>> professor: we'll call the meeting to order. it is april 25, 2024. going to do the roll. >> vice chair d'antonio, here. member friedenbach, here. member preston, here. member walton, here. chair williams, here. we have quorum. we are going to now do the land acknowledgment. we acknowledge that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the ramaytush ohlone who are the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. as the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the ramaytush ohlone have never ceded, lost nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. as guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. we wish to pay our respects

by acknowledging the ancestors and relatives of the ramaytush community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. we'll go to open public comment. >> members of the public who wish to provide public comment in person, please line up at the podium now. members of the public who wish to provide comment over the phone call 415-655-0001 enter access code 26634596762 then press # and # again. dial * 3 to line up to speak. please wait until the system indicates you are unmuted. interpretation services are available in spanish and cantonese. if you require interpretation,

please request it when it is your turn to speak and please pause every few sentences to allow time for turpitation. you will be given four minutes to speak. each person has two minutes to speak and we'll begin with in person public comment fallowed by public comment over the phone. >> [speaking spanish]

>> is there anymore? >> yeah, i believe agnes is going to translate that portion as well.

[speaking cantonese]

>> for the record, there are no person in or over the phone public comment. this concludes the public comment section for this item. >> thank you so much.

item 3, approval of minutes. is there a motion? >> motion to approve. >> moved. >> do we do one at a time or approve-- >> [multiple speakers] >> we want to keep to the 11:30 time so you have the opportunity to table that for a later time. it is 1025. >> i'll do a motion for all. >> moved. seconded by member friedenbach. >> vice chair d'antonio, yes. member friedenbach, yes. member preston, yes. member walton, yes. chair william, yes. minutes approved. item 4. >> we have to take public comment on that section. >> okay. >> members of the public who wish to provide comment in person please line up at the podium now.

members who wish to provide public comment over the phone, please refer to the instructions in the agenda posted at sf.gov/ocho. wait until the system indicates quou are unmuted and you may begin comments. each person has twob minutes to speak. we'll begin with in person public comment fallowed by public comment over the phone. for the record, there are no in person public comments, moderator, do we have any over the phone callers? for the record, there are no additional phone public comments. this concludes the public comment section for this agenda item. >> alright. we are on item 4? >> we have to retake the vote. >> okay. do we have to do a motion? >> no. vice chair d'antonio, yes. member friedenbach, yes. member preston, yes. member walton , yes.

chair williams, yes. >> the motion is approved unanimously. we'll now move to item 4. quorum requirements. is kate kimberlen here, deputy city attorney? >> good morning chair williams, vice chair d'antonio and members. nice to meet you in person. i think i'm available for any additional questions you have. i am not sure if there is a particular inquiry remaining whether we want to discus both the quorum issue and separate question of what the number of members is required for approval of action items. >> i think so. is there questions from the

committee? >> well, i kind-i'll do publicly because i just asked her before. we have this situation where often times we have unfilled seats. it was very slow to get the body up and running because the mayor's office was slow filling seats and then we continued to have lengthy empty seats, and this really makes it very difficult for us to do the business we are charged with by the voters of san francisco, and so the question came to the city attorney about changing the bylaws for quorum and the city attorney came back and said, no but there is a possibility of doing something around the vote. she was recommending that that may not be a good idea. just kind of before-just thinking about how to get creative on this and

really remove the negative impact empty seats have on the body, and i can put it into a formal motion, but the idea is once we have quorum we do something that in the case there is three or more vacant seats on the oversight body that basically votes would be able to occur and be approved if we have quorum and if at least four voting members and the pass the motion with at least four affirmative votes. so, the idea then is that if we have the empty seats and we meet quorum we are still able to vote with a

super majority of our members is basically the idea there, and so-i'm really liking this idea because [laughter] because i think it still super majority. we want a good democratic process where we do our work and get a lot of buy in but not hampered by the lack of movement of things beyond our control. i think voter s really love the idea of having oversight. that was one thing we really talked to them a lot about in this process. they were really concerned about money going and not spent appropriately and it was this was the number one issue that voters. i think in the spirit of honoring that, i know it is unusual, but we have a unusual situation and so,x that would be my suggestion and can turn it into a formal motion and second but

