and we've also known the buyouts are the primary way we are losing affordable housing in san francisco for years. this is why we introduced the original buyout legislation. it was actually hillary ronen was the aid who worked on it with us. so she was our natural choice to lead this effort to fix the gaps. what is a buyout? it's when a tenant sells their rights for the sake of a bit of money and a bit of certainty about the day they have to move. sells their rights. basically they are giving up the chance to enforce the rights they have that you all passed, that we passed as a city of san francisco to protect their housing and to protect this affordable housing for everyone here. i don't blame individual people who do that, because they are scared, but it is our responsibility to make sure that that is as hard to do as possible and that we save that housing. in the intervening years since we originally passed the legislation, we were able to -- it worked to a point. we were able to track some information, we were able to incorporate that information about buyouts that happened into the housing balance report to show us how much we were losing. knowing we were losing a lot more than that. but we knew we were falling way short of what was going on, based on storying we were hearing in our clinics, reports from the courthouse about fake lawsuits being filed so people could get away with not filing. and from tenants about their own neighbors. this legislation has been designed to fill those gaps, to stop the fake lawsuits and raise the stakes when landlords break the rules. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is peter. i'm a proud member of north beach. my family established residence there in the late 1800s. i live at 646 lumbar street. my wife, directly across from me. i'm in the pool five days a week, 5:30 in the morning, because i'm disabled. i have a good work out there and i can't stay on my feet. i've been there for 23 years my aunt rose, lived there 21 years before me. i've seen a lot of changes in north beach. and i don't like what i see. aaron peskin has stepped forward and put a big effort to help us out. my wife and i, we don't want to move. i don't plan to move. i'm a north beach boy, and i'm going to stay a north beach boy. my grandfather, i was born in the house, 165 165valpraiso. he built two bungalows there in the early 1900s with his little 28-foot fishing boat. i was born in the family house in 1940 by the county midwife. i'm a true son of the beach. thank you. >> [laughter] thank you. good to see you. next speaker, please. >> i'm peter's wife gail deluca. we got a new landlord. this was the third since our wonderful john passed away who lived in the front unit. [please stand by] -[please stand b >> since they've been in, we were offered a buyout which we turned down, but we were given, like, i think about 10 days for us and the tenants below us to either accept or reject the buyout. once this started happening, i can't describe the kind of turmoil, the fears, you know, and you can't think. you know, you don't know where to turn. it's just all so sudden. in responding to the buyout offer, i basically said we would need more time to move out. they've given us three months to -- >> you've got to wrap up. >> [ indiscernible ] -- >> gail, i'll tell you what, i'm happy -- you know where i live. you know where my office is. we can meet offline. i'm happy to continue talking with you. >> good afternoon. theresa flederick, senior and disability action. i live in north beach. i know of 39 households within four blocks of where i live. and within two blocks, 39 households are being asked to take buyouts. i know of on alta street, for example, the senior there, diane, was not given the seven-page pamphlet on her rights. she was asked to take a buyout which she declined, and then she was told they could l-sat her. she's lived there for 50 years. another man because of the flu he was extremely disappointed that he couldn't come today. and, in fact, he sent me -- if i could have the overhead, he sent me this image in a text, saying that he was so sorry that he could not come because he so wanted to speak and tell his story, which is that they lived there for over 33 years. both him and his wife are disabled. asking them to take a buyout, and they said, no, we're going to decline that. this is the second landlord in the last nine and a half months. he said, no, we don't want to move, we want to stay here. the new owner said, i will lsat you or i could move in a relative is the other thing. what i know is this is happening all over. i know that people are threatened. there is a harassment through sudden renovations. i hear these stories all the time. this legislation is going to fix a lot of those loopholes that have been used, abused, and hurting so many people. we also then lose these affordable housing as these units are turned into luxury units -- >> thank you. are there any other members of the public that could like to testify on this item number 5? seeing none, the matter is back in the committee's hands. supervisor preston. >> thank you. i would like to thank all the folks that came to speak on this. this is a big step forward when the buyout legislation was initiated. it was the first buyout legislation of its kind in the state, if i'm not mistaken. some other jurisdictions have followed suit since then. but i want to thank supervisor ronen and others for their work on this measure. i think there is -- probably nowhere there is a bigger disconnect in the housing world between what academics, media, and other pundits look at around evictions and the reality that folks who are working on the ground, like a lot of our speakers today are, in terms of perception and numbers of evictions. as some