. >> president walton: good afternoon and welcome to the september 21, 2021 regular meeting of the san francisco board of supervisors. madam clerk, will you please call the roll. >> clerk: thank you, mr. president. [roll call]

>> clerk: mr. president, all members are present. >> president walton: thank you. the san francisco board of supervisors acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the ramaytush ohlone who are the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. as the indigenous inhabitants of this land and in accordance with their tradition, the ramaytush ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place as well as all peoples who reside in their territories. as guests, we realize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland.

we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the array turbo loany-- ramaytush ohlone community. colleagues, please stand with me and recite the pledge of allegiance. [pledge of allegiance] >> president walton: and on behalf of the board, i would like to acknowledge the staff at sfgovtv. today, we have maria pena, who records each of our meetings and make the transcripts available to the public on-line. madam clerk, are there any communications? >> clerk: mr. president, i believe the mayor is on-line, and the first order of

business, you've always told me, is when the mayor's on the line, go to the mayor. >> president walton: thank you so much, and how are you doing this afternoon, madam mayor? >> the hon. london breed: thank you. i'm doing good. >> president walton: perfect. and we are going to get started with our question and comment time with the mayor this afternoon. madam mayor, do you have any opening remarks? >> the hon. london breed: yes, and thank you, president walton. good afternoon, supervisors. this week, i'm headed to dream force, and i must say it's been a relief once again to see moscone hosting conventions and tourists rather than our city's emergency response. earlier this month, i attended the first convention back in moscone since this pandemic began, hosted by the california dental association. i've got to tell you, i've never been more excited to go to the dentist. supervisor haney was also there, and i'm sure he'll tell you the same thing because

conventions are a huge driver of our economy, and we need them to return for our economic recovery to continue. before the pandemic, conventions spent over $720 million in san francisco, which was, of course, disrupted once covid hit, so in an effort to jump start them now, we've resumed conventions in moscone, making it possible for smaller conventions to afford our venues. and another reason why our continued efforts to keep covid cases low, the more likely people are to come to san francisco. as one of the premier destinations in the country for international travel, this is another major step on our

economic recovery. in 2019, international travel represented 60% of the economic activity from visitors to our city. san francisco has always been an appealing place for people to travel, and we fully expect that to continue, but as one of the most vaccinated places in the world, we can also promote ourselves as one of the safest programs for travelers, and through programs like our downtown ambassadors and our community recovery plan, we're making attempts to get the help that's needed. this pandemic isn't over yet, and we're going to continue working to get everyone vaccinated, but the actions we've taken so far have put us in a strong position for our economic recovery. and as traveling conventions kick off in the next year, we can expect to see more visitors and more economic activity. that's good for our city, good

for our businesses, and good for our workers. i'm going to continue to work with the businesses to invest in our city and as we see the revenues coming in, we need to keep this industry in mind because the investments that we make in homelessness and housing and transit and infrastructure are dependent upon tourism resuming, and it is my hope that together we will make sure our city is welcoming and our economy is thriving. >> president walton: thank you so much, madam mayor. madam clerk, would you please call the first topic. >> clerk: the first topic submitted by the district 11 supervisor, supervisor safai, is commercial rent delinquency.

>> president walton: thank you, madam clerk. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you, president walton. the report by the budget and legislative analyst office was reported nine months ago, and our recovery efforts have continued to be stifled by the pandemic. as of today, my office asks the budget and legislative analysts to do an updated estimate, which we received, and the number came in at $600 million, that's over half a billion dollars in unpaid rent.

with businesses in san francisco pleading for more support that is not in the form of government loans, my question to you, mayor breed, is what are you doing and what do plan to do to avoid this potential avalanche that will occur when the moratorium expires at the end of this month? >> the hon. london breed: well, there's no doubt that our businesses are suffering as a result of the covid-19 pandemic, but to be clear, our businesses were suffering before that, and it's why i've tried to continue to --

[inaudible] >> the hon. london breed: we have provided over $63 million in grants and loans for our small businesses so far, so tell me if there's any other city that could even match that. some of these programs have applications still open, like our vandalism fund, which supervisor mar and i announced just last week, the san francisco relief grant, which prioritized our long-standing businesses, we'll be opening up a second round of grants in the coming weeks. you know that many of our businesses have received millions of dollars from the federal government, but the fact is our grants and loans will never be enough. we need to use all the tools available to us. the office of small business is working hard to connect small businesses to organizations and to help them work with their

landlords. we waived tens of millions of dollars in licensing fees so businesses don't have to choose between paying a permit and paying the rent. and with our business ownership first year free program, coupled with policy change nz prop 8 and the small business recovery act, we're making it easier and cheaper to open a small business this year. did i hear the buzzer, or can i keep going? >> clerk: you have ten seconds, madam mayor. >> the hon. london breed: our program needs to prioritize small businesses and families with food, cash grants, and workforce development services. i appreciate sharing your passion for keeping our residents working and healthy, supervisor safai, and i'm committed to working with you on ideas to create a just

system in our city. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor safai, for your opening question, and you may ask a follow up question directly related to your opening question. >> supervisor safai: thank you, mayor breed. no one can question the effort that we've done as a city, and i thank the efforts of the office of small business' efforts to pivot, but based on the data that we heard last week, the numbers keep rising, so what i'm interested in directly is how will we deal with this ever mounting commercial back rent and how will we address that directly? >> the hon. london breed: just for clarity, i thought this was the item on the agenda that i couldn't specifically speak to. >> supervisor safai: no, i'm talking about the amount of back rent that's specifically accumulated. as i said, the commercial -- the b.l.a. came today with

special today over $600 million in commercial back rent, and i think you answered it directly. i just wanted to have a follow up on that amount that's accumulated and what we would do directly to deal with that amount of back rent? >> the hon. london breed: supervisor, as i said, we've been doing a lot, and we will continue to do all that we can to support small businesses in san francisco. and let's keep in mind not just the small businesses that have come to receive services but the work that we did to help them apply for stimulus resources and the work that we're doing to negotiate rent and work with landlords to address these needs. we're doing a lot of work as far as i'm concerned, and at the end of the day, we're not

going to be able to do everything. we have layers of bureaucracy and process that make it difficult for people to enter into business in the first place, so we need to get at the heart of that and make some significant policy changes if we want to safe small -- save small businesses in san francisco. >> supervisor safai: thank you. >> president walton: thank you. and you may now ask a question to supervisor safai or any other supervisor in attendance related to the same topic but not necessarily the same question. >> the hon. london breed: thank you so much, and i'm going to pass asking the questions at this time. >> president walton: thank you so much, madam mayor, for being here this afternoon, and this matter is now filed. madam clerk, will you please

take us back to communications? >> clerk: thank you, mr. president. the most efficient method to participate and provide up to two minutes of public comment is to listen from your touch phone connected to the remote call-in system, where you will be in live synch to provide your comments. throughout meeting, the -- throughout the meeting, the telephone number is streaming on your screen. it is 415-655-0001, and when you hear the prompt, enter the meeting i.d. 2492-715-3068. press pound twice, and once you hear the discussion, you'll know you have joined the meeting as a listener but you'll be muted. once you hear the item called, press star, three and once you hear the prompt you have been

unmuted, you may begin your comment. there is one special hearing at 3:00 p.m. at which organized testimony may be taken on behalf of the appellant and the project sponsor. items 27 through 30, the conditional use approval for 5801 mission street, and with respect to general public comment, once item 34 is called, you may be permitted to speak to the discussion that held during today's mayoral appearance, the matters that are within the substance matter jurisdiction of the board of supervisors but that are not on the agenda today, and the section of the agenda hosting items that were not heard in committee, items 35 through 37. all other agenda items have had the public comment opportunity at committee. you may submit your public comment via mail, 1 dr. carlton

b. goodlett place, room 204, san francisco, california, 94102. in partnership with the office of krisk engagement and immigrant affairs, interpretation services will be provided during the 3:00 p.m. special hearing and general public comment. at that time, be will have the interpreters announce the service -- we will have the interpreters announce the service that they are providing to the public. if you are experiencing troubles, please call 415-554-5184, and we have a live person standing by to help you get started. >> president walton: thank you, madam clerk. we are now at the approval of our minutes section, and today, we do not have any meeting minutes to approve as we are all caught up. madam clerk, would you please go to the consent agenda items

2 through 5. >> clerk: items 2 through 5 are consent and considered routine. if a member objects, the item may be removed and considered separately. >> president walton: seeing no names on the roster, madam clerk, will you please call the roll. >> clerk: on items 2 through 5 -- [roll call]

>> clerk: you have 11 ayes. >> president walton: without action, the items pass unanimously. madam clerk, please call item 6. >> clerk: item 6 is a resolution approving modification number 10 to municipal transportation agency contract number 2013-19, procurement of new light rail vehicles with siemens mobility, inc. to exercise an option to procure 30 additional light rail vehicles in the amount of $130.4 million plus applicable escalation costs. >> president walton: thank you. supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: thank you, president walton. thank you for supporting these purchases while making sure that there is no reduction in funding and services to riders.

i think this coming week exposed some things that are essential for the future transit in our city i'd like to discuss. i do want to thank sfmta and particularly director kirchbaum for providing really comprehensive information in response to my inquiries and providing additional clarity on the funding for these l.r.v.s. if we want to be a transit first city, we need to invest both in the infrastructure and critical operations. and too often, what we are seeing is austerity when it comes to funding and

traditional projects. what we are seeing right now is neighborhood against neighborhood that caps service return at 85% that costs an additional $85 million, money that the sfmta has not requested or used their reserves to cover. that is happening when we are being asked to approve a combined $290 million in capital investments today. that's 220 in this item and $70 million for the meters that we'll be discussing later in the meeting. you know, we, of course, need to invest in infrastructure and personally as an every day muni rider, and i ride an l.r.v. every morning to take my daughter to school. i know how important these vehicles are, but i remain concerned there is no dedicated source of funding, and the

funds that have been identified as back stop funds may be available for other operations. the committee that sought that clarify that operations funds won't be diverted, and that provision provides that [inaudible] the m.t.a. is relying on prop b baseline funds as the source of funds for this if nothing else comes through. under prop b, 75% of these baseline funds are for any item, including operations. i've confirmed this with the controller's office.

upon looking into this on my own, i've found that prop b funds have been used exclusively for capital improvements rather than operating expenses, specifically of the $268 million in prop b baseline fund, 231 million has been spent on capital improvements rather than operations. i believe this is guided by the understanding of director kirchbaum as evidenced in my e-mails with her that the voters intended these funds to be used for capital projects, and that these are available not just for capital projects but for operations. so through the president, i would like to clarify on the

record through the president to director kirchbaum to just get some clarity here because i think what was represented to the budget committee was that operations funds were not being used for this purchase, and that seems inconsistent with using prop k3wd baselining funds for -- prop b baselining funds. so mr. president, with your permission, i'd like to ask director kirchbaum directly. is director kirchbaum available? >> president walton: that's what i'm checking. director kirchbaum, are you available? yes, she is. >> supervisor preston: thank you, press walton, and thank you, director kirchbaum, for all of the back and forth and the information that you've provided. do you agree that 75% of prop b baseline funds are available for operations that improve

transit service? >> thank you. i think our chief financial officer is probably better equipped to answer that question than i am. my understanding is there is a clause in the prop b legislation that allows us to use the funding for operating dollars, which is why we moved money from capital to operating in our f.y. 21 budget, but i can't speak to whether or not the full 75% that's allocated for transit improvements could go to operating. have we had any luck giving jonathan access to our

committee meeting? >> i know that our chief financial officer is trying to get on the meeting right now. in the meantime, our budget director, tim [inaudible], is available. >> thank you, supervisors. tim [inaudible], sfmta. i'll turn it over to my boss, jonathan. >> good afternoon, supervisors.

