tv BOS Budget and Finance Committee SFGTV April 11, 2021 3:05pm-5:11pm PDT
call item one. >> clerk: yes. item one is ordinance authorizing the city administrator to amend certain leases and forgive rent due between april 2020 and december 2020 with nonresidential tenants and and waiving administrative code and environmental code requirements enacted after the most recent modification of each lease in tord to allow for expeditious rent forgiveness necessitated by the covid-19 pandemic, authorizing the city administrator to further amend leases and forgive rent due and
waiving administrative code and environment cal code requirements without further board of supervisors approval. >> chair haney: thank you, madam clerk. >> thank you, chair haney. i am [inaudible] from the city administrator's office. i will share my screen to show you a short presentation and powerpoint. in light of the significant adverse impacts of the covid pandemic on nonresidential
tenants, the city administrator waived certainly expenses for the pandemic but required those arrears to be paid between january 1, 2021 and june 30, 2021. the city administrator is now requesting of the board the authorization to get -- for rent forgiveness. the city administrator believes this is necessary to maintain renters over the long-term. the city's administrative environmental codes require the departments to include certain specific terms in their leases.
when departments amend leases, the departments generally are required to incorporate these code changes that were enacted after the initial lease execution. however, the application of those terms to leases where they were not currently incorporated would impose additional costs on the tenants at the time that we're trying to relieve the tenants of their financial burdens. this ordinance, if approved, will increase the chances that the tenants will be able to effectively sustain their operations or reopen, there by avoiding a cascade of negative effects on the city, negative effects on their tenants, and their tenants' employees if the rent waiver is delayed or denied. at this point in the presentation, you can see on your screen the three tenants
that we're seeking rent waiver for: new asia restaurant, the new conservancy theater, and paoli. you can also see the total amounts of the rent we are requesting be forgiven. i will now briefly go through the details of each tenant and briefly tell you why we chose these particular tenants for grant waiver. starting with the new asia restaurant, the lease commenced on june 27, 2017. they're located at 772 pacific avenue. the type of business is a restaurant and banquet halls. this is one of the few banquet halls in the city. the future site of the city will be affordable housing,
which has already been purchased by mohcd. the major rent is $5,000 per month. the rent to be forgiven is 202,500,000. this business has been closed since the middle of march 2020. they had originally accepted a rent deferral plan, however, they are having difficulties continuing to employ their 200 employees, and the large debt to the city would make it difficult, if not impossible, for them to reopen in the future. moving next to the new conservancy theater, they rent commenced in october 2018. they are a small boxed theater and live entertainment which has been in existence since
1984. no future development is anticipated at this site. the monthly rent is $7,983 per month. the total amount sought is $32,723.92. although they have received money through the c.a.r.e.s. act, and the tenant has been able to pay rent march 2020 through august 2020, they have now exhausted the money that they've gotten from the federal government. with no other income, no other resources, and the likelihood that it will be some time before mass gatherings are authorized, rent forgiveness
was the only way to keep the tenant viable in the space. finally, paoli is a pop up restaurant owned by steven paoli. it commenced on may 24, 2018. the city purchased the property, which is located at 11 and natoma street. this property is one of several that the city inherited as part of that acquisition. the address is 165 11 street. the type of business is a pop-up restaurant. the future development, the city purchased this property with the ultimate goal of demolishing the existing buildings to make way for recreational and park purposes. the monthly rent is 2,500 per month. the amount sought to be forgiven is $22,500.
the reason for forgiveness instead of other relief, mr. paoli's business has been closed since march 2020. he only has one other employee besides himself. this is his sole source of income. he's applied for other financial aid but has not received any. there's a strong likelihood that mr. paoli would simply walk away from this lease instead of paying the rent that he owed. so to keep this business viable and the value that his business provides, we are recommending rent waiver in this particular
case. now i would like to move to another slide, if i may, to talk about some amends to the ordinance that we are requesting at this time. can you see the screen? before you is the proposed ordinance, and we're recommending several changes. and the reason for these changes is we were originally seeking relief for the three named tenants that i've just discussed. the ability to provide rent relief for others in the future between the period of january 2021 and june 30, 2021. we are now withdrawing that request, and result, several changes need to be paid to the
proposed ordinance. instead of reading out the changes, i would simply show them to you on the screen and show you where they're located within the ordinance. as you can see on the screen before you, we're proposing the deletion of the language on page 1, lines 8 through 12. we're also proposing the deletion of language on page 3, lines 1 through 4, and on page 4, lanes 23 through 26. the word further on page 7, line 22, be deleted, as well as the language on page 7, lines
23 through 25. lastly, we are requesting that the language on page 8, lines 3 through 12, as shown, be deleted. these changes have been provided to the clerk of the board and have been made part of her file. with this, this concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions you may have. >> chair haney: thank you, director henning. i appreciate that. i know there's a b.l.a. report. if i could ask them to present first, and then vice chair safai. >> yes, chair haney, members of the committee, severin campbell from the budget and legislative analyst's office. the proposed ordinance would allow the director of real estate to allow the three leases that he referenced and we show on page five of their report, forgive their rent
between april 2020 and december 2020 totaling 2350,000 and then not requiring the addition of environmental and code provisions and would allow the amendment of leases between january and june of 2021 without board approval. i would submit that they are proposing amendments to the proposed ordinance, therefore, our only recommendation is to state that the ordinance is a policy matter because it's amending the leases, and i'm available for my questions you may have. >> chair haney: so there are no additional amendments -- the amendments that you had requested are covering what was just put forward.
