Good morning.

The meeting will come to order.

Welcome to the January 14,

2026 meeting of the Budget

and Finance Committee. I am Supervisor

Connie Chan, Chair of the Committee.

I'm joined by Vice Chair Supervisor

Matt Dorsey, and we welcome our newest member,

Supervisor Denny Sauter.

Our clerk

is Brent Haliba. I would like to thank

Kalina Mendoza from SFGovTV for broadcasting 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 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 tray by the television to your left by the doors.

If you wish for your name to be accurately recorded for the minutes.

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

email them to myself, the Budget and Finance Committee Clerk at brent.jalipa at sfgov.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

in City Hall at 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodall Place, Room 244, San Francisco, California 94102.

And finally, due to our observance of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day, items acted upon today are expected to appear on the Board of Supervisors' agenda of January 27th, unless otherwise stated.

Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Clark. And for everyone here and for the general public, for all the items on our agenda, we typically go to the department presentation, and then we will go to the budget and legislative analyst for their presentation.

and then we will have comment and questions from this body, and then we'll go to public comments.

So with that, Mr. Clerk, please call items through four together.

Items one through four.

Item number one is an ordinance amending the administrative code by changing the reporting requirement

for capital expenditure plans from odd years to even years.

Will the next report due on March 1, 2028?

And item number two is a resolution amending the city's 10-year capital expenditure plan for fiscal years 2026 through 2035 to amend the proposed government obligation bond program.

Item numbers three and four relates to a proposition to incur bonded indebtedness of up to $535 million to finance the construction, acquisition, improvement, rehabilitation, renovation, expansion, and seismic retrofitting of the emergency firefighting water system, firefighting and police facilities and infrastructure,

transportation facilities for the municipal railway bus storage and maintenance facility

at Potrero Yard and other public safety facilities and infrastructure for earthquake and public safety

and related costs necessary or convenient for the foregoing purposes, collectively the ESCR facilities.

Authorizing landlords to pass through 50% of the resulting property tax increase, if any,

to residential tenants in accordance with the administrative code,

making findings that the estimated cost of such proposed ESR facilities is and will be too great to be paid out of the ordinary annual income and revenue of the city and county

and will require expenditures greater than the amount allowed, therefore, by the annual tax levy.

That portions of the bond proposal are not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act

and adopting findings that under CEQA for the remaining portion of the bond proposal

and that the bond proposal is in conformity with the eight priority policies of the planning code

and is consistent with the general plan.

Let's see.

Incomplying restrictions on the use of bond proceeds specified in the California government code,

incorporating the provisions and waiving in time requirements specified in the administrative code.

Item number three is the ordinance calling and providing for the special election to be held in the city and county on Tuesday, June 2, 2026,

for the purpose of submitting the proposition to the San Francisco voters, reciting the estimated cost of such proposed ESER facilities,

fixing the date of election and the manner of holding such election and the procedure for voting for or against the proposition,

fixing the maximum rate of interest on such bonds and providing for the levy and collection of taxes

to pay both principal and interest prescribing notice to be given of such election.

And item number four is the resolution that determines and declares the public interest and necessity regarding the bond proposal.

Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Clerk, for reading that through.

And with that, today's presentation is going to start with our City Administrator, Carmen Chu.

Thank you so much for being here.

Thank you so much, Chair Chan, Supervisors Dorsey and Sauter.

Thank you so much for hearing this item.

I'm pleased to kick off this presentation.

And before I begin, I do want to acknowledge and thank each of you

for your co-sponsorship of this legislation.

I think, as you know, in all of the briefing that we had done with you,

this bond enables our departments to make critical seismic safety upgrades

and improvements to some of our city's most essential infrastructure,

Our first responder facilities, our emergency firefighting water system, amongst others.

I think as many of you know, this infrastructure improvements are needed now.

We know that a large earthquake is something that we should be planning for and preparing for.

According to the USGS, there is a 72% chance of a 6.7 magnitude or greater earthquake in the Bay Area in the next 30 years.

That's a pretty significant and high percentage of likelihood that we will be experiencing a seismic activity in the Bay Area.

And I think as many of you know, especially what we've seen with the 1906 earthquake and many others,

sometimes it's not the initial shaking that causes the most damage,

but oftentimes the fire itself that starts to bring much more loss of life and casualties and other issues with the city.

We know that this bond to upgrade our city's emergency firefighting water system

and many of our other emergency systems is critical to the city's ability to respond,

especially when that disaster hits.

For many of us, thinking about some of the recent events that have happened in California,

we've seen many wildfires that have occurred through the years.

But in addition to that, we've also seen some pretty significant challenges

in many of our actually built urban environments.

In the recent Palisade Fire in Los Angeles, fire hydrants ran dry

as the area's auxiliary water supply failed.

and in many parts of San Francisco.

I know that we have many residents who are concerned about the availability of water

to be able to do that work.

By expanding San Francisco's emergency firefighting water system on the west side,

this bond ensures that firefighters will have the water that they need

to fight blazes quickly and effectively and to save lives.

One other significant component, we do have the Prochero Yard

as one of the elements of this bond.

people might say well what is the connection and tie into earthquake safety we know that

protrero yard is one of muni's most vulnerable facilities in an earthquake and is at risk of

partial or total collapse in an earthquake if an unplanned event happens and it takes

protrero yard offline we will see major disruptions to muni service operations and maintenance

and this would be really really challenging especially if we have significant and large

evacuation efforts in the city, among other things. We do know that being able to move large

amounts of people through our bus and transportation system is going to be a critical part of how it

is that we respond and move through a significant earthquake event. By enabling these critical

infrastructure improvements, this bond will better prepare our city to respond quickly

to other disasters. This is really just to kick off the theme of this bond. We have our

Brian Strong, who will be presenting to you the large body of work that came through the Capital

Planning Committee. But in addition to that, I want to also acknowledge other department heads

who are here to be able to present and also answer any questions that you might have. So let me just

acknowledge, of course, the Fire Department, Chief Dean Crispin and his representatives,

Julie Kirschbaum, the Director of the MTA, Steve Ritchie with the PUC, Captain Chris Canning with

the Police Department, and of course, Carla Short, the Department of Public Works. We're all here to

be able to answer any questions that you might have.

And again, I want to thank you in advance for your co-sponsorship, for your support,

and for recognizing the importance of this kind of investment.

With that, I'll turn it over to Brian.

Thank you, Carmen.

Good morning, members of the committee.

Brian Strong, Chief Resilience Officer and Director of the Office of Resilience and Capital

Planning.

Thank you so much for giving us the opportunity to present today.

on these four pieces of legislation.

It's been a really big effort to get it all together

in the past couple months.

I do want to recognize right up front the work

that Public Works did for their contribution

to getting the bond report done, to completing a number

of cost estimates, to actually in record time

getting a website up.

So we really want to thank the work that they did.

And without their partnership, we wouldn't

be as far along as we are today. With that, there are four pieces of legislation. I think they were

already read off, so I won't go through them in general, but I will start with the first piece of

that, which is item one, and that is the amendment to the city's 10-year capital plan. So in 2022,

the mayoral elections were changed from odd years to even years. Our capital plan was sort of built

around an odd year mayoral election so that the mayor would come into office and have some time

to absorb a new capital plan and so forth. And that also applies to members of the board of

supervisors that would come in now all on even years. So we are requesting through this legislation

that we push the due date for the capital plan from even years to odd years.

It would still be going every other year,

but this would enable new members of the Board of Supervisors and a mayor

to have some time to review the capital plan and absorb it

and make substantive comments and changes that reflect their policies.

That means the next capital plan will actually be coming about in April of 2028.

with that the next change that we have is the capital plan amendment so the capital plan that

did was recently published this last May is being updated we knew that we would have to make some

adjustments to the geo bond program and part of that was to recognize the importance of earthquake

safety sort of following up on what the city administrator had just spoke about we have an

Earthquake Safety Emergency Response Bond. The last bond was in 2020. We do try to have bonds

go every six to eight years or so, so it's a regular program, and that bond is moving forward.

And that's why we're moving that bond forward from 2028 to 2026. We are also including the most

important or one of the most important projects for the MTA, which is to address their seismically

deficient bus yard by moving those that project out of the MTA bond and into

this Easter bond so those are the two big changes we are also moving the rec

park bond up from 20 from 2030 to 2028 just recognizing the significant amount

of need that is in now you know coming from our record rec park facilities so

So that is the amendment to the 10-year capital plan.

Now I will move forward with sort of the meat of the presentation,

which is the resolution of public interest and necessity,

of course, which verifies the importance of doing this work

and that bonds are the best way to do it.

And also the bond ordinance, which lays out what is in the bond

and what is it going to do.

And that is what goes technically before voters.

It'll be part of the voter pamphlet.

So the Earthquake Safety and Emergency Response Bond makes critical seismic upgrades

and improvements to first responder facilities and essential infrastructure,

including the city's emergency firefighting water supply system.

This is really vital in terms of being able to quickly respond to major earthquakes

and other disasters and for the recovery after a disaster.

The bond will also be making critical improvements to fire stations, police stations,

as well as doing some critical repairs.

And I'll mention these in more detail as I walk through.

Just want to remind folks, the bond will not increase property tax rates.

We are staying within the constraint of only issuing new bonds as we retire old ones.

We established this in 2006, and we are continuing to live up to that commitment

to stay within our means and also to not provide an unnecessary burden for voters and for taxpayers.

Okay, with that, the emergency firefighting water supply system, there's $130 million for this.

This is to really reach out to underserved areas that are part of the network, primarily on the west side,

which lack firefighting water infrastructure, and to construct a new fireboat manifold and related infrastructure.

It's not just the manifold that allows the fireboat to hook into the system,

but there's also quite a bit of piping and so forth that needs to go through

through the area, especially around Fort Mason,

to be able to connect with the major system.

And that allows the fireboat to pull in saltwater and those things

if we ever do run into a situation where our other water supply,

which primarily comes from Twin Peaks, is not available.

The next component of the bond is fire stations.

It's $100 million for the fire department to renovate or replace high-priority fire stations

that are vulnerable to closure or collapse in the event of an earthquake.

Most of the fire stations on this list, almost all of them, are seismic hazard rating 4s,

which means in a large earthquake they are likely to be red-tagged, could potentially see some collapse.

Even in a moderate earthquake, it's fairly likely they could be yellow or red-tagged as well,

which means they may not be functional or operational for a period of time.

The fire stations that we're looking at, and these are examples, are fire stations 7, 2, 40, and 6.

Those are spread throughout the city, and I'm happy to follow up with any details if people need to know where those are.

It's on the slide here.

The next component of the bond is district police stations and support facilities.

It's $72 million for the police department to retrofit and improve police stations,

which are also vulnerable to closure or collapse in the event of an earthquake.

We are also looking at seismic hazard rating for stations.

It's also intended to allow the property control division to finally move out,

completely move out of the Hall of Justice,

and they will be relocating to 1828 Egbert,

which is currently being used as a surge facility.

or in the process of going to be used as a surge facility for the Ingleside station replacement,

which was funded through the last E-Surge GeoBund.

Again, these projects do not have CEQA clearance, so they are really examples right now.

The next set of projects that we have in here are critical building repairs

or critical public safety repairs.

This is $33 million.

dollars it's it's to address critical needs at public safety facilities across

the city primarily we're talking about emergency generators electrical

improvements alarm systems HVAC systems roofs those types of things that are

critical to not just maintaining the infrastructure but also to their

ability to function effectively

Finally, the last component of the bond is the Muni Bus Yard and Storage Facility at Potrero, or the Potrero Yard.

$200 million for the Potrero Yard to retrofit, replace, or replace, I should say, the seismically unsafe facility to protect employees

and allow for the ongoing use and repair of the city's electric buses after an earthquake.

The Potrero Yard is where the city stores, repairs, and maintains Muni Buses.

The yard is an important part of the city's emergency response capabilities, enabling evacuation services immediately following an earthquake and transit services for residents and businesses to jumpstart a speedy recovery.

That's a bus yard that's over 110 years old and, again, has a number of seismic hazard rating for buildings on it.

with that I also just want to reiterate again this this shows the the graph that that guides

our capital our geo bond program again this is not going to increase tax rates and this sort of

shows how it's happening this chart again the the light gray at the bottom show bonds to where we're

paying debt back on right now typically we do 20-year bonds the dark gray above it are bonds

that have been approved by voters, but we're not yet paying debt service on them.

And then the colorful ones at the top are the ones that are part of the 10-year capital plan,

and you can see that we are making an effort with the Office of Public Finance

to ensure that we are not going above the 2006 tax rate.

With that, I just wanted to, again, thank you for the time

and recognize all the different people that have participated in putting this bond program together.

There's a list of them.

