Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  March 1, 2019 11:00am-12:01pm PST

11:00 am
twice. >> so you were elected twice. >> i was elected twice. >> so the vice president was vice president for the same length of time. >> correct. >> ok. >> can i clarify something. the options on the table for vice president cane are not 8 and 20 but 12 and 20. >> eight to finish and then there's another election. >> well, yeah. here is my question, if in our next meeting that we vote for a president to finish out vince courtney's term, in this case, they will be voting in as an official president, right. it's not a temporary thing. >> yeah. >> and vice president caen, you would rather fill just a limited 12 months as president and you would prefer not to be a temporary, a vice president with presidential responsibilities if
11:01 am
you are officially voted in with president, would you be amenable to that. the eight month has president and another 12? >> that's ok? >> correct. >> good. >> all settled on that. >> so do we want to add something to the by-law or the rules or not? >> to clean this up in the event it happens again? >> we can do that. it's a good idea. >> right. >> and so, it's not calendered so we have to give it notice two weeks in add vans. >advance.>> we don't have to no- >> yes, you do. >> we're doing the election and the rules amendment. >> oh, ok. >> so the rule amendment would be what? >> you would just have to add one sentence to that. in case of the vacancy. >> it depends what you want the rule to be. >> the concern i have you need
11:02 am
to consider is that if the vice president becomes the president you have to hold elections for vice president. >> it doesn't say the vice president becomes the president right now. >> if you were to do that amendment you still have to do an election of a vice president. >> so in the event of a vacancy of an officer there will be an election held to fulfill the next term. does that address it? and then assuming that at the next meeting they'll be a president and vice president election and that would happen any time if you resigned next week, when you don't have -- if an officer resigns, you have to basically have an election. if there's a vacancy of one of the officers. even if the vice president resigns, you would have to officially have an election that would be a new voic vice presid,
11:03 am
right? >> right. >> makes sense. so if it's president or vice president there needs to be an election. >> taking it a step further, should we put in -- make it a rule about the rotation? >> i think that's already in here. >> it's not rotation in here. >> right now it says if the president and vice president are absent, the most senior member of the commission presides. but that doesn't speak to rotation of officers. that is for that matter and who chairs the meeting. as both the chair and the most senior person, if you were not
11:04 am
here we would go to the next most senior person. >> are we spending too much time on this. >> actually this is important. >> well, i think it gets complicated and especially if you put into the by-laws for rotations we have by custom. that has unintended consequences. >> i would be hesitant too. >> i would think if it is our inclination to stick with the rules as they are this moment. we follow the rules as they are at this moment and schedule an election. and that when we get past that, and with more thought and time, to process it that it looks like we really ought to change the
11:05 am
rules to plug this hole than we do that. >> all right. end of discussion. next item. >> is there public comment? >> item 12 prove number 4 to agreement number cs 9-1-1 r and authorization the general manager to negotiate and execute this amendment increasing the agreement by 3,800,000 and exceeding the term by 10 months. >> director water capital programs the sfpuc. this amendment is to make one final amendment for the construction management contract for calaveras dam replacement project. we've known we would need to do this eventually but we wanted to wait until this time when we
11:06 am
knew exactly what would be needed in terms of costs and duration. so this will allow us to finish the management of the construction contract as well as close out this very complex contract. if you have any questions, i would be happy to answer them. >> i'll move the item. >> i'll second. >> any public comments? all those if favor. >> aye. >> opposed. the motion carries. >> next item. >> prior to public comment, and we'll read the closed session items. item 15 is unlitigated claims kin du truong 16 peter day ton versus city and county of san francisco, 17 han over insurance company asowyx holdings
11:07 am
incorporated. and 18 is existing litigation david alfaro versus city and county of san francisco. item 19 existing litigation pacific gas and electric corporation and item 20 existing litigation city and council tee of san francisco versus pacific gas and electric company. item 21, existing litigation pacific gas and electric. 22 existing litigation pacific gas and electric. 23 existing litigation pacific gas and electric. 24 existing litigation pacific gas and electric. 25 existing litigation pacific gas and electric. 26 existing litigation city and county of san francisco versus pacific gas and electric. >> is there any public comment on the items to be discussed in closed session? hearing none, may i have a motion to assert. >> move to assert. >> second. >> all those in favor. >> aye. >> aye. >> opposed.