>> correct, but he just put forward the amendments in our reports. >> chair haney: thank you. vice chair safai? >> supervisor safai: sorry. thank you. i just have one question. this is pretty straightforward. i think it's pretty similar to some of the things that we're going to be dealing with in the future. my only question is why we're amending out the ability to deal with future rent abatement with other leases? i understand why we would want to have that come back for our review, but at the same time, i think we're going to be dealing with this in a lot of cases, so just the question was do we need to, in every instance, if it makes sense, to give some rent abatement, do we have to have every single one of them come back to us. i don't know why it was put in there, but it seemed to me like maybe that was the reason why,
so i just wanted to understand why we were going to go ahead and take that out now? >> enrico henning, director of real estate. thank you, supervisor safai, for the question. this is certainly a policy matter for the board of supervisors. because of the cumbersomeness of bringing these amendments by ordinance, because we don't want to further burden a tenant that we're providing relief to by requiring additional administrative and environmental code provisions, we thought that having this flexibility would be a benefit. >> supervisor safai: right. >> we originally anticipated bringing this legislation before the board in january, thus, the period of january to june as the look forward pert. -- period. due to several delays for
various reasons, we are now bringing this before you, so that period is over half done, but you're absolutely right. should we want to bring any additional relief for tenants in the future, it would have to go through the same process that we're going through right now, an ordinance, two readings, and that can be done, and we're happy to do it, but it does provide a somewhat long period of uncertainty for the tenants that we will be seeking relief for. we made these changes as a result at the request of the board. >> supervisor safai: oh, okay. well, it just seems to me, just because i know with some of the items on the agenda today, we're anticipating a similar situation. i know that having to go through the process of amending the ordinance, reviewing, it seems to me like it would make
sense, but i, you know, am interested to hear what other committee members feel. i think it's going to be pretty evident that there's going to be a lot of city tenants on city property that are going to need some rent abatement, and it's going to make sense to streamline the process, given everything that we're going to be dealing with in the city. i was reading that. didn't really catch it the first time, but just wanted to hear what other committee members feel. >> chair haney: supervisor mar? >> supervisor mar: thank you, supervisor haney. yeah, i just had the same question as supervisor safai. maybe just a follow-up question to director henning. do you have any estimate on how many additional leases that the department of real estate or
departments have with private or nonprofit organizations? it looks like from reading from the b.l.a. report, about 90 of them. how many might be requesting rent forgiveness? >> thank you for the question, supervisor mar. right now, we have about 12 tenants who are behind in their rent in one form or another. the approach that we've taken at the real estate district is that we first seek rent relief that is short of rent waiver, and in most of those cases, we have been able to successfully defer rent or adjust the rent in some way that is within our administrative ability to relieve the current situation.
in these three cases, rent relief short of waiver was inadequate. so i would appreciate certainly the three that we're talking about today would need additional relief and some of the remaining nine would need some kind of relief between now and july 30. >> supervisor mar: given that number of potential halfway additional relief requests, i think that's a relatively manageable number for us to consider on a case-by-case basis, so i guess i would support the amendment of not necessarily preapproving them right now or --
>> chair haney: and i want to say, also -- or go back to miss campbell. the b.l.a. thought this was something that should come back more regularly and was an amendment that they suggested. can you maybe speak to the thinking there? >> i believe that our recommendations were very specific on these two, wanting to make sure that there is a requirement [inaudible] not the real estate division. the other recommendation was to really specify that rent forgiveness is based on the impacts, you know, of the covid pandemic specifically, so that was the intent of our recommendation. >> chair haney: yeah, got it, and i do think that nine is
manageable, and they can be brought as a group similar to what we have in front of us here, so i would support the amendments, as well. madam clerk, can we go to public comment on this item? >> clerk: yes, mr. chair. the department of technology is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. members of the public would wish to call public comment on item number one, please press star, three to be added to the queue. for those already in the system, please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. are there any callers in the queue? >> operator: there are no callers in the queue. >> chair haney: great. public comment is closed. thank you for that. supervisor safai, was there anything more i know you wanted to hear? it sounds like at least for
myself and supervisor mar, we're okay with the approach and amendments. i know we don't have any questions or concerns about these but there may be some in the future where we may want to have -- there may be some more questions that come up. >> supervisor safai: yeah, that's fine. i guess, because i know we have so many things ahead of us, and we always have very full agendas, there's value in reviewing on a case-by-case basis, but very infrequently, when it comes to rent abatement do we have any reason to oppose the department and look to those guidance situations. i think it's pretty understandable in this instance, not in other years, but in this instance, based on the covid crisis, you know, the
remaining nine, if they come up in the future, they're not able to operate their business or they're operating their business at a very minimal capacity. so it seems if we can have this conversation now -- and one thing we can do if the committee were open to it is ask them to come back and brief us if the conditions arrive. but i'm fine on supporting that. i'm just trying to streamline because i know that -- for instance, in the instance of [inaudible] it's coming up on 3545 onondega, there are things
that they haven't been able to pay, but if the committee wants to review them on a specific basis, i'm happy to support that, as well. >> chair haney: sure. mr. henning, did you want to address that? >> it seems like the amount of tenants that we're talking about is a very manageable amount and could be or should be designated at the city administrator's level. i see this as different from the port where there was a much larger number of tenants, and the board did allow the
director of the port to have that administrative authority. the port is distinguishable because while they have a large number of tenants, all of their tenants have similar businesses -- restaurant, retail, entertainment -- whereas in the real estate department, we have more specific tenants, but a much smaller pool. since we're not talking about hundreds and hundreds of potential tenant amendments, i thought that the smaller number might lead itself to a very discreet amendment to the ordinance presented to the board, and i thank you for allowing me to respond. >> chair haney: thank you. are these substantive
amendments? do we have city attorney russi with us? >> good morning, supervisors. deputy city attorney brad russi. these are not substantive amendments. >> chair haney: okay. i'd like to move the amendments. can we have a roll call vote, madam clerk. >> clerk: yes. on the motion to amendment the ordinance -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chair haney: great. thank you. now i want to make a motion to send this to the -- forward this to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> clerk: thank you. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chair haney: great. thank you so much. thank you so much, director,
and this will go to the full board with a positive recommendation. madam clerk, can you please call item 2? >> clerk: yes. ordinance approving a transmission facilities agreement with pacific gas and electric company to interconnect city owned transmission facilities to the electric grid for a total cost of 21,165,000 and a term of four years and three months commencing in april 2021 and ending in june 2025 and waiving certain provisions of the administrative and environment codes. members of the public who wish to provide public comment, call 415-655-0001, enter meeting i.d. 187-809, 1658, then press pound and pound again. to request to speak, press
star, three and wait until the system has indicated you are unmuted to begin your comments. >> chair haney: great. we have ramon peguin here to present on this item. >> supervisors, this is john scarpulla. i'm not sure if ramon is having technical difficulties, but i can go ahead and jump in if he's here. >> yes, i apologize for the technical difficulties. i had a hard time unmuting. can you see me? >> chair haney: yes, we can. >> yeah, good morning. my apologies for the technical delay. this is ramon puig seeking your
approval for the transmission facilities agreement seeking your approval for the bay corner transmission distribution project or bctd. so let me give you some background on this project. bctd is an electrical distribution system that will be owned by the city, and it will be served from the hetch hetchy power generation that will give us the ability to provide greenhouse gas-free energy, and this also alleviates reliance on pg&e to serve the customers along the corridor. rather than paying pg&e for improvements on their system when we connect new customers, we will actually be investing the revenue received from this system back into this system, and it will be a lot less cost for our customers.