If you go to the next slide, Michelle, I think there's a list,

and this is just part of the large team of folks that we've had to,

that have been really working closely with this, especially since September and October.

With that, I do want to give an opportunity for Director Kirschbaum and Director Short

to make a couple of comments,

and then I do want to note that again we have Steve Ritchie from the PUC

Captain Chris Canning from the San Francisco Police Department and chief

Miller from the San Francisco Fire Department to answer any questions oh

and I should also add we also have Vishal Trivedi and Anna Vendagna I don't

Anna Vendagna I think is here somewhere to answer any questions about the public

financing component of it about how the bonds will be sold and priced and

process. So with that, Julie, did you want to say a couple words? Yeah. I just want to express my

gratitude to Mayor Lurie and all of the co-sponsors for this bond. The Petrero Yard currently serves

95,000 muni riders a day. It is critical to our resiliency, and it is also critical to the safety

of our staff. This is our most vulnerable earthquake asset in one of our most accessible

parts of the city, which is why the Petraro Yard is so key to our recovery in an emergency. So

I'm happy to answer any questions, and I appreciate your consideration today.

Good morning, supervisors. Carla Short, Director of San Francisco Public Works.

I also want to express my appreciation to Mayor Lurie and to the co-sponsors, and of course to

the City Administrator's Office, and to Brian Strong in particular for championing this program.

Public Works' role has been to manage the ESER bond program.

We've done this since the first bond in 2010, 2014, and 2020.

We do all of the GO-BAC reporting, the spend-down, and I would just note appreciation for our finance team.

We have gone through multiple audits over the past several bonds with no findings,

confirming that all the bond funds were spent down appropriately and within the

regulations of bond use. We work collaboratively with our sister

agencies to deliver these projects on behalf of the people of San Francisco.

We ensure compliance with all of the many regulations from CEQA to hazardous

material abatement to our procurement requirements. And throughout this

program voters have shown strong support for all the ESER bonds demonstrating that they back and

believe in this program and we hope they will continue to support this important program thank

you I'm available for any questions and that concludes our presentation thank you

good morning uh Supervisors Nick Menard from the budget legislative analyst office

items three and four are two pieces of legislation to request essentially voter

approval for a 535 million dollar general obligation bond on the June 2026 ballot

one is an ordinance that puts the question on the ballot and one is a

resolution that would determine that the debt is necessary and in the public

interest we show the projects a summary of the projects funded by this bond on

page four of our report with more detail starting on page seven and then on page

5 you can see the fiscal impact of the bonds if they're approved. The $535 million would

translate into $933 million of debt service over the 25-year life of the bonds. They are

repaid by special property taxes, so they're not a general fund cost. And we also note

that the board will have to approve bond sales and appropriations if this bond is approved.

at that time there'll be I think more detail about the projects that will

actually be funded by these proceeds but we do recommend approval of items three

and four thank you I think I want to specifically ask questions around the

emergency firefighting water system I see that Mr. strong already nodding

knowing that I will be asking this in the 2019 bond that the city has invested

$100 million to build out the emergency firefighting water system for the west side.

And that is from District 7, Lake Merced, all the way into outer Richmond through the sunset,

through outer sunset.

But what we have learned over that time is that that $100 million wasn't enough,

that we understand that the build out from $15 million per mile

to increase significantly to $42 million per mile.

And thanks to SFPUC, the partnership allowed us to tap into water bond.

Thank you to SFPUC that we, with the additional $300 million,

is now that we can complete the entire design of that.

But I kind of want to really have SFPUC or maybe Mr. Strong can actually articulate

and help us understand with this additional $130 million from this bond,

what does that look like for the west side in terms of emergency firefighting water system?

Yes, I can maybe take a quick stab at it,

and then I know that Assistant General Manager Richie and the project manager for it,

Josh Andreessen and Katie Miller, are also here who can back me up.

So the additional funds that are coming through this bond, which is a little around $100 million for expanding to the west side, are really to continue the work that was started before from the 2020 bond.

Again, initially with ESER, the focus was on fixing the core attributes of the system, retrofitting Twin Peaks Reservoir, the pump stations, the two tanks, Jones and Ashbury tanks.

and now we are working on and I think they're in the process of getting ready

to put out a number of contracts to actually start laying down new pipe or

to be connecting to some of the existing water the existing domestic system in

that area right that domestic system is a large trunk line that was supported by

the water system improvement program several years ago you may have been

familiar with it was a nine or ten billion dollar massive improvement to to

the water supply system that we believe is the smartest way to make these types

of improvements and the PUC has committed that they're that they're

working to get to the Richmond district and I would refer to one of them I think

to be a little more specific about what aspects of the of the Richmond district

they can go to.

Thank you.

Morning, Supervisor.

Steve Ritchie, Assistant General Manager for Water.

I'm here basically to make sure it's very clear that the continued commitment of the

PUC to finalizing this and get that extension built.

And we're very happy to share in the cost between the water bonds and the geo bonds.

It really works and also really emphasize our relationship with the fire department on this

You know, we are really tight with them and that's been very successful

But I turn it over to Josh Andreessen our senior project manager here to answer the specific questions about how far

Good morning. I'm Josh Andreessen senior project manager with us at PC on the fire water program and

and regarding how far we can make it with this bond money,

we're currently estimating to 47th and Cabrillo,

which is near the Safeway.

Some of those contracts are in the planning stage,

and so we're still refining the scope,

and there still is a range of possible outcomes.

But we are excited to report that the contract A from Lake Merced

to about Sloat is going to bid later this year,

and we will get more cost certainty as we see those prices come in.

And that will be the initial 1.7 miles to start to make our progress towards the Richmond.

Thank you.

And I just want to understand what you just said is that the 2026 bond and this bond

is that it will allow us to fund the construction all the way to 47th Avenue and Cabrillo.

That's our estimate currently, correct?

As well as the Fort Mason fireboat manifold project will also be funded as well, construction.

Fort Mason.

Yes.

Understood.

Thank you.

I think that is the answer that I think Westside residents are looking for, for this 2026 bond.

And knowing that we've been making investment, I really do appreciate the partnership for that additional water bond,

allowing us to really, now that we're going back to the voters and that we are asking, again,

for them to invest in the emergency firefighting water system,

is that they now really going to get something that they can see it's deliverable within this bond.

And I really do appreciate the effort.

And Vice Chair Dorsey.

Thank you, Chair Chan.

And I share the concern about our firefighting water system capabilities.

I know that from what I know of the experience in this city in 1906,

it was the water main broke and we didn't have the ability to fight the fire,

and far more than the earthquake, it was the fires that devastated the city.

How resilient is the water system, not just what we're going to be doing on the west side, but citywide?

Is there a scenario where we have water main breaks in similar systems

where we're going to be trying to fight fires without water?

I think Katie Miller or Steve may be best to answer that one.

Thank you.

Yeah, the fire, excuse me, the water system is much more resilient now.

We have changed the style of pipe that we're using.

As part of the water system improvement program,

We established major transmission mains deep into San Francisco

to make sure that water would get here all the way from the sources.

So we're in much better shape overall.

We're starting work on analysis of what's going to happen to the potable system in an earthquake.

The historical thinking has been, well, just assume it fails, and we think that's wrong.

You know, there is going to be a fair amount of it that is going to survive intact,

and will be usable, but that doesn't obviate the need for the PEFWS,

the potable combined system.

We think that's going to be a major addition that's going to serve both the potable system

and the emergency firefighting system.

Okay. Is that analysis, I think it's called, is it HAZUS?

It's the methodology that FEMA uses to estimate earthquake risk?

I don't know if we're using FEMA.

What?

Yeah, the HAZUS system, it's really used as a predictive modeling tool.

And it'll look at fire and it'll look at earthquake to some extent.

So it just helps do the prediction.

It's fairly general.

I believe the PUC has done some more detailed studies that look at how much water we're going to need to address fires in different parts of the city.

They've been working with, I think it was Charlie Scawthorn.

Dr. Charlie Scawthorn is one of the most foremost experts in the country around water for fighting fires.

Okay.

Yeah, I would be interested in if the PUC is going to be doing analyses on this.

I'd love to get a deep dive on it.

It doesn't have to be before the committee, but this is something that is of interest to me.

I know that, first of all, I appreciate everybody who has worked on this.

And those of you who have met with me to talk about these things, I usually show people the seismic risk map for the city that is very much,

and the district I represent is very much vulnerable to liquefaction and other risks.

And it's a bit of a sidebar, but we're just getting to the last element of a connection from our College Hill Reservoir,

which has just seen some major improvements to General Hospital with a Japanese style of pipe

that has proved much more resilient to earthquakes.

And it's really a pilot project for us to make sure that we've got an emergency connection there

that we really believe will be the wave of the future,

this really flexible pipe that can withstand much more earthquake risk than we've ever seen before.

Okay. Great. I appreciate it,

and I would like to get as much homework as you're doing on this.

I'd love to be informed on this,

and I'm happy to do any legwork necessary at the ballot box

to convince voters that this is important because it is.

And it's not just 1906, too.

I think just even more recently, the Los Angeles experience

just should be instructive about how important it is

to the resiliency of our city in this kind of a thing

to have to make sure that water is available and that the system is working.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

I don't see any other name on the roster.

I really appreciate everybody being here today for all the work that you're doing.

I look forward to just seeing this bond being successful to all the critical needs for our city.

I think city administrator she has mentioned specifically to for the SFMTA facility that has really seen the critical needs for making sure that is part of this bond so I appreciate that effort it is critical and with that let's go to public comments on this item yes we are now opening public comment for these items one two three and four if we have any members of the public who wish to address this committee

As soon as the first speaker steps up, I'll start your time in two minutes.

Good morning, Board of Supervisors.

Thank you for seeing this item right now.

My name is Sam Gebler.

I'm the president of San Francisco Firefighters Local 798.

I'd just like to offer a few remarks on this bond.

For those history buffs in here, you'll know that in 1906, a firehouse collapsed and killed

the chief of department Dennis T Sullivan that's the situation that we are faced with right now

with six firehouses that are will definitely be red tagged and could actually collapse in the

event of an earthquake we could have all the resources in the world but if the firehouses

collapse we cannot put out fires that is why this Easter bond is critically important to

our members and our fire department so that we can ensure a quick and effective response in the

case of an earthquake. In addition, during the 1988 or 1989 earthquake, the fire was put out

basically by the fire pumping water from the bay into the city. That was the only effective tool

we had. So we support this bond. We look forward to a faster and more efficient construction

of these new fire facilities in case we do have an earthquake,

we will be ready to respond.

And thank you very much.

And thank you, Sam Gellert, for addressing this committee.

Next speaker, please.

SFGov TV, I'll be using the overhead.

Okay.

Eileen Bogan, Coalition for San Francisco.

neighborhood, speaking on my own behalf, opposing the Easter bond submittal as currently drafted.

In the Capital Planning Committee documentation for November 17, 2025 meeting, Easter bonds

were described as being for, and I quote, city public safety and emergency response

facilities, end quote.

The MTA is not a public safety department, and the Petrero Yard is not an emergency response

facility.

The Petroliard was originally listed in the transportation bond

and then parachuted into the 2026 Easter bond.

On November 7th, the total Easter amount was $525 million,

but on December 1st, the total was $535 million.

The Petroliard project alone would take about 40% of the overall 2026 bond funds.

There are two police stations and six fire stations with a seismic hazard rating of four,

which are at high risk of collapse during a major seismic event.

Allowing many of these bona fide emergency response facilities to deteriorate further

while prioritizing an MTA project is beyond questionable.

Also, all new ESA bond funds for the PUC's emergency firefighting water system

should be placed on controller's reserve until such time as the EFWS is transferred from the PUC

back to the fire department where it belongs.

The board has been copied on the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods resolution

regarding the rationale for transferring the EFWS back to the fire department.

The first page of the resolution is on the overhead.

The entire resolution has been distributed to the committee members and the clerk of the committee.

Thank you.

Thank you much, Eileen Boken.

Next speaker, please.

Good morning, Honorable Chair Chen and members Dorsey and Sauter.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of the skilled and trained members of the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council.

I want to support a couple of key points, but I want to start with the public integrity around this bond.

You know, I don't think there's enough focus drawn to what Director Carla Short mentioned.

The Citizens Bond Oversight Committee has done a stellar job, of which I'm in close contact regularly with two of the seats,

and we'll be recommending through the Rules Committee to future professionals to help be stewards and guardians of the taxpayer's interest.

We think it's been an incredibly efficiently run bond program.

I would just want to flag all of our appreciation for the hardworking staff at all levels of management

and the rank and file who make these programs actually work.

You know, I usually take my cues from the firefighters.

