work, restriction or assignment away from work due to the injury. part one on the nonfatal injury report, there's only three questions. if the contractor can answer based on osha, they don't have to go further. if they don't prequalify, there's a part two, with four questions, and if the contractor can answer no to all four of those questions, they can prequalify. for those contractors that don't prequalify on those two steps, we developed a consultant with the experts to evaluate a contractor's safety performance and its procedures. the first part looks at those

same injury rates and illness rates that we talked about before and they can earn up to 90 points in the procedure on that based on a good safety record. second part is we ask them to submit their safety documents and procedures. they can get up to 50 points for having all the correct documentation. then our expert can evaluate their documentation -- it's all in your materials. i'm not going to try -- we'll see if greg can keep up with the slides. a matrix where our expert looks at the documents or scores them as being below standards, meets standard or better than standard. what we're trying to do is promote in the industry a culture that promotes workers, citizens, and city employees.

the next component deelz wials osha violations, things that supervisor peskin brought up, in particular, the fatality that occurred, that contractor had a number of citation appeals that were stretching on for a period of time. and the prequalification process that we have right now doesn't look behind that, and both the controller's office and the supervisors suggested that we should look more closely at osha violations. and in -- you know, the long time construction law, in looking at the responsibility determination, it's my view that it's in the purview of the commission to look at all facts available to us regardless of where it is in the adjudication process with ceqa.

the important part in that responsibility cases is that to -- contractors provide due process, we are as we're providing due process in two places. when they submit their information, we're saying submit a copy of your citation. if you've appealed it, submit a copy of everything you submitted to appeal it. and further, if you'd like to write us an explanation further explaining the explanation and circumstances, we'll consider it. in this, we'll have our expert safety consultant do an evaluation and a score. the final decision is up to the manager and his designee. >> excuse me. should i wait or ask a question? >> i think he's almost at the end. >> i'm almost done. >> okay. >> the final thing is should a

contractor not be determined prequalified, so they're not qualified to bid a project, we're requesting a hearing before a neutral evaluator, and they can present a case to try to overturn the decision. the scoring sheet's in your packet, the slide goes through it all in more detail, but i recognize you don't have time at this point, but i'll conclude here and be happy to answer any questions. >> so what you were saying is that now with what we have in place, this contractor that had a violation, but it was pending or had not been caught, that he had some prior incidences? >> right. if it's not a final determination by osha, we don't look to see what's going on. and there's a recognition with

the supervisors or controller that that's not adequate to protect the public safety. >> okay. so you don't look behind it. that means he's out. >> if a contractor -- no, if a contractor gets a citation and appeals it, it may be on peappl for a long time, and the process now, we don't look until there's a final determination by osha. our office, in a final determination, we can look at all the facts and make our own determination independent of what osha was doing. >> so he would not be qualified? >> we would evaluate the circumstances and score it, determine whether they're appropriate or not. it's not a yes-or-no answer. >> so even if it's pending, you, then, would do an independent investigation or evaluation? >> yes, ma'am. >> okay.

all right. >> and ultimately, the contractor is deemed qualified or not qualified to present their case. >> and one of the rhines that we wanted to bring it in front of you is we may have some contractors who may fail the prequalification, want to come to the commission and bring it up. but we just want to let you know the purpose that we are moving in this direction is we want to make sure that we provide all the workers, contractors have a really sound safety program, and so that's why we -- we're working with the risk manager, city attorney, all the other chapter 6 departments, the board of supervisors, to come up with a process so that if we do have another fatality, we have done some due diligence and make sure that safety was on the forefront of who we selected to perform the work.

