tv BOS Budget Finance Budget Appropriations Committee SFGTV November 23, 2021 3:00am-6:31am PST
than 300 families. our city is facing an eviction crisis in the wake of the pandemic and providing housing through the acquisition program can start to address this crisis. public housing must be at the forefront then. >> thank you so much for your comments. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is rick gerley. i'm a retired teacher. i taught economics for 30 years and i'm a member of the [inaudible]. i voted for proposition i. i support the call for $64 million in immediate funding. i lived in san francisco for 45 years. when i first moved here, san francisco used to be favorly
compared to european cities. that is no longer true. european cities have plentiful, social housing with virtually no homelessness. san francisco does not. please rectify that situation and begin appropriating sufficient funds to provide housing to people who live in san francisco and particularly working class people in san francisco that will do the work that makes this city run. thank you. >> thank you so much for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. corey smith on behalf of the housing action coalition speaking in support. we have been big fans of these small sites programs since 2014. we see it as another tool in the tool belt to deliver housing at all levels of affordability. i do want to point out that the buildings that we're
discussing purchasing here are market rate apartment buildings and legalizing those types of buildings across all of san francisco is a way to ensure this type of program can be successful going forward. thank you. inger >> thank you for your comments, corey smith. next speaker, please. >> caller: i appreciate those supporting this ordinance. i'm a rent earp of 30 years and voted to approve prop-i. there are dozens of multifamily buildings up for sale every month that this funding would prevent
displacement in perpetuity. thank you, supervisors, and supervisor peskin for bringing this forward and for your positivity on this important action and the voters [inaudible] for support increasing affordable housing in the city. urge your support and i vote and forward out of committee for the full board. thank you. >> caller: hello. i'm organized on the southeast of association and calling to support proposition-i. they have been working hard because we want to make sure that our families are evicted. they did not ask to lose their jobs. they're hard-working people and we need to make sure that i that ear not displaced from their home. thank you. >> thank you so much for your comments. mr. akins, next speaker, please. >> caller: good afternoon.
i live in district 5. i support this position. [audio is garbled] so i think what we should be doing in the long-term is what the city of berkeley is doing and [inaudible] past legislation to [inaudible] long-term [inaudible] and i support this resolution now. thank you. >> thank you, robert, for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: hi. my name is paul.
and i'm a tenant in a building in district 8 on 19th street. and my building is being [inaudible] so i'm calling in support of the [inaudible] to fund the acquisition program because it's a 12-unit rent controlled building and we're the perfect site for an acquisition and [inaudible] release of that money because we're urgently in need of help. we need, you know, to keep san francisco housing affordable and keep rent control buildings like ours affordable and not converted to unaffordable housing by speculators. so, i'm urging the passage of this measure. thank you.
>> reporter: e >> thank you so much for your comments. next speaker, plea. >> caller: my name is maria meyer. i'm calling you from my apartment in district 2. my husband and i are in our mid 70s. there is another senior in the apartment building in their mid 70s. and there are service workers in one of the apartments in our building. i'm calling to ask support funding for small sites. having seniors in our city is very important and it is culturally important that san francisco doesn't become a distaupian city of contract workers. seniors are needed, seniors of all levels of income. i ask that you support the release of the funding so we can remain in the city. thank you for the opportunity to speak.
>> thank you for your comments. i do believe that we're down to our last couple of speakers. next speaker, please. >> caller: good afternoon. my name is claudia. i'm the principal of a school that you've supported time and again and i'm so grateful for that support. today i'm calling been behalf of my neighbors. they're working class people and people of color. and they're local union workers, central workers, people providing services that are important to their immediate community. but their landlord is selling and we know that the prime target [inaudible] by someone looking to make a profit. supervisors, please acknowledge that we have an opportunity to say no more ousting of our people of color because they can hang on because they live in rent-controlled buildings. we have the funds to do it so please let's do it. thank you.
>> thank you, claudia. mr. akins, next speaker, please. >> reporter: good afternoon, supervisors. i'm a resident of district six and, as many, many speakers have already pointed out, this measure -- this ordinance is desperately needed, this program is desperately needed. we are facing a wave of evictions and displacement, suffering and homelessness due to the covid-19 crisis. and its rollout. and it is a first step toward stemming that and preserving currently rent-controlled units for -- as permanently affordable units, for the residents of san francisco.
please, i urge you to approve this ordinance and send it ons to the full board. thank you so much. >> i do believe that was our last speaker. can you confirm? operator: there are no further callers in the queue. >> thank you very much. mr. chair? >> thank you. public comment is now closed. thank you so much to all of the callers for your advocacy and commitment to affordability and anti displacement efforts. i want to welcome back supervisor marr. colleagues? [inaudible]. >> yeah, thank you. i just wanted to make some brief comments. first of all, i really want
to thank supervisor peskin and the housing stability fund oversight committee for bringing this $64 million budget proposal forward to support the emergency acquisition of small apartment buildings to prevent displacement of vulnerable tenants and we will be [inaudible] buildings from the executive market and permanently affordable housing and thanks to all of the community housing advocates for coming in to emphasize the extreme urgency of this funding appropriatation and as everyone has so eloquently conveyed, the program is one of the most innovative and important strategies we've created to prevent displacement and create affordable housing and it's that kind of regional level, the recently updated area 30-year regional plan now includes this strategy of -- as one of the key strategies
regionally to preserve affordable housing and prevent displacement. so, san francisco's really been leading the way on this. and -- but the biggest barrier to acquisition or preservation converting these buildings to affordable housing has been a lack of resources. in 2019, the board did what they -- was able to appropriate $40 million for the small-sized acquisition program and really, because of that, we were able to -- i was able to work with the mayor's office of housing and that is going to move the sunset district and prevented the displacement of mostly low-income, elderly tenants and immigrant chinese tenants as well and we were able to support meta to do another small-sized acquisition shortly after that.
but as people, as has been highlighted, it's lacked enough resources over the past year and yet we see there is an urgency to move forward more aggressively with acquisitions in the current moment as we come out of the pandemic. so many tenants vulnerable to displacement. so, i'm happy to co-sponsor this and thank supervisor preston and all the housing advocates for your work on this. this measure. and look forward to continuing to fully resource and support acquisitions and social housing innovation in the future. thank you. >> thank you. questions, commentses? >> yeah. i would like to, i think, director shaw is here today. if we can call him up. i have some questions for him. i want to give him an opportunity to talk about the
small sites program. director shaw, are you with us today? >> i am. i'm in the office, too. hello. >> good to see you, sir. >> good to see you as well. >> so, thanks for joining us. i want to give you the opportunity to talk about the program. i think one of things that i noticed is that we definitely need a reboot of this program. i think that in the past when we tried to contact or work with additional nonprofits, the capacity or desire wasn't there. outside of meta. can you talk about the scope of nonprofits that have participated in this program, the capacity that's there and then existing dollars that are there and how you see this situation being dealt with and kind of reboot dealt
with and then potentially also -- i'm sorry. i know you'll be able to answer all of this because it is in a larger context. in how the housing accelerator fund and what role they have to play and what resources they have to bring to the table as part of the reboot conversation. >> i think for all of you, i know chair haney's popped off the screen, i just want to note and particularly hearing the comments from faith in action and those speakers there, i just want to note once again that we've been working really hard to ensure that our community partners are informing everyone around interdisplacement and the fact that we're hearing that tenants are displaced is a fundamental flag me right now and i talked to my head on our evictions defense antenanlts right to counsel to reach out to faith inaction about this. once again, that is a flag for me because we worked really hard to make sure that emergency rental assistance
is taken care of and that all of our anti-eviction protocols are in place. i want to put that on the record. i know that is not the subject of this. but that really is -- those comments really cause me pause and really want to make sure that we're working with our partners to meet these folks where they are right now. the second spaoes that we've been doing a lot of -- there's been a lot of conversations happening with the houses right now. and significant amount of money that went into capacity building for the hiring of staff and also for the studying of what needs to happen with this program and that work is under way and we've seen initial draft of that study that was done and refined right now through the housing accelerator fund. to make us understand the submarkets and different type housing [inaudible] and underline extra edge tooic priorities of different houser, to make sure that we have a responsive program and to make sure that we're
getting to meet the preservation goals. i do want to note that i -- everyone keeps saying acquisition. the small-sites program -- acquisition is one part of that program. the goal of that program is to ensure the long-term sustainability of affordability, the operations, that's quality housing as well and so i just really want to let the community know and you all know that when we talk about this issue of capacity, it's not can we give money to buy a building. it's can we underwrite that building to make sure that operations work. can we make sure they're resetting rents and making sure that we're meeting the needs of existing tenants and understanding those -- and understanding the -- what needs to take for the other properties when they have vacancis that come there. it's the alignment with dahlia. it's a lot of understanding of how that asset and the management of thats aet? s perpetuity. for the community as a whole, and for you all as we think
about the distribution of these resources and we talk about concerns around capacity, it is not on how quickly we can buy buildings. it is house we can make sure we have quality housing and long-term affordability. i just want to know that there may be a mismatch in that narrative but i want to let you know that, for us, we think about this. that is the goal of the small sites program. i just want to put that for the record. but we have been in conversations for the past year with the housers in additions to that and they procured the study in addition to that which will be coming out shortly and understanding how to make responsive recommendations looking at unique partnerships in other ways to make sure that this program is meeting the needs of tenants. i i think talked to all the supervisors myself personally in my regular check-ins around the need for greater geographic equity as it talked terms for the investment of these funds and
understands the different ownership methods that are there and then really understanding when a project does or doesn't pencil out, and what we can do as an alternative if there is a certain right size of project that ensures the goal of affordability and long-term operations and long-term sustainability of that. i've been in this job now for, i believe, 19 months and for 18 months and 29 days, this has been a topic that i worked on with a personal commitment. i will say, just one last thing on capacity, and we share this with all of you, there's been staff turnover at mocd and particularly our small sites. the director has left to go to enterprise. we know that there's been turnover and hiring at our other housing partners as well and trying to make sure that when we say capacity, is
there the -- is there capacity in terms of staffing when we know our other partners are staffing up to make this happen? and then very, very last thing, i apologize for that, you did [inaudible] with these resources, too, when we talk about long-term sustainability, some of our resources have not gotten to acquisitions but they have gotten into refinancing. we have projects acquired years ago that have to be refinanced and need improvements that were purchased without the needed improvements in some instances of elevators or accommodation for seniors or those kinds of things. and so while the numbers may not show that we've acquired a number of buildings, we call them workouts because there's a significant number of workouts which are actively working out seven propertis with meta. we've been doing some refinance and recapitalization with ccdc,
which is a partner there. so, the resources that are at play are not just for acquisition in our instance, but also, as we said, ensuring the long-term sustainability operations and inhabitsability of the propertis that exist within our portfolio now. and so i sound like a technocrat but that is the phase that we're coming at right now when we say are the resources there to be utilized. but we are working actively to make sure that we have responsive programs, that we're working to make sure that we're being strategic in the acquisitions that we do and making sure to leverage of the policy tools we have including eviction defense and tenant rights. that was a lot. i apologize. >> no. no. no my question was a lot. i have a little bit more. we've heard a lot of really important public testimony today but what is in front of
us is we're trying to balance the question of currently we have x amount, almost $300 million in reserves and this is a request of $46 million and trying to get at what capacity is there, what would be helpful now and how we can proceed if it sounds like there is consensuss that there needs to be a genre boot. so, one question that i have would be how many current housing partners and nonprofit partners either have the capacity or are able to participate today. in acquisition and operation and oversight of this program because i know that when i -- when we originally did the deal in my district, there were a lot of housing partners that were just not interested in this program. for whatever reason. either it was, as to your point, not necessarily about buying the property, i was
about once the property is purchased, about what kind of energy effort and oversight does it take from their organization to operate and ensure the success of that. so, at the time it was only meta and then it's expanded to sfhgc and, as i understand it, meta is currently under a pause with your organization so who actually has capacity right now or is authorized to do this work today. >> i believe all of our qualified nonprofit partners are eligible to nunsing this capacity. once again, the question that i continue to ask with the housing partners is less on the capacity side, which i think is still real, so the first piece is there's a larger universe than what is being communicated. i think meta -- i want to thank caroline and her and louise have met up as strong leaders in getting out here.
i think supervisor haney knows that there's been a lot of conversations for sites there of, like, how to appropriately match strategic goals of organizations, resource of organizations and capacity. i think the way this program has work in the past is that a community organization that a tenant or supervisor in this instance has called meta and says, hey, here comes the deal. we need to work this out, versus the back of really understanding the due diligence of the property and understanding the organizing needs that happen around engagement and understanding some of those other pieces. so, we've tried to just aggregate now the property need and acquisition need to strategic priorities of our partners and how they're able to implement. and since i will tell you that, at least for right now and this has been correct, that it is public that meta right now is not able to receive additional financing
from mocd because we're prioritizing the workouts of existing properties. we've seen unique partnerships come up now with shgct for bringing always nonprofit partner in this. and we're seeing some new proposals coming from partnerships around not just acquisition but on tax abatement as a way to be this. but people are coming with unique ideas on how to support this through and support acquisitions and affordability and working on with them as part of our strategic development process. we will look at the organization and the deal and right now we look at acquisition costs and rehab
costs, we look at asset management costs as part of this. and so we look at each of these independently and we'll work with the housers that have brought them to us. and if they bring it to us, how to best align with those at half capacity. that was a long toons that, but that is what we're at right now. but i think the narrative around there not being capacity has also been tied to the fact that one of our largest partners in small sites is focusing -- we've asked them to focus on the recapitalization of the properties right now versus acquisitions. the concern right now is we want to make sures that there's long-term sustainability of the ecosystem as well and that's why we've continued to invest in their capacity as well. for each of our organizations. they've received direct funding for capacity building from our organization. >> i guess my question will be frame ad lib differently. if we look at that map that was put up by meta about all the small sites tan 300-plus units, i think they were the major driver with you. >> right.