And to see Sam Gebler here from the Firefighters Union representing the rank and file first responders,

the people who will actually use this infrastructure to protect our life, safety, and property,

tells me that we're on the right track.

So we're going to support the Easter bond with our full-throated endorsement.

I also want to just call out one key piece.

Director Kirschbaum spoke about the Prochero Bus Modernization Yards or project.

We've secured employment opportunities in the community for local business enterprises

and for apprentices and skilled tradespeople across the city.

There is an excellent public-private partnership model that will not happen

unless we make key investments in the seismic safety of that bus modernization facility.

This has to happen in order to unlock that modernization effort.

So we fully support the inclusion.

I appreciate that sometimes the coordination of different bonds

between what the water program has and what DPW has

and what the Office of Capital Improvement,

it can be a little out of the ordinary to talk about an MTA program and an ESER bond,

but it's absolutely on point, and we fully support it.

So thank you for your support of the effort and your co-sponsorship.

Thank you and thank you much reading in cells if we have any other speakers

madam chair looks like that completes our queue seeing no more public

comments public comment is now closed and by sure Dorsey thank you chair Chan so

there was one first I appreciate everybody's public comments I think this

is it is helpful to have these discussions there there was a concern

expressed and I it's not the first time that I've heard it about the fact that

MTA is also going to be in this. So my understanding historically is that the

earthquake safety and emergency response bond historically has included

earthquake safety improvements to things that are not necessarily just just for

first responders. I believe there was a previous EASER bond that funded

improvements to Kesar because Kesar would be very much a part of how the

city would respond. So it may not be obvious that something is part of our emergency response,

but in fact it is. Because I've heard this a couple of times, I don't know if there's anybody

who could address this better than I could to just explain why this is part and parcel of

what we intend to do always when we have an earthquake safety that's part of it,

and then emergency response, but it's all of that. Yeah, thank you, Supervisor, for that critical

question and I think for all of you and for many of us in the city leadership who has had to deal

with different emergencies we know that our first responders are the first ones on the scene to deal

with any kind of significant large-scale disruption whether it's an earthquake a natural disaster or

other types of incidences and so number one we want to thank our first responders for their great work

and their bravery during these processes but I think in addition to that we also know that the

response to enable us to safely deal with all the things in the aftermath that happens is a full city

event. And so we have in the past taken a look at how it is that we're going to make our shelters

and our different large facilities available to help make sure that people have a place to live

when homes are broken or when buildings come down. That's a significant part of our disaster

response and recovery effort. In addition to that, making sure that we actually have the ability to

move critical personnel, people, and residents around the city is going to be a huge situation

that we're going to have to manage as well. We're going to see significant disruptions,

possibly in major roadways. We're going to have to reroute and move individuals,

large mass amounts of people from one place to another. And so part of this process is ensuring

that one of our most critical assets to help move not only residents, people who are visiting,

but also potentially workers to and from different locations that need it is going to

be critical and so I know that it may not sound particularly connected but it

is absolutely connected to make sure that we are able to maintain these

massive main critical systems in our city part of our response is very much

about making sure that we can do that and of course I'm happy to invite Julie

if she'd like to add anything but I think that is adjusted is to make sure

that our entire ecosystem of how respond to an emergency is taken care of

Thank you.

And so with that, colleagues, I would like to move these four items to full board with recommendation and a roll call, please.

And on that motion, that these items one through four be referred to the full board with recommendation.

Vice Chair Dorsey.

Aye.

Dorsey, aye.

Member Sauter.

Aye.

Sauter, aye.

Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan, aye.

We have three ayes.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

And Mr. Clark, please call item number five.

Item number five is an ordinance amending the administrative code to expand the definition of tax-exempt entities for use fees,

updating the process for notification guidelines concerning film production activities that may cause parking or traffic obstructions,

updating definitions for the film rebate program, updating the film rebate amounts,

and authorizing the executive director to enter into licensing agreements for the use of the Film SF logo

and other Film Commission trademarks or merchandise.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And today we have San Francisco Film here.

Oh, actually, my apologies.

I committed to that, and my mind just skipped.

Could we go back to this item?

I recognize that President Mendel wants to be here for this item.

My apologies, colleagues, and my apologies.

Let's skip this item, and then we come back to it when he returns.

My apologies to the film folks.

And please call item number six.

Yes, item number six.

It is a resolution retroactively authorizing the Office of the District Attorney to accept and expend a grant in the amount of $420,000 from the California Office of Traffic Safety for the grant period of October 1, 2025 through September 30, 2026 to support the Alcohol and Drug Impaired Driver Vertical Prosecution Program activities and services.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And we have the District Attorney's Office here.

Good morning, everyone, and thank you for having me.

My name is Monifa Willis, the Chief of Staff for the San Francisco District Attorney's Office.

Thank you for your time and service.

We are here to ask for your approval of the retroactive accept and expend for the total of $420,000 from the Office of Traffic Safety Office.

This funds one vertical prosecutor in our office.

Cases, particularly DUI cases, can be nuanced,

so this money will ensure that the prosecutor receives proper training on how to present these cases.

In addition to, he will lead prevention awareness campaigns

in collaboration with local enforcement agencies.

Also, these funds align with our city's Vision Zero initiatives.

The time frame is from September 2025 to October 2026.

Any questions for me?

No.

Supervisor Salver.

Thank you, Chair.

Can you just give us a sense of if this is an additional hire, how does this increase your capacity?

How does this compare to your existing resources?

Yeah, great question.

It's not an additional hire.

we will be taking an attorney that is currently hired in our office on the vertical team who will

solely focus on DUI cases. Okay, and then within your work on DUI cases right now, like how many

prosecutors do you have assigned to that at this point? One. He is the sole attorney for that,

and so this will cover his, yeah. This is that one person or this doubles it? Yes, this is that one

person it does not double it yeah so this will offset costs for us okay thank

you thank you thank you 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 six now is your opportunity madam chair we have no

speakers seeing no public comments public comment is now closed what is your

Wales supervisors a roll call please and on that motion by member Sauter that we

refer this resolution to the full board with recommendation

Vice-Chair Dorsey Dorsey I member Sauter Sauter I chair Chan I Chan I we have

three eyes the motion passes and with that mr. clerk please call item number

item number seven is a resolution authorizing the Recreation and Park Department to accept and

expend cash and in-kind grants from Trust for Public Land and the Theodore and Francis Jabal

Philanthropic Fund of the Jewish Federation Bay Area valued at approximately $1.6 million

for the design, installation, repair, and construction of improvements to Kaushland Park

to approve the associated grant agreement effective upon approval of this resolution

and to authorize the general manager of RPD to enter into modifications to the grant agreement

that did not materially increase the obligations nor liabilities to the city

and are necessary to effectuate the purposes of this contract or this resolution.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And today we have Rec and Park Department here.

Yes, hello.

Good morning, Chairman Chan, Supervisor Dorsey, Supervisor Sautter.

My name is Tamar Barlev.

I'm the Assistant Director of Partnerships for the Recreation and Park Department, and

I'm here to present Item 7, requesting that the Board authorize RPD to accept and expend

generous in-kind and cash donations and approve the associated grant agreement with the Trust

for Public Land and the Theodore and Francis Jabal Philanthropic Fund of the Jewish Federation

Bay Area, valued at approximately $1.625 million.

These grants will cover the design and construction resulting in significant park and community

garden improvements at Coshlin Park. To get situated, Coshlin Park is located in San Francisco's

Western Edition neighborhood, in District 5, west of Octavia, north of Market, and southeast of

Alamo Square. In 1973, a fire destroyed an apartment building located on the site, and in the aftermath,

the local community, with help from Trust for Public Land and local philanthropist Daniel Coshlin Sr.,

recognized an opportunity to increase open space in the neighborhood, and worked with Reckon Park

to establish Koshland Park at the site. At a time when the neighborhood had limited access to open

space, Koshland Park filled a critical need and continues to provide valuable recreation and open

space opportunities. The park features a half basketball court, grass area, other green spaces,

a children's play area, and a community garden. The Koshland Park community garden is one of two

places in the Western Edition and one of 42 throughout the city where residents can engage

in community gardening and service both community gardeners and students at nearby schools.

50 years after the park was established and 25 years after its last renovation, and in honor of

their grandfather, Daniel Coshlin Sr., the Jabal family approached RPD offering to donate the funds

necessary to implement repairs and enhancements needed to ensure the park can continue to thrive

and serve the community for generations to come.

The kickoff process in late 2023,

the Jabal family granted the Trust for Public Land funds

to cover the cost of developing a concept plan

for the Koshlin Park Community Garden.

After an RFP process,

Trust for Public Land hired TS Studios landscape architects

and worked with Reckon Park staff

to engage with the local community

to develop this concept plan.

This initial grant already funded preliminary planning work,

and we are now asking you to allow RPD to accept and expend funds

to design and construct the improvements identified during this preliminary phase.

In order to determine what these improvements should be,

RPD, TPL, and TS Studios held community meetings

and distributed surveys to the community.

Through this public engagement process,

we learned that local priorities for the community garden are safety, visibility, and increased

gardening spaces and access. The community also wanted RPD to prioritize refurbishing and replacing

existing park features that need to be updated. With this community input in hand, RPD identified

necessary improvements to the park, including replacing and refurbishing and adding perimeter

and interior fencing, replacing the half basketball court surface and refurbishing the basketball

standard, replacing the children's play area, resilient surfacing, and replenishing the sand

in this area, replacing or refurbishing the furniture in the surrounding area, the benches,

the tables, water fountains, and information kiosks, and making ADA improvements to the main

pathway throughout the park. And we developed a community garden concept plan that proposes to

transform the community garden from this charming but dated space to this modernized design that

maintains the garden's appeal and adds accessible pathways, more gardening areas, and visibility

throughout the community garden. This Koshlin Community Garden Concept Plan was approved by

the Recreation and Park Commission in October of 2025. The cash and in-kind donations that the

Jeball family is proposing and you are considering today will fund the design and construction of the

elements depicted in this concept plan, as well as implement the aforementioned park improvements.

So our preliminary timeline, right now we are hoping to get this grant agreement approved,

And then in spring and summer of 2026, we'll complete the project designed for the community garden work, and the construction will begin on the park improvements.

Then in fall and winter, we expect a project bid and award process, and then construction beginning on the community garden work as the project completion happens for the park improvements.

And the ribbon cutting will take place in winter of 2026.

We're hoping to make sure that this happens in tandem so we don't close the park for too long.

And the budget, as you can see here, the community garden improvements, design, and oversight will be $332,000 with soft costs of $130,000

and construction and contingency costs of $682,000 for a total for the community garden of $1.144 million.

The park maintenance and improvement project construction and contingency costs will be the remaining $481,000 for a total of $1.625 million.

In terms of the funding source from the Jabal family, the cash grant to TPL for community garden design will be the $332,000,

and that will be accepted as an in-kind grant by RPD eventually.

And then the cash grant to RPD will be $1.293 million.

That's it. Have any questions?

Thank you and Supervisor Sauter.

Thank you Chair and thank you for the presentation.

Just a quick question about some of the, maybe the background of this funding and how it came to be.

Was this something where this park was identified as a need and then you sought out the funder or did they have this park in mind?

If you could just give some background.

The funder is a member of the Koshlin family.

The Jabal family is actually descendants of the Koshlin family,

and they saw the importance of this particular park

and their family's involvement in it

and saw the need to engage with this particular park.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, and just want to be grateful to the gift.

It's critical space, and we really appreciate it,

And thank you so much for your work on this.

Let's go to public comment on this item.

Yes, if you have any members of the public who should address this committee regarding this item number seven,

now is your opportunity.

Hi, I'm Mark Reisbaum.

I'm a philanthropy advisor here representing the Jabal family.

Just to your question, as Tamar mentioned, the late Sissy Jabal was the daughter of Daniel

Koshlin Sr.

She passed away in 2019.

She was 99 years old.

Great life.

Her husband, Teddy, passed away in 21.

And after that, their family, who's now spread out all over the country, wanted to do something

to give back to the city where

their family's been so involved and received so much.

And as Tamar mentioned, the last time Caution Park was renovated was several

decades ago.

To say it's a well-loved park is an understatement.

So the family

approached the parks and rec and said,

you know, we know that this is something that

that you probably would love to do and please go out and figure out the best way

to

to make it

serve the community and uh so after a very robust process that we're very proud of with a lot of

community input um the family is just pleased now to be able to support uh this renovation to

to make posh caution park a real jewel for san francisco for many decades to come so thank you so

much thank you for addressing this committee next speaker please

Hello, my name is Carl Kozaki.

I've been a resident near Cauchon Park for close to 25 years now.

Ironically, I moved there at the time when they had just gone through their last significant updates to the park.

And I just wanted to come and, you know, just offer my support to this.

