Good morning.

The meeting will come to order.

Welcome to the October 15th meeting of the budget and finance committee.

I'm Supervisor Connie Chan, Chair of the Committee.

I'm joined by Vice Chair, Supervisor Matt Dorsey, and member, Supervisor Joan Guardio.

Our clerk is Brent Halipa.

And I would like to thank uh Colina Mendoza from Essex of TV for bycasting this meeting.

Mr.

Clark, do you have any announcements?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just a friendly reminder to those in attendance to please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices to prevent interruptions to our proceedings.

Should you have any documents to be included as part of the file, they should be submitted to myself, the clerk.

Public comment will be taken on each item on this agenda.

When your item of interest comes up in public, sorry, and public comment is called.

Please line up to speak on the west side of the chamber to your right, my left along those curtains.

And while not required to provide public comment, we do invite you to fill out a comment card and leave them on the trade by the television to your left by the doors if you wish to be accurately recorded for the minutes.

Alternatively, you may submit public comment in writing in either of the following ways.

Email them to myself, the budget and finance committee clerk at B R E N T.j.

P-A at Sf G-O-V.org.

If you submit public comment via email, it will be forwarded to the supervisors and also included as part of the official file.

You may also send your written comments via U.S.

Postal Service to our office and city hall at one.

Dr.

Carlton B.

Goodlit Place.

Room 244, San Francisco, California, 94102.

And finally, Madam Chair, items acted upon today are expected to appear on the Board of Supervisors Agenda of October 21st, unless otherwise stated.

Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr.

Clark.

And um, of course, uh just a general reminder that when for the items that we have budget and legislative analyst reports, um, and today are items two, three, and five through nine.

Um, and for those items, we will have the department presentation first, followed by the budget and legislative analyst, then we will take questions and then we go to public common.

So with that, Mr.

Clark, please call item number one.

Yes, item number one is a resolution authorizing the recreation and park department to accept and expand cash and or in-kind grants from the San Francisco Irish Famine Memorial Committee, valued at approximately 500,000 for the San Francisco Irish Famine Memorial Project, effective upon approval of this resolution through notice of substantial completion.

Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr.

Clerk, and today we have SF Reckon Park here.

It's good to see you.

Oh, great, thank you.

Uh, the San Francisco Irish Famine Memorial Committee was formed to memorialize the victims and the survivors of the Great Hunger that occurred in Ireland from 1845 to 1852.

The committee aims to create the memorial to educate locals and visitors about the period of history that caused the starvation and death of over a million Irish people and led to the emigration of over a million more who were forced to leave Ireland.

The memorial will also serve to thank the state of California and the city of San Francisco for welcoming these individuals and for the opportunities afforded to the Irish upon their arrival.

On March 19th, 2019, the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution supporting a permanent memorial in San Francisco for the victims and survivors of the Irish famine.

And then the recreation and park department was asked to work with the committee to deliver this project.

Okay, I'll just continue.

The location for the memorial is on El Camino Del Mar in Lincoln Park, overlooking the 17th hole of the Lincoln Golf Course.

And the committee would like to deliver this project in two phases.

The recreation and park department is working with the committee on phase one, which includes a concrete plaza, which will be designed and built in partnership.

The second phase calls for future artwork to be installed on the plaza and will be managed in partnership with the committee and the San Francisco Arts Commission staff.

The committee, in partnership with their fiscal sponsor, SD Meyer, is proposing a combination of cash and in-kind grant funding to the department for the design and construction of the plaza.

The initial cost estimate is approximately $500,000.

This includes in-kind funding for design, regulatory reviews, construction, and cash funding to the recreation and park capital team for their project management services.

If there are additional unforeseen costs, the committee has offered to donate additional funds to cover the full cost of the improvement project.

We have really enjoyed working with the committee, and we look forward to full approval of this project and of course the generous grant.

Thank you, and I'm available for questions.

Thank you.

I think you have all three members of this committee as co-sponsor to this project.

Clearly, we're very supportive of it.

So let's go to public commons on this item.

Yes, if we have any members of the public who wish to address this committee regarding this item number one, now is your opportunity.

My name is Patrick Uniek.

I'm the chair of the San Francisco Irish Famine Memorial Committee.

Our committee consists of representatives from almost 30 different Irish and Irish American organizations in San Francisco and the Bay Area.

And I want to sincerely thank you, all of you, everybody involved that supported our quest to build a famine memorial in San Francisco.

We really appreciate that, and it means an awful lot to the Irish community and the Irish American community.

For the past five or six years, we've been working with our partners, the San Francisco Park and Recreation Department.

And I want to thank uh Abigail and her team for the wonderful support and direction and assistance she has given us over the past five or six years.

We expect to break ground around March 17th of 2026 weather permitting.

And as you all know, March 17th is St.

Patrick's Day.

It would be really nice to do the groundbreaking then.

So thank you all once again for your support.

Thank you.

And thank you much for addressing this committee.

Hi there, my name is Elizabeth Creeley.

I'm the consular officer for the San Francisco Consulate General of Ireland.

Supervisors Dorsey, Chan, and Engardio.

I just wanted to express our gratitude to you for leading this, our gratitude to Abigail, Parks and Recreation for leading this project as well.

We are, as you know, I think, based on previous comments made by Consul General Nehal Smith, very, very favorable for this memorial.

We know that it is will be a meaningful site for Irish Americans in San Francisco, the Bay Area, and indeed I would say throughout California, to visit uh to reflect to think about what it means to have such memorial, and we believe that it is an alignment as well and supportive of all immigrant communities in San Francisco, all of their journeys, all of their stories, not just their departure, but their arrival as well.

And speaking on a personal note, my great gray-gray grandparents uh were came to San Francisco because of the famine, and I'm in California because of that event.

Um, and really look forward to the completion of this project and do believe it will be a very meaningful um addition to San Francisco's memorial spaces and public art.

Thank you.

And thank you much for your comments.

Seeing no other speakers, Mediterranean completes our queue.

Seeing no Papa Commons, Papa Commons now close, Vice Chair Dorsey.

Thank you, Chair Chan.

Um, I just want to want to express my appreciation.

I'm really happy to support this as someone who it occurred to me, who is also a descendant of the door.

I believe the Dorseys came over in early 1850s.

And you know, this is my family ended up in New York, but I think there were Irish Americans in many major cities, including San Francisco.

So I am proud to support this, and I'm really looking forward to the groundbreaking, hopefully, in time for uh St.