next slide, please. so bctd, as i stated, is the bay corridor transmission and distribution project. it'll be san francisco's own distribution system. it'll be distributed as a higher volt system at 12,470 volts service the east customers. some of the neighborhoods we were planning to serve includes pier 70, mission redevelopment, seawall 337, and the biggest customer that we're going to have is the treatment plant and the mariposa pump station. next slide, please. so this is just a quick overview of the corridor where we're going to be serving the project, just to give you an idea of where the system will be, it's on the east side of the city, and that shows where
all the customers are, just for reference. next slide, please. so bctd comprises the different components. so from hetch hetchy generation, we'll be connecting to the kaiser grid, and from the kaiser grid through the pg&e system through the potrero substation, where we will interconnect with pg&e. from the potrero substation, we would build our own line underground at 230,000 volts, and then, we will have our own substation called david [inaudible] substation, from there to the bctd or the distribution system, where we will be serving all the customers that i identified in the previous slide. next slide, please. so we're presenting this for your approval today.
there's a need to interconnect with the pg&e transmission system because we do not have any other points where we can interconnect to. without the interconnection lines or without the connection to lines for pg&e, there's no way we can power or provide the energy to the bctd. so here's the current status of the bctd project. the infrastructure project, meaning the distribution and transmission site, we are about 50% complete. that's where the conduits on the streets have been built. the davidson substation is about complete. in order to interconnect with pg&e, we needed to complete the design. we needed to place the order for the major equipment because of the long lead time, and now
we're entering into the phase where pg&e has to perform the construction of the potrero substation to complete the interconnection. so today, we're seeking your approval to complete the interconnection agreement with the city. happy to answer any questions you may have. >> chair haney: thank you so much, ramon, for the presentation. is there a b.l.a. report on this item? >> yes, chair haney, members of the committee. the proposed ordinance would approve a transmission facilities agreement between the city and pg&e to connect city owned facilities facilities to the grid. it would waive certain provisions of the administrative and environmental codes.
we show the breakdown of the $21 million project on page 5 of our report. because a form of the agreement is a requirement of the federal energy regulatory commission, we recommend approval of the proposed ordinance, and i'm available for any questions you may have. >> chair haney: thank you. colleagues, questions, comments? >> supervisor mar: yeah, i have a question. >> chair haney: supervisor mar? >> supervisor mar: yeah, it's very good to see this project moving ahead, and yeah, it sounds like it's our first electric distribution system that, you know, the p.u.c. and the city would own, and it
would allow us to bypass pg&e, and that all sounds great. so this agreement that we're considering, so this would be a payment to pg&e of a little over $21 million, and so i just had a question about the overall cost of this project to create this bctd electric distribution system beyond this proposed payment to pg&e. i'm just concerned what the overall cost of the project would be, because i think it's the goal of the board and the city to move away from red lines and pg&e for electric distribution to -- >> yeah, supervisor mar. the total budget for the bctd is about $166 million.
>> supervisor mar: mm-hmm. and how is this being financed, the project? >> so the budget has been approved, and some of the financing was coming from the project, and most of it will be enterprise funded. >> supervisor mar: and you said if the bctd project wasn't moving forward, we would have to pay pg&e for improvements to their distribution system? >> yes. >> supervisor mar: and how much? >> what happens every time we interconnect a new customer or one of our facilities with pg&e, pg&e performs what they
call a system impact study, and they always identify upgrades on the system that not just benefits us, but it also benefits other customers on their system. so by doing this, we eliminate any pg&e system that doesn't directly benefit us? >> supervisor mar: got it. and then, what the [inaudible]. >> with the demand, the new plant, will be about $33 million. the other, it's on a case-by-case basis, but we have not identified everything that it's going to take to upgrade, but based on that, just one
customer, the $33 million, it would be better invested into our system that we can better control rather than giving it to pg&e. >> supervisor mar: yeah. thank you so much for your work on this and for the presentation. >> you're welcome. >> chair haney: madam clerk, can you see if there's any public comment on the matter? >> clerk: yes. department of technology is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. members of the public who wish to provide public comment, press star, three to enter the queue, and for those that have already done so, please continue to wait until the system has been unmuted before beginning your comments. miss monica, are there any
callers in the queue? >> operator: there are no callers in the queue. >> chair haney: any comments or questions? okay. could you please call a voice vote on this, please? [roll call] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chair haney: thank you. this will go to the full board with a positive recommendation. thank you for your time. >> chair haney: thank you very much. madam clerk, can you please call item 3? >> clerk: yes. item 3 is a resolution retroactively authorizing the department of public health to accept and expend a grant in the amount of 1,780,842 from the california department of justice for participation in a program entitled tobacco grant program award for the period of
january 1, 2021 through december 31, 2023. members of the public call 415-655-0001, enter meeting code 187-809-1658, then press pound, and pound again. press star, three to enter the queue to provide your comments. >> chair haney: thank you. jennifer, are you going to present on this item? >> thank you for having me today. i am here to talk about the california d.o.j. tobacco grant? let me just share my slide so you all can see that. there we go. all right. so we -- as was mentioned, we
received the grant. it's a three-year grant for approximately $1.7 million. this is to fund existing environmental tobacco program staff as well as develop a new partnership with the school district in funding a resource coordinator, funding assisting minor decould i tobacco operations at retail facilities and also creating new partnerships with community organizations to hire staff in those communities? it also is handling translation for materials, documents, supplies, and technology, and then supporting our services at the city attorney and administrative law judge provides as well as funding the training and conferences that
our staff do with road shows to other jurisdictions for education. so the main goal of the grant and objectives is to sustain the tobacco program for availability and policies, [inaudible] for retail compliance inspections to ensure that no uninintended products, like e-cigarettes and flavored tobacco make it to children and creating an on-line training. the second goal is develop an on-line tobacco use intervention and prevention program. the goal is to reduce the tobacco use, and then student use is below 10% and to have
improved tobacco prevention use and education above 50% for the youth survey. we also are planning to have the students create tobacco free posters and advertise those on our main [inaudible] next, we have the illegal tobacco product sales monitoring program, where we're wanting to partner with the san francisco public health foundation and dcyf to hire six interns -- from san francisco's marginalized communities who will conduct monitoring checks at s.f. retail and on-line tobacco establishments. and then not currently in to 21 due to covid, but during the three-year grant, we'll continue back our partnership
with sfdb to conduct the sales to minor operations at approximately 500 retail establishments per year. and then, of course, sharing our data and knowledge with other jurisdictions and participate in research and data collection, which we continue to do every year. right, and if you have any questions, i can answer any questions if you have them. thank you. >> chair haney: thank you. colleagues, questions or comments? is there a b.l.a. report on this item? >> chair haney, we do not have a public report for this item.
