For making sure we are aware ofe to the regulations in our commi. Obviously we have to thank chird the full board of it our expert. We got a stronger outcome becau. I want to thank the interested d willing to lead this agency intd major changes to your lives to. I think the day we spent intervy moving and inspiring day to hea potential visions and to be reat want to have the agency achieve. So i think we are about to maken the sfmta in many critical ways. I thank everybody who participat your input. I think we are getting a strong. Ill turn it back to you. Wonderful. I will take that as a second to. Second is official. Very good. We did have one Public Commente. Rowland. You stand in between directo. Im warning you. Im honestly surprised that t here. Maybe its because its almost. I just wanted to say im in exts appointment. Im very excited. I see that mr. Tumlin is not he. Maybe hes at another meeting a. I have been very impressed withe 48 to his appointment as directe vote. Thank you to everyone in the seh this amazing appointment. When a lot of my friends in they heard the news, they were absola very good sign. Very good. Thank you once again. Any other Public Comment . Seeing none, ill address the pe here. On my advice, i told him not to. We are considering his contract. He was all in and willing to bes appropriate today. So one final thank you before wt this as people know, vicechairs with jeff making the announcemey received. Between the time when director , this agency was extremely ably e maguire. Here, here. Profess professional, was cae about his people and his missio. So tom, as i said to every groue and appreciation, thank you for. [applause] and with that, we have a motiono approve mr. Tumlins contract. All in favor please say aye. Aye. Any opposed . Good luck, jeff. Discussion as to whether inve and conduct a closed session . Moved second. All those in favor please sa. Aye. Any motion to not disclose . Second hold on. You are back in open session. The board met in closed discussa litigation, no action, it will t disclose the information. Motion to not disclose. Second. Aye. That concludes the business. Good morning, everyone. This is monday, november 18, meeting of the budget and finance committee. Im supervisor fewer. I am joined by supervisor mandelman, stefani, and peskin. I would like to thank sfgovtv for their assistance in broadcasting this meeting. Clerk please make sure to silence all cellphones. Complete speaker cards and provide any documents to be included in the file. Thank you very much. Madam clerk, can you call item 1. Clerk motion ordering submitted to the voters at an election to be held on march 3, 2020, an ordinance amending the business and tax regulations code and administrative code to impose an excise tax on persons keeping ground floor commercial space in certain neighborhood commercial districts and certain neighborhood commercial transit districts vacant, to Fund Assistance to Small Businesses; increasing the citys appropriations limit by the amount collected under the tax for four years from march 3, 2020. Thank you very much. Supervisor peskin. Thank you, chair fewer, and members of the committee. I would like to thank you for convening two special budget and finance committees this week. Of course we are getting used to the changed elections cycle. We normally have elections in june, but because of changes in state law this will be the firm time we have an election at this time. I want to if you for your constructive suggestions at last weeks meeting in regard to this tax. Today i am proposing an amendment that i think addresses the concerns that supervisors fewer and stefani raised at last weeks meeting, which is to address what happens when a Small Business goes out of business, but still has more time on their lease. While i think theres a fair argument to make that a lease in that scenario would become void or that the proprietor would be filing for bankruptcy or walking away from the lease, i fully agree that this tax should not be assessed against a lessee that goes out of business. An amendment im proposing is at 290 d lines 8 to 12 that says if a business has been open for eight months, a legitimate lessee, and goes out of business with more time on their lease, they should not be liable for the tax on the remainder of the lease. I also want to thank ms ms. Dikintreesee and the office for Small Business for the revised memorandum that they sent this morning that addresses the amendments that we made last week and contemplates this amendment as well. Finally, i would like to apologize in advance for the fact that i will not be here on thursday, but thank you all for being willing to convene not only a special budget meeting, but a special Board Meeting in order to consider the possibility of putting this before the voters of San Francisco in march of next year. With that, im available to answer any questions. Any questions or comments . Seeing none, well open this up for Public Comment. You have two minutes. Please come forward. My name is mark borsak. Im a retail Leasing Broker and a Real Property attorney. I reside in supervisor stefanis district, and our property is on justin just across from the apple store. Retail leasing is a troubled business. Earlier this year our tenant filed for bankruptcy and vacated the premises. We have a highly experienced broker handling this space, and since april we received inquiries but only a few leasing proposals. In sum, were not even close to making a deal with a digital native food provider or traditional food provider after almost eight months. The internets introduction sealed the fate for