tv BOS Government Audits and Oversight Committee SFGTV October 1, 2020 2:00pm-6:01pm PDT
san francisco is surrounded on three sides by water, the fire boat station is intergal to maritime rescue and preparedness, not only for san francisco, but for all of the bay area. [sirens] >> fire station 35 was built in 1915. so it is over 100 years old. and helped it, we're going to build fire boat station 35. >> so the finished capital planning committee, i think about three years ago, issued a guidance that all city facilities
must exist on sea level rise. >> the station 35, construction cost is approximately $30 million. and the schedule was complicated because of what you call a float. it is being fabricated in china, and will be brought to treasure island, where the building site efficient will be constructed on top of it, and then brought to pier 22 and a half for installation. >> we're looking at late 2020 for final completion of the fire boat float. the historic firehouse will remain on the embarcadero, and we will still respond out of the historic firehouse with our fire engine, and respond to medical calls and other incidences in the district. >> this totally has to incorporate between three to six feet of sea level
rise over the next 100 years. that's what the city's guidance is requiring. it is built on the float, that can move up and down as the water level rises, and sits on four fixed guide piles. so if the seas go up, it can move up and down with that. >> it does have a full range of travel, from low tide to high tide of about 16 feet. so that allows for current tidal movements and sea lisle rises in the coming decades. >> the fire boat station float will also incorporate a ramp for ambulance deployment and access. >> the access ramp is rigidly connected to the land side, with more of a pivot or hinge connection, and then it is sliding over the top of the float. in that way the ramp can flex up and down like a hinge, and also allow for
a slight few inches of lateral motion of the float. both the access ramps, which there is two, and the utility's only flexible connection connecting from the float to the back of the building. so electrical power, water, sewage, it all has flexible connection to the boat. >> high boat station number 35 will provide mooring for three fire boats and one rescue boat. >> currently we're staffed with seven members per day, but the fire department would like to establish a new dedicated marine unit that would be able to respond to multiple incidences. looking into the future, we have not only at&t park, where we have a lot of kayakers, but we have a lot of developments in the southeast side, including the stadium, and we want to have the ability to respond to any marine or
maritime incident along these new developments. >> there are very few designs for people sleeping on the water. we're looking at cruiseships, which are larger structures, several times the size of harbor station 35, but they're the only good reference point. we look to the cruiseship industry who has kind of an index for how much acceleration they were accommodate. >> it is very unique. i don't know that any other fire station built on the water is in the united states. >> the fire boat is a regionalesset tharegional assete used for water rescue, but we also do environmental cleanup. we have special rigging that we carry that will contain oil spills until an environmental unit can come out. this is a job for us, but it is also a way of life and a lifestyle. we're proud to serve our
government for broadcasting this hearing. >> members will be participating in the meeting remotely. this precaution is taken pursuant to the various local, state, and federal orders. committee members will attend the meeting through video conference and participate in the meeting to the extent as if they are physically present. public comment will be available on each item. we are streaming the number across the screen. each speaker will be allowed two minutes to speak. comments or opportunities to speak during public comment period are available by 415. [inaudible]
>> when connected, you will hear the meeting discussion, but you will be muted. when you're item of interest comes up, dial star 3 to be added to the speaker line. best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and turn down your television or radio. you can make public comment by an e-mail to myself (indescernable). if you submit public comment via e-mail, it will be forwarded to the supervisors. finally, items acted upon today are expected to appear on the board of supervisors agenda (indescernable). >> chairwoman: thank you very much, can you please call item one. >> item one, resolution authorizing the lease of
real property (indescernable). for an additional 25 year term, with an adjustment of 3% with one five-year option system to commence upon board approval and mayor. members of the public who wish to provide public comments should call: >> if you haven't already done so, please dial star 3to speak, a system prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand. >> chairwoman: thank you very much, madam clerk. colleagues, you may remember we continued this item from last week. this is concerning a lease at 20 petroleum incorporated at 598 petroleum drive. this is a long time, small
business, independently-owned gas station. and last week i believe that we heard the b.l.m. report and we had discussion on it. and after we had discussion, i think i brought up some issues around could we actually build affordable housing on it. and supervisor mandelman brought up some points on our dependence on fossil fuels and the commitment of california and san francisco, actually, to go electric and hopefully eliminate fossil fuels, which are killing our environment. i've had discussions during the week. i just want let everybody know i had discussions during the week with president yee. i understand that this was a compromise that was struck between the department of real estate and also the property and the leasee, and i see president yee, who actually was trying to get on earlier, and had a little trouble, has joined us now. and so i am ready to have -- restart this conversation or continue the discussion, actually,
about this piece of property that is being about this piece of being used as a gas stationp and thastation and hasd as a gas station for a very long time. i see nobody is in the cue, so i wanted -- oh, president yee, is that okay, supervisor mandelman, that president yee speaks? thank you very much. president yee, you have the floor. >> good morning. i'm part of the budget discussion. i can't even get on the thing anymore. [laughter] >> good morning, and i hope you all had a good night sleep. i actually wanted to make a couple of comments about this particular item. and i want to say that one
of the reasons why i'm here today to speak up is that it has been a fixture for the community for quite a long time. the business owner, michael gareb, has been operating this particular auto care station for decades now. and it is really a fiber of the community. the -- a few years ago, when there was some issues to where michael had to make some adjustments at twin peaks auto cure, the community came out very strongly in saying this business here is something that has been here for a long time. he contributes to the community, sponsoring movie nights, and so forth. so he is not a businessman
that is just here for a few years and decided to make some money and leave our community. and after all, he is a legacy business. and i spoke to him recently. and i said, i've known you for a while, and i've known that you have already made some compromises from the original lease that you were asking for, and that now the question i have for you, michael, is, as you know, these are evolving, and it might not be next year, but certainly in the future, that the type of automobiles -- automobiles will not go away, let's face it. maybe there will be more people using mass transit and more people taking bikes -- or riding bikes -- but the automobile by itself is not going to disappear. so i asked him, what are
you predicting in the future? and his response was, you know, i'm here to make a business run. and if something is not needed, i'm not going to keep on pushing it. i will make my adjustments. and i said, well, does it mean if there is no need, you know -- if nobody is buying gasoline, are you going to sell gasoline? and he was, like, no. at some point with whatever the automobiles need, whether it is electric or biofuel, he made the commitment to me that he will make that adjustment. and i believe it because he has been there for so long. when you talk about businesses, if the demand isn't there for a product, there is nothing to sell. so to me, i make this sort of conclusion that if
you're going to -- if there is still a need, maybe there is less of a need in 10 years or 15 years or 20 years for gasoline itself, and we drive everything out of san francisco -- as you know, we've done that before -- we drive somewhere else, which means we're going to waste more gas getting to the places, and my prediction is there are going to be other gas stations in san francisco. you've seen it. you have lived here long enough, that the number of gas stations have been reduced over and over and over again. and it is sort of a natural sort of extinction in terms of trying to sell gas. there is just not that demand. so, number one, he has been there for a long time. number two, he wants to stay in business and serve the community, whether it is continuing to do the repairs that they do over there, or whether he needs
to switch over to some other form of energy. and so that's -- i'm really going out to bat for him because he -- again, if it was somebody i didn't know, that has been in the community for a long time -- i don't know how many employees he has, but i go over there once in a while, and i see different people working. and i ask them them -- maybe not at this time, but a couple years ago, i asked them where are you getting work, and they pretty much all live around here. i appreciate that, and the community appreciates that. and i hope you will honor -- what is it, the agreement? for this auto care as with the city. and i'm pretty sure that most of you are familiar with that property. it is a sliver that runs
along probably the worst intersection that you would think of in terms of pedestrian. ,00there are cars that shoot through there, and there are about 10 signals going in different directions. and it is not connected to -- dl over there. it is actually just land in between this. so it is not a continuous type of thing. and, um, i'll just leave it at that. i guess i'm here to just support it. and i hope that you will also send a positive recommendation. thank you. >> chairwoman: thank you, president yee. supervisor mandelman. >> thank you, chair fewer, and thank you president yee. i regret having the additional time to think about this lease.
but last week when we talked about it, i expressed, and have generalized heartburn, about the idea of entering into a lease potentially for a gas station to stay on there for a potential 25 years. i did point out that this lease does not require it to be used as a gas station. there is car repair, and there is potential for alternative clean fuel, there is a grocery store, a car wash, so there are a lot of things that can happen on this property that are not the sale of fossil fuel. but following up on that hearing last week, i did feel like i needed to better understand what policies the city has already adopted, what we've already committed to, and what our vision of getting to 100% renewal
energy is over the next decade. so i reached out to our friends at the department of environment, and they reminded me that, you know, last year this board heard the focus 2030 report, which was in response to the climate emergency resolution we did. and that report pretty clearly calls for -- it does call for 25% of all private cars and trucks to be electric by 2030 in san francisco, and 100% by 2040. that's the way we get to, you know, not having fossil fuel emissions from cars by 2040, and get to being a zero emission city by 2050.