of the speakers noted, this is the leading form of eviction. buyouts are essentially de facto evictions. this is not just in san francisco. i personally as a tenant advocate for the last 20 years have done state-wide and national research on evictions. you realize when you run those numbers, you're dealing with a tiny fraction of the number of people who are actually displaced. in more cases it's more advantageous for a landlord to threaten they are going to drag a tenant through the eviction process and get them to surrender their rights without going to court. in san francisco it is the same with the eviction notices that are served. two aspects i want highlight on this particular legislation that i think are really essential. the most common thing that i hear from tenants in san francisco, particularly in district 5, are that they are given these false, very threatening and scary deadlines. we will give you this much if you respond by monday or in a week. these are entirely false deadlines. you just want to be clear for folks that are not here and are watching this on tv, when you get buyout offer, you have absolutely no obligation or requirement to respond. usually the threats that those offers will go away are false and usually taking the time you need is to your advantage. so i think the -- providing the 30-day window here is absolutely an essential part of this legislation. it's going to have a big impact. and the other side is the attainment process. and the previous legislation, the bou buyout legislation, we landlords would get creative. one of the bad-faith ways is to try and dress up buyout efforts as a part of litigation in order to avoid obligations to go ahead and file these. so i think closing the unlawful detainer loophole here and forcing landlords to file those buyouts as well is absolutely essential. i'm going to be supporting this and thanks to supervisor ronen for her leadership on it. >> thank you, supervisor preston. i concur with those statements, which is precisely why i am a proud co-sponsor and also want to add my thanks to the community and supervisor ronen for bringing this forward. we have some minor, non-substantive amendments that are before us as to lot and block numbers spread out. can we take those amendments without objection and then, as amended, we will send the item to the full board with recommendation without objection. colleagues, i have been informed that there was actually an intended small amendment to the previous item, so if i could make a motion to rescind the vote on item number 4, we'll do that without objection. and then add on page 11 a subsection b that says, within 30 days of the amended agreement being fully executed by all parties, the sfpuc shall provide the final amended agreement to the clerk of the board for ininclusion into the official file. so that language we will amend into item 4 and then send the item again as amended with recommendation as a committee report. madam clerk, could you please read item number 6, our final item. >> clerk: yes, item 6 is a planning toad ordinance amending the planning code to enable the use of development project sites during the project approval and entitlement process by authorizing the planning department to authorize certain interim activities at development project sites as temporary uses for up to 36 months, subject to extension at the discretion of the planning director in increments for up to a maximum possible total of 24 additional months; adopting the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act; making findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1; and making findings of public convenience, necessity, and welfare under planning code, section 302. >> thank you, ms. major. we have heard this repeatedly. we had an amendment that the city attorney deemed to be substantive, so it required a one-week continuance. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, can we send this item that has been heard repeatedly -- wait winning supervisor preston, do you have a comment? sorry, i didn't take you down from your last comment. to the full board with recommendation without objection. that will be the order and we are adjourned. >> right before the game starts, if i'm still on the field, i look around, and i just take a deep breath because it is so exciting and magical, not knowing what the season holds holds is very, very exciting. it was fast-paced, stressful, but the good kind of stressful, high energy. there was a crowd to entertain, it was overwhelming in a good way, and i really, really enjoyed it. i continued working for the grizzlies for the 2012-2013 season, and out of happenstance, the same job opened up for the san francisco giants. i applied, not knowing if i would get it, but i would kick myself if i didn't apply. i was so nervous, i never lived anywhere outside of fridays know, andfridays -- fresno, and i got an interview. and then, i got a second interview, and i got more nervous because know the thought of leaving fresno and my family and friends was scary, but this opportunity was on the other side. but i had to try, and lo and behold, i got the job, and my first day was january 14, 2014. every game day was a puzzle, and i have to figure out how to put the pieces together. i have two features that are 30 seconds long or a minute and a 30 feature. it's fun to put that altogetl r together and then lay that out in a way that is entertaining for the fans. a lucky seat there and there, and then, some lucky games that include players. and then i'll talk to lucille, can you take the shirt gun to the bleachers. i just organize it from top to bottom, and it's just fun for me. something, we don't know how it's going to go, and it can be a huge hit, but you've got to try it. or if it