Good morning.

This meeting will come to order.

Welcome to the October 2nd, 2025 regular meeting of the government audit and oversight committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

I'm Supervisor Jackie Fielder, Chair of the Committee, joined by Vice Chair Danny Sauter and Supervisor Stephen Sherrill.

Our committee clerk is Brent Haliba.

Our thanks to Jaime Echeveri of SFGovTV for staffing this meeting.

Mr.

Clerk, 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.

Handle electronic devices to prevent interruptions to our proceedings.

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

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

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

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

And while not required to provide public comment, we do invite you to fill out a comment card and leave them on the trade by the television chair left by the doors.

If you wish to be accurately recorded for the minutes, alternatively, you may submit public comment in writing in either of the following ways.

The government audit and oversight committee clerk at M-O-N-I, Q-U-E.C-R-A-Y-T-O-N at S F G-O-V.org.

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

You may also send them uh you may also send your written comments via US Postal Service to our office and city hall at one, Dr.

Carlton Bigot Place.

Room 244, San Francisco, California, 94102.

And finally, Madam Chair, due to our observance of indigenous peoples and Italian American Heritage Day.

Items acted upon today are expected to appear on the Board of Supervisors' agenda of October 21st, unless otherwise stated.

Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr.

Clerk.

Please call item one.

Yes, item number one.

Here's a resolution approving and authorizing the general manager of the Public Utilities Commission to execute a memorandum of agreement with the City of Daily City for the funding construction and operation of the Vista Grande drainage basin improvement project with a duration of five years, starting August 1st, 2025 through August 31st, 2030, pursuant to the charter.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

So for this item, Mr.

Obe Nzewi, Groundwater Program Manager of the Water Enterprise of the SFPUZ PUC.

I understand will be presenting on this item today.

Mr.

Nzeli, please go ahead.

I'm the groundwater program manager for the PUC in San Francisco and the project manager on our side for this work.

I will be presenting on this item, giving you a brief background of the project, what the project entails, and then what we're asking for at the end of this.

And I'll be available to answer any questions if there are any regarding the project.

So the Vista Grande drainage basin drains stormwater from the northern portion of Daly City.

That stormwater flows into the Vista Grande Canal and Tunnel System.

That system runs from Daly City through San Francisco along John Muir Drive.

It ties into the Vista Grande tunnel that exits at Fort Funstone and transfers their stormwater to the ocean.

The main issue we're dealing with here is that the canal and tunnel system together do not have enough capacity to handle peak flows during large storm events.

So that results in flooding in Daily City in residential areas in Daily City and also in San Francisco within the Lake Merced area.

So basically, this project is going to be doing a couple of things.

We've been working with Daily City on this for a long time.

I've been working on this since 2012.

Daily City operates the entire system, but the project goals of this are going to be a couple.

We want to try and reduce the flooding that occurs in Daily City and within the San Francisco area.

We also are using this opportunity to reconnect Lake Merced to its previous watershed and divert some of that stormwater into the lake.

That gets us a couple of benefits.

We are able to restore lake levels that have been impacted by drought conditions and also the fact that for San Francisco, we have a combined sewer system.

So stormwater does not flow into the lake, it flows to our treatment plants.

The only recharge the lake has right now is basically what falls on it when it rains, so just direct precipitation.

So this will help us manage the lake levels and raise our lake levels.

Lake Merced is an emergency water supply for the city that we would use for firefighting and non-potable supplies during emergencies.

This allows us to increase that supply.

It also provides us a critical recharge to the underlying groundwater basin.

The lake is hydraulically connected to the groundwater basin, so by increasing the lake levels and maintaining those, we are able to recharge the basin underneath.

The project consists of a few main items.

The first part of the project is going to be to replace and rework the existing tunnel system.

We will be including a screening device, a collection box to remove debris as it comes as the water comes through here.

We will include two treatment wetlands to allow us to treat some water from the system and improve the quality before that is diverted to the lake.

And the main feature for us is a diversion structure that allows us transfer approved stormwater flows to Lake Merced.

As we move further up, Daily City will also be replacing an overflow structure that allows us to move water from the lake back to the system if the lake elevations get high.

And then they will be replacing the entire length of the existing tunnel, increasing its size so that it matches the hydraulic capacity of the canal.

The project schedule that we anticipate is as follows.

We will begin, or we have actually begun construction and the initial mitigation work.

So this is pre-mitigation for the construction contract that the Coastal Commission has required.

That work has started.

For the major project, Daily City anticipates going out to bid in the fall of this year and issuing notice to proceed in the spring of next year.