>> and if they're on pause, is there -- it is not necessarily that we can't get there with capacity. it's just my concern is i think what we heard today and i think you responded with this, is that we have a displacement urgency, right? there is an urgency to say people are potentially being evicted and then our biggest partner is on pause and so sounds like there's work that needs to be done. not to say that we can't get there. so if we -- you know, whatever number ends up beinging the final number that's allocated for this program, talk to me about that. how quickly does that money move? and i know that currently we allocated, this committee allocated as part of the work with the mayor's office, $10 million into account.
i understands that that money hasn't been spent yet. so there's $10 million there. is there any additional money that oecd has for this program, not including the request for the $64 million today. >> we have some covid contingencies. resources were allocated to -- excuse me -- were allocated to some covid response as we said once again. we change the residual receipts policy. there's a resource there. and our team sits ton
oversight board and we've been trying to get clarity with social housing and the definition of that. and we also have been vetting, proposals have been coming from supervisors as well. so, as i've shared with you all, the priority of about $10 million is making sure that we exercise geographic equities. our districts were looking to expand that to -- towards supervisor mar has shared and stefani has shared some spaces. we are looking to make sure that we are executing the strategies that we can initially. but what we get from the study that is going to be coming to me within the next month or two to make sure that we can do that. that is lot of learnings right now. covid is an odd time. there is a lot of resources that are there and we're making sure that we're spending the money
responsibly and making sure that we're using this as a strategic tool within the tool box of all the other spaces we have around anti-displacement in the city. >> i don't think i heard -- maybe i didn't frame the question properly. $10 million is there. is there any additional dollars that mocd has right now? >> they have commited to either existing processes or projects or to workouts right now or in anticipation, as we know, of the $10 million of what has been shared from different supervisors and good community groups in our own assessment with properties at risk. there was one property that was shared by supervisor mar that is actually at $9 million. it's a strong project right now but that would absorb a large portion of this. but it meets the geographic equity goals and spaces that are trying to provide the appropriate balance.
>> and anyway -- so how quickly if we were to, if we were to move on whatever the dollar amount is, what do you envision the process with the reboot and the housing accelerator fund and how quickly could that move? because it seems like a lot of sense of urgency in terms of acquisition and then moving toward capacity and moving toward [inaudible]. >> i think that is a good question. we're working in tandem in all of those things. we're trying to make sure that it's not this, and this and this. we're making sure that we take care of opportunities there. this will depend on underwriting and really making sure that, as we sort
of vet these deals thats are nonprofit partners are also coming with us as working in tandem to make sure that we're getting all the information we need to make sure that there's two things that happen. small sites still requires engagement of the te gnats with the vote to accept being purchased. and that also includes conversation and education and the second piece of that will be to continue writing this to an appropriate per unit costs. a lot of this in the end will require the appropriate engagement with tenant, the buy-in from tenant. and then the underwriting of the deal in terms of making sure that it pencils out. i believe that the emphasis has taken a while and supervisor haney can note to one of the deals that has
taken a year. i think it will be the ability of them and to us to appropriately underwrite the deal and appropriately do the resident engagement. so, that's contingent upon that process. but that does not happen in a month and if it doesn't happen in a year, and we're working closely now to make sure that we're being responsive to shorten that time as much as possible. >> you're on mute. >> this electoral college my last question for you, unless colleagues pass it off. and then i have some questions for the controller. but can you clarify one last time in terms of work that you are doing with the housing accelerator fund to look at the reboot of this program and come back and
talk about it, its better success working with our housing partners? when do you anticipate that being prepared and presented to the board? >> it's in draft form right now. and we are anticipating sort of a final within the next 45 to 60 days. right now, we are scheduling, i believe, we are talking about the housers around the next round of strategic conversations around regulations and we made sure that the system will be put on the next agenda item to talk through the findings from the housing accelerator fund with the housers to really test what's being learned right now. from there. so i've seen some of the initial findings from that. but that is not a final report that we anticipate within the next 45 to 60 days. >> so, the only thing i'll end with, director shaw, and we've had these conversations before, it sounds like we have some additional capacity that we're trying to build in
with additional housing partners. it sits on a pause. so hopefully that pause can get resolved. i know they haired additional staff and they have been working with your office and trying to work that out. it seems as though as soon as that's resolved, then we'll add additional capacity and support for this program, which i think is a really important thing. so hopefully that is part of the overall goal. and then sounds like we have $10 million and then we have a plan that will be presented to this body about how that can be put out there to do acquisitions and the long-term success of this program, which i think is really important because we certainly woulden want to allocate money and then have money sit there and not be utilized because we don't have the right partners in place or the right program in place. so i appreciate you answering
my rapid fire 10-page-long questions. any additional members have questions, then i wanted to call up our controller after you all talk with director shaw. >> i appreciate that. i know there are things that we need to do to make sure that we build capacity and are able to get this money out the door. i do want to say, though, it does seem to me that at least part of the challenge is how much we have in funds that are available. because if we're putting organizations in the position where they're going to take a loss on this or they need additional support with capacity, that does seem to be no question that they have adequate funds to provide for them.
so wouldn't it make sense? this case that we're thinking of how to get thee funds out of the door, having more fun? and having additional funds that you can provide the actual level of support that our partners need to be able to perform these functions. it seems to me in my conversation with a lot of the providers and potential providers, that that's their experience. that it's a question of how much they're being offered to secure these deals with us. >> yes. i think there's [inaudible]. this is part of [inaudible] on the strategic review that's happening with the developer fee. right? so all of these develop --
all these providers receive a developer fee. and some said that they received supplemental funding to acquire and pay for staff right now. so i think more money for program may create some more certainty. right? but i think we've been hearing from the community and knowing from sort of how around acquisition of sites coming. the copa requests the amount of resources to buy every building aren't on a line and the infrastructure of both the city and the nonprofits by every building that comes online. i think that is why we're also working once again to make sure that organizations are working with their strategic missions right now. and strategic geographis that we're working with you all as supervisors around your priorities.
and really making sure that when the money is extended, it is targeted directly with what we need to do. but we all get asked for properties and, in that instance, i think that the ask from the community, the resources available and the capacity of the city and our nonprofit partners are just not alignment right now and that's what we're doing with the extra edge tooic review and working on the updated regulations. so, i mean, this money may allow for the acquisition of more buildings at some point. once again, not just the acquisition but the underwriting and the long-term operational sustainability programs -- of the buildings. >> got it. ok. yeah. hopefully with these additional funds that we're going to allocate for you that helps with all of those things.
can you tell us a bit more about the status of the pause with meta. it seems like meta was the biggest partner on this effort and was responsible for a lot of the acquisitions and we now have a pause with them. which seemed like they would like to have listed and work with us on this again. can you tell us the status of that pause and when we would move forward to work with them. we decided that they weren't going to do it anymore and then we've had a hard time finding others to do it. are we planning to begin to work with them again on this? >> yes. we've been committed to devoting as much resources and fines possible to help them in the workouts. i've just seen some back and forth now. there's seven propertis that need to be recapitalized. we proposed even additional,
you know, possibly additional resources to support that. we've supported them in the repurposing of some of their capacity building money to hire a consult nanlts that kind of space. and we've also commited to making sure that we can align any reviews such as marketing plans for that. those are in process. and it really is -- we've been working with mocd to be as responsive as possible to any requests that comes from meta. i think that we are finally in sync on the back and forth on what it needs to complete these workouts. but i'm not sure the timing. we asked meta to reset the timings for themselves on when they thought these could be completed and i heard anywhere between january and [inaudible]. but that is from us asking, you know, the leadership team at meta about how quickly they think they can get the information to us, for us to
finalize the reviews. >> so it sounds like we are committed to working together to begin to have them play this role. >> yes, sir. >> ok. great to hear. >> i just -- real quick. we have had a number of productive conversation as part of this strategic review with all of our housing partners. i personally talked to all the housers with this supervisor. we need to make sure that we're being responsive and flexible and bring folks to the table and make sure that we have a full ecosystem that are for notice patesinging in this. -- participating in this.
w*e it's also more houses at the table to be able to expend these funds and more information and more flexibility to make sure that we can get these deals done faster. >> great. i understand definitely having more houses at the table also feels that particularly in the interim, there's money that's set aside and we have buildings that we have urgency around and meta is one organization that has done this that has the capacity and scale that we should be doing everything we can to make it happen. and obviously, you know, who we work with specifically, is not something that we determined here at the board. you know, i think that we don't want to have that be a source of the delay and obviously you don'ts this without partners who are [inaudible] and want to do it.
supervisor mar? >> thank you, chair haney. thank you so much, director shaw, for this discussion about the small pipes program and all of your work and the mocd staff on this incredibly important strategy. i appreciate the work that is happening right now just to -- to do a more thorough evaluation of this strategy and to build the capacity of the nonprofit housing partners and to update the guidelines for small sites program. that's all very needed. but i think at the same time, i think to me and certainly everyone that's engaged in this hearing today, the importance of this program and the need for more resources is just very clear. you know, especially at this
moment to prevent displacement and that are expected to be pretty widespread and to preserve rent-controlled housing and create permanently affordable housing. i had a question about the -- or about the points you were making about the $10 million housing innovation fund that the board put into the budget as an add-back and [inaudible] >> those are two different. >> sorry. i wasn't referring to the chair. i wasn't refering to the innovation fund. last spring, during the supplemental, the early surplus funding, we put $30 million a side. $10 million for rents relief and $10 million for housing and that money is sitting there. i was refering to the $10 million of housing. not the innovation fund, which was completely about home purchasing. so, sorry to interrupt.
i'm sorry i wasn't clear on that. >> no. that was the question i had. i was a little confused. and so i thank you for the clarification. yeah. the housing innovation fund is supposed to be for sort of new -- newer strategis that we're not currently doing, including what i introduced yesterday about the developments and program for homeowners would be a new way to create affordable family housing in our single family neighborhoods. but we still have the $10 million that was set aside for -- >> that's correct, sir. and we're work on both. >> ok. thank you, director shaw. >> supervisor preston? >> thank you, chair haney. and i just have some comments in response to some of the issues that has been raised.
but i do know that caroline from meta is back with us and through the chair. wondering if you could shed any light on the issues that were being discussed around what i think was termed the pause on meta and how quickly meta might be in a position to move forward on further acquisitions. >> thank you for including me back in the conversation. wanting to share that during the course of the pandemic, meta has seen that our buildings have had the chance and challenges that we see across san francisco. our tenants had back rents because they lost their jobs. we also saw tenants who had to leave because of the high rent that some of the tenants were paying because we -- the business program, as you know, takes a mix of tenants paying higher rents as well
as lower rens off the private market. with those losses, we taked mocd and put that debt into what we call forebearance. the cause is something that currently mocd is requiring while we are working through the workout for seven buildings. seven buildings with only 30-plus units out of a total portfolio of 280 units that meta owns. mocd is asking us to put this pause on. we have capacity. we just hired another four staff to manage these assets because of the assessment that mocd asked us to increase our capacity and make sure that we're managing for some of the challenges that it takes to make sure that our tenants are paying rent on time and we're keeping them in place. ours focus, unfortunately, during the pandemic has shifted. unfortunately to keeping our tenants in place.
