[gavel]. >> chair peskin: good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco land use and transportation committee of the board of supervisors, joined by acting vice chair dean preston, soon to be joined by actual vice chair ahsha safai. our clerk is miss erica major.

miss major, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes. in accordance with governor newsom executive order declaring a state of emergency starting the covid-19 outbreak and mayor london n. breed's proclamation declaring a local emergency issued on february 25, 2020, including the guidance for gatherings issued by the san francisco department of public health center, members of t

officer, aggressive directives were issued to reduce the spread of covid-19. on march 17, 2020, the board of supervisors authorized their bhoord and committee meetings to convene remotely and will allow remote public comment via teleconference. watch the sfgovtv website at www.sfgovtv.org to stream the live meeting or to watch meetings on demand. members of the public are encouraged to participate remotely via detailed instructions on participating via teleconference. members of the public may participate by phone or may submit their comments by e-mail

to ericamajor@sfgov.org. all comments received will be made a part of the official report. >> chair peskin: thank you. would you please read items 1 and 2 today. >> clerk: item 1 is ordinance amending the administration code to establish the social housing program fund for the acquisition, creation, and operation of affordable social housing developments, and item 2 is an ordinance amending the administration code to establish the covid-19 rent resolution and relief fund, to provide financial support to landlords whose tenants have been unable to pay rent due to the covid-19 pandemic.

members of the public wishing to make public comment may call the phone number streaming across your screen and enter the meeting code. >> chair peskin: thank you. and it is my understanding that supervisor preston would like to continue these items one week. >> supervisor preston: yes. >> chair peskin: okay. and we've been joined by the actual vice chair, supervisor safai, so supervisor preston, you' you're demoted to member of this committee at this point. so just so that we are clear, the agenda next week is remarkably long, so i would ask your indulgence, supervisor

preston, either to continue this to the call of the chair, or if anything falls off of the next agenda, we could get it on or alternatively, i could schedule it for the meeting in two weeks. but we've got a super hairy, five-hour -- probably four-to-five-hour agenda next week. so what is your will, sir? >> supervisor preston: well, so my concern is -- we will be introducing amendments next week which will require further hearing. we are trying to move the funding from the upcoming ballot measure, so i -- you know, our hope through the meetings that we're having with stakeholders is that we are hammering out issues before

next week, but it would be our hope not to have a marathon meeting on monday, but i would say we are sensitive to the timing on this. >> chair peskin: and thank you for your sensitivity to that. it sounds like you're going to be introducing amendments that are substantive that would require a continuance. to the extent that proponents of these items could comment once it comes to the committee for a full consideration, cosoe can make next monday's calendar as efficient as possible given the number of items that we

have, let's continue it to next week for that. let's open it up for public comment. >> clerk: yes. >> i don't know why you have to put social in front of everything, but i think public sounds better. i yield the rest of my time. >> chair peskin: hello. next speaker, please. >> hello. this is anastas

anastasia iovannopoulos, district 8 resident. thank you for continuing this for letting us look at them and moving them inform a future meeting where they'll -- them to a future meeting where they'll be voted on. >> chair peskin: is there any further comment on item 1 and 2? >> clerk: that concludes the comment. >> chair peskin: if there's knox, supervisor preston would like to continue these items for one week. that motion made by myself, the chair. a roll call, please. >> clerk: on the motion as stated -- [roll call]

>> clerk: you have three ayes. >> chair peskin: next item, please. >> clerk: item 3 is a resolution supporting california state proposition 21, keep families in their homed on november 3, 2020 ballot. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on item number 3 should call the number streaming on the screen. that's 415-655-0001. enter the meeting i.d. 146-956-9029. press pound, and pound again, and press star, three to enter the queue. please wait until the system indicated you have been unmuted and provide public comment. . >> chair peskin: thank you. this item has been sponsored by

supervisor ronen and cosponsored by supervisors preston, haney, walton, and myself. is there a representative from supervisor ronen's office? >> [inaudible]. >> supervisor safai: i can't hear anything she's saying. >> oh, no. how is this? >> chair peskin: much better. >> thank you for allowing me to speak today. this item is a resolution supporting california state proposition 21, keep families in their homes, on the november 3 ballot. prop 21, when passed, will

significantly amend the california civil code section now known as the costa hawkins rental act and rename it to the rental affordability act. specifically, what it would do is allow local governments to adopt local rent ordinances with exceptions for housing and condos owned by natural persons to own no more than two single-family units, and it would allow local governments to prohibit landlords from proposing more than 15% rent increases in one year in the city. while anecdotally, there are stories of rents dropping due

to covid, the rents are still out of reach for many. a minimum wage employee would have to work 57 hours a week to cover average rent if they didn't spend a single penny on food or anything else. 44% of san franciscans are still spending more than 30% of their income on their rent, with a disproportionate amount of those being african americans. [inaudible] >> it has distorted our housing market into becoming just another commodity for corporate

speculators [inaudible] long-term commitment and investment. two years ago, this board formally endorsed proposition 10 through resolution offered by supervisor pesk kin. prop 10 was disputed statewide after some of the nation's largest rental corporations spent $60 million on a cynical and misleading ad campaign, but a majority of san franciscans voted in favor. the california secretary of state website reports that the california apartment association has already poured nearly $28 million into the californians for responsible housing measure. the measure is a balanced approach to allow cities the flexibility to consider local

community housing needs and legislate appropriate protections. on behalf of supervisor ronen i ask you to support today to move it forward a committee report. >> chair peskin: thank you, miss bynard, for a thorough presentation. >> supervisor preston: i would just like to thank miss bynard for bringing this forward, and the resolution in support of then-proposition 10. i think it's really -- i just want to add, you know, it's very important that folks understand, when we're dealing with these state measures, is all we're seeking to do is takeoff the handcuffs that are, right now, on our city when it

comes to addressing rising rents and a history of gentrification. whether it's the ellis act, costa hawkins act, things were created because of real estate special interests and significantly restrict us as policy makers in the city and county of san francisco to extend protections to folks who are struggling. so we've seen that balance in the state and power give a little bit in the context of the pandemic, where we had seen the state government willing to give us a little more power. san francisco peskin, you led on the commercial eviction protections, where the governor said in the pandemic, that as a city, we could do more than what we would be otherwise allowed to do. but i think this prop, proposition 21, really gets at the heart of not just what's

going on in the pandemic, but beyond. are we going to be able to protect folks from high-rent evictions or not? and will we have the choice? and right now, that choice is made by the renters association and the state government, and this would return the power to us so we can craft some protections. it's narrow in scope, as miss bynard pointed out, as there were fewer things that were controversial than in the former version. i just want to say i fully support this. i also hope the entire board sends a unanimous and strong