Construction will be fully managed by Daily City with oversight and input from PUC.

And then the final completion is anticipated in August of 2030.

So PUC is going to fund certain portions of the construction as we do get a lot of benefits from this project.

The total project cost is 173.8 million.

The operation of the project is governed by a lake management plan that the regional board has reviewed and approved.

And PUC's funding would be governed by our MOA, and we would provide a maximum reimbursement of 35 million.

So we would be reimbursing actual construction invoices as they submit them to us and we are reviewed and confirmed.

These will cover some of the easements that we need to transfer to Daily City for the projects to be constructed.

And we recommend the approval of this memorandum of agreement.

And that's the end of my presentation.

I am available if you have any additional questions.

Thank you, Mr.

Nzowie.

At this time, we're going to hear from Mr.

Nicholas Menard from the Budget Legislative Analysts, who I believe also has a presentation on behalf of the BLA.

Thank you so much.

Good morning, Committee.

Nick Menard from the BLA.

Item one is a resolution that approves an agreement between Daly City and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission.

The agreement has a five-year term and delineates the responsibilities of the PUC and Daly City for delivering this project.

Daily City will be responsible for our procuring construction contractors and all other project consultants.

And the PUC's contribution is limited essentially to $35 million of project costs.

Any escalation or project costs are the responsibility of Daily City.

The contribution from the PUC is funded by the water enterprise capital revenue budget.

So that includes things like water bonds and customer revenues.

We recommend approval of item one.

Thank you, Mr.

Minard.

Colleagues, any questions, comments?

All right, seeing none, Mr.

Clerk, let's move to public comment.

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

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

Seeing no speakers, public comment is closed.

I now move to send this item to the full board of supervisors with positive recommendation.

Mr.

Clerk, please call the roll.

Yes, and on that motion to forward to the full board to the positive recommendation.

Vice Chair Sauter.

Aye.

Cheryl, I, Chair Fielder.

Aye.

Fielder.

Aye.

We have three eyes.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Mr.

Clerk, please call item two and item three together.

Yes, item numbers two and three.

Our ordinances approving the following agreements between the city and county in EQX Jackson SQ Hold Coel C as it relates to projects on certain real property known as 425 Washington Street, 439 to 445 Washington Street, 530 Sansom Street, and 447 Battery Street, and generally bounded by Sansome Street to the west, Washington Street to the north, Battery Street to the east, and Merchant Street to the south, with both ordinances ratifying past actions and authorizing future actions in furtherance of the respective ordinances as defined, adopting findings under the California Environmental Quality Act, and making findings of conformity with the general plan and the eight priority policies of the planning code.

Item number two approves a development agreement for the development of a project on the aforementioned real property, approving certain impact fees and accepting and appropriating approximately 4.3 million additional affordable housing payment, confirming compliance with or waiving certain provisions of the administrative code, planning code, public works code, labor and employment code, and health code, and making findings of public necessity convenience and general welfare also under the planning code.

Item number three approves a hotel and fire station development incentive agreement for the 530 SANSA mixed use tower and fire station 13 development project to provide financial assistance of up to approximately 86 million in net present value over 25 years, calculated for measurement purposes only as a percentage of new transient occupancy taxes.

Uh the city actually receives from occupancy of guest rooms in a proposed new hotel related to the development and operation of a project on the certain aforementioned real property and waiving chapter 21G of the administrative code.

Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr.

Clerk.

Vice Chair Sauter.

Thank you, Chair.

Before we hear from OEWD, I just wanted to offer some comments and context on these two items that we have before us that pertain to 530 Sansome.

Um you may recall that this project includes a new mixed-use downtown building with office and hotel and a new state-of-the-art fire station 13.

When completed, this will generate more than 800 million dollars in annual economic activity.

And of course, this project is important for our downtown recovery.

But what I'm really most excited about is all of the neighborhood benefits that it will bring about.

It will generate significant affordable housing contributions to the city, including funds to support the creation of a hundred percent affordable senior housing at 772 Pacific Avenue in Chinatown, which is the new Asia project, the most significant affordable housing contributions to Chinatown in two decades.

It will also result in a new state of the art fire station that will serve the financial district, embarkadero, Barbary Coast, Telegraph Hill, Chinatown, North Beach, and Jackson Square.

Impact fees from this project will contribute $7 million towards SFMTA resources that Muni desperately needs.

And finally, this project is estimated to generate $14 million annually to the general fund.

I also want to mention that we've been working hard to address concerns from historic preservation advocates on this project.

So there has been language added into the development agreement, which will direct funds collected for the downtown park fund to be prioritized for historic preservation efforts in District 3, namely the Financial District or Chinatown.

