please consider the adjustments for chapter 14b for the most significant in the l.b.e. program as the lifeblood for small business in the city of san francisco. thank you. >> next caller, please. >> thank you. the rules committee and city administrator. i am randy collins, structural engineer and owner f.t.e. engineering from 19 years ago. no increase in 23 years. two years ago our office was cramped. we needed more space to grow. we looked at oakland 50% rent.

revenue set 30% standard standings $4.5 million per year for engineering firm like mine. we chose to find at 38 mason signing six year lease hat $13,000 per month, four times previous rent. three months after moving in, quarantine het. office empty a year. revenue is down 30%. we are struggling to make a profit for health insurance and things we can't cut in half. we lost l.b.e. status in january. we lost three projects. there are several more on the horizon. we need this more. a few years ago the committee was discussing finding firms of 10% of participation for a city

contract. we were having a hard time there is not enough qualified firms. comments was made to lower the goals not raise revenue to reduce instead of helping. in december i was networks for cloud hall at city college. it will requires fees up to $1 million. the l.b.e. goal as 50%. the listing of structural engineers i saw only one other firm carable of taking on that project and meeting scheduled with research staff in case someone got sick. >> thank you. >> we are limiting speaker time to two minutes. i apologize for cutting anybody off. next speaker, please.

>> good morning. thank you for hearing this amendment. i am wayne perry. i am a l.b.e. advisory committee member but i am also a small business in san francisco and have been here over 35 years. i am a big supporter of changes to the amendment. it will be good for san francisco and good for local business. thank you very much. >> caller: good morning. i am james may berry. i am a bayview resident and small micro business owner. i have been in business for 12 years now.

i would like to thank all of you for considering and voting yes to move forward the 14b. it is good for san francisco. it is good for micro businesses in small communities that barely get a chance at opportunities like this. the city is a melting pot with a whole heap of big boys coming in to grab up contracts and not listing us. it is a problem. we have an opportunity to be productive in the city. the 14b amendment would help grassroots businesses like my own and my colleagues who spoke before me as a voice of the micro l.b.e. committee. we definitely thank all of the supervisors, city and county of san francisco and definitely administrator carmen chu.

i have been a administrator for the city. it is something to do. we would say thank you from the micro l.b.e. committee and bayview hunters point which i am part of. we hope you guys can implement the new changes written into the narrative of the 14b amendment as soon as possible it would mean a lot to poor people and small people and micro people. thank you. >> next caller, please. >> caller: good morning, committee chair his kin and supervisors. i am darrell lynn davis

president oftive vase communication a local was for 25 years. i set on the l.b.e. advisory committee and lead subcommittee for professional services. i have been working with the committee for three years to study and recommend changes to the legislation. we have held dozens of meetings with small accident community to look at all of the amendments. we have reached consensus around the majority of amendments before you today. we support to most significant changes, increase in economic threshold, automatic 5% increases, increase for prime contractors from 10 to 25% for listing and dumping an l.b.e. we have waited 20 years for increase in economic threshold. i have been working on this for more than 15 years. we had an opportunity in which

2015 when legislation was amended. we were cut out at the last comment because some prefer are to keep the program small with fewer l.b.e.s. we just want a level playing field. we opposed proof of location instead of paying represent. the business can render the service to the landlord. one of the things l.b.e.s do is pave the cost of doing business in san francisco and rent is one. it is kick in the game. i want to thank supervisor walton, safai, melgar and ronen and mayor breed for support to protect small businesses. i move many forward. >> thank you. next caller, please.

>> caller: i am the c.e.o. of hosely corporation. it is an l.b.e. general engineering contractor based in the bayview. i would like to thank the rules committee for taking time to review chapter 14b ordinance legislation. i have been involved with the l.b.e. community for several years. as a community we have come together to improve 14b with the goal of helping all l.b.e. businesses. the legislation that are key to the businesses are the adjustments from micro, small, and sbe are women overdue. adding automatic threshold adjustments limnaths coming back.

extending the average. gross receipts three to five years depicts small business growth. higher penalties fail to meet requirements of 14b. it is necessary. implementation of mentor program would improve the ability to effect effectively for city contracts. this legislation has strong support. support the growth of l.b.e. told by voting yes to support this legislation. thank you for listening. >> next caller, please. >> hello. i am calling in today to express my support for the amendment to

14b. i am vivian wire. i work with the architects. i want to chang melgar and chu to getting this addressed. i do want to support these changes that need to occur, amendments need to happen because the costs of doing accident in san francisco has increased tremendously while the l.b.e. threshold has not. th is eliminating a lot of businesses that should be doing business in this plan is not to do business. it is affecting small businesses during covid-19 and struggling to be able to get out of difficult financial situations. the three year average income qualification is too short. a% can be turned down after a good year, five years is more appropriate. this will set income

qualification. precluding need for additional adjustments by the board in the future. i look forward to your support. >> next caller, please. >> i am marcus. center director at. [indiscernable] we totally support these amendments to the 14b ordinance. we have operated contractors program in bayview for the last 15 years. women and minority, african-american construction businesses have been excluded not able to fully participate in this economy. i am talking about the micro l.b.e.s. i want that.

the micro l.b.e.s are the bottom feeders. these are the folks at the bottom end or the bottom of the food chain. we support this legislation because it is very inclusive. those micro l.b.e.s have had a seat at the table. i know this because it is a conversation that happened in the office of the bayview on evans street. i want to thank the city administrator, mayor's office and our tremendous supervisor is a beacon in hunter's point, president walton. thank you all and please be safe. >> thank you. next caller. >> caller: chair peskin and members of the rules committee

and board of supervisors, ovula associates consulting engineers. i have had the pleasure of working in the city for 20 years. we are l.b.e. sba graduated from small business program a year ago i want to thank you for continued support for local businesses. this ordinance is critical to continued success. we are dying on the vine. these rules before you will allow us to compete with the multinational firms that are passing us over because we are not a small l.b.e. any more. instead of increasing l.b.e.s we see reduction in l.b.e. participation level with different r.f.p.s. we need your help. our firm works to keep the city of san francisco employees

employed. we are dying on the vine. it was five to six contracts in the last year alone. please support this ordinance with the modifications. they are imperative for the success of the small business program. please pass these for the future. thank you for your support. >> next caller, please. >> good morning. i am the principal for the. [indiscernable] we are sba l.b.e. certified. graduated from the micro l.b.e. late last year and similar to mr. abbey and his experiences we have been -- we find out the

opportunities are limited on our end. the thresholds have not been adjusted over 20 years. i am calling to support the changes to the l.b.e. chapter and i hope you will support it and we need to support small businesses, continue to provide opportunities to bring equity into the industry. there is an overwhelming under representation from all fronts on the industry here. i think this amendment will continue to create opportunity. also continue to keep dollars in san francisco. thank you. >> thank you. next caller, please. >> hi, i am the program development officer with agent

inc provide small business consulting services in san francisco. we also operate the nbc a business center and support small businesses in northern california. we are excited to speak on this item. thank you to the supervisors who have offered the item and engaged with the community and small business clients to assess changes for this moving forward to support the work we have done for the last 20 years getting us this far. there is still work to do. we look forward to working with all of you to provide a voice for small business for access with economic opportunities and business with local government and to create transparency around what those needs look like, particularly in managing

relationship between crimes and small businesses so we see those partnerships carry through the contracting process. [please stand by]

>> caller: good afternoon. i've been in business for 28 years in san francisco as an architect and have provided over 35 years. i wanted to say to city administrator carmen chiu, the city administrator task force has evolved. one of the registers we had made was a neighborhood preference program which was included in the memos that we sent to the taskforce and now it has become a reality in the l.b.e. recommendation.

but i need to know is that what we need? and that hasn't been done. if you look at the report that i'll be sending to your offices, we've issued a report on the status of our san francisco latino and black builders in the city and it's not good. when our contracts, 5% of them are union have 0% to 6% backlog, they're in trouble. and that's our professional services of oscar, i can't remember his last name, talked about today. so what we need is stronger enforcement and increasing the liquidated jams because our second and third tier contractors are the ones getting abused and they're not approving their change orders

-- >> clerk: speaker's time has elapsed. thank you. can we have the next caller, please. okay. caller, you are on the line. you can begin speaking. if we can't hear you, you can press star three to enter back into the queue and we'll call you at a later time. >> caller: hi. this is patrick ryan. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. we can. >> caller: this is patrick ryan, i'm the vice president of coo committee. thank you for taking the time

to listen to us today. this has been a three-year process and i want to mention two people and that's darrell and davis who are two black women owners who have led this charge and this has been a grass roots effort. it has really been an amazing journey to be on with my fellow l.b.e. community members, specifically the microcommunity members and the board should be very enthusiastic about passing this and should have a sense of urgency about passing this because it's going to leave a lot of pain that a lot of small businesses that have been facing this during this time that has been amplified during the pandemic and other issues that we face. this really has been an effort that has galvanized a lot of folk who is have previously been ignored or left behind and it's very much needed and it

has been vetted and it is something that everybody can get behind and i feel very proud of it. i want give a special thanks to board president walton and supervisor safai for sponsoring this and i hope this can happen very swiftly so that we can all move on to building and growing our businesses. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. can we hear from the next caller, please. >> caller: hi. i want to say thank you, mayor breed, president walton, supervisors, city officials, colleagues, and city administrator chiu. i'm the owner of mansfield and mansfield which is a construction clean-up business. i'm a woman, minority-own the

company. i'm a nurse trade over 40 years and i became an entrepreneur four years ago. i just want to say thank you to the supervisor and the committee for putting this amendment or considering the passing of this amendment. i just want to tell you that i have been listed and dumped or dumped and listed and it's extremely hard being a single parent of a company, excuse me, i'm really emotional. it means a lot to us and it means a lot to my children which i put two through private colleges and the other two through public colleges. i've worked extremely hard. i'm very prideful for the work that we provide for the city and county of san francisco. i work directly with my local hires in my community.

i take pride in putting brown and black people to work that have been left behind and that are struggling along with myself. i'm excited of just the opportunity for us to have this to pass on behalf of us in san francisco, and i just want to say that it's very painful to watch work go up in my community or in the city and county of san francisco and not have the opportunity to work or bid on that project -- >> clerk: speaker's time has elapsed. thank you. apologies. we are only allowing two minutes per speaker for public comment on each item. can we have the next caller, please. >> caller: good afternoon supervisors. my name is lamar hez, president

of asian inc. and i have many people to thank. contract monitoring division director and the supervisors in response of that legislation, president walton, supervisor melgar, supervisor safai, supervisor ronen. i stand here because asian inc. has been committed to the l.b.e. program before it was a known l.b.e. program, but because of proposition 209, we don't have a race or gender conscious program. we have the local enterprise program. and the local task force issued a report and indicated it was essential to the recovery of our city from covid-19.

we are still in. i stand here as a latino and black. but certainly stand here with the latino and black businesses that have addressed you. including michael gregory and trisha gregory. we have addressed this issue to the supervisors and and i think we should invest more.

