>> supervisor melgar: welcome to the march 8, 2021 meeting of the land use and transportation committee meeting of the san francisco board of supervisors. happy international women's day to everyone. i am supervisor myrna melgar, chair of the committee, joined by supervisor dean preston and supervisor aaron peskin. the clerk is erica major. we also have sfgov staff at this meeting. thank you for that. madam clerk, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes. due to the covid-19 health

emergency and to protect board members, city employees, and the public, the board of supervisors legislative chamber and committee room are closed. however, members will be participating in the meeting remotely. this is taken pursuant to the mayor's order and any federal, state, and local directives. public comment will be available on each item on this agenda. either channel 26, 78, or 99 and sfgovtv.org are streaming the public comment number across the screen. each speaker will be allowed two minutes to speak. comments or opportunities to speak during the public comment period are available via phone by calling the number on the screen. that's 415-655-0001. again, that number's 415-655-0001. the meeting i.d. is

187-711-5980. again, that meeting i.d. is 187-711-5980. then press pound and pound again. when connected, you'll hear the meeting discussions, but you'll be muted and in listening mode only. when your item of interest comes up, please press star then three to be added to the speaker line. best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak slowly and clearly, and turn down your t.v. or radio. alternatively, you may submit comments in either of the following two ways. you may e-mail myself,

erica.major@sfgov.org or send public mail to san francisco board of supervisors, 1 carlton b. goodlett place, san francisco, california, 94102. items acted on on today's agenda will be heard at the board of supervisors meeting scheduled for march 16. >> supervisor melgar: yes. madam clerk, will you please call items 1 and 2 together? >> clerk: yes. items 1 and 2 is an ordinance amending the planning code and zoning map to rezone and reclassify a portion of the 542-550 howard street project side and as shown on figure 1 of the transit center district plan, specifically to rezone a portion of the project site

from the split p downtown office special development district and adopting appropriate findings. item number two is approving a development agreement between the city and county of san francisco and parcel f owner, l.l.c., for certain role property known at 542-550 howard street, also known as parcel f. item three is a resolution acting in its capacity as the legislative body to the successor agency to the former redevelopment agency of the city and county of san francisco, approving provisions of a variation decision by the community on commission investment and infrastructure, modifying the on-site affordable housing requirement

and adopting the appropriate findings. members of the public wishing to make public hmm should call 415 -- to make public comment should do so by calling 415-655-0001 then entering the meeting i.d. 187-711-5980, and pressing pound and pound again. >> supervisor melgar: miss ort. >> supervisor peskin: and if i may, madam chair? >> supervisor melgar: yes, supervisor peskin?

>> supervisor peskin: madam chair, i want to go back to what i spoke to two weeks ago, which is i in no way want to impede development of parcel f but very much want to do everything that we can do as a legislative impact to minimize the shadow impacts on parks that will be impacted by this decision, specifically willie woowoo wong playground, which will be impacted and that we just spent $14 million

improving that. i'm glad that the project sponsor is on the verge of entering into a p.l.a. that is good news, but i want to drill down into the issues, and respectfully, i say to the colleague to the south of my, supervisor haney, that i would never affix my name to an instrument that adversely impacted anything in his district, and i am somewhat chagrined that he has done so in this case. >> supervisor melgar: thank you, supervisor. miss orse, if you could speak to supervisor peskin's comments and address the issue, i would really appreciate it. >> thank you, chair melgar. thank you for allowing me to present these items again, and i'm joined by nick foster from the planning department as well as [inaudible] from the office

of economic and workforce development, and we're ready to answer any questions. moving the parcel f project forward is important by providing 35% of low and affordable housing units. we are on track to immediate that much sooner based on all of our collective efforts based on the city's acute need for housing. also -- [inaudible]. >> supervisor peskin: through the chair, miss orr, can you drill down to that where you are in that gain because you and i spoke to this personally, and we spoke to it at the last

meeting, which is why are we saving the best for the rest? why is it taking this long? we should be ahead of that john burton seth law? why are we this far behind? >> through the chair, i do have a slide that addresses our current progress, which we can pull up, but if the chair prefers, i can just continue at least on the item and the amendment to make sure that these are on the record. >> supervisor peskin: i would defer to the chair. >> supervisor melgar: supervisor peskin, if we could let miss orr proceed and address the issues. >> supervisor peskin: my apologies. >> thank you. supervisor peskin, as you recall, at the last hearing, you raised questions about the shadow impact and how that analysis was done. the project sponsor is here and can address how removing those floors does not make a feasible project, and they can address that with you. nick foster and staff are

prepared to answer questions, as well, in how the study was done and any regulations. i'd like to call your attention, though, to amendments -- >> supervisor peskin: if i can interrupt, madam chair, the question that i just posed that miss orr has not answered is not about shadow impacts, it was about affordability and the percentage of affordability and the failure to meet those goals or exceed those goals was the question that i raised, and i said i would stand down, but miss orr has not answered those questions in any way, shape, manner, or form. >> supervisor melgar: okay. and miss orr, if you could answer those questions, and supervisor peskin, if you could let miss orr finish her presentation, i'd appreciate it. >> supervisor peskin: i

apologize, madam chair. >> supervisor melgar: if you could answer the question as to affordability and why we're behind, that would be much appreciated, and then introduce the amendments, please. >> okay. then i'll need to ask my colleague nick to pull up that slide. >> supervisor peskin: and if i may, just as a matter of [inaudible] still under the realm of planning, is that correct? >> the parcel f project is in the planning department's jurisdiction as it is a zone two project within the transbay redevelopment project. >> supervisor peskin: and can you describe the difference between that which is under ocii and that which is under the board of supervisors? >> yes. the transbay redevelopment project area has two zones.

zone one, which is primarily oriented along folsom, where the majority of the caltrans owned parcels were located with the exception of, of course, parcel t and parcel f. t being salesforce tower and f being the subject of today's hearing. we're also state-owned parcels, as well, at one point. the way the project was drawn out within the transbay redevelopment agency, ocii, now the successor to that agency, is a grouping of state parcels along folsom street and one more parcel to the north in block five. that follows in other redevelopment areas like mission way, where ocii has

previously land use controls through a design for development document and other requirements in the redevelopment plan. zone two is like other city governed projects, and the planning department has jurisdiction, like they would elsewhere in the city. however, the 35% requirement that all new housing -- 35% of all new housing units created be affordable to low and moderate income households is over the entirety of the redevelopment project area, and so here on this slide, i can answer your question directly, supervisor peskin, as to what have we done so far, where are we, why have we not yet met it? as i was alluding to in my previous comments, the goal is to do that when we're done building out the project area, and we're not done, so what have we done to date? in zone one, we have completed over 2,000 housing units, and

on those parcels, we have achieved 32% affordable. in zone two, 410 units have been completed at 15% affordability. so all told, in terms of completed units, there have been 2,606 units completed at 40% affordability. part of the reason we're not done is this is a phased project. one of the significant factors of that phasing was the need for the temporary transit center site to continue to be in use, and so that was developed for its intended permanent uses of housing and open space until it became available, which it is, and ocii has acquired that site, so we are very well positioned to move forward on the permanent development plan. so what you see here on the lower half of the slide are estimates on what we're calling

the pipeline projects, everything that we're planning on doing, where we have 5,000 units left to build. we are estimating over two thirds of those will be available to low and moderate income households. parcel f is the remaining project at the 165 units, and the subject matter is not on delivering on-site affordable, but providing key funding. all told, we estimate that we will be at 3,771 units, at which we are currently on track to exceed the requirement of 35% or 37%. the pipeline is an estimate, so there is a little wiggle room in there, but we do believe that we will meet or exceed the requirement. >> supervisor peskin: madam chair, if you will indulge me, madam chair?

>> chair melgar: go ahead, supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: so the zone two is under the supervision of this board of supervisors and -- zone one is under the supervisions of this board of supervisors and zone two is not? >> that's correct. >> supervisor peskin: got it. and drilling into zone one, it's not 1,021, it's not 978. this just lovely round number of 1,000 and two thirds number of 660, miss orr, can you regale us with where those projects are, how they are, and what they are? >> so zone one is two projects.

663 units is the northern portion of the temporary terminal site. the southern portion of that site is block two. ocii recently released an r.f.p. for two buildings to be constructed, both 100% affordable, one being family rentals, the other being senior rentals, both being for formerly homeless households, and the other is on harris street, and we are projecting that to be senior housing. that parcel will be the last to be done because it is tied to some underground work associated with tjpa structures. in block four, we have been

working for the last several years with the hines team, and we are actively working on completing a [inaudible] and development agreement for adoption. >> supervisor peskin: madam chair, through you, do any of these [inaudible] have any shadow impacts on other parks in the city, including, but not limited to, chinatown? >> well, we haven't yet made our ceqa findings on that. i don't yet have that specific information at hand. my recollection, best of my ability is that there's no prop k shadow impact by block four, but i would need to go back and make sure that i had full information regarding the ceqa settings as we're not yet at

the point of completing the block four project.

>> i have a list of where you can find those amendments, which are that there's a clarification of the redevelopment plan affordable housing provision on page 2 in lines 15 to 18, a description of the affordable housing fee in the development agreement was moved from page 3, line 18,

to page 5, line 13, and has been clarified on page 4, lines 9 to 22, and just noting that there are some grammatical and formatting edits throughout. and i did want to introduce my colleague, nick foster, to make some statements on the shadow conversation through the chair, if you would like to have that happen now. >> chair melgar: yes, please. thank you, miss orr. mr. foster? >> yeah. so i just wanted to reaffirm, given the conversation last time around shadow, this project underwent extensive shadow analysis two times, one as part of the transit center district plan as approved by the board of supervisors and the mayor in the summer of 2012, and then more recently at a project specific level in late 2019 by the recreation and

park commission and specifically our planning commission in early 2020, and in all cases, both the recreation and park commission and the planning commission found that the shadows cast by the subject property parcel f would not have a significant and adverse impact on the two parks, which are union square and willie woowoo wong playground. >> supervisor peskin: so if i may, madam chair, just because everybody says that this is right doesn't mean that it's right, and as i said in the last meeting, subject to voter approved proposition k and section 295, this was never meant to be revisited. this was a zero tolerance park. it should never have gone through this process. it is a failure of a number of administrations under a number

of mayors, and a failure of a number of city attorneys to give us proper advice, but i note mr. foster's comments. >> chair melgar: thank you, supervisor peskin. miss orr, mr. foster, are there anymore presenters? >> no, this concludes our presentation. >> thank you. >> chair melgar: supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: thank you, chair melgar. i wanted to return to some of the affordable housing issues here that have been discussed, and i've raised some of these issues when it was before us a couple of weeks ago. i do want to thank the development team for spending

some time with us on these issues, but i wanted to get some clarity on a cup of issues. one is -- and i don't know. perhaps this is for miss orr. the anticipated timeline around the affordable housing construction versus the market rate construction, and both our understanding of what's anticipated as well as what's required. are these supposed to be moving side by side breaking ground together or are they required in a staggered way? what is the requirement because i'm trying to get clarity on that. >> thank you. through the chair, i can answer that question. they are not required to be constructed together, but they are structured in a way to incentivize both projects to move forward. the developer can certainly speak to their timing around parcel f, which they're actively trying to move forward and begin construction this year, and the way that development agreement is structured is that the fee will

be paid to ocii in time for us to then use it on block four. we have had those terms set up that when we are going to close on block four, and i don't have a specific date for that. we are working on the development agreement, the process that has occurred for all of our transbay projects to date is we negotiate a development and [inaudible] agreement, approved by our commission, and then, we would bring the disposition of that project back before the board for its approval. once that development agreement goes into effect, there's usually about a year-long period to get to the closing of all of the financing required, and so the fee will be paid in time for us to close on all that financing. we will be receiving a letter of credit, which is a commercially standard instrument that allows ocii to