fails, you just won't do it again. or you tweak it. when that all pans out, you go oh, we did that. we did that as a team. i have a great team. we all gel well together. it keeps the show going. the fans are here to see the teams, but also to be entertained, and that's our job. i have wonderful female role models that i look up to here at the giants, and they've been great mentors for me, so i aspire to be like them one day. renelle is the best. she's all about women in the workforce, she's always in our corner. [applause] >> i enjoy how progressive the giants are. we have had the longer running until they secure day. we've been doing lgbt night longer than most teams. i enjoy that i work for an organization who supports that and is all inclusive. that means a lot to me, and i wouldn't have it any other way. i wasn't sure i was going to get this job, but i went for it, and i got it, and my first season, we won a world series even if we hadn't have won or gone all the way, i still would have learned. i've grown more in the past four years professionally than i think i've grown in my entire adult life, so it's been eye opening and a wonderful learning morning, everyone. the meeting will come to order. this is the january 29, 2020 regular meeting of the budget and finance committee. i am sandra lee fewer, chair of the committee. i'm joined by supervisors mandelman and dean preston. our clerk is ms. linda wong. i would like to thank sfgovtv for broadcasting this meeting. madame clerk, any announcements? >> clerk: make sure to silence all cell phones, complete speaker cards and documents to be included should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon will be on the february 4 board of supervisors. >> item number 1 is resolution approving a second amendment to the grant agreement between the city and institute on aging for the community living fund to increase the amount of the grand by $1 million not to exceed $11.6 million, with no change to the term. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. colleagues, today we have sandy from the department of disability and aging services. colleagues, you may remember this was continued from last week. we approved some amendments that were substantive, so we needed to bring it back, wait a week. so we heard the presentation last week and if my colleagues, any comments or questions on that? let's open up for public comment. any members of the public want to comment on item number 1? seeing none, public comment is closed. i would like to move this to the board with positive recommendation. >> clerk: the legislation itself has passed. the current amounts, though, there is no need to amend this. >> supervisor fewer: perfect. thank you very much. can you please call item number 2. >> item 2 is a resolution approving authorizing the amendment of an existing lease with turk and eddy in what is refinance 100% affordable 82-unit multifamily rental housing development and authorizing the director of property and the mayor office of housing and community development to execute documents. >> supervisor fewer: is it holly faust? thank you. >> yes, i'm here to gain approval for the amended and restated ground lease. the original ground lease was executed in 2009. this amended and restated ground lease is a requirement of the project sponsor's new refinancing, not financing with the city. there are no changes in the financing with the city. there is no new funding from the city on this. the terms of the ground lease remain the same, 55 years with a 44-year extension. planning has waived their review and approval for this. there is no general plan referral required because there is no financial impact and no change to the property with the ground lease amendment. the ground lease amendment is consistent with all of the policies and other ground leases for affordable housing approved by the board of supervisors. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. >> thank you for your attention. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. there is no report on this. any comments? from my colleagues? seeing none, let's open up for public comment? any members of the public, seeing none, public comment is closed. i'd like to move this to the board with a positive recommendation. take that without objection? thank you. item number 3. >> item 3 is a resolution declaring the intent of the city to reimburse certain expenditures to submit an application and related documents to the california debt limit allocation committee to permit the issuance of residential mortgage bonds not to exceed $61.6 million for 55 mason street. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. and caroline mccormack. >> good morning. i'm a project manager on the acquisition and preservation team at mocd. i'm here to present on the proposed bond issuance for ambassador hotel. the purpose of the resolution is to approve the hearing the city conducted on january 6, 2020, in order to comply with the federal tax equity and financial responsibility act for ambassador hotel and ratify and approve other actions to make the bond possible. including submittal to secure allocations of bond for the project. the proposed issuance would be conduit financing and would not require the city to pledge repayment of the bond. the ambassador hotel consists of rehabilitation of the building. all of the units are single room occupancy units. the project is pursuing a hybrid tax credit structure, including 4% rehabilitation credits and 9% from the city and county of san francisco set aside. this request for an allocation of bond pertains to the 4% portion of the project. the project team anticipates that approximately 102 units will be allocated to the 4% portion and the remaining 32 to the 9% portion. 