and then also there is the mayor's electric vehicle roadmap, which was -- i don't think it has been heard by this board, but, again, it kind of shows the path to how do we get to a point where we are not continuing to put fossil fuel and gas emissions out into the atmosphere? and in that document, again, consistent with the climate emergency resolutions, says all transportation from points starting in san francisco, our goal that we have and that the mayor has said, those trips have to be emission-free by 2040. so at a time when, you know, we have clear evidence of climate change, when the sun didn't rise two weeks ago, when we see the fires burning, and i think a lot of people have anxiety
that our timeframes are too long, and that if it takes us until 2040 to get there, that we should be even more aggressive than that. i don't think i can support a lease that on public land contemplates the sale of fossil fuel past the goals that we have set. and i don't think we can rely on the market to solve this. i think we have to send the direction to the market to change behavior. so for me, at the very least, i would think that we should put in a prohibition, this 25-year lease, and it could go to 2050. we should be clear that fossil fuels can't be sold on this property past 2040, recognizing that this isn't a giant oil
company. this is a small local business, a legacy business, a good actor in the community. i hear all of the points that president yee raised, which is why i'm not saying we shouldn't, you know, renew the lease, but i just don't think i can support doing it in a way that will cause us to violate our own climate goals that we've established. so i don't know if that works. i don't know if that is something that other members of this board or president yee want to contemplate. i won't -- i could vote to send this to the full board without committee recommendation, but i probably can't support this lease the way it is currently presented. >> chairwoman: thank you very much. supervisor walton. >> thank you so much, chair fewer, and thank you for coming on this morning, president yee. i definitely, 100%
appreciate supervisor mandelman's comments. obviously this is something with talked about, and this is why we have the robust discussion about the item. i think from my standpoint, one of the things that made me okay with supporting the lease is because we're talking about a lease that does not guarantee that this would be a gas station for the duration of the lease. and, in fact, there is a commitment from the owner that if the business model needs to change, if the business needs to change, that's something that they have -- they will adapt to. and i think that part is important to note. i also do agree with supervisor mandelman in terms of our commitment as a city, and where we stated we want to go in terms of zero fuel by 2040, and alternative fuels and electric cars, and obviously this lease
does not extend to that far out. but i'm wondering, is there an opportunity to include a commitment that supervisor mandelman is asking for in terms of making sure that we don't do anything past that time period with this site that would be counter to our environmental goals? i think that is something that is not too much to ask. but a also want to note that as we continue to have this conversation, i am okay, like supervisor mandelman, if we did forward this without recommendation. but i do want to keep in mind that president yee and the community, the surrounding community, is supportive of this legacy business. they employ people. tea dthey do not have a service like this in proximity. and we're all weaning away
from, obviously, using gas, but there is a reality of how people get around right now, and making sure we do accommodate the residents in this city that rely on certain means as we continue to do better for the environment. so i think that it is totally appropriate to have some type of provision that states past this time period, we will no longer allow and accept this use at the site. even though this lease does not go to 2040, i think making that commitment solid and putting it in writing and documenting it is something that is important. i do agree with supervisor mandelman on that point. >> chairwoman: okay. thank you, supervisor walton. i think what i'm hearing from our colleagues is that they're not comfortable voting for this with a positive recommendation in this form. that they are open, actually, to maybe some changes in the lease in
and around the agreement. and maybe the timeframe, and so i'm going to suggest that we would maybe send this to the committee -- i mean out of committee without a recommendation and allow the full board to have discussion on it. you know, personally, my questions about this were really about building affordable housing on that site, and whether or not that site -- but i have also been in touch with supervisor yee's office and understand deeply how that site is configured, and there is another jurisdiction that actually owns the back of the site, but -- i thought we own the whole thing, but we don't own the whole thing. so i'm thinking of juvenile hall, and one big
thing, but, actually, i think it is much more complicated than that. let's open this up for public comment before we have a vote. >> operation is checking to see if there are any callers in the cue. operator, let us know if there are callers. if you have not done so, please press star 3. please let us know if there are any callers who wish to comment on this item. >> there are currently 11 callers in the cue. i'll cue the first caller. >> chairwoman: thank you. >> caller: hi. i'm calling for item number two. >> chairwoman: okay. please stay and the cue. madam clerk, can you give instructions. >> yes. thank you for calling. if you could please press
star 3 to lower your hand whe.when item number two comes up, you can press star 3 then to be added to the cue. next speaker, please. >> caller: hi. good morning, everyone, and thanks for having this hearing today. my name is ed parlan. and i'm a resident of supervisor mandelman's district, and i've lived in the city for 12 years. i drive, bike, walk, take transit in the city all of the time. and i'm a parent to two small kids. i'm calling in to oppose extending this lease for renewing this lease for another 25 years. i think in light of the city's commitment, stated commitments, to declaring a climate emergency, to divesting from fossil fuels and so on, engaging in a lease that not only
fossil fuels-consuming use, but also represents new investments in that use on public land because of the new storage tanks that would be replacing the current storage tanks, such as a new investment in the fossil fuel-emitting use is not in creeping with what the board has done. it is not in keeping with really believing there is a climate emergency, the you have a limited amount of time to act on. it is not even in keeping with the efforts of the state to stop selling fossil fuel-consuming cars by 2035, which is long before the end of this lease, especially with the extra five-year option. in terms of this location, it is public land that is walkable, and it serves two bus lines, it is connected to two bart stations, it is -- i'm sure it is as challenging as any other, but it is
not exceptionally strange in the city. and i'm someone who has worked on affordable housing in the city, and this is a site that we have much better uses for. i urge to have at least have a lease term that reflects the urgency of banning fossil fuels. thank you. >> chairwoman: thank you for your comments. >> next speaker, please. >> caller: hello. my name is christopher peterson. i'm a resident of district 7, and i completely agree with the prior speaker. this the city is facing an affordable housing crisis, and the world is facing a climate calamity. so it really is astonishing that the city is seriously considering a 25-year extension of a lease for this fossil fuel dispensary. you know, it is a proposed compromise of phasing out the sale of fossil fuels
in 20 years, which is simply unacceptable. the sale -- the governor has initiated a process for the sale of fossil-fuel cars by 2035. so if the city is serious about addressing the affordable housing crisis and the climate crisis, please deny this proposed lease extension and instead commence the process for building affordable housing on the site. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: hi, my name is matt razina, and i'm a resident of mandelman's district 8, and i'm the parent of two young children who are going to bear the brunt of climate change. you're not just deciding to extend the lease today; you're deciding to invest
in new fossil fuel infrastructure. the new storage tank will need to be installed by 2025. that's on conscionable. i can't believe that i have to spend my morning calling in to defend our city's values and defend my children's future on this planet. i will remind you, also, that the effects of climate change are borne by our lowest income citizens and disproportion natoldisproportionately affect minorities. i'm urging you to live up to our values that you talk about in news articles. this is public land that you govern. this is exactly how you can make a change to climate change. no new oil infrastructure. no new oil storage tank. end fossil fuels on this land when this ends in
2025. i want to put an image in your mind of a bunch of parents and community members, holding hands on a day of 115 or 120, and we'll be wearing our n-95 masks, and we'll ask epof our board of supervisor members, do you support fossil fuel with the use of our public land in san francisco? instead, it should be used for other uses, like supportive services, affordable housing, even electric car-charging stations, but do not lease public land to fossil fuel companies in the year of 2020. thank you for your time. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: hi. my name is willie. i live in supervisor mandelman's district, and i don't want to breathe bad air until 2040. 20 more years of fossil fuel is 20 years too long.
we can't ask the market to address the fossil fuel created by the climate crisis. the air quality outside is not good. [inaudible] it will better serve all residents in san francisco by affordable housing. there are at least two gas stations less than a mile down the road. please do not renew this lease. thank you. i yield my time. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: good morning, supervisors. my name is george wooding. i live in direct 7. in 2050, there will be, like, three billion vehicles on the road world up, up from a billion now.
at least half of them will be powered by internal combustion engines using petroleum-based fuels. alternative fuel vehicles will grow at a fast rate, but the majority of vehicles will still be powered by gasoline. san francisco is not an island currently. less than 15% of greenhouse gas emissions, when you separate them from diesel trucks, present any form of greenhouse gas emissions. i fully recommend that this lease go through. it has been negotiated for over a year. and it should go through. it's been supported all the way along the line until it met this committee. according to the energy information administration and the energy outlook of
2018, sales of new electric, plug-in hybrid vehicles are expected to jump to 90% of vehicle sales in 2050, compared to just 20% in 2017. it is estimated to drop from 95 to (indescernable). san francisco is kidding themselves. there are all kinds of forms of fuel use. the owner has to have, if he is going to put the tanks in, a lease that has some length in it so he can a amortize the value of what he is doing. >> the time has expired. >> thank you for your
comments, sir. next speaker, please. >> caller: hi there. my name is patrick, and i'm a resident of san francisco, and i've lived in the city for more than a decade. i'm calling asking that the committee reject the proposal and not approve the extension of the lease. as the callers have noted, we have aggressive climate goals, and we need to make them more aggressive. investing in fossil fuels is not the path we should be going down. there are five other gas stations within a five-minute drive of this gas station, so the neighborhood is well seived bwell-served by fossil fuels already, probably way too much. i would support the city using this public land that we collectively own for a higher use, like affordable housing, a
school, something more productive than a gas station. so please do not renew this lease with a gas station owner. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: good morning. my name is shante. i'm a resident and an organizer. i'm calling in to oppose the lease renewal and ask you to build social housing on this site, which many of us are fighting for at the ballot right this very moment. we keep talking about how public land is pressure, and we keep complaining that other proposals are not affordable enough on our public land. we talk about 2030 as our absolute climate deadline to keep san francisco and the planet fossil-free. many won't be able to afford market-rate housing for decades. we just closed down
juvenile hall, and thank you to the supervisors who voted yes on that. and there are san franciscans who also disproportionately cannot aafford market housing. it is an economic justice issue. it is a racial justice issue. and it's a housing justice issue to build low income housing on this site. we own enough, and we can explore acquisition. we closed out juvenile hall, and when a muni station is a 10-minute walk away. let's just let this gas station through, etc., etc., but every time we do this, we're kicking the can down the road for all of these things, all of these issues we claim we care about, and all of thise these things, like social housing, affordable housing, and climate justice, we keep kicking the can down the road and
we have to stop. stop. >> thank you for your comments. next caller. >> caller: hi, i'm eric, and i live in district 8. yeah, like a year and a half ago, we declared a climate emergency. and supervisor mandelman said that climate crisis possess a serious threat for the well-being of san franciscans and it the environment. i think this site could be much better used as a transit socialized housing area, near the 44 and the 48. it is very accessible to transit.
since the city owns it, it would be a great place to build socialized housing. we don't know anymore fossil fuel structures in our city. please do not extend the gas station lease. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: hi, supervisors. my name is dan deutsche, and i'm a resident and renter in direct 8. and i'm calling to oppose extending this lease. i agree with what everybody has said so far, which is that we're in a climate emergency, and also a housing shortage. and this should be, um, obviously housing, especially given the fact that 10 minutes away from the muni metro station, and it would be the
perfect place for socialized housing. if you look at the data on this, according to a berkeley study, the number one thing that local politicians can do to reduce carbon emissions in san francisco is to build more urban housing, and this is exactly where that urban in-fill housing should be. if you look at the data again, the number one source of carbon emissions in california is transportation and automobile emissions. and the fact that we're further entrenching this process with the fossil fuel infrastructure, frankly, makes no sense and runs counter to everything that i expect my progressive legislators on the board of supervisors to stand for. so please reject it. build more housing instead. and further up-zone this area of west portal and port where there are single-family homes with garages, where there should be dense apartments, where you can take muni and get there in
10 or 15 minutes. it really makes no sense. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: good morning, supervisors. this is tom, executive director of the livable city. on behalf of livable city and its members, we're urging you to reject this lease for a gas station for decades, and instead use this land for affordable housing. five years ago, we, the people of the city, passed proposition "k," which says if there is surplus city land, and it is not needed for a public purpose, that land should be prioritized for public housing. you have an opportunity now to address our housing crisis. but our housing crisis has only got worse since 2015. we need you to use every bit of public land wisely. this site, according the a city-zoned assessment
could accommodate about two dozen units of a affordable housing. so it's not only important for housing, as many of the speakers have talked about, but also for climate. this automobile lease should be a thing of the past. there are plenty of gas stations in the city. and this is the only one i know of on public land. and you should address this climate emergency now. changing the use of this site, evaluating houg for housig for it, we think is in line with it. and supervisor yee, his statement this is kind of a dangerous intersection isn't appropriate there. i'm sorry, i have a lot of dangerous intersections where i live. the solution is not to ban housing; the solution is
to make the intersection safe. so you all signed on to zero recommendation, and so let's build housing near trans ci let' transit. and this is a huge opportunity. [buzzer] >> the speaker's time has expired. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: hi. my name is stacey, and i'm a 20-year resident of san francisco and a homeowner with two kids in district 10. and i am concerned about the state of the city and our planet. just like i was last night when i gave comments. when i woke up today, i checked the air quality, and sure enough, i had to close the windows and turn on the air filters because we're creeping towards 100. and we're past that now.
