supervisor walton. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> clerk: hello, caller?

hello, caller? >> operator: you have zero questions remaining. >> madam chair, that completes the queue. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. madam clerk, let's take these items separately. and so i'd like to make a motion to move item 7 to the board with a positive recommendation, could i have a roll call vote, please. >> clerk: yes. that motion, supervisor walton? >> yes. >> supervisor mandelman? >> aye. >> clerk: supervisor fewer? >> aye. >> clerk: three ayes. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. i'd like to make a motion to move item 8 to the board with a positive recommendation, could i have a roll call vote please. >> clerk: supervisor walton? >> aye. >> clerk: supervisor mandelman? >> aye. >> clerk: chair fewer? >> supervisor fewer: >> aye. >> clerk: three ayes. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. supervisor walton, would you like to make a motion on item

number 9? >> i'd like to move item number 9 without recommendation. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. a roll call vote, please. >> clerk: on the motion, supervisor walton? >> aye. >> clerk: supervisor mandelman? >> aye. >> clerk: chair fewer? >> supervisor fewer: aye. >> clerk: there are three ayes. neuroi'd like to make a motion to move item 10 forward to the board with a positive recommendation. a roll call vote, please. >> clerk: on that motion, supervisor walton. >> aye. >> clerk: supervisor mandelman. >> aye. >> clerk: chair fewer? >> supervisor fewer: >> aye. >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. madam clerk, is there any any more business before us today? >> clerk: there is no further business. >> supervisor fewer: thank you, madam clerk, we are adjourned.

>> commissioner anderson. >> here.

>> commissioner harrison. >> here. >> commissioner mcdonald. >> here. >> okay. good morning, everyone. welcome to the may 21st commission meeting. just a few notes before we get started for the public.

>> can you hear me, stacy. >> she is in a different system. >> okay. >> somebody commented in chat andrew perry. he thinks stacy is on mute. >> i think she is while she is talking on a separate system to the public. >> i can see the mute button there.

>> we are now on item 2. the president's report. >> thank you very much. the president's report will be very brief. i want to congratulate all commissioners on technology skills and being able to get on

the call and i want to thank the public for participating remotely. we are trying our best under these circumstances. i want to congratulate all staff and general manager for all of the work getting done during these challenging times, particularly in the broader sense of assisting the mayor and community in trying to solve the broader problems. that concludes my president's report. >> is there any public comment on the president's report? >> we are now on the item 3, general manager's report. >> good morning, commissioners. it is nice to kind of virtually see everyone. i will be quick. we have a special video

presentation at the conclusion of my report today. to follow up on your brief comments, mr. president, as way of illustrating how important our staff has been to the city's overall coronavirus response after nine weeks, i want be to share how employees are continuing to serve our city. 91% of recreation and park department staff have been designated as essential workers, 91%. 545 members of our team have been activated as disaster service workers. they have functioned in emergency child care, custodial services, our park rangers doing education and outreach, 40rpd staff worked downtown in the city's emergency operation center. we have two staff serving as site hotel managers, we have 193rec staff at emergency child

care facilities. staff are supporting the gift to sf program. we have had staff working in the joint information center. we have had staff driving ppe around the city in trucks. there is nothing that your recreation and park department staff are not doing to support the virus right now. they are continuing to maintain a safe and very actively used parks system. our parks in a disaster, as we talked about, all of our resources, all of the city resources are on the table. our spaces have been used as testing sites, food distribution, emergency child care and shelter. however, it remains extremely important to us that spaces that are intended to be used for recreation continue to be used for recreation.

not all park features, but parks are important and playing a critical role in helping our community maintain a sense of normalcy and sense of physical activity and mental health. i couldn't be prouder of the work that our team is doing. a couple more quick announcements. our yearlong celebration of golden gate parks 150th anniversary continues on may 30th at 5:00 p.m. when debbie, the executive producer of comedy day has a concert of classics to showcase comedians in the 40 year history. the artists list is finalized as we speak. for more information go to golden gate park 150.com. i highly recommend this website.