And I hope this will earn these two items will earn your support today.

Thanks.

Thank you.

And we have Mr.

Jonathan Cherry from the Office of Economic and Workforce Development to present on this item.

I also understand that Deputy Chief Sayumi Brandon and Assistant Deputy Chief Michael Mullen from SFIR will also have some brief statements after Mr.

Cherry's presentation.

So thank you to all the staff for being here today and being available for questions.

Please go ahead, Mr.

Cherry.

Thank you, Chair Fielder.

Good morning, supervisors, Jonathan Cherry with OEWD.

And I'm joined by colleagues from the planning department, the San Francisco Fire Department, and the Real Estate Division.

Also present are representatives of the developer-related California.

This proposal builds on years of thinking about the site and was initiated by the city in a developer selection process in 2019 for 530 Sansome Street, the current location of Fire Station 13.

Related was selected out of that process, and a property exchange agreement was originally signed in 2020.

From the beginning of this effort, the city has identified three key objectives.

First, to rebuild Fire Station 13 with a brand new facility that meets the department's modern operational needs.

Second, to bring increased activity to a key downtown site and the neighborhood.

And third, to generate new funding for one to build 100% affordable housing in Chinatown and in District 3.

In December of last year, the board adopted a resolution endorsing key terms for a new approach to this project.

Since that time, this team has worked to refine the details and get aligned on the set of documents that is before you for your consideration.

The full package of legislative items consists of six ordinances.

Four of those ordinances were discussed at a hearing of the land use and transportation committee on Monday.

I'll share an overview of the project and then walk through the two items on today's agenda.

We think this project has the potential to be a catalyst for stimulating investment and generating continued energy downtown.

Equally important, the project creatively leverages that investment to renew a key public safety facility serving the surrounding neighborhoods.

The site is at the northern edge of the financial district and just a couple blocks from Jackson Square.

The site is bordered on all four sides by existing tall buildings with 10 to 13 story buildings to the north and south, the Trans America Pyramid on the block immediately to the west, and one maritime plaza occupying the block to the east.

The site today consists of four parcels.

The existing city-owned fire station 13 is on the western edge of the site facing Sansome Street.

Midblock, there are two vacant commercial buildings, and those parcels would be combined with the existing fire station as the site of a mixed-use tower.

On the eastern side of the site in purple, is an existing three-story building at 447 Battery Street.

That parcel is the proposed location of a new fire station 13.

To the south is Merchant Street, an existing alley that provides a visual connection between Maritime Plaza and the Trans-America Redwood Park.

The developer would make a number of pedestrian improvements on all four sides of the block with a special emphasis on Merchant Street with widened sidewalks, special paving, new raised crossings at both ends of Merchant Street, new street trees, and new lighting.

The developer will be required to maintain those improvements on behalf of the public for the life of the tower.

The ground floor of the tower, along with the design of Merchant Street, builds on the streetscape improvements directly across Sansome Street as part of the ongoing Trans-America project, shown here at the left, including the design of Mark Twain Alley.

On the right, this is the podium at the base of the new building, which would contain the most active public floors and a view down the redesign Merchant Street.

Here you can see the existing fire station facing Sansome and a view down Merchant and the same orientation as the previous slide.

The image to the right shows the proposed new fire station site facing east toward Battery Street.

In the original version of this project that the board approved in 2020, the new fire station would have been integrated into the lower floors of a hotel and office tower.

On Monday, at land use, we discussed proposed amendments to that property exchange agreement, which consists of two main updates to implement the current design.

First, the city would instead receive a standalone adjacent parcel that it would own free and clear.

And second, those amendments would remove the cap on the developer's costs that were included in the original agreement.

The amended agreement requires the developer to construct the new fire station regardless of cost, other than any later city additions to the design.

The design of the fire station has been carefully coordinated.

The exterior of the building has been shaped in conversation with the planning department as well as the arts commission.

The detailed program and operational requirements have been developed by the fire department and the Bureau of Architecture at Public Works.

This copper sculpture with its firefighter motif is on the facade of Fire Station 13 and part of the city's civic art collection.

The sculpture will be preserved and relocated to the facade of the new station.

Shifting back to the mixed-use tower, here you can see the program.

At the base would be the public entry, retail, restaurant, and meeting room uses.

Eleven floors of hotel guest rooms would be above that, and the tower would be topped by office space.

You can see that the upper floors step back on both the north and south sides, creating a profile that is gradually more slender toward the top.

That profile is designed to reduce the shadow impact of the tower, in particular, almost eliminating any afternoon shadow on Sioux Beerman Park.

