historic preservation remote hearing for wednesday, september 16, 2020. i would like to enter the following into the record. the mayor declared a state of emergency related to covid-19. further more, the mayor and governor issued emergency -- [inaudible] -- to boards and commissions making it possible to hear commission hearings remotely. on may 29, the mayor's office authorized all commissions to reconvene remotely. this will be our 7th hearing.

we request your patience in advance to enable public participation, sfgovtv is broadcasting and streaming this live and we'll receive public comment for each item on the agenda. sfgovtv is displaying the call-in number on the bottom of the screen. and comments are opportunities to speak during public comment are available by phone by calling 1-415-655-0001, and entering access code, 146 179 5679. when you are connected and would like to submit public comment for an agenda item, press star and then 3 to be added to the queue. each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes. when you have 30 seconds remaining, you'll hear a chime. when the allotted time is reached, i will announce time is

up. best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and mute your television or computer. i'd like to take roll. >> president hyland: here. >> vice president matsuda: here. >> commissioner black: here. >> commissioner foley: here. >> jonas: commissioner johns? >> commissioner pearlman: here. >> commissioner so: here. >> jonas: thank you, commissioners. first on the agenda is general public comment. at this time members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the is reached in the meeting. we should open this up for

public comment. each member has three minutes. members of the public, this is your opportunity to press star and 3 to be entered in the queue. commissioners, i have no members of the public raising their hand requesting to speak. so we can then move on to department matters. item 1, director's announcements. welcome, director hillis. >> good afternoon. good afternoon, commissioners. a couple of items. one, i think after your last meeting, you heard that jeff johnson is not -- and liz has stepped in as -- [inaudible] director for planning. we're undergoing a search to fill that position permanently. so in the interim, [inaudible] contacts, elizabeth and mark will be the present contact. i will also, if you need me at any time, please reach out and

i'll try to --. i also would like to let you know that the department was approved. i think it's got some final approvals, or the mayor has -- [inaudible] it was about for the city-wide survey program. -- [inaudible] to what we proposed in the budget reductions. so there is funding in the budget to carry us a significant way. the city-wide survey, we'll come and report on that to you. so that is my report. other items as well, but thank you and good seeing you. >> jonas: sorry, commissioners, i'm just trying to help out commissioner johns in the background to enter the hearing. thank you, director hillis.

item 2, review of past events and planning commission, staff report and announcements. i don't believe there are any announcements other than what director hillis provided. we can move on to item 3, president's report and announcements. >> president hyland: no report or announcements. >> item 4, consideration of the adoption draft minutes for the august 19 and september 2, 2020 hearings. commissioners, we should open this up for public comment. members of the public, if you wish to address the minutes, please press star and 3. i see no hands requesting to speak. commissioners, the matter is now before you. >> president hyland: okay. any comments on either of these two, or a motion for approval. >> motion to approve. >> second. >> jonas: thank you, commissioners, on that motion

then to adopt the minutes for august 19 and september 2. >> commissioner black: yes. >> commissioner foley: yes. >> commissioner johns: yes. >> commissioner so: yes. >> vice president matsuda: yes. >> president hyland: yes. >> jonas: so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously, 7-0. i will remind commissioners and staff who have entered at panelists, the web x microphones are extremely sensitive, so remember to mute when not speaking. it would be very helpful on the

feedback. that places us on item 5, commission comments and questions. >> president hyland: i don't see any. anyone have comments or questions? okay. >> jonas: we can move on to consideration of items proposed for continuance. item 6, 20189197coa vallejo street. [please stand by] [please stand by]

. . . . placing us under the regular calendar for items a-e for case numbers 2020-7531, 7532, and

following. for properties at 915 howard street, 1315 and 989 market street. and these are legacy business registry applications. is staff prepared to make their presentation? kate? >> yes. >> clerk: okay. you are not the presenter. >> i believe we have a new staff person who i believe is going to be introduced. >> who is making that introduction? >> thank you, jonas. sorry about that. so we have a new staff person with the planning department and i would like to introduce him to

the commission. he is a san francisco native. he's got a bachelor's of science degree in landscape architecture. he came to planning and came to the department in may of this year as an assistant planner in the southeast quadrant and is one of several staff working on legacy business combinations. please welcome al. >> good afternoon, commissioners. katie willburn of planning staff. we have five legacy business applications today that i will quickly introduce. the first two applications will be done by al and directly after i will present on the remaining three. go ahead. >> hello, commissioners. the first legacy business -- [breaking audio] >> clerk: i am going to interrupt you because it seems

as though you are having connectivity issues. if you stop your video, sometimes the audio will come through better. if you kill the video feed, then the audio will come through at least. >> okay. would you like me to restart? >> clerk: yes, please. >> the first legacy business application we have is ambience, a 37-year-old family owned boutique that sells specially cure rated women's bothing and accessories to the san francisco community and visitors. ambience selectively chooses pieces they feel the community would enjoy at the four locations in the city. they have also help and supported multiple community events and fundraiseers. the owners of ambience has

dedicated sales towards community events and including forest fires, school fundraisers, and larger efforts such as black girls code. that supports a resolution recommending ambience to the legacy business registry. the next legacy business is farley's a31-year-old family business that sells coffee and tea paraphernalia in san francisco. farley's is open daily to their customers 364 days a year. farley's has played a crucial role in the neighborhood as a central gathering spot for the community. farley's has helped host neighborhood decision making events and also host many community groups such as planning meetings for the

neighborhood, clubs, and art classes and stand-up specials, live music and poetry and poetry performances. that supports our resolution recommending farley's to the legacy business registry. thank you. >> thank you. the third ap ligation is glbt a 35-year-old nonprofit dedicated to collecting, preserving and sharing the history of san francisco's queer community. it has come to be internationally recognized as an irreplaceable asset. they have two locations, one on market street for the publicly accessible archive and program, and another within the castro cultur cultural district with a museum space. the society ensures that the unique experiences and contributions of the lgbtqi community are remembered and honored and spreads awareness and respect for this community

and the cultures they create. staff supports this application and recommends a resolution to add the lgbt historical society to the legacy business registry. the next legacy business application is for the san bruno supermarket, a 31-year-old family-owned grocery store that offers inclusive products that reflect the vibrant community. the market offered produce, meats and seafoods that can't be found at other grocery. the items are primarily chinese, filipino and vietnamese in origin. the owner is committed to safeguarding the business's use, signage, and interior features. staff supports a resolution recommending the san bruno supermarket to the legacy business registry. the last application is for val de cole wine and spirits that

was advertised as far back as 1939. val de cole is known for the personalized experience, friendly and welcoming environment and the inclusive offering at all price points. it may primarily be for wine and spirits but the soul of the business is the community it has helped foster and maintain for 80 years. they are in the cole valley historic district and staff has discussed adding additional features to be safeguarded with the applicant. collectively, we recommend the following be preserved. the business's name, signage, friendly environment, and products offered at all price points. the department supports a resolution recommending val de cole to the legacy business registry. this concludes staff presentations and we will be available for any questions. thank you. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. we should open this up to public comment. members of the public, this is your community to press star and

3 to be into theed into and to speak to any of the legacy business applications. i will take the first caller, and you have three minutes. >> caller: hello, commissioners. i am chris hillard -- i apologize i am getting some feedback here. sorry about that. commissioner, again, thank you for allowing me to speak. i am chris hillard, and my wife and i are the co-owners of farley's, the coffee house on petrero hill. we have been there for 31 years now. and my father started farley's originally when he broke his french press and could not find a replacement part and found petrero hill could be the ideal

location and we really became to embrace our motto which became community in the cup when the earthquake happened in 1989 and a lot of power around water in the city was out, except on petrero hill, and no one was going to work, so the neighborhood really came together and came to farley's and we became a community gathering space. that is really how community in a cup, our motto, began, and what we embrace today and we certainly hope to be approved for a legacy business to carry that on. as we all know, community is needed right now more than ever. i want to thank you for your consideration and thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you.

[no audio. >> sir, we lost your audio. >> caller: i am pleased to serve for the lgbt and a resident of san francisco since 1981. i regard my role as a solemn duty and the a formidable

collection perhaps anywhere in the world and is sacred keeper of some of the greatry threshshies and stories. i am proud to build on the work of the founders. recently we helped found a cultural district and the cultural heritage festival which was sent and grown since the early days in northern california and the diversity and expanded the program to include a wide array of exhibitions and work in historical preservation to house the archives and new home that will be the first full-scale museum of lgbt in the united states, but for now we

and many other organizations face daunting odds and we plan to reopen on a restricted basis with the mission of collecting and preserves during our history. we are grateful to the commissioners for their support for this nomination and hope the city strengthens the support for the legacy program to preserve the cultural heritage of san francisco. thank you very much. >> go ahead, caller. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. my name is john muskat, property enowner of san bruno supermarket at 2480 san bruno avenue. a little background here, the

family property in 1940 started a grocery store with several remodelling and it has service the neighborhood over 80 years and has been a part of the muskat family the entire time. the lee family has leased the property and is operating the market now for 20 years. we have recently re-negotiated a new lease for 20 more years through the year 2040. this will mean the location will be open as a grocery store for total of 100 years in the

district. we are proud to have the ling family operation the grocery store in our building and having this added as a legacy business that will only strengthen this commitment and to add historic value to san francisco legacy businesses for many years to come. we appreciate your consideration and look forward to receiving a favorable outcome. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. i will remind member of the public that this is your opportunity to submit testimony on any of the legacy business registry applications by pressing star 3.

seeing no requests to speak, commissioner, the mater is now before you. i apologize, commissioners. we have one more request to speak and will take that caller now. >> hello, thank you, commissioners, for taking my call. i would like to thank the historic preservation commission and city of conversation to consider ambience to be acknowledged as a legacy business. and with the historic neighborhood and iconic black and white awnings and gift boxes familiar to many in the city. our stores are in vintage buildings and with the

remarkable exterior and had an artist create a huge mural. we are well known and well aboved by many in san francisco. and ambience has received many requests to restore the different city, different state and even a different country. they make contributions to the different ways. for the past 24 years, we have had an ongoing relationship with schools and any school that asks us receives a donation and supported fashion shows and fundraising shopping parties in the stores.