jonathan [inaudible]. >> -- to note, the charter language does note the 75% of

this funding source should be used for transit reliability improvements and also notes within the charter that its purpose is state of good repair, so the capital projects, it's my understanding that we noted that the agency has invested in includes repair of vehicles, and the replacement of what used to be the oldest fleet in the united states. subsequent to that approval, we used these dollars for that purpose. [please stand by]

funding that has been identified for this purpose are those very prop b -- >> again, the funds identified in the item before you are a

back stop, and as you noted supervisor preston can be used for this purpose. again, as noted, at the committee hearing, it is not the intent to use these dollars. this is one source of many that is eligible for this purpose. and this would be an exercise for options. >> thank you, to thank to commissioner safai for this amendment on page 3, lines 9-13 of the resolution which i think this was intended to confirm that no funds are available for operations would be used for the purchase of these vehicles. i trust to understand in light

of what i'm hearing about prop b being a back stop here, or for capital. we all hope that we won't use that and we'll find other sources, but if we don't that you'll be using funds that would otherwise be available for operation to purchase these vehicles. is that accurate? and how does that area with the resolution provision that seems to say the opposite? >> director tumlin or director -- >> you want me to try attempt to

answer that? [multiple voices] >> as i noted and you noted for the record, supervisor preston, more than 75% of the baseline funds for transit has been used fereliability improvement and vehicle replacement and improvement to the transit system to date. we have set aside in our budget in the current fiscal year and the prior fiscal year $30 million. i believe that it's the intention of the agency through the board to continue to sustain those levels because we must. just to sustain the service. and we had planned even prior to the pandemic of that amount of portion set aside for operations. that does not change the fact that we still use proposition b today, a portion of those transit dollars, for critical

infrastructure state of good repair projects, consistent with the language in the charter. so, again, the dollars that we have designated for the operating budget today that make up the entire mt operating budget, we are saying that we will not use any of those dollars including that component of prop b, that component today, for the purposes of these vehicles. it does not mean that the money that we have in our five-year cip related to prop b may not be used for procurement, but, again, it is not our intention to do so. it is our intention to go after capital grant, the prop k sales tax and numerous other sources, that that does not become necessary. >> president walton: supervisor preston. sorry -- director tumlin, my apologies. >> thank you, president walton. i also just wanted to -- as this contract saves the sfmta over a

hundred million dollars. this is an extraordinarily good deal for the agency and it saves us, particularly given the fact that these newer light rail vehicles are so much easier. they're about three to four times easier, less expensive to maintain. that saves us on our operating expenditures and allows us then to take those operating budget savings and to invest that in service restoration. so sometimes when your roof is leaking, you have to spend money now in order to create savings or avoid future costs. this is one of those examples of making sure that we're not further deferring maintenance, that it will cost us on the maintenance side in order to think that we're saving money on the operation side. again, this is an expenditure that will occur in 2026. any constraint inow we use our resources in 2026 potentially

jeopardizes these savings as we need to find dollars for grants to fund the bulk of these purchases. >> president walton: supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: thank you, president walton. and i don't want to belabor the point anymore than i have except, you know, no one is disputing i don't think the value of investing in these vehicles. and i also know that we're under a significant time pressure here to approve this by the end of the month and not lose the opportunity to purchase these at a pretty good price. but i am hearing two very different things and i just i want to express the frustration that i am hearing an assurance that we will not use funds that could be used for operations funding of muni for this purchase. i am seeing a provision in the resolution that seems to say the same thing. and yet i'm hearing that the back stop funds for this purchase are prop b funds that, in fact, could be used for

operations. that doesn't add up. if director tumlin wants to provide clarity if those two things don't conflict, i would love to hear it. otherwise, we can, you know, we can move forward with the item. but through the president to director timlin that, appears to be a conflict. i don't think that i'm misreading this. the source of funds is prop b. those are available for operations and yet mta is representing that we're not using funds available for operations for this purchase. can you clear that up? or is it that just what it is? >> president walton: director tumlin. >> we're required to have a back stop source of funding in order to make this commitment. it is our intention not to use operating funds, but we need to make sure that we can back up this contract and that is the flexible source that we've got available to us right now for an expense that may occur in 2026.

i can see though if jonathan, if you wanted to add anything more? >> through the president, jonathan ruers, with the mta. i agree with you director tumlin. i actually don't think that there are two different stories or conflicts. i think that the record is clear. i think that the mta is using the funds consistent with the charter. i think that we have not used these dollars for an operating purpose until the current fiscal crisis that the agency has faced. only exacerbated since by covid i think the resolution, what the board makes clear, is that we will not use any of those dollars currently in the operating budget, including the component of prop b that is there, for the purchases of these lrvs, and the agency is fully committed to continue to have those funds available if required for future deficits or future needs related to

operations. so i actually feel that the public record, the charter, the use of the funds, the purpose of the funds, has -- it's quite clear in this situation. it's no different than the board of supervisors and the use of the general funds. some components of the funnel are general fund are used for capital, used for capital debt and used for general obligation bonds. it doesn't mean that we restrict the fund between capital and operating. there's state of good repair needs that the agency has, as director tumlin noted. these are both the parking meter and the lrt procurement will realize savings in both maintenance costs and future capital costs. so, again, to repeat for the record, it is the mta's commitment not to have to use prop b. we must use this fund as a back source today. that is an eligible source under the charter. we will not take a single dollar currently designated in the mta

operating budget today and use it for the purchases of these lrvs in the future. >> president walton: thank you. supervisor preston. >> supervisor preston: thank you, president walton. so i think that there's some fine words missing going on. and the record is what it is. a final comment, when i think that it comes to the operation side from the director on down, everything is presented in terms of tradeoffs that one must make, in terms of loss of service here, meaning that you get service there. and yet somehow when it comes to these baselining funds, where there is actually a trade off and every dollar that you spend on capital does compete with dollars for service and it can be used for both, that that's really being dismissed and glossed over. i do think that we all share a goal of securing actual capital funds for this purchase. and i do concur that these purchases are a good deal.

so i will be supporting the item today, but i appreciate everyone's time in getting to the bottom of some of the details regarding this funding. thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor preston. supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: thank you for your line of questions and for extra clarity for the public to understand this process a little bit better. i will say that we did speak somewhat about these issues in budget and i just wanted to, again, to highlight for the record one of the other areas that we added, which is that the mta would provide a detailed report talking about the source of the funding before they initiated the production of the vehicles. and that they would submit that report for the legislative file and present that to the board of supervisors. we have multiple opportunities if we are not happy in the two-year budgeting process to weigh in on the mta's proposals and process. that is something that we retain

as part of the charter amendments that have been made over the years. it's an important function that i think we still retain. so i appreciate you highlighting that. we also did try with the amendments -- and you and i discussed that today -- to really call out that no enterprise funding and transit fares parking operation, fines, fees, other sources that weren't included in the capital plan would be put towards this purchase. but the truth is that at the end of the day for us to have good service, we have to have good vehicles. and the more we have more vehicles the more we can keep the service operating and so on so it's a bit of a catch-22 and i understand why you have really dug in on that because we want to ensure that we're not trading off one for the expense of the others. so thank you, and thank you for your line of questioning. it sounds like you'll support the original amendments as proposed. correct? through the president. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: yes, i see you nodding.

>> president walton: supervisor chan? >> supervisor chan: thank you, i think this is more of a comment than a question. and just a reminder for all of us here why we -- in my opinion -- why i support it for this to continue for a week. this item specifically is really because i think that we're questioning the agency, the way that they are spending money and making the priorities. not too long ago, you know, we -- i voted against it, but that it was passed through this board that for an advertisement fee waiver for the sfmta. meanwhile we're trying to fight to get them funding of $12 million for free muni and here we are, and we're spending this money to purchase the vehicles that we're not sure in the long

term where we'll find the funding to really purchase them and later we're going to decide whether we're going to spend for contract, where, again, it's going to spend at least $22 pillion of capital funding to upgrade the city meters. and all of this is in a backdrop of we're not able to have even the service level that we would have pre-pandemic. and, again, this is really a question for sfmta. how do they prioritize the way they spend money? and looking at these contracts, we don't have jurisdiction over these and perhaps these are the only ways that we can really question them. and are they prioritizing really the people that they are supposed to service? the people that depend on them day in and day out.

frankly, sfmta, you know, as an entire agency but really to director tumlin, i know that your job is complicated but your mission is really straightforward. it's to provide safe and efficient public transit for those people who depend on it. and i think that the second part of it is to get people out of their cars. but right now the way that all of these decisions are made not really based on -- not really going to accomplish those goals, they are barely judge getting us through. i will be supporting this contract modification today but the questions remain, how do we get our public transit back on track, pun intended, and to really service san franciscans? thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor chan.

supervisor stefani. >> supervisor stefani: thank you, thank you, president walton. i just want to add that i was prepared to support this last week and i'll definitely support this item today. and the fact of the matter is that muni is an aging transit system and at this critical moment where we're trying to restore service and bring back riders, we must make investments like this. to me it's not going to matter if we divert prop b money to operations and if we don't have buses and trains to carry out those operations. and the ongoing maintenance costs, the old vehicles are going to continue to sink us. so i feel confident that the sfmta has the ability to make the determination as to whether this is a sound purchase before 2024, or 2025, if their situation should change. yes, director tumlin and the sfmta board of directors has a very difficult job, but i think that investing in these vehicles

it is extremely important. if we don't do it today it sounds like everyone is on board in spite of the comments, that costs will significantly rise. so i am prepared to support it today just as i was last week. and the questions over diverting funds to me just i think is a red herring. and we need new buses, we need new trains, if we want our service to be safe, reliable and frequent. these are investments that we need to make. thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor stefani. supervisor melgar. >> supervisor melgar: thank you very much, president walton. so i represent a district on the other side of the west port tunnellal where the light rail vehicles have been getting stuck for many, many years because of underinvestment in our capital infrastructure. and i am glad that we are investing in this infrastructure. i also support the full

operations of muni. so i would really like it if director tumlin could talk about the relationship between capital investment and operations in this context. my colleague, supervisor preston, has brought up that tradeoff of prop b. because, you know, i haven't seen yet -- and i would like us all to be clear about that relationship, when the buses getting stuck or the lrts are getting struck, how much does that affect ridership over the long term? and whether we have studies and whether the mta is considering that, whether the board has seen those. i was wondering if you could talk about that director tumlin >> president walton: thank you, supervisor melgar. director tumlin. >> thank you for that, supervisor, and thank you for that question. so one of the things that we're working on right now is to try to use the upcoming federal

money that we expect to come out of both the infrastructure bill as well as other federal sources and use that money in order to save on operations so that we can invest in or service restoration. as you know our old cars are incredibly expensive and time consuming to maintain. the new light rail vehicles are three to four times more efficient in terms of the ability to provide service but also in terms of maintenance costs. so this is a way that we use our capital money in order to create savings from the operating side, in order to deliver service and also to set ourselves up for federal investment, without this contract that makes it a lot more difficult for us to be able ready for federal capital money the other thing that we see with both the investments that we made during covid and transit speed and reliability improvements is that all of the lines where we've invested during covid and transit priority lanes, in single

changes, in cued up lanes and all of the changes that we made in the subway, those lines are 20% faster and significantly more reliable. also on all of those lines, we're seeing on our weekend and weekday mid-day ridership that is up to 70% to 85% of pre-covid ridership. these are incredibly high performing lines. when we invest in speed, reliability, frequency, and convenience and safety, our riders respond. and so that's what we're trying to do with this capital money is to save money on our operations so we can invest in more service, and investing in more service drives our ridership, which helps us with our financial recovery and helps san franciscans get to work, get to shopping, get to school, do whatever it is that they need to do. >> supervisor melgar: thank you, director tumlin. it would be great to see this from your department, like a

cost benefit analysis, you know, of the time saved in the repairing and aging infrastructure, versus spending upfront to improve our aging infrastructure, or replace it. and it would be really be great because this is not going to be the last purchase that we make. i would really appreciate it if we had that. thank. >> i would be happy to present that to the whole board of supervisors. >> president walton: thank you, director tumlin and thank you, supervisor melgar. supervisor moore mar. >> supervisor mar: thank you, i wanted to weigh in on this important discussion as well and thank supervisor preston for his leadership and strong advocacy for the muni service and fare free muni. but also i'm grateful to my budget colleagues, and particularly supervisor safai for the thought half amendment, ensuring future opportunities

for review and input on this. and i just wanted to say, you know, let's not be pennywise and pound foolish. this resolution as written is critical, smart and an equitable investment that will benefit the muni service and operations for many years to come. it's also, you know, supervisor melgar noted last week, the opposite of austerity. more trains are good, actually, and more trains locked in at a price that will save the agency and ultimately muni riders $100 million is even better. this contract amendment is about giving sfmta options and at a great price. and they can exercise to expand our lrt fleet at significant saves and maintenance costs and at significant benefit for our muni service. so better trains means better service. and better operations. and i know that my constituents who have been stuck on the

disfunctional train cars and have had them passed by, need and deserve this investment. so, again, i think this is a very important step that we're taking but i want to again thank supervisor preston for his important questioning. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor mar. i don't see anyone else on the roster. and i believe that we can take this same house, same call. without any objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. madam clerk, please call item number 7. >> clerk: item 7 is an ordinance to amend the administrative code to prohibit landlords from evicting residential tenants for non-payment of rent that came due between july 1st and december 31st, 2021, and to make the appropriate findings. >> president walton: thank you. supervisor preston. >> supervisor preston: thank

you, president walton, and we'rt landing in my inbox, and maybe everyone else's, some amendments that i would like to at this time ask for this one to be rereferred and get back to it later. thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor preston, we will do that. madam clerk, call item 8. >> clerk: ordinance to amend the administration code for the rent relief fund to provide financial support to landlords of certain commercial tenants where the tenant was unable to pay rent due to the covid-19 pandemic and to set a sunset date of 24 months from the effective date of the legislation. >> president walton: thank you so much, madam clerk. i believe that we can take this item -- supervisor safai, my apologies. >> supervisor stefani: i need to stand up and stretch my legs if that's okay, mr. president. >> president walton: most definitely. >> supervisor safai: okay. and as you said, go, giants. thank you, colleagues.