The site of the project, south of Washington Street within the traditional financial district, is ideal for a tower of this height.

The skyline view from Telegraph Hill shows how the project's architect, SOM, has considered how the building would fit among the existing towers of Embarcadero Center, one maritime plaza, and of course the Trans America Pyramid, whose pinnacle is approximately 300 feet taller than this project.

You have two items related to the project on today's agenda.

The first is an ordinance that would approve the development agreement.

A development agreement is a contract between the project sponsor and the city, and the benefits and obligations in that contract run with the land to any future owners of the site.

This development agreement would have an eight-year term, which is an outside timeline and includes an approximately three-year construction period.

Sorry.

A primary community benefit of this DA is of course the new fire station.

Fire station 13 was built in the early 1970s and does not meet today's operational or accessibility standards.

The new station would be designed to modern seismic standards for an essential facility.

There would be a maximum 30 month timeline for construction on the fire station once work begins, and completion of the new fire station would be required before completion of the new tower.

The project will benefit downtown with its mix of uses and activity both day and night.

The developer will participate in the 1% for art program for both new buildings.

And through hotel taxes, we estimate the project will contribute approximately $600,000 each year to support arts and culture programs.

Construction will also generate $1 million for the downtown park fund.

As Supervisor Sauter mentioned, in advance of today's hearing, we have updated the draft of the development agreement on file to include a specific provision that the recreation and park department would like to use those downtown park funds for historic preservation or interpretive elements at parks in Chinatown and the financial district.

The affordable housing payments as part of the development agreement contain several parts negotiated between the city and developer, and those would total nearly 15 million dollars.

That is more than three times the affordable housing payments that would have been due for the previously approved version of this project.

Of this amount, related has agreed to pay over $2 million within six months of entitlement and regardless of whether the project is ultimately built.

Those dollars would be used by the city to fund the construction of 100% affordable housing with first priority given to the new Asia Senior Housing Project in Chinatown.

The project will pay a number of other impact fees, all at currently applicable rates, including more than seven million dollars to SFMTA.

Like all of the city's DAs, this one contains a workforce plan, and this plan includes prevailing wage requirements for the construction of both buildings, as well as first source, local hire, and LBE obligations.

The investment in this project will create hundreds of jobs both during construction and on a permanent basis.

Item three on today's agenda is a second ordinance that integrates with the development agreement.

This is a financial mechanism we've developed that we think is very well suited for this project.

We started by taking a close look at both the developers's pro forma as well as the anticipated fiscal impact of the project to the city.

Our office retained an independent financial consultant to assist us.

Here you see a summary of the net new general fund revenues anticipated on an annual basis from the new tower.

These figures are also provided in the BLA's report that is in your packet.

As you can see, we've isolated the expected revenue from hotel taxes, the transient occupancy taxes or TOT shown here, as well as other forms of revenue.

Due to the project's office component, you can see the large amount of general fund revenue we expect to come from gross receipts taxes, property taxes, and other sources.

This agreement would allow the city to recapture a percentage of the new hotel tax generated by the project to offset the construction cost of the new fire station without any upfront investment of city capital dollars.

To enable the project to reach financial feasibility, the agreement provides for incentive payments for up to 25 years after the project is completed and the hotel is in operation.

If the hotel underperforms our revenue projections, the developer bears that risk.

The developer developer would also bear the full upfront cost of the fire station and the risk of construction cost escalation.

I want to emphasize that the city would retain the full share of TOT revenue that is dedicated to arts and culture purposes, which we I mentioned we estimated $600,000 of new revenue each year to support grants for the arts, the arts commission, and the city's cultural districts.

Again, here are the results of the fiscal analysis that was performed, 13.5 million in new general fund revenue each year, and the net fiscal benefit we expect after taking into account all city costs is nine and a half million each and every year from this project.

That brings us back to the schedule.

Since the board endorsed the key terms of this project in December of last year, there has been an extensive environmental review process that culminated in July with the certification of the EIR.

In parallel, the project has also been discussed at a number of commission meetings shown here.

Thank you for your time, supervisors.

And I would like to invite up Chief Brannan and Chief Mullen from the fire department to conclude the presentation.

Thank you, Mr.

Cherry.

Good morning, supervisors.

I just want to uh really commend and thank this team for bringing this together for us, and the San Francisco Fire Department is in full support of this project.

Also, uh I have been a longtime member of Station 13.

I was there for 10 years, and so it is very meaningful to my heart.

And I know that the public and the surrounding businesses are very um excited to see this happen as well.

So I just wanted to uh make sure that you knew that we have our full support on this.