Patrick's Day.

Thank you.

And uh just quick questions.

If groundbreaking is uh March 2026, um, what is the expectations of completion?

When do we expect it to be completed?

Hi, yeah, thank you for your question.

Um, if we are able to achieve this exciting goal of groundbreaking in March 2026, then I believe the plaza project, um, the construction duration is just a couple of months.

So it'll just depend on, you know, weather and any unforeseen circumstances or issues, but I believe it's a pretty quick project.

And um, I think I think there was um expectation that we were gonna actually start this year, um, and that um it seems like there's a little bit of a delay.

Um, could you explain why?

Oh, sure.

Um, we're working with the committee on um, well, we worked with them on the planning and the design phases, and now they have launched their robust fundraising campaign.

And so um, you know, one of the requirements is that all the funding is secured and in place before we break ground on a project in the city.

And has it received all the necessary permits and approval with arts commission and everyone else?

Yes, oh yeah, that's a great point too.

There was a little delay in getting the permit, but the DBI permit has been secured.

Wonderful.

Uh, I think all three of us uh look forward to your groundbreaking in March 2026.

We're looking forward to it, and uh, let's make sure that it happens and let us know how we can provide the support.

And so thank you.

Uh thank you for bringing this this to us.

And uh with that, I would like to colleagues move this item to full board with recommendation and the roll call, please.

And on that motion to forward to the full board with a positive recommendation.

Vice Chair Dorsey, Dorsey I, Member Guardio, and Guardio, I, Chair Chan.

Aye, Chan, I we have three ayes.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

And um, Mr.

Clerk, please call item number two.

Yes, item number two is a resolution approving and authorizing the director of property to enter into a lease of approximately 12,000 square feet of real property located at 845 Jackson Street on the fourth floor with Chinese hospital association as landlord for an initial term of three years with one option to extend uh the term for one year.

Effective upon approval of this resolution for an initial annual base rent of approximately 500,000, authorizing the director of property on behalf of the Department of Public Health to execute the lease and authorizing the director of property to enter into other amendments or modifications to the lease that did not materially increase the obligations nor liabilities to the city and are necessary to effectuate the purposes of this lease or this resolution.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And today we have real estate division here.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Chan and supervisors.

My name is Sally Orth, and I'm the director of real estate.

I'm also joined by representatives of the Department of Public Health.

And I'm pleased to be here today to present on a lease at 845 Jackson Street.

And I thank you for sharing the presentation.

So by way of background, DPH is seeking to lease space at 845 Jackson Street, also known as Chinese Hospital, as a temporary relocation site.

This move is necessary while the Chinatown Public Health Center, or CPHC, undergoes renovations, including seismic retrofitting and modernization of building systems funded through the 2024 Healthy Safe and Vibrant General Obligation Bond Program.

The lease will provide temporary space for approximately 40 CPHC employees, allowing them to continue serving the community during construction.

The clinic will remain within the Chinatown neighborhood, ensuring continuity of care for approximately 4,400 San Franciscans.

And the patient population is primarily monolingual Chinese speaking, low-income elderly and or immigrant residents.

Services provided at the site will include primary care specialty services, nurse and medical assistant visits, clinical pharmacist consultations, lab services, and behavioral health support.

Key lease terms for the 845 Jackson Street space are as follows.

It is approximately 11,894 square feet of space.

It will require a change of use from community hospital to outpatient health services.

And it has a three-year lease term with one optional one-year extension.

The monthly expenses are shown here on the slide, and the annual base rent is $42 per square foot, which is at or below market rate.

Prior to occupancy, certain tenant improvements are required to meet state licensing standards, and the city will reimburse the landlord for these improvements in an amount not to exceed $300,000.

Additionally, the city will reimburse the landlord up to sixteen hundred dollars for new signage.

This concludes my presentation.

And again, I'd like to note that representatives of the Department of Public Health are here, as well as myself to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Good morning, Nick Bernard from the budget legislative analysts office.

Item two is a resolution that approves a lease between TPH and Chinese hospital with DPH renting space at 845 Jackson Street to use temporarily to relocate services at the Chinatown Public Health Center, which is being renovated, funded by a general obligation bond that the board approved earlier this year.

The lease has an initial term of three years with one option to extend.

You can see that over the initial three-year term, and if the option to extend is exercised, we estimate that the city will spend 2.1 million dollars on this lease and rent utilities and building operating costs.

Those would also be funded by the general fund.

We recommend approval of item two.

Thank you.

Could you walk us through the timeline again really quick?

When are we going to uh execute this lease and then for three years?

Is that correct?

But as soon as we are we approve this, does that mean that we can start are they we can start moving in to the space or or is there a timeline?

So the lease will become effective upon execution, but the rent will be paid uh upon the space being converted to meet state licensing requirements.

Um, in terms of the project of how long that will take, um I would uh defer to colleagues from the Department of Public Health to answer some more questions about that.

Good morning, um Chair Chen.

Um I'm Kay Kim from project manager from DPH.

So in terms of the uh getting the change of use permit, um, Chinese hospital uh currently working with the architect to submit the DJI document to HCI.

So the getting the HKI permit will take uh we are expecting by end of this year, and then uh any related construction uh we are expecting another three months.

So that will take us to the uh March next year, and then uh rent payment will start after uh Chinese hospital secure post-HI and then CDPH change of use permit, so which uh we are expecting to happen around April of the next year.

And how is that coincide with the um renovation at uh health clinic number four?

Uh can you So it is that working out like with the renovation?

Is it creating any type of delay to the renovation or I should say the yes the demolitions to the to the site?

Yeah, thank you for clarifying the question.

So initially uh our project towards uh expecting to begin the construction in February, because you currently our Chinatown Public Center renovation under general obligation bondage uh under under the Bid page uh but um Chinese hospital originally estimated that they already require CDPH change of use permit but once they submitted their permits to the CDPH uh CD CDPH is subsequently requested the Chinese hospital to get the full HCI design permit so which actually delayed the project a couple of couple of months so we are actively working at DT DPW and then both with the Chinese hospital to align the uh change of use permit and then be the schedule uh and then we try to expertise uh as much as if we can to get this change of uh use permit so project uh does not delay it further one month it's not too bad it's it I I think that's okay I can understand that but um that's good to know thank you so much for the answers um I think that's still relatively aligned uh for that one month of spring march and and and February that's good thank you so much for the information thank you thank you so much for your work um I don't uh have any other questions no name on the roster uh we will go to public comments on this item yes we're now opening public comment for this item number two if we have any members of the public who wish to address this committee.