we have several concerts performed in the park. we have virtual tours in the park. we have children's stories about tolden gate gate park, play lists. it has become, well, it has become a magical resource for us. obviously, this wasn't the golden gate park 150th birthday we hoped to plan for, but the website really is a virtual warehouse of celebration. i encourage everybody to visit. as you probably read in this morning's paper or have become aware of, the response to the virus worldwide has economic impacts that does not escape our state or city. due to the covid-19 emergency

the city is making $1.7 billion budget shortfall through the fiscal year 21-22 due to reduction in revenues which is hitting us significantly as well. all departments as a result, all city departments have been asked to reduce spending, the budget submitted to the commission several months ago before the first shelter-in-place order was issued is basically no longer exists. we will be resubmitting the budget to the mayor office office consistent with the the following instructions. in 2021 a budget reduction of 10% of the adjusted general fund support. in 21-22 an additional 5%, totaling 15%. in the second year that 5% is a contingency this coming year if

fiscal conditions worsen. the budget instructions we were given by the mayor and her budget team are to maintain core rpd services to provide critical government functions, to evaluate all operations for realignment with the city's covid-19 operating measures and guidelines. what operations can and should be performed remotely? what services need to be provided in person? what services can be moved online? how do we continue to prioritize services for the vulnerable populations with a focus on equity? budget decisions are going to be based on the following re-opening considerations? what are our core services? what are critical recreation and park strategies?

what is the ongoing park guidance for re-opening the operations, and again our commitment to equity. how will be use the equity zones and plan to guide the service changes to ensure people can still access needed services in a safe manner, including the equity program and scholarships. we have a lot to think through, and we have a lot to focus on in a short period of time. reduction plans are due to the mayor's budget office by june 12th. the budget will be submitted on august 1st to the board of supervisors. the board of supervisors are going to approve the 2021 budget september 29th. what is happening until then the budget process is pushed back 90 days. there will be a continuing resolution at the board to allow

our department to function until the new budget is submitted. this is going to be a challenging budget for us. as you know, two of our three sources of revenue are general fund as discussed. we are asked to make reduction in general fund support and earned revenue. we are experiencing shortfalls because businesses aren't operating, large events aren't occurring. this is going to be a tough one. all hands on deck. we have broached the issue at a all staff town hall yesterday. we will solicit revenue, expenditure ideas from the staff and stakeholders in a condensed period of time and do the very best we can to figure our way through this in time for the

mandated june 12th submission. we will be coming back to you right before we submit, still to be scheduled a special meeting to hear more about it. we need more time to figure this through, but that is where it is. i wouldn't mind returning to a little bit of happier news. first, we talked about using this time to really understand how to adapt our park spaces as we were commenting just before the meeting started. this weekend you will see behavioral heart, call it human parking spots, quality circles. four busy spaces around the city will be lined with experimental pilot of socially distanced circles in the larger meadows to inspire and influence people to

be outside, get fresh air, but to do it safely. we started in delores park this morning. we added spaces at washington square and little marina green and concluding with jackson playground so we are in each quadrant of the city. it is not our only strategy for the park spaces to engage safely. at last count we had 1500 social distancing park spaces. kudos to the chief ranger and team for coordinating with sfpd with th the cadet program and wh the alert teams to have many, many people out on weekends in n mice weather -- in the nice

weather. our parks are critical and we have to work together to enjoy them safely. i want to conclude with letting you all know that today, may 21st, is going green for park. a national day led by new york city parks and the san francisco and parks department to thank our park responders. all of those park professionals across the country who have played essential roles in helping keep our community safe and helping our community to be able to enjoy parks and preserve semblance of their physical health and mental well-being. >> mark: in

new york city there is green tonight and tonight the sales force tower will be green in honor of our park responders and today many of us are wearing green in support of our co-workers and park professionals around the country. on social media people are shouting out to local park employees using the hashtag going green. today is a day where we celebrate not just our park professionals in san francisco but park professionals all over the country for doing their part to respond to this crazy pandemic. the way i want to conclude is with a special appreciation video i think you will like in honor of your recreation and park department staff.