and so with the recovery happening, we still have the same staff. our staff are ready to buy more buildings and we have now an asset management staff that are ready to own and manage these buildings in the stable manner that what we want to make sure that we can now that we had the learnings from the pandemic and we're still working with multiple nonprofits. >> thank you. and just as a follow-up, what is the estimate of the total amount of money that this was all about. we spent such time in this committee talking about the pause and you explained the circumstances. what is the total amount? >> yeah. what we are -- through the workout process with mocd, what we're agreing to with them is about $3.5 million of additional financing that they would be putting to
reduce the current debt that we have on the properties. >> thank you. so i did just want to -- obviously a lot of issues that have been raised. and i -- i just -- you know, a few comments. first of all, i just want to say what i think is a fairly obvious point. property acquisitions do not happen without money. and the house is not just meta but we heard from h.d.c. calling in and director shaw pointing out that there's qualifying nonprofits in this program are eligible to do this. right? they're the folks who will ramp up with additional nonprofits that want to jump in as well. you know, they'll be welcomed, too. so, you know, none of this happens without the money to scale up and acquire these properties. and fundamentally, that's
what this appropriate jaysing about. -- appropriation is about. is there going to be the resources to do this or not? i think everyone can agree that, as we ramp this up, and when i say "everyone," i'm talking about director shaw and his team. i'm talking about all the supervisors that i discussed this with. all the housers. no one is saying the program is perfect and does not require tweaks. as director shaw says, there's been years of discussion around this. but there's been some urgency around it and part of that is is because there isn't money in the fund to buy these blls. if you point out the conversations that have been ongoing with the housers, my understanding is that working group, the last time they met was in april. there was no sense of urgency or was not, frankly, until
this started moving forward. so, working out what are important issues but relatively minor in terms of their go-no go issues. and that is how much money we have in the bank to finance them. so, you know, i welcome an ongoing conversation. i know some of my colleagues, you know, welcome this as well. to continue working out some of the details that director shaw referenced including how you get greater geographical equity. looking at the per unit costs, especially if we have $64 million fund. is there a justification for going higher per unit to prevent displacement in certain circumstances? and so on. right? those are the discussions that we all should be having. but i just want to be really clear that none of those conversations are reasons not to fund this program. let's make it succeed and work together to do that. also couple of other points because they came up.
appreciate the supervisor's reference to the reserve and the amount of reserve that i just want to clarify for the public. there was a reference to the reserves just under $300 million. that specifically is in covid contingency reserves. not our overall reserve. i just want to be clear. that is where these funds come from. they are investing to prevent pandemic-related displacement. they are not even touching our city's economic stabilization reserves, currently at about $380 million across the board. the city right now has $200 million in reserves. this supplemental is less
than 2% of those total reserves and last thing is the other thing that has come up is this $10 million. and thank you for raising this and also director shaw for clarifying around the $10 million. so, that is correct that $10 million was approved by the committee and supervisors for the housing stability fund and any notion that those funds were sitting there in the months, because of the inabilities to use them out in the field. that is not the case. we passed an ordinance creating a housing stability fund oversight board, we -- we put in the legislation that will hold its inaugural
meeting within 90 days of that ordinance. the administration's delays did not allow the body to meet until 253 days after the passage of that law. not the 90 days. i appreciate director shaw's pointed [inaudible] to that body who has been a valuable participant and they have met three times and really with amazing urgency have come up with this recommended expenditure plan. that just happened within the last two weeks. that is the first direction of how to use those funds. so, that body is acting with urgency and asking up to as well. that is the only reason that $10 million has not gotten out the door.
part of the conversation. but before -- if she is not ready, be ever she does that, i don't know -- director shaw, did you want to respond to ?ig did you want to make a last comment before we get into the weeds on the conversation around the reserves and the budget reserves and how it impacts our decision here today? >> yes. once again, i feel the sense of urgency as well and we're deeply commited to ensuring that we have a sustainable program with partners who have the capacity and means and diverse set of partners who meet the targeted needs of our communities. that's why we're untaking the strategic process and why we're doing the review. and i feel the sense of urgency but still in making sure that we're doing the necessary organizing, that we
have the financial stability of our partners, but we are sort of making sure that we have the timing and for our staff and for those, you know, i will say that we will continue to -- struggle is not the right word. but we want to make sure that we're getting the resources out strategically and the acquisition of our properties, those partners and that is what we're doing with that kind of work right now. in that instance, we're commited to the success of this program. but that doesn't happen overnight. and we're doing the work to make sure that that can happen and really trying our best with all of our tools to meet needs of residents. so, i mean, that is where we are right now. >> ok. great. and then -- i see caroline. did you want to make a last comments before we move on to the -- into the reserves and
monetary weeds? >> thank you. you mentioned as a woman of color, as someone who's tried to really find a strong tool for fighting displacement in san francisco, over the last six to seven years, working with metas a 45-year-old agency that has been working with city contracts, we continue to be challenged by the director's perspective on urgency. we hear daily what's going on with our tenants and to be concerned about one agency's capacity and one agency has shown time and time again that they can have sustainability throughout its 45-year history doesn't speak to urgency or the capacity that we need for this program. we're talking about $64 million that could be instantly deployed as soon as it gets approved but for an agency's perspective on capacity.
so i'm hoping that, through this conversation, that the supervisors will want to sew the importance of funding and also thing importance of being able to increase that capacity immediately. and not wait for an agency's perspective that the mayor doesn't even hold, which is very shocking for the mayor's office of housing and community development. thank you. >> ok. well, thank you, caroline. and thank you, director shaw, for answering a ul of our questions today. i feel like i have a little bit more of a complete picture. i think it is pretty clear that one agency has been -- one housing partner has been truly driving this program. sounds like there needs to be some resolution and you're all working to resolve the pause. we're not going to litigate that here or finalize that
here but we definitely, you know, hope for an expedited resolution. also, i've heard you say that housing accelerator fund and your office are coming back with recommendations on a reboots and that is also very important information, at least for this supervisor. so and then knowing for whatever reason, and thank you for clarifying, sounds like the was a lot of delays. but there is $10 million there, at least. thank you both and i don't know if colleagues might have more questions a. we talk about the reserves. but i'm going to call up director grofenberger, if she's now back or available to talk through a few things about our reserve account since she is the master of
reserve and/or budget. you are on mute. >> i was just saying thank you. >> great. ok. so can you talk a little bit about our fiscal cliff reserve. i know that over the last year, we got a significant portion of dollars that were utilized to help balance the budget with one-time funding from the federal government. can you talk about that and how it impactsses the overall budget that the mayor put forward that we ultimately approved this last july-early august. >> sure. so, as you all are really well aware, the beginning of this calendar year, we were facing over, you know, $630 million budget shortfall and then, as the time of our march update, we had new information that we would be receiving over $600 million
of federal stimulus and so we were able to utilize that large one-time source to plug the project shortfall that we otherwise would have been experiencing due to lack of -- and loss of local revenue and growing expenditures. and that federal relief has been assumed in the budget in both years of the budget we just recently adopted. >> so what i hear from that is that we utilize that money and now we have this $239.9 million sitting in that and then we're trying to predict -- protect and plan for what type of economic recovery we're going to have. correct? and that is so much of what our reserves are about.
we'll ask the controller to come up. in terms of where we are and in terms of generally our hotel tax, our sales tax, our gross receipts tax a lot of the projected revenues that we rely on to fund things like the arts, fund things like our social service safety net, even fund our nonprofit partners in the city, whether they're asking for a cost of living adjustment, whatever it may be. all of these things are factored into our budget and we were able to do that and avoid city layoffs. because of that support from the federal government. without that, we would have had massive cuts and massive reduction in services in the city. can you talk about that a little bit? >> yes. happy to. that's correct. like i said, we otherwise would have been facing a budget shortfall of over $600 million over the two years which would have necessitated significant reductions in services across the city.
so we were able to utilize a large one-time federal force to prevent a lot of those difficult choices. as this committee is well aware, by the time we updated the projection in march, had been a $630 million shortfall and became only $23 million. so it's much easier to solve. we were able to preserve services, avoid layoffs as well as do a number of helpful recovery-focused one-time investments. faunld nonprofit cola. things like that. so we were able to do a lot in the budget. and the creation of the cliff reserve was really an acknowledgment that we were able to do all of those things because of this large one-time source that was sitting underneath our budgets and what we didn't want to happen is when that large one-time source went away, that we would be stuck in the same position that we otherwise would have been in, in the spring. and so youing the $300
million in the fiscal cliff reserve, we can soft landing coming out of the pan democrat ticket avoid some of those major service cuts and reductions that we otherwise would have needed to consider to balance the budget. >> ok. great. and where do you -- i'm going to ask the controller to -- if the controller is here. mr. rosenberg. i know that you're in the process of doing your projections and analysis now. but can you talk about where you see our economic recovery headed, at least where we're looking at right now and how having reserves or not having reserves factor into that conversation. >> certainly. good afternoon, supervisors. as you're aware, we prepare updates on projections multiple times a year.
updated to find expected financial projections and those will be projections working with both the mayor's budget office and it's a little bit early in the year for me to speak on any good news or bad news. i expected to have updates in that time. >> we receive the revenue on a monthly basis for the first four months of fiscal year where we have full returns from and received $218 million if it's annual lied going forward and significantly exceed the budgets or transfer tax for
the year. withen that four months, there is a great deal of volatility. two months significantly below what we assumed. and there's not a clear trend to this yet. so i can't speak with certainty about the amount of good news, for example. i would hope to have that shortly. in the big picture, we are working on these forecast updates. i think some tax revenues for the city are probably performing better than we expected. and those are typically in property-related taxes. and we have other revenues that are performing worse as well. and this tracks with some of the things that we're seeing in the economy. in the next update, you're likely to see downward revisions in the hotel tax projections, for example. driven by a slow hospitality recovery. and a sales tax that will be down. somewhat more volatile, consumer-driven revenue streams with downward pressure on them.
i can't tell you what the net of that use will be. that's really the pearl of that december update. i hope to have that conversation for you shortly. >> any other questions? i'm sorry. i have to hop off for a little emergency. >> i think we're probably goinging to move this forward. i think -- supervisor mar, do you have anything more? otherwise we'll move forward. >> nope, i'm good. >> great. i want to thank supervisor preston andrx to shaw and our controller and all of the supporters of this. you know, i was saying i do believe that this is worth the cost and there's urgency around it and there's some
good times, i think, even though we can't predict for sure where this will end up at tend of the year. there is some signs that so far the property tax revenues are overperforming predictions. and i think that this is a fiscally responsible and necessary thing for us to do to prevent displacement in a program that we know can work. i look forward to your updates and continued work to
make sure that we need -- we have the capacity in place so that it's done effectively. and we'll turn it over to you and make the necessary motions and move forward. >> thank you so much, chair haney. i very much appreciate the time. it has been a long hearing on this item and i do want to thank all the folks who called in and for who have e-mailed us to express support on this item. very much appreciate all advocacy. and support on this. unless we step in as a city and use the funds to scale up the program. we look forward to making that happen and i think i can recommend the various motions here. but someone else needs to make them. and i should say we circulated the proposed amendments previously to committee members. the first thing is to duplicate the file so that one can deal with the rent
relief side of things and one can deal with the social housing and housing stability so that would be my first request. i don't know if you want me to list them all or take action. >> can you list them all and then lift the amendment? >> right. thank you, chair haney. first, duplicate the file. second r on the duplicated file and i mean rent relief one and move to amend by striking the housing stability fund references using it justs for the rent relief portion as per the amendments that we submitted and on that duplicated file t rent relief funds then move to continue that duplicated look for the chair. after that original file, motion to move to amend by striking the residential relief portion so that it is
just focused on the housing stability fund money and move that item to the full board with recommendation. >> great. before we do that, supervisor safai? >> yeah. just wanted to make some final comments. again, i appreciate the work you've done through all the folks that came out today. i definitely believe that this program needs a reboot. i think the timing of it is just a little bit off, given the fact that we're going to have a better financial update from our controller
and have a better understanding of what that reboot looks like. i'm fine with sending this out of committee today. i'm not convinced that the $64 million is the right number, givesen that -- and i have really strong concerns and i want to put that on the record today. not about the program. not about what you're asking for. i have strong concerns and reservations as it relates to our economy. i'm concerned that our sales tax is not [inaudible] and it has been very well documented. the controller spoke about this. and talk to anyone in the industry, our hotel occupancy rates are the lowest in any major city in the country. our hotel tax is not recovering, our sales tax is not recovering. we have a less than 25% occupancy in our downtown office buildings. that impacts our gross receipt. all of those things feed into our budget. and having reserve accounts are exactly for those purposes. we need to be able to ensure that we maintain our city services, that we maintain our social service safety net, that we can provide support to our nonprofits in so many different ways. and provide the services that we need our city. this is a very, very unusual decision but we're in unusual times. we're in a crisis that we're still recovering from and i
understand that people are being displaced and we have to have urgency. i look forward to you, supervisor preston, since you are the lead sponsor of working with the mayor, sitting down with the mayor and sitting down with the mayor's office and negotiating a final deal on what that number might end up ultimately being. but in the 21 years that i have been working in this local government of san francisco, i cannot recall a supplemental budget request of this magnitude and size after a budget was just done and so i think, because of that, i think absolutely we encourage you to sit with the mayor, negotiate with the mayor, and come up with a final resolve. and whatever that resolve might be for this program. i agree with many of the things that you said. there was not urgency in this program. and there was not urgency in putting resources into a
reboot of this program. sounds like we're going to get that. i know supervisor melgar is working hard to shape that conversation. about a reboot for the small sites program. and i think that that is extremely important for the success of this outcome. we can put dollars aside and then ultimately if that does not mean the success of acquisition and the success of long-term stabilization for those units. i worry about that. but i am supportive of this moving forward today. but i encourage further conversation and negotiations based on what i have heard here today and i appreciate all of your hard work on this and your leadership for this. it's definitely something that our city will benefit from. >> supervisor preston? >> thank you, chair haney. i just do want to respond on the sort of approach to the reserves. because i think it is an important issue and i think,
you know, we talk about the importance of these anti displacement efforts. we have a $1. billion reserve. and part of the idea of that is, you know, having products available for rainy day. and i just want to say that we're coming -- with all due respect, i think we maybe have a different perspective to [inaudible]. we're coming out of a period of time, and you know this is from talking with your constituents. we are coming out of a period of time where the vulnerability that folks are living with, i don't know whether it's unprecedenced but unprecedenced certainly in recent history. and these are the folks we're trying to save from displacement. and i appreciate the comments around the supplementals of this size being unusual.