Madam Chair we have no speakers seeing no public comments public comment is now closed um colleagues I would like to move this item to full board with recommendation and a roll call please and on that motion the forward to the full board with a positive recommendation vice chair dorsey Dorsey I member in Guardio and Guardio I Chair Chan aye Chan I we have three eyes the motion passes thank you and um Mr.

Clark please call item number three yes item number three is a resolution approving a first amendment to the lease agreement with the Trans Bay Joint Powers Authority for continued mutiny operations at the Salesforce Transit Center located at first admission streets for a term effective upon approval of this resolution through December 31st 2050 with two tenure options and a current estimated annual operating charge of approximately 1.2 million and to authorize the um municipal transportation agencies director of transportation to enter into any extensions amendments or modifications to the lease amendment that do not materially increase the obligations nor liabilities to the city or materially reduce the benefits and are necessary or advisable to effectuate the purposes of the lease as modified by the lease amendment or this resolution madam chair thank you and today we have um TA here.

Hi good morning honorable Chair Chen and honorable supervisors I'm Scarlett Lem representing the municipal transportation agency along with me is manager Cassia 10 and also Facility Director for the Trans Bay joint power authorities we are pleased to present to you a very short presentation about the lease amendment today.

So next yay good okay so we are we are respect we respectfully seeking your approval and support for the first amendment to the lease amend to the lease agreement for the Trans Bay joint power authorities to continue municipal muni trans operation at the Trans Space Center through December 31st 2050 and for and with two 10 years options to renew uh for the current year operating costs will be a million two hundred and three thousand and two hundred eighty dollars.

Thanks.

Thank you.

So as you know, the Transpace Center is to uh was to build to replace the regional Trans Bay hub, and basically it is it was a pilot project back in 2018 because it was a very successful regional cooperation.

So we are pretty so we are continuing the operational commitment.

So what are the current budget uh bus operation here?

For Muni, we run five nines, five R, footon, seven height, 30R, Gary, 25 transpay uh to the um Treasure Island, and they're 7.1 for early bird, but there are also other transit operators working off the transit centers, such as AC Transit, West Cat, Golden Gay, and also SAMTREN and Great Harn.

Um, so at the below grade, we are also looking at potential future expansion as well.

For MTA, we occupy on the plaza level is 50,436 square feet.

Uh, that will roughly occupy for a net of 21.8% of the total space.

Next, thank you.

So, how is the center operate?

In terms of the revenue, it operates coming from advertising revenues, naming rights, and events, rentals, retail space, rentals.

On the cost side, it will be the normal cost of running a transit transit center management, security, um, janitors service, and so on.

So at the end of the year, um, if revenue is more than um expenditure, of course that's great, but if expenditure is more than revenue, then it will be paid according to the proportion of the area space for the um transit operators.

So AC Transit has the bus deck, and then MTA has the plaza level, so that is how they will be dividing the cost.

Next, I think it should be that.

And so for the current year, we are looking at a little bit over 1.2 million.

For the next year, we're looking at approximately 1.13 million to 1.18 million.

So as you can see, the result is just kind of the slight decrease.

Um we hope that because like we are hoping the economy is going to recover as well as the retail space rental is going to bring in more revenues.

Um again to summarize what we are um the lease before you is to continue the lease through December 31st, 2050, with two options to win new and um two ten-year options to win new.

If at any time, if at any year the projected operating deficit will be more than three million dollars, then MTA would have the option of terminating the list or discussing the TJPA on the next step.

So is there any questions?

Are you done with your presentation?

Yes, I am done.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Item three is a resolution that approves an amendment to MTA's existing lease with the Trans Bay Joint Powers Authority.

Uh the amendment extends the lease through December 2050.

It adds two options to extend uh by 10 years each, uh creating a total possible term through December 2070.

Under the lease, um, MTA pairs pays a proportional share of the transit center's um net operating costs based on their uh the amount of space that they rent um at the center.

We summarize the fiscal impact on page 10 of their report.

MTA is estimating that they will have to pay 1.2 million dollars to use this uh bus terminal.

Uh that's actually a decrease from prior years when it was closer to 1.4 million dollars back in 2018-19.

Um, and as was noted by MTA, they are projecting that the rent will decrease a little bit next year to 1.2 million dollars um based on expectations of increased um leasing at the site.

The revenues of the transit center are primarily um retail concession leases at the transit center as well as operating grants funded by um regional transit revenues um there's about a 30% vacancy at the transit center um and the the j uh trans bay is working with the broker to fill those spaces and as the revenues increase um the rent should go down going forward recommend approval of item three thank you i have i do actually have a few couple questions about five and five r and thirty eight and thirty eight gear uh Gary that is you mentioned that is uh operating or uh are they stopping at the transit center or are they going are they departing from the transit center if because if I understand correctly like this summer like especially five or maybe five are actually stopping at market in fifth streets but maybe I'm incorrect.

Yeah they are going through the Trans Space Center and then stop and pick up passengers and so on.

So if they're coming from the west side are they stopping at market in um 5th street or are they going to be stopping at the transit center or are is this just saying that it departing from the transit center.

Good morning my name's Kazia Tang I'm the real estate manager at MTA.

Those are very good questions unfortunately that's more on the transit operations side which I don't have specific information to address your question so I'd like to go back and speak with our operations group so that I can respond to your question on those lines.

I would like that I mean I think that you're asking us uh to approve to lease the space for the pilot program in your presentation you mentioned the pilot program is going well and yet here we are we and seeing that SFMTA is reducing service starting this summer started this summer and so I would just like to understand then in that if that's the case then what are the bus lines that it's actually operating at the transit center I mean if look if five and five are and 38 and 38 Gary 38 Gary and 38R are operating from transit center both departuring and arrival amazing because I think that is uh makes so much sense um but if I understand correctly that's not the case so then if that is not the case then what kind of what are the bus lines then operating at transit center um with this um lease extension so I just want to make sure I understand your question you're asking whether or not these specific lines originate or originate and not just pass through the transit center is that what you're asking I'm asking that if they're actually are arriving uh as the final destination because they start from I mean there's two direction um I mean are they actually arriving uh and and as the final destination for at transit center and then they go back out to the west side um or are they is that still the case because that's not what we were told for the summer particularly for five and five are that it should be stopping at fifth and market um and and then folks need to make connection there on out um and and if that's the case then what are the bus lines operating both arriving and departuring from transit center.