show. wake up everybody, no more sleeping in bed, no more thinking ahead. world changed so very much from what it used to be. where so much hatre hate hatred, growing opportunity. wake up, a new way. listen to what you have to say.

they are coming up and the world is in their hands. when you teach the children the very best you can. let it be. ♪ the world won't get no better, we have to change it, just you and me ♪ >> wake up. they are suffering ♪ ♪ theft don't have ver they d♪

♪ i know we can do it if we all lend a hand ♪ ♪ the only thing we have to do is put it in our minds ♪ ♪ things will workout, they do it every time ♪ ♪ the world won't get no better. let it be. the world won't get no better, got to change it for just you and me. change it for just you and me ♪

>> commissioners, that concludes the general manager's report. a special out for the creative genius inputting that video together. >> thank you very much. >> we are now on public comment. item 3. the general manager's report. if you would like to comment please dial in. you will have two minutes. please state your name at the beginning of your comment. there are no callers.

public comment is closed. commissioner anderson, do you want to make a statement? >> first of all, i wanted to give praise where it is due because i noticed that one of the first things that happened when this sheltering in place order was announced is that child care was going to be provided to essential service workers using our libraries and rec and park staff. that was an amazingly progressive move and soness. it is something i wish everybody had. we need universal child care. i want to express my gratitude to everyone that was involved. also, i want to thank debbie durst for the program on the 30th. i want to put out there this is amazing to me. she has suffered the stroke of

her husband and the death of her little sister. for her to do that is such an incredible gift. i want to float an idea to you that perhaps we might consider laughter yoga to be performed in the circles. there are studies how great laughter is. i took a laughter yoga class myself. if you real or fake laugh, the body responds the same. if there is anything i can do, since i suggested it. if one suggests it one should be willing to get involved. i am willing to get involved with my time and my money with that. i will keep it brief. i also visited the tower this other wear carrying my commissioner badge, but i didn't get to show it off. i had a coyote encounter up

there. it was at night. the columbus statute is covered with staff folding. maybe we can figure out what is going on there. thank you for your hard work. >> thank you, commissioner. >> i will talk to the recreation staff. maybe we will figure out how to have you lead a virtual laughter yoga class. >> commissioner buell, i have a question. >> first of all, thank you for harold and the blue notes. i have a qui a quick question. we had the charter amendment which required increase in general support funds. how does that play out today with our budget constraints?

>> proposition d. very good question, commission commissioner. proposition b was -- includes a trigger as similar baselines in other city departments. frankly they are included in labor contracts. if the city financial condition reaches a certain threshold those commitments are waiverrable. we get this. the city finds itself in an unprecedented dire financial situation. there will be some pain. i don't know how to sugar coat it. we are going to have to scale back some of the things we do to figure out how to continue to do as much as we can with a little bit less. what that means we don't know

yet. you know, this is a painful part of this emergency because even after people can start to enjoy activities and restaurants and businesses, the legacy of the pandemic will be with us for several years as a city. we have to figure our way through that like we figured our way through the virus and that is by doing it together. >> thank you. >> any other comments from commissioners? we are on item 4. general public comment. this is planned for 15 minutes. this will be continued on item 9. at this time members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public within the subject

matter jurisdiction of the commission and that do not appear on today's agenda. with respect to agenda items, you have the opportunity to address the commission when that item is reached in the meeting. reminder to the public. if there is anything to comment on that is not on the agenda dial 1 and 0 to be added to theque. tadded to thequeue. you have two minutes to comment. >> there are no callers. we are on item 5. consent calendar. any questions? commissioner buell, you are on

