of time each day. they were issued notice of violation originally on the 12th of february. then we received another sound complaint and we discovered that they were still operating outside of their approved j.a.m. hours. we did issue a citation for this. hopefully the business is willing to comply moving forward. i would like to bring to your attention scope davino. they have a gym permit. we have been receiving sound complaints from a neighbor. we've been receiving sound from

them for a number of months. the inspector respond to this sound complaint over the weekend. he took a sound measurement in realtime and the band was in compliance with their j.a.m. permit. there are no violations of the j.a.m. permit observed at that time. i think it's important to briefly set the stage or paint the picture of what is occurring in this situation. letting know that scope of davino's owner has been very willing and eager to comply with the j.a.m. permit condition amaking concession to try to mitigate concerns of the neighbors or the neighbor about the problem that's being expressed. the owner has been making concessions. they have rearranged the

location where the band perform. they are conscientious of their time. they log their own sound limit. they have their own sound meter. they are monitoring their sound levels. i think it's important to note that the neighbor does have wishes may not be able to be accommodated as far as what j.a.m. permit allows. six hours of amplified entertainment everyday of the week. scope davino doesn't have that. they are utilizing up to six days. there was a gap in the health order which allowed entertainment to occur prior to j.a.m. permit existing. the neighbor has expressed concerns that scopea davino was out of compliance.

we didn't have a permit in place to manage -- search the j.a.m. permit was allowed to be applied for, they try to come in compliance. if you have questions, we can talk about that. i wanted to brief you on this situation and let you know that's something that we are working on as easy stuff. last business that i like to mention is curio, they are being creative in their outdoor programming and looking really cool. we did get a sound complaint about their show last week. we will be working with them moving forward. that might be on the docket. that's all that i have.

i know it's a lot of information and i'm happy to answer any questions if there are any. >> when you get the j.a.m. permit, do you send is sound limit right away or is it determined? >> good question. with the j.a.m. permit right now the standard language and this is very much subject to change, the standard language is that the business is to be at ambient sound level from 50 feet away. there's a lot of variables. it might be less than 50 feet or if there's no neighbors around, it could be much further than 5. that's just a general sound limit that we're giving. >> it's like the majority of j.a.m. permits have that limit. it's not until we start getting

complaints that we figure out what the bigger scenario might be. for context, pre-covid, what's listed in code around outdoor amplified sound is limited so it doesn't exceed ambient at 250 feet. so much farther. just for perspective, 50 feet is like a cross -- if you have your speakers here and it should be at ambient from across the street on a regular side street. >> basically, until you get a complaint, that's when you set a limit for them? >> potentially more specific one either with like db level or we're saying you can go up to -- for example, the midway. they don't have neighbors there. for example, the chapel or curio

kaitlyn mentioned. they want to start having live entertainment performances where there's an actual band four times a month. we're looking into conditioning that permit administratively with louder sound limit for those special events to accommodate it. it's kind of a dance. you have to figure out what works between the permitholder and the neighbor. i think kaitlyn and the inspectors are doing a fabulous job. >> president bleiman: it seems to be quite a bit of work. i'm just hoping in the future we get to keep this thing. i'm going even after covid. i'm just wondering -- i guess it will evolve as it comes. >> we'll have updates for you in

forthcoming meetings about shared spaces pain where that's going and how we plug in. you'll learn more. there are things that are happening. we are discussing how we can potentially move forward. >> president bleiman: okay, thank you. good job. any more questions? i have questions about scopedavino, can you remind me how many time times we've gone out to visit? >> this year we've been once. the complaints -- the responses we were making were pre-december shutdown. i would say about probably three to five times that we were out there and witnessed in

compliance. >> every single time they've been in compliance? >> correct. >> president bleiman: we have a limited amount of resources in lot of places. at what point we'll find somebody in compliance over and over again? do we have a official policy on that? >> we don't. it's challenging. it's been case-by-case. there's been issues with precovid where this is the case. you visit numerous times and you're able to prove that the venue is in compliance but there's still mediation problems. at some point you may hear from a neighbor at a hearing.

we go out three times in a row for complaints. they're in compliance but there's sound limit each time. you tend to scale it back. but that doesn't mean you're not going to hear from the other party involved. >> that make sense. i wondered if -- it sound like they're in compliance. i wonder if -- i'm sure you're in communication with that finished. -- neighborhood. personally, i edon't want to speak for commissioner falzon.

we had issues like this before. from a police standpoint after a few calls that result in nothing. they divert the resources elsewhere. i like to see our resources used in places that need it because there's so much going on in the city now. i want to go on the record saying after five visits within compliance responding to a complaint as far as i'm concerned, there's much better use of that. >> it's also just beyond that. if we brief you as a commission and you believe -- if you want to bring a certain permit to hearing regardless of compliance, you have the ability to do that with these j.a.m. permits just as a reminder. you have the ability to call upon me to bring a permit in for potential reconditioning. we really try to handle things

with mediation. this neighbor has expressed they don't like the level of the sound. they don't like the bands that are playing and it's the same three bands that play. they don't like the frequency. the j.a.m. permit allows for seven days a week s. hours a day. they maybe using it six days a week, 36 hours a week. that's the only place i could see potential reconditioning if that's what the commission wanted. we're trying to maximize business ability to offer entertainment during the emergency. >> just to clarify on the j.a.m. permit, they are eligible for six days a week but only in three-hour increments per day. they're not utilizing the full six-hour time frame. that's allowable under the permit. it's just for three hours a day everyday but monday.

>> from 6:00 to 10:00 p.m. >> it's tuesday through thursday 5:00 to 8:00, friday 6:00 to 9:00, saturday and sunday 4:00 to 7:00. >> okay. i'm going to leave my opinions at the door. [laughter] >> it's not an agenda item. sounds like they're in compliance to me. >> you can absolutely discuss it in the realm of enforcement though. >> sound like they're in compliance for me. businesses are struggling for their lives now. three hours a day small price to pay to help a business survive. that's my personal view. any other questions? is there any public comment on the deputy director's report?

>> clerk: i'm checking the chat. there's nobody with their hands raised. >> president bleiman: thank you very much deputy director. next agenda item is number 5, which is update on the city's economy from ted egan. the chief economist with the office of the controller.

>> good evening commissioners. it's my pleasure. i'm going to try to share my screen. i have a brief presentation on the current state of the city's economy. i'm going to cover the items that i think interest to this commission for which we have data. i know that's less than the number of things you wish to ask about. feel free to ask me anything you want. i may tell you we don't have the data. i do want to walk through about the current state of the city's economy and in particular, your industry. if that's coming through, i want to start with our highest level

indicator how the city labor market is doing. weapon only have data through december of last year. there's a bit of delay in 2021. we'll get january data soon. the data shown is we had huge drop in jobs. roughly half of those jobs were back as of december. the regional unemployment rate went from 2% to north of 12%. it went down for most of the months following april. there was an uptick in december as well as a drop in jobs in december associated with the second wave. i would expect january numbers come in, we will see job growth again.

