absolutely. >> i'll look at the name of the artist. i think it's mowberg is his last name. >>that's all i have. >> clerk: meeting is adjourned. >> thank you. >> thank you all. ♪ good afternoon. and welcome to the land use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisors. for today, monday, february, 3, 2020. i am the chair of the committee, aaron peskin joined by committee

member supervisor dean preston to my left, our clerk is ms. erica major, ms. major, could you please make any announcements? >> yes, please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices. completed speaker cards and copies of any documents to be included as part of a file should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you. could you please call items 1 through 3 together. >> item number 1 is a resolution declaring the intent of the board to order the vacation of the sidewalk portion of streets on the south side of mission street to allow a structure upgrade of 301 mission street high-rise building known as the millennium tower and setting the hearing date sitting as a committee of the whole. item 2 is an ordinance ordering the vacation of sidewalk portions of streets on the south side of mission street to allow a structural upgrade to 301 mission street, high-rise building known as the millennium

tower, rededicating the area to public use and adopt the appropriate findings. item 3 is a resolution approving and authorizing a trust exchange agreement with the california state lands commission that would remove the public trust from certain transbay streets and impress the public trust on certain fisherman's wharf street and adopting appropriate findings. >> thank you, ms. major. so obviously all three of these pieces of legislation have to do with the sinking, tilting millennium tower at 301 mission in addition to river a from public works and from the port, we have deputy city attorney john to answer any questions that we have. i believe that public works has a presentation. so mr. rivera, the floor is yores. >> good afternoon. from the department of public

works. the department of building inspection has reviewed a proposed design to structurally upgrade the 301 mission street tower. it was determined that the structural upgrade will require infrastructure to be placed under what is currently public right of way along mission street and fremont street. this piece of legislation is really more of a legal exercise than a standard street vacation. when streets are typically vacated, the vacation area is removed from the public right of way and it becomes a city-owned parcel that can be retained by the city or conveyed to a third party. when the city retains ownership, the city has the ability to grant a lease or an easement over all or a portion of the vacated area. this street legislation or this

legislation approves three phases. first, portions of mission street and fremont street will be vacated, starting from the sidewalk level down to a depth of approximately 300 feet. this will split off city-owned parcels below grade while keeping the above portion in the current street status as shown on the screen right here along mission street and fremont street. the second portion of this legislation will be an easement that will be granted from the city to the inner of 301 mission street over portions of the below-grade vacated street. the easement areas can be seen on the screen and on file on pages 2 and 3. each one, page two, shows

mission street's easement area, and page three shows the fremont street portion of the vacation. finally, after the easement is recorded, the vacated property will be restored to public right of way with subject to the easement. the street vacation was processed as required by local and state law. no objections were received from the city agencies, public utility companies or private fronting property owners. it is important to note that this is a conditional street vacation, and it will not become effective until the board of bof supervisors has approved the following three items. first, the vacation area is currently right of way that is subject to the public trust doctrine. the public trust exchange legislation must be approved and effective. second, the settlement ordinance related to the 301 mission street litigation must be

finalized and effective. this ordinance will be introduced at a later date to the board of supervisors. finally the board of supervisors must approve the easement for the structural elements in the vacation area. this legislation will also be introduced at a later date. if you have any questions concerning the vacation process, i'm here to answer them. >> thank you. are there any questions for mr. rivera with regard to the vacation below ground? the construction period will last how long approximately? >> i believe the last i heard was 18 months, probably two years. >> if there are no questions for mr. rivera, would you like to come and tell us about the public trust exchange? >> i'm with the port. i want to talk briefly about the

trust exchange. the port is requesting that the board of supervisors approve trust exchange for property in the transbay area, streets in the transbay area as well as the fisherman's what were area. the trust exchange would relate to the project that was just described. it would allow for the construction or improvements for the millennium towers project at 301 mission, but it would also allow for the consolidation of the site for the transbay transit center. so let me focus more in that since you've heard the presentation about the millennium tower. brief background, the transbay authority was created in 2001 to build a new transbay center.

in 2010, the caltrans transferred the original caltrans term gnat site to the tjpa for the construction of the facility, but it did not include air and substructure rights for fremont and mission street. so the city could not transfer the entire site to the tjpa. so related to what's being requested now, we are talking about an exchange that would permit the consolidation of the transbay term gnat site in addition to the towers development. but the streets are subject to this.

the property is transferred originally to the city based on the act approved by the state in 1968. and so the port owns title to those streets. and the burden act does not allow the city or the port to transfer any interest in those streets without state approval. and so to consolidate the site or to make the permanent easement available to the millennium towers association, the trust would have to be removed. now, the state does allow for the city to remove the trust. there are a number of conditions. the primary condition or key condition is that the property that's being swapped or transferred into the trust must have a value equal to or greater than the property that's being removed from the trust.

so the fremont and mission streets, that land must be -- can't be more valuable than the streets that are being swapped into the trust. in this case, that's bay beach and hyde streets and the the fisherman's what were area, those streets allow access to the waterfront and will be a positive addition to the port and to the trust. the streets that are getting removeed, they are cut off from the bay are no longer of value to the trust, and that's the reason we are proposing this swap. square footage, and this was the basis of the port commission action, the square footage of the streets in the fisherman's what were area that would be

coming into the trust, 152,000 square feet that would be removed from the trust, 143,000 square feet. the original apray sal process that's going on -- appraisal process that will verify the values. at the time the commission took its action on january 14, that appraisal hod had not been completed. so the commission took their action and on january 14, approving and authorizing the executive director to sign a trust exchange agreement between the port, the city and the land commission subject to the board of supervisors approval and of course subject to lands commission approval. this map, if we can show the map

on the computer here. >> on the overhead or the laptop? >> it's on the laptop. >> here we go. >> this map is showing the streets that will be removed from the trust. they are shown in red. again, it's fremont and mission streets. i'm having trouble getting to the next map. okay. the streets in green here are the streets to the fisherman's

what were beach hyde and bay, they will be where the trust would be applied, and these would be part of the trust. >> and what are the lands transferred to the united states of america and retained by the city? in parcel r? >> this map is showing more than the trust streets. i'm not sure why that area is listed there. i don't know if the city really has any idea about that area. >> the streets totaling the 34,000 square feet plus 119,000 square feet >> is what's in green, and that's what's being swapped into the trust. >> john, do you understand what these retained by the city, transferred to the united states stuff is? is that from a different swap?

>> john from the city attorney's office. to be honest, i'm not exactly sure what that area is. i think it's down near the aquatic park area, there's some federally-owned land. that's the way i've always read it, but i don't have a specific answer for you. >> okay. but they are not implicated, even though the legend says, the key says proposed trade-in lands, and then there's these other two categories that don't seem to be the act lands. >> right. it's just an adjacent property. >> got it. any questions for mr. rhett? if you have any questions you can come on up and testify. we will open up public comment. >> not for this but to help me understand, when the port takes over a street, does this mean that any businesses that operate

on that street have to get permits then from the port to do, like, get a new plumbing thing in for their restaurant? or how does that work? >> i would love to explain to you the history of the public trust doctrine and why it is that these lands as a matter of development of land use history in the state of california are lands of the people of the state as opposed to lands of the city and county of san francisco. but in 1968, john burton was able to pass legislation wherein those lands are, that historically were state lands, they are still state lands, but they are stewarded by the port of san francisco in trust for the people of the state of california as parts of the public trust.

but as a practical matter, not to engage in dialogue and get in trouble with the city attorney, it has no actual effect on the adjoining property owners and is merely a paper swap. so with that, and subject to approval by the state lands commission of the state of california, ms. jennifer presiding, there are a couple or members of the public who would like to testify on items 1 through 3? seeing none, we will close public comment. there are a couple of housekeeping matters in item number two, the piece of legislation that is before you, this is the street vacation matter refers to a yet to be introduced settlement ordinance. and the amendments which are on pages five and pages six, you

will see, strike the words, the settlement is on file with the clerk of the board of supervisors and replaces it with language as language that says that this ordinance will not be operative unless and until the board approves the yet to be introduced settlement. so those changes are set forth on pages five and six. and then with regard to item number three, while the public notice was technically sufficient, i thought that it was important for the public to know that as we have discussed in this hearing, that item number three is correctly related to the millennium tower settlement. and so i have -- i would like to make an amendment to item number three to clearly show in the short title and the long title that is related to the millennium tower matter. so i would like to make a motion to amend items two and three as

i've just discussed or moved by supervisor safai, we have been joined by supervisor safai who has made those amendments which we will take without objection. and then, colleagues, i would like to send item one, which is the resolution of intent for the street vacation to the full board. >> mr. chair? >> yes >> we need to add the committee of the whole date to item one for the resolution. >> thank you, ms. major. and we have an amendment to item number one, which is the resolution of intent for street vacation, which of course will require a board of supervisors hearing. and what date, ms. major, should we insert for that? >> march 3, 2020 >> so we will include the hearing date of march 3, which will be a committee of the whole, on march 3, 2020. and we will add that to item number one. that amendment we'll take without objection and send item number one as amended with the

march 3 date to the full board with recommendation as a committee report for hearing tomorrow. and items two and three as amended will go to the full board on february 11 without objection. >> mr. chair. >> yes? >> item two will need to be referred without recommendation. >> you are right. because item number two requires the public hearing. so we will send that without recommendation. and item number three we will send with recommendation without objection in the normal course of business. madame clerk, would you please read the next item? >> yes. item four is an ordinance approving an amended and restated land disposition and acquisition agreement with 2000 marin property l.p. for the city's transfer of real property at 639 bryant street under the jurisdiction of the san francisco public utilities commission in exchange for real property at 2000 marin street, subject to several conditions,

including the reimbursement of certain transaction costs. >> mr. carlin. >> chair peskin, supervisors, i'm here on behalf of the san francisco public utilities commission. i'm the deputy general manager. this item we have been working on for several years. it's an exchange of our brought at 639 bryant street which for exchange. it is based on fair market values. there is no cash being exchanged but there are other considerations part of the development deal with the developers. there will be tenant improvements at the port. there will be moving costs absorbed by the developer. and he's helping us to secure a tank site for hydrogen peroxide tank for border patrol and our sewers. so i'm happy to answer any questions, but it's pretty self explanatory in the material that was developed for you.