message that we as a city are behind prop 21, and it will give us power to address those things. it does not dictate how we will address those powers. you can bet that ensuring protections for renters in san francisco will have to come back through this committee with a full opportunity at public comment before those changes can be made. >> chair peskin: thank you for those comments, supervisor preston. supervisor safai, anything that you would like to add? >> supervisor safai: yeah. can we have a conversation at what happened at the state level and in that conversation? i think assembly man david chiu did something. and i think it would be good to

get on the record the differences put out -- there's a little conversation put out, but what's different between previously and this time. the ballot went down in large part because there was a lack of understanding of how, talking about bringing rent control to single-family homes and how that played into a statewide conversation. i think that's removed this time, for sure. supervisor preston talked a little bit about smaller property owners, but i think it would be good to get some of the main differences on the record and what was talked about at the state level. i know that the governor signed the ability to control rent statewide, but i'm sure that for many places, that's still not enough in people's minds, so i just wanted to get that on the record, as well. >> chair peskin: thank you, supervisor safai. before i turn it over to

supervisor ronen's aide, miss bynard, let me offer a few things. it gets into the state exemption over what has historically before the purview over local governments such as our own, and costa hawkins significantly changed that, and we've been struggling with that for a long time. what is profoundly frustrating about this is prop 10 did not need to be on the ballot, and prop 21 did not need to be on the ballots. had the democratic assemblies not taken the steps to return these conversations to local governments -- because what's happening in san francisco is very different than what's going on in fresno, and we all have to wrestle with that on a local level. this has been a profound

failure by the state legislature because it is under so much pressure from lobbying. even though we are still under democrat super majorities in both houses, they are still under pressure from the statewide rental industry. yes, prop 10 did not succeed. prop 21 has made some adjustments. i want to express some profound disappointment in the democratic majorities in both houses that have failed to actually made modifications to costa hawkins, which was enacted by the state ledge lay tou -- legislature, and they can amend to return power to the cities, if they want. with that, if you would like to

respond, miss bynard, to supervisor safai's questions, the floor is yours. >> i think the two that he brought up about the two described, those are already in the records. with record to assembly man chiu's a.b. 1482, a.b. 1482 limits the state increase in rent to inflation plus 5%, which is quite high. it's great for places that have none -- have no rent control, but it's very high, and it's very high controlled with san francisco's rent control ordinance, so the potential, again, as supervisor preston was mentioning, what -- what the passage of prop 21 would do would be to allow this back to

the local legislation process -- legislative process, and for this city and this board of supervisors to be looking at what's appropriate for this city and the rental market here, and not to defer to, you know, what has been kind of a safety valve for places that have no rent control but really is not the solution for san francisco. >> chair peskin: thank you, miss bynard. why don't we open this up to public comment. are there any members of the public who would like to comment on this item? >> clerk: thank you, mr. chair. we have six listeners, with five in queue. if you can queue in the first caller? >> yes. i'm, quite frankly, appalled by this resolution. the board of supervisors, in my opinion, has no place here.

if you want to support something on the ballot, go out and vote for it on november 3. you know, chair peskin was complaining -- not complaining, but pointing out that next week's meeting is going to be, what, like five hours? don't waste your time on resolutions that do absolutely nothing. you say that san francisco supports this? you will see that on november 3. this is disgusting. i yield the rest of my time. thank you. >> chair peskin: next speaker, please. i will not even waste my breath responding to that. thank you. >> this is theresa flandrick, senior and disability action. i am calling in support of this resolution. we did vote on prop 10, and the majority of san franciscans did

want and need this back then and need it even more so today. again, having local control so that we can do what we need for our residents, for our city, just as other cities should have that same right. so i hope that all supervisors will support this unanimously? it is about time, so thank you so much for bringing this forward. the champions of actually taking care of san franciscans as well as the small property owners who are also san franciscans, i really like that that is part of this ordinanc,. so thank you again. >> chair peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, chair peskin, vice chair safai, and supervisor preston. this is jeremy shaw, d-5.

i think this is a modest compromise solution to afford some rent control. as an aside, this title of this resolution is supporting keeping families in their home. i'd like to point out that the chair has to the -- committee has to the call of the chair resolution [inaudible] and i would like to urge that you take that matter back up. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you. next speaker. >> supervisors, this is lorraine petty. [inaudible] i'm calling in support of this very important resolution. i'm in support of [inaudible] keeping families in their homes. i think this is a fair and measured proposition. this extends to local jurisdicti

jurisdictions the ability to craft protections and improve current protections for tenants. [inaudible] and in other loc e localities [inaudible] wildfires, lost incomes, the racial and social injustice, and particularly the effects of the rampant speculation and dislocation. prop 21 goes a long way towards [inaudible] i'd also make a nod to the brilliant legal minds of [inaudible] thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you. next speaker, please.

>> hello. this is anastasia ionnapoulos. i'd like to ask every one of you to support this resolution. we need this throughout the state. this is fair to do to property owners, and i think the only people that are opposed to it are the big money people. thank you for introducing this resolution. >> chair peskin: thank you. are there any other members of the public who would like to testify on item number 3? >> clerk: that concludes the queue, sir. >> chair peskin: seeing no other members of the public for public comment, public comment is closed, and i would like to make a motion to send this item to the full board with recommendation as a committee report for hearing tomorrow. on that item, madam clerk, a roll call, please. >> clerk: on the motion as stated -- [roll call]

>> clerk: you have three ayes. >> chair peskin: all right. the item has been sent with recommendation as a committee report. is there any more business before this committee? >> clerk: there's no further business. >> chair peskin: we are adjourned. [gavel] >> 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. .

>> working for the city and county of san francisco will immerse you in a vibrate and dynamic city on sfroert of the art and social change we've been on the edge after all we're at the meeting of land and sea

world-class style it is the burn of blew jeans where the rock holds court over the harbor the city's information technology xoflz work on the rulers project for free wifi and developing projects and insuring patient state of at san francisco general hospital our it professionals make guilty or innocent available and support the house/senate regional wear-out system your our employees joy excessive salaries but working for the city and county of san francisco give us employees the unities to contribute their ideas and energy and commitment to shape the city's future but for considering a career with the city and county of san francisco

[♪] >> i am the supervisor of district one. i am sandra lee fewer. [♪] >> i moved to the richmond district in 1950 mine. i was two years old. i moved from chinatown and we were one of the first asian families to move out here.