make the loan based on the fee and have that fee incorporated into all of the various affordable housing finance applications that will be happening in that year or so period, and then once all of those financing tools are in place, the project closes, the land is sold, and construction will begin, so we will have the money in time for that. >> supervisor preston: i see. so it seems like the t.a. is written sort of basically assuming that there's going to be a two-year-plus period before ocii would be utilizing those funds for affordable housing, and it's something if i'm reading this right -- and i want to drill down into this part of the d.a. -- because

that may be a rational projection of the timing that may be right, i don't understand why we're not tieing the payment of these -- tying the payment of these fees to the acquirement of parcel f. on page 6 of the development agreement, right, in 2.11, is what lays out the time, right? >> yes. >> supervisor preston: and so it appears that no payments would be due on this in two years. so even if the demands were issued out, the payments would not be due for six months. >> no. if i may clarify, there's two years once the construction permit has been issued, but

it's the earlier of that two-year period t.c.o. comes at the very end or the construction of the block four project, and we can call on the terms of that letter of credit when that letter is credit is needed for the financing. if, for some reason, we do not proceed on the block four project, then we are not yet in a development agreement, so we wants to ensure, if, for some reason, that development didn't happen, the land would still belong to ocii, and if we would

need to be working with a different team on block four [inaudible] so with that letter of credit, we will get within 30-days of entering of our d.d.a. being effective, we would secure financing against which we can issue our loan. >> supervisor preston: i think i get it. so it's basically a minimum of two years if block four comes into effect. i don't know why it's there, but it's there, and no harm. the second is if the permits are issued, then they don't pay it until two years later,

right? regardless of when the permit's issued because the third would be if for at least two years out is when the permit is issued. the [inaudible] together is when the permit's issued or two years. so in a, b, and c, we're basically looking at nothing getting paid until two years out, and the only situation you've described is under d, if ocii effectively accelerates that, ocii can demand that earlier as part of the closing on block c. why would we not be requiring that at the time? >> well, i think what we

ultimately were trying to get to is we wanted the money when we needed it for the project. that's the most important part, and so with the letter of credit, which we will get hopefully -- we're actively moving this d.d.a. forward, and so again, once that's in effect, we have a letter of credit which secures that money, but we don't -- as i said, it may take a year or more to get through all the financing applications, to close on the financing. we have elected to say we don't need to sit on that cash for 18 months. we need it at construction closing, and we have secured it in advance of that. but -- so ultimately, we are getting the money when we need it. >> supervisor preston: if things proceed as planned for block four, if anything shifts to any reason for those funds, we're effectively issuing all these permits and waiting two

years to get anything. i understand -- >> yeah. if anything happened on block four, we would need to, frankly, start all over. seek a new development team, a new project. we wouldn't be issuing new permits on a block four loan within two years. >> supervisor peskin: madam chair -- >> chair melgar: if supervisor preston yields the floor. >> supervisor preston: sure, that's fine. >> chair melgar: okay. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you. we touched on this at our meeting a few weeks ago, and i invoked the case of [inaudible] and i think i said something impulsive of how that worked out, and the answer is it did not work out at all. the aforementioned nonprofits that were supposed to get money for one thing did not receive

one cent. i understand credit. i've used them in my private business, but given the risk and the uncertainty, what i alluded to two weeks ago and will state very clearly and publicly for the record is i'm not interested in the letter of credit, i'm interested in cash. so if the project sponsor would like to put that cash into an account with the city pursuant to certain terms, that's [inaudible] with l.l.c. i conclude my remarks. >> chair melgar: thank you so much. so i did have a question of miss orth or maybe mr. foster. so if this were not to have the complication between two different agencies -- city plans and ocii -- if -- city

planning and ocii -- it was just an off-site deal, we would require the certificate of occupancy at the same time, right? so i'm wondering, you know, like, what -- why we structured the deal this way? i mean, i think just to -- this may be where supervisor peskin was going. it seems if it were just under the jurisdiction of the planning department, there would be an incentive to do it together, but because there's two more jurisdictions, it gives folks more flexibility, which may be what supervisor peskin is trying to get to, which is we would get something in return. >> certainly, chair melgar. i can answer that, and nick, if i miss anything, please feel free to jump in.

i think certainly when you might have seen this project at the planning commission, it was exactly that: an offsited project that would have required the t.c.o. before satisfying the requirement on the donor project, if you will, project f. what became clear as both projects moved along is given the size and complexity of those two projects is that it was not financially feasible from a lender perspective to tie completion of parcel f to an almost 700 unit completion of block four. so this alternative proposal to instead quantify that amount and then renegotiate an even higher amount, and again, that's how we landed at 150% at

that fee -- that in-lieu fee. i think the two-year thing is causing a little bit of confusion because what we're saying is you're going to pay that when we need it for block four. but should block four not happen, we agreed to this delay of two years partly because we would not need this cash to fund any of our projects. we feel we will get the cash when it's needs to fund affordable housing, and that's how this particular deal was structured because it's in transbay which has that baked-in on-site requirement, which as you mentioned before, is very challenging to do when

it's ownership-type housing. >> chair melgar: i see. so what you're saying is what we got in return for this flexibility of allowance is 150%. so when you say it made the project feasible, are you talking about the project on block four or lot f or both? >> i think the project sponsor would be able to talk about what challenges they were facing, and they can -- >> chair melgar: actually parcel f? >> i meant parcel f, and they can represent their lender constraints. >> supervisor peskin: and, madam chair, before we hear from the project sponsor, i don't have any issues with number three. i think as a matter of public policy, the in-due motion here makes perfect sense. generally we, as a matter of

public policy, want to have on-site, but this is actually a very good example of where in-lieu makes sense. i have no issues with that, but not to invoke an old, tired song, but this is more than a feeling, and with all due respect to miss orth, i don't really care about the feeling, i care about security. and security to me is not cash in two years and a letter of credit. security to me is cash up front. >> chair melgar: thank you, supervisor. i think both supervisor preston and i did care about the offsite fee and making sure that it was a policy that made sense. i don't want to put words in your mouth, but it seems like that's where you were going. but i think miss orth has answered the question. >> supervisor peskin: no, i think we all care about it, and i've done some soul searching about it, but i think that in

this particular instance, given the amount of offsite affordable that we have with that in-lieu fee, i don't have any issues with the variation. just so we're clear, i am actually pushing this in a way, while i have profound concerns over the shadow impacts, that particular subset of this very complicated policy discussion i think actually makes sense. >> chair melgar: okay. thank you. supervisor preston, did you have any further questions or comments? >> supervisor preston: i did, thank you. just to follow up, though, on this point, really, so i think that, you know, big picture,

it's one thing to move from an on-site requirement to negotiating out and the fee amounts of that, but what my concern is is the maintenance of the fee and how these two tracts run together where we would ensure that the affordable housing is built at the same time as the market rate housing. what i'm unclear on, i assume there would be no objection from the city or ocii to a requirement on the timing of payments that was the earlier of the issuance of permits on parcel f or the money when it's needed for block four, in other words, subsection d. and again, i don't want to speak for colleagues. i assume that would be an attractive change from the comments that have been made to my colleagues on this

committee. i am interested if that would be something from the developer's perspective as the party to the agreement that would be a meaningful change. as a practical matter, it may or may not shift the time of payment, but it would be a pretty simple amendment to the d.a. to simply require it at the earlier of those two times, the payment of the fee. so through the chair, if the developer were available, i would love to hear their thoughts, the impact, whether they'd be open to such a change or not. >> chair melgar: thank you, supervisor preston. do we have anyone here speaking for the development team? >> sure. this is cameron [inaudible] from hines development. >> chair melgar: hi, mr. [inaudible].

we can hear you. >> thank you, supervisor melgar. to answer the question, the parcel at budget has been significantly impacted over several years in delays in the construction environment and a lot of additions to the budget through this process that we've been working our way through. the contemplated letter of credit and ability to allow the fee to be deployed through ocii [inaudible] does have a financial benefit to the project because as opposed to paying for the project in cash of $45 million, it allows us to

delay that payment until it's needed. otherwise, as supervisor peskin said, it's cash in the bank, but it's a negative drag on the project that is parcel f to be moving forward and viable, simply that said. so we have the letter of credit concept that we worked out with ocii, which is, you know, creditworthy bank grade letter of credit, so it is a financing mechanism that allows us to reduce the burden of that payment when it's needed, and that's why we did it. it has an impact on the project's financial potential, so changing that into a bank account that has no return is a detriment to the project and puts the liability a little bit

at risk. several other things do, as well, so it's hard to say whether it would be severely detrimental or infeasible. i think that's where the banks issuing the letter of credit gets you where you need to be. it's a very financially viable instrument. i also know based on the d.a., the commitment for the fee to be paid is locked down. this is not a situation where the in-lieu payment would not be made, it's a question of how we're timing it. >> supervisor preston: yeah. just to follow up through the chair, i appreciate the comments, but i kind of feel like we're having these comments before interest rates came crashing down. there's a certain amount -- as supervisor peskin said, certain security and clear benefit to the city, to ocii, to actually lock in the payment of fees if

possible, and i'm just wondering if, since the starting of drafting all of these, whether the reality of these [inaudible] a vehicle of investment that are more lucrative, i'm just wondering if those still hold -- those concerns still hold? >> chair melgar: was that a question, supervisor, to mr. faulkner? >> supervisor preston: yes. i understand the financial downside at the start of this discussion, but looking at the market and for the foreseeable period we're talking about here, i'm concerned about the concerns of the timing of the payment. >> cameron faulkner again. yeah, it is still the same concerns, supervisor preston. the capital that goes into that payment is the project sponsorship's equity, and so

that's the source of that capital, and so it has an equity rate of return requirement that is not -- we're not able to borrow that money in order to pay the payment. it's an equity payment, and so it comes with a very -- you know, a much higher rate of return requirement upon it. that's the -- the ability to use the bank letter of credit is where we're getting that benefit. it's, you know, the difference between what you're saying the low interest rate environment being utilized here versus an equity requirement that was unanticipated by the project budget. >> supervisor peskin: madam chair? >> chair melgar: yes, supervisor peskin, if supervisor preston is done, go ahead. >> supervisor peskin: i'll defer to supervisor preston. sorry for my impulsive desire to be recognized. >> supervisor preston: no problem. i just want to -- i'm still --

it feels like there's a case being made for not paying those funds earlier. they may need to be paid earlier, any way, if ocii -- if the process on block four moves quicker, so it's not like this is being built around an assumption that it will be two years or more before those are paid, so the project sponsor needs to be in a position where those funds could come due in eight months or in a year. and given that they're structuring their finances around that, any way, i'm still trying to understand why we would not -- i mean, i understand the desire to hold onto money, but that counter desire works around the desire to get that money. but i think the financial hardship from that, it sounds

like miss orth may have some thoughts to share on that. >> chair melgar: miss orth? >> thank you, supervisor preston. i just wanted to clarify that, you know, the timing of needing the cash to finance block four is a little bit away. you know, we are not at the point of needing this tomorrow. we are in the process of negotiating that d.d.a., and we will have the cash within 30 days of that d.d.a. goes into effect, but then, there's a lot of things that need to get done on the complex closing of a tower, a separate project, separate ground floor amenities. it's a complicated project, so it will likely take a year or

more from that d.d.a. before we get to the financial closing. we have no need of the cash if we have the letter of credit. from our perspective, it is the same. we have put requirements in the d.a. and the letter of credit as to the credit worthiness of that provider. that satisfies our need. we do not see any risk in not having the cash versus the letter of credit allows us to do everything we need to to move that project forward, and what the structure does allow us to do is we can call that letter of credit within 45 days of that closing date, so we will have that cash ready to go right into escrow when it is time to close on that deal, so we don't see any risk here in terms of the cash versus the letter of credit. it doesn't help advance the housing faster. it doesn't get us more housing. you know, we have worked out a deal that we feel like makes -- maximizes feasibility of all

these very complex financing structures because the end goal is we need feasible projects that can actually be built, and we have confidence in the structure that's actually before you. >> chair melgar: thank you, miss orth. supervisor peskin? you're muted, supervisor. supervisor, you're muted. you're muted. >> supervisor preston: i think he's trying to figure it out. >> clerk: through the chair -- >> supervisor peskin: okay. am i back? >> chair melgar: yes, you are. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madam chair, and sorry for my interruption earlier. so let me start with miss orth through the chair.