100% of the units in the building will be affordable to households earning less than 60% ami and no residents will be displaced, but temporary offsite relocation will be required to facilitate the rehabilitation. plans to return to the board in late 2020 and financing for the project is anticipated to close in q1 of 2021 and that's when construction would start for the rehabilitation. i'm happy to answer any questions that the committee members have about this project. and i'm also joined by emily, project manager who can also answer more specific questions. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. there is no report on this. any comments or questions from my colleagues? seeing none, let's open up for public comment. any members of the public? seeing none, public comment is closed. i'd like to make a motion to move this forward with a positive recommendation madame clerk, item number 4 and 5 together. >> item 4, resolution to authorize the fire department to accept and expend a grant in the amount of $612,000 to purchase rescue tools and equipment for the performance period of september 5, 2019 through september 4, 2020. item 5, resolution authorizing the fire department to accept and expend a grant in the amount of $341,000 from the federal emergency management agency to purchase marine equipment for the performance period of september 1, 2019 through august 31, 2022. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. and mark corso is here in the fire department. >> good morning, supervisors, here to present on these two items. the first is approval to accept and expend fiscal year 2018, assistance to firefighters grant in the amount of $612,000. there are few projects that the department was awarded funding for, including battery powered tools, supplementing our hand tool inventory. there is a match of $61,000 that is in the department's budget. the second item is fiscal year 2019 security program from fema. the approval is for the department to expend an award in the amount of 341,625. there were three main projects the department was approved funding for. refurbishment of the rescue boat, the purchase of two watercraft for marine response and variety of marine equipment. there is a match of approximately $114,000 that is included in the budget's department. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. there is no report on both these items. any comments or questions from colleagues about fire boats or anything else? seeing none, let's open for public comment. anyone want to comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. like to move these two items to the board with positive recommendation. we can take that without objection. colleagues, i am reminded that i need to excuse supervisor walton from today's meeting, so i'd like to make a motion to excuse supervisor walton from the meeting. may we take that without objection? thank you very much, colleagues. madame clerk, item number 6. >> item 6 resolution authorize the fire department to accept and expend a grant in the amount of $1 million from the california office of emergency services to purchase one hose tender for the performance period of july 1, 2019 through june 30, 2022. >> supervisor fewer: we have mark corso from the fire department, but i would like to make an opening comment if you don't mind. so i would like to extend my appreciation to assembly member, phil tinge. i called him and asked him for this hose tender this is necessary out on the west side as we don't have an extensive water suppression system. and although we will be voting as voters to pass prop b, which would give us more the building of this network of water supply, in the meantime, these hose tenders that are custom-built, so expensive, a million dollars, we needed them. and so the mayor put them in the budget. i asked for an extra one. it is short. but i wanted to thank phil tinge father -- for getting the money out of the budget for this one. it's going to keep people safe in the incident of catastrophe and large fire. i wanted to thank the assembly member for thinking of us and appropriating the money from the state budget. >> good morning, supervisors. mark corso, not a grant allocation, but from the state budget in the amount of $1 million for the purchase of one hose tender. it's a special vehicle to assist with water supply issues in the city and is used to supplement the fire fighting system. we also, too, on behalf of the department would like to thank the assembly member ting for his advocacy, and supervisor fewer for her advocacy in this program. >> supervisor fewer: any comments or questions, like what is a hose tender? no. okay. any members of the public want to comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. i'd like to make a motion to move this to the board with a positive recommendation. take that without objection. call item number 7. >> item 7, resolution authorizing and approving the lease of 1271-1275 mission street consistings of 8750 square feet and tenants in common, for a six-year term with two five-year options for renewal to commence around february 1, 2020 at initial monthly base rent of $48,000 for total wanl rent of $577,000 with 3% annual adjustments. >> thank you. i know you're claudia. in the real estate department. >> good morning. again, director of the real estate division of the city administrator's office. the director did desire to be here and attend today, but he had to leave for a family member out of state. so before you, for your consideration, is a resolution for a lease for new space for the digital services department and data s.f. the space is located at 1275 mission street. just very briefly, digital services responsible for improving the city's website, so that residents can easily get services, permits