but what's also unusual and you and i have discussed this, is that the voters raised this money off of large real estate transactions. and the controller has told us that we're on pace to even exceed the projections. so this is a very unusual situation where the voters have authorized what's going to be hundreds of millions of dollars. they understood it to be for housing. our boards unanimously said we would use nit this way and need to follow through on that promise. and we're doing that in the context of a $1.2 billion reserve. and if you are not going to use a small percentage of that to prevent displacement and mike it affordable permanently i don't know when we would use them. but i wanted to address that point and thank you, chair haney, for the additional time. >> sure. thank you. with that, i want to move the amendment that -- as far as preston put forward.
and take vote on the amendments. >> thank you, chair haney. just for the record, are you also the one requesting the duplication of the file? >> yes. >> ok. thank you. on the amendment -- sorry, ton notion amends the original file by striking the rent relief portion and keeping the housing stability fund and to amends the duplicate file -- [roll call] >> we have three ayes. >> great. and that is for the duplication and the -- >> tep amendments on both the original and duplicate. >> thank you.
i want to move the legislation to the full board as amended with a positive recommendation. >> on the notion forward the original file for housing stability to the full board as amended -- [roll call] we have three ayes. >> all right. thank you. appreciate it. thank you, everyone. >> chair haney, there is the balance of what to do with the duplicated file. >> i think what we want to do here is continue to the chair. >> thank you very much. on the motion to don'ts duplicated file to the call of the chair as amended -- [roll call]
we have three ayes. >> great. thank you. appreciate it. all right. where are we? can we call item 3? >> thank you, chair haney. item number 3 is a resolution relating to e.q.x.s jackson s.q. holdco l.l.c. at potential exchange of 530 sansome street for a portion of 425-439. under the jurisdiction of the fire department and in exchange of a portion of the real property at 425 through 439 washington street, parcel block number 0206 and lots number 013 and 014 authorizing the director of plot and city staff to proceed with the proposed fire station development project, subject to several
conditions as defined herein, adopting findings pursuant to ceqa and making finds of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code section 101.1. members of public who wish to provide public comments should call 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. -- press star 3. a system prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand and that is your cue to begin your comments. mr. chair? >> thank you. and we have director peneq here to present on this item. >> good afternoon, chair haney. supervisor safai and supervisor mar. i'm director of real estate. i have a quick and easy one for you this afternoon. i'm just going to share my screen here.
hopefully you can see the presentation. >> yes. >> i am before you this afternoon seeking your positive recommendation for a resolution approving and ratifying certain implementing documents and furtherance for the replacement of fire station 13 at 530 sansome street. the full legislative history is set out in the current resolution by way of a quick summary. on april 30, 2019, the board conditionally approved the cpea which stands for conditional property exchange agreement to facilitate a new high-rise development and fire station 13 at no cost to
the city. under the cpea, the developer will build the four-storey fire station as well as a vertical integrated mixed use tower project. on june 2, 2020, the board of supervisors adopt add resolution that approved an updated cpea which, among other things, allowed for the increase in the size of the fire station to 20,000 square feet. it added an apparatus bay so now the new fire station will have four instead of three. it added a voluntary $1.6 million fee payment to be paid by the developer and also increased the overall allowable cost to build a new fire station from $25 million to $32.1 million. again at no cost to the city. more recently, on october 5, 2021, the board of supervisors approved the ceqa
findings for this project. the current action before you is seeking your approval and ratification substantially in the form of certain implementing documents. your approval of these documents is required under the original cpea. they are in brief the architect agreement. this is the agreement between the developer and the architect and the design of the project. the ground lease, which the city as land lord developed for a tenant of the lease and doing construction. construction contract, which is the agreement between the developer and their construction manager for the construction of the project. a construction management agreement, which is an agreement between the developer and the city, governing the relationship between the parties during the construction period. the easement agreement which is an agreement between the developer and the city governing the relationship after the project is
completed. a completion guarantee, which is an agreement by related parent company to construct the new fire station if the developer is, indeed, unable to perform. an estopple certificate which will relate to the certain facts and stop the certificate from the city and certify certain facts regarding the lease are true. and finally the first amendment to the conditional exchange agreement, which doesn't change the terms of the agreement, but basically provides some housekeeping and americaning the agreements into one. and thesement twos were delayed due to covid and adds the completion guarantee, which is not specifically contemplated under the original agreement.
and lastly it set the time for when the parties agree on the amount of title policy insurance to be held by each party. these are implementing documents and they do not change the underlying agreement approved by the board of supervisors. this concludes my presentation. i have nick witty available to answer your questions. >> all right. >> do we have a b.l.a. on this item? >> i'm not sure. >> colleagues, any questions or comments? everyone is all questioned and commented out. [laughter] >> it was the last item. [laughter]
>> can we open it up to public comment, please? >> yes, chair haney. >> members of the public who wish to provide public comment, please press star 3, 2. mr. akins, do we have any speakers? operator: mr. clerk, there are no callers in the queue. >> thank you very much. mr. chair? >> great. public comment is closed. i do not have any questions or comment either. so, i think woe will say thank you and thank you everyone for your patience. i know there was a big crew of folks who have their thing waiting to be available for this so thank you for your time. i want to make motion to move item number 3 to the full board with a positive recommendation. it is a good project. and can we have the roll call? >> on that motion -- [roll call]
>> did you call my name? >> yes. we're voting to -- >> yes. [roll call] >> we have three ayes. >> great. thank you again. we'll go to the full board where a positive recommendation. thank you, director. mr. clerk, please call item four. >> yes. item number 4 is an authorize for the department of public health to submit a one-year application for calendar year 2022 to continue to receive funding for the integrated h.i.v. surveillance and prevention programs for healths departments from the centers for disease control and prevention requesting $5 million in h.i.v. prevention funding for san francisco form from january 1, 2022 to december 31, 2022. members of the public who wish to provide comment on
this item should call 415-655-0001. meeting i.d. 24951037123 and then press pound twice. if you are not already done so, please dial star 3 to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates you've been unmuted and you may begin your comments. mr. chair? >> thank you. and we have [inaudible] craner? >> caller: hi, supervisor. thank you so much. once again, i'm nicole craner, contract manager. what you have before you is a request to expand [inaudible] centers for disease control funding for h.i.v. prevention. this grant is referred to as integrated h.i.v. surveillance and prevention programs for health departments.
also known as ps-18802. this is a continuation of the grant. the board approved in 2020 and we are grateful for your ongoing support. the grant proposal expands our commitment to fully integrate surveillance and prevention programs. it supports strategis that have contributed to dramatically increasing h.i.v. incidents in recent years and implement some shifts with the epidemiology and including a much stronger equity focus. this grant has 11 requirements per the funders. this include 10s h.i.v. prevention and surveillance strategies. i won't read of all the 11 requirements for this grant as they are listed in the resolution document prevented before you today. d.p.h. has called to improve h.i.v. and hep-c related illness for people experiencing homelessness and
on drugs. the program is outreach prevention, treatment and integration. it uses the c.d.c. funding to support critical infrastructure, d.p.h. staffing to coordinate planning, community engagement and technical support. we also help jail services to do h.i.v. and hep-c testing. it dovetails nicely with this grant and are supported with the generosity of san francisco general funding for h.i.v. services contract. we have approximately 14 agencis who are funded urn these h.i.v. prevention contracts. the population for this grant is defined as people living with h.i.v. or at risk for h.i.v. they values this requirement for men who have sex with men, black african american community, latin community, transwomen, people who use drug and people experiencing homelessness.
this grant enables san francisco to maintain its strong emphasis on services for high prevalent populations, while bringing an increased focused to the prevention needs in the community of color and h.i.v.-related dispair notice. they experience a new infection, late diagnosis, linkage, retention and viral suppression. component a of this grant t core strategies and activities for integrated h.i.v. surveillance and prevention has received flat funding of $5 million and we just requested for a no-cost extension for component b opt in. overall, this study remains steady and no changes in the way the funding is used. i'm happy to answer any questions that you have and i hope that you continue to support by moving this item forward. thank you for your consideration. >> thank you. thank you for your work. is there a b.l.a. report on this item? >> there is not a report. >> great.
not seeing any questions or comments from colleagues. obviously we're all very supportive of this work. and grateful for the funds from the c.d.c. to do so. i will make a motion to move item four to the full board. with that, public comment. any public comment on this item? >> thank you, chairs haney. operations checking to see if we have any callers in the queue. members of the public who wishs to provide comment on this item, please press star 3 now. for those already on hold, please don't wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted and that is your cue to begin your comments. any callers? operator: mr. clerk, there are no callers in the queue. >> thank you very much. mr. chair? >> public comment is closed. i now want to make a motion to move this item to the full board with a positive recommendation. could we have a roll call vote, please? >> on that motion -- [roll call]
we have three ayes. >> great. thank you. appreciate it. i want to call item 5. >> item 5 is the ordinance waiving the fee required by the public works code, section 724.1 subsection b for temporary streetspace occupancy permits on certain designated city streets on saturday, december 4, 2021 through sunday, december 5, 2021, saturday, december 11, 2021 and sunday, december 12, 2021 to promote sidewalk
sales of merchandise through the holiday season. members of the public who wish to provide comment on this item should call 415-655-0001. meeting i.d. 2495-1037-123 and press pound twice. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and that is your cue to begin university comments. mr. chair? >> great. thank you. and welcome emily abraham from d.q.l. welcome. >> thank you so much, chair haney. and thank you, supervisors, for having me. my name is emily abraham. the supervisor introduced this legislation on october 1209 waive the fee required by public works code section 124.1 subsection b. this was done to promote sidewalk sales of merchandise during the holiday season from our local businesses. and to promote street activation and shoppinging local, we consulted with oawd
and decided to introduce temporary occupancy permit fee waivers from major merchant corridors throughout city. these dates were chosen to complement local campaigns and inclives of all of holidays in december. the board has waived it in the past. the most recent bying 2019 and 2018 and before and since this introduction of this item, we've been working closely with other district offices to make this as inclusive as process. so districts four, six, eight, nine, 10 and 11 expressed a desire to expand the skoem of this ordinance and these changes are expressed in the amendments that i sent to you all this morning. b.l.a.s reports have not been conducted for these in the past. there are a number of eligible streets. we do not anticipate a large
impact. the fee is $77. so, if every block in the city were to participate, the total cost would be more than $20,000 k. and there is the offering as well with the san francisco chamber of commerce and cdma. thank you all for your time and i hope we can gain your support. we can stay on in case anyone has any questions. >> great. thank you. >> there a b.l.a. report on this item? >> no, chair haney, we do not have a report on this item. >> ok. so there is an amendment, is that correct? can we go to public comment, please? >> yes, chair haney. operations checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. members of the public who wish to provide comment on
this item please press star 3 now to line up to speak. mr. adkins, do we have any colors? >> mr. clerk, there are no callers in the queue. >> caller: thank you very much. >> i just wanted to thank ms. abraham for the presentation and the amendments and, you know, also supervisor stefani for sponsoring this. i appreciate the amendments to make it more expansive and we'll definitely [inaudible] this opportunity to the merchants in our district and i would like to be added as a co-upon sort. thank you. -co-sponsor. thank you. >> great. thank you. so i want to move those amendments, please. oh, supervisor safai? >> yeah. please add me as a co-sponsor, too. i think this is an important piece of legislation. >> ok. then i'll be added as well.
appreciate it, everyone. can we move those amendments, please? >> on the motion to accept the amendments as stated -- [roll call] we have three ayes. >> all right. now this is continuous, right? >> yes, we do. our next meeting is that of december 1. >> all right. we'll continue this for meeting on december 1 and thank you. could we have a vote on that. >> the motion to continue this item to the december 1 meeting of this committee -- [roll call] we have three ayes.
