I would like to thank sfgovtv for broadcasting this. Please silence your cell fens. Phones. Cell phones. Items today will be on the november 19th agenda. Thank you. Can you please call item 1. Resolution approving the First Amendment between the city and sunset scavenger company, golden gate disposal and recycling company doing business as recology San Francisco, increasing the total amount from 40 million to 48 million with no change to the term that expired on november 30, 2020. You might remember we continued this item from last weeks agenda. Can you please remind me. Did we have a bla report at that time . We did not. Thank you very much. We are back, i believe you gave a presentation last week so right now could we hear from the bla, please. Good morning, budget analyst office. The board of supervisors is being asked to amend the existing contract to increase by 8 million from 40 million to 48 million to cover the contract costs to the end of fiscal year 1920. As we show in table one there is an increase from 12 in actual monthly expenditures from 12 to 14 over the initial years of can contract. The increases are now due to increases in the rate cap, increases in City Department services, some other Rate Adjustments that we outline on page 3 of our report and we recommend approval. Thank you very much. Lets open this up for Public Comment. Any members of the public like to comment . Seeing none, it is closed. Colleagues, i had questions last week. I understand it now. I want to thank the controller and lisa for coming and giving me an in depth explanation about the nuances of the contracting that happens. Colleagues any comments or questions . Seeing none, i would like to move with a positive recommendation if we can take that without objection. Thank you for joining us. Thank hthank you very much. Item two an ordinance retroactive office of the Financial Empowerment in the amount of 365,000 for implementing the kindergarten through College Program for september 1, 2019 through augus. Amending the annual salary of one granted class for is the Senior Management assistant position. We have eric here from the treasure and Tax Collector. I am the sponsor of this item. I just want to say how wonderful the kindergarten to College Program is. I will talk about how wonderful it is. Good morning. Thanks for having me here this morning. Eric with the office of treasure and Tax Collector. I am to present an ordinance authorizing the office of the treasure and Tax Collector to accept 365,000 from the Mott Foundation to support the kindergarten to College Program. As we were talking about we launched this in 2011 based on research that shows kids with savings with a College Savings account are up to seven times more likely to attend college than those without. Since 2011 this has automatically opened more than 42000 accounts for sfusd students who enter kindergarten. It is automatic. There is no paperwork to fill out, no Social Security requirements, no minimum balance requirement. The city provides the initial 50 deposit and private funds are used to incentivize families to continue to save. The incentives work. Families have saved more than 4. 6 million of their own money for college, and more than 50 of the families who save qualify for free or reduced price lunch. This grant money will fund a position focused on increasing outreach to families, students and teeners and to continue to encourage families to save in those accounts. We are seeking retroactive approval. It is consult to get it into the budget for fy1920. We moved as soon as possible when it was signed. Any members of the public to comment. Seeing none, it is closed. Any comments or questions on this . This is a great program. I want to be say as we try to close our financial gap, it is our job now as city and county to close the racial achievement gap and prepare everyone for college. I would like to move this to the board with a positive recommendation without objection. Thank you. Can you please read item 3. Resolution for a Program Grant 488,000 from the federal Management Agency through Emergency Services for phase two of the switchyard slopestylization from august 6, 2018 through april 30, 2020. Thank you very much. We have susan howe. From the San FranciscoPublic Utilities commission. Good morning supervisors. I am to accept and expand the fema mitigation grant. This was passed through the california Governors Office of Emergency Services for an amount not to exceed 488,259 did. Phase two of the project. So the early switchyard is a facility of the San FranciscoPublic Utility Commission water and Power Division located on the river on groveland california. The switchyard transmits electric power to kirkwood and home powerhouses to the city. In 2013, the rim fire severely burned the slopes adjacent to the switchyards as you can see. This increased the rock falls and landslides which could damage the switchyard and impact power transmission. At that time we declared a major federal disaster applying the fema grant funds for this project. In 2014, the San FranciscoPublic Utility Commission submitted application for the project and the project is divided to two phases. First is preaward of grant and environmental studies and engineering design. Second is where we are today the construction and closeout. If you recall in 2017, the board of supervisors approved the 404,208 for phase one work completed as of today. This is a timeline showing the activities. I am not going into detail. Last month we received reimbursement for phase one. This shows the timeline for phase two work. Currently line item 3, septembed construction. It is in progress. Our goal is to complete by january 2020. We will submit for phase two by april 2020. Today i hope the budget and finance committee can recommend the switch funds for the project in the amount of 488,259. Thanks for your attention. Project manager and i will be happy to answer any questions you have. Any comments or questions . Could we have a bla report, please . Thank you. They approve the grant from fema for stabilization subsequent to the rim fire the total project cost is shown in table two on page 7. 