>> this meet will come to order the budget and finance committee. i'm matt haney chair of the finance committee joined by aasha safai and mr. mar and a want to thank colina mendoza for broadcasting the meeting. do you have announcements? >> thank you, chair haney.

the participants participated by video conference the board recognized public access is essential and invite public participation in the following ways. public comment available on channels 26, 78 or 99 and sfgovtv.org are streaming the public comment number across the screen. each speaker will be allowed two minutes to speak. comments are available via phone call by calling 1-415-655-0001 the meeting i.d. is 2483 619 1631 then press pound twice. once connected you'll hear discussion but will be mute and in listening mode. when you're item of interest comes up press star 3. best practices are to call from

quiet location and turn down your radio or tv and you can e-mail e-mail alternately and they'll be part of the official file. written comments may be sent to city hall. finally, items acted upon the day are expected to appear on the agenda october 26 unless otherwise stated. thank you, mr. chair. thank you, we have a pull budget finance committee meeting and thank you for your brevity in your presentations and in advance for your patience. mr. clerk, please call item 1.

>> it's the business and tax regulations to accept certain transfers restricted affordable housing occurring on our after january 1, 2021. from the increase transferred tax rates of value of interest. and affirming the planning department's determination under the california and environmental quality act. members who wish to provide public comment on the item should call 1-415-655-0001 and meeting i.d. 2483 619 1631. suppress -- press star 3 to line up to speak and wait until the system has indicated you have been unmuted for your comments. >> welcome. supervisor preston, over to you.

>> thank you. a goal i think all of us share or supervisors share which is getting more affordable housing in san francisco. the ordinance seeks to achieve this goal by creating a transfer tax exemption. it's with proposition i approved last year by 58% of san francisco voters. that measure as you know doubled the tax rate for the highest value properties those assessed at $10 million or more and there was a prior ballot measure in 2016 to increase the property tax on properties of $5 million or more. the administrative code provides the supervisors with the authority to exempt transfers of

rent-restricted affordable housing from the transfer tax increases in 2019 the board exempted transfers of properties under the community right to purchase act so-called copa from the increases. this ordinance takes the exemption to exclude rental properties and in affect with this in place projects valued at $5 million the increase through the ballot measures would not apply. instead the controversy tax would be a flat .75% of the affordable project as defined in this ordinance. we spent a lot of time making sure to craft a definition for purpose of this ordinance that was inclusive enough for developers in the city but not

so broad as to create interpretation or mixed use by private acts trying to avoid the tax for profit. parameters of how we define affordable housing are as follows. restricted to households up to 120% of median area income. all the units in the building having a maximum income of the 80% the area and require affordability restrictions reported for at least 55 years and for a government agency to monitor such restrictions and for the property to be vacant prior to sale or are have already qualified for welfare exemption under the california taxation code. the mayor's office of housing and community development will be tasked with certifying the properties meeting the above

requirements and i just want to step back and comment it's helpful to that in the current fiscal year it the measure raised $128 million. the exemption will carve out a small fraction of the revenue, legs -- less than 2% a year. the ordinance asks the city to move funds from one to another and subsidizing of the transfer cost and they'll have greater clarity going forward. this facilitates more affordable

housing and making sure residential projects continue to pay their fair share in travels -- effort i want to those who helped shape this ordinance and the council of community housing and the tenderloin development corporation and karen and jennifer lopez and department staff for working through implementation and holly from the assessor recorder's office

and last but not least my chief of staff for all his work. with they have to forward the item at the appropriate time and in the event there are question iz understand staff from all departments have been invited to this meeting and are available to take questions as well. thank you. >> good morning, supervisors. this proposed ordinance would temporarily reduce controversy tax for projects valued at $5 million or above.

supervisor preston summarized the definition in the ordinance. our report states affordable housing includes properties used for commercial purposes previously and that's an error and please disregard that. in page 4 of our report and because it's a general fund revenue decrease we see as an item for the board and happy it take any questions. >> supervisor, safai. >> thank you, chair.

i think i see why it was focussing on average median income of 80% will this include site purchases. is there someone that can answer that question? >> any purchases over $5 million the transfer tax would have kicked in so the answer is yes. the legislation will affect the

program. >> that's what i thought and when i looked at the list of properties it wasn't clear looking at them if there were small sites on here. i'm happy hear that and want to do everything we can to ensure affordable housing not inhibited so i appreciate the purpose of the legislation and thank you for bringing this forward an happy about the sites we're trying to enhance and continue. last year we were only able to effectuate one deal. it's harder during covid but definitely want to ensure they're also not inhibited in any way. thank you and thank you supervisor preston for all your hard work on this. >> if i may add one more

clarification, supervisor. most of the small site developers are already qualified nonprofit developers under the copa program and are already exempt from the transfer tax but establishes if there were developers that aren't qmcs if they wanted to participate they would benefit from the reduced tax rate. >> perfect. thank you. thank you, mr. chair. >> supervisor mar. >> thanks, chair hany. i want to thank supervisor preston and the housing advocates and for all of your work on this important measure. this is going to help our affordable housing developers

and projects and free up more resources on the projects for their development or operation. auto this is great. i'd love to be added as a co-sponsor and housing developments on the list that would benefit from this and the project in the richmond direct. have a question for the bla on your report. i just noticed on exhibit 2 where you list out the projects and the acquisition price and the reduction in transfer tax they'd have to pay. the amount -- i'm just trying to understand that. for the 4200 geary the

acquisition price is close and the change in transfer tax there's a big difference. for the gaery project a reduction and for the irving project $135,000. just curious why the discrepancy. this is all a percentage of the acquisition price. >> through the chair, thank you, supervisor mar. >> the transfer taxes although they're the tiered rate, it's not a marginal tax applied on the entire value of the property and so the difference because and in the threshold for the higher rate is the $10 million

so that is the gaery hits the higher rate. does that make sense in >> yes. thank you for your work on this. >> thank you again supervisor preston for your leadership. why don't we go to public comment. >> press star 3 to be added to the queue for those who are already on hold wait for the system to indicate have you been unmute and that is your queue

cue to speak. are there any callers? >> thank you for your support. i'm speaking as a board member for chuchu community organization. it allows our city to build affordable homes. we can scale up a preservation program and the transfer tax has brought in millions used for preservation to new construction from non-profit rentals to housing cooperatives. this provides a meaningful fix to ensure the measure doesn't