i just wanted to note for the record that every member of this board has signed on as a co-sponsor to this piece of legislation. i really appreciate the opportunity to move this forward. i want to thank our budget chair, supervisor haney, supervisor mar, for signing on first after we heard from almost 50 businesses last week in our budget and finance committee. every single district in san francisco has been impacted and will potentially be impacted by the commercial eviction moratorium that is set to end in two weeks. i was not able it talk about this, but the mayor, we did talk about it in general terms because this was on the agenda today. this would create the opportunity for landlords and businesses to sit down and negotiate. we cannot force that negotiation today. but with money and a commercial rent relief fund, the

opportunity to negotiate would be there. we would set aside a portion of that money if the funds are put into this that would compel landlords and small businesses to sit down and negotiate rent relief. it would require an additional three years on to the existing lease. and it would create up to -- between $25,000, up to $35,000 in pure grant money that has to go toward debt relief, rent relief. it could not be used for any other purpose. we believe with the creation of this fund that somewhere between 1,000 businesses could be impacted. somewhere between 10,000 to 15,000 employees would be impacted. i don't need to remind any of you the nature of empty storefronts and what impact it has on our commercial corridors or communities and the vibrancy

of our city. we have engaged with the various merchants' associations and the bar owners alliance and the small business commission, the san francisco council of district merchants and the golden gate merchant association, and the chinese chamber of commerce and african-american chamber of commerce, san francisco bay area hispanic chamber, and latino task force and every district supervisor's office has weighed in and relayed stories to us to gather more feedback on how this would help. at the end as you heard me say today that the budget legislative analyst building on supervisor ronen's request back in the spring, updated their report to say somewhere over 600 million -- $637 million they estimate in back rent today. we've done things, thank you, supervisor peskin, as i said last week, we have extended the moratorium based on the size of

the employees and we worked with as the supervisor ronen noted to help new businesses start up, or those that would retain their space and access their space through the bureaucratic process. that we want to avoid this impending cliff that these small businesses will fall off on. we will continue our conversations with the mayor's office. we believe that they will be fruitful. we still believe that $25 million is the right number to begin with and as supervisor preston said, if that doesn't all come to fruition and that's not enough, we have the ability to come back and negotiate more just as a parallel, we've put over $100 million or more into the tenant side. and we should do that for our residential tenants that, should be a priority. but if we want to get our economy going again, if we want to keep people employed and we want to keep san francisco's fabric special, we believe this is an important fund.

so i want to thank every one of you for signing on this today and the creation of this fund. and i look forward to working with you and the mayor's office to create the right amount of money to go into this fund. thank you, mr. president. >> president walton: thank you. i believe that you got a chance to stretch your legs and your vocal chords. i believe that we can take this item same house, same call. without objection this is passed on the first reading unanimously. madam clerk, let's go to our 3:00 p.m. special order please. >> clerk: items 27 through 30, continued open from july 27th, 2021, and compromise the public hearing of persons interested in the approval of a conditional use authorization for a proposed project at 5801 mission street

issued by the planning commission on june 10th, 2021. to allow approximately 2,055 square feet of cannabis retail use with no on-site smoking or vaporizing the cannabis products on the first floor of an existing two-story building on the excelsior zoning district. the fringe financial services restricted use district, and 40 height and bulk district. item 28 to approve the decision of the planning commission and to approve a conditional use authorization for the mission street project. item 29 is the motion to conditionally disapprove the commission decision and approve subject to the adoption of written findings by the board in support of this determination, and item 30 is the motion to direct the preparation of findings in support of the board's disapproval of the proposed conditional use authorization for the mission street project. >> president walton: thank you,

madam clerk. colleagues, we have before us a hearing on the appeal of a conditional use authorization for the project at 5801 mission street. after the hearing, the board will vote on whether to approve or conditionally disapprove the planning commission's approval of the conditional use authorization at 5801 mission street. without objection, we will proceed as follows: up to 10 minutes for a presentation by the appellant, or their representative. public comment two minutes per speaker in support of the appeal. up to 10 minutes for presentation from the planning department. then up to 10 minutes for the project sponsor, public comment, two minutes per speaker in opposition to the appeal. and, finally, up to three minutes for a rebuttal by the appellant or their

representative. colleagues, do we have any objections to proceeding this way? i don't see anyone with objections? the public hearing will proceed as indicated and it is now open supervisor safai, would you like to provide any opening remarks? >> supervisor safai: not at this time, mr. president. let's proceed with the hearing and i will reserve my remarks for later. >> president walton: thank you so much. we will now have the appellant come forward and present their case. you have up to 10 minutes and i believe that we have pastor roger giddons. is the appellant present on teams or a representative of the appellant? >> yes, i'm representing the appellant. >> president walton: thank you

so much. you may proceed. you have up to 10 minutes for your presentation. >> all right. are my slides available? >> president walton: hold on one >> clerk:just one moment and we'll have operations place the slides so that they are visible >> that's not my slides. i am representing the san francisco crist cran center. we are appealing the decision to approve the conditional use of authorization for 5801 mission street. next slide. we would like to consider the

location, 300 feet around 5801 mission street, our location, san francisco christian center holds our kids first. and after-school programs that is a district provider for san francisco unified with signed contracts. we should be considered an entity, under the direction of the school district. in relation to that, we have woody's liquor that is across the street from the establishment. we have the connection which is a bar, and lucky vans tattoo parlor. next slide. when looking at the relative location, we have san francisco christian school, we have long fellow elementary, and the

proposed supportive housing unit which is the mission inn within a thousand feet of the location next slide. in opposing this establishment at 5801 mission street, we have to consider the clustering of cannabis distribution centers in the district. there are three already, and even a proposed one, which is in the hearing tomorrow at 5900 block of mission street, another thing to consider is that it is a high-risk corridor. this area is considered under the safe program, encouraging the community to ride and walk to the school. when considering this location for -- as equity, you are violating the rights of the

african-american community, and although we are small, we are still here. we have provided a lot of supports. we have -- you also have to consider that we have been funded. there are some funded programs within san francisco christian center that has received funding over $600,000 from the dream keepers initiative. and one of the programs that is opening is right next door to the proposed location. consider that as well. this community has the largest immigrant and families and children. we need to consider that. there is limited access. there was limited access in regards to the communication of this initiative with this cannabis club. and we need to make sure that the community in all languages is being communicated with.

this location is a well traveled area and we need to make sure that our community is safe. what needs to also be highly regarded is that well am 40% of the property owners are challenging this request. this should be noted. next slide. we need to work together to make sure that whether this establishment is approved or not that, the community's needs are being listened to. we do not want to be in san francisco where cannabis is exceeding the number of grocery stores or grocery access or needs access. we need to make sure that we have needs being met, groceries, we need all of those.

we are one district with one grocery store. how is that possible for the population of 78% -- 78,000 people going to one store. and then when you go in the store, everything is locked up behind glass. we need to make sure that the basic needs are being met. and i would like to make sure that, you know, there's a lot of money being spent on purchasing the mission inn, where you will be providing supportive housing that's all within a thousand feet of this cannabis establishment. we have dream keeper funds going in next door. they were awarded dollars to provide services to black african-american childcare providers, new in legacy. this is two doors down from this establishment. we have science initiatives that we have been funded through dream keepers fund to provide

workshops on weekends to african-american -- the population and students, for families. we need integrity by supporting the african-american families that are still here. and now delsy moore will be providing the rest of my rebuttal. thank you. >> president walton: thank you. mr. seymour, are you available?

do we have them on line or on teams? >> i don't see mr. moore yet. >> president walton: thank you. did you want to close out? you have about four minutes left. >> i have paused the time, mr. president. >> president walton: are you still available? >> i am still available. pastor roger is raising his hand. >> president walton: thank you, pastor. would you like to fill up the remainder of the time? >> unfortunately, dell seymour has trouble getting on. and it has shifted from our last meeting via zoom, and we're on a different platform that was a

little more challenging. but, nonetheless, i wanted to just kind of comment on what she has presented, which was an excellent presentation. and i trust that the board of supervisors would take into account these things that has been presented and wondering why that it was not taken into consideration that our kids first, who is in our facility, it is within 600 feet. and so it's defying the rules that have been set for the continuation of trying to open a cannabis club. so we are trusting that this really would be taken into consideration. our kids first. and the children. it's in full operation at this present time. and children are walking by continuously all through the week, so we trust that you would take these things into account as a board of supervisors. and really listen to the people

in our community who are on one accord and fully behind, again, the high percentage of our community that are fully behind this appeal. thank you. >> president walton: thank you so much. i don't see any questions from any of my colleagues for the appellant. so, madam clerk, we'll open this up to public comment, specifically for those who would like to speak in support of the appeal. >> clerk: thank you, mr. president. so, operations, please prepare to unmute the first caller. the board is now taking public testimony specific to the 5801 mission street appeal of conditional use authorization

approval, specifically speakers will have up to two minutes to provide testimony in support of the appeal. or against the project. the telephone number is streaming on your screen, it is 1-(415)-655-0001. and when you hear the prompt please enter your meeting i.d. which is 2491 715 3068. and press pound twice and you will have joined the meeting and you will hear the discussion and you'll be muted and in the listening mode. once you are ready to provide your comment press star 3, and when it is your turn the system will send you a prompt. listen carefully for you have been un-muted and just begin speaking your comments. we do have interpreters with us today from the office of civic engagement and immigrant affairs. i will ask each interpreter to briefly introduce themselves and the service they are here to provide and language. for cantonese we have connie lai, and filipino fey.

welcome, interpreters. >> (speaking foreign language) n|. >> (speaking foreign language) n|. >> clerk: thank you for being with us. we have 57 callers listening and 15 callers who are in the queue if you are one of the 57 and you would like to make public comment, you should press star 3, and otherwise let's start with the 15 that are ready to

go. operations let's hear from the first caller, please. welcome, caller. >> clerk: all right, caller, you may not know it is that your turn to speak. to operations, let's go to the next caller and we'll return to that number. welcome, caller. >> caller: all right, yes, hi. my name is mike nick. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can.

welcome. >> caller: oh, thank you. my name is mike nick, i'm the owner of [indiscernible] and i just want to bring my concerns about the dispensary opening up in the district. for us, i'm talking about [indiscernible]and our business dropped 25% to 30%. our main concern relating how beam go and how [indiscernible]and not enough business for all of these dispensaries. this is my main concern. i just don't want to let the

people [indiscernible]because they'll be on the same street. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. thank you. all right, operations, let's hear from our next caller, please. >> caller: hi, good afternoon, this is dale seymour and i'm sorry they could not get on the process. but i wanted to say a few things that i own several businesses in san francisco so i'm not anti-business. cannabis business is as legitimate as safeway or walgreens or any other business and they definitely have a right to open up businesses wherever it is legal. in this case it is not legal. i don't know how -- maybe i am doing my arithmetic wrong or reading the statutes wrong, but this business does not fit the cannabis definition for location. it is within 600 feet of a school. how do we miss that? how did this get to this point where it is like that?

this organization applied for a license, and 400 more feet down the street and i'd support them and all of the transparency, i also have a cannabis license myself, so i'm definitely not against the business, but this violates the premise of our kids' school, and who have been there for years. so i stringently oppose going forward with this and i need someone to look back at the statute that shows this is in violation. how did we get to this point without anyone noticing this? again, i'm not against that business. i know the folks involved in it and i'd support them to the end and the location that is not in violation of the state and city regulations regarding our cannabis businesses. thank you for your time.

>> clerk: thank you, pastor giddons. okay, operations, do we have another caller, please? okay. welcome, caller. >> caller: oh, hi, this is josephine. if black lives matter really matters this is a time to decide where african-american community to vote against the project. it is stop this, and we agree and mr. seymour and the christian center that this shop will disrupt the community on its equity program, asp, children's safe walkway as well as 61% asian american low-income

immigrant community that 67% speaks another language. it doesn't matter, it is not what we need. we need services. family services. home services. grocery stores. we oppose it because we don't need this disruption in this neighborhood. it doesn't matter that we are not educated on this topic or not, it is not what we need. please vote against it. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations let's hear from our next caller, please. welcome, caller. all right, let's go to the next caller.

>> caller: [indiscernible]i am calling over the [indiscernible]and i think that it's based on false evidence. the first is that section 202 south kennedy [indiscernible]shall not be within 60 feet of any school, public or private. and yet the san francisco christian center operates an after-school care that is within 300 feet of the proposed store. and [indiscernible]however, the supporters are organizing

the professional groups and all objections are from local residents and the businesses. [indiscernible]thank you very much,. >> clerk: let's unmute the next caller, please. >> caller: hello, this is gord [indiscernible][broken audio]

it makes people violent and causes a lot of -- [no audio] >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right, operations, let's hear from our next caller. please. >> caller: hello, a center at the yard, and now the point person for district 11 in the hotel soon to be purchased by the city at 5630 mission street which will permanently house homeless people. i believe that the cannabis club on 5801 mission is not a fit for this neighborhood. district 1 has probably one of the highest number of youth and children in the district in san

francisco and the highest number of seniors. this is highly inappropriate to have three cannabis clubs on the same street in the same district. we oppose it, and the san francisco christian center's appeal in this matter, along with the thousand signatures that were sent over to the board of supervisors opposing this project. i ask you to negate this project at 5801 mission. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, sir. operations, let's hear from our next caller, please. >> caller: yes, good evening, board of supervisors. we are here because we are opening up the african-american

early learning educators and we need your support in keeping it safe in our community. safe in the community does not just mean people outside and selling whatever they're doing, but we want to -- if we feel safe, the educators will be safe and the children will be safe. we really need you to understand when something happens, negative things can happen with this cannabis club. thank you very much, goodbye. >> clerk: thank you for your comments, ma'am. we have 57 who are listening and 12 callers in the queue. we are taking up to two minutes of public comment on behalf of the appellant. or against the project. operations, let's hear from the next caller, please.