want to put it out from city attorney and other members et cetera. >> i think that does a good job distinguishing the quorum issue, which quorum is a question of state law and the charter, which the community for better or worse does not have the authority to change what that means so since this committee has 9 seats under the law, a quorum minimum is 5 regardless of what we do. that said, as you pointed out, there is the opportunity potentially to change the bylaws to reflect what number of votes is required for passage of a action item on the committee agenda. our office does not necessarily recommend going that route. it would deviate from the status quo within the city, but because this is a

advisory body, opposed to a what we consider a government body, using air quotes here [laughter] for example, the board of supervisors or a commission could not change that rule for themselves to authorize how many people will be required for a vote, but because this is advisory body it doesn't technically fall within the prohibition. that said, it would still deviate from the practice and try to keep consistent among advisory and government bodies here in the city, but i will not stand in your way from a legal perspective if that's what the committee decides what it wants to do today. >> any other questions from committee? mr. walton. >> no question.

i think this is critical and solves concerns of not doing a simple majority. what we are talking about, if we only have 5 or 6 members we can gelt quorum and still proceed and as an advisory body i think it is critical we be able to submit the recommendation in a timely fashion, which we have not been able to do. bonny and i joined about the same time and that just made 5 members so we have under a tally for approaching a year of having difficulty doing our work. >> i will say i just learned you do have a 6th member joining you shortly. so hopefully that will alleviate some of the concerns. if the committee does decide to proceed with a amendment to its bylaws to change this rule, i would recommend

posting that rule change in connection with your next agenda and voting on it at that time. i'm not sure today's agenda which discusses quorum opposed to voting is sufficient to place folks on notice that this is something you would be considering and also suggest providing a red line that bylaw specifically to change the language and putting that into the agenda for your next meeting and you can vote on it at that point if you decide that is something you want to do. i would be happy to assist you with that red line if that is something the committee is interested in. >> it sounds like if we wanted to take action today we could? [laughter] >> it would be against my recommendation to do so, because again, i'm not-i don't read this

agenda item as referring to that bylaw. it discussing quorum, which is not the same as what you require in order to vote. sorry to be the bearer of bad news. us attorneys are often charged with that task. >> you know, this quorum issue has been-about 3 years, 4 years. i think what i am hearing, say again is that, we could take action today. not perfect, but nothing is, so--i can make the motion. and don't know if there is-then we can have thoughts on it and i think--i'll make the motion. i move to change our bylaws to

read in the case there is 3 or more vacant unappointed seats of the body, votes may take place and be approved if we have quorum. the word quorum is in there just noting and how at least four voting members who affirm the motion. >> moved by member friedenbach. >> i'll second. >> seconded by vice chair deanatonia. any discussion? >>b i have a question. it is my understanding on the quorum issue that if we-because we are now only 5. the 6th person is coming but hasn't been appointed yet is my understanding. >> correct. >> that we all have to be here to make quorum. is it also correct understanding that if somebody has to recuse themselves from a issue we no longer have quorum? >> no. a recusal doesn't change the quorum. a recusal is for a particular matter so

you still have quorum for purposes of continuing the meeting. >> okay. >> however, as to a particular item, if a member is recusing themselves they would not be able to vote,b which if member friedenbach's proposed motion is approved, would still allow the other four members to vote affirmatively for something without needing that 5th vote. >> so, that's functional news. my question is, you're not recommending we take the action today. is there some ramification if we take the action today that could disrupt our ability to proceed this way in the future? >> i think that's a question that we can discuss off-line. i would say that the general rule is that an agenda must notify the public with sufficient detail about what