11:08 am
the m >> we have now come out of closed session. i would like to report on the items. 15, 16, 17 and 18 were settled and items 19-26 there's no action. may of a motion regarding whether to disclose? >> not to disclose. >> i need to make a clarification that on item 18, item 2, was not heard in this closed session. >> thank you. >> is for the plaintiff, sanchez. >> i have a motion on the table. do i have a second. >> i'll second. >> all those in favor. >> aye. >> opposed. the motion carries. is there any new business? before we adjourn.
11:09 am
>> so, this meeting is adjourned at 4:00.
11:10 am
>> good afternoon, and welcome to the land use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisors for today, february 25th, 2019. i am the chair of the committee, supervisor aaron peskin, joined by matt haney, and sandra lee fewer. i wanted to start this meeting, as we will tomorrow, at the full board of supervisors, by taking a moment of silence for our public defender who passed away on friday evening, jeff adochi. i rarely do things like that, but i miss him
11:11 am
dearly. our clerk is ms. erica major. ms. major, do you have any announcements? >> yes. please make sure to silence all cell phones and all electronic documents. le electronic devices. >> chairman: thank you, ms. major, and i'd like to acknowledge that we're joined by supervisor stefie, who is four minutes tardy. >> item number one is an ordinance for many of the buildings who are vacant to pay annual restoration fees at the time of registration, update the penalty for violations, and affirming appropriate findings. >> chairman: thank you,
11:12 am
ms. major. before i turn the microphone over to supervisor fewer, i want to thank her because this is one of the rare instances where an ordinance has been co-sponsored by every single member of the board of supervisors. so supervisor fewer, i think you and your staff are on to something. and with that, the floor is yours. that's not on a meeting -- we can co-sponsor whatever we want, as long as it is not a ballot measure. >> thank you, chair peskin. most of the thanks, i think, goes to my legislative aide for working so hard on this, and something that we recognize is a problem not only in our district, but in all of the districts in san francisco. i'm excited to be moving forward on this legislation and ask you for your support in sending this committee today with a positive recommendation to the full
11:13 am
board. when this item was before you on february 4th, i spoke about how we got here and why it is so important. on that date this committee approved two amendments at this legislation. in order to clarify the refund amount for property owners who lease out their property within one year of paying the annual registration fee, and to require a third-party licensed professional, rather than d.b.i., to conduct annual inspections on vacant properties to ensure they're maintaining the exterior and interior of the property up to code. my office worked closely with d.b.i. on this legislation, and they will simplify implementation without excess administrative burden. once again the purpose of this legislation is to increase the accuracy and affectiveness of vacant store fronts, to ensure they're propertyly prompted identified to remain safe,
11:14 am
to avoid hazards and nuisances resulting from being vacant or abandoned. this ord nan will do the follow: ensure all vacant storefronts are properly identified and registered regardless of whether the property is being aver advertised or release. and to monitor or enforce registration requirements at the time of registration, and penalties for failure to register, and requiring annual inspections of vacant storefronts to ensure they remain safe and do not pose a hazard. i would like to thank the building inspection commission and the small businesses commission to their positive recommendations and all ten of my colleagues for unanimously co-sponsoring this ordinance. and i want to thank the golden gate restaurant association for the letters they sent in support of this ordinance.
11:15 am
no one understands the importance of addressing this issue more than than our local restaurants and businesses, and i'm proud to have their support. thank you very much. >> chairman: thank you, mrs. fewer. mr. william strong, do you have any comments on baf behalf of the building inspection or your commission. >> thank you. as the supervisor fewer mentioned, we have been working closely with her and her staff for the past few months on this. we're looking forward to seeing it move forward and hopefully tightening up what is a complicated situation. >> thank you, mr. strong. is there anybody here on behalf of the small business commission? okay. are there any members of the public who would like to testify on this item. please come forward. >> okay.
