Transcripts For SFGTV BOS Full Board Of Supervisors 20221120

Transcripts For SFGTV BOS Full Board Of Supervisors 20221120

Present. Supervisor safai. Present. Supervisor self neil. Present. Supervisor walton. Present. And supervisor mar. Present mr. President all members are present. Thank you an fran board of supervisorsax knowledges we are on the unceded ancestral home land of the Ramaytush Ohlone. Who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco pel anyone slam as original steward sxsz with traditions they are never corgoaten responsibilities of care takeers. We recognize we benefit from living and working on their Traditional Home land. We wish to pay respects acknowledging the Ramaytush Ohlone community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. Stand with mow to recite the pledge. [pledge of allegiance] on behalf of the board i would like to acknowledge the staff at sfgovtv today we have comcoleena mendoza who make transcripts available online. Do want to let everyone know for item 23 the committee of the whole on the draft Housing Element we will keep Public Comment to 1 minute to prevent risk of losing a quorum. Are there any other communications . Thank you, mr. President the board of supervisors away the general public to listen to the proceedings in person or remote low. The board will prioritize the participation from those in person after from those remote. The meet suggest airing live on sfgovtv award wing channel 26 or may view the computer stream at sfgov. Org. If you intend on participating remote low the telephone number is on the agenda and streaming on your screen. After entering the information, press the pound symbol twice you will have joined the meeting and heart discussion but line will be muted. Once you are ready to provide comment you should press story 3 to add yourself to the queue. The system will prompt that you have been unmuted and speak your comments. There is one special orders wonlts hear suggest called your testimony will be invieded item 23 the hearing on the update on the 22 draft Housing Element. Other content eligible for your comment is under 28. Once called you may speak to the items on the 4 adoption without Committee Reference items 2934 and general matters not on todays agenda within the boards jurisdiction. All other content will have been reported out to the board by an appropriate committee where the Public Comment requirement has already occurred. Communication with the board is still possible. If you send written by u. S. Mail to the San Francisco board of supervisors the 1 dr. Carlton b. Goodlett place. Room city hall room 244, San Francisco, california 94102 inform a Great Partnership with office of Civic Engagement and interpreters will be beginning at 3 p. M. If you have any questions assisting or need assistance to get in remote, we have a clerk standing by, dial in. And members and mr. President that concludes my communication. Thank you, colleagues just a reminder before we start to mute your microphones when you are not speak. To to scene items 14. Items 14 on consent they are considered to being reteen if a member of item removed and considered separate low. Thank you, madam clerk. Call the roll 14, supervisor safai. Aye. Supervisor stefani. Aye. Supervisor walton. Aye. Supervisor chan. Aye. Supervisor dorsey. Aye. Supervisor mandelman. Aye. Supervisor mar. Aye. Supervisor melgar. Aye. Supervisor peskin. Aye. Supervisor preston. Aye. And supervisor ronen. Aye. There were 11 awes thank you without objection they are finally passed unanimously. Madam clerk call regular agenda new business item 5. Item five an ordinance to amend the business and tax regulation code to suspend the cannabis business tax through december 31st of 25. Thank you. Supervisor peskin. Thank you. President walton. I have supported this suspension in the past and support it today. But would suggest that we do we have done in the past which is to act on this on an annual bases so we suspended it every year the last 2 years. This proposed to suspend it the next 3 years. I would propose this we do what we have been doing and monitor the situation and extend it boy an additional year i have spoken to one long time friend and Cannabis Community about that. And i think it was nots the subject of an objection. Was nots the subject of objection and mention today yesterday to the author supervisor mandelman. Im open to negotiating going for a sweeping 3 years is in the the appropriate thing to do. I can start i start by at line 19 strike 24 and 2025 and keeping 2023. Thank you, supervisor peskin is that a motion to amend. That it is a motion seconded by supervisor chan. Supervisor chan. Thank you. Colleagues and i havey expressed a similar concern and concur with when supervisor has about this text that i have asked if we account consider including supervisor mandelmans thinking about year to year this body have collective low unanimously voted in support of this. I want to put thing in context it is projected 10 Million Dollars in tax collection and with the 3 years of exemption or suspension it is about 30 Million Dollars. Total. And this is a sum of tax revenue for the city especially in a volatile economic times. I urge for your consideration i also. Want to let you then and there through the conversation with the Controllers Office the Controllers Office has when i seek for advice there is another way to do this is this we increase the threshold to from currently the Tax Exemption for mall business from a million to 2. 