Understood thank you I'll get that information.

And I think I'm in support of this item today it will be going to the full board on October 21st and I would like to have that information before we we go to the full board certainly for for um for final votes.

Vice Chair Dorsey.

Thank you Chair Chan.

Obviously this is in my district and then this is something I'm happy to support um I do think I do have a lot of optimism about the commercial um the success of commercial leases as we invest in downtown but I also to Chair Chan's point listen the more um activity what the more use that we have of the transit center the the that will help with our, you know the the commercial um leasing as well.

I use this pretty regularly for when I go to treasure island, so but I don't use it as much for other routes, but um I'll be supporting this.

Absolutely.

It's a it's a great spot and uh would like to definitely see the more use of it.

I mean, I think 38, particularly 38, Gary um really has been coming back out.

Um, you know, being able to have that direct uh route from the West Side to there.

It's amazing.

I think that when it be the first Thursday of the month, uh where they have events there or be it like about parade, any type of civic um you know events that folks on the west side can be encouraged to take the 38 Gary will be will be great.

It will be um is something that to that we should work on.

But I just want to understand in our course.

Thank you so much for your support.

Thank you.

And with that, let's go to public comment on this item.

Yes, if we have any members of the public who wish to address this committee regarding this item number three, that was your opportunity.

Madam Chair, we have no speakers.

Seeing no public comments, public comment is now closed.

Colleagues, I would like to move this item to fulfill with recommendation, but still waiting for that additional information and like roll call, please.

And on the motion to forward to the full board with a positive recommendation, Vice Chair Dorsey.

And Dorsey, I, member in Guardio and Guardio, aye, Chair Chan.

I, Chan, I, we have three ayes.

The motion passes.

Mr.

Clerk, please call item number four.

Yes, item number four.

Is a resolution approving and authorizing the general manager of the public utilities commission to execute a funding and license agreement between the PUC and the unified school district for the construction, operation, and maintenance of an on-site solar uh photovoltaic system at the mission-based school for the mount not to exceed approximately six hundred fifty-three thousand for a duration of thirty years from October 31st, 2025 through October 31st, 2055.

Pursuant to the charter.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And we have SFPUC here.

Good morning, supervisors.

I'm Jamie Seidel.

I'm the manager of the Distributed Energy Resources Project Group at the SFPUC Power Enterprise.

I'm here to request approval for a solar funding license agreement between SFPUC and the San Francisco Unified School District.

Before I present that, I'd like to give you a little background on what the DER projects team works on with our HECG power customers.

We deliver renewable energy projects such as solar electric and energy storage, energy efficiency, including lighting and mechanical retrofits, electrification, for example, converting gas-fired equipment to electric heat pumps for heating and cooling needs of our customers.

Currently consists of 30 project locations, 3.5 megawatts of solar capacity, and 550 kilowatt hours of energy storage.

You can do one more screen.

Thank you.

SFPUC proposes to partner with them to fund and own the solar electric system.

And this would be our ninth project with the school district.

So PUC would fund the design and installation of a hundred and twelve kilowatt solar electric system for 653,000.

Work is performed under a school district construction contract.

The FLA is a 30-year agreement, so it requires your approval per the charter, and the 30-year agreement is intended to track with the life of the solar asset.

Construction on the main building started in October 2022.

Solar construction started February 2025 and is now 100% complete.

The solar asset is operational, having received permission to operate in July.

And on a side note, SF school uh unified school District proceeded with the solar construction pending approval of this agreement at their own risk since the solar is required under Title 24 Energy code.

Happy to answer any questions you might have and thank you for your time.

Thank you.

It's very exciting.

Oh, Vice Chair Dorsey.

Thank you, Chair Chan.

I will start with those words.

It's very exciting.

Actually, this is a there's a lot of excitement about the school in Mission Bay, and I just want to express my appreciation for everything you're doing for this school for the neighborhood.

And you know sometimes I worry a little bit in the current environment whether we're losing sight of some of the really thing the the climate priorities that we really need.

We can't lose focus on, and I appreciate SFPUC's leadership on that.

So I'm happy to support this.

That's a school district bucket of money, so I I think they funded it with bond money, but it's outside my subject matter expertise.

And then this is the you mentioned this is the nine school that we're project that we're partnering the SFPUC is partnering them on, and um is all so the I see.

Then so the 129 million dollars is for the mission-based school itself from the bond, and that part of this that they're spending it on is $653,000 roughly uh with SFPUC for the solar project.

Yeah, so PUC would contribute the $653 to the project for the solar project cost and the $129 million dollars.

That's school district money.

So once again, I don't have all that information.

No problem.

I'm just trying to understand is it coming from the hundred and twenty-nine or is it coming from the coming from PUC to the school district to support the school district for this project for the solar project.

Thank you so much for the clarification.

I really appreciate it.

And with that, uh, there's no more other comments.

We would like to go to public comments.

Yes, if we have new members of the public wish to address this committee regarding this item number four, that was your opportunity.

Uh, madam chair, we have no speakers.

Seeing no public comments, public comments now closed.

Colleagues, I would like to move this item to full board with recommendation and a roll call, please.

And on the motion to forward to the full board to the positive recommendation.

Vice Chair Dorsey.

Dorsey, I member and Guardio and Guardio, I.

Chair Chan.

I.

Chan I.

We have three eyes.

The motion passes.

And Mr.

Clerk, please call item number five.

Yes, item number five is a resolution approving and authorizing the general manager of the public utilities commission to execute amendment number three to a contract for power scheduling coordination and related supported services with APX Inc.

to allow for the processing of the California independent system operator power transmission service charges to increase the contract by approximately $366 million for a total not to exceed contract amount of approximately $1.2 billion in to extend the contract term for an additional three years starting March 10th, 2027 for a total term of May 31st, 2022 through May 25th, 2030, pursuant to the charter.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And again, we have SFPUC.

Hi, my name is uh good morning, supervisors.

My name is SUNY Jones, and I'm the manager of wholesale and retail services for the Power Enterprise.

The proposed item before you today would approve amendment three to the power scheduling coordination agreement between the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and APX.

This amendment increases the not to exceed amount by 3.1 million for professional services and $363 million for pass through charges for a total not to exceed $1.3 billion.

Additionally, staff request a three-year extension for a new contract term of eight years.

We are requesting amendment three prior to issuing a new RFO because we believe that prior to issuing an RFO, the SFPUC should build up and enhance internal expertise and in-house capabilities.