[♪] >> when my mother decided to buy that house, nobody knew where it was. it seems so far away. for a long time, we were the only chinese family there but we started to see the areas of growth to serve a larger chinese population. the stress was storage of the birthplace of that. my father would have to go to chinatown for dim sum and i remember one day he came home and said, there is one here now. it just started to grow very organically. it is the same thing with the russian population, which is another very large ethnic group in the richmond district. as russia started to move in, we saw more russian stores. so parts of the richmond is very concentrated with the russian community and immigrant russian community, and also a chinese immigrant community. [♪] >> i think as living here in the richmond, we really appreciate the fact that we are surrounded three natural barriers. they are beautiful barriers.

the presidio which gives us so many trails to walk through, ocean beach, for families to just go to the beach and be in the pacific ocean. we also also have a national park service. we boarded the golden gate national recreation area so there is a lot of activity to do in the summer time you see people with bonfires. but really families enjoying the beach and the pacific ocean during the rest of the time of year. [♪] >> and golden gate park where we have so many of our treasures here. we have the tea garden, the museum and the academy of sciences. not to mention the wonderful playgrounds that we have here in richmond. this is why i say the richmond is a great place for families. the theatre is a treasure in our neighborhood. it has been around for a very long time.

is one of our two neighborhood theatres that we have here. i moved here when i was 1959 when i was two years old. we would always go here. i love these neighborhood theatres. it is one of the places that has not only a landmark in the richmond district, but also in san francisco. small theatres showing one or two films. a unique -- they are unique also to the neighborhood and san francisco. >> where we are today is the heart of the richmond district. with what is unique is that it is also small businesses. there is a different retail here it is mom and pop opening up businesses. and providing for the neighborhood. this is what we love about the streets. the cora door starts on clement street and goes all the way down to the end of clement where you will see small businesses even

towards 32nd. at the core of it is right here between here and 20 -- tenth avenue. when we see this variety of stores offered here, it is very unique then of the -- any other part of san francisco. there is traditional irish music which you don't get hardly anywhere in san francisco. some places have this long legacy of serving ice cream and being a hangout for families to have a sunday afternoon ice cream. and then also, we see grocery stores. and also these restaurants that are just new here, but also thriving. [♪] >> we are seeing restaurants being switched over by hand, new owners, but what we are seeing is a vibrancy of clement street still being recaptured within new businesses that are coming in. that is a really great thing to see.

i don't know when i started to shop here, but it was probably a very, very long time ago. i like to cook a lot but i like to cook chinese food. the market is the place i like to come to once a year. once i like about the market as it is very affordable. it has fresh produce and fresh meat. also, seafood. but they also offer a large selection of condiments and sauces and noodles. a variety of rice that they have is tremendous. i don't thank you can find a variety like that anywhere else. >> hi. i am kevin wong. i am the manager. in 1989 we move from chinatown to richmond district. we have opened for a bit, over 29 years. we carry products from thailand, japan, indonesia, vietnam, singapore and india.

we try to keep everything fresh daily. so a customer can get the best out a bit. >> normally during crab season in november, this is the first place i hit. because they have really just really fresh crab. this is something my family really likes for me to make. also, from my traditional chinese food, i love to make a kale soup. they cut it to the size they really want. i am probably here once a week. i'm very familiar with the aisles and they know everyone who is a cashier -- cashier here i know when people come into a market such as this, it looks like an asian supermarkets, which it is and sometimes it can be intimidating. we don't speak the language and many of the labels are in chinese, you may not know what to buy or if it is the proper ingredients for the recipe are trying to make. i do see a lot of people here with a recipe card or sometimes with a magazine and they are

looking for specific items. the staff here is very helpful. i speak very little chinese here myself. thinks that i'm not sure about, i asked the clerk his and i say is this what i need? is this what i should be making? and they actually really helped me. they will bring me to the aisle and say this is battery. they are very knowledgeable. very friendly. i think they are here to serve not only the asian community but to serve all communities in the richmond district and in san francisco. [♪] >> what is wonderful about living here is that even though our july is a very foggy and overcast, best neighborhood, the sleepy part outside on the west side is so rich with history, but also with all the amenities that are offered. [♪]>> we're in the midst of covn

san francisco and in the country. right now we're dealing with balancing our budget. we have over two hundred thousand people unemployed in san francisco. we're trying to produce housing faster and kids going to school. we know what we're up against. the good news is we have really strong leaders who are in addition to battling covid doing the work necessary to moving the city forward. today there's an announcement

that we have around a project that many of us have worked so hard on. that's the final closure of the county jail. the fact is, it was a long journey. last year in october we announced the plan closure. we expected to do it in 2021. the good news is through the administrator and former sheriff and our new sheriff who picked up the mantle and moved this project forward, we're in a position to close that particular facility sooner rather than later. today is an announcement that we will do exactly that. when i talk about my lived experiences of growing up in public housing.

i talk about it because of the challenges that i and other people through those experiences face. the sad reality is, it wasn't uncommon for so many of us so visit 85 850bryant street. that hallway, the concrete, pay phone, the benches we had to sit onto wait-that experience still haunts me. i'm sure many people know what i'm talking about because of their experiences of visiting. the thing that has always stuck with me the most. when you grow up in these communities, you know a lot of

people don't deserve to be there. yes, we have people that have committed crime where they need to be held accountable. when i had been visiting and on objection for the most part you know everybody who is sitting there waiting. you know a lot of the folks you see behind those windows. and sadly, there are people in there who had nothing to do with the crimes they are in there for in the first place. our criminal justice system is broken. we have real problems with how sadly disproportionately, you talk about san francisco one of the most progressive cities in the country with a less than six percent african american population. we know disproportionately that

we still have challenges. we still have issues with this criminal justice system. now, here in this city, we're doing something about it. we're closing the seventh floor and we're closing it because no human being should have to be there. i remember visiting that facility years ago and growing up i only visited the visitors room. i had never been behind the scene. as a supervisor going behind the scene and seeing the work conditions that the deputies had to endure. seeing people that i know, that i care about, from my community and their children in these jail cells that are small and tiny,

two to three people in a cell. we want them to have a better life. we want them to not lose it in a facility like this. we have to think differently about what it meep means to noty people who are incarcerated but what it it means to reepter reer society. how do we have the facility to change the hearts and minds of people that we want to support. 850 is not that facility. it's nasty and dirty. i wouldn't want to see my worst enemy in that place. it's time to close it it. that's exactly what we're doing. we're closing the door on the

past and mass incarceration at its absolute worst. we're opening the door to a real change. to a new way of reforming criminal justice in san francisco. we're doing it because there are people who work in this building who actually care. who actually care about changing it for the better. today's announcement is a significant step towards real reform in our criminal justice system. i'm truly grateful to our city administrator, when we worked on this together. a community activist, our

current sheriff who moved up the time line in getting this done. the supervisor from district one who cares deeply about this issue. also, the work around the fees and a number of other things i've worked on with the board of supervisorrorsupervisors. her work has been absolutely incredible around criminal justice reform. our public defender and our district attorney. working collaboratively. because i want to be clear, you know, it's very personal, it's

other family members, it's other friends and people that i love and care about. just imagine knowing someone had the potential who is now incarcerated to be mayor, to be president, to be a rock star, to be a musician. to be anything he wanted to be. but because he was accused of something he never did, he is behind bars at a place like 850. that happened to more black people in my community than i can count. that's why this is so important today. it's about reforming the system and making a chaifng.