i think we're going to continue to see job growth until the end of the pandemic. one of the major features of the shock in terms of the structure city's economy is how it affects high wage versus low wage workers. the blue line is the professional services sector, one of the largest sectors in the city. its monthly job total is percentage of where it was last january before the pandemic. as you can see, it experienced a fairly mild drop of about 5% by december 2020 that industry completely recovered. the restaurant sector lost about 70% of the jobs in april and had only recovered to about 60% of

the pre-recession total. which means 40% of the jobs in the restaurant were still lost as of december. this is the city industry that's most sensitive to changes in the public health control. in october, when there was a reopening, there's 6000 jobs added in that sector. they were lost again more than that were lost by december. we have a limited ability to look at industry detail within the entertainment and nightlife sector. essentially we got two sources of employment data. one of which comes out every month. it's for two counties and doesn't have lot of industry detail. the one that has lot of industry detail for san francisco, we don't have data on that yet. this is what we have that's current. the blue line here, this whole sector is called arts entertainment and recreation. the part that's most relevant is

performing arts and venues. that sector has not seen recovery at all. unemployment there is still down more than 60% from the pre-pandemic period. other major elements of nightlife are obviously restaurant businesses. we have detail on that. as i mentioned before, both full service and limited service. eating places have seen some recovery but that recovery lags into end of the year given the increase to covid case load that we saw and the additional shutdown at the end of the year. i want to take a step back and provide some more city wide economic context. the pandemic is a global phenomenon every city in the country suffered economic shock because of covid. san francisco economy done worse

than other cities. one of the reasons is that san francisco residents are staying home. there's data from people cell phones from global mobility that shows how much people are spending out the home compared to 2019. it shows that san francisco more than any other city, people are staying home. you're not out shopping and you're not out at the venues and doing other things outside. there's bigger economic visit there associated with taking the public health guidance seriously. many hotel occupancy is down. we've lost -- office workers are staying home. the downtown sales tax data showing loss about 70% year over

year. not much recovery there. this issue that i'm raising on this slide is something that's san francisco specific. that is health migration. there's been a number of journalist made clear that information act request to the post office to find out how many people are moving in and out of san francisco. this is the story from couple of weeks ago. at least 35,000 more people have moved out of san francisco in 2020 compared to 2019. it's not a number of people moving in that's left, it's the number of people moving out. we clearly seen little bit of an emptying of the city. i think these numbers could be on the low side. we could be -- we could have lost 5% to 10% of the city population. right there, in addition to all the other factors in consumer spending, we have a smaller

population than we had at the start of the pandemic. this is also showing up in apartment rents. san francisco seeing biggest drop in apartment rent that's tracked by the major rent brokers. this is data from apartment list. the good news, i guess, by january and now we have february in hand, we're starting to see little bit of recovery. february had a small increase over january. january is left over from december. we may have hit bottom in the apartment market and then that is going to be very closely tied to the migration data. when we get more migration data, we'll see people stopped moving around end of the year and now the question is, how long until we see a recovery? we have some additional data on small business closure rate. this is additional data from the

opportunity incites through the harvard. it's coming from a credit card processor or payment processor. they're looking at the number of businesses who aren't making payments, registering electronic payments compared to the year before. this is done across the country. san francisco is again relatively worse than other cities. at least in the hospitality business, is worse than others and not really showing sign of recovery. still down around two thirds of businesses not open or not making payment compared to the pre-pandemic period. i wanted to end with a positive story.

the forecast of covid case load for the state of california from institute for health metrics at the university of washington, forecasting throughout the pandemic. they are basically showing that in california, the hospitalizations are down. that's known by the public health people. in combination of effective of the vaccine stopping the spread of the virus and increasing number of people getting vaccinated, it's reasonable for us to start forecasting the next recovery in the second half.

i feel much more confident about saying that now than i have than any other period in the pandemic period. let me just close with some thoughts and may be outlook for the entertainment and nightlife industries in the city. the city's economy performed worse than other large cities in the united states over the past year. that's a question -- that's a matter of public health restrictions, out migration, we rely on tourists and we rely on office workers. until office workers and hotel guests return, we're likely to see an elevated unemployment rate in the city.

we've seen extremely high levels of office tenants and big tech companies, putting their office space on the sublease market and not lot of takers that the point. what that means is, we're going to have fewer people in downtown than we are used to having pre-pandemic. even though the city is giving all clear. this is recipe for slow recovery. businesses have walked away from significant leases. i do think that part of the reopening san francisco broadly and recovery of the city's

economy broadly hinges around perceptions of quality of life and things to do in san francisco and amenities in san francisco in which entertainment businesses are vital. i do think that one of the things to push people out of the city in the past year is the fact that everything is closed. when things are open and there are things to do in san francisco, that will get the ball rolling in a positive direction and will give people and workers and ultimately tourists a reason to come back to the city. i think, however, we will not see full recovery until we see recovery from the offices and hotels. let me stop there and i'll be happy to take any questions.

>> president bleiman: mr. egan, is there online? is this already published? >> it's not online now this particular version. i shared it with dylan and you're welcome to post it. >> president bleiman: dylan, i guess you send the link. i lot to get a copy. i have an upcoming meeting with another group about the congestion of soma. i like to use it as data. before the pandemic, there was a major congestion. i don't think we have to worry about this. especially after listening to this report. in your opinion, i guess when we have this recovery, how long do you think it would take us to really get back to the way it was? as long as it's your opinion.

>> i will give you both of mine. i think people -- maybe we're not going to come back to downtown or maybe we're going to think about works from home permanenting, when you walk away office leases, there's going to be reset in the office market. the office owners want those buildings still. there's going to be a market incentive to find tenants. what we saw end of the dot-com crash, it took a long time. just because the dot-com went away, it didn't mean bunch of other industries wanted to come to san francisco. it's still expensive.

we had much slower recovery since the early 2000 recession. i think there are many tail winds for the tech industry as a whole. i'll mention couple of things. we've seen more venture capital in san francisco during the three quarters of the pandemic than we saw the three quarters before the pandemic. entrepreneurs in san francisco, they're getting funded at rates during the pandemic that are higher than they were before the pandemic. people are still working from home, that's a vote of confidence from investors in san

francisco tech. we're seeing hiring by the tech companies in san francisco back to pre-pandemic levels. now they're working from home. they're not shifting that hiring to their office. on this migration issue, there's a lot of speculation, well, everybody is moving out of california. they don't like the taxes or whatever. that appears not to be the case. people are moving at a higher

rate, they are moving to places where they move out of san francisco to like nearby suburb counties, like sacramento or l.a. i do think that a lot of people are going to look at the rents which are down over 25% in san francisco. that can come back pretty fast. that can be people saying, i'm never going to get another chance on a rent controlled apartment in san francisco. rent stability does a lot for people. i wouldn't be surprised if we saw brightness in the apartment market in the spring. at which point, the whole issue is, you're back in san francisco so you're not living wherever you are.

i do think it will take some time to absorb the office space. it can take a few years. i don't think the fundamental competitiveness of the city has changed p.p.p. it wouldn't surprise me to see a pre-pandemic economy back by 2024 or 2025. >> president bleiman: i think you're kind of on the mark for that. when i was set up by my first club in sumter market in 1999, there was that big boom. it only lasted for a year or two and then it was dead for so long. but it came back. i guess the city leaders will

have to kind of bring some more incentives again. like you said, we are better in the tech sector. those of us who did invest in stock market and things like that, that's why the investments are coming back because there's deals now. i think it's not done. i know it will take time. we can't lose our entertainment and nightlife venues. it's very important for recovery. i hope there's still that fun for supervisor haney's to help these venues to continue. looks like there's a light at the end of the tunnel. we're getting excited. this third round of outdoor dining and indoor partial is really helping the spirits come back.

i'm hoping it's three years. >> one of the questions they asked, are you closed now and they ask are you planning to close permanently. at any given moment, during this pandemic, more than 40% or 50% of small businesses san francisco are closed. the number of businesses saying they are closing permanently is 5% less than 10%. that's true in san francisco than it is nationally. for businesses that are forced to close, some sort of hibernation is in order. you're looking for a vote of confidence to say i think people will come back. i think that this is a real business again once i'm allowed to reopen.