>> so this is a question either for harlan or the councsel because i read this very quickly because i wanted to hear what was being said. so this is strictly about making contractors get these jobs safer. this does not affect -- other than having a better contractor source, this is not going to affect extra rules on the work site or anything along those lines. this is scrutiny that -- >> this is strictly scrutiny during the hiring process. it set a floor -- it sets a floor, that we don't want to be contracting with people below that floor. >> okay. got it. again, i'm going to say again that i wish that the folks that represent people and the folks that go down when there's an

accident and the business representatives and the folks that represent the engineers and the folks that were hurt on the job apart of the stakeholders -- is part of the stakeholders meeting. >> thank you. >> i just want to point out in your example is what should go into safety plan. we do want to make sure they do a safety plan, but we can get into that. >> any other comments, questions? >> thank you. >> any comments from the public? may i have a motion? >> move. >> second. >> all those in favor? opposed? the motion carries.

>> thank you, randy, for making that fit. >> could you read the items for closed session? >> clerk >> clerk: yes. [agenda items read] >> is there any public comment on the items that we're considering in closed session? seeing none, may i have a motion on whether to assert? >> move to assert. >> all those -- oh, excuse me.

>> claim at change is real and we need to -- climate change is real.

environ stewardship plays to change the fuel source from carbon based to re. anothe--ry newable power. >> the city is responsible for developing and procuring electricity that is delivered by pacific gas & electric to end users. >> i go to the market to try to find appropriate energy product to buy and usually that is renewable so we can ensure that is in the grid and supplied to consumers. >> the contracting workerrin ant they provide keep the lights on in san francisco. >> i started on the team almost four years ago and transitioned in 2017. we are a new team working

together with across functional role. >> every contract her team is involved in executing helps san francisco reduce its climate impact by reducing greenhouse gases remitted. >> what i am most proud of is the long-term energy contracts to get new renewables in california. >> before she was doing this, we probably executed a cunpel contracts a year. it is a huge expansion in our operations and aaron is in the middle. she is centrally involved in entering more than $650 million worth of power contracts, much of that is renewable energy. the lasting impact of her contributions is helping us develop a modern utility power purchasing division.

that is why i nominated her for this award. >> this award was surprising. i feeling grateful to be recognized. a lot of people do good work and it is nice to have my accomplishments valued and recognized in the environmental stewardship realm. >> a lasting legacy is creating a modern process to help new employees that come here understand how we do business. we couldn't have done it without her. >> i am a utility specialist on the power supply team and the power enterprise. >> when i open up the paper every day, i'm just amazed at how many different environmental issues keep popping up. when i think about what planet i want to leave for my children

and other generations, i think about what kind of contribution i can make on a personal level to the environment. >> it was really easy to sign up for the program. i just went online to cleanpowersf.org, i signed up and then started getting pieces in the mail letting me know i was going switch over and poof it happened. now when i want to pay my bill, i go to pg&e and i don't see any difference in paying now. if you're a family on the budget, if you sign up for the regular green program, it's not going to change your bill at all. you can sign up online or call. you'll have the peace of mind knowing you're doing your part in your household to help the environment.

>> good morning. this is the wednesday i novembee budget and finance committee. i am chair sandraly fewer. i am joined by the clerk ms. linda wonk. i would like to thank sfgovtv for broadcasting this. >> please silence your cell fens. phones. -- cell phones. items today will be on the november 19th agenda. >> thank you. can you please call item 1. >> resolution approving the

first amendment between the city and sunset scavenger company, golden gate disposal and recycling company doing business as recology san francisco, increasing the total amount from $40 million to $48 million with no change to the term that expired on november 30, 2020. >> you might remember we continued this item from last week's agenda. can you please remind me. did we have a bla report at that time? >> we did not. >> thank you very much. we are back, i believe you gave a presentation last week so right now could we hear from the bla, please. >> good morning, budget analyst office.