1. 7 million including contingency. In addition to the grant the Power Program will fund the balance. There is currently sufficient money in the budget to cover these costs. I recommend approval. Thank you. Open for Public Comment. Any members of the public to comment item 3 . It is closed. A motion to move to the board with positive recommendation. If we can take that without objection. Thank you. Can you call item 4. Resolution approving the port of San Francisco to number one between ch2m hill engineers for the planning, engineering, Environmental Services for the seawall resiliency project to increase the contract amount 19. 9 million not to exceed 59 million. Good afternoon, we are here to request your recommendation to the full board of supervisors for an amendment to a contract between the port and ch2m hill engineers in the amount much approximately 19 million. This is for the embarcadero seawall and other efforts. In todays presentation i want to provide a update about the sea wall where we are with the army corps of engineers flood study and give an overview of the contract amendments. As you know, we focused our initial resilience work at the port along the embarcadero seawall three miles from the aquatic park to the ballpark. Since then we received direction to extend the efforts portwide the entire 7. 5 miles of port jurisdiction. What started with an effort to focus on 500 million phase one is a much larger program. It could be up to 1 billion. We are really happy to be in the southern waterfront with these discussions with those communities. This is a multibillion dollar effort over decades to help the public understand the phase nature of the program. We have a resilient framework focused on strengthening the initial investments to protect life safety and facilitate the citys Emergency Response after a disaster and adapt plan to adapt to mid century sea level rise, and we know that with two 100 water levels of five or more feet of sea water rise we need a new water front. We want to envision 2100 resil ient waterfront not for now but so we know what we are building to. Where we are with the sea wall program. We are grateful for proposition a in november 2018. We have been engaged in Robust Community engagement since passage of the bond. Our focus now is on the risk assessment. We are trying to understand the seismic and flood risks on the water front. We have a geotech any cal program over 100 borings to understand the soil conditions in the area. There is complex work underway. We are not just interested in seismic or flood risk, but the consequences of those hazards for people. How does it affect the embarcadero network, Disaster Response . We have a district significantly dangedamaged. We have assets on the waterfronts. We are trying to understand the consequences of the damages and the citys recovery time. We expect to be able to review results with policymakers and city staff in early 2020. We will be back with briefings for supervisors and staff. Public results are expected in the Second Quarter of 2020. We will do outreach to port tenants to be able to explain the effect of these damages on their leaseholds and businesses. Damages will be expressed typically in terms of economic losses and casualties that we project. Our phase one focus, as we told you before, is live safety and Emergency Response. There are some areas that deserve additional study. The ferry area is complicated. There is very deep mud in the area. This contract amendment has 1 million for advanced study in the Ferry Building area. In terms of the Army Corp Flood study we have been through a robust scoping study to do a Flood Control study. We estimate 20 million study cost over five years. 50 federal and 50 local share. That 50 local share will be paid for through this contract amendment. We are in the process of evaluating flood damages on the entire waterfront. We will engage in robust Public Engagement to develop a tentatively selected plan in september 2021. If there is a federal interest in the project, money request to congress would happen in 2024. The federal government would pay twothirds of the project cost. To the contract amendment a 20 Million Contract amendment. I want to credit Port Commission president kim brandon pushing the team to have a high l. B. E. Participation rate in the amendment of 29 . It will fund the ports share of the flood study, almost 10 million of in kind services, adapt and envision and Public Engagement, advanced Ferry Building analysis. We are standing up l. B. E. Support services and Work Force Development program when we are ready to bid contracts we are welt positioned to well positioned to share with the disadvantaged communities and local businesses and project management as well. Funding to date for the Overall Program including the contract and staff is 31. 