was the oceanwide view under transbay, was that under ociis jurisdiction? >> no, supervisor, it was not. >> supervisor peskin: okay. thank you. clearly, i'm supposed to ask questions that i know the answer to, so i will stop at that line of questioning. so relative to a letter of credit, what's the l.c.s worth? what's the cost, miss orth or mr. faulkner? 1% of its face value? maybe less? what's its worth? >> i would defer to the developer on that question. >> hi again. cameron faulkner. it's usually market based, but a good estimate would be 1% of face value to carry that letter of credit. >> supervisor peskin: i think i

just mentioned that, so that seems like the industry standard. and what happens in a letter of credit -- or let me ask you this in a different way: are they ever litigated when the payor does not want to pay, where the bank is instructed by the payor not to pay? >> this is cameron. this was a question for me, supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: it could be to miss orth or to you or the deputy city attorney. how secure is this? >> yeah, i can answer for goldman sachs, which is the sponsor. we've got funding put together which will be approximately a $1 billion financing for this project, so we have the full faith and credit of hines and goldman sachs backing this, and our relationships are large, and they matter very much to

us. i think to your -- i'd sort of twist the question to the matter of oceanwide versus goldman sachs and say hines, we've been a community member of san francisco more than 40 years. our first project, 1 california, is where i'm calling in from today. we've been here 40 years. we've built a number of projects. all of them were completed. once we start, we have completion guarantees for our lenders to complete those projects. that was not the case with oceanwide. they began a project without construction financing, so when we start this project, we will not compelled to complete it, and behind that is goldman and hines. behind this letter of credit, my personal view is it's as good an instrument as cash in the story. appreciate you -- >> supervisor peskin: no, no, and mr. faulkner as somebody who knew and enjoyed jerry

hines personally, your track record is quite good, so we've got no dispute there. and maybe we'll defer a little later onto mr. foster relative to what differentiates this case from oceanwide, which is a black mark on projects like this, although this may be dissimilar. but let me get to next question, which is in addition to an l.c. would you be willing to give corporate guarantee? >> cameron faulkner here again. i don't know that we can do both. i can certainly ask our partner if that's a possibility. i think -- [inaudible] >> any type of guarantee that is issued by the bank of goldman sachs, i think it's a pretty high threshold, actually.

it's not a normal thing for them to do. >> supervisor peskin: understood. if you're willing to do an l.c., why not do a corporate guarantee? and to mr. faulkner, your corporate partner is who, and i apologize for my ignorance. >> this is cameron faulkner. the transbay project is 10% hines, which 10% of that is our partner, urban pacific, and 90% is goldman sachs, the bank. >> supervisor peskin: and goldman sachs is represented by what individual in this transaction? >> cameron faulkner again. you're asking who's on the phone for goldman sachs? >> supervisor peskin: well, that would be one answer. who's the principal of goldman sachs that's representing this

vehicle? >> the entity is called broad streets investment partners, and it's the broad sheet of the bank. the individuals, partners who work with us, those are alex geek. alan cava is his partner, supervisor, i believe, boss, so those are the individual names of the folks that we've been working with for the last four or five years. >> supervisor peskin: i think i'm missing one name. what's the collins' name? >> our local entity within the hines partner, we've got a local partnership between hines and urban pacific. >> supervisor peskin: can you

elucidate on who that is, through the chair? >> that is who the partner of parcel f are. >> supervisor peskin: can you elaborate on the partners of goldman sachs? >> urban pacific is another partner that we've been working with on the deal. so not sure what you're asking me, supervisor peskin. apologize. >> supervisor peskin: no worries whatsoever. so you're telling me that hines has 10% of this deal, goldman sachs has 90% of this deal, but in hines, urban pacific has 10% of that. can you elucidate what the specifics of that agreement are, please. >> cameron faulkner. [inaudible] >> yeah, they're a member of the entity that is the hines entity in the project.

>> supervisor peskin: so the hines project includes other partners of which urban pacific is a party of which mr. collins is a party thereto? >> i'm not certain what the ownership of urban pacific actually is, but chris collins is the principal that you're talking about, and he's a party of the project team. >> supervisor peskin: understood. and as that 10%, they got what and you got what? >> the current equity is 10% hines, and that's a hines entity. inside that 10% hines entity, 10% is urban pacific. [inaudible] [please stand by]

chair melgar was that the project son spore albeit they could minimize the shadow. half a million dollars refurbishing i looked at a couple of weeks ago that was still with grandmothers and grandfathers and little children.

i don't think we got an honest answer on that. but, yes, the vast majority of my questioning has been spurred by my worries about shadow on that incredible playground in a very dense community in china town. correct. >> thank you. >> supervisor peskin: . i believe they told us not to eliminate the shadow. is that the case? then let's go to public comment. madam clerk. >> madam chair, if they could reduce the shadow with fewer floors and 15 minutes a day of shadow could be become, i'm making up a number, seven or eight minutes of shadow, that would be music to the supervisors' ears. >> thank you supervisor. let's go to public comment if there's no more presentations

or questions from my colleagues. madam clerk. >> clerk: thank you, madam chair. checking if there are any callers in queue. if you have not done so, please press "star" to be added to the queue for items one through three. for those on hold, please continue to hold. you can unmute the first caller. >> thank you. welcome, caller. >> hi, good afternoon. i'm using kind of dubious headphones so hopefully i'm coming through okay. >> yes, are you. >> this is cynthia gomez research analyst at unite. i want to offer the support of

local for all this project that this project is seeking. they have similar supports two weeks ago last meeting. this particular sponsor has an agreement that will protect the rights of the employees of the hotel on that site about interference for negative repercussions or designation. and that in term is incredibly important to people. in many ways affordable health care and respect on the job >> thank you, ms. gomez. next caller, please. >> good afternoon. this is tom with livable city.

i'm calling supervisor peskin. we've been concerned for years now about the impact it's going to have on an immediately public adjacent space and that's tacoma plaza. there's a car-free public space. several hundred feet that is now public, car-free, open to recreation in a very crowded and dense neighborhood. this project as proposed would build a parking garage with almost 200 spaces into it and turn that public space into a long driveway. we've raised this over a year ago with the planning commission. we talked to supervisor haney. he has also said publicly he was really going to seek a solution for preserving this public space and there are solutions. so we're sort of surprised and disappointed that we're here

before your committee without a solution to this. public space is terrifically valuable, car-free public space especially. we've been creating these spaces around san francisco during the pandemic in chinatown, south of market, valencia, etc.. the planning staff and the ogi said it was always the plan to destroy it. we think counting what could be counted, but not count. to destroy it for purely private purpose is taking something away from the public. it's taking away something from the public for generations because that garage is going to be is there for a long time and generate several hundred auto trips a day. that's not only going to impact that space, but the whole district. so we urge you to again to get

assurance that. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> as a couple of weeks ago, we want to thank the thoughtfulness and the thoroughness of this hearing and the questioning from all the supervisors around the parts. we are in support of the feel. and the previous speaker talked about the open space and chinatown and we have been fighting and protecting and, you know, advocating for open space and affordable housing in china town for over 50 years now and i really want to bring

that perspective and we hope to see this moving forward today. >> and madam chair, i don't want to get involved in a public policy discussion and maybe this is a question for mr. foster, but maybe ms. moreno could differentiate the difference between that case. >> sorry. go ahead. >> let's start with ms. moreno and then go to staff. >> would you like me to let the last caller? >> it's entirely up to him and i don't want to put him on the spot. but i do want to get to the

bottom of the case which is not exemplar for what we're doing today. >> if you can unmute the last caller, please. >> this is rude gonzalez with the building trades. i'm happy to wait my turn. >> thank you so much. we just need to identify the caller. support staff is trying to find him. just one moment. >> i'm sorry. i just have to wait for a second to load this.

>> i think there was a question. >> can you try unmuting. that might be it. >> super unfortunately. >> supervisor peskin: , i was not there during the ocean y period. so i don't have more background to offer, i'm sorry. >> no worries whatever and we will hear from department staff to hear what your stats in that particular case were.

>> nick foster. i'm not the chair. i do not know as to the outcome of the it various projects. sorry. various towers because it's a large complicated site. ocean wide is outside of the transmitee zone. >> that's why we're asking the planning department and not ocii. >> can we finish public comment and get that out of the way and then we can come back for questions and comments. thank you. >> please, madam clerk. >> can you unmute the last caller, please. >> there's two more callers in the queue. >> good afternoon, chair melgar

and supervisors peskin and preston. it's international women's day. a couple of you were in the streets with me earlier with our private sector hoping to end harassment on the job and context frame of mind i'm probably frustrated to hear one of these committee members call out a minority partner on the project and somehow try to associate him with i believe his wife create an issue out of something. it's offensive, inappropriate, it's untimely. i don't give a damn if phil collins is part of this project. the focus should be on the project . on the merits of the project. i will take a deep breath. i encourage others to do the same. there are 31 construction units who offer a pass to middle class not just for other

members. plumbers, you name it. but they also offer a path to the middle class for hiring calls. job seekers and their own members of which we have over a thousand now out of work. not in the abstract. that's real people with health care, with retirement security on the line in san francisco. before you, it's never a perfect project until it's done, but really, what we have to think about is what's the opportunity here? what's the opportunity from an investment standpoint from the community? the investment of jobs? the investment in afford ability? now i'm a firm believer that union jobs always pencil on these projects. that this will be a race to the top for the highest possible standards for the work force and beyond. as someone who served formally as one of the cochairs of the

chick recovery task force , i can tell you this is exactly what we need. chair melgar thank you, mr. gonzalez. is there any other public comments madam clerk. >> clerk: is that the last caller in the cue? >> there's one more caller in the queue. >> chair melgar: go ahead. welcome, caller >> hi. i was moved by mr. radoolovich's testimony. i wasn't aware this space was going to be private use. i think it should be for the public. thank you. maybe the project sponsor can reconsider that set piece. thank you. >> chair melgar: thank you. is that it for public comment?

madam clerk. >> clerk: yes. that was the last caller in queue. >> chair melgar: thank you so much. as to that last point, that was in the comments by mr. radulovich. can you speak to that issue of the open public space, please. >> sure. good afternoon. nick foster for the chair. so there's a little confusion. nathomas street is from the western edge to the eastern side of 1st street. there is a mid block portion that will be partially closed to allow emergency vehicles to pass as needed through nathomas street. the project site is located along the western most edge of the eastern half of the subject

block and the reason i frame it that way is it was also envisioned that nathomas was certainly a 1-way street from west to east, was going to be recirculated as a 2-way street to allow traffic to go in to nathomas to the west and come back out and head towards the east. and the vision was always that it was a development site that would have vehicular access to the nathomas street. with the planning department when first reviewing this back in 2016, we were at a very high level trying to envision of what would be the best place to loading and vehicular access. this is a very intense nearly 1 million square foot of mixed use development. there going to need to be significant offstreet loading opportunities and given there's no parking requirement, there was going to some amount of

parking. i'm happy to report that the parking number that went to our planning commission back in early 2020 has been halved from 183 off to 194. we evaluated the project and believe that given the recirculation of the nathomas street and that is the traffic is significantly less on nathomas than they are on howard. not to mention the street of howard street, it made more sense having private vehicles entering off nathomas street. so the hotel is intended to have a valet which would allow vehicles to be handled by a professional staff, taken in three elevator banks down to the subterranean garages.

so it should be handled in a pretty manageable way. but the notion that this block is not a public right of way. it is a public right of way from 2nd to 1st. >> chair melgar: but it is mostly for pedestrians, is that what you're saying? >> thank you, chair. just west of the traffic site. i can show a graphic. but the subject property all the way east is a street. nathomas street will still serve as a narrow street granted. it's the area that mr. mcgill was representing just west of the property towards 2nd where there's just a little snid bit mid block. that area goes hand in hand where the mid block crossing is located to allow more pedestrian connectivity from the south to the north connecting to the transit

center. >> chair melgar: okay thank you. >> supervisor preston: yeah i was wondering if mr. foster can take us up on that. having trouble without that visual making sense of what you just said so i would love to see if that's readily available. >> chair melgar: thank you. can we do that, mr. foster? >> sure. >> chair melgar: it would be great if everybody else could picture that. >> sure. bear with me one moment please. >> supervisor preston: thank you.