11:16 am
as i dislike closed storefronts as the next one, i would like to know if anyone would like to characterize the comments held by the local real estate and the chamber of commerce. and i am wondering into which city the inspection fees will look to, and for what purpose they may be expended. i would also like to know any such fees and inspection are both reasonable and thorough, and they are not conceived of as a punitive measure but as an instrument taken in the interest of public safety and the local commercial development. i have been surprised to find how cheaply storefronts can be held under lease in prime quarters, such as central north beach and the balboa triangle. the relative business turnover and periodic
11:17 am
business formation in these neighborhoods cannot nearly be attributed to the high cost of lease hold, but to the totality of rising overhead. in fact, the low cost of leasing may lead to an increase in business failure, owing to the relatively low cost of market entry which acts as a lure. of course, the enterprise failure -- well, of course enterprise failure fuels business development and redesign and remodel, and the repurposed restaurants have a tendency to flame out in a year or three. they may be doubling hit by loss of leaseholder, and to reconfigure the floor plan, as well as a need to reregister the renewed need for property inspection and fee schedule. i'd like to conclude that the new enterprise might
11:18 am
find itself at competitive disadvantaged with established businesses. >> chairman: i appreciate your comments. and, you're right, it is not all a function of leasehold prices. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisor. cory smith on behalf of the san francisco housing action coalition. you know, there is a bunch of different ways that we're trying to attack our storefront and problems. it is going to come as a shock to all of you, one of the ways we think is a really effective way of doing that is to add housing at all levels of aaffordability along our commercial corridors. we have so many great neighborhoods all over the city. i walk to most of my goods and services in my neighbourhood. i go for hardware stuff, i go to h.d. markets to buy my groceries, and i get lunch just down the
11:19 am
street. and when there are more people in the neighbourhood and more people walking around in the neighbourhood, we know they are spending more money. we've seen plenty of data specific to san francisco, specific to the merchant quarters in san francisco, saying that consumers spend the most amount of money if they walk. if we also add additional people to the corridor, that's an additional way we can help our small businesses across the city. thank you. >> chairman: i think that was a comment in support. i'm not sure. next speaker, please. all right. seeing no other members of the public for public comment, thank you for telling us about your shopping behaviors. are there any comments from committee members. >> thank you, chair peskin. i want to take a moment to thank supervisor fewer. this is a vexing issue for our district, in particular. when i started my run for office and my goal to be a
11:20 am
supervisor, this is one the issues i heard over and over again, the high rate of vacancies and empty storefronts in our district. so having the tool to be able to encourage and hopefully compel many of these business owners/property owners to do something with their space -- i mean, the goal is not really to collect money. this is just an encouragement tool to be able to rent these spaces and activate our commercial corridors. and if they don't, then we will collect the money and we will most likely put it back into something positive for the neighbourhood. i just wanted to thank supervisor fewer and her staff for pushing this forward. and i am in strong support of this. >> chairman: supervisor haney? >> i also want to thank and really congratulate supervisor fewer for your leadership on this. i think it is extraordinary to have such broad support among all of
11:21 am
the supervisors, but it is obviously because it is something that really directly affects all of our districts. i was on a walk with my staff down market street last week, and the thing that i think stands out the most, that is most glaring, even on our main thoroughfair in our city, are the number of vacant storefronts, and we were saying, there is one there, and there, and what are we going to do about this? so when this goes through and we're able to easily pull the exact locations, how long they've been vacant, what is happening with them, and have some tools at our disposable to affect that, it is going to be a great benefit to -- certainly to my district, district 6, where there are also a lot of public safety impacts on when we have these vacant storefronts. so i'm excited to continue to support this work, both with the registry and then as we move forward to making sure that we're filling these vacant