Are there any questions that you'd like to ask the fire department?

Not seeing any.

Okay.

Thank you so much, Deputy Chief Brandon and Assistant Deputy Chief Mullen.

Um, we also have a presentation from the budget and legislative analysts, Mr.

Nicholas Menard, if you could please go ahead.

Thank you.

Items two and three are two ordinances.

Uh, one that would approve a development agreement between the city and the developer of the project just described, and one that would approve an agreement between the developer and the city, in which the city would provide uh payments over 25 years based on hotel tax revenues from the tower project to the developer of that site to help make that project financially feasible.

I'll just focus on the fiscal impact, which we discussed beginning on page 13 of our report.

Um, there are several benefits and cost of this agreement from the city perspective.

One is the city's getting a new fire station that's valued at 44 million dollars.

And then, in addition to that, uh the project, uh once you know fully constructed and occupied, would generate um new general fund revenues of about $8 million a year.

That's net of baselines and new service requirements.

Um, and then in addition to that, the development agreement uh adjusts the development impact fees that apply to the tower project, and they reduce them by about $6 million on net, again, as part of making that project uh more financially feasible.

Uh so the the city is essentially getting the fire station uh reducing development impact fees, but then paying that's about $50 million dollars, but then paying over 25 years up to $86 million dollars.

So the city is, in a sense, funding this market rate development, um, but it will that that kind of without taking an equity position, uh, but there will be those new general fund revenues that will offset that about 45 million dollar um investment uh for lack of a better word.

Um so the structure of this agreement is you know consistent with what the board endorsed at the end of 2024.

Um but we do note a couple policy considerations.

One is what I just mentioned that the kind of the cost of the city, the one-time cost of the city uh exceed the benefits in this case.

Um in addition to that, we believe that the city could self-finance the construction of this fire station at less of a cost uh than the incentive agreement that's before you.

Uh we estimate that that would be about 72 million dollars in nominal costs uh if if the city could find general obligation bond dollars.

The the constraint though is that the city's capital plan is basically fully scheduled, so the the capital plan would have to would have to be reordered to accommodate this new fire station, and that would take time to approve and issue the debt.

Um so if you were to pursue that route, you would not get the fire station um as soon as you would potentially for this project.

Happy to answer any other questions.

Colleagues, any questions?

Supervisor Cheryl.

Um thank you, Chairfielder.

Um, so I just want to make sure that I understood that financial analysis.

Basically, and this is gonna kind of dumb it down.

So excuse me for um would it be accurate to say that if we had the money in the capital plan scheduled to do this, we could do it cheaper than this proposal, but we don't have the money right now?

That's correct.

The capital plan is constrained by several financial policies, and so we are essentially based on the projects that are planned over the next 10 years, um, we're we basically don't have opportunity to issue more debt to pay for this fire station if we did um we could do it cheaper, I believe.

And are you suggesting is the suggestion here that we should or or is it just hey, let's acknowledge that in theory there are cheaper tools, but those may not be available right now?

You know, I'm bringing it up because I kind of struggled with this agreement in terms of whether it was a good deal for the city, and so I feel like part of my job is to provide an alternative path um for the board to consider.

So, what would the alternative path be?

The alternative path could be either um revise the city's financial policies to accommodate more debt, change the planned schedule of the capital plan to reorder the projects, um to right now.

We have a kind of we have a plan for the next 10 years, it includes things like the seawall and uh renovating some other fire stations and police stations and things like that.

So there could be changes made on that.

Is there a recommendation about which projects we should put off for now?

The seawall and other fire stations seem pretty important.

We're working on an analysis on that topic.

Okay.

Um you say that the costs outweigh the benefits, does that include a consideration about the increase anticipated increase of general fund revenues of eight million per year and the 24 million dollar development impact fee payments?

It does not include the new ongoing general fund revenues.

Okay, um, how were those projected revenues on on what assumptions for hotel recovery and office vacancy?

Um, so we reviewed that analysis, but it was it was done with I'm gonna defer that to OEWD.

Understood.

I'll ask the question to OEWD.

How were the projected revenues to the general fund calculated?

Under under what kind of circumstances or is there a baseline year that we're basing it off of?

Uh so yes, so the um our working assumption is that you know this project is not being delivered today.

First of all, it's being delivered in roughly 2030.

Um so the assumptions in the fiscal analysis assumed for hotel that uh 75% occupancy, which you know historically is actually on the low side, but you know, it's it's a we think it's a reasonable assumption, and our consultant agreed.

For office, it assumes a nearly full uh occupancy, which is what it would take for this project to actually get financed and get built.