we organized a drive with the custom collections and with the different trade yards and merchants association and we love the city of san francisco where we live and work. very honored to be considered for this status. ebl that our happy presence truly adds to the san francisco experience. at the peak we employed 98 staff and provided health and dental for our employees. thank you for your consideration. that is it. clerk lr thank you. members of the public, this is your community to press star. i see no additional requests to

speak so the mater is now before you. >> commissioner, would anyone like to speak? >> commissioner pearlman? >> i believe you are muted. >> we can hear you now. >> okay. and for some reason it's having a problem. i want to congratulate all the businesses. i have spent many an hour at farley's and two of the businesses are 80 year old and

cruising to another 20 for 100 years old and the gentleman who spoke about the lgbt and the comment about the sacred duty to doing this work could sum up everybody's responsibilities and feelings about their own businesses as they present to us, and i heartily endorse all of these. i will certainly vote to approve them. >> clerk: i apologize to interrupt. we have a late request for public comment and should take that caller. >> go ahead, caller. is the member of the public

prepared to submit your testimony? you should mute the television or computer. there is a delayed broadcast. >> hello? >> a yes, i run val de cole. >> can you hear me? >> yes, we can hear you, sir. >> should i speak about the store or what should i say? >> this is your opportunity to address any of the legacy business applications. ed you have less than two minutes. >> val de cole is one of the oldest wine store liquor stores in san francisco and i believe it started in the 30s and there

was an older couple who always kept their newspapers and everybody loves our store and is always coming back. one year the american express called us a second store for repeat customers in the country with the same people and the same customers. i started in 1977 and worked for a previous owner whose name was jacob and we learned all about

wine and beer. the place is always respectful and we open holidays and we never close. i think it's a good addition to the community and in a different neighborhood. so there they really like us. this is there for many, many years. >> you have 30 second, sir. >> that is why i am requesting for the legacy for the store to stay the way it is because it is very that is very classic.

thank you. >> a commissioners, the mater is now before you. >> remind the commissioners to mute the mics when you are not speaking. next commissioner please. >> commissioner: i want to congratulate all the legacy business applicants for this round. all of you spoke with great passion. i am so happy and proud to be added to the list. and i want to call out the comment by the san bruno store

and with no communication and no real understanding with the landlord about how important the small business is and thank you for understanding the small business that is in your property and very happy that you understand and realize how important it is to keep small businesses alive in the city. awe same thing as was already mentioned. i want to overall congratulate everybody and also welcome our new staff coming in. to do the application for us.

i have a few to talk about and first the san bruno supermarket. i love that store and is always an anchor and to hop in and hop out with the ethnic food and is also a much needed grocery store with the minority and asian and other culture. i really applaud the landlord to work so flexible and embrace to continue with the always changing district. congratulations. i fully support the application. farley's is my coffee shop. i really appreciate what farley's and ambience where i

shop, too. i am proud to be able to sustain your business and have that legacy for the generation. and the society is amazing and i hope you work with the neighborhood and their business to preserve and thank you for your application and your time today. i appreciate your stories and my pleasure to hear them again.

>> absolutely. go ahead. i just wanted to congratulate and one of the comments i want to add is the legacy businesses donate so many dollars and goods and services to the schools and charities to do that so generously. congratulations, all of you. >> i always was not on the list of commissioners -- >> commissioner johns, please go ahead. >> u a commissioner black and i

share another thing in common, but after the wonderful and quite accurate comments that the commissioners have made, really the only thing left is to move that all these applications be approved and sent forward. >> second that motion. >> very good, commissioners. there is a motion that is seconded to adopt approval for all the legacy and commissioner black? commissioner foeley? [roll call]

so moved. commissioner, that motions passes unanimously 7-0 and concludes our hearing today. i will remind commissioners that we have an officers meeting that we can join separately. great. thank you, all. all right. we are adjourned. stay well, everyone. >> thank you.

>> supervisor fewer: the meeting come to order. this is the september 23, 2020 rescheduled budget finance and committee meeting. i am sandra lee fewer, chair of the budget and finance committee. i'm joined by supervisors walton and mandelman. i'd like to thank sfgovtv for broadcasting. madame clerk, any announcements? >> yes, due to the health emergency and to protect members of, in the meeting remotely. this is taken pursuant to the

local state and federal orders, declarations and directives. committee members who attend the meeting through video conference and participate to the meeting as if they're physically present. public comment will be available on each item. both channel 26, sfgovtv are streaming the numbers across the screen. public comment is available by calling 1-415-655-0001. again, 1-415-655-0001. meeting i.d., 146 136 7075. again, 146 136 7075. then press pound twice. you'll hear the meeting discussion, but you'll be muted and in listening mode only. when the item of interest comes up, dial star 3 to be added to the speaker line. best practices are to call from

a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and turn down your television or radio. you can make public comment in either of the following ways, conservative to myself or the budget and finance clerk. if you submit it via e-mail, it will be forwarded it supervisors. thank you, madame chair. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. can you please call item number 1? >> yes, item number 1, retroactive approve the first amendment to the contract between the city and the county by and through the human services agency and allied university security for an amount not to seed $17.2 million to commence on july 15, 20 and

to revise the term end date from 60 calendar days after expiration of the local emergency as declared by the mayor for an amended agreement term of april 1, 2020 through december 31, 2020. members who wish to provide public comment should call 1-415-655-0001, meeting i.d., 146 136 7075. then press pound twice. if you have not already done so, please dial star 3 to line up to speak. please wait until the system says you've been unmuted and you can begin your comments. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. we continued this item from last week, pending more demographic information about who are actually providing the security services. and so today we have with us again elizabeth and thank you for joining us, from the human

service agency. did we have a b.l.a. report last week? i'm sorry, you're on mute. >> yes, sorry madame chair yes, they provided a report. supervisor walton, i think this is an item you requested for the department to come back with demographic information. would you like to ask our speakers today about that information? >> supervisor walton: correct. thank you so much, chair fewer. just my first question, did you prepare to report on the questions we had. maybe they have something they want to share with us. >> supervisor fewer: sure. >> well, we prepared the memo which has all the demographic information, so we're here to answer any questions about that. >> supervisor walton: why don't

you just -- >> supervisor fewer: yes, is there a power point? supervisor walton, would you like them to put the demographic information up on the screen? >> supervisor walton: they don't necessarily have to put it on the screen, but i would love to hear the numbers for the record so folks know where we stand. >> enid, can you present that information? >> you're on mute. >> thank you. yes, let me bring that up right now. in regards to the demographic information, the contract with allied universal security services out of 200 security guards employed through the contract, a total of 53 guards

are residents of san francisco. gender breakdown is 19 male, 34 female and the ethnic break down as part of that service, we're transitioning to other security contracts with four different providers. and with those, we've seen an increase in the amount of san francisco residents. so a total of the transitions, there was about 242 guards. and 104 are san francisco residents. so that would be around 43% as compared to 27%, so by transitioning we're increasing these. >> supervisor fewer: that's good to know. supervisor walton, any comments? >> supervisor walton: it is good to know we're increasing percentages through transitioning. my last question is, in terms of plans for the future contracts or even working with allied security, are we asking them to

provide an update and some kind of plan that they'll put in place to make sure they do everything they can to provide employment to san francisco residents. >> yes, we will make sure we're engaging them with the hiring program which will help them get more san francisco residents as guards. >> supervisor walton: thank you. i appreciate the response. and thank you for getting the demographic data. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. public comment, please. >> yes, madame chair. operations, check to see if there are callers in the queue. please let us know if there are callers ready. if you haven't done so, press star 3 to be added to the queue. those on hold, wait until the system says you've been unmuted. any callers? >> madame chair, there are no callers in the queue.

>> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. public comment is closed. supervisor walton, would you like this make a motion? >> supervisor walton: thank you so much, chair fewer. i would like to move item 1 forward to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. roll call. >> supervisor walton: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor fewer: aye. there are three ayes. >> supervisor fewer: thank you for joining us again. >> thank you very much, supervisors. >> supervisor walton: thank you. >> supervisor fewer: can you call item number 2. >> ordinance waiving for a two year period permit and renewal fees in the public works code for cafe tables and chairs in public sidewalks and roadway areas and waiving fees for use of parklets. members who wish to provide public comment on this item should call 1-415-655-0001, 146 136 7075.

then press pound twice. if you have not done so, dial star 3 to line up to speak. wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. today, we have, of course, a sponsor and speaker today, supervisor mandelman. we have the lovely lee hepner from supervisor peskin's office and public works. i think that mr. hepner, supervisor mandelman, do you have opening comments? i think mr. hepner has amendments also, is that correct? >> he does. i will just briefly say -- express my thanks to the lovely lee hefner for all of his work and his office work on this item. prior to the pandemic,

supervisor peskin had been leading the conversation around relief that could be provided around various fees paid by small businesses. in particular, his office and i and my office have been interested in the fees that are paid for use of sidewalk for things like table and chairs. and since the pandemic began, and since we have been for allowing our small businesses to move out into the right-of-way, as a lifeline to help them survive this unprecedented challenging time, provide relief all the more important. i believe that supervisor peskin also wanted to start a conversation about a thing we must do is thinking about how to extend this beyond the end of the year. because right now the only certainty the small businesses have are they're going 0 tb able -- going to be able to use the shared spaces program through december and there is a

general intention that get extended. so supervisor peskin and the lovely mr. hepner wanted to start that conversation and have and it sounds like that conversation is a little more time. but i'm grateful to them for getting it going. with that, i turn it over to mr. hepner to talk about the legislation. >> supervisor fewer: yes, the floor is yours. >> thank you so much, chair fewer and committee members on this wednesday morning for hearing this legislation. supervisor mandelman really said all of it and i want to thank him and his staff, my colleague, jacob, for working with me on this legislation. i do have amendments to move this morning. before i do that, i wanted to add we started this fee relief project in august of last year when we sent a letter of inquiry to every city department asking them for fees assessed against

small businesses throughout the city and through that process, we were trying to identify fees that are -- that provide relatively low revenue to the city, but great value to the small businesses who can avail themselves of these permits. tables, chair, display merchandise, parklets were right up there as one of the benefits that small businesses can enjoy, but for which the barrier to entry is thousands of dollars and arduous process. shared spaces has demonstrated how we can do this a different way and how we can reallocate the time, going out and doing inspections. we can transfer that time to the back end to make sure that people are complying with their permit conditions. and enforcing those permit conditions. so that process is ongoing.