11:22 am
storefronts. so thank you for your leadership, and thank you to your legislative aide, who i know has worked a tremendous amount on this. hopefully this will be the last time we have to pass this to his committee, and we'll see it pass out of the board. thank you, and congratulations. >> thanks. >> chairman: colleagues, i call on the sponsor of this legislature, i want to add a couple of things. >> number one, as you all know, and supervisor fewer joined me at a press conference in north beach, where while there is still a re relatively healthy vacancies at 10%, it had jumped from 5% to 10% in the last three years. and i will be bringing forward to this body a piece of legislation that if we all see fit will be submitted to the voters with regard to a vacancy tax. so i just wanted to put that on the record. the second thing i wanted to say is that while
11:23 am
supervisor fewer thanked the small business commission for support of the legislation, i would like to respectfully differ just a little bit, which is that there are three recommendations that were actually recommendations to gut this legislation. and i completely disagree with the 7-0 vote of that body. and i just wanted to state that on the record because i can. with that, supervisor fewer. >> thank you, chairman peskin, and thank you, colleagues, for your support. i just wanted to mention a few things in response to some of the public comment that we just heard. one, that we did meet with the merchant associations, and they're in support of this ordinance. and also, as they realize that these empty storefronts actually hinder those commercial corridors from reaching their full potential. another thing is that this is not a fine. this is rather a recovery fee. the recovery fee is what
11:24 am
d.b.i. spends on actually doing the inspections of these vacant storefronts. and i also wanted to comment that an increase in market-rate housing can lead to identification, which can actually be detrimental to existing merchants as there is currently no rent control on retail space. and so what we're seeing is that when areas identify so quickly and massively around neighborhoods that many of these merchants that have been around for 20 and 30 years are now priced out because there is no retail rent control. so i just wanted to comment on those two public comment issues, and i want to thank my colleagues for their support. >> chairman: thank you. any other comments. supervisor stefie? >> i want to add one more thing that i think is really wonderful about this but basic, is getting the idea of the exact number, right? i mean, you went out and
11:25 am
counted in your district over 156 properties that were empty storefronts, and that's much of the genesis of this legislation. and d.b.i. at the time had zero. so, i mean, understanding the scale of the problem, first and foremost, then allows us as policy-makers to get an idea. i understand that it is complaint-driven, and that is what you are referring to, so this is not a criticism of d.b.i., but at the end of the day, this will now encourage us and allow us to have an exact number of how many empty storefronts there are, and we can then begin to understand the scale of the problem, which is an important part of the legislation. i just wanted to point that out and say that that was really important. thank you. >> chairman: so which one of you colleagues would like to make a motion. to send this item to the full board. >> i would like to make a motion to send this item to the full board with positive recommendation. >> chairman: can we take that without recommendation -- i mean without objection with
11:26 am
recommendation. congratulations, supervisor fewer, and thank you. ms. major, the next item please. >> item number two is an ordinance in ordering the summary street vacation, bragdon street and within the perimeter of the farmers' market, approving jurisdictional transfers of property from the site of market and public works, and agricultural commissioner to the g.s.a., and a affirming appropriate findings. >> chairman: mr. stores, our county surveyor, my notes say this presentation is coming from claudia gore from the department of real estate. [inaudible] >> this is really a department of public works ordinance because they're the ones that come,. >> chairman: in that case, we should probably get mr. stores back up here. >> it doesn't matter. who would you like? >> chairman: whoever wants to present.