>> caller: hello, can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can. welcome. >> caller: hello, thank you. i live across street from 5801 mission street and i support the appeal. every single week there is trash from the building of 5801 that covers the sidewalk in piles, so much so that the public of department works has to be called out regularly to clear it up. if we can't trust this building's management to follow simple trash policies, how can we trust it to do the policies of a tenant dispensary, especially the ones meant to keep the neighborhood families and children safe. as a member of the asian american community i feel that there's a lack of communication to us, perhaps because there is a lack of translators or we don't understand the language as much, but we also feel that this is -- kind of unfair to the residents who do not speak

english very well. that is all, thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, let's hear from the next caller. hello, caller. all right, perhaps that was an unintended line. operations, we know that they'll do their best to circle back. let's more from the next caller we have 60 callers in the queue listening and 15 who are ready to provide their comment on behalf of the appellant. let's hear from the next caller,

please. all right, perhaps that's another unintended line. let's go to our next. >> clerk:welcome, we can hear you. >> caller: thank you board of supervisors for having this meeting. i am tina and i'm a small property owner within 300 feet of this proposed tenant business. and i support the appeal and oppose the shop. cannabis shops are now not what we need. too many of cannabis shops in our neighborhood already. and disrupting the needs of the community, this is not the service that we need for now. and then there's the nearby

stores about a mile and so many others providing home delivery. and what we need in our neighborhoods -- we only have one supermarket. that's what we need. there's so many hotels in there and not even that, but there's so many schools, nursery schools, and people with so many different students in our neighborhood, and we account for 55% of the chinese. and more than 75% are immigrants. so those are the people that they are not wanting to support to have another cannabis shop in our neighborhood. we want to oppose this. as you can see we're gathering signatures and we are already gathering so many signatures in our neighborhood, you know, the community doesn't really want this shop. so we support the appeal and oppose the shop.

thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. okay, operations. let's hear from our next caller, please. >> caller: i am the president of the merchant association and here we are again, we already have three marijuana stores, cannabis establishments, in our district. as a matter of fact to give you brief history, we have three approved in one night of the planning commission. no other district had to bear the brunt of cannabis within our district. and who are we serving? are we serving the city of daly city and their residents? because it's very interesting how this store is going to be so close to the san mateo daily border. hmm. and so close to freeway access. gee, i wonder where those people will be coming from. so once again, it is a service that we do not need, nor do we want, and we wholeheartedly support the s.f. christian

center in their appeal of this project. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments, ma'am. operations, can we hear from our next caller, please. >> caller: and they are already have so many of them, that it will bring a lot of foot traffic and a lot of traffic in general and people from outside of the area to come in. and it might cause a lot of problems and so, you know, let's keep it a safe area. i think that whatever mission has enough cases of cannabis, it is enough. thank you very much for listening. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, let's hear from our next caller, please. >> caller: hi, this is monique,

and i'm with the african-american early childhood educators. i oppose cannabis at this location. we need to prioritize our children and families in san francisco and put them first. by not allowing this cannabis club in this residential area. there's an after-school program and our learning hub that is funded through the dream keepers initiative. that's not fit for this neighborhood. again, i oppose this cannabis club. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right, so we have callers in the queue and we have about 56 callers who are listening and eight who are ready to make comment. if you are one of the individuals who would like to speak on behalf of the appeal and against the project, you should be in the queue, or press star, 3, now to get into the queue. all right, operations, let's hear from our next caller, please.

>> caller: hello, can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can, welcome. >> caller: hi. i live next to mission organic center and i want to say no on opening up a new cannabis club, just because there's already two down the same block and i know that people have said this, but we have been having a lot of car break-ins and i wouldn't want that to keep on happening besides being a lot of traffic, as well as people that double park on the street. parking is very hard to find and then other than that, people go up and down those streets to go to home and to go to school every single day. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right, operations, let's hear from our next caller. welcome, caller.

>> caller: oh, hi. i hope that everybody is doing fine. my name is chuck sui and i'm the owner of the 5700 block and i do not want a dispensary place. it's too close to school and we have children and we have elderly people on street going to work. and i believe that it's not safe, because of the double parked cars. and i know and i am an owner of a business down the street so i know that there's two already near my business. and when i go home every night there's always double parked cars and it's unsafe for everybody. so i do not want another one in this district. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments, sir. all right, the board is hearing public testimony in support of the appellant. if you are in support of the appellant or against the project, you should be in line

to provide your public testimony. there are currently about 7 callers in the queue. if you are interested in speaking, you should press star 3, otherwise, we may take this group to the end. there are some unattended lines and so we're just going to hear from these callers one after the other. welcome, caller. >> caller: hi. i have called this project at 5801 mission street [indiscernible]and the property owner and the answer is, no, we don't want you here. [indiscernible]stay away. that's all. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, let's hear from our next caller, please.

>> caller: (speaking foreign language).

>> hello. i am calling in to oppose this project. i want to say something is that i don't think that cannabis business owner is a good labor. it's actually a bad labor to our community. and they didn't do a good hourly wage. and this is something that they didn't know. this is going to open up at this location. and also if you ignore and open it in this location it will increase the housing prices in our area as well. and i want to make a comment for the bos is because you didn't give us our very clear instructions in chinese and in other language, like instructions like really to press star and 3 to speak in

order to deliver the public speech. and we have no idea how to deliver the public comment to the bos. so you guys didn't do a good outreach to our public callers as well as i want you to emphasize that that business owners didn't do good for outreach for our residents as well. so i'm here to urge your support for this appeal. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. to the speaker. and to miss lai, if you would please provide the instructions, that would be very helpful for us and to avoid any further misunderstanding. >> caller: okay. (speaking foreign language).

you have been un-muted. (speaking foreign language). thank you. >> clerk: thank you, thank you very much, and, again, thank you to the speaker. okay, operations, do we have another caller in the queue, please. >> caller: hello? >> clerk: welcome. >> caller: hi. >> (speaking foreign language). |. >> caller: hello?

>> (speaking foreign language). >> (speaking foreign language). |. >> (speaking foreign language). |

>> hello board of supervisors. i'm a local resident and here to support the appeal to this project. i heard that there's another additional cannabis store front that will open in our area, and, you know what, in this area there's a lot of students, families, residents who will go to school or to go to church. and if you are now these businesses are open in this area, and it will increase a lot of concerns in our community,

like sidewalk, and the parking issues. there's a lot of issues there and i'm opposed to this project and please do not allow a cannabis storefront to open up in this location. and i hope that the board of supervisors can raise your attention and raise your concerns about our safety issues as well. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments, sir. and thank you, ms. lai. okay, operations, do we have another caller in the queue, please? >> caller: hello? >> clerk: welcome. >> caller: hi. i support the appeal. reasons being, there are many children in such that are constantly, you know, that are in the area from -- coming from

long fellow elementary and san francisco christian. the church itself has their own after-school program and whatnot, and they have, you know, sunday, you know, church where families -- tons of families gather within the area and whatnot. also opening up such a dispensary in the area could only create more traffic, exacerbating even more parent -- the already apparent parking issues and such. the increase in traffic will also add more unnecessary dangers for the children and families in the area and such. and at the moment, there's already 30 dispensaries within this district, and only creatini

think that's it. thank you so much for your time and, yeah. >> clerk: thank you for your comments, sir. operations, do we have more callers in the queue? we have 56 listening and 11 to make comment if you would like to make comment, now is the opportunity to press star 3. all right, next caller, please. >> caller: good afternoon, supervisors. i am barbara frugate. i was on the cannabis task force and i served for two years. i'm supporting this appeal, and i'm opposed to the opening of this cannabis store for two drnl reasons not yet mentioned by speakers. the task force discussed equity applicants on many occasions and our definition is that an equity candidate is someone directed by the war on drugs.

this candidate previously owned a cannabis store and is applying to relocate to 5801 mission street. we were told that this owner lost her lease because her landlord decided to not renew. so i do not understand how she became an applicant for equity applicant in the first place. and i'm also aware that this equity applicant only owns 40% of the business. and a majority is by a company with multiple locations in california. we also discussed formula retail at the staff board meetings and i agree this is an attempt to go around the restrictions. since this equity applicant would not even be a 50% owner. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments, ma'am. all right, operations, let's hear from our next caller, please. >> caller: hello. you can hear me? >> clerk: we can, welcome.

>> caller: welcome. thank you, thank you for the opportunity. i'm calling on behalf of more than 24 businesses in the area. and as an accountant i have been in business for more than 24 years. not only is it dirty but now we have these businesses popping up. now we already have three businesses. my question to you is how many of these in st. francis woods in presidio heights? i wonder if you have an answer for that. and i have the answer for that. this is working class and that's why you're bringing more of these types of businesses interest our area.

please do not approve the opening of that business. we don't need it and we have children and senior citizens walking along that neighborhood and we don't need them to be unsafe. please, consider what i'm saying. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments, sir. all right, let us hear from our next caller, please. >> caller: hello, i am derek talibor, and a life-long resident for 65 years of san francisco, california. and i'm totally opposed to the granting of this permit for this cannabis business at 5801 mission street. the african-american early childhood educators, the christian center, i am in full support of their appeal. and this is ludicrous for us to be even be considering the location of that business, that cannabis business, so close to

our children. i mean, if there's nothing else that we can do as adults, it is to protect our children and the statutes that are already on the books to do this, and for us to completely go against that is a violation of the humanity that we as adults should have to protect the interest of our students, our children, our youth, and our elders. i am totally opposed. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right, operations, we have 55 individuals who are listening and eight callers in the queue. if you are one of the 55, you should press star, 3, if you would like to provide comment in support of the appellant, or against the project. we're setting the timer for two minutes. let's hear from our next caller, please.

hello, caller. >> caller: hello. hello? >> clerk: we can hear you. >> caller: yes. i'd ike to stand in opposition of this cannabis club. yes, equity is an issue, but safety is more important as we look at getting our children back out of the homes and into schools and into extracurricular activities, and it's very important that we maintain that, not only the covid is safety, but that the environment is safe and free for our children. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operate, operations, do we have another caller in support of the appeal or in opposition to the project? welcome, caller. >> caller: hello. this is orem brooks, am i think heard? >> clerk: yes, sir, you are. >> caller: hello. yeah, i'm the owner and operator

of wolfman america. this is prevented from being a legal proceeding in the first place. and why the clerk or church is allowed to speak is illegal and i'm not sure why we have to do this. and the account lied -- he lied and said that he spoke for 24 other businesses and they can speak for themselves, so him lying doesn't help because it's clouding the issue. and others represents all of this are bringing forth the true laws -- >> clerk: sir, i am sorry, i'm pausing your time. it sounds to me as though you're speaking on behalf of the project? >> caller: yes, ma'am, i am. >> clerk: okay, we -- now that we have established that, i need to ask you to press star 3 to get back into line because this public comment is in support of the appellant, or against the project. so we'd love to hear from you

but we're going to call public comment for the side that you're supporting in just a moment. okay? thank you for your patience. okay, operations, can we hear from our next caller who is in support of the appeal or who is against the project. >> caller: hello. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, ma'am, we can. >> caller: hi. my name is raquel, and i have a business right in the middle of this. i have been dealing with this for eight years. my business has been here for 27 years. and i have in two blocks of my business i have two cannabis stores and there is so many that i cannot even tell you. and lately it's been worse with

guns drawn, scaring my customers, because this is a middle of the day, and it is crazy. you call 911, and they come 15 minutes later and we have no support of anybody at all from the city, from the police, and this has been going on in my business for almost eight years and i oppose -- we don't need anymore, or right across the street from my business is people that are elderly. and you know, it's very -- it's been really, really, really dangerous. breaking into cars with guns drawn. that's -- that's not a place, that's not something that we need. we need, like everybody said, we need more supermarkets and we need bookstores, something that

feels safe. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, do we have another caller in the queue who is in support of the appeal or who may be against the project? welcome, caller. >> caller: hello, my name is david cooper and this is my town and i have lived in the outer mission for 35 years. i'm calling in support of the appeal, not only for the reasons cited by the church regarding services for children at the christian center, but also because as cited by a previous caller that the question of the legitimacy of the equity classification for this particular business site, and because the presentations to the community prior to the planning commission decision were orchestrated by the business

owners. so we're looking at a number of issues here and this is going to also affect as cited by the previous caller on the 5100 block of mission street. one of which -- well, let me see if i can say this the right way -- they are magnets, not for the problematic customers, but because other people prey on their customers. they're breaking into automobiles while people are purchasing the cannabis and this is a danger to the greater community. i'd also like to say in closing that it's curious that this issue is right there on county line, but the question is what do the residents in close proximity to this location at 5801 mission street, what are the people in daly city think of it, or are they discounted and

they are also part of our community, although they aren't the right side of the city and county of san francisco border. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, sir, for your comments. all right, operations, do we have another caller in the queue who is in support of the appeal? and against the project. >> (speaking foreign language). |. >> (speaking foreign language). |. >> hello board of supervisors, i'm here to oppose the proposed 5801 mission street project. because in this area we already have two cannabis storefronts operating in this district. so we do not need another one. i'm totally against this project. thank you. >> clerk: okay.

our thanks to the caller and thank you, ms. lai for your interpretation. all right, do we have another caller in the queue? i believe that we have 52 who are listening and 7 callers who are in the queue ready to provide comment. welcome, caller. >> (speaking foreign language). |.