mute. >> thank you. do we need public comment on the consent calendar before we move to a motion? >> yes. if there is anyone in the queue for item 5, consent calendar dial 1 and 0 to be added to the queue. you have two minutes to comment. please state your name. >> you have two questions rema remaining. >> please state your name first, caller. >> caller: i have a comment. permanent filter air ducks at

the balboa pool were not permanent. there is a part about signage. shower before swimming. that is all i wanted to comment about. the pool. most of it is all right through. thank you. i am surprised i was able to get on. i had to dial quite a few times. other than that consent calendar items are all 4.0. thank you. >> thank you, richard. >> please state your name, first. >> caller: i am director for b

magic. i am calling to speak on calendar item f, the bayview playground renovation. i want to thank the rec and park team, specifically mary ann for continuing to move this project along. b magic and other organizations were one of the partners that applied for the cof grant to renovate the park. we are so happy rec and park was able to find additional funding to make the actual conception what the community wanted for the park to come true. we are happy to learn there is going to be a groundbreaking and starting of the construction of the park. hopefully, this summer. i hope that is not delayed due to covid. we have been waiting for this to begin since 2014 when the first

cof grant was awarded. thank you to the park and rec committee. we are for having this happen within the baseball field and we have been in discussion for quite some time about this project. lastly, on a personal note i want to thank rec and park for keeping the park open. it has been a place of respite for myself and others. i want be to congratulate you for keeping it open for the employees and daycare and keeping it open so folks can get out and actually have mental health aspects needs met. we heard there is an uptick in engagement at bayview park which

we are happy to see people taking advantage of the opportunity during this time. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> please state your name. you have two minutes. >> caller: this is mia rogers. i am a bayview resident and parks advocate. it is nice to hear everyone's voice. i am commenting on the bayview park renovation as well. happy to see that is coming along. i am echoing what they said. also, i am thankful the parks are thought of in such a progressive kind of way that involves the community, especially bayview park is in conjunction with the health

center and everything. it has been awesome. i totally support the bayview park project, and i look forward to seeing it. the listener stole my thunder, but we are in alignment with all of the sentiments. >> thank you very much. >> no other callers are on the line. public comment is now closed. >> thank you very much, commissioners. >> commissioner anderson raised her hand. >> i just wanted to comment on the bayview playground renovation. it is beautiful. i wanted to renew my request to consider some sort of structure to provide safety.

this is massive and in direct sunlight most of the time. i have been there a number of times and watched people struggle with the impact of the sunlight. that is a wonderful thing. a lot of seniors live across the street, and i wanted to put that out there. i didn't see anything providing shade in the design. >> thank you. any other comments? not seeing in. the chair would entertain a motion to approve the consent calendar. >> so moved. >> second. >> all those in favor. >> aye. >> it is unanimous. thank you. >> we are on item 6. the san francisco zoo. >> hello. it is tanya peterson, director of the san francisco zoo. >> good morning.

>> myself to hear ever -- nice to hear everybody. i am thrilled to report that all of my staff and the zoo animals are in good health. none have shown symptoms or tested positive for the virus. we are thrilled with that. the animal care teams have been working in shifts since the shelter and wearing ppe even before the shelter-in-place. i have to thank the animal care teams for keeping us healthy. most staff is working at home, learning the downfalls of zoo zooms. given everything we appreciate the department's help in keeping us going during these challenging times. the zoo is closed to the public. we continue to work with the department of public health, rec and park and the mayor's office and governor's office when the zoo may re-open at least in some limited fashion. it, too, is a park.

it can respond relief for our families. we are focusing on getting the family members back first in a very safe way, but i do not know when. we are trying to stay connected to the public with social media. i don't know if you have seen the penguins roaming around the zoo. it is fun to see them interact. we have a new sf zoo connect to get daily podcasts from various staff members and encourage our community to look at the zoo outside their backyard. we had to sadly cancel the annual zoo fest fundraiser. president buell is our auctioneer. thankfully, most people converted their seat purchases and auction items as donations.