11:27 am
>> okay. good afternoon, chair peskin and supervisors. today is an ordinance before you that would do a vacant the remaining portions of three streets that are still within the decades-old alini farmers' market. if you need a lot of information about the history, we have that. but just generally, this started about 20 or 30 years ago, in 1989 and went over to 1993. in 2010, a general plan referral was done to get rid of the remaining portions of the streets that are within the market itself. there are no utilities within them. there is nothing -- they're not used for sidewalks or streets or anything. it is actually right in the middle of the market, where actually the stalls are located. this will continue that general plan referral to get rid of all of the streets and then transfer the jurisdiction from
11:28 am
d.g.w., and transfer it over to real estate division, which took over the operation and the management of the market i think around 2007. >> chairman: so simply put, this is a street vacation and jurisdictional transfer? >> correct. >> chairman: all righty. to the county surveyor, mr. stores. the floor is yours. he said for the record he had nothing to add. are there any members of the public who would like to comment on this item number two of a very short land use committee agenda? seeing none, the public comment is closed. this probably should have happened eight years ago, but it is good that it is happening now. it is but a paper transaction between various departments of the city and county of san francisco. is there a motion to send this to the full board with recommendation made by supervisor stefie.
11:29 am
we will take that without objection, and we are adjourned.
11:30 am
>> chair fewer: the meeting will come to order. i am supervisor sandra fewer, the chair of the budget and finance committee. this is the february 27, 2019 meeting. madam clerk, are there any
11:31 am
announcements? [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. madam clerk, can you please read item number one. >> clerk: item one, item amending the resolution between the west side health center and behavioral health services by increasing the amount by 19 million for an amount not to exceed 23.9 million and to extend the current contract by three years. >> chair fewer: thank you. i believe have we have michelle ruggles here from the department of public health, and this item was continued
11:32 am
from february 13. >> okay. i think this contract is the sum of its parts, so i think it's helpful to understand the backgrounds behind each program, and i hope that will make my own explanation to you clearer. so we continue to be in agreement with the report recommendation both this time and last time, to approve the proposed amendment to extend this contract from one year to a total of 4.5, and to approve the corresponding funding for each of the fiscal years. the department remains committed and confident in its support of continuing this contract. as you know, this proposed continuation contract includes
11:33 am
funding for three programs. two of the programs, the outpatient and the crisis programs, provide mental health and crisis outpatient services to an african american target population. we conduct annual program monitoring reports of each individual program. each of these -- both of these two programs met starts in 14-15, 15-16 and in our most recent annual program, they exceeded standards. that was in 16-17. i recognize from last time, there was some concern about the solicitation rankings of the r.f.p.s use to select these two programs. i just want to point out a few important items for consideration. the first is we conducted a solicitation to continue our existing services. so the department did not have a goal of trying to consolidate or change service providers, and i think if you -- if the report showed the detail for
11:34 am
each agency listed, you would say that they are spread all over the city, and most have a unique target population if not a neighborhood population. as noted, all of the applicants were reselected, and all of the applicants were then and continue to be our contracted service providers with ongoing client service relationships and caseload. so i know that no one wants to be ranked last. if you look at the actual score and compare the scores ge agai each other, but if you look at the score achieved, you'll see that west side achieved 69 and 73% of all possible points.
11:35 am
they may not have been an a-plus, but they're not red flagged scores. the third program that's in there is called west side assertive value treatment. this is a program working with some of the highest needs clients we have. in our most recent year monitored in 16-17, the program solidly met standards, and as i noted last time, we continued and worked with west side with respect to the number of slots that they had -- client slots in that program, and we reduced the slots in agreement with them to reflect what historically they were serving of an 80% client load. so we appreciate that west side is continuing this program and
11:36 am
there by ensuring the continuity of care for these clients. so just in summary, if you roll these programs back up into the contract that you have before you, then i would just repeat that the department is very supportive of this contract with west side and hope that with this additional information that has been provided to you and in my report that it's now more clear also to you. >> chair fewer: any questions from my colleagues? oh, sure, let's hear from the b.l.a., please. >> good morning, chair fewer and members of the committee. severin campbell from the budget analyst's office. we did report this to the committee, and at that time we
11:37 am
recommended approval and still recommend approval but are available for any questions you may have. >> chair fewer: colleagues -- yes, supervisor stefani. >> supervisor stefani: thank you, chair fewer. i want to thank my colleagues for entertaining the motion to continue a few weeks ago, and i want to explain a little bit why i asked for that continuance because i don't want west side community health center to feel picked on. when we were looking at the report two weeks ago, there were concerns when we looked at the report. when i look at the global issues going on, homelessness, drug abuse, that are going on in our nation, i was forced to ask some hard questions. everyone agrees the situation on our streets is unacceptable. people shouldn't live on the streets with drug problems and mental health problems.