>> hello board of supervisors.

i actually am a san francisco resident, i already live in san francisco for more than 40 years and i now live in mission district for many years as well and as you may know, in this district, there's a lot of childcare and elementary schools and a lot of after-school programs facilities in this district as well. and we actually will list the services in our district, and with cannabis store fronts. as far as i know there's about 13.5% and 75% of asians that are living in this district. most of them don't know how to speak english and often they cannot speak english very well. and most of them are

[indiscernible]and for the cannabis business owner, they didn't do outreach and they didn't have a very good communication with our community residents as well. most of our residents didn't know there's another cannabis store that would be opened in this district. and actually in this district, there are only one grocery in this district right now. actually we need more grocery. we need more supermarket in the mission. and they already have three cannabis storefronts in this district, and please we urge the board of supervisors to consider our kids' future and our community future as well and to protect our peace. thank you. >> clerk: thank you to the interpreter and to the individual for the comments. so we have 51 listeners and 4 callers in the queue. if you are one of the 51 who are

listening and you are interested in making a comment in support of the appellant, or against the project, you should press star 3, now. and after the next caller, i would like the interpreter to come on and to maybe state that to the 53 individuals who are listening, just to make sure that we're capturing all of the testimony in support of the appellant and/or against the project. next caller, please. >> caller: good afternoon, i'm a retired teacher of san francisco public school. like all of the callers who oppose this site, we are appalled that this proposed marijuana site is so near the church and the children's programs and the schools nearby consider the caring comments of all of the callers and vote against this site for another marijuana dispensary.

>> clerk: all right, ms. lai, if you wouldn't mind to make the announcement for us, please. >> (speaking foreign language). | thank you. >> clerk: thank you, ms. lai. and may i ask ms. josami to make the same announcement as well as our third interpreter.

>> (speaking foreign language). | thank you. >> (speaking foreign language). |

>> thank you, madam clerk. that's all. >> clerk: thank you for your service here today. operations, let's hear from our next caller, please. >> caller: i'm sorry, i'm in support. i must have gotten in the line too soon. >> clerk: so do we have another caller who is in support of the

appeal or perhaps against the project? we're taking public testimony from those callers only. >> madam clerk, there are no more people in the queue. >> clerk: thank you very much. mr. president. >> president walton: thank you, madam clerk. public comment is now closed. and now we will have of the 10 minutes for representatives of the planning department. i believe that we have ryan anderin starr on. >> good afternoon, aaron starr, with legislative affairs for the planning department. i'm joined by ryan, one of our new planners, who is also a planner on this case and he'll present for the planning department today. we'll both be available for questions after. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. the planner with the sf planning

department. this is to uphold or overturn the approval of the conditional use authorization for this establishment of a cannabis retail use measuring 2,055-square-feet of vacant commercial space. within a two-story mixed use building. the project report authorization for this establishment of a cannabis retail use within the excelsior outer mission neighborhood district. the three issues are in the written appeal, that the project will contribute to clustering, that the project is in an area with a high density of children and that there was a lack of appropriate outreach to monolingual residents. and in response to the first issue, the planning code establishes a 600-foot buffer around parcels for which a valid permit has been issued from the city's office of cannabis. for a cannabis retailer or a medicinal cannabis retailer. the project does not fall within

600 foot buffer. further, this application is the first cannabis retail application that has been approved since the legalization of adult use cannabis in late 2017. as such, the planning commission did not find this project contributes to clustering. regarding the second concern over the project being in an area of a high density of children, the planning commission found that the proposed project will not increase the access and exposure to cannabis. in addition to the code required buffers between cannabis retail locations and schools, the project has been designed to respond to this condition by placing a waiting and check-in area at the front of the tenant space, as well as ensuring that -- as well as ensuring that the cannabis products are never visible from the exterior of the store. finally, over the lack of outreach to monolingual residents, the project sponsor

had all outreach as required by the good neighbor policy. the virtual good neighbor meeting included a notice in english, spanish, traditional chinese and filipino, and the planning commission hearing for the project was also noticed for the city's language access rules. which include mail posting, and for the reason above the planning department recommends that the board uphold the planning commission's decision and in adopting 20933. and approving the conditional use authorization number 200-207152cua. thank you. >> president walton: thank you so much. colleagues, any questions for planning? i don't see anyone with questions. and since we have no questions, we will now call up the project sponsor to speak for up to 10 minutes.

and i believe that we have heidi henley and edward brown speaking on behalf of the project. are they available on teams? >> ms. brown is logged in. >> hello? >> president walton: hello? [echo] >> hi, you can hear me? >> president walton: yes. >> can we have the presentation brought up, please. >> president walton: hold on one second.

>> hello esteemed members of the board of supervisors and thank you for your time today. slide two, please. my name is heidi hanley and i'm here before you as a verified equity apkantd for 5801 mission street. a little bit about myself. i'm a mother of two and wife, i'm a mexican-american, native san franciscan and attended all k-12 grades in district 11, where the proposed site will be located. i'm an army veteran having served eight years. and i have over 14 years experience in the cannabis industry here in san francisco, being the second woman cannabis operator and the first latina legacy operator here in the city. slide three, please. the story is a lengthy one but i have a short timeline showing the facts. we opened stores in 2005 as a grandfather dispensary and we were able allowed to move forward with a medical cannabis permit. in 2008 we became the third licensed at 1284 mission street

and in 2018, we had our permit. we were hit with the blow in early 2019, and our landlord experienced a federal banking issue with their bank not supporting a cannabis tenant and after a good legal fight we were made to close our doors in december 2019. so the 11 years prior to closure, we operated and became an important part of the community in district 6. this slide is a letter of support from supervisor matt haney. slide four, please. the department of public health oversaw enforcement of a cannabis program for many years and still does today. this support letter is from the head of the department of public health cannabis program stating that relief operated in overall good standing since 2008. slide five, please.

and release has been about the community. we have provided discounts to veterans and seniors and disabled and had compassion programs. we support many advocacy groups and held events. this shows one of our neighborhood outreach events that we happily held for all of our street merchant neighbors and merchants as well as customers. over 200 were enjoyed that day. slide six, please. on june 10, 2021, the san francisco planning commission approved our project with the 4-2 vote with the following commitments. to bring a clean modern space to the area. we will operate an educational and multilingual experience at our dispensary. we will have a program for free cannabis for low-income patients. we will be the first dispensary in the area to hold this policy

we will conduct local job training and education for staff. we will also have a dedicated community liaison to support any community concerns. i present to you the reasons why we ask you to uphold the planning commission approval and to reject this appeal, edward brown. >> thank you, madam hanley. the matter before you is nothing more than one organization's shared opinion of our project. an opinion fueled by their -- next slide, please -- i'm sorry perfect. yep. so this is an opinion fueled by their stigma of legalized cannabis and thc products. they have used negative information. and incorrectly stated it was not 40%, but 17% of the

residents who supported this appeal which would have fallen short to have this matter heard today if not for the appellant's contributing land mass totaling 19.3%. next slide, please. this is a letter from the planning department as you just heard from ryan, suggesting that the decision to uphold the cua be upheld. next slide. the appellant's appeal point one. the appellant argues that three dispensaries are enough and anymore constitutes suffering. supervisors clustering for cannabis retail is not supported by any city code. the project represents increased cannabis access for the neighborhood as the nearest dispensary is 3,143 feet from our location. whereas the city only requires us to be 600 feet away. the appellant does not dispense cannabis but their opinion here on the adequateness of meeting

the community needs is not supported by their evidence. the appellant point two that you should not allow this dispensary because of the high density of children present near the project. ms. hanley as you heard have sensitive to the youth density concerns. to address this as you have heard from the planning department, the dispensary will not be designed to display any live cannabis products on the floor, nor will products be visible to children passing by. additionally, many of the youth facilities mentioned such as the learning hub by the appellant and their supporters, are adequately staffed and children are likely under adult supervision at all times. and we can guarantee that the residents -- we can guarantee residents that you will never smell cannabis walking by as all of our products are

pre-packaged. next slide. appeal point three. they argue that we did not do appropriate outreach to the monolingual residents. i myself, a black american, and ms. hanley, a mexican-american who is fluent in spanish, we approached the neighborhood with diversity in our hearts and genuinely and respectfully, holding all requested meetings and full transparency of the projects. it is our plan to offer cannabis retail support for the monolinkual and immigrant community. next slide. this is a letter to pastor gibbons which demonstrates proof of our sincere intention to find common ground for neighborhood solutions. next slide.

this is a follow-up letter to pastor gibbons, again, seeking to have communication regarding neighborhood solutions. the appellant has never responded to our letters. supervisors, you can draw your own conclusions why we were never given a response. next slide. supervisors, we acknowledge that every project before you has different concerns and different merits but we want to convene your wisdom and progression on cannabis designation. supervisor walton, you said that cannabis businesses are the most responsible businesses that we have. next slide. supervisor melgar, you spoke of approving cannabis projects to repair 100 years of criminalization. next slide. supervisor ronen, again, mentionings the responsibility of cannabis businesses. next slide. supervisor preston, he called dispensaries a net benefit for

neighbors. next slide -- now let me send this back to madam hanley for the last word of our presentation. >> thank you. supervisors, the appellant has not demonstrated a legal argument or alleged any wrong doing by the planning commission's decision. we urge you to vote with your conscience and uphold the decision to approve the first social equity project in district 11 and further san francisco's equity goals. thank you so much for your time >> supervisors, do we have more time on our clock? >> clerk: a minute 20. >> just very quickly i wanted to get to a couple points. our site has a parking lot in the back that is going to be able to prevent double parking and also deliveries. so we can be able to deliver cannabis goods very safely and transparently because we do have a parking lot which is different

from the other dispensaries in the district. secondly, we have reached out to the s.f. food bank and our parking lot is a back-up site for the sf food bank. we have heard the concerns that the neighbors have mentioned about lack of access to groceries and we intend on providing some services for that. and then, lastly, there was a note about heidi not being an equity applicant. at this time she's 100% owner and that's verified with the office of cannabis and she's met every single requirement that the office of cannabis has had. thank you for your time. >> president walton: thank you so much. and i don't see anyone on the roster for questions for the project sponsor. so, madam clerk, we invite the members of the public who wish to speak in opposition of the appeal for public comment.

>> clerk: thank you, mr. president. i would like the interpreters to indicate that we are now taking public comment in opposition to the appeal or in support of the project. there will be up to two minutes for each caller. the telephone number is streaming on their screen, 1-(415)-655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 2492, 715, 3068. and press pound twice and you would have joined the meeting. and you will hear the discussion and you'll be muted and in the listening queue. if you are going to make comments on this matter, you will have to press star, 3, when it is your turn. the system will send you a prompt. listen carefully for you have been un-muted and begin speaking your comments. thank you for the interpreters now. (speaking foreign language).

you have been un-muted. [speaking foreign language] thank you. >> [speaking foreign language]

thank you. >> [speaking foreign language] thank you, madam clerk.