disincentivize but gets the increased tax rates. as the community looks to our city to advance affordable housing solutions at the scale needed to address the affordability crisis we're looking forward to working together with the mayor and board of supervisors for affordable housing on an ongoing basis. thank you for moving this legislation through to adoption. >> thank you, next speaker. >> i'm from san francisco community land trust. i want to thank supervisors who worked on this and thank you for

moving this through implementation. i believe the transfer tax sales will help with affordable housing and i think it will be valuable for other small scale cbos to take advantage of these types of sales outside of copa and being designated as a qualified nonprofit. and was already mentioned we know pop eye has brought in 147b million to the city coffers and the economy is continuing to bounce back and should generate more money as we move forward toward affordable housing of all types. i'm excited to think through and see thee variety of housing available through prop i and the

housing cooperative. i think it will be an incredibly important measure in ensuring that variety. thank you so much. >> thank you so much for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good morning. the for instance tenants thanks you for the legislation and supervisors for your support. housing preservation in combination with affordable housing projection is what is needed to deal with the crisis of shortage of affordable rental housing that our city is facing. the ordinance would promote the creation and preservation of rent-restricted affordable housing by exempting transfers of rent-restricted affordable housing from the higher real property transfer tax rates. and also what i like about it is

that it limits the maximum household income for each residential unit at the initial occupancy to know more than 120% of median area income and sets a maximum household income limit for each residential unit the average of all unit maximum does not exceed 80%. and provides for the monitoring and enforcement of restrictions by a governmental agency. we look forward to working with the mayor, the board of supervisors to dedicate the funding for affordable housing on an ongoing basis. thank you and please move this forward. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good morning this at mission

economic development agency. i want to thank supervisor preston for leading the legislation and chair haney and supervisors mar and safai for all your support. we have been able to take advantage of many of the various measures on affordable housing and with prop i we'll take it to the next level of being able to combine the property sales for affordable housing and transfer tax increase to be able to work with copa. as someone familiar, meta has purchased eight buildings in 2019 and through the life of the small sized program we purchased buildings in multiple neighborhoods throughout the city and with funds with prop i we'd have a permanent source for preservation which only had

inclusionary housing and this would be critical to keep the program. with prop i we also would able to take on new construction and counter the displacement much our long-term families. we know there's thousands of low-income housing families that have contributed to san francisco especially those who continue to struggle to stay here. we look forward to taking the trailing legislation through adoption and appreciate all of your dedication to this. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. >> next speaker, please. >> good morning. i am on, correct? >> yes. we hear you.

this is peter and you're hearing so much great testimony from housing providers and advocates today. i want it take a moment to acknowledge the hard work particularly of supervisor preston's staff but also folks in the government who have to walk out to get the legislation dialed in. when you try to make a funding measure work has important details too get it right. it's great to see hard working people in the city we can work with to land these things and san francisco is still seen as a leader of so much housing policy and innovative work.

thank you to supervisor preston for this and lastly you're probably surprised, hopefully, there's so many folks calling in for this esoteric piece of legislation. it's because the context [please stand by] . .

>> -- working hand in hand with copa, which has been such a valuable tool to scaling up the citywide housing program and build affordable homes on developable sites. this legislation is another step in the right direction in ensuring we make the prop i funds a reality. the prop i funds have already brought in $100 million in revenues to the city, and eventually it could bring up to $200 million in revenue to the city. we look forward to working with the mayor and board of supervisors together to ensure this prop i funding be

dedicated to affordable housing funding on a annual basis. we look forward to moving this through to adoption and thank you for your time. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. we currently have five callers in the queue. if you wish to provide public comment on this item, please call 415-655-0001, enter meeting i.d. 2483-619-1631, then press pound twice. press star, three to enter the queue and wait until the system has indicated your line has been unmuted before you begin your comments. next caller, please. >> caller: thank you, supervisor safai, for bringing this resolution forward to trailing legislation, and thank

you, chair mar and supervisors, for your support. as you know, this is something that requires building piece by piece, and it is one more building of the puzzle following the success of the community opportunity following on the success of our small sites preservation program and all the many programs that the office of the mayor's housing and community development scales up.

this is the time to be working on the next steps, and this is one small piece. we're excited to see this moving forward. we look forward to come back to see the funding be made real to really scale up these programs. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you, fernando marti, for your comments. mr. atkins, next speaker, please. >> hi. this is rebecca foster with the housing accelerator fund. i want to pile on with the thank you for supervisor preston and your staff, kyle, for your leadership on this legislation, and chair haney and supervisors mar and safai for your support of this trailing legislation.

it makes more of these critical legislation pencil out for critical housing, and programs like these make affordable housing work, and we are just thrilled to be able to work with the board and our community based housing and housing development partners to make sure we can continue the development of [indiscernible] in our community as well as with new construction of permanent affordable housing, so thanks again, and look forward to working together.

>> clerk: thank you, rebecca foster, for your comments. mr. atkins, next speaker, please. >> good morning, and thanks for the opportunity to speak on this legislation. my name is chris cummings, and i am the director of housing at tenderloin housing development. first, i want to thank you for your support on this key initiative. it's great to see this important element of the prop i affordable housing revenue measure moving forward to its next level. we anticipate the exemption from the property tax increase will directly incentivize housing development and ultimately saving people's

housing. our new acquisition preservation projects, and our work to preserve and rehabilitate our existing housing portfolio, we look forward to working with the mayor and board of supervisors together to dedicate this prop i funding for affordable housing. thank you again for moving this legislation forward, and thanks for your time. >> clerk: thank you, chris cummings, for your comments. mr. atkins, next speaker, please. >> good morning, supervisors. this is david sobel, executive director of the san francisco housing development corporation. thank you, first of all, to supervisor preston and your amazing staff for moving this

legislation forward, and to chair haney and supervisor mar and supervisor safai for your support for not only this legislation but in housing in general. housing in san francisco requires a whole host of tools so we can provide hundreds of units of affordable housing. this legislation, with the transfer tax exemption, will more forward and produce affordable housing in the city, which we desperately need. one of those is the fillmore housing project listed in the legislative report in supervisor preston's district that we are currently in the middle of a recent [indiscernible] finance and renovation.