many retailers. In the late 1990s i predicted that the shift to Online Shopping would undermine locationbased retailing. After the great recession, people increasingly shopped online shifting more sales from the store. Dr. Eagons report notes a falling demand for physical space. Particularly vulnerable are shopping street, merchants unable to offer customers convenience, goods, services or unique services. Amazons new nextday Service Offers yet another reason to avoid the store. In a recent study, i described the ongoing mayhem and its ongoing impact on many retailers and Property Owners. In San Francisco, store front vacancies result from formula impact. Iatrogenesis describes the unforeseen harm caused by the dealers practice. In this case, even more unstricted vacancies. In effect, the 2004 law are poisoning [ indiscernible ]. Thank you very much, sir. Your time is up. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, supervisors. I am with the San Francisco chamber of commerce. I spoke at the last hearing also, and i just want to say again were really pleased that this legislation has been amended to try to ensure that the reason behind this legislation, which is to capture and discourage the bad actors who are intentionally holding their properties off the market, that by doing that were not inadvertently harming all of the good actors who are trying to fill their retail spaces as quickly as possible. I feel like the amendments are getting us there. This amendment is also very helpful. I still have some concerns that we are going to end up punishing people who are not able to fill their spaces due to no fault of their own, but i think that were moving this in the right direction. I heard at the last hearing that the supervisor may be open to some trailing legislation, if should this pass we would be open to working with you on that. We do appreciate that this is moving in the right direction. Thank you. Good afternoon, supervisors morning, rather. Cory smith on behalf of the San FranciscoHousing Action coalition. Some of our members are obviously trying to lease up ground floor space. In my conversations with them about this, one of the ideas they brought up was continuing to find ways to incentivize ground floor uses that were all in support of and that we want to have. One of the ideas that had come up previously piece of legislation was to create ground floor child care units, where they would be able to live on the ground floor of a building and operate a child care facility out of there. We also are trying to get people into productive uses on a ground floor. If its a piece of trailing legislation with be we want to do what we can to encourage some proactive amendments in order to try to get as many folks into those uses as possible. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Im ron mcgel. Since 1938 our family has owned two buildings with ground floor Retail Businesses over 80 years. In spite of that, Property Owners and n. C. D. S were never notified of this legislation. We have been fortunate that neither of these spaces have ever been vacant. However, ive been obligated to drastically reduce the rent on one of them and defer any increase on the other, despite rising costs. Were only one of a multitude of small Property Owners that work with their tenants at a time when the entire Retail Business concept is drastically changing. You see it with major businesses in the union square area, as well as our n. C. D. S. Our retail is undergoing farreaching transformation. This legislation attempts to put a bandaid on a crisis and fails to acknowledge our current and particularly future retail reality. The action is a slap in the face, a stick without a carrot. Other approaches might be to allow small office space, incubation space, p. D. R. , or others which are now prohibited by code in n. C. D. S. The problem of serving on the Planning Commission was the pages and pages of detail regarding n. C. D. S that vary greatly from one to the other. Sometimes us in San Francisco try to seek control over minu a minutia. Please look to the future. Dont attempt to duplicate the past. Its not going to happen. Seeing no other speakers oh. I used to engage in Foundation Research at the Foundation Center in the World AffairsCouncil Building on behalf of the local nonprofit. I would predict that the proposed ordinance amendment would have the effect of increasing the volume of Small Businesses along select commercial corridors filing for bankruptcy when they are defunct. I believe that it is reasonable to predict an upsurge in bankruptcy filings if the proposed ordinance amendment were to go into effect. Also, it might concretize existing vacancies while imposing holding costs. So i hope that you are prepared to offer evidence to support the assertion that the imposition of an excise tax across a narrow band of the commercial segment will improve the opportunity as well as the deposited outcome of restaurants, the Food Industry in general, or any other businesses. By evidence, i am referral to specifically but not exclusively, to a dataset of statistical evidence, a probability study, empirical analysis based basically anything of merit to ensure restaurateurs and commercial proprietors that the imposition of the proposed excise tax is not based solely on vague hypotheses, kneejerk reaction, or an invalid sampling of those few select storefronts. Yeah, ill just stop this. Thank you very much. Any other Public Comment . Seeing none, Public Comment is now closed. Supervisor peskin, any comments at all . Yeah, i would like to make a few comments. Number one, we can and we actually