>> are there any questions for mr. carlin? this has been discussed by this committee and the board in the past and was actually once considered as 2000 marin as the temporary site for the flower mart, but as we all know, they ended up with a different proposed site. supervisor safai? >> i just wanted to point out to the clerk that the item on the screen is not representative of the current item >> that is true. and that is actually sfgov tv, because item 4 -- item 5 is -- they keyed up the wrong -- >> thank you. >> thank you for that comment. you are right, we are on item 4, amended and restated land acquisition agreement, exchange of 639 bryant for 2000 marin. are there any members of the public who have any comments on

this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment and colleagues, if there is no objection, we will send this to the full board as a committee report with recommendation, without objection. madame clerk, please read the next item. >> item five is an ordinance amending the administrative code to classify certain types of unlawful detainer settlement agreements as buyout agreements, require the rent board to provide more information on the disclosure form that landlords must give to tenants, require landlords to give the disclosure form to tenants a certain number of days before the buyout agreement is executed and allow tenants to invalidate any provision of the buyout agreement in which the tenant waived their rights if the landlord did not timely file the buyout agreement. >> thank you. this legislation is sponsored by supervisor ronen and cosponsored by any number of supervisors

including myself and supervisor preston. and from supervisor ronen's office, ms. amy is here to present. and we have robert collins from the rent stabilization board. if we have any questions for him. and i know ms. amy has a couple amendments which i am handing out to you for your review, and we will discuss. the floor is yours. >> thank you so much. legislative aid, supervisor ronen's office. good afternoon, chair peskin, vice-chair safai, supervisor preston. the legislation before you today will amend admin code section 37.9e to tighten the regulations on landlord buyouts of tenants and protect tenants from being subjected to high pressure to get them to leave their homes. with speck at a live rents and sales continuing to rise, landlords have a powerful incentive to remove and replace long-time tenants. no-cause evictions are allowed under the state act and move-in

laws but some landlords see a cash buyout as a way to get tenants to move out quickly and avoid restraints on condo conversions. supervisor passed a regulation in 2014 which established annual reporting. there was 379 buyouts in neighborhoods throughout the city but some advocates estimate there may be as many as three untracked for every one that does get filed. we need to be sure the laws are being followed. what this legislation will do is the following, it will ensure the tenants are informed of their rights. currently, we are seeing landlords deliver required disclosures to tenants after start of negotiations or not at all, the amendments will require a landlord file a declaration under penalty of perjury prior to commencing negotiations providing evidence of disclosure and method of delivery.

it will give tenants time to decide landlords often use high pressure, take it or leave it deadlines that leave tenants no times to reach out to legal support or their advocate assistance. the amendments set a minimum of 30 days between the initiation of buyout negotiations and the execution of an agreement. it will phosphorus landlords to file. they sometimes file in order to recharacterize a buyout agreement and bypass the filing in subsequent condo conversion restrictions. it is filed within 120 days as a buyout agreement, subject to regulation. lastly, the amendment will push landlords to file by waiving any waiver of tenant rights if a landlord does not file on time with the rent board. so we submitted several

amendments, actually at the request of the regular board, and each of these together are intended to help make sure the recording is done in a way that's easier to track. on page one, lines eight through 10, it will note that we now require landlords to include in the final buyout agreement identifying information about the location of the unit, same thing continues on page four, lines two to three, it specifies the agreement will show the parcel number. on page six, line six and seven and nine, reiterates the same, and lastly, page nine, line one and six we've deleted the march 1 operative date so it becomes effective 30 days after enactment. we have heard criticism from some interested parties that this legislation will discourage buyouts, and that is in some way, disadvantaged to tenants. on behalf of supervisor ronen,

we want to make sure the goal of the board should be to preserve tenants in rent-controlled units. tenants who quote ask for buyouts are usually misinformed and terrified. it's not the job of the city government to enable buyouts which would essentially spell the end of the tenants ability to end in san francisco. i would to say thank you so much from robert collins from the rent board, our city attorney and from the advocates who we have worked with closely to structure this amendment. so thank you. i'm here for my questions. >> anything you want to add? >> thank you supervisor peskin and safai and preston. , no, i wanted to thank amy and supervisor ronen for taking into account amendments that we requested which go to making sure we have the correct unit

identified. that's been a challenge that we have had that was brought up from staff. so i just want to thank supervisors for taking those amendments into consideration. >> thank you. are there any members of the public who would like to testify on this item? please come forward. >> thank you, supervisors. my name is sarah. i'm here from housing rights committee of san francisco. by also pushing out tenants who want to stay in a unit and stay in san francisco, we've made it hard in san francisco to just evict tenants for no other reason beside that you want more money. it isn't impossible. but it is -- we've made it a little hard. but we have tenants coming to our office all the time with buyout offers saying that they have no other choice beside take this buyout.

a lot of tenants want to stay. and the tenants who take the buyouts, often the money is gonna couple years with the new expensive rent, first and last, for tenants who are on disability benefits or other benefits sometimes it's counted against them. most often tenants come to us way too late. they've already signed the buyout agreement. they've already largely in the process. they've already had months of landlords and their landlord's lawyer lying to them, harassing them, threatening them, bullying them. tenants who get a call every day with the buyout and will they take it. tenants who receive letters saying if they didn't take the buyout, they will be hearing from the lawyer. sometimes with a sample ellis act attached.

thank you. i have a tenant i worked with on market street who took a buyout thinking told have to leave and ended up living on the street in front of his build building that he used to live in as a rent-controlled tenant. tenants we get to are more able to stay. this legislation isn't enough ultimately, but it is a big step. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is jennifer and i'm a tenant at 1900 jefferson street. and reside in supervisor stefani's district. the building was sold in 2018 to someone and is managed by jim and carol of peak realty. after the sale, construction began to convert all units from one bedroom to two bedrooms to increase rent from approximately

$3,100 to $5,200 per unit. since the sale, tenants have been embroiled in a rent eviction nightmare, and some have been approached for buyouts by jim and their attorney andrew zacks. tenants were given deadlines and told by not taking the buyouts or relocating to other buildings, their rents would be raised. in one case the lawyer insulted the tenant's responsibility as a parent for not taking a buyout. this harassing and threatening behavior is unconscionable. this is why i support legislation to strengthen tenants protections against buyout bullying and harassment from attorneys. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm born and raised in the mission. i'm organizer and counselor of housing committee. we get a lot of tenants who come

to the office telling us they've gotten a buyout notice, and they actually see the buyout as an eviction notice. and many tenants are scared, they feel threatened. these are tenants who are part of the most -- population, tenants who have been there for 30, 40 years, and they're scared. and they tell me, they say i'm only being offered $5,000. what can that get you in san francisco for $5,000? it's really -- they're scared, they get threatened by ellis, they get threatened, some of these buyout notices, they are not even notices, they are actually verbal conversations with the tenant saying you have to leave, we are offering you this amount of money. they are selling the building, it's coming into san francisco to our community to take over that building and displacing

that tenant with the merely pennies in comparison to how much housing costs in san francisco. it's very crucial this legislation is not -- it is going to support the tenants. we need something more to help these tenants out. tenants who have no voice in san francisco. tenants who are born in the mission, living in drastic conditions where that buyout might be, but it's not. they are displaced to the east bay, they are displaced to down across the state. we need to keep these tenants in rent-controlled buildings. please support this legislation. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> supervisors, our efforts to provide anti-eviction representation to those who need it still remains a work in

progress. i have a lot of empathy for, i do, i'm at the housing rights commission a lot with a lot of issues. i have a slightly ancillary approach to this. i imagine there might be general comment to this committee, but there is none, so i'll do it here. it does go with this insure. what i noticed is there isn't any committee assigned to global climate change. one of the biggest issues of our time. and of course this committee is the closest thing. global climate change is connected to land use, the same thing as our housing jobs linkage is. and i'm wondering if we could do something, maybe get it put in the name or somehow -- if we had a better understanding of how land use affects to meet our

need for global climate change, in our land use issues like this one, we would start to see a lot more land use issues but that are resolved in favor of antigentrification and in favor of neighborhood preservation, and we are not seeing that, and this certainly is one such issue. >> thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon. if you know me, and i know you do. i'm an advocate for other groups of people and i never thought i would be in here advocating for myself. my name is sherry lord and i live in north beach. i've lived there since december 2009, and i'm 71 years old, not sure how that happened but it's true. and i'm disabled. in the ten years i've lived in this building, it's been sold four times and we've had six property managers.

in the building is tenants who are disabled, and they have been there 30 years. they had the flu and couldn't come today. the last two years, we have been through owners that have wanted us to leave with a lot of pressure. in august of 2019, the building was purchased by hans. his first act was to enforce the tenant to move out. he offered them $35,000, and justin had been there ten years and moved. did the owner move in? no. did he file an owner buy out with the city? no. he put the building up for sale. the tenant at the same time the owner offered the tenants, myself and the two elderly people in unit a buyouts. and we both said no. and then he kept at it and at it.

it got to the point where he would call us weekly and say i have a buyout for you, and then it got to be daily, and then it got to be the day before the sale of the building, he called us that day and we said no. so the new owner is starting the same tactic, and he's only been in here since november. i think i got lots more but i'll leave it at that. i'm not sure what to do at this point. but when i was advocating for homeless, i never thought that i would be homeless myself. i may not be better off after all. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm a long-time voter from district 5. and i'm a member of senior and disability action. i'm here to support supervisor ronen's legislation on behalf of many seniors. seniors, we are highly

vulnerable, we have very few resources, very few options, very limited incomes. we live in isolation. we have no plan b. what does that mean? pretend that i'm 85 years old. i live alone. i've been in my rent-controlled apartment 40 years in an old victorian. my husband died, my children live thousands of miles away. my friends have died. the shopkeepers i used to know and talk to every day, they're gone. i only go to the grocery store, maybe on a good day. one day, the new landlord knocks on my door. i've never met him. he says he has to have my apartment. he'll give me $10,000 or he'll take me to court. he says i have ten days to decide. all i know is what he tells me.

all i know is what he tells me. supervisors, we need you to support this legislation. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is marvin green. i have lived at the residence intent in the san francisco bay area for the past 30 years. in the past several years in the mission district. these stories you hear are just the tip of the iceberg. for every one person that's here there's probably 200 people who have stories about how landlords and how speculators abuse, bully and use the system against them. what this bill does is help to level the playing field. on one side, you have speculative real estate people who have years of sophisticated, years of legal training, years

of legal support. and years of planning to do this against people who find out about it ten days, two months beforehand with no real sophistication, with no real estate background in most cases, and with no support system. what this does is helps to tighten up the loopholes that the sophisticated, well-background, speculators are using against citizens of san francisco. so i urge you to pass this bill and refer it to the full board so they can pass it so that we can try at least a little bit to level the playing field to give those of us who rent and live and contributed in san francisco an opportunity to at least stand up for ourselves. thank you very much. >> next speaker. >> hi.

good afternoon. my name is letica and i'm the ss lead housing organizer with just cause. in the mission we offer counseling for tenants facing eviction, harassment and these verbal buyouts that we keep seeing which we see often in our clinic. and i am here in support of these amendments, to close the buyout loopholes in the legislation. like i said, we see tenants coming in with verbal buyout offering on a regular basis. and landlords are simply not following the law by issuing the prebuyout disclosure forms. and when they do share these forms, it often comes with serious threats of eviction if the tenants refuse to negotiate a buyout agreement. just a couple of weeks ago this past month in january, we had an

entire building come in from the mission for counseling support, because a landlord invited them to a meeting on a saturday, surprised them with a presentation for a verbal buyout and threatened an ellis if they did not agree. they received a prebuyout disclosure form after the meeting, not before. and when they came to our clinic, we supported them with a letter refusing to negotiate a buyout, and then they got issued an ellis act eviction. so tenants, when they are exerting their right to say no, they are being seriously threatened with these buyouts, i'm sorry, with these evictions whether it's ellis or owner move-in, and it's not in good faith like the notice says. so we support this amendments to strengthen tenant protections. until then, tenants are going to be harassedd with buyouts and

with evictions unless we are able to enforce that landlords file these buyouts. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. kelly hill with united to save the mission. first i want to thank hillary ronen's office for bringing this important legislation to you. today i want to talk about my own story, which is kind of a harassment displacement story. in early 2000 our landlord put our building up for sale, a two-unit building near hayes. we lived through two years of harassment. back then it was a little harder to get ahold of legal help. it wasn't financially feasible. we lived through two open houses a week for two years. we had just started our business. we eventually took a tiny buyout to get out from under the harassment. basically that small buyout barely paid for the moving expenses and a couple of months of the rent increase. we lasted six months at our next

place and that trajectory led to years of housing insecurity. this legislation is super important. i have a couple of things that would make it more of a dream legislation, some of these things may not be possible. we have firsthand knowledge of the predatory behavior taking place in the mission. we are tracking case studies two blocks from my house of multiple buildings being harassed in this exact same way. we are seeing the same serial predators, people like michael camp sini and the big time folks like veritas changing the landscape. i would love to see a longer deadline of giving people to decide. is there a way to prematch tenants with counsel before the negotiations commence, remove the stress. i've seen this. we help with tenant work when we know their buildings are going to be predatory upon.

