San Francisco Government SmartTranscripts:

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: Good morning. The meeting will come to order. Welcome to the 01/14/2026 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 Souter. Our clerk is brent haliba. I would like to thank kelina mandoza from sf gov tv for broadcasting this meeting. Mr. Clark do you have any announcements?

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you madam chair just a friendly reminder to those in attendance to please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices to prevent interruptions to our proceedings should you have any documents to be included as part of the file they should be submitted to myself the clerk. Public comment will be taken on each item on this agenda. When your item of interest comes up in public 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 in writing in either of the following ways. Email them to myself, the budget and finance committee clerk at brent.jalipa@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 US Postal Service to our office in City Hall at 1 Doctor Carlton B. Guthlet Place, Room 244, San Francisco, California, 94102. And finally, due to our observance of Doctor. Martin Luther King Jr. Day, items acted upon today are expected to appear on the Board of Supervisors' agenda held January 27 unless otherwise stated. Madam Chair.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: 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.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: 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, with the next report due on 03/01/2028 and item number two is a resolution amending the city' ten 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 $535,000,000 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 Portrero 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 eser 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 ESER 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 cqa for the remaining portion of the bond proposal and that the bond proposal is in conform with the eight priority policies of the planning code and is consistent with the general plan. And, complying restrictions on the use of bond proceeds specified in the California government code incorporating the provisions and waiving in time requirements as 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 06/02/2026 for the purpose of submitting the proposition to the San Francisco voters, reciting and as reciting the estimated cost of such proposed ESR 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 Einmanueblov is the resolution that determines and declares the public interest and necessity regarding the bond proposal. Madam chair.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: Thank you, mister clerk, for reading that through. And with that, today's presentation is going to be start with our city administrator, Carmen Chu. Thank you so much for being here.

[Carmen Chu (City Administrator)]: Thank you so much, Chair Chan. Supervisors Dorsey and Soder, 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 cosponsorship of this legislation. I think, as you know, in all of the briefing that we had done with you, this spawn 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 earth or greater earthquake in The Bay Area in the next thirty 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 nineteen o six 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 Percheril Yard as one of the elements of this bond. People might say, well, what is the connection and tie in to earthquake safety? We know that Perturo 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 the Potrero 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 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 wanna 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 with the department of public works. We're all here to be able to answer any questions that you might have. And, again, I wanna 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.

[Brian Strong (Chief Resilience Officer; Director, Office of Resilience & Capital Planning)]: 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 them 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 ten 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 a 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 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. We are also 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 2030 to 2028, just recognizing the significant amount of need that is now coming from our rec park facilities. So, that is the amendment to the ten 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 this is the fund 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 130,000,000 for this. This is to really reach out to underserved areas that are of the network, primarily on the West Side, which lack firefighting infrastructure firefighting water infrastructure, I should say, 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 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 $100,000,000 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 fours, 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 seven, two, forty, and six, 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 $72,000,000 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 eSurgio Bund. 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 $33,000,000 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. Dollars 200,000,000 for the Potrero Yard to retrofit, replace, and 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 Perotero Yard is where the city stores, repairs, and maintains many 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 jump start 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 shows the graph 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 light gray at the bottom show bonds where we're paying debt back on right now. Typically, we do twenty 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 the ten 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 2,006 tax rate. With that, I will 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, and if you go to the next slide, Nishat, 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 us, 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, 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 Van Dagna, I don't Anna Van Dagna, 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 processed. So with that, Julie, did you want to say a couple words? Yeah.

[Julie Kirschbaum (Director, SFMTA)]: 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 Potrero Yard is so key to our recovery in an emergency. So I'm happy to answer any questions. And I appreciate your consideration today.

[Carla Short (Director, Public Works)]: 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 Brian Strong in particular for championing this program. Public works role has been to manage the EASR bond program. We've done this since the first bond in 2010, 2014, and 2020. We do all of the go back 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 EASR 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.

[Brian Strong (Chief Resilience Officer; Director, Office of Resilience & Capital Planning)]: And that concludes our presentation. Thank you.

[Nick Menard (Budget & Legislative Analyst)]: Good morning, 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 $535,000,000 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 five, you can see the fiscal impact of the bonds if they're approved. The $535,000,000 would translate into $933,000,000 of debt service over the twenty five 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's approved. And 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.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: Thank you. I think I want to specifically ask questions around the emergency firefighting water system. I see that Mr. Huang already nodding, knowing that I will be asking this. In the 2019 bond that the city has invested $100,000,000 to build out the emergency firefighting water system for the West Side and that is from District 7 like reset all the way into Outer Richmond through through the sunset through outer sunset but what we have learned over that time is that that $100,000,000 wasn't enough that we understand that the build out from a $15,000,000 per mile to increase significantly to $42,000,000 per mile. And thanks to SRUC, the partnership allow us to tap into water bond. Thank you to SAPUC that we, with the additional $300,000,000 is now that we can complete the entire design of that. But I kind of want to really have SPUC or maybe Mr. Strong can actually articulate and help us understand with this additional $130,000,000 from this bond, what does that look like for the West Side in terms of emergency firefighting water system?