>> lot of the restaurants are just taking a break. i heard the buzz some of the star chefs. they are bored. we got to do our part to keep them motivated and give little bit more incentive. people will come back. >> any other questions from commissioners? >> thank you so much for that thoughtful analysis. for me the most troubling aspect is the out-migration. so many other small businesses depend on consumers. i wanted to know what you

thought we can do in our limited capacity to help with the recovery. >> no one really knows about the out-migration. i think it's good news that most people move to the suburbs. if you're living with three roommates who you're not related to and you're worried about -- [indiscernible] that's a reason to move away. i think reemphasizing the message of safety, reemphasizing the message of reopening and just reminding people about san francisco, it's going to be the right time for that. it's going to be true for residents as well as for tourists. >> that's great to hear.

entertainment will be the draw for bringing back some of that migration, to have a culturally flourishing city. thank you. >> president bleiman: anyone else have questions? >> when all the tech people moved out, do you think that people will move into the city who are really into live music again into rock and roll and going out? >> i'm just joking sort of. it's a good question. san francisco obviously, has benefited traditionally from waves of young people moving in the city for no particular

economic reason. there are times when that's hard and there are times when that's easier. this is one of those times. like i was suggesting before, i do think there could be a gold rush mentality about san francisco apartments in 2021. i don't know who's going to feel motivated to move to san francisco. people starting a band and san francisco feels like an affordable and more relaxed place at the moment compare to other places. we can have another moment for that cultural. i can see that happening. >> what's what i'm hoping. i was talking with bar owners, we were talking about how after the crash in 2008, even in 2003, 2004 and 2005 and in 2010, there's so many people who worked in service in the city.

your entire staff lived in the city. they go out a lot and they spend a lot of money at restaurants and bars and nightlife then slowly they got priced out to the point where i had hundred something staff and fewer half of them were able to actually live in the city. they were commuting. it was a different scene. it will be interesting to see. >> we have seen during the 2010 sort of movement of low wage workers who work in san francisco to live there. it doesn't look like low-wage

workers moving out the city. the people who have their jobs, the tech workers seem to be the ones leaving. obviously there are eviction moratoriums for folks who own their homes. there are mortgage forbearance programs. those keep getting rolled back. the good news is, people are keeping current on their debt. their rent debt. lot of low-wage workers are struggling to pay the rent. they are liquidating their savings. when the public health emergency is over and if the federal government draws the line in the stimulus and says it's time for eviction moratorium to end and start talking about a payment plan and that money is there for people. then you may start to see people saying, despite that san francisco rents are down 25%, i can't afford my place anymore.

i'm worried about that. frankly, the service workers who live in san francisco, many of them can't afford an apartment. they really need to have income security around the place that they live now. if you still have elevated unemployment at restaurants and other low-wage industries, it's going to be difficult. i have concerns about that as much as i get the point that big rent reduction opens the door to new people moving in the city. >> any further questions? i'm going to open this up to public comment. >> clerk: there are no hands raised. >> president bleiman: we want to thank you so much for such a thoughtful presentation.

it was really helpful. strangely helpful. fantastic. >> i think this is going to be the worse presentation i will share with you for a long time. >> president bleiman: thank you again for joining us. >> thank you. >> his slides are in the shared fouledder -- folder for you. >> all right everyone. >> president bleiman: the next agenda item is number 6. update on nightlife business assistance in response to covid-19. the legendary ben van houten.

>> thank you. i truly do not deserve that level of introduction. dylan, you're going to bring up the slide deck? >> yes, let me do that. >> i have a short update on some of the federal state, local efforts that are ongoing and obviously happy to to field any questions. i wanted to start out with status updates. the governor signed legislative package that provides a number of different release measures including several for small businesses. first off on the california small business covid-19 relief grant program, that's the program grants up to $25,000 for small businesses impacted by the

pandemic. application windows were in january and february and application period closed, there was significant amount of uncertainty among businesses about whether they were going to receive these grants and lot of folks got wait listed. the good news is that there has been $500 million allocated to that program and the new legislative package that the governor signed provides $2 billion for that relief grant program. there's some optimism that businesses who have not heard anything recently about their relief grant application that hopefully, those folks will get some relief through the additional money being provided. traditionally, the governor announced fee waivers for restaurant and bars for their liquor licenses. two years for liquor license

businesses. the way that will work operationally has been after businesses receive their renewal notices, qualifying business can apply for a waiver with a.b.c. there's an f.a.q. page on the a.b.c. website. jumping on to the next slide. in addition to financial relief, there's really flurry of legislations happening now, beginning of the 2021 california legislative session. i highlighted two bills here that have been introduced. there are a number of bills that touch on nightlife, entertainment, outdoor activities, outdoor dining, there's a lot of ideas out there. this is not meant to suggest there are only twos but to

highlight two that are on our radar. sb314 from sandra weiner does a lot. including establishing a permit program for a.b.c. so that businesses can continue to do alcohol service that they've been doing through the emergency relief. great to see that being proposed to be permanent. additionally, 314 will create new type of liquor license for entertainment venues especially in place like san francisco where we have a hard cap on restaurant and bar licenses. that's an exciting piece of the

proposal. additionally the bill would adopt open consumption areas on public streets if they chose to do so under the terms that localities could adopt there. there are a number of different reforms and really innovative ideas to help businesses share premises or share a common consumption area also some reforms around the liquor license application process. sb389 from senator dodd. enables restaurants to continue sebbing to go alcohol beverages. as carbon drafted, it would enable restaurants to continue to serve to go alcohol and would

allow to go mixed drink, cocktails with meal service. i highlighted here would not extend to bars. that's something i'm sure the bar community is already thinking about and i think it will be an important piece of extending that relief beyond as the pandemic continues and hopefully after it is done. next local relief efforts, update here i think it was couple of days after the last commission hearing i presented at. the mayor announced a commitment to allocate $1.5 million of the previously announced relief grant money for entertainment venues. our office o.w.d. is working hard to get a relief grant

program up and running to get that money appropriated and to make that happen. in that process, there will be grant funding specifically for entertainment venues. more to come on that. the second box is about the venue recovery fund. that legislation was approved by the board of supervisors last week. there doing that in consultation with our office with the entertainment commission and industry stakeholders. there's forward momentum on the recovery fund. i'm sure more news in the future.

finally, part update. this is the federal grant program that our entertainment industry worked really hard to advocate for. it's really has become all the more desperately needed in the months since the federal relief legislation was adopted end of december. there's no new information on when an application will be posted, what the application timeline will be like. i saw headline that some members of congress have reached out to the s.b.a. expressing concern about the time it's taking to get that program off the ground.

these are core steps businesses can take now. really most importantly is to register with the federal government system for award management. which is a process that can, according to the s.b.a. take up to couple of weeks. really making sure that a business registered for that system in the business need dunn and bradstreet number. if they have one, they can request a dunn and bradstreet. in addition, business should be regularly check the frequently asked questions document. it can help inform people about where the program is heading. finally to gather any documents that will be needed in order to apply for a grant. documents showing number of employees that your business or had, showing the extent of the

revenue loss, diagrams maybe needed to see if you meet all the requirements being an entertainment venue. lot of this is mapped out on s.b.a.'s page. there are steps that businesses can take now. they should check out our oewd relief page. there's going to be preactive

applications. given in part urgency of the need and also i think industry members concerns that they are even $15 billion is not going to be enough for the scope of the need that's out there. i think that's the end of the slides. only other thing i would add is that the federally relief package currently being discussed in congress, has at present, a relief program of grants for restaurants and bars. there was a piece of legislation last year. the restaurant act that was as introduced this year.

with that, i will stop talking and open for any questions, thoughts to assist. >> president bleiman: anybody have any questions? >> good report. do you know anybody that really got the grants? the state grants that we first applied for? have you heard of anybody getting those? >> i have heard of businesses getting the grant. i don't want to go off anecdotal. given the massive expansion of the funding, to wait and see about in terms of having any sort of final conclusions about where the money is going. i do know that lot of folks have

been very frustrated by the lack of communication, or limited communication on that program. which, i think, on some level, it's unprecedented effort for the state to -- given number of businesses and number of sectors that have been impacted by the pandemic. >> the communication is better. we get an updated e-mail saying it's still on the wait list. i'm just curious. we got to be patient. >> yeah, i think so. >> president bleiman: questions? commissioner lee, i got one of the california grants. >> commissioner lee: you're one of the lucky ones.