5 million. Sources include the citys Revolving Fund of 9 million loan, port contributed 15point 5 million including the appropriation. The Planning Department contributed 2 million with a 5 million state grant. We are teeing up the first bond sale. The litigation is holding it up right now. We had a favorable lower court ruling. We are teeing up arguments in the apple lat court. That appellate court. That completes my presentation. Any comments . The bla report then. The proposed resolution approves amendment to the existing contract for planning, engineering and Environmental Services for the seawall. Originally 40 million through 2027. It is now increased to 60 million. The increase as we understand is for the extent of the program from the three mile northern waterfront to the entire 7. 5 miles waterfront. This equals 12 of the total seawall phase one budget of 500 million. Our understanding is that the 12 contract cost for planning, engineering and Environmental Services is within industry standards. We do give detailed outline of the increased costs on page 13 and reremember approval. Thank you very much. Supervisor mandelman. Question for mr. Benson. Can you talk about the commissions thinking in expanding out the project and what the cost and benefits of doing that are . I assume my guess i is a fulr picture what to do and start actually doing stuff later. Our major seismic risk is in the northern waterfronts, the embarcadero seawall. We have dense seawalls. We have the transportation and utility infrastructure on the embarcadero. That is where the earthquake risk is highest. It was appropriate place to start. Thinking about flood risk. It is hard to isolate that area, that area on the southern portion dips to Mission Creek, mission bay and Mission Creek are very lowlying areas. It is hard to design flood defenses that end at the ballpark. We wanted to see the flood Risk Management work extend to the southern waterfront area including the creek. Fortunately, the Army Corp Flood study came to the city with the ability to go 7. 5 miles. There is a funding strategy for the expansion. We need to resource that study, which is a major reason why we are here today. I think the Port Commission is looking at resilience as a portwide responsibility. Thank you. Okay. Public comment. Any members of the public to comment on item 4 . Seeing none, Public Comment is now closed. I think we collectively when we hear about the sea wall, it puts the fear of god into everybody. Mother nay turhas the last nature has the last word on this. I would make a motion to move to the board with positive recommendation if we can take that without objection. Thank you very much. Madam clerk please call item 5. Resolution approving modification number one much the use and agreement between Alaska Airlines and the city to interpret the space into the Lease Agreement with an estimated rent of 20. 8 million for the remainder of the lease terms to commence upon approval. President item 6 is between very genamerica with earlies due to the merger to commence on the first day of the month following board approval. Today we have. First off i would like to say happy birthday to super visor stefani. The airport is here requesting approval of modifications to two leases resulting from the merger of alaska and very again airlines one to the 2011 lease will incorporate 12. 6000 square feet in terminal 2 formally occupied by Virgin America. Modification one provides early termination. If approved alaska will occupy approximately 19. 3000 square feet of exclusive use space and joint lose space. In addition to the 3. 7000 square feet of joint use soace currently occupying in the international terminal. Based on these occupancy levels, alaska will play approximately 20. 8 million in rent for the period of december 2019 to june 2021. I am here to answer any questions. Thank you for hearing this item. Could we get a bla report, please, on items 5 and 6. Item 5 approves amendment with the Lease Agreement with Alaska Airlines allowing them to expand and a tem6 approves the termination with the lease with very r Virgin AmericaVirgin America. The revenues to the airport under the modified lease on page 17 is about 20. 9 million over the remaining terms through jun. As stated in other meetings, the Lease Agreement will need renegotiated in 2021. Remember approval. Thank you very much. Open this up for Public Comment. Any members of the public to comment on item 5 or 6 . Public comment is now closed. I would like to move these to the board with a positive recommendation if we can take that without objection. Thank you. Please call item 7. Item 7 resolution retroactively authorizing the juvenile Probation Department to accept and expands a grant in the amount of 734,000 to augustment the San Franciscos existing diversion programs for the period of july 1 through february 28, 2023. Thank you very much. I thought trent was going to be here. You are not trent. Would you introduce yourself. I am the juvenile Department Director of probation. Thank you very much. Please begin. Yes. Mr. Roar is on his way. He was in another meeting. He should be here. He will be