the smoke from the glass fire is upon us. since i spoke to you all last night, another 5,000 acres have burned for a total of 48,440, and the fire is at 2% containment. you know we're going to reach four million acres burned in this state in no time. before our typical fire season starts. the cause of this and the other devastating fires is due to unusual weather caused by climate change. climate change is caused by greenhouse gases. and the largest contributor is by the combustion of fossil fuels to transport people and goods. i believe you all know this, but i want to remind of what you resolved nearly 18 months ago. whereas throughout the united states, low income communities have been on the front line of long-standing environmental injustices, and borne the brunt. and the state of california is already suffering impacts of
climate change in the form of jobs, air pollution, and these impacts will grow more severe if global greenhouse gases are not stopped. adding additional pressure to the bay area's affordability crisis. and, whereas, to stay within (indescernable). and as a city on a rapid growth trajectory, you have an obligation to lead by example. there is nowhere in there that says we should be supporting -- [buzzer] >> the speaker's time is up. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: hello. can you hear me? >> yes, we can hear you. >> caller: hello.
okay. my name is sarah greenwald, and i'm a san francisco resident. and i volunteer with the 350 san francisco and the san francisco climate emergency coalition. and i greatly support the idea that if for any reason the lease is extended for whatever period of time you select, that the lease be amended to ensure that one or more e.d. charges will be installed asap, and more as the contemporary technology will allow -- that's how they usually say it. incentives are available. it really should not be that much of a problem, anyway, and it will allow this nation to continue to thrive as we meet the state requirement, and as people have been saying, the climate's urgent need, and san francisco's
resolution to phase out gasoline use. and i am glad you and pretty much everybody does not want fossil fuels there. and there are very strong cases that have been made for alternative uses of this land. but i heard a comment about verbal commitments to use the land differently, to phase out this. and i would put that right in the lease. it may seem like pro forma now, but as a former tenant, get it in the lease. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. scawrm>> caller: hello. my name is javier, and i'm an organizer in san francisco.
and i live in direct 9. and i want to say -- i want to express that i want the city to reject this lease and to actually be creative as city officials and legislators. we're talking about renewing a lease for a gas station during multiple crises of public health, and environmental, for sure. which is why we have masks on, for not only covid-19 and the pandemic, but for the forest fires. and so san francisco is supposed to be the beacon of california in the nation for battling disasterous effects of climate change. but the fact that we're even talking about this right now is not only political on our part as a city, but absolute climate denial. what i mean by getting creative with legislators is, use what we have. social housing is on the
ballot, and we must pass that and other 100% affordable housing can go on public land. we need health centers, and that is in the process of implementation. and we need to house people, instead of throwing them in jail, who are low-income communities of color disproportionately. i'm asking you, once again, reject this lease, and live up to san francisco's expressed values and take climate seriously. thank you. have a good day. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: hello. i'm a volunteer with the proposition campaign. and i'm calling in to voice my opposition to extend your lease. 18 months ago, we declared a climate emergency.
i live in district 8. the climate crisis causes a threat to the health of san francisco, its inhabitants and its environment. and today the board is considering allowing a fossil fuel business to continue on public land for the next 30years. the board of supervisors voted 10 to 1 to close the juvenile center. this is a unique opportunity to secure this land for social housing in a high-opportunity area for families for decades to come. this publicly-owned land is in a highly transit location, ad jaipt t adjacent t4 and 48, and a short walk from the metro station. [audio is breaking up]
in the face of climate change, we must invest in our neighborhoods. we support public land for the benefit of our people. it is truly unconscionable that just a few weeks ago, we had an orange sky in san francisco. and you all are still considering having gas stations in the city. in addition, you all voted to put proposition "k" on the ballot. i got signatures to get them on the ballot. the land is public. it should be 100% affordable housing because it is on public land. it would be a great spot. we need to look at everything we do with our public resources to make sure we're fully respecting -- [buzzer] >> your time has expired. >> thank you for your comments, sir. next speaker, please. >> caller: hi there. my name is robin cutner,
and i live in district 8. i also serve on the board of livable cities. i oppose extending the gas station lease. i was very proud when my supervisor, ra rafael mandelman, acknowledged that our fossil fuel alliance is putting us on a slow decline. the entire board of supervisors signed on to this resolution. our neighbors in the greater bay area are evacuating from wildfires every fall. today in san francisco, we are breathing toxic air. this is all preventable. let's take concrete action to prevent this and be the beacon of sustainability that the whole world thinks we are. san francisco has no business entrenching fossil fuel structure on public land for so many more decades. i'm not saying we need to ban cars tomorrow, but we need to make good on our promise to phase out fossil fuel combustion. public land should serve the public in a positive way. one gait use of this public lant woul land would be o
build affordable housing on this site. i'm proud to listen to passionate opposition to this gas station by all but one of the public commenters. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: hi, my name is cliff barker. i'm a member of the urban environmentalist action. i'm calling to encourage the board not to renew this lease. it seems totally nuts to encourage the owner, as nice a guy as he seems to be, to make a huge in investment in continuing to sell fossil fuels at this publicly-owned site. where have a finite amount
of public land in san francisco. and as other callers have noted, there are much better uses we can put it towards. i think putting social housing at this site, that is well-served by great park space, would be a fantastic use of public space. it seems totally nuts that we're considering extending a lease for this fossil fuel infrastructure when we're living through one of the most visceral examples of the impending climate catastrophe. so as nice as the gas station owner is, please don't renew this lease. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: hi. i'm a san francisco resident and an m.b.a. action member. i strongly urge the city not to renew this land for
a gas station. we have a gigantic housing crisis and climate crisis in california. what we do not have is a gas station crisis. the climate denial serves as a give-away for polluting fossil fuel corporations. and given the recently signed ban on gas car sales in 2025. and the board of supervisors has passed resolution for declaring a climate emergency. they should build social housing on this land. public land should be used for public good, and gas stations are not the public good. thank you very much. have a wonderful day. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: hi, my name is steve, and i'm calling in to voice my opposition to extend the lease for
petroleum. as we all know, we're facing a climate emergency, and a big contributor to this is the fact that folks drive such large distances to get to work because they can't afford to live near their jobs. these commutes are huge. and addition, they are a huge contributor to greenhouse gases. so please reject extending this lease. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. there are clearly four other speakers on the line. if you have not already done so, please dial star 3, and a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and then you can begin your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: hi. my name is adam, and i'm a
physician and a resident of district 6. i oppose renewing this lease. we have very few public land locations that are suitable for development, and we have plenty of gas stations. and i'm having trouble breathing and coughing going outside, and i think it is pretty clear what the right thing to do is. if you're going to do a short-term lease extension while you request public housing on this, that would be reasonable. but a long-term gas station, not reasonable. thanks. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: hi. good morning, i'm zach in district 6. i'm a san francisco native. i remember when twin peaks petroleum opened. but i'm calling to oppose the renewal, and urge the committee to stop and reconsider the best use of our public land, especially the opportunities that can
become available with juvenile hall closing next door. those who need gas can find it two minutes away. we in a climate emergency. the bay area is on fire, the area is hazardous. tying up this land in a high resource area with a gas station for decades is not living up to our san francisco values and the expressed view. the land should be used as social housing. i would like to echo speaker tom's call, that if a supervisor knows of a, quote, "bad intersection," he should be out there demanding it be made safe immediately. it is an intersection i have had to walk and bike many times. we should not have a single area in this city that is literally unlivable because of the presence of cars. that's exactly the sort of thinking that leads to traffic death after traffic death and the toxic air we continue to wake up to day after day. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please.
>> caller: good morning, supervisors, my name is sarah ogelvi, and i live in district 9 in san francisco. i'm calling in to oppose the renewal of this lease. as a member of san francisco yembi, who organizes with them, we have be working hard to integrate social neighborhoods, and putting affordable housing in a spot like this is absolutely a no-brainer. on one of the rare days i was able to walk outside and enjoy a walk, i walked down the street, and i saw a beautiful mission housing structure on the corner of 16th and vannes, on what was a gas station previously, from what i recall in the past.
i know building on top of gas stations is absolutely possible and we should do it in this transit rich and highly walkable neighborhood. please do not seek to renew this lease and seek to fulfill the commitment that would be made by proposition "k," which san francisco yembi endorses, to build more social housing, build it abundantly, and build it on the few sites that we have, which would include this site. i think that the people that are suffering from housing insecurity right now, the people who cannot afford to live in san francisco, these are the people who would benefit from seeing housing built here. and i know that that is on the top of the priorities for this board, and so i would like to see it be fulfilled by ending this lease and beginning the path to building affordable housing on this site. thank you.