change. the future of how we adjust criminal justice and remove the disparities depends on the actions we take through policy, through investments, through complete reform of the system. i am excited about this announcement today and grateful to the leadership of this city to make it happen sooner rather than later. at this time i would like to introduce our sheriff who has been absolutely an incredible particle ner to worpartner to w. he moved it forward to get the job done. >> thank you, madam mayor.

in your remarks you painted a very vivid picture of your experience. through san francisco's history there have been 19 jails. since 1962 the san francisco fall of justice has been the center of the criminal justice center for our community. built in the hall of justice for two of these jails. located on the seventh floor of the hall of justice the maximum facility for the sheriff's department. the facility consists of single

multiple occupancy cells dormitories all with large concrete wall fronts. it's a linear facility. the rated capacity for the jail is 406 people, to give you some context, the jail used al c atraz functioning. the san francisco sheriff's office has grown and moved away from management of these types of i facilities with more humane infrastructure without the use of bars. county jail four represents the

last vestages of a buy gone era. it represents the old way of doing things. an old way of doing things that our sheriff's office and city have moved away from. it stands as a simple of that which we move away from. our other linear jails in our system have been closed over the years respectively in 2006 and 2013. this remains the last linear jail facility for us to close. i personally was assigned to county jail four. my nephews one of the last times i saw him was on the seventh floor. when i became sheriff i

committed to closing the facility. it out lived its usefulness. it puts not only the incarcerated in danger, but the staff and all the community that came to visit. plumbing and sewage issues. for years we've been working collectively to safely relocate our population and close the jail. original plans to remove justice involved out of the building have been challenged with funding issues. thanks to the leadership of everyone mentioned we've been able to finally move out of the building. we're in a position to close early due t to the efforts of or

staff and the department of public health. they've been able to work with us even meeting the cha challens of covid 19. focusing on a reduced living and working space while responding to advocate concerns and the concerns of our partners. our deaftie deaf-i'm happy to mt we'll be moving ahead. when we say early, we'll be closing the facility the up coming labor day weekend. two months ahead of schedule.

san francisco county jails have not been immune from the virus. we've been a rare success story to limit exposure and out break nz ousin our system. intercept, control the virus and keep everybody safe. finally, i wish to dedicate my staff and commend all of our

city partners- >> i'm thrilled to be joining you and mayor with this announcement. last spring my office brought forth legislation to close county jail number four with legislation. at times we thought we couldn't

do it. it it was very controversial. they thought you couldn't close the jail, it's too soon. here we are to say that county jail number four will be closed by labor day. we thought we could do it, we knew we would have to win people over to have some belief that is deemed dangerous, hazardous and deemed unfit for people to live. that we could close it so quickly. i want to mention that it was never considered to be impossible by our mayor. it is rare and unusual that we have a city leader like our mayor-she thoroughly understood

it had to be closed and as soon as possible. this legislation that we passed was passed by the board ten to one vote. it was hard to get some supervisors on board. because of the belief we could do it so soon. closing it two months before we mandated it in our legislation. it is absolutely outstanding, incredible. it's great to see what can happen working what we can do. today, i want to say thank you to mayor, sheriff sif city, administrator who said this place is dangerous and hazardous and no one should be living there. thank you to all the advocates

who work so closely with us to ensure that we never lost faith in this legislation. today we're thrilled. again, i have to say we're over the moon we're able to close this jail which nobody should live in. no one should have to stay there. no one should have to work there. it's hars adde hars adder hazars health. thank you.

>> the covid 19 crisis and black

lives matter movement ignited in this moment shined a light on how important it is for us in this moment to be looking at all of our system systems includingr public safety systems through a public health lens as well as a racial justice lens. closing this jail is not just about shutting down a delap dated jail. we're not opening a new jail to

replace this one. rather we're looking to reinvest in communities that have been harmed bile by this system. particularly black and brown communities. when you look at the people who sit inside san francisco county jails. we are jailing the most vulnerable among us sm th. the fact is jails are only one way to deal with public safety. there are other options to protect the community in the moment but take a much broader and effective and long term view of what safety is and what is

needed to achieve it. we have such a big opportunity today in san francisco to lead the way on reimagining public health and community safety by reinvesting in community based programs and mental health services and supports. we've made great strides in the right direction with the board of supervisors ab supervisors ao are aligned with us in this moment. as we close county jail four let's also make a statement about our values as san franciscans.

moving towards a model of human potential, redemption, and heal willing. thanhealing. thank you. thank you. >> it thank you all for your remarks. we will now begin the q and a portion. sheriff. your question comes from the san francisco chronicle. what are the city's plans to keep san francisco's jail population low. >> how to change and reform our

system better. we have a plan in place right now which allows for under covid conditions separating out individuals in our system to be healthy and safe. we're at fifty eight percent capacity in one facility and fifty seven capacity downtown. we have a lot of room for growth is there is a spike in any of our populations. what is good and reassuring is that we are on a path of reform to begin with. the da's office and public defenders office to address the koafcovid 19 issue.

there are no further questions and that concludes today's press conference. thank you for everyone's time.

as latinos we are unified in some ways and incredibly diverse in others and this exhibit really is an exploration of nuance in how we present those ideas. ♪ our debts are not for sale.