i want to thank the doesn't of public works for working with us. we will continue to work with them to make sure they can make the appropriate changes to their application process to accommodate the fees that are being waived and hopefully, again, working with the lessons learned from the shared spaces program to make sure that the reliability and the permanent nancy of some of these changes is there for the businesses benefitting from them. i have amendments i circulated to the committee members. they are very minor. on page 1, removing the period and more substantively on page 2, we're back dating the waiver -- or rather this is the expiration of the fee waiver is april 15, 2022 and it's now back dated to april 15, which is requested on page 3 of the legislation to give a full

two-year fee waiver here. we'll see where we're at in the expiration of those two years. if we want to extend it further, we can. i would request that the committee make those amendments this morning and forward it to the full board with recommendations. >> supervisor fewer: could we hear from the b.l.a.? >> good morning, chair fewer, members of the committee. yes, as mr. hepner stated, the proposed resolution waived fees for sidewalk cafes, tables and parklets. these are renewal fees specifically. retroactive to april of this year, extended through april of 2022. we actually wrote a report based on the legislature, or the amendments that were discussed in this meeting. on page 11 of the report, we summarized the fees waived and on page 12, we look at the estimated reduction. fiscal year 18-19, the initial permit and renewal fees, the

income was approximately $665,000. our estimated in the revenue reductions from the fee waiver would be quite a bit less than that because it would just cover renewal fees, but we don't have a specific estimate. and we consider approval because it's waiving provisions that is a policy matter for the board. >> supervisor fewer: any questions or comments? could i ask mr. spitz a question, please? mr. spitz, are you there? hi. >> hi, good morning. >> supervisor fewer: good morning. i just wanted to know, is your permitting, i was under the impression that your permit department is actually cost-neutral. is that correct or am i wrong in assuming that? >> so, we're actually doing a study on that right now. our fees are meant to be cost recovery fees, but i think that

we are operating at a subsidy right now. i don't think they're fully cost recovery based on the preliminary results of the work we're looking at. so i think we are -- with the current fees, we're currently spending more in staff time than receiving in fees, so this would just be more funding from the general fund that we would need to supplement our work to review the permits. >> supervisor fewer: got it. mr. hepner, did you want -- i see your hand up. >> yeah, i was going to say -- and at risk of arguing against myself or this legislation, just for the sake of transparency, i think what the budget and legislative analyst presented was based on revisions that we're not making this morning. we're passing the legislation more or less as they introduce with the provided dates, so there were other numbers in the report that was before the committee last wednesday that i think are more pertain to this,

including the waiver for the application fees. >> supervisor fewer: okay. so from the b.l.a., could you give us the number from last week, please? >> yes, i apologize. we were working off a version we were provided at the time we submitted our report, but the amount we said last week was fiscal year 18-19, the initial permit and renewal fee of $665,000 per year. so the assumption would be that if these fees were waived, it would be approximately that amount in each year of the ordinance. >> supervisor fewer: okay. great. so, mr. spitz, what you're saying to me, you, right now, it is not cost neutral, the money that you get from your -- you're actually subsidizing some of that for your department, it's costing more for your department. and this would be added onto the cost because you've been minusing the $665,000 a year annual fee that actually goes

toward the expenses of permitting, is that correct? >> that is correct. yes. and i would also -- yeah, we -- we are discussing with supervisor peskin's office and mandelman's office ways to reduce the staff time required to review the permits. our hope was that the fee waiver would be in conjunction with those changes to the code that would allow us to spend less time reviewing the permit. and there is public comment and appeal process that is involved in these permits. so it can be pretty staff-intensive. they've committed to working with us to make those changes to the code to spend less time on them, so we hope that work gets done as soon as possible. >> supervisor fewer: good to hear they're committed to working with you. >> supervisor mandelman: i'm happy to recommit here in

public, in front of everyone, to working with public works and supervisor peskin on this and to find ways to make the processing of these applications less time intensive. i do think, you know, this is one case where it may be worthy thinking about the revenue generated. yes, this is going to be a drain in terms of a -- modest drain, several hundreds of thousands of dollars, on the other hand, small businesses, if they're able to survive and thrive, which is very much of a question mark right now, do generate money for our general fund as well in other ways. there is money that may be coming into our general fund for our having allowed some of these businesses to survive. >> supervisor fewer: it's not your commitment i was concerned about. just kidding. lovely lee hepner.

so any other comment or questions from my colleagues? seeing none, let's open up for public comment. >> yes, madame chair. operation is checking to see if there are callers in the queue. operations, please let us know if there are callers. if you have not done so, please press star 3 to be added to the queue. for those on hold, wait until the system indicates you've been unmuted. are there any callers who wish to comment on item number 2? >> there are no callers in the queue. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. public comment on item 2 is closed. supervisor mandelman, would you like to make the motion to accept the amendments and make a motion about sending this to the board? >> supervisor mandelman: i'm happy to make those motions. first, i will move that we accept the amendments. >> on the motion supervisor walton? >> supervisor walton: aye.

>> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor fewer: aye. your ayes are three ayes. >> supervisor mandelman: and then i'll move that we forward this item to the full board with positive recommendations. as amended. >> on the motion, supervisor walton? >> supervisor walton: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor fewer: aye. >> there are three ayes. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. thank you for joining us, mr. spitz and mr. hepner. approximate call item number 3. >> item number 3, resolution approving terminal 2 bookstore lease number 20-0049 between books inc. and the city for the term of ten years and minimum annual guarantee of 220,000 fords the first year of the lease. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call 1-415-655-0001. meeting i.d., 146 136 7075. then press pound twice.

if you have not already done so, dial star 3 to line up to speak. the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. you may begin your comments. >> supervisor fewer: we have the san francisco international airport. >> good morning, thank you for having me. the airport is seeking your approval for a bookstore lease in terminal 2 with locally owned books inc. for a lease term of 10 years. percentage structure or minimum annual guarantee of $22,000 -- $220,000. if that occurs, books inc. would pay percentage rent which may be lower than the mag. the budget analyst has reviewed this bookstore lease and recommends approval, but i'm

happy to answer any questions you may have. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. can we hear from the b.l.a., please? >> yes, chair, members of the committee, repetition of what was just presented. board is asked to approve a 10-year lease with a minimum annual guarantee of $220,000 a year, or $2.2 million over the 10 years of the lease, however, as also consistent with the airport policy, because of the reduction in deployment, it would be suspended in the beginning of the lease, receiving a rent that is lower than the mag. this has been previously approved by the board, so we recommend approval. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. any questions from colleagues? let's open up for public comment. >> operations, please let us know if there are calls ready. if you have not done so, please

press star 3 to be added to the queue. if you're on hold, wait until the system indicates you're unmuted. operator, please let us know if there are any callers. >> madame chair, there are no callers in the queue. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. public comment is closed on item number 3. i just want to say i'm happy it is an independent bookstore and a san francisco bookstore. i think we all know books inc. they've had a long and good reputation here in san francisco, so pleased we have a san francisco based company taking over this spot in the terminal. with that, i'd like to make a motion to move this to the board with the positive recommendation, could i please have a roll call vote. >> on the motion, supervisor walton? >> supervisor walton: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor fewer: aye.

>> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. thanks for joining us today. could you please call item number 4. >> item 4, hearing to consider the release of reserved funds to the san francisco public utilities commission in the amount of $9.5 billion placeded on budget and finance committee reserve to cover planning, design and environmental review for the transmission lines upgrades project. members of the public who wish to comment call 1-415-655-0001, meeti meeting i.d., 146 136 7075. please wait until the system indicates you've been unmuted and you can begin your comments. >> supervisor fewer: today we have with us margaret hanford and meagan. is that you? >> yes, it is. >> supervisor fewer: the floor is yours. >> thank you so much, good

morning. i am margaret hanford and i am the division manager of hetch hetchy water. first i'd like to thank you, chair fewer, for scheduling this hearing on the release of $9.5 million for the transmission lines upgrade project for lines 7 and 8. in january, 2013, the board of supervisors approved ordinance 4-13 that approved the public utilities commission to enter into mitigation agreements for projects that impact the public utilities commission power access. requiring that any future funds in excess of $100,000 for a given mitigation agreement, be placed on budget and finance committee reserve. separate from the general fund. the public utilities commission has identified three project clusters totalling 24 active generation projects that would

affect the public utilities commission transmission lines 7 and 8. lines 7 and 8 extend from oakdale, to the city of modesto. the total estimated cost of the transmission line 7 and 8 upgrade project is approximately $37,970,000. the public utilities commission anticipates receiving a total of approximately $33,328,000 in mitigation payments for the project, including $9 million in payments already received and the balance in future payments. the remainder of the project budget, approximately $4 million, will be funded by the hetch hetchy water and power

capital program. the proposed release of reserves would fund the bulk of the project's planning, design and environmental review which is estimated to cost approximately $10.1 million. in the future, additional mitigation agreements are completed and payments received and prior to beginning construction, the puc will return to the budget and finance committee to request additional funding released. hetch hetchy water and power respectfully request the release of $9,465,559 in reserve fort transmission line 7-8 upgrade project. thank you. i'm happy to answer your questions at this time. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. any comments or questions from my colleagues? seeing none, could i have a b.l.a. report. >> yes, chair fewer, members of the committee, the proposed hearing would release $9.5

million in mitigation agreement payments for transmission line projects. we show on page 19 of our report, the total cost of $38 million which includes current and future expected mitigation payments and capital program funding. noted in the report, the 9. -- approximately $9.5 million is currently available. the hetch hetchy would use capital program funds to fully fund the project in the anticipation of receiving additional mitigation payments from future mitigation agreement. the actual value of the funds is $9.6 million, rather than $9.5 million, therefore, we're recommending the release of the 9,465, $559 currently on reserve for this project. i'm available for questions.

>> supervisor fewer: thank you. any comments or questions from my colleagues? seeing none, could we open up for public comment. >> yes, madame chair, operation is checking to see if there are callers in the queue. operation, please let us know if there are callers ready. if you have not done so, please press star 3 to be added to the queue. for those on hold, wait until the system indicates you've been unmuted. please indicate if there are callers to wish to comment on item number 4. >> madame chair there are no callers in the queue. >> supervisor fewer: public comment on item 4 is closed. i'd like to make a motion to move this item to the board with recommendation, could we have a roll call. >> excuse me, this is a hearing item. can we have a motion to approve the release of the reserve fund? >> supervisor fewer: oh, i'd like to make a motion to approve the release of the reserve fund. thank you. >> one more clarification.

would you like to release the $9.4 million that the b.l.a. recommended or $9.5 million. >> i think the 9.4 that the b.l.a. recommended. on the motion, supervisor walton? >> supervisor walton: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor fewer: aye. three ayes. madame chair, can we file this hearing. >> supervisor fewer: yes, thank you very much. >> on the motion by supervisor fewer, supervisor walton? >> supervisor walton: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor fewer: aye. >> your ayes are three ayes. >> supervisor fewer: thank you, madame clerk for your assistance. can you call item number 5, >> resolution retroactively authorizing the office of the district attorney to renew the agreement with the california victim consayings board in the amount of $75,000 to establish a process to pay expenses on an

emergency basis when the claimant would suffer the substantial hardship with the payment was not made and when the payment would help the claimant with an immediate need for the period of july 1, 2020 through june 30, 2023. members of the public who wish to provide public comment, call 1-415-655-0001, meeting i.d., 146 136 7075. then press pound twice. if you have not done so, press star 3 to line up to speak. please wait until the system indicates you've been unmuted. >> supervisor fewer: supervisor walton, you're sponsor of this particular item. any words you'd like to say in the beginning? >> supervisor walton: no. i'll wait until after. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. now we have the district attorney's office. >> good morning, supervisors. i'm the chief the conservatives

for the district attorney office. i'm here today to get approval for the retroactive fund that we use to pay compensation to victims of crime. we have a contract with the california victims crime compensation board to review, certify, approve and pay victims crime compensation to victims of violent crime. we process claims and pay out compensation to victims in san francisco. in 2019, we paid out $1.3 million to san francisco residents. the grant that we are asking for approval is called the revolving fund, it's a small $75,000 grant. it helps us expedite payment of the claims to victims. typical processing in sacramento takes between 30-60 days. often victims can't wait 30-60 days to receive compensation. this allows us to use the fund to pay them immediately and then be reimbursed when their claim is processed and paid.