>> chair haney: can we open this up for public comment? >> clerk: yes. d.t. is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. for those wishing to provide public comment, press star, three to enter the queue. for those who have already done so, please wait until the system has indicated your line has been unmuted before beginning to speak. d.t., are there any callers in the queue? >> operator: there are no callers in the queue. >> chair haney: seeing no other questions or comments from my colleagues, i want to make a motion to forward this to the full board with a positive comment. >> clerk: yes. on the motion -- [roll call]
>> clerk: mr. chair, there are three ayes. >> chair haney: great. this will go to the full board with a positive recommendation, and thank you so much for being with us, and thank you for your work. >> thank you for your time. have a good day. >> chair haney: you, too. madam clerk, can you please call item 4. >> clerk: yes. resolution approving amendment number two to the domestic terminal three common use club claez between american express travel related services company, inc. and the city and county to increase the square footage of the lounge premises to approximately 15,000 square feet, establish a new minimum annual guarantee amount of 3,226,546 for the newly expanded premises, increase the
annual promotional charge to 15,283 in proportion to the net increase in square footage of the premises and to extend the ten-year term by seven years with a new expiration date of november 5, 2013, to commence upon board approval. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item dial 415-655-0001 and end meeting i.g. code 187-809-165 -- i.d. code 187-809-1658, then press pound, and pound again, and press star, three to enter the queue to speak. >> chair haney: thank you. kathy widener is here to
present the item. >> thank you, supervisors. this modification would expand the lease premises to 15,287 square feet, establish a new minimum annual guarantee rent of $3,226,546, and extent the term by seven years. the centurion lounge opened in the terminal west in 2003, and prior to the pandemic, the lounge was a popular place that served about 1200 guests daily, often reaching full capacity and having to turn people away. it's located on the mezzanine level of terminal through. modification number two allowed
us to capture adjacent space in the mezzanine that is accessible only on the presecurity side of the terminal and is too far removed from our passenger area to be used for anything other than office or storage space. the proposed modification would amend the lease by adding 7,088 square feet to the original premises. it would extend the term by seven years and establish a new annual guaranteed rent of $3.2 million. this amount is the sum of the current rent, based on $225 per square foot and a lower rent of $160 per square foot for the new premises. the lower rate was negotiated by the airport and took into account the current value of the space, the airport's inand
the -- inability to lease it as a concession space. the budget analyst's report correctly sites that the negotiated square foot rental rate is less than current category two terminal space rent that is charged through our airport space charges, but i do want to note that the airport is unable to use the space for category two purposes because of its location. additionally, the tenant investment costs required to develop the new square footage will be closer to $1200 per square foot. the airport agrees with the recommendations. with that, i'd be happy to answer any questions. >> chair haney: thank you. i'm going to go to the b.l.a. report first, miss campbell?
>> yes. the proposed resolution approves the second amendment to an existing lease between american express and the airport, and it would increase the size of the existing space by about 7,000 square feet to over 15,000 square feet, would set a new annual guaranteed minimum rent of 3.2 million per year and would extend the term by approximately seven years through november 2031. we show the terms of these and the new minimal annual guaranteed rent on page 17 of our report. as noted on page 18, total rent to the airport over the extended term would be approximately $30 million and also, as noted by miss widener, we recommending an amendment to the proposed resolution to state that the airport estimates that american express' costs to construction tenant improvements in the expansion state is at least
$1200 per square foot. we consider approval of the proposed matter to be a matter for the board of supervisors because the negotiated rent is less than the scheduled rent set in the airport rates and charges and because the proposal exceeds the original tenure term as set forth in the r.f.p., and i'm available for any questions you may have. >> chair haney: thank you. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you, mr. chair. after reviewing this, i did speak to the director of the airport. i'm not comfortable with the significantly lower rental rate for price per square foot. it does seem to be -- i don't know to say a little dubious, but it doesn't seem to add up. originally, it's 250 a square
foot up to 1200 a square foot. it doesn't make sense to have it be those rates on the 2020-2021 economic conditions, so it -- and i also agree with the b.l.a.s report that this could signal to other airport tenants that, you know, proposed rate charges are negotiable, you know, it's always somewhat subjective to say a space is not useable when it could not -- when other people might have different purposes or ideas for their space, and so i'm concerned about it impacting other leases. so i really feel like, and i expressed this to the director
yesterday, and he understood the concerns, that i really feel like the airport should go back and try to negotiate a stronger lease on behalf of the city. maybe a shorter term, and maybe getting a better understanding of what the cost per square foot is, but having to pay almost $6.3 million than they would have to under a category 2 rental rate seems like a significant discount regardless of it being post security or presecurity, so my recommendation would be to continue this item to the call of the chair and have the airport go back and negotiate a better term. >> chair haney: thank you, vice chair safai. supervisor mar? >> supervisor mar: thank you, chair haney.
i also had the same concerns as vice chair safai. and looking at the report, it looks like this expansion would bring about $1.1 million of new rent every year, but then, the premises are occupied by american airlines and tenant security services, and they're paying $900,000 in rent, so the additional revenue from this expansion is not significant, so i share the comments set forth by supervisor safai? >> chair haney: so just so i understand, the goal here is to have them go back and see if
there's additional changes in this lease that can be made and then report back to us, and the airport director was aware that you were going to make this request? >> supervisor safai: correct. >> chair haney: okay. miss widener, is there anything that you want to -- i don't know if there's anything that you want to share. i know there wasn't any specific questions there. >> no. if that's what the committee wants me to do, i'm happy to do so, but i'm not sure that continuing it to the call of
the chair would accomplish what we want to do, so maybe i would ask to continue it to the call of the chair until i can get some guidance on how to proceed. >> chair haney: deputy city attorney russi? >> i would suggest continuing it to the call of the chair until the airport can discuss with their council how best to handle it. >> chair haney: see if there's any public comment on this item, madam clerk. >> clerk: yes, mr. chair, d.t. is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. for those who have not already done so, please press star, three to be entered into the queue, and for those who have
already done so, please wait until the system has been unmuted to begin your comments. are there any callers in the queue? miss monica, can we get a confirmation? is there a caller in the queue for item number four? >> yes, good morning. this is darryl klinger. i'm the director of business development for american express, an art level lounge portfolio, and i just wanted to raise the concern that if you look across our portfolio globally, including other california airports, you look at the investment that we're willing to make and the involvements of the airport, we believe this is very fair to the airport, very good for travelers, and our approval has
already been set. i'm afraid that any other economics may jeopardize the viability of this for american express. >> clerk: yes. thank you for your comments, sir. mr. chair, this completes the queue. >> chair haney: thank you. public comment is now closed. i would say, miss widener, are there concerns that you have about continuing this, particularly in light of the caller there? is there a potential -- of course, there's always some potential, but is there a potential or a concern that you have that this could jeopardize -- >> chair haney, i would need to go back and consult with
airport development staff who oversees our concessions and negotiated this modification. what i can say, while i hear supervisor safai and supervisor mar's concerns, this is not something that was done without thorough exploration into how we might use that space. this is an unusual lease. it's very popular. they turned people away before we had our downturn in traffic. i know that revenue development staff saw this as an opportunity to increase what is a popular passenger amenity and thought it would be a win-win for both -- well, win-win-win for both the tenants, the airport, and our passengers. i can go back and get some feedback on how we reached the
agreement, but i didn't want you to think we didn't go through the necessary procedure on how to get the best of the area. >> chair haney: thank you. supervisor safai, do you want to make the motion? >> supervisor safai: yes. i make a motion to continue this to the call of the chair. >> chair haney: you can take a roll call vote on that. >> clerk: yes. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chair haney: great. there will be continued to the call of the chair, and we'll see you again. thank you so much for your time and your work, miss widener. madam clerk, can you please call the next item, which also has miss widener, so she'll be with you again. madam clerk, can you please call item 5? >> clerk: yes. item 5, resolution approving amendment number 2 to the airport amenities and business
services lease between airport travel agency and the city to extend the lease by two years and six months, for a total term of january 1, 2014 through june 30, 2023, with a condition that the airport director, at his sole and absolute discretion, may terminate earlier by providing six months advance written notice, with no change to the current minimum annual guarantee, subject to adjustment in accordance with the terms and conditions of the lease. members of the public who wish to speak may call 415-655-0001, meeting i.s. 187-809-1658. press pound, and pound again.