-- made a good livelihood. this business needs to go. and (indiscernible) and the values are dying on the streets of san francisco and they are discussing some business deal, you know, which, you know, which is mundane. and so many in san francisco keep telling you all, change your mentality, change your values so it reflects what we need and not what y'all need, making deals behind the scenes. including the reservoir. it's come to haunt you all.
you represent the people. we pay your salary. and there are some among you. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you, sir. next speaker, please. >> caller: can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can hear you. >> caller: okay, thank you so much. my name is jay bane and i'm a richmond district resident. supervisor fewer's d1 richmond district. our son has been going to the elementary school since kindergarten and we spent a lot of time in that area on clairdon avenue and we never had to use that gas station. but when i have driven by i have frequently seen cars backed up
and blocking the road to the gas station entrance. fundamentally i think that there's a better use of this public property than gas when there's five other gas stations -- municipal gas stations nearby that offer better prices. i want to also ask the supervisor to check a couple of other resources, including pluggingamerica.org which has a national area of charging stations in the public and public domain. there's no charging stations nearby this location and this would be an excellent number for charging stations for the public. and i also wanted to add that there are no bike share docking stations near here. this would be excellent for people to be able to have an electric bicycle or to pick up a charged one to ride down on the bike lane to downtown or out to the west side of the city.
and, finally, i wanted to add that i checked the view for this station on yelp and on gasbuddy.com. and i was surprised to find that there are numerous reports of credit card skimming, fraudulent charges on gas bills for customers, and also just numerous low ratings. they've got a two out of five star rating on yelp and they haven't claimed or taken any responsibility for the customer issues that need to be resolved quickly. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: good morning, i am andrew bader, a district 4 resident and i'm a substitute teacher in the school district. i frequently teach at both schools on the location there. both the academy and the school of the arts. i frequently observe vehicles
entering and exiting that gas station parking lot with disregard for the safety of students entering and exiting the campus. excuse me. i think that site would be much better used for housing, specifically for staff, or public employees of the city or students in the school district. i agree that it would be an excellent idea to add bike racks, dropoff racks. and any use in the future on that site is long term bad for students, bad for san francisco and bad for the public. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. are there any other callers in the queue? >> that completes the queue. >> chair fewer: public comment for this item is now closed. so we have heard a lot from our supervisors. i just wanted to mention -- i
just wanted to also mention that i think that when we talk about affordable housing being built on this piece of property that is probably many, many years in the making, considering this it's such a small site. and you talk to affordable housing builders and they probably would not build on such a small site. however, there's still a lot of complications about some of the shared ownership around that site. so affordable housing might take a while. i would also say that, you know, i think that we should value a small business that has been in business, serving the community, for many, many, many years. i think that also that this is one of the last independent gas stations in san francisco. although i -- but i do appreciate i think the comments from my colleagues and also just the fact that it is true that we are phasing out fossil fuels and
it is our responsibility also as a city. so i think that i would also like to make a motion to send this item to the full board without recommendation and have the full board have a full discussion about this and allow my colleagues to actually get some questions answered. but i would also like to have if president yee is going to go back and speak to the business owner, whether or not it would be a phaseout also of the previous gas station that is now doing all electric charging, and whether he could keep the profits from that to help to continue to run a small business, considering that if we don't renew the lease that would probably mean an empty site for decades to come. so it could be used for various i think purposes too. so i -- any colleagues want to
make any comments or questions? no? i would like to ask the deputy city attorney to go over some amendments that were on the table. and i wanted to just make sure that it was okay to move this to the full board without recommendations and actually to do the amendment at the full board meeting. >> deputy city attorney ann pearson that. would be fine. these were intended just to clarify that this is actually a lease amendment and not a new lease. so you could make them here today or you could make them at the full board. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. and then i'd like to say also is that i'd like to remind people and the public that president yee has led the charge on vision zero. he himself is a victim of a very, very serious pedestrian collision. so he has been the one on the board that has been absolutely leading the work on vision zero so i'd like to give him great appreciation for that. i think that some of the people
commented actually are not quite aware of his contribution towards vision zero and how he's led the charge on that and been the leader on this board, in fact, i think that this board will need to find a new leader to carry the work of vision zero for the city and county of san francisco. having said that i'd like to make a motion to move this to the full committee without recommendation. could i please have a roll call vote. >> clerk: yes, on the motion [roll call] you have three ayes. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. -- >> president yee: for consideration. >> chair fewer: thank you president yee for joining us. call item 2. >> clerk: item 2, the resolution approving the sheriff office's home detention and electronic monitoring program rules and regulations and approving evidence of financial responsibility demonstrated by program administrator, sentinel offender services, l.l.c., for
fiscal year 2020-2021. the members of the public who wish to provide public comment should call 1-(415)-655-0001. meeting i.d., 1467754813. then press pound twice. if you have not already done so, please dial star, 3, to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand and wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. >> chair fewer: thank you very much, madam clerk. colleagues, we continue this item from last week and there was no d.l.a. report on this. we did have a discussion on it though i believe -- didn't we, madam clerk? but right now we have -- i'd like to give the floor to supervisor walton who actually had many questions and concerns about this item. so supervisor walton. >> supervisor walton: thank you so much, chair fewer, and thank you for allowing us to have further discussions on the electronic monitoring program. you are correct, we did have
some discussion on this issue before. there were a lot of questions and other information that the sheriff's department is bringing back. we will also have -- we'll hear from someone who will speak on electronic monitoring and other areas across the country. but i did want to just say before we start, was there any -- any questions or comments from my colleagues? if not, i think we will allow for the sheriff's department to speak first. seeing none, mr. holland, please use our shared services to make your presentation on the issues and concerns that was addressed previously. >> thank you, supervisor. thank you, supervisors. my name is crist an halls and i'm the c.f.o. for the sheriff's office and back after three weeks to talk about electronic
monitoring. let me share my screen. okay, three weeks ago the california penal code requires that we present the rules and regulations, i.e., the scope of services and the liability insurance. the scope of services has unchanged since the contract for electronic monitoring came before this body one year ago. but i would also like to just say thank you for your votes, this is a vote for our data management system that the sheriff's office is pursuing as recommended by the reenvisioning of the workload because this gave me yet another opportunity to experience the challenges of mining criminal justice data. but we have done that mining and we appreciate the additional two weeks that you gave us to collect that information. and my first slide just outlines the process by how people are
assigned to electronic monitoring. and i won't go through the whole process map here, but suffice to say that this process involves multiple agencies who make up the city's criminal justice system. there are some time elements here, where the process was impacted by prerelease dates to happen no later than 18 hours after the person is booked into jail. >> clerk: we're not able to view your slides. >> oh. well, it shows that i am screen sharing. that's not showing? >> chair fewer: no, it isn't showing, mr. holland. madam clerk, can you assist with
a copy of that presentation? >> clerk: unfortunately, i don't have a copy of the presentation. >> i could send a copy in that would help. >> chair fewer: if you were to send this to you, we could actually -- >> clerk: just a moment to see if i can help to upload it. >> just sent it to you. >> clerk: thank you. >> supervisor walton: supervisor fewer, should we continue now or move forward with other items on the agenda and come back? >> chair fewer: madam clerk, can we call item 3 while we're getting that together? >> clerk: yes. item three, ordinance waiving certain procurement and contracting requirements in chapters 6, 14b and 21 of the administrative code, as applied to the potrero yard modernization project to submit a developer to utilizing the
best value selection process and provide that the city complete the review under the environmental act, with an agreement for a joint development services from certain contracting requirements and administrative code and the wages and implementation of our local district enterprise due to the utilization project and the city have hiring ordinance. the members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call 1-(415)-655-0001. meeting i.d., 1467754813. and then press pound twice. if you have not already done so, please do star 3 to lineup. >> chair fewer: supervisor walton, i believe that you want -- you have a request in to continue this item, is that correct?
>> supervisor walton: correct. so i was going to ask, chair fewer, did you want to still hear the presentation? >> chair fewer: we're going to continue this item. i think that we should probably not hear the presentation now because we hear so many presentations that i think that when this comes back we'll have to get refreshed anyway. and this is somewhat technical. so would you like to make a motion? >> supervisor walton: yes, and thank you, chair fewer, you're a life saver. continue item 3 to the call of the chair. it's appropriate to address this issue and waiver after we pick a developer. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. madam clerk, have a roll call vote. >> clerk: thank you, madam chair. can we have public comment prior to doing the vote? >> chair fewer: please. >> clerk: operation, please let us know if there are any callers that are ready. if you have not done so, press star 3 to be added to the queue. for those on hold, and wait
until you are unmuted. let us know if there's any callers for item number 3. >> there are three callers in the queue. >> chair fewer: okay. >> clerk: good morning, caller. hello, caller? >> caller: i'm sorry. i'm trying to do on item 2. >> clerk: okay, please press star, 3, to lower your hand right now.
>> chair fewer: next speaker, please. >> madam chair, that completes the queue. >> chair fewer: public comment for item 3 is now closed. we have supervisor walton has made a motion to have a roll call vote, please. >> clerk: i'm sorry, madam chair, the motion is to continue this item to the next budget and finance meeting? >> chair fewer: to the call of the chair please. >> clerk: thank you. on the motion [roll call] you have three ayes. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. let's go back to item number 2. do we have that powerpoint up? >> clerk: yes. could you please share the screen for us? >> right now it's not letting me share the screen.