>> clerk: thank you. can we have the next caller, please. >> caller: hello. i just wanted to take the opportunity to champion what everyone else has said here. we feel the amendments are and we need more of a check and balance system.

so we appreciate you looking at these amendments and just wanted to speak to that and let you know it's something we absolutely need. >> caller: hi. thank you to the supervisors who brought this forward. we are a small estimating and scheduling firm in the construction realm. and we've been with the l.b.e. program since i believe 19906. and at that time, 2.peeuf $2.5 billion business was a 20% business. and now it's a 10% so is this

measure is essential. our revenue has increased over 30% at this time and we urge you to support this legislation. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next caller, please. >> caller: good afternoon, supervisors. thank you, again. my name is nick kalina.

i'm ambiguous on the board of the san francisco black builder's association and build-out california that represents lgbtq contractors. we wanted to show our support for the changes to the chapter 14 you know chapter 14 saved many businesses. i want to just show strong support for the i wanted to also show strong support in the damages to 25% and also to

establish. you know, this community is fighting and we continue to appreciate your support. thank you, supervisors. >> clerk: thank you. can we hear from the next caller, please. >> caller: can you hear me now? >> clerk: yes, we can. please proceed. >> caller: good afternoon. david pillpell. i have no concerns about the substantive proposal, but i could ask the city agencies and

its components along with the city attorney and others have the capacity to implement these changes. i think that some city departments, some of the ones that i listed, maybe others may need additional resources staff dollars etc. to address these changes. i'm aware that the contracting units in all of the city departments including the centralized units are overstrapped as are all of us and many of us and so adding, yet, another component to what they're doing, i'm not sure that insurmountable is the word, but i do think they need the resources to do it. and are not inconsequential.

those are my thoughts at this time. thanks. >> clerk: thank you. i'd just like to note that, if you have not already done so, please dial star three to be added to the queue to speak. for those on hold, please wait until you have been unmute. at this time, we currently have ten people on the phone waiting for public comment. can we have the next speaker, please. >> caller: hello. >> clerk: please proceed. >> caller: . okay. thank you for the stunt to speak on this critical legislation that will positively impact our city of

san francisco. that is work closely with patrick ryan, the v.p. and c.e.o. of eco based services in construction. we work together to institute the changes. has been for micro-l.b.e.s particularly truckers and underserved communities to move through the l.b.e. program. our goal with this legislation. for micros. this legislation is a representation, strong

negotiations and coming together of multiple stakeholders. from the microset aside threshold increase from 706,000 to a million dollars. this legislation has great support within the community. we hope overall that the rules committee supports it and moves it forward today. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next caller, please. >> caller: members of the rules committee, i have heard so many lies put publicly today. it's unbelievable.

they held private meetings. so the notion of the consensus is nothing but b.s.. two, this motion does not address the primary issue of 12b which is the corruption in implementing 12b. this only allows the company and former d.p.w. employees connected to muhammad nuru to continue raping the city and raping small businesses in the city. i personally blew out the whistle on m.c.k. on a deputy administrate anterior when the maximum limit is only 2.5 because he chooses to ignore it. now, the west side observer have reported the facts. 66% of professional l.b.e.s in the city and county of san francisco are operating without a safe license.

66% with no experience than capacitiable london cross rail connection. ladies and gentlemen, prop 209 is illegal. and we moved it to pass a race gender mutual and now we're hearing exactly the same thing. only latinos and only black. this is not only illegal, but it violates the civil rights of everyone, everyone human being in san francisco. there are people that live in san francisco that have the right to live and work in san francisco. carmen chiu, i've never seen anything worse than you are to be honest with you. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next caller, please. >> caller: okay. supervisors, this is juliana choice summer.

i am a member of the small business l.b.e. and i've been in business for 25 years and this has greatly helped my company through this incarnation. also, i'm a member of the asian contractor's association. many of our memberers who are not black, norla i'm not going to top the testimonials that were stated earlier. not all testimonials, but many of the previous ones. so i encourage you all to move this out of rules on to the full board. there's been a lot of community engagement and many of us are very much in support of all the hard work that's gone into this. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. can we get the next caller,

please. >> caller: hi. my name is carl gordon and we're a micro-small business in the bay area, in the bayview. i want to thank supervisor walton. mayweather williams, duarte jones, marcus tar, and just supervisors, if you can support this bill here that we're we're the backbone of the community but with the support of outreach in the area to help us out and you guys pass and this legislation will be a great

deal. so i just want to thank you. i don't want to be long winded with what i have to say. i support everyone in this community. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next caller, please. >> caller: hi. my name is shannon collins. i regularly learn a project opportunity with l.b.e. requirements that would be perfect opportunities for our firm to partner with larger firms. unfortunately, we can no longer pursue these r.f.q.s because we grew beyond the 2.5 revenues and our business has suffered because of it. 23 years ago, a $2.5 million firm was a 20-person firm. that size supported a scale and

business structure that could successfully graduate from the l.b.e. program. now, a $2.5 million firm represents a 10-person firm which is too small to graduate successfully so firms have to limit growth to stay in the program. i don't think that is the spirit of this program. this program helps dozens of small architecture and engineering firms get experience and grow their businesses in the program. please don't let a few recent bad actors taint this successful program. please help small businesses rebuild san francisco's economy, housing, and infrastructure while we implore san franciscans pay rent and meet over coffee and dinners in our city. please vote to support raising the l.b.e. revenue limits. thank you very much supervisors and to carmen chiu.

>> clerk: thank you. can we have the next caller, please. >> caller: good afternoon, supervisors. thank you for considering this impactful amendment of this legislation reform. my name's eric robinson. i won't repeat some of the arguments that made. i think the result of the cap not being raised over these past firms can no longer participate. i'd like to reiterate we support this amendment and look

forward to approving it. thank you for your time. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next caller, please. >> caller: hello, supervisors. i'm the owner of casada architecture based in san francisco for the last 27 years. we also just recently graduated from the l.b.e. program and are in very much support of this amendment. i just wanted to make two points. one is as randy had mentioned awhile back, some of these projects have a 50% l.b.e. mandate and if you're an l.b.e. and you get 50% of one of these very large projects, you're pretty much graduating within a year or two after you get that project and it doesn't really serve. you have to build your office to a certain size and once you don't have that project, you're

already out of the program. the other thing to also consider is that as architects, we carry a lot of sub consultants in our contracts. as the l.b.e. we held of that $2 million contract, we only received less than 10% of that $2 million comes through us is counted towards our bottom line. so it basically graduated as part of the program. it's basically not money that we receive and we're using to build our business.

>> clerk: thank you. can we have the next caller, please. >> caller: hello. i'm the president and general manager of jeron construction and been here for 17 years in san francisco. i'm here today because i'm in support of the legislation you're all considering. it's important to us because we are victims of the tyranny of being small and that means that we don't have an agency. we don't have strong advocacy for all the things that hurts our ability to succeed within this environment. one of the best vehicles i believe for the leadership of san francisco to execute is responsibility being good stewards of the public trust is that you maintain a healthy and competitive robust pool of vendors rendering services to the city of san francisco and i believe one of the major ways to do that is to maintain a

strong and healthy intake of small businesses and make that whole offering as possible. i hope that you all see it. the other piece of it is is that i hope that you don't link this as legislation of an interest to the group of people that i belong to, the contractors, i hope that you recognized a very strong link between local businesses and local hiring. no one and i think there's adequate information that shows you there's a strong correlation between the local businesses and the local hiring and the amount of development of local employment here in san francisco. we don't parachute in when the opportunity comes and leaves once that opportunity's away. nor do we just put the minimum

investment in people. we're here because we have skin in the game and i hope that you recognize that that not only we are partners with you in building a stronger and better san francisco and i hope that you look favorably upon this opportunity. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next caller, please. >> good morning board of supervisors. thank you for allowing me to voice my support. we're small architect firm located in mission district. through the l.b.e. program, we have had the opportunity to provide services to help build

affordable housing in sf. and as many of you have spoken today. we have lost our l.b.e. status. we want to regain our status so we can continue to help with more affordable housing in our neighborhood. our goal is demonstrating work because we cannot revenue is also a mission. the burdens of an l.b.e. contract is to stay below this l.b.e. revenue while carrying subcontractors is unfair and it will be great to address this now. lastly, we oppose the amendment to allow business that is are not physically located in san francisco as confirmed by

paying real rent and not in kind services to qualify as a local business. this amendment owns a potential and enormous loophole and allow individuals pay high market rents and living wage employees driving up the cost of business. we support the legislation as originally drafted more l.b.e.s are priced in san francisco. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next caller, please. >> caller: good morning. this is paul prenderghast.

i do want to underscore in the interest of time we do support the comments made by ann cervantes, james maybury, nick lynn, and juliana choy. we specifically want to underscore the importance and the value of the protoge program. thank you for the work, thank you for the commitment and so honored to be here today thank you. >> clerk: thank you. i'd just like to state if you have not already done so, please press star three to be added to the queue to speak. for those on hold, continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. can we have the next speaker.

>> hi everyone. my name is riana echol. we ourselves are an l.b.e. and also do extensive outreach and engagement within the l.b.e. community on the bayview. i would just like to show my support for this change and i want to thank everyone that worked on this improvement. i do believe these changes will be a great positive impact for the l.b.e. community especially to the micro-l.b.e.s. and help l.b.e.s get work on the construction project existing and future within our community with which we reside. it's really disheartening to see l.b.e.s that are listed underprimes that do not get contracts to work on this project. i really hope the change will prevent this from happening. thanks. >> clerk: thank you. shall we have the next caller,

please. >> caller: yes. this is miguel galarza with yerba buena engineering. i want to personally thank carmen chiu, and city administrator jennifer johnston. i i appreciate their efforts. i also want to thank all the supervisors that allowed us to brief the amount of changes to the ordinance. and we appreciate you taking the time to listen to our community. which will make a big difference to our community. the director has been great in helping us through these issues and making sure we stay within and, of course, my partner in

crime carolynn davis who worked hard this past year. thank you again, all, and we appreciate the efforts that you are taking. >> clerk: thank you. can we have our next speaker, please. >> yes. thank you for an opportunity to speak. i have worked with several of the l.b.e.s that spoke on the call earlier and i just want to applaud the rules committee for taking this under consideration and i want to applaud all the folks who worked to mange this happen and moved this forward. so thank you for this opportunity. >> clerk: thank you. that completes our list -- one last speaker. next speaker, please. >> caller: hi.

my name is nicole burrgis. >> supervisor mandelman: did we lose our speaker? >> clerk: i'm waiting for an update. we'll give them one moment. mr. atkins, if you can see if you can get our last caller back online. [inaudible] >> caller: hi. can you hear me okay? this is nicole. >> clerk: yes.

we can hear you now. please begin your public comments. >> caller: thank you. again, my name is nicole. ear an l.b.e. construction company in san francisco. we are here to thank everyone who's been involved with this. a lot of companies have been involved with this process way longer than we have actually been in business. we have incorporated 2015 and became operational in 2018. we've been afforded the opportunity to work on the construction site and what we really want to do is to make sure that we are -- have the capability of being on these sites and employing women in the construction field, minority women, minority residents. we offer services and elevated services on vertical projects.