topics may be discussed to the extent this committee believes this agenda item as titled and described on the agenda was sufficient to notify the public of this issue, then it may proceed. if a member of the public contests that at a later point, there are ways in which a member could do that and it could require the committee to take a subsequent revote of a issue. >> okay. >> and any action taken potentially under that new rule in the interim would also potentially have to be redone as well, so those are the potential risks. >> thank you. >> thank you so much. anymore discussion on the committee? >> yeah. just among-we can ask questions among us? >> yeah. >> i'm assuming that if we don't vote

on allowing this vote, then any votes we take today you're afraid could be impacted because we have to make decisions? >> yeah. exactly. there is a lot of big budget decisions that we wouldn't be able to vote on if we don't take this action. because we are an advisory body and not chartered or elected body, i'm not as worried about the risk around someone challenging it, because we are making the recommendations to the department and mayor office and board of supervisors and we are making policy statements, we are not-this isn't a legally binding situation and so that's where i'm kind of a little bit more i guess liberal in my thinking on it. >> just to clarify though, the committee members that the budget recommendations, the drafts you all received has carve-outs because we were

anticipating this issue to come up, so what that means is that, any tay funding has been carved out of your budget recommendations, so you can make budget recommendations today, it is on the agenda, it could just be carved out with no recommendations on tay funding items. >> exactly. if we didn't make the change we would be only voting on non-tay stuff and do make the change we are able to vote on tay stuff. >> i just want to clarify too that, an important detail is particularly from hsh, all the recommendations that came from your tay housing vote the unallocated funding are a part of the budget proposal already. anything they thought was financially feasible is part of the department budget proposal to the mayor

office. >> [indiscernible] >> yeah, and so they are part of the proposal. >> true. >> i guess what i'm trying to understand and maybe this fits with your question bonny, member preston, i am wondering what-taking a vote today, which has the risk down the line, because if we don't go through this language voting next time and so forth, acting under this could not only effect today's decision but future ones done with this. what is on the agenda today that requires us to have this in place? partly because of what you are saying about the tay recommendations already being directly infused by the department submission. >> yeah, the thing is, the only--not

the only area--tay has a significant surplus and that wasn't presented to us earlier when we did there reprogramming of the tay funds, and so there is already movement underway. my understanding potentially ideas for that money that are outside of what the original intention was. i think for me for example, i really wanted to make a motion encouraging-like we wouldn't have details to reprogram this quickly, but i like to recommend-as a body be able to recommend the tay funding stay and be reprogrammed shortly because we have this crisis for that population and i already have been getting a lot of e-mails of ideas what to use with the money, but we have 39 in acquisition and then difference between that and 53.

$13 million in operating and there was a recommendation from hsh to cut that funding to cut some of the stuff that we talked about, and i like us to recommend that move forward. so, you know, for me it is really really important stuff, and really large sums of money at play, and could make really substantive difference in peoples lives and that is why i'm kind of spazing out about it. >> you are saying, just rephrasing, that you're concerned being able to move on a vote today is not to recommend how that money is spent, but recommend it be held until we can recommend how it is spent? >> yeah, and to restore the cuts. >> i bill interrupt. we are not allowed to talk about tay funding. >> thank you. >> i want to pump the breaks

before we get into the weeds. >> can i ask one more question? >> of course. >> so, if we took the action today, then can we proceed to take the action again in a way that allows for us revoting or reaffirming so there is time for people to review the language and so forth and react? because, my concern is we take the action today and it sits until somebody challenges it, that could be two years from now. because of the way the action was taken. >> i think we could reagendize and post according to what city attorney advised to do so if there isn't further discussion we can proceed. [indiscernible] according to

city attorney's guidance. >> right. i wouldn't say there is a need to revote on something absent a procedural or substantive complaint that might be received. i would say maybe the next step would be-you already made a motion and seconded on the change to the bylaws. perhaps the next step is take public comment. i will remain through public comment and if there is anything with that public comment raises you want me to comment on i can do that. perhaps-if the committee decides to move forward with this particular vote on the change to the bylaws to change the number of members that need to vote affirmative to pass a action item, if you then proceed under that new rule today for any votes, i understand that we are not discusing the content of the