>> clerk: we will have someone do that. >> go ahead. >> okay. >> clerk: we are not able to look at the slide as well. perhaps -- that is not working. >> if you put it into a p.d.f. format and try it after the next item. >> chair fewer: okay. call item number 4. >> clerk: yes, madam chair. item 4, resolution approving first amendment to easement deed between the koret foundation and the city and amending the rights of the party to the 1907 with parcel 22, located between west orange avenue and southwood
drive in south san francisco, california, and authorizing the director of property and/or the assessee general manager to execute the documents, make certain modifications and take certain actions in furtherance of this resolution. members of the public who wish to provide public comment to call 1-(415)-655-0001. and meeting i.d., 1467754813. and then press pound twice. if you have not already done so, please dial star, 3, to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand. wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. today we have with us ann and megan from the fspuc. the floor is yours. >> chair fewer and supervisors walton and mandelman -- well, it's not quite afternoon, good morning still, i guess. my name is tony royal and i'm the assistant real estate director at the p.u.c. and i am bringing before you today a deed
amendment between the koret foundation as the interest in the city and county of san francisco's grantee. can i share -- i will share the -- there we go. hold on a moment. let me do a slideshow and then we're ready. there we go. >> chair fewer: great. >> the property in question is depicted here in yellow. the little propeller development here that is koret's adjacent apartment complex that i'll be referring to. so the property is roughly an acre. it's part of parcel number 22 in south san francisco. and it was acquired from the spring valley water company in 1930. at the same time the city acquired all of spring valley water company's water assets. and it's when the city got into the water business. this particular parcel serves as a utility right-of-way that
connects with the city and county of san francisco. but it also serves as an important part of the koret foundation's adjacent club view apartment complex which is a market-rate housing complex that was built in 1964. and so a brief history -- as i mentioned the city purchased the property from spring valley water company in 1930. subject to an original deed between spring valley water company and the baden company. that's a very important distinction. it was overlooked in the past and it's why we're here today with this amendment. continuing on with the background, in 1964, koret constructed the clubview apartments adjacent to the property. that's the propeller project that i showed you earlier. so for decades the city leased
the surface of the city property to koret for clubview's landscaping, access, on-site circulation and parking. because both koret and the city understood these rights to be in excess of the rights granted to koret under the deed. the problem was that the city and koret were both using the spring valley water company deed of 1930, and not the baden company deed of 1907. so why a deed amendment? well, negotiating the lease with koret, the p.u.c. took another look at this spring valley water deed. and this time noticed that there was reference to the fact that it was subject to the underlying baden deed. what we learned from that? we learned that all of the rights, except for parking, were
part of the former lease, the rights under the former lease, were granted to koret under the baden deed. we learned that they like to use the surface and it was substantial. most of the original 1907 deed spends also a bit of time talking about all of the things that koret can do on the surface of the property. and basically describes very little that the city can do on the surface of the property. in fact, i'll just read and it's covered in one sentence. it says that the city shall lease the surface of the property as nearly as possible in its present condition. that's the 1907 condition. where it was basically agricultural land. so basically -- oh, we did have the right -- excuse me -- to build an above ground trestle to convey water. that was never done. so basically the city isn't allowed to do much on the surface of the property. but we learned through this
baden dead that cot koret can do much, and do everything they needed to do except to park. we concluded that it distribute make any sense to enter into another lease with koret and, instead, it made sense to amend the deed, grant koret the additional right to park. it's the only right they didn't have and in exchange for attaining the rights that are found in the city's more current real estate agreements. so to clarify, to make clear, the only new right that this amendment grants to koret is the right to park on the property. and the new rights granted to this city under this proposed amendment include improved access, the original deed talks about access but the amendment clarifies those rights. importantly, the amendment provides the use of the city property to the city's use as
the utility right-of-way and what that means basically is that if there was a competing use on the surface of the property, the city would prevail because the city's use, the current use, is considered subordinant to the city's use. and another important point is expressed contractual indemnification from koret, the original deed does not provide for ende inthis, and koret must indemnify the city in those circumstances. and it also created the -- the amendment creates greater protection of the new review and approval rights. the original deed just barely touched upon these rights. so this new amendment provides more robust language concerning that review. and, finally, in the event that there's a pipeline break at this
section of the city's right-of-way and the city found it necessary to damage koret's improvements to get at that repair, perhaps damage their parking lot, the city under this new amendment would not be required to repair and restore the improvements to its original pre-repair state. now that summarizes the primary points of the amendment. but the p.u.c. did then was engage in the services of an economic and land-use consulting firm called century urban to look at these rights exchanged in the amendment. because we wanted to ensure that the city wasn't transferring net material value to koret. and century urban prepared the report, and they concluded in that report that no identifiable material net value is being transferred between the parties to the amended deed. and that is it.
are there any questions? >> chair fewer: let me ask my colleagues. colleagues, any comments or questions at all for mr. bardo? seeing none, there's no -- i mean, there's no b.l.a. report on this. and let's open this up for public comment, please. >> clerk: yes, madam chair. operation is checking to see if there's callers in the queue. operations, let us know if there are callers that are ready. if you have not already done so, press star, 3, to be added to the queue. for those already on hold, continue to wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted. let us finish there are any callers to comment on item number 4? >> yes, i have one caller in the queue. >> chair fewer: okay. caller, we are doing public comment on item number 4 now. >> caller: yes, item number 4. to participate in the deliberations and look at the agenda and understand the agenda
and you are the corruption that's going on at sfpuc. i think that everything has to be put on hold, including this contraction. the supervisors think this is kind muc of a joke because nonef you have read the act. under the act, the whole view of how sf -- the water department and then the sfpuc, how people are supposed to be operated. and then we get involved with all of these transactions, the quality, the golf courses, koret now, and so on and so forth.
let us hold -- put on hold this one agenda item, and i'm going to refer this to david anderson who is doing the investigation. i don't want to make statements on this agenda item that are not really directly, but are indirect. and so we the taxpayers and me because i recommend the first people, and i know more about this situation. put it on hold. and let the next general manager and let -- >> clerk: thank you for your comments.
>> chair fewer: thank you very much for your comments. any other people in the queue? >> madam chair, that completes the queue. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. i would like to make a motion to move this to the board with a positive recommendation. can i have a roll call vote, please. >> clerk: on the motion [roll call] you have three ayes. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. where are we on item number 2 now? >> clerk: if you could please try sharing the p.d.f. version of the powerpoint presentation. >> it looks like it's coming up blank. >> chair fewer: let's move on to item number 5, please. >> clerk: yes, item 5, resolution authorizing the director of property to execute a quitclaim deed for the conveyance of real property by the city to the city of sunny
vale commonly known as manzano way, assessor's parcel block. and those who wish to provide public comment should call 1-(415)-655-0001. meeting i.d., 1467754813. then press pound twice. if you have not already done so, dial star, 3, to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand. wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. and so today we have rosanna russell and, mr. russell, you have the floor. >> good afternoon, thank you very much for your time. madam clerk, could you raise the powerpoint. >> clerk: yes. >> and could you go to the next section, please. actually just go to the map. that's probably the best for this presentation. thank you.
so, supervisors, the city and county of san francisco under the p.u.c. jurisdiction owns property in sunnyvale. many years ago we issued a permit to the city of sunnyvale to use part of the property as a city street. and today we seek to transfer that property to sunnyvale in order to provide legal -- make the street legal and also to provide legal street access to our adjoining parcels on the right. we acquired this property in 1950 and have never used it for utility purposes. in this case we did not enter into a competitive bidding process under the administrative code because it was impractical and impossible. the street is currently used as a component of sunnyvale public road system so there's no other property, other than sunvale to whom the city may convey the street. on january 3rd of this year, the
city's director of property determined that the fair market value of the property was zero. so an appraisal is not required under the administrative code. sunnyvale has agreed to accept the conveyance of this street parcel by quick claim deed and if the commission approves this on february 11th. and today we just ask you to approve the same. thank you very much. i'm available for questions if you have them. >> chair fewer: thank you very much, any comments or questions from my colleagues? supervisor walton. >> supervisor walton: thank you, chair fewer. i just have one question. is there any benefit to san francisco from this transfer? >> yes. we will get legal public access to our adjoining parcels. we have two parcels of residential property that we put up for bid in 2018 and 2019. and we entered into a transaction with the highest
bidder. unfortunately, that fell through because of the pandemic. but by gaining legal public access when the economy recovers we will be able to sell the parcels for residential use. >> supervisor walton: thank you. >> chair fewer: thank you. no b.l.a. report on this. open this up for public comment, please. >> clerk: yes, madam chair. operation is checking to see if there are any callers in the cue. operations, please let us know if there are callers that are ready. if you have not already done so, press star, 3, to be added to the queue. for those on hold, wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted and if there's any callers that wish to comment on item number 5? >> yes, i have one caller in the queue. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. hello, caller. >> caller: i'm still waiting for item 2. >> chair fewer: okay, thank you very much. any other callers for item number 5?
>> madam chair, that completes the queue. >> chair fewer: okay, public comment for item 5 is closed and i would like to make a motion to move this to the board with a positive recommendation. could i have a roll call vote, please. >> clerk: yes, on the motion [roll call] you have three ayes. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. madam clerk, call item 6. >> clerk: item 6, resolution authorizing the port of san francisco to accept and expend a grant in the amount of $297 how t,000how to from the san francio bay rest raitionz authority to fund phase 1 of the heron's head park shoreline resilience project from october 2020, through december 2025. members of the public who wish to provide public comment call 1-(415)-655-0001. and meeting i.d., 1467754813. then press pound twice. if you have not already done so, please dial star, 3, to line up
to speak. a system will indicate that you have raised your hand. wait until you are indicated that you are unmuted and you may begin your comment. >> chair fewer: this is no b.l.a. report on this. and the phase 1 and the mayor and supervisor walton are both sponsors of this. supervisor, do you have any words to say on this? >> supervisor walton: i don't, chair fewer. thank you. >> chair fewer: okay, thank you very much. we all love heron's head park. and now we have karen and the guest from the port of san francisco or just you miss bok? >> i think that boris is going to be manning the slideshow, i hope. >> chair fewer: that's great. >> but if not, i can probably man the slideshow and talk at the same time. good morning, supervisors. thank you for your time. i'm carol bok, the environmental affairs manager. and i'm here today on behalf of
the port's executive director elaine forbes who could not be here today. i'm here to request your authorization to accept and expend grant funds from the san francisco restoration authority for the port at heron's head park. let's see -- do we have a slideshow? >> it is loading currently, yes. >> it is loading. all right. thank you. >> there it is. >> so next slide, boris. heron's head park in districts 10 is a 22-acre park created by the port over 20 years ago. it has evolved over the past two decades to include the addition of the ecocenter in 2010, and expansion and improvements of the park in 2012. the port and the recreation and parks department partnered to
provide environmental education, recreation, and other programs at the heron's head park and in the ecocenter. next slide. over the past 20 years, heron's head park has experienced significant erosion along its southern shoreline. which has retreated up to 50 feet in some locations since 1999. and it has also experienced invasion by non-native plants, resulting in a decreased size and decreased eclogical value of the tidal wetlands there. without protection, heron's head park is expected to lose approximately two acres over the next 30 years. next slide. in response to this condition, the port has developed plans to construct a living shoreline and restore wetland habitat to mitigate the impacts of the erosion and non-native species. in 2018, the port applied for a
grant funds from the san francisco bay restoration authority to fund these mitigations. san francisco bay restoration authority is a regional agency created to generate and to allocate funding for protection and enhancement of san francisco bay habitat. the restoration authority manages funds generated by the clean and healthy bay measure a.a. that passed in june 2016. in july of 2020, the restoration authority governing board authorized award of $297,000 to the port to begin the first phase of the port's proposed wetland revegetation effort. next slide, please. the grant agreement between the port and the san francisco bay restoration authority requires the port to maintain the improvementments that we'll be
making, which in this case is planted, for the duration of the seven-year grant term. the scope of the grant-funded work includes maintenance. so we're confident that we'll have the resources to meet that requirement. the grant requires us to indemnify the restoration authority and maintain specified insurance, and to acknowledge the san francisco bay restoration authority and measure a.a. funding for the project. we have a minor technical amendment to make to the resolution regarding the grant terms. on page 1, line 6, we need to strike "2025," and replace it with "2027," to reflect the corrected duration of the grant term. the grant that is subject to the resolution that is before you today will fund the first phase, so it's the first two years of an overall five-year wetland
revegetation effort. and it is a component of what will ultimately be a larger shoreline resilience project. the project to be funded today includes employment as youth representing southeast san francisco, through a partner with literacy for environmental justice. subsequent phases will include an additional three years of habitat restoration and ultimately construction of the living shoreline. next slide. i think that we want -- maybe that's it. so in order to enable the port to begin growing plants needed for the proposed project, the port and restoration authority agreed to divide the larger scope of work that will ultimately be funded by the restoration authority into phases, beginning with this first two years of collecting, cultivating, planting and maintaining marsh plants. and that is the $297,000 grant
that we are presenting today. so in conclusion, supervisors, we respectfully request your approval of the resolution to authorize the port to initiate phase one of the heron's head park shoreline resilience project. and i'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. thank you. >> clerk: madam chair -- >> chair fewer: sorry, sorry. any comments or questions from my colleagues? seeing none, [echo] let's open this up for public comment. >> clerk: madam chair, operation is checking to see if there's any callers in the queue. operations, please let us know if there are callers that are ready. if you have not already done so, press star, 3, to be added to
the queue. for those already on hold, continue to wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted. any callers who wish to comment on item number 6? >> madam chair, there are no callers in the queue. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. public comment for item 6 is now closed. i would like to make a motion to move it to the board with a positive recommendation. could i have a roll call vote. >> clerk: thank you, madam chair. and we would like to accept the technical amendments -- >> chair fewer: i'd like to make a motion to approve the amendments. can we have a roll call vote, please. >> clerk: on the motion [roll call] you have three ayes. >> chair fewer: thank you. now supervisor walton, would you like to make this motion since it's your item? >> supervisor walton: thank you so much, chair fewer. i move that we forward the resolution to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> clerk: as amended? >> supervisor walton: as
amended. >> chair fewer: all right. >> clerk: on the motion [roll call] you have three ayes. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. how are we doing on item number 2? >> clerk: i believe that our i.t. staff is checking on the p.d.f. version of the presentation. should we share the screen? madam chair, i believe that it is best that we move on to the next item. >> chair fewer: item number 7 please. >> clerk: item 7, resolution retroactively authorizing the office the district attorney to accept and expend an in-kind gift estimated at $40,000 from deloitte consulting l.l.p. for strategic planning sessions from july 2020, through september 2020.