So we're confident that if the project happens, that it will be a nearly full office occupancy.

Okay.

Um, and and just to to reiterate, I uh your your point was correct, Chair Fielder.

The um, you know, the um the BLA report cites the you know eight million dollars in new general fund revenue each year um and the impact fees, and and I think totals that to something like 240 million dollars in benefit on top of the fire station uh cost itself.

So uh we feel that the benefits uh you know very much outweigh the city's investment when taking that into account, but we agree, um, you know, looking just at the fire station, the incentive payments are intended to cover both offset the construction cost of the fire station as well as help make the hotel itself feasible, because if the project doesn't happen, none of it happens.

So um, you know, this tool has been used in many other cities in California specific to incentivizing new hotel construction, which is extremely expensive and doesn't pencil easily in particular in San Francisco.

We've adopted the tool specifically because of the fire station component.

So it's doing both pieces.

It's a public facility plus the hotel.

Thank you.

Supervisor Cheryl.

I'm sorry, can I just ask you one more question there?

So I just want to make sure I'm getting my kind of back of the envelope math here correct.

So it sounds like if we take the both the cost and the benefits to the city of the entire project as a whole, not just pulling out the fire station, or not, we're getting a fire station built that otherwise we have no money for, and a step up in tax revenues in the future for a not insignificant cost to the city, but but both the fire station we couldn't pay for plus additional significant tax revenues in the future.

Do I have that right?

Um yes, plus 25 million dollars or so of one-time impact fees.

Affordable housing and transportation funding.

That's right.

Thank you.

Is sorry, a couple more questions for you.

Um is um is the firehouse construction contingent on the ability of the developer to secure financing?

Yes.

So the way the the sequencing of the project and the public benefits is structured, um, if the the fire station will continue operating in its current location until the project as a whole is ready to move forward at the time when financing closes, they have permits, they're ready to move forward, the property exchange would occur, the fire station would put in place their you know contingency plan for temporarily relocating those operations, and there'd be a two and a half year timeline for the fire station to complete.

You know, if if the project doesn't move forward, the fire station remains.

Okay.

Yeah, I would I mean, seven million dollars to transportation impact fees is nothing to sneeze at.

That's the deficit that we face last this past year that um SFMTA decided to cut lines going to Market Street.

So that is that is a big part of this, and I think should also be whenever it's it's received, uh obviously go towards um, at least I think go towards restoring service.

Um hopefully, we're not in that position when this revenue comes, but I would hope that that's what it goes to for transportation.

All right, thank you, everyone for answering our questions.

Thank you to the BLA and Office of Economic and Workforce Development, SF Fire.

Um seeing no one else on the roster, Madam Mr.

Clerk, sorry, can we go to public comment?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We are now opening public comment for both these item numbers two and three.

If we have uh members of the public who wish to address this committee, I'll start your time once you begin speaking.

First speaker, please.

Good morning, Chair Fielder and members of the Government Audit and Oversight Committee.

My name is Jackson Nepier, speaking on behalf of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce.

For 175 years, the chamber has led initiatives to attract support and grow businesses in San Francisco through advocacy, economic development, and business development efforts.

As the voice of San Francisco's business sector, we are excited about related California's reimagined development for 447 Battery and 530 Sansum Street, a public-private partnership with the city and county of San Francisco, SF Fire, to create a new 40 million dollar state-of-the-art fire station adjacent to a 41-story premium office and luxury hotel tower development.

This project will also deliver significant public benefits by contributing millions of dollars in development impact fees, which will be partially allocated to essential infrastructure improvements.

Additionally, it also includes $15 million in affordable housing payments and supports the development of 100% affordable housing development at 772 Pacific Avenue and Net Positive Revenue for the City's General Fund.

We encourage the committee to improve to approve both pieces of these legislations to support San Francisco's economic recovery.

Thank you.

Thank you, much Jackson up here.

Next speaker.

Good morning, supervisors.

My name is Avi, and I'm here on behalf of the Chinatown Community Development Center in support of the project.

As part of the development agreement, the project will provide critical funding for affordable housing in district three, but the need is urgent and growing.

These funds will directly support 100% affordable senior housing development in the heart of Chinatown, which will contribute over 175 deeply affordable units.

This will be the first new construction affordable housing project in Chinatown in over two decades, as you mentioned, Supervisor Souter, and that's since the I Hotel.

And as such, it represents a vital opportunity to support and meet the needs of low-income seniors in Chinatown who have helped to develop and build and sustain the neighborhood.

And so we um yeah, ask you to please support this project.

Thank you.

Thank you much for addressing this committee.