at the moment we are financially sound. a summer close might change things for us as well. at the moment a very small percentage of employees are taking unemployment. again, we have to see how the summer shapes up for us financially. i think with that i finish my report. >> tanya, this is mark. one question for you. is your present contract mr. biddle is that still going forward? >> yes. we put him to the side. we reengaged him, and, hopefully, as we get back to new normal, he can assist us as we go forward. >> keep us posted on that, would you? >> of course. .

>> great. >> we are now on public comment for item 6, the san francisco zoo. if you are on the line to comment, please dial one and then zero to speak. yoyou will have two minutes to comment. >> caller, please state your name, first. >> i am richard fong. i would like to comment to tanya peterson. you would be aware there are pandas in canada. that is the issue i want to drop off to get to get the ball rolling. canada is going to be turning back the pandas back to china. they have a problem with growing food for them up there in canada. that is something that i thought

would be very interesting. we have a very large asian population in the bay area if we could get a study going or something to have the pandas from san francisco or oakland. that is what i want to get the ball of wax rolling. thank you. >> thank you. >> there are no further callers. any questions or issues, commissioners? seeing none we are on item 7. mixed-use project. 10 south van ness avenue. >> good morning.

if i could get the power point up, please. >> chris towns, planner with rec and park planning division joined by lewis from the planning department as well as andrew perry. lilly is the coordinator and andrew is the project planner for 10 south vanness mixed use development project. it is up for consideration of the project shadow on seven parks, patricia's green and howard park hayes playground. the park and learning center, buchanan street mall.

it supports 1.2 of the strategic plan to strengthen the quality of existing parks and facilities. for shared reference. planning code 295 for prop k prohibits the city for issuing building permits forecasting the shadow unless the planning commission after consultation finds the shadow would not have a significant impact. in 1989 they jointly adopted the 11989 memo which identified the

criteria for determining if the shadow is significant. in addition to the guidance measures. these include time of day when the shadow appears, time of year, shadow size, duration, shadow location, and the public good served by the project. at this time i would like to pass the presentation to louie with the planning department to provide a brief overview of the relationship to the hub and the planning approval sought for the project. >> good morning. >> good morning, commissioners, lilly, principal planner with the san francisco planning department. this was within the boundaries

of the area plan adopted in 2008. in the plan the area referred to wasn't visioned as high density mixed use neighborhood. it supports this vision including special use district to allow towers and high density development at mission. and the creation of new fees to fund affordable housing and infrastructure. on this map you can see the hub area in blue. it falls in the eastern portion of the plan. it has the framework for development. the planning department didn't receive the applications until 2012. this is largely due to the recession in 2009. in 2016, the planning department initiated a planning process to look at the whole hub area to see given the development interest are there ways to

increase housing and affordable housing and make improvements to streets and open spaces. since the project began we have had large workshops focused with neighbors and city-wide groups. the legislation was initiated on february 13 and will be before the planning commission for adoption later today. there are three key goals for this effort. first increase amount of housing and affordable housing near transit, develop anchorednate designs for streets and allies, to design and pr prioritize how the money will be spend. changes to height and updated objectives and policies. while this plans is underway projects have the option to file

applications and receive entitlements under the existing zoning. there are, however, three projects that are waiting for these amendments to be approved currently under review by the department. including 10 south vanness, 98 franklin and 30 vanness. with new development comes new fees to be used to improve infrastructure, housing, child care, streets open space and transit. we calculated the public benefits on the existing requirements and fees and estimate 30% increase in public benefits for the city because of the zoning changes. we developed the robust package to identify the specific projects to be funded with impact fees including new parks and open spaces. i would be happy to answer additional questions. >> thank you, lilly.