the portion of the 14b that we are really interested in is the changing the penalties from 10% to 25%. we would love to see that penalty change to where the contractor received some of those funds for the larger companies that are circumventing the system and doing whatever they can not to work with l.b.e.s. one of the things we've faced is contractors don't know. we've done a lot to put our name up there and i'm sure a lot of other l.b.e.s have done that especially with the platforms that we've been apart of. so holding these larger given the ability to make them accountability and also

strengthening the penalty for what we would like to see. but ultimately, everything you want to do is work on the project, hire local residents. thank you for your time. >> clerk: we have one additional caller. can we have that speaker, please. >> caller: good afternoon, supervisors. the city administrator chiu. we're a certified small l.b.e. resource in the city. going back to my partners, i'll thank you for taking this and i want to express our support. i want to echo a lot of the comments i heard from my fellow and local small businesses today and these directly relate to local hiring. and so will be increasing the opportunities for students to

work on the city and work in these great projects. thank you for your consideration. >> clerk: thank you. that completelies our list of public commentors for this item. >> supervisor mandelman: great. public comment on this item is closed. chair peskin had to step away and so i have seized the gavel for the interim period until he returns. i see supervisor chan in the queue. >> supervisor chan: thank you, vice chair mandelman to making the moment we discussed before public comment if that's okay with you or whoever you want to do it. >> supervisor mandelman: i think that's great. there are no other supervisors who want to speak. city administrators. there's supervisor safai, one of the co-sponsors. so maybe i will come back to you, supervisor chan. supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: i'll be

real fast. i know it's been a long public comment. i just want to really say thank you to everyone involved, city administrator, mayor's office, president walton. lean on this. proud to be a co-sponsor of this legislation. i've worked on many aspects over the last ten years and i believe it's an extremely important program for our local businesses. having been a former l.b.e. that worked on things for the city. i understand some of the challenges in terms of size and in terms of coordinating with crimes and what it means to be given a leg up in an opportunity to provide services here in san francisco. but as many things, this program has graduated and needs to expand and it needs to grow and i think that this is the right time to raise the threshold.

so also in terms of having more accountability for the primes in terms of any violations that they might have and violating the work they do, i think having a clear definition of those fines is really important and just overall having a program here in san francisco that makes us unique that really fosters women-owned businesses owned by people of color business that is are homegrown, i think it's so important to have this program. so thank you to all involved and thank you to everyone for being a strong supporter of this and thank you for all the people that called in today that have been participating and making this better and i know that the city administrator has an l.b.e. working group. i know that miguel and others all have participated and given input. i know there's still some concerns from individuals and

reservations. we're never going to make anyone happy. but i think this is a really strong attempt and i appreciate supervisor melgar's support for monitoring how this is going and as to how many women and people of color owned businesses are participating in the program. so i appreciate that. thank you, chair. thanks for the opportunity to say a few words. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you, supervisor safai. now, unless there's anything anyone else who would like to speak, supervisor chan. >> supervisor chan: thank you. the first motion that i would like to make is a motion to amend a legislation for a clerkal amendment which is the correct acronym for mentor

protege program. that's the first motion. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you for that motion, clerk, please call the roll. >> clerk: yes. on that motion, [roll call] that motion passes with a vote of 2-1 with supervisor peskin being absent at this time. >> supervisor mandelman: great. thank you, mr. clerk. supervisor chan. >> supervisor chan: thank you. and i would like to make a motion to duplicate the file.

>> clerk: one moment, please. okay. i don't believe there's a need for a vote on the duplication. so we can go ahead and duplicate the matter. >> so then i would like to make the motion to amend the duplicated file with the amendments that were read into record early on by supervisor melgar which for those who just joined us, it's really the amendments to capture the data, that's the specific language. so i would like to amendment that duplicated file and continue the duplicated file to the call of the chair. >> supervisor mandelman: great. thank you, supervisor chan. please call the role on that motion.

>> clerk: yes. the matter has been duplicated and on the duplicated file, there's motion to amend the matter and continue that one to the call of the chair. on that motion, supervisor chan [roll call] the motion passes with supervisor peskin being absent. >> supervisor mandelman: great. >> clerk: on the version that has not been duplicated -- i mean, on the matter that has not been amended. >> supervisor mandelman: yeah. >> supervisor chan: i'd like to make a motion to move the original ordinance as amended with the claer cal amendments to the full board of positive recommendation. >> clerk: on the motion to refer the matter as amended, [roll call]

the motion passes with supervisor peskin being absent. >> supervisor mandelman: great. the motion passes. and thanks everyone. thanks administrator chiu. thanks to all the folks in the small business community. and we will move on to our next item. >> thank you, supervisors. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you. please call item four i believe. >> clerk: item number four is a motion -- excuse me. item number four is an ordinance amending the administrative code to extent the sunset date for the

cannabis oversight committee from december 3, 2021, to january 1, 2025. >> supervisor mandelman: supervisor peskin's back. i'll go back to being the vice chair. >> chairman: thank you very much, vice chair mandelman. i know that supervisor chan has something to say. supervisor chan. >> supervisor chan: thank you, chair peskin. i do believe that it's straight forward and that's really extending the sunset date that's the most equitable ownership and employment opportunity in the cannabis industry by lowering the barrier for you those that were hit hardest by the war on

drugs. so, with that, i do want to specifically highlight one important goal about the program is that about that i have intended to add a clock requiring that members of the committee have but i have been advised by our city attorney that we're not allowed to make that requirement since this is an advisory body. that does not have this decision of making authority on city policy. so i would like to thank ray law from the office of cannabis for working with my office, and all the members of the cannabis overnight committee for their hard work. with that, i think that we also can hear from the oversight committee themselves to talk about more transparency and accountability for the committee related to, you know,

my interest in filing 700 forms. ray law is here today along with john pierce and nick patel from the office of cannabis to answer any questions you may have and we also have the current president of the cannabis committee to say a few words about the work of the committee. with that, if it's okay with you, chair peskin, i would like to turn it over. >> chairman: sure. and, just for the public, this is a piece of legislation that extends the sunset date from december 3rd of this year to january 1st of 2025. with that, to the chair of the committee, the floor is yours. >> good afternoon rules committee. thank you, chair peskin. supervisor chan, supervisor mandelman. and thanks for having me today.

i'm the president of the oversight committee and for the san francisco's first and only equity manager. i do hope that you extend the sunset date to the c.o.c. as this is a really unique advisory body engaged in a very important dialog between administrators, legislators, the community as a whole and the industry stakeholders. i do believe that we've done a lot of good work so far and it's evident by the licenses and processes and those in processing. however, there's still quite a bit to accomplish especially when it comes to educating our community, taxes, and parody licensure. it's important we build a foundation. as i do think there will be an additional driver by the nature of medical and recreational use

or tourism, entertainment and the re-opening of our city. thank you for having found this body and i look forward to working with you guys. guy rthank you. >> chairman: thank you. supervisor chan, would you like to go to ray law? >> supervisor chan: yes. mr. ray law, are you here? i can't quite see everybody, but mainly, i just wanted to see if any of the committee members have questions to ask the office of cannabis. >> good afternoon. >> supervisor chan: i don't think we have a formal presentation for the extension of the committee. >> chairman: i have no questions. vice chair mandelman, do you

have any questions? seeing none. supervisor chan, we can go to public comment. >> supervisor chan: okay. thank you. >> clerk: yes. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call (415) 655-0001. the meeting id is 24810239510, then press pound and pound again. if you haven't already done so, please press star three to line up to speak. the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your public comment. we do not have anybody in line for public comment on this item. >> chairman: all right. public comment is closed. supervisor chan, would you like to make a motion? >> supervisor chan: yes. thank you, chair peskin. i would like to make a motion to move this to the full board with positive recommendation. >> chairman: all right.

on that motion as a committee report. >> supervisor chan: as a committee report. sorry about that. thank you. >> chairman: on that motion, a roll call, please. >> clerk: yes. on the motion you recommended as a committee report, [roll call] the motion passes without objection. >> chairman: next item, please. >> clerk: next on the agenda is item number five, an ordinance amending the campaign and government conduct code to expant the definition of interested parties to include city contractors, persons seeking influence to influence city officers and employees, contact lobbyists and to prohibit elected officials, department heads, officials, and designated employees from soliciting behested payments from interested parties. >> chairman: thank you, clerk

young. colleagues, the amendments that we made some time ago that necessitated the amendments containing to today are subject to meet and confer which meet and confer is happening today. as a result, we cannot vote on this. in addition, do to some concerns that were expressed, some of them wanting to go back to the battle ways and some of them actually valid policy concerns which need to be clarified in the legislation which will narrow some of those amendments in scope which amendments are being developed, i would like to make a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair. albeit, i intend to schedule it as soon as meet and confer is done and those amendments are ready for introduction. so, with that, why don't we go

to public comment. >> clerk: yes. while we are checking to see if there are any speakers i'd like to state if there are members of the public who would like to make public comment on this item call (415) 655-0001. the meeting id is 24810239510 and then press pound and pound again. if you haven't done so already, please dial star three to line up to speak. the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. we're waiting for our last update. there are no speakers on the line for public comment on this item. >> chairman: all right. public comment is closed. thank you, mr. pillpell. and why don't i make a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair. on that motion, a roll call, please. >> clerk: yes. on that motion, [roll call]

the motion passes without objection. >> chairman: and we are adjourned. thank you all.

>> my apartment burned down 1.5 years ago in noba. my name is leslie mccray, and i am in outside beauty sales. i have lived in this neighborhood since august of this year. after my fire in my apartment and losing everything, the red cross gave us a list of agencies in the city to reach out to and find out about various programs that could help us get back on our feet, and i signed up for the below market rate program, got my certificate, and started applying and won the housing lottery. this particular building was brand-new, and really, this is the one that i wanted out of everything i applied for. and i came to the open house

here, and there were literally hundreds of people looking at the building. and i -- in my mind, i was, like, how am i ever going to possibly win this? and i did. and when you get that notice that you want, it's surreal, and you don't really believe it, and then it sinks in, yeah, i can have it, and i'm finally good to go; i can stay. my favorite thing about my home, although i miss the charm about the old victorian is everything is brand-new. it's beautiful. my kitchen is amazing. i've really started to enjoy cooking. i really love that we have a gym on-site. i work out four days a week, and it's beautiful working outlooking out over the courtyard that i get to look at. it was hard work to get to the other side, but it's well worth it. i'm super grateful to the

mayor's office of housing for having this for us. >> he is a real leader that listens and knows how to bring people together. brought this department together like never before. i am so excited to be swearing in the next chief of the san francisco fire department, ladies and gentlemen, let's welcome, jeanine nicholson. (applause). >> i grew up total tomboy, athlete. i loved a good crisis, a good challenge. i grew up across the street from the fire station. my dad used to take me there to

vote. i never saw any female firefighters because there weren't any in the 1970s. i didn't know i could be a fire fighter. when i moved to san francisco in 1990, some things opened up. i saw women doing things they hadn't been doing when i was growing up. one thing was firefighting. a woman recruited me at the gay-pride parade in 1991. it was a perfect fit. i liked using my brain, body, working as a team, figuring things out, troubleshooting and coming up with different ways to solve a problem. in terms of coming in after another female chief, i don't think anybody says that about men. you are coming in after another man, chief, what is that like. i understand why it is asked. it is unusual to have a woman in

this position. i think san francisco is a trailblazer in that way in terms of showing the world what can happen and what other people who may not look like what you think the fire chief should look like how they can be successful. be asked me about being the first lbgq i have an understands because there are little queer kids that see me. i worked my way up. i came in january of 1994. i built relationships over the years, and i spent 24 years in the field, as we call it. working out of firehouses. the fire department is a family. we live together, eat together, sleep in the same dorm together, go to crazy calls together, dangerous calls and we have to look out for one another. when i was burned in a fire

years ago and i felt responsible, i felt awful. i didn't want to talk to any of my civilian friends. they couldn't understand what i was going through. the firefighters knew, they understood. they had been there. it is a different relationship. we have to rely on one another. in terms of me being the chief of the department, i am really trying to maintain an open relationship with all of our members in the field so myself and my deputy chiefs, one of the priorities i had was for each of us to go around to different fire stations to make sure we hit all within the first three or four months to start a conversation. that hasn't been there for a while. part of the reason that i am getting along well with the field now is because i was there. i worked there. people know me and because i

know what we need. i know what they need to be successful. >> i have known jeanine nicholson since we worked together at station 15. i have always held her in the highest regard. since she is the chief she has infused the department with optimism. she is easy to approach and is concerned with the firefighters and paramedics. i appreciate that she is concerned with the issues relevant to the fire department today. >> there is a retired captain who started the cancer prevention foundation 10 years ago because he had cancer and he noticed fellow firefighters were getting cancer. he started looking into it. in 2012 i was diagnosed with breast canner, and some of my

fellow firefighters noticed there are a lot of women in the san francisco fire department, premenopausal in their 40s getting breast cancer. it was a higher rate than the general population. we were working with workers comp to make it flow more easily for our members so they didn't have to worry about the paper work when they go through chemo. the turnout gear was covered with suit. it was a badge to have that all over your coat and face and helmet. the dirtier you were the harder you worked. that is a cancer causeser. it -- casser. it is not -- cancer causer. there islassic everywhere. we had to reduce our exposure.

we washed our gear more often, we didn't take gear where we were eating or sleeping. we started decontaminating ourselves at the fire scene after the fire was out. going back to the fire station and then taking a shower. i have taught, worked on the decontamination policy to be sure that gets through. it is not if or when. it is who is the next person. it is like a cancer sniper out there. who is going to get it next. one of the things i love about the fire department. it is always a team effort. you are my family. i love the city and department and i love being of service. i vow to work hard -- to work hard to carry out the vision of

the san francisco fire department and to move us forward in a positive way. if i were to give a little advice to women and queer kids, find people to support you. keep putting one foot in front of the other and keep trying. you never know what door is going to open next. you really don't. [cheers and

a principal analyst recently appointed as acting administrator responsible for developing all of the rates and charges for the water, power services we provide. >> the main things i work on are rates. it is really trying to figure out how much money we need to fund our operations and maintenance and thinking how to collect the money in a way that is fair to customers and sincentives for water conservation or installing stormwater management on their property.