I can't thank the Jabal family enough for their generosity.

I can attest the fact that it's a beloved park by everyone in the community.

I'm also a community gardener there, and a lot of the improvements specific to the garden I think is going to tremendously impact the users of space.

We have a lot of senior members.

The ADA path is going to really increase accessibility and extend their joy of gardening.

and there's a wait list of over 400 people to get in the garden.

Some have waited as long as seven years,

so the fact that they're expanding the garden space

and allowing more people the joy of gardening I think is wonderful.

So, again, thank you for your interest in this, for the improvements here.

Thank you.

And thank you much for your comments.

And Madam Chair, that completes our queue.

Seeing no more public comments,

Public comment is now closed.

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

And on that motion, to refer this resolution to the full board with recommendation,

Vice Chair Dorsey.

Aye.

Dorsey, aye.

Member Sauter.

Aye.

Sauter, aye.

Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan, aye.

We have three ayes.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

And Mr. Clerk, please call item number eight.

Yes, item number eight is an ordinance appropriating approximately $9 billion of proceeds from the sale of revenue bonds or commercial paper for capital improvement projects to the Airport Commission for fiscal years 2025 to 2026 and placing approximately $9 billion on comptroller's reserve pending receipt of proceeds of indebtedness. Madam Chair.

Thank you, and today we have SFO here.

Good morning, Supervisors, and welcome Supervisor Sauter to Budget and Finance Committee.

My name is Deanna Volek with the San Francisco International Airport.

The item before you for consideration would authorize the appropriation of $9 billion of proceeds from airport revenue bonds

to fully finance the Airport's Capital Improvement Program, or CIP.

This approval provides the airport with the ability to sell bonds and commercial papers in the future

to continue funding the $12.5 billion CIP on an as-needed basis subject to market conditions.

Bond proceeds will be placed on controller's reserve pending the sale of the bonds.

Approval of the supplemental appropriation ensures ongoing investments to accommodate traffic demand

and address state of good repair needs at SFO.

It also supports the airport's ability to sustain and enhance its role as a driver of economic activity that benefits the city.

The airport's 12.5 capital improvement plan is comprised of the $8 billion Asset Program Phase 1.5

and $4.4 billion Infrastructure Projects Plan.

Some of the major projects being funded in the Asset Program include Terminal 3 renovations,

cargo and hangar improvements, and parking and garage improvements.

Infrastructure plan projects are those that address critical safety, operations, or business needs,

such as power and lighting improvements, water system and utility improvements,

energy-efficient upgrades, runway and taxi improvements, and wastewater system projects.

The airport's capital plan is focused on meeting current and projected air traffic demand

while maintaining a safe and secure airport.

Debt service on airport bonds is paid from airport revenue of concession and parking revenues,

as well as airline rates and charges.

The city's general fund is not responsible for any airport debt.

This supplemental appropriation has been reviewed and approved by the Airport Commission,

the city's Office of Public Finance, and the city's Capital Planning Committee.

I'm joined today by members of our airport finance team who are available to answer any questions,

and thank you for your consideration.

Item 8 is an ordinance that would appropriate approximately $9 billion of proceeds from airport revenue bonds.

The appropriation would provide the airport essentially spending authority for bonds that it plans to issue between now and fiscal year 28-29 to fund its capital program.

We showed the projects of that program starting on page 30 of the report.

And then on page 26, we discussed the fiscal impact of this new debt.

We showed that the airport's expecting to pay about $650 million in debt service this year.

That would increase to about $1.4 billion with these bonds and other planned bonds.

By 2046, the airport bonds are paid for solely by airport revenues,

which consist of charges to airlines, concession revenues, and parking revenues.

And then we also discuss in our report that the airport is, based on the projections of revenue and their own projections of passenger growth, they are meeting their own financial policies to maintain a sufficient level of revenue to pay for debt service.

So we recommend approval of item 8.

Thank you.

We appreciate you bringing this item forward.

For me particularly, there's no impact on general funds, so clearly this is fiscal management solely from the SFO.

But I do appreciate just having this dialogue and allowing us to have this discussion and bringing this item.

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

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

Madam Chair, we have no speakers.

Seeing no public comments, public comment is now closed.

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

And on that motion, to refer this ordinance to the full board with recommendation, Vice Chair Dorsey.

Aye.

Dorsey, aye.

Member Sauter.

Aye.

Sauter, aye.

Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan, aye.

We have three ayes.

The motion passes.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Mr. Clerk, please call item number nine.

Yes, item number nine is a resolution retroactively authorizing the Department of Public Health to accept and expend a monetary gift entitled 2024 EPIC for federally qualified health centers in the amount of $77,000 from the EPIC Systems Corporation to help support federally qualified health centers and their underserved patient populations for the period of July 1st, 2024 through June 30th, 2025.

Madam Chair.

Thank you, and we have Department of Public Health here.

Good morning, supervisors.

My name is Jeff Scarifia.

I'm the Deputy CIO for the Department of Public Health.

We're here today to request your support and approval for a gift in the amount of $77,000

from Epic Systems.

As a reminder, Epic is an electronic medical records vendor that we use to provide our

services across the Department of Public Health.

Federally qualified health centers, or FQHCs, are primary care facilities that receive special federal funding

based on the services that they offer and the population whom they serve.

EPIC provides this gift to all of their customers who run federally qualified health centers all the way across the country.

Next slide.

We are seeking today. We are seeking your retro retro active approval to accept and expend this gift into the DPH budget

Happy to answer any questions

Thank you and

So with this epic system do we do we do this on a routine basis for every fiscal year

today I should say I should say does EPIC offer this to the federally qualified health centers

in San Francisco on a routine basis typically yes although it is not a guarantee understood

thank you with that let's go to public comment on this item yes we are opening public comment

for this item number nine 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.

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

And on that motion to refer to the full board with recommendation, Vice Chair Dorsey.

Dorsey, aye.

Member Sautter.

Aye.

Sautter, aye.

Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan, aye. We have three ayes.

The motion passes.

Mr. Clerk, please call item number 10.

Yes, item number 10 is a resolution retroactively authorizing the Department of Public Health

to submit an application to continue receiving funding for the Ryan White Act HIV AIDS Emergency Relief Grant Program Grant

from the Health Resources Services Administration and requesting approximately $15.5 million in HIV Emergency Relief Program funding

for the San Francisco eligible metropolitan area for the period of March 1, 2026 through February 28, 2027.

Madam Chair.

Thank you, and again, we have our Department of Public Health here.

Good morning, Chair Chan and Supervisors Sader and Darcy.

Darcy, thanks for the opportunity to request retroactive approval for a Ryan White Part A grant.

My name is Bill Bloom, and I'm from San Francisco Department of Public Health.

Next slide, please.

So Health Resource Services Administration, also known as HRSA, HIV AIDS Bureau,

have. On a yearly basis, we apply for what's called Ryan White Part A funding. The application

amount is just over $15,500,000. The term of the grant is March 1st of 2026 through February 28th

of 2027. The grantor is HRSA. The grant provides funding for HIV services to three counties. We

are the grantee of San Francisco, also San Mateo and Marin counties.

And this will go to fund a comprehensive system of care for HIV,

including primary medical care, essential support services,

and medications for low-income people living with HIV who are either uninsured

or underinsured in San Francisco.

Next slide, please.

The reasons for requesting it retroactively had to do with kind of the dates.

HRSA kind of put this one out a bit later than usual.

So it was put out on July 21st, 2025, with a due date of October 2nd,

leaving 52 business days to complete the application and submit.

DPH was unable to get board approval before the application deadline.

DPH is therefore bringing this before the board following the fiscal approvals process.

In conclusion, respectfully requesting approval of this item.

Thanks.

Thank you.

And I understand this is a grant application and it's issued later.

Are we confirmed that we will be receiving the grant?

This year it's noncompetitive.

So we qualify, so every year we receive.

It's a flat funded, so part of the application is formula-based.

The other is competitive.

This year, every three years, it's competitive for the whole thing.

So we're pretty much guaranteed this amount with pending us having submitted the proposal.

And then on a local level, we oftentimes make sure that we provide additional for cost of doing business,

just in San Francisco.

And I know that last year we did put, making sure,

we've been doing that every fiscal year

to make sure that we do do that matching

of cost of doing business for the local level.

For the, so this is the grant that is for the 26th, 27th,

so this is the upcoming fiscal year.

My assumption is the last time we cover

for both two fiscal years, 20th,

but correct me if I'm wrong,

Did we end up covering cost of doing business for both 25, 26, and 26, 27?

Or did we only cover for 25, 26?

I believe it's both.

I can double check and get back with you.

A reminder that basically they didn't expand the funding,

and there are more and more EMAs that are qualifying.

So what that translates for us is the reduction in the annual funding.

So over the years, thanks to your predecessors as well as current and previous mayors,

we've been backfilled with general fund dollars.

So it's been actually looking at both doing cost of business with the general fund as well as the Part A.

The one time there actually was additional money,

the only time there was a slight bump up in Part A in the last 25 years,

the Planning Council did request that we use it to cover the cost of doing business.

And so will this then, I guess the question, this is more for probably eventually for the DPHC CFO to kind of let us know for your upcoming proposed budget, will then require us to do the add back in the last, similarly to what we have done in the last two fiscal years when the budget actually comes through the board?

or will then be inclusive with the understanding that it does require for the additional,

will then become with the proposed budget or will then be a require of the add-back process?

Do you know the answer to that now or are we going to have this?

I could prognosticate, but I couldn't.

My crystal ball is not so good, but I can try and give you a guesstimate.

The other thing that is happening and is a question of whether they're going to implement it,

They're proposing to kind of restructure the whole way they do the formula allocation.

So for a number of years, it's been based on your geographic area of diagnosis.

They're now switching it because they feel that CDC has a mature enough data set to actually base the award

on where the person living with HIV currently resides, which will, for San Francisco,

under the proposed formula translates into a 20% reduction in this funding over five years.

And then also the state of California, Ryan White Part B,

they will also receive a 5% cut over five years, so 1% cut there.

There is some hopes that the state budget, because of the surplus

in the AIDS Drug Assistance Program, will help us soften this.

But I tell you all this to say yes, I think they'll probably be asked

to try and fill these upcoming cuts?

I mean, I think that's, but that is somewhat alarming,

the change of the funding formula only because, you know,

I can imagine that San Francisco has a robust programming

and be able to provide that services.

So for people who live outside of San Francisco

are able to come to the city and be able to receive that service

and that we as a city then can have reimbursements.

But that does not guarantee the person that received the service, wherever they reside, be able to have access to the local clinics that they live in.

That's actually really critical information. I appreciate that.

Sure, and I can send you. We did write a letter from the county because it's in a review process right now.

They're seeking public comment.

So we've done everything we can.

I mean, in some ways it makes sense.

The problem is it assumes it's the same amount of money to take care of everyone.

It doesn't matter where you live, so it's not tied to cost of living in an area.

And also it isn't tied to age.

So, you know, San Francisco has a disproportionate number of people who are older,

living with HIV longer, more medically complex.

So the formula is a simple formula.

It's not a weighted formula.

Unfortunately, the legislation doesn't allow for a weighted formula.

So it's certainly something we're trying to push for, at least a longer band of implementation.

But, you know, there are a number of parts of California which have seen phenomenal growth and nationally the number of folks.

So I think just to say good people could argue it a long time.

I think the better solution would be more funding.

But now I'm going to personal opinion here.

So I'll stop unless you have other questions.

I always understand where we end up going for a lot of programming that the answer is the increase of funding.

I appreciate that.

Thank you.

And I don't see any name on the roster.

I don't have additional questions.

Thank you so much, as always, coming before us for what you do.

Let's go to public comments on this item.

Yes, we're opening public comment for this item number 10.

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.

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

And on my motion to refer to the full board with recommendation, Vice Chair Dorsey.

Aye.

Dorsey, aye.

Member Sauter.

Aye.

Sauter, aye.

Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan, aye.

We have three ayes.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

And Mr. Clerk, please call item number 11.

Item 11 is a resolution retroactively authorizing the Department of Public Health to accept and

expend an in-kind gift of COVID-19 test kits in a total amount of approximately $527,000

for fiscal year 2024 to 2025 from the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response through

the California Department of Public Health in support of the Department of Public Health

Clinic patients and staff.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And today we have San Francisco Health Network.

Hi, good morning, supervisors.

My name is Solomon Gabala.

I'm the IT Prohibitor Director for the San Francisco Health Network.

And the resolution before you is to retroactively approve the accept and expand of a gift from CDPH of COVID-19 test kits for the fiscal year of 2425.

The approximate value, as aforementioned here, was about $527,000.

These test kits were distributed throughout the city and county of San Francisco to clinics, hospitals, community-based organizations to test residents, staff, and to obviously prevent, detect, and help mitigate the spread of COVID-19.