i would like to invite andrew perry to cover the project itself. >> thank you, chris. good morning, planning department staff making sure you can hear me. >> yes. >> so the project before you is located 10 south van ness avenue, southwest corner of market and van ness avenue. the project site is triangular and bound on the third side to the west by 12th street. it would demolish the existing building used for automobile sales and repair and construct 55 story mixed use residential tower in place. 590 feet tall, 610 feet tall

with penthouse, project tower toward the middle of the site. lower portion podium structure occupying 76% of the site area and 140 feet on market and 17 feet to the south of the tower. 966 dwelling units, 30,000 square feet retail sales and service use, base get garage 255 parking spaces, loading, bike parking. various open space for residents. more than 40,000 square feet including private balconies, large podiums and terraces on different sides of the building give the unique masking. ground floor the level has a

public open space at the market street intersection. mid block pedestrian passage between market and 12th. all three streets will see streetscape improvements coordinated with planning efforts by the city. project will construct a new interest for the vanness muni station in the ground floor of the building pending city approvals from bart. the project is subject to the city's housing requirements electing to use the land dedication as means to comply with 415 requirements. in this alternative the sponsor would dedicate sites or sites for affordable housing. it did not need to be finalize prior to planning. it would accommodates 35% of the units in the project. it would contribute approximately $17 million in affordable housing fees due to

market requirements. environmental application was first accepted in september 2015 t.determined it would require environmental impact report. this was started prior to the vir and it has its own e.i.r. it was open until december 11, 2018 for comment. the comments were on december 6. the department prepared responses to comments received during the draft e.i.r. and published the document on march 3 this year. the final e.i.r. was the draft and the responses to comments document and is to be before the planning commission this afternoon, march 21st, for certification. currently scheduled for june 4 they are seeking approval from planning consisting downtown

project authorization and request for exceptions, conditional use, adoption of shadow findings with recommendation of this and director of parks department and variance from zoning administrator. sponsor has conducted community outreach regarding the project dating back to 2017 and met with stakeholders both individual and with established neighborhood organizations. sponsor held meetings with the hayes valley neighborhood, vanness corridor, san francisco heritage, civic central business and san francisco housing action coalition. the project has received very little public comment and staff is not aware of opposition or comments made with regard to shadow impacts not already addressed in the responses to comments document for the final

e.i.r. department finds the project is consistent with general plan and area plans and will recommend approval at the upcoming planning commission hearing. that concludes my presentation. back to chris to discuss the shadow impacts. i am happy to answer any questions you might have. >> thank you very much. >> getting back to the project shadow analysis. this slide provides the map of the shadow park in relation to the project site. project site is in pink at the center abshown in relation to the hub boundary in black. the 98 franklin street street in light blue and 30 vanness in orange. there are a total of 7 parks

shadowed as previously listed numbers on the right. referenced by the green on the map. a street view of the existing project site the former honda dealership is located at the corner of market and south vanness that is the photo image of the center. for the first park. the green park is .41-acres on octavia boulevard between fell and hayes street in the western addition neighborhood with central freeway. it is divided into three sections at the north end the seating area on hayes street. middle section features circular plaza with bench seating around the exhibit space, and this mid

section has two equal sized lawns. at the southern end of the park is a small children's play area. there is currently a 20.208% existing shadow load on this park. the project would add .319% for a total of 20.527%. new shadow would occur in the morning winter and fall for an average duration 29 minutes 33 seconds covering 66% of the total park area. the shadow from across the mid section of the park over the central plaza in the rectangular lawn as you can see. the dates of maximum shadows february 22 and october 8 at 9:00 a.m. for 11895 square feet.