coming. Would you like to start on the presentation or waite wait. We will wait for trent. That is fine. We will then take item 8. Would that be okay. Please call item 8. Resolution authorizing the director of property on behalf of the Human Services agency to exercise a five year extension of a lease between Bayview Plaza and city at 801 third street for a total term of december 1 had at the initial Monthly Base Rent of 45,000 for a total annual base rent of 543,000. We have the director of real estate. Good morning. Thank you for your time. I am here on behalf of the Human Services agency to seek your positive recommendation for resolution authorizing a five year lease extension at 3801 third street. This will be a lease extension with Bayview Plaza as landlord and city and county of San Francisco as tenant. Hsa has been at the site since september of 2009. The current lease is about to expire but has a five year lease extension to take that from december of 2019 through november of 2024. The option provides that the new rate would be at 95 of fair market value but no less than the current rate. We have determined the current rate of 45,325 per month is at or below 95 of market. That 45,000 per month equates to 543,902 per year or 36. 06 per square foot annually. This will adjust on an annual basis based upon the cpi. It is bracketed no less than 3 or higher than 5 . H sa uses this property for family and Childrens Services. This lease is fully serviced which makes the 36 a square foot rate more attractive. I want to thank them for the review of the lease option and we concur in their recommendation. I have robert wash with me to answer any questions. Any comments . Can we have the bla report, please. Yes, the proposed resolution approves five year extension to the existing lease for family and Childrens Services and while welfare services. They have been located here since 2009. The original lease was approved in 2014 with five year extension option. Based on the information provided to us, the rent is below the market rate that would be otherwise paid at this location. We show the cost to the Human Services agency over the next five years and page 21 of our report we recommend approval. Thank you very much. Is this the last extension option on this contract . Under this lease, yes, thats correct. Thank you very much. Any members of the public like to comment on item 8. Seeing none, Public Comment is now closed. I would like to move this to the board with a positive recommendation without objection. Thank you. Madam clerk back to item 7. I believe mr. Roar is here now with us for the presentation. Good morning. Sorry i was late. Just got out of a Department Head meeting. Thanks for your patience. I am here to seek your approval for a resolution for a youth reinvestment grant that juvenile Probation Department applied for and received from the board of state and Community Corrections for 734,000 over about three and a half year period. The purpose of the grant is to support the existing juvenile probation diversion programs and activities with a nonlaw enforcement mobile Crisis Response service. What the funding will do is establish 24 hour seven day a week hot line and mobile response system for youth to prevent entrance into the juvenile Justice System or reentrance to the juvenile Justice System. This effort, initiative, will allow care givers and parents and other folks in the community should there be an instance of behavior problems, potential for violence, suicidal thoughts, crisis the youth may be entering rather than 911 approach, it would be deferred or hopefully to the mobile crisis line. Why am i here as hsa rather than jpd . After they received the grant, our initial oversight meeting, the Oversight Committee of the grant which i am a member, we discussed this initiative. These services are very similar to an existing set of services hsa funds. We fund a 24 hour crisis hot line with associated Services Targeted to kids in foster care and youth who are in Community Placements through juvenile probation. Hsa actually pays for those placements for foster care youth and juvenile probation youth. Rather than a new program we thought it was a good idea to expand the population that is being served by the existing program. The population the new population will target the following. Diversion eligible youth who are eligible for diversion following arrest to the Community Assessment and resource center. Highly at risk youth sited by sfpd but not filed by district attorney. Additionally youth booked at Juvenile Hall but were not ultimately pursued or filed on by the district attorney. Then youth with the case dismissed. Post probation. Again, what this attempts to do is stabilize placement in the community for kids at risk for these populations and expanding on our efforts. The grant is estimated over the 3. 