>> great. this will be continued to december 1. mr. clerk, can you please call item 6. >> yes, chair haney. item number 6 is the ordinance waiving the banner fees under public works code section 184.78 for the placement of up to 300 banners per year for three years starting on november 20, 2021 by the false of economic and workforce development to publicize the city's shop and dine in the 49 campaign and affirming the planning department's determination under ceqa. members of the publics who wish to provide public comments on this item should call 415-655-0001. meeting i.d. 2495-103-7123. press pound twice. please dial star 3 to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates you've been unmuted
and that will beb the cue to begin your comments. >> thank you. ms. abraham. do we have ms. abraham? i think she is on this one as well, from what i can tell. >> hello. i do believe that we have mary anne thompson from oewd that can present. >> sure. >> yep. good afternoon, supervisor. thank you. on behalf of the office of economic and workforce development, we are proposing this banner and banners citywide and part of the shop and dine in the 49 which is a city-wide buy local campaign.
in previous years, we focused on individual corridors. move, forward for the next three years, we'll be focusing on a city-wide [inaudible] and supporting all of our city-wide corridors. as an example of things we've done this year to support city-wide activations, some of you will have [inaudible] activations in which we [inaudible] [audio is muffled] we will be bringing you a holiday trolley with caroler and along with these types of things. for the next three years, we'll be bringing you more opportunities that will highlight these individuals to our corridors to shop and hopefully support our economic recovery. i'm here if you have any questions.
>> this is a time when folks really need support and want people to get out and support our small businesses. so thank you. is there another report on this item? >> no, chair haney. >> please call public comment. members of the publics who wish to provide public comments on this item should call 415-655-0001. meeting i.d. 2495-103-7123. press pound twice. please dial star 3 to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates you've been unmuted and that will beb the cue to begin your comments. do we have any callers for this item? operator: there are no callers in the queue. >> thank you very much, mr. chair. >> thank you. public comment has closed. see any questions or comments from colleagues? can i make a motion to move this item to the -- oh. is there amendments?
>> we did not receive any. we have not seen any of this right now. >> let's make a motion to move it to the full board for a positive recommendation. [roll call] >> great. we'll go to the full board with a positive recommendation. thank you so much. please read item 7. >> yes. item number 17 a resolution approving an agreement between the city and county of san francisco and pacific gas and electric company establishing requirements for certain affordable housing projects to connect to the
electric grid for a term of 10 or more years. [inaudible] following approval by the federal energy regulatory commission. members of the public who wish to provide public members of the publics who wish to provide public comments on this item should call 415-655-0001. meeting i.d. 2495-103-7123. press pound twice. please dial star 3 to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates you've been unmuted and that will beb the cue to begin your comments. mr. chair? >> great. thank you. and welcome ms. huskins? to present on this item. you are on mute.
i cannot hear you at all. i'm inclined to go to the next item and return to this one. given how much we have going on. mr. clerk, please call item 8. >> yes, chair haney. yes. item number 18 a resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of bonds of the san francisco unified school district, prescribing the terms of sale of not to exceed $284,250,000 of said general obligation bonds, election of 2016-series-c by a negotiated sale approving the form of bond purchase agreement, a proving the forms of one or more paying agent agreements and authorizing the execution of necessary documents and certificates relating to such bonds. members of the publics who wish to provide public comments on this item should
call 415-655-0001. meeting i.d. 2495-103-7123. press pound twice. please dial star 3 to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates you've been unmuted and that will be the cue to begin your comments. >> great. welcome. >> hi, good afternoon. chair haney and the members of budgets and finance committee. we did have a very brief presentation because there was a change in the [inaudible]. i'm not sure if that can be presented or if i should be the one friending it. -- presenting it. i wasn't sure of the protocol. >> would the clerk be presenting it or would i be presenting it? >> presenting? which? >> our -- >> you do have sharing privileges.
>> i see. ok. let me -- i'll just -- thank you so much for allowing us to speak. i am going to see if i can present this. sorry. it's not exactly -- it's not working so if i can just briefly share an update with you first. as it's not allowing me to present. as you may already know, the district has an active bond program and has been issuing bonds on its own since 2004.
the district bond program funds needed facility improvement projects and for many years the district and other california school districts typically authorize bond financing through resolution of the district board alone. the law does not allow that for the school district receiving a qualified certification to do so and that, therefore, the resolution under consideration today authorizes the sale bonds under the terms previously approved by the district in october and we'll have note that school impact on the city and county. we wanted to neat since the b.l.a. board was drafted, there are bond funds to address the immediate need for the school sites and within the approved measure of 2016. the board of education approved funs of about $100 million to be allocated to various projects, including new school constructions in mission bay, to allow porable
air filters in every classroom and larger classrooms as we are continuing to finish all the rooms in our school sites. and also projects and facilities as a resulting as well. that updated sheet is what i wanted to share. but we -- i'm sorry that i'm not able to share it with you at this time. but we ask for your support of this resolution as amended by the b.l.a. office and we're here -- i'm here to answer any other questions. >> thank you. appreciate it. thank you for that update. is there a b.l.a. report on this item? >> yes. so this resolution authorizes the san francisco unified school district to issue and then for the city to sell on behalf of the district $284.25 million of general
obligation bonds and the resolution also approves transaction documents for those new money bonds as well as $145 million of refunding bonds to which the city is a party. this is the third of three general obligation bonds issued fwi school district authorized by proposition a and we showed the budgets for the bond program on page 15 of our property. -- of our report. the spending plan has been updated by the district. they provided us that information. thank you for that. and they can respond to questions about how they reallocated the funding for the bond program. on page 18 of the report, we showed the incremental increase to the school district debt service, which would total $261 million over 20 years.
now in the future, going forward, if the board of supervisors wants to receive ongoing information on the progress of this bond program, which includes [inaudible] to the existing schools, we recommend that the board request information from the school district on the annual performance audit that are required by proposition-a on the bond program. now after speaking to the city attorney's office, i want to offer the following recommendation, which is slightly different than what is in our report. so i'm just going to read the amendment that i'm recommending be included in the resolution, which would add a section that states the following. the board of supervisors quds the district -- the school district present the annual proposition-a performance audit of the bond program at a hearing before the government audit and oversight committee upon enactment by the board of supervisors of a hearing request on that. toic. -- on that topic and that is end quote. and i recommended g.a.o. because that is typically where government audits are heard.
having said that, this resolution is consistent with proposition-a and we do recommend approval of the legislation. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> great. thank you. can we go to public comment, please? >> yes, chair haney. operations checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item, please press star 3 now to be added. for those already on hold, please don'ts wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. mr. adkins, do we have any callers who wish to speak on this item? operator: mr. clerk, there are no callers in the queue. >> thank you much. mr. chair? >> great. thank you. public comment is closed. i do not see any questions or comments from colleagues. so, with that, there is a b.l.a. recommendation. are you amenable to the
b.l.a. recommendations? >> yes. thanks. >> ok. great. i'm going to make a motion foister accept the b.l.a.'s recommendation if you can take a roll call vote on that, please. >> on that motion to amend the resolution? [roll call] and we have three ayes. >> great. all right. now i'm going to make a notion move this forward to the full board as amended. [inaudible]. >> on that motion -- [roll call] >> we have three ayes. >> great. thank you. this will go to full board with a positive recommendation. thank you so much. as amended. thank you so much. >> you're welcome.
>> are we ready with item 7? what do you think? let's try it. >> can you hear me now? >> mr. clerk, can you please call item 7? >> yes. going back to item 7. which is the resolution of approving an agreement between the city and counties and pacific gas and electric company establishing requirements for certain affordable housing projects to connect to the electric grid for a term of 10 or more years. members of the public who wish to provide public comments on this item should call 415-655-0001. meeting i.d. 2495-103-7123. press pound twice. please dial star 3 to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates you've been unmuted and that will be the cue to begin your comments. mr. chair? >> great. give it another try.
>> you can hear me now? >> yes. >> ok. thank you so much. deep apologies for that. so, i'm here before you to ask for positive recommendation on an agreement between the city and county of san francisco and pg&e regarding certain affordable housing projects. i'm joined today by lydia eli and aaron carson from mocd and they'll have a couple of slides toward the end of this presentation. so, first, i'm just going to give you a little background here and, apologies, my name is pamela husing. i'm the director of federal agreements and acquisition analysis with the power interpries sfpuc. so, next slide, please. as you are well aware, we continue to have issues connecting to the pg&e-owned grid and we don't try to work
with them to facilitate these interconnections. but we have had many problems for many years and, unfortunately, some very important projects get caught up in this issue. we regularly report to the board with our quarterly report that let you know what kinds of disputes we're having with pg&e. n.s please? [please stand by] [please stand by]
and this agreement, while limited, it does allow us to move forward with certain affordable housing projects at secondary which is low voltage which is the appropriate level for these projects. as i mentioned, this is somewhat of a limited agreement. it does not apply to projects that are not on city property and it does not apply to projects that do not meet the low-income guidelines. so, that would be -- and that is to say that these projects need to be 100% affordable housing and that excludes the manager's
unit and then they need to be on city property and -- or the city needs to be transferring within one year. so, there are currently in the pipeline that we know of from mohcd, there are approximately 33 -- or it looks like 33 projects, affordable housing projects, or about 4,000 units that are eligible under this agreement, but because of the fact that some of these -- some of these projects are already being planned to be served as part of a larger development, for instance, we expect that about 20 of these projects will actually benefit from this agreement at this time. i do want to say, however, that as long as an upcoming project meets the requirements of the agreement, we can add it to the list and allow it to get the appropriate level of interconnection, which is in this case, secondary in most
cases. next slide, please. so as i mentioned, this applies to in order to be eligible the project needs to be 100% affordable housing. and as the residents that are eligible for the low-income rate will be charged at the applicable rate through the sfpuc. and as i already mentioned, it must be on city-owned land. the term of the agreement is 10 years, with an option -- if things are working out -- to extend for another five years. pg&e will serve temporary power for construction as a pg&e customer. with that, i'd like this pass it along to mohcd. they have a couple of slides they want to bring up for you.
>> good afternoon, supervisors, lydia, the deputy for housing at mohcd. nice to see you all. we're extraordinarily pleased to see this agreement before you. we are really looking forward to a smoother path forward for our affordable projects and for the certainty that this agreement will provide in terms of what route our projects need to take from an early day in engineering, designing and planning for the power delivery and these affordable housing projects. you'll see the list of projects that were provided to you with materials include many projects that are familiar and dear to your hearts. we have projects all across the city on the list and these are projects that are serving our neediest neighbors and everything from seniors,
homeless people, people with disabilities, so having this agreement in place will save us time. if i can have the next slide actually please. we will benefit from saved time in recent years we've been in the situation where projects have had to reengineer their power systems. sometimes at the last minute. or have had to assign square footage to equipment as required by different systems. so, again, we will save time. we will save money. our projects, which are under the gun right now and under the microscope with the state to save costs in order to be competitive for state funding, this will help them be more competitive for state funding, so again, really grateful for our partners at puc bringing
this forward and negotiating terms and we really hope we can count on your support for this. my colleague aaron carson who is the director of construction services from ocd is here with us and can talk about the aspects that are technical that i'm not familiar with. >> i have one thing, one housekeeping matter. i just wanted to mention in the packet that you received, appendix c, the tight policile of the -- title of the form letter has a correction and we will make that correction in the final agreement and it just should refer to secondary service as opposed to primary service with lowside metering. >> chair haney: great, thank you. is there a b.l.a. report on the item? >> no, there is not a report on
the item from us. >> chair haney: okay. >> i just had a question for -- i can't see the names on the screen anymore. i guess pamela? >> yes. >> i think this is an important agreement. the one thing that i'm a little bit -- i don't want disappointed, but definitely it feels like a missed opportunity, i've had to struggle through a couple of projects that are public-owned buildings, one of which was the pool, rec and park pool. the other one currently we're going back and forth with pg&e right now. it is a free clinic and art space, so it's publicly owned building with a public purpose and i'm just curious why you left out projects like that and just limited it to 100%
affordable, because it seems as though the randall museum, the balboa pool, the 3545 on dega which is a public health building with a public health purpose, i'm curious -- it seems as though there were only a few of those in the universe it would be have been easy to add those to this conversation. >> thank you for your question. well, we actually have a list of about 70 projects that are held up by pg&e and their current demands for service and so we ideally we would love to extend or have either another agreement or a more expansive agreement. unfortunately, we're not able to reach agreement with pg&e. we have tried actually this particular agreement took about a year to get to. and it does not have everything we want, of course. i also just want to mention that
we continue to try to engage pg&e. we meet weekly with them on a project by project basis. we continue to reach out to them at a senior level. of to try to address some of the questions and concerns with connecting certain -- it's also schools, you know, important health clinics, it's fire department facilities, it's all kinds of critical city services. pg&e, i'll be frank, is not a good partner. and we continue to engage them. we think we're being reasonable and they don't want to engage. so, we will continue and they indicated when we struck this deal, they indicated that, you know, we could talk more about other projects. so we plan to do that. i also just want to let you know that we continue to fight vigorously at the federal energy
regulatory commission. we have another meeting tomorrow for that. we are also in the courts. we are addressing this from a number of different angles, but if we don't have a willing partner, it's very difficult to make progress, unfortunately. but i hear you loud and clear and we're doing our best. we have folks who meet with -- like i said, meet with them weekly. and we continue to engage, but, you know, we have to have a willing counter-party unfortunately, but thank you for raising that. and i think, you know, your comments and the board's support and the board raising these concerns to pg&e via these types of meetings is helpful, in my opinion, because it lets them know we continue to be unhappy with our relationship.