press star, three to enter the queue, and please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted before beginning to speak. >> chair haney: thank you. miss widener? >> given the current challenges of airport tenants during covid-19, staff has determined that in this case it would not make economic sense to initiate a request for proposals process to select new amenities and businesses at this time. the proposed amendment would extend the travel agency lease with no change to the current minimum annual guaranteed rent of $221,000 or 15% of gross revenues until which time the
airport anticipates the normalization of passenger levels. we will then proceed with a new r.f.p. process in hopes of getting better economic terms. the airport travel agency occupies approximately 200,400 square feet in the terminal and provides baggage storage, a business center, as well as serving as the lost and found for items left at t.s.a. checkpoints. i do just want to clarify that the airport and our city attorney felt that we needed to include the retroactive language because the lease has been on a month-to-month holdover since january, and if
the modification were not to be approved, we would require board of supervisors approval. so nothing would be effective until we receive board of supervisors approval, but with that being said, we agree with the budget analyst's recommendation. >> chair haney: thank you, miss widener. miss campbell, let me hear the b.l.a. report, please. >> yes. just very briefly, and repeating what miss widener had to say, this resolution approves the lease extension between the airport and american travel agency for -- from january 2021 through june of 2023. the other terms of the lease would remain the same. the estimated less over the term -- lease over the term
would be approximately $562,000. the lease is retroactive until january 2021, and we recommend approval as recommended, and i'm available for questions. >> chair haney: colleagues, questions, comments? seeing none, can we go to public comment, please? >> clerk: yes, mr. chair. d.t. is checking to see if there's any callers in the queue. members of the public, please press star, three to enter the queue. for those already in the queue, please wait until the system has been unmuted before beginning your comments. d.t., are there any callers in the queue? >> operator: there are no callers in the queue. >> chair haney: okay. thank you.
i would first make a motion to approve the amendments. can i have a roll call vote, please. >> clerk: yes. [roll call] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chair haney: thank you, and can -- i'm now going to make a motion to recommend the item to the full board with a positive recommendation as amended. a roll call vote, please. >> clerk: yes. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chair haney: great. this will go to the full board with a positive recommendation, and thank you so much again, miss widener. madam clerk, can you please call item 6? >> clerk: item 6, resolution authorizing the director of property to execute a first amendment to a restated ten-year commercial lease, with two five-year extension options
between the city as landlord and volunteers in medicine located at 35 anondaga avenue, authorizing the reimbursement up to a total of $1,660,000 for the tenant improvements. members of the public, to provide public comment, please call 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 187-809-1658, then pressing pound, and pound again, then pressing star, three to enter the queue.
the most exciting expansion that will come with this move is the addition of dental services. the initial cost of the project was 1.88 million, with 1.41 million coming from the city, and now that we're towards the end of the shell project and before we move into the construction of the interior of the building, the total is estimated at $2.25 million. so the city has agreed to put in an additional approximately
$440,000. so thanks again inform allowing me -- for allowing me to speak on behalf of clinic by the bay. i think we have the clinical director of art, that would like to say a few words, otherwise, i'm happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> supervisor safai: you're on mute, chair. >> chair haney: sorry about that. was just saying thank you. is there a b.l.a. report on this item? >> yes. chair haney, members of the committee, the proposed resolution approves an amendment to an existing lease between the city and clinic by the way from 1.4 million to 1.66 million. we showed the increase in
tenant improvement costs on page 25 of our report. as noted, the city's share is up to 1.66 million. the clinic by the bay would still be over 700,000. they would need to do some additional fundraising to raise their additional costs. we do consider this to be a board of supervisors matter because the amount exceeds the proposed rent for the additional property, and i'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> chair haney: supervisor safai, you're the sponsor on this project, so maybe you would like to say a few words? >> supervisor safai: i'll be very brief because i think sarah did a great job.
the city, right before i was sworn in originally in 2016, the city grossly underestimated the costs of improvement. this is not a dollar-a-year type of lease arrangement. these properties were in tremendously bad shape, so the 400,000 was, in many ways, a place holder. we did come back a couple of years ago and ask for 1 million, believing that even before the walls were open, that that would be the right amount, and unfortunately, based on so many other things, cost escalations, it's gone
higher than that. we were able to work with the mayor's budget team, department of public health and find at least $250,000 that was a step in the right direction. the remaining $600,000 is above what was originally negotiated that both tenants would come into. not only are they paying very close to market rent, but they're also putting millions of dollars into city-owned properties. so there is a threshold that we negotiated as part of this agreement to expand a free clinic and arts programming, which i know is near and dear to your heart, supervisor haney, given all the work that you've done in the arts program, as well as your district, supervisor mar. so we'll be coming back and talking about some rent abatement, if not some additional need.
we were able to finalize an agreement between pg&e and p.c., so that's good. there'll be some additional costs, if not costs to the project, but we'll be able to get over that hill. i ask for your support today, and i see that we'll be coming back once we get a final. volunteers in medicine has been doing a great job in vaccinating the undocumented, and we think it's great that what the city is intending to bring to our district and to the city in general, so thank you. >> chair haney: thank you to
those comments, and i'm definitely familiar with the work of clinic by the bay and thankful for your work and your service. the expansion is very exciting, and i will be understanding and supporting the need for this. madam clerk, is there any public comment? >> clerk: yes, mr. chair, d.t. is looking to see if there are any callers in the few. members of the public, press star, three to be added into the queue. for those that have already done so, please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. miss monica, are there any callers in the queue for item number 6? >> operator: there are no callers in the queue. >> chair haney: okay. public comment is closed. miss gordon, anything else?