>> nice head shot. >> i apologize. it's a very large graphic and it's challenging my computer at the moment. so hopefully everybody can see that. is that correct? >> yeah. >> the subject property is where my cursor is sort of in the middle of the screen. howard street is the southern boundary here. first street is to the right. second street is on the left side here to the west. so the transit center is sort of dead center here. so this area is the area in question here. this portion here is where a

port share from parcel f to the east first street but there will be no connectivity through nathomas to the west. imagine this was a through street going from 2nd to 1st. the middle portion was connected from the south to the north and this project will facilitate that through mid block crossing along the left side where my cursor is. the vehicular access is on the farthest eastern portion of the site. about where my cursor is if you can see it. does that help? >> supervisor preston: it does. >> there's i think the ballards are in this area here on the western edge and so you can still enter a small portion of

2nd street but you would have to turn around as well. the predominant vehicular access is only along the eastern half which is about where my cursor is right here. >> chair melgar: i'm sorry, mr. foster. can you explain where the obstruction is is that there can still be a portion of natoma street that will be open to traffic? is that correct? >> perhaps from a policy perspective during. >> chair melgar: so it's a lost opportunity. >> if you want to characterize it that way, yes. >> chair melgar: okay. thank you. >> supervisor preston: thank you. >> chair melgar: okay. are there any more questions

from my colleagues? >> i don't believe mr. foster's yet prepared to answer the questions that would e nert planning from ocean wide but i would like to inform him of that opportunity in the future. but we can put that in the parking lot for now. >> chair melgar: okay. thank you, supervisor. supervisor preston did you have amendments that you wanted to mention formally? >> supervisor preston: i do not. i just want to say that, you know, i came into the hearing with some questions around the timing of affordable housing money particularly when we are concerned about when we are not

doing our on site inclusionary . i am satisfied with the answers this board's provided around how some section d operates in particular that oci can accelerate the demands of these funds before that two-year window if the block 4 is ready to go. so, you know, i don't think that an amendment along the lines of what i was getting at is necessary at this time. so i will be voting for this item here in committee. i do want to say overall in this project, i do want to thank supervisor haney and commend the work that's gone into building pretty broad community support for this. really have not heard opposition from community

supervisors. >> supervisor peskin: madam chair. >> chair melgar: yes, go ahead supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: that case is very similar to this. the community supported it. the building trade supported it. everything that was supposed to happen didn't happen. not one penny went to the community. it too was going to shade a

local park in dhien town. i get it. the community wants to get whatever they can get because they know that this is a done deal anyway. this is not the way we should be doing business and the fact that respectfully you say this should have been done by the planning commission but wasn't means we have to advocate our duties and responsibilities to get them to scope the building in a way that has less shadow impact to the park use by young people and older people. with that, i'm happy to set on this vote. >> chair melgar: go ahead supervisor preston. >> supervisor preston: yeah, i'm curious supervisor peskin and the chair, whether the issues you've raised, i'm not familiar with the details of that project. i'm curious whether in lieu of

a continuance as you've mentioned whether you feel these might be issues that could be addressed. like, for example, if the committee were to move this without recommendation are these issues that you would be able to address with developing colleagues before this was before the full board or not. i'm interested as to your take on that. >> chair melgar: go ahead, supervisor peskin with that recommendation. >> supervisor peskin: thank you madam chair. i mean, it would be my contention that this committee has a duty and responsibility to answer these questions which i've put before it which are when you find the actual answers that interestingly enough ms. or can't answer, mr. foster can't answer, our former colleague commissioner

who i believe was on the commission at the time can't answer, that representatives from my china town community development center can't answer or don't want to answer. mr. molina said he wasn't around. i believe it's a responsibility to ask and answer those questions in this committee. but if it needs to be sent forth without recommendation given that i appear to be attempting vote, i can get there. >> supervisor preston: for the chair. thank you supervisor peskin. i think that would be my preference. i think some of the issues you're raising particularly the ocean side which implicates what we're talking about. i'm not adverse to gathering some more info and i think to the extent that we can hold out regarding our final votes on this and they'll be some space

to do that. but, with that said, i'm not seeing a real tangible benefit to continuing it and addressing those issues in committee. i kind of feel that's honestly with respect to what i feel we've done with the last hearing, i feel like the issues are kind of the same, at least in my view from the last extent we've gotten some additional answers in the meantime. >> chair melgar: thank you, supervisor. supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madam chair. let me ask you this all including mr. foster and for that matter, mr. falkner, what the time pressure is because this thing has been sitting on ice for a long, long time. and, now it's a game of hurry-up. let me ask to the chair and mr. falkner, are you claiming

that you're getting close to breaking ground in the third quarter of this year? can you make that representation to this committee with a straight face? >> madam chair, it's mr. falkner here. i think the timing is it's not a hurry up and wait or hurry up now. >> supervisor peskin: . what it has been is a very long road and a number of significant delays that have impacted the project's economics, the project's budgets, the project's liability. and, i can tell you honestfully that further delay does risk our viability. we are running, you know, well, well over all projections on this project. the cost of the project is now without overstating it hundreds of millions of dollars more

expensive. it is a project that we've taken upon ourselves to advance as far as we can. we've got effectively 100% of the drawings drawn. we've been working on the edrt, the environmental review of substructure. this is a building that will be built down to bedrock and has been through its review with the panel of experts for structure and for subsurface condition. all the a&e team spent hundreds and hundreds of hours designing its construct. we have a hotel partner committed to the project that has stayed with us. we have the ownership of that hotel partner committed to contribute equity to the project as a partner in the

deal, and we have a residential partner for the project. and, i think it's a wonderful project which we're super proud of. we have commitment there for financing and a letter of intent for a first purchase of a residence. we have an initial pre-lease commitment that was made to the project for the office component that is no longer in hand which was due to the time frame extending. we have a new potential commitment that will help make the project viable. all of this does line up for us to be under construction in '21 and we intend to do that. i think every week we wait, the risk increases that we will not be successful in beginning the project. so i do want to say very

clearly that the time matters and that time has been our enemy in this process up until now and we're very concerned about taking any longer to be able to move forward with what is the next phase for us which is to arrange as i said about a billion dollars worth of construction financing which will commit us to completing the project. that is the critical difference between hines goldman sachs and this project via ocean wide who started the project without any financial commitment from u.s. based lenders which would have forced it to be completed. so i do think that it matters to say on the record that time is important to us, very, very important. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: and, mr. falkner, through the chair, can you show us. i'm sure you know what happened

in ocean wide. >> i can tell you what my belief is, supervisor peskin. would you like me to do that? >> supervisor peskin: yes, please. >> okay. so the ocean wide project was a major project. it was the second tallest building approved in concept of district plan with addition of the sales floor tower. the project was initially went through a bankruptcy and was taken out of bankruptcy by a partnership of tmg and northwood. they then hired norman foster who created the two-tower project which was then sold to ocean wide which is a china-based developer who took the project on from there. originally had tmg as a fee developer. that did not end up working out. tmg parted ways with ocean wide. they then commenced construction without any financing in place. they did not complete a gross

maximum price contract with the joined venture partnership of contractors which is web core and swinerton. we've got webcore lined up to be our contract. they're a great group that has lots of union letters agreed to so we're excited to be working with webcore on our project. however, at ocean wide, the project was commenced. it did not have any guarantees relative to the project. as it relates to the commitments to their fees that some of them have not been triggered based on the progress to date and the different permits that need to be drawn. i don't believe we have the same situation here because once we begin our project, once we draw it down and pull our permits, the timeline does begin and once we're done negotiating our dda with oci,

we will have the commitment with the letter of credit in place, and, so the clock will begin. outside date of two years we will begin. this project is a much stronger condition than down at ocean wide. hopefully that's helpful. >> chair melgar: thank you, there fauker. supervisor peskin it's a better representation certainly than from ocean wide. colleagues, i would like to make a motion and i don't think this project will be detrimentally impacted by continuing this item one week in committee to get the answers around corporate guarantees, around potential sculpting, and the other issues that i've raised. i'd like to make that motion. may each of you vote against

it. >> chair melgar: madam clerk. take a roll call on that motion. [roll call] >> chair melgar: supervisor, who did you say, erica? [roll call] >> clerk: you have one aye and two noes. >> chair melgar: supervisor preston, did you want to make a motion? >> supervisor preston: i think we have some amendments to take unless they're objections. i would move the amendments previously to committee.

>> chair melgar: madam clerk, will you please call the roll on the amendment. [roll call] >> clerk: you have three ayes. >> supervisor peskin: , madam chair, i don't know if there's discussion to move with or without recommendation. my preference could be to move without recommendation and lead the space for some ongoing discussions to get answer to supervisor peskin's questions and final vote. unless others feel they would like to weigh in on that i would like to move that we move the item without recommendation. >> chair melgar: okay. madam clerk, will you please call the roll on that motion.

>> clerk: yes. on items one through three without recommendation. [roll call] >> clerk: you have three ayes. >> chair melgar: thank you. that motion passes unanimously. okay. madam clerk, will you please call item number four. >> clerk: yes. item number four. the department of environment for each vehicle a debris box used for such transport and to compliet with permit conditions to require facilities that process such debrises to comply with updated registration

conditions; to require each person who conduct its full demolition projects as permitted by the department of building inspection and submits to the director of the department of the environment. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call the number on the screen. that's 415-655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 1877115980. then press pound and pound again. if you have not done so already, please press star 3 to speak for item number four. the system will tell us. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted when we get to public comment. madam chair. >> chair melgar: thank you, madam clerk. and i believe we're joined by

supervisor. >> thank you, chair melgar. i'm happy to say chair melgar. thank you for having me. colleagues, i'm going to request a continuance to the month of may, may 24th. as we got to the final leg of this legislation, i've been working on this for two years. we've uncovered some final issue that is we need a little more time to resolve. they actually have to do with the transfer and weigh stations where much of this construction and demolition waste will go. some of these facilities are in san francisco. some of them are out of san francisco, but we want to ensure, we want to standardize the playing field. some of the operators in the past have been allowed to not have scales and allowed a method of eye balling this.

we really want to allow for there to be the proper weighing facility, the proper oversight for enforcement. so for all those reasons, we're going to continue to work with the department of environment, the department of public health and come back with some final amendments with a larger amendment package to present to this committee and so we felt like a couple more months would do it good since we put in all this time already. so if one of my colleagues or the chair would entertain a motion after public comment to move this item to the may 24th hearing of the land use committee, would appreciate it. >> chair melgar: thank you very much, supervisor safai. let's take comment on continuing this item to may

24th. that's what you said, right? may 24? >> correct. >> clerk: thank you, madam chair. checking to see if there are any callers. dt has confirmed we have two listeners in the queue. so i just want to repeat, if you'd like to speak for item number four, just press star 3 and we can see you on the other side. let's see. let's give them a moment. we do not have any callers in queue, madam chair. >> chair melgar: okay. so public comment is now closed. supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: i'd like make a motion to continue this item to may 2021. >> chair melgar: madam clerk, can you please call the roll on that item. >> clerk: thank you, madam chair. i just want to make sure is this item continued to the may 24th date, it has to be heard

on that date. okay. sounds good. so on the motion made by supervisor peskin to continue item number 4 to the may 24th land use date, supervisor peskin. [roll call] >> clerk: you have three ayes. >> chair melgar: the motion passes unanimously. madam clerk, do we have any other items? >> clerk: that completes the business for today. >> chair melgar: thank you so much. so we are now adjourned. thank you. >> clerk: thank you.

you may call this meeting to order. >> thank you, donald. good morning. i would like to call the tjpa board of directors meeting of february 11, 2021 to order. i am the vice chair. this is being conducted pursuant to provisions of the brown act. recent executive orders to facilitate teleconferencing to reduce the risk of covid-19 transmission at public meetings. ordinarily, the brown act sets strict rules. the governor's order suspended those rules. as noted the agenda, members of the public may observe this

meeting via sfgovtv and they may offer public comment by calling the public comment phone number. i would like to welcome the numbers of the public and staff watching live on sfgovtv. mr. secretary, could you please call the roll today. >> thank you, prior to calling roll i would like to welcome alisha john baptiste and diane shaw the ac transit representative and chang is setting in and the director has a scheduling conflict and will not be present. please respond when i call your name. >> chang. >> here. >> forbes. >> here. >> john baptiste. >> here.