the second park, mini park is .55-acre -- .15. the park is accessible from the sidewalk on both ends bordered by one to three story remember homes on both sides. a linear pathway goes through the middle with landscaping throughout in the plan. 49.427 and this would add .05-acres for a total of 49.485%. shadows in the morning of summer and spring for 19 minutes over the southern portion of the park covering the landscape areas halfway and bench seating for a

maximum of 18.8% of the total park area. dates of maximum and largest shading may 3 and august 9 at 7:45 a.m. and would cover about 1236 square feet. the next park is howard mini park .23-acre neighborhood park and community garden on the southern side of the howard street corridor at the corner of lincoln street. it is heavily vegetated with metal fence, trees on the interior and divided by pathways that crisscross throughout the site around the community garden bed. the park has a 49.850 existing

shadow load this would add .002% for a total of 38.852%. shadow in the evening of fall and winter for six minutes over the northeast corner of the park covering a portion of the community garden bath way and corner park entrance for 5.89% of total park area. the dates of maximum shading on january 18 and 22 at 5:27 p.m. to cover 600 square feet. next park is hayes valley playground. .75-acres on the western addition on the western half of the city block hayes to the north and lyndon street to the south and buchanan street to the west. the parking is 2500 square foot clubhouse building at the southwest, children's play area

and exercise area north of that building. tennis and basketball court to the east. the hayes valley playground 26.588% existing shadow load. project would add .024% for 26.612%. new shadow in the morning of fall and winter for an average duration of nine minutes 54 seconds. covering 23.6% of the total park area. new shadow on the western and southern portion of the park, the chain's play area and clubhouse building. the dates maximum shading march 8 and october 4. largest shadow same date at 8:1e feet of area.

the community park and learning center .2-acres buchanan and page street in the western addition. there is a 7 story residential building on buchanan street at the bottom of the image. there is a tall retaining wall on page street down sloping with bermed earth -- bermed earth with mature trees. park programming from west to east basket ball half court and children's play area and community garden space at the east end of the park. there is currently a 16.233% existing shadow load this would add .064% for 16.297% total

shadow load. in the morning of spring and summer of 10 minutes and 36 seconds covering a maximum 55.27% of total park area. the shadow in the southern park over the basketball park and children's play area and community garden. dates of maximum april 26 and august 16 at 7:25 a.m. 19,722 square feet coverage. buchanan street mall 1.81-acre linear neighborhood park north and south on buchanan street for five blocks in the western addition neighborhood. the mall has sidewalks on both sides. bordered by one to four story residential building on the eastern and western edges. park programming including children's play areas, basketball half court and community center.

the existing shadow load is 27.873%. project would additional .003%. for a total of 27.876%. new shadow in the mornings winter and fall for an average of 7 minutes and 3 seconds covering 3.17% of the total park. it was fall acros across the mis over the pathway north of mcallister. the dates of largest shading january 18, november 22 at 8:00 a.m. covering 2475 square feet. last park is a future park. it is the future park site. it is .45-acres south of market

between ministry to the north and bordered by 11th street to the west. future park sited occupied. not yet developed. future park sight has 20.788% existing shadow load this would additional 1.438% for total of 22.26%. new shadow in th in the evening% of the park area. the shadow would fall on the northwest, southwest and southeast quadrants. dates of maximum shading may 17

and july 26. largest shadows may 31, july 12 at 6p. 11679 square feet. that concludes the shadow load for the seven parks. this slide is just to provide broader context. it is the pipeline project which includes 10 south vanness and 30 vanness which you will be hearing. in addition to the surrounding neighborhood and parks. projects are in orange, collective shadows in blue with darker representing more frequent shadows. light blue more occasional shadows. the shadows more frequently surrounding the project footprint and dissipate away from the project site.

in closing, i want to highlight the pemmonth pro -- memo provides the shadow impact. the guidance provides under two acres greater than 20% shading, no additional shading, no standard for smaller than two acres with 20% or less. all parks are less than two acres. all but one community park and learning center have existing shading over 20%. the cryteria includes time of day, year, shadow size, duration, location and public benefit served by the project. this concludes my presentation. i am available for any questions. >> thank you very much. >> we are now on public comment.