>> president bleiman: it was about 70 in our bar group that applied. i think two of us got it. >> commissioner lee: two out of 70. >> president bleiman: thank you ben. that was a good report. my question -- if i want to share this information with others -- i know said there's lot of places to go, is the slide show available? >> i don't know that it's posted anywhere. you're welcome to send it around. >> president bleiman: i love to. i think this is really helpful. >> clerk: i will post it. >> president bleiman: cool. thank you very much. appreciate it. looks we have some something to

look forward to. is there any public comment on this agenda item? >> clerk: standby. there's nobody in the queue with their hand raised and no phone calls. >> president bleiman: thank you very much, ben. see you soon. we are getting to the final agenda item tonight. which is number 7. commissioner comments and questions/new business request for future agenda items. what you got everyone? >> commissioner lee: my only comment is based on these two reports. the industry got to figure it out for themselves. you can apply for all these grants and everything but in the meantime, just do what you got to do to survive out there.

whatever you guys can do. funding will come. who knows. we might all get vaccinated by then. >> president bleiman: other agenda items we like to see in the future? >> you have a reminder right? >> i want to remind -- [indiscernible]

>> commissioner lee: every year we have to do the sunshine training? >> every year, commissioner. [laughter] >> president bleiman: just pick the most restrictive option. it's always that one. any other comments? that's it for me. i don't have anything specifically. we are going to keep our eye on

save the stages act because it >> 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. each itey

calling 415-655-0001, and when prompted entering 1468698117, and then ##. then press *3. the live operator will advice you'll be allowed to speak. when you're two minutes are up, we'll move on to the next order. best practices are to speak slowly, clearly, and turn down the volume of any televisions or radios around you. item two, this is an information report. >> chairman: thank you, ma'am madam clerk.

i have been enjoying outdoor dining through the shared spaces. and i hope you all have, too. this past sunday i met up with director chan, where she gave me a master class on a number of san francisco and regional transportation issues. thank you, director chan. i been digging into the nuts and bolts of establishing a permanent program, which i know is a topic of interest to many of us. it has been refreshing to see our local businesses out in the streets and on the sidewalks again, but we also know we have a long way to go, and that our economic recovery will have to include the return of transit service that has been severely limited during the pandemic. i want to thank commissioner melguard for her resolution, and i'm encouraged by the conversations our offices are having with m.t.a. on that front so far. and i want to thank

commissioner chan for her recovery plans that we will look forward to next month at our second march meetingly. meeting. in the meantime, she and my staff is have been busy with the bart and capitol corridor announcement of the link 21 version of the bay area reginald air. it would promote equity, improving travel time, and benefiting the economy and environmentally -- benefiting the economy and environment significantly according to the bay area council economic institute business finding. the expected trans bay rail link, a standard gauge rail for teletrain, capitol corridor, or bart. the plan is just

beginning, and it will take at least 20 years, maybe longer than that, but there is a possibility of service beginning in 2040. secondly, last week i had the opportunity to meet with bart directors evan dusty and janet lee to talk about how bart and san francisco can coordinate more affectively on a range of issues. we discussed bart's recent efforts to advance alternatives to policing and the use of ambassadors and social workers to provide safe experiences for all riders, and for people experiencing homelessness or behavioral issues at san francisco bart stations. i look forward to forwarding with bart leadership to stabilize and strengthen our regional transit system over the coming year. this month i met with the t.g. a. leadership to discuss the progress of

the downtown rail system, and i look forward to having similar conversations about regional governance as well. and my office hag been working with m.t.c. and our s.f. planning department and t.g. on the equity alternative, which we discussed is something that our san francisco delegation, including supervisions ronan and mar pushed as an alternative to the last-minute changes to the final bay area draft plan. those last-minute changes, you will recall, will dramatically shift growth from urban areas to some of san francisco and the region's most vulnerable population. i know supervisor ronan and mar have been working

on this, along with the board of supervisors' president. we look forward to keeping you apprised and engaged on these efforts in the coming weeks and months. with that, i will conclude my remarks. >> checking for public comment on item number 2 -- i do not see -- oh, we do have a public comment. let's go ahead and get that ready. >> all right. >> good morning, caller. >> caller: good morning supervisors and chairman. the only comment i have to make is you should be looking forward to a trans bay crossing in 2030, not

2040. thank you. >> thank you, caller. >> chairwoman: do we have anymore callers? >> there are no additional callers. >> chairman: public comment is now closed. please call the next item. >> item 3, executive director's report. this is an information item. >> good morning chair and commissioners. thank you so much. it was a pleasure meeting with you, chair. thank you for making the time to talk about the regional issues. turning to the federal level, just an update that president biden proposed $1.9 trillion covid relief, and it does include a new infusion of state and local aid. and another round of transit emergency relief, which is sorely needed and much-appreciated,as well as housing assistance. the bay area's share of the transit relief portion, a total of about $30 billion as proposed would be about $1.67 billion to be distributed

by the n.t.b. this bill also includes $350 billion in state and local aid, with the bay area estimated to receive 3.1 billion if passed, and it expected to advance quickly through the house, with or without support from the republican side. turning to cal tran, a quick announcement that tomorrow evening, 6:00, there will be a virtual community meeting about caltrans' electrification work within san francisco, which is picking up. over the next few months, crews will begin the installation of poles and stations. so the meeting will provide an opportunity for residents to learn more about the project, including the scope and schedule of upcoming construction with particular focus on district 10. the project hot line is 650-399-9399.

and our staff is also happy to help assist. there will be a panel for this meeting for those interested in hearing a presentation from bart and capitol corridor, and i'm pleased to be able to participate in that, along with darnell from transform, and ian from london cross rail. on housing, i'm so pleased to report that m.t.c. staff provided an update at the february 10th committee, detailing how much affordable housing san francisco is producing, or protecting, near transit. in fact, we're a regional leader. san francisco has delivered 54% of the qualifying units across the region, that is produced or protected near transit. so thank you all. and you all and all of your staff and the mayor's office and administration really for doing all of this incredible work.

the 54% of qualifying work works towards other jurisdictions, and it positions us well for a pot of the housing incentive program funds, about $71 million that the region had made available to reword jurisdictions for doing this work and achieving these results. and that program will be distributed in 2023. at the air district, the regional quality management district, there is an announcement here about the clean cars for all program, which includes incentive for 8500 dollars to trade in an old vehicle for a plug-in vehicle. so we're very excited about the transit and ebike benefits, and that system helps get folks out of their cars. households may purchase

multiple ebikes with this benefit. the program has limits, though, for eligibility. it is primarily in districts 5, 6, and 10, are eligible at this time. it is important for anyone interested in the program to read over the eligibility details on the "clean cars for all" web page. as you may have read and heard last week, muni and m.t.a. have announced the return in the spring of the service from west portal to the embarcadero by may of this year. if there are conditions that permit, that possible date could be accelerated. the bus service is anticipated then to continue to run in place. however, on the "k" and engel side and ocean views through the spring.