>> a piece about sanctuary and how his whole family served in the army and it's a long family tradition and these people that look at us as foreigners, we have been here and we are part of america, you know, and we had to reinforce that. i have been cure rating here for about 18 year. we started with a table top, candle, flower es, and a picture and people reacted to that like it was the monna lisa. >> the most important tradition as it relates to the show is idea of making offering. in traditional mexican alters, you see food, candy, drinks, cigarettes, the things that the

person that the offerings where being made to can take with them into the next word, the next life. >> keeps u.s us connects to the people who have passed and because family is so important to us, that community dynamic makes it stick and makes it visible and it humanizes it and makes it present again. ♪ >> when i first started doing it back in '71, i wanted to do something with ritual, ceremony and history and you know i talked to my partner ross about the research and we opened and it hit a cord and people loved it. >> i think the line between engaging everyone with our culture and appropriating it. i think it goes back to asking

people to bring their visions of what it means to honor the dead, and so for us it's not asking us to make mexican altars if they are not mexican, it's really to share and expand our vision of what it means to honor the dead. >> people are very respectful. i can show you this year alone of people who call tol ask is it okay if we come, we are hawaii or asian or we are this. what should we wear? what do you recommend that we do? >> they say oh, you know, we want a four day of the dead and it's all hybrid in this country. what has happened are paper cuts, it's so hybrid. it has spread to mexico from the bay area. we have influence on a lot of

people, and i'm proud of it. >> a lot of tim times they don't represent we represent a lot of cultures with a lot of different perspectives and beliefs. >> i can see the city changes and it's scary. >> when we first started a lot of people freaked out thinking we were a cult and things like that, but we went out of our way to also make it educational through outreach and that is why we started doing the prosession in 1979. >> as someone who grew up attending the yearly processions and who has seen them change incrementally every year into kind of what they are now, i feel in many ways that the cat is out of the bag and there is no putting the genie back into

the bottle in how the wider public accesses the day of the dead. >> i have been through three different generations of children who were brought to the procession when they were very young that are now bringing their children or grandchildren. >> in the '80s, the processions were just kind of electric. families with their homemade visuals walking down the street in san francisco. service so much more intimate and personal and so much more rooted in kind of a family practice of a very strong cultural practice. it kind of is what it is now and it has gone off in many different directions but i will always love the early days in the '80s where it was so intimate and son sofa millial. >> our goal is to rescue a part

of the culture that was a part that we could invite others to join in there there by where we invite the person to come help us rescue rescue it also. that's what makes it unique. >> you have to know how to approach this changing situation, it's exhausting and i have seen how it has affected everybody. >> what's happening in mission and the relationship with the police, well it's relevant and it's relevant that people think about it that day of the dead is not just sugar skulls and paper flowers and candles, but it's become a nondenominational tradition that people celebrate.

>> our culture is about color and family and if that is not present in your life, there is just no meaning to it you know? >> we have artists as black and brown people that are in direct danger of the direct policies of the trump a administration and i think how each of the artists has responsibilitie responded ss interesting. the common [gavel]. >> chair peskin: good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco land use and transportation committee of the board of supervisors, joined by acting vice chair dean preston, soon to be joined by actual

vice chair ahsha safai. our clerk is miss erica major. miss major, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes. in accordance with governor newsom executive order declaring a state of emergency starting the covid-19 outbreak and mayor london n. breed's proclamation declaring a local emergency issued on february 25, 2020, including the guidance for gatherings issued by the san francisco department of public health center,

members of t officer, aggressive directives were issued to reduce the spread of covid-19. on march 17, 2020, the board of supervisors authorized their bhoord and committee meetings to convene remotely and will allow remote public comment via teleconference. watch the sfgovtv website at www.sfgovtv.org to stream the live meeting or to watch meetings on demand. members of the public are encouraged to participate remotely via detailed instructions on participating via teleconference.

members of the public may participate by phone or may submit their comments by e-mail to ericamajor@sfgov.org. all comments received will be made a part of the official report. >> chair peskin: thank you. would you please read items 1 and 2 today. >> clerk: item 1 is ordinance amending the administration code to establish the social housing program fund for the acquisition, creation, and operation of affordable social housing developments, and item 2 is an ordinance amending the administration code to establish the covid-19 rent resolution and relief fund, to provide financial support to

landlords whose tenants have been unable to pay rent due to the covid-19 pandemic. members of the public wishing to make public comment may call the phone number streaming across your screen and enter the meeting code. >> chair peskin: thank you. and it is my understanding that supervisor preston would like to continue these items one week. >> supervisor preston: yes. >> chair peskin: okay. and we've been joined by the actual vice chair, supervisor safai, so supervisor preston, you' you're demoted to member of this committee at this point. so just so that we are clear, the agenda next week is remarkably long, so i would ask

your indulgence, supervisor preston, either to continue this to the call of the chair, or if anything falls off of the next agenda, we could get it on or alternatively, i could schedule it for the meeting in two weeks. but we've got a super hairy, five-hour -- probably four-to-five-hour agenda next week. so what is your will, sir? >> supervisor preston: well, so my concern is -- we will be introducing amendments next week which will require further hearing. we are trying to move the funding from the upcoming ballot measure, so i -- you know, our hope through the meetings that we're having with

stakeholders is that we are hammering out issues before next week, but it would be our hope not to have a marathon meeting on monday, but i would say we are sensitive to the timing on this. >> chair peskin: and thank you for your sensitivity to that. it sounds like you're going to be introducing amendments that are substantive that would require a continuance. to the extent that proponents of these items could comment once it comes to the committee for a full consideration, cosoe can make next monday's calendar as efficient as possible given the number of items that we

have, let's continue it to next week for that. let's open it up for public comment. >> clerk: yes. >> i don't know why you have to put social in front of everything, but i think public sounds better. i yield the rest of my time. >> chair peskin: hello. next speaker, please. >> hello. this is anastas

anastasia iovannopoulos, district 8 resident. thank you for continuing this for letting us look at them and moving them inform a future meeting where they'll -- them to a future meeting where they'll be voted on. >> chair peskin: is there any further comment on item 1 and 2? >> clerk: that concludes the comment. >> chair peskin: if there's knox, supervisor preston would like to continue these items for one week. that motion made by myself, the chair. a roll call, please. >> clerk: on the motion as stated -- [roll call]

>> clerk: you have three ayes. >> chair peskin: next item, please. >> clerk: item 3 is a resolution supporting california state proposition 21, keep families in their homed on november 3, 2020 ballot. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on item number 3 should call the number streaming on the screen. that's 415-655-0001. enter the meeting i.d. 146-956-9029. press pound, and pound again, and press star, three to enter the queue. please wait until the system indicated you have been unmuted

and provide public comment. . >> chair peskin: thank you. this item has been sponsored by supervisor ronen and cosponsored by supervisors preston, haney, walton, and myself. is there a representative from supervisor ronen's office? >> [inaudible]. >> supervisor safai: i can't hear anything she's saying. >> oh, no. how is this? >> chair peskin: much better. >> thank you for allowing me to speak today. this item is a resolution supporting california state proposition 21, keep families in their homes, on the november