the money goes back into the fund to allow us to assist other victims of crimes. it pays for medical bills, funeral, burial, relocation and other expenses. the dollars are paid out to the victim. that keeps revolving so we have the money available for emergencies. thank you. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. any comments or questions from my colleagues? seeing none, there is no b.l.a. report on this. let's open up for public comment, please. >> operation is checking to see if there are callers in the queue. operations, please let us know if there are callers ready. if you have not already done so, press star 3 to be added to the queue. for those on hold, wait until the system indicates you've been unmuted. are there any callers? >> there are no callers in the queue. >> supervisor fewer: public

comment for item 5 is closed. supervisor walton, a motion? >> supervisor walton: thank you. i just do want to make a brief statement and say, one, i was actually happy to sponsor this with the district attorney's office and we've also applied for more resources to make sure we can do everything we can to provide compensation for victims of crimes and to give them the resources they need when it comes to relocation or any support for victims of crimes. so we're going to continue to work to do everything we can to support victims of crime. and just wanted to say this was something we were proud to do together with the district attorney's office. with that, i would like to move this item forward with a positive recommendation. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. roll call vote, please. >> on the motion, supervisor walton? >> supervisor walton: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor fewer: aye. >> three ayes. >> supervisor fewer: can you please call item 6 through 9

together? >> yes, item number 6, resolution authorizing the office of contract administration to enter into a second amendment for technology marketplace purchases between the city and cct technologies inc., computerland of silicon valley, to increase the contract amount of $21.5 million, not to exceed $44.5 million with no change to the three-year term to expire on december 31, 2021 with two-one year options to extend. item 7, for a total contract amount of $33.5 million with no change to the three-year term to expire on december 31, 2021 with two one-year options to extend. item 8, resolution authorizing the office of contract administration to enter into a

first amendment for the technology marketplace purchases between the city and intervision systems to increase the contract am of $15 million for the total amount not to exceed $35 million with no change to the three-year term to expire on december 31, 201. item 9, resolution authorizing the office of contract administration to enter into a second amendment for technology market place between the city and x-tech jv, for a total contract amount not to exceed $82 million with no change to the three-year term to expire on december 31, 2021. with two one-year options to extend. members of the public who wish to provide public comment, call 1-415-655-0001, meeting i.d., 146 136 7075. then press pound twice.

>> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. joining us today from the city administrator office is -- is that how i pronounce your name? >> i'm the acting director of the office of contract administration under the city administrator's office. >> supervisor fewer: you have the floor. >> thank you. i'm pleased to be here today to present on the technology marketplace. i am here with my colleague, and she is the assistant director of the office of contract administration. thank you. so, i'll be providing background information on the technology marketplace, followed by a summary of our four proposed contract amendments. what we call today, the technology marketplace, started

in the 1990s as the computer store. it's a pool of as needed contracts awarded and it's intended to streamline procurement of technology services. they work to implement process improvements to improve technology procurements and keep changes with paces in the industry. through continuous process improvements, the market place now consists over 50 suppliers, competing against each other for each transaction above the threshold value. 29 of these suppliers are local business enterprises or lbe. the marketplace model serves to

create a partnership between the city and the technology providers, increased levels of service and expertise provided to the city. generate the best value in the investments in technology and increase diversity and participation in the contracts. the market place consists of a pre-qualified pool of suppliers. conducted by oca. each supplier that meets the requirement is then awarded as-needed term contract equal in amount to everyone in their respective tier. i'll describe the tiers in a moment. contracts are used by all the city departments to purchase technology goods and services based on each department's needs. all transactions above established thresholds must be competitively bid out to the appropriate group of tech market

place suppliers. i think it's important to note while o.c.a. manages the contracts, the purchases are funded by the department seeking the technology product or service. so funding to pay for goods and services under each contract is subject to board of supervisors' annual appropriation approval in the department's budgets. here, you'll see a breakdown of the technology market place tiers. we have three tiers which range in contract size, technology offerings, transaction limits, and competitive solicitation thresholds. tier 1 consists of 19 suppliers. these are larger more established businesses that are able to provide the widest offerings. the starting contract value is established at $20 million for each contract. tier two are medium sized businesses with less experience than the tier 1 and tier 3 are lbes, smaller less established

businesses. this year there are 14 micro lpe, but this will soon grow to 24 suppliers, following a refresh of this particular pool. so the tier structure alouis businesses to -- allows businesses to compete against companies similar in size and experience levelling the playing field for the smaller vendors. the limits for tier 3 are based on whether it's for commodities or services. the competitive thresholds are currently $25,000 for tiers one and two and 129,000 for tier three. under these threshold values, the departments do not need to conduct further solicitation to select a vendor.

so these thresholds essentially allow flexibility and streamline transactions. the contracts were awarded in january of 2019. they are three-year contracts that will end in december of 2021 if not extended. the total spend on all technology market place contracts is $157 million. the total value of all transactions eligible for lbe subcontracting is $47 million. not all transactions require lbe subcontracting. for example, hardware and software purchases don't require the lbe participation. only contracts and welding

services require lbe subcontracting. you'll see here additional information regarding the total number of transactions to date and the average transaction value. i mentioned competitive solicitation thresholds previously. it's important to note that the majority of transactions are awarded via competitive solicitations. in tier 1, 88% of the transactions were awarded via a competitive solicitation. next slide. now i'll discuss lbes spend to date. the lbe requiremented is 15% for each eligible transaction, meaning those with a services component. that amounts to $6.5 million that must go to lbe subcontractors. you'll see here to date, $8.4 million has gone to lbe. so 19% of the total, $47 million

that is eligible for lbe subcontracting. and a total of $16.4 million has gone to both lbe subcontractors and the prime contractors that we have in all three tiers. additionally, here you'll see a breakdown of the lbe spend by tier. and next slide, please. now i'll briefly review the total spend to date for each of the four technology marketplace contracts we're requesting amendments. $23 million has been spent on the cce technologies contract, 33% was subject to lbe subcontracting requirements. as i mentioned before, hardware and software transactions are not subject to the lbe requirements, only the services

transaction. so 23% of that $7.5 million has gone to lbe subcontractors under the cct technologies contract. for the x-tech jv, $42 million has been spent to date. 48% was subject to lbe and 3.8 million of that 28 million has gone to lbe subcontractors. on the insight public sector contract, $14.5 million has been spent to date. of that amount, 7% or $1 million was subject to lbe contracting requirements and over 600,000 of that $1 million has gone to lbe subcontractors. next slide, please. finally, $16.1 million spent on the intervision contract.

on this contract, 100% of the spend was on hardware and software, which are not subject to lbe subcontracting. next slide, please. here you'll see the proposed contract amendment not to exceed values recommended by the b.l.a. the proposed value is on the average spend of each contract. we are requesting that the budget and finance committee accept the recommendation to authorize these contract amendments. and further we ask the committee to approve the proposed resolutions as amended. thank you. happy to take any questions. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. can we hear from the b.l.a.? >> yes, items 6 through 9 approved amendments to four existing technology market place contract increasing the not to exceed amounts, but not changing

the term of the contract. you've just received a detailed presentation, so i won't go into too much depth on the contract. page 24 does summarize the expenditure projections on the contracts. all of which are slightly less than the increase in the not to exceed amount. so we have recommended amendments to the contract. we recommended amending to approve not to exceed amount of $44 million rather than $44.5 million. to amend 938 to approve, not to exceed amount of $28 million rather than $33.5 million as stated in the resolution. in 939 to approve not to exceed of $31 million rather than $35 million and then to amend 940 to approve amount not to exceed of

$82 million. >> supervisor fewer: let's open this up for public comment. >> madame chair, operations is checking to see if there callers in the queue. if you have not already done so, press star 3 to be added to the queue. for those on hold, wait until the system indicates you've been unmuted. are there any callers that wish to comment on items 6 through 9. >> there are no callers in the queue. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. public comment is closed. i have one question. i wanted to know, are we soliciting feedback from our clients, our city departments, about the marketplace? >> what feedback in particular? >> supervisor fewer: just about the vendors and the process and the people that are --

purchasing the services from? >> yes, we generally do receive feedback from the departments. if it's okay, i'd like to actually ask my colleague to respond. i have been at the covid command center for several months and she is better positioned to answer these questions as she's been administering these contracts. if she could be added to speak? >> hi, am i -- i just unmuted myself. >> we can hear you. >> hi. thank you. yes. we do definitely both receive solicited feedback and unsoliciteded feedback. we're trying to launch a tech market place 3.0, basically meaning that once the contracts end in december 2021, we're hoping to launch the next iteration of the technology market place rather than extending the existing contracts. in doing that, we're definitely

connecting with both the business community and our city departments because we want to structure it slightly different version of what we have currently today. for various reasons. i don't have to go into here, but in order to do that we need feedback and yes, we're actively seeking that. >> supervisor fewer: great. thank you very much. and thank you for joining us today. i'd like to make motion to accept the amendments on items 6, 7, 8, 9, as outlined by the b.l.a. roll call vote, please. >> supervisor walton: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor fewer: aye. >> your ayes are three ayes. >> supervisor fewer: i'd like to make a motion to move 6, 7, 8, 9 to the board with positive recommendations. >> supervisor walton: chair fewer, my apologieapologies. i just wanted to ask if with the

increase of these contracts, what type of opportunities are provided for san francisco residents in terms of employment and opportunities? because these are large numbers. >> yeah, so each of these contracts are subject to the city's first source hiring program regulations. so there would be some opportunities made available by these vendors. they at least need post any entry level positions publicly and make them available for san francisco residents. i want to see if you have any additional comments on that. >> right, if you look through the slides, you can see that the distribution of spend is -- most of it, 70% of it is for pass-through sale of hardware and software, commodities. 30% is for services,

labor-related transactions. those are subject to lbe. so by being required to use lbes, technically speaking, lbe, local businesses are headquartered in san francisco. they hire local people and that is how the business is flowing to local businesses. in addition, we have as one of the slides showed, we have a significant number of micro lbes. actually we have an lbe in tier one, five in two, and 10 -- 14 growing to 24 in tier three. those are direct spend with those. when they're issued, a p.o. is going directly to them and they're not acting as subcontractors. again, it's not that the work that is done under these contracts is necessarily hiring people, but it's going to be businesses that hire people. and a lot of those businesses

are local. >> thank you so much. i think we should -- you should be having conversations with colleagues across the city departments and letting them know, if we have subcontracts and contractors and folks are going to be getting millions of dollars from our city, that they should be focused on making sure they're employing folks that live in san francisco. so this is something that we'll be continue to come up and something we will continue to focus on. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> supervisor fewer: i do appreciate also the increase in the lbes. i think that is something this board has brought up before about the market place. thank you very much for addressing that. supervisor walton, are we good to continue with the vote? >> supervisor walton: correct. >> i'm sorry, before you proceed, can we also adopt a

motion to clarify the board is approving the contract amendment and not the original contract. there is a technical amendment we need to approve. >> supervisor fewer: absolutely. let's make that motion. >> supervisor walton: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor fewer: aye. >> there are three ayes. >> supervisor fewer: then i would like to send 6, 7, 8, 9 to the board with a positive recommendation as amended. >> on the motion -- >> supervisor walton: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor fewer: aye. >> tli three ayes. can you call item number 10. item 10, resolution authorizing the lease of real property located at 598 portola drive with twin peaks petroleum, 25-year term at base rent of