[Brian Strong (Chief Resilience Officer; Director, Office of Resilience & Capital Planning)]: Yes, I can maybe take a quick stab at it, and then I know that Assistant General Manager, Ritchie, 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 $100,000,000 for expanding to the West Side, are really to continue the work that was started before from the 2020 bond. Again, initially with EASR, 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. It was a 9 or $10,000,000,000 massive improvement 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 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 Richmond District they can

[Rudy Gonzalez (Executive Director, SF Building & Construction Trades Council)]: go to.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: Thank you.

[Steve Ritchie (Assistant General Manager, Water – SFPUC)]: Morning supervisors 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 the that extension built and we' 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 andreesen our senior project manager here to answer the specific questions about how far

[Josh Andreessen (Senior Project Manager, SFPUC – Emergency Firefighting Water System)]: morning. I'm Josh Andreessen, senior project manager with SFPC on the Firewater program. 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. Those Some 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.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: 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.

[Josh Andreessen (Senior Project Manager, SFPUC – Emergency Firefighting Water System)]: That's our estimate currently. Correct.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: And I

[Josh Andreessen (Senior Project Manager, SFPUC – Emergency Firefighting Water System)]: think As well as the Fort Mason fireboat fireboat manifold project will also be funded as well construction.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: 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. And I really do appreciate the partnership for that additional water bond, allowing us to really now that we're going back to the voter, we 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. I really do appreciate the effort. And Vice Chair Dorsey.

[Supervisor Matt Dorsey (Vice Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: Thank you, Chair Chan. I share the concern about our firefighting water system capabilities. Know that, from what I know of the experience in the city in 1906, it was the lack of 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 and similar systems where we're going be trying to fight fires without water?

[Josh Andreessen (Senior Project Manager, SFPUC – Emergency Firefighting Water System)]: I think Katie Miller or Steve may be best to answer that one. Thank you.

[Steve Ritchie (Assistant General Manager, Water – SFPUC)]: Yeah. The fire the excuse me the water system is 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' in much better shape overall we' starting work on analysis of what' going to happen to the potable system in an earthquake the historical thinking has been well just assume it fails and we think that' wrong 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 pfws the portable combined system we think that'92s going to be a major addition that'92s going to serve both the portable system and the emergency firefighting system.

[Supervisor Matt Dorsey (Vice Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: Okay. Is that analysis that's is it called I think it's called is it HAZUS? It's the methodology that FEMA uses to estimate earthquake risk?

[Steve Ritchie (Assistant General Manager, Water – SFPUC)]: I don't know if we're using FEMA. Okay.

[Brian Strong (Chief Resilience Officer; Director, Office of Resilience & Capital Planning)]: Yeah, the Hazus, I can assure you, Hazus system, it's really used as a predictive modeling tool. So, doesn't, 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 Scothorn. Doctor. Charlie Scawthorn is one of the foremost experts in the country around water for fighting fires.

[Supervisor Matt Dorsey (Vice Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: Okay. Yeah, 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. First of 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 the district I represent is very much vulnerable to liquefaction and other risks.

[Steve Ritchie (Assistant General Manager, Water – SFPUC)]: And it's a bit of a sidebar but we have just 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' really a pilot project for us to make sure that we' 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.

[Supervisor Matt Dorsey (Vice Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: 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 out out 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 make sure that water is available and that the system is working.

[Steve Ritchie (Assistant General Manager, Water – SFPUC)]: Absolutely. Thank

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: 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 the city administrator has mentioned specifically too 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' go to public comments on this item.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: 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.

[Sam Geller (President, San Francisco Firefighters Local 798)]: Good morning board of supervisors thank you for seeing this item right now my name is sam gebler the president of san francisco firefighters local seven ninety eight I 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 nineteen eighty nine earthquake, the fire was put out basically by the fire pump 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.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: And thank you, Sam Geller, for addressing this committee. Next speaker, please.

[Eileen Bogan (Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods)]: SF gov TV, I'll be using the overhead. 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 11/17/2025 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 patrol yard is not an emergency response facility The patrol yard was originally listed in the transportation bond and then parachuted into the twenty twenty six eastern eastern bond. On November 7 the total eastern amount was $525,000,000 but on December 1 the total was $535,000,000. The procure yard project alone would take about 40% of the overall 2026 bond funds there are two police stations and six fire stations with a high 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 priority prioritizing an mta project is beyond questionable. Also all new easer bond funds for the puc's emergency firefighting water system should be placed on controller's reserve until such time as the e f w s 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 city to the committee members and the clerk of the committee. Thank you.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you much eileen bulkin next speaker please.

[Rudy Gonzalez (Executive Director, SF Building & Construction Trades Council)]: Good morning honorable chair Chan and members Dorsey and Sauter 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, 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 the seats and will be recommending through the Rules Committee to future professionals to help be stewards and guardians of the taxpayers' interest. We think it's been an incredibly efficiently run bond program. I would just want to flag all of our appreciation for the hard working 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 Perturora Bus Modernization Yards or project. We've secured employment opportunities in the community for local business enterprises and for apprentices and skilled trades people 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 opposite capital improvement. It can be a little out of the ordinary to talk about an MTA program and an EASER bond, but it's absolutely on point and we fully support it. So, thank you for your support of the effort and your cosponsorship. Thank you.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: And thank you much for your de gonzalez. If we have any other speakers? Madam chair it looks like that completes our queue.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: Seeing no more public comments public comment is now closed. Chair Dorsey.