is three a number of hostile attempts by the same people? we live in an age with no horizontal mobility. our rent is going to triple for people all over the place. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. supervisors. district 8 tenant anastasia. a rental unit that's been vacated is worth more to a landlord or real estate speculator than a building that's empty of tenants. and a building that's empty can fetch a higher price in today's speck at a live housing market. it's vital to preserve our city's rapidly-depleting rental controlled housing stock and keep tenants in their home. to this end i fully support today's legislation that will close tenant buyout agreements including classifying certain types of unlawful detaper settlements, agreements as

buyout agreements and requiring the rent board to provide more information on the disclosure forms landlords must give tenants before buyout negotiations commence. tenants need to know they are not compelled to agree to sign the disclosure form or agree to a buyout of their tenancy that they can seek advice and have time to consider the buyout offer or to reject the offer. and landlords must file all required forms timely or tenants would be able to invalidate any waivers of rights agreed to. i'm so disheartened by the taxes a developer investor miller used to force my neighbor, a retired legal secretary, to give up her rent-controlled flat on chattanooga street. she got a disclosure form two weeks after he bought the

building in 2016 and then had sac's law firm send a letter telling her she had to move out because the landlord was constructing an adu below her, which was b.s. because he hadn't even gotten the permit approved. then he harassed her with phone calls and raised a noise campaign above her till she finally got -- >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you for having this hearing. i support hillary ronen's legislation. and we can make it even stronger in making howing as a human right. and we should not be treated like a commodity. i live ad 698 bruce street.

this property in december 2019. and i was hearing a conversation between a prospective buyer and a real estate agent, and he was telling, oh, you buy this, we can get rid of these old-time tenants. and i hear it, you know? and they didn't know i was listening to them. but this is their model. now, veritas sold the building to another speculator, russ, he was my landlord 30 years ago, and he bought it again. and i know what his game plan is. i heard have a real estate broker talking to them. and this eviction is imminent. and i've been there for 48 years. and i came in that building when i was full hair and now i'm losing my hair.

and i want this legislation even stronger. and i would like to see we have a tenants rights people here. i would like to bring this in the city and county here so we can even make it better. thank you very much. >> thank you. good to see you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm with our mission no eviction. i'm a volunteer with housing rights committee. and i'm here to support this legislation. but to echo that it doesn't do enough. and one of the things that i think that should be amended in this legislation is the time period between the notification and the agreement. 30 days is just not enough. and i'll tell you why. i just recently worked with a woman who had been given a buyout notice. she had been in her unit for 48 years.

her mother had died in that unit, and she was terrified. she had a nervous breakdown. she had to get on medication. 30 days does not allow enough time. it took -- she wanted to fight. she got a lawyer, she's still in her place right now. but to do all of this and to organize tenants in the building, 30 days is just not long enough. and i know that you know the difficulty, the number of lawyers that we have can't even keep pace with the number of tenants that need assistance. and then i also want to echo the concerns that kelly raised. we are seeing neighbors in our, just our block, we think we have lost close to 70, that are being evicted under the table. they are threatened to take a buyout under the table and then when they leave, the places immediately are serial permits are used to completely renovate

the spaces and to be leased at market rate or flipped. and we need to do something about this situation, because we are losing our immigrant neighbors at a very rapid pace. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> my name is scott weaver where the san francisco tenants union. i'm sure you are all aware of the vulnerabilities of the population that is subject to these buyouts. and the shock that they feel when they receive a letter from an attorney saying we may ellis the building, my client is considering owner move-in eviction. immediately, there's one foot out the door. immediately. and that's why we need this 30-day cooling-off period so that we don't have people making sudden decisions, so we have

people who have the ability to go to counseling organizations to be able to do that before being scared so much that they will sign an agreement. i think as we talk about buyouts, we underestimate the displacement effect that buyouts have. if we were to count the number of buyouts that really happen in the city, they will exceed any single cause for eviction. they probably exceed any two causes for eviction combined. this is a big deal in terms of what is happening right in front of us. and landlords have been very open about not filing these things with the rent board. almost to the point of bragging about it. and if we are going to actually make this ordinance enforceable, then we have to prohibit or

invalidate any waiver of rights that a tenant will have in a buyout agreement if a landlord doesn't file with the rent board. that's the only way to put some sting into it and to allow tenants to file with the rent board. and that's the only way that this city is going to get on any kind of profile of what -- >> thank you, scott. next speaker, please. >> hi. from the san francisco tenants union. thank you, supervisors. and thank you so much hillary ronen for putting this legislation together. every month in our coalition, the antidisplacement coalition, we review the biggest threats to tenants in the city. and almost without fail, buyouts makes the top of the list every month. and we've also known the buyouts are the primary way we are losing affordable housing in san francisco for years. this is why we introduced the original buyout legislation.

it was actually hillary ronen was the aid who worked on it with us. so she was our natural choice to lead this effort to fix the gaps. what is a buyout? it's when a tenant sells their rights for the sake of a bit of money and a bit of certainty about the day they have to move. sells their rights. basically they are giving up the chance to enforce the rights they have that you all passed, that we passed as a city of san francisco to protect their housing and to protect this affordable housing for everyone here. i don't blame individual people who do that, because they are scared, but it is our responsibility to make sure that that is as hard to do as possible and that we save that housing. in the intervening years since we originally passed the legislation, we were able to -- it worked to a point. we were able to track some information, we were able to incorporate that information about buyouts that happened into the housing balance report to

show us how much we were losing. knowing we were losing a lot more than that. but we knew we were falling way short of what was going on, based on storying we were hearing in our clinics, reports from the courthouse about fake lawsuits being filed so people could get away with not filing. and from tenants about their own neighbors. this legislation has been designed to fill those gaps, to stop the fake lawsuits and raise the stakes when landlords break the rules. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is peter. i'm a proud member of north beach. my family established residence there in the late 1800s. i live at 646 lumbar street. my wife, directly across from me. i'm in the pool five days a week, 5:30 in the morning,

because i'm disabled. i have a good work out there and i can't stay on my feet. i've been there for 23 years my aunt rose, lived there 21 years before me. i've seen a lot of changes in north beach. and i don't like what i see. aaron peskin has stepped forward and put a big effort to help us out. my wife and i, we don't want to move. i don't plan to move. i'm a north beach boy, and i'm going to stay a north beach boy. my grandfather, i was born in the house, 165 165valpraiso. he built two bungalows there in the early 1900s with his little 28-foot fishing boat. i was born in the family house in 1940 by the county midwife.

i'm a true son of the beach. thank you. >> [laughter] thank you. good to see you. next speaker, please. >> i'm peter's wife gail deluca. we got a new landlord. this was the third since our wonderful john passed away who lived in the front unit. [please stand by] -[please stand b

>> since they've been in, we were offered a buyout which we turned down, but we were given, like, i think about 10 days for us and the tenants below us to either accept or reject the buyout. once this started happening, i can't describe the kind of turmoil, the fears, you know, and you can't think. you know, you don't know where

to turn. it's just all so sudden. in responding to the buyout offer, i basically said we would need more time to move out. they've given us three months to -- >> you've got to wrap up. >> [ indiscernible ] --

>> gail, i'll tell you what, i'm happy -- you know where i live. you know where my office is. we can meet offline. i'm happy to continue talking with you. >> good afternoon. theresa flederick, senior and disability action. i live in north beach. i know of 39 households within four blocks of where i live. and within two blocks, 39 households are being asked to take buyouts. i know of on alta street, for example, the senior there, diane, was not given the seven-page pamphlet on her rights. she was asked to take a buyout which she declined, and then she was told they could l-sat her.

she's lived there for 50 years. another man because of the flu he was extremely disappointed that he couldn't come today. and, in fact, he sent me -- if i could have the overhead, he sent me this image in a text, saying that he was so sorry that he could not come because he so wanted to speak and tell his story, which is that they lived there for over 33 years. both him and his wife are disabled. asking them to take a buyout, and they said, no, we're going to decline that. this is the second landlord in the last nine and a half months. he said, no, we don't want to move, we want to stay here. the new owner said, i will lsat you or i could move in a relative is the other thing. what i know is this is happening all over. i know that people are

threatened. there is a harassment through sudden renovations. i hear these stories all the time. this legislation is going to fix a lot of those loopholes that have been used, abused, and hurting so many people. we also then lose these affordable housing as these units are turned into luxury units -- >> thank you. are there any other members of the public that could like to testify on this item number 5? seeing none, the matter is back in the committee's hands. supervisor preston. >> thank you. i would like to thank all the folks that came to speak on this. this is a big step forward when the buyout legislation was initiated. it was the first buyout legislation of its kind in the state, if i'm not mistaken. some other jurisdictions have followed suit since then.

but i want to thank supervisor ronen and others for their work on this measure. i think there is -- probably nowhere there is a bigger disconnect in the housing world between what academics, media, and other pundits look at around evictions and the reality that folks who are working on the ground, like a lot of our speakers today are, in terms of perception and numbers of evictions. as some of the speakers noted, this is the leading form of eviction. buyouts are essentially de facto evictions. this is not just in san francisco. i personally as a tenant advocate for the last 20 years have done state-wide and national research on evictions. you realize when you run those numbers, you're dealing with a tiny fraction of the number of people who are actually

displaced. in more cases it's more advantageous for a landlord to threaten they are going to drag a tenant through the eviction process and get them to surrender their rights without going to court. in san francisco it is the same with the eviction notices that are served. two aspects i want highlight on this particular legislation that i think are really essential. the most common thing that i hear from tenants in san francisco, particularly in district 5, are that they are given these false, very threatening and scary deadlines. we will give you this much if you respond by monday or in a week. these are entirely false deadlines. you just want to be clear for folks that are not here and are watching this on tv, when you get buyout offer, you have

absolutely no obligation or requirement to respond. usually the threats that those offers will go away are false and usually taking the time you need is to your advantage. so i think the -- providing the 30-day window here is absolutely an essential part of this legislation. it's going to have a big impact. and the other side is the attainment process. and the previous legislation, the bou buyout legislation, we landlords would get creative. one of the bad-faith ways is to try and dress up buyout efforts as a part of litigation in order to avoid obligations to go ahead and file these. so i think closing the unlawful detainer loophole here and forcing landlords to file those buyouts as well is absolutely essential. i'm going to be supporting this

and thanks to supervisor ronen for her leadership on it. >> thank you, supervisor preston. i concur with those statements, which is precisely why i am a proud co-sponsor and also want to add my thanks to the community and supervisor ronen for bringing this forward. we have some minor, non-substantive amendments that are before us as to lot and block numbers spread out. can we take those amendments without objection and then, as amended, we will send the item to the full board with recommendation without objection. colleagues, i have been informed that there was actually an intended small amendment to the previous item, so if i could make a motion to rescind the vote on item number 4, we'll do

that without objection. and then add on page 11 a subsection b that says, within 30 days of the amended agreement being fully executed by all parties, the sfpuc shall provide the final amended agreement to the clerk of the board for ininclusion into the official file. so that language we will amend into item 4 and then send the item again as amended with recommendation as a committee report. madam clerk, could you please read item number 6, our final item. >> clerk: yes, item 6 is a planning toad ordinance amending the planning code to enable the use of development project sites during the project approval and entitlement process by authorizing the planning department to authorize certain interim activities at development project sites as temporary uses for up to 36 months, subject to extension at the discretion of the planning director in increments for up to a maximum possible total of 24 additional months; adopting the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act; making findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1; and making findings of public convenience, necessity, and welfare under planning code,

section 302. >> thank you, ms. major. we have heard this repeatedly. we had an amendment that the city attorney deemed to be substantive, so it required a one-week continuance. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, can we send this item that has been heard repeatedly -- wait winning supervisor preston, do you have a comment? sorry, i didn't take you down from your last comment. to the full board with recommendation without objection. that will be the order and we are adjourned.