$200,000 per year to commence upon board approval. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item, should call 1-415-655-0001 and meeting i.d., 146 136 7075. then press pound twice. if you have not done so, dial star 3 to sign up to speak. please wait until the system indicates you've been unmuted and you can begin your comments. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. is jen here from president yee's office? >> yes, i'm here. >> supervisor fewer: hello, jen. i see that you're a speaker and also claudia. i think the owner michael gharib is here also. you have the floor. >> thank you, chair fewer and the members of the committee for hearing this item today. i'm speaking on behalf of supervisor yee, we represent

district 7 in which the twin peaks auto care resides. we are in support of this approval of the lease amendment as we have seen over the years how much of beacon and foundation twin peaks auto care has been for the community. we recognize it is unusual to have public land leased to a use like this, but it is a historic use. we actually register the twin peaks auto care as a legacy business in 2016. michael gharib who is here today is an independent gas station owner and we have very few remaining in the city. while we recognize there might be changes in how we maximize the use of our public lands, whether it's for housing, alternatives to fuel, we were not able to determine that during the time from 2015 until now and so we would recommend continuing the use of this land

to maintain the family-owned local business, twin peaks auto care, and provide that essential service to the neighborhood surrounding it, which crosses over to not only district 7, but 8 as well. so we hope to count on your support. there are technical amendments as well, which i think claudia is prepared to speak about. to clarify in the resolution, this is not necessarily a new lease, but it's an extension of that. so we wanted to make sure that the whereas clauses and the title did reflect that. if it's okay with you, chair fewer, would love if michael gharib could share words as owner of the site. >> supervisor fewer: okay. >> good morning, chair fewer. thank you. supervisors. as stated, this is basically renewal. there was a bit of language confusion i'll say between the city attorney's office and our

office. the tenant did ask to renew under his old lease, the 2015 lease, the option. and during that time period and with supervisor yee's offices help, we renegotiated a lease. that renegotiation kind of requires on amendment to the lease, otherwise we might not even be here. so the new amendment to the existing lease basically takes the entire old lease, updates it with all of the city attorney requirements and the city new requirements and allows instead of for five-year option, gives a 25-year option and one new five-year option. there were several reasons i believe why he requested that. one, just uncertainty of the market and what not at the time we were negotiating. but also because this is a legacy business and because it's been there so long, it gives him

some confidence and some understanding of where he'll be, not just in five years, to do tenants improvements and other things. i don't think anyone knows what is going to happen with the vehicles, automobiles of the future. maybe none of them rely upon gas in five or ten years, so he'd have to change the use of his gas station. come to us and request how that would happen. but the amendment allows him time to save for changes, time to do the changes and make his market -- make his gas station whatever it may need to be in the future. there is also been both between the tenant and the city, you know, what else can we do with this site? certain other departments, the department of environment is interested in putting charging stations there. so all of these issues would take time, would take review. we can't do that in, you know, 6-8 months. so this would allow -- this

lease and the term of it would allow all these things to be taken into consideration and try to work together as partners to move with the technology and whatever happens in the future. we did get an appraisal even though we weren't required to under the code so we could come to a fair market rent. it does substantially increase the rent. i believe it was $9,000 a month, now it will be approximately $16,000 a month. the percentage adjustment per year remains the same, 3%. the tenant pays all of the utilities and all permits and taxes. so there is no real downside in the sense that the tenant actually pays for everything that is going on at the property. it is unique. it's a one-off. we have a couple of those in the city. it was there when the city took it over way back when, back in the 70s.

unless you have any specific questions, i think the b.l.a. report covers everything. i think severin will talk about it and if you have specific questions, i can answer those. >> thank you very much. >> supervisor fewer: supervisor mandelman, would you like to ask a question now or after the b.l.a. report? >> supervisor mandelman: after the b.l.a. report. >> supervisor fewer: can we hear from the b.l.a. >> item number 10, approves the 25-year lease between the city and twin peaks petroleum for a gas station, 598 portola. as stated, this has been existing use of this property. they also approved suspension of the competitive process. the legislation finding the competitive process to be impractical and indemnifies and holds the city harmless for the costs incurred by the lease. we summarized the lease terms on

page 29 of our report. the initial rent, based on third party appraisal is $200,000 per year, $10.3 million over the 25-year term of the lease. we do recommend approval. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you, chair fewer. i will say that i had a little bit of heartburn over 25-year lease for a gas station on public land in this moment in san francisco and the world where we should be getting away from using gasoline. it is my hope and expectation that 25 years from now, this station is not a place where people go to get gasoline for their cars. i am -- first of all, out of

respect for our board president, secondly, this lease does contemplate that this service station may be used for things other than, you know, fossil fuel. so it specifically contemplates the idea of this being an alternative fuel station, continuing to be a service station, car wash, store. there is a lot of uses for this -- if this property is providing the gasoline for automobiles in 25 years, we're in even bigger trouble than we are now. but i understand that this lease does not necessarily say that is what is going to be happening. so with a little bit of heartburn, i'm still -- [inaudible] -- >> supervisor fewer: thank you. i have a question. so this is a piece of property that is adjacent to the parking

lot of -- is that correct? >> it's on a hill, so, yes, but not directly, yes. >> supervisor fewer: has there been any discussion about building housing there, because we don't know what is going to be happening to that building? >> we have not had those discussions. i don't know if others within the city have had those discussions. >> supervisor fewer: ms. lowe, has there been discussion about what is happening, because we're closing juvenile hall and it will make it a very large piece of property that is adjacent to laguna honda, also, that whole area. and i know president yee has thoughts about laguna honda. i'm just wondering, has there been any discussion or conversation about using this land to build housing? or any other public use?

>> yes, that's consideration as claudia may have mentioned as part of the appraisal. that is probably the maximum use for this land. i think for supervisor yee, those constitutions have happen -- discussions have happened, but we would not propose anything. it's probably go to be the next supervisor, because we don't know the full extent of how much land we have. we did try to look at how many units you could fit. it's a little bit of an odd site, but to your point, i think we want to look at the neighborhood comprehensively. and we're undergoing one for laguna honda because we want to build senior housing there. many of the people in the neighborhood have their eye on what is going to happen to the juvenile center and this piece of land. and hopefully that conversation will take place in the next 25 years. >> supervisor fewer: supervisor walton? >> supervisor walton: thank you so much, chair fewer.

i just wanted to express similar concerns that supervisor mandel, but i think he said it best, if we're still in 25 years from now dealing with gas powered cars, we have a bigger issue. this business owner has been in the community for a long time and i don't think will get through the entire duration. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. my concern about it is we're tying up this property and we have the opportunity to build affordable housing there, that i wouldn't want to tie up that and prohibit it from another use there. i think -- so i'm wondering if we have ever discussed a 20-year option with a side option to renew after five years to extend

it, instead of 25-year lease. a 20-year lease with a five-year option to extend. which would give us a little more flexibility if we were to build in 20 years. >> okay. the 25 years was at the request of the tenant and negotiated for a substantial length of time. the director of property did not want to give a long-term lease for all the reasons and more that everyone has been discussing. that's why it was with the idea that, look, you have to change with the times. we have to allow you that opportunity to change with the times. and whatever that may entail, you know, you come to us, we come to you and we attempt to do that. the tanks, the underground tanks have to be changed by 2025. that's the first order of business i believe for the

tenant. then after that, that gives him 20 years to do whatever needs to be done to move along with modern technology. if that means putting in alternative fuel, then that will allow for that. we did not offer specific other years because the director wasn't wanting to enter into any long-term lease, so we had a number, a fair market value number, and had the understanding that there was a partnership going on here for that. so 20 years and 5 years wasn't necessarily on the table. the five-year option was on the table and then what the tenant wanted to negotiate between the supervisor yee's office, the tenant and us, that was -- that was 25 years with the idea that fair market rent would be paid. >> supervisor fewer: okay. you know, i know that gas station well.

i haven't had my car there or anything, but it is sort of an institution around the corner. up on the top of the hill. it stands out. i can see its sign right now actually. and i think that, you know, for those of who are long time san franciscans, it is one of these things that anchor us as an institution. it's like a beacon on the corner. if michael could get on, we'll hear from the owner now. he can give us an overview of his business. >> thanks for having me on. i think jen described us best, but i'll give you a short introduction. you know, we're one of the few remaining independent gas stations, family owned gas stations left in the city of san

francisco. i've been serving this community, my community, for since 1985. i'm kind of dating myself here, too. we do recognize as a legacy san francisco business. we've gotten awards from speaker pelosi, as far mark leno, as well as late mayor lee. i employ about a dozen san francisco residents. and look forward to being here for foreseeable future. one thing that we do have going is, as claudia mentioned, the tanks have to be replaced and that's a significant cost. and that was part of the reason that we needed that many years to recover this investment. and by significant, as upward of

$750,000. so for me, that is major. it's not something that i can recover in five or six years. so, without taking too much of your time, if you have any questions for me, i'll be glad to answer it. >> supervisor fewer: but that place has been a gas station before you purchased it? >> that is -- when i came in, i purchased it in 1985. initially, i was a mobile dealer. and then they sold their interest to british petroleum. so i was a british petroleum dealer for five years and b.c. has the ground lease with the city. i think it was 1994 when british petroleum pulled out of northern california and i was able to buy

their improvements, which it wasn't much at the time. it was just underground storage tanks. and then we made some improvements as you see today with the canopies and so on. and secure the lease from 94, initially it was a 10 or 20-year lease. then in 2015, with claudia's help, we got the five year plus the five. and we're at the end of that five. >> supervisor fewer: was it a gas station before? so it was a gas station starting when, what year? >> i'm guessing the 70s, early 70s i think. >> supervisor fewer: kind of dating myself here. got it. thank you very much. having said that, let's open up for public comment. >> please check to see if there are callers in the queue.

let us know if there are callers ready. if you have not done so, press star 3 to be added to the queue. for those on hold, continue to wait until the system says you've been unmuted. are there any callers who wish to comment on item 10? >> yes, i have one caller in the queue. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is george, i'm the president of the mid town terra terrace. we have the neighborhood adjacent to michael's gas station. first off, we've sent a letter of approval of this project which hopefully is on file.

the citizens in our area, community region, surrounding twin peaks petroleum, it is an institution. it is a beacon on the hill. we identify with it. beyond that, people recognize how important gas prices. twin peaks petroleum has become to the neighborhood. extremely -- extraordinarily good neighbor for 30 years or more. and as was said earlier, he has a legacy business status business. it's operated in the city for 30

years or more and contributed to a community history or cultural quality for legacy status. so, he's been recognized everywhere. the simpsons love his business, but he reaches into the community. what he has done, just last year, he featured a movie for our neighborhood at his own cost for that parents and children could watch an outdoor version of "the jungle book". he didn't have to do that. he did it basically on his own. so -- [inaudible] --