>> i nominated erin for the many accomplishments she has provided especially for the financial sustain ability. the reality required a lot of work retooling policies, financial planning as well as many rating and charges. er ron served in the projects including update to water and sewer rates, update to 10 year financial plan as well as setting the budget for fiscal 2019 higher 2020. >> i am pleased with working here. i feel like we have tons of work to do. it is important work. it has a direct impact on people's lives. >> she has a unique ability to get to the root cause of the issue and help develop consensus around a solution. not only is it troubleshooting what the questions are, but also coming up with what are the

alternatives. >> i think a lot of the satisfaction from the job is looking back over the past few years and seeing cereal concrete change we have been -- real concrete change and that gives me pride. >> the team very much appreciates her hair color and the world of finance and accounting tends to foster conformity and boring guys like myself. i very much admire the fact that she walks her own walk and creates her own path, and i think we all can learn a little bit from her. >> i and a principal revenue and rates analyst in the financial plannininininininininininininin.

do you have any announcements.n.

>> yes. thank you, madam chair. the minutes will reflect that committee members participated in this remote meeting as though physically present. provide public participation in the following ways. public comment will be available either on channel 26 on sfgov or use the call in number scrolling across the screen. two minute public comment period by calling the number across the screen. enter the meeting i.d.

press pound and pound again. you will hear the meeting discussion but muted and in listening mode only. press star three to be added to the speaker line. call from a quiet location. you may submit public comment by e-mailing myself the land use and transportation clerk. if you submit public comment via e-mail it will be forwarded to the supervisors and be part of the official record. you can submit public comment by mail. items heard today.

>> thank you. please call item number one. >> yes. item number one is an ordinance admitting the planning code. the findings members of the public who wish to provide public comment on item number one to call the number on the screen. the meeting i.d. press pound and pound again. if you have not done so already, press star three to line towp speak. up to speak. madam chair. >> thank you. we have president walton on here with us. i will turn it over to you for remarks. >> thank you very much. it's good to see my colleagues as well on the committee. today we have before you an

ordinance to remove the life sciences overlay. the current life sciences overlay special use district currently does not serve the dog patch neighborhood and contradicts the neighborhood's plan. to create a buffer around the dog patch neighborhood. to protect encroachment. it didn't allow the uses to grow

this community. planning supports this legislation as well. it supports the plan to protect pdr. reduces pdr displacement. and since 2008 significant life growth in san francisco out side of the special use district. greater strategy for pdr and laboratory. the overlay has not provided the opportunities needed by the community and by the city. i appreciate your time and i am here to answer any questions if need be. thank you. >> thank you so much president walton. colleagues do we have any questions or comments for him on this legislation in his district? okay. seeing none.

madam clerk, let's take public comment on this item, please. >> thank you. if you have not done so already, please press star three to be added to the queue. for those of you on hold, please continue to wait until you have been told you are unmuted. >> thank you supervisors for considering this item today. my name is daniel sacks. i'm a principal real estate development firm here in san francisco. earlier this year our firm submitted a permit that relies on that zoning as part of this

removal there is contemplated a removal of the ipv as well. industrial protection zone. we've made substantial economic decisions based on that zoning. we're respectfully requesting if you receive to delete, you also delete the grandfathering provision that allows lodged ak before january 2021. thank you again for your time and consideration. >> thank you for your comments. that was the last caller in the queue. >> thank you so much. i have a question to president walton. based on that last comment.

are we also grandfathering the zones? >> that will be coming with trailing legislation. that's not addressed within this legislation today. >> that's good. thank you. seeing no other callers. public comment on this item is now closed. may i have a motion to send this out of committee with a positive recommendation. >> motion to recommend, supervisor peskin. >> aye. (roll call). you have three ayes. >> that motion passes. thank you. madam clerk, please call item

number two. >> yes. item number two is an orderrance amending the building code by extending by approximately two years to comply with requirements for all accessible for persons with disabilities or technical infeasiblity or hardship. if you would like to provide public comment please call the number on the screen. the meeting i.s. press pound an pound dpen. again.press star three to line o speak. >> thank you. we have jeff buckly from building inspections.

>> good afternoon, dbi staff. here to present on the item before you which is a two year extension on the accessible business interest program. there's a minor amendment that we send to your offices last week. specifically it's on page three. table 11o7d. this was originally a recommendation of the building commission which felt the applicants should have six months before submitting check lists and application. it's my understanding that you will need to take a vote on.

i wanted to highlight that. the accessible business entrance program was introduced by the board of supervisors in 2016. the roots extend back to the americans with disabilities act which is in its 31 year of being legislation. it's designed to help property owners comply with state and federal accessibility laws and ensure people with disabilities can access products and services in san francisco businesses. the place to find the law is public accommodation. if you're a bank, health club, office, or day care center or place that provides goods or services, you're legally

required to comply with this ordinance. in order for compliance, building owners would need to do a couple of steps. they need to complete a prescreening form to determine if their building is part of the program. in addition to that they need to hire a certified access specialist who is a license architect or engineer to inspect the primary access and check list for outstanding items. if they are deemed to be within a part of this program, they need to submit the compliance check list to the building inspection and if necessary submit the construction drawings and renovate the entrances or deem a hardship exists.

why are we here? the legislation is here because due to the impacts of covid 19, building inspections, we requested a two year extension of the program as opposed to starting inspection activities right now. we have 11,000 addresses that are out of compliance. that's equal to five thousand five hundred eighty nine property owners. we felt like at this time the proper step would be to extend the program by two years. the ordinance before you does not make any other changes besides some date changes. i want to go through briefly what those date changes are. the date to submit a check list is june 30th 2022.

the date to obtain a required building permit is september 29, 2023. in the previous ordinance there were different compliance schedules for different properties that had different characteristics. we have now combined all of those properties into one compliance schedule. our goal in and around as the department of building infection and enforcement agency is really to communicate directly with property owners and make sure they are aware of the deadlines coming up in advance of those deadlines and ultimately be able to enforce on the ordinance after the fact. we planned on partnering with public officials and community organizations and non-profits to leverage reinforce and expand our out reach.

i think one of the keys is using repetition and strong marketing to spur action. for many of our constituents this is a civil rights issue. we're trying to balance both the needs of property owners an small businesses with the need of being able to enforce so our citizens can access goods and services. they are supported by the small business commission and the mayor's office. >> thank you. before i turn it over to my colleagues for questions. could you give us a little

background on the numbers of building owners who have submitted their compliance check list or at least an average per year up to now. >> i don't have the average per year up to now. i do think that our goal is to hit 80% compliance. we want to make sure we have a strong marketing campaign around those dates and deadlines. in terms of specific numbers in the past, i don't have those presently. but we can follow-up with your office with that information. >> thank you. any other staff? >> thank you chair. i had a similar question around the numbers. it's hard to evaluate where we are in terms of those 11,000

addresses. i don't know how that compare it what's been done. that would be good information to get. the other thing i was wondering, through the chair, i'm trying to understand how this local program overlaps with the federal and state obligations. when i was reviewing this file, we're bumping out enforcement. i don't know whether the owners and the businesses are still at legal risk of using that additional time under ada or comparable state disability laws and if this just bumping out the local enforcement or is this actually provides, i guess a safe harbor for the business owners to utilize the time

that's being sought here. if you can address that or if that's a city attorney question. any thoughts on that? >> what i would do if it's okay, we have nicole bond here the mayor's office of disability. she would be the appropriate person from a staff perspective to respond to your question. >> hello supervisors. what this ordinance does it helps the business owner to do what they are already obligated to do. under federal law only you're only obligated to do an improvement if you are already doing an improvement to your property. this law says we're asking you

to comply by having an accessible entrance. does that answer your question? >> it does. thank you for that clarification. >> okay. if there are no more questions from my colleagues, let's take public comment on this item please. >> thank you. if you have not done so already, please press star three to be added to the queue. if you are an hold, please continue to wait. >> with that, public comment on this item is closed. would anyone like to make a motion to adopt the amendments that have been stated by

mr. buckly? i'll go ahead and move those amendments then. >> i'm not sure if you're seeing -- >> it's not coming up. go ahead. supervisor. you were making a motion to amend. >> i did. >> (roll call) you have three ayes. >> supervisors do you want to move the ordinances. >> (roll call).