>> lipkin. >> present. >> shaw. >> here. >> tumlin. >> present. >> vice chair gee. >> present. >> we have a quorum. i will call your next item. >> item 3. communications. we would like to provide further instructions for the public comment. to provide public comment dial to the published number. 18552826330 and enter access code (182)585-8053. pound pound and listen as you wait for public comment to be announced. members of the public have three minutes for each item. i will announce when public comment is open. general public comment callers

dial star 3 to be added to the queue. this access code will stream on the screen during the entire board meeting. when callers dial star 3 they will be added in the order entered. all callers remain on mute until the line is open. the automated voice will let callers know when to speak. it is best to call from quiet location and speak clearly and slowly and turn down the radio or television. any communications from board members at this time? >> there are no hands raised. >> i will proceed. directors, item 4 board of director's new and old business.

>> i do not see hands raised. >> item 5. executive director's report. >> good morning, directors. i would like to welcome the new board members. i look forward to working with both of you as we execute the initiatives and add vance the downtown rail extension. i want to thank director hirsh on delivering the important transit services. last month we welcomed president joe biden and vice president harris. we are excited for the new administration. our project will receive funding

over the next few years. we are excited for the new transportation secretary. a few local represents from this area. we continue to monitor federal stimulus package as it may beings the way through the legislature. we are optimistic the $1.7 billion in funding will keep the bay area transit expansion and modernization projects on track. we join the metropolitan transportation commission and other operators in cosigning our congressional delegation in support. we are in correspondence with m.t.c. to include the tjpa in the funding. as we deal with the pandemic we are optimistic.

we are working to provide outdoor services to respond to the order. we continue to monitor the stay safe at home for collective efforts to reduce the spread of covid-19. adhering to the guidance and working with our transit operators. we continue to provide commuters and visitors the most up-to-date information about mask wearing and fiscal distancing ensuring hands cleaning protocols are in place. as rollout of vaccines occur we are working with redevelopment ventures to plan for and help ensure we are ready for increased activation when it is safe. we hope it is sometime this fall. earlier this week we hosted sales force for their kickoff.

though showcased our rooftop art through the international audience including 50,000 employees and global partners. they expect these to be broadcast to 10 million viewers. we continue to make progress on the advancement of the project with the steering committee partners including funding plan strategy, travel forecasting and ridership modeling. together with the staff we have been reaching local partners. we went with region 9 administrator and his local to reintroduce the project. we appreciated feedback to prepare the project for the program. we work closely with them to ensure the project development this fall and complete the process within the two year requirement. also, we are scheduling the commissioners to provide briefings in the upcoming months. we are excited for launch of the

project in the powers authority. we realize the connection to the east bay. we are working to plan for and build a seem less connection for the future integrated transportation system. we also sept m.t.c. a letter in response to 2050 five year implementation plan and asked them for resolution project and ensure they receive continued funding from local and regional measures to ensure the transbay program is built. early this week rail authority issued the revised draft business plan 2020 for public review and comment until march 12th. we join the high-speed rail authority the future operating partner in commitment to delivering passenger rail service to the state. the significant impact of

covid-19. it prioritizes environmental clearance of phase one between san francisco and the transit center and los angeles. we will be tracking and monitoring the plan through the legislature in april and authority's request to release state bond funding to continue the construction. we support the authority plan and request for state bond funds. lastly, directors, the cac recruitment continues. we encourage anyone to apply for this opportunity and applications are due february 26th. that concludes my report. i will take any questions. we have john here. >> thank you director. any questions on the report this morning?

i am not seeing any hands raised. thank you for the report. >> thank you. good morning, directors. i will bring up the slides. as mentioned. we are continuing to provide the intense high touch area cleaning throughout the center while also deploying the minimum amount of consultant resourcesness as part of cost reduction measures to balance our operating budget going forward.

additionally, we have been working with fitness sf on outdoor space. they continue discussions with the city attorney's office as well as the department of public health to move into indoor operations that may being economic sense for them. in the meantime they continue without door footprint. we are happy to accommodate them on the left part of the top photo. as mentioned, we have been hosting sales force virtual event culminating in live stream event two days ago that wrapped up the show. the generator on the other side in the picture, the tent located below for catering. the next slide is better perspective on howna toma was used so we can see the fitness

activities there. there has been a line waiting to get in anytime i have looked during operating hours. it is great to see that they are getting membership expansion through this expanded outdoor pod. another activity ongoing discussions with our neighbors to the south at 181 fremont, j paul, working to fastate a number of things underway. one is window washing. that is boring but when you have a high rise that butts against our facility it is a challenge. we have worked with them. the license agreement to facilitate the three week affair for window washing. they also have window repairs that need to be affected above

the 40th story. there are minor bridge deck repairs that started yesterday. that work is ongoing. minimal impact to the facility. the highest impact issue is the window repair where we have to have a fall protection area in case of mishap. that will involve a partial closure of the pedestrian path on park. you can see that on the facade depending on weather conditions. the park activities. we did have a holiday lights extension so that was through january. those lights have been removed just before sales force mobilized for their virtual event. it was a two location event on

a live stream from two days ago. we let off here at sales force park followed by the chairman presenting from singapore. latest check on website indicates estimate over 8 million views. that is the world wide exposure we received by facilitating this event with our partners. also, we can see the covid-19 check in area. to get to their area within the amphitheater required a tje; check and some protocols. we made sure that everyone was safe in moving forward working closely with the department of public health and city of san francisco. retail leasing. we have a number of active engagement to continue to negotiate food and beverage

kiosk moving nicely. lease negotiations continue, not complete but getting there. suite 232 in the green off beal street side. those discussions are going well. the key point here is while there is a lot of gloom and doom in the media relative to retail and particularly downtown san francisco, we continue to have active interest to the point where frankly we only have two first floor suites that aren't in active discussions. only have transactions ready to present town. i am encouraged there is that level of expect in our facility at this time. they recognize the value we will bring when things begin to return. we will have more information on that as these transactions get closer to fruition. this shows you the details. no change from the last meeting

in terms of occupancy rate just under 80%. successful in these pending negotiations that number will change by the end of spring. that is my hope. improvements. this slide will look familiar. verizon express is open. kaiser has completed work. they have occupancy permit from d.b.i. and are ready to go. looking at target of may 2021 for opening to coincide with downtown with the unit that cannot be found elsewhere in the system. we have more on that as they share what they anticipate the operations and service system available from kaiser. across the hall from tjpa on beal street side is the spring

fertility suite. they have made great progress. they have moved in furniture. this awaits the permit for them to begin occupancy. commencement started last year they are targeting the end of this month or more likely early march based on intelligence from d.b.i. apstatus of permits. this is a quick rundown every maining tenancies. 11 begins commencement yesterday. they are one of the first to open given their relatively limited tenant improvement package. our building effort moving nicely. we expect quite a lot of material delivery for the kitchen exhaust project to come toward the tail end of this

month and early march to dovetail nicely with the anticipated q3 and on the next slide q4 openings. we are trying to marry our delivery of the spaces with hope for return of downtown tenants and office occupants and patrons. happy to answer any questions you might have. >> john, thank you for the report. directors, any questions for mr? i don't see any questions. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> mr. secretary i think we can move to the next item. >> item 6. cac update. we have the cac chair to address you on this item. >> good morning, directors.

i am derek holt. we had a citizen advisory meeting this past tuesday. we welcomed the new role for donald and he will be outstanding. we will walk through the staff report including the efforts to ensure the projects are in federal and state transportation funding, global exposure with the global broadcasting coverage, regional transportation project week 21 development. several cap members are turning out in recruiting efforts underway. i want to thank those members turning out for sacrifice of time and contribution of ideas and questions in an effort to make this transportation project one of the best in the world and feed the needs of the community. the meetings were pleased with

answers to the question to connect transit center dynamics to regional partners. that link 21 is appreciated by the cac members. comments and questions address the mega transformative rail program objectives, capital corridor elements and connection to the transit center. there was a great deal of interest from members in the community in elements such as potential for new transbay crossing and benefits to the citizens, requirement the quality of life and transportation in general. we appreciate the contributions to the cord nations between link 21 and sales force. there were questions on the lines on the map that spoke to different rail routes. i do note there is cap interest in reviewing topics regarding track alignment, how developed,

constructive ideas for alternatives. i noped the presentation from link 21 asked for ideas and suggestions from cac members and the public. i thought that was great. members of the cac such as paul and howard and bob and members of the public should ask questions regarding speeding up the timeline of moving forward on the construction and completion, track alignment. safety of buildings and consideration of big picture ideas to incorporate to the transportation plans. some of the big pictures included expanding ferry service, impact of autonomous vehicles and impact of covid. we loved s.f.c.t.a. in the presentation by jessie.

it covered the valley to valley service and more. questions from danville and others involved around identifying the inputs for modeling, impact of covid, identifying the targets for number of transit hours connected with the transit center and key hubs. they were well received. of course, we always want to understand what is going on inside the transit center. john updike, thank you for the facilities update. members suggested using the wi-fi in the rooftop park for k-12 student classroom activities. interesting idea or adult classes or academic activities. we have done a little bit of that already. i will wrap up pie pointing out future agenda item requests include rail yard updates and

budget forecast updates which executive director gonzalez will provide with the help of our esteemed cfo in the near future. in conjunction with working on new cac members we acknowledge that it is difficult during covid to offer the tour. based on discussions with executive director gonzalez we will develop an update review of all key things and share the virtual tour with new and old members. this will be part of our efforts to get new members up to speed on all things transit center related. this concludes my report. >> thank you for your report. directors, any questions?

mr. hall. i do not see any hands raised. thank you for your report. thank you to the members for finishing the terms on the cac. it is a service, a passion. it is a commitment. i appreciate it and the board does appreciate it. please pass along our appreciation. have a good day. mr. secretary. >> yes, this is informational appears a them member of the public raised their hand. please let in the caller. please state your name. you have three minutes. >> good morning. the only thing i would like to add to the report is that it was very over debt during the -- overvi debt that -- evident it

has a profound impact on the second street alignment. thank you. any other callers? >> that appears to be the only member of the public to provide comment. i will call the next item. >> director's 7 is public comment. opportunity for members of the public to address the authority on matters not on today's calendar. it appears we have a member that wishes to address you. first caller.