>> clerk: thank you, very good. all right, operations can we hear from our first caller, please. >> caller: good afternoon, board of supervisors. it is an honor to speak with you today in support of this lease. i am greg ledbetter, the pastor of universal church of god and christ san francisco. i have lived in san francisco some 59 years. and i also am co-chair of black and brown just cannabis policies. i am a medical cannabis activist and a member of access and gloves san francisco. as a person of color, i urge the board to reject this appeal because it has no legal standings. yes -- and support the conditions -- the conditional use granted to heidi hanley, the

owner of this lease by our city's planning commission. if this was [indiscernible]we not be in this conversation. if it was a chinese herbal pharmacy, no one would oppose. so i ask you what is the difference? we had a compassion program since they opened their doors over a decade ago. the first latina owned. they should be approved on their merits as an asset to our city. don't be fooled. they are supported by every organization in the bay area. in closing, compassion and equity, know what you know in your heart is right. please don't kill compassion in

san francisco. bless you and thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments, sir. okay, operations, let's welcome the next caller who would like to provide testimony in opposition to the appeal or in support of the project. welcome, caller. >> caller: -- [coughing] >> hello, caller, can you hear us? we are listening to you. >> caller: thank you to listening to voices in the community. my name is ryan miller and i was born in san francisco and i'm a marine corps veteran and educating veterans about cannabis.

i'm glad that a member of the community mentioned the need for health services in the district since 2015, they have sponsored support for the most deserving portion of this city's military population, military veterans. veterans are double the rate of suicide than the general population. we have not only prevented suicide in soma but extended the length and enhanced the quality of life for our members. i'm glad that another community member mentioned trash. not only have i personally witnessed the owner of the leaf frequently picking up litter and sweeping the sidewalk in front of the leaf and adjacent businesses, but our veteran members have picked up dozens of trash bags of litter in soma and we stand by to ready to help to beautify the excelsior and outer mission community. and many mentioned car break-ins and children. a recent review of 42 different studies revealed that crime in

the proximity of cannabis dispensaries remains flat or decreases. teenage use in legalization states has fallen since legalization, and property values near dispensaries are not affected or even rise. enough fearmongering. the veteran members enthusiastically support this and we vote. thank you for listening. >> clerk: thank you for your comments, sir. operations, let's welcome the next caller who is in opposition to the appeal and in support of the project. we have 53 listeners and 14 callers who are in the queue. welcome, caller. >> caller: good afternoon, supervisors. my name is david goldman and a long-time resident of san francisco since 1973 and a homeowner since 1977 and a

medical cannabis patient. i am also the president of the san francisco chapter of the valley mary democratic club, a club for cannabis policy reform (please stand by)

. >> and i am speaking to support this project. and i support the application and permit, and i'm also a secretary of the browning right democratic club. >> clerk: we have 55 who are

listening and 14 in the queue. if you are expecting to make public comment on behalf of the project sponsor and against the appeal, now is your opportunity to speak. let's welcome the next caller. welcome, caller. >> hi. my name is johnny [inaudible], the nation for first aid access, the country's largest medical cannabis organization. i am here to speak in behalf of luis. it would be a shame to see another legacy business shutdown. dispensaries keep cannabis off the streets, keep citizens protected, provide security.

dispensaries should be welcomed in san francisco, not reefer madness. thank you for your time. >> clerk: all right. operations, let's have our next caller who's in support of the project and in opposition to the appeal. all right. operations, let's go to the next caller, please. >> yes, my name is sarah furman. i'm been a long time relief patient, and i oppose the -- i

support relief because it does so much good for the community, and something like that shouldn't be held back. they should be able to go -- go ahead with what they're doing. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right. operations, let's welcome our next caller. >> hello. >> clerk: welcome. >> hi. my name is [inaudible] and i wanted to give an official statement on behalf of the whole team on behalf of [inaudible] both teams are founded by ron doe and leslie

[inaudible]. we're calling in support to -- of heidi opening her new retail location. we need more leadership like heidi in industry, and we need more representation like the industry has been. just on a personal note, outside of representing myself for the company, i don't agree with a lot of the fear based or fact based things that cannabis does for the community. of course, i don't blame the community for a lack of education in cannabis and education barriers, but at the other end of it, how can they put already existing klaus on their [inaudible] who wants to

provide community outreach, protect the [inaudible] and we don't take these considerations lightly, and we wear that

proudly. >> clerk: thank you. operations, can we have the next caller, please. >> i went down to soma for relief because i found them to be the most helpful people they are. they're like one big family down there. they care about the people they serve. to have them be close to my house would be such a pleasant thing. please, please approve this. they have 100% of my support. >> clerk: thank you. we have 49 people listening and 14 callers in the queue. if you're one of the 49 and you'd like to make comments regarding your support of the project and opposition to the appeal, you need to press star, three to get into line to speak. operations, let's welcome our

next caller, please. >> hi. my name is [inaudible] and i'm [inaudible] american, and i'm from access of love cannabis, and i support heidi. i don't understand why we have to fight so hard to have heidi open her club. is it because she's the original and the last of the mohicans and believes that quality cannabis should be for everyone? she has shown compassion for san francisco, the low-income, the homeless, the disabled, the veterans, by providing cannabis with not only a compassion program but one that people can afford. today is my 45 birthday, and since 9:00 a.m. today, i went to every cannabis club that i could go to to get my birthday

joint, and every single one of them told me that they couldn't do it because it was against the law. s.b. 34 says that every club can give the right if they want to, and they would if they wanted to, if they cared that patients suffer. shame on you, the church and the people who are trying to take the support from heidi. i believe this is just about more than that. it's about you guys not wanting our kind of people in the neighborhood. i believe it's discriminatory and unjust. you have no right to police our only friend left in the city that allows us to heal and be happy.

i need cannabis to survive and to take care of my six-year-old son. i believe that we need heidi to fight for us and that's why we will fight for her. >> clerk: thank you. thank you. i do apologize if we are interrupting anyone. we are setting the timer for two minutes, so hopefully -- we're grateful if you can condense your comments into two minutes. if you'd like to send your comments, you can send them to the board of supervisors, san francisco, california, 94102. all right. operations, let's hear from the next caller, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. it's a pleasure to speak before you. my name is [inaudible] and i'm

speaking today not just from an organizational perspective but from a daily operations perspective. heidi was my neighbor for a decade, and she was a great neighbor, a well run local business serving the local population, the working class, the middle class, predominantly people of color, and she has shown over the years that she runs a well organized business. she has worked with everyone in the community, that every single patient organization nationally and locally is standing behind this legacy owner and wanting san francisco to coordinate its first latina owned dispensary in the district that she was bornexem

that we are trying to shape. i encourage you to vote your conscience today to advocate for the patients and parents and homeowners and the equity companies that you've heard from today, and to support our planning commission. in the words of commissioner moore, let's get a woman owner in san francisco. it's past time. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, let's welcome our next caller, please. . >> good afternoon, supervisors. i wanted to call in support of this cannabis business and in opposition of this continued

appeals process. what i first wanted to emphasize is that the process that we have created here doesn't just obstruct cannabis stores, it also obstructs ice cream store and see restaurant -- stores and restaurants, and it's creating a cannabis crisis. in this, i think that this cannabis prohibition is of the same root. as law enforcement becomes more intense, the potency of substances increases. put it this way: the harder the enforcement, the harder the drugs. now what i want to emphasize here is that continuing to prohibit those substances believing sold legally leads to them being sold illegally. however, this is emphasized by

our children, and that we can see that alcohol, it's more commonly used as liquor than beer or wine, and the reason for that, reliablely, is our system of prohibition. where the system of prohibition doesn't occur, we don't see those changes. so i call for the supervisors to standup for the system of sciences that says that the system is legal. >> clerk: thank you, caller, for your comments. all right. operations, let's welcome our next caller. we have 56 callers who are listening and 16 in the queue. if you'd like to provide testimony on behalf of the project sponsor, now is your opportunity to make sure you press star, three. sorry about that. all right. operations, let's hear from our next caller, please. >> hello.

>> clerk: welcome, caller. >> hello? can you hear me? hello? can you hear me? [inaudible]. >> okay. thank you. my name is [inaudible] i created a cannabis company after i went to a legal dispensary and tried cannabis for the first time and it cured me of my insomnia. heidi is an incredible person who has proven in the cannabis industry to be a community builder, to be someone if you have a problem with her or a concern, she'll reach out and always have a conversation with

you [inaudible] this is a safe basis, it's providing a medicine for people who need access, and the conversation about impacting children is not visible, it's not being promoted, it's not being sold for them, and the deeper conversation about cannabis, it's also being used to cure children of having [inaudible], so thank you for your time. the rest i submit. >> clerk: thank you for your time. operations, let's welcome our next caller, please.

[inaudible] >> the caller is here. he needs an interpreter for his comments. >> clerk: thank you. all right. can we hear from the next caller in support of the project and in opposition to the appeal, please?

>> yeah, hi. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can. welcome. >> yes. my name is lee, and i'm a resident of district 11 since 1985. i am a vietnamese cantonese american, and i think i can speak for everybody on the phone that has anxieties. heidi has helped me find relief and helped me get my life back. i am a father, as well, and for me, i educate my children about the use of cannabis, so there's really no reefer madness that's happen. all of this kind of stuff that they say happens just doesn't happen in front of the store,

and i'm in support of heidi opening her business. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right. operations, let's welcome our next caller. [inaudible] . >> clerk: all right. operations, let's well come our next caller. >> aloha. am i on? >> clerk: yes. >> thank you. aloha, honorable board members, and thank you for your time. my name is kim ferrari, and i am in full support of the san francisco planning commission approval of [inaudible] at its new location. heidi hanley, san francisco's first latina business owner of

a decade old marijuana dispensary, she should be allowed to run her grandfather's business. she provided high quality medicine from reliable sources, lab tested before its time, and safe. she has an exceptional staff that provided extra security and street cleanup in a dangerous neighborhood. my husband recently passed away, and i saw firsthand the compassion that compassionate care provided to the community. medical patients, veterans, who gave tribute, thanks, and respect to relief and their staff. relief changed their lives by

providing education, relief from pain and anxiety and mental health support, all thanks to heidi's compassionate care practices and service to the community. i urge you to approve this as soon as possible. it hurts everyone to see this delay and discrimination where the positive benefits to the community are abundant. thank you so much for your support. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right. we have 46 listeners, and we have 11 in the queue to make comment. if you are one of the 46 and you'd like to make comment this afternoon, press star, three to get into the queue to speak. all right. operations, let's welcome our next caller, please. >> hello. my name is seven, and i'm calling in support of the

project at 5801 mission street. i'll keep my comments brief, but i'd like to comment on a couple of the points brought up. just like any business, parents are responsible for protecting them from and educating them on the use of these substances and ensuring that they don't have access to them, but these types of businesses actually go above and beyond by not allowing anyone who's under age access. there's security and strict regulations from a local standpoint so that they can't be seen and children can't get access. it's up to the parents to really educate them as well as the other adults in their lives to make sure that they are protected from that, but these

businesses take extra special steps to make sure there is no community access. there is a 24-7 armed guard on-site who will be monitoring double parking around the business, ensuring there's no consumption around the business, ensuring there's no trash. furthermore, there will be involved, as they said and already demonstrated within the community through outreach with community groups, local businesses, and other things going on in that community. heidi should continue on with

her business. >> clerk: thank you. operations, can we have the next caller, please. >> i am in support of this project because of the upstanding values that heidi and the relief team has cued for the past 15 years in the cannabis industry and has followed all of the city regulations to properly acquire her permit, including being more than 600 feet away from schools. allow her to at least try to open her cannabis retail before shutting down this latina's business proposal. when it comes to teenagers,

they're much more knowledgeable when it comes to cannabis use. a new program based on harm reduction started in 2019 in san francisco. students who went through the program showed improved literacy and research skills and were better critical thinkers going through this program. when it come to see crime, it's been found that in 2018, cannabis business locations saw a decrease in 6% in violent crime compared to less than 1% increase in s.f. thanks for your time. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right. operations, let's welcome the next caller in support of the project or in opposition to the appeal. >> hello? yes, how you doing today? my name is antoine brooks. i am the owner of [inaudible] america. most of the things i was going

to say has already been said, but one thing is that the churches have been allowed to speak not only in these proceedings, but they've been able to speak repeatedly in the process of this appeal. one thing that's been overlooked in this process is [inaudible] and for them to be able to speak, that prevents them from being able to have the tax exemption status that they're supposed to have [inaudible] so with that being said, we appreciate, you know, the church's look at morality and stuff like that, but in modern daytimes, a lot of people have so many different looks on religion, to each his own. now as far as the child care goes and the issues with

criminology, normally, when you put a cannabis business in any location, normally, it holds or maintains or elevates the property value and it also provides people a great deal of education. now myself and my company, i own two businesses. i am a lifelong resident of san francisco, and i have seen myself the different aspects that the hanley family has provided the residents of san francisco as far as cannabis relief. they have been a very good proponent and stopping the crime rate of san francisco with a lot of the things that they do with the youth. so with that being said, please allow them to continue to operate because there are many businesses that would like to support them -- >> clerk: thank you, sir. thank you for your comments. we have 49 listeners and nine

callers who are in the queue. if you are one of the 49 and you would like to speak on behalf of the queue, there are nine callers left. some of them are unattended lines, and they may go very quickly. >> hello? >> clerk: yes. >> yes, thank you so much for having me today. i am lisa bose, and i am a cannabis owner in san francisco. i am in support of heidi. she has proven to be a respectful successful business owner, worker in the business

community, [inaudible] i believe that everyone has a right to their religious beliefs, but this is a whole different type of business. i wish her all the luck and blessings in the world. thank you very much for your time. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right. operations, let's welcome our next caller. welcome, caller. >> hello, can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can.