[Supervisor Matt Dorsey (Vice Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: Thank you chair Chan. There was one first of 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 had 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 two things that are not necessarily just for first responders. I believe there was a previous Easter bond that funded improvements to Kezar because Kezar 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, 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. Then emergency response, but it's all of that.

[Carmen Chu (City Administrator)]: 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 the gist of it, is to make sure that our entire ecosystem of how we respond to an emergency is taken care of.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: Thank you. So with that, colleagues, I would like to move these four items to full board with recommendation and a roll call, please.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: And on that motion that these items one through four be referred to the full board with recommendation vice chair Dorsey.

[Supervisor Matt Dorsey (Vice Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: Aye.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: Dorsey aye. Member Soder. Aye. Soder aye. Chair Chan. Aye. Chan aye. We have three ayes.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: The motion passes. Thank you. Mister Clark, please call item number five.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: 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 s f logo and other film commission trademarks or merchandise. Madam chair.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: Thank you and today we have San Francisco film here. Oh, actually, my apologies. I committed to that, and I my mind just skipped. Could we go back to this item? I recognize that President Mantua 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's returned. My apologies to the film folks and Mr. Clerk please call item six.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: Yes item six 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 10/01/2025 through 09/30/2026 to support the alcohol and drug impaired driver vertical prosecution program activities and services. Madam Chair.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: Thank you. We have the district attorney's office here.

[Monifa Willis (Chief of Staff, San Francisco District Attorney’s Office)]: 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 except an 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 and also this these funds aligned with our city's vision zero initiatives the time frame is from September 2025 to October 2026 Any questions for me?

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: No. Oh, Supervisor Sauter.

[Supervisor Denny Sauter (Member, Budget & Finance Committee)]: 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?

[Monifa Willis (Chief of Staff, San Francisco District Attorney’s Office)]: 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.

[Supervisor Denny Sauter (Member, Budget & Finance Committee)]: Okay. And then within your work on DUI cases right now, how many prosecutors do you have assigned to that at this point?

[Monifa Willis (Chief of Staff, San Francisco District Attorney’s Office)]: One. He is the sole attorney for that. And so this will cover his,

[Supervisor Denny Sauter (Member, Budget & Finance Committee)]: yeah. This is that one person, or this Yes, doubles

[Monifa Willis (Chief of Staff, San Francisco District Attorney’s Office)]: this is that one person. It does not double it, yeah. So this will offset costs for

[Jeff Scarafia (Deputy CIO, Department of Public Health)]: us. Okay.

[Supervisor Denny Sauter (Member, Budget & Finance Committee)]: Thank you.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: Thank you.

[Monifa Willis (Chief of Staff, San Francisco District Attorney’s Office)]: Thank you.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: With that, let's go to public comment on this item.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: 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.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: Seeing no public comments, public comment is now closed. What is your will, supervisor?

[Supervisor Denny Sauter (Member, Budget & Finance Committee)]: Make a motion to approve this item with

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: recommendation. Roll call please.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: And on that motion by member Soder that we refer this resolution to the full board with recommendation. Vice chair Dorsey.

[Supervisor Matt Dorsey (vote response – time-bound override)]: Aye.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: Dorsey aye. Member Sauter. Aye. Sauter aye. Chair Chan

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: aye.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: We have three ayes.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: The motion passes. And with that Mr. Clerk please call item number seven.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: Yes. 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 Gibral philanthropic fund of the Jewish federation bay area valued at approximately 1,600,000.0 for the design installation repair and construction of improvements to Coshland Park to approve the associated grant agreement effective upon approval of this resolution and to authorize the general manager of r p d 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.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: Thank you. And today we have Rec and Park department here.

[Tamar Barlev (Assistant Director of Partnerships, Recreation & Park Department)]: Yes. Hello. Good morning, Chairman Chan, Supervisor Dorsey, Supervisor Soder. 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 seven, 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 $1,625,000 These grants will cover the design construction resulting in significant park and community garden improvements at Coshland Park. To get situated, Coshland 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 Coshland, Sr, recognized an opportunity to increase open space in the neighborhood and worked with Recken Park to establish Coshland Park at the site. At a time when the neighborhood had limited access to open space, Coshland 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, children's play area, and a community garden. The Coshland 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. Fifty years after the park was established and twenty five years after its last renovation, and in honor of their grandfather, Daniel Coshland, 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 twenty twenty three, the Gibral family granted the Trust for Public Land funds to cover the cost of developing a concept plan for the Coshland Park Community Garden. After an RFP process, Trust Republic Land hired TS Studios landscape architects and worked with Rec and 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 Coshland Community Garden concept plan was approved by the Recreation and Park Commission in October 2025. The cash and in kind donations that the Jabal 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 2026, we'll complete the project design 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 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 1,414,400.0000 The park maintenance and improvement project construction and contingency costs will be the remaining $481,000 for a total of 1,625,000.000. 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 $1,293,000 That's it. Have any questions? I'm here.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: Thank you. And Supervisor Sauter.