5 year cycle 350 youth served per year. Funding entirely to communitybased services. No city staff being paid with this grant. There is an in kind match requirement through the grant achieved through existing jpd and hsa staff to the grant. I am happy to answer any questions. Any comments or questions . Supervisor mandelman. How long is the existing Program Going . Great question. It just began in early september. We are receiving calls about 12 to 14 youth per month. We anticipate that to increase as word gets out to our caregivers they have this resource. Who calls for help . With the existing program it is Foster Parents. One of the issues with the foster care system is placement disruption. A child may be acting out, caregiver may have difficulty managing the situation without any resources they say i give up and get a seven day notice for placement change. The reason to do this is to preserve placements for stability in the foster care youth lives. It is based on a model from new jersey that is successful. What do the outreach workers do . It is a contract with family of agencies, a nonprofit residential provider and provider of behavior services. Mental health services. The hot line screens the call to determine what is appropriate immediate one to three hours, one day 24 hours or very severe, 911 referral, suicide attempt. What happens it is immediate one Hour Mental Health worker will be dispatched to the home to provide deescalation services and links to other resources on site wrap services to support the parent in the crisis. It could be a respite placement so the Mental Health clinician could take the youth to the respite to deescalate and work with the Foster Parents to provide stability for youths lives that they understand this is their home, not simply a placement like any child with parents. If they have issues this is just providing that additional resource. The new jersey programming success is measured in terms of length of success of placements amendment of placement . There are several goals. Most important is stabilized youth in placement. One of the federal outcomes that we are for placement stability, the number of moves through the stay in foster care for the child. That is a federal goal that is part of this effort. Stability, minimize disruptions in place meant, removing and bringing back. Increasing safety for the youth kids and for the caregivers. Then Movement Towards permanence. Not uncommon is a Foster Parent who develops attachment with the child that is in their care and many times would move towards legal guardian ship or adoption. This helps move toward perna men see for the youth which is one of the outcomes from the feds. Improving wellbeing overall for youth and care differs. Ongoing support for youth often in crisis and Foster Parents with a very difficult job at times. Thank you. Supersupervisortefsupervisor. A lot of our placements are outside of San Francisco. This offers services to children within 90 miles of San Francisco. Even though you are correct, supervisor we have a higher than normal outofcounty placement. They are san mateo, alameda. 90 of placements are within 90 miles radius. Even sacramento is within 90 miles. It is a regional approach. Senca has presence in santa clara county, alameda county. They are partners with those counties as well and sort of triangulate with the other counties they are in. Mr. Roar, one of the measures to measure success of the program, is one of the measures academic success . Not laid out specifically. It is in the catchment of youth wellbeing. We have a whole range of metrics and true and see and academic success is one of those. It is not listed as an singular bullet. List what does that mean. Things like regular appoint bements with doctor and dentist. Academic achievement and behavioral issues at school. We track, of course, if the youth does remain in our care up to emancipation age, 21. We track postemancipation successes. If they are in college or graduate high school, get a fulltime job, that sort of thing. If thank you very much. There is no bla report. Lets open for Public Comment. Any members of the public like to comment on item 7 . Public comment is now closed. Another thing i wanted to ask is it only an English Service or other languages . No, it is multi language service. Spanish speaking is after english the second highest language. The mobile crisis line as well as the clinical response is multi lingual. Youth can access the hot line if there are incidents in the foster placement . I dont know the answer. The hot line was developed with caretaker needs in mind. If they are stressed out we want to preserve placement, who can i call sort of thing. I dont believe we are targeting youth but i dont believe youth are precluded from calling the line. I will follow up with staff. It is a good idea if we are not using it. I would like to move with a positive recommendation. Item number 9. Motion to an election to be held on march 3rd for the businesses and tax regulation and administrative codes. Tax on persons keeping ground floor commercial space in neighborhood districts to Fund Assistance to Small Businesses and increasing the appropriations. Collected under the tax four years from march 3rd, 2020. We have with us supervisor peskin to present on this item. Thank you for hearing this item today. It is a long time in the making. We are all aware of the issue of storefront vacancies in the neighborhood commercial districts which, unfortunately, have been increasing in recent times. The proposal that is before you that if this board sees fit would be submitted to the voters for the march 2020 election would apply to neighborhood commercial districts and ncts depicted here on the map. It would not apply to c3 or downtown areas but would apply to the loved corridors which are colored areas in the map behind me. We have spent the better part of the last couple of years