are, as supervisors, legislating carrots. Whether it is the fee relief package that i spoke to last week at the board of supervisors in certain areas, changes to zoning. In north beach we extended the abandonment period. In other areas, people have embraced more flexible zoning, but only the voters can actually vote for the stick. As i said last week in committee, this is a tax that is absolutely avoidable and that we dont want to collect. It is an incentive for certain Property Owners who have not been the best actors to get it together. Actually, what mr. Mcgel said was really important, which is that he has managed, despite pressures from internet commerce to keep his n. C. D. Ground floor commercial spaces occupied and admitted that is unfortunate but other people need to learn, which is in some cases there is going to have to be a reduction in rent if youre going to fill those spaces. So that was actually i understand that while he might not like the proposal, is precisely what this legislation is aimed for other people who have not behaved as rationally and appropriately as the speaker to emulate. So i commend it to you and appreciate you holding not one but two special meetings to consider this legislation. I do finally in closing want to reiterate what ms. Freed said from the treasurers tax collectors office, which is should we put this on the ballot and should the voters approve it, it will not go into effect until january 2021 and the Treasurers Office is committed to doing a large outreach. This only applies to the spines of our most important commercial corridors, be it supervisor stefanis union and Chestnut Street corridors, my polk and columbus avenue corridors, clement street corridor, irving, terradale, some of the n. C. D. S in supervisor mandelmans corridor, but these only affect the vibrant or what should be vibrant commercial corridors in the city and county of San Francisco. I commend the legislation to you, colleagues. Thank you very much. Any comments or questions from my colleagues . I also want to say that i think this amendment actually addresses the issues that supervisor stefani and i had last week in the questioning about whether or not who would be liable in case a business goes under, is it the tenant who is whose business has failed or the land or property owner. I also want to say, yes, i would love to see those spaces being utilized for nonprofits and child care, but they cant afford the 20,000 a month rent. It just is what it is. In my neighborhood, i have nonprofits looking for space and dying for space, but at 20,000 a month, they just cant do it. I hope the legislation will bring the prices down and be an incentive for people to keep their tenants there that have been paying for 30 years. That theyre not going to be slapped with a rent increase of four times the monthly rent so they can stay in the neighborhood and continue to be a business in our neighborhood for another 30 or 40 years. I am hoping that this is what this will do. I want to echo what supervisor peskin said, people who have been paying attention know that we have actually legislated many carrots and sticks. I think the mayor is also offering one to help Small Businesses get into these storefronts too. Today before us we have a simple amendment that i think we shall approve, and we will continue this until thursday. I make a motion to approve these amendments and to continue this item to the meeting on thursday, which is the 21st of november. Can i take that without objection . Thank you, colleagues. Madam clerk, can you call item number 2. Clerk resolution authorizing the issuance and delivery of multifamily housing Revenue Bonds in an aggregate Principal Amount not to exceed 84,840,000, in one or more series or subseries, for the purpose of providing financing for the acquisition and rehabilitation of a 202unit multifamily rental Housing Project known as eastern park apartments; we have a little change in the presentation. In each hand from the Mayors Office of housing and Community Development, item 2 before you is related to the citys proposed bond issuance for 711 eddie street. The proposed issuance is conduit financing. The project is existing 202unit Affordable Housing that is sponsored by the Northern California prebs tooern homes. The project would entail rehabilitation of the residential units, common space, and some of the buildingwide systems. The project serves households between up to 50 to 60 of the area median income. Existing tenants will be temporary relocated and not replaced as a result of the rehab. In terms of the schedule, we will the project expects to be starting construction in early 2020. So we are asking the committee to recommend approval of the issuance. Im available to answer any other questions. Thank you. There is no b. L. A. Report on this . Seeing no Public Comments, this is closed. Clerk would you like to send this item for a report . Yes, i think thats necessary. We can take that without objection. Madam clerk, can you please read item number 3. Clerk resolution authorizing the issuance and delivery of multifamily housing Revenue Bonds in an aggregate Principal Amount scbrooipt resolution; and related matters, as defined herein. Resolution declaring the intent of the city and county of San Francisco city to reimburse certain expenditures from proceeds of future bonded indebtedness in an aggregate Principal Amount not to exceed 80,000,000; authorizing the director of the Mayors Office of housing and Community Development director to submit an application and related documents to the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee cdla