and apply for affordable housing online while data s.f. works across all departments to make data available internally to support use of data in decision-making. digital services currently has 29 full-time employee positions and is expanding to 41. data sf has five positions here at city hall. they're going to combine and grow up to 46 full-time positions. they're currently in about 4,000 square feet. they can't fit there. and where they're located currently is not -- it's sub-prime for the programming. and there might be safety issues because it's off the beaten trail, kind of near an alleyway. and given their hours, staff doesn't always feel safe. the current lease is an annual lease and is up for renewal. digital services asked for assistance in finding a larger space. the larger space at the proposed site on mission is more aimable to their work. it's 8700 square feet, twice the size of where they are in. in addition, the city gets the entire building. the initial rent is about $48,125 per month or $66 per square foot. that was based on appraisal and review. and to be honest, that is below fair market rate. the city will pay an annual adjustment of 3%, plus utilities and services as they do now where they're currently at. we will be attempting to get the building onto sfpuc power, because we have the whole building and therefore we can do that. that will lower the rates, hopefully. the landlord is also responsible for security and putting in a card entry system. the landlord is giving us improvement allowance of $5,000 to use in the initial term. there is furniture and equipment left at the site. and rather than selling it, the landlord is willing to rent it to us for the entire term. at the end of the term, we can keep it. it's worth $100,000. that saves the city time and money not to have purchase desks for the new staff members and staff members that don't have desks at this time. that savings along with the tenant improvement allowance equals about one month's rent. for the first time, i was actually going to disagree with something that the b.l.a. did, but i've spoken with severin and in light of several conversations, i think, between severin and the city attorney, between the director and supervisor fewer and that maybe this needs to be looked into a little longer, i think we've come to an agreement, and correct me if i'm wrong, that we'll leave the resolution as drafted, however, real estate -- i'm saying this on behalf of the director, will come back at the options even though it says we're authorized not to, i think we can say that gives us authorization to come back, so we'll agree to come back for the options in this situation in this lease which gives us all time to discuss further the issues that are a concern, but allows this lease to move forward, because if it doesn't, i think digital services will be out on the sidewalk. so unless you have any questions, carrie bishop is here from digital services if you have programming questions. i can answer questions regarding the lease itself. >> supervisor fewer: could we have a report, please? >> good morning. severin campbell. yes, she has summarized the lease. we have a brief summary of the lease in exhibit 1 on page 8 of the report. this lease did have an appraisal in conformance with the administrative code. the discussion here today and in the original recommendation, this is a six-year lease with two five-year options. at the end of the initial six-year term, the lease does reset to the higher of the rent at the time of the expiration or 95% of fair market value. we're going to ask slightly different, we're going to recommend amendment to the resolution in which we're requesting a report back from the director of real estate prior to the exercise of the option to extend after the end of the initial six-year term. this would be slightly different. we're not suting this to board of supervisor approval, but asking for amendment for a report back at that time. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. any questions? let's open up for public comment? any members of the public like to comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. like to make motion to approve the amendment. then i'd like to make a motion to move this board as amended. please call item number 8. >> item 8 is a resolution authorizing the office of cannabis to accept and expend a grant award in the amount of $1.3 million from the california bureau of cannabis control, authorizing the office of cannabis to execute the agreement with the bureau of cannabis control and the extensions amendment or contracts subsequent on behalf of the city. >> supervisor fewer: i believe we have mr. eugene hillsman here. >> if you give me a second, i'll be pulling this up. >> supervisor fewer: this item has no b.l.a. report. >> good morning, chair fewer, supervisors, my name is eugene hillsman, director of the office of cannabis. for the local equity funding. i'm also available to answer any potential questions that you have about the process. unfortunately, director rodriguez is feeling under the weather and is unable to join us this morning. san francisco's equity program was developed to support individuals negatively impacted by the war on drugs by creating opportunities to own and be hired by cannabis businesses. senate bill 1294 approved by senator bradford allowed for san francisco to apply for funds from the state level bureau of cannabis control to assist applicants enter the cannabis market in the state. the bill requires an eligible local jurisdiction that received grant funds pursuant to the provisions to submit an annual report to the b.c.c. that contains specified information on the use of the grant funds and specified demographic data. the office of cannabis applied