and members of the public to provide public comment, 1-(415)-655-0001. and meeting i.d., 1467754813 and then press pound twice. if you have not done so, dial star 3 to line up to speak. and the system will indicate that you have raised your hand. wait until the system indicates that you are unmuted and you may begin your comments. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. we have tara anderson from the district attorney's office. welcome, miss anderson, the floor is yours. >> thank you so much, chair fewer and thank for sponsoring this item and for supervisors walton and mandelman. i'll be brief as i know that the agenda is long. but i'm happy to respond to any questions that you may have. what you have before you is a technical assistance in-kind retroactive resolution valued at $40,000 for technical assistance provided by deloitte to align the high-level future vision of the district attorney's office, and mapping out the capability and the resources of the
department relative to the incoming leadership. and sequencing any any operational changes that will be made to the organization as a result of that review. when there's a transition in leadership it's common to have planning like this, in fact, several new elected d.a.s throughout the country have gone through a similar process. we are grateful, given the limited resources, that we're able to get the in-kind. again, i'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> chair fewer: thank you very much, any comments or questions from my colleagues? there is no b.l.a. report on this. and seeing no one in the queue, can we open this up for public comment, please. >> clerk: yes, madam chair. operations is checking to see if there's callers in the queue. let us know if there are callers that are ready. if you have not already done so, please press star, 3, to be added to the queue. for those already on hold continue to wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted. let us know if there are any callers who wish to comment on
item number 7. >> madam chair, there are no callers in the queue. >> chair fewer: public comment for item number 7 is closed and i would like to move this to the board with a positive recommendation. could i have a roll call vote, please. >> clerk: yes. on the motion [roll call] you have three ayes. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. madam clerk, call item number 8. >> clerk: resolution authorizing the issuance and sale and delivery of multifamily housing revenue bonds in one or more series in an aggregate principle amount not to exceed $33.5 million, for the multifamily rental housing project at 53 colton street and approving those agreements. the member of the public who wish to provide public comment to this item should call 1-(415)-655-0001. meeting i.d. 1467754813.
then press pound twice. if you have not already done so, please dial star, 3, to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand. wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. >> chair fewer: we have our presenters today. miss glen, you have the floor. i think you're on mute. >> sorry about that. >> chair fewer: no problem. >> good afternoon, chair fewer and supervisor mandelman and supervisor walton. i'm the project manager at the mayor's office of housing and community development. i'm here to present on item 8, related for the bond issuance for 53 colton street. it's a new construction affordable housing project located on colton street between gulf street. and it's with a housing partnership, c.h.p. and strata investment group known
correctively as the partnership. and 53 colton will be comprised of 96 units restricted at 60% of san francisco county area median income. and subsidized through the city's local operating subsidy program. and referring to the project through a department of homelessness and supportive housing, coordinated system, and approximately 35 units at the project will be reserved as replacement housing for permanent residents from the civic center hotel, which is a single-room occupancy building. the resolution before you is requesting authorization to issue multifamily housing revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $33.52 million. to provide construction financing for the residential project. the transaction fundamentals have not changed since the project was presented with the resolution to this committee last december. the issuance is still conduit financing with no recourse to
the city's general fund. the partnership secured a bond allocation from the california debt limit allocation committee and identified a financing team which includes a construction lender, equity investor, bond council, and other attorneys, and the city's municipal advisor. the financing team will develop substantially final issuance documents in the legislative package before you. in addition to the tax exempt bond financing, we also want to inform the committee that there will be a loan up to $4 million for the construction completion. due to the market uncertainty caused by covid-19, the project saw a reduction in equity pricing. in order for the project to move forward, we need tax credit deadlines and support the city's goal to have permanent supporting housing and there will be a permanent loan to pay off the construction loan at project completion. the 53 colton project is
scheduled to start in october 2020, and complete in july 2022. here with me today is amy chan from o.c.d. and also c.h.p. and we'll be glad to answer any questions that you have about this request on behalf of the partnership and we'd like to thank you for your consideration here today and we look forward to your support on 53 colton. thank you. >> chair fewer: thank you very much, any comments or questions from my colleagues? seeing none, can we open this up for public comment. >> clerk: yes, madam chair. operation is checking to see if there's callers in the queue. let us know if there are callers that are ready. if you have not already done so, please press star, 3, to be added to the queue. for those on hold, continue to wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted. let us know if there are any callers who wish to comment on item number 8. >> madam chair, there are no callers in the queue. >> chair fewer: thank you very much, public comment on item 8 is now closed and i would like
to make a motion to move it to the board with a positive recommendation. can i have a roll call vote, please. >> clerk: yes. on the motion [roll call] you have three ayes. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. call item 9. >> clerk: number 9, ordinance approving the department of homelessness and is thive housing to execute a standard agreement up to $45 million to homekey grant funds from the california department of housing and community development to episcopal community services for the acquisition of the hotel granada at 1,000 suter street for permanent supportive housing. members of the public to provide public comment, 1-(415)-655-0001. and meeting i.d., 1467754813. and then press pound twice. if you have not already done so, please dial star, 3, to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand
and wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. supervisor aaron peskin is here joining us? i see him as one of the speakers. supervisor peskin, from the department of homelessness and from affordable housing and audrey malone from h.s.h. also. and i'm hearing -- this should be interesting. i'm hearing maybe some issues about it. so i'm anxious to hear. who is presenting right now? >> good afternoon. the department of homelessness and supportive housing presenting. >> chair fewer: thank you, miss whitney. you have the floor. >> good afternoon, chair fewers and supervisors walton and mandelman. the department of homelessness and supportive housing and i'm here today presenting and authorizing resolution for the city's project homekey
application for the granada, which approved would provide 232 units of permanent supportive housing for formerly homeless individuals and low-income tenants. i would like to thank mayor breed for her support to support this first project to create 1500 new units of supportive housing in this city. and i want to thank supervisor peskin for co-sponsoring the legislation and for his support on the project and helping us to get to this point. finally i would like to recognize the work of our partners the episcopal community services and the san francisco housing accelerator fund and my colleagues at the department of real estate, the planning and the city's attorney office and the controller's office for putting together a successful homekey application on an aggressive timeline and their ongoing work on the project. next slide, please. so project homekey -- this is a resolution authorizing the board to allow the department to
execute a standard agreement for up to $45 million in state homekey grant funds from the department of housing and community development. this will enable, pisc, misco py services to acquire the building and rehabilitate the s.r.o. at 1,000 suter street for permanent supportive housing. next slide, please. so this is a unique project in california. in mid-july the governor announced the availability of approximately $600 million in homekey funds and $90 mill designated for the nine bay county areas based on how quickly you could put together an appealing application to the state. the funds are being provided through the federal rare fed fet and that requires all funds to be expended by december 30, 2020. so at the end of this calendar year. the purpose of homekey is
intended to sustain and expand housing for people experiencing homelessness, along with those impacted by covid-19. the san francisco board of supervisors approved our department to apply for project homekey funds on august 11th. since then, the city have submitted two homekey applications and we were notified by the state on september 21st that we had been awarded funding -- funding for the gragranada subject to your l and the agreement. next slide, please. okay, the project itself is located on suter street at the intersection of sutter and hyde and it's a s.r.o. there are approximately 80 units that are currently occupied predominantly by seniors and low-income individuals. as part of this project, no tenants will be displaced. the remaining 152 units would be filled through the city's
homelessness coordinated entry system. and it would include referrals from many of our clients who are housing priority and staying temporarily in the covid-19 shelter-in-place hotel. so it's part of the strategy to move folks from temporary housing into permanent housing. next slide, please. and as i mentioned earlier this project is on a very aggressive timeline in order to take advantage of the federal funds so that they are spent. so they are not recouped by the u.s. treasury. we have to spend all of the funds by december 30th. but, more importantly, e.c.f., our non-profit partner, needs to close on the acquisition by november 13th. that is so that the state have a lot of certainty that we will be able to close and rehabilitate the project in time to meet the occupancy requirements under the grant. 50% occupancy is required in the building within 90 days of
we applied a racial equity lens, that we have support from our c.o.c. and that we worked with an experienced provider. next slide. as you can see, the fiscal impact. we are leveraging almost $40 million in federal funding to acquire the site. we have worked with our partners at mocd to give a plan of about $7.6 million project, in order to meet the november closing date. additionally, e.c.s. has partnered with the san francisco housing accelerator fund to provide bridge funding for the initial rehab work that needs to be done in about $13 million. and you can see here some of the uses, approximately $47 million in acquisition costs and another
$13 million in rehabilitation costs. the other piece to note from the homekey award is we were awarded two years of operating funds to support the project. under the standard agreement, the city and the coapplicant are required to provide up to five years of operating and services funding. we estimate that to be about $2.9 million annually for the project. however, with all of our permit supportive housing sites, we're making a long-term commitment to those tenants and would expect to get your support to budget ongoing funds for operating services at the building. with that i believe there is a b.l.a. report and i wanted to thank the b.l.a. for quickly turning this around to meet our aggressive state schedule. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. can we hear from the b.l.a., please? >> good morning, chair fewer. members of the community.