At this point, the CDPH has not made any additional contributions.

We don't anticipate any additional contributions going forward as the supply chain and also the funding for COVID-19 has been established and implemented within the operational budgets of DPH.

Do you have any questions for me?

No, I don't have any other questions.

I don't see any name on the roster.

Thank you so much for your presentation.

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 11 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 football with recommendation and

A roll call please and on that motion refer this resolution to the full board with recommendation

Vice-chair Dorsey, I

Dorsey, aye. Member Sauter? Sauter, aye. Chair Chan? Aye.

Chan, aye. We have three ayes.

The motion passes.

And with that, Mr. Clerk, please call item number 12.

Yes, item number 12 is a resolution retroactively authorizing the Department of Public Health

to accept and expand the grant increase from the National Institutes of Health

through the Regents of the University of California, San Francisco,

for participation in a program entitled Short Trainings on Methods for Recruiting, Sampling,

and Counting Hard-to-Reach Populations, the H2R Training Program in the amount of approximately

$24,000 for a total amount of approximately $102,000 from June 1, 2025 for the total period

of October 1, 2022 through May 31, 2026, and to authorize the Director of Health to enter into

amendments or modifications to the grant agreement that do not materially increase the obligations

nor liabilities to the city and are necessary to effectuate the purposes of the grant agreement or

this resolution madam chair thank you and again we have department on public health here

good morning chair chan vice chair dorsey and supervisor souter i'm willie mcfarland the

director for the center of public health research which is a branch within the san

San Francisco Public Health Department.

I'm here to request your approval to accept and expand a grant

that we received from the National Institute of Health with UCSF.

The grant is to provide short trainings on methods for recruiting,

sampling, and counting hard-to-reach populations.

Next slide.

Oh, you got no, that's fine.

In September 2025, we were able to amend the original grant

to increase the amount by 23,687.

This increase brought the total to just above $100,000.

The timeline for the original grant is from October 2022 to May 2026.

The grant supports DPH to train health professionals in state-of-the-art methods to conduct surveys

in hidden and hard-to-reach populations who are experiencing health disparities.

Our participants include our counterparts in other health departments, graduate students,

and junior faculty from other universities around the United States

and persons working for international health agencies.

Next slide.

We're requesting your retroactive authorization

due to the timelines determined by the grantor.

We received notice of the original award in March 2023

for project start date of October 2022.

For this amendment, the notification was in September 2025

for start date in June 2025.

So we brought this to you after going through our fiscal approval processes, including the

controller's review and approval.

Thank you for considering this request.

I'm happy to try to answer any questions.

Thank you for your work.

Let's go to public comment on this item.

Yes, we're opening public comment for this item number 12.

If we have any members of the public, I wish to address this committee.

Madam Chair, we have no speakers.

Seeing no public comments public comment is now closed

colleagues I would like to send this item to full board with

Recommendation and a roll call please and on that motion to refer this resolution to the full board with the recommendation vice chair Dorsey

Dorsey I member solder solder I church and I Chen I we have three eyes the motion passes

Thank you and

Mr. Clerk, let's call item number 13

Yes, item number 13 is a resolution approving the infrastructure financing plan for the San Francisco Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District number 3 for 3333-3700 California Street,

including the Division of Taxes set forth therein, an EIFD acquisition and financing agreement and documents and actions related thereto,

and authorizing the filing of a judicial validation action.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And we have the Office of Economic and Workforce Development here.

Thank you, Chair Chan, and good morning, supervisors.

My name is Lee Lutenski.

I'm with the Office of Economic and Workforce Development.

I'm joined today by colleagues from the Comptroller's Office to present this item to you.

We are here to present the resolution seeking to form an enhanced infrastructure financing

district for the 3333 and 3700 California Street projects.

Before I start, I just want to convey the strong support of the District 2 office.

The supervisor's office asked me to make sure on the record I could convey their strong

support.

They are a co-sponsor of this item with Mayor Daniel Lurie.

For those who have had exposure to our EIFD program and policies, you know it's a lengthy

formation process.

We actually began the first action at the Board of Supervisors in November of 2024,

where the board approved a resolution of intention to establish this EIFD.

We have had subsequent hearings and meetings with our special legislative body, the Public

financing authority over the course of the intervening time and are here before you today

seeking approval of the resolution that would officially form the district. The final formation

action is in the hands of our public financing authority. They would meet subsequent to board

of supervisors approval. The goals of our EIFD policy remain the same as when we initiated the

policy to form the district at the power station, which was the first EIFD that this city has formed.

And the goals really are recognizing a fiscal deficit in the largest projects we have in the city,

our development agreement projects, our big master planned projects. The expectations for

funding the infrastructure, the utilities, the parks, the roads, the affordable housing,

all of the big community benefits and assets in these projects.

Those costs have been an insurmountable hurdle for a lot of these projects.

And so in 2023, we developed an updated policy approach for use of this tool

to provide public financing to help fund the necessary infrastructure within these projects

that will help unlock the significant housing and community benefits that these projects will produce.

We have over 20,000 units of housing approved in our pipeline within these large projects waiting to get built, and this is a great opportunity to get that housing moving.

This item pertains to the district we are seeking to form across two discontiguous projects on California Street in District 2.

The map and the descriptions provide detail here, both located on California Street on either side of the Laurel Village Shopping Center.

Both projects are being advanced by developer Prado Group.

The 3333 California Street project will include 744 units of housing, a new neighborhood child care space,

125 units of affordable housing

and significant connectivity upgrades.

There's new plazas, there's new access for the community,

much safer streets and circulation for this area.

The 3,700 project similarly is a housing-focused project

with 530 total units.

There will be a continuum of care senior living component

to this project, which is something that

across both projects we've heard from the neighbors is really vital to creating opportunities

for folks to live and age in place in this community.

Both projects are fully entitled and are ready to get built.

This tool, again, we hope will help advance both projects into the construction phase

much faster.

The key guiding document of our EIFDs is called an Infrastructure Financing Plan.

key elements of this this is sort of the the guiding document it controls the

district how the taxes will flow over the 40 year period and so the elements

are described on this slide in terms of what the IFP must include and we have

spent significant time doing the tax increment projections and all the

technical work that is contained within these documents the districts have to

have legal boundaries so just to show this is the outline of the 3333 project

when the district is formed we will break that into three subdivision areas so

three different distinct project areas that will have their own sort of tax

breakout across the 3700 Street project we will also have three distinct zones

in terms of what this district will fund we are we have a list here that shows

all of the potential eligible uses at a very high level.

Again, when we did form our EIFD policy,

we were very clear that this tool is to be used

to fund critical infrastructure, open space,

and affordable housing within these projects.

This proposed district conforms to those policy goals.

another piece to explain how we are proposing to divide these taxes these districts actually just

capture a portion of the incremental property tax growth that is generated by construction of

the project itself so we are talking about potential future property taxes that will be

generated once the actual housing units in these projects are built.

And in conformance with our policy, we are choosing to allocate an equivalency of about

50% of those new property tax revenues back into this district.

The other 50% of those revenues actually will go to grow the general fund.

As part of our calculations for this program, we have to aggregate sort of the overall nominal

value of potential tax revenue, and we set a cap.

We also aggregate the conditional tax revenue that may be accessed to help service our debt

once we issue debt for the project.

Of course, the way these districts work is that developers can only seek reimbursement

for costs that they've actually expended and that we've validated using revenues that

they have actually created with new housing.

And pursuant to our policy, we have done a net fiscal benefit analysis to show that even

with the diversion of this 50% of net new taxes, the city's general fund will still

have a net fiscal benefit.

it. I've described in the prior slides the policy compliance and just sort of aggregating that here.

And again, part of the policy really is to get these projects moving. We've included in that

policy a sort of use it or lose it where these projects, any project that has an EIFD must get

a first certificate of occupancy on a first new building within 10 years of us forming these

districts, or at the board's discretion, the district can be dismantled.

Again, we really want this tool to incentivize production, and so we're including that in

this district as we have in the past and will continue to do.

As I said at the top, we will have a board of supervisors considering these resolutions

today, and then once that process concludes, our public finance authority, our special

legislative body would then meet in February to vote to adopt the district and officially form

the district so that we can continue the project. Supervisors, I'm available for questions. We're

excited and eager to get this project moving using this tool, and I thank you for your time today.

Thank you.

Item 13 is a resolution that would approve the infrastructure financing plan for the

infrastructure enhanced infrastructure financing district 3 for the 3333 California project.

It would essentially allocate about 58% of the city's share of incremental property taxes within

the area to reimburse the developer of a project in Laurel Heights as it builds certain infrastructure.

We show on page 38 the infrastructure that's eligible for these payments which will take

place over the next 45 years. The construction of the improvement is expected to be delivered

between 2026 and 2031, so over the next four years. The improvements cost 351 million

dollars and the financing plan anticipates that the city will pay out

four hundred and seventy seven million dollars to pay for those costs over time

we recommend approval of item 13 thank you I don't have additional questions at

the moment I appreciate the work so given the fact that I sit on the EIFD

committee as well and been reviewing this project I do appreciate mayor Lurie

and supervisor Cheryl their continuing support for this project let's go to

public comment on this item yes we're opening public comment for this item

number 13 if we have members of the public who wish to address this committee

hi my name is Steve Shoemaker and I'm a renter in the Richmond district with

with two young kids I'm blocks from the 3700 California site and I'm also

volunteer with growth of Richmond which seeks to add more housing in this area

it's a phenomenal neighborhood we love it and it's becoming probably expensive

and desperately needs new housing I think the Presidio Heights area maybe

added one or two new units and 23 and 24 and so this is a kind of a

revolutionary set of projects for this area and and we desperately need housing

So thank you for your consideration.

Thank you, supervisors.

Thank you much for addressing this committee.

Next speaker.

Hey, Whit Turner on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

These two adjacent sites represent a major opportunity for housing in D2

with more than 1,200 homes already entitled and ready to move forward,

including 350 for seniors.

This is exactly the kind of situation where the EIFD tool is necessary

and most effective, helping to accelerate projects that are already approved and aligned

with the city's housing goals.

The infrastructure financing plan provides a clear, transparent framework to support

the infrastructure and public improvements needed to turn these entitled projects into

real neighborhoods and bring real benefits with them.

It helps reduce risk, improves predictability, and ensures that housing delivery is coordinated

with the investments in open space and community-serving infrastructure.

And that's why we urge you to support this plan.

Thank you.

Thank you much, Whit Turner.

Next speaker.

My name is Caroline Bosch. I'm a resident of District 2 and a resident of Laurel Heights.

I live right between the two properties, 3333 California and 3700 California. In fact,

I am the manager of the Laurel Heights Hawks T-ball team, so I have an invested interest in

seeing these four- and five-year-olds grow up and have a place to live in the future. I would love

to see the projects that were proposed today to come to life.

And whatever tools that the experts at the City of San Francisco believe are needed

to make this project come to life, I fully support as a resident of Laurel Heights.

Thank you.

Thank you, Caroline Bush.

Next speaker.

Hi, my name is Paul Godoldig.

I'm the CEO of the Jewish Community Center of San Francisco.

So we're located right across the street from 3300 California Street.

We're in support, full support, of both that project and the 3700 California Street project.

If you've never been to our center before, we run preschools.

We teach 1,400 kids how to swim.

We do basketball programs for older adults.

That's what it's about.

We want more kids in our neighborhood, more families.

We want older adults living right across the street from us.

We've had this vacant, empty office lot for years, and let's get this done.

Let's move it.

So we're in support of the EIFD.

It's a critical, as you know, critical financing tool that helps to fund site-wide public improvements necessary to deliver the housing, including affordable housing.

3300 California Street, as I said before, it'll transform an empty lot into affordable housing, green spaces, childcare, neighborhood-serving uses,

and this is able to use the future tax revenue to help close the gap for the developers so they can put a shovel in the ground and get this project moving.

We're in full support. Thank you.

Thank you, Paul. Good old dig. Next speaker.

Rudy Gonzalez, San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council.

Strong support for the EIFD.

And I appreciate Lee Lutenski and her entire team's work on this.

But I hope that we all appreciate how we got here.

This is not about a good project or not a good project.

I'd need 15 minutes on the clock, Madam Chair, if I was going to talk about Prado and their reputation

and their commitment to San Francisco and helping us build back better.

But I only have a minute 39 left.

So let me just say I liked Governor Brown.

But one thing he did when he dissolved redevelopment agencies is he took a key critical component to dealing with tax increment finances away from us.

And the legislature responded.

And then we sat around until 2023 when a person named Enrique Landa and a supervisor named Shimon Walton got together and said,

how do we actually help the private sector build, produce more housing, and not just talk about it, but actually do it?