for the funds in august of 2019 and received $1.3 million. the office held two listing sessions to discuss the resource needs from the city's equity applicants in order to inform the city's application and distribution of these funds. in january of 2019, the office of cannabis held a listening session to get input about what the applicants needed to inform the construction of the application. in november 2019, the office of cannabis held another listening session to hear directly from equity applicants about their current needs. through these meetings, calls and office visits, equity applicants expressed a clear and consistent desire to directly receive funds to support the development of their cannabis businesses. they also describe the need to access capital, find real estate across the city and receive technical assistance, including access to legal services, account management and education. it is our goal to align our distribution of funds with those requests. and i'm happy to answer any questions you have about the process or our proposal. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. any comments or questions from my colleagues? let's open up for public comment. any members of the public like to comment on item 8? please step on up. >> good morning, madame chair and board of supervisors. i'm an equity applicant, i'm requesting that the resolution or amendment be drafted for the $1.3 million in equity funds to be given directly to the equity applicants. i welcome the opportunity to work on any resolution regarding this effort. according to the city controller's report, there are 133 applicants who will not ever be able to open a cannabis business in san francisco. and it appears that we are to be regulated as only workers in the industry. a few equity businesses that have been opened had wealthy investors and they're not in abundance. equity needs location reduce lease or at least five years in order to operate and get a business established. thank you. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good morning, supervisors, my name is reese. i am equity applicant. i'm the first woman in san francisco, or the second to own a potential cannabis, where we're supposed to be open in october. and we're not able to open because of a process a judge put an injunction on us. but that being said, i am a native of san francisco. this the city took my whole family. when i come here, i have no one with me because of that. when i say the judge took my mom, had to bury her at 16. i have my grandma died from crack. my grandfather died from crack. my whole immediate family is on crack or died from crack. i have no support system. this is all i have. and the fact that i am able to get this far in life and for my city to fail me with my family, and the only person that is really living is my uncle, he can get free needles, but i can't get a grant to continue to open a business that i raised over $300,000 so i can the first owner in the state of california as a woman. and i am having resources to get there is heartbreaking. it's heartbreaking. you guys already took enough from me. my son doesn't have his grandparents. and i think i gave him a great life, but we need these grants so i can be better and so i can show people we can do it. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> the city should be apr-- ashd of themselves. only two supervisors are sponsoring this. i shouldn't be surprised considering they've only put $90,000 in funds in services and the equity fund remains empty. today i ask you to pass this legislation to fund applicants directly as the law states. i don't want the money -- the money shouldn't go to city services. if you're not an equity applicant like the woman who just came up, or not serving the center, this money is not for you. i remind you that we paid for this money. and damages from the effects that you've seen from her statement is paying for this. i ask that the money be distributed as fast as humanly possible with the resources and the full resources of san francisco to do that. i ask that the money go direct funding in the amount of 750,000. i ask that you have an equity office space in the amount of $380,000. i ask that you put money for equity events and programming like the success center in the amount of $08,000. i ask that you move to have an equity permit expediter in the amount of $130,000. please move this to the board with full recommendation. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hello, my name is langford brown. i'm an equity applicant. my issue is the fact that we all feeling a sense of being red lined. all over again. and so we're impacted and i feel like these funds right now, particularly, those of us who is in the second phase and have letter of intent, we now need that additional funding to help when planners come and tell us about the build-out and the startup expenses associated. we now need help for this. so this is where we're impacted. we have letter of intent, but we need further funding to continue on. thank you. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much, sir. >> good morning, i'm amber morris. i would like to commend the office of cannabis for applying and securing these funds and request that the board move these funds forward. the well intended equity program is not working. we see people hemorrhaging money and we need to get them money as quickly as possible. we're requesting that the equity applicants are able to get direct grants. that the money be allocated for property that can be used to share spaces. and for an application expediter to help equity applicants with the application process. what we found, there is a lot of bureaucracy in the process and we would urge the supervisors to make sure there is least amount