morning, everyone. the meeting will come to order. this is the january 29, 2020 regular meeting of the budget and finance committee. i am sandra lee fewer, chair of the committee. i'm joined by supervisors mandelman and dean preston. our clerk is ms. linda wong. i would like to thank sfgovtv for broadcasting this meeting. madame clerk, any announcements? >> clerk: make sure to silence all cell phones, complete speaker cards and documents to be included should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon will be on the february 4 board of supervisors. >> item number 1 is resolution approving a second amendment to the grant agreement between the city and institute on aging for the community living fund to increase the amount of the grand by $1 million not to exceed

$11.6 million, with no change to the term. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. colleagues, today we have sandy from the department of disability and aging services. colleagues, you may remember this was continued from last week. we approved some amendments that were substantive, so we needed to bring it back, wait a week. so we heard the presentation last week and if my colleagues, any comments or questions on that? let's open up for public comment. any members of the public want to comment on item number 1? seeing none, public comment is closed. i would like to move this to the board with positive recommendation. >> clerk: the legislation itself has passed. the current amounts, though, there is no need to amend this. >> supervisor fewer: perfect. thank you very much. can you please call item number

2. >> item 2 is a resolution approving authorizing the amendment of an existing lease with turk and eddy in what is refinance 100% affordable 82-unit multifamily rental housing development and authorizing the director of property and the mayor office of housing and community development to execute documents. >> supervisor fewer: is it holly faust? thank you. >> yes, i'm here to gain approval for the amended and restated ground lease. the original ground lease was executed in 2009. this amended and restated ground lease is a requirement of the project sponsor's new refinancing, not financing with the city. there are no changes in the

financing with the city. there is no new funding from the city on this. the terms of the ground lease remain the same, 55 years with a 44-year extension. planning has waived their review and approval for this. there is no general plan referral required because there is no financial impact and no change to the property with the ground lease amendment. the ground lease amendment is consistent with all of the policies and other ground leases for affordable housing approved by the board of supervisors. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. >> thank you for your attention. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. there is no report on this. any comments? from my colleagues? seeing none, let's open up for public comment? any members of the public, seeing none, public comment is closed. i'd like to move this to the board with a positive

recommendation. take that without objection? thank you. item number 3. >> item 3 is a resolution declaring the intent of the city to reimburse certain expenditures to submit an application and related documents to the california debt limit allocation committee to permit the issuance of residential mortgage bonds not to exceed $61.6 million for 55 mason street. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. and caroline mccormack. >> good morning. i'm a project manager on the acquisition and preservation team at mocd. i'm here to present on the proposed bond issuance for ambassador hotel. the purpose of the resolution is to approve the hearing the city conducted on january 6, 2020, in order to comply with the federal tax equity and financial

responsibility act for ambassador hotel and ratify and approve other actions to make the bond possible. including submittal to secure allocations of bond for the project. the proposed issuance would be conduit financing and would not require the city to pledge repayment of the bond. the ambassador hotel consists of rehabilitation of the building. all of the units are single room occupancy units. the project is pursuing a hybrid tax credit structure, including 4% rehabilitation credits and 9% from the city and county of san francisco set aside. this request for an allocation of bond pertains to the 4% portion of the project. the project team anticipates that approximately 102 units will be allocated to the 4%

portion and the remaining 32 to the 9% portion. 100% of the units in the building will be affordable to households earning less than 60% ami and no residents will be displaced, but temporary offsite relocation will be required to facilitate the rehabilitation. plans to return to the board in late 2020 and financing for the project is anticipated to close in q1 of 2021 and that's when construction would start for the rehabilitation. i'm happy to answer any questions that the committee members have about this project. and i'm also joined by emily, project manager who can also answer more specific questions. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. there is no report on this. any comments or questions from my colleagues? seeing none, let's open up for public comment. any members of the public?

seeing none, public comment is closed. i'd like to make a motion to move this forward with a positive recommendation madame clerk, item number 4 and 5 together. >> item 4, resolution to authorize the fire department to accept and expend a grant in the amount of $612,000 to purchase rescue tools and equipment for the performance period of september 5, 2019 through september 4, 2020. item 5, resolution authorizing the fire department to accept and expend a grant in the amount of $341,000 from the federal emergency management agency to purchase marine equipment for the performance period of september 1, 2019 through august 31, 2022. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. and mark corso is here in the fire department. >> good morning, supervisors, here to present on these two items. the first is approval to accept

and expend fiscal year 2018, assistance to firefighters grant in the amount of $612,000. there are few projects that the department was awarded funding for, including battery powered tools, supplementing our hand tool inventory. there is a match of $61,000 that is in the department's budget. the second item is fiscal year 2019 security program from fema. the approval is for the department to expend an award in the amount of 341,625. there were three main projects the department was approved funding for. refurbishment of the rescue boat, the purchase of two watercraft for marine response and variety of marine equipment. there is a match of approximately $114,000 that is included in the budget's department. i'm happy to answer any questions.

>> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. there is no report on both these items. any comments or questions from colleagues about fire boats or anything else? seeing none, let's open for public comment. anyone want to comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. like to move these two items to the board with positive recommendation. we can take that without objection. colleagues, i am reminded that i need to excuse supervisor walton from today's meeting, so i'd like to make a motion to excuse supervisor walton from the meeting. may we take that without objection? thank you very much, colleagues. madame clerk, item number 6. >> item 6 resolution authorize the fire department to accept and expend a grant in the amount of $1 million from the california office of emergency services to purchase one hose tender for the performance period of july 1, 2019 through june 30, 2022.

>> supervisor fewer: we have mark corso from the fire department, but i would like to make an opening comment if you don't mind. so i would like to extend my appreciation to assembly member, phil tinge. i called him and asked him for this hose tender this is necessary out on the west side as we don't have an extensive water suppression system. and although we will be voting as voters to pass prop b, which would give us more the building of this network of water supply, in the meantime, these hose tenders that are custom-built, so expensive, a million dollars, we needed them. and so the mayor put them in the budget. i asked for an extra one. it is short. but i wanted to thank phil tinge

father -- for getting the money out of the budget for this one. it's going to keep people safe in the incident of catastrophe and large fire. i wanted to thank the assembly member for thinking of us and appropriating the money from the state budget. >> good morning, supervisors. mark corso, not a grant allocation, but from the state budget in the amount of $1 million for the purchase of one hose tender. it's a special vehicle to assist with water supply issues in the city and is used to supplement the fire fighting system. we also, too, on behalf of the department would like to thank the assembly member ting for his advocacy, and supervisor fewer for her advocacy in this program. >> supervisor fewer: any comments or questions, like what

is a hose tender? no. okay. any members of the public want to comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. i'd like to make a motion to move this to the board with a positive recommendation. take that without objection. call item number 7. >> item 7, resolution authorizing and approving the lease of 1271-1275 mission street consistings of 8750 square feet and tenants in common, for a six-year term with two five-year options for renewal to commence around february 1, 2020 at initial monthly base rent of $48,000 for total wanl rent of $577,000 with 3% annual adjustments. >> thank you. i know you're claudia.

in the real estate department. >> good morning. again, director of the real estate division of the city administrator's office. the director did desire to be here and attend today, but he had to leave for a family member out of state. so before you, for your consideration, is a resolution for a lease for new space for the digital services department and data s.f. the space is located at 1275 mission street. just very briefly, digital services responsible for improving the city's website, so that residents can easily get services, permits and apply for affordable housing online while data s.f. works across all departments to make data available internally to support use of data in decision-making. digital services currently has 29 full-time employee positions

and is expanding to 41. data sf has five positions here at city hall. they're going to combine and grow up to 46 full-time positions. they're currently in about 4,000 square feet. they can't fit there. and where they're located currently is not -- it's sub-prime for the programming. and there might be safety issues because it's off the beaten trail, kind of near an alleyway. and given their hours, staff doesn't always feel safe. the current lease is an annual lease and is up for renewal. digital services asked for assistance in finding a larger space. the larger space at the proposed site on mission is more aimable to their work. it's 8700 square feet, twice the

size of where they are in. in addition, the city gets the entire building. the initial rent is about $48,125 per month or $66 per square foot. that was based on appraisal and review. and to be honest, that is below fair market rate. the city will pay an annual adjustment of 3%, plus utilities and services as they do now where they're currently at. we will be attempting to get the building onto sfpuc power, because we have the whole building and therefore we can do that. that will lower the rates, hopefully. the landlord is also responsible for security and putting in a card entry system. the landlord is giving us improvement allowance of $5,000 to use in the initial term. there is furniture and equipment left at the site.

and rather than selling it, the landlord is willing to rent it to us for the entire term. at the end of the term, we can keep it. it's worth $100,000. that saves the city time and money not to have purchase desks for the new staff members and staff members that don't have desks at this time. that savings along with the tenant improvement allowance equals about one month's rent. for the first time, i was actually going to disagree with something that the b.l.a. did, but i've spoken with severin and in light of several conversations, i think, between severin and the city attorney, between the director and supervisor fewer and that maybe this needs to be looked into a little longer, i think we've come to an agreement, and correct me if i'm wrong, that

we'll leave the resolution as drafted, however, real estate -- i'm saying this on behalf of the director, will come back at the options even though it says we're authorized not to, i think we can say that gives us authorization to come back, so we'll agree to come back for the options in this situation in this lease which gives us all time to discuss further the issues that are a concern, but allows this lease to move forward, because if it doesn't, i think digital services will be out on the sidewalk. so unless you have any questions, carrie bishop is here from digital services if you have programming questions. i can answer questions regarding the lease itself. >> supervisor fewer: could we have a report, please? >> good morning. severin campbell. yes, she has summarized the

lease. we have a brief summary of the lease in exhibit 1 on page 8 of the report. this lease did have an appraisal in conformance with the administrative code. the discussion here today and in the original recommendation, this is a six-year lease with two five-year options. at the end of the initial six-year term, the lease does reset to the higher of the rent at the time of the expiration or 95% of fair market value. we're going to ask slightly different, we're going to recommend amendment to the resolution in which we're requesting a report back from the director of real estate prior to the exercise of the option to extend after the end of the initial six-year term. this would be slightly different. we're not suting this to board of supervisor approval, but asking for amendment for a report back at that time. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much.

any questions? let's open up for public comment? any members of the public like to comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. like to make motion to approve the amendment. then i'd like to make a motion to move this board as amended. please call item number 8. >> item 8 is a resolution authorizing the office of cannabis to accept and expend a grant award in the amount of $1.3 million from the california bureau of cannabis control, authorizing the office of cannabis to execute the agreement with the bureau of cannabis control and the extensions amendment or contracts subsequent on behalf of the city. >> supervisor fewer: i believe we have mr. eugene hillsman here. >> if you give me a second, i'll be pulling this up. >> supervisor fewer: this item has no b.l.a. report.