doing outreach and proposing legislation to address this issue, including legislation that chair fewer passed with unanimous board to increase penalties for failing to register. We can and must do more. The annual fee for keeping storefronts vacant is capped by Cost Recovery 711 per year which is a rather low number as it related to incentive for bad actor landlords to bring the commercial spaces to market. In 2018 the budget issued the report and identified a number of contributing factors to the storefront vacancies including buildings out of compliance with the Building Code and speculation for sales prices, absentee landlords, disputes, landlords not willing to improve front to make it more market ability and those waiting for highpaying tenants who will never come. We will hear from the city economist. It is an interesting moment where businesses are under pressure. On the one hand we have the amazon effect. San francisco is in an age of incredible prosperity, there is an interesting phenomenon in commercial corridors where landlords are holding out for higher rents even though Small Businesses cannot pay those rents and hence our vacancy problem. We all have our stories. I can tell you the story of fog hill market where the landlord increased the rent by 250 and, of course, the beloved Corner Market left, and it is a vacant space today. Whether it is clusters of properties on columbus avenue or in the castro left off the market for as much as 10 years in some instances. This measure before us would directly address this problem which amounts to an incentive for bad actors to finally start acting. For properties in the two dozen neighborhood commercial transit districts deemed vacant. The city would be imposing a tax of 250 per lineal foot first year and 500 and 1,000 in year three and beyond. A property would be deemed vacant if it is unused for more than 182 days in a given tax year of the january 1 to december 31 tax year. The fact is i dont really like calling this a tax. It is a misnomer. It is completely avoidable. If it is successful we will collect as little of it as possible. To that end, Property Owners can invoke exemptions by doing any number of things. Those things taken in series could last for up to 2. 5 years. Applying for Building Permit and under amendments i suggest today properties would not be deemed vacant from the period of application of the Building Permit until issuance. Rehabilitating space and performing properties would not be vacant. Leasing the storefront. By entering into the lease, not a sham lease. The vacancy clock restarts to mitigate the concern the assessment might be passed to the tenant and applying for the approval. If it requires conditional use from the planning commission, properties would not be deemed vacant for the six months following the application for ceu. I am also offering a amendment to put a deadline. If it is not processed within six months, tax would not be assessed in that year. Other key provisions provide additional flexibility, and a lot of this is the result of Extensive Community outreach. In the event of a disaster rendering the property unusable. The property would not be deemed vacant for two years following that disaster, which would extend further as the Property Owner applies for Building Permits and enters to the lease to reactivate the property. Some concerns are raised about the ability to appeal. That is set forth in article six of our business and tax regulations code which this would be subject to. I note a man freed from the Tax Collectors office is here available to answer any questions you may have. I want to be frank about our goal. That is to point a finger at a handful of bad actors. We all know them in our respective districts, and we all know their names and these are individuals who refused to offer spaces for lease. We just did a survey of the Beach Association in north beach and found which properties are actively for lease, which are vacant and are not actively for lease at all and the numbers are quite telling. I believe that this will give the city the necessary tools to reduce vacancies and revitalize retail on these corridors. We have met with merchants organizations, commercial brokers, Property Owners, San Francisco chamber of commerce who are constructive amendments. I think ultimately if taken to the ballot this would stabilize represents, prevent unnecessary fluctuations that manifest in untenable rent gouging and speculation and give businesses more leverage in the lease. If they have a choice of this this will allow activation of the storefronts. This is an opportunity for a new Small Business to go in a space and build a lasting presence in communities. With that i am aware that there are representatives here and i want to thank all of the different departments and my staff forgetting this to to hearing today. I want to thank lee and sonny from my office who worked on this. The City Attorneys Office and scott and amanda from the Tax Collectors office and bill strong from d. B. I. And i believe aaron star from planning who helped us come up with something we believe is administratable and is enforceable and is legally sound. With that all of those individuals are here to answer any questions as am i and ted eagan will present his report. Good morning, ted eagan from the reporters office. I will pass out a hard copy as well assets u as