the proposed resolution includes the acceptance of $45 million in grant funds from the california department of housing community development and commits the city to an additional $23 million in funding for the project. the table on page 17 of our report sows that of the $45 million, about $39.3 million would be allocated to the acquisition and rehabilitation budget of the hotel. the balance of about $5.6 million would then be used for the first two years of operating subsidies to the project. in terms of the city commitment of funds, a loan for the acquisition of the agree na agra -- granada hotel. it is not subject to board of supervisors approval. the mayor's office and housing is committing to an additional
$13 million possible, that would be used to repay the housing accelerator fund loan. and that would be subject to board of supervisors approval at that time. in addition to the amounts noted had the resolution, the estimated subsidy over the five years, to the operating costs by the city would be $14.6 million. according to our discussions, with the department of homelessness and supportive funding, fun funding by proposin cfunds. we consider this to be consistent with the city's policies and, therefore, we recommend approval to proposed resolution. >> thank you very much. any comments or at thes from my colleague -- or questions from my colleagues? seeing none, i have one question. this is not going -- small site funds are not used for the acquisition or the maintenance of this building, is that
correct? >> that's correct the. the funds for -- matches funds were appropriated in the 2022a.a.l. and general fund coming to the department of homelessness, we'll move the funds over to o.e.c.d., for the cost of the project. >> no comments or questions from my colleagues, let's open this up for public comment, please. madam clerk, item number 9. >> clerk: yes, madam chair, operations is checking to see if there's callers in the queue. if you have not already done, so please press star 3 to be added to the queue. for those already on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. >> i have two callers in the queue. >> thank you, members of the board. good afternoon. thank you for considering the project homekey resolution
before you today. my name is beth stokes and i'm the executive director of the episcopal community services. we're truly honored own and operate the granada hotel. access to permanent housing, supportive services and workforce development opportunities. housing is the solution to homelessness and access to safe and stable house success critical to preventing and ending homelessness. but also in pouring -- but also in supporting the health and well being. it's all apparent as a result of today's challenges with covid-19, sheltering in place, and unhealthy air conditions, as a result of the wildfires. we know that supportive housing for chronically unhealthy san franciscans is a proven intervention. the granada hotel will quickly bring an additional 232 units of supportive housing to those in our community who need it the post.
assuring that hundreds of people experiencing homelessness have program access to stable housing and the resources they need to thrive. bringing the units job line will be a critical step in supporting the mayor's homelessness plan. we would especially like to thank the governor's office and the project homekey initiative for the unprecedented funding opportunity. the mayor's office, h.s.h. for all of their work on the granada. as well as supervisor aaron peskin for his tireless negotiations on all of our behalf. thank you again for your time. and i hope each of you will support this resolution and our collective effort to help san franciscans. thank you, supervisors. >> clerk: that than -- thank yor your comments. next speaker, please. >> hi. thanks. this is rebecca foster, the c.e.o. of the housing accelerator fund. and thank you, chair fewer,
supervisors walton and supervisor peskin, mayor breed, the department of homelessness and supportive housing and beth and the team at episcopal community services for all of your work on this important resolution and acquisition. the housing accelerator fund is proud to work with the city on a number of really critical land and building acquisitions in alignment with your affordable housing goals. and particularly on this one, as gigi mentions provided a private and philanthropyically bridge loan that helps the rehab-related costs. and as said housing over 230 individuals in record time at all-in cost of $275,000 per unit, and to the city given this phenomenal opportunity from the
state through the homekey fund of less than $100,000 per unit is really just a tremendous win at a time when moving quickly and efficiently accelerating the delivery of permanent supportive housing units. and permanently affordable units. this building will be affordable and be restricted forever and in non-profit ownership. it's so critical. and as beth said, we -- and i know you all know, housing is health care and permanent supportive housing is a try and tested, proven, effective solution for homelessness. we need to use every tool in our collective tool kit from hotel acquisitions, leveraging stay key home grants to additional acquisitions of s.r.o.s and multi-family buildings with both vacant units and units where our at-risk of displacement neighbors live to innovate a
financing and construction approaches, supported through the public-private partnerships like ours, in order to meet this moment. so we are thrilled to be working together on this important acquisition. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. are there any other > callers in the queue? >> madam clerk, that completes the cue. >> clerk: public comment is closed on item number 9. my mistake. i forgot to call on the b.l.a. i would love to hear the b.l.a. report, please. >> i did give a report? >> i'm so sorry. here we go. >> chair fewer: i'm on a time constraint. thank you very much. okay. so any comments from my colleagues in seeing none i'd like to move this to the board with a positive recommendation. can we please have a roll call vote. >> clerk: yes. on the motion supervisor walton? >> supervisor walton: aye.
>> clerk: supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> chair fewer: aye. thank you very much. so can you please call item number -- items 11 through 40 together or check back on item number 2? >> clerk: madam chair, we should be able to share the sheriff's department presentation. >> chair fewer: okay. i'm sorry. i missed item number 10. can we quickly do item number 20. >> clerk: ordinance approving health service system dental plans and contribution rates for calendar year 2021. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item, should call (415)655-0001, meeting i.d. 146 775 4813. then press pound twice. if you have not already done so, please dial star 3 to speak. a prompt will indicate you have raised your hand.
>> chair fewer: thank you very much. is jill snyder here? i see the legislative aide from supervisor preston's office and lawrence lu from the health service system. miss snyder, the floor is yours. >> thank you. good morning, chair fewer and members of the budget and finance committee. jen snyder with supervisor preston's office. thanks for hearing the dental benefit rate change today, that we introduced on behalf of the health services system where dean sits. on september 10th, the health services board unanimously approved these changes to the dental plan rates for retirees. and a benefit enhancement for the delta dental members, who are both active and retirees. and from what i understand, the rate change only impacts the retirees who pay their dental benefit costs. and the benefit enhancement piece will only increase the cost to the employee, should the
member use the prevention benefit. but the far more qualified miscellaneous yant is available and can explain any details. thanks. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. miss yant? >> all right. thank you. it looks like -- i'm ready to share my screen, but it says only meeting organizers and presenters can share. >> chair fewer: can we give miss yant access, please. >> there we go. okay. >> chair fewer: great. >> see my screen now? >> chair fewer: yes, we can. >> great. well, good afternoon, chairwoman fewer and supervisors walton and mandelman. this is a highly unusual, out of order rate request of the board. we had an experience due to covid, that allows us to adjust
the rates for next year, that came in after we presented rates and benefits in july. so it is a bit of a one-off. i'll go through it quickly. the rates and benefits for active employees and retirees, as we said, we normally approve earlier in the year. this year we re-presented this package to our board in september, where it was approved. there's two components to it. one that is the smile way benefit is particularly useful for persons with conditions, chronic illnesses that do have a higher incidence of periodontal disease. it can contribute to these other chronic illnesses. so we do encourage members to get additional cleaning and other services with the smile way benefit. so that's been clarified in this package. there was some confusion about the way that that was being paid for, that we did separaten out
in -- straighten out in this negotiated session. is accepting the rated forfications for the retirees plans, that are paid for by retireeses, it was important that this rate adjustment now does get passed on directly to them, that's important for our retirees. so here's the story where everybody stop going to the dentist in april and may essentially. all emergencies were being treated during that time. it did result in a non-expenditure of funds. and so this is the smile way benefit, as i mentioned, has several pieces to it. the teeth cleaning, the periodontal maintenance, scaling and root cleaning. and there's a great service that can be done here, so we encouraged our members to make use of this benefit, as we said it is a well-being service. the rate reductions then really show up in for the retirees.
and it is much greater than what we had originally shown as a reduction of 4% for the retirees with the delta dental p.p.o. and even higher for the delta care h.m.o. so it was definitely worth all the effort that we put in to bring this to you today. so in summary, we ask you to approve these recommendations that the smileway benefit enhancements become effective for the active employees in delta dental. and the retirees and delta dental get the rate reduction. retirees in the delta den, also get a reduction. >> chair fewer: great. >> our recommendation is pretty straightforward, approving the ordinance with the rate reduction and the smileway enhancement. >> chair fewer: okay. that sounds great. thank you. any comments or questions from my colleagues?
seeing none, could we go to the b.l.a., please. >> yes. chair fewer, members of the committee. the proposed resolution approves the -- excuse me, the proposed ordinance approves changes to the city's dental plan and contribution rate. the board of supervisors previously approved dental plan structure, that would cost about $40.4 million to the city and contributions in the calendar year 2021. this approval would increase that amount by approximately 600,000 to $41 million and we recommend approval. >> thank you very much. any comments or questions from my colleagues? this is a good thing i think. let's open this up for public comment, please, on item number 10. >> clerk: me, madam chair, operations is checking to see. please let us know if >> caller: are ready.
mr. ku, please let us know if any callers wish to comment? >> there are no callers in the queue. >> chair fewer: the comment is now closed. i'd like to make a motion to move this to the board. oh, excuse me. >> supervisor mar:, supervisor mandelman had to leave. so i'd like to make a motion to excuse supervisor mandelman. could i have a roll call vote, please. >> clerk: yes. on the motion to excuse supervisor mandelman. supervisor walton? >> supervisor walton: aye. >> clerk: supervisor fewer? >> chair fewer: aye. >> clerk: there are two ayes. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. on the motion now to move this item number 10 to the board with a positive recommendation, could i have a roll call vote, please. >> clerk: yes. on the motion, supervisor walton. >> supervisor walton: aye. >> clerk: supervisor mandelman is excused. supervisor fewer?
>> chair fewer: aye. >> clerk: two ayes. >> chair fewer: i have to make my dentist appointment today, now that you have reminded me. let's go back to item number 2, please. are we able to get that up? >> clerk: yes. i will share the power point presentation now. mr. holland? >> yes. thank you very much. >> chair fewer: excuse me. one second, madam clerk, before we start this presentation. supervisor walton, is there a time conon your time today at this committee meeting? >> supervisor walton: yes, if possible, maybe we could continue this if this is something that you're okay with?