>> good morning, chair fewer, supervisors, my name is eugene hillsman, director of the office of cannabis. for the local equity funding. i'm also available to answer any potential questions that you have about the process. unfortunately, director rodriguez is feeling under the weather and is unable to join us this morning. san francisco's equity program was developed to support individuals negatively impacted by the war on drugs by creating opportunities to own and be hired by cannabis businesses. senate bill 1294 approved by senator bradford allowed for san francisco to apply for funds from the state level bureau of

cannabis control to assist applicants enter the cannabis market in the state. the bill requires an eligible local jurisdiction that received grant funds pursuant to the provisions to submit an annual report to the b.c.c. that contains specified information on the use of the grant funds and specified demographic data. the office of cannabis applied for the funds in august of 2019 and received $1.3 million. the office held two listing sessions to discuss the resource needs from the city's equity applicants in order to inform the city's application and distribution of these funds. in january of 2019, the office of cannabis held a listening session to get input about what the applicants needed to inform the construction of the application. in november 2019, the office of cannabis held another listening session to hear directly from equity applicants about their current needs. through these meetings, calls

and office visits, equity applicants expressed a clear and consistent desire to directly receive funds to support the development of their cannabis businesses. they also describe the need to access capital, find real estate across the city and receive technical assistance, including access to legal services, account management and education. it is our goal to align our distribution of funds with those requests. and i'm happy to answer any questions you have about the process or our proposal. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. any comments or questions from my colleagues? let's open up for public comment. any members of the public like to comment on item 8? please step on up. >> good morning, madame chair and board of supervisors. i'm an equity applicant, i'm requesting that the resolution

or amendment be drafted for the $1.3 million in equity funds to be given directly to the equity applicants. i welcome the opportunity to work on any resolution regarding this effort. according to the city controller's report, there are 133 applicants who will not ever be able to open a cannabis business in san francisco. and it appears that we are to be regulated as only workers in the industry. a few equity businesses that have been opened had wealthy investors and they're not in abundance. equity needs location reduce lease or at least five years in order to operate and get a business established. thank you. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good morning, supervisors, my name is reese. i am equity applicant. i'm the first woman in san francisco, or the second to own a potential cannabis, where we're supposed to be open in

october. and we're not able to open because of a process a judge put an injunction on us. but that being said, i am a native of san francisco. this the city took my whole family. when i come here, i have no one with me because of that. when i say the judge took my mom, had to bury her at 16. i have my grandma died from crack. my grandfather died from crack. my whole immediate family is on crack or died from crack. i have no support system. this is all i have. and the fact that i am able to get this far in life and for my city to fail me with my family, and the only person that is really living is my uncle, he can get free needles, but i can't get a grant to continue to open a business that i raised over $300,000 so i can the first

owner in the state of california as a woman. and i am having resources to get there is heartbreaking. it's heartbreaking. you guys already took enough from me. my son doesn't have his grandparents. and i think i gave him a great life, but we need these grants so i can be better and so i can show people we can do it. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> the city should be apr-- ashd of themselves. only two supervisors are sponsoring this. i shouldn't be surprised considering they've only put $90,000 in funds in services and the equity fund remains empty. today i ask you to pass this

legislation to fund applicants directly as the law states. i don't want the money -- the money shouldn't go to city services. if you're not an equity applicant like the woman who just came up, or not serving the center, this money is not for you. i remind you that we paid for this money. and damages from the effects that you've seen from her statement is paying for this. i ask that the money be distributed as fast as humanly possible with the resources and the full resources of san francisco to do that. i ask that the money go direct funding in the amount of 750,000. i ask that you have an equity office space in the amount of $380,000. i ask that you put money for equity events and programming like the success center in the amount of $08,000. i ask that you move to have an equity permit expediter in the amount of $130,000. please move this to the board

with full recommendation. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hello, my name is langford brown. i'm an equity applicant. my issue is the fact that we all feeling a sense of being red lined. all over again. and so we're impacted and i feel like these funds right now, particularly, those of us who is in the second phase and have letter of intent, we now need that additional funding to help when planners come and tell us about the build-out and the startup expenses associated. we now need help for this. so this is where we're impacted. we have letter of intent, but we need further funding to continue on. thank you. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much, sir. >> good morning, i'm amber morris. i would like to commend the office of cannabis for applying

and securing these funds and request that the board move these funds forward. the well intended equity program is not working. we see people hemorrhaging money and we need to get them money as quickly as possible. we're requesting that the equity applicants are able to get direct grants. that the money be allocated for property that can be used to share spaces. and for an application expediter to help equity applicants with the application process. what we found, there is a lot of bureaucracy in the process and we would urge the supervisors to make sure there is least amount of bureaucracy in the process as possible for getting the money to the equity applicants. thank you. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. next speaker, please. good morning. i'm a native of san francisco and equity applicant. the equity program is a

wonderful program given the benefits that we've had to suffer through. we are doing our best by completing the application, going through the application process, being verified, out looking for property, trying to go through our incubators, working through all the steps they've put forth for us, but the funding is a problem. when we come into our startup. there is no startup money for us. if you think about it, we've gone through the trainings, we've gone to the colleges, we've done everything. i went to learn about the cannabis industry, but then there is funds to start the business. just to start, starting up llc is a thousand dollars pretty much. with the permit process, not to mention trying to go through the incubator stages. the funds will help us to be able to start our businesses to be able to collaborate within san francisco, to be an effective equity applicant means that we would need the funds to

be able to do that. thank you. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. >> morning. my name is angela. i'm from success centers and i work with equity applicants here in the city. i hear lots of stories like reese and they bring me to tears because we need help. and i'm so happy that the state has sent funds for equity, the equity community here. we need help to also continue our program to work with these folks that have been affected by the war on drugs. and so i am very thankful to be here and very happy that you are going to release these funds to the office of cannabis. eugene and marissa have done an excellent job trying to do what they're doing without the

staffing. so i'm hoping that we can get some things going so we can have a spirit of success that goes through with equity. so thank you so much for your time. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is jocelyn. i've been working with oakland equity program through technical assistance and make green go. and what my company does is we provide all the data and analytics for the cannabis industry, so i've been working with the applicants personally and helping them answer a lot of the questions in the applications that are going to make sure they're set up for success when they open. so one of the things that i've been learning as i've been working with this program, is that it's a lot of volunteers. and we need people that are actually going to be on staff and doing the executional work, because there are people like me going and providing consultant work, helping them understand

the market, but there has to be dedicated people that are accountants, all the really execution work to help set them up for success. one of the things i'm concerned about in san francisco and i'm a resident of san francisco, is the high saturation of already existing retail shops. we have 37 shops here. equity applicants are the next round to get licenses, but with such saturation in the 7 by 7 city, if they're not set up for success in the beginning, their chances to compete in a saturated market is minimal. so they really need this funding to provide the actual executional work here. thank you. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. next speaker, please. hi. i'm a native of san francisco. raised my children out of the

bayview. i'm a little emotional please excuse me. one of my sons ganged up and got into a bunch of problems and the other one didn't. the point i would like to make about the community, bayview hunters point, i sent both sons to college, both graduated and are successful. we're typically put in a box where there are things we can't do or figure or out. but we can do and figure it out. i got approved, my equity number got approved three years ago. i started my own business, so i can try to fund my cannabis business. still unable to do so. so i would appreciate it if you would take a deep look at this. take a look at us without generating any negative opinions and give us the support that we need. we're awesome. we're creative. and we give back to our own community and those less

fortunate as well as us. thank you very much. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning, my name is joyce. i'm equity applicant. i'm here today to represent the equity program. and what i would like to say to the supervisors, would you guys have some consideration to release the funds that is needed for the project that needs to be done for the dispensaries or whatever the situation we might need help in. i think that the money needs to be released because it is hard out here without that we won't even succeed in life with this program. it would be a failure if we don't get no help. and thank you. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. >> good morning. my name is terrance. i was your chair of the san

francisco cannabis legalization task force for three years. we developed a series of recommendations that we gave to the board and, of course, funding for the equity program was a priority in those recommendations. to give a little perspective to all that you're hearing this morning, it takes about $1.5 million to open a business in cannabis here in san francisco. and we're approving a grant for every equity applicant in this room and beyond that is less than the cost of opening one store. so i urge you to take this first step and to continue the promise of follow-through so that equity is not a trap. and it is in fact what it was intended to be, a way out for everyone. thank you.

good morning. my name is morris kelly. i'm a san francisco native, verified equity applicant. and i'm really able to stand here before you because of the support of my community, because we've been able to rally around each other, been able to teach each other, help each other. we've been able to support each other to try to get through this process. like one person said before me, we've had to be uber creative. we've had to be resourceful to even get to the point to stand here before you. because as you know, things happen fast for certain people and slow for others. i feel like we are doing everything that is asked of us to make this program successful and there is not much more we can do. so without the support of the city, without extra help to the office of cannabis, we're just going to be sitting here coming

to these meetings for another year saying the same thing. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. any comments, questions from colleagues? supervisor preston. >> supervisor preston: thanks. i just want to be added as cosponsor and thank everyone for coming out and look forward to other ways to expand on this program. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. i also just want to mention that the office of the controller has done a report on this and also given recommendations. i authored a resolution to create an oversight committee because we were not seeing action, any movement on the equity applicants. and also to have experts at the table to actually advise the board of supervisors. so i just want you to know, thank you for coming out today.

we hear you. and we are, i think, going to have a hearing on the results of what the controller actually recommends and what the board can do to help. having said that, there is no b.l.a. report. i would like to move to the board with positive recommendation. take that without objection. please call item 9. >> item 9, establishing the proposal united nations limit of $5.5 billion for the school year 2019-20. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. we have michael mitten from the controller's office. this is something i believe we approve on annual basis?