And as I stand here today, we had a real developer rooted in the community come up with the idea.

Many of you were part of the decision to give us this tool back at a local level.

And we built real housing.

And we're going to continue to do that.

So I think one of the provisions of this kind of tool that isn't talked about is we're really borrowing against our own future revenue.

And we're telling developers that have good commitments to our community, we can help you finance the piece that makes the project move.

So yes to housing, yes to green space, yes to streetscaping, yes to infrastructure,

but as we all know, it doesn't get built unless we finance it.

And this is a way the public can actually leverage a project of a significant size.

That's why you have to really target these to mega projects.

And you're going to hear other people from the past administration say,

well, what about Park Merced or what about this other fantasy project?

You're going to have three projects in front of you today that are willing to put their reputations on the line

and actually deliver benefits to our communities in the form of housing and good jobs.

Really urge your strong support.

It's a creative and responsible tool you can do to safeguard our tax dollars

and bring our new revenue sooner.

Thank you.

Thank you, Matriy Gonzalez.

Next speaker.

Hello.

My name is Raimi Dare, and I'm the Director of Real Estate at Mercy Housing California.

As many of you know, Mercy Housing has a 40-year-plus history

of developing affordable housing for low-income families,

seniors, and people with special needs.

We are the affordable housing partner for 333 California,

and I'm here to speak in favor of the EIFD

and the two agreements that are here for your approval today

for 333 California and 3700 California.

As you know, site-wide infrastructure costs

and just the things that are kind of bonus

but are really fundamental to making a master plan work are really incredibly difficult to finance.

I can speak from personal experience.

I was the director of real estate for our Sunnydale transformation, which is still ongoing,

and that's 50 acres in the Sunnydale public housing community

where we're transformed with all new streets and utilities, all new housing at a mix of income levels,

including one-for-one replacement for the existing Sunnydale households,

a new rec center that just opened, a new community center, and retail.

And there's a tremendous investment that the city has made to make that happen.

And similarly, the investment has to happen here at 333 California and 3700 California through this EIFD.

I think many folks know that these two developments have been in the works for a very, very long time.

and I support the city's agreement to be able to use this EIFD as a tool to fund the very necessary infrastructure

and site costs that would enable us to build housing and the neighborhood amenities that are desired here.

Thank you very much.

And thank you, Ramey, there.

And if we don't have any further speakers, Madam Chair, I can please check your queue.

Seeing no more public comments, public comment is now closed.

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

And on that motion to refer this resolution to the full board with recommendation, Vice Chair Dorsey.

Aye.

Dorsey, aye.

Member Sauter.

Aye.

Sauter, aye.

Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan, aye.

We have three ayes.

The motion passes.

And my, I want to acknowledge President Mendelman is here now in the chamber.

and we are going to go to item 5.

And my apologies, we're going to call the items out of order.

We're going to go to item 5 before we go to item 14.

And with that, Mr. Clerk, please call item number 5.

Item number 5 was already called,

but to remind everybody that this is the ordinance

to amend the administrative code

to expand the definition of tax-exempt entities for use fees,

updating the process for notification guidelines

concerning film production activities.

then we cause parking or traffic obstructions, updating definitions for the film rebate program,

updating the film rebate amounts, and authorizing the executive director to enter into licensing agreements

for the use of the Film SF logo and other Film Commission trademarks or merchandise.

Madam Chair.

Thank you, and we will start with President Mendelman.

Thank you, Chair Chan, and thank you for accommodating my crazy schedule this morning.

and I believe you and the other supervisors on this committee are all co-sponsors so thank you

for that. The item before you is an ordinance that will modernize and strengthen San Francisco's

film incentive program. San Francisco has historically been one of the most iconic

cities in cinema with films like Vertigo, Mrs. Doubtfire, and The Princess Diaries all using

our city as a backdrop. However, over the past few years, fewer and fewer productions have chosen to

film in San Francisco. Even projects set in San Francisco only shoot in the city for very short

periods of time, if at all. Now, film incentive programs provide financial benefits to film,

television, and commercial productions in order to encourage them to shoot locally and generate

economic activity. Our current incentive program has not been updated since its inception in 2006,

and its financial benefits are limited compared to other incentives around the world.

Besides contributing towards San Francisco's artistic and cultural identity,

attracting film productions is beneficial to our city

because productions drive substantial economic activity to San Francisco.

Industry data shows that the average location shoot adds $670,000

and 1,500 jobs a day to the local economy.

In San Francisco, our incentive program has rebated over $7.6 million to 46 productions,

And in return, these productions have generated $99.5 million in local spending and facilitated the employment of over 16,000 local crew and actors from IATSE Local 16, Teamsters 2785, and SAG-AFTRA.

However, our current incentive is limited.

It only rebates city fees, is capped at $600,000,

and requires productions to shoot between 55% and 65% of their content in San Francisco.

With 120 other incentive programs across the globe,

many of which offer much more in the way of benefits,

our incentive program has fallen behind in attracting large-scale productions and TV series.

This ordinance seeks to update our film incentive program to be more competitive, creates a tiered rebate model offering a 10% rebate on qualified local spending, including San Francisco resident wages and goods and services, up to a million dollars, a 20% rebate on qualified spending above a million, and a 100% rebate on all city agency fees, including permits, police services, real estate, and more.

The rebate is capped at $1 million. To qualify, major productions would have to spend $500,000 in San Francisco, shoot a minimum of five days of principal photography in the city.

Low-budget productions would be required to spend $250,000.

The ordinance also modifies daily use fee exemptions and updates and clarifies several definitions and production guidelines.

The film commission, we have our executive director here as well as vice president of the commission and potentially other commissions.

And our president.

And the president of the commission.

President and vice president of the commission.

I apologize.

And that film commission, which I have just described, has heard from many productions, major studios, and other stakeholders that are eager to shoot here and excited to invest in our city's creative infrastructure.

These updates have the potential to increase overall production by up to 25% and can help ensure that San Francisco generate long-term economic growth and investment and remain competitive in the global creative economy.

I want to extend deep great thanks to Executive Director Fata and Sofia Ali Castro from Film SF, Alessandro Lozano from OEWD, Lauren Curry from the City Attorney's Office, and Grace Wong from my office, all of whom have done a lot of work on this.

and as I said, thanks to the members of this committee for your co-sponsorship

and with that I will, with the chair's

permission, turn the floor over to Mani Fata

Executive Director of Film SF to give us a brief presentation

Thank you so much President Mandelman and you kind of

gave my presentation but I'm going to just do a quick version

for all of you, so thank you for that introduction and really laying

sort of the foundation of our changes and our incentive and the why and why it's important to

do this now. Thank you so much, Chair Chan and Supervisor Sauter and Supervisor Dorsey for

allowing us to present today. Thank you so much for your support. I've already said I'm the

Executive Director. I'm excited to talk about our updates and what is on the horizon for driving

more production here in San Francisco. As you know, our mission is to really drive production

here and support our local production community, which you see behind me, some of our incredible

local crew, which they will talk later. But, you know, our work doesn't just, it's really about

economic, it's an economic driver, and it's also films are part of our cultural identity

in San Francisco as well.

So we all have our favorite films

when we think about shooting here.

As I know, Supervisor Dorsey

always talks to me about Bullet.

But we have, so going to slide two,

or the next slide, thank you, our history.

We have a deep cinematic history

as President Mandelman has mentioned.

I think San Francisco is the most cinematic city

in the world.

And it's about time that we drive

and bring more productions back here,

as we've seen over the long course of the history of cinema in the world.

And we, again, some iconic films are truly San Francisco,

from once you mentioned Vertigo,

and our beloved Robin Williams with Miss Doubtfire.

So just something I want to share around our incentive data

that you had mentioned, President Mandelman.

And a single production can inject millions of dollars into our local economy, and they support thousands of jobs,

everything from our skilled union labor to hospitality, transportation, and small businesses.

And California alone, the industry supports hundreds of thousands of jobs and tens of millions of dollars in wages.

So this is really important for our state as well.

Our current incentive, again, we're celebrating our 20 years.

Since 2006, we have created this incentive and had this incentive.

The ROI has been extremely strong.

For every dollar we've rebated, productions have spent $12.50 in San Francisco.

We've supported tens of thousands of local hires.

We've paid $26 million in wages.

Nearly $70 million has been spent on local spending,

from hotels to catering to transportation to gas to dry cleaning,

an array of things that support production in San Francisco.

But our challenge, the challenges with our program,

as President Mandelman has mentioned,

is that we've not modernized it in 20 years.

We have not kept up with trying to be competitive in San Francisco

to drive more business.

and we are competing with 120 incentive globally.

There are nearly 20 city incentives

in the states alone, in the country,

that we are competing with.

And again, we cap it at $600,000.

We're only rebating back city fees.

And this makes it,

productions are having to make hard choices

about where they're shooting.

And it is, like I said, an incentive-driven industry

and they are making choices about where to film, about where they can save money.

As we can see, we've had so much production runaway over the past decade or two,

where San Francisco is played on screen, shown in Vancouver, Australia, or the UK.

I don't know if you know that Ant-Man, the latest Ant-Man series.

They built City Lights bookstore on a stage in the UK.

They didn't shoot in San Francisco for that scene.

but are updated.

What we're doing now, we're being really, again,

really grateful for the support,

and what we're looking at is an updated program

to really meet the industry standards,

and what we can see will really drive

and attract more films back to our city.

So this establishes a clear minimum local spend.

Instead of a certain amount that you have to shoot here,

we want to make sure you're spending your dollars

in San Francisco. We require a minimum set of five days of principal photography, so you're not just

coming here to shoot your b-roll or your beauty shots, that we really want to make sure your talent

is here, and we're getting those minimum five days. And you have to have your production offices

located in San Francisco. This does provide a tiered approach where we're giving you, again,

10% back on your first million spent in San Francisco, 20% above anything beyond a million,

and then 100% back on your city fees, which we want to maintain that core piece of our previous

program because that's really been attractive to productions, that we know that what they pay to

police, what they pay to their permit fees, to street closures, that will come back to them.

And the cap, it's raising the cap to a million dollars.

expected so what we see and what we you know again today expected outcomes I was just on two calls

just this morning about two productions that want to come here and they want to hear about our new

incentive and we know it's on the horizon people are excited to see what San Francisco is doing to

to bring more production here it will help bring sustained production activity it is going to

support our local workforce and encourage infrastructure investment in San Francisco

as we see more production shooting here. It's going to drive more spending on our local businesses,

hotel stays, drive tourism. As you know, when people see San Francisco on screen,

that's their window into like, I want to come there. I want to see that. There's such an

opportunity for us to continue to market our city on the global stage. As there is some additional

administrative code changes that we're doing. It's clearing, cleaning up our

administrative by making clarity about eligibility, removing some outdated

restrictions, strengthening workforce training requirements, allow us to create

guidelines for neighborhood and resident engagement based on actual impact of

filming, and support responsible production practices. So just in

conclusion, I just want to thank you. I think San Francisco can really compete

now and this again incentive driven industry to really strengthen our

creative economy and ensure the city and its residents and our businesses

continue to benefit from production activity culturally and economically so

you know this legislation really ensures that San Francisco remains ready for its

close-up thank you and I'm done thank you so much

Item five is an ordinance that amends the administrative code to change the rules for

the city's film rebate program.

We showed the changes to the rules on page 14 of the report, but in short, it broadens

eligibility to participate in the program and broadens the cost that the city will reimburse

film productions when they film in San Francisco and then increases the amount that the city

will pay as detailed on page 14 of the report.

we basically looked at the historical productions

that have gotten rebates in San Francisco

over the past seven years

and then applied these new rules to that data.

And what we found is that the city on average

paid about $300,000 a year.

In film rebates, there was a kind of wide variation

because some years there was a lot of rebates

and some years there was not that much.

Applying these new rules,

the annual average increases to about $500,000 a year,

So about $200,000 more per year.

Again, there's variation in the year-to-year numbers.

This is probably an underestimate because it doesn't take into account the incentive effect that the increased eligibility would have.

So there will probably be more productions in San Francisco as a result of these changes.

and so we looked at

okay if we take the high end estimate of

$500,000 a year and then

double it can the additional

spending of a million dollars a year

be accommodated within the film commission

budget and you can see on page

16 that it does

they have about

$2 million

that has survived the budget process

that they've carried over

from unspent funds of prior years

so that can accommodate

the additional million dollars

and spending this year and next year.

The ordinance also sunsets the film rebate program

June 2027,

so there's no additional funding needed

after next fiscal year,

and they are right now in the budget you approved,

they're getting an additional $600,000

of general fund money for this program

in next year's budget,

which arguably they don't need,

so we can look at that in June.