>> supervisor fewer: did we -- you're on mute, madame clerk. do we have any more speakers? >> madame chair, that completes the queue. >> supervisor fewer: public comment is now closed on item 10. i want to say, i'm a little apprehensive about it, because 25 years ties us in, not knowing what we're going to do with juvenile hall and we don't know what we're doing with laguna honda and it seems that all that property is connected to each other. i actually feel much more comfortable with a 20-year lease with the five-year option to renew. but i don't know if you think that is something that is feasible, or do you think that's unreasonable? or do you think that we have time to go back and ask michael if he'd be willing for that option? either a 20-year lease with a

five-year option to renew? and i think i do it for different reasons than what supervisor mandelman and walton said, about our dependence on fossil fuel. the reason i say it, i see this public land as having other uses and i don't want to tie the hands of other supervisors that may come after us to fully develop that property. having said that, my preference would be to continue the item for one week to see whether or not that -- those terms are actually agreeable. i would also, you know, i defer a lot to president yee and his opinion, but it would give us time -- and i apologize, ms. lowe, i didn't have a discussion with president yee before this, but if we could continue this for a week, just to see if the feasibility, if it's possible. i think we all on the board and the full board would probably feel much more comfortable bit,

knowing that we have so few places of public land to actually imagine building affordable housing. what say, committee members? what do you think? and ms. lowe? >> i definitely think we can certainly talk to the tenant. we certainly can do that within a week. we'll probably do it today and see how he feels about that. i think that the director would do whatever the board wishes and that would be fine with him. >> supervisor fewer: okay. how do you think president yee, representing president yee, do you think he is open to this discussion? >> of course. i mean i think we want to make sure people are comfortable, but just for background, i think they've been very responsive and working for several months on this and so has president yee. we've gone back and forth quite a number of times with the variations of the negotiation, but we're happy to continue

because we want to make sure everyone is comfortable with what they're voting on and i'd be happy to have president yee reach out to discuss. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. committee members, what say you about the suggestions i've made? >> supervisor walton: i'm in agreement, chair fewer. >> supervisor fewer: i know this board is your district. >> supervisor mandelman: i'm open to one week continuance. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. i want to say to the small business owner. i want to say thank you for being such a wonderful small business owner. no way do we want to curtail your ability to be profitable there. and the neighbors who received e-mail are quite in love with you. i would like to make a motion to continue the item. another week for discussion. and make a motion to continue it until the next budget and finance committee meeting. can you call the roll?

>> supervisor walton: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor fewer: aye. >> your ayes are three ayes. >> thank you very much. and again, i want to respect the time that you and also ms. gorem have put into the project, so i also will call the president to have a discussion with him, too. but thank you very much. madame clerk, any more business before us today? >> clerk: there is no further business. >> supervisor fewer: we're adjourned. thank you, everyone.

good morning, and welcome to the san francisco county transportation authority for today's meeting, tuesday, september 22, 2020, our clerk is ms. britney milton. could you call the roll. >> supervisor fewer: present. >> supervisor haney: present. >> supervisor mandelman: present. >> supervisor mar: present. >> supervisor peskin: present. >> supervisor preston: present. >> supervisor ronen: present. >> supervisor safai: present.

>> supervisor stefani: present. >> supervisor walton: present. yee absent, we have quorum. i would like to make an announcement about public comment. public comment is available for each item on the agenda, via telephone by calling 1-415-655-0001 and when prompted entering access code, 146 226 7339 # #. once you join, you will be able to listen to the meeting as a participant. to make public comment on the item when the item is called, dial star 3 to be added to the queue to speak. the operator will advise that you will be allowed two minutes to speak. when the two minutes are up, we'll move on to the next caller. calls are taken in the order which they are received. best practices is to speak

slowly, clearly and turn down audio around you. that concludes my announcement. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. could you read the next item. >> item 2, chair's report. this is information item. >> supervisor peskin: i'll be brief. by congratulating our regional transit partners at bart on winning an extraordinary federal grant in the amount of $1.2 billion, that's with a "b", billion dollars for their core capacity program. and this grant is the largest that bart has ever received and will fund the purchase of over 250 additional rail cars, a new communications-based train control system, a new railcar storage yard and enhanced power substations in san francisco as well as the east bay. together, these investments will

grow train frequency and capacity by 50%. improving the service for millions of riders for many decades to come. we've seen firsthand how impactful direct lobbying for critical federal funds is with projects like the central subway and the caltrain electrification. i want to thank two of our bart representatives for going to our nation's capital to advocate for these funds alongside bart staff. and that would be -- i want to appreciate chair simon and my former colleague director duffy and bob powers and his team. and thank you so much to our federal delegation, as well as barbara east from the east bay for their support of this multiyear effort. just yesterday, we saw the next

phase of opening our economy with the resumption of low-risk indoor and outdoor activities. and we hope everyone continues to travel with care and follow public health orders and sfmta protocols to maintain distancing and, of course, wear facial coverings. many are enjoying walking and buying on the slow streets. a final funding approval is on our agenda today and supporting our local small businesses through the city's shared spaces program that was pioneered in north beach and with that, colleagues, i conclude my remarks. are there any public comments on the chair's report? >> clerk: there is no. >> supervisor peskin: seeing none, public comment is closed.

we'll go on to the executive director report. ms. chang? >> good morning. can everyone hear me all right? >> we can hear you. >> thank you, chair, for again congratulating our partners at bart that is a tremendous effort. congratulations again to the whole organization. and also in the federal front, i wanted to update the board that this coming september 30th does mark the expiration of the federal fiscal year and the federal transportation bill known as the fast act which is the multiyear bill we've been working under. and while the house did pass its proposal to renew the act, the senate has not yet responded. so we don't expect that to be taken up until the next congress, but, however, on monday, the house did announcement a continuing resolution that would continue the funding for another year to september 2021 at current funding levels.

this is critical, but by no means is this adequate for many of our transportation systems, including public transportation. we need congress and the administration to work together to continue covid relief for transportation, particularly transit across the country. as well, i wanted to note another piece of good news, turning back to the bart topic, that is a new grant that we received notice that san francisco received for the 5th street improvement project. it's been awarded a $420,000 grant in the first round of the bart program. this is a subprogram of measure r.r. as you'll recall we approved a few years ago. this is bart's bond program and is spend -- intended to fund projects. this would be for the portion

between townsend -- market to townsend and would include vehicle lane reductions, protected bikeways and our prop k and double a funds will continue to leverage the bart grants, transit boarding islands an restriping. sfmta's request for funds will be presented in the october board meeting. that's another piece of great news. thank you to bart for that grant. as i turn over to the regional picture, mtc, wanted to mention that tomorrow the commission will be acting on the final blueprint, which is the federal-regional strategy, investments and policies designed to help our region achieve our equity, housing and climate goals. and we want to thank our mtc and abag commissioners for their

engagement in the process, as well as our city agencies and representatives on the bodies. particularly, supervisor ronen, thank you for advocating for more equitable policies, including discounts for the toll programs on the regional express lanes network and for the first time on the freeway in addition to the transit. we have these means-based toll pilots in the region. i want to recognize our team, the chief deputy director. together they've worked hard over the past year and a half really to support all of our agencies and san francisco reps and partner agencies. i want to thank you all for your support as we track this project to its final approval, environmental clearance stage next year, and move into the implementation planning phase this winter. staying on the regional theme, we wanted to report out some

data that our data team is tracking on regional budget volumes. you might have seen this reported on the local news. as you know, in march, as covid shelter-in-place was instituted, traffic congestion virtually disappeared over night, but in the summer months we see that bridge volumes returned to 75 to 80% of pre-covid levels. this increase has been uneven with the northern bridges and bay bridge seeing returns of 75-80%, really in that range, however some of the south bay and peninsula bridges remaining in the 50% level. 50-60% level. and we're surmising with the regional partners, the area toll authority, these differences could be the different employment basis in different parts of the region. with the technology industry workers more easily able to work from home than other industry workers. and so you -- in my report,

which you can see online, you'll find a graphic that demonstrates these trends, the traffic volume as a percentage of pre-covid across the seven bay area bridges overlaid on top of the share of workers who we estimate are able to work from home in the north bay, the central bay and the south bay. so, please, let us know if you have questions on that. it's just a note for your information we continue to track these trends to establish a covid baseline for traffic modelling and our transportation studies. on the local level, in addition to the announcement that chair mentioned about thursday and s.f. transit week, the 5-9 of october. i want to mention a few studies and provide updates. our ocean beech steering committee met last week. i was joined by commissioner mar and several directors and staff

with the national park service and all the folks along the ocean beach lower segment to discuss the critical and related improvements for the ocean beach climate adaptation project. safety improvements at a great highway boulevard connection. and, of course, our transportation authority district board mobility study at the request of supervisor mar. all of these are interrelated and they're advancing. it's complicated. we have some federal funds we must make sure to retain and apply as that picture continues to evolve. now we have the planning department just release notice of preparation for the environmental impact report for its ocean beach climate change adaptation project. just want to let the public know there is an updated proposal and its been released in terms of the n.o.p., the environmental notice for that study. and includes several pieces of

traffic and transportation circulation. we're happy to bring it and update to you at one of your future meetings. at the local level, the octavia improvement study is under way at the request of commissioner preston. it's focusing on survey, seeking interim transportation, uses and challenges, by not just the local study area or the extended study, but really city-wide. everyone really uses that whole system. it's a regional connection. it's a local, of course, network as well. and through the b5 study we'll identify in the survey, recommend eventually a list of projects to address safety and accessibility in the neighborhood as well as regional access. and this week will released a web-based and text-based survey, check out the website for more information. it's the octavia improvement

study. we'll also be reaching out to neighborhood and community groups, businesses and residents in the hayes valley and city-wide upon request. our downtown congestion pricing is in outreach mode. you may have seen our online and text-based messages. thank you for those of you who included them in your news letter. take the game we have called unfog the city. we've presented to 40 community groups who are working very hard, some cases, two or three meetings a week, to reach neighborhoods and groups, community roundtable, which we were grateful to appear before, the vision zero task force, and many, many more. the project team has also hosted

community presentations with the mission, sf interface council and walk sf, which has conducted its own study and will be presenting results in the bayview, tenderloin and client at our vision zero committee on september 29. please stay tuned for that. finally turning to project delivery. lots to report. caltrain has nominated a bicycle safety project on 13th street to receive funds under a new complete streets program. this is $100 million statewide program that ctc has approved and is ultimately selected the section between valencia and fulsome, right there it is hairy and the entrance areas will be improved. we look forward to getting confirmation of this, but it's very good news. if so, we have long-term improvements, lane reductions,

protected bikeways and upgrades. with that, i'm happy to take any questions to conclude my report. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, ms. chang. any questions for our executive director? seeing none, thank you for that thorough update. are there any members of the public who would like to testify on the executive director's report? >> yes, there is public comment. >> first, speaker, please. >> good morning, caller, your two minutes begins now. >> good morning, can you hear me? >> supervisor peskin: yes, we can. >> good morning, it's david pilpel. very extensive report, very comprehensive. just wanted to mention i didn't actually hear it on the better market street project. i understand that a finding of significant impact was issued in the last couple of weeks on that which i think is significant.