however, the return of the muni metro to west port will free up some buses to bring back service on some other routes and help with other priorities, such as repair, vision zero, and slow streets. so we look forward to the transportation recovery hearing that commissioner chan had requested. and we'll be agendaizing that for a march 23rd meeting. and last week mayor breed announced that starting today muni will be free for those traveling to their covid-19 appointments at the city's various sites, to help ease the transportation and cost barriers for those trying to obtain that vaccine. the trips are available to high-volume sites, hospitals or anywhere else that is offering vaccines. as a muni rider, just have is your vaccine confirmation on hand, and

that can be in paper form. and those will be eligible also for this service, and they must also call in advance, however, to make a trip reservation, and indicate they're going to get their covid vaccine. taxi riders will have an additional $60 loaded on to their essential trip car, their taxi credit card, and this will be valid for up to two months. in case that original $60 is not enough, an additional $60 is available for thes who qualify for the essential trip card. this is great newscast and we really appreciate the partners that have made this possible at s.f. m.t.a. and the city. last july, the board allocated $10 million to this program, and we're very happy to be partners to s.f. m.t.a. in this

regard. turning to the vision zero action plan at s.f. m.t.a., they're in the process of updating. the strategy will be coming forward sometime in the next couple of months. and s.f. m.t.a. does this update every two years to identify further actions to advance vision zero and work to meet the goal of eliminating traffic fatalities on our streets. there is a survey and a story map available at their website, sfmtagettingaround/walksf and the story monopoly provides contents by laying out current strategies and policies.o commissioner melgard

requested a hearing on traffic, and so it will be at our very next meeting. on the golden gate parks travel study, and that was requested by then commissioner fewer, continuing with commissioner chan and commissioner mar, that study continues and we've had two good meetings, with a working group of stakeholders from the disability community, park institutions, and bicycle and pedestrian and other advocacy organizations, as well as citywide representatives, to assess the park needs at the pilot stage and to see what should happen at the permanent stage. the group has met, as i mentioned, a few times, to share relevant data, to discuss strategies, confirm goals, and we really appreciate rec, park, and s.f. m.t.a.

staff who have attended, and are we do anticipate bring the strategies back to the working group for our anticipated final meeting in march, and we'll bring an update to the board following the final meeting this spring. on project delivery, the transportation has funded some electrical vehicle charging stations to our transportation fund for clean air program. easy go, who is a sponsor, has just completed installation of chargers at the lucky supermarket at fulton, and they have received additional ones for the safeway, which are expected to be open for use in may. the program is unusual, among the fund sources, that we administer in that private entity, that are eligible. to make sure that the public is getting good value, we require easy go to contribute a

commensurate amount to the construction project, and to locate them in areas that do not have many existing charging projects. and s.f. m.t.a. has completed a sales tax-funded project, to perfect the bike lanes leading to golden gate park through the panhandle. and this was the final component of the prop "k"-funded overall project that had begun in 2017. i wanted to recognize the transformative impact this project has on the park and for cyclists through the area. m.t.a. has constructed 10 tables and dozens of intersection upgrades all across the park that have calmed traffic and improved safety for all road users. we're continuing the conversation about how to balance that use going forward. and we wanted to celebrate

this achievement at this time. finally, on the management side, prop 1b, the state bond program, completed a performance audit, and there were no findings, and it was a clean audit issue recently at our agency. i want to thank cynthia fong and her team for a job well-done. the focus was a performance review of the island ramps project, which was completed in 2016. and we're continuing to work on the interchange and are setting up our west side bridge's program, hopefully for advertising later this year. thank you very much. >> chairman: thank you. i do not see any questions popping up from my colleagues. i do want to express my enthusiasm for the expansion of the e.t. c.

program, which is a big deal for people on the hill who lost their bus service. with that, let's open this up for public comment. >> clerk: checking for public comment on item three. if you wish to speak, please press *3. and seeing no hands raised, there is no public comment. >> chairman: great. public comment on item 3is closed. madam clerk, please call the next item. >> clerk: item 4 through 7, and item 5 through 7 were approved and are now before the board for final approve. >> chairman: let's take comment on item 4.

>> clerk: if there is public comment for item 4, please raise your hand right now by pressing *3. okay. seeing no hands, there is no public comment. >> chairman: please call the roll on items -- oh, chair peskin? >> i move the consent agenda. >> chairman: thank you, vice chair. >> is there a second? >> second. >> chairman: what that melgard? thank you. please call the roll. >> clerk: commissioner chan? >> aye. >> commissioner haney? >> aye. >> commissioner mandelman? >> aye. >> commissioner mar? >> aye.

>> commissioner melgard? >> aye. >> commissioner peskin? >> aye. >> commissioner preston? >> aye. >> commissioner ronan? >> aye. >> commissioner safai? >> aye. >> commissioner stefani? >> aye. >> commissioner walton? >> aye. >> clerk: we have 11 ayes, and there is approval. >> chairman: thank you. please call the next item. >> clerk: item 8, final approval, allocate $11,634,000 for better market street, fifth to eighth street. and this is an action item. >> chairman: ms. laforte? >> good morning, commissioners.

anna laforte, deputy director for policy and programming at the transportation authority. by way of a reminder, on february 9th, the board unanimously approved the recommended action on first reading for this item, and commissioner haney noted that his vote on second reading would take into consideration the project team's progress on two of three followup requests. specifically, he called for a detailed plan for enforcement of car-free market street, including the number of parking control officers, timing for their deployment, and when and how cameras could be used to assist with enforcement. secondly, he asked for an update on engagement with the taxi industry on their recommendations related to the project. for example, the desired use of the center transit lane. please see the memos that are included as an enclosure in your packets, or available online, to this item, provided by the

better market street project team to address these requests that were made by commissioner haney and public works and s.f. m.t.a. staff are available to summarize the memos or to answer any question that you may have today. commissioner haney's third request was that the project team return to the board no later than may of this year to present a long-term, transformative plan for the full corridor-along market street, and so we anticipate bringing that information as part of our regularly scheduled quarterly progress reports to the board in may. and with that, i'm happy to answer any questions, and the project team is here as well. >> chairman: thank you, ms. laforte. i am not seeing any names popping up in the chat to ask questions or make comments. commissioner haney? >> is g.p. w. and the

project team going to present? i got an update yesterday in response to these requests, and i responded to the director that i really was not satisfied, and they continue to be incredibly vague and not strong commitments around enforcement, or clear commitments. he gave me the indication he was going to come forward today, and they were going to come forward with some additional information. so i would love to hear that information and those plans because as i responded yesterday evening, i really don't think we've heard yet what those plans and clarity and commitments are. and i'm happy to ask questions around it, but i wanted to know first if you could please give us any further updates. >> hi, i'm brook tanner. if i could speak to that. i don't think director tomlin is coming today. i understand the concerns. we share the same

concerns. we want to ensure that we have compliance on market street. we want to address the safety issues and to reduce traffic injuries and deaths along the corridor. so our goal is to find the best balance between affective compliance and enforcement measures, and also to provide the self-enforcing design that the capitol project that you're approving the funding for today will provide. however, to your specific concerns, we're about to kick off a data collection effort to help us understand exactly what is happening on the street. we had intended to do what is called an after-study in march of last year, and of course covid hit so we did not do that data collection at that time. we now will be doing some new data collection to help us understand how many cars are on market

street, and where are they? and that will inform our enforcement plan going forward. we are committing to deploy p.c.o.s to control market street, but until we have a sense of where the needs are, we can't give a specific plan until we have the data to inform that enforcement deployment. we're also meeting with the police today, and we are going to be working with them to discuss what options they have for putting people on the streets. and we would be happy to update you once we had that conversation. we had, at the beginning of car-free market, partnered with them, and they had deployed their traffic company to help with enforcement as well as the local stations that cover market street. we are, at this time, emphasizing using human resources on market street because they're very flect able.