>> chair fewer: okay. so after so much effort to get the -- the temperature continuance to the next meeting, be an issue? >> no, ma'am. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. >> thank you. >> chair fewer: we'd like to make a motion to continue the item until next week. >> supervisor walton: move to continue this item to next week's committee budget hearing. >> clerk: before we take a vote, could we please have public comment? >> chair fewer: oh, yes. thank you. on the continuance. >> clerk: operation, please let us know if callers are in the queue. for those on hold, please press star three to be added to the queue. mr. ku, please let us know if any callers wish to be added to the queue? >> i have one caller in the queue. >> chair fewer: thank you very much.
>> caller: good afternoon, supervisors. my name is mohammed shack. i'm the campaign director of the national organization that works with challenged, violence and imprisonment, policing and surveillance. i'm also with the jail coalition and have been working for over six years in san francisco. i know there are time constraints. we have some key speakers that were hoping to speak today. so if it's at all possible, not to try and squeeze this item in, but to be able to discuss it this afternoon. but i just wanted to share that i really think the supervisors -- critical consideration for the harmful impacts of electronically monitoring or e.m. if our work to support alternatives, for the violence of police and imprisonment, i can tell you that e.m. is often mistakenly referred to as an alternative. it is not.
it's simply another form of imprisonment. as a result of the appellate court's ruling around bail in 2018, the number of people on e.m. in the city tripled. during the time period, you saw an increase in the jail population. however, an overall expansion of the people caught up on their -- [indiscernible] so we should be looking to increase pre-trial dates, cognitive programs, rather than seeking different ways to imprison people, who have not been convicted with e.m. lastly, i just want to note that offender services, the private company that the sheriff is wanting to renew a contract with, has been mired in controversy over its predatory practices and faced dozens of lawsuits in georgia, on the county level. it has been sued in another 15 times in federal courts, including here in california.
i quote, predatory practices have nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with turning a profit, end quote. so in addition to electronic monitoring being a fundamentally harmful technology. and just to close, the leadership of supervisor fewer -- >> clerk: thank you for your comment. next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is -- i'm a member of the lgbtq support organization. i work as a counselor. and, you know, i just really want to reiterate what mohammed was saying earlier that, you know, this isn't an alternative to incarceration, the continuation of the same kind of
trauma. stigma, you know, separation from community support, a loved one, physically painful. it's just this constant reminder of this constant surveillance. so all of these things have negative impacts op people. they delay the process of healing and reintegrating community. i really believe we need to move away from these kinds of approaches. and focus more on provide the resources, right, that lead to heal and stronger communities. i had a client tell me a few weeks ago he would prefer to go back to jail than keep the ankle monitor. that's an extreme example. that's not the norm. i can't overemphasize the negative impact of these devices on people's well being and mental health. like was said before, we've seen a recent -- since 2018, the number of people on e.m. has tripled, right. and with covid happen, that's happening alongside the expansion of the jail population.
there's not even, you know, -- it's not an alternative to imprisonment. all of the funds and resources going to this right now, we could use to expand services that people actually need and reducing harm and violence in our communities. like mental health services, family counseling, intensive case management, supportive housing, conference mediation. you know, all of these things instead of more forms of incarceration. i'd like to thank the committee for, you know, for considering this issue. and really urge you to work to reduce and eliminate electronic monitoring in san francisco. and also to recommend against limiting the contract with internal. thanks. [bell dings] >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please, >> my name is michael lie. i'm a member of the jail coalition. we are opposed to ankle monitors
and ankle monitoring. the board finally agreed to close the dangerous an jail. police advance and over incarceration, the ordinance to close it also pledged to make a new jail on -- [indiscernible] by reducing incarceration, using social services, bail reform, and decriminalization of minor offenses. using electronic monitoring reduces incarceration, but, in fact, it doesn't. between 2018 and early 2020, use of the electronic monitors tripled, yet the jail population increases. electronic monitoring does not decrease incarceration. surveillance of electronic monitoring and improvement over
locking people up. no new jail says that surveillance is not an improvement over incarceration. both aemployed in the same racist and sexist manner, as is inevitable under today's existing racist and sexist policing and court procedures. but we do need more data on who is approving the electronic monitoring and for what offenses. how many people have been convicted of no crime. when is this data going to be available? surveil people particularly for those awaiting trial. wrong. being monitored is punishment. the monday monitors have to be recharged every few hours, which is okay for people working from home and online. [bell dings] that's impossible -- >> your time has expired. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please.
>> hi. my name is diana block. i'm a san francisco resident. and i'm also a member of the california coalition for women prisoners. and we strongly are opposed to electronic monitoring. our city's reliance on electronic monitoring is shamefully growing instead of decreasing. we should be investing in services that support more opportunities for release, alternatives to incarceration, especially for women and trans, not just an electronic form of incarceration, which expands people's -- expands control into people's homes and their bedrooms. we have worked with many women who have come out of san francisco county only to then be shackled by an electronic monitor. monitors are particularly difficult for mothers who are trying to parent their kids in
already difficult circumstances. how can a mother care for her kids when she has to recharge her monitor every few hours and worry about being violated in front of them. we've heard how monitors malfunction, we witnessed how monitors make employment almost impossible to obtain. they add another layer of electronic hurdles for people to deal with. they do nothing to help people returning to their communities. i thank you for taking the public comments, since many of us have been on here for the whole meeting. and i urge you to have this item number 1, since it's being continued for next meeting, since we are eager to have all of our community members who have had to re-join this whole effort for the technical reasons. so please prioritize this in your next meeting. and we will all be back next
week. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> hi, everyone. my name is melissa hernandez. i'm a resident of d7 and a member of the jail coalition. eye just wanted to take this time to say that people have waited for hours today to give public comment on this really crucial issue. but given the potential decision to continue this matter, we're asking our supporters to save their comments for the next budget and finance hearing. i want to point out, none of us have seen the sheriff's presentation, which has caused continuance. we're asking this committee to please release that presentation as soon as possible and get it to the -- into the hands of the public so that we can also respond to that in our public comment next time. thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. are there any other callers in
the queue? >> >> supervisor mar: -- madam chair, that completes the queue. >> chair fewer: public comment is now closed on item number 2. supervisor walton, you'd like tomation a motion? >> supervisor walton: i do. thank you, mr. james kilgore, who was going to speak this morning, as well as the sheriff's department and mr. hollinger for being here. -- mr. whoings, i apologize for the continuance. i know we have a lot of folks waiting patiently to weigh in and provide feedback on this item as well. and we will get to this at the next meeting. so i do want to make a motion to continue this item until the next budget committee meeting. >> chair fewer: yes. roll call vote, please. >> clerk: yes. on the motion, supervisor walton. >> supervisor walton: aye. >> clerk: chair fewer. >> chair fewer: aye. >> clerk: there are two ayes. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. so is the person from the airport here?
that's going to present? is it kathy? >> yes. >> chair fewer: so as you see, we're going to lose quorum. and so i'm wondering, are these under a time constraint or may we take the items up at the next budget meeting next week? >> next week is fine. thank you. >> chair fewer: i'd like to make a motion. do we have to hear public comment on -- >> clerk: yes. >> chair fewer: i'd like to make a motion to continue items 11-40 until next week's meeting. >> clerk: yes. madam clerk, i have to read the items and we have to take public comment. >> chair fewer: okay. so please start. 11-40. >> clerk: i'll try to make it short. resolution approving 30 international terminal amendments. no changes to the minimum. reading items from agenda.
indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. >> chair fewer: supervisor walton, can you stay with us a couple more minutes. i think this would be very quick. i think the longest thing is actually, madam clerk, reading the items. let's hear kathy. do you have a quick -- i know all of these contracts have the same deal. so you can just give us the two-minute version, that would be great. >> will do. chair fewer, supervisor walton, kathy widener with the permit. a result of a competitive proposal process. they've spent money to do their required build-out airport since january 1st, 2017. during ta time, revenue development staff audited and confirmed that construction costs, bait based on the booming construction industry, just prior to the economic downturn,
resulted in costs for the tenant buildout, far feeding what theyd exceeding the proposals. in some cases more than double. the airport is proposing on these 30 leases, food and beverage and retail, where it was confirmed that their buildout costs far exceeded what they originally proposed, they be given a two-year lease extension to recoup and amortize those costs. that gives you an idea. and i'd be happy to answer questions. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. can we hear from the b.l.a., please. >> yes. members of the committee, we did summarize the terms and extension and costs of capital improvements in our report. i do want to call one out one thing. i think miss widenear needs to confirm this. one of the resolutions filed
200203. incorrect end date. we now understand that the end date of july 31st, 2031 2031. we'll revise the recommendation. >> i'm sorry. i can confirm that. and i also just want to confirm that the airport has provided the updated resolution for item number 36 to include the appropriate date to the clerk's office. >> okay. >> chair fewer: is that an amendment you're offering today, not o end state, the start? >> yes. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. let's open this up for public comment. items 11-40. anyone that would like to speak on the public comment on this? >> clerk: yes, madam chair, operations is checking to see if there's callers in the queue. operations, please let us know if callers are in the queue. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted.
>> madam chair, there are no callers in the queue. >> chair fewer: public comment on items 11-40 is closed. >> clerk: on the motion, supervisor walton? >> supervisor walton:ize. >> clerk: chair fewer? >> chair fewer: aye. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. i'd like to make a motion to move all of the items 11-40, as amended, with a positive recommendation to the board and i'm so thankful to see farmer brown there. i loved that restaurant. could we please have a roll call vote on that motion. >> clerk: yes. on the motion. supervisor walton. >> supervisor walton: aye. >> clerk: chair fewer? >> chair fewer: aye. thank you very much. any other business for us today, madam clerk. >> chair fewer: we are adjourned. i'll see you all next week. thank you. bye-bye.
have special event we're all women that relax and have fun you know everything is friendly and kind we're all equal i'm happy that >> good morning, the meeting will come to order. welcome to the thursday october 1 meeting of the government audit and oversight committee. supervisor gordon mar, i'm the chair of this committee, and i'm joined by vice-chair, supervisor aaron peskin and supervisor matt haney. thank you to the clerk, john carroll, and i'd like to thank sfgov-tv for staffing this meeting. mr. clerk, do you have any an announcements? >> clerk: in order to protect the public, board members and the city employees during the covid-19 health emergency, the legislative chamber and the committee room are closed. this is taken pursuant to all