3 ballot. prop 21, when passed, will significantly amend the california civil code section now known as the costa hawkins rental act and rename it to the rental affordability act. specifically, what it would do is allow local governments to adopt local rent ordinances with exceptions for housing and condos owned by natural persons to own no more than two single-family units, and it would allow local governments to prohibit landlords from proposing more than 15% rent increases in one year in the city. while anecdotally, there are

stories of rents dropping due to covid, the rents are still out of reach for many. a minimum wage employee would have to work 57 hours a week to cover average rent if they didn't spend a single penny on food or anything else. 44% of san franciscans are still spending more than 30% of their income on their rent, with a disproportionate amount of those being african americans. [inaudible] >> it has distorted our housing market into becoming just

another commodity for corporate speculators [inaudible] long-term commitment and investment. two years ago, this board formally endorsed proposition 10 through resolution offered by supervisor pesk kin. prop 10 was disputed statewide after some of the nation's largest rental corporations spent $60 million on a cynical and misleading ad campaign, but a majority of san franciscans voted in favor. the california secretary of state website reports that the california apartment association has already poured nearly $28 million into the californians for responsible housing measure. the measure is a balanced approach to allow cities the flexibility to consider local

community housing needs and legislate appropriate protections. on behalf of supervisor ronen i ask you to support today to move it forward a committee report. >> chair peskin: thank you, miss bynard, for a thorough presentation. >> supervisor preston: i would just like to thank miss bynard for bringing this forward, and the resolution in support of then-proposition 10. i think it's really -- i just want to add, you know, it's very important that folks understand, when we're dealing with these state measures, is all we're seeking to do is takeoff the handcuffs that are, right now, on our city when it

comes to addressing rising rents and a history of gentrification. whether it's the ellis act, costa hawkins act, things were created because of real estate special interests and significantly restrict us as policy makers in the city and county of san francisco to extend protections to folks who are struggling. so we've seen that balance in the state and power give a little bit in the context of the pandemic, where we had seen the state government willing to give us a little more power. san francisco peskin, you led on the commercial eviction protections, where the governor said in the pandemic, that as a city, we could do more than what we would be otherwise allowed to do. but i think this prop,

proposition 21, really gets at the heart of not just what's going on in the pandemic, but beyond. are we going to be able to protect folks from high-rent evictions or not? and will we have the choice? and right now, that choice is made by the renters association and the state government, and this would return the power to us so we can craft some protections. it's narrow in scope, as miss bynard pointed out, as there were fewer things that were controversial than in the former version. i just want to say i fully support this.

i also hope the entire board sends a unanimous and strong message that we as a city are behind prop 21, and it will give us power to address those things. it does not dictate how we will address those powers. you can bet that ensuring protections for renters in san francisco will have to come back through this committee with a full opportunity at public comment before those changes can be made. >> chair peskin: thank you for those comments, supervisor preston. supervisor safai, anything that you would like to add? >> supervisor safai: yeah. can we have a conversation at what happened at the state level and in that conversation? i think assembly man david chiu

did something. and i think it would be good to get on the record the differences put out -- there's a little conversation put out, but what's different between previously and this time. the ballot went down in large part because there was a lack of understanding of how, talking about bringing rent control to single-family homes and how that played into a statewide conversation. i think that's removed this time, for sure. supervisor preston talked a little bit about smaller property owners, but i think it would be good to get some of the main differences on the record and what was talked about at the state level. i know that the governor signed the ability to control rent statewide, but i'm sure that for many places, that's still not enough in people's minds, so i just wanted to get that on the record, as well.

>> chair peskin: thank you, supervisor safai. before i turn it over to supervisor ronen's aide, miss bynard, let me offer a few things. it gets into the state exemption over what has historically before the purview over local governments such as our own, and costa hawkins significantly changed that, and we've been struggling with that for a long time. what is profoundly frustrating about this is prop 10 did not need to be on the ballot, and prop 21 did not need to be on the ballots. had the democratic assemblies not taken the steps to return these conversations to local governments -- because what's happening in san francisco is very different than what's going on in fresno, and we all

have to wrestle with that on a local level. this has been a profound failure by the state legislature because it is under so much pressure from lobbying. even though we are still under democrat super majorities in both houses, they are still under pressure from the statewide rental industry. yes, prop 10 did not succeed. prop 21 has made some adjustments. i want to express some profound disappointment in the democratic majorities in both houses that have failed to actually made modifications to costa hawkins, which was enacted by the state ledge lay tou -- legislature, and they can amend to return power to the

cities, if they want. with that, if you would like to respond, miss bynard, to supervisor safai's questions, the floor is yours. >> i think the two that he brought up about the two described, those are already in the records. with record to assembly man chiu's a.b. 1482, a.b. 1482 limits the state increase in rent to inflation plus 5%, which is quite high. it's great for places that have none -- have no rent control, but it's very high, and it's very high controlled with san francisco's rent control ordinance, so the potential, again, as supervisor preston was mentioning, what -- what

the passage of prop 21 would do would be to allow this back to the local legislation process -- legislative process, and for this city and this board of supervisors to be looking at what's appropriate for this city and the rental market here, and not to defer to, you know, what has been kind of a safety valve for places that have no rent control but really is not the solution for san francisco. >> chair peskin: thank you, miss bynard. why don't we open this up to public comment. are there any members of the public who would like to comment on this item? >> clerk: thank you, mr. chair. we have six listeners, with five in queue. if you can queue in the first caller? >> yes. i'm, quite frankly, appalled by this resolution.

the board of supervisors, in my opinion, has no place here. if you want to support something on the ballot, go out and vote for it on november 3. you know, chair peskin was complaining -- not complaining, but pointing out that next week's meeting is going to be, what, like five hours? don't waste your time on resolutions that do absolutely nothing. you say that san francisco supports this? you will see that on november 3. this is disgusting. i yield the rest of my time. thank you. >> chair peskin: next speaker, please. i will not even waste my breath responding to that. thank you. >> this is theresa flandrick, senior and disability action. i am calling in support of this

resolution. we did vote on prop 10, and the majority of san franciscans did want and need this back then and need it even more so today. again, having local control so that we can do what we need for our residents, for our city, just as other cities should have that same right. so i hope that all supervisors will support this unanimously? it is about time, so thank you so much for bringing this forward. the champions of actually taking care of san franciscans as well as the small property owners who are also san franciscans, i really like that that is part of this ordinanc,. so thank you again. >> chair peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, chair peskin, vice chair safai, and supervisor

preston. this is jeremy shaw, d-5. i think this is a modest compromise solution to afford some rent control. as an aside, this title of this resolution is supporting keeping families in their home. i'd like to point out that the chair has to the -- committee has to the call of the chair resolution [inaudible] and i would like to urge that you take that matter back up. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you. next speaker. >> supervisors, this is lorraine petty. [inaudible] i'm calling in support of this very important resolution. i'm in support of [inaudible] keeping families in their homes. i think this is a fair and measured proposition.

this extends to local jurisdicti jurisdictions the ability to craft protections and improve current protections for tenants. [inaudible] and in other loc e localities [inaudible] wildfires, lost incomes, the racial and social injustice, and particularly the effects of the rampant speculation and dislocation. prop 21 goes a long way towards [inaudible] i'd also make a nod to the brilliant legal minds of [inaudible] thank you.