>> thank you for your time, commissioners. my name is jazmine henry, and i am the parent of cannabis business owners. i want to emphasize that having successful parents in the cannabis industry is no different than having parents in any other industry. we are raised in the understanding that cannabis is used for medicinal purposes for those who deal with pain, sleep disturbances, anxiety, and other things. it saddens me to hear accusations in the field and question the legitimacy and the equity program as well as the approval of our city council. please disregard this appeal as we fought hard and will continue to fight hard to open

up these doors and help them in the mission district. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right. operations, let's have the next caller, please. >> good afternoon, san francisco board of supervisors. it's an honor to speak to you today in support of releaf. my name is gregory mills. i'm a retired veteran. i've lived in san francisco since 1959. i'm a medical cannabis activist and a member of a group that supports the use of cannabis. i've been a patient of releaf for, like, five years now, and one thing i can say about them personally is they would be a benefit to any neighborhood that the business would be allowed to.

and, like, them being at 5801 mission street would make it even more convenient for myself, as well, but being a veteran who's dealing with pain and has went through the rigamarole of opioid medications and it's not all they claim it to be. that's it. >> clerk: all right. thank you for your comments. we have six callers in the queue. there are 43 listens, and if you would like to speak on behalf of the project sponsor and in opposition to the appeal, press star, three now. operations, let's welcome our next caller. welcome. >> good afternoon. my name is john glenn.

i'm with access of love, and i am a resident in the area that really used to be -- and i can sincerely tell you that them leaving has created more crime in that particular block, so much so that muni has taken out that bus stop that used to be at the corner of 8 and mission due to all the criminal activity that's going on around there. so i want to say i'm strongly opposed to the appeal and find that releaf would be a credit to whatever neighborhood and would result in a better neighborhood to whatever area they relocate to. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments, sir. all right. operations, let's hear from our next caller, please. >> good afternoon, board of

supervisors. my name is [inaudible] my family was part of the portola annex on mission, so we've been here for a very long time. i'm a medical cannabis kak tiffist and advocate. i'm a veteran, and i -- activist and advocate. i'm a veteran, and i advocate for cannabis to help people get off of alcohol and substances and drug abuse. we've been very successful in getting our veterans off of drugs, and a big part of that is our releaf's compassion

program that allows veterans access to cannabis so we're not busy spending our money on other drugs that are literally really bad, okay? so a businesslike this is a viable business in san francisco. it'll bring [inaudible] to some, and it'll increase the viability of the business, as well. i am in support of relief and in opposition of the hearing process. thank you so much for hearing me. >> clerk: thank you so much for your comments. i'll just make this announcement. there are three callers left in the queue. this could go very quickly, and we'll take the last three to the end unless one of the 42 presses star, three to join them. operations, let's welcome our next caller.

>> hello. hello, this is denise dori. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can. welcome. >> i'm a resident of san francisco and an access of love member for over 15 years. they helped keep a family member alive with the help of dispensaries like releaf center, which gives away free cannabis so you don't have to die from [inaudible] of the lungs. the block where releaf was was very, very safe, and it's not as safe now. releaf provides health care, and they aren't greedy, so please, please, on behalf of access of love and myself, approve the permit and do not

vote in favor of the appeal. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right. let's go to our next caller, please. welcome, caller. >> yes, hi. this is -- this is june bug. good afternoon, and it's an honor to have the opportunity to speak on this item. releaf has been a big time support in the community. as someone who's born and raised here and who has dealt with trauma, who's dealt with poverty, who's dealt with homelessness, cannabis is definitely a medicine that's helped me medically and mentally, and i think that we can all agree on that today,

and we also need to agree on the conversation with access. this honors cannabis as a medicine that saves lives that actually helped marginalized communities that actually takes a look at what access really means: affordability, location, a compassion program, a program that, once again, honors prop 215, you know, making sure that patients who are marginalized have access to this medicine. in dispensaries, you actually do the research and studies, it actually decreases crime, it actually helps surrounding businesses, and the fact that, you know, we're having this conversation as if, you know, having this access to this medicine is going to be bad for the community when it's actually something that saves

our lives, we need to support this permit, we need to support releaf. we need you to vote what's right for the patient, and that's safe access. releaf provides safe access. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. okay. operations, do we have another caller in the queue who's willing to give testimony in support of the project sponsor? >> hello? hello? >> clerk: yes, we can hear you. [inaudible]. >> clerk: ma'am, this is the

appeal on behalf of the 5801 mission street. >> no. will you have public comment for that item? >> clerk: yes, we will. press star, three to get back into the listening mode, and we will call general public comment after this item and several other items still need to be heard and considered by the board. thank you for your patience. operations, can we go to the next caller, please? all right. welcome. >> hi. my name is robert kahn, and i'm a resident. i'm in support of this is project. i feel that heidi has demonstrated a good operator and that she can bring a lot of good to the community. she has a great neighborhood

outreach. i've been a medical cannabis patient since 2010, and this is my medicine to cure my anxiety, my insomnia and in many ways, and i believe her opening this business will help in many ways. i can say that i've been to a lot of cannabis shopping facilities. i do feel that this dispensary is going to bring good to the community rather than harm it, and that's all i have. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. we have two callers left in the queue and there are 39 listening. we are going to hear from the last couple of callers who are wanting to provide comment in

support of the project sponsor in opposition to the appeal. let's hear from our next callers. if you're one of the 39 listening and you'd like to provide testimony, press star, three now. otherwise, we're taking the last group to the end. welcome, caller. >> am. this is antoine brooks ii. he mentioned in 1954 that said that congress passed an act that said there are no religious church that's can speak on any political form, and that's what i'm doing right now to remove and restrict and remove any statements from [inaudible] to remove their tax exempt status. and then, on the other side of the coin, as far as a lot of the different things i've been

hearing, most of that stuff -- most of that stuff is just, like, lies or something. it helps people get off drugs and get into a calmer state of being and stop doing things that cause crimes and have them be able to think. if you have as many veterans as we've heard, wouldn't you want to help them? that's what i think. >> clerk: thank you for your comments, sir. operations, let's hear from our next caller, please. >> hello. my name is sarah shrader, and i'm here to speak out in favor of the project and in

opposition to the appeal. i support heidi in reopening this cannabis facility as it will benefit the patients and the customers that she serves. she will be a good fit for this neighborhood, and i wish her all the best. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments, ma'am. operations, let's welcome our next caller, please. >> hi. this is lawrence kelly. i am a social equity operator on mission street, and i'm calling in support of heidi being in the cannabis industry since 2014. i find heidi very [inaudible] always opening her doors for relief and education and not only that, but providing community resources. i think that she would be a valuable resource for other entrepreneurs in the city that

are also trying to make their way and that would need relief from the system and drugs. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, let's welcome our next caller, please. >> hello. >> welcome. >> hello? yes, my name is ron [inaudible] and i'm in support of releaf. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, let's welcome our next caller, please. >> operator: madam clerk, there are no more callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. mr. president? >> president walton: thank you, madam clerk, and seeing that there are no other speakers, public comment is now closed. lastly, i would like to allow the appellant to present a rebuttal argument.

you will have up to three minutes. is a representative from the appellant still available? >> clerk: operations, do you see a representative of the appellant? >> operator: i do see [inaudible] and dallia fitzpatrick. >> president walton: thank you. you have three minutes. >> thank you. this is not about the business. it's not about access. we've already got plenty of that. we just don't need another one to be in this community with the large population of youth, children, and seniors.

we need to recognize that majority of the population of the community did not want this,. it just so happens that this location is in the wrong place. this owner or sponsor mentions and showed parking lots or parking lot that they will be using for food distribution and be using the parking lot for their customers. when i called all day solar, in that picture, it shows their truck. now, i called the owner, and he says he needs that location for his trucks and also the tenants from the condos use the parking area, as well. there's only one spot -- parking spot available. there's too many lives being

told. you need to fact check. this is not right, and you should not shoulder the community against their will to have another cannabis club. the details need to be vetted. all along in this process, she said that the owner died and the heirs of the owner had a dispute. now she's saying that the federal government seized the property. why are we being told all these lies? we need to fact check everybody in equity, in this equity program. we need to fact check. why are you holding the community at risk? thank you. >> president walton: thank you so much. this public hearing has been held and is now filed, and as previously discussed, we are

now going to consider whether to approve or disapprove the appeal of the conditional use authorization at 5801 mission street. colleagues, do you have any comments to make or supervisor -- [inaudible] >> clerk: operations, please? thank you. >> president walton: i do see supervisor ronen on the roster. would you like to speak before supervisor safai, supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: sure. i'm just getting the agenda up. i would like to make a motion to reject the appeal and support the underlying project. >> second. >> president walton: my apologies. can you repeat that for the record? i'm not sure if the microphone was on.

>> clerk: the microphone was on, but perhaps it's our masks that -- >> supervisor ronen: i'm sorry. let me get that. i would like to make a motion to approve item 28 and to file number 29 and 30. >> clerk: i believe that was a motion to approve item 28 and table 29 and 30? >> supervisor ronen: yes. >> president walton: got it. and it was seconded by...supervisor melgar. thank you. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you, mr. president. thank you, colleagues, and thank you to all the callers that called in today, both for and against. these are not easy decisions. as many of you know, we've been through this before on these

types of topics, and this is a particularly -- this appeal is a particularly tough decision for me for many reasons. initially, when i ran for office, i heard from all different segments the community, many of whom you heard from today. black, white, young, old, chinese, latino, filipino, the broad spectrum of my community who asked for no more dispensaries to come to my community. not because they were in opposition of the business but because of the number and the types of business in the corridor. since then, i've worked with the community members to uphold these desires throughout the years, and we were personally involved in stopping at least

six or seven additional dispensaries at the time, two of whom were some of the [inaudible] and one that was -- that predated this particular application a couple of years ago. the operator is in jail now for murder for hire for killing her partners in the east bay. these are the kind of stories that terrorize and strike a lot of fear in the hearts of neighbors. but i do know in my heart that not all operators are that way, and the industry has come a long way in three years. one in my district is typical of how a dispensary should operate. they are a community director,

they have security, they have a smart cart that roams the neighborhood, they have a parking arrangement with the adjacent property owner, and for those of you that know district 11, you know that parking is one of the most paramount issues that we hear about over and over and over again. many extended families living together with multiple cars. despite our transit first policies, there's a lot of families that still rely on the automobile, and this is a very important issue, so this owner in particular worked out an agreement that has enabled them to be a good neighbor. then, we have others that are in close proximity to this dispensary who have been bad actors. i can't even get them to put do

not leave valuables signs in your cars up because so many of their clientele come straight from the airport and are getting broken in, and now subsequently, many of the neighbors in the neighborhood are having their cars broken into, so i'm concern bd this in in -- concerned about this in terms of clustering. technically, it doesn't meet the definition of clustering, but it certainly meets the spirit of it. this particular applicant today, and i want to say some words about here, originally from district 11, attended local schools. her equity status has been verified. she's a female operator, first latina and a woman-owned business that's coming forward from my district, and again, this is why i go back to this is a tough decision. i deeply believe in equity. many of you that were on the board with us when we did the

original amendment, supervisor mandelman, ronen, peskin, we were all here together, amending the legislation. we stood for the next round of applicants would be equity owners until there's parity. we ensured that equity owners would have to have at least 40% ownership in their operation, and we also said that they would have to hold their businesses for a certain number of years so they would not be enticed into selling their business before they actually learned the principles of business and also if they hadn't already understood them but also they had time to invest in the community. so these are policies that helped shape where we are today. we also supported policies that creates good neighbor policy -- created good neighbor policies, equity organizations.

so on the one hand, i have two competing organizations with differing interests and desires, but without a doubt, part of the original conversation for our district was were we served well? we have three in our district, two immediately adjacent, and more on the way. so the idea was our commercial corridor feels as though and our neighborhood feels as though and our district feels as though we have done and have a true number of businesses here today that -- and enough businesses that serve in this particular area, that we have enough for them, and that's essentially a necessarily desirable standard. it's does it fit into the needs and desires of the neighborhood? so because of that, and because of the feel and the desire of the neighborhood -- again, i feel conflicted because this

neighborhood served and operated for 15 years in district six and only left because of trouble with their landlord, and my belief in the equity program, but also, i gave my word to my voters, i gave my word to my constituency, and my word is my bond. so because of that, colleagues, i -- i ask that you actually not approve this operator today and that we reject the decision of the planning department. i will say i have called here for a hearing to see where we are with the cannabis program citywide, and we will be coming forward with some additional proposals. thank you, and thank you again to all of the people who called in today. thank you, mr. president. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor safai. colleagues, we have a motion on the floor to approve item 28

and table items 29 and 30, made by supervisor ronen and seconded by supervisor melgar. madam clerk, will you please call the roll. [roll call] >> clerk: there are eight ayes and three noes, with supervisors safai, mar, and

chan in the dissent. >> president walton: thank you. with that, item 28 is passed and item 29 and 30 are tabled. madam clerk, can we go back to item 7? >> clerk: yes. item 7 is an ordinance amending the administrative code to prohibit landlords from evicting residential tenants for nonpayment of rent that came due between july 1, 2021 and december 31, 2021. >> president walton: thank you. supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: as a reminder, following the passage on first reading of this ordinance in june, state law makers rushed through a.b. 832,

which preempted covid related eviction protections to the end of this month, and that protection is in effect until april 2022.