So I think in general,

this could enhance the city's reputation to have more San Francisco on screen. It does come

with the general fund cost. Yes, there'll be some economic activity, but this is a direct cost to

the general fund. And so for that reason, we consider approval to be a policy matter for the

board. Thank you. I don't have additional questions. I think the fact that the indication

for me to come to being supportive of this has to do with the fact that you do have a balance

in your account of almost two million dollars that tells us that it has not been fully utilized.

It does require an update of the code. So thanks to President Mendelman for doing this update.

I do also think that if this was normal time where people already organically coming to the city, maybe I also would have a different view about the rebate.

But the fact that since COVID, the city has been facing a very challenging time, especially around tourism.

I think this is a great opportunity to – it's two birds.

It's multi-benefits.

not only that, there's a bringing local spending through the rebates, bringing a film crew.

I think that it also supports local artists and local musicians,

bringing sort of a more vibrancy and diversity to the people that can, you know,

come and not only visit the city, but actually start living in the city too.

And then I think for the long run, once people start seeing San Francisco again

in a different light through films, through sort of this innovative and creative interpretation

of who we are as a city. I do think for the long run it brings us back to the reputation,

not only that once we who we were, but a new version of it too. So I really do appreciate

the effort and creativity to the legislation. Thank you President Mendelman and so definitely

in support of it. I do think that, you know, since the fact that it does expire in 2027,

it warrants a discussion, which is great. I think this is a great timing to update that

code and criterias, allow us to have a better analysis when the time comes to say a ratio

between the investment that the city put out at this point and what kind of benefits has it brought.

So I do hope that both the film commission to be able to consider from this point and on start to develop some criterias and measurements for success.

So then by the time the time comes, we can have some data that we can point to and say, this is worth the city general fund investments to go forward.

And with that, Supervisor Sauer.

Thank you, Chair. And President, thank you for your work on this.

Just a quick question. You mentioned more than 100 incentive programs existing for this.

Just curious, with our current program, where do you think we rank in terms of how competitive or how generous we are?

And then with this modified, improved version, where do you think that takes us within those rankings?

Yeah. So our current city incentive was, it's kind of more looked like a soft incentive, what they call,

because we're really, in essence, in the industry,

they're saying it's like we're waiving fees

because we're just waiving.

It's just money, what you're pending to a city department.

We're not giving you money back

on what you spend on labor and expenditure.

So ours hasn't been competitive, I think, honestly,

for about a decade.

I've been in the office for about 10 years,

and the last TV series we've had here

was in 2016, 2017 with Chance, right?

And so as far as the city incentive,

it's not been very competitive, right?

And that's why we've been really trying to see

how we can sort of align

with the industry-driven incentive.

But so now we are the large,

this is the best incentive in the country

outside of Florida,

which Florida does not have a state incentive.

So there are two, well, one county in particular has a better incentive than us.

But, you know, what also has been challenging is the state, you know, California, our tax

credit program had not been very competitive.

And as you, you know, probably have read over the past couple years, a lot of the industry

has been leaving California and Los Angeles, which has really driven a lot of business

outside of the state and the country, right?

because of the market of what other regions are doing to drive business there.

So the past legislative session and Governor Newsom expanded the budget

and has made California's incentive more attractive.

It's not the best still, but it's better.

And so the fact that you can stack the state incentive with ours,

which is, again, the two meetings and the conversations,

we've shared that with people,

and that makes it appealing.

It makes, oh, okay, this is more realistic

for us to be able to shoot and base up here

because we can leverage the state tax credit

with your local incentive,

and that helps, this will help move the needle.

It's not solving it entirely,

but whatever we can do,

we can't take it for granted with this industry

that people's choices are largely going to be driven

by the bottom line.

So we need to remain competitive

and look at what we can do to continue to attract production here.

That's very helpful, and this sounds promising.

And I think, as the chair mentioned, within the confines of the remaining budget within this period,

it's really kind of a test run to see how this expansion goes.

And certainly so many of these movies and shows end up in District 3,

so I'm glad to see our city and my district on the screen.

I will be supporting and I would ask the clerk if I could be added as a co-sponsor as well.

Thank you. Thank you, supervisor. I really appreciate that. Thank you, supervisor. I also

want to say, I mean, the Richmond also was on big screen. It was really cool, the Clement streets.

So we're clearly competitive. And don't sleep on downtown, so District 6 either.

So I'd like to be added as a co-sponsor as well. I think you are. Thank you, supervisor.

Yes, sir.

Thank you, Vice Chair Dorsey.

And with that, we'll go to public comments on this item.

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

If we have members of the public who wish to address this committee.

First speaker, please.

Good morning, or I guess afternoon now.

Good afternoon, members of the Budget and Finance Committee.

My name is Jackson Nupier, speaking on behalf of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce in

support of the scene in San Francisco incentive program.

San Francisco is one of the most cinematic cities in the world, but film and television

production is an incentive-driven industry, and our outdated program has made it harder

for projects to choose San Francisco.

The updated scene in San Francisco incentive program modernizes an early 20-year-old system

by creating clear, predictable rules and a tiered rebate structure that rewards productions

for spending more locally.

These updates ensure public investment delivers real returns through local hiring, support

for small businesses, anchored production offices,

folks production work, and workforce training

that keeps creative talent in the city.

Film and television also provide powerful global marketing

for San Francisco, strengthening our brand

and driving tourism.

At a time when other cities are expanding incentives

and California has strengthened its statewide program,

this legislation positions San Francisco

to compete effectively and ensure the stories written

for our city are actually made here.

Thanks.

Thank you, Jackson.

Up beers.

Next speaker.

Tony DeLoreo, Principal Officer of Teamsters Local 665.

President Mandelman didn't even say my name in his intro.

And also newly elected Vice President of the Film Commission, so I come here today with

two hats.

Sounds like a win-win.

Our new President Jack Song will be speaking in a second.

I think this, you know, usually you guys have to cut the timer off on me.

I think that this is, you know, no opposition.

This is more of an Oscar speech.

I just want to thank President Mandelman for running with this,

and then Chair Chan immediately talking with us and sitting down and going over it,

and then obviously Vice Chair Dorsey, and then just now member Sauter.

Thank you for all co-sponsoring.

Shout out also to Shimon Walton, who also co-sponsored.

I think this is a no-brainer. The status quo had to go, and I think we need to be competitive.

And as Monty said, and she said a couple things.

She also said that you stole all of our content, and then she took whatever was left, and now I have nothing else to say.

But yeah, it's the most cinematic city in the world, and I think even the mayor's office that's behind this 100%,

we talk about bringing business back to the city, and we have the most beautiful city in the world,

and I think this is the way that we do it.

Obviously, labor is very important.

We have SAG-AFTRA.

We have IOTSE.

And then our brothers here, one of them is going to talk in a moment,

from Local 2785 that keeps transportation going.

Domino effect.

It's going to help small businesses.

It's going to help the hotels.

It's going to help the trades.

Uh-oh, that's my cue.

But I noticed Rudy Gonzalez from the building trades.

My brother spoke at least 30 seconds beyond, so I'll keep going.

but I just want to say that I think overall

that this is very important

and it will put us in a competitive advantage

to bring folks back

and the ultimate goal is

once we produce in this time frame

it will hopefully get us the sound stage

that we need here

that will really take this city

and move it forward

and really quick shout out to

folks at the film

Mani, Sofia, Mark

next speaker please

Madam Chairman, supervisors, my name is Tony Sacco.

I'm born and raised in San Francisco.

I'm with the Teamsters.

I'm in the film industry.

I am one of the products of boots on the ground when we shoot in San Francisco.

The incentive program that I'm looking at that you have now is a major step forward

for our organizations, for all the laborers, and anybody that has a business that

has business with us, the grocery stores, the lumber yards, the hotels, the restaurants.

We infiltrate all those, bring them money, which in turn brings us work.

And the film system that we've had in the city over the years, born and raised here,

I've seen anywhere from the Maltese Falcon to Vertigo, streets of San Francisco.

I've worked on Nash Bridges.

So these little programs that we have that have been going on,

I would like to see continue and have our legacy of San Francisco be out there

so people do see us.

When I go places and they see I'm from San Francisco

and I'm wearing a shirt like this that says Nash Bridges,

oh, I remember that.

I've seen that.

Those are incentives that I like to hear

as well as people will come here to see what they see.

A lot of people I see see a movie.

They want to go see the location where it was at.

And they come here, this is what they do.

One thing I've dealt with is dealing with Canada and everything else,

where they'll shoot up there and come down here for five days,

shorten it into three days, cram it, and then they're gone.

I don't want to see that anymore.

I would like to see if they're going to represent us, represent us fully,

and the way that San Francisco should be seen.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Tony Saka.

Next speaker, please.

Thank you for your time, supervisors.

I appreciate it.

My name is Jimmy Baldwin.

I am a location scout and manager.

I have been in San Francisco in this industry since 1987.

And I think I just wanted to add, besides all my gratitude,

to all of my brothers and sisters here who have been behind us

and doing all of this work and your incredible support.

Thank you very much for that.

My experience in 87 when I got into the industry was because people like Robin Williams were here,

and there were 11 feature films being made every year between 87 and 90.

There was a huge demand for young people like myself to come in and do everything from driving trucks to hauling coolers.

That's how I got started as a production assistant.

By the time it got into the 90s and I was into locations department with movies like Basic Instinct and other things from Warner Brothers and TriStar, memoirs of an invisible man, I mean the list goes on and on.

I did about half a dozen.

Everything was going very well.

And then in the 90s, we saw Vancouver start this amazing program where they incentivized, Canada incentivized Vancouver, Vancouver incentivized the industry, and the phenomenon of runaway production began tapping all of our talent, not only from San Francisco, but also from Los Angeles.

That was the model that subsequently all of the states that became incentivizers used, and now Central Europe.

These incentives are very real.

They're very powerful.

They have sapped our industry out of the state.

And I think not only do I encourage us to go forward with this, I think we could make it even bigger.

We need a soundstage here in town.

We need even bigger incentives than are currently proposed.

Speaker's hand is expired.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you much, Jimmy Baldwin, for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hi.

Thank you so much for your support and your leadership on these reforms.

My name is Dee Dee Escobedo.

I'm the Assistant Executive Director for the SAG-AFTRA San Francisco Northern California Local,

which is home to over 3,500 active members.

You see our members daily.

We have broadcast members on our television and radio stations, but we primarily are comprised of actors.

They are performers in principal roles, background roles, stunt roles, coordinators, singers, dancers, now intimacy coordinators as well, and even puppeteers.

And they benefit from the work that comes to this area.

We work closely with the department and with the film commission specifically because for those of you who are not familiar with the pre-production process with their offices being the first stop, that usually determines if a production can afford to shoot here.

And usually productions only have their lead or ensemble cast in place.

And once they've determined their location, they fill out the rest of their cast.

So our membership really relies on this kind of proactive incentive to draw opportunities here.

They're at the ready.

It's part of their work to be prepared.

And to your point, if you'd like more ongoing data, what we can tell you is that from the internal tracking we do,

of jobs, annual job hires in last year.

They were down 54% from the previous year

in TV, film, and streaming series, which was already declining.

So this is a critical time, and we appreciate your support.

Thank you so much.

Thank you much, D.D. Escobeda.

Next speaker, please.

Hello.

Good afternoon.

My name is Jack Saul.

I'm the president of the San Francisco Film Commission.

Thank you all so much for your leadership.

I also want to thank all the community leaders and union members for coming to support this legislation.

I want to mention five bullet points that hasn't been mentioned yet.

One is Chairwoman Chan.

You mentioned the COVID era.

Number one, during the COVID era, if you look up filming in San Francisco, there wasn't so much positive news.

However, because of all the new film productions and TV productions here in the city,

it really has changed the narrative and the image of San Francisco.

So that's what TV, film, commercial productions can do for the city.

Secondly, the rebate program currently seen in San Francisco is simply a rebate program.

It is not competitive. It's a giveback. It's a cash giveback.

However, with the new changes, it truly now is going to be an incentive program to entice production to here in San Francisco.

And as mentioned by exec director Fata, when combined with California's new incentive program,

it really makes San Francisco a great location for production.

Third, I want to reemphasize this is not just for film.

It is for TV series, streaming series, big commercials, independent films.

This incentive program will really entice folks that work in that industry to pick San Francisco as the location.

Fourth bullet point, we haven't mentioned, actually Chairwoman Chen, you did mention that, you know, the arts, the culture. San Francisco is actually known for international film festivals and arts organizations like Frameline, San Francisco Film Festival, JFI, etc.

And lastly, I want to spotlight that Film SF, the TM crew, this is it.

You get a team of four.

They're operating on a very small budget, and with this incentive,

we can get more inbound requests, interest from others versus its outbound,

really trying to use leveraging the small team to get more film production to the city.