. >> good morning. i will talk briefly about this year's appropriation limit, called the gam limit. it was started in the 1970s and is generally a rule to limit appropriations from taxes. it's a rule to limit taxes. each year we're allowed to increase the limit by two factors, a population factor fort growth in san francisco. this year, it's 0.33%. our file goes back to 1999 and that is the lowest population increase in the last 20 years. the other factor is the cost of living factor. we could use -- we're allowed to use the greater of california

personal income growth or the assessment growth due to newcomer shall construction. this year, two we've had are in the final year. the soda tax and the transfer tax. but we'll still have the cannabis tax and the t.n.c. tax which is now just beginning in the coming years. beginning in 2021, the voter override will be $55 million. as you know, we have three tax measures that are currently in litigation. those revenues are not being recognized at this time. and they are not applied to the gam limit at this time. when they were recognized, the -- when they are recognized, they'll be applied in the fiscal year. the window starts when the measures are approved. so if it's after the four-year

window, it will be counting toward the gam limit. the voter improved increase, we're up to 19-20 limit of $5.5 billion. there are several things we can exclude. this is voter approved debt, qualified mandate, after removing those, our tax proceeds are $4 billion. and that leaves us $1.5 billion below the limit this year. that's it. >> this is the annual approval by the board of supervisors. if you look at table one, page 13 of our report, the taxable income that is subject to the appropriations limit is $4.1

billion. table 2 on page 14, shows the adjustments and the calculation of the appropriation limit of $5.5 billion and then following that, table 3 on page 15, that shows there is two different formulas that can be used and the impact on the appropriations limit of the each of the formula that is used, as you can see the $5.5 billion, the formula has been used by the controller's office and we recommend a >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. any members like to comment? public comment is closed. like to make motion to put this to the board with a positive recommendation. any other business before us today? >> clerk: no other business. >> supervisor fewer: we are adjourned. thanks.

>> i personally love the mega jobs. i think they're a lot of fun. i like being part of a build that is bigger than myself and outlast me and make a mark on a landscape or industry. ♪ we do a lot of the big sexy jobs, the stacked towers, transit center, a lot of the note worthy projects.

i'm second generation construction. my dad was in it and for me it just felt right. i was about 16 when i first started drafting home plans for people and working my way through college. in college i became a project engineer on the job, replacing others who were there previously and took over for them. the transit center project is about a million square feet. the entire floor is for commuter buses to come in and drop off, there will be five and a half acre city park accessible to everyone. it has an amputheater and water marsh that will filter it through to use it for landscaping. bay area council is big here in the area, and they have a gender equity group. i love going to the workshops.

it's where i met jessica. >> we hit it off, we were both in the same field and the only two women in the same. >> through that friendship did we discover that our projects are interrelated. >> the projects provide the power from san jose to san francisco and end in the trans bay terminal where amanda was in charge of construction. >> without her project basically i have a fancy bus stop. she has headed up the women's network and i do, too. we have exchanged a lot of ideas on how to get groups to work together. it's been a good partnership for us. >> women can play leadership role in this field.

>> i tell him that the schedule is behind, his work is crappy. he starts dropping f-bombs and i say if you're going to talk to me like that, the meeting is over. so these are the challenges that we face over and over again. the reality, okay, but it is getting better i think. >> it has been great to bond with other women in the field. we lack diversity and so we have to support each other and change the culture a bit so more women see it as a great field that they can succeed in. >> what drew me in, i could use more of my mind than my body to get the work done. >> it's important for women to network with each other, especially in construction. the percentage of women and men in construction is so different. it's hard to feel a part of

something and you feel alone. >> it's fun to play a leadership role in an important project, this is important for the transportation of the entire peninsula. >> to have that person -- of women coming into construction, returning to construction from family leave and creating the network of women that can rely on each other. >> women are the main source of income in your household. show of hands. >> people are very charmed with the idea of the reverse role, that there's a dad at home instead of a mom. you won't have gender equity in the office until it's at home. >> whatever you do, be the best you can be. don't say i can't do it, you can excel and do whatever you want. just put your mind into it.

>> welcome to our first meeting of the transbay joint powers authority director special meeting today. roll call, please. [roll call] we have some directors absent. you have a quorum. >> thank you. before we dive into our agenda this morning, i want to take a moment to make a couple comments unfortunately, earlier this week we had some news from the media reports that was very unfortunate. specifically that a former member of our board of directors

was arrested and charged with public corruption by the federal bureau of investigations. it is our understanding the investigation is ongoing and we do not know yet all the facts at this time. more troubling is that the tjpa, the agency that we represent as directors was mentioned in the complaint relating to our retail leasing program. i want to take a moment to emphasize that there is no allegation of wrongdoing by the tjpa or any of the members of the board of directors or staff at tjpa. i want to take a moment to assure everyone, the public, and everyone who wants to look at the minutes and pays attention to what we do that we have a very rigourous and transparent process to receive and validate proposals from companies interested in leasing retail space at salesforce transit center. including regular, detailed reporting of public meetings like this one.

i would like to take a moment and ask the executive director to share with the public the leasing process that we go through here for any interested party when they're looking at a potential lease at the salesforce center. >> thank you. the tjpa uses a well-developed and transparent process to receive, evaluate, and award retail leases in the transit center. in 2017, we entered into an asset management agreement with lincoln property company through subcontractor, colliers international to implement a port upper -- board approved spaces. this includes rents, length of term, and landlord contributions to tenant improvements. also in 2017, the board approved retail leasing policies including the standard letter of intent and lease. all businesses registered or

interested in leasing directly with colliers as a first step in the leasing process. to date, they have more than 600 people registered in the process it self itself. interested parties typically request tours of available sites and many submitted letters of intent. colliers provides the tours and the letter of intent -- reviews the letter of intent, including offered rent compared to things, their experience, credit worthiness, and fit with the retail merchandising plan approved by the board. that agreement requires colliers to give letters of intent to our director for tentative approval. the tentative approval shows intent and is not binding. colliers and retail legal council then negotiate the forms of the leases and recommends

leases to the tjpa. most leases are presented to the board for approval at public meetings. each of these leases is accompanied by a detailed staff report which includes how a particular proposed lease compares to rent, term, the standard template lease and the retail leasing plan. per the retail lease policy, leases that meet certain criteria including leases under $1.8 million, have an initial term of 10 years or less, may be approved by the executive director and are presented with details to the board at the next scheduled board meeting. regardless of whether leases are approved by the board or the executive director, the same vetting process applies. when staff receives inquiries from any source about retail leasing in the transit center, they are referred to colliers.

colliers is the lead on tjpa team for all negotiations. in summary, we have a rigourous and transparent leasing process that involves four levels of review and approval to ensure that all leases are consistent with the rent, board approval of the merchandising plan and board policies. these steps include colliers, our leasing agent, reviewing and negotiating the letters of intent. once colliers is satisfied that it meets the board's policies, there presented to the tjpa facility manager. the manager reviews those letters of intent to make sure they are in existence with our policies. once that is down, it is presented to the executive director. they review and approve the letter of intent to be consistent with the merchants and board approved policies, and then after that it is presented to the board for consideration. thank you.

>> thank you. the tjpa has not been approached by law enforcement, however, we are or will fully cooperate contact. i would like to assure the public that the shared top priority of the board of directors and our executive director is to ensure that our staff remain focused on the work at hand. operating and maintaining a world-class, 21st century transit hub with the utmost transparency and integrity. i am confident the measures we have in place ensure that every decision we make is in the best interest of the public, fulfils our retail plan and will ultimately greatly benefit the neighborhood. with that, we will continue with our agenda. >> that would conclude item three, communications. we will move on. >> yes, move on. >> board of directors, new or old business.

>> i think director brinkman has an item. >> thank you. it has been much discussed in the news the possible changes on natoma street around our property and i just wanted to bring up the idea that when d.t.x. goes in, the buildings on the corner of second and howard, to my understanding, will be demolished and that will be a plaza, which is supposed to connect into natoma street, and the original visioning from the architect was to be the plaza at the tower and the cable bridge above it all. i don't know what the answer is and i don't know what our role in this will continue to be, but i do just want to put in front of us that we probably should try and protect that visioning as much as possible. as we saw yesterday with the launch of the market street and carvery spaces. it is highly valued in the city right now and it will continue to be highly valued in a lot of cities. i want to put it out there that we should think about what that

impact will be and what it will do to the overall visioning of the project. >> thank you. any other business from the board? >> item five is executive director's report. >> i am pleased -- i first want to thank the vice chair and the board for their strong and continued support. i am pleased to get right into agency business and provide you with my first director's report of 2020. i would like to first invite rich piatt to give official updates. richard is a general manager of lincoln properties or asset manager and is new to salesforce transit center team. he has more than 20 years of experience in commercial property management and has managed a variety of properties around san francisco. prior to joining our team he was a general manager for a former navy base where he was a client

of the city of alameda. he will present the city updates >> thank you for having me. we have brought some slides. the first thing we will go over is transit. the plaza continues to operate at normal capacity with the sfmta and the golden gate transit. similarly, the bus deck also continues to operate a normal capacity with a.c. transit, which is what i take every day, west links, greyhound, and muni treasure island. and finally, sam trans- and amtrak continue to operate at the corner of mission and fremont adjacent to our grand hall. i want to talk a little bit about some of the recent and upcoming tenant activities. on-site dental opened in november and then fitness s.f. opened in the end of december. next month we will have two

storefronts with phil's coffee. and pit -- and empanada star will open in april and in may we will have verizon. we will have just about 50% of the retail spaces open. the next slide shows some of the in progress that we have had. some of the coming soon, some of the construction, and then we have business s.f. fully open. -- fitness s.f. there which is fully open. we had a holiday market in the grand hall which started in the end of november and went through the end of december. it was well received despite steady rain. the tjpa got presented rent from it and there was no cost at all to the tjpa. i want to talk a little bit about the park activity. we are currently in winter hours , which, until april, will be 6:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. some of the things that we have going on there, we have movie

nights, we have winter festival, and/or park operators have told us that they have seen a good uptick with kids and families utilizing the park. and finally, a sponsorship and advertising continues to grow. we have good level of interest from industries such as financial institutions, airlines , technology, with expected annual revenue of about a million dollars. the next slide just shows some of the community drawings that we have. bottom right we have yoga about the top, up at the top -- up at the park and we have other activities that are bringing the community to the transit center. i will talk more about retail leasing. we have about 85,000 square feet retail, and with that, 81% of that footage is already executed leases and board approved. similarly, we have 71% of the

total retail spaces that have executed leases and that are board approved. we are at 98% of the average annual rent and we do expect to exceed pro forma. we have 10 remaining spaces including the rooftop, paper -- café pad and an area behind the grand hall escalator. of these 10 spaces, we have promising leases on three of the spaces, but we have a level of interest on all of them. sectors that are represented in our leasing include wellness, service, food and beverage and in the next slides show that. here is the first floor which shows committed and in negotiation. the next slide shows the second floor again. committed and in negotiation. and our final leasing shows the park level. same thing.

committed and what is in negotiation. now i will leave it up to you to see if there is any questions. >> thank you. thank you so much for the update the bus deck, what is the capacity that it is currently operating at? i believe it's around 90 buses per hour. i think it is designed to handle a much higher capacity than that i believe the original design for that bus deck has a speed limit at 20 miles per hour and it is currently set at 10. i asked after six months of operations we do an efficiency review of that. i don't want that 10-mile per hour speed limit to become permanent by accident through an abundance of caution during the original opening period. do we have that efficiency and safety evaluation scheduled and has it been six months of bus operations since we reopened? >> i don't have the answer to that. i will be more than happy to address it.

we just achieved our six months of operations. i would have to go back and check on what we have done. it is something we would have to discuss with a.c. transit as well. the original design contemplated 25 miles per hour. a.c. transit's team advised us that they would like to have 10 miles per hour. and we went through a process of discussing the benefits of 10 miles versus 20 miles and we agreed that 10 miles was properly defined. i will be more than happy to engage a.c. transit. i have already engaged sfmta. we talked a little bit about it. i would be happy to engage them and see what kind of studies we need to do in order to evaluate whether 10 miles is sufficient or whether it should go back to 25 miles or somewhere in between >> thank you. i am hearing from the public, and as you say, you ride the bus yourself. sometimes getting out of the bus deck takes quite a while.

it is, i think, great to operate with an abundance of caution, with a way that bus deck was designed, there are no pedestrians who are ever crossing the best path of travel and in addition, the cross over on the bridge, i believe all buses are coming to a stop when it was originally envisioned and designed so incoming -- i don't know if his incoming or out coming buses would get a green so they would never have to stop at the crossover. it sounds small, but if you are writing that twice a day, if it saves you a minute or two, and i don't know, i haven't taken a bus out of there in a while now, so i don't know what the timeframe is if you are at the fourth farthest bus bay to get all the way out onto the bridge, but anything we can do to make that seamless, to make it operate super efficiently and save those tens of thousands of writers every day a minute or two would be really appreciated by the public. >> i will definitely follow up.