5 million. It would exempt a numberful small are establishments from the tax. And significant low reduce the loss it would be roughly instead of total 10 Million Dollars per year will be about 2 Million Dollars per year. That is another way to look. My conversation with the City Attorney i have to be transparent with this exemption. Amendment to from 1 million to 2 penalty 5 Million Dollars of gross receipts will probably require time and that inside it will be a notion sends become for w to be done. Im in support of supervisor peskins motion to just roll back 3 dwroers a year and revalue and have a conversation and talk about this now i doment to acknowledge supervisor mandelmans concerns. It is also it is reason why im in support of this suspension. Because as we as i have learned the state tax imposing on cannabis has been actually rather and kind of burden some. Sprighters tax and the sales tax 30 already. They have been operating during pandemic their impact is different. With had said i want to explain myself and where i was at Budget Committee and i didnt will be in support of this motion to roll back to only wherever to year and reevaluate the citys economy and our budget to make better decision moving forward saturday of all the way through 2025 approximate 26. Thank you. Supervisor mandelman. Thank you. I want to thank supervisor chan special peskin for not sends thanksgiving become to committee for further work on splitting off different tiers of taxation. We can extend this year by year and i expect i will be back in i year asking us to further delay it. The burdens on the Legal Cannabis industry are significant and still the Legal Cannabis sector in San Francisco is smaller. Than illegal by 2 thirds to a third that is the estimate. In i believe in the controllers report. So, i am lori of i was leary of this text back in 2018 when supervisor cohen put it on the ballot. And i have continued to neil is an industry that we need to bring out of the shadows. We need to surely collect ref now and are but you know the rates of taxation we are subjecting cannabis to are reamericaable. A joint is taxes over a bottle of wine, 9 higher than a soda. Folks are familiar with the burdens people are trying to operate legally. The access to the fed and irs Tax Exemptions you can use if you are in other types of noncannabis businesses the inability to access conventional bank happening. There is a bunch of things they are facing not to cry for them this is the addition. A new tax on an industry over burdened to the negative of the Public Policy goals to e eliminate the ilLegal Cannabis industry. I dont think that will help in a year. I would be surprise in the 3 but happy. The thinking of put thanksgiving off to 2025 was with the state granted relief recognizing the same problems they are tax at a significant can level and pulled back to facilitate the growth of Legal Industry and decided to take a look at 2025 in made sense to me as well. If it is not the will of the body i will not be bent exit will coming back each year to try to renew it. Thank you. Supervisor dorse. Thank you. Am so i am unlike low to support move thanksgiving to year by year. Although i understand the Good Government implication bunkham reliable vote to extend the to suspend the cannabis business tax, i think this is an economic sector we ask a lot of. I foal my 14 years in the City Attorneys office seen the things we ask law abiding accids businesses it do this is a sector facing competition this deserves our support the benefit of i 3 year rather than one year suspension is certainty over the next 3 years that i think is an asset this businesses can benefit from. I want to do everything we can to support the legal marking of cannabis businesses in San Francisco. Thats where i will be and asked to be a cosponsor of the under lying ordinance. Thank you. Supervisor dorse. Supervisor ronen. Thank you, i, too am supportive of the original legislation of 3 years. I understand supervisor chan approximate peskins concerns and my when i first read the legislation and had meant same thoughts but after turning from supervisor mandelman and i did ask many questions to the office of cannabis, and one of the main sort of facts that the tipped the balance for me was the fact that still 2 thirds. It is an estimate but they think realistic but 2 thirds of cannabis is under ground illegally. And unregulated. So i do think that and the also the office of cannabis is spending, legality of time doing enforcement against the actors. So, giving the time for the department to do its person enforce. Work. Given that the time for Business Owners that are following the laws in the rules to legitimize and grow businesses and compete against the under lying market it is correct to give them had they need to survive with robust under ground market under cutting their efforts. I will support the original legislation. Thank you. Supervisor ronen. Supervisor safai. Thank you, addon one point to supervisor ronen i agree 100 . The other thing that we are facing can s many of the cannabis businesses have been struggling in this economy. We spent time and effort and energy helping to establish them as the competition under cutting their legitimate business covid had a devastating impact on many of them. And allowing them the time and appropriate time to recover and extend for the next couple years makes most sense and use supervisor peskins phrase, if we dont get right we can come back and amend. Something were to change overnight next couple years we have the ability to amend this and adjust it before the 3 year period. Thank you. Thank you supervisor safai. Supervisor preston i would add thank you, and i support the legislation as is. Many of the reasons that have been articulated i will not repeat. I will say like i think there are some taxes or fees that were waiving on an annual bases they are i dont think we have an issue with the under lying tax and burden but we are being responsive to a moment in coming back from our businesses