>> thank you. that motion passes unanimously with a positive recommendation. >> item no. 3 is the planning code to construct accessory dwelling units through the process and amending the administrative code that landlord may not remove tenant services without just cause. members of the public who would like to provide public comment on item no. 3 please call the number on the three and enter the meeting i.d. press pound and pound again. if you have not done so already, press star three to line up to speak.

madam chair. >> thank you. we are joined by the sponsor of this stipulation. supervisor mannedle man. >> thank you, chair. >> happy birthday. >> thank you. all right, folks. colleagues, i introduced this ordinance in june in response to a troubling trend in my district and city wide. long time tenants being threatened with loss of common amenities for addition of adus. the tenants are concerned

because the new adu's are in place of laundry, storage, and garbage. they were incredulous that they believe the landlord can take these services away. well, i don't think it's right. more importantly it's not legal. and yet, it's been happening. you may have heard similar stories from tenants in your districts. i'm aware of four alone where they transformed their parking storage, or laundry areas are going away to make room for more adu's. this legislation is not about

stopping adu's. we like adu's. creating additional housing. adu's are an elegant way to add more housing without dramatically alternating the layout of the neighborhood. i don't believe it's okay to do this at the expense of tenants already using the space. i believe something else is going on here too. some large landlords, to push long time tenants out of their rent controlled units. often elderly tenants being forced out of a rent controlled

unit is being forced out of san francisco. there is no good reason why someone who has relied on these services for years and in some cases decades and paid rent for them should have to choose to leave their apartment and quite possibly leaving san francisco. this activity is already illegal. i should probably repeat that. under the rent ordinance today. laundry, parking and storage is prohibited without a just cause. the aim is to stop an activity with although is already illegal

is happening far too afternoon. how are we trying to do that. parallel those for wrongful evictions and triple attorney fees. it will be far more likely that they'll be able to find an attorney. getting a permit to construct an adu does not permit removing a service. notify all tenants of their plans before adding an adu to the building. finally, the ordinance would amend the landlords to file a declaration to describe any

adu's an will not result in the removal of any services without just cause. filed with the rent board prior to submitting to the planning department. i do want to highlight a change in the ordinance from the version i originally introduced. the change is on page four lays out a process for tenants to contest the information through a petitions the rent board. thirty days from the date the landlord provides the notification whether the adu project would sever or reduce or remove those services. if they file a petition with the rent board within that thirty

day period, they have to hold approval for that application before it receives the rent board's determination. planning would proceed with processing the adu application. where the tenant provides written consent for removal or reduction of the service. this is in addition to the ordinance that i submitted to you today. we heard from architects who work on adu projects. i want to thank all of those who engaged thoughtfully on this legislation. the issue we're dealing with today are a few bad actors to deprive their tenants with

amenities and services. most landlords are not take ago way services. i wish a few bad actors did not make this action necessary, but they have. it's an appropriate and targeted appropriate without imposing too much process or uncertainty where there's no threat to existing housing services. the ordinance lays out clear process for whether or not it protects the services and should coordinate in resolving these cases. this process includes clear time lines, a fifteen day preapplication notice to tenants. that will be codified. a thirty day window starting

with that notice to file for tenants if they are concerned about services. colleagues, my hope is this process will help expedite the adu's and providing a clear venue to challenge the cases where landlords are trying to do the right thing. both of these bodies be called on for these issues. this will give tenants somewhere to go with disputes on housing issues. so in closing, colleagues rk the

colleagues, thisordinance makesr housing rights. when tenants have a right to enjoy what was promised as part of their housing permits. i want to thank the housing rights committee and for their partnership in addressing this issue today. all for their support and collaboration. i want to thank planning department. my staff for his work in moving this piece of legislation

forward. my cosponsors. two of them are here today. i believe we have people if folks have questions. i hope you will forward this with popular recommendation. >> thank you. well done. as someone who has staffed many long hours during dr requests from tenants while, you know, we burn our wheel. this is long overdue. it's both adus and rent evictions. the board of appeals asked for this legislation back in 2016.

it will add to our housing stock in neighborhoods that have not seen affordable housing in a long time. i'm glad that we have the ways to do that but it cannot come at the expense of tenants. tennancey is a contract just like any other and must not be taking so lightly. it might be a few bad apples. this should not stop adu construction or even slow it down. thank you for your hard work. >> thank you. echo those spots. just want to thank supervisor for his leadership on this. ly say this is an issue that has

been incredibly frustrating for many years. i was involved from out side city hall with then supervisor in d5 when he moved forward with the legislation that try today make this change at the time. landlords were free to take away housing service as long as they would reduce the rent in the appropriate amount. that was used as a tool to force people out of their homes. that legislation in 2006 changed that. i am interested to hear just what the department's position has been in the past? i'm concerned that, i think this is a long overdue change that will really clarify things

regardless of where the law was. i think this will create more accountability and communication between the rent board and planning and is good policy even if the planning department and planning commission previously were applying the law to prohibit this. i think it's hard to figure out facts in a given case. i am trying to understand. i do want to recognize a lot of folks who have been making noise about this for a while. raising it at the planning commission which is not the most satisfying forum but not having a real, at least for tenant advocates a coherent policy whether this was or was not allowed. i want to recognize folks who

have reached out to us over the years. my question for planning is do you agree that severance of a housing service without just cause has been illegal? or not? i'm concerned no matter what we put in place here, we thought we were doing this a long time ago. is there disagreement as whether this is a change in the law or just a change in getting clarity going forward on how to enforce that most basic concept that without just cause a landlord doesn't get to take away components of the tennancey?

>> planning department, can anyone answer that question. >> good afternoon supervisors. thank you for your question. i just wanted to clarify that whenever there was a question of if a housing service was severed, the planning department was not in place or expertise to determine if it was a housing service in the first place. this is under the realm of the rent board. we've been happy and gaishes too collaborate with them as well as the supervisor's office. this makes it really clear whose role it is for any of those

concerned. >> to follow-up on that, in the past if it was determined to be a housing service that was being severed and planning had that information, that would prevent that project from moving forward? >> in those cases that would be considered a hearing. it would often times not be able to move forward as proposed. it is always very gray area for us since we do not have the expertise for this specific question.

>> i think the law has been crystal career on this. it should be flagged and disa disallowed by planning. the reason i belabor this is not to worry about what happened in the past but help folks who have concerns about this. help them understand that this is not a change in the law. since 2006 in san francisco have not had the right to do this. they need to work it out with their tenants or -- i don't know what the lack of clarity is, what will be solved by this

ordinance is at least the facts will be clear. even if the rights of the landlord are not changing. there will be communication and a place for tenants to go if there is a challenge or disa disagreement. thanks for your leadership on this. with all due respect to folks who i know have expressed concerned about this, let them know that the conduct that is illegal it was already illegal. this will make it clearer to planning what the facts are. >> thank you very much. i'm not going to let you off the hook quite yet. having been on the commission, we were always frustrated that these things came to us on dr's.

for every dr that were filed many were not because people didn't know they could file a dr or didn't have contact. i worry about those folks still. what will it take for the planning department to stop a permit from going forward until the rent board has opined on something. that is the frustration is that many folks are falling through the cracks that don't know how to work through the system. >> thank you. that is one of the really big bonuses of this ordinance. now there's clear direction. a clear mile stone where planning involves all of the other sister agencies can begin a concrete review of said adu

permits. planning would not be able to move forward and provide the final sign off or stamp off until we receive this new declaration from the rent board and any of the other materials from them as well. this is a clear mile stone before we can can move forward. >> okay. thank you. do you have any questions or comments or issues? with that if there's no other comments or questions. let's go to public comment. >> if you have not done so

already, please press star three to be added to the queue. please wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted. >> hi my name is roger dawson. i live in twin peeks. i have an urgent request for the committee. i hope you'll take into account that the developers are doing to try and evade the new rules. he has been doing this more months. he is denying us the use to our store rooms. doing all of this to falsely claim that the garage is hardly being used. please get this legislation

passed and on the books immediately. we needed it yesterday. they tried to keep the adu plans a secret until they were outed. we've been lied to, threatened with eviction, harassment, encountered constant refusal to rent parking, refusal to let us use our store room. encouraging break in and threats. they put us in a living hell here. it's drawing the attention of the district attorney's office and rent board. it's a massive construction of an entirely new building. it will drive out the majority

of the remaining three tenants. reform is desperately needed so we won't lose our parking, store room, and laundry and live in peace. >> hi. i live at 5066 clay street. my unit was just purchased in 2021. the new owner moved in in july 2021. he is trying to legally eviblghe by doing a relative move in. he tries to turn my basement into an adu. i'm trying to be legally evicted

via a relative move in. but he planned to build a adu in my basement. thank you. >> thank you so much for your comments. next speaker. we have six in queue. >> supervisors i'm a senior from district five. a member of senior district action. i'm urging you to support this much needed legislation. with the advent of state and local incentives of construction of adu's it's been at the expense of housing services. to give grandparents the

opportunity to live close to other relatives. these adu's would unused space. instead they are frequently taking over the space for housing to tenants guaranteed by rental agreements between tenants an landlord. these are being breached. tenant protections have provenned inadequate.

>> hello supervisors. district eight tenant. our anti displacement coalition partners. we crafted an ordinance that protects tenants laundry spaces et cetera from being removed or severed by a property owner who applies for a permit by the

planning department to construct accessory dwelling units. this aims to change all that. property owners are prohibited from taking away housing services without the tenants express written consent. it will codify a written declaration that no services will be removed or severed without just cause. the tenants are afforded forty days to investigate the claim.

i'm asking this committing to forward the service ordinance to the board supervisors with a positive recommendation. how soon it will take effect and if it will apply to pending permit applications. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is dave. i live at 700 church. i strongly support the proposed ordinance and greatly appreciate your sending it along to the

full board as written. we felt attacked when planned four adu units in our building taking out four parking spaces our storage lockers and our laundry room that we use as a community room. this was first i had heard of adu's inside a building. let's consider just parking. in the real world parking on the street as compared to inside includes these issues and risks. time spent looking for a space. now with more cars from 700 church on the space. moving the cars for street

clean. carrying items between the building and the car. walking to and from the car in bad weather or darkness. risk of robbery, assault injury, and death. younger tenants here also do not want to lose their parking. please support this ordinance. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. we have three in queue. >> good afternoon supervisors. this is -- san francisco land

use coalition. i would like to thank supervisor for this ordinance and also thank chair and supervise preston for supporting it and sponsoring it. you presided over some of these dr cases that the tenants union brought forward. they were all similar to the cases that the previous callers were calling to complain about. all along the tenants were asking why is it that planning department and staff do not check to see what services are being taken away and rubber stamping these plans. i'm glad that this ordinance

attempts to put an end to this practice and takes into consideration the illegallality. they have been noted in their lease and it's illegal legal for the landlord to take them away. it was only a few years ago that one of the tenants union members was pursuing a case that she was alerted to in outer sun set that tenants did not want to lose their parking that was going to be lost to the construction of one of these adu eases. 's.she contacted the planning department and alerted them. the problem was that, of course, an adu construction does not entail any public notification. >> time. we're out of time for our two

minutes for folks. i don't mean to cut you off. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon supervisors. this is north beach tenants committee and member of the san francisco anti displacement coalition. i've been policed to work with supervisor mannedle man's office on this legislation. i'm pleased to be at this stage today asking you to recommend this legislation is it will be voted tomorrow on being i'm hoping for an 11-zero vote. i've seen so many cases where it's typically a few speculate orsbuilding 1200 unit adu's take

ago way laundry facilities, parking spots. in cases where these are seniors with disabilities that really depend on that. it's fabulous that we finally have this. i also suggest that we look closely at planning the size of these adu's. at 1200 square feet you could have two adu's. one is currently on the market for four thousand dollars.

>> gave people physically mentally challenge some support. you address quality of life issues and leave it to the individuals to fight for it to get some resources. some of our advocates do it. we do it because we have to do it. but once you have ratified this situation, provide supportive services. thank you very much. >> thank you for your comments. that was the last caller in the queue. >> great. thank you so much, madam clerk. with that public comment is now closed. colleagues can we have a motion

to send this out with a positive recommendation to the full board. >> so moved. >> (roll call) you have three ayes. >> that motion carries. thank you. madam clerk, will you call item number four, please. >> eliminate administrative removal hazard street trees. replace trees of equal size and require that tree protection plans include the applicants

acknowledgement of replacement cost. members of the public who wish to provide public comment please call the number on the streen. screen. the meeting i.d. and press pound and pound again. police press star three to line up to speak. >> we are now joined by supervisor who is the sponsor of this legislation. i will turn it over to him. we also have director of the department of public works here along.