>> we welcome the study, but i would also called everyone's attention that there are some recent publicity issues. candidly we can run significantly more service if we can get through the plaza and across the bridge. you may have seen that it's more complicated than that, but i would encourage all the transit advocates to support more multi- occupant vehicles, particularly through the plaza on the bridge and the other factor is clearing up the fund so we can afford more buses and more service. the terminal is certainly not a limiting factor. we're hearing great reviews about it. we can put more buses through if we can get them over the bridge. >> any other comments from directors? very good. richard, welcome. >> next i want to ask our senior construction manager to present the project agreement for the port.

>> good morning, directors. i'm here to report the fourth quarter 2019 project project labor agreement report. we held our 301st meeting, we have four a year. we have been doing this for almost eight years and without fail, we have hit every quarter. we have always provided a construction update which is very similar to what i am about to report in agenda item five. a retail leasing update which is exactly what rich showed in a phase two update and union update on the apprenticeship with veterans, which is very interesting. it's still extremely very high. the electricians reported they had 1400 applicants at the recent one. they are going through that and testing this. it's incredible how much are still continuing to be brought into the unions. and then also we discussed and we agreed on the p.l.a. to continue through tenant improvements. what that means is a project labor agreement is clearly active during phase i

construction, phase two construction, and there would be an obvious interim period between those two. it also allows for the option for the joint administrative committee to continue the p.l.a. through tenant improvements. the group that was there, operators, carpenters, the electricians and plumbers, all agreed is in our best interest to continue which. we agreed to move it forward. especially, and in fact, that his part -- it's part of the p.l.a. and the unions are not allowed to strike, protest, take any actions, and it allows us to continue through our tenant improvement program without interruptions that potentially others have seen in other parts of the city. it will continue through the tenant improvements as a collective and we all agreed. finally, the labor. no work stoppages were labor instances that we have had. we have never had one the entire

phase i construction. and there was a zero recordable safety incidents, which has -- it has probably been years since we have had a recordable or a lost time. lastly, i would like to show the hours. a little bit over 5.7 hours. these numbers are not changing much. it will probably be the last time i will report these for phase i construction because there is a minor crew out there now. we did surpass 5.7 million hours which is an incredible amount. phase two is expecting over 8 million hours so we look forward to eventually getting into phase two construction for and reporting our labor statistics. with that, that completes my quarterly report for this time. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> directors, this concludes my report. thank you. >> is a public comment on the p.l.a.? okay. come on up.

>> hello, jim patrick of patrick and company. i have been against this agreement for many, many times and have argued against it here, but i listened to this presentation and suddenly we slipped into, well, we will have it for the next project too. i want to remind this board of directors that this agreement calls for the payment of the highest possible wage that is in the agreement and to sort of say , well, we will just let it roll into the next 4 million craft hours is nonsense. i wouldn't allow that to happen if i were the board of directors i would go back and rebid it, just like we like to rebid these processes. maybe we can do better without the joint labor agreement. i challenge you. thank you. >> thank you. what i would like to do with the

board's board's permission is jump into our consent calendar and regular calendar before we lose a quorum if that is acceptable so there is no time constraints for directors. if we can jump to the consent calendar, item nine and carry that item and we will come back to the rest of the reports. >> all right. all matters listed are considered to be routine and will be acted upon by a single vote. there be no separate discussion unless a member of the board of the public requests. we have not received any indication that any items wish to be severed. do we have a motion on the consent calendar? >> moved to move to approve. >> second. >> all of those in favour? >> aye. >> that is approved. item 10, approving the fiscal year 2020 and 2021 operating projection. >> thank you for the

introduction. [laughter] >> welcome. >> happy new year. thank you. i'm happy to present to you -- the 19 and 20, 2021 operating budget. we start this budgeting process at the time that we adopt the previous year's budget. we started in june 2019. i showed you a three year projection which included the first year being 2021. and then in september and october we present more refined numbers to the primary tenants, and then come january, we bring to the board for approval the preliminary budget. the luminary budget is still preliminary, which has the ability to be refined. we will come back to you in april of 2020 with a budget

outlook and that encompasses operating and capital and in may we present a draft budget, and finally in june, we present a budget to be adopted, operating and capital budget. the highlights of this preliminary budget are that it is 28 million. in june and september around october, i presented numbers that were significantly higher. in june we presented a 30 million-dollar operating budget and in september and october, a 34 million-dollar operating budget. since then we have been able to refine things to get it to 28 million which is encompassed and not using any reserves. some of the highlights of the budget are that it keeps the operators' contributions about level with the current year with 19 and 20 and with a couple hundred thousand increase, with for the most part, it is essentially the same.

we are still uncertain about the r.m. $3, but n.p.c. has issued a letter allowing tjpa to use us reserves in anticipation to submit to reimbursements over 19 and 20 or 20 and 211 the litigation is resolved. additionally, we have added in a new source of money, a new old source. if we are successful with our bond sale, it refinances this and then the a.c. transit capital contribution that is currently pledged can be redirected into the operating budget for capital needs. this 20, 21 budget would redirect the dollars if they have -- that they have identified to the operating budget. it addresses any sort of capital maintenance repair costs in the operating budget. we didn't have a lot of data to

support vandalism and larger replacement items, so now that we have been in operations, we know we are spending about 200, $250,000 on repairs or maintenance for vandalism. so we have added $1 million in the operating budget to cover that for next year. additionally, one we -- one way we were able to achieve some reduction is by moving the leasing commission out of the operating budget and into the tenant improvement. when we have to refinance, it allows for a source to capitalize the marketing and leasing commission and any sort of rental concessions we might have that are really capital in nature and not necessarily operating cost. with those major highlights, we were able to achieve the $28 million. here is a listing of all of the revenues. the r.m. two increase and the

annual increase of 3% on it. it is an estimate about what we have been giving, so it is consistent with the current year we have added $50,000 for transit assistant grants. and that is for physical signage as a result of the wayfinding analysis that is currently underway. and then c.b.d. payments that support 80% of the park. the remaining revenues are the leasing use agreement naming rights. that is probably of interest to you all. when we first signed the agreement, we were given a three year prepayment, and so initially, we had recognized all the revenue in one year, but since then, as we have finished our audit, we are recognizing the revenue in the year that it is intended. and so this $3 million represents the last third of the naming.

finally, there is the retail revenue. so the rent from the tenants in the transit center. it's down from what we had projected previously, but it follows a schedule where all of the executed leases would be open and occupied paying rent come december of 2020. the advertising revenue represents $1.9 million of that 1.9, 1.25 is guaranteed for contracts and the additional representation of active interest that we have in the transit center. sponsorships, it's a minimal amount, but reduce from the current year. sponsorships tied with the occupancy and the transit center as the occupancy increases, we would expect there's more sponsorship opportunities. for now, we have 240 included in

the budget. it is a minimum guarantee. we would get that 125 regardless we intend to sublease our old office space into -- that rent would be included. there is our a.c. transit capital contribution that is redirected. and then miscellaneous and interest earnings get us to 28 million. the expense is also matched. we have four-point six in admin costs down from previous productions. we are also able to move some of our salaries and expenses to capital sources. now that phase i is coming to a close out, we can't charge salaries to a capital project. tenant improvements and base building continue on. there is some ability to charge or capitalize salaries and expenses to tenant improvement and base building.

we achieved some savings through that. our asset manager and admin fees are down. we have worked with our partners to reduce expenses and to stay within this range. maintenance and janitorial and utilities are essentially the same as the current year. we anticipate when full occupancy comes on in december of 2020 that there could be some increase, but for now based on the information that we have, we are holding it at the current year's level. you will see that i'm skipping down marketing and leasing. it is completely taken out. and insurance has increased a bit. with all the natural disasters and fewer numbers of insurers, the insurance market has steadily increased the rates. so there is an increase of eight % over what we are currently paying.

and finally we have capital maintenance repairs at 1.1 million and a small contingency of 250,000. this brings us to the 28 million four expenses. as this is a preliminary budget, there are a few things influx for further considerations that we will look at over the next few months. we don't expect there to be any more reductions in expenses. we have cut it back as far as we could to maintain this at the operational level at our facility. clearly some of these things are based on refinancing so we can achieve the switch for the marketing and leasing commission and capitalization. we have not addressed the reserves being at 25%. our current projection will be

half hour reserves being at 3%. twenty-five% is three months of operating expenses. it allows you flow, it allows you the time to get the reimbursements in. so we still need to look at opportunities to fund the reserves at the 25%. additionally, we diminished the park programming to keep it in line with the available resources. so there's an opportunity for the c.b.d. to increase their contribution. we are in negotiations and discussions with them. there is the opportunity for increased operator contributions , although we hope to fend that off, but if the r.m. three is not realized or if there is any other delays in occupancy in the retail leasing, or if the advertising, which is tied to occupancy, does not come in as expected, there could be

possible increases for the operators. and then, as we kept the janitorial and maintenance the same this year, and we watched how the facility progresses, if there is a true need to increase janitorial maintenance, then that might be something we have to increase. with that, i will take any questions that you have for the operating budget. >> thank you very much. >> i want to thank you. clearly the hiring committee got it right. we are thrilled to have you as our c.f.o. i appreciate how hard you have worked to get the operator contribution down. i don't like it, but i know how hard you worked. better then the preliminary, preliminary. we still need to drive it down. the more that is up, the less service we can operate which is defeating of why we have the terminal in the first place. with that, i will move the item. thank you for your hard work. >> thank you.