the board of supervisors is being asked to amend the existing contract to increase by $8 million from $40 million to $48 million to cover the contract costs to the end of fiscal year 1920. as we show in table one there is an increase from 12% in actual monthly expenditures from 12 to 14% over the initial years of can contract. the increases are now due to increases in the rate cap, increases in city department services, some other rate adjustments that we outline on page 3 of our report and we recommend approval. >> thank you very much. let's open this up for public comment. any members of the public like to comment? seeing none, it is closed. colleagues, i had questions last week. i understand it now. i want to thank the controller and lisa for coming and giving

me an in depth explanation about the nuances of the contracting that happens. colleagues any comments or questions? seeing none, i would like to move with a positive recommendation if we can take that without objection. thank you for joining us. thank hthank you very much. >> item two an ordinance retroactive office of the financial empowerment in the amount of $365,000 for implementing the kindergarten through college program for september 1, 2019 through augus. amending the annual salary of one granted class for is the senior management assistant position. >> we have eric here from the

treasure and tax collector. i am the sponsor of this item. i just want to say how wonderful the kindergarten to college program is. >> i will talk about how wonderful it is. good morning. thanks for having me here this morning. eric with the office of treasure and tax collector. i am to present an ordinance authorizing the office of the treasure and tax collector to accept $365,000 from the mott foundation to support the kindergarten to college program. as we were talking about we launched this in 2011 based on research that shows kids with savings with a college savings account are up to seven times more likely to attend college than those without. since 2011 this has automatically opened more than 42000 accounts for sfusd

students who enter kindergarten. it is automatic. there is no paperwork to fill out, no social security requirements, no minimum balance requirement. the city provides the initial $50 deposit and private funds are used to incentivize families to continue to save. the incentives work. families have saved more than $4.6 million of their own money for college, and more than 50% of the families who save qualify for free or reduced price lunch. this grant money will fund a position focused on increasing outreach to families, students and teeners and to continue to encourage families to save in those accounts. we are seeking retroactive approval. it is consult to get it into the

budget for fy19-20. we moved as soon as possible when it was signed. any members of the public to comment. seeing none, it is closed. any comments or questions on this? this is a great program. i want to be say as we try to close our financial gap, it is our job now as city and county to close the racial achievement gap and prepare everyone for college. i would like to move this to the board with a positive recommendation without objection. thank you. can you please read item 3. resolution for a program grant 488,000 from the federal management agency through emergency services for phase two of the switchyard slopestylization from august 6,

2018 through april 30, 2020. >> thank you very much. we have susan howe. from the san francisco public utilities commission. >> good morning -- supervisors. i am to accept and expand the fema mitigation grant. this was passed through the california governor's office of emergency services for an amount not to exceed 488,259 did. phase two of the project. >> so the early switchyard is a facility of the san francisco public utility commission water and power division located on the river on groveland

california. the switchyard transmits electric power to kirkwood and home powerhouses to the city. in 2013, the rim fire severely burned the slopes adjacent to the switchyards as you can see. this increased the rock falls and landslides which could damage the switchyard and impact power transmission. at that time we declared a major federal disaster applying the fema grant funds for this project. in 2014, the san francisco public utility commission submitted application for the project and the project is divided to two phases. first is pre-award of grant and environmental studies and

engineering design. second is where we are today the construction and closeout. if you recall in 2017, the board of supervisors approved the $404,208 for phase one work completed as of today. >> this is a timeline showing the activities. i am not going into detail. last month we received reimbursement for phase one. this shows the timeline for phase two work. currently line item 3, septembed construction. it is in progress. our goal is to complete by january 2020. we will submit for phase two by april 2020. today i hope the budget and finance committee can recommend

the switch funds for the project in the amount of $488,259. thanks for your attention. project manager and i will be happy to answer any questions you have. >> any comments or questions? could we have a bla report, please? >> thank you. they approve the grant from fema for stabilization subsequent to the rim fire the total project cost is shown in table two on page 7. $1.7 million including contingency. in addition to the grant the power program will fund the balance. there is currently sufficient money in the budget to cover these costs. i recommend approval. >> thank you. open for public comment. any members of the public to comment item 3? it is closed. a motion to move to the board

with positive recommendation. if we can take that without objection. thank you. can you call item 4. resolution approving the port of san francisco to number one between ch2m hill engineers for the planning, engineering, environmental services for the seawall resiliency project to increase the contract amount $19.9 million not to exceed $59 million. >> good afternoon, we are here to request your recommendation to the full board of supervisors for an amendment to a contract between the port and ch2m hill engineers in the amount much approximately $19 million.