i hope that answers some of your questions. it was not -- we did not intentionally leave out any projects. we would love to have more included. and we hope to include some more going forward. one they think i do want to -- one thing i do want to mention to you is that under the most recent wholesale distribution tariff filing from pg&e that we are disputing right now, pg&e is proposing to basically serve all of the unmetered load because they would require us to install very large equipment on several, you know, like a string of three streetlights would require a primary switch gear. so it's outrageous and so we are fighting with them about that. that is something we want to stop, of course, but the only option under the current tariff
that they have filed if we wanted to continue to serve those unmetered load at hetchy power, would be to install this equipment which would be billion of dollars which wouldn't make sense. and it wouldn't make sense from a safety and physical space situation either. >> thank you. thank you so much. >> supervisor mar: just wanted to thank you and others who have been working on this very frustrating issue. and another example of our -- the need to move away from reliance on pg&e in san francisco. i just had a couple of quick questions. can you just say what is sort of
the benefit in terms of cost savings or time savings on construction? >> sure. i might refer to erin if it's specific to the construction, but, just as an example, the primary switch gear typically costs upwards of $500,000 for the equipment itself. closer to a million dollars once you do trenching and all the other work associated with that. it's wholly inappropriate for most of these projects because it's much too big and there are space constraints. it doesn't make sense to cite that. a connection would be around $100,000 somewhere in that area. so there is a huge cost difference. there is a huge space difference and there is absolutely no reason to have this large equipment on these smaller loads, or, you know, it's not appropriate site to overbuild. so as far as constructability i would defer to erin or mohcd
folks to opine on that, but from the cost perspective, that is generally a guideline. >> supervisor mar: thank you. >> i think this confirms that and i appreciate this agreement as well. the costs are extraordinary, but it's also a matter of designing a system, going through the process, getting a rejection of the design, going back again and again and again with redesign and getting rejected. and it's an extraordinary painful long process. we pay more in design fees. our designers are just treading water on all of these projects trying to get to a design that is accepted. so there is a lot of different costs associated with this and it's been extremely painful to go through in the last few years. so it's welcome change. and predictability always improves cost.
>> thank you. >> yeah, this sounds really significant for these projects, so really thanks again for all your work on this agreement. i have a question. i noticed one of the requirements in the agreement is on a city-owned site or the site is in the process of being transferred to the city. the chisholm village, does that make it eligible for this to be included in the agreement? >> yes. it looks -- let's see. yes. yes, it is eligible in this case. so, yay. [laughter] yes. it looks like that is fine on sfusd. >> great. okay. thanks, again, for all your work on this. and good luck on addressing the
bigger issue and what safai touched on. >> public comment please. >> we're checking to see in are callers in the queue. members of the public who wish to provide comments on the item, press star 3. those on hold, continue to wait until you've been unmuted. do we have any callers in the queue? >> mr. clerk, there are no callers in the queue. >> thank you much. >> chair haney: public comment is closed. i want to make a motion to move to this the full board with a positive recommendation. can we have a roll call vote, please? >> on the motion to forward as recommended, vice chair safai? >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> chair haney: aye. we have three ayes. >> chair haney: great. thank you so much.
full board with a positive recommendation. mr. clerk, please call item 9. >> yes, chair haney, resolution approving and authorizing an agreement for the conveyance and acceptance by the director of property on behalf of the san francisco mayor's office of housing and community development and acquisition of a parcel of real estate consisting of approximately 57,000 square feet in land area located at 1979 mission street pursuant to a land dedication permitted under planning code section 249.33 to satisfy affordable housing obligations under planning code sections 415 praying the property under jurisdiction of san francisco mayor's office of housing and community development consisting of approximately 200 to 338 dwelling units, adopting
planning code section, 101,.1 and authorizing the director of the to take certain actions in furtherance of this resolution as defined herein including assuming certain leases. members of the public who wish to provide comment on this item should call 1-415-655-0001. meeting i.d., 2495 103 7123 # # if you have not already done so, please dial star 3 to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until the system says you've been unmuted and you may begin your comments. >> all right. welcome. >> thank you so much, chair haney. good afternoon. amy winer with hillary ronen, sponsoring the resolution before
you today. she would have very much liked to have been here today but is attending to a family health emergency, so she asked me to speak again and i thank you for giving me the time. i will be brief. the parcel that wraps around the plaza at 16th street was the subject of a long and hard-fought effort to replace the project with one that would respond directly to the community's urgent needs which is affordable housing. it could not have happened without the city, supervisor ronen, colleagues, mohcd, the mayor all working together to make it happen. this project is the kind of development that the whole city is proud of. it should be tall, dense, green, beautiful and affordable, a true 21st century response to our climate and affordability crisis. this is one step along the legal path to complete the conveyance.
there are several more milestones before we get to the end of the road and the district 9 office looks forward to celebrating then with everybody who plays a part. i just want to say quickly, thank you so much for supporting this on today's agenda. supervisor ronen was a co-sponsor of that program, meda has helped so many residents and she is in very strong agreement that the program needs to expand. we'll continue to work with meda and o.c.d. to work through the costs. thank you so much. >> chair haney: great. thank you. is there a b.l.a. report on the item? >> there is no report on this item. >> chair haney: thank you so much. and to supervisor ronen and to the entire community for their longstanding work in organizing and advocacy and leadership to make this happen.
it's very exciting and i know there is a number of steps left to go. and so, this is a big one. so thank you for your work. and to the work of the entire community. and i know that this is in lieu of land dedication. and if you could also just sort of describe -- i believe this is in-lieu land dedication that is connected to another project. can you describe the relationship between what we're doing here and the other project that it's connected to? >> chair haney, robert from the mayor's office of housing and community development is prepared to present and respond to those kind of questions. >> good afternoon. my name is robert vodka. san francisco mayor's office of housing and community development. i'll go through a quick
presentation. they'll be transferring 1979 mission street to the city at no cost to the city. once the transfer is complete, the city will take title and complete ownership of the site. the purchase and transfer will satisfy crescent heights under section 415 which is inclusionary housing program for the project located at van ness. after conducting due diligence and verification that the property is acceptable for a dedication. this site will be 100% affordable housing. mohcd did a fit analysis that provided a site plan yielding a minimum of 200 units. and a maximum of 271 units. in a memo dated september 1, 2020 from the planning department, they determined that the project fit up to 338 units.
the planning department also provided a general plan for november 10, 2021. mohcd plans to issue an r.f.p. for a project sponsor in 2022 after the site is transferred. with your support today and future approval from the board of supervisors, the city will be able to move forward with closing this transaction before january 17, 2022. this has been a full city effort. i want to thank supervisor ronen and her office and her team. the planning department, oewd and the real estate department. thank you for your time and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> chair haney: great. thank you. so i'm clear, so the project is the crescent heights project that is on market and south van ness and they are gifting the land to meet their -- meet their
affordability requirement. is there any on site affordability at this project or is this meeting the entire -- are they doing it all offsite? >> based on the planning memo, this meets their 35% inclusionary housing requirement. the land dedication. >> so there is 0 on site affordable? >> that is my understanding. >> and how many units is that project? >> that project is 966 units, so that's where each of the 35% yield the 338 units at 1979 mission. >> got it. and i know that project is in district 6, so these two things are connected in that way. how are we paying for the actual building of the affordable housing? the fee is just to pay for the land and we as a city are going to pay for building the project
itself? >> correct. so they're acquiring it and dedicating it to the city no cost to the city. they'll put together a financing plan that will consist of tax credits, state financing and mohcd financing. >> so they'll purchase the land and we're going to -- have we identified or put aside yet the actual funding to build onsite? >> no, we are waiting to issue an r.f.q. for a developer once the developer is on site selected, then we'll be able to determine based on their financing plan. i appreciate that. >> again, i'm very supportive of this and i did want everyone to understand that there will be nearly a thousand-unit market rate building in district 6 that
is connected to what is helping to allow this to happen and so that connection between the annual fees and that building is important to acknowledge. and i know that the folks in soma were also involved with this and they were very supportive of it. so i want to recognize the solidarity and the connection between the mission community and the soma community to come together and both be supportive of this and feel like this is the best way forward for both neighborhoods. so, and i know that i was involved as well, together with supervisor ronen and again grateful for the longstanding leadership of supervisor ronen and the community to come forward with the plan. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: i just -- this is the first time i've dug in on this. a couple of questions. so, if the crescent site, they did 35% of the -- would that be
the on site number -- it would have been less. what would the on site number have been if they built affordable housing at 10 south van ness? >> i couldn't answer that question. i would refer to the planning department. >> supervisor safai: what? okay. so anyway, it's 35%. so that would have been what? how many units is that? 348? >> 338 units, correct. so we're taking what would have been 338 units offsite. we're not really building those units, we're taking the money and buying the land and we still -- how many units are going to be built at the site? >> so i don't have a final number until we select a developer and bring on architect and they propose the design concept. based on the two studies, purely
based on planning code and a fit test done by an architect, there is a large range of 200 to 338 units. it's a rather large range. mohcd's goal is to get as many units on the site. a lot is contingent on the financing plan, competitiveness for public financing. but the range we have from the two different reports are 200 to 338. >> supervisor safai: so it seems to me we're losing out on units, though. if you build the units on site, there will be a few hundred units and then this site, the city could acquire with other funds, then we would go out and build -- so it seems like we're losing units. because if you did the on site at 10 south van ness, you're talking about hundreds of units. now we're taking that money and we're not really building anything with it, we're just going and acquiring land.
now on that land we're only -- not that that's not great and i understand the history behind that site. i understand the fight and the struggle, the eight-year fight to change it from market rate. i know that originally they had been proposed for just a small amount of units on site. i'm just saying, if the city were to acquire this with other funds, we would have a mixed use site at 10 south van ness with a few hundred affordable units and then the city could acquire this other site and we would -- it feels to me like -- although i'm excited for mission, it feels like we're losing units. i just want to be clear unless my math is off. because if this developer were required to do onsite at 10 south van ness, we would get a few hundred units. i see you shaking your head, amy, is that not right, they
wouldn't build a couple hundred units? >> there is never a requirement to build onsite. >> supervisor safai: yeah, i know that. i know that. you went on mute again. >> i'm sorry. there is always the option of in-lieu fees. >> supervisor safai: no i'm aware and i know that the on site would not have been equivalent to 35 because we adjusted that when we amended the on site versus the offsite rule. [please stand by] [please stand by]
>> there's a specific fee on top of this land dedication. >> supervisor safai: what does that equate to? >> you know, supervisor, i want to say it was somewhere in the range of $17 million. >> supervisor safai: okay. that's great. what is the equivalent -- what is this 348 -- 338 fee? what does that come out to? mr. baca. >> oh, i mean, they're meeting their 415 requirements by the
land dedication. so there's not really a fee equivalent. they're acquiring the site and dedicating it. >> supervisor safai: there has to be an in lieu dollar amount. so if they're doing 35% equivalent, then they're giving the city what would be the equivalent of 35% on site. that's in the millions. you don't have that number? >> no. i don't. we look at it as how many units can 1939 mission essentially accommodate. >> supervisor safai: so what's the cost of acquiring 1979 mission? >> so the cost is -- let me just pull it up. it's approximately $39.7 million. >> supervisor safai: oh, okay. so i'm sure that that in lieu fee would probably be similar to around that amount. is that a nod, amy? i don't know if you were
nodding. >> i was not. i don't have that exact callation. >> supervisor safai: okay. so to acquire 1979 mission is about $47 million and on top of that there's another $17 million. okay. so that makes a little more sense. and i just want to say i know there's been a lot of conversation about another project in the city that was mixed use. this 1979 would not be able to happen without a market rate project and that's instead of doing their onsite, they're doing in lieu equivalent which is higher than the on site and that allows us to be able to do this phenomenal project for the mission they've waited so long for in the community has fought so long for. i just wanted to make that connection. i snow supervisor haney underscored that, but i think
it's important to note that this project would not be happening without a market rate project up the street and would have no on site. and somebody that revised and updated the inclusionary housing laws with supervisor peskin and supervisor kim and breed at the time, our goal was to make the in lieu and offsite less attractive. we wanted more on site because i truly believe in mixed income communities and desegregating people based on income. and so i'm excited that we're going to have 100% affordable. i'm sure they'll be different income levels at that site. but not having any affordable at 10 south van ness is a trade-off and it's a trade-off for the families that would be able to live there and you're
correct, miss feinart. anyway. i'm happy to underscore this today and get some clarity. i wasn't clear on what the -- how the math worked out, but it's a little clearer now. so thank you for answering those questions. >> supervisor haney: thank you. so maybe a question for planning. mr. baca may know this. is 10 south van ness free and clear in every way? i just want to, you know note that this is obviously connected to that project and, you know, we recently had a project that was somewhat close to this project to what supervisor safai. that did not. that had an e.i.r. that was rejected by the board in part because of the issues around seismic issues around gentrification.