11:38 am
we're required to ask the tough questions. i was happy to have the follow up meeting with the b.l.a., severin campbell and with michelle and other representatives from the department of public health. and based on those in-depth conversations with michelle and the d.p.a. and reviewing the past performance with west side in detail and reading the b.l.a., i feel i've seen the information i need to be confident in this information. while it was reported that west side underperformed in certain areas a few years ago, two of the three items in this contract, community crisis program and mental health assistance it met or exceeded requirements. i know that d. ph and west side have worked over the last couple years have worked to adjusting the number of clients
11:39 am
and value to a more feasible amount. after those changes were met, the intensive program has continued to meet all standards. so i think a lot of the confusion, too was that the west side contract was one of several initial behavioral health services contracts were one-year-long rather than anticipated fie anticipated five years. i understand after talking to miss ruggles that that was due to delays in implementing services. so again, i want to thank you, miss ruggles and alexander i
11:40 am
also want to thank marian jones, the c.e.o. of the organization, which wrote a letter shedding light on some of the issues that i think we need to look at as legislators. behavioral health services is a critical part of helping struggling san franciscans, many of them who are living on our streets. i believe we need to continue improving our standards, mand do believe we need to hold all service provider accountable, including the city, and this is what will drive the change i think we need to really solve the crisis facing us. based on the information i received in the interim, i am in support of the contract and will be voting yes to move this forward to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> chair fewer: okay. thank you. supervisor, any comments? no? i'll just mention that last week, we had further information to clarify this contract. i think we are -- i mean, i --
11:41 am
you know, i was very vested in this because i understand that west side is the only provider providing culturally competent services for african american clients and wanted to make sure they would get any technical assistance that they needed, but also made sure that it wasn't from 180 to 80 participants and 80 is the number they were actually serving. that even though you had slots for 130, they were actually serving 80. >> that's my understanding. in negotiations between the department and west side, they reached that number. >> chair fewer: and because i think there's such high need, i'm wondering, what is the ultimate goal? is the ultimate goal that the intensive case management program would grow to 130 participants or is it the goal that they would stay at 80? >> the goal right now is to continue the contract the way
11:42 am
it is. the department is undergoing a redesign of our entire intensive case management program, so it may change -- or it's intended to change the model so that there's different tiers of where you are in your need for intensive services. so i think once all of that is figured out, then it will be reissued as a solicitation and it's open, but our goal is to definitely maintain the service -- the client load that they have. >> chair fewer: okay. so i think that what i would look for in this is that if we see such high need x that they are currently serving 80, but after you do a redesign, and if there is an opportunity to i am crease the capacity, then, i would say that this is something that should be considered, and the resources put to this program should be reconsidered and need more technical assistance to bring the caseload up to the needed
11:43 am
amount, which if it's 130, then it's 130. as i said, they are the only provider that's providing this culturally competent services for the african american community, so i'd like to make a motion with a positive recommendation to the full board -- oh, public com. is there any members of the public that would like to comment on this, please come on up to the podium, please. welcome, and you have two minutes to speak zm thank y. >> thank you. my name is marian jones, and i want to thank you for looking at this more deeply because the services that we provide are very important.