tay related funding in this agenda item, but to the extent there are any subsequent votes today that take place that would require a member to recuse themselves, i would recommend continuing to vote on matters in that way so that you are still properly voting on the matters before you that don't have the tay related funding associated with that and whatever the vote may be the vote may be and may be unanimous 5 person votes and if that is the case if the bylaw change is challenged that vote would still be upheld and so then you would only be potentially having to readdress votes that would only have obtained four affirmative. does that make sense? it is a little hypothetical. but i would still proceed with

the agenda, remainder of the agenda as you would have regardless and if there are votes that are taken that are only 4 members opposed to all 5, those would be the ones that would be potentially subject to a challenge and have to be redone at a later date. >> thank you so much. any further discussion from committee? we have a motion on the floor. public comment. >> members of the public who wish to provide public comment in person, please line up at the podium now. members of the public who wish to provide public comment over the phone, please refer to the instructions in the agenda posted at sf.gov/ocho. wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. each person will have two minutes to speak. we will begin with in person

public comment fallowed by public comment over the phone. >> hi, members of the committee. my name is [indiscernible] here with coalition on homelessness. i want to emphasize the importance voting yes on this item because we cannot waste anymore time. funds need to be voted on and released immediately. it is important to amend the bylaw to insure items can be voted on even with vacant seats which is not in our control. we need to move things along and we can't delay the process of voting on action items because the mayor's office isn't filled the vacant seats, so please please vote yes on this item. thank you. >> good morning members of committee. i just wanted to see if you guys can please vote yes on this item. it takes a lot to get people to get involved in meetings and things like that and it just gets dragged along and it doesn't really do any good for the

public who we are trying to serve, so i would just please please get this ball moving so we can get the money out and help all the programs and the people. thank you. >> good morning everyone. i wanted to urge you guys to vote on this item. it has been--we had a lot of issues about like the money not being spent and it is just around and then sometimes when the money is not spent, you know, they take the money because it isn't being spent and put it somewhere else that it isn't going to work well for the families or people and that's not okay, so just spend the money. the money was already-it has to be implemented. it is already for the people so just give it to them. thank you.

>> good morning everyone. my name is [indiscernible] so, i really want to you guys to move forward with this vote and i feel it is a really important for you guys for us, so we have so many families suffer outside. we have so many families on the waiting list for shelter. we have so many families waiting for permanent housing so give [indiscernible] and the children. if you vote we can move towards the process and yes, so solving this problem.

[indiscernible] thank you. >> thank you to all the public commenters. >> moderator, do we have any public comment over the phone? there are no over the phone public comments. this concludes the public comment section for this item. >> thank you so much. member friedenbach. >> do i make the motion again? >> if you want to-[indiscernible] >> move to change our bylaws to read in the case 3 or more vacant unappointed seats of the body, votes may take place and be approved if we have quorum and have at least four voting members who affirm the motion. >> moved by member friedenbach. >> second. >> seconded by vice chair

d'antonio. discussion? really good motion by the way. alright. let's call the roll. >> vice chair d'antonio, yes. member friedenbach, yes. member preston, yes. member walton, yes. chair williams, yes. >> it has been moved unanimously. alright. we will move to item 4. no, procedural. so just for the record, this is a procedural item. so we cannot discuss the particulars of this item. just need to talk about the process. >> you can actually take unanimous vote to rescind your previous vote, but then you cannot revote today. >> the revote on the next

agenda? >> correct, yes. so, you all can take a unanimous vote to rescind the february 8 vote. >> can be the one to move to rescind it? okay. [laughter] okay. i rescind the vote. >> i'll second that. >> moved by vice chair d'antonio and second by member friedenbach. any discussion on the recession? we'll take public comment. >> member s of the public who wish to comment in person please line up at the podium now. members of the public who wish to comment over the phone, please refer to the instructions on the agenda posted at sf.gov/ocho. wait until the system is unmuted and may begin comments. each person has 2 minutes to speak. we'll begin with in person public comment fallowed by comment