We believe these improvements will streamline the new RFO and make it accessible to a broader range of potential bidders.

So on this first slide, we describe the reason the SFPUC requires a scheduling coordinator.

As you may know, HECHECI and Clean Power SF transmit power via the California California Independent System Operator or CAISO.

To participate in the KISO market, you must be a CISO certified scheduling coordinator, or you must contract with the certified scheduling coordinator.

The SFPUC is not a certified scheduling coordinator, so we contract with APX for those services.

Next slide.

The next slide describes the CISO pass-through costs that are invoiced by the ISO and paid by APX on the SFPUC's behalf.

The SFPUC incurs CISO costs for permissive participating in the CISO energy market.

These pass-through costs are fixed and non-negotiable in any scheduling coordinator service scenario.

Some of these costs include charges for transmission, charges for electricity, charges to maintain grid reliability.

These are pass-through cost only, and APX does not charge the SFPUC an additional fee for this service.

The next slide outlines the previous amendments to this contract and justifications.

An important point to call out here is the extreme increase of $636 million in the second amendment.

This was due to a significant and unforeseen increase in energy market prices.

These market dynamics were beyond the scope of what we anticipated at the time of the original contract when that when the original contract was negotiated.

This amendment provided the necessary additional funding to ensure uninterrupted service delivery and compliance with operational requirements.

The main drivers for these higher than expected prices were supply chain delays, global energy shortages, trade disruptions, the Ukraine war, and extreme weather.

For some context, in 2021 and 2022, Clean Power SF, Clean Power SF's KISO pass-through costs increased 197%, and HECHE POWE increased 67%.

As mentioned earlier, if the Third Amendment is approved, the increase and the extension, we plan to use this time to strengthen in-house capabilities and build additional in-house expertise to streamline and simplify the RFO process.

To accomplish it, some initial steps include working with the moccasin powerhouse system operators to install automated systems in the powerhouse.

APX currently manages these automated systems for the power system operators, but installing these systems locally will further SFP's in-house capabilities and allow additional independence.

In this slide, we summarize the contract and its amendments.

While we recognize that the overall financial scope is considerable, it is important to underscore that the vast majority of these costs are CISO fixed non-negotiable pass-through charges.

Staff is requesting the board to authorize the SFPUC general manager to increase contract capacity and add $3.1 million to professional services and $362.6 million in CISO pass-through charges.

The total not to exceed amount is $1.26 billion.

This is the end of the presentation.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you.

Item five is a resolution that approves an amendment to PUC's contract with APX incorporated.

They are an authorized power scheduler with the California grid operator, the CISO.

The amendment extends the agreement by three years from May 2027 to May 2030 and increases the value of the contract by 365 million dollars to 1.2 billion dollars.

We summarize the contract spending on page 14 of the report.

So there's about a 20% contingency that brings us to the 1.2 billion dollar not to exceed amount.

So it's unlikely that they're gonna spend all of this money on this contract, but given the volatility in the energy market, um I think a kind of contingency of this size makes sense.

Um 99% of the charges are passed through to CAISO.

And so APX is actually getting about a little less than a million dollars a year for their work to make these transactions, but the bulk of these charges are to the grid operator.

We've recommended proof of item five.

Thank you.

I appreciate the for having the four sides to do internal investment with roughly about the three million dollars.

I think that makes a lot of sense to really figure out ways to be further independent, although I don't know how much more you can be really independent from Cal ISO.

Or like tied to them.

But I do agree that you know, just to be able to have a bit independence from or just having a second opinion or independence from a service as such APX.

I think that's really what we're looking for, and I appreciate that investments and I'm in support of this.

Clearly is a fixed cost.

Like you said, majority of it, 99% of it, it's really pass through.

So thank you so much for just recognizing and pointing out the 2023, the second amendments was really significant, but having this sort of proactive strategy to try to what else we could do under a very challenging circumstance.

It's not easy.

You have a lot of restriction, uh, and but but to be able to learn more about it, I I look forward to that.

I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for your work.

Um with that, let's go to public comment on this item.

Yes, we are opening public comment for this item number five.

If we have any members of the public wish to address this committee, Madam Chair, we have no speakers.

Seeing no public comments, public comment and south close.

Colleagues, I would like to move this item to full board with recommendation and a roll call, please.

And on a motion to forward to the full board with a positive recommendation, Vice Chair Dorsey.

Dorsey, aye, member and guardio and guardio, aye, Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan I.

We have three ayes.

The motion passes.

And Mr.

Clerk, please uh call items six and seven together.

Yes, item number six and seven are resolutions, uh retroactively approving contracts between the city and county, hacking by and through the department of early childhood, uh, and the following for the city's implementation of the San Francisco Citywide plan for early care and education.

Uh, both resolutions for a three-year and six month term from July 1st, 2025 to December 31st, 2028, and authorizing DEC to enter into any amendments or other modifications to the amendment that do not materially increase the obligations nor liabilities or materially decrease the benefits to the city and are necessary or advisable to effectuate the purposes of the respective agreements or resolutions.

Item number six is with Children's Council of San Francisco for a total not to exceed amount of approximately 436.3 million, and item number seven is with Wu Yi Children's Services for a total not to exceed amount of approximately 237.7 million.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And today we have Department of Early Childhood here.

Good morning, uh budget and finance committee members, um, Chair Chan, um, and supervisors.

Um, thank you for allowing me to do just a brief presentation on both of the contracts that are before you this morning for children's council and we children's services.

This is our um our way of how we're developing a really effective system of early care and education system in San Francisco through our strong partnerships uh in order to serve uh the children, families, and providers of our city in every district.

Uh and so the contract overview is really is about supporting both families, providers, and everyone who's makes the system of care in San Francisco.

It is about access, um, it's also about affordability and subsidy management for San Francisco's families from birth through age 12.

Um our focus for local dollars are for birth to five.

However, we also administer state dollars that provide um child care services for families with children up to the age of 12.

Um there are three course services in both of these contracts.

It's for information referral and connection for the family to child care programs.

So it's a little bit of a love match that happens.

It also includes enrollment and program reimbursement, meaning that the providers get their subsidy payments for all the children who are enrolled on behalf of the city and state funds.

And it's also administering in a very effective way all of these public child care subsidies that make it through hundreds of child care providers across the city and serves thousands of children and families.

That includes families who are also state eligible, like CalWorks and foster care.

We also support middle income families, which is something that only San Francisco does, honestly, throughout the nation, that provides financial relief to families for child care.