also the better market street project. i also noted since last week's board meeting ran long and you weren't able to hear the federal and state legislation update, i'm wondering in is any important federal or state legislation that the board or the public should be aware of, particularly sacramento, given that the governor has until the end of the month to sign the bills from this session? that's all for now. >> supervisor peskin: thank you for public comment. any other speakers? >> yes, there is, hold on, please. >> good morning, supervisors. roland. through the chair, a very quick question. given that this report was so extensive, i was wondering if it would be possible in the future

for the director to post the report at the start of the meeting so that the members of the public can review it. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. any other speakers for public comment on the executive director's report? >> there is no more public comment. >> supervisor peskin: public comment is closed. and director chang will post her comments, so mr. lebrun -- >> it should be posted every month. if folks can check the website. >> supervisor peskin: there you go. thank you, madame executive director. to the previous speaker, as mr. pilpel is quite aware, pursuant to the law this is not a dialogue, but his comments have been noted w. that, can you read the consent agenda? >> friendly reminder to keep the

camera off, because it causes technical glitches if there is more than nine on. item 4 is the concept agenda. 5 through 11 were approved and now are before the board for final approval. staff is not planning to present, but is available for questions. >> supervisor peskin: is there any public comment on the approval of the minutes from september 15. >> there is public comment. >> supervisor peskin: first speaker, please. >> hello, colleagues. >> can you hear me now? >> we can hear you, mr. pilpel. this is with regard to the approval of the minutes. >> that's correct. it's actually on the minutes. page 11 on public comment from last week, the third line should read be discussed in addition --

not in additional. about four lines down, the first day of the restart of rail service, looks like there is an extra space in there. the next line after that, all of the overhead lights should be singular, not plural. on page 11, there are references to jamie parks, the director with sfmta, which are fine. i see at the bottom of page 11 it refers to mr. parks as jamie and perhaps that should be consistently read as mr. parks and not jamie. those are my suggested changes to the draft minutes from last week. thanks very much. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. any additional public comments on the approval of the minutes from september 15. >> there are no more callers. >> supervisor peskin: okay, public comment is closed. colleagues, i would like to -- and thank you to the speaker --

make the correction to change additional to in addition and remove said space. we will remain with the colloquial jamie instead of mr. parks. on that motion, is there a second? >> second, mandelman. >> supervisor peskin: seconded by vice chair mandelman and on that, a roll call, please. >> on the consent agenda, commissioner fewer? >> aye. >> commissioner haney? >> aye. commissioner mandelman? aye. >> commissioner mar? >> aye. commissioner peskin? >> reluctantly, aye. >> preston aye. ronen aye. safai aye. stefani aye.

walton aye. yee aye. >> there are 11 ayes. consent agenda has final approval. >> supervisor peskin: no, no, the item number 4 is amended and now we will take item 4 as amended and the balance of the consent agenda. i making that motion. is there a second on that motion? >> second, mandelman. >> supervisor peskin: seconded by voice chair mandelman. on item 4 as amended and the balance of the consent agenda, a roll call, please. >> yes. item as amended. >> supervisor fewer: aye. >> supervisor haney: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> supervisor peskin: aye. >> supervisor ronen: aye.

>> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor preston: aye. >> supervisor stefani: aye. >> supervisor walton: aye. >> president yee: aye. >> the consent agenda as amended has approval. >> supervisor peskin: those items are approved. could you read item number 12? >> item 12, van ness bus rapid transit update. this is an information item. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madame clerk. i believe that all of us, because so many districts come together along van ness from supervisor haney's district to supervisor stefani's district to supervisor preston's district to the district that i represent, and i think many of us traverse

that corridor whether on public transit or other means of transportation and have seen the evolution, albeit a little behind schedule, of the bus rapid transit project that was fishes initially -- first initiated by then executive director of sfcta moscovitch some 20 years ago and now together with a lot of work that nobody can see, because it is below ground, has been moving forward with massive lane changes in recent days. and with that, i will turn it over to sfmta who has a present for us. good morning and thank you for joining us. and thank you for slogging through what i know is a very, very difficult project and i promise to keep my expressions of frustration to a minimum. >> good morning, chair peskin and commissioners, thank you for

the opportunity to present. let me pull up the presentation. can everybody see that? >> yes. >> okay, i'll move forward. okay. the van ness improvement project is working along one of the city's premiere boulevards. it's a critical street for civic affairs and for regional transportation. it's part of highway 101. we are building the first bus rapid transit system within the city of san francisco as well as doing complete infrastructure upgrade from property line to property line along van ness

avenue. at the completion of this project, we expect to have significant improvements in travel time and reliability. we have dealt with the covid crisis. we expect our ridership to increase by up to 35%, all of this with these improvements, will lead to actual cost savings on a per-passenger basis. so we'll be carrying more people for less costs. more quickly and efficiently along van ness avenue. for those who are not entirely familiar with bus rapid transit, the most obvious feature is the red lanes, but in addition to the red lanes, less obvious feature is distinguish it from exclusive transit lanes are transit signal priority and

dedicated boarding islands which will increase the efficiency of the buses moving up and down the corridor. these lanes will be exclusively used for the form of transportation in the form of muni buses and transit buses connecting downtown san francisco with the north. there will also be available emergency vehicles, which will actually have the ability to use traffic signal preemptoion to gt a clear run through van ness avenue for their work. in addition to that, we are putting in new bus shelters, new pedestrian crossings, signals, signage and striping to generally improve pedestrian safety along the corridor and

brand new street-lighting which will improve the visibility and pedestrian safety at night. this cross section shows what we've been focusing on. the areas in blue are primarily the underground work that chair peskin referred to. we have found that 15, 20 feet underground and with the installation of the new streetlights going up 25 feet in the air, we're putting in new sidewalks and new roadways, so we're going from property line to property line along the length of the corridor. i'm happy to say we're wrapping up the utility work and moving into the actual transit portion of the project. the portion in the middle of the road, which is the running ways and new boarding islands and shelters, new overhead lines and

planted median. to date, the project is approximately 57% complete. we've laid just over 25,000 linear feet. we are just short of 25,000 linear feet of the water work. we upgraded the emergency auxiliary supply system for use in fire-fighting along the length of the corridor. and have installed just short of 12,000 linear feet of power, communications, lines for the sfmta and other city departments as well. all of this has been going on along a very busy corridor, right in front of city hall, which every effort to coordinate with. and not only city hall, but the opera house and the symphony and

the other major civic venues along van ness avenue. currently, as i said, we're moving into the center lanes. we're starting to build the red transit only lanes. we're bringing in the new planted medians. the boarding islands and new transit shelters. we've taken advantage of some of the drops in traffic caused by the covid-19 crisis and moved as much work as possible to daytime hours. right now i believe the only night work that we have on the schedule is the last of the water work, which should be wrapping up. that is done because we don't want to interrupt people's water service in the middle of the

day. the largest challenge -- and we've been working closely with our contractor to maintain social distancing and make sure everyone has proper safety equipment, but to date with covid, the challenge has been a shortage of type 2 cement used for roadway work. this is a problem in the supply chain that affects california as a whole. we're working with a contractor to prevent this from having significant impact on the schedule, but it's affecting all major projects in the state right now. i'll go through this first slide relatively quickly. this is a history where we were working alongside the outside of the roadway. the areas in orange and red show places where we have active construction going on. that work is finishing now and

moving into what we're calling phase 2, where we're transitioning from the outside of the roadway to the middle. you can see we'll be taking up large sections of the median. we have to take parking lanes on the outside of those median construction zones so that we can continue to move traffic down the corridor. but as soon as the work is wrapped up, we're putting those lanes back, including the traffic, and it will be its final configuration after the construction of the project. again, sewer and water work and the duct bank work is finished. there is a fair amount of sidewalk work that is left to be done along the corridor. but that work can go on in

conjunction with the median travel lane work that is going on. and will be wrapped up in the near future. to keep everybody abreast of some of the challenges of the project. we had a total of seven claims from the contractor totalling just under $10 million in value. we've negotiated for the first three -- >> supervisor peskin: peter, wasn't there an early claim about $20 million in size relative to sewer work? >> so those are claims 1 and 2. the original claim was around $20 million in -- >> hey, guys. how you doing? >> all right, >> what is going on. >> sasha. yes, put yourself on mute. >> sorry about that, sir. >> the first claim -- the first

two claims are $20 million in total value. the final settlement was 4.8 and change. and so that claim has been settled and the contract has been written and signed. >> supervisor peskin: so about 25 cents on the dollar. >> yes. that's correct. there was initial -- third claim for additional potholing work because of the conflicts we were encountering. i forget what the original claim was, but the settled amount was $1.7 million. claim number 4 is for additional pedestrian monitoring to help control the volume of pedestrians around the construction site and keep people from wandering into our construction site. >> supervisor peskin: the 2.6 is

the face value of the claim? >> that is -- i've got it listed as pending because we haven't written and signed the final contract mod, but that is the settled amount. >> supervisor peskin: got it. okay. >> we've agreed between -- and, yeah, this was a discussion what value we should put down, but i went with 2.6 because between walsh and city, we greed on $2.6 million, that is all the pedestrian monitoring for about 1.5 and then $1.1 million that is moving forward to get us to the end of construction. >> supervisor peskin: peter, was that not in the original budget? we did not have a line item for pedestrian monitoring after our experiences on third street and other places, central subway, where we've had pedestrian

monitoring, that was not in the original scope? >> so, a peek behind the occur taken. when walsh was first brought on board and we were negotiating -- because this was a cmgc construction manager general contractor contract negotiated the construction amount with walsh. pedestrian monitors were discussed in negotiations. however, the various parties involved felt that we could do the work with just the flaggers that were required. in the end, we were mistaken on that and it was determined that we needed to put in additional support for those flaggers. so, yes, it should have been

accounted for. >> supervisor peskin: you would have think we would have learned that off third street, off central subway, unconscionable, but whatever, it would have been a larger number in the beginning, but, okay. next item. >> the next three items are still in negotiation. we're not close to it. third party utility coordination is kind of compromised of the conflicts we had. there was some question as to sewer cleaning and whether that was required in the contract or not required. and finally, $9,000 claim for having to adjust man holes. so those are -- >> supervisor peskin: those are the face values of the claims? >> those are the face values of the claims. >> supervisor peskin: got it. so the 2.6 is real.

the other half million dollars well be no more than that, but potentially less than that depending on the settlements. and are there any potential future claims that you are aware of? >> there are no -- we have a change order request in our hands from a contractor that covers the balance of days in delay that we have. you can see from the time extension days, we've already agreed on extending the contract by 279 days. >> supervisor peskin: without no lds? >> with no lds. the city has agreed to the overhead, that's part of the $4.8 million and 149 -- yeah, 149, the contractor has agreed to extended time with no

extended overhead. and we've waived the right to ld on those days. the contractor has put in a change-order request for the balance of the days. >> supervisor peskin: the 149? >> correct. no, not the 149. those are settled. the balance -- because right now with the -- >> supervisor peskin: 135? >> with the 279-day extension we should have finished the construction in july of this year. so this is for -- from july of this year to when we have substantial completion on the project. so they put in -- part of the reason that isn't up here and we haven't -- i don't have a value to give you on that right now is since we haven't actually reached substantial completion, we don't know what that total number of days is.