if you would like to comment on item 7 of the mixed use project and you are online, please dial one and zero to be added to the queue to speak. you have two minutes to comment. >> please state your name first. >> caller: corey smith. good morning. corey smith on behalf of the san francisco housing action coalition in support of the project here today. as you know the 10 south vanness project and hub plan have been in the works for a better part of a decade now. i am happy to see this significant step forward. we are creating the homes and

understanding the impact on parks is essential, and with all of this project we are proud to support and ask you to continue moving the project forward today. thank you so much for your time. >> thank you. >> no further questions. commissioners, i turn it over to you. commissioner low. >> thank you. i have a question for andrew. patricia's green was created under the central freeway. is this extension of the hub to the market octavia plan an extension of that central freeway plan? >> in other words, in creating

patristhe green which would shae development within the central freeway plan, would this project be included so that the new shadow created by this project would be permitted under that plan? >> commissioner, perhaps lilly may be better suited to answer that. i am not really sure how to answer that question, unfortunately. >> the hub boundary is in the plan. the freeway is in that plan as well. a number of the central freeways have been slated for affordable housing many of which are

constructed and some construction has not be gun. patricia's green was one of those provided. >> this wasn't a parcel that was contemplated under that original plan then? >> no, this is a private parcel in private hands for a long time. it was a honda dealership that has since closed, and a residential developer is choosing to develop housing on the site. >> we have to do the shadow analysis for patricia's green. in other words if it was in the original plan, there would be some consideration that in creating patricia's green there would have been included in that plan. this is outside so we have to really look at the shadow impact of this project on patricia's

green? >> as i understand any development project we are looking at shadow impacts on adjacent parks. >> now, can you plush out the affordable, how the developer satisfies the affordable housing requirements? i couldn't quite follow how it is intending to satisfy. it looks like they are doing it off site. >> as part of the proposed market octavia or hub amendments, the planning code actually allows for what is a land dedication option. i believe it is allowed in central soma, for example. basically, as one of the equivalent options of meeting section 415 requirements instead

of providing on site or off site units or paying a fee, the public sponsor has the option to dedicate the property in fee title to the city. they don't have the obligation to construct on that property. the land will be conveyed to the city for the purpose of constructing affordable housing in the future. the site to be dedicated would need to be shown to accommodate 35% of the units in the development project. the development project has 966 units. >> is this going to be a developer that is going to dedicate the monster in the mission? i don't know the street address. >> i believe that is a site being considered.

it is not the time sell eye -- final selection of the site. they have 180 days to obtain a letter from the mayor's department of housing and development. they can finalize the site selection following the planning commission approval. that is one of the sites being considered. >> six months after planning approval? they can accommodate 300 units? >> correct. the way it will be written in the planning commission motion is that the the land dedication option for whatever reason does not happen, the project sponsor would be obligated to meet the inclusionnary requirements in some other manner. they could choose on site, through a fee. in that case they would have to

come back to the planning commission. >> i am drilling down. one of the requirements under the 1989 memo. what is the public good provided by the shadow caster, the term under the memo, not my term? this project casts a lot of shadow on a lot of parks. the quantitative test on a number of parks including shadows on active areas. what i am struggling with is how do we make assurances the affordable housing piece will actually be developed? if it is off site, okay. what happens if that option falls through? do you have to come back to us for approval of the shadow? we are making a decision based on the idea that there is going

to be some off-site project that is going to be developed. >> the land dedication option really requires the project sponsor to dedicate a site, it does not require them to construct the affordable units on the site. that would be the city's -- city would take that on through the mayor's office of housing. if the land dedication option does not happen, the project sponsor would still be obligated to meet affordable housing developments. that would look like on site units or payment of fee. it would not need to come back to this commission for reapproval of the shadow but there would be an obligation to meet the inclusionnary affordable housing requirements. in