set up my presentation. What i neglected to say is that any funds collected under this tax would be used actually for be put in a special fund to help Small Businesses in San Francisco, whether they are undergoing mandatory seismic retrofits are impacted by City Construction such as vanness. I want to add that. I want to clarify this does not apply to the little nc scattered parcels around the city. Only to the colored places named. Thank you. I apologize for the delay in getting the report going. Our Office Issued the Economic Impact report on this matter. I will discuss some of the highlights of our conclusions. I would first stress this report is on the original version of the supervisors legislation and does not reflect the amendments he discussed this morning. This is also a piece of legislation dealing with an issue about which there is not great comprehensive economic data. Not a lot of number crunching in the report. We did find things in the legislation that we feel are issues of risk that might want to be addressed through further legislative action. Just to jump to some of our concerns. This is a chart that shows retail trade employment in San Francisco along with the rest of San Franciscos private sector employment. This is since 2001. It is a contrast. This is a trend violating one of the basic truisms of urban economics. Retail trade is a local serving industry, going up and down with the local economy. In San Francisco the rest of the economy is done extremely well. Since 2001 the rest of the sector added 32 growth in jobs. Retail trade at bricks and Mortar Stores declined 12 . The number of retail establishments declined 15 since 2001. Since 2015 we have seen 8 decline in retail trade employment alongside 13 growth in overall employment. Despite the incomes growth in population and other industries, retail trade itself has declined. I should be clear exactly what i am referring to. I am referring photo electronic realtors or internet realtors based in San Francisco. I am not referring to nonretail industries in neighborhood commercial districts like restaurants and bars. Their growth has matched the city growth. The retail trade activities, businesses that sell things to people and neighborhood commercial districts in the city that employment declined. It is declined sic and is bad in periods every session. We have access to the revenue that is charged that supervisor peskin alluded to on registered vacant buildings. The number ranges from low hundreds to around 500 at the most. It is worse during recessions. Building vacancy is partly due to the behavior of Property Owners. It is partly a function of underlying economic context. It gets worse when there is a recession. A spike this past year has more to do with increased enforcement than economic factors. We have seen a growth in retail trade. I am taking the d. B. I. Total revenue they collected from the vacant buildings and divided by an average fee to get a rough estimate of the number of buildings. They would not all beep subject to the tax they are not all ground floor retail buildings. The main point. This is a phenomenon with the business cycle. Supervisor peskin alluded this is not a major revenue generator. We dont have a great way to make the estimate. If it works as intended, particularly good times it should be a low number, less than 1 million per year. In the scenario of a deep rescission where a number of buildings are vacant we could see it raising 5 million a year. It is hard to imagine it being bigger than that. In terms of how it affects the economy, it depends how tailored it is. If it is tailored correctly it is positive for the economy. Vacancies reduce the quality of the air. They reduce the opportunities for multistop shopping behind value added of clustering of retail centers. To the extent to which bad acting is interfering with that, disincentivizing that makes other Property Owners more successful. However, the fact that a major driver of demand in these areas has been declining for a long term for reasons that are related to amazon and internet commerce and unlikely reversed in the near future. That suggests there could be reasons for vacancies other than bad acting of the individual Property Owners. It could be because in a recession the previous tenant went out of business and there are no new businesses in the district to be found. The length and severity every session could kick the Property Owner to the 182 days qualifying them for the tax. If that happens and it is a tax that cannot be avoided, that is a risk factor for every commercial Property Owner. That disincentivevises investment in those areas. The first way to mitigate risk would be to consider an exception during a recession. Safe harbor has many exemptions now for example the Building Permit or because the Property Owner is in the process of securing a conditional use authorization, we would suggest also that during periods of official u. S. Recession that period not count towards a vacant period because there could be reasons beyond control of the Property Owner they would be subject to the tax. The ordeals with the exception around the conditional use authorization. I certainly dont think the major reason for the slagging demand in retail generally is zoning controls. This is a National Phenomenon you see it where they dont have the zoning controls we have in San Francisco