>> can i ask one question on the naming rights? you mentioned in the discussion that we are recognizing the revenue this year, to me it sounds like we are accounting for it in this year versus having the actual cash available to pay for expenses. can you clarify whether those funds are available to be used or whether it's just the accounting of things? >> we have the funds on hand. they are in our stores. >> i will second the motion. >> before we vote, a clarifying question. it's just because they know how the public-sector works and money is not really money in the bank. so with the reserves as low as they are, i'm always concerned about cash flow. three months in the and the bank is not always three months of money in the bank. i just want to make sure we keep an eye on that because any delay in funding can have some

consequences. so i just want to make sure we monitor that very carefully. any other questions from the board? i believe we have a motion and a second. >> and no members of the public wanting to public on the item. [roll call] five time mac and item 10 is approved. i can call you next item. >> item 11 is approving changes to board policy number nine, investment policy. >> okay. here we are again. no presentation this time. >> no presentation? >> no presentation. [laughter] in december we brought the investment and the debt policy. it is ought to be back one month later. there are a couple of things, and i will admit that i missed one. there is a change that was effective january 1st of 2020 that i should have put into the policy in december to catch it ahead of time, but that change

is the deposit amount for the local agency investment fund. they increase from 65 million to 75 million. we want to take advantage of that additional 10 million-dollar ability to invest in life. additionally with our impending bond sale, we wanted to open up or expand the investment policy to include a few more opportunities for us. so one that we have added is to allow for the tjpa to invest in its own obligation. once we issue the bonds, clearly we have not had bonds of our own prior to now, so once we do, we would like the ability to invest in them. also, our policy had limited investments to the city and county of san francisco. so we are opening up local agency investments to all of the members or any local agency in california and the state of california.

but also limiting it to a.a. rated. there is still the highest rating. the higher rated credit, not anything to be concerned of in that regard. we are also taking advantage of another change in the government code, which is the public vetting complications, but still only a.a. rated and super nationals, which would be like world bank. still a a.a. rated. those are the changes that are encompassed in this revision, mainly doing -- allowing for us to invest in those bonds. >> very good. any questions? is there a motion for action? >> motion for action to approve. >> second. >> any members of the public wanting to comment? [roll call] that is five aye. item 11 is approved. we can go ahead and --

>> thank you very much. let's go back to our regular agenda our reports. >> item six is the construction closeout update. >> good morning, directors. this will be a short update for the construction work. >> we forgot to introduce you. >> i am the senior construction manager with the tjpa. good morning. >> good morning, dennis. >> for the contract closeout status, i wanted to give you an update on our trade groups. we have 49 trade groups with the web core and other companies. as of now, we have 29 of those closed and behind us. we last reported to you we were at 24, so we have gained five more closures since our last meeting. we still have this six which are mid-level fruits, which are pretty much scheduled now to go

for dispute resolution. we have them scheduled for march , april, and may, all upcoming. we have had a few already. the ones we have had should be able to close out, leaving us the 14. of those 14 groups, there is a handful that have multiple trade groups such as one company that would be in that 14. we will continue to talk about those 14 for a period of time, but at least by the end of the year, hopefully we will shrink that dramatically down as we continue to go through the dispute resolution process and eventually beyond that with a few as expected. so with that, that is the trade group status at this point. we will continue to update that. on the construction contingency cost update, our construction contingency is that 4.6 million. our cmgc contingency is 4.8 and 32.8. we're still in a good spot to

closeout items as we continue to process through the change order requests in the various items that it takes a close out the trade package. we are continuing to do so. we have a few of the items identified below that are close out. either from electrical to construction management services lastly, just as more of a reminder and show that there has been no change at this point in the budget for phase one construction, we're still we are still holding with the phase i target at 2.174 billion and the ultimate, obviously the phase i program is still at 2.259 billion dollars. no changes since the last report that is the short update at this point. we continue to closeout trade packages, utilizing alternative dispute resolution with the d.r.a., which has been helping us. whether directly or as a stick to resolve without having to go

there. it has been very effective at this point to continue to close out. i do want to note that web core has not met final completion yet and that is anticipated around march 1st. they still have some very specific items that are not resolved, so our damages continue to assess at this point that concludes my construction update for this month. >> thank you. any questions from the board? seeing non, thank you. >> all right. next item is item seven, the citizen advisory committee update. i wanted to note that i spoke with the chair and there was nothing new to report. >> okay. thank you. >> we will move into the next item which is public comment. opportunity for members of the public to address the board for matters that are arnot on the

calendar. we do have mr. patrick. >> morning. thank you. i wanted to call your attention to something that is important that i feel needs to be on your radar scope. this is a programming allocation committee report from the metropolitan transportation association committee. we asked for $400 million to proceed with the d.t.x. we got and received zero. i presume this will be approved. the question is, why? it says here two large projects, the d.t.x. and dumbarton real corridor weren't approved and the projects were not named in the framework as earlier projects were in their developing stage. why are we in the development stage? we are in the development stage

because of this nonsense coming off of the metropolitan transportation -- that san francisco transportation committee of this loan. we are not -- we have not been able to finish the engineering, in my opinion, to complete this job to apply for these funds, to move this thing along. here is a calendar for this year we have wasted it. we have 50,000 writers who want to get to downtown san francisco with the d.t.x. i believe it's time to stop fooling around. i think we should go out and see if we can't get commercial funding to finish this. we will no longer be paying leasing commissions because the space is just about least. take that money to pay the interest and package that thing as we move forward. let's not wait for these guys to do this job. you will be presented with a memo of some sort, and you know

what it is? that is called a quid pro quo. take it or leave it. i thank you had better be ready to answer that. number two, we have, mr. matt haney who has already left, and other people who sit on the same boards. one board is loaning money to the other board. it seems to me we need some recusal on this thing. it's just nonsense the way this thing is working. who are the losers? the losers are the people who ride the train to the fourth street and get off and have to walk downtown or take the bus. it has been going on for 50 years. i believe the d.t.x. is losing some of its mojo. we all know what momentum means. we will see that in the super bowl coming up. you supervisors, you board of director members need to increase that mojo, at the

excitement to the d.t.x. so we get the funding to get it going. we have already lost six months. i want to save this half of the calendar. please. let's get the d.t.x. up and going. thank you. >> that concludes members of the public that wanted to comment under that item. >> that concludes our agenda for today. meeting is adjourned and we will see everybody in february. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, everyone. >> i went through a lot of struggles in my life, and i am

blessed to be part of this. i am familiar with what people are going through to relate and empathy and compassion to their struggle so they can see i came out of the struggle, it gives them hope to come up and do something positive. ♪ ♪ i am a community ambassador.

we work a lot with homeless, visitors, a lot of people in the area. >> what i like doing is posting up at hotspots to let people see visibility. they ask you questions, ask you directions, they might have a question about what services are available. checking in, you guys. >> wellness check. we walk by to see any individual, you know may be sitting on the sidewalk, we make sure they are okay, alive. you never know. somebody might walk by and they are laying there for hours. you never know if they are alive. we let them know we are in the area and we are here to promote safety, and if they have somebody that is, you know,

hanging around that they don't want to call the police on, they don't have to call the police. they can call us. we can direct them to the services they might need. >> we do the three one one to keep the city neighborhoods clean. there are people dumping, waste on the ground and needles on the ground. it is unsafe for children and adults to commute through the streets. when we see them we take a picture dispatch to 311. they give us a tracking number and they come later on to pick it up. we take pride. when we come back later in the day and we see the loose trash or debris is picked up it makes you feel good about what you are doing. >> it makes you feel did about escorting kids and having them feel safe walking to the play area and back. the stuff we do as ambassadors

makes us feel proud to help keep the city clean, helping the residents. >> you can see the community ambassadors. i used to be on the streets. i didn't think i could become a community ambassador. it was too far out there for me to grab, you know. doing this job makes me feel good. because i came from where a lot of them are, homeless and on the street, i feel like i can give them hope because i was once there. i am not afraid to tell them i used to be here. i used to be like this, you know. i have compassion for people that are on the streets like the homeless and people that are caught up with their addiction because now, i feel like i can give them hope.

it reminds you every day of where i used to be and where i am at now. >> everything is done in-house. i think it is done. i have always been passionate about gelato. every single slaver has its own

recipe. we have our own -- we move on from there. so you have every time a unique experience because that slaver is the flavored we want to make. union street is unique because of the neighbors and the location itself. the people that live around here i love to see when the street is full of people. it is a little bit of italy that is happening around you can walk around and enjoy shopping with gelato in your hand. this is the move we are happy to provide to the people. i always love union street because it's not like another commercial street where you have big chains. here you have the neighbors. there is a lot of stories and the neighborhoods are essential. people have -- they enjoy having their daily or weekly gelato.

i love this street itself. >> we created a move of an area where we will be visiting. we want to make sure that the area has the gelato that you like. what we give back as a shop owner is creating an ambient lifestyle. if you do it in your area and if you like it, then you can do it on the streets you like. >> manufacturing in cities creates this perfect platform for people to earn livelihoods

and for people to create more economic prosperity. i'm kate sosa. i'm cofounder and ceo of sf made. sf made is a public private partnership in the city of san francisco to help manufacturers start, grow, and stay right here in san francisco. sf made really provides wraparound resources for manufacturers that sets us apart from other small business support organizations who provide more generalized support. everything we do has really been developed over time by listening and thinking about what manufacturer needs grow. for example, it would be traditional things like helping them find capital, provide

assistance loans, help to provide small business owners with education. we have had some great experience doing what you might call pop ups or temporary selling events, and maybe the most recent example was one that we did as part of sf made week in partnership with the city seas partnership with small business, creating a 100 company selling day right here at city hall, in partnership with mayor lee and the board of supervisors, and it was just a wonderful opportunity for many of our smaller manufacturers who may be one or two-person shop, and who don't have the wherewithal to have their own dedicated retail store to show their products and it comes back to how do we help companies set more money into arthur businesses and develop more customers and their

relationships, so that they can continue to grow and continue to stay here in san francisco. i'm amy kascel, and i'm the owner of amy kaschel san francisco. we started our line with wedding gowns, and about a year ago, we launched a ready to wear collection. san francisco's a great place to do business in terms of clientele. we have wonderful brides from all walks of life and doing really interesting things: architects, doctors, lawyers, teachers, artists, other like minded entrepreneurs, so really fantastic women to work with. i think it's important for them to know where their clothes are made and how they're made. >> my name is jefferson mccarly, and i'm the general manager of the mission bicycle company. we sell bikes made here for people that ride here.

essentially, we sell city bikes made for riding in urban environments. our core business really is to build bikes specifically for each individual. we care a lot about craftsmanship, we care a lot about quality, we care about good design, and people like that. when people come in, we spend a lot of time going to the design wall, and we can talk about handle bars, we can see the riding position, and we take notes all over the wall. it's a pretty fun shopping experience. paragraph. >> for me as a designer, i love the control. i can see what's going on, talk to my cutter, my pattern maker, looking at the designs. going through the suing room, i'm looking at it, everyone on the team is kind of getting

involved, is this what that drape look? is this what she's expecting, maybe if we've made a customization to a dress, which we can do because we're making everything here locally. over the last few years, we've been more technical. it's a great place to be, but you know, you have to concentrate and focus on where things are going and what the right decisions are as a small business owner. >> sometimes it's appropriate to bring in an expert to offer suggestions and guidance in coaching and counseling, and other times, we just need to talk to each other. we need to talk to other manufacturers that are facing similar problems, other people that are in the trenches, just like us, so that i can share with them a solution that we came up with to manage our inventory, and they can share with me an idea

that they had about how to overcome another problem. >> moving forward, where we see ourselves down the road, maybe five and ten years, is really looking at a business from a little bit more of a ready to wear perspective and making things that are really thoughtful and mindful, mindful of the end user, how they're going to use it, whether it's the end piece or a he hwedding gown, are they going to use it again, and incorporating that into the end collection, and so that's the direction i hear at this point. >> the reason we are so enamored with the work we do is we really do see it as a platform for changing and making the city something that it has always been and making sure that we're sharing the opportunities that we've been

blessed with economically and socially as possible, broadening that january 28, 20,

is now called to order. roll call please. >> thank you. [roll call] thank you. >> all right. thank you. thank you all for being here tonight. section a, general information, there's accessibility information for the public and teleconference information. there's none tonight. we have section b, approval of board minutes. we need a motion and a second. >> so moved >> second. >> any corrections? okay. seeing none, roll call. >> the board meeting minutes of