this is for the embarcadero seawall and other efforts. in today's presentation i want to provide a update about the sea wall where we are with the army corps of engineers flood study and give an overview of the contract amendments. as you know, we focused our initial resilience work at the port along the embarcadero seawall three miles from the aquatic park to the ballpark. since then we received direction to extend the efforts portwide the entire 7.5 miles of port jurisdiction. what started with an effort to focus on $500 million phase one is a much larger program. it could be up to $1 billion. we are really happy to be in the

southern waterfront with these discussions with those communities. this is a multi-billion dollar effort over decades to help the public understand the phase nature of the program. we have a resilient framework focused on strengthening the initial investments to protect life safety and facilitate the city's emergency response after a disaster and adapt plan to adapt to mid century sea level rise, and we know that with two 100 water levels of five or more feet of sea water rise we need a new water front. we want to envision 2100 resil ient waterfront not for now but so we know what we are building to. where we are with the sea wall program. we are grateful for proposition

a in november 2018. we have been engaged in robust community engagement since passage of the bond. our focus now is on the risk assessment. we are trying to understand the seismic and flood risks on the water front. we have a geotech any cal program over 100 borings to understand the soil conditions in the area. there is complex work underway. we are not just interested in seismic or flood risk, but the consequences of those hazards for people. how does it affect the embarcadero network, disaster response? we have a district significantly dangedamaged. we have assets on the waterfronts. we are trying to understand the consequences of the damages and

the city's recovery time. we expect to be able to review results with policymakers and city staff in early 2020. we will be back with briefings for supervisors and staff. public results are expected in the second quarter of 2020. we will do outreach to port tenants to be able to explain the effect of these damages on their leaseholds and businesses. damages will be expressed typically in terms of economic losses and casualties that we project. our phase one focus, as we told you before, is live safety and emergency response. there are some areas that deserve additional study. the ferry area is complicated. there is very deep mud in the area. this contract amendment has $1 million for advanced study in the ferry building area. in terms of the army corp flood

study we have been through a robust scoping study to do a flood control study. we estimate $20 million study cost over five years. 50% federal and 50% local share. that 50% local share will be paid for through this contract amendment. we are in the process of evaluating flood damages on the entire waterfront. we will engage in robust public engagement to develop a tentatively selected plan in september 2021. if there is a federal interest in the project, money request to congress would happen in 2024. the federal government would pay two-thirds of the project cost. to the contract amendment a $20 million contract amendment. i want to credit port commission president kim brandon pushing

the team to have a high l.b.e. participation rate in the amendment of 29%. it will fund the port's share of the flood study, almost $10 million of in kind services, adapt and envision and public engagement, advanced ferry building analysis. we are standing up l.b.e. support services and work force development program when we are ready to bid contracts we are welt positioned to -- well positioned to share with the disadvantaged communities and local businesses and project management as well. funding to date for the overall program including the contract and staff is $31.5 million. sources include the city's revolving fund of $9 million loan, port contributed 15-point $5 million including the

appropriation. the planning department contributed $2 million with a $5 million state grant. we are teeing up the first bond sale. the litigation is holding it up right now. we had a favorable lower court ruling. we are teeing up arguments in the apple lat court. that -- appellate court. that completes my presentation. >> any comments? the bla report then. >> the proposed resolution approves amendment to the existing contract for planning, engineering and environmental services for the seawall. originally $40 million through 2027. it is now increased to $60 million. the increase as we understand is for the extent of the program from the three mile northern

waterfront to the entire 7.5 miles waterfront. this equals 12% of the total seawall phase one budget of $500 million. our understanding is that the 12% contract cost for planning, engineering and environmental services is within industry standards. we do give detailed outline of the increased costs on page 13 and reremember approval. >> thank you very much. supervisor mandelman. >> question for mr. benson. can you talk about the commission's thinking in expanding out the project and what the cost and benefits of doing that are? i assume -- my guess i is a fulr picture what to do and start actually doing stuff later. >> our major seismic risk is in