11:44 am
i really hope that you look more closely at how we're funded and the way that other programs like west side are funded because there are problems inherent in the medi-cal funded system. in fact, we have served 130 clients for three decades, and to have essentially the same b budget with a few increases means it's impossible to serve 130 clients with the same money that you had 15 years ago. i just want to point out that we have an amazing staff, and we do amazing work, and also that no other -- no other provider in the city applies to provide intensive case management services, and i think that is because of the way that we are funded. and i'm not sure that we will be able to continue to provide because as we've been reduced to 80, you know, our budget has been cut by $600,000, which is
11:45 am
a huge amount we're struggling to be able to provide the best services possible to a community that really deserves much more than we're able to offer. but most importantly, i wanted to say thank you. >> chair fewer: thank you. next speaker, please. >> i was wondering, because it looks like maybe it's something like $300,000 per year per patient, how much of that -- how much of that money goes towards the infrastructure, like, for the facility itself, the building? >> chair fewer: yes, supervisor stefani. >> supervisor stefani: thank you, chair fewer. i just want to thank miss jones for coming up today and would like to follow up with you and have a meeting with you. i learned a lot about billing, and there's some follow up
11:46 am
questions i have for d.p. h. staff, so i'd love to follow up with you. thank you. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. i think in light of the comment of the public speaker, this budget should reflect the need, and if it's in need of several mental funds to keep this going as they're the only provider of mental health -- severe mental health case management, i think it's something we need to keep going. >> we will look into that. we do have other intensive case management programs, but not with the same target populations, so we'll continue to explore. >> chair fewer: so we -- i think this committee is specifically looking at this
11:47 am
targeted population, and that if this is a great need, and the budget does not reflect the need, there is a reason for supplemental funds. i think what you'll find in this budget committee, we'll be looking at equity issues. and if we find this is the only provider for services that are culturally competent for our african american population, i think we need to look at supplemental funding. public comment is now closed. and i'd like to make a positive recommendation to bring this to the full board. can you take that without objection? thank you very much. [applause] >> chair fewer: madam clerk, can you please call item number two. >> clerk: item number two,
11:48 am
ordinance authorizing the treasurer in the event of a partial shutdown with the united states government occurring tweeb february and december 209 to secure a short-term line of credit in an amount not to exceed 20 million or in the alternative partner with one or two companies for the purpose of paying employees or federal employees working at the san francisco international airport. [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. i believe we have amanda reed from the san francisco treasurer's office. >> good morning, supervisors. amanda freed from the office of the treasurer and tax collector. i did present on this item last
11:49 am
week. i don't know if you'd like me to represent on this item. i'd be happy to. >> chair fewer: no, but can you speak to why we had a continuance. >> sure. the amendment we sought last week was simply to extend the authorization of this program through the end of december 2019 so if a shutdown occurs at the end of september when the spending bill expires, we would be poised to offer these services. >> okay. and i believe there is -- we heard from the b.l.a. last week. is there an addition on this? none. colleagues, any comments? seeing none, let's open this uptor public comment. is there any member of the public wishing to comment on this issue? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: miss reed, i have a question for you. are there other loan programs for folks like this, for example, folks reentering out of incarceration?
11:50 am
i think when we talk about a needy population, that i understand that it is beyond the forces of these individuals that this, you know, shutdown happened, but we also have so many communities that actually could benefit from loan programs like this, so i just wanted to know, are there other loan programs like this that actually serve our lowest income folks? >> i believe there are programs that the city offers and then through our office. i know that the office of workforce and community development offers some. >> chair fewer: i know i'm willing to pass this item out of committee because we don't currently have a shutdown. we may have another one. i don't know how our president feels, whether he'll change his mind or not, but i just want to caution our committee also that
11:51 am
we have other really needy populations in san francisco that we're not actually giving this kind of fiscal assistance to, and that we should also be looking at those populations, too. any way, i'd like to make a motion to pass this out of committee with a positive recommendation. can i do that without objection? done. thank you. >> thank you very much. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: madam clerk, please call item number four. [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. i believe we have ellen murase. >> in the week of terrible and tragic events, i have good
11:52 am