this ballot measure or this legislation following up on the ballot measure will allow the property to save $1 million that would otherwise have to be funded probably by city subsidy directly, so again, this just makes a lot of sense for incentivizing further development and preservation of affordable housing. we wholeheartedly support this. >> clerk: thank you, david sobel, for your comments. mr. atkins, can you confirm if we have any further callers in the queue? >> operator: there are no further callers in the queue. >> clerk: mr. chair? >> chair haney: thank you, mr. clerk, and public comments are now closed. supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: thank you, chair haney, and all the callers. i did just want to thank you

not only for your time today but chair haney in particular and supervisor mar, i did want to recognize -- we talked about prop i a lot. i just wanted to thank you for your leadership and recognize you for your kind comments and thank both of you for being among the original signatories of why we were able to take prop i to the ballot. and then also to you both and supervisor safai and our fellow members of the board for past commitment by unanimous resolution to allocate the prop i funds for the purposes that we've been discussing, so appreciate the broad support on that. and lastly, thank you, supervisor mar, for your cosponsorship and also wanted to acknowledge that supervisor chan has added herself as a

cosponsor, so wanted to thank her, as well. thank you very much. >> chair haney: great. thank you very much, and appreciate your leadership and your staff, and we here in this community have seen the benefits of prop i that we've been able to allocate to affordable home services, so we appreciate the important leadership around prop i and this important legislation. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you. i just forgot to say please add me to a cosponsor after i finished my comments. >> chair haney: thank you. i would like to be added as a cosponsor, as well.

mr. clerk, would you please call the roll. >> clerk: on the motion to forward this legislation. [roll call] >> clerk: we have three ayes. >> chair haney: thank you. this will go to the full board with a positive recommendation. thank you. >> supervisor preston: thank you. >> chair haney: mr. clerk, can you please call item 2. >> clerk: yes. item 2 is a resolution approving a second amendment to the grant agreement between the city and county of san francisco and san francisco-marin food bank, for the administration of the covid-19 food assistance program, to extend the grant term by six months for a total term of july 1, 2020 through june 30, 2022, and to increase the grant amount by 8.9 million for a total not to exceed

amount of 24.5 million to commence on october 15, 2021. members of the public who wish to make public comment, please call 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 2483-619-1631, then press pound and pound again. press star, three to enter the queue and wait until the system has indicated your line has been unmuted to begin your comments. mr. chair? >> chair haney: thank you. and we have cindy lu to make this presentation. >> yes. my name is cindy lu, and i am with the h.s.a. today, we are seeking to extend the grant term by six months for a total term of july 1, 2020 through june 30, 2022 and

to increase the amount by 6,750,000, with a 10% contingency, for a total not to exceed amount of $22,951,645. since the beginning of the pandemic, the san francisco marin food bank has established over 20 pop-up style pantries and has expanded their home deliverance program. the food bank has pop-up pantries every day throughout the city, delivering on average an 8,000 bags of groceries a week to seniors and those with disabilities, those with compromised health conditions,

and families with children under the age of two as they're often unable to attend food pantries. included in this modification, we can continue to distribute culturally appropriate food items at some food pantries. this funding supports the modification gap that the f.d.a. grant currently does not support. in will total, this modification will pay for approximately 375,000 bags of food and help the food bank covid-19 program to continue.

i have additional staff available if there are any questions. >> chair haney: thank you. much appreciated for this and for your work. i'm not seeing anything immediately from my colleagues. is there a b.l.a. report from this item? >> mr. haney, this resolution would approve the second amendment between the human services agency and the san francisco marin food bank to extend the term of that agreement through june 30, 2022. the remainder of the grant term is 6.7 million, but the remainder includes 15 million of prior expenditures, so we therefore recommend amending the resolution's not to exceed amount to reduce it to $22,950,645, and then approve as amended.

i'm happy to answer any questions. >> chair haney: great. thank you. i don't see any questions about that. can we go to public comment, please. >> clerk: yes, chair haney. operations is checking to see if there are any callers in the few. members of the public, please press star, three to enter the queue. for those already waiting, please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted to begin your comments. mr. atkins, do we have anyone in the queue? >> caller: good morning. >> clerk: hello. please begin. >> caller: hello. my name is hannah [indiscernible] and i serve as the executive director of the san francisco marin food bank.

i am here to thank you for considering the proposed resolution. i want to share our vision with you in a just and equitable society that nurtures a resilient community where everyone will have acces ways.

>> i appreciate your service to the community for making this vital service possible, and we appreciate your commitment to food justice in our community. >> clerk: thank you, janice

crosby, for your comments. operations, do we have any further callers in the queue? >> operator: mr. clerk, there are no further callers in the queue. >> clerk: mr. chair? >> chair haney: thank you. public comment is now closed. supervisor mar? >> supervisor mar: thank you. i just wanted to thank the san francisco marin food bank for all of your incredibly hard work during this pandemic, and yeah, there are a couple of sites in my district that yeah, i've been really out volunteering at and just see the really incredible support that this -- the pop-up food pantries provide to so many residents across our city, and also, thanks to supervisor safai for his leadership and building off of the food

security programs during the pandemic. i did have a question just about the b.l.a.'s recommendation about reducing the contingency amount down from over $2 million to $675,000. i did notice in the b.l.a. analysis, the first amendment to this contract of $15 million was expected to last through the end of this year, through december 31, but -- but then that -- the funding is going to run out by october 15 because there hasn't been the decline in program participants that had been projected, so i just -- so i just had a question. is this projection anticipating

a decline in program participation and is the contingency amount expected to cover program expenses if there isn't a decline in program participants to the extension, period, like had happened through the first amendment? i guess that's a question for h.s.a. >> yes, thank you for your question. i think parts of the question i can answer. we did not expect a decline in the program, and we did not expect a decline in the program for the next eight. >> and i can just speak to the recommendation, supervisor mar. typically, our standard practice when evaluating the

appropriateness of a contract amount is to look at, when a contract's being amended, look at the expenditures going forward and apply the contingency to those expenditures, and the expenditures in the past are known. so in this case, the contingency as originally submitted by h.s.a. includes the entire value of the grant agreement, $15 million. we recommend that the contingency be applied only to the future expenditures. >> supervisor mar: yeah, i think that makes sense, a lot of sense, and we're hearing from miss linn that they're not

expecting any decline, and that does make sense, reducing the contingency amount. thanks, chair haney. >> chair haney: thank you. not seeing any further -- unless supervisor safai -- >> supervisor safai: no, i absolutely support it, everything regarding food empowerment, but i know we also have a long agenda and a lot of recommendations. thank you, cindy, for all of your hard work. >> chair haney: so i'm going to make a recommendation to forward this item. >> clerk: thank you, chair haney. can i ask if the department

accepts the recommendation? >> yes, we accept. >> clerk: on the motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: we have three ayes. >> chair haney: great, and i want to make a motion to move the item to the full board with a positive recommendation as amended. roll call vote, please. >> clerk: on the motion to recommend as amended -- [roll call] >> clerk: we have three ayes. >> chair haney: great. thank you. this will go to the full board with a recommendation as amended. thank you so much again, miss linn, for your work, and to the whole team who's here. mr. clerk, can you please call item 3?