rebounds from covid and that scene i support this year by year. If we learned in the last 3 years a year can make a huge difference. I think this is different. There is a number of us i share some of the under lying occurrence how this tax burden plus the states actually operates and impacts the industry. I would photography see a longer time 2 or 3 years to plot out the next steps and think about where are we going with this tax instead of each year out. Thats my upon preference. Supervisor peskin. Thank you i wanted to point out that the way prop d was written in 2018 and some of us were and voted put it on the ballot. Thinking that it was going to be charge special basically is suspended. But it actually contemplated the legislative branch avenue ability to adjust boy a 2 thirds super majority of this body. The amount between zero and 7 . We have stuck with zero. Right . And thats what suspension is paramount to. I think exception with what supervisor safai said we have the 8 to tinker. This is in the like prop b where we went become to the bell on the and said, we didnt get it right and asking the voters to vote again this is not like the one year suspension of the commercial vacancy tax we said, we week up and it was you know cop i haved and this is the wrong time we will delay it a year. We are not even having the conversation that this contemplated we represented to the voters which was that 2 thirds vote we could deal with it within a range of zero to 7 . This is a good place to start that for 3 years additional 3 years tell remain at zero it means that the chances of having this conversation are diminished. That it is the wrong policy step. I will be voting for in and encourage you who have not yet spoken or minds can be changed by these words to vote with me. Thank you so much supervisor peskin. I do believe that extending this for a year is appropriate. Because we have the flexibility to make changes each year and the conversation does need to be have in terms behalf we want to do and come up with a plan rather than giving the extension for 3 years and the climate changes over night. I think we tie our hands as a body if we grant the extension for this long when we can come back each year and have this conversation again. I will supporting the amendment. I dont see anyone else on the roster so match dam clerk on the motion to amend item 5. On the motion to amend item 5 and striking 2025 and replace with 23. Supervisor safai. No. Supervisor self neil. No. Supervisor walton. Aye supervisor chan. Aye. Supervisor dorsey. No. Supervisor mandelman. No. Supervisor mar. Aye. Melgar. No. Supervisor peskin. Aye. Supervisor preston. No. And supervisor ronen. No. There are 4 ayes and 7 nos. With supervisors safai, self neil, dorsey, mandelman, melgar and robe then decent. 4 to 7 the motion fails. Police call the roll on item 5. Item 5 supervisor safai. Aye supervisor self neil. Aye supervisor walton. Aye. Supervisor chan no. Supervisor dorsey. Aye supervisor mandelman. Aye. Supervisor mar. Aye. Supervisor melgar. Aye. Supervisor peskin. No. Supervisor preston. Aye. And supervisor ronen. Aye. 9 ayes 2 no with chan and peskin in decent. Thank you and by a vote of 9 to 2 this is passod first reading. Call item sick. This is a resolution to authorize the d. Public healing toern into an emergency contract with Health Management associates for 3 opinion 7 million 13 month term through june 20 of 23 and first maam to the agreement for special Consulting Services and to increase the agreement by 2 million for an amount of 5. 8 million with no change to the term from june of 23 and authorize the department of public healing it enter in amendments or modifications to the contract necessary or advisable to affect the purpose of the contract or resolution. Item 6 supervisor safai. Aye. Supervisor stefani. Aye walton. Aye supervisor chan. Aye. Supervisor dorsey. Aye. Supervisor mandelman. Aye. Supervisor mar. Aye. Supervisor melgar. Aye. Supervisor peskin. Aye. Supervisor preston. Aye. And supervisor ronen. Aye. There are 11 ayes. This is adopted unanimously. We have over flow room in room 263. Just wanted to provide that information. Call item 79 together. Comprise 3 resolutions regarding contract amendments from the office of contract administration. Item 7 authorizes the office of contract add vagz to execute modification number stone contract with the city and msc Industrial Supply to pursupplies increase the amount by 900,000 not to exceed 15. 1 million with no change to the total conduration. For a new total not to exceed 20. 9 million and extend by a year through december 31 of 23. The doca execute the sixth modification to a contract with the city and buckle Smith Electric Company for the purchase of supplies and fixtures for City Department to increase by 3 million a new total of 16. 9 million with no change to the duration through june 30 of 23. We will take this same house same call without objection they are adopted unanimously. Madam clerk call item 10 resolution to approve and authorize the general manager of the San Francisco public utilitys commission to self fee and easement enter interest in Real Property along state route 84 in the city of fremont and in the unincorporated almeida to the state of california. Acting through its California Department of transportation to approve and authorize an agreement for sale of real estate temporary construction ease am and utility ease am. For the sale of this property. To caltrans and the manager of the puc or director property to execute the Sale Agreement make modifications and take other actions in the resolution and the Sale Agreement and to adopt the appropriate findings. Thank you. I dont see anyone on the roster so well take this item same house

© 2025 Vimarsana