flexible. once we have the data, we can say the issues are here at this time, and we can send people out to help address any issues that are there. we will be monitoring how affective that is, and if that is not ble to maintain the level of compliance that we would like, we will look into supplementing that with additional tools, such as working on additional police report, or perhaps using cameras at very targeted locations. we're primarily focusing on making car-free market self-enforcing, and that's why we have this important capital project you are doing today. but we're also doing some quick-fill measures. we're adding some required right turns to get cars off of market street, and commercial vehicles as well, and we're going to be eliminating some current street configurations that force cars on to market street. for example, we'll be

converting jones street from one way to two ways. so cars going to the proper hotel right now are forced to turn on to market street because of the way that the street works. so that is what we're doing for enforcement. and we're taking a step back and doing another data collection effort to quantify the impact on traffic. this summer we're going to do an evaluation of exactly how taxis and buses interact. that will be used to confirm whether or not it is the best approach to move the taxis out of the center lane in into the curb lane. when the transit lane is extended east from third street, that section will be muni only. currently third street through eighth street allows taxis to use the center lane. so we'll have two sections

to compare what is happening between transit and taxis, and it will allow us to use data and be able to point exactly to what is happening on the street as we make that decision. so i think those were the two areas that i can answer. and that cristina leah is here to talk about the transition to market street. >> chairman: good morning, ms. aleah. >> good morning. we will return in may to provide data. as we mentioned in the memo, it is somewhat depend on the transportation recovery plan for the city and transit service along the corridor. and as we said before, this first phase of construction will address an important

infrastructure, repairs and replacement. it does not preclude us from building the full vision that we have been working on for three years. so we'll sort of put together information and we'll have a presentation for you in our may update. >> chairman: thank you. commissioner haney? >> yeah, so i'm a little confused because i did send a note to director tomlin when i received the letter. it seems the letter not only didn't provide a more robust enforcement plan, it actually scaled back some of the things that it sounded like had been committed before. it said that s.f. m.t.a. is not going to recommend automated photo enforcement. it didn't give any more specifics on p.c.o.

deployment, and when or what to level of compliance we're looking for. and why this is a concern is because we made this big commitment and current reality, which is supposed to be no private cars on market, and anyone who goes on market street right now can see even in the current situation, that's not the reality. and it is becoming almost a farce, where you almost have to put car-free in air quotes because there are cars everywhere on market street. i understand that this particular project that we're approving today is not directly related to that, but it is directed related to the broader vision for market street, where we're going, and, you know, again, some of these changes of what we're approving today won't be in place, from my understanding, until three years from now.

i'm trying to understand what we're going to do in the next three years to make sure this vision we've had for market street is a reality. director tomlin did respond to me and said staff is on it and will be ready to address it. is there any updates from what was sent? there it is. there is director tomlin. were there any updates from what was sent to us yesterday? or is that where we're at? >> chairman: director tomlin? >> great. sorry that i'm late. we, of course, have our own board meeting on the same day, which i'm trying to correct. so, brit, did you want to cover the work you have done up to date, as well as the work you are doing right now with the police department, or should i just dive in? >> i tried to provide a summary of that information. i think the critical issue that i think i heard from supervisor haney -- sorry, commissioner haney, was --

i would like to point out photo enforcement is not a quick thing. we would need to provide contracts to install them. so using the human resources that we have now is the quickest way for us to improve compliance on market street, and yet we can't do that until we know where the issues are.so that's why our first step is collecting data, which we are doing literally this week, about where we have cars on market street, and how many there are. so were can more efficiently deploy those resources. because they're recently supporting vaccination efforts. and we want to make sure we're doing that as strategically as possible. and, director, please add anything else. >> of course, we also have good data from the work we did back in january through mid-march, where we had both police department and p.c.o.s

directing traffic, actually, really for just a couple of weeks. one of the things that surprised us was, after an initial blitz of rather intense staffing, we gradually ratcheted down the staffing to see what was the minimum amount of staffing that was necessary in order to get a really high level of compliance. what we found, to our surprise, was after that initial blitz, we ratcheted the level of staffing way down and we were still able to maintain an extraordinarily high level of compliance, once motorists sort of figured it out. so from then we were able to direct staff only to where there were hotspots as they cropped up. so the data has been an important part that goes back january to march of the original better market street pilot, but also right now so that we can understand where have motorists reverted back to

inappropriate behavior? and the other thing we found was that while police presence was super important, and obviously the police are the only ones who can issue moving violations, we didn't actually issue many citations. most of the compliance was achieved mainly by having uniformed presence. so even though the police partnership is incredibly valuable, from a motorists' standpoint, we were getting nearly the same level of compliance from our own officers simply being visual and directing traffic. so that's our commitment. and it is an easy commitment to achieve based upon what we were able to demonstrate january to march. >> and there was some comment around the quick

bills, and when will those be completed and what kind of impact you believe that will happen -- is that going to happen in shorter term? >> the quick-bill elements in the spring and summer include the two-way conversion of the unit block of jones street and the unit block of spears street. the required right turn eastbound at hayes, which will be for commercial vehicles, and we're doing the main street, which will be an important part for taxis and muni interacting. >> okay. i think that, director tomlin, we've already had, at this point, a lot of frustration with the folks who are the stakeholders for this project. and there is sort of one

last plan and commitment that they're wanting here is a bit more clarity and focus on the enforcement plan. and i'm struggling with the fact that i still don't feel that we have that. you know, i mentioned to you that, for example, we could say staff will monitor conditions at hotspots on market twice a month, not just in march, to track when conditions worsen, and access of "x" vehicles an hour or some other metric. something that is demonstrating more than right now the plan is to collect data in march. which i understand why that is important, but for folks who have really fought for this project for a long time and are now feeling in many ways let down by it, i would really like us to not let them down on what i think is a pretty reasonable ask, for a bit more

specificity around this plan of enforcement. is that something -- i recognize that you don't have something of that specificity today, but based on what happens in march, is there a time when you can commit to get us a bit more specificity on the plan so people can be confident that market street, in the near term, will actually be car-free? >> so i -- we are certainly ready -- i think it is important for us to have some outcome-based targets so that we can direct our resources to market street. because i think we all agree it is a critically important corridor, and that enforcement is going to be -- that combination of enforcement, plus design, is going to be necessary in order to deliver the market street that we want in this interim time period. so let me make a commitment to once we have

a more solid base of data, that we can then develop something that looks more like a plan, rather than just a commitment, and make a commitment to work with your office regularly to make adjustments as we go along. i think one of the things we're going to see, based upon our experience, again, back from january, is that that behavior is going to be a little unpredictable. and i want to make sure that our plan accommodates making adjustments, as we go along, based on our experience on the data. >> okay, chair, i think there are some folks who want to go to public comment, and they want to contribute to this conversation, too. >> the only other thing i could offer is if you are inclined to go forward

with the second vote on this today, perhaps having that report come back to this body for a public discussion by some date, might be other path forward. let's open this if -- if there are other comments from other commissioners, let's open this up to public comment. >> clerk: taking public comment, we'll go to the first caller. welcome, caller. you're two minutes begins now. >> caller: hi. this is barry toronto. i made sure i woke up in time because i'm a night driver, normally a night schedule. but i made sure i got up in time. i want to thank, first, commissioner hain haney for bringing these issues to the forefront because they'll continue to be ignored if we don't get proper answers. so thank you. first about enforcement,

yes, particularly in the nighttime hours, there is not compliance. i did see one officer stop a private car once, but i don't know what was the purpose on market street. but enforcement is so lackadaisical, and the drivers totally ignore the signs, even though they are glaring. regarding access, as you know, between 7th and 8th streets, there is a lot of need for disabled access. and ms. tanner keeps mentioning we have access. yes, if we go all the way up to mccallister and golden gate, adding $4 or $5 to our taxi fare in order to pick someone up there. that is not an economically viable solution for us. so taxi service to the disabled people will be non-existent in that block if we're forced to turn right on to 8th street.