>> clerk: yes. item 3 is a resolution authorizing the general manager of the public utilities commission to execute a second amendment to the planning accordator agreement between the city and county of san francisco public utilities commission and the california independent system operator, extending the agreement term from november 11, 2021, to november 10, 2031, pursuant to charter section 9.118, for a total duration of approximately 16 years, and for a total cumulative amount not to exceed $500,000, and delegating to the general manager authority to approve certain nonmaterial amendments, as defined herein. members of the public who wish to make public comment, call 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 2483-619-1631, then press pound and pound again. please press star, three to

enter the queue and wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted to begin your comments. >> chair haney: thank you. and margaret [indiscernible] is here to present the item. >> hello. i'm the division manager of hetch hetchy water and power, so i'm coming to you from moccasin, california. the sfpuc must comply with applicable reliability starts developed by the north american reliability corporation or n.a.r.c., and the western utility coordination

commission, wucc. monetary penalties can be levied up to $1.3 million per instance for violations. the planning coordinator is responsible for assessing the longer term reliability of the planning coordinator area, including coordinating and integrating resource plans and transmission. the ciso is the only authority authorized to provide the

[indiscernible] with an amount not to exceed 350,000. in 2018, the parties entered into the first amendment to the planning coordinator agreement with an expiration date of november 30, 2021. we are seeking to extend the agreement by ten years, from november 11, 2021 to november 10, 2031. a second amendment will compensation the ciso an annual service fee, and authorize the sfpuc general manager to make bilateral agreement with the ciso, planning modifications and amendments that do not result in material changes to the party's agreement.

the estimated cost of service is not to exceed $500,000 over the 16-year agreement. delaying this authorization will affect sfpucs [indiscernible] the sfpuc respectfully requests approval [indiscernible] of approximately 16 years. thank you. >> chair haney: thank you. is there a b.l.a. report on this item? >> yes, chair haney. this proposed resolution would approve the second amendment to the planning accordator agreement between the sfpuc and the independent operator of the ciso, extending that agreement

to 2031, and increasing the not to exceed amount to 500,000. as stated, under the agreement, the ciso performs coordinating services, and the cost of services is based on the number of circuits owned by the p.u.c., which currently owns six of those circuits. rates are set by approval. happy to answer any questions. >> chair haney: great. colleagues, any questions or comments about this? can we go to public comment about this? >> clerk: thank you. chair haney. operations is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. members of the public who have not already done so, please press star, three to enter the queue. for those who have already done so, wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted before you begin your comments.

mr. atkins, are there any calls for comments? >> operator: mr. clerk, there are no callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you, mr. atkins. mr. chair? >> chair haney: thank you. public comment is closed. i want to make a recommendation to move this item to the full board with a positive recommendation. can we have a roll call vote, please. >> clerk: on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: we have three ayes. >> chair haney: great. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> chair haney: thank you. mr. clerk, can you please call item 4? >> clerk: yes. item 4 is a resolution retroactively authorizing the department of public health to accept and expend an in-kind gift of perpetual software licenses of the zeiss forum app holl molg application valued in

the amount of 5 9d,000 from the san francisco general hospital foundation for the department of public health to provide eye care and eye disease management for the project period of july 8, 2016 through june 16, 2025. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 2483-619-1631, then press pound twice. if you have not already done so, press star, three to lineup to speak or raise your hand. wait until the system has indicated your line is unmuted before you begin your comments. mr. chair? >> chair haney: thank you, and we have luz sena who is here to present on this item. >> thank you, supervisors. my name is [indiscernible] and i am the director of telehealth

services for the san francisco health network, and this gift from the foundation to the department of health for a contract -- software contract for the permanent of ophthalmology will allow the department to continue eye care and eye disease management to the san francisco health network. >> chair haney: great. thank you for that. makes sense to me. is there a b.l.a. report on this item? >> no, chair haney, we don't have a report on this item. >> chair haney: okay. mr. clerk, can you open this up for public comment, please? >> clerk: yes, mr. chair.

operations is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item, press star, three to enter the queue. for those who have already done so, wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted before you begin to speak. >> operator: mr. clerk, there are no callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. mr. chair? >> chair haney: thank you. public comment is closed. i make a motion to move this item forward to the full board with a positive recommendation. can we have a roll call vote, please. >> clerk: on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: we have three ayes. >> chair haney: great. item will be forwarded to the

full board with a positive recommendation. thank you so much for being with us. >> thank you. >> chair haney: mr. clerk, can you please call item 5? >> clerk: yes. item 5 is a resolution receipt low actively approving the second amendment to the grant agreement for contract number 1000009982 for the mayor's youth employment and education program between the japanese community youth council and the city and county of san francisco, acting by and through its department of children, youth, and families, to extend the grant term by one year for a total term of july 1, 2018 through june 30, 2024, and to increase the grant amount by 6.9 million, for a total not to exceed amount of 37.7 million effective july 1, 2021. members of the public who wish to make public comment, call