>> chair peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. this is anastasia ionnapoulos. i'd like to ask every one of you to support this resolution. we need this throughout the state. this is fair to do to property owners, and i think the only people that are opposed to it are the big money people. thank you for introducing this resolution. >> chair peskin: thank you. are there any other members of the public who would like to testify on item number 3? >> clerk: that concludes the queue, sir. >> chair peskin: seeing no other members of the public for public comment, public comment is closed, and i would like to make a motion to send this item to the full board with recommendation as a committee report for hearing tomorrow. on that item, madam clerk, a

roll call, please. >> clerk: on the motion as stated -- [roll call] >> clerk: you have three ayes. >> chair peskin: all right. the item has been sent with recommendation as a committee report. is there any more business before this committee? >> clerk: there's no further business. >> chair peskin: we are adjourned. [gavel] >> as a woman of color who grew up in san francisco i understand how institutions can have an impact on communities of color. i think having my voice was

important. that is where my passion lies when the opportunity to lead an office in such a new space came up. i couldn't turn it down. i was with the district attorney's office for a little over nine years, if you include the time as an intern as well as volunteer da, all most 13 years. during the time with the da's office i had an opportunity to serve the community not only as the assistant district attorney but as director of community relations. that afforded the opportunity to have impact on the community in an immediate way. it is one thing to work to serve the rights of those without

rights, victims. it is really rewarding to work to to further the goals of our office and the commitment we have as city employees and advocates for people who don't have a voice. i don't know of anyone surprised to see me in this role. maybe people have an impression what the director of the office of cannabis should be like, what their beliefs should be. i smash all of that. you grew up in the inner city of san francisco. my career path is not traditional. i don't think a person should limit themselves to reach full potential. i say that to young women and girls. that is important. you want to see leadership that looks diverse because your path is not predetermined. i didn't wake up thinking i was going to be a prosecutor in my life. the city administrator reached out and wanted to have a conversation and gave me interest in the new role. i thought you must not know what

i do for a living. it was the opposite. she had foresight in realizing it would be helpful for somebody not only a former prosecutor but interested in shaping criminal justice reform for the city would be the right person for the space. i appreciate the foresight of the mayor to be open how we can be leaders in san francisco. i was able to transition to the policy space. here i was able to work on legislation, community relations, communication and start to shape the ways our office was going to reform the criminal justice system. it is fulfilling for me. i could create programs and see those impact people's lives. i am the change. it took truants youth to meet with civil rights movement leaders who fought to have access to education.

being a young person to understand that helped the young people realize this was an important thing to give up. what we find is that young people who are truanted have a really high homicide rate in our city, which is a sad statistic. we want to change that. >> coming from a community we are black and brown. i don't reach out to other people. i don't think they feel the same way. >> i had the great opportunity to work on prison reform issues and criminal justice reform issues. we created a program at san quentin where we brought district opportunities t to lifs and talk about how we are all impacted by the criminal justice system. we brought over 40 elected das to san quentin for the situation. now we are inviting the police department.

our formerly incarcerated group born out of this programming asked for the opportunity to work on a project where we could bring the men in blue on the outside to come speak to the men on blue inside to start the healing dialogue around how the criminal justice system specifically in san francisco impacts the community. i was attracted to the role. there was a component of equity that was part of this process. the equity community here in san francisco is a community that i had already worked with. before i took steps to visit cannabis businesses i thought it was important my team have a chance to go inside and speak to men who ha had been impacted. that conversation needed to happen so we know how we are making an impact with the work that we are doing. the da's office as we were leading up to the legalization of marijuana in the state we started having conversations on

the policy team what that could look like. the district attorney was really focused on the right side of history for this. we realized it would be quite a heavy lift for individuals who have been negatively impacted by the war on drugs to expunge the record. it was important to figure out the framework to make it seamless and easy. they put their minds to it after some time and many conversations the data analysts and other policy walk throughs on the team came up with the idea to engage the tech community in this process. code for america helped us developed the rhythm to be used for any jurisdiction across the state that was important to create a solution to be used to assist all jurisdictions dealing with this matter. the office of cannabis is the first office to have a

completely digital application process. we worked with the digital team to develop the online application. there are going to be hiccups. we are first to do it. it is one of the most rewarding parts to offer a seamless -- to offer a seamless approach. that is how they can find solutions to solve many of the community challenges. the best way to respond to prop 64 was to retroactively expunge 9,000 cannabis related records for san francisco. it feels like justice full circle for my personal experience. in the past i was furthering the war on drugs just as my directive. really coming from a place of public safety. that was the mandate and understanding. it is nice to see that pass a society we are able to look at

some of our laws and say, you know what? we got it wrong. let's get this right. i had the privilege of being in the existing framework. my predecessor nicole elliott did an incredible job bringing together the individuals super-passionate about cannabis. >> the office was created in july of 2017. i came in early 2018. i have been able to see the office's development over time which is nice. it is exciting to be in the space, stickily in thinking about her leadership. >> looking for the office it is always we might be before my time when i was working for the board oforboard of supervisors. i learn new things every day it is challenging and rewarding for me. >> we get the privilege to work

in an office tha that is innova. we get to spearhead the robust exprogram. >> i am excited she came on board to leverage experience as a prosecutor 10 years as we contemplate enforcements but approaching it without replicating the war on drugs. >> i was hired by cam laharris. i haven't seen a district attorney that looked kind of like me. that could be a path in my life. i might not have considered it. it is important that women and certainly women of color and spaces of leadership really do their part to bring on and mentor as many young people as they can. it is superimportant to take advantage of as many opportunities a as they can when they can intern because the doors are wide open. plans change and that is okay. the way this was shaped because

i took a risk to try something new and explore something and show that i was capable. you are capable, right? it was about leaning in and being at the table to say my voice matters. you find your passion, the sky [♪] find your passion, the sky >> i am the supervisor of district one.