Next speaker.

Good morning, supervisors.

My name is Raina Christensen.

I'm the membership and communications manager for the Hotel Council of San Francisco.

The Hotel Council of San Francisco is a nonprofit trade association that was founded in 1987.

Our mission is to advocate for the interests of the hotel and allied members, ensuring the economic vitality of the hospitality community in San Francisco.

As the voice of San Francisco's hospitality community, we are pleased to express our strong support for related California's proposal for a 41-story premium office and luxury hotel tower in the city's northern financial district.

This new project is set to deliver a number of benefits, boosting the local economy and providing a diverse range of offerings for businesses, tourists, and residents.

We appreciate related California's investment in San Francisco.

The proposed project at 530 Sansome Street will be the first new building in the Northern Financial District since the opening of 350 Bush Street in 2018.

This development represents an important and exciting step forward for San Francisco and our hospitality community.

On behalf of the Hotel Council of San Francisco, we encourage you to support our community and this important project.

Thank you.

And thank you much.

Next speaker.

Good morning, Chair Fielder and committee members.

My name is Trevor Long and I'm the uh representative for Glazers Union Local 718 here in San Francisco.

I'd like to speak to you today about what this project means for the future of downtown San Francisco.

This will be the first major office tower built in San Francisco City since 2018, and the first new hotel downtown in decades.

At a time when vacancy and uncertainty weigh heavy, this project sends a powerful message that San Francisco is open for business and investment.

By mixing office, hotel, retail, and public space, this development strengthens and diversifies our downtown economy.

It's the kind of bold step we need to help San Francisco recover and thrive.

I'd ask you to please support items two and three.

Thank you.

Thank you much for everyone.

Next speaker, please.

Good morning, Chair Fielder and Honorable Members.

My name is Marcus Alvarez.

I'm the organizer with the Elevator Constructors Local 8 and a delegate to the San Francisco Building Trades Council.

And I'm here to highlight the public benefits this project brings.

At the heart is the plan, is a brand new state-of-the-art Fire Station 13.

Fully funded by a developer.

This will give our firefighters the modern facilities they deserve right in the financial district, where emergency response is critical.

On top of that, this project contributes millions toward affordable housing and creates nearly 13,000 square feet of new public open space along Merchant Street.

This isn't just a private development, it's an investment in public safety, housing, and public space.

And I strongly encourage you to support items two and three.

Thank you.

Thank you much, Marcus Alvarez.

Next speaker.

Good morning, Chair Fielder, honorable members of the committee.

My name is Rudy Gonzalez with the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council.

I represent about 27 local unions, both public and private.

And it's truly refreshing to get to speak before you in support of items two and three.

I oftentimes have to toggle between which group of workers am I advocating for or making good trouble for, the public sector or the private sector.

This really uh brings this together in a really great way.

Uh, not only does our fire department benefit from it, but channeling and ushering the community benefits associated with this, not just for the Chinatown and and priority area for affordable housing, but also the open space that it creates.

The other note I wanted to add is that we're in the business of training the next generation of San Francisco's workforce.

Uh approving a project at this scale means that we're going to be able to open up apprenticeship opportunities for San Franciscans, and that's for women, that's for people of color, that's for folks that are veterans from disadvantaged populations in our city.

Uh, and it really provides uh an opportunity to boost that pipeline of apprenticeship so that we can have skilled workers ready to build everything that we need to build in San Francisco, from water treatment plants to new hospitals to yes, luxury hotel development.

And the final thing I would ask is just to consider that these development projects are considered on a project-by-project basis, right?

You're dealing with one developer related, you're dealing with certain city departments that are affected by it, a certain neighborhood.

Uh, but this is in the heart of our downtown, right?

It's it's close to Jackson Square where things are thriving right now, but in the heart of our downtown, where we have seen about a third of our work completely evaporate.

We're just starting to turn that corner, we're just starting to get skilled tradespeople back to work.

This would be a shot in the arm in terms of economic recovery and send a message to the entire city and beyond that yes, we're open for business, yes, we're open for investment, and yes, we're gonna build good careers along with our structures.

Thank you for your consideration.

And thank you much, Rudy Gonzalez.

Next speaker.

Good morning, supervisors.

My name is Chris Wright, Senior Vice President at Advanced SF.

We represent San Francisco's leading employers committed to a vibrant and resilient economy that benefits everyone who lives and works in San Francisco.

Over the past three years, we've worked closely with the city, businesses, and community partners to make our downtown economic course safer, more vibrant, and more economically diverse.

We support the proposal of I 30 Sansum, a 41-story office and hotel tower, paired with the 40 million dollar fire station.