the northern waterfronts, the embarcadero seawall. we have dense seawalls. we have the transportation and utility infrastructure on the embarcadero. that is where the earthquake risk is highest. it was appropriate place to start. thinking about flood risk. it is hard to isolate that area, that area on the southern portion dips to mission creek, mission bay and mission creek are very low-lying areas. it is hard to design flood defenses that end at the ballpark. we wanted to see the flood risk management work extend to the southern waterfront area including the creek. fortunately, the army corp flood study came to the city with the ability to go 7.5 miles.

there is a funding strategy for the expansion. we need to resource that study, which is a major reason why we are here today. i think the port commission is looking at resilience as a port-wide responsibility. >> thank you. >> okay. public comment. any members of the public to comment on item 4? seeing none, public comment is now closed. i think we collectively when we hear about the sea wall, it puts the fear of god into everybody. mother nay turhas the last -- nature has the last word on this. i would make a motion to move to the board with positive recommendation if we can take that without objection. thank you very much. madam clerk please call item 5. resolution approving

modification number one much the use and agreement between alaska airlines and the city to interpret the space into the lease agreement with an estimated rent of $20.8 million for the remainder of the lease terms to commence upon approval. president item 6 is between very genamerica with earlies due to the merger to commence on the first day of the month following board approval. >> today we have . >> first off i would like to say happy birthday to super visor stefani. the airport is here requesting approval of modifications to two leases resulting from the merger

of alaska and very again airlines one to the 2011 lease will incorporate 12.6000 square feet in terminal 2 formally occupied by virgin america. modification one provides early termination. if approved alaska will occupy approximately 19.3000 square feet of exclusive use space and joint lose space. in addition to the 3.7000 square feet of joint use soace currently occupying in the international terminal. based on these occupancy levels, alaska will play approximately $20.8 million in rent for the period of december 2019 to june 2021. i am here to answer any questions. thank you for hearing this item.

could we get a bla report, please, on items 5 and 6. >> item 5 approves amendment with the lease agreement with alaska airlines allowing them to expand and a tem6 approves the termination with the lease with very r virgin america -- virgin america. the revenues to the airport under the modified lease on page 17 is about $20.9 million over the remaining terms through jun. as stated in other meetings, the lease agreement will need renegotiated in 2021. remember approval. >> thank you very much. open this up for public comment. any members of the public to comment on item 5 or 6?

public comment is now closed. i would like to move these to the board with a positive recommendation if we can take that without objection. thank you. please call item 7. >> item 7 resolution retroactively authorizing the juvenile probation department to accept and expands a grant in the amount of $734,000 to augustment the san francisco's existing diversion programs for the period of july 1 through february 28, 2023. >> thank you very much. i thought trent was going to be here. you are not trent. would you introduce yourself. >> i am the juvenile department director of probation. >> thank you very much. please begin. >> yes.

mr. roar is on his way. he was in another meeting. he should be here. he will be coming. >> would you like to start on the presentation or waite wait . >> we will wait for trent. that is fine. >> we will then take item 8. would that be okay. please call item 8. >> resolution authorizing the director of property on behalf of the human services agency to exercise a five year extension of a lease between bayview plaza and city at 801 third street for a total term of december 1 had at the initial monthly base rent of 45,000 for a total annual base rent of 543,000.