>> just a huge thank you. >> chair haney: okay. i'll make a -- well, supervisor safai, do you want to make the motion since it's your legislation? >> supervisor safai: yes. make a motion to send this to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> chair haney: roll call vote, please. >> clerk: yes. [roll call] >> chair haney: thank you so much, miss gordon, for bringing this forward. madam clerk, can you call item 7? >> clerk: yes. item 7 is a resolution retroactively authorizing the mayor, on behalf of the city and county of san francisco, to accept and expend the city's emergency rental assistance funding from the u.s. department of the treasury, in the amount of 26.2 million for a period beginning january 8,
2021 through december 31, 2021. members of the public who wish to provide public comment, dial 415-655-0001; meeting i.d. 187-809-1658, then press pound and pound again. press star, three to enter the queue. >> chair haney: thank you. and i believe we have eric shaw with the presentation. >> so good morning, chair haney, supervisor safai, supervisor mar, and members of the public. my name is eric shaw, director of the mayor's office of housing and community development. i am pleased to be here today to provide an overview of the
mayor's emergency rental assistance funding. as you're all aware, since the pandemic hit, housing instability across the region has increased greatly. under the leadership of mayor breed, the city launched the give to s.f. housing program last spring, which provides crucial financial assistance to over 1400 extremely vulnerable households. the u.s. treasury fund the city received for emergency rental assistance will assure our funds get into the hands of those who need it the most. per the guidelines, cities with population more than 200,000 [inaudible] while the california received a separate allocation. the city of san francisco received $26.5 million as well as the state of california
participate. [inaudible] with these eviction protections expiring at the end of june, nonpayment evictions can resume july 1, 2021, unless new legislation extends it. our efforts have been always targeted to the most vulnerable applicants. 80% of the funds went to black and brown households, and 49% have previously experienced homelessness. to be eligible for assistance from the city program, households must earn 40% of a.m.i. or below and demonstrate housing instability.
our program is designed to keep vulnerable tenants in their homes by leveraging existing protection and maximizing prospective rental assistance. the state's current program requires households to make less than 80% a.m.i. to be eligible to apply, but a house must be 50% a.m.i. or below to be prioritized for assistance. if the landlord is not willing to participate in the state's program, the state will provide 25% of unpaid rent for the same april to march time frame directly to the tenant. next slide, please. this diagram here, built from the diagram i shared earlier, was the months that the state's program covers rental
assistance shaded in. here's the diagram once again demonstrating the focus of the city's rental assistance program which you see fans from april 2021 through the end of the year. i'll share how closely aligned the two programs are and where they different. the city's program continues serving the most vulnerable tenants by applying equitable factors. once the city's program launches, mohcd grantees will provide any necessary assistance to complete the multilingual program application. once the application has been received, a comprehensive
formal ability assessment is conducted to decide whether the household meets the vulnerable threshold and then is eligible to have the information verified. if a household does not meet the threshold, they are notified and provided with other rental assistance resources. and with that, i'd like to thank you for your time, and we appreciate distributing crucial rental assistance to the most vulnerable residents. that concludes my presentation. we're happy to answer any questions you have at this time. >> chair haney: thank you, mr. shaw. i have a couple questions. one is -- and you touched on this a little bit in how we've gone so far, but when you say that we are going to be in our city program looking at especially vulnerable tenants and equity factors, is there kind of a clear set of what the equity factors are? is it neighborhoods? is it -- how are you
prioritizing within that? >> so mr. chair -- so if we're building upon give to s.f., there is an identification of characteristics within tenants that make them vulnerable to homelessness in some ways? our goal is housing stability, so it's issues like past homelessness. it is issues around prior domestic violence, issues around instability, so these are some of the factors that we use. if you've seen the data that was exchanged from give to s.f., you'll see that not only was the majority of funding given to low and very low-income, but the zip codes where that funding was given to tenants aligns with the zip codes that we identified the greatest need, so it's not zip code by place, it's by tenants.