[Supervisor Denny Sauter (Member, Budget & Finance Committee)]: 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, then you sought out the funder? Or did they have this park in mind? If you could just give some background.

[Tamar Barlev (Assistant Director of Partnerships, Recreation & Park Department)]: Absolutely. The funder is a member of the Kaushalan family. The Jabal family is actually descendants of the Kauchlin 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.

[Supervisor Denny Sauter (Member, Budget & Finance Committee)]: Thank you.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: Thank you and just want to be grateful to the gift it' critical space and we really appreciate it and thank you so much for your work on this let' go to public comment on this item.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: If you have any members of the public, wish to address this committee regarding this item number seven. Now is your opportunity.

[Speaker 18.0]: Hi. I'm Mark Reisbaum. I'm a philanthropy adviser here representing the Jabal family. Just to your question, as Tamar mentioned, the late Sisi Jabal was the daughter of Daniel Koshland, 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 has 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 just approached the Parks and Rec and said, you know, we know that this is something that you probably would love to do, and please go out and figure out the best way make it serve the community. And so after a very robust process that we're very proud of with a lot of community input, the family is just pleased now to be able to support this renovation to make Coshland Park real jewel for San Francisco for many decades to come. So thank you so much.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for addressing this committee. Next speaker please.

[Carl Oczocchi (Neighborhood resident and community gardener)]: Hello my name is carl oczocchi I've been a resident near Caution Park for close to twenty five years now ironically I moved there at the time when they had just gone to their last significant updates to the park and I just wanted to come and you know just offer my support to this I can' thank the chabal family enough for their generosity I can attest to the fact that it's a beloved park by everyone in the community. I'm also a community gardener there, and a lot of improvements specific to the garden I think is going to tremendously impact the users of the space. We have a lot of senior members. The 88 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.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: And, thank you much for your comments. And, Madam Chair, that completes our queue.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: 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.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: And on that motion to refer this resolution to the full board with recommendation, vice chair Dorsey.

[Supervisor Matt Dorsey (vote response – time-bound override)]: Aye.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: Dorsey, aye. Member Sauter? Aye. Sauter, aye. Chair Chan. Aye. Chan, aye. We have three ayes.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: The motion passes. Thank you. Mister clerk, please call item number eight.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: Yes. Item number eight is an ordinance appropriating approximately 9,000,000,000 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 9,000,000,000 on controller's reserve pending receipt of proceeds of indebtedness. Madam chair.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: Thank you. And today, we have SFO here.

[Diana Volak (San Francisco International Airport)]: Good morning, and welcome, supervisor Satter, to Budget and Finance Committee. My name is Diana Volak with the San Francisco International Airport. The item before you for consideration would authorize the appropriation of $9,000,000,000 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 $12,500,000,000 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 $8,000,000,000 asset program phase one point five and $4,400,000,000 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.

[Nick Menard (Budget & Legislative Analyst)]: Item eight is an ordinance that would appropriate approximately $9,000,000,000 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 'twenty eight, 'twenty nine 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 show that the airport's expecting to pay about $650,000,000 in debt service this year. That would increase to about $1,400,000,000 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 eight.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: 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 sfo but I do appreciate having this dialogue and allowing us to have this discussion and bring this item. With that let' go to public comment on this item.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: Guests of avenue members of the public wish to address this committee regarding this item number eight that was your opportunity. Madam chair we have no speakers.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: 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.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: And on that motion to refer this ordinance to the full board with recommendation vice chair Dorsey.

[Supervisor Matt Dorsey (vote response – time-bound override)]: I.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: Dorsey aye. Member Soder Aye. Chair Chan. Aye. Chan. Aye. We have three ayes.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: The motion passes.

[Diana Volak (San Francisco International Airport)]: Thank you very much.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: Thank you. Mister clerk please call item number nine.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: 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 hinder underserved patient populations for the period of 07/01/2024, through 06/30/2025. Madam Chair.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: Thank you. And we have Department of Public Health here.

[Jeff Scarafia (Deputy CIO, Department of Public Health)]: Morning, supervisors. My name is Jeff Scarafia. 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. Today, are seeking your retroactive approval to accept and expend this gift into the DPH budget. Happy to answer any questions.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: Thank you. And so with this EPIC system, 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?

[Jeff Scarafia (Deputy CIO, Department of Public Health)]: Typically, yes, although it is not a guarantee.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: Understood. Thank you. With that, let's go to public comment on this item.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: Yes, we're 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.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: 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.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: And on that motion to refer to the full board with recommendation vice chair Dorsey. Dorsey aye member sotter sotter aye chair Chan

[Eileen Bogan (Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods)]: aye

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: chair aye we have three ayes

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: the motion passes. Mr. Clark please call item number 10.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: 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 15,500,000.0 in HIV emergency relief program funding for the San Francisco eligible metropolitan area for the period of 03/01/2026, through 02/28/2027. Madam Chair.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: Thank you. And, again, we have our Department of Public Health here.