ms. tanner is not a taxi driver. she doesn't know the ramifications of what they're forcing us to do. i want to thank you for bringing this up. and, also, there is a right-turn requirement in the curb lane at 1st street. did we have to be forced to turn right when you go further down oarket street heading eastbound. i would appreciate if getting addressed. i appreciate them taking a step back to look at the numbers and to see if we actually interfere with transit in the center lane. thank you very much, commissioner haney and everybody else for taking these concerns to heart. >> clerk: thank you, caller. >> clerk: good morning caller, your two minutes begins now. >> thank you so much. good morning commissioners. my name is janice lee. and i'm speaking on behalf

of the san francisco bicycle coalition today. i really want to thank commissioner haney for the followup request. i think they're on point. i want to focus on what i'm calling in for, calling for an enforcement plan. i really want to call it a compliance plan. i'm pretty disappointed by the lack of detail that has been shared here today. we know that there are pre-existing issues regarding car-free market that are further aggravated given the phase 1 of better market street that has now put bicyclists back now into the street, sharing that curb lane with vehicles. i get that additional data can be helpful, but we're all well aware of the created issues here. i'm hearing that self-enforcing -- i agree that it is more scaled back from what was presented in recent months, leading up to the m.t.a. board approval, things like automated

enforcement, and cameras being off the table. [inaudible] these are the kinds of essential trips that are happening on market today. i don't fully get why market can't get the same treatment. i think it is important to use new methods that does not rely on adding more cops to ticket. i really hope that s.f. m.t.a. shows more of commitment and natural plans around compliance. thank you, commissioners. >> clerk: thank you, caller. good morning, caller, yourtwo minutes begins now? >> caller: good morning, that is bob planthold, speaking on behalf of the san francisco alliance for

retired americans. we raised the issues of restrictions on market street out of concern it would impair transit use, pick-up, drop-off, anywhere along market treatment when there were requirements for taxis to turn off market. it goes to commissioner haney's request for responses about the taxi industry. so i want to say that based on what staff of the better market street are planning to do on muni capabilitiy and taxi usage in the center lane, i think it is a helpful approach and it shows responsiveness to the concerns of people who felt left out. i also want to say there is still an unaddressed concern about data. we've been asking, once the subway opens, there will be fewer buses on market street, apparently, so how and why would taxis in the center lane apparently affect,

restrict, hinder muni access, which is what m.t.a. has been saying all along, and yet they haven't provided data, despite requests to do so, on market street now in the future. we're asking for responsiveness to prior requests, as well as, i will say again, thanks for what the staff are doing on the study. and with that, i hope this can proceed easily so the contract can be formulated and we can proceed. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, caller. good morning, caller. your two minutes begins now. >> caller: good morning. my name is jody mederas, and i'm the executive director of walk san francisco, and i'm on the market street c.a.c. i wanted to thank chair mandelman and commissioners for an

opportunity to speak on this topic. we are incredibly grateful that commissioner haney is asking for a very complex plan for compliance for car-free market street, following up about private vehicles on market street, which we celebrated a year ago is car-free. but we have half of the city's most dangerous intersections here. and so we're really surprised that the use of cameras were already taken off the table. and for one of the reasons that the agency used for that was because of cost. i feel like it will be very helpful to understand the city's philosophy around the use of technology for law compliance, especially since you were saying that the use of technology is one of our transformative policies, and yet we have this technology at our fingertips, and we could be using this on market street, it is already legislated, and that is

not being taken as a fair consideration. and i do want to say, like, now it is the time to ask for clear articulation on how and when technology will be used for traffic compliance, and what is it going to take if we are really all pushing at the state level for automated speed enforcement. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, caller. welcome, caller, your two minutes begins now. welcome, caller, your two minutes begins now. >> caller: thank you, commissioners. third quarter is mark luburg, a taxi driver. and first, let me say, i do believe that the enforcement against the private vehicles is very important. i am mildly encouraged by

the fact that the m.t.a. seems to be willing to take another look at market street and at taxis on market. i hope this isn't an effort to just kick the can down the roads a little ways until maybe some of the furor dies down. i hope that they will do this study, and that will yield that taxis can, in fact, use the center red lanes and it is not going to unduly burden muni. the other thing i want to say is that i really do believe that bicycles deserve their own lane. as i understand it, the original plan for market street, which was nine or 10 years in the making, and it has been pushed aside for budgetary reasons, but, um, you know, i would rather see this whole project -- i

know it is kind of late in the game for this, but i would rather see the whole project drawn to a halt at this point until such time as the original plan can be implemented. i understand that certain of the infrastructure improvements have to be done because of federal funding, and those should go ahead. but that the project really best be put on hold until more satisfactory solutions could be found. i think this is just moving forward on its own method right now. and much of the rational for it has really disappeared, and it is really unfortunate. we're kind of towards the end, or at least a long ways along, in what has been a very merky process, and only recent engagement of stakeholders, such as

the taxi industry and disabled community and others, while decisions were being made on this. >> clerk: thank you, caller.

private vehicles off market street. we are just swept up in that. i want to remind everyone. taxis serve a purpose in the plan to encourage sustainable transportation. we are not there to compete with muni. we are not priced to compete with muni.

we are there to provide a service to the people who can't take more sustainable modes such as disabled or people who on occasion need a ride and a car. we are a limited number of vehicles already. we are highly limited right now, and if we are forced off market street in the future, it will be devastating. half the taxi fleets in san francisco, over half the fleets, is banned from working at the airport. to take to derive us of more opportunities to make a living would be devastating to taxi availability overall. thank you for the study. i hope that, like mark said, it is not just window dressing to address our concerns. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, caller. >> do we have additional

comments? >> clerk: there is no more public comment. >> public comment is closed. commissioner haney. >> i appreciate the callers and everybody working on this. thank you to if folk in the taxi industry and the bike coalition and being in solidarity with the people who use market street and express concerns around the design. director tumlin is still here. what would be the date when you could come back to this body and also for chair mandleman around providing updates with the plan as a result of your data collection in march? >> before i commit to a date. let me check in with my staff

person. can you give us a date? >> it is going to take us awhile to get the data analyzed by the consultant and then work through it. maybe we could roll it into our may update. the quarterly update. we are scheduled to come to the board at that time and can include the vision update as well unless they want to offer anything else. >> i think that sounds fine. we can have those. we wanted to cover construction mitigation. i think we can do those three things in may. >> great. if there is a way to come forward before that, i would appreciate it. i understand if that is when the data is prepared.

i should say for my colleagues, i was clear on what i was conditioning the second vote on. i am going to vote no. it is not my intention to hold up the funding. i want to be clear that i had some expectations around the compliance plan that i wanted to see today that haven't been demonstrated today. i am not going to support it. i understand if we need to move forward for funding purposes. thank you. >> commissioner haney. any other comments or questions from other commissioners? >> is there a motion to approve this item? >> moved. peskin. >> second?