>> this issue was elevated to the board of appeals after hearing many tree removals. very dedicated to urban forestry expansion in san francisco and having done a lot of work on the

ground as it pertain it our urban canopy working with some of our colleagues, very advanced this legislation today. a couple of meetings that the board of appeals had an the conclusion was reached and many people out in the board of appeals, the current regulatory framework under article 16 does not provide sufficient deterrents because the administrative fines are too low. at the same time we had been working on a piece of legislation that dealt with the city's removal of trees and what process they go through. i think we can all agree that trees are a vital part of our city's landscape. we all collectively understand

that they are a vital part of combating climate change. this legislation is intended to target the very specific issue regarding contractors and builders removing street trees illegally without any accountability or repercussions. with that i'm going to summarize some of the changes this puts forward. i know others have reached out. i want them to know that we did hear a lot of the recommendations that came and spent time work withing the bureau of urban forestry and their can request to have further meetings, i'm open to. we want to get this right. there will be a push to continue this item today. we're hoping for that. set up meetings and work with

colleagues because we want to get this legislation right. i think there's some misunderstanding that we didn't incorporate in some of the recommendations we just had a different approach. mandate department of public works, they have to replace that street tree within 120 days of removal. unless it conflicts with existing utilities and the planted tree will be in the closest possible location of the existing tree. maintain the replacement tree instead of the department. logs why it was not possible

within a 120 days in a log. in what i talked about in illegal tree removal penalties that are in this code. the responsible party plant or replace the tree in the same diameter of the original tree. a tree protection plan that an arborist puts together with the builder or developer at the total replacement cost of all the trees covered by the plan and that the applicant acknowledge receipt of the estimate by the arborist and potential responsiblist for replacement cost if the trees are injured or destroyed. that will be at the building permit process.

prior to building permit issuance. you have to have a replacement plan if you have trees within the drip line of the proposed project. we advise the administrative penalties for destroying a street at the same value or $10,000. or $20,000 or double the value until the same year of the initial violation. there's been some problems as the department has identified hazardous trees. i'm happy to go over the definition of hazardous tree, even after proper maintenance

has been performed. any disease or infestation, interferes with vehicular, pedestrian traffic or poses any hazard as determined by the director. prior to this legislation we would add in there would no longer be a 15 day notification prior to the code. happy to talk about that. the legislation is intended to fix any tree removal that is replaced with a tree equal in size. i have personally worked in my district, we planted over two thousand trees. some of that bled over into another district this weekend.

she had to feel some of the concerns from neighbors that were like wait, i didn't ask for a tree. we have made planting trees a super priority. we worked with friends of the urban forest.

i would like to try to create a framework that discourages tree removal and the department to really think twice about tree removal on their own. everyone is on the same page, if you do damage or injury a tree or remove it illegally, this is what the process would be. that's it. happy to answer any questions. we have director short here to answer any questions. if colleagues would like to speak as well, i'm happy to turn it back over to you, chair. >> thank you. >> thank you for the

introduction of this legislation put for cosponsoring the hearing we had last week at the committee on the state of our tree canopy. not only under public works but under the auspices of the puc and rec and parks department. as well as on private property which was very well handled. the three of us an other members of the board are very engaged in expanding the tree canopy. some of us were on the board a long time ago. the charter amendment that was set aside for maintaining the tree canopy as well as sidewalk

maintenance. the good news is that there is really a community from across the city. there's friends of the urban forest and tree advocates that came out in droves last week. that hearing was so long that we're continuing it. i was just trying to hear from chair mar whether it would be on october 28th, unlikely or hopefully on the meeting there after. i was hoping we could come up with a set of recommendations and engage those advocates about this legislation and other similar pieces of legislation that i think are coming out of that hearing. all of us are in receipt of a number of e-mails from folks

requesting that. there were some specific concerns of the truncating of hazardous trees. we all hold the once was or soon again will be supervise superintendent,hopefully we cant with the community an friends of the urban forest an those advocates. i absolutely welcome this legislation. i remember when board of appeals member first brought this to the board of supervisor's a couple

years ago. thank you, through the chair for welcoming that continuance. i will do my level best to get the end of that hearing scheduled. something else that at least i missed and i didn't realize until last week was that in june of this year, not only in the middle of covid but our budget process at the request to supervisor mar the budget and legislative analyst issued a report with a number eight or nine recommendations for the urban forestry all of which look pretty good. we're going to discuss those further at the next hearing committee. public works has embraced those

recommendations. we'll be discussing those and hearing from the budget and legislative analysts when this is scheduled. >> thank you. are you ready for remarks. >> hi. i am here. thank you. thank you for those introductory remarks. we really,ly say we did concur with most of the recommendations from the audit. we had a partial concurrence with one of them. we already had completed one of the recommendations and look forward to making those improvements. the intent was to try to strengthen our ability to holdup bad actors accountable. we appreciate the opportunity to work with the office on the

legislation to try to achieve the goals of really preventing illegal tree removals and making the consequences greater than the cost of doing business. we are happy to work with the supervisors on this and are looking forward to strengthening the legislation. >> having worked with you, one of the requests you had for us is the elimination of the 15 day filing. can you talk about why your department asked for that. can you talk about why it's

important to the department so we can get that out there for conversation. so people understand. >> sure. the code requires for tree removals we put a thirty day notice on the trees. we place that notice on our website. that's the vast majority of notices that we do issue. if a tree is deemed hazardous we are asked to do a expedited 15 day notice. historically we didn't have people petitioning a 15 day notice. it's extremely rare that we have members of the public appeal those notices. since we moved those notices onto the site in an effort to make it more accessible and

noticeable. they're not seeing the tree itself. they're not seeing that the tree is dead or has a large crack in it. folks would see it as an obvious reason why it would be an hazard tree. we've had a number of appeals which have delayed our ability .when the notice is used. it's not up to the director. it's staff recommendation. certified arborists. they love trees. they are not in the business of

abusing that hazard tree definition. it's a public safety concern to have trees that we've identified as hazardous, unable to be removed while we wait for a public process. and failing while we wait for that process. i think we could probably find some guidelines to try to address those concerns. we didn't -- this didn't used to be an issue for us because we didn't have so many people appealing hazard trees. we had a number of failures occur while waiting for that process. >> thank you. just to clarify, i understand that appeal of a tree, do you a thirty day notice saying with

the hazardous tree. >> we do a notice when we can. the code does give us the authority to remove without notice in emergency situations. however, we try to still put a notice in advance of removal if we we're doing it the following day. we'll put a notice the previous day. if the tree is actively failing, we'll do a retroactive notice. we always make an effort to notify the public even if it's not required by code. >> we're not really -- >> we're removing the required public hearing.

we'll still notify and be available to answer questions. it would not then trigger a public hearing even when we schedule those proactively, there's hearing notification requirements. there's some delays when you have that hearing scheduled. >> you always have the emergency removal. regular tree, hazard tree, emergency tree. there could be overlap between hazard and emergency as well. just for clarification. the other thing was since we're going to continue this, we can continue the conversation. that was the big one to start the conversation now.

since we're going to continue this, i'll withhold some of the remaining comments an questions that i have for now. >> okay. sounds good. do we still want to hear from commissioner? thank you. we would like to thank supervisor for proposing these amendments and for your committee for entertaining them.

>> okay. if no one has any other questions or comments. did anyone want to make a motion that we continue this so that we -- let's do that. hear a public comment on a motion to continue this. >> madam chair, and supervisors just because i have not yet been able to secure the date from chair mar, i would subject we continue it to the call of the chair. this committee meets weekly. i can get it scheduled on october 28th it could be the following monday or the 11th of move. the committee meets on the second and fourth mondays of

every month. >> let's go ahead and take public comment on this motion to continue at the call of the chair. >> press star three to be added to the queue. the system will indicate that you will be added to the queue. we have five listeners with two in queue. >> hi. i'm from the outer sun set. i'll be very quick. thank you for doing this and also for continuing it and making it just perfect. there are experts. i hope you'll use them and write them into the law. thank you for your work.

i want to make sure that we don't take down trees that shouldn't be taken down. >> thank you very much for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i support the continuance for the following reasons. last week as was said there was too much information for one meeting. this was continued to a future date. i really appreciate the intent for a healthy and equitable tree canopy for san francisco. some of parts of the ordinance is is great but some will have

negative unintended consequences. i've already put out a notice. >> it looks like that was the last caller in the queue. >> great. thank you. >> i will work with supervisor even before the second part of the hearing to reach out to some of the folks we just heard from in conjunction with mrs. short or her staff to delve into the issues around the elimination of notice for hazard trees. >> thank you very much. madam clerk. can you please take role on the motion to continue this item to the call of the chair. >> (roll call) you have three

ayes. >> will you please call item five. >> the covid 19 evictions. renter or violence and health an safety september 30th 2021. to -- [indiscernible]. if you wish to provide public comment please dial the number on your screen. press pound an pound again. if you have not done so already, please press star three to line up to speak. >> thank you for introducing

this item. the floor is yours. >> thank you. your call in september i introduced the latest package to extend the local more tore yam r no fault evictions. the intent was to carry this through to the end of the year. the imagine ordinance which covered sixty day period. that presented us from removing this protections before the september deadlines. the board supported that unanimously. what is before us today is to extend through the end of the year. i believe we're at -- this is the 12th ordinance my office has

carried since the start of the pandemic with your support. put eviction protections in place. in an often shifting landscape. in addressing no fault evictions.

prois unfortunately, we've talked about this, we do have a patch work that we've created through our local action as

well as the local money. and so we've launched that outreach effort and are working to make sure that folks know what their rights are and know about the no-fault eviction but the rent relief funds that are available. and i want to thank especially the legislation coalition of doing a lot of work in your district as well in really getting the work out. you know, we talk about this extension of a no-fault ban. we use the no-fault terminology. it's more accurately described as a ban on all evictions that are not nonpayment health and safety or it's actually a crucial component to make any effort in our city or my district or any other

eviction-free zones. i would encourage all of my colleagues who want to work on outreach strategies district above and beyond what's funded, we've got lots of volunteers that want to get out there. with that, we'd like to thank you both again and move at the appropriate time to send this item to the full board with positive recommendation. >> supervisor melgar: thank you very much, supervisor preston for all your work. let's take public comment on this item, please. >> clerk: thank you, madam chair. d.t.a. is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. press star so you can be added to the queue to speak for item five. for those on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. and we have one caller in the

queue. if you can unmute that caller, please. >> caller: good afternoon. thank you supervisor preston for pursuing this protection for all tenants during this especially during this time and i do hope that this will be honored by our judges as swell and, yeah, the most important thing is keeping people in their homes and they have to know what their rights are. so thank you so much for all your work on this and i commend your district above all and all that you have done and i know that my supervisor in district three is also extremely supportive of this as well as we do outreach on rent relief and tenant rights to keep people in their homes. so thank you again.