news. our department has been awarded a two-year, $385,000 grant by the blue shield of california foundation as part of the leveraging collaboration to end domestic violence program. this grant will establish a multisector collaborative to engage new sectors and community leaders to implement community specific prevention strategies, to promote healthy relationships and to combat domestic violence. in 2017, there were over 22,000 crisis calls concerning domestic violence in san francisco. our partners providing over 27,000 emergency shelter bed nights. the police department responded to over 3,000 cases of domestic violence, any one of which could have resulted in homicide. in 2017, there were four cases of incident partner violence homicides. our objectives for this grant, very briefly, is to want
11:53 am
convened partners from among 13 sectors that have been identified to shape community members on domestic violence. a roster of our potential partners is listed on page five of your grant pact. number two, the coalition will implement parallel prevention strategies that focus on healthy relationships with young adults and families in the bay area of san francisco. finally, throughout the grant, the coalition will evaluate the different prevention strategies through preand post assessments and submit reports and recommendations to the san francisco family violence
11:54 am
council. the grant is highly collaborative and funds four agencies to participate in a larger collaborative, as well as implement prevention strategies. specifically, the grant pays for young community developers to implement healthy relationships training in their workforce development program, safe and sound, formerly san francisco child abuse prevention centers to hold trainings, bay cat to support high school students in the creation and production of a social media campaign to address harmful gender norms. finally, the grant will full a half-time position at our department to provide objectives and manage the grant. the condition is retroactive because we need to expend it as early as possible in this new year. we received notification of the award on december 10 of last year, prepared the package and
11:55 am
introduced the ordinance on january 18. elise, who developed the grant proposal and i are here to answer any questions you may. >> chair fewer: colleagues, any question? seeing none, let's open this up for public comment. seeing none, public comment is closed. there is no b.l.a. report. i have one question. can you talk about what the new grant position in your department will be doing? sfl yes. we'll be facilitating grant programs, putting together support for the advisory council, so really staffing from beginning to end the grant deliverables. >> chair fewer: okay. any comments? seeing none, i'd like to make a motion to move this to the board with a positive
11:56 am
recommendation. can i take that without objection? [gavel]. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. madam clerk, can you call item number five. [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: thank you, madam clerk. there is no speaker on this except our supervisor mandelman. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you, chair fewer. thank you for considering this. the ordinance will establish procedures for the office of cannabis to regulate legal cannabis sales by creating a cannabis events permit. on january 1, ab 2020 went into effect, giving cities in california the authority to approve temporary cannabis events. san francisco is a city that has long embraced community festivals and gathering as well as the cannabis industry, and with this ordinance, we will be
11:57 am
leading the way on the implementation of ab 2020. regulating cannabis events allows the city to maintain its commitment to public health and safety by ensuring permitted businesses are supplying safe products. we believe that additional regulation discourages illegal sales by instilling confidence in products that the public are buying and ensuring that the only events in our city are involving licensed and permitted businesses. a few key points on this legislation. only applicants who have already received an event organizer license issued by the
11:58 am
california bureau of cannabis control will be eligible to be locally permitted. you must have both state authorization and a local cannabis permit in order to engage in sales or consumption at these events. ab 2020 left a fair amount of autonomy, giving the city plenty of opportunity to detail our regulations and event guidelines. the office of cannabis will have the ability to impose additional conditions to permits, tailing the permits after consultation with various agencies. applicants awarded the permit will have the opportunity to ensure compliance with local and state laws. the city will have the ability to revocpermits if providers
11:59 am
engage in illegal activity. this will allow the city to ramp up cannabis events slowly and thoughtfully, permitting only a select group of events. this will ensure that the office of cannabis isn't overwhelmed. prior to january 1, 2020, the only events that will be considered for applications will be those that have been previously held on a regular basis that have previously received permits from the city and where there that's been significant unregulated cannabis activity. the fee may be waived once for a verified equity applicant or equity operator. ultimately, i hope this legislation will accomplish what all of our recent cannabis legislation has sought to do, bring this newly legal industry
12:00 pm
in a way that supports local small businesses and equiti equitium -- equity applicants while putting controls in place. we appreciate the feedback that we received from city and department staff, industry shake holders and event producers. we -- stakeholders and event producers. we look forward to hearing more comments and information. eugene, can you come up and let us know what the roll out for cannabis permits will