[Bill Bloom (San Francisco Department of Public Health)]: Good morning, Chair Chan, and Supervisor Sauder and Dorsey. Dorsey, 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, HAB, 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 03/01/2026 through 02/28/2027. 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 went out a bit later than usual. So it was put out on 07/21/2025, with a due date of October 2, leaving fifty two business days to complete the application and submit. DPH was unable to get board approval before the application deadline. DPH says that, therefore, bringing this before the board following the fiscal approvals process. In conclusion, respectfully requesting approval of this item. Thanks.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: 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?

[Bill Bloom (San Francisco Department of Public Health)]: 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 the solicit pending us having submitted the proposal.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: 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. So this is the grant that is for the twenty six-twenty seven, so that's upcoming fiscal year. My assumption is the last time we cover for both two fiscal years, But correct me if I'm wrong. Did we end up covering cost of doing business for both 'twenty four, 'twenty five, and 'twenty well, sorry, 'twenty five, 'twenty six, and 'twenty six, 'twenty seven? Or did we only cover for 'twenty five, '25, '26?

[Bill Bloom (San Francisco Department of Public Health)]: 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 EMA's 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 twenty five years, the planning council did request that we use it to cover the cost of doing business.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: 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 year 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 come with the proposed budget? Or will then be a require of the add back process? Do you know the answer to that now? Are we going to have to

[Bill Bloom (San Francisco Department of Public Health)]: I could prognosticate, but I couldn't my crystal ball, not so good. But I can try and give you a guesstimate. The other thing that is happening, and it's 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, translate 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 Aged 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.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: I mean, I think that is somewhat alarming, the change of the funding formula, only because I can imagine that San Francisco has a robust programming and be able to provide our services. So for people who live outside of San Francisco are able to come into the city and be able to receive that service and that we as a city then can have reimbursement but that does not guarantee whoever the person that received the service wherever they reside, be able to have access to the local clinics that they live in. Understood. That's actually really critical information. I appreciate that.

[Bill Bloom (San Francisco Department of Public Health)]: 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. 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. 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 weighted formula. So it's certainly something we're trying to push for, at least a longer band of implementation. But there are a number of parts of California which have seen phenomenal growth and nationally in a number of folks. So I think 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.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: 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' see any name on the roster I don' have additional questions thank you so much as always coming before Let' us for what you go to public comments on this item.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: Yes we' opening public comment for this item 10 if we have any members of the public who wish to address this committee. Madam Chair we have no speakers.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: 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.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: And I motion to refer to the full board with recommendation vice chair Dorsey.

[Supervisor Matt Dorsey (vote response – time-bound override)]: Aye.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: Dorsey aye. Member sotter. Aye. Chair Chan. Aye. Chan aye. We have three ayes.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: The motion passes. Thank you. Mr. Clerk please call item 11.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: Item 11 is a resolution retroactively authorizing the department of public health to accept and expend an in kind gift of COVID-nineteen test kits in a total amount of approximately 527,000 for fiscal year twenty twenty four to twenty twenty five 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.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: Thank you. And today, we have San Francisco Health Network.

[Solomon Gabala (IT Procurement Director, SF Health Network/DPH)]: Hi. Good morning, supervisors. My name is Solomon Gabala. I'm the IT procurement director for the San Francisco Health Network. And the resolution before you is to retroactively approve the accept and expand of a gift from c d p h of covid nineteen 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 covet nineteen 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 nineteen has been established and implemented within the operational budgets of DPH. Do you have any questions for me?

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: No. 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.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: 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.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: Seeing no public comments public comment is now closed. Colleagues I would like to move this item to full board with recommendation. A roll call please.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: And on that motion to refer this resolution to the full board with recommendation vice chair Dorsey. Aye. Dorsey aye. Member Sauter. Aye. Chair Chan. Aye. Chan aye. We have three ayes.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: The motion passes. And with that, Mr. Collette, please call item number 12.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: 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 regions 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 h two r training program in the amount of approximately 24,000 for a total amount of approximately 102,000 from 06/01/2025 for the total period of 10/01/2022 through 05/31/2026 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 and are necessary to effectuate the purposes of the grant agreement or this resolution. Madam Chair.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: Thank you. And, again, we have Department of Public Health here.

[Willie McFarland (Director, Center for Public Health Research, DPH)]: Good morning, Chair Chan, Vice Chair Dorsey, and Supervisor Sauter. I'm Willie McFarland, the director for the Center of Public Health Research, which is a branch within the 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 a note. 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 a project start date of October 2022. For this amendment, the notification was in September 2025 for a 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.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: Thank you for your work. Let's go to public comment on this item.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: Yes, we're opening public comment for this item number 12. If we have any members of the public who wish to address this committee. Madam Chair, we have no speakers.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: 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.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: And on that motion to refer this resolution to the full board with the recommendation vice chair Dorsey. Dorsey aye member sotter aye. Chair Chan

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: aye.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: We have three ayes.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: The motion passes. Thank you. Mr. Clerk let' s call item number 13.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: Yes. Item number 13 is a resolution approving the infrastructure financing plan for the San Francisco Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District number three for 3333333700 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.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: Thank you. And we have the office and office of economic and workforce development here.