415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 2483-619-1631, then press pound twice. press star, three to enter the queue to lineup to speak. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted, and you may begin your comments. mr. chair? >> chair haney: thank you. and we have frank connor -- brett connor from dcyf to present the item. >> hello, chair haney and supervisors mar and safai. i am brett connor from the department of children, youth, and families. this program serves more than 1,000 san francisco youth per year, providing vital workplace experience, career training, and financial literacy skills. the department does acknowledge that we failed in our duty to submit this grant agreement to

the board of supervisors for approval when originally contracted back in 2018. we're now working with our city attorney's office to correct this oversight and are here by seeking your approval of the grant agreement and its two subsequent amendments. i will note to the committee that we have submitted an amendment yesterday. the amendment includes two small changes. it includes for retroactive approval the amended agreement and the original agreement, and also, changes the not to exceed amount to include a 10% contingency, which is standard on all of our grants. we recognize that the grant contract amount has changed since originally presented. what we're asking now is you accept the amended resolution and continue this matter for a

few -- to a future committee agenda for a full hearing. >> chair haney: okay. is there a b.l.a. report on this item? >> yes, chair haney. this -- give me one moment, please. excuse me. so this proposed resolution retroactively approves a grant agreement between dcyf and the japanese community youth council. the proposed second amendment increases the grant from $30.7 to $37.7 million and extends the term of that through june 30, 2024. as of today, 19.7 million has been expended, leaving 18.1 million for future

expenses. the contingency amount would properly be counted on the remaining expenditures. the first agreement required board of supervisors approval but were not brought to the board. during the reporting process, we identified another dcyf grant agreement with the young community developers that also required board of supervisors approval, so we therefore have the following recommendations. number one, request that dcyf submit that grant with young community developers to the board for board approval, and then the supervisor's office review any other grants that should have come to the board and grant them as necessary. we recommend amending the agreement retroactively, and

approve the resolution as amended to include those items that i just stated. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> chair haney: thank you. appreciate that. colleagues, are there any questions or comments about this item? and it does sound like there's acceptance of the amendments, but first, can we go to public comment, please? >> clerk: yes, chair haney. operations is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item, please press star, three now to be added to the queue. for those already on hold, please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. mr. atkins, are there any callers? >> operator: mr. clerk, there are no caller in the queue. >> clerk: thank you very much. mr. chair? >> chair haney: thank you.

all right. public comment is now closed. i make a motion to accept the resolution and the amendments to dcyf as stated. can we have a roll call vote, please. >> clerk: okay. that's the resolution as stated and the proposed amendments to dcyf. >> mr. kalifa? >> clerk: oh, so sorry. >> i just wanted to state that those recommendations include a number of amendments not included in the grant, that the items forwarded would only include the original contract and also the change in the not to exceed amount. is that correct? >> chair haney: yes. >> thank you.

>> clerk: okay. to amend the resolution as stated. [roll call] >> clerk: we have three ayes. >> chair haney: great. with that, i want to make a motion -- >> supervisor safai: before you do that, chair, just because the city attorney spoke up, i know that the recommendations that they had there were worthwhile recommendations, so how are you -- through the chair, how are you recommending that we deal with a grant agreement, looking at the grant agreement from young community developers from january 2020 and looking at asking dcyf and the city attorney to look at all dcyf contracts that did not

get board approval that need board approval. how are you dealing with that? >> ms. pearson: thank you so much for the question. deputy city attorney ann pearson. i didn't mean that they weren't important, only that they were not included in this one amendment to this grant. i think the committee and dcyf could ask us to look into this going forward, as well. >> we have conducted and finished an audit of our full grant cycle. we've identified two other items, and we will be submitted those to the committee and the board of supervisors in the coming weeks. >> supervisor safai: so just so i'm clear, the grant from

january 2020 to young community developers, you'll be asking for retroactive approval of that, is that correct? >> for that and one additional grant agreement, that's correct. >> supervisor safai: and what's that? >> it's also for the japanese community center for their cultural works. >> supervisor safai: so one from y.c.d. and one from jcyc. so you're saying that you've already begun the review process, and we can say in the record that that is happening. >> yes. >> ms. pearson: absolutely. >> supervisor safai: okay. great. thank you, mr. chair. sorry. i got you when you had food in your mouth. >> chair haney: supervisor mar? >> supervisor mar: thank you. i guess i just wanted to say that i would like a fuller explanation from dcyf about, you know, this issue around the

lack of bringing these clear -- these grant agreements, you know, for board approval forward and -- i mean, i guess it was -- it's significant enough that the original grant agreement for this one, the dcyf amount back in 2018 was never brought to the board for approval or the first amendment, but now, through the b.l.a.s work, there's an identification of others. and i appreciate the department's work with the city attorney to identify that additional contract that should have been brought, but yeah, it would help to have a fuller explanation from dcyf, and it sounds like this is something that you're probably going to be more conscious of, timely, yeah, bringing these contracts forward to the board, not

retroactively. so i don't know if you want to explain that now or that can happen at the next meeting, when we -- we -- you know, we're going to hear, consider approval of this contract. >> thank you for the question, supervisor mar. it's a fair question, and i will give you a fair question. it's a relatively small department that's been going through some growing pains. this contract i was relatively unaware of until brought to my attention by the city attorney. we've done quite a bit of housekeeping to make sure we have all of our ducks in a row and grants are in full compliance. >> supervisor mar: well, thanks for that, yeah, mr. connor. >> ms. pearson: supervisor mar, if i may, i would like to take our -- on behalf of the city attorney's office,

responsibility for this. we view ourselves as a partner, so any errors that get made get made with us, so i just want to own up to our responsibility to this, as well. >> supervisor mar: yeah, well, thanks for this acknowledgement on this, as well, and yeah, it -- hopefully these issues are going to survive again, at least with dcyf, so thanks. thanks, chair haney. >> chair haney: thank you, supervisor mar. thank you for those explanations, as well. so we've made the amendments, so i want to make a motion to continue item 5 to the october 27 meeting as amended. >> clerk: thank you, chair haney. before we take the vote, let's see, we could also incorporate the b.l.a.s request just so they're memorialized in our minutes just so it is part of

the record. it won't be on [indiscernible] to supervisor safai. so on the motion to continue this item as amended to the october 27 meeting -- [roll call] >> clerk: we have three ayes. >> chair haney: great. this will go to the october 27 meeting as amended, and thank you so much, mr. connor. mr. clerk, can you please call item 6. >> clerk: yes. item number 6 is a resolution authorizeding the issuance and sale of one or more series of special tax bonds for city and county of san francisco community facilities district number 2016-1, treasure island, with respect to its improvement area number two, in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed approximately $25.1 nil i don't know, approving

relates documents, including an official statement, fiscal agent agreement, bond purchase agreement and continuing disclosure certificate, and determining other matters in connection therewith, as defined herein. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 2483-619-1631, then press pound twice. if you have not already done so, please press star, three to lineup to speak or to raise your hand. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. mr. chair? >> chair haney: thank you, mr. clerk. we have [indiscernible] from the controller's office to speak on this item. >> thank you, chair haney, and good morning, supervisors. the resolution for consideration for you authorizes the city to issue up to 25.13 million in special tax

bonds on behalf of treasure island c.f.t. improvement area number two. i won't repeat the full history of the development and public financing as they have recently come before committee, but i will highlight that this is for the third series of special tax bonds to be issued, with the first two series priced in october 2020 and july 2021. [indiscernible] in the additional phase of development on treasure island in the southeast corner near the admin building. so these are the renderings for the buildings. they are three rental residential buildings and two for sale condo buildings, 770 units. the units are being developed by the master development ticd