>> we have the director of real estate. >> good morning. thank you for your time. i am here on behalf of the human services agency to seek your positive recommendation for resolution authorizing a five year lease extension at 3801 third street. this will be a lease extension with bayview plaza as landlord and city and county of san francisco as tenant. hsa has been at the site since september of 2009. the current lease is about to expire but has a five year lease extension to take that from december of 2019 through november of 2024. the option provides that the new rate would be at 95% of fair market value but no less than the current rate. we have determined the current rate of $45,325 per month is at

or below 95% of market. that $45,000 per month equates to $543,902 per year or $36.06 per square foot annually. this will adjust on an annual basis based upon the cpi. it is bracketed no less than 3% or higher than 5%. h sa uses this property for family and children's services. this lease is fully serviced which makes the $36 a square foot rate more attractive. i want to thank them for the review of the lease option and we concur in their recommendation. i have robert wash with me to answer any questions. >> any comments? can we have the bla report, please. >> yes, the proposed resolution

approves five year extension to the existing lease for family and children's services and while welfare services. they have been located here since 2009. the original lease was approved in 2014 with five year extension option. based on the information provided to us, the rent is below the market rate that would be otherwise paid at this location. we show the cost to the human services agency over the next five years and page 21 of our report we recommend approval. >> thank you very much. is this the last extension option on this contract? >> under this lease, yes, that's correct. >> thank you very much. any members of the public like to comment on item 8. seeing none, public comment is now closed. i would like to move this to the board with a positive

recommendation without objection. thank you. madam clerk back to item 7. i believe mr. roar is here now with us for the presentation. >> good morning. sorry i was late. just got out of a department head meeting. thanks for your patience. i am here to seek your approval for a resolution for a youth reinvestment grant that juvenile probation department applied for and received from the board of state and community corrections for $734,000 over about three and a half year period. the purpose of the grant is to support the existing juvenile probation diversion programs and activities with a non-law enforcement mobile crisis

response service. what the funding will do is establish 24 hour seven day a week hot line and mobile response system for youth to prevent entrance into the juvenile justice system or reentrance to the juvenile justice system. this effort, initiative, will allow care givers and parents and other folks in the community should there be an instance of behavior problems, potential for violence, suicidal thoughts, crisis the youth may be entering rather than 911 approach, it would be deferred or hopefully to the mobile crisis line. why am i here as hsa rather than jpd? after they received the grant, our initial oversight meeting, the oversight committee of the

grant which i am a member, we discussed this initiative. these services are very similar to an existing set of services hsa funds. we fund a 24 hour crisis hot line with associated services targeted to kids in foster care and youth who are in community placements through juvenile probation. hsa actually pays for those placements for foster care youth and juvenile probation youth. rather than a new program we thought it was a good idea to expand the population that is being served by the existing program. the population -- the new population will target the following. diversion eligible youth who are eligible for diversion following arrest to the community assessment and resource center.

highly at risk youth sited by sfpd but not filed by district attorney. additionally youth booked at juvenile hall but were not ultimately pursued or filed on by the district attorney. then youth with the case dismissed. post probation. again, what this attempts to do is stabilize placement in the community for kids at risk for these populations and expanding on our efforts. the grant is estimated over the 3.5 year cycle 350 youth served per year. funding entirely to community-based services. no city staff being paid with this grant. there is an in kind match requirement through the grant achieved through existing jpd and hsa staff to the grant. i am happy to answer any

questions. >> any comments or questions? supervisor mandelman. >> how long is the existing program going? >> great question. it just began in early september. we are receiving calls about 12 to 14 youth per month. we anticipate that to increase as word gets out to our caregivers they have this resource. >> who calls for help? >> with the existing program it is foster parents. one of the issues with the foster care system is placement disruption. a child may be acting out, caregiver may have difficulty managing the situation without any resources they say i give up and get a seven day notice for placement change. the reason to do this is to preserve placements for stability in the foster care

youth lives. it is based on a model from new jersey that is successful. >> what do the outreach workers do? >> it is a contract with family of agencies, a nonprofit residential provider and provider of behavior services. mental health services. the hot line screens the call to determine what is appropriate immediate one to three hours, one day 24 hours or very severe, 911 referral, suicide attempt. what happens it is immediate one hour mental health worker will be dispatched to the home to provide de-escalation services and links to other resources on site wrap services to support the parent in the crisis. it could be a respite placement