has there been any seismic analysis or gentrification analysis on this building that's about twice the size of 10 south van ness? >> i apologize, supervisor. i should of invited planning department. i do not have that answer because that project isn't under the m.o.c.d. jurisdiction. maybe ann can answer that but i did not invite them to this. >> so to let you know, supervisor, the 10 south van ness is fully entitled and they did use the a.b.900 and so that is a very comprehensive record of ceqa. so i don't -- you know, i would again have to go back or ask the planning staff to apply on the types of analysis and studies that were down on 10 south van ness, but it was fully entitled and ceqa was
adopted last august. >> supervisor haney: okay. perfect. that's good. so this is not something that could be appealed by the board. i would want to know if they looked at gentrification because this was something that the board was concerned about and rejected the e.i.r. for a much smaller project that had some level of affordability. this project at 10 south van ness has no affordability. it's 100% affordable. so i would just would want to understand if we looked at those issues when it came to this project. for the same reason where i think the focus on the mission was excited that this 1979 project would be affordable and some of the impacts of having a very large market rate project that would of might otherwise go there. i think we deserve deaths, similar questions in this case. but i'm happy to hear that it's fully approved and i absolutely
support this land dedication and i'm excited that 1979 mission will be 100% affordable. so why don't we open it up to public comment. >> clerk: yes, chair haney. operations is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. members of the public press star three now. for those already on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. mr. atkins, please let us know if there are any commentors who wish to comment on this item. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name's susan marsh. i'm with the project 16 coalition and i'm also a member of housing rights committee of san francisco. today, we're coming to a major milestone in after seven years of tenacious community organizing and mobilizing to
create a well-designed, deep lead affordable housing project on the site. we ask that you continue to support us in our -- and stand with us in our struggle to create this deeply affordable housing on 1979 mission. we thank you for your support so far and we hope and trust that you will continue to stand by our side and take our lead. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, susan marsh for your comments. next speaker, please. hello, caller. >> caller: good afternoon. >> clerk: yes. we can hear you, but you might want to turn down your television or streaming device.
>> caller: okay. hi, good afternoon. i'm with the 16 coalition and housing rights san francisco urging and appreciating the support for this acquisition and land dedication and as susan said before me, we look forward to having your continued support as we ensure that this is deeply affordable housing and we continue making sure that 1979 mission is modeled for other fights for deeply affordable housing. not just in our neighborhood, but in others. thanks. >> clerk: thank you so much for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: hi.
speaker. so it's good afternoon supervisors. i'm with plaza safe 16. i am in district 9 and i go to san antonio church. this is a victory for accessible for affordable housing for our community due to the fact that our people and now we need to continue making sure that housing is actually accessible and affordable beyond the current subsidies that people receive. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. do we have anymore. i think we have additional speakers on that same line.
. >> translator: good afternoon. my name is sola martinez. i'm a leader and i live in district 9 and as a senior citizen, it is very hard for me to qualify for accessible housing. and although i have gotten my number taken out in the lottery, that did not become a reality for me. we need more than this and this
. >> translator: all right. good afternoon supervisors. i am with plaza 16, i live in district 10 and i go to san antonio church and i'm also a leader in faith and action. i want to thank you all for being able to get this portion of land to be able to build in the mission. however, i want to also say that we need to continue making sure that more folks can have access to accessible and affordable housing and that this is a reality for our community. thank you very much. [end of translation] >> caller: [speaking spanish].
housing beyond the subsidies that have been given to our people. these subsidies sometimes also put our folks in a situation where they do not qualify for housing. so we ask you that we continue with these changes to make affordable and accessible housing a reality for our community. thank you very much. [end of translation] >> clerk: i do believe that was the last speaker on that line. speaker, can you confirm? >> caller: yes. >> clerk: okay. thank you very much for your comments. mr. atkins, next speaker, please. hello. there is someone on the line. we do hear you. this is your opportunity to
provide public comment. >> caller: hello. >> clerk: hello. please begin. hello. are you with us? >> caller: hello. yes. >> clerk: yes. please begin. >> caller: hello. hello? >> supervisor haney: speaker, please begin. >> clerk: mr. sammy, perhaps the speaker doesn't know that it's her turn. >> translator: [speaking spanish]. >> caller: [speaking spanish].
>> translator: good afternoon, supervisors. i am with plaza 16. i live in district 11 and i attend the church. we need you to continue to supporting our community, this community has been fighting for seven years to make this a reality. we really need this to be accessible for all of our people. most of us need three jobs at least to be able to afford rent. we will continue fighting as a community in an organized manner and please say no to
indifference. thank you very much. [end of translation] >> clerk: thank you. mr. atkins, do we have anymore speakers in the queue? >> mr. clerk, there are no further speakers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you very much. mr. chair. >> supervisor haney: great. thank you so much to all the speakers and to the plaza 16 coalition. i know this has been a many year struggle around this site. when i was on the school board, i engaged a lot with the coalition and was supportive of their efforts then. i'm grateful and happy to see this come to fruition for the community and we'll be excited once we choose a developer and break ground and see it built for the neighborhood of the whom very much deserves this site for the community. so, with that, did i already ask -- did i ask if there was a b.l.a. report?
there was. all right. i want to make a motion to move this item to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> clerk: chair haney, a little bit of housekeeping. a., if we can close public comment. >> chairman: public comment is closed. >> clerk: thank you, much. i did circulate a set of amendments offered by mocd for some clarifying edits. so if either mr. baca or i believe it was the city attorney's office to speak to those amendments. >> i don't see keith on that. let me see. >> clerk: there we go. perfect. >> there was just a clarifying.
>> the purchase and sale agreement by the buyer and seller will be executed at the same time when we execute our agreement with question heights. i think everything will happen at once. this is just a clarifying amendment to the resolution. >> chairman: all right. i'll make a motion to accept those amendments. >> clerk: on the motion to accept those amendments. vice chair safai, [roll call] we have three ayes. >> chairman: great. and i want to make a motion to move this to the full board with a positive recommendation as amended. >> clerk: on that motion, [roll call]
we have three ayes. >> chairman: great. thank you. thank you so much and please thank supervisor ronen for us as well. thank you. mr. clerk, can you please call item ten. >> clerk: yes. item number ten is the ordinance amending the business and tax regulations code to suspended imposition of the cannabis business tax through december 31st, 2022. members of the public should call (415) 655-0001. the meeting id 24951037123 and then press pound twice. if you have not already done so, please press star three to speak. and you may begin your comments. mr. chair. >> chairman: great. thank you. and before i begin, i am very
supportive of this item, but i also am going to turn it over to vice chair safai who's going to chair the rest of the meeting and the next item we're going to continue to december 1st. >> supervisor safai: mr. chair, i just have a quick question for the clerk. is supervisor mar here? is anyone else here either than you or me? somewhere. >> supervisor mar: i'm here, vice chair safai. >> supervisor safai: okay. i just wanted to make sure we didn't lose quorum when the chair had to leave. >> chairman: no bathroom breaks for this last item. do you want to just go ahead and start talking. >> i will happily start talking vice chair safai. chair haney on his way and supervisor mar for the opportunity to speak today on supervisor mandelman's behalf. this would suspend the city's imposition of the cannabis
business tax through december 2022. there's a little bit of background. san francisco voters approved proposition d which allowed for the imposition on cannabis business activity. this tax would be a new local tax paid only by cannabis businesses and would be in addition to all of the other city taxes and fees that they pay in the rationale for the suspension was in part about the uncertainty about the new tax of businesses struggling under the weight of covid-19. there were also noncovid related factors including high taxes on retail cannabis sales at the state level that disalloweded the deduction of many ordinary business expenses and the pervasiveness resulting from the comparatively high
cost of legal retail cannabis. prop 64 established a 15% state excise tax on retail cannabis sales as well as a tax on cultivation as well as the federal tax code disallows cannabis businesses from writing off routine expenses resulting in businesses paying up to two to three times more in federal taxes. of course, there are still significant concerns about the ongoing evasiveness of the market. last month, legal industry can't compete with the illicit market. the article did note that despite us being five years into legal cannabis in california, the illegal market still approaches $8 billion annually which is twice the volume of legal sales. it should be noted this isn't
just bad economy because our illegal businesses pay no taxes. it also threatens our environment. subjects workers to dangerous conditions and imparls public health. many of these ill lift marijuana operations use illegal insecticides and workers in these operations often find themselves exposed to dangerous and illegal working conditions and unlike legal cannabis products, illegal products are not held to safety standards. in 2019, there were fairly high profile lung illnesses related to untested cannabis vape cartridges that killed 68 people and hospitalized nearly 3,000 people. i will note a report by the california legislative analyst office found that tax rates are directly tide to illegal versus legal consumption. the state retail tax would result in a 7% to 22% decrease
in cannabis consumption. quickly, i know it's been a long meeting. i'll wrap up soon, i promise. it is of course possible and we hope probable that during the additional year that this tax would be suspended changes would come at the state and perhaps federal level that would reduce the tax burden on cannabis businesses which would allow a local tax to be less impactful. back in 2019, now attorney general then assembly member rob bonta attempted to do this. he was unsuccessful. our former director of the office nicole elliott now governor newsome's head cannabis officer recently suggested the governor would be supportive of legislative efforts to revisit a lower tax rate and ufcw who are supportive of order nants are before you today. finally, it should be noted
that we now actually have several years of gross receipts data for cannabis businesses in san francisco as they are already subject to our city's existing gross receipts tax. if we do extend the suspension of the tax, supervisor mandelman has requested that the controller in consultation with the treasurer tax collector, office of cannabis and cannabis oversight committee analyze the data we have on cannabis sales in san francisco consider factors like state taxation and impacts to our equity goals and present the board with a set of recommendations on a reasonable tax rate and structure that can be implemented for the 2023 tax year. i do know vice chair safai, you are also leading conversations about the state of the cannabis industry here in san francisco which i think would be very appropriate to have conversations about the implementation of this tax included in. so that is it. i cut it a little short because you've heard enough presentations today. i am happy to answer any
questions. acting director of the office of cannabis john pierce i believe is also available to answer questions though it should be noted the oversight committee has not taken a formal position on this legislation. so thank you vice chair safai and supervisor mar. happy to answer any questions. >> supervisor safai: great. thank you. are you there? okay good. thank you. so is director you don't havenberger there? >> yes. >> supervisor safai: so this as i understand it, this is -- what we had projected this out to be $8.8 million revenue for the city. how did you factor that into
the budget? >> so mayor's budget director here. my understanding from the b.l.a. report is that they are projecting this would have a fiscal impact of $8 million that is revenue that's currently and this will bridge two fiscal years and the other half of that would be part of the projection for fiscal '23. >> supervisor safai: okay. so are we -- we're in fiscal year '21-'22, correct? >> correct. >> supervisor safai: and part of this would bridge when we start in july '22-'23. >> correct. until december 2022 which would be in the first fiscal months of '22-'23.