-- if we are successful and the state can be persuaded, either the governor or the legislature or both, to lift the preemptions, then we want this ordinance to take effect without delay, without restarting the legislative process. that's why advocates have asked us to move this legislation forward, and, therefore, i would like to make -- to amend the ordinance. i've circulated amendments. the bottom line is to amend it so it doesn't take immediate effect upon being passed as that

would be preset. ed by state law, but instead, takes effect immediately if the state does the right thing and allows for local protections as we continue to urge. in addition there's several amendments to the purpose and finding section, mainly to update references in the relevant state law. we have circulated the ordinance as amended and i want to thank kyle smeely, my legislative aide for all of his work on this, and particularly on the amendments and getting those out so quickly. and we would be happy to answer any questions that there are around the amendments. before we vote on this, a couple things. i want to acknowledge a letter sent yesterday by the california apartment association that you all have received. the letter amounts to an attack on efforts to protect tenants with a looming eviction cliff. in that letter they write, quote, the unclear why you would

waste taxpayer funds, considering an ordinance that is so clearly prohibited by state law and otherwise unnecessary. the residents and taxpayers of the great city and county of san francisco deserve better. let me be clear that i will not rest until we have exhausted every avenue to make sure that renters are not thrown out of their homes because of a pandemic that they had no control over. i agree perhaps on one point with the california apartment association that that is that san franciscos do deserve better. they do not deserve to have corporate real estate lobbyists in sacramento dictating whether or not their city leaders can offer them basic protections. they don't deserve to lose their homes so wealthy interests can increase their profit margins. and i want to make sure that folks understand that what the state and apartment association are doing is not about protecting landlords who need their rent money.

thanks to federal investment and our local investments, rent relief money is available for landlords. the california department association has intervened not to protect small landlords but to empower predator landlords as an cute to evict low-rent and mostly rent controlled tenants. that's what is at stake. 10 days from now our protections against mass displacement are set to expire. we will not take this sitting down and we are working with advocates to increase pressure for state action. governor newsome and leaders atkin and rendon should be ashamed of their inaction here, or even worse, their action to preempt cities from taking decisive action to protect their tenants. i day of delay inflicts stress

and anxiety among those who are

>> president walton: thank you.

this ordinance passed unanimously on first reading as amended. madam clerk, let's go to item number 9. >> clerk: mr. president, did you want me to read nine and 10 together? >> president walton: my apologies. >> clerk:resolution approving amendment number 2 to the board area f specialty store lease number 12-0086, and stellar partners. and item 10, the lease modification to the 2011 lease and use agreement number 10-0096, with taca international airlines and an estimated rent of approximately $4.3 million. during the extension of the term. >> president walton: thank you, madam clerk. supervisor chan. >> supervisor chan: i recognize that due to the economy it's been -- due to the impact from the pandemic we see that tourism is down and our economy is

suffering. i totally understand that the airport is in need to making these adjustments. but i just have some questions for the airport, trying to understand, you know, i think that it's as of today that we now to see the future of opening travel with places like e.u. and u.k. from the united states. you know, i am cautiously optimistic. i think that we are recovering from this pandemic. we are making progress. while i know that the projection from the airport, still thinking that the tourism recovery is way out, like five years from now, but i'm also interested to see in the event that tourism does recover much faster than we anticipate, what mechanism is actually in place that we don't really lose out on the dollars that we could really gain from these types of agreements.

so do we have the airport here today so i can ask a quick question? >> yes, hi, supervisor chan, this is deana rolac with the airport. >> supervisor chan: thank you. i think that my main question is that i do see, you know, these types of -- especially and particularly for the airline, that when it comes to estimated rent, we know that these rents, it is set by the -- based on the rate set by the airport commission. so i want to understand and that is set annually, so i want to understand that what is the approach and make sure that the airport is using presenting the rate and -- so if you could first walk us through how is the rate set and approved by the commission? second, what is the metric and the approach that the airport has to present these rates?

>> great. so this -- you're asking specifically about our lease and use agreement related to the taca airlines, is that correct? >> supervisor chan: correct, and i think that just airlines in general, right, because you do set a one set rate annually? >> right. and so, yes, so the rate -- lease and use modifications, we set on an annual basis through our airport commission. we have a residual late setting methodology for landing fees based on our airport rate and charges. so, unfortunately, i don't have that specific details about that methodology. i can provide that information to the board separately and get the people who are the experts on that methodology to you. i just know in terms of this lease, for the lease and use agreement, we were going through negotiations about -- to reinstate that.

but because of the current situation we're asking for an extension so that we can understand as you had said what the current environment will be but in terms of the exact methodology, i would have to get that information to you separately. >> supervisor chan: through the president, so i'm trying to understand then what is the ax e approval process for those rates? >> it is through our airport commission. >> supervisor chan: so the airport sets the rate for the commissioner to approve? >> correct. >> supervisor chan: and the vote is typically up and down? >> yes. >> supervisor chan: right. so i think, again, you know, colleagues, i think that just giving -- in light of some of the conversation around corruption and, you know, just knowing that just a lot of

things going on and really in need of holding our commissions -- and i'm not talking about specifically right now about the sfo or the airport commission, but just in general when it comes to approving contracts, approving rates, we would definitely love to learn more about just the matrix and the methodology of how you approach these rates and presenting this rate. and the process for approval. and really for, you know, the -- how does the commission really determine these rates and approving them. i think that it is impacting sort of the way that making sure that there's a transparency and accountability through the process for approval. it comes to the board. i think that the commission is the first line of defense so to speak to make sure that our city

departments and these types of contracts are screened through. so i think that's really all i have today for now. i am in support of this. i do understand that these types of lease agreements at this moment, you know, making a change is to, you know, to address the challenges that the airport is facing. but before you return, i do hope that for other items that i hope that i could get those answers. >> definitely. >> supervisor chan: thank you. thank you, president walton. >> president walton: thank you, diana and thank you so much, supervisor chan. and i don't see anyone on the roster. i believe that we can take these items same house, same call. and without objection, these resolutions are adopted unanimously. madam clerk, please call item 11. >> clerk: a resolution authorizing the director of transportation to execute

contract sfmta for procurement single and multi-space parking meter hardware and support services for with mackay meters, inc, to replace existing hardware in an amount not to exceed $70,557,894 for the option to extend five additional years. >> president walton: same house, same call. without resolution this is, adopted unanimously. madam clerk. can you please call items 12 and 13 together. >> clerk: resolutions pertaining to two department of public health or dph agreements with the california department of health care services for item 12, this is retroactive authorization to the dph to enter into a performance contract that incorporates the mental health services act, lanterman-petris-short act, projects for assistance in

transition for homelessness, community mental health services block grant, and substance abuse treatment and prevention brock grant and a training program for a period of july 1, 2021 through to june 30,, 2024. and item 13, retroactively to sign an amended agreement for the accordation of health, behavioral health and social services to extend the program by one year for a total term through december 31, 2021. and to increase the agreement amount by $35.8 million for a total amount of $198 million. >> president walton: thank you. same house, same call. and without objection these resolutions are adopted unanimously. madam clerk, please call item 14. >> clerk: excuse me. item 14 is a resolution to

acknowledge notice from the general and manager of the public utilities commission of the potential need to secret row active board of supervisors approval you the charter for contracts with costs of $10 mill or more, revenues of $1 million or more, or terms in excess of 10 years, or contracts requiring binding arbitration for the purchase and sale of energy-related products necessary to meet regulatory compliance obligations in 2021. >> president walton: thank you, madam clerk. supervisor preston. >> supervisor preston: thank you. as you saw in the last few items retroactive approvals do from time to time, almost on a weekly basis, come before this body. it is certainly not our preferred method of approving these instruments. although i do have to say that in recent times the clerk has done a great job of eliciting responses from departments as you saw on items 12 and 13 as to

why departments are seeking retroactive approval. and i think that has been very healthy for good governance. in the case of this item number 14, there was a period of time when the puc actually wanted this board of supervisors to delegate our charter authority pursuant to section 9.118 to allow the general manager and/or the commission to approve these without this board. instead, i think that we have ended up in a much better place where we do maintain our checks and balances and oversight as laid out in this item number 14 so i wanted to acknowledge that the puc is not only going to bring us some retroactive community choice aggregation

retroactive approvals, but that they are starting out with notice. and if you read the whereas, you will see that already in 2021 -- i'm looking for the right site -- clean power s.f. has already issued five requests for offers and when those come in, they need to move quickly. but i thought that we might just take a moment to ask the puc to speak to this and to let us know what they foresee coming to this board for us to approve retroactively. i think that it should all be out there and very transparent. but i do think that we have arrived at the right formula wherein this board did not delegate and i'm not pointing any fingers at the puc, but we all know what happened when --

with best of intentions -- we for public works waived contracting provisions for a homeless crisis and then the head of that department, mohammed nuru, we now know that used that for all sorts of nefarious purposes. so i think that we've got the right formula there but i'd like to give the puc an opportunity to speak to that in more detail >> president walton: thank you, supervisor peskin. i believe that we have barbara hale online. did you hear the question? >> yes, i did. thank you. thank you, chairman, and thank you commissioners. or excuse me, supervisors. i am barbara hale, the assistant general manager for power. thank you, supervisor peskin for that introduction. we are in a point in time where we are concerned we're going to

need to come forward with contracts that will need to be signed and require retroactive approvals by the board to provide some context for that. and we have resource adequacy requirements that are placed on us by the state of california. they're applicable to all entities that provide electric service to customers. so for san francisco, clean power s.f. and hetch hetchy power, the two programs that we run at the p.u.c., both have these requirements. the requirement itself is intended to ensure that there's enough electricity, enough electric generation, resources available, to meet unusually high levels of customer demand. in providing the notice to the board, commission staff is anticipating that there will be market and regulatory conditions that will lead us to retroactive approval requests this year as there were last year.

the factors that we see in front of us are causing us to come forward are uncertainty with regard to the outcome of regulatory proceedings that are underway at the california p.u.c., and the california independent system operator. those are the entities that will determine future requirements of both buyers and sellers in the market. the potential for extreme weather events that could drive up peak demand and the need for more capacity to be available to the california independent system operator. we're also all experiencing persistent drought. those drought conditions in the state of california reduced the availability of hydroelectric generation in both california and throughout the western states that are interconnected on the electric grid. and then finally the potential for increases in the california p.u.c. mandated procurement

obligations that we face in 2022 that might further reduce available resource adequacy capacity in the near term. so to address these circumstances as the supervisor mentioned in his introduction, we have some ongoing efforts to procure to meet these compliance requirements. we have to report our compliance to the state by the end of october. so far earlier this year we issued seven separate solicitations for resource adequacy capacity. we submitted bids into six other solicitations conducted by other parties. to date we have not obtained sufficient resource adequacy capacity supplies to meet the clean power s.f. expected 2022 resource adequacy capacity requirements. we anticipate issuing an additional three to four solicitations prior to the complients deadline. and we also anticipate in

participating in five additional solicitations held by third parties over the coming two months. these solicitations that we issue or participate in over the next six weeks will not allow us sufficient time to receive approvals prior to execution. but we will be up against the regulatory deadlines and the need to act. so with that background, i hope that you'll be comfortable recognizing this notice. thank you. >> president walton: thank you. supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, ms. hale, and thank you, colleagues, for allowing me to spend a little bit of time on that. i just want everyone to be very clear on the fact that we are authorizing the general manager -- never mind -- i take that back. that is an early codicile, we are good.

>> president walton: thank you, supervisor peskin. i don't see anyone else on the roster so we can take this item same house, same call. without objection this resolution is adopted unanimously. madam clerk, call item 15. >> clerk: item 15 is a resolution to authorize the general manager of the san francisco public utilities commission to execute the first amendment to the existing grant agreement with 181fremont street llc for an onsite water reused street at 181 fremont street, extending the term of the agreement by seven years to january 5, 2032, for a total duration of 17 years. >> president walton: thank you, madam clerk. i don't see anyone on the roster. we can take this item same house, same call. without objection this resolution is adopted unanimously. madam clerk, call item 16. >> clerk: item 16 is a resolution to authorize the issuance and sale of one or more

series of special tax bonds for city and county facilities district number 2014-1, not to exceed $35 million to approve the related documents as defined herein, including an official statement, the third supplement to fiscal agent agreement, bond purchase agreement and continuing disclosure undertaking, and determining other matters in connection as defined herein. >> president walton: seeing no one on the roster we can take this item same house, same call without objection this resolution is adopted unanimously. madam clerk please call item number 17. >> clerk: item 17 is a resolution authorizing the execution and delivery from time to time of tax-exempt and/or taxable commercial paper notes in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $2.4 million to provide financing for the costs of the acquisition of vehicles

and authorizing other related actions as defined herein. >> president walton: seeing no one on the roster, can we take this item same house, same call without objection this is adopted unanimously. call item 18. >> clerk: item 18 is a resolution to retroactively authorize the department of public health to accept and expend a $315 how to grant from the centers for disease control and prevention for participation in a program entitled, ps21-2103: integrated viral hepatitis surveillance and prevention funding for health departments," through april 30, 2022. >> president walton: no one on the roster. with we take this item same house, same call? without objection this resolution is adopted unanimously. madam clerk. call item 19. >> clerk: to amend the planning code to designate ingleside

terraces sundial and sundial park as a land mark and to make the appropriate findings. >> president walton: supervisor melgar. >> supervisor melgar: so this landmark sundial is in my district, district 7. and it is, in fact, much, much less than 500 square feet from my family's home. so i need to recuse myself from this item. i want to thank supervisor peskin for assuring it through the land-use committee and i need to leave if you will excuse me. >> president walton: thank you so much. before you go, can we have a motion to excuse supervisor melgar and made by supervisor peskin and seconded by supervisor safai. on the motion, madam clerk. >> clerk: on the motion to excuse supervisor melgar from item 19 [roll call vote]

there are 10 ayes. >> president walton: thank you, without objection, supervisor melgar is excused from item number 19. all right, madam clerk, on item number 19. >> clerk: on item 19 -- >> president walton: my apologies, supervisor peskin, i thought that you were there for the motion. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, president walton and colleagues the res lowg