i am sandra lee fewer. [♪] >> i moved to the richmond district in 1950 mine. i was two years old. i moved from chinatown and we were one of the first asian families to move out here. [♪] >> when my mother decided to buy that house, nobody knew where it was. it seems so far away. for a long time, we were the only chinese family there but we started to see the areas of growth to serve a larger chinese population. the stress was storage of the birthplace of that. my father would have to go to chinatown for dim sum and i remember one day he came home and said, there is one here now. it just started to grow very organically. it is the same thing with the russian population, which is another very large ethnic group in the richmond district. as russia started to move in, we saw more russian stores.

so parts of the richmond is very concentrated with the russian community and immigrant russian community, and also a chinese immigrant community. [♪] >> i think as living here in the richmond, we really appreciate the fact that we are surrounded three natural barriers. they are beautiful barriers. the presidio which gives us so many trails to walk through, ocean beach, for families to just go to the beach and be in the pacific ocean. we also also have a national park service. we boarded the golden gate national recreation area so there is a lot of activity to do in the summer time you see people with bonfires. but really families enjoying the beach and the pacific ocean during the rest of the time of year. [♪]

>> and golden gate park where we have so many of our treasures here. we have the tea garden, the museum and the academy of sciences. not to mention the wonderful playgrounds that we have here in richmond. this is why i say the richmond is a great place for families. the theatre is a treasure in our neighborhood. it has been around for a very long time. is one of our two neighborhood theatres that we have here. i moved here when i was 1959 when i was two years old. we would always go here. i love these neighborhood theatres. it is one of the places that has not only a landmark in the richmond district, but also in san francisco. small theatres showing one or two films. a unique -- they are unique also to the neighborhood and san francisco.

>> where we are today is the heart of the richmond district. with what is unique is that it is also small businesses. there is a different retail here it is mom and pop opening up businesses. and providing for the neighborhood. this is what we love about the streets. the cora door starts on clement street and goes all the way down to the end of clement where you will see small businesses even towards 32nd. at the core of it is right here between here and 20 -- tenth avenue. when we see this variety of stores offered here, it is very unique then of the -- any other part of san francisco. there is traditional irish music which you don't get hardly anywhere in san francisco. some places have this long legacy of serving ice cream and being a hangout for families to have a sunday afternoon ice cream. and then also, we see grocery stores.

and also these restaurants that are just new here, but also thriving. [♪] >> we are seeing restaurants being switched over by hand, new owners, but what we are seeing is a vibrancy of clement street still being recaptured within new businesses that are coming in. that is a really great thing to see. i don't know when i started to shop here, but it was probably a very, very long time ago. i like to cook a lot but i like to cook chinese food. the market is the place i like to come to once a year. once i like about the market as it is very affordable. it has fresh produce and fresh meat. also, seafood. but they also offer a large selection of condiments and sauces and noodles. a variety of rice that they have is tremendous. i don't thank you can find a variety like that anywhere else.

>> hi. i am kevin wong. i am the manager. in 1989 we move from chinatown to richmond district. we have opened for a bit, over 29 years. we carry products from thailand, japan, indonesia, vietnam, singapore and india. we try to keep everything fresh daily. so a customer can get the best out a bit. >> normally during crab season in november, this is the first place i hit. because they have really just really fresh crab. this is something my family really likes for me to make. also, from my traditional chinese food, i love to make a kale soup. they cut it to the size they really want. i am probably here once a week. i'm very familiar with the aisles and they know everyone who is a cashier -- cashier here

i know when people come into a market such as this, it looks like an asian supermarkets, which it is and sometimes it can be intimidating. we don't speak the language and many of the labels are in chinese, you may not know what to buy or if it is the proper ingredients for the recipe are trying to make. i do see a lot of people here with a recipe card or sometimes with a magazine and they are looking for specific items. the staff here is very helpful. i speak very little chinese here myself. thinks that i'm not sure about, i asked the clerk his and i say is this what i need? is this what i should be making? and they actually really helped me. they will bring me to the aisle and say this is battery. they are very knowledgeable. very friendly. i think they are here to serve not only the asian community but to serve all communities in the richmond district and in san francisco. [♪] >> what is wonderful about living here is that even though

our july is a very foggy and overcast, best neighborhood, the sleepy part outside on the west side is so rich with history, but also with all the amenities that are offered. [♪] >> i love teaching. it is such an exhilarating experience when people began to feel their own creativity. >> this really is a place where all people can come and take a class and fill part of the community. this is very enriching as an artist.

a lot of folks take these classes and take their digital imagery and turn it into negatives. >> there are not many black and white darkrooms available anymore. that is a really big draw. >> this is a signature piece. this is the bill largest darkroom in the u.s.. >> there are a lot of people that want to get into that dark room. >> i think it is the heart of this place. you feel it when you come in. >> the people who just started taking pictures, so this is really an intersection for many generations of photographers and this is a great place to learn because if you need people from different areas and also

everyone who works here is working in photography. >> we get to build the community here. this is different. first of all, this is a great location. it is in a less-populated area. >> of lot of people come here just so that they can participate in this program. it is a great opportunity for people who have a little bit of photographic experience.

the people have a lot, they can really come together and share a love and a passion. >> we offer everything from traditional black and white darkrooms to learning how to process your first roll of film. we offer classes and workshops in digital camera, digital printing. we offer classes basically in the shooting, ton the town at night, treasure island. there is a way for the programs exploring everyone who would like to spend the day on this program. >> hello, my name is jennifer. >> my name is simone. we are going on a field trip to

take pictures up the hill. >> c'mon, c'mon, c'mon. >> actually, i have been here a lot. i have never looked closely enough to see everything. now, i get to take pictures. >> we want to try to get them to be more creative with it. we let them to be free with them but at the same time, we give them a little bit of direction. >> you can focus in here. >> that was cool. >> if you see that? >> behind the city, behind the houses, behind those hills. the see any more hills?

>> these kids are wonderful. they get to explore, they get to see different things. >> we let them explore a little bit. they get their best. if their parents ever ask, we can learn -- they can say that they learned about the depth of field or the rule of thirds or that the shadows can give a good contrast. some of the things they come up with are fantastic. that is what we're trying to encourage. these kids can bring up the creativity and also the love for photography. >> a lot of people come into my classes and they don't feel like they really are creative and through the process of working

and showing them and giving them some tips and ideas. >> this is kind of the best kept secret. you should come on and take a class. we have orientations on most saturdays. this is a really wonderful location and is the real jewel to the community. >> ready to develop your photography skills? the harvey milk photo center focuses on adult classes. and saturday workshops expose youth and adults to photography classes.