And again, it is a service that is from birth to age 12, leveraging a lot of state resources for older children, school age children.

It's about access and connection to almost 8,000 families that are seeking care at any point in time during the year.

Lots of referrals with very quick response rate from our two major community partners.

We fund through what is called the child care voucher system, both for again for local funding but also state funding.

We also track all the vacancies across this our city's network of providers to ensure that families have real-time information of where they can enroll.

And we also have lots of performance measures and accountability for these contracts, and we're tracking pretty much almost everything, every point throughout the journey of a family and a child and a provider.

And we require, of course, annual fiscal and ongoing compliance monitoring.

So the really sort of the test of this is that we have over 20,000 children and families in our system of care through our early learning for all programming and services.

We match and we leverage the heck out of every federal and state dollars to ensure that we're creating a universal access across the city.

And we almost have over almost 600 early learning for all providers, which what we was described as a mixed delivery system, meaning that it is both in center-based care as well in family child care.

And that is the end of my presentation.

Thank you.

Item six and seven are two resolutions that approve contracts with the Department of Early Childhood and one with Children's Council of San Francisco and one with Wu U Children's Services.

Each contract has this very similar scope of services.

They do intake and referral for families seeking child care.

They enroll eligible families in child care and provide subsidies to eligible families based on income.

The children's council administers both the locally funded tuition subsidies for child care providers as well as state and federal subsidies that flow through HSA.

Wu Yi administers locally funded subsidies for child care.

We summarize the fiscal impact of these contracts on page 22 of the report.

The local and state funding is primarily proposition C commercial rents tax as well.

We recommend approval of items six and seven.

Thank you.

I'm kind of just curious overall.

I see that both the WUI and then as well as the Children Council on their budget summary includes of professional services for consultants.

Could you walk us through a little bit what the consultant fees are?

They're not significant, they're just very minor, but I'm just kind of curious like what kind of professional services are both agency getting in terms of support.

Yes.

So part of our process with both organizations is a process that we're really building the plane as we're flying it.

The professional services contracts have an array of services.

Some of them actually has to do more with the further development of how families get connected through through the online portal, through some families self-refer, some families choose to be connected in through human sort of touch.

And could you help me understand what is indirect expenses are?

Indirect expenses, like in all nonprofit contracts are what is sort of a what would be considered sort of a shared cost.

So we fund very specific staff in each one of the agencies, but there's also other staff that work on the projects, but not directly.

And so a small portion of that gets charged, and there is a cap by the city that allows a certain amount that you can charge indirectly.

What is the cap?

The cap both for administrative and indirect is no more than 15%.

No more than 15% of the entire contract.

Yeah, of all program expenses, yes.

Not the pass-through though, because that's the bulk of their contracts or the pass-through payments to providers, child care providers.

Understood.

So but basically the pass-through, which is the for here is the actual subsidies for the enrollment.

And then so it's 15% of the excluding the past.

Correct.

Great.

Thank you.

Um I mean, I think through the conversations and the budget and legislative analyst report, help us understand a little bit about your approach to, you know, uh evaluation for the contractor.

Um, you know, I think the typical ones from DPH or HSA is that you know they have uh staff independently go on sites and do site inspection, but it sounds to me that the report here is that your your contractors and in this case the children council and Wu Yee, they provide you the report, and then the staff then go back out to independently verify what it's based on the report.

How do you find it?

Like, um meaning like what what is your approach to that, and then what what do you find as a pros and cons, if if any?

Yeah, like all grants, there's grant management and monitoring and performance measures and logic models that are tied to an evaluation framework, and that's how we approach the work for any grant or contract.

Um, the work that is performed by both agencies is really very community-based.

Um, families connect better with um community-based organizations, and so their access points are much more accessible.

Uh, and so with that in mind, that's how we've designed sort of the logic model around what are the services that the um grantees provide.

What do we monitor in terms of quality assurances, ensuring that we're always aligning to the city's um guidelines, or especially around um cost allowable, all of those things.

I think that this work can't be not cannot be done sort of independently of all of our community partners.

And so it really is a partnership that you work through in co-designing what the services will look like, and of course, always taking into account, and this is part of our evaluation framework, is we always connect with families too to ensure that their voice and their experience is part of that journey and it's designed that way.

And so there are things that obviously government services can do, and but they're things that sometimes community partners are better situated to be able to connect um in real time with families, especially with families with very young children.

And I'm I'm sort of just still learning and thinking about it too.

It's like it and it's kind of links back to the Department of Homelessness and Support of Housing, and just thinking, it's almost sort of this.

What do the individuals receiving the service think?

And so is that what you're indicating that you do in independently?

What you actually separate and apart doing is at family surveys or surveys for the families.

Got it.

Yes, we do surveys, we with you family um focused groups, and we also um have parents as part of a ongoing parent advisory group that we take feedback and and we refresh those families because children grow up and end up going to school age care, but nonetheless, we keep that feedback loop ongoing.

And then that's independent from the service provider.

Yes.

Great.

Thank you.

Um, really appreciate your work.

I'm glad to see these two coming through.

Uh, these two contract uh and uh look forward to seeing the subsidies distribution.

Um, and with that, I don't have any other questions, and let's go to public comments on these two items.

Yes, we are opening public comment for both of these item numbers eight and nine.

If we have any members of the public who wish to address this committee, six and seven, yeah.

Madam Chair, we have no speakers.

Seeing no public comments, Papa Common is now closed.

And uh colleagues, I would like to send items six and seven to full board with recommendation and a roll call, please.

To the full board with the positive recommendation.

Vice Chair Dorsey.

Dorsey, I member and Guardio.

And Guardio, I chair Chan.

I.

Chan I, we have three eyes.

The motion passes.

And Mr.

Clark, please call items eight and nine together.

Yes, item numbers eight and nine or ordinances amending the business and tax regulations code to affect the following.

Item number eight temporarily exempts transfers of certain rent restricted affordable housing from the real property transfer tax, retroactive to transfers on or after April 12th, 2024, and affirming the planning department's determination under the California Environmental Quality Act.

And item number nine excludes from gross receipts tax the gross receipts of low-income housing partnerships received from the lease of residential real estate beginning with the 2026 tax year.

Suspend the business registration certificate and fee requirements for those partnerships beginning with the registration year commencing April 1st, 2026.