>> clerk: thank you. we also have two more people that popped up in the queue. so let's take the next caller, please. >> caller: yes. this is michael multy. and i'm calling in because i see that there's a large need for education around what the current laws are. i believe laws have changed since october the 1st, since the moratorium on the state had changed and there's a lot of confusion between service providers and providing the correct information. two directors, i'm hearing complaints about the confusion. there was also a large confusion about the fact that people apply on the city level and then they were told they had to go apply on the state level for covid relief and

they're being kind of put in limbo because of that, because there's such a huge amount of applicants that have applied and they're not really seeing the rental assistance that they thought they were going to be due and they're now getting 15-day notices to pay which causes a large amount of conflict especially worrisome because a lot of the times the legal entities only wait until they're being told that they're going to be evicted. so there seems to be large service gaps in how to handle these kinds of matters. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, mr. nulti and that was the last caller in the queue. >> chairman: great. thank you so much. i believe supervisor preston made a motion. i'm sorry.

public comment is now closed. and i see supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: i just want to commend supervisor preston and say it's been on honor to co-sponsor all twelve pieces of that legislation. thank you, supervisor preston. >> supervisor preston: thank you, supervisor peskin. and, chair melgar, just a final comment if i may. you know, i think that the public comments put a fine point on the issue around outreach and i will just say that i'm regularly meeting people in my district, i'm sure you both are having a similar experience who do not know about their rights in this context. things have shifted so often with folks who are behind on rent and have lost their jobs in the pandemic and assume they therefore need to move out of their homes.

i have talked to folks who are facing threats of eviction that are banned by the laws that we have passed, but they don't know that. and i think, you know, as we urge folks, obviously, you've got to talk to a tenant counselor or tenant rights attorney to really get advice on your situation, but right now as we are still trying to get out of this pandemic, folks, the first instinct really should be to try to stay in your home and to get help. one of the most common things that we hear is around the delays in the rent relief and some people are so frustrated having applied to previous it rations of the rent relief programs and not heard back that they have kind of given up and don't apply through the state programs that exist with federal money right now. it is the act of applying for rent relief right now if you

are behind on rent. it is the act of applying and your pending application, that is what prevents a landlord for evicting. a landlord can not evict for the back covid rent if the tenant has applied for rent relief under these programs. so the delay is certainly frustrating for landlords who want their rent money, but the delays tonight eliminate the protections that people have. so i just can't emphasize enough as we have all worked so hard in our offices and this has been a collaborative effort throughout the pandemic and with the mayor in the early moratoriums, but all of it only works if people know about their rights. so apply for rent relief if you're behind seek assistance under the right to council program that's fully funded so

that if you're facing eviction, you have a right to counsel and this is our next big step in making sure these protections are in place. thank you. >> chairman: thank you for that. madam clerk, let's take roll on this item, please. i'm sorry, what did you say, supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: it was as a committee report. >> supervisor preston: i believe it's not on the agenda. >> supervisor peskin: never mind. >> clerk: on the motion as stated to item number five, [roll call] you have three ayes. >> chairman: thank you so much, that motion passes. madam clerk, do we have any other issues in front of the committee? >> clerk: no that concludes our agenda for today, madam

chair. >> chairman: okay. we are adjourned. thank you so much. >> this is a huge catalyst for change. >> it will be over 530,000 gross square feet plus two levels of

basement. >> now the departments are across so many locations it is hard for them to work together and collaborate and hard for the customers to figure out the different locations and hours of operation. >> one of the main drivers is a one stopper mitt center for -- permit center. >> special events. we are a one stop shop for those three things. >> this has many different uses throughout if years. >> in 1940s it was coca-cola and the flagship as part of the construction project we are retaining the clock tower. the permit center is little working closely with the digital services team on how can we modernize and move away from the paper we use right now to move to a more digital world. >> the digital services team was created in 2017. it is 2.5 years.

our job is to make it possible to get things done with the city online. >> one of the reasons permitting is so difficult in this city and county is really about the scale. we have 58 different department in the city and 18 of them involve permitting. >> we are expecting the residents to understand how the departments are structured to navigate through the permitting processes. it is difficult and we have heard that from many people we interviewed. our goal is you don't have to know the department. you are dealing with the city. >> now if you are trying to get construction or special events permit you might go to 13 locations to get the permit. here we are taking 13 locations into one floor of one location which is a huge improvement for the customer and staff trying to work together to make it easy to comply with the rules.

>> there are more than 300 permitting processes in the city. there is a huge to do list that we are possessing digital. the first project is allowing people to apply online for the a.d.u. it is an accessory dwelling unit, away for people to add extra living space to their home, to convert a garage or add something to the back of the house. it is a very complicated permit. you have to speak to different departments to get it approved. we are trying to consolidate to one easy to due process. some of the next ones are windows and roofing. those are high volume permits. they are simple to issue. another one is restaurant permitting. while the overall volume is lower it is long and complicated business process. people struggle to open restaurants because the permitting process is hard to

navigate. >> the city is going to roll out a digital curing system one that is being tested. >> when people arrive they canshay what they are here to. it helps them workout which cue they neat to be in. if they rant to run anker rapid she can do that. we say you are next in line make sure you are back ready for your appointment. >> we want it all-in-one location across the many departments involved. it is clear where customers go to play. >> on june 5, 2019 the ceremony was held to celebrate the placement of the last beam on top of the structures. six months later construction is complete. >> we will be moving next summer. >> the flu building -- the new building will be building. it was designed with light in mind.

employees will appreciate these amenities. >> solar panels on the roof, electric vehicle chargers in the basement levels, benefiting from gray watery use and secured bicycle parking for 300 bicycles. when you are on the higher floors of the building you might catch the tip of the golden gate bridge on a clear day and good view of soma. >> it is so exciting for the team. it is a fiscal manifestation what we are trying to do. it is allowing the different departments to come together to issue permits to the residents. we hope people can digitally come to one website for permits. we are trying to make it digital so when they come into the center they have a high-quality

interaction with experts to guide then rather than filling in forms. they will have good conversations with our staff. >> i try to start every day not looking at my phone by doing something that is grounding. that is usually meditation. i have a gym set up in my garage, and that is usually breathing and movement and putting my mind towards something else.

surfing is my absolute favorite thing to do. it is the most cleansing thing that i'm able to do. i live near the beach, so whenever i can get out, i do. unfortunately, surfing isn't a daily practice for me, but i've been able to get out weekly, and it's something that i've been incredibly grateful for. [♪♪♪] >> i started working for the city in 2005. at the time, my kids were pretty young but i think had started school. i was offered a temporarily position as an analyst to work on some of the programs that were funded through homeland security. i ultimately spent almost five years at the health department

coordinating emergency programs. it was something that i really enjoyed and turned out i was pretty good at. thinking about glass ceiling, some of that is really related to being a mother and self-supposed in some ways that i did not feel that i could allow myself to pursue responsibility; that i accepted treading water in my career when my kids were young. and as they got older, i felt more comfortable, i suppose, moving forward. in my career, i have been asked to step forward. i wish that i had earlier stepped forward myself, and i feel really strongly, like i am 100% the right person for this job. i cannot imagine a harder time to be in this role. i'm humbled and privileged but also very confident.

so here at moscone center, this is the covid command center, or the c.c.c. here is what we calledun -- call unified command. this is where we have physically been since march, and then, in july, we developed this unified structure. so it's the department of emergency management, the department of public health, and our human services hughesing partners, so primarily the department of homelessness and supportive housing and human services agency. so it's sort of a three-headed command in which we are coordinating and operating everything related to covid response. and now, of course, in this final phase, it's mass vaccination. the first year was before the pandemic was extremely busy. the fires, obviously, that both

we were able to provide mutual support but also the impact of air quality. we had, in 2018, the worst air quality ten or 11 days here in the city. i'm sure you all remember it, and then, finally, the day the sun didn't come out in san francisco, which was in october. the orange skies, it felt apocalyptic, super scary for people. you know, all of those things, people depend on government to say what's happening. are we safe? what do i do? and that's a lot of what department of emergency management's role is. public service is truly that. it is such an incredible and effective way that we can make change for the most vulnerable. i spend a lot of my day in problem solving mode, so there's a lot of conversations with people making connections,

identifying gaps in resources or whatever it might be, and trying to adjust that. the pace of the pandemic has been nonstop for 11 months. it is unrelenting, long days, more than what we're used to, most of us. honestly, i'm not sure how we're getting through it. this is beyond what any of us ever expected to experience in our lifetime. what we discover is how strong we are, and really, the depth of our resilience, and i say that for every single city employee that has been working around the clock for the last 11 months, and i also speak about myself. every day, i have to sort of have that moment of, like, okay, i'm really tired, i'm weary, but we've got to keep going. it is, i would say, the biggest

challenge that i have had personally and professionally to be the best mom that i can be but also the best public certify chant in whatever role i'm in. i just wish that i, as my younger self, could have had someone tell me you can give it and to give a little more nudge. so indirectly, people have helped me because they have seen something in me that i did not see in myself. there's clear data that women have lost their jobs and their income because they had to take care of their safety nets. all of those things that we depend on, schools and daycare and sharing, you know, being together with other kids isn't available. i've often thought oh, if my kids were younger, i couldn't

do this job, but that's unacceptable. a person that's younger than me that has three children, we want them in leadership positions, so it shouldn't be limiting. women need to assume that they're more capable than they think they are. men will go for a job whether they're qualified or not. we tend to want to be 110% qualified before we tend to step forward. i think we need to be a little more brave, a little more exploratory in stepping up for positions. the other thing is, when given an opportunity, really think twice before you put in front of you the reasons why you should not take that leadership position. we all need to step up so that we can show the person behind us that it's doable and so that we have the power to make the changes for other women that is going to make the possibility

for their paths easier than ours. other women see me in it, and i hope that they see me, and they understand, like, if i can do it, they can do it because the higher you get, the more leadership you have, and power. the more power and leadership >> hello everyone. welcome to the bayview bistro. >> it is just time to bring the community together by deliciousness. i am excited to be here today because nothing brings the

community together like food. having amazing food options for and by the people of this community is critical to the success, the long-term success and stability of the bayview-hunters point community. >> i am nima romney. this is a mobile cafe. we do soul food with a latin twist. i wanted to open a truck to son nor the soul food, my african heritage as well as mylas as my latindescent.

>> i have been at this for 15 years. i have been cooking all my life pretty much, you know. i like cooking ribs, chicken, links. my favorite is oysters on the grill. >> i am the owner. it all started with banana pudding, the mother of them all. now what i do is take on traditional desserts and pair them with pudding so that is my ultimate goal of the business. >> our goal with the bayview bristow is to bring in businesses so they can really use this as a launching off point to grow as a single business. we want to use this as the opportunity to support business

owners of color and those who have contributed a lot to the community and are looking for opportunities to grow their business. >> these are the things that the san francisco public utilities commission is doing. they are doing it because they feel they have a responsibility to san franciscans and to people in this community. >> i had a grandmother who lived in bayview. she never moved, never wavered. it was a house of security answer entity where we went for holidays. i was a part of bayview most of my life. i can't remember not being a part of bayview. >> i have been here for several years. this space used to be unoccupied. it was used as a dump. to repurpose it for something like this with the bistro to give an opportunity for the local vendors and food people to come out and showcase their

work. that is a great way to give back to the community. >> this is a great example of a public-private community partnership. they have been supporting this including the san francisco public utilities commission and mayor's office of workforce department. >> working with the joint venture partners we got resources for the space, that the businesses were able to thrive because of all of the opportunities on the way to this community. >> bayview has changed. it is growing. a lot of things is different from when i was a kid. you have the t train. you have a lot of new business. i am looking forward to being a business owner in my neighborhood. >> i love my city. you know, i went to city college

and fourth and mission in san francisco under the chefs ria, marlene and betsy. they are proud of me. i don't want to leave them out of the journey. everyone works hard. they are very supportive and passionate about what they do, and they all have one goal in mind for the bayview to survive. >> all right. >> all right. >> chair bustos: this is the regular meeting on the

commission on community investment and infrastructure tuesday october 5, 2021. i like to welcome members of the public who are streamlining inor listening to us live as well as the staff and other participants. following the guidelines set forth by local officials at this time, members of the commission are meeting remotely to ensure the safety of everyone including members of the public. thank you all for joining us. madam secretary, please call the first item. >> first order of business is roll call. commissioner brackett is absent. [ roll call ] all other members of the members are present. next order of business is item 2 announcements. next regularly scheduled meeting will be held remotely on tuesday

october 19, 2021 at 1:00 p.m. announcement of public comment procedures, be advised a member of the public has up to three minutes to make public comments on each agenda item unless the commission adopt a shorter period on any item. during the public comment period, you will be instructed to dial 415-655-0001. enter access code 2482 190 7334. when you dial star 3 you will hear the following message. raise your hand and ask a question. please wait to speak until the host calls on you.