>> second. melgar. >> please call the roll. item 8. commissioner chan. >> aye. >> commissioner haney. >> no. >> commissioner mandelman. >> aye. >> commissioner mar. >> aye. >> commissioner melgar. >> aye. >> commissioner peskin. >> aye. >> commissioner preston. >> aye. >> commissioner ronen. >> aye. >> commissioner safai. >> aye. >> commissioner stefani. >> aye. >> commissioner walton. >> aye. >> we have 10 eye as. the he -- 10 ayes.

time approval. >> item 9. adopt fiscal year 2021/22 transportation fund for clean air local expenditure criteria. this is an action item. >> let me bring up my slides. >> all right. the transportation fund for clean air funds projects to reduce motor vehicle emissions and improve air quality is funded by $4 surcharge on motor vehicle registrations in the bay area. 60% of the funds are managed by shuttles and ed chargers and 40% by the counties including the transportation authority administering the program in san francisco. this year we expect to have $730,000 available for projects. it is important to know the air district establishing the requirements and project types. it require county to guide the

selection of the project which is the item before you today. we typically fund four to eight per yes. we are able to fund all. in the past we funded bike parking, shuttles, low emission vehicles, chargers and building in the clipper transit pass into the student id card. they must meet the threshold that affects the amount of money we give to the project. for this year we are not recommending any changes to the local expenditure criteria as compared to last year. they do include prioritizing zero emissions nonzero projects bike facilities, shuttle services and vehicle projects such as car chargers.

the criteria prioritizes cost-effective emissions reduction and program diversity. it prioritizes projects with demonstrated community support and benefit communities of concern. applicants aren't public agencies. you heard about the chargers earlier. they give priority to projects that include investment from the nonpublic entity and we can establish other conditions such as locations of chargers. this is our proposed schedule this year for the cycle. once our local criteria are adopted we will release call for projects by march 5th this year and after reviewing and evaluating the applications we present the staff recommendations to the board in june. with that i can take any

questions. >> i do not see public comments or question in the chat. two minutes. >> clerk: checking for public comment on item 9. if you would like to speak press star 3. seeing no raised hands, there is no public comment. >> public comment on item 9 is closed. is there a motion to approve this item? moved by peskin. second by haney. please call the roll. >> item 9. commissioner chan. >> aye. >> commissioner haney. >> aye. >> commissioner mandelman.

>> aye. >> commissioner mar. >> aye. >> commissioner melgar. >> aye. >> commissioner peskin. >> aye. >> commissioner preston. >> aye. >> commissioner ronen. >> aye. >> commissioner safai. >> aye. >> commissioner stefani. >> aye. >> commissioner walton. >> aye. >> we have 11 ayes. it is approved on the first reading. >> please call the next item. >> item 10. accept the audit report for the fiscal year ended june 30, 2020. this is an action item. >> we have cynthia bonn here. >> thank you, chair. good morning, commissioners. deputy director for finance and

administration. this was especially challenging was the audits. they usually happen in person and extensive and hands on. the finance division not only had one audit but multiple audits this year. this is why i would like to first give a thank you to the finance staff who led each of these various audits and to those for support and also to the auditors for their work on the audit. they have out done themselves this year and deserve a huge pat on the back. i would like to hand it over to walk you through the results of the federal audit of the inter

change improvement project. >> good morning, everyone. i am the person in charge of the audit. i have a very quick presentation here to the scope of the audit. i will share my screen. confirming you can see my screen and powerpoint presentation. let me know if you cannot. the scope of the audit to assure the june 30, 2020 scope as well includes report on the control over financial reporting. we look at the manner, purchasing, payroll, hr relating to the financial statement and review process and segregation process and including compliance with federal guidelines they

receive for funding of the projects in there. they are to undergo a single audit in accordance with uniform guidance. as the cope is to ensure these are fairly stated. they are the responsibility of management with the commissioner's oversight. they are representing the. [indiscernable] we do testing and sample and test account balances. reasonable assurance and absolute insurance if they are fairly stated. we look at the segregation in there. with the audit it is three faces. interim to look at controls and test the compliance. most of the expenses have been d

by may or june. we look at the balances on the financial statement. confirm them. the revenues and cash and investments, receivables, much is confirmed. we work with management on finalizing the comprehensive financial report which is reviewed and received a award for compliance. i am pleased to let you know we issued an unmodified opinion on the financial statement. no material weaknesses with respect to internal controls or noncompliance. with respect to federal compliance clean opinion again. no material weaknesses or noncompliance reported. i will hand it over to my manager here for a quick recap

over here. there are estimates in the financial statements mainly these are estimates. no new accounting, most of which were postponed by the specific standards due to covid. i am going to introduce my manager here to discuss what he did in the audit. then we will take questions. go ahead. >> thank you, commissioners, for having ut. thank you for the introduction. we work closely with the controller at the authority. we did not experience any sort of difficulties in performance of the audit this year as cynthia was stating. the method in which we performed the audit was different. the documentation as prior with

the authority provided to us electronically, extraordinary job doing that documentation and we did not experience difficulties nor did we have disagreements with management in relation to pin or findings. >> with that we will be more than happy to take any questions. >> thank you. colleagues, any comments or questions? i do not see any. we will open this item to public comment. >> clerk: checking public comment on item 9. no hands in the queue. >> public comment on item 10 is closed. any comments or questions? a motion to approve item 10?

>> peskin. >> second from chan. >> please call the roll. >> item 11. commissioner chan. >> aye. >> i think we are doing 10. >> i am sorry. item 10. commissioner chan. >> aye. >> commissioner haney. >> aye. >> commissioner mandelman. >> aye. >> commissioner mar. >> aye. >> commissioner melgar. >> aye. >> commissioner peskin. >> aye. >> commissioner preston. >> aye. >> commissioner ronen.

>> aye. >> commissioner safai. >> aye. >> commissioner stefani. >> aye. >> commissioner walton. >> aye. >> we have 11 ayes. the item has approval on the first reading. >> next item. >> item 11. internal accounting report, investment report and debt expenditure report for the six months ending december 31, 2020. this is an information item. >> deputy director finance and administration. this is six months of the fiscal year. total assets $270.5 million. liabilities $301.9 million. $253 million of the balance represents repayment for sales tax revenue bonds we issued back in 2017. total revenues for the first six months amounted to

$57.7 million. exceeds expenditures. sales tax revenues are trending about 12% lower than anticipated collections as compared to fiscal year budget. 27% lower than prior years. very anxious to receive december sales tax revenues which will come any minute now. this will set the tone for remaining six months of the fiscal year. total expenditures $47 million within the budget for this period. investment compliance we have approximately 76.5% investments in the treasury pool providing sufficient liquidity to meet expenditure needs for six months. no outstanding balance on involving credit. $3.5 million left to spend on sales tax revenue bond. i hope to complete that next month. we are in compliance with investments and with that i am

happy to take any questions you may have. thank you. >> any comments or questions? open to public comment. >> clerk: public item 11. there are no hands in the queue. >> public comment on 11 is closed. information item. thank you. next item, please. >> 12. introduction of new items. information item. >> colleagues. does anyone have any new business? seeing none. please call item 13. >> item 13.

public comment. two minutes each. >> clerk: public item 13. you may press star 3 now, if you would like to make public comment. there are no raised hands. no public comment. >> public comment for 13 is closed. next item. >> item 14. adjournment. >> we are adjourned. thanks everybody. >> thank you sfgovtv.

>> president lopez: great, thank you. i want to thank everyone for being here today. we are excited to continue to come together and wanted to be clear about our priorities which are centered around three important areas. returning to in-person learning, budget stability and continuing our anti-racist practices. we look forward to that work together with partnership and collaboration from all of us. let's get started. section b opening