Exempt the city from the commercial vacancy tax retroactive to January 1st, 2025, and exempt persons holding property to be used for city-sponsored affordable housing projects from the commercial vacancy tax, retroactive to January 1st, 2022, and refund commercial vacancy taxes paid by exempt persons.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And we have the mayor's office of Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development here.

Good morning, supervisors.

I'm Sheila Nicolopoulos with the mayor's office of housing and community development.

Before you today are two ordinances that will amend taxing rules for affordable housing projects in San Francisco.

The proposed tax cleanup package will address several unintended consequences of tax regulations that are impacting deed restricted 100% affordable housing properties as operating costs for affordable housing climb.

Relief from these taxes will allow our affordable housing providers to focus limited resources on residents and on operating building operations.

File 250890 will exempt affordable housing from transfer taxes.

This ordinance will exempt deed restricted 100% affordable housing properties from transfer taxes, which includes 15-year limited partner exit transactions that restructure financing.

Transfer taxes are transactions imposed by the city for the privilege of transferring ownership.

And for affordable housing, partial ownership changes are needed to restructure financing, which then triggers a formal change in ownership structure and the transfer tax associated with that change.

An exemption will ease financial challenges for the city's affordable housing developers and support most cities' work to stabilize the city's portfolio of affordable housing.

The exemption will be retroactive to April 2024, and refunds will be available to project sponsors who paid transfer taxes after that date.

According to the assessor recorder's office, 10 affordable housing providers have paid 3.9 million in transfer taxes since then when the ordinance would go into retroactively go into effect.

File 250891 includes several additional changes.

One is to exempt taxable partnerships that own affordable housing from the gross receipts tax and registration fees.

Most, if not all affordable housing providers in San Francisco structure building ownership under an LLC partnership.

Although these partnerships will likely never have to pay gross receipts, props C or other taxes, they are required to pay registration fees.

This becomes a bureaucratic hurdle when the city is trying to pay any of these entities as they have to be in tax compliance before they receive funds under the terms of loan agreements.

Exempting partnerships that are created by nonprofit housing developers for housing development would remove this barrier.

And file two five zero eight nine one also will exempt affordable housing pipeline properties from the commercial vacancy tax.

Some sites that are required acquired for affordable housing development have an existing commercial building that will be demolished when the housing construction starts.

When that commercial building is vacant, it may be subject to the commercial vacancy tax.

Although MOHCD prioritizes interim uses when possible, when a commercial building doesn't meet code requirements, it typically does not make sense to renovate a building that will be demolished in a few years.

For example, MOHCD paid more than $700,000 in commercial vacancy tax and 1979 mission for three fiscal years.

Although the parking lot was used for tiny homes, the commercial building was vacant during that time and therefore subject to the commercial vacancy tax.

And these payments were drawn from the housing trust fund.

These changes are supported by MOHCD and our partners in affordable housing development.

I'm joined by Lydia Ely, MOHCD Deputy Director of Housing, and Amanda Freed, Chief of Policy and Communications at the tax collector's office to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Items eight and nine are two ordinances related to tax changes, most of which apply to affordable housing.

File 250890 would exempt the affordable housing sites that meet certain eligibility criteria from the transfer tax from April 12, 2024 through December 2030.

And then file 250891 makes other changes to the city's taxes for affordable housing.

It excludes the income from affordable housing projects from the calculation of the gross receipts tax for those entities.

It suspends the requirement that those entities affordable housing operators register, pay a business registration certificate with the treasurer tax collector's office.

Both of those start in 2026, and then it exempts entities that uh from that are using or plan to use sites for affordable housing in the future, it exempts those sites from the commercial vacancy tax retroactive to January 2022.

In addition to that, the city is also exempting itself regardless of whether the site is going to be used for affordable housing or not.

It's the city would be exempting itself from the convert any land that is subject to the convert commercial vacancy tax, and that's retroactive to January 2025.

So we summarize the fiscal impacts on page 31 of our report.

Together, these changes would result in an immediate refund of potentially uh four million dollars.

Most of that is general fund revenue.

And then going forward based on the past couple years of data, we estimate that this could result in three million dollars in uh mostly general fund revenue for gone each year.

The bulk of that is from the transfer tax, which is a lumpy tax.

It's you know only triggered in certain um kinds of property transactions.

Uh and so it it may be more or less in a given year.

Looking at the projects that paid the transfer tax over the past year.

Uh, we estimate that this is about four thousand four hundred dollars per unit.

Um so that's a one-time savings for these affordable housing projects that would accrue to them essentially every $4,400 to 15 years as they refinance and um would no longer have to pay the transfer tax.

The city uh savings um from the commercial vacancy tax um is about eight hundred thousand dollars a year.

Again, that's the city exempting itself from the commercial vacancy tax.

So it's essentially just moving money from one fund to another.

Um so there's no net fiscal savings.

Uh the commercial vacancy tax revenues go into a small business fund that is supposed to fund programs to benefit small businesses, um, and so that fund would no longer get about eight hundred thousand dollars a year um from city sites uh that are currently subject to the commercial vacancy tax.

We consider approval of these matters to be a policy matter for the board.

Thank you.

Can you help me understand a little bit of few things?

And I'm in supportive of it, but I I one just wanted to understand make and make sure that I I understand it clearly.

Um, it seems that there are two definitions in these two legislation, there seems to be two definitions of one is affordable housing, which is a rent restricted affordable housing, and then the other one is a qualify lesser, that is identify by different sections of the law, and so which identify as low income housing partnership.

Can you help me understand the the sort of like the two groups or are they at the how are they different than are they the same group?

Sorry.

Morning supervisors Amanda Freed from the Office of the Treasurer and Tax Collector.

Wherever you see qualified lesser, uh that comes from the business and tax regulations code.

That's how we there are certain provisions in the registration and tax requirement that do or do not apply to qualified lessers of residential real estate.

Um that was passed in the original gross receipts tax and sort of continued on in Prop M.

Um, so for example, one of the interesting things is that uh certain residential buildings, if they have more than four units, have to register each building separately as its own business.

Whereas any other type of um use would they would group them all together.

Um so if you had multiple buildings, they would they would all be registered together.

That has led to some issues for affordable housing developers because they have to register each building separately, pay for each one separately.

It's not, it hasn't been that the money itself is a lot of trouble, but if they do that late or pay late, their um funding from Mo CD gets held up.

So I get probably six to ten phone calls a year from affordable housing developers sort of panicked like, hey, this payment is held up.

Can you can you help?

What do I need to do?

And they owe you know a couple hundred dollars.