>> hi, jim patrick, patrick and company. i would like to follow up row land's comment. he is a engineer, i am not. he has a bright idea of the alignment for second street. everyone discards it because we have done environmental impact report and can't look anywhere else. i believe that is short sighted. there is a lot of money to be saved, in the billions, there is a lot of gains from his idea. i would like to ask this board to solace it is a presentation from roland as to what he thinks a better idea is instead of sweeping this under the table. thank you. >> thank you for your comment. any additional speakers? >> that was the last member of

the public. next item. >> before you call the next item, let me also offer my welcome to director john baptiste and director shaw. you are coming on board at a great time to look at what is next with the downtown extension. i want to offer my appreciation to director hirsch for his time. it is a partnership and i value and appreciate his presence on tjpa. to our new directors, welcome. >> item 8. approving updated board policy no. 001. the chief financial officer will present. >> thank you. i have a request to approve updates to the policy.

we are trying to implement updates based on federal guidance to allow for micro purchases and large purchases to be increased from $3,000 to $10,000 and large purchases up to $110,000. the federal guidancal laws up to 250. we felt we should limit to keep in line with the city and county of san francisco administrative policies and the boards and agencies you all represent. additionally, we wanted to update the policy to include affirmative statements on prohibiting communications during r.f.p.s and affirmative statement on prohibiting collusion in contracting. these two updates come as a result of a report issued by the

city and county of san francisco controller's office on public integrity review. we felt these updates were timely and pertinent to our affairs and wanted to recommend these updates. i will take any questions if you have them. >> thank you. any comments or questions from directors? >> i would like to move the item, please. >> that was director lipkin. second? >> second tumlin. >> motion and second. any other questions or comments? >> lipkin and tumlin. now roll call vote. director chang. >> it is advisable to see if there are members of the public to comment. >> thank you, ms. miller.

>> apologies. >> there are no members of the public to address you on this item. i will proceed to roll call. >> director chang. >> aye. >> forbes. >> aye. >> john baptiste. >> aye. >> lipkin. >> aye. >> shaw. >> aye. >> tumlin. >> aye. >> vichair gee. >> aye. >> there are seven ayes and item 8 is approved. >> thank you, mr. secretary. before you call item 9. i would like to let the board and public know i will recuse myself from item 9. in abundance of caution to avoid perceptions of a conflict as i

am the appointee of the jpb. i would like to at this point ask that director tumlin handle this item. i will go dark on my video and rejoin when this item is concluded. >> i would be happy to take the gavel. >> thank you, director tumlin. >> thank you. i will go ahead and call the next item. >> 9. approving the interim executive director to enter into a memorandum of agreement with the joint powers board for operations analysis for amount not to exceed $185,000 in support of the downtown rail extension phasing study as required in the memorandum of

inning and interim project director will present. >> thank you. good morning, directors. the purpose of the request here is to authorize interval executive director to execute moa with joint powers and provide funding in support of operations analysis to complete the phasing study. cost for this would be shared with the socta with tjpa contributing $185,000, and $75,000 for the total cost. need is related to some of the phasing concepts that were proposed and developed by such as the two versus three track.

deferral of high-speed rail that requires analysis, operational analysis not previously available. the way to conduct this work is using caltrain and high-speed rail existing operations consultant. we feel it is an efficient way to conduct this work. the scope of work is to run various service level to simulate the level and associated infrastructure improvements ranging from relatively minimal service of six trains per hour and no high-speed rail trains all the way up to eight caltrain trains and four high-speed rail trains. the scope of work including the simulation of regoperations to determine reliability and flexibility but also disruption operations to determine what reliable the service is in terms

of recovery should a train be out of service for some reason or other delay. this is an important way to look at operations pause delays occur from time to time. we will simulate as well a run through operation at sales force transit center envisioning for example a future link 21 connection the east bay and determine if that connection in some way reduces infra structure requirement to share that information with the executive steers committee as we bring the phasing report to tjpa board with you the directors. the source of funds for this request is unexspended funds from the cta grants 1-5-914-028. with that that completes my report. i am happy to answer any

questions the directors may have. thank you. >> any questions or discussion? >> i just wanted to appreciate the teamanticlar caltrain and high-speed rail task who are the lead under the work program. it has worked out well. the consultant is on knowledgeable already about the operations. thank you. >> any further questions or discussion? seeing none. do we have public comment? >> seeing none as well. is there a motion? >> i move. >> second.

>> first chang and second forbes. will i call roll. >> director chang. >> aye. >> forbes. >> aye. >> john baptiste. >> aye. >> lipkin. >> aye. >> director shaw. >> aye tumlin. >> aye. >> there are six ayes and zero nays. item nine is approved. i would like to note as we were calling roll a member of the public raised their hand to provide a comment. if it is okay with you, i will let that member of the public in. >> i will allow the comment. >> please let in the caller.

>> thank you. san jose. i would like to briefly take an opportunity of echoing some of the metrics that i shared with the cac for this exercise. specifically, to establish specific targets because we can get away with six trains and worry later. it is ridiculous. the target as follows: the target is 12 trains in the amount of transit center with two tracks, not three tracks. with 21 your target is 30 trains in and out of the transit center every hour. if the simulation indicates that

this is not possible, i respectfully suggest that you start looking at different alignments, similar to the alignment that london uses for the olympics. that is how they got 12 trains an hour in and out. also, i suggest it is impossible to get 30 trains an hour up and down the peninsula. we need the scope of the simulation to additional track work in brisbon south of the bayshore station. in closing i will make it very clear especially to the san francisco transportation authority that unless these targets are met, caltrain will never ever be able to if fourth and king. thank you.

>> that concludes members of the public. i will call the next item. >> i will hand the gavel back to acting chair gee. >> thank you, director tumlin, appreciate the assist. >> directors, item 10. approving the minutes of the january 14, 2021 meeting. >> is there a motion to approve? >> so moved. >> second lipkin. >> no members of the public to address you on this. first tumlin and second lipkin. i will proceed to call the roll.

>> chang. >> aye. >> forbes. >> aye. >> john baptiste. >> abstain. >> lipkin. >> aye. >> shaw. >> abstain. >> tumlin. >> aye. >> vice chair gee. >> aye. >> there are five eyes and two abstains. item 10 is approved. >> thank you. go ahead and call the next item. item 11 is san francisco peninsula rail program executive steering committee update. >> thank you. it is a pleasure to provide the

monthly update on our work at the integrated project team. high level of outline. i will take a few minutes to briefly update you on activities listed here. it remains a very, very busy time for the whole team we appreciate guidance of the board through this period. in terms of the funding man as the interim director gonzalez mentioned. this is the 2016 funding map to update the existing sources, committed once as well as newer ones, working with funding partners we confirm the forecast of funding sources such as the tax increment revenues and evaluating the sd1 gas tax funded programs we have applied in the past and will apply for

the transit inner city rail program and the solutions for congested corridors and other relevant programs at the state level. city has the agency working on the pricing study. should that be approved that is a potential source as well. there are recently passed or planned revenue measures to consider as well. in addition we are reevaluating the fta federal transit administration resource funding. i will come back. we had a productive conversation with the region nine office as interim director mentioned. there is potential for private participation in creative financing which we will be exploring. near term the jtpa and the staff are working to seek an amendment to the prop k allocation the transportation authority approved last year to update and

align the activities with the work plan that you adopted in december. this is going to reflect potential acceleration of the project schedule to see if we can make earlier submittal to the federal government on the restarts program. it showed august 2024 submittal. we are exploring to move that up to august of 2023 as i reported last month. this is a once in a year submittal window. that is a important decision all partners and you will be making. if approved, the prop k funds would support the team's work through the end of this year including approval of the operating project definition. that is key this fall. we would also need additional funds to comment the prop k funds by other sources going to 2022 and 2023. i will note that is the current focus of the work with the

partners. we are discussing this as well so we can present that to apply for the entry to the federal program to fta. as the interim director reported that was a successful meeting february 4th with the administrator. several members of the staff joined the virtual meeting to provide encouraging feedback as well as helpful guidance to the people. we were introduced to the entire rile ma'am partnership with importance of the multi agency collaboration and we reviewed the purpose and status of the phase-in study and importance of looking to see how we can make that strategic decision about balancing cost savings with other factors and criteria. we further introduced the ridership modeling task. it covered the different aspects of those technical decisions.

also the capacity of the fta program. again, administratortulelis and members of his staff were very supportive and ledge pledged -- pledged to guide us for entering the federal process this fall. we appreciate fta administratortule lisa's signed a member of his staff for this work. on the ridership forecasting that is a very important activity right now early leading item to establish the benefits and really understand the scenarios that will be evaluated as the last caller mentioned. sfta's modeling team is reviewing the forecasting scenarios and input with s m.t.c. we want to be consistent with 2050 and regional assumptions as well as the operating agencies who all have

their own business plans and forecasts as well as high-speed rail authorities models. we are working together very closely right now. there has been some discussion about not only this project but no project that we are picking up fta guidance and m.t.c. treatment of key assumptions during this difficult period in near term but moving forward establishing what the future demand profiles will look like as we enter the evaluation of investment through 2035. consistent with the blue print from the planned bay area we will ensure there is a wide regional look at the potential benefits including integration across the bay. as mentioned before by steven,

the team continues to analyze the options to identify cost reductions for the operating project. mindful of the trade-offs. we will bring that to you in coming months. thank you for approving the funding for operations analysis to support the team's work. turning to the planning benefit assessment. in addition to demand forecasting we have a business case analysis. last week bart and capital corridors link 21 vision did include analysis by the bay area council economic institute which published report estimating broad and significant benefits of the potential regional program featuring the crossing across the bay connecting to the other sales force train box. similarly, we will prepare a business case as well under the tpa for the lead for that task supported by partners for

mobility and cost-effective and congestion and greenhouse gas reductions affords ability and economic development affects. we will bring that to you as we scope and develop the analysis through the executive steering committee. it will be a companion to the recommendation in the fall when we come to the conclusions for the initial operating phase analysis. we do expect to see similar results to the bay area council institute 21 analysis with robust economic benefits of the whole rail program including transbay crossing. we will collaborate with connections to the centers which we examined at high level and shared connections with the link 21 team as chair holt mentioned

earlier presented to the cac recently. these links will be further developed by the bart and capital corridor team through the next phases of their study. turning to the outreach engagement. our team has made presentations to multiple groups including cac chair and i will note regarding 21 interested members of the public are invited to participate in the survey located at survey.link 21 program. org/goals. that is a way to express your feedback to bart and capital corridor. the tdp team commenced work to update the project website and outreach materials to subpoena -- support other briefings planned such as commissioners and this will continue the outreach as done with caltran senior officials as well as state legislators earlier last year.

finally, i was pleased to speak about the recent symposium to prepare for the biden infrastructure and climate plan hosted by the foundation on economy and environment. speakers included the u.s. transition team chair washington, m.t.c. executive director and acting administrator, high-speed rail authority director kelly and private industry leaders. we discussed innovations and opportunities for public private collaboration in projects. there is high private sector interest in projects well defined and supported by local sponsors. we will conduct markets as we study various delivery methods to support the project. we are prayer pairing input to

-- preparing input to congress as they bring up the bill in the coming weeks and months. we hope that bill will be taken up by the middle of this year. we are getting ready to provide input at that time. thank you. i will take questions. >> thank you for that update. directors, any questions of director chang and the esc team? >> i don't see any hands raised. mr. secretary do you see any hands raised? >> i do not. >> any public comment at this time? >> there are none. >> quick question. thank you for your hard work. i am sorry.

>> a member of the public raised their hand. >> first caller. >> thank you. this is roland. there is something seriously wrong with picking up requests to speak from the public. i really want to thank director chang for her report. the only be thing i would add is that the new bart project manager is watry. he correctly identifies the only viable alignment that they are working on the last four years. i would like to remind you if you were on the board at the

time. the reason we have to stop working on that alignment we lost the powers alignment when the tjpa sold block five which is where the tower is. mr. waltry defined pretty much the issues caused by this pushing the transbay crossing into the bay. i really hope we continue to work with him and come up with solutions that are going to push these platforms back to where they were to be in the first place in the middle of the train box. it means that there will be no train box extension. that is where the east bay goes. thank you. >> thank you. any other public speakers?

>> no. that was the only member of the public. >> thank you for the update. i know this was ambitious work plan. a lot of work is being done. i want the check is the work plan on schedule? >> it is by and large on schedule. that is the subject of the prop k amendment to reflect the changes in the work plan itself that was adopted by this board. there is a lot to view. there is risk. we are asking to track that. in fact we have an item at the meeting this month to review. we can provide better update next month on the potential schedule impacts. >> i think you and your team with the esc work plan was presented in december had a big schedule that went with it. would it be reasonable to ask that be updated in the six month mark?