[Lee Lutenski (Office of Economic & Workforce Development)]: 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 Controller'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 two office. The supervisor's office asked me to make sure, on the record, I could convey their strong support. They are a cosponsor of this item with Mayor Daniel Lohrey. 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 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 were 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 seven forty four 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 3700 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. So the key guiding document of our EIFDs is called an infrastructure financing plan. Key elements of this this is sort of the guiding document. It controls the district, how the taxes will flow over the forty 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. 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 ten 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.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: Thank you.

[Nick Menard (Budget & Legislative Analyst)]: 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 forty five years. The construction of the improvement is expected to be delivered between 2026 and 2031, so over the next four years. The improvements cost $351,000,000 and the financing plan anticipates that the city will pay out $477,000,000 to pay for those costs over time. We recommend approval of item 13.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: 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 chirrell their continuing support for this project let' go to public comment on this item.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: We' opening public comment for this item number 13 if we have members of the public who wish to address this committee.

[Steve Schumaker (Resident of the Richmond District; Grow the Richmond volunteer)]: Name is Steve Schumaker and I'm a renter in the Richmond District with two young kids. I'm blocks from the 3700 California site. I'm also a volunteer with Grow the Richmond, which seeks to add more housing in this area. It's a phenomenal neighborhood. We love it. And it's becoming prohibitively expensive and desperately needs new housing. I think the Presidio Heights area maybe added one or two new units in 'twenty three and 'twenty four. This is a kind of a revolutionary set of projects for this area, and we desperately need housing. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you, Supervisor.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you much for addressing this committee. Next speaker.

[Speaker 16.0]: Wit turner on behalf of the housing action coalition good afternoon supervisors these two adjacent sites represent a major opportunity for housing in T 2 with more than 1,200 tomes already entitled and ready to move forward including three fifty for seniors this is exactly the kind of situation where the e I f d 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.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you much, Whit Turner. Next speaker.

[Caroline Bosch (District 2 resident, Laurel Heights)]: 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.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you, Caroline Bosch. Next speaker.

[Paul Geduldig (CEO, Jewish Community Center of San Francisco)]: Hi. My name is Paul Gudoldig. I'm the CEO of the Jewish Community Center of San Francisco. 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 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 the fund 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.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you, Paul. Next speaker.

[Rudy Gonzalez (Executive Director, SF Building & Construction Trades Council)]: Rudy Gonzales, San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council, strong support for the EIFD, and I appreciate Lee Lutinsky 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 fifteen 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 thirty nine 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 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, to housing, yes to green space, yes to street scaping, 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 megaprojects. And you're going hear other people from the past administration say, well, what about Park Morseille? 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 revenue sooner.

[Brian Strong (Chief Resilience Officer; Director, Office of Resilience & Capital Planning)]: Thank

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: you. Thank you much, Rudy Gonzales. Next speaker.

[Ramey Dare (Director of Real Estate, Mercy Housing California)]: Hello. My name is Ramey Dare, and I'm the director of real estate at Mercy Housing California. As many of you know, Mercy Housing has a forty 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 in 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.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: And thank you, Rami Dare. And if we don't have any further speakers, Madam Chair, that completes our queue.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: 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.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: No. Oh. 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.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: 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 five, and my apologies, we're going to call the items out of order. We're going to go to item five before we go to item 14. And with that, Mr. Clerk, please call item number five.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: Yes. Item number five 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 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.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: Thank you. And we will start with President Mendelman.

[Rafael Mandelman (President, Board of Supervisors)]: 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 cosponsors. 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, incentive programs provide financial benefits to film, television, 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 $7,600,000 to 46 productions. And in return, these productions have generated $99,500,000 in local spending and facilitated the employment of over 16,000 local crew and actors from IATSE Local sixteen, Teamsters two thousand seven hundred and eighty five, and SAG AFTRA. However, our current incentive is limited. It only rebates city fees, is capped at $600,000 and requires productions to shoot 55%, between fifty five and sixty five, 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 a million dollars. 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 two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. 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.

[Mani Fata (Executive Director, Film SF)]: And our president.

[Rafael Mandelman (President, Board of Supervisors)]: And the president The song of the I'm be here. President and vice president of the commission. I apologize. And the film commission, 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 Currie 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.

[Mani Fata (Executive Director, Film SF)]: 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 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 Sauder 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 on 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 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 Missed Outfire. So just something I want to share around our incentive data that you had mentioned, President Mandelman. 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 twenty 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 $12.5 in San Francisco. We've supported tens of thousands of local hires. We've paid $26,000,000 in wages. Nearly $70,000,000 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 twenty years. We have not kept up with trying to be competitive in San Francisco to drive more business. And we are competing with 120 incentives globally. There are nearly 20 incentives, 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 is 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

[Tony Delorio (Principal Officer, Teamsters Local 665; Vice President, SF Film Commission)]: to

[Mani Fata (Executive Director, Film SF)]: 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 spend 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 paid to police, what they paid 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, know, again to the 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 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 until 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. There is some additional administrative code changes that we're doing. It's 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 this legislation really ensures that San Francisco remains ready for its close-up. Thank you. And I'm done. Thank you so much.