we understand there's some zip codes with a higher percentage of vulnerable tenants. >> chair haney: so in terms of how you determine who's going to get the funds or not of actual city funds, what i'm still trying to fully understand is is it a very clear set of factors that you're establishing? >> yes. >> chair haney: and what are those factors? >> there's questions around income, employment, tenure. i don't have the full application here, but they will be listed within the application. as i shared before, they are questions to be sure and they are identifiers of
vulnerability to becoming unhoused. so as an application is completed, we can make sure that a draft of that is shared with the supervisors, as well. >> chair haney: and i'm sure this is something that you're thinking about, and i know this wasn't a part of your presentation as a whole, but how are you going to get these out to people? i saw it was multilingual, which is great, but i'm sure that other supervisors have this experience, as well. when i go into a cafe, i get stopped on the street. a lot of those folks aren't connected to service providers or tenant organizations. the most vulnerable people aren't connected to any of that. how are we going to connect to people? >> well, there's two things
that i think are good at this million. there's more resources available for everyone. the way that we're building upon this program, we are rooted with core c.b.o.s, and we're coordinating to ensure sort of adherence to the vulnerability index and to any questions on the platform, but we also anticipate a strong push of communication to relevant community associations, as well, in partnership with the community organizations. those are providing the needed counseling and support services
will be doing their own outreach but there'll be a more coordinated mohcd city outreach, as well. there's a city program and a state program, and the city program focuses on deep vulnerability. the state program focusing on retroactive rent, so we're going to make sure we communicate so people know the correct program to apply to. >> chair haney: got it. is the type of landlord or housing situation a factor at all in this or are we really just looking at the tenant and who they are and what the needs are? >> so it is deeply tenant. we just want to make sure in
the end that the tenant needs the support and they are -- and are aligned with our vulnerable indices, that the resources go to them. so the -- so yes. so in that instance, the landlord is not part of the consideration of the resource being given. it is to -- for the tenant. >> chair haney: got it. and last thing that i wanted to say about this is to have an understanding of the data tracking in the administration of these programs. you know, it's really important that we not only have information on the tenants, age, size of household, income report received, it would be important to see the data demographics on tenants whose applications were denied. and also, even though it's not a factor on whether you're
providing this to individual tenants, but the data on the landlords, including the amount received from the program, the number of units owned, the type of housing that a tenant is in, and i want to just make sure that if we move this forward, that we have a commitment to collect that data. you know, i -- you know, i think this is obviously very much needed. i want to make sure that we have a really good sense of who's receiving it not only on the tenant side, but also on the landlord side and the type of property owners that are receiving these funds which, you know, can -- obviously, it's, in this case going to the tenants directly, but where the tenants live and where the money is going i think will be very important for us to understand who we're reaching. >> and i do agree with that,
supervisor haney. we just want to make sure we're right sizing the program. we don't want to leave a dollar on the table, and we're exploring additional funding sources from the city, and i think there may be additional funding sources from the federal government coming in, and i think we want to identify that to make sure that we are identifying the most vulnerable residents but also make sure we're extending the funds in a way that can help the most in need if possible, so i can -- i affirmed this in the land use committee on monday that we will be tracking this data and will have it available. >> chair haney: great. we want to make sure that it's somehow tracked and make sure what's in there is the landlord property and the type of
property -- for missing, you know, if this is weighted heavily towards people who live in bigger buildings or smaller or smaller landlords. i don't know if necessarily that would be a factor for a tenant's relief, but it's very important for us to have that knowledge in identifying the gaps particularly as there's a lot of different programs out there, and some of them are addressing the needs of one or the other. supervisor mar? >> supervisor mar: thank you, chair haney, and thanks to director shaw and mohcd team for all of your work on this incredibly important program. i guess i -- i -- i just wanted to say, i think it's challenging or unfortunate that
there are different funding sources with different guidelines, so it just adds extra confusion and challenging to implement -- challenges to implementation. so i just had a few questions just about that, the complexity of the different funding sources and programs, in especially communicating to tenants about these opportunities. so -- and also, there's the -- that additional $10 million plus for rent relief which i don't think you referred to in your presentation. so my question is how does that -- and i'm sorry. i wasn't in -- i know you've had hearings specifically on that in the land use committee and elsewhere, so i haven't been a part of that, but i just had a question of how that fits into the mix of the local and state program and -- yeah. >> thank you for the question. through the chair, supervisor mar, the cleanest way we're
trying to understand this from the city perspective versus the state perspective is that people who are looking for past rent, retroactive rent, it makes more sense to go through the state program. it makes it a little cleaner, and then understanding the lack of clarity around the eviction protections going forward, and understanding our most vulnerable may not yet be on their feet, we are thinking of this as the state program being prospective rent and retroactively allowing them to stay in their home.
for the remaining $10 million from the city, the initial concession required by that money are more strict than what the state has through s.b. 91. right now, we're trying to reconcile that state requirement with what the requirement is for the city, but the conversation that i've had thus far with supervisor preston and other stakeholders is trying to understand, as chair haney brought up, where is the right platform, right technology, right tenant, right landlord for the application of that $10 million in all the
resources that are occurring, so that's going to be an analysis of the conversation based on the data and really understanding the gaps that may come up as we distribute these funds and the state distributes their funds. >> supervisor mar: all right. thank you. i guess my follow up question is three different related but similar grant relief programs. is -- >> yeah, so supervisor, through the chair, i think you know i'm a big fan of communications plans. i've really tried to make sure we're doing affirmative communication. we're thinking it's going to be crucial, and we're working on the state for joint
communication with their programs themselves. if you go through the portal, there will be a san francisco interface if you say you're from san francisco. we will be providing some citywide guidance as it relates to citywide guidance for how the projects work but also property owners and tenants around san francisco programs. and then finally, we really are working with the community-based partners who are going to be administering the city-based assistance to make sure we're as targeted as possible and that we're having a real-time feedback around additional communication that has to come out -- it's going to be crucial with different pots of money coming in, and
also future protections from evictions is also going to be crucial. we anticipate very clear community based conversations, and then some clear policy guidance. i think we touch 100% affordable, we touch b.m.r. units in addition to the market rate units, trying to have a clear message to all of our stakeholders in san francisco. >> supervisor mar: great. thank you. thank you, director shaw. >> chair haney: thank you, supervisor mar. madam clerk, is there any public comment? >> clerk: thank you, mr. chair. d.t. is checking if there are
any callers in the queue. members of the public, press star, three to be entered into the queue, and for members of the public who have already done so, please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted before beginning your comment. d.t., do we have any callers in the queue? >> operator: madam clerk, we have two callers in the queue. >> my name is michelle shaw, and i am asking you to approve this for our communities. it is crucially needed for our communities, and our communities are suffering, and our indigenous communities are unrepresented in a lot of these conversations. my family is here actually through the relocation program, and that's how we ended up here in san francisco, and we stayed here ever since. that was back in the 50s, and
we are -- we stayed here, so i was born here with my siblings, and we're just trying to work and trying to support our families in this very expensive city, made harder by going through a pandemic. we're trying to work hard to be a regular productive citizen in san francisco, which is hard even without a pandemic, and it's so expensive for families here to find a decent place to live and to be productive members of this city. lots of family have invisible homeless living with them because they can't afford the
rent for their own families, and many of our communities have been laid off -- community members have been laid off and struggling. and when you're in recovery, and you're in the program and trying to get your life back together, the main basis of functioning is to have a roof over your head. you know, i work in the native american community center, and it's hard to -- >> speaker's time has elapsed. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> hi. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. >> hi, good afternoon, supervisors. my name is luis avalos, and i'm director of the san francisco socialist democrats, and i'm
here -- latinx democrats. i urge you to keep this fund going as long as possible so everyone has access to equitably. thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. again, if you wish to provide public comment on item 7, please press star, three now. next caller, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is gabriel, and i am the director of [inaudible] resource center. la raza resource center was one of the original rental assistance providers in san
francisco. director shaw implemented this critical program quickly so we can get funds into the hands of the most vulnerable in san francisco. our participants are mainly monolingual immigrant spanish speakers living in very vulnerable housing situations that made the barrier so approachable for us to be able to actually help these tenants get the resources they need, especially when they're shut out from so many other federal resources. our staff here at la raza, led by [inaudible] have implemented a really rapid program to get money into the hands of these folks who are facing a lot of threats from their landlords, and it gives them a chance to
meet other basic needs. this has really been helpful to provide a baseline of support for our families, and as a principally social service and immigration needs provider, i think we're serving some of the most vulnerable populations, and i hope that we can continue this population today. thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you. currently, there are six callers listening and two in the queue. next caller, please. >> hi. can you hear me? yes. my name is [inaudible] and i'm the community program coordinator for la raza
community resource center. at the moment, we all became essential workers, attending a community that need it the most. people have been dealing with threats from landlords to being with [inaudible] income with small children, and it have trickled down to domestic violence and child abuse. they went to really, really having nothing and relying on the services that we provided, and that was the emergency rental assistant program. one of the helping hands that give people a hands up, not a hands down. so i am going to urge everybody to keep this funds flowing and
to think about these communities are the ones that participate in housecleaning, yards, and take care of your children. so please, keep being the leaders that you are and keep being this program flowing. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. if you wish to make public comment, press star, three now, and i believe this is our last caller. >> hola. [speaking spanish language]
>> clerk: thank you for your comments. are there any other speakers in the queue? >> operator: there are no more callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. >> chair haney: thank you. public comment is now closed. thank you to everyone who called in. appreciate your input, and i really strongly agree about the importance of this program and the tremendous need that exists. i realize -- is there a b.l.a. report on this item, miss campbell? >> no, chair haney, there's no report from our office. >> chair haney: okay. colleagues, any last final thoughts or questions for director shaw? seeing -- >> supervisor safai: chair haney?