so the mental health clinician could take the youth to the respite to de-escalate and work with the foster parents to provide stability for youth's lives that they understand this is their home, not simply a placement like any child with parents. if they have issues this is just providing that additional resource. >> the new jersey programming success is measured in terms of length of success of placements amendment of placement? >> there are several goals. most important is stabilized youth in placement. one of the federal outcomes that we are for placement stability, the number of moves through the

stay in foster care for the child. that is a federal goal that is part of this effort. stability, minimize disruptions in place meant, removing and bringing back. increasing safety for the youth kids and for the caregivers. then movement towards permanence. not uncommon is a foster parent who develops attachment with the child that is in their care and many times would move towards legal guardian ship or adoption. this helps move toward perna men see for the youth which is one of the outcomes from the feds. improving well-being overall for youth and care differs. ongoing support for youth often in crisis and foster parents with a very difficult job at times. >> thank you.

>> supersupervisortefsupervisor. >> a lot of our placements are outside of san francisco. >> this offers services to children within 90 miles of san francisco. even though you are correct, supervisor we have a higher than normal out-of-county placement. they are san mateo, alameda. 90% of placements are within 90 miles radius. even sacramento is within 90 miles. it is a regional approach. senca has presence in santa clara county, alameda county. they are partners with those counties as well and sort of triangulate with the other counties they are in. >> mr. roar, one of the measures

to measure success of the program, is one of the measures academic success? >> not laid out specifically. it is in the catchment of youth well-being. we have a whole range of metrics and true and see and academic success is one of those. it is not listed as an singular bullet. list what does that mean. things like regular appoint bements with doctor and dentist. academic achievement and behavioral issues at school. we track, of course, if the youth does remain in our care up to emancipation age, 21. we track post-emancipation successes. if they are in college or graduate high school, get a full-time job, that sort of

thing. >> if thank you very much. there is no bla report. let's open for public comment. any members of the public like to comment on item 7? public comment is now closed. another thing i wanted to ask is it only an english service or other languages? >> no, it is multi language service. spanish speaking is after english the second highest language. the mobile crisis line as well as the clinical response is multi lingual. >> youth can access the hot line if there are incidents in the foster placement? >> i don't know the answer. the hot line was developed with caretaker needs in mind. if they are stressed out we want

to preserve placement, who can i call sort of thing. i don't believe we are targeting youth but i don't believe youth are precluded from calling the line. i will follow up with staff. it is a good idea if we are not using it. >> i would like to move with a positive recommendation. item number 9. >> motion to an election to be held on march 3rd for the businesses and tax regulation and administrative codes. tax on persons keeping ground floor commercial space in neighborhood districts to fund assistance to small businesses and increasing the appropriations. collected under the tax four years from march 3rd, 2020. >> we have with us supervisor

peskin to present on this item. >> thank you for hearing this item today. it is a long time in the making. we are all aware of the issue of storefront vacancies in the neighborhood commercial districts which, unfortunately, have been increasing in recent times. the proposal that is before you that if this board sees fit would be submitted to the voters for the march 2020 election would apply to neighborhood commercial districts and ncts depicted here on the map. it would not apply to c-3 or downtown areas but would apply to the loved corridors which are colored areas in the map behind me. we have spent the better part of the last couple of years doing

outreach and proposing legislation to address this issue, including legislation that chair fewer passed with unanimous board to increase penalties for failing to register. we can and must do more. the annual fee for keeping storefronts vacant is capped by cost recovery $711 per year which is a rather low number as it related to incentive for bad actor landlords to bring the commercial spaces to market. in 2018 the budget issued the report and identified a number of contributing factors to the storefront vacancies including buildings out of compliance with the building code and speculation for sales prices, absentee landlords, disputes,

landlords not willing to improve front to make it more market ability and those waiting for high-paying tenants who will never come. we will hear from the city economist. it is an interesting moment where businesses are under pressure. on the one hand we have the amazon effect. san francisco is in an age of incredible prosperity, there is an interesting phenomenon in commercial corridors where landlords are holding out for higher rents even though small businesses cannot pay those rents and hence our vacancy problem. we all have our stories. i can tell you the story of fog hill market where the landlord