[Nick Menard (Budget & Legislative Analyst)]: 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'll 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 $1,000,000 a year be accommodated within the film commission budget? And you can see on page 16 that it does. They about $2,000,000 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 in 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 costs. Yes, there'll be some economic activity, but this is a direct cost of the general fund. And so for that reason we consider approval to be a policy matter for the board

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: thank you I don't have additional questions I think the fact that the indication for me to come to be in support of this has to do with the fact that you do have a balance in your account of almost $2,000,000 that tells us that it has not been fully utilized it does require an update of the call 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. 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 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, brings more a vibrancy and diversity to the people that can 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 I'm 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 criteria 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 Sowrer.

[Supervisor Denny Sauter (Member, Budget & Finance Committee)]: 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?

[Mani Fata (Executive Director, Film SF)]: 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 expenditures. So ours wasn't very hasn't been competitive in the I think honestly for about a decade. I've been in the office for about ten years. And the last TV series we've had here was in 2016, 2017 with Chance. So as far as the city incentive, it's not been very competitive. And that's why we've been really trying to see how we can align with the industry driven incentive. So now we are the largest this is the best incentive in the country outside of Florida, but Florida does not have a state incentive. So there are two well, one county in particular has a better incentive than us. But what also has been challenging is the state California, our tax credit program had not been very competitive. And as you probably have read over the past couple of 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 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 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.

[Supervisor Denny Sauter (Member, Budget & Finance Committee)]: 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 it, and I would ask the clerk if I could be added as a cosponsor as well. Thank you.

[Mani Fata (Executive Director, Film SF)]: Thank you, supervisor. I really appreciate that.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: Thank you, supervisor. I also want to say, I mean, the Richmond also was on the big screen. It was Sanchi. It was really cool, the Clement Streets. So we're clearly competitive.

[Supervisor Matt Dorsey (Vice Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: And don't sleep on Downtown District 6 either. So I'd like to be a co added as a cosponsor as well.

[Mani Fata (Executive Director, Film SF)]: I think you are. Thank you, supervisor.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: Thank you, vice chair Dorsey. And with that, we'll go to public comments on this item.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: Yes. We're 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.

[Jackson Napier (San Francisco Chamber of Commerce)]: Good morning member I guess afternoon now. Good afternoon members of the budget and finance committee my name is Jackson Napier 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 nearly twenty 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 post 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 in California strengthen its statewide this legislation positions San Francisco to compete effectively and ensure the stories written for our city are actually made here.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you Jackson up beers. Next speaker.

[Tony Delorio (Principal Officer, Teamsters Local 665; Vice President, SF Film Commission)]: Thank you. Hi, everybody. My name is Tony DelOrio, principal officer of Teamsters Local six sixty five since 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, Chair Dorsey and then just now, member Soder, thank you for all cosponsoring. Shout out also to Shamal Walton, who also cosponsored. 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 of 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, you know, even the mayor's office that's behind this 100%, we have to 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 IOTCE, and then our brothers here, one of them is going to talk in a moment, from Local two thousand seven eighty five 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 Gonzales from the building trades, my brother, spoke at least thirty seconds beyond, so I'll keep going. But I just want to say that I think overall that this is very important, and it'll 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 real quick, shout out to

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: Speaker of

[Tony Delorio (Principal Officer, Teamsters Local 665; Vice President, SF Film Commission)]: time, six months. Folks at the film, Mani,

[Speaker 18.0]: But thank you so much few for your

[Rafael Mandelman (President, Board of Supervisors)]: understanding of

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: this committee. Next speaker, please.

[Tony Sacco (Teamsters – Film Industry Driver)]: 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 labor the lumber yards, the hotels, the 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 worked on Nass Bridges. So these little programs that we have that 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 Nass 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 wanna go see the location where it was at. And they come here. This is what they do. One thing I I 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 wanna see that anymore. I would like to see if they're gonna represent us, represent us fully, and the way that San Francisco should be seen. Thank you.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you, mister Tony Sacco. Next speaker, please.

[Jimmy Baldwin (Location Scout/Manager)]: 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 in doing all of this work, and your incredible support, thank you very much for that. My experience in 'eighty seven, 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 'eighty seven and 'ninety. 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 nineties and I was into 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. Did about half a dozen. Everything was going very well. And then in the nineties, we saw Vancouver start this amazing program where they incentivized the the the 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 all, 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 can make it even bigger we need a sound stage here in town we need even bigger incentives that are currently proposed.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for

[Jimmy Baldwin (Location Scout/Manager)]: your time.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you much, Jimmy Baldwin, for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Didi Escobedo (Assistant Executive Director, SAG-AFTRA SF–Northern California Local)]: I thank you so much for your support and your leadership on these reforms. My name is Didi 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 preproduction 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. They are very 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 the last year, they were down 54% from the previous year in TV, film, and streaming series, which was already declining. So, this is a time, and we appreciate your support. Thank you so much.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you much, DD Escobita. Next speaker, please.