walsh has requested change order -- has put in a change record request asking us to extend the contract to substantial completion. we said let's get the substantial completion and see what the days are and figure out responsibility. i'm hoping it does not become a claim. they have submitted scheduling information. we requested additional scheduling information as well as information on the extended overhead. the two parties are now negotiating what they think a fair settlement for that is. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, peter. >> so, on business support. we have -- first of all, i want to thank the members of our

advisory committee. van ness set up a business advisory committee in addition to a citizens advisory committee that is made up of various businesses on the corridor, those businesses with concerns about the project to come in and talk directly to business owners and representatives as well as project staff to see if we can address their concerns. so we've been meeting regularly with them. we've also been working closely with the office of economic and workforce development to provide support services to our local businesses. and have hosted some meetings where businesses can come in and find out about the services, early w.d. offers. and the direct business support program that was started with

central subway has been extended to include van ness improvement project. my information is that small businesses request compensation of 5,000 or $10,000, have their applications in by october 31st. >> supervisor peskin: i apologize. as you know, in the case of the central subway when then mayor lee and i agreed that for the first time in the city's history we would do relatively small amounts of cash compensation in addition to the technical assistance with businesses. my understanding is that in the case of van ness brt project,

not a single one of these grants has been distributed by oewd. and we have a lot of very frustrated people hanging on by a thread. so i'd really like to drill down into the status of that. this project has been going on now for years. and my understanding is that not a single amount of relief or dollars of relief have actually been forth coming from oewd. do you have any additional information on that? >> i'm sorry to say i don't. i'll be happy to go back and talk to the people at oewd and talk to the outreach people about what businesses have contacted us to participate in this. >> supervisor peskin: i know several businesses that applied many, many months ago and have

not seen any response from oewd, sfmta or the city and county of san francisco and it is very frustrating. and i will suggest at the end of this hearing that we continue this hearing to get a presentation on exactly this issue at our october meeting. but the money is there. we appropriated the money. but not a penny of it has been distributed to the van ness brt-eligible businesses. >> yes. the person heading the outreach effort is telling me she has additional information on this, if she could step in. >> supervisor peskin: that would be great. fantastic. >> hi, everyone. hello, commissioners. thanks for pulling me in, peter. i wanted to share that we only just opened the application

process for the van ness directive business support program. >> supervisor peskin: are you new with oewd? >> i am with sfmta. i work closely with oewd on the program and i'm the lead outreach person for the bsp. we have the application process open now. we're doing serious outreach to businesses now to let them now they can apply, but the project needed to be delayed enough and we needed to set up the application process in order for them to be able to apply. and we were still wrapping things up with central subway and with covid-19 it took additional time to make it happen. but businesses now have until the end of october to apply and we made it a relatively short

application period based on what we learned from central subway that it needs to be enough time for folks to sort of like make it happen if we extend it too long applications drop off because people forget about it. >> supervisor peskin: and can you, for all 11 of us and members of the public who are watching, tell us how a business on the van ness b.r.t. impacted corridor can apply between now and the end of october. >> we have information on the oewd website and today we'll have information on the sfmta website to direct folks to the oewd website. i believe it is oewd.org/constructionmitigation and i believe that

owed.org/vannecessary. there is supporting business documentation that should not be hard for folks to pull together. >> supervisor peskin: thank you very much. that was super helpful and important. back to you, sir. >> thank you. so she has been helping -- got a lot of things on her plate, including the ongoing outreach process. we're publishing a forecast to help people know what construction will be close to them and what work is going on. >> supervisor peskin: if i can say, peter, on that, i read those every friday afternoon religiously. but the one thing it doesn't have in that e-mail is what you're actually presenting here

which is the final substantial completion is estimated to be the fall of 2021 and that -- it's good insofar as it tells people along the corridor what to expect next week and the week after, but it would be helpful -- i think i said this in other hearings -- if that e-mail could also say, by the way, you know, if you can slog through for one more year, we will be done-done and you'll have a beautiful new b.r.t., so just a friendly suggestion on that. >> okay, we'll take that into account in the upcoming announcements. the 72-hour notice for night work. >> supervisor peskin: night work is just about over? >> i'm not going to say it's finished-finished because there is intersection paving work that needs to be done. i'm hoping that can be done during the day, but it all

depends on when traffic levels go back up. we'll make every effort to minimize it. we have a citizens advisory committee as well as a business advisory committee. people have concerns and they want to talk to private staff, those are great opportunities to attend and let us know what is going on. regular briefings such as. this and our quarterly newsletter. and that's the end of my presentation. if you have any other questions, i'd be happy to answer them. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. and just relative to site cleanliness, which i had heard a number of complaints about and is also mentioned in the staff document, can you tell us how we're doing on site cleanliness

during construction? >> yes. it has been a challenge. it's a long corridor. it's been getting better. our construction management staff specifically -- our new construction manager lance jackson and engineer hubert wong are walking the corridor regularly and have been working closely with the contractor. i think it's gotten better. it's not perfect. we have to keep working at it. but we're making improvements. and, again, people working on the corridor have specific concerns about areas, i encourage them to reach out to our public information. >> supervisor peskin: kate

mccarthy. >> it's now -- kate is away handling covid-related information, service change information. so she is temporarily reassigned and she has taken over the work. >> got it. that is helpful. look, today is the equinox and we're a year out, so anything and everything you can do to keep that entire corridor clean, as clean as possible during construction would be greatly appreciated by me and my fellow commissioners and their constituents along the corridor. with that, colleagues or staff, any questions or comments? seeing none, is there any public comment on this information item number 12?

>> yes, chair, there are two callers. i'll move to caller number one. >> supervisor peskin: before we do that -- actually, let's hear from the public and then i'll go to commissioners fewer and haney. >> thank you, caller, your two minutes begins now. >> can you hear me now? >> yes, mr. pilpel we can hear you. >> excellent. five points starting on slide 6. the reference to awss i believe is the auxiliary water supply system. not the alternate water service system. on slide 11, claim 7, i believe that is man hole adjustments. i think there is a letter missing. based on the discussion with chair peskin, it would be great if this slide in the future could include the initial claim amounts that you were discussing. that would be a great addition

or additional column. item 3 on slide 12 and 13, business support. if those represent models that other large mta or city projects could use, then it would be great to document those efforts on this project so that those other city projects currently or more so in the future could use the models or adapt them as appropriate because i think we developed and honed some ideas -- good ideas there in business support and outreach for large and complicated projects. item 4, i still note the unfortunate choice to not replace the historic concrete overhead support poles. i think that was a bad choice, but perhaps that can be rectified in the future. maybe there will be leftover project funds we could do that with.

and finally, peter and nahama are doing great work on this project and thank you for their great work on that extremely complicated and delayed project. thank you very much. >> supervisor peskin: next speaker, please. >> caller, your two minutes begins now. >> one important fact about a senior citizen. in the past was we've had this project be the third street, the central subway, other projects. we have not made it a point to include our seniors and what their needs are so that they

have input. also on van ness. so if you are a senior and you have obstacles, it makes it very difficult. if you're a senior, and you have to carry something with you three or four blocks, it makes it very difficult for them. so let's not bypass our seniors. when it comes to contractors and ongoing issue of change orders, we see it in a very nonchalant manner. and then you're having a talk here as if you're having a fireside chat. where is the accountability and where is the transparency? and do we really need the f.b.i.

to be involved with van ness rapid transit process? it hasn't been a good one. and, you know, was part of it. ed was part of it, no more part of it. soon harland kelly -- >> thank you, caller, your two minutes are over. >> thank you. >> supervisor peskin: two minutes up. any other members of the public on item number 12? >> no, chair, there are no more callers. >> supervisor peskin: public comment is closed. commissioner fewer. >> supervisor fewer: thank you, chair peskin. i just wanted to also express my disappointment and frustration about the funds not getting out to the stores and small businesses along the corridor. we've had the discussion at t.a.

over a year ago. yeah, and i just want to say it is very frustrating considering the economic crisis that they're facing also and they've been, you know, double and triple whammied, i think not only by covid, but then this project that has extended far beyond what they actually, i think, thought was going to happen. so just very disappointed. i think this is something that the commission has really taken to heart and i think that it was unanimous that we allocate these funds to these small businesses. i just wanted to say how disappointing it is that we haven't been able to offer relief to the small businesses along this very impacted corridor. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, commissioner fewer for the comments and backing me up on my similar frustration. indeed, this conversation has been going on for a long time.

what i would like to drill down to, our october meeting, is how quickly after the october 31st date these funds will actually be distributed? and if these businesses are out of business, there is not going to be anybody to give it to. and this really, as you just said, should have happened a long time ago. it's unconscionable. with that, commissioner haney? >> supervisor haney: thank you, chair peskin. i was just going to back you up on that, too. i hope that we can learn from this experience, because when we do these larger projects, which obviously are needed and required, we want to be able to say confidently we're going to be able to support the small businesses and residents impacted. and if we've failed to do that here, even when money has been allocated, it's incredibly concerning and it puts into question whether we can honestly tell folks in the future that

we're going to be able to, you know, ensure their protection and their support as required considering the impact. i would like to know, not just kind of who is getting the grants when they come back -- hopefully they'll have start to have been issued -- but also if there have been surveys done of businesses and residents in terms of their needs, what the impacts are. i believe it has been -- >> supervisor peskin: that has been done and maybe we can hear from staff as to the results of that on the ground yacht outreach. there have been businesses and some of them high-profile in the media that have gone under very early on in the van ness b.r.t., but can you respond to commissioner haney's question?

>> hey, everyone. we have been trying to figure out how to best do outreach considering covid-19 restrictions and not really being able to engage in person with businesses in the way that we have before. we have conducted a lot of outreach to businesses online, the phone and we've done a couple of things doing social distancing and wearing masks. we are canvassing businesses over the next two weeks to get them information about the grant and to find out how they're doing. >> supervisor peskin: right, but i think what commissioner haney is saying, and i believe this to be true, we have a lot of pre-covid pre-march 16 data. so i think when he hear this at our first meeting in october, it would be very helpful if the sfmta and oewd can present what

the pre-covid data is, as well as the results that you've been getting on the phone through electronic sources and in your on-the-ground social distanced survey you're doing over the next couple of weeks. we look forward to seeing that at our first meeting in october. commissioner haney, back to you? >> supervisor haney: that was all. i appreciate that. and i think a lot of the questions have to do with the business focus and residents and how to improve this in the future. so i was done, thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. are there any other members of the commission who have any comments. seeing none, i would -- i won't make a motion to continue this. i'm just going to ask staff to agendize the hearing that we all want for our next meeting. that is an information item. any introduction of new items? seeing none, is there any