you can stay on the line to listen to the meeting or choose to hang up. next order of business is item 3, report of action taken previous closed session meeting. there are no reportable action. next order of business is item 4, matters of unfinished business. there are no matters of unfinished business. next order of business is item 5, matters of new business consisting of consent and regular agenda. first is the consent agenda. there are no items. next is regular agenda. 5a is authorizing teleconference meetings and making findings and

support there of under california government code section 5493e. resolution number 34-2021. >> good afternoon commissioners. this first item relates to the rules around which we are allow to meet remotely during the pandemic and last week we received some guidance from the city on recent changes. >> i'm jim morales. as you know, the agency is subject to public meeting laws which under state laws refer to as the brown act. brown act requires that the commission meet in person. allow the public to participate

and provide maximum opportunities for the public to be part of your deliberation and discussion. there's a section in the brown act that allows for teleconferences because it requires that each location where there might be a teleconference location where commissioners at the location using teleconferencing that they would -- the public will be able to attend those locations. 18 months ago when the state -- when the governor proclaimed that it was a state of emergency because of the covid-19 pandemic, as part of the governor's executive orders and to protect the public's health and safety, his orders suspended the requirements of the brown

act that governing bodies meet in-person and basically lifted the restrictions on teleconference. as a result many other governing bodies around the state were able to meet entirely remotely, still providing for public comment and participation. on september 16th, the legislature passed a law that changed the standards for the remote meetings. the standards are now that the local body that is meeting must adapt a resolution and make certain findings to continue to meet remotely. those findings are that a public state of emergency continues to exist and that either state and local officials are recommending

that social distancing be promoted or enforced or that meeting in person creates imminent risk to public health and safety. you have a resolution before you that makes findings that the state of emergency continues. the governor's state of emergency as well as the mayor's state of emergency continue to remain in effect. also, that our city health officer continues to recommend social distancing as a way of mitigating the risks associated with the pandemic. in addition, the health department continues to recommend that boards and commissions meet remotely to protect the health and safety. you have before you the resolution, the law also requires that when you hold

remote meetings that you abide by certain standards. those are attached as an exhibits. the commission to date has followed those standards for the most part. will continue hopefully to do so in the future. finally, i would note that this is an action that the commission will have to take each month. in other words, every month you'll have to make a finding that the public health emergency continues to exist and that social distancing has been recommended by health officers or that there's an imminent risk for meeting in-person. this will be the first of perhaps several resolutions that you will see. with that, i conclude my presentation.

>> chair bustos: thank you. madam secretary, do we have anyone from the public who wishes to provide a comment? >> clerk: at this time members of the public who wish to provide public comment on it item, should call 415-655-0001. access code 2482 190 7334. press the pound sign. press star 3 to speak. i will allow the public few moments to call in. mr. chair, it does not appear there are no public comments. >> chair bustos: hearing no request. i will close public comment. i will turn to my fellow commissioners for any comments or questions they may have. commissioners are there any questions regarding this item?

>> commissioner: no comment. >> chair bustos: i want to thank our city government for keeping us safe and for keeping in mind the health and safety of our public and constituents as well as the commissioners and staff. i want to thank general counsel morales as well as jaime and sally for keeping us compliant and making sure we're doing what we supposed to be doing. commissioners, may i get a motion for item 5a? >> commissioner: i move that item 5a be accepted as given. >> chair bustos: may i have a second? >> commissioner bycer: second. >> chair bustos: please take roll. >> clerk: please announce your vote when i call your name.

[roll call vote] the vote is 4 ayes one absent. >> chair bustos: motion carries. place call the next item. >> clerk: next is agenda item 5b, amending the community investment and infrastructure debt policy to explain existing practice and document debt management improvements. discussion and action resolution number 32-2021. madam interim director. >> commissioners, the remaining two items on our agenda have to do with our issuance of debt for our work program. first up is an update to our debt policy. our deputy director will walk you through this item.

>> good afternoon commissioners. we are coming here today to look at amending our debt policy. just a refresher, a debt policy is a set of written guidelines that direct the debt issuance practices in compliance with laws and regulations and best practices and management and compliance. the reason in we want to do this is because it gives our investors confidence that we are managing our debt portfolio according to all the best practices and current legislation and that can translate into a lower cost of borrowing. which of course, is good for the agency and in the long run.

we want to pay the least amount possible to borrow debt. as a refresher, ocii death policy was last approved in 2014. this policy was amended in response to a solution. since that time, a few things have happened. in advance of this next issuance, we want to amend our debt policy to incorporate legislative changes that have happened since the debt policy was last approved in 2014. help explain some of our existing practices and highlight some improvements we've made to our debt management program. the -- this is quite a long process. this is about a year. that's because we really wanted to go and take an in-depth look at our policy and bring it up to the most current and recent standard of best practice.

we researched best practices including standard issued by the gsoa or government financial office association. which is like the bible for all things government finance. we reviewed all the debt policy from our sister agencies so that would include the port, the m.t.a., the airport, the p.u.c. we looked at all of those policies and pulled out items that were relevant to us. we reviewed our best practices and other debt policies with our municipal advisor. we identified a number of changes that we wanted to make to the debt people. -- policy. we made the changes and sent it to the wpta debt certification program. which was a program that uses debt policies according to set

of issue standards and those policies that meet those standards receive official certification. we did receive that consideration from the wpta. one of the primary things we're doing in amending the debt policy is incorporating legislative changes. the big one is health and safety code section 34177.7. essentially that legislative change allows ocii uniquely to issue new money debt under certain circumstances. those circumstances to are fund our affordable housing obligation and to fund infrastructure. we also incorporated legislative changes required by government code section 8855 which sort of

overall industry wide move to step up their game. the government code require that all debt policies have address five things. one of the purposes for which debt maybe issue, two the types of debts maybe issue, three the relationship of the debt and budget and four policy goals related to the issue balance and objectives and five internal controls. the response to the legislation were purposes to which debt maybe issued and types of debt that may be issued. in terms of the purposes for which debt may be issued, i think we've always had a shared understanding of why debt may be issued. to put it in writing for full government, transparency and accountability, the debt policy states the debt proceeds maybe

use to finance, environmental review design, acquisition and other predevelopment activities, public improvement, affordable housing and to refund outstanding debt. the types of debt that we can issue are defined by redevelopment. we can issue tax allocation bonds which is property tax revenue. and mello roos bonds. both are allow to issue new money bonds. in terms of existing practice, what we mostly did in the debt proposed amendment was to make a more complete description of our practices for issuance infrastructure and managing debt

including staff role in responsibility and then to clarify the type -- how we think about certain policy and financial consideration. for example, when we would use a cash versus assurety fund reserve. we look at least cost, what is the impact on the cost issue of the debt. under what criteria we would negotiate. debt approval procedure is something you're familiar with. because you are a big part of it. first, we have to get the approval of the oversight board and we have to have the department of finance approve the issuance. we come before you twice. once with the bond purchase agreement and now to confirm the

sale and to approve the preliminary practice. in terms of highlighting our debt management improvement, we've been working really hard over the last two or three years to improve our debt administration. we created a financial information website which is a website that compiles all of the financial information about ocii in a single place and for potential investors to access. we formalized account payable policies and procedure and toen sure bond procedures are spent according to applicable regulations. we updated our disclosure policy. you proofed that updated policy in the spring. we entered an m.o.u. and t.t.x. to -- [indiscernible] so we can

be making the most of our proceeds prior to expenditure. you approved that last year as well. that is the end of my presentation. i welcome any questions. >> chair bustos: thank you. madam secretary, anyone from the public wishing to peek on -- speak on this item. >> clerk: members of the public wishing to provide public comment should call. to dial 415-655-0001. enter access code 2482 190 7334. press star 3 to submit your request. we'll give them a few moments

just to call in. mr. chair, at this time, do does not appear any member of the public wishing to comment. >> chair bustos: i'll close public comment. i'll turn to my fellow commissioners for any questions they might have. commissioner scott? >> commissioner ransom-scott: no question. thank you so much for all of the information you just shared. it's just a heart beat for me and our fellow commissioners that we stay on top of everything it takes to give affordable housing in the city

of san francisco. this great city that so many of us love and want to stay in and making it affordable is the most important thing to help that. so thank you. >> chair bustos: commissioner bycer? >> commissioner bycer: no questions. like commissioner scott, really excited and grateful that staff are dotting their is and crossing their ts. it may same like when talk about issuing debt. debt is the core part what ocii does. thank you for trying to make it simple and understandable as possible. >> chair bustos: thank you. vice chair rosales. >> vice chair rosales: only question i had is the reference

to cost of environmental review that we can issue debt for purposes of financing that cost. does that include legal fees? >> that's a great question. in general, we can -- the process that we use, for every issuance, we issue bond council. we go over the sources as part of the issuance process. i'm actually going to direct that question -- i know we can fund the e.i.r. cost. i will refer that question to our bond counsel. >> yes, you can finance legal fees related to the cost of

issuing the bonds. commissioner rosales, were you thinking of other legal fees? >> vice chair rosales: yes like land use attorneys to review the environmental impact reports. for defensibility, compliance. those kinds of legal costs. >> the short answer is yes. depending on the specifics of the legal fees and the projects and whether they can be capitalized in the project. we may need to be thinking about issuing taxable bonds. it's a question of if you can issue tax bonds. the answer is yes. >> vice chair rosales: thank you. >> chair bustos: thank you. thank you for the question.

i want to echo everybody. thank you so much for being on top of this and making sure that the city resources are maximized and are -- the public deserves it. i want to thank you for that. commissioners, may i get a motion for item number 5b? >> commissioner: mr. chair i move that we confirm the issuance of new money tax allocations bond. >> we're talking about the debt policy. [indiscernible] >> commissioner: my mistake. >> we updated the number. sorry about that. >> commissioner: i move that we amend the passing of agenda item

5a, resolution number 32-2021. >> chair bustos: thank you commissioner scott. may i have a second? please take roll. >> clerk: commissioner brackett is absent. [roll call vote] the vote is 4 ayes and 1 absent. >> chair bustos: sorry commissioner scott, i was looking at another page. all right, please call next item. >> clerk: next is 5c, confirming the issuance money tax bond of

the california health and safety code to finance affordable housing obligations in an aggregate principle amount not to exceed $130,400,000. approving preliminary and final official statements a continuing disclosure certificate and other related documents and action. discussion and action resolution number 33-2021. >> thank you. as you heard, commission sees bond issuance action. on july 20th of this year you took action to approve the issuance of these bonds to fund affordable housing. since then, we've successfully completed a number of other approvals including the oversight board and the state department of finance. we now return to you for the final approval of the bond issuance.

john daigle will join from the finance team to answer any questions that you have. >> good afternoon chair bustos and commissioners my name is john daigle. i'm debt manager for ocii. this will be the final action of the commission to move us towards the completion of this transaction. issuance of the 2021 affordable housing bonds. basically, we'll go through previous approval, review of the enforceable obligation. first action is approval of the budget by the commission on april 20th.

resolution 13-2021. the budget was ratified and approved by the are board of supervisors and signed by the mayor july 30, 2021. the authorization of the bond issuance was first entertained by the commission on july 20, 2021 and it was approved and a it allowed us to get going in earnest and approve the sub supplement to the bond as well as bond purchase agreement. our next step immediately afterwards is to go to the oversight board. they approved the issuance as well.

we forwarded that to the department of finance who came back and record time with an around around september 3rd. just to review of authority. you all familiar with this and i don't think i need to read through it all. the current plan is for the 2021 bonds it fund 386 units of affordable houg.