>> absolutely, director gee. if the action of the director chang spoke about is approved we would come back to you for approval of the accelerated schedule. >> thank you. i don't want to add any more work but it is important to know you are on schedule and add adjustments are being made to manage the expectations. >> we are on schedule. i will come back with more detailed presentation. >> very good. thank you for the hard work. >> any other questions from directors? seeing none, mr. secretary, let's keep moving. >> at this time you are scheduled to go into closed session. as i check to see if there are any members of the public. i have not received any

indication members of the public wish to address you. they have an opportunity to do so at this time. >> we will hang out to see if the system identifies anyone that wants to make a comment. >> yes. anybody raise their hand yet. >> no, sir. >> okay. ms. miller, do we expect any action out of this closed session so the public doesn't need to hang out? >> i am not anticipating there would be any. >> thank you. seeing no public commenters wanting to speak to the board about this we are ready to go to closed session. >> thank you, vice chair gee. i will put us

>> good morning. this meeting will come to order. welcome to the thursday, march 4th meeting of government

audit. i am the chair of the committee, supervisor preston. i am joined by supervisors chanand mandelman. thank you to the clerk and sfgovtv for staffing this meeting. do we have any announcements? >> thank you. in order to protect the public and board members. the chamber and committee room are closed. this is pursuant to local, state and federal orders and directives. committee members will attend through video conference. public comment is available for each item on cable channel 26 and sfgovtv streaming the call in number across the street at this time. the opportunity to speak and provide comments during the public comment period will be available by calling

415-655-0001. following that you will be prompted to enter the meeting id which is (187)490-6868. followed by pound twice to be connected to the meeting. when connected you will hear the discussions but your line will be in his senning mode only. dial star to be added to the speaker line. wait until unmuted to begin comments. call from quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and turndown your television, radio or streaming device. there are time delays between live coverage and streaming. you may submit public comments by e-mailing me.

john carroll at sfgovtv. org. if you submit by e-mail it will be in the file as part of the matter you comment upon. your written comments may be sent to our office in city hall. clerks office, room 244, 1 carlington bgoodlet place this is on our agenda today. items today will appear on the march 16th board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated by motions. >> thank you. please call the first item. ordinance amending the police code to require grocery store, drawing store, restaurants and on-demand delivery service

employers to provide health and scheduling protections related to covid-19 to workers and to sunset an emergency ordinance with similar requirements. call 415-655-0001 and enter (187)490-6868, pound, pound and star followed by 3 to speak. it will indicate you raised your hand. wait until unmuted. we received a memo requested this be a committee report at the march 9th 20, 21 board meeting. >> thank you, mr. clerk. at this time i believe that supervisor haney's chief of staff will be here with comments on this item. i will turn the floor over to

her. >> thank you. good morning. i am abygail and i am here on behalf of supervisor haney. on our workers protections ordinance this was continued from last meeting in light of substantive amendments during committee. the legislation before you strengthening the worker protections covered by the health officers orders during covid-19 to give workers an additional level of protection and mechanism to file complaint with the office of labor standards and enforcement. we have non substantive amendments today that i previously circulated to the committee members for consideration. walking through two of those amendments. first clarifies that employees must be paid normal rate of pay for the services and in accordance with high touch areas

in accordance with law. independent contractors must be paid no less than the personal services minimum contractual rate ordinance admin code chapter 12b. that is noted in page 6 lines 3 through 8 in your ordinance that i circulated previously. second amendment requires that covered entities retain their records in compliance with this ordinance for three years. other city attorney is on the line for any other clarifying questions. i am requesting for your consideration those two non substantive amendments before you today. i thank you for your cosponsorship on behalf of supervisor haney and special thank you to the organizers with jobs for justice san francisco, 10-1, we drive progress, state

workers rising and chinese progressive association for fighting hard during this pandemic. thank you so much. >> do you have any staff presentations planned? you have folks available for questions. i didn't know if you wanted any presentations from those departments to get us started? >> no, supervisor, i think we covered everything in the last couple hearings. i just wanted to bring forth these amendments. >> thank you. do we have any comments or questions from the vice chair or supervisor mandelman? >> okay. why don't we go to public comment. >> thank you, mr. chair. maria with the department of technology is working to help

run the public comment lines. there is about a half dozen people on the line. for those connected via phone press star 3 to be added to the queue if you wish to speak for this item. for those on hold please continue to wait until you are prompted to begin. you will hear that your line is unmuted. on channel 26 or through sfgovtv if you wish to speak call in by following the instructions on the screen. dial 415-655-0001 enter id1874906668. pound pound and star followed by 3 to speak. mr. chair, while we have callers listening. i hear that we have no callers for public comment on this agenda item.

agenda item. public comment is now closed on this item. may we have a motion to amend? >> move. chen. >> thank you. can we have a roll call, mr. clerk. >> on the motion to amend. vice chair chen. >> aye. >> member mandelman. >> aye. >> chair preston. >> mr. chair, three ayes. >> if thank you. can we have a motion to refer this item to the full board with recommendation as a committee report for consideration at our next board of supervisors? >> moved.

mandelman. >> roll call, please. >> on the motion this ordinance be recommended as committee report vice chair chan. >> aye. >> mandelman. >> aye. >> mr. chair. >> aye. >> there are three ayes. >> thank you. mr. clerk, call item 2. >> an emergency ordinance to temporarily require certain grocery stores, drugstores and property service contractors for grocery stores and drugstores to pay employees an additional $5 per hour during the public health emergency related to covid-19. call 415-655-0001 enter

id1874906868. press pound pound, star. a system prompt will indicate your line is unmuted. that is your opportunity to provide public comments. >> thank you, mr. clerk. at this time i would like to welcome natalie gee, supervisor walton's chief of staff and turn the floor over to ms. gee to present on this item. >> good morning. thank you, chair preston and supervisors for hearing this emergency ordinance today. i am natalie gee, chief of staff for supervisor walton. he was not able to make it to the meeting today. we have been in the pandemic a year. grocery and retail pharmacy workers have not stopped working to make sure residents have access to groceries and

supplies. they provided appreciation pay for the workers. many of them stopped in june of last year, three months after the shelter-in-place orders. earlier this year the board of supervisors passed a resolution for $5 hazard pay during the pen dam eck. this is a follow up. if this is passed san francisco will join berkeley, san jose, south san francisco, oakland and santa clara and long beach, la, santa ana, santa monica who have allen accounted similar measures on hazard pay. this will require grocery stores, retail pharmacies and janitor and security contractors

whose securities work to provide $5 per hour of hazard pay to employees making under $35 per hour or $75,000 a year. this will only apply to grocery stores and retail pharmacies with at least 20 employees in san francisco and 500 or more employees worldwide. it does not include mom and pop grocery stores or pharmacies that do not meet those requirements. if the store wants exempt all they have to do is engage in a collective bargaining agreement with the union regarding the hazard pay and they will be exempt. this exempts employers who have predated collective bargaining agreements on hazard pay which some stores negotiated during this pandemic. this is written in the ordinance on page 5 lines 18 through page 6 line 4.

president walton would like to clarify the definitions. this was sept to committee members this morning for review. i think we would like to thank united workers 5 and 8 for advocating this issue and deputy city attorney powell for helping us draft this. i will go to the list of amendments we are presenting. first we are striking drugstores and adding retail locations to include pharmacies. on page 5 line 4 clarifying the definition of base wage for salaried employees. calculated on 40 hour workweek. we are striking lines 6-7 and adding hazard pay to hazard page or wage enhancement. on page 6 line 16. we are clarifying and adding to

include at least 20 employees who work on site at the restale sales and service use that operates and add excluding pharmacies provided as part of the hospital or health service use defined in section 102 of the planning code. we are adding clarifying definition to be on page 5 with lines 22-25 to on site at retail sales and service to operate any general grocery, specialty grocery or pharmacy as part of the hospital or health service use as each of those terms is defined in planning code section 102 with the boundaries of the city. page 6 line 16-17 under hazard pay we are striking including premium pay applicable at the time and adding any wage enhancement in effect for each

hour worked for for salary employees for 40 hours per week. page 6 line 25 under poverty services contractor to include services for covered employer at any retail sales and service use that operates grocery store, specialty grocery or pharmacies except health service use. striking 3 to 7 page 7. new definition on page 7 lines 8-10. premium or additional wages paid to an employee by covered employer above base wage without additional fay for over time -- additional pay for hazard pay. page 7 line 14. we are adding plus any wage enhancement in effect. finally page 12 section 12

adding that this emergency ordinance shall become operative third day following enactment and based on termination of health emergency or first day of the emergency ordinance whichever occurs first. happy to answer any questions. >> thank you, ms. gee. any questions for ms. gee on this item? vice chair chan. >> thank you, chair preston. thank you so much, natalie. great to see you here and thank you for walking us through the amendments without taking a breath. that was amazing. my question is and my apology and i really should have done better homework in making sure i really understand thoroughly but

i also appreciate the amendments today. i am trying to digest amendments as well. if this is something that already addressed in the amendment, my apology for asking this. i am trying to understand from the legislation specifically really around employer initiated hazard pay. i understand that right now i am looking at it specifically page 7 or starting page 6 and then with the date about how this provide after february 1st including collectively bargained employer initiated hazard pay which leads to the conversation or my question will be following on page 7 specifically talk

about except for the employees whose base wage is between $30 per hour and $34.99 per hour. if initiated employer hazard pay is provided on and after february 1st but not meeting the base wage between 30 and $34.99 per hour are they exempt from this or are they not? >> thank you for the question. do we have city attorney lisa powell on the line? >> yes. i am not sure i understood the question. basically the way it is intended to function is that employer initiatedded hazard pay can be

offset from the requirement and there is a hard cap to the requirement of $35 per hour. for example, if an employer provided initiated hazard pay $o makes $20 an hour, they would get $2 an hour on top of that to opposite the employer $3 an hour and get $2 an hour on top of that. if an employer provided the same $3 of initiated hazard pay to someone who already made $33 an hour, that would take them over the cap so they wouldn't get any additional hazard pay on top of that. >> that may beings it. thank you so much for walking me through it. that may beings a lot of sense.

my last question will be if i may, chair preston, really about the waiver on page 11 starting online 14. to try to understand all or any portion of applicable requirements for emergency ordinance shall not apply to employees covered by collective bargaining agreement. someone in -- maybe it is my lay person ignorance trying to understand what abonnified collective bargaining agreement. explain to me. if there is a ongoing bargaining agreement now or timeline?