[indiscernible] 75.3 million, which is three times the not to exceed amount of the [indiscernible] authorization of 25.13. here is a breakdown of the individual parcel by parcel [indiscernible] for all five parcels, noting that an aggregate value of [indiscernible] noting that it ranges from 3.21 to 5.1 and

noting that the city reserves the right to adjust any [indiscernible] they would receive an investment bond rating due to the nature of the bond and the taxpayer compensation to developers. they do still carrie the city's name and reputational -- carry the city's name and reputational [indiscernible]. as we discussed before, included with this preliminary official statement, which

[indiscernible] does not include misleading or inaccurate information. so the bonds are primarily reimbursement cost [indiscernible] if there are any questions specific to the program and [indiscernible]. >> chair haney: thank you so much. is there a b.l.a. report on this item? >> no, chair haney, we don't have a report on this item.

>> chair haney: thank you. can we go to public comment, please? >> clerk: thank you, chair haney. operations is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. members of the public who wish to provide public comment, please press star, three to be added. for those already on hold, please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted before you begin your comments. mr. atkins, are there any callers in the queue? >> operator: mr. clerk, there are no callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you, mr. atkins. mr. chair? >> chair haney: great, thank you. public comment is closed, and i do not have any questions. i want to make a motion to move item 6 to the full board with a

positive recommendation. can we have a roll call vote, please. >> clerk: yes. on the motion to forward the resolution as recommended -- [roll call] >> clerk: we have three ayes. >> chair haney: thank you. this will go to the full board with a positive recommendation. can you please call item number 7? >> clerk: yes. item 7 is a resolution approving amendments to cleanpowersfs power purchase agreement with blythe solar iv, l.l.c., to add energy storage capability to the existing solar energy facility and increase the contract amount by 83 million for a total not to compete cost of approximately 220.2 million to commence in oct-2022, with no change to the term.

members of the public who wish to make public comment on this item, call 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 2483-619-1631, then press pound twice. press star, three to enter the queue and raise your hand, and wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted to begin your comments. mr. chair? >> chair haney: thank you, mr. chair. we have mr. himes from the p.u.c. to present this item? >> good morning, chair haney. my name is mike hyams, and i'm the director of the sfpuc. the contract amendment before you today would add valuable battery storage capacity to an

existing long-term contract to purchase solar energy from the blythe project. the addition of battery storage to the solar facility would provide a number of benefits to cleanpowersf and its ratepayers. first, with the addition of battery storage, cleanpowersf will be able to deliver the amount of energy produced by the project. for example, it will be able to store the solar and release it when demand on the grid in san francisco begins to peak. cleanpowersf can also help reduce the grid's reliance on fossil fuels to supply

electricity when energy from solar and wind may not be available. partly due to the operating flexibility i just describes, adding a battery to the project will also provide significant resource adequacy compliance benefits to cleanpowersf. this is applicable to all entities that provide electric services to customers, including cleanpowersf and our utility hetch hetchy power. the requirement is intended to ensure sufficient electric generation resources are available to meet unusually high levels of customer demand on the grid. we estimate that the battery storage to be added to the blythe project will quadruple the resource adequacy capacity

of the project. the additional capacity provided by the battery storage will supply roughly 8% of cleanpowersf's requirement under the regulations. as a result, this amendment will reduce cleanpowersf's exposure to what has been a volatile short-term resource adequacy capacity market, and it will, of course, reduce our risk of noncompliance with state regulations which carry with them significant state regulation penalties. this will be operational and available to the cleanpowersf program by the end of 2022. in addition, sfpuc staff has been conducting [indiscernible] is competitively priced

compared to responses that we've received through these efforts. this amendment is also consistent with cleanpowersf's 2020 integrated resource plan and submitted to the california public utilities commission as required by law. the battery storage that would be adds as a result of this -- added as a result of this amendment would identify the battery storage need. the cost of adding this energy storage capacity is stint with our long-term energy resource cost projections for the program, and as i mentioned before, puts cleanpowersf in a stronger position to continue to comply with state law. so that concludes my prepared

remarks. i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> chair haney: thank you. appreciate that. is there a b.l.a. report on this item? >> yes, chair haney. there is. the proposed resolution would approve the first amendment to the power purchase agreement between the p.u.c. and blythe solar. the amendment increases the not to exceed amount of that agreement by $83 million in order to add a battery storage component to the agreement, bringing the total not to exceed amount to $220 million through 2040. there are also community benefits in the agreement and we detailed the beneficiaries of those in the report. we recommend approval of the resolution. happy to answer any questions. >> chair haney: thank you. supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: thank you, chair. thank you, mr. hyams.

i think this is a really important contract. i really appreciate the idea of storing power during times of excess to be used during times of downturn in terms of sun or wind. i know that this is solar. actually happened to have visited there within the last six months, when i went down to joshua tree. this is not too far from that area, so i'm familiar with it, but the thing that gives me pause is the community benefit. this is a $288 million contract, and as i understand it from the b.l.a., only 375,000 in community benefits are being provided to the surrounding community. i find that to be wholly insufficient. if there were something that were being done in our community, there would be no way that a contractor or a contract of this scale would be

allowed to get away with that small amount of community benefits. as much as this has a tremendous environmental payoff, there are some environmental impacts to the surrounding community that's there. this is a border town between california and arizona, as you know, it's in a very isolated area, so i'd like you to talk about that. as i read it, the benefits only last for up to 2025, so i'm a little concerned that the contract goes through 2040, the size of the community benefit and why they sunset so soon. >> thank you, supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: and if you're not the right person to talk about that, don't feel like i'm putting you on the

spot. i'm just highlighting what causes me concern. >> well, i'll try to highlight what causes you concern. and thank you for the question. so the contract was bid through a competitive solicitation that's documented in the b.l.a. report. the community benefits are part of the sfpucs social impact partnership program, which is part of a number of contracting processes that the sfpuc issues. community benefits are submitted through the solicitation process in a voluntary manner, so solicitors do not need to provide community benefits, but they are provided up to five points on our scoring process? so the community benefits bid

in were evaluated by a community panel in our solicitation process and scored, so, you know, one initial comment is, you know, that they did submit the benefits and they actually have provided already a fairly significant amount of benefits during the covid-19 emergency in that area. you know, we don't have the ability to -- since they are voluntary, this isn't something that the department can negotiate. >> supervisor safai: well, maybe i'm reading the b.l.a. report differently because the b.l.a. report says [indiscernible] is that a mistake? >> well, they bid it in.