Um so that that's something we're seeking to clean up, and that's where you see that definition come from.

Thank you.

Very helpful.

Um, and then um why is the transfer tax exemptions has a sunset date of January first, 2031, but then it doesn't seem like there's a sunset date for the commercial vacancy tax.

Or I I am not seeking to have a sunset date.

I maybe I'm confused in how we understand, because I'm just trying to I'm just reading it through, and it seems like one has sunset day and the other one doesn't.

Um Thanks.

I did have a note about this.

So the the transfer tax.

Um, for the transfer tax, the it does have the expiration date, which is the existing law, and then the city attorney recommended that for Prop 2 um two eighteen purposes that we maintain that sunset date.

And so we have maintained that, but we could certainly, when it, if appropriate at the time, extend it.

We extend it and then but then commercial tax does not have a sunset date, therefore, we don't need to put it in.

Yes, understood.

Um, those are just the technical things that I I'm I read through it and I'm just kind of curious of like how it's being written.

Clearly is complicated, but uh I am I'm glad to learn more.

Um, with that, I I'm in support of this.

I think that um I know it's uh according to the budget and legislative analyst report, it is you know costing a bit of a general fund, but and at the same time, we also know it's not enough.

Um it's it's not quite a quote unquote game changer for our nonprofits housers, but I think every dollar count.

And I would like to be added as a co-sponsors for both eight and nine, and to um just support of how do we continue to provide incentive for um building more affordable housing uh and units that really um providing in this case rent restricted um affordable housing.

So with that by oh, supervisory in Guardio.

Thank you.

Uh I just want to get a clarification on the budget and legislative analyst report.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it feels like there's some discrepancy on page 28 under commercial vacancy tax, it says MOHCD has introduced legislation to reduce taxes and fees on affordable housing to ease financial challenges for development.

But then on page 31, the very last line in the first line on 32, it says although this has no overall fiscal impact to the city, it does have a negative fiscal impact on funding available for the production of affordable housing.

So I just want to understand we're trying to help create affordable housing, and but this line is saying it might have an impact on the funding available for production of affordable housing.

Is there's like how would you clarify that?

I think what it's saying is that because the commercial vacancy tax is a pot of money that is staying within the city, that the overall city funds don't decrease.

But what it does when like when MOHCD is paying that commercial vacancy tax is it moves the money from MOHCD through the tax collector and then into the small business fund.

So the money is still available for public use, but it has moved away from affordable housing and into small business.

So for anyone watching online or on SFCov TV, just to understand in the long term, this is going to help produce the affordable housing you need, even though technically some of the funds won't be used for affordable housing, like is it?

No, it what we're proposing is that we no longer move the we no longer pay the commercial vacancy tax, and therefore the funds will stay within our affordable housing pot rather than moving over to this small business pot.

Got it.

Alright, thank you.

Thank you.

Um with that, uh, we'd like to go to public commons on it these two items.

Yes, we are opening public comment for both these items eight and nine, if we have any members of the public who wish to address this committee.

Hi, good morning, everyone.

I'm Carlos Melagosa, uh, my project developer with Mission Housing Development Corporation.

Uh I'd like to briefly highlight these two new San Francisco ordinances that create major financial and policy uh benefits for affordable and supportive housing developers like us.

Uh first the transfer tax exemption ordinance eliminates the city's real uh property transfer tax on qualified rent uh restricted affordable housing.

Uh if a project has at least 55 years of affordability covenants and 90% of its units qualify for the welfare exemption.

Any transfer, including an acquisition, refinancing or partnership restructuring is completely exempt from tax uh transfer tax through 2030.

Uh that means millions of dollars of potential savings at closing or investor exit.

It's also retroactive uh to April 2024, uh allowing eligible nonprofits to seek refunds for tax uh taxes already paid uh for a project this uh size of 1969 mission street, this could translate to uh hundreds of thousands of avoided costs that can instead go towards uh residence services and long-term uh reserves.

Uh second, the companion tax relief ordinance extends that support into operations, it offers exemptions from the gross receipts tax and business registrations fees for affordable housing lessers beginning in 2026 and waives the commercial vacancy tax for regulated uh affordable sites.

Uh together, these provisions reduce recurring operation expenses and help stabilize long-term affordability by freeing more revenue for maintenance and residence support.

In short, these ordinance uh represent a strong municipal commitment.

Uh they reduce both transactional cost at closing and ongoing cost of ownership, improve uh project feasibility and strengthened uh sustainability for permit supportive housing and deeply affordable housing.

Thank you.

Thank you much for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is Brianna Morales, and I'm with the Housing Action Coalition as their community organizer.

We are a member supported nonprofit that believes California, and certainly San Francisco should be a place where all people of all incomes can afford to live, work, and belong.

Hack's members include industry experts, affordable builders, and community advocates who are all working to bring more affordable homes to California.

We're here today in strong support of both ordinances before you the transfer tax exemption for affordable housing and the tax and fee exemptions for low income housing partnerships and city sponsored affordable housing projects.

In my work with affordable builders and nonprofit developers, I hear every day how hard it is to get projects over the finish line between rising costs, complicated financing, and long approval timelines.

Even the most mission-driven teams are struggling to make the numbers work.

These ordinances would make a real difference.

They remove taxes and fees that were never really meant to hit affordable housing projects in the first place and help stretch limited dollars further.

So more of those funds can go directly towards homes for San Franciscans.

Together, I really feel like they would make a difference in building homes for people and preserving affordable homes and homeowners to do their jobs.

And beyond housing, in the midst of a housing crisis, this helps our broader recovery.

A thriving inclusive neighborhood means that the city is able to be active and vibrant, and that folks can pursue opportunities that they may not have been able to pursue.

When we make it easier to invest in housing and bring life to San Francisco, we're saying that it's open and available for opportunities.

So on behalf of HAC and residents and our members, we work alongside.

We urge you to pass these ordinances and keep saying yes to housing and to the folks who make the city beautiful.

Thank you very much.

And thank you, Brandon Morales.

Seeing no other speakers, Madam Chair, that completes our queue.

Seeing a more popular commons, Papa Commons now close.

Colleagues, I would like to move items eight and nine to full board with recommendation and a roll call, please.

And on that motion to forward both ordinances to the full board to the positive recommendation.

Dorsey, aye, member Guardio.

And Guardio, aye.

Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan, I.

We have three ayes.

The motion passes.

And Mr.

Clark, do we have any other items before us today?

Madam Chair, that concludes our business.

The meeting is adjourned.