[Jack Song (President, San Francisco Film Commission)]: Hello, good afternoon. My name is Jack Song, the President of the San Francisco Film Commission. Thank you all so much for your leadership. I have I also want to thank all the community leaders and union members for coming to support this legislation. I want to mention kind of five bullet points that hasn't been mentioned yet. One is Chairwoman Chan. You mentioned the of the COVID era. Number one, when 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 production 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, it's simply a rebate program. It is not competitive. It's a gift bag. It's a cash gift bag. 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 Vata, 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's 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 Chan, 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 Film Festival, JFI, etcetera. And, lastly, I want to spotlight that Film SF, the team 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, request, interest from others versus its outbound, really trying to use leveraging the small team to get more film productions in the city. Thank you so much.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you much, Jackson. Next speaker, please.

[Rudy Gonzalez (Executive Director, SF Building & Construction Trades Council)]: Rudy Gonzales, San Francisco Building Trades, of which the Tony DeLoreo show is associated with through their affiliation of six sixty five. But it's 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 eighty five members, which is where two thousand seven hundred eighty five gets its history from. It was Local eighty five 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 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, the jobs and the livelihoods of the members that we'll 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 analyst in the ongoing discussions. Thank you.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you, Matt Dorsey Gonzales. And, if we have no other speakers, Madam Chair, that completes our queue.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: Thank you. And, seeing no more public comments, public comment is now closed. President Mandelman.

[Rafael Mandelman (President, Board of Supervisors)]: Thank you, Chair Chan. I want to thank everyone for turning out. I do 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 DeLoreo 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.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: 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.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: 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.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: The motion passes. Thank you. And with that, mister clerk, please call item number 14.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: Yes. Item number 14 is a resolution approving the infrastructure financing plan for the San Francisco enhanced infrastructure financing district number two or Stonestown, including the division of taxes set forth therein, an EIFD acquisition and financing agreement, and documents and actions related thereto, in authorizing the filing of a judicial validation action. Madam Chair.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: Thank you and thank you so much. You are last but not least and 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.

[Jonathan Cherry (Project Manager, Office of Economic & 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 Controller's Office of Public Finance. And I did want to mention Supervisor Melgar is cosponsoring this legislation along with the mayor. She had another meeting commitment. She could not be here. The District seven 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 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 twenty twenty five, 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 would 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.

[Sam Geller (President, San Francisco Firefighters Local 798)]: The

[Jonathan Cherry (Project Manager, Office of Economic & Workforce Development)]: 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 to a protected bikeways on all of these major streets, new utilities and infrastructure, storm water 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 childcare 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 lieu fees, 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 just 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 the 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 27 agenda and if approved as I mentioned we would bring this to the public financing authority on February 12. I will stop there. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

[Nick Menard (Budget & Legislative Analyst)]: 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 30 about 3,500 housing units and much more commercial space. And the cost of those the improvements that could be reimbursed by district, as shown on page 44 of the report, the total cost is about $438,000,000 before financing costs. This project has a much longer development timeline. It will be delivered over the next twenty five years through 2051. And in part for that reason, it has a smaller fiscal benefit. It's only about $700,000 benefit to the general fund, which is about half of the prior project, even though it's a bigger development. But this otherwise is essentially sort of the same terms as item 13. That $438,000,000 will be reimbursed over the life of the district, which will span about seventy years. And the financing plan estimates that the city will provide about $1,560,000,000 over that time to reimburse the developer for the improvements.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: Thank you. We will go to public comment on this item.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: Yes, 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. Gonzales.

[Rudy Gonzalez (Executive Director, SF Building & Construction Trades Council)]: You, Mr. Clerk. Rudy Gonzales, 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 35 unit 100 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.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you, Rudy Gonzales. Next speaker.

[Speaker 16.0]: Whit turner on behalf of the housing action coalition we' speaking in strong support of the c I f d 3,500 homes nearly 700 affordable 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 oewd team for their leadership on this and really excited for our members Brookfield to get this rolling. I urge you to support it immediately. Thank you.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you much, Wood Turner. And seeing no other speakers, Madam Chair, that completes our queue.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: Seeing no more public comments, public comment is now closed. I do want to first thank Mayor Lurie, continue to his continuing support for this project. I do want to give a special shout out to our colleague, Supervisor Mirna Malgar, really been a champion of this project. She ushered 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 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 West Side homeowners were publicly painted as anti housing during the family zoning debate, while city staff focused 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 bill senior centers. And 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 tradespeople back to work, and about delivering real community benefits like the senior center at Stonestown and improvements to Ralph Nickel 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 project as priorities. Not afterthoughts. 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' 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.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: And on that motion to refer this resolution to the full board with recommendation vice chair Dorsey.

[Supervisor Matt Dorsey (vote response – time-bound override)]: Aye.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: And Dorsey aye. Member Sauter.

[Supervisor Denny Sauter (Member, Budget & Finance Committee)]: Aye.

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: Sauter aye. Chair Chan? Aye. Chan, aye. We have three ayes.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: The motion passes. And, mister Clark, do we have any other business before us today?

[Brent Jalipa (Committee Clerk)]: Madam chair, that concludes our business.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (Chair, Budget & Finance Committee)]: The meeting is adjourned.