basically $4 million in the current fiscal year and $4 million the next fiscal year. >> supervisor safai: so it's not $8.8 million annually, it's $4.4 million annually. >> yes. but the way that because this is kind of deferring it on a calendar year basis. >> supervisor safai: oh, got it. so it's 8.8 annually million dollars but $4.4 million on a fiscal basis. how do we defer this tax? >> as i recall, the board approved a deferrell last year that would have deferred it until december of '21. i don't know how many times we've deferred it. >> supervisor safai: i think this is the second time we've deferred this tax, is that right? >> that would be correct, vice chair safai. if this was approved, it would
be the second deferral. >> supervisor safai: and did we do this via ordinance? >> proposition d was put on by the board of supervisors, but passed by the voters. >> supervisor safai: but it gives us the ability to defer the tax. >> correct. proposition d allowed the board to defer the tax and also to set tax rates for the tax. >> supervisor safai: got it. so back to you, director groffenberger. essentially now what we have to do if we vote for this, you will have to reduce the budget in the calendar year from january to july 1st by $4.4 million and -- is that correct? >> so, as you know, we have a couple of points during the year in which we evaluate revenue and expenditures so the
next time we evaluate that is the six-month mark and the controller's office will look at the whole of the city's general revenue and evaluate how it's performing according to projections. so if this were to pass, it would be $4.4 million short of what was assumed in the budget, but we look at the totality of the city's revenues. >> supervisor safai: i get it, but we're taking $4.4 million. so mr. temprano, what's the plan? is there a plan to get a working group together for people from the cannabis industry. sounds like we can't choose the rate. the rate is not chosen by the voters. it's either deferred for a year or it's 5%. there's no ability for us to adjust that in any way? >> thank you for the question, supervisor safai. i don't know if the
controller's office is here and i may just have different information, but i do believe the fiscal impacts for this current fiscal year is likely to -- there is not likely to be fiscal impact in this current year because the tax collector. currently, the tax is going to begin to be imposed as of january 1st, 2022. but say our income taxes, they won't be collected by the treasurer tax collector until the following year. so they are not expecting to actually start collecting revenue from this tax until 2023 so we have been operating under the assumption there was not a fiscal impact in the current fiscal year we're in but that there would be in the following fiscal year. >> supervisor safai: but that's not what the mayor's budget director just told us are you there to speak on this item? >> yeah. i'm carol lou, city wide
revenue manager. so what tom was just saying is correct that in the current fiscal year '21-'22, the mayor's budget office or the budget assumes $4.4 million of revenue from cannabis, however due to the way the tax is administered, we won't be collecting that this year. so the delay is not related to that. however, the delay would impact the entire fiscal year '22-'23. so there is an $8.8 million impact, it's just all felt in '22-'23. and the budget is on that as well. >> supervisor safai: you're saying it's like that because of the way we collect the revenue? >> correct. >> supervisor safai: so maybe a better way to do this rather than having it on the calendar year, do we have the ability to delay this to the end of the
fiscal year and have it begin, have a conversation over the next six, seven months that we then can have a better understanding of what this impact would be wauz we're making a decision now that impacts us into the next fiscal year and so it's really like a year, we're pushing it out each time we delay this. so wouldn't it make somewhere sense to push this to july 1st? >> i think this is -- sorry. >> vice chair safai. we did explore this. i will say actually what you have suggested was an option that we explored with the city attorney. what we learned was that this tax and this actually goes back to another question that you had asked previously about how we can defer. i'm not familiar with all of our tax laws, but i know this particular tax, any adjustment
can be effective no sooner than the tax year following the tax year in which the ordinance adjusting the rate is effective is the exact language. so essentially if something is enacted in the say 2022 tax year and the rates are changed, it cannot be implemented until the following year. we just can't do a mid year, a mid tax year change the way that this tax is passed. >> supervisor safai: got it. it would have to be based on the tax, not the fiscal season. >> we like that idea frankly as well. >> supervisor safai: i just got clarity on the legislation. it looks like the board of supervisors can -- the board of supervisors may from time to time by ordinance adopted by at least two thirds of the members of the board increase one or more rates provided by the sections 3003b 2 and b3 and no
rate may exceed 7%. the board of supervisors may from time to time adopt by majority members of the board one or more of the areas provided within these sections within the 0% to 7%. we do have the ability of the board to adjust the rate. it doesn't have to stay at 5%. >> absolutely. that is absolutely correct, vice chair. >> supervisor safai: okay. you know, i understand 80% to 90% of the sales are illicit these days and there's a tremendous pressure on the community these days which essentially puts significant pressure on these businesses to survive in a lot of ways they're working to pay their federal taxes. i also understand the voters did pass a local tax here and i
think that in this environment, everyone's paying taxes. everyone's hurting and helping to recover. so this is a significant decision we're making. $8.8 million, it's a significant chunk of money that we will be foregoing. so it's an important decision. i mean, another way to look at it is some of that money could be if there were a way in terms of support, in terms of providing the capacity building to the equity industry, all those that need that additional support, some of that money that can be turned around and utilized for that industry. so it's not necessarily just, you know, we have to have that conversation. i would hope that supervisor mandelman in your office and i'm happy to support that would convene a working group of people because i think come this time next year, it's going to be hard to make an argument regardless of where we are to
ask for this deferral in this environment. i see supervisor mar wants to speak. supervisor mar. >> supervisor mar: thank you. i'm sorry. i'm out right now so i'm going to be keeping my video off. yeah. you know, i understand the rationale for this fee deferral. i'm sorry, the tax deferral, tax waiver on the cannabis industry and in terms of shgt, you know, wanting to ensure this new industry in our city is able to continue to' develop in a sustainable way and, of course, thing fi priority strategies are able to continue to support the folks that really need inclusion and also
the concerns around our local tax added on to the state. we'll further incentivize the illicit market. but i do have some concerns about the justification for a second year of the tax waiver on this industry and the budgetary impacts, the 8.-- over $8 million and this discussion with the controller's office, you know, it's been helpful to understand that that's really going to impact the next fiscal year and not necessarily this year. of the so that's good to know. i do think this decision of this really would be best included in overall budget, the overall planning and decision making around the budget for the next fiscal year because we're going to have to make some hard budgetary decisions in over $8 million is not a small amount.
but i know -- i guess i understand that technically, there's a need to approve this right now. can you just explain that a little more, like the urgency of us deciding on this what's proposed right now versus say next spring or even as part of the budget process. >> thank you very much for the question, supervisor mar. so the urgency and the decision now is not to suspend the tax at the levels that are currently set in the ordinance which i believe are at 2.5% up to $1.5 million in gross receipts and then 5% for everything above that amount. so without action to suspend those rates will go into effect as of january 1, 2022.
>> got it and what's the z deadline to make that decision and my question is can we continue this a little bit in committee? >> i think our strong preference given where we are in the calendar year and also given the and the time sensitivity of this item, we would really appreciate seeing it move out of committee today if that is the committee's will. >> supervisor mar: okay thank you. and definitely want to respect the work that you and supervisor mandelman have done on this along with the cannabis industry leaders and
stakeholders. my -- vice chair safai, my preference would be to move this out of committee today but without recommendation so i can have a little more time to get some questions answered about the budget implications. >> supervisor safai: that's fine. i think that the right way to proceed is without recommendation today, but in the interim between now and when it goes to the full board, i think it would be good for supervisor mandelman and your office to come back, tom, basically to say to have the controller put together an oversight committee including labor and other equity and interested parties so that you all can come together and make a real analysis of where the industry is, what the industry needs at this time so we're not
just keeping on asking for a continuance. i know we're in an unusual time. that's the theme of the conversation here at the budget committee, but it's hard when everyone else is kind of struggling through the pain to keep on asking for deferrals. but i also understand that this is a very unique industry that lives between illicit and local approval and state approval and federal, you know, illegality so it definitely necessitates a particular type of approach. so i would like to see at least the conversation between now and when we go to the full board that you all come back with a plan and it's i think's a simple, you know, we're going to put together this process. these are all the people that are going to be involved and you all can put that on the record as it comes to the full board in convincing your
colleagues to support for a deferral. does that sound fair? >> absolutely, vice chair. that sounds fair and we have already begun engaging some of these stakeholders in a process to inform this tax moving forward. so very happy to do that work prior to this reaching the full board and present something to you all. >> supervisor safai: great. okay. so is there a b.l.a. report on this item? >> yes, vice chair safai. there is. >> supervisor safai: bernard, you hung with us, man. of it's 4:00. you didn't get to watch your soap operas today. >> i recorded them for later. >> supervisor safai: just kidding, man. >> so the proposed ordinance amends the business tax and regulation code to further suspend the imposition of the cannabis tax until january 2023. the estimated revenue loss resulting from the legislation
would be $8.8 million in fiscal year '22-'23 not the current fiscal year because of the way the tax is collected at the end of the tax year. because this reduces general fund revenues and the balance fund budget considered by the board, we do consider an approval by the board of supervisors. >> supervisor safai: great. thank you, sir. and thank you for always letting me joke with you. we have a lot of fun together. okay. so i am fine -- mr. jalipa, do we have to take public comment on this item? >> clerk: yes, we do, mr. vice chair. >> supervisor safai: okay. i guess we'll do that. >> clerk: operations is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item, please press star three to be added. mr. atkins, please let us know if there are any callers who
wish to comment. >> caller: hello. my name is claire courtney. i am a cannabis organizer for united food and commercial workers uscw local 5 and a proud resident of san francisco. i'm calling in support of the suspension of this tax. we as representatives of cannabis workers across the state specifically in the bay area have seen the negative effects of the illegal market and how it continues to survive and grow as legitimate cannabis employers are heavily taxed. so we are pro the suspension so we can continue to grow the legal market and continue to add good union jobs to our city. thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you claire courtney for your comments. mr. atkins, next speaker,
please. >> caller: do we have to take public comment? how dare you, supervisor. i have important things to say. this is connor johnson. i will be very brief. this is the longest budget meeting i've ever seen. so i appreciate you guys sticking in there. i just wanted to say a couple things really quickly because i promised them that i would. kristin kyleback with the teamsters had to go to a meeting at 3:30, but did want to convey the teamsters support this legislation. i've been texting with her as well as doug block all day and so i just want to thank them for their support. one other quick thing, the state today set the new lengths for cultivation tax for 2022. and i think this is a funny example of how horrible the tax situation is on the legal cannabis market. the tax on trims, like the less valuable flower is now $48 a
pound. trim is selling on the market for about $10 a pound. so it's being taxed at 5x its value. that's pretty much the situation with the legal cannabis market which is why the illegal market is about two and a half times bigger. and if there's a perception that people in regulated cannabis are making money in california right now, they're not. this is the worst possible time for a gross receipt tax locally and i will stop talking so you guys can get out of here. thank you. >> clerk: thank you so much for your comments mr. connor johnson. mr. atkins, next speaker, please. >> caller: greetings, supervisors. johnny dell plain san francisco cannabis retailers alliance. of i'll also make it brief. thank you for your attention to this important matter. we also fully support the deferral. i represent over a dozen social retailers and cannabis retailers in san francisco.
we really need to honor the city's commitment to social justice and job creation before we decide how we're going to tax this. i think supervisor safai's idea of a working group next year to dial in what type of tax this industry can afford and let's have a robust conversation about it and get a tax in place for 2023 that everyone can agree on. but for now, let's defer it because we're hurting here in the industry right now. so thank you. i'll cut it off there. >> clerk: thank you so much for your comments. mr. atkins, can you confirm if we have any mr. speakers in the queue? >> mr. clerk, there no further speakers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you, much. mr. vice chair. >> supervisor safai: sorry about that. okay. so can we make a motion to send this item to the if full board
without recommendation. do i need to do anything else. oh,. i close public comment. >> clerk: thank you much. >> supervisor safai: and then after that a motion to send this item to the full board without recommendation. >> clerk: actually, ahead of the vote, we should take a motion to excuse chair haney for the duration of the meeting. >> supervisor safai: okay. first motion to excuse supervisor haney, roll call, please. >> clerk: on the motion to excuse chair haney for the duration of this meeting, [roll call] we have two ayes with chair haney excused. >> supervisor haney: i'm here. >> clerk: thank you, chair haney. >> supervisor safai: chair haney, just leave.
>> clerk: actually. i'm sorry. >> supervisor safai: we have to rescind that motion now. >> supervisor haney: okay fine. >> supervisor safai: just stay here. motion to rescind item to excuse chair haney for the duration of the meeting. >> clerk: thank you very much. on the motion to rescind, [roll call] we have two ayes. >> supervisor safai: can we vote on this now, please. i'm sorry. i have something to do at 4:00. i'm not being rude. >> clerk: on the motion offered by vice chair safai that this matter be recommended to the full board without recommendation, [roll call]
we have three ayes. >> supervisor safai: great. chair haney, the mic is yours. >> chairman: okay. can you please call our last item. >> clerk: yes, chair haney, the item 11, the departmental spending plants. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call (415) 655-0001. the meeting id 2495 then press pound twice. dial star three to line up to speak. the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. and that's your queue to begin your comments. mr. chair. >> chairman: i'm going to be continuing this item. >> clerk: if we have any
callers in the queue, if you want to provide public comment on this item please press star three to be added for those already on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. mr. atkins, do we have any callers in the queue. >> mr. clerk, there are no callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. mr. chair. >> chairman: public comment is closed. i'm going to make a motion to continue this to december 1st. roll call vote, please. >> clerk: on the motion to continue this item to the budget and finance meeting of december 1st, [roll call] we have three ayes. >> chairman: great. this will be continued to december 1st. are there any other items to report? >> clerk: that concludes our business. >> chairman: great. thank you. meeting's adjourned.
>> san francisco is coming back for real. the weather is all right. hi everybody. i'm san francisco mayor london breed and i'm glad to be here with all of you today at city hall. i know we come and we gather for so many different things, but today is an opportunity for us to recognize some unsung heroes in our city. and let me tell you it has been a very challenging 18 months when the decision to shelter in place was made and we had to communicate to the public. we had a very challenging time. so many people said what are we going to do. there are people who need to be