how do we figure out a waiver? >> this is a fairly standard provision in many of the ordinances that standards enforcement oversees. it is for people who have collectively bargained an exception to an ordinance. many of the city worker protections allow employees who are represented by collective bargaining agent to choose the ordinance of protection or trade-off with their collective bargaining agent to the overall superior for those workers. for a temporary ordinance it is unlikely to come into play

because collective bargaining agreements aren't amended as frequently as a shorter term ordinance. i put it in there as a standard provision that is how local ordinances operate. there is a worker protection that says for those workers who have the protection of collective bargaining agent negotiating for them, they have the option of bargaining something different as long as they expressly agree to do that. >> for any employer already have collective bargaining agreement, they are exempt? >> no. it is only if it is expressly waived in a collective bargaining agreement. probably how this would function if it were to happen is that an employer would do a side letter

agreement expressly waiving the hazard pay if they chose to do that. much more common in longer term ordinances where the paid sick leave ordinance around the paid sick leave in the city but maybe a union already hadtic agreements regarding paid time off so they decided to stay with that and expressly wave in their collective bargaining agreements the specifics of the paid sick leave ordinance. this may not be particularly likely applicable. there could be an employer who offered the union something else that they consider to be very valuable to them and that they might agree to waive in either an amendment to the collective

bargaining agreement or side letter agreement to waive their rights under this ordinance, presumably as trade-off for something else. >> good to know. my apologies. just signed on as cosponsor. i want to understand the amendment that we proposed today and that overall that i understand what we can actually accomplish with this legislation. i think the waiver itself learning this now it sounds like standard language that doesn't quite impact any employer that already has a collective bargaining agreement unless the union decided to come forward to have the conversation with the employer. i think at this time, you know, this is only for 61 days hazard

pay. on the third day of the effective day of this ordinance, right? if i understood the amendment correctly. thank you. that may beings sense to me. -- makes sense to me. i appreciate chair preston allowing me to do so. >> thank you. following up they are good points. just want to say on the last piece around the waiver, i think that the duration of this is important. while it may be standard language and not utilized in the collective bargaining context it is possible that there would be discussions especially given

this will protect folks for 60 days or add the hazard day for 60 days. no one nos if it -- no one knows if it will get renewed. there would be discussions during the course of the emergency ordinance period. i would hope there would be discussions. there might be voluntary agreements reached. as long as if that happened and they could expressly waive the protections of this or future renewal ordinance but not forced upon anyone to wave those. it is part of the agreement between the union and the employer. is that right? >> correct. any other comments or questions from committee members before public comment? all right. mr. clerk, can we begin public

comment, please. >> thank you, mr. chair. we are checking for callers in the queue. for those connecting by phone press star 3 to speak for this item. for those on hold, please continue to wait until you are prompted to begin. you will hear that your line is unmuted and once you hear that you will have an opportunity for your comments. if you are watching on cable channel 26 or through sfgovtv, if you wish to speak call in now by following instructions on your screen. that will be by dialing 415-655-0001. press pound twice and star followed by 3 to be entered to speak. i am hearing that we have four callers and three people raised hands. please bring us the first caller, please.

>> good morning. onis of mollies -- owner of mollies market. we have done the right things for employees, customers during the last year. owned independent in san francisco with more than 500 employee in the bay area. we have 675 employees over nine stores, three are in san francisco. the number of employees doesn't equate to profit. we are a local, family-owned company. we rewarded employees with increases in hourly pay for a number of months over the past year. the latest in the first part of this february. we have had only one case in the last 30-days in our three stores

in san francisco. our increases of pay coincided with the stay-at-home orders and most critical periods of the spread of virus over the past year. we paid our people approximately five months of extra pay. including bonuses throughout the year. this week we have had over 60% of the worke forcer in san francisco have gotten the vaccine or have an appointment to get it. by next week we hope to have 90% of our people vaccinated. we are not exempt from our collective bargaining agreement. we are union. don't have anything in the contract, nobody knew covid was happening. it is not normal to have this in the contract. the force us to negotiate with

the union when we fairly provided the utmost protection for all of our employees. ramifications of this will belong lasting, not just a band-aid. we have done the right things and treated our employees -- >> thank you. next caller, please. >> good morning. i am dan larson. i represent the members of usc w648. being the president i have heard so many issues concerning covid with our members. we represent the food and drugstores in san francisco. i thank president walton for bringing this issue to the forefront. our members have been on the front line of the pandemic when it began a year ago and they are

still serving customers day after day. the work goes unnoticed. this will bring respect, dignity and appreciation to the dangers of their jobs they do every day. we may never know the many dangers and sacrifices each worker made during these times but this ordinance does acknowledge the dangerous conditions exist and tells the employers that they are providing the absolute minimum of protection to the most valuable employees is not enough. we ask for your support. thank you. >> thank you for sharing your comments with the committee. we are checking for further callers. i am hearing now that we have reached the end of the queue, mr. chair. >> thank you, mr. clerk.

thanks to the comments from the public on this. i do just want to say i am a cosponsor and proud to be a cosponsor. appreciate president walton's work and i think there is a tendency through not unintentionally through this pandemic of some essential workers more than others. i want to say that the sector of the worke forcer that is addressed by this legislation is a sector that is really taken for granted. the folks working, particularly at the big national chains grocery stores, and others covered by this ordinance have been work nothing matter what tier we have been in. they have been working every day through this entire pandemic. i appreciate all of the work

president walton has done. not just in this legislation but previously by resolution in trying to elevate really the need to be recognizing that service and rewarding that service. i do appreciate and had a opportunity to speak with mr. stone who called in. they are in an between situation where it is not a big national chain and not a small mom and pop store on the corner with nearly 700 employees. certainly wherever you draw the line in this legislation, there are going to be followings who are near that -- folks who are near that line raising legitimate issues.

i defer to the sponsor who addressed the various amendments. i think it is something to keep an eye on regardless of the final vote on this and contours of the size and other parameters. something to look at. this is 60 day period open to hearing from impacted workers and employers during the pendency of that. when it comes time for renewal of these things. the only question i had that was raised a little in the call is just the issue of and supervisor chan raised this as well. the issue of past, i think he used the example what happens if someone gave a voluntary hazard increase pay in february. i just want to make sure my understanding of the ordinance is right. my understanding this is just looking forward, right?

in other words if somebody gave a bonus in january of a certain amount, that wouldn't impact their obligations one way or the other under this ordinance or does it? >> it did not. it is only perspective. there is even a provision that says past pay doesn't matter, basically. >> okay. i think i understand the reason and it could be very complicated to do it differently so i am not proposing changes. i think as we go further and if there is future legislation, i think a policy question of how we address past voluntary

bonuses in terms of if there are longer term legislation in the future around this, we don't want a situation where we are rewarding people who have chosen not to do past voluntary bonuses. i want to recognize that. i don't know the details in particular but their particular business overall, i think while i understand why this is structure understand this way for this legislation, it is, i think, beyond emergency ordinance potentially a question of what is the cumulative? my view if folks have not been providing increases over time they should be forced to pay more. if folks have been doing voluntarily increases it might

make sense to factor that into future obligations. that is an editorial comment rather than a specific proposal with respect to this ordinance which is very strong. i appreciate the amendments submitted. i see my colleague supervisor mandelman on the roster. >> thank you, chair preston. i guess and i am going to support moving this forward to the full board today. i do want partly based on a conversation with mr. stone yesterday and his comments this morning. i am -- when i think of molly stone in a different category from certainly the whole foods of the world or safe ways and luckies and all of the bigger

actors. i know there was an effort to carve out the smaller operators with this 500 employee cap. i am wondering about the thinking that went into choosing that number. it sounds like 750 which was the san mateo number would go above molly stones. i just wanted to see if ms. gee is still here to talk about 550 verse -- 500 versus 750. >> thank you. the thinking be hired this is -- behind this is other jurisdictions passed ordinances at 500. lowest was 300 in california.

>> is it true san mateo did 750. >> the city of sanaa theo 750. >> not the county? >> not the county. >> thank you. >> thank you, supervisor mandelman. mr. clerk, to dot the i's and cross the ts. if i have not closed public comment, public comment is now closed. i see that vice chair chanmay have a question. >> hazard pay i thought from deputy city attorney powell's explanation. if an employer has already initiated that pay say $3 per

hour, with this passage of the legislation moving forward for the next 61 days is that instead of $23 an hour for the next 60 days is now $25 per hour. basically, it is paying the $5 cap. in my opinion if you really have as an employer if you have been providing employer initiative hazard pay on and after februare basically paying the gap, there is a cap of $34.99 per hour. you will not -- actually the employee will not receive the pay increase for the next 60 days. did i understand that correctly? i thought that was the

explanation. i am sorry. >> the current employer initiative pay is offset but not past hazard pay. >> supervisor chan, i think the distinction is if there was a hazard pay increase in effect now. folks were getting $2 per hour more. under this ordinance under the emergency ordinance they would get the balance of that, right? $2 increase in effect would go toward the $5. what the ordinance doesn't do and would be quite complex to try to do especially in a 60 day emergency ordinance is figure out the past that is not in effect now. if somebody had given a bump up

in pay for october, november, december but that was no longer in effect. that past pay would be irrelevant to the analysis. i believe that is the summary. someone correct me if i'm wrong of both the questions we have been asking and i think that is my understanding of it. do i have that right? >> yes, you have that right. >> if thank you. seeing no other questions from colleagues to ms. gee regarding the procedural posture of this. it is my understanding that in addition to moving the amendments today, which i understand to be substantive amendments that it is president

walton's request to refer this item as amended rather than to our next gao meeting weeks away instead to a committee as a whole on march 9th, is that right? i want to make sure that is the preferred course here? >> thank you. that is correct. >> can we have a motion to amend the emergency ordinance as provided to the committee? >> move. chan. >> can we call the roll, please. >> motion offered that the ordinance be amended as presented in text by the office of president walton. vis chair chan. >> aye.

>> mandelman. >> aye. >> chair preston. >> aye. >> three ayes for the amendment. >> thank you, mr. clerk. can we have a motion to refer the emergency ordinance as amended to the board of supervisors for a committee as the whole on march 9th, 2021 pending approval to it is as committee as hole in 210231 on the same agenda. let's call the very long and wore demotion. >> you want me to repeat? >> on the motion offered by member mandelman the ordinance

be referred as amended to committee as the whole hearing date marthe, 2021 board of supervisors spending approval to it is as committee as whole which will appear without agenda on that same meeting. vice chair chan. >> nicely done. aye. >> member mandelman. >> aye. >> chair preston. >> aye. >> mr. chair three ayes. >> thank you, mr. clerk for that challenging motion. i think we got it procedurally right. thank you, ms. gee and to president walton for this ordinance. mr. clerk, any further business? >> there is no further business. >> thank you. then we are adjourned.

>> i'm rebecca and i'm a violinist and violin teacher. i was born here in san francisco to a family of cellists, professional cellists, so i grew up surrounded by a bunch of musical rehearsals an lessons.

all types of activities happened in my house. i began playing piano when i was 4. i really enjoyed musical activities in general. so when i was 10, i began studying violin in san francisco. and from there, i pretty much never stopped and went on to study in college as well. that's the only thing i've ever known is to have music playing all the time, whether it is someone actually playing next to you or someone listening to a recording. i think that i actually originally wanted to play flute and we didn't have a flute. it's always been a way of life. i didn't know that it could be any other way. >> could you give me an e over here. great. when you teach and you're seeing a student who has a problem, you have to think on your feet to solve that problem. and that same kind of of

thinking that you do to fix it applies to your own practice as well. so if i'm teaching a student and they are having a hard time getting a certain note, they can't find the right note. and i have to think of a digestible way to explain it to them. ee, d, d, e. >> yes. then, when i go on to do my own practice for a performance, those words are echoing back in my head. okay. why am i missing this? i just told somebody that they needed to do this. maybe i should try the same thing. i feel a lot of pressure when i'm teaching young kids. you might think that there is less pressure if they are going on to study music or in college that it is more relaxing. i actually find that the opposite is true. if i know i'm sending a high school student to some great

music program, they're going to get so much more instruction. what i have told them is only the beginning. if i am teaching a student who i know is going to completely change gears when they go to college and they never will pick up a violin again there is so much that i need to tell them. in plain violin, it is so difficult. there is so much more information to give. every day i think, oh, my gosh. i haven't gotten to this technique or we haven't studies they meese and they have so much more to do. we only have 45 minutes a week. i have taught a few students in some capacity who has gone on to study music. that feels anaysing. >> it is incredible to watch how they grow. somebody can make amazing project from you know, age 15 to 17 if they put their mind to it.

>> i think i have 18 students now. these more than i've had in the past. i'm hoping to build up more of a studio. there will be a pee ono, lots of bookshelves and lots of great music. the students will come to my house and take their lessons there. my schedule changes a lot on a day-to-day basis and that kind of keeps it exciting. think that music is just my favorite thing that there is, whether it's listening to it or playing it or teaching it. all that really matters to me is that i'm surrounded by the sounds, so i'm going top keep doing what i'm doing to keep my life in that direction.

>> supervisor peskin: we'll be joined by vice chair supervisor rafael