because they bid it in, that was captured in the contract. >> supervisor safai: so i don't understand your statement. you're saying you can't require it, but you're giving additional points in your scoring process for it. >> it is a voluntary contract, so they get ranked and scored, but it is a voluntarily submission in the scoring process. and i believe the social impact partnership program is something that the p.u.c. is proposing changes to that may be coming to the board. i can't speak to that process, but i did want to flag the p.u.c. is looking at modifications to the program, and we'll be presenting that to the board. >> supervisor safai: let me ask another question.

how is this contract, is there a project labor agreement that's incorporated into this project for the size of this contract? >> we have required that the developer pay prevailing wages, but in our agreement, our standard requirement in these types of contracts, and in constructing the solar project, it's my understanding that the developer entered into a contract with a firm that uses union labor for labor and -- general labor for the project. so i don't believe that the contractor -- the developer has entered into an agreement with the contractor for the battery storage yet because they're looking for an agreement, but i

would anticipate it's going to be a similar contractor working at the site. >> supervisor safai: and what are the source of funds for this contract? >> cleanpowersf revenues are the sole source of funding for this contract, so this contract is part of our energy resource portfolio. right now, we're receiving solar energy from the project, and we cover all of our power portfolio costs through rates and revenues collected from customers, and the addition of the battery source, as i indicated in my remarks, effectively offsets the needs to purchase other products in the market, and that other is capacity. resource adequacy capacity.

but in addition to that, adding a battery also enhances the flexibility that we have, so we can now use that solar power in the evening, which is higher value. >> supervisor safai: so this higher value we're storing more energy, is there an anticipation when rates might come down. >> so this project will contribute to stabilizing our rates. this project is consistent with our long-term plans? i can't commit to rates going down, but it does -- i think this is a high value resource that is going to stabilize our rates by stabilizing our portfolio costs. >> supervisor safai: and are you the person that oversees this entire contract? >> our power supply team manages the contract within the

power enterprise. >> supervisor safai: because i'd like to hear a little bit more about -- i understand about prevailing wages, and i understand about hiring a union contractor, but i'd like to hear why there's not a project labor agreement incorporated in this project, and you say there's other phases of development. have they negotiated this contract to be union labor, or you don't know if they're not quite required to do that or if there's a negotiated p.l.a. on this? >> so there is not currently a negotiated p.l.a. on this, and to be clear, supervisor, the solicitation we negotiated did not require a p.l.a., it required prevailing wages, and the developer is contractually

obligated to ensure that prevailing wages are paid for all work conducted on the project. my understanding is that previous phases have used a contractor that has a p.l.a., but the developer has not yet entered into an agreement with a contractor to construct -- >> supervisor safai: are you referring to blythe solar? >> next energy resources development is the developer of the blythe solar project. >> supervisor safai: okay. do we have a representative from them here today? >> we do not. >> supervisor safai: well, i

would like to hear from them . this is an area that we care deeply about, so is there any harm in extending this one week and allowing them to come and speak to our committee about the work that they've done in the past? one week is not going to kill this contract extension? >> no, it won't kill the contract. it may have some consequences for our compliance process.

>> supervisor safai: so mr. chair, if you don't mind, i think mr. hyams would not be able to answer any further questions. i would like to continue this one week to allow the developer to come and speak to the committee to what work they've done in the ever expanding field of solar energy. >> chair haney: that is entirely fine with me. >> yeah, if i -- excuse me. i apologize, chair haney, for cutting you off there.

i did want to mention about the impact. i had presented to this body on september 15 about our power supplying work and the potential need for the p.u.c. to enter into agreements to meet our requirement under state law and the conditions for potential retroactive approval were sort of in place in terms of the market. we were intending on using this agreement for our resource adequacy filing, which is due at the end of the month. so i did just want to complete the record here that that may impact our compliance filing as far as being compliant, but if more time is needed by the body to deliberate on this, i

understand, and we can report back on what the impacts of that will be. >> supervisor safai: it says here in the b.l.a. report the energy storage component is planned to commence operations in october of next year, so i understand there might be some compliance measures. i can't imagine a one-week continuance to allow blythe solar, if that's the person, to talk about their commitments about using union labor and the work they've done in the past and how it impacts union labor, i can't imagine how that's going to' impact it that much, so i think one week would be fine, and that would be my desire. >> chair haney: that is entirely fine with me.

all right. have we done public comment on this yet, mr. burke? i don't think so. open it up for public comment. >> clerk: yes, mr. chair. operations is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item, please press star, three to be added. for those who have already done so, please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. mr. atkins, please let us know if there are any members of the public waiting to comment. >> so supervisors, my name is francisco dacosta. i've been listening to agenda items number 5, 6, and 7. so on 5, you all need to bring y.c.d. and asked them why do

they need so much money and how many career jobs if they created? on 6, treasure island, i attended that meeting. the people who were going to use the bond credits, they have not given a presentation, but you all chose to suddenly improve it, and on this, item 7, the p.u.c. is appearing in court [indiscernible] to redacting the report, so [indiscernible] you all supervisors should unfortunately be ashamed of

yourselves, ashamed of yourselves. this is not going to go forward, not even on the national level. $6.5 billion, now it's $1.9 billion, and it's going to impact everybody. in three months, you are in [indiscernible] now this has nothing to do with you, but it has to do with your [indiscernible] how it comes to y.c.d., you let it go. when it comes to treasure island, treasure island is going to sink, and we'll let it go, and when it comes to sfpuc, we'll take them to the cleaners. you all should be ashamed of yourself. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you, mr. dacast dacast -- dacosta, for your comments.