This is the first new office building in the northern waterfront in more than 50 years.

It will bring state-of-the-art office space, a hotel, a chef-driven restaurant, and upgrades to Merchant Street that will further enliven Jackson Square.

High quality office space in this location is in demand, especially from finance, real estate, and technology firms.

This project sends a strong signal that San Francisco is investing in its future.

530 Sansome is a clear win for the city and for downtown's revitalization.

We urge your support.

And thank you, Chris Wright.

Next speaker.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Supervisors.

John Doherty, Business Manager, IBW Local Six and Vice President for the Specialty Trade Subcrafts of the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council here to speak in support of items two and three.

In addition to the commitments the developer has made to local contractors, local workforce, local apprenticeship programs, all of which are in in need of work security in the moving forward in the future.

They've also made commitments that are really tangible.

A tangible new fire station for the firefighters in San Francisco, a commitment to funding affordable housing for our seniors in Chinatown section of D3.

And we urge your support.

Thank you for your time.

And thank you, John Doherty.

If we have any other speakers who wish to address this committee, Madam Chair, that completes our queue.

Thank you, Mr.

Clerk.

Seeing no one else making public comment.

Public comment is now closed.

And before we proceed, I understand Vice Chair Sauter wants to make some remarks.

Yes, uh, thank you, Chair Fielder.

Thank you to everyone who showed up for public comment and for our discussion today.

Um I wanna just note that uh it's my understanding that we need to we can't vote on this today.

We need a few more days to uh be in proper compliance with our noticing period.

Um so I would like to make a motion on item two and three to continue it to a uh meeting of this body on October 6th, second.

Sorry, um Mr.

Clerk, please call the roll.

And on that motion by Vice Chair Sauter that we'll continue both ordinances to the October 6th special meeting of this committee.

Vice Chair Sauter.

Sauter, aye, member Cheryl.

Cheryl, aye, Chair Fielder.

Aye.

Feel your aye.

We have three ayes.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Thanks so much to the lasers and building construction trades for coming out.

Um really glad to hear that this project has some agreements around local contracting and uh local apprenticeship programs.

So thank you.

Mr.

Clerk, please call item four.

Yes, item number four is a resolution authorizing the offices of the mayor, city attorney, city administrator, the heads of each division office and department under the supervision of the city administrator, the assessor recorder, and the deputy assessors and director of policy and government affairs in uh the assessor recorder's office to solicit donations from various private nonprofit, philanthropic and other entities to support uh the urgent provision of legal services related to the creation and enforcement of immigration laws, regulations and policies, including litigation and regulatory reform efforts at the local state and federal level, and non-legal services and support for the city's immigration communities, goods and services, including legal services related to defending and supporting LGBTQ plus rights, goods and services, including legal services related to defending and supportive uh supporting reproductive rights, goods and services, including legal legal services related to defending existing environmental protection laws and promoting environmental protection efforts and goods and services, including legal services related to racial equity initiatives, all notwithstanding the behested payment ordinance.

Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr.

Clerk.

I understand President Manelman is not able to present on this item today, and so and requested that this item be continued.

So let's move to public comment, Mr.

Clerk.

I'm sorry, Madam Chair.

Um should we hold uh did we open public comment?

Understood.

Um I move to continue this item to the call of the chair.

Actually, Madam Chair was asking if we if we were opening public comments.

I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

Yes, okay.

Okay.

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

Madam Chair, we have no speakers.

My apologies.

Thank you.

Seeing no one making public comment.

Public comment is closed.

I now move to continue this item to the call of the chair.

Yes, and on that motion, to continue this resolution to the call of the chair, Vice Chair Sauter.

Cheryl, aye.

Chair Fielder.

Aye.

Fielder aye.

We have three ayes.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Mr.

Clerk, please call items five through eleven together.

Yes, item numbers five through eleven.

Uh our one resolution and six ordinances authorizing approving settlements of lawsuits and unlitigated claims against the city.

Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr.

Clerk.

Colleagues, any questions or comments?

Saying none, Mr.

Clerk, let's open for public comment.

Yes, if we have any members of the public who wish to address this committee regarding the items on our litigation calendar.

Madam Chair, we have no speakers.

Thank you.

Seeing no one making public comment, public comment is now closed.

I now move to send items five through eleven to the full board of supervisors with positive recommendation.

Master Clerk, please call the roll.

Yes, and on that motion to forward all the items on the litigation calendar to the full board.

Vice Chair Sauter.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Mr.

Clerk, any other business before us today?

Uh Madam Chairman concludes our business.

Seeing no other business, we are adjourned.