>> chair haney: supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: yeah, i didn't want to speak, but i just wanted to say that this hasn't been easy with so many levels involved at the state and local level, so i just wanted to thank all the organizations working to ensure that we're getting the money out to people who need it the hit. when this first hit quickly a year ago, l.a. was able to make a bit more quickly, setting aside 100 dlr million. -- $100 million. we'll end up with very close to $100 million, as well, and if that need grows, we definitely have more prop i money coming down the road. just want to say i appreciate everyone's support. i'd also like to be added as a cosponsor, and yeah, thank you.
>> chair haney: great. well, if we're doing that, i'd love to be added as a cosponsor, too, and i would make a motion to move this to the full board with a positive recommendation. i don't believe we have any amendments. madam clerk, roll call vote, please. >> clerk: yes. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chair haney: great. it'll go to the full board with a positive recommendation, and greatly appreciate you and your team's work, director shaw, and thank you, miss chen, as well. madam clerk, can you please call item 8. >> clerk: yes. item number 8, resolution approving the third attempt with san francisco autoreturn
for services relating to the towing, storage, and disposal of abandoned and illegally parked vehicles to increase the contract omt by $23,.2 million for the first two years of the five year extension for a total amount not to exceed 88.6 million to april on april 1, 2021. members of the public who wish to provide comment dial 415-655-0001, enter meeting i.d. 187-809-1658. press pound, and pound again. press star, three and wait for the system to indicate you have been unmuted before you begin your comments. >> chair haney: okay. i believe we have mr. lee from sfmta. >> good afternoon, supervisors.
steve lee with sfmta streets division. thank you for hearing our item today. chair haney, before we begin, i'd like to request an amendment to the resolution, there are two. the first is to strike the land whereas clause as it relates to the ceqa findings. we've been vised by the city attorney that that particular whereas clause that that's not required within this resolution. and then, the second amendment to the resolution is in the resolved clause where the sfmta would like to change our request from a two-year funding request to one-year funding request where the first year would be 11.2 million.
in the second year, would be 11.6, but would require the approval of the director of transportation, and these are amounts recommended by the budget analyst. i think in the interest of time, we can go to the budget analyst's report, and i'm happy to answer any questions after that. >> chair haney: sure. miss campbell? >> yes, chair haney, members of the committee. as mr. lee noted, this is a -- legislation approval an existing agreement between m.t.a. and autoreturn. i believe it was discussed by the department last week. the legislation before you would increase the term of two years for a total not to exceed amount of 88.6 million. we show the contract budget on
page 29 of our report and the towing budget on page 30. based on the recent information provided by mr. lee in the amendment to the resolution, it does change our recommendation. i believe that the amendment introduced by mr. lee taked into account the reduction in the program not to exceed amount that we had recommended. we'd also requested that there be a comprehensive report on the tow program by march 2023. if that extension is only for one year, we would like to change that for the report to be back by march 2022, and otherwise, we recommend approval of the proposed resolution, and i'm available for any questions you may have.
>> chair haney: okay. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you, mr. chair. just want to thank sfmta for working with us. we had made the recommendation for one year, check in after that point. felt like it was necessary based on the current economic conditions. also want to put on the record that we asked them to pay closer attention to some of the needs and the requests that come out of our neighborhoods in response to abandoned vehicles and others. i want to thank mr. lee and his team, so i'm happy with the recommendations. appreciate sfmta working with us on that and am fully supportive of the amendments that are proposed today. >> chair haney: great. that is good to hear. supervisor mar? i do not have any.
madam clerk, is there any public comment on this item? >> clerk: yes, mr. chair. can i please ask for a point of clarification because the term -- because the third amendment would commence on april 1, 2021. would this need to be amended to provide further retroactive -- >> chair haney: deputy city attorney russi? >> good afternoon, supervisors. brad russi, deputy city attorney. if you'll forgive me, my connection was cutting out. >> clerk: yes. the third extension would commence on april 1, 2021. just wondering if the amendment would need to be clarified to provide further retroactivity.
>> that's right, yes. >> clerk: thank you. >> chair haney: madam clerk, is there any public comment? >> clerk: yes, mr. chair, d.t. is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. members of the public, please press star, three to be entered into the queue. members of the public who have already done so, please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted to begin your comment. >> operator: madam clerk, there is one caller in the queue. >> thank you, supervisors. [inaudible]. >> clerk: thank you for your comments.
are there any callers in the queue? >> operator: there are no more callers in the queue. >> chair haney: public comment is now closed. all right. so seeing no more questions or comments from my colleagues, we have amendments that we need to accept, so i want to make a motion to accept the amendments that were just discussed for this item as stated by sfmta and the b.l.a. we have a roll call on those, please? >> clerk: and to include the retroactive language? >> chair haney: yes. >> clerk: yes. thank you. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chair haney: okay. the amendments pass. can we now have a vote on the -- i want to make a motion to move the item as amended to
the full board with a positive recommendation. can we have a roll call vote on that, please. >> clerk: yes, as amended. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chair haney: great. this will go to the full board with a positive recommendation as amended. thank you so much, mr. lee, for your work on this. appreciate you being here, and madam clerk, are there any other items? >> clerk: there are no other items, mr. chair. >> chair haney: okay. all right. great. this meeting is adjourned. >> thank you, supervisors. >> supervisor safai: thank you.