mr. atkins, do we have any further callers in the queue? >> operator: mr. clerk, there are no further callers. >> clerk: thank you. mr. chair? >> chair haney: okay. supervisor safai, do you want to make this motion to continue it for one week? >> supervisor safai: sorry. i was on mute. yes, i'd like to continue this item for one week. >> chair haney: can we take a note on the motion to continue for one week? >> clerk: yes, chair haney. on the motion offered by vice chair safai that this matter be continued to the 10-17 budget meeting -- [roll call] >> clerk: we have three ayes. >> chair haney: great. this will be continued to next week. thank you again, mr. hyams.

mr. clerk, can you please call item 8? >> clerk: yes, mr. chair. item number 8 is a hearing on the city's plan to transition those currently housed in shelter in place hotels into permanent supportive housing and requesting the department of homelessness and supportive housing to report. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 2483-619-1631, then press pound twice. if you have not already done so, press star, three to lineup to speak and raise your hand, and wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted to begin your comments. mr. chair? >> chair haney: all right. this item has been on our agenda a number of times, but it is going to be continued one more week, and we are going to have the hearing at next week's

budget and finance committee meeting, so before i make the motion to continue it, can we open it up for public comment, please. >> clerk: thank you, mr. chair. operations is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on the continuance of this hearing, please press star, three to be added. for those already on hold, please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. mr. atkins, please let us know if there are any callers waiting to speak. >> operator: mr. clerk, there are no callers in the queue. >> clerk: mr. chair? >> chair haney: okay. i want to make a motion for this item to be continued to our next budget and finance committee meeting, where it will be heard, on october 2017. roll call vote, please. >> clerk: on the motion to continue item 8 to the october

27 meeting -- [roll call] >> clerk: we have three ayes. >> chair haney: all right. that will be continued to next week's budget and finance committee meetings. mr. clerk, are there any other items before us today? >> clerk: mr. chair, there is no further business before the board today. >> chair haney: thank you. this meeting is adjourned. thank you all.

>> hi. my name is carmen chiu, san francisco's aelectricitied assessor. today, i want to share with you a property tax savings programs for families called proposition 58. prop 58 was passed in 1986 and it was helped parents pass on their lower property tax base to their children. so how does this work? under california's prop 13 law, the value we use to calculate your property tax is limited to 2% growth peryear. but when ownership changes, prop 13 requires that we reassess properties to market value. if parents want to pass on their home or other property to their children, it would be considered a change in ownership. assuming the market value of your property has gone up, your

children, the new owners, would pay taxes starting at that new higher level. that's where prop 58 comes in. prop 58 recognizes the transfer between parents and children so that instead of taxing your children at that new higher level, they get to keep your lower prop 13 value. remember, prop 58 only applies to transfers between parents and children. here's how the law twines an eligible child. a biological child, a step child, child adopted before the age of 18, and a son-in-law or daughter-in-law. to benefit from this tax saving program, remember, you just have to apply. download the prop 58 form from our website and submit it to our office. now you may ask, is there a cap how much you can pass on. well, first, your principal residence can be excluded. other than that, the total tap of properties that can use this

exclusion cannot exceed $1 million. this means for example if you have two other properties, each valued at $500,000, you can exclude both because they both fit under the $1 million cap. now what happens when the total value you want to pass on exceeds $1 million. let's say you have four properties. three with current taxable value of $300,000 and one at $200,000, totaling $1.1 million in value. assuming that you decide to pass on properties one, two, and three, we would apply the exclusions on a first come, first served basis. you would deduct properties one, two, and three, and you would still have $100,000 left to pass on. what happens when you pass on the last property? this property, house four, has been existing value of 2 -- has an existing value of $200,000, and its existing property value is actually higher, $700,000.

as i said, the value left in your cap is $100,000. when we first figure out your portion, we figure out the portion that can be excluded. we do that by dividing the exclusion value over the assessed value. in this case, it's 50%. this means 50% of the property will remain at its existing value. meanwhile, the rest will be reassessed at market value. so the new taxable value for this property will be 50% of the existing value, which is 200,000, equaling 100,000, plus the portion reassessed to market value, which is 50% times $700,000, in other words, 350,000, with a total coming out to $450,000. a similar program is also available for prepping transfers fl interest r from grandparents to grandchildren. if you're interested in learning more visit our website

>> my name is holly i'm been in enterprise software training for 10 years that expired film and art and voice-over week work and all kinds of work. >> i'm jane a program director for the state of california i have the privilege of working on special technology projects for the depth of the technology a

passion for helping people and a passion for doing work that makes a difference and makes me feel good at night and i think about what i did today and helping every single person in the city as. >> a technology professional a need for more women and more women in leadership roles the diversity and the leadership pipeline is an area that needs a little bit of love. >> a lot of love. >> a whole lost love. >> i'll contribute for the change for women's equality by showing up and demonstrating that the face of success schizophrenia came come in a variety of corresponds. >> they're a lot of roadblocks for san francisco when it comes to our proposition and finding a

play for information that has how to start and grow management so we started to build the san francisco business portal not just consults or the taxpayers and voters they're actually customers we are the government serving the consumers in our neighborhood i point to at least one best that i personally touched with one way or another and makes me feel good about the projects like the business portal and in embarking on this new exciting journey of finding better and efficient ways to deliver services to san franciscans i sit through a lot of senior management meetings i'm the only woman in the room i know that our c i o is tried to recruit

for women and a male dominated environment. >> i've felt unbounded and inspired to pursue a lot of things over time i recognize to be cricked in ways i didn't anticipate you know i've followed the calling but now put me in a position to spend most of my time doing things i love this is the whole point; right? you ought to feel inspired in our work and found opportunities to have you're work put you in service for others and happy doing what you're spending so much time. >> my father was a journalist lift and my mom a teacher when we finally decided to give up their lives because of me and

now i actually get to serve the city and county of san francisco it makes me feel really, really good not this didn't happen overnight i've worked my entire life to get to this point and much more to learn and i have a lot of changes ahead. >> really think about what moves you what you're pat's about and trust that you are sufficient and enough where you are to begin and then is her that you are being tenacious about getting to the next place in the evolution but by all means start with you are and know that's enough

but i also want to make sure that we are -- . . . >> thank you, all, for joining us here in the bright and foggy richmond district of san francisco. it is so great to be here. this past weekend, san francisco really was pumping. i don't know about you, but i was all over the city and i saw people everywhere going to chase center to see presea