Thank you so much.

Thank you much, Jackson.

Next speaker, please.

Rudy Gonzalez, San Francisco Building Trades.

of which the Tony Deloria show is associated with through their affiliation of 665.

But I was thinking about the Easter bond discussion earlier, members.

It's kind of serendipitous because if you look at the old histories from 1906,

the team drivers were drivers of horses, right?

And in 1906, it was the local 85 members, which is where 2785 gets its history from.

It was local 85 members who were, like, deputized as first responders

to clear out the rubble and the debris and help rescue people.

And so it's just fun to me as a history nerd that we have this historic local on the West Coast who was, you know, we're talking about the Easter bomb.

We're talking about their jobs.

We're talking about civic engagement.

I also want to recognize there's no organized opposition to this.

There is, though, a real sensitivity around the budget discussions as we move forward in the city and county of San Francisco.

This is what I would argue is one of those strategic investments, right?

It's really a strategic investment.

And I think that that's the reason it passes the high bar of the mayor's budget director, of our budget chair, of other labor organizations who are very concerned about the ongoing deficit.

But we're clear-eyed about this.

This is actually an investment in San Francisco.

This is an investment in our economic recovery, of course, in the jobs and the livelihoods of the members it will support, but also in the economic activity.

It would be horribly short-sighted for any member of the board in the future, your colleagues, to second-guess this.

This is smart, it's strategic, recognize the leadership of the city staff also for keeping it all together,

and they should keep that $600,000 that they've guarded carefully.

That was my note to the budget legislative analysts in the ongoing discussions.

Thank you.

Thank you much, Rudy Gonzalez.

And if we have no other speakers, Madam Chair, I complete your cue.

Thank you.

And seeing no more in public comments, public comment is now closed.

President Mendelman.

Thank you, Chair Chan.

I want to thank everyone for turning out.

I want to echo a point that President Song,

and I apologize for missing you over there,

that President Song raised about this small but mighty team of four

doing everything they can to maximize their impact

and that partly the importance of this legislation

is actually using these funds in actually using them

and getting something out of them,

But also it sends a message, and the passage of this sends a message out to the industry that San Francisco wants them here, that we're going to try to get them here and make this an attractive and competitive place.

And I think that's an important thing to do.

So we don't give you a lot to work with.

Thank you for doing everything you can with what we give you to work with.

and the Tony Delorio show.

Thank you for being here, Mr. Vice President.

And thanks to all the Teamsters and folks from SAG-AFTRA

and the building trades, and of course the SF Chamber

and everybody who turned out.

Colleagues, I hope, this is not a hard ask,

that you will forward this to the full board

with positive recommendation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And so with that, we so move.

we make the motion to forward this to full board with recommendation and a roll call, please.

And on that motion, that we refer this ordinance to the full board with recommendation.

Vice Chair Dorsey.

Aye.

Dorsey, aye.

Member Sauter.

Aye.

Sauter, aye.

Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan, aye.

We have three ayes.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

And with that, Mr. Clerk, please call item number 14.

Yes, item number 14 is a resolution approving the infrastructure financing plan for the San Francisco Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District number 2, or Stonestown, including the Division of Taxes set forth therein, an EIFD acquisition and financing agreement, and documents and actions related thereto, and authorizing the filing of a judicial validation action.

Madam Chair.

Thank you, and thank you so much.

You are last but not least, and I just wanted to make sure you know that.

And thank you so much for allowing me to call it out of order.

Thank you so much for your patience.

And with that, we do have the Office of Economic and Workforce Development.

Thank you, Chair Chan.

Hello, Supervisors.

Jonathan Cherry, Project Manager with OEWD.

And I will be bringing us back to the infrastructure financing topic that we covered in Item 13,

and this will very much be a continuation of that discussion,

this time about the Stonestown project.

I'm joined by the Comptroller's Office of Public Finance,

and I did want to mention Supervisor Melgar is co-sponsoring this legislation along with the mayor.

She had another meeting commitment.

She could not be here.

The District 7 office asked us to pass on their strong support.

As you heard from the California Street Project, today's hearing is one of several steps as the city considers forming an enhanced infrastructure financing district for the Stonestown Project.

The Budget and Finance Committee last saw the Stonestown Project in July of 2024, when the development agreement with Brookfield Properties, along with a resolution of intention to establish an EIFD, were both approved by the board.

In early 2025, we began working on the details of that EIFD, and from this past July through just earlier this month, the EIFD Public Financing Authority, which you heard about from Lee, has held three meetings on the project, including two to discuss the Infrastructure Financing Plan, or IFP, that is one of the two items that the resolution before you today would approve.

If the full board approves the resolution, there will be one final meeting of the public financing authority tentatively scheduled next month to take the final actions to form the Stonestown district.

An EIFD for the Stonestown project, as I mentioned, was anticipated as part of the development

agreement based on the city's assessment of the project's feasibility and the significant

upfront infrastructure and other community facilities that are part of the project.

The approved project will be built on 27 acres of surface parking lots surrounding the existing

Stonestown Galleria Mall, shown here. The existing mall at the center of the site is not part of the

project and would not be included as part of this EIFD. The Stonestown project includes almost 3,500

units of housing, and in order to build that housing, the project would completely redesign

the mall's existing parking lots with new streets and a new street network that would include

expanded space for pedestrians, two-way protected bikeways on all of these major streets,

new utilities and infrastructure, stormwater infrastructure.

All of that would be assisted by this EIFD.

The project would build six acres of new publicly accessible open spaces

and make improvements to the adjacent Rec Park Rolf Nickel playgrounds,

community facilities including a new child care facility,

a new senior center to replace the existing YMCA senior center affordable

housing made up of 20% of all units including both on-site units and in

Luffy's with at least 300 of those units to be built on site and a workforce

agreement including first source hiring local hire and LBE goals so let's see

This slide just summarizes the content of the infrastructure financing plan,

which are the same contents as you saw for the California Street EIFD.

I will share a map that shows the different project areas.

The IFP details the anticipated facilities that would be financed,

outlines the projected tax increment that would be allocated to the district,

and includes the fiscal impact analysis that was conducted.

So this is a map of the proposed EIFD.

This shows the project areas on the left at formation of the district, as well as the future EIFD project areas that would be created as the phased project is subdivided.

And as I mentioned, the peach-colored area at the center is the existing mall that would not be included in the district.

The blue shaded area on the right is the existing Brave Church, which is an approved project variant of the project.

If that is incorporated into the project, that is a potential EIFD annexation site.

This is a summary of the facilities that would be built over the course of the project that would be eligible for EIFD financing, as well as their estimated cost.

As you can see, the EIFD would primarily be used to support the construction of streets and utilities,

as well as affordable housing costs.

You saw the next few slides, which are almost identical for the California Street Project.

I'm not going to repeat them in detail.

What we wanted to illustrate here as a reminder is the city can allocate up to 50% of total incremental property tax revenues to the EIFD.

that the city and our fiscal consultant worked along with the developer and their consultant

to generate and vet a fiscal impact analysis that shows the project with the EIFD would result

in an annual net fiscal benefit to the city, and that we've applied the EIFD tool to the project

in a way that is consistent with our local EIFD policy. As I mentioned, forming this EIFD was

integral to the Stonestown Development Agreement from the beginning and we see

this tool as essential to partnering with this project to get started with a

significant infrastructure investment that's required. Finally following

today's meeting if the committee recommends this item to the full board

we would expect this to appear on the board's January 27th agenda and if

approved as I mentioned we would bring this to the Public Financing Authority

on February 12th.

I will stop there.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Item 14 is a resolution that approves

an infrastructure financing plan

for District Number 2 for the Stonestown project.

We show the composition of the development

on page 43 of the report.

You'll see it's a much bigger project

than the California Street project.

It's about 3,500 housing units.

and much more commercial space.

And the cost of the improvements that

could be reimbursed by the district

is shown on page 44 of the report.

The total cost is about $438 million

before financing costs.

This project has a much longer development timeline.

It will be delivered over the next 25 years through 2051.

And in part for that reason, it has a smaller fiscal benefit.

only about $700,000 benefit to the general fund which is about half of the prior project even

though it's a bigger bigger development but this otherwise is essentially sort of the same terms

as item 13 though that 438 million dollars will be reimbursed over the life of the district which

will span about 70 years and the financing plan estimates that the city will provide about 1.56

billion dollars over that time to reimburse the developer for the

improvements thank you we will go to public comment on this item yes we are

now opening public comment for this item number 14 if we have any members of the

public who wish to address this committee mr. Gonzalez thank you mr.

clerk Rudy Gonzalez San Francisco building and construction trades council

there's a little bullet point in the analysis that Brookfield has done that

shows that there's about 800 jobs every year that are created, about 1,400 permanent jobs

with this build-out.

I could go on and on about the merits of the project and the use and the west side and

what it means to accomplishing our housing goals, but I think, again, you're tasked

with this analysis around how is this a strategic investment, is it a strategic investment.

We think absolutely it is.

There's no other project on this scale with a developer with the reputation that Brookfield

carries along with it.

we think they're a trusted partner we think they're eyes wide open about the

kind of long runway that's in front of them if there's something around use it

or lose it in our policy I think that's that's important for the city to

safeguard I would only ask that we consider urgency when we talk about

permitting because Brookfield is a developer who's ready to roll and and

they'll make dirt fly and we'll make sure it happens so whether it's the 3500

units of housing that are interesting to you or it's the 7,000 square foot senior

facility that's interesting to you or it's just the idea that we're going to

turn a parking lot into housing which in past iterations of this board has for

some reason been controversial but it's not anymore and so let's move forward

let's build it and let's strategically invest in this property thank you

Thank You Rudy Gonzalez next speaker

hey supervisors Whit Turner on behalf of Housing Action Coalition we are

speaking in strong support of this EIFD 3,500 homes nearly 700 affordable

educate homes for educators young people really thinking about the community

benefits that make this a livable community not just homes but a livable

community for young families who would love to use the open space and having

more housing on an empty area is just so important I want to thank the OUWD team

for their leadership on this and really excited for our members Brookfield to

get this rolling so I urge you to support it immediately thank you thank

you much what Turner and seeing no other speakers madam chair that completes our

queue. Seeing no more public comments, public comment is now closed. I do want to first thank

Mayor Lurie, his continuing support for this project. I do want to give a special shout out

to our colleague, Supervisor Marina Malgar, really been a champion of this project. She

usher through this through where we are today she really was at the table making

sure that the city departments to try to get this done and to work with I think

Mayor Bree now Mayor Lurie to do this before we vote I want to be very clear

about what this project represents and why it is important

Stonestown was approved in July of 2024. This approval was the product of years of negotiation,

compromise, and public process. The city asked for housing. We asked for community benefits. We asked

for a senior center, open space, and park improvements. We asked for good jobs for the

building and construction trades, and the developer stepped up and agreed. What I find unacceptable is

that over a year later, we're still struggling to move basic post-entitlement work forward.

Frankly, I'm frustrated that this has landed in our committee as a reminder of how slow our system

can be after the hard work is supposedly done. It is particularly frustrating that Westside

homeowners were publicly painted as anti-housing during the family zoning debate, while city staff

focus on paper compliance for the state and a unanimously approved, fully supported,

unlitigated project like Stonestown was left waiting. Let me be blunt. Talk is cheap. Approvals

don't house people. Press releases don't build senior centers. A negotiated development agreement

means nothing if the city cannot execute once the ink is dry. We cannot continue to signal to

developers that even when they do everything right, negotiate in good faith, agree to public

benefits, and invest in San Francisco, the reward is delay, uncertainty, and bureaucratic drift.

No one will stick around forever waiting for permits to materialize. If we are serious about

addressing our housing crisis, about putting our trade people back to work, and about delivering

real community benefits like the Senior Center at Stonestown and improvements to Ralph Nicol Park,

then we need to use our collective might as a city to make these projects real. That means

Office of Economic and Workforce Development and every post-entitlements department treating

approved projects as priorities. Not afterthought. It means making development agreements work in

practice, not just on paper. Today's vote should not be viewed as a favor to anyone. It is a test

of whether San Francisco can follow through on the projects it approves. I'm voting yes because

I am pro-housing and pro-jobs, but I expect results, not excuses. We owe that to our residents,

to our workers and to the future of our city.

So with that, I make the motion to send this to full board

with recommendation and a roll call, please.

And on that motion, to refer this resolution to the full board

with recommendation, Vice-Chair Dorsey.

Aye.

Dorsey, aye.

Member Sauter.

Aye.

Sauter, aye.

Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan, aye.

We have three ayes.

The motion passes.

And Mr. Clerk, do we have any other business before us today?

I'm Madam Chair. That concludes our business.

The meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.