over the phone. >> please. thank you. >> hi. good morning. marty [indiscernible] larkin street youth service. cochair of [indiscernible] tay subcommittee. i don't really fully understand what just happened and i'm for-also not understanding what is rescinded. i'm just going to talk about the tay funding proposal. which i hope that's okay. i do want to thank member friedenbach for her tireless leadership and support. i barry have a understanding what is happening with these funds, but jenny has been-member friedenbach has been incredibly helpful so really grateful to her. we do is a plan for these funds. i feel i was here literally a year ago, most of us were fighting for these funds. i have an understanding the mayor's office has suggested to sweep

the $39 million again and pour it into emergency hotel rooms for families, and i want to be clear the tay providers don't want homeless families on the street. i think that goes without saying. i think that if the mayor recognizes the emergency that homeless families present, she should declare a state of emergency and fund what is essentially hotel 2.0, but not sweep funds that are for housing tay and then that money is gone. we have a plan. we have very well thought out strategic plan which is housing acquisition, rapidrehousing forte and tay quhoo are queer and tay moving on housing letter. hsh has been promise a housing letter model for several years. there is no movement on it. we have funds and a plan, so

youth in supportive housing can move on. youth who are 18-24 shouldn't stay in supportive housing the rest of their livesism they want to move on and we have a plan to program the $39 million. i want to say that we are-- >> thank you. >> hello members of the committee. i'm here with coalition. i stand here today to demand we do not allow any cuts to family and youth housing. f the $5 million cut to family homeless housing subsidies and $5.9 million cut for homeless youth housing will effect over 60 youth and 25 families that will not have the opportunity to leave homelessness behind. we need to preserve family and youth housing now. imagine the face of children mom and dad who rely on the critical services. they are not statistics they are friends family and fellow community

members. cutting funding means turning a blind eye to struggles; increase homelessness forte and families now. we do not want to-over a thousand youth experience homelessness. cutting tay housing funds means only 15 percent of youth seeking housing resources will receive them. leaving 850 youth each year in the cycle of homelessness. i highly urge all to release the tay funds. we must stand in solidarity to insure family youth housing remains priority in our community. thank you. >> thank you so much. >> hello. mercedes. i urge that we get this money to the youth and families. they are the most vulnerable population we have now and don't want you

to forget it is summer time, school is letting out, there will be a lack of resor sources and food and we need to get the money out to the people that most need it. i don't know why we are thinking about cutting from youth and families services, but i urge we don't. thank you. >> hello. hi, again. jessica hernandez. i just wanted to say, doesn't make sense we have to come here and demand for you guys to--not you guys but there shouldn't be cuts. why should we come and tell you guys this when you already know it? there is hardly enough resources already in san francisco. san francisco has 14.something billion dollars of budget. why cut on the programs that really need it?

there is only the 5 percent of the budget goes towards homeless programs, and i just heard recently there will be [indiscernible] the mayor wanting to give more money for that. are we really housing pandas and not the people who resident in san francisco? that's not-that's crazy. i just heard that-forgot the name, but there is 25 [indiscernible] cutting $25 million from youth. that's crazy. are we really just thinking about what's going on in the city? like, it's not logic and please i demand you guys to think about the cuts that are happening and if you guys-if there is something you can do, please help us, because this is not okay. thank you.

>> hi. again, my name is [indiscernible] work in coalition of homelessness. i want to talk about why we--the mayor cut $11.9 million from families and youth. this is one part. the other one is, [indiscernible] why you cutting $25 million to youth? it is serious issue we are facing this year. so, and we-the problem is we facing is we have a 2160 women and children suffer domestic violence, don't have a opportunity to go into shelter.

this is ridiculous. we already have [indiscernible] we increase the crisis and we never fixing the problem. we try fixing the problem when we created proposition c. we tried to do something there. we create different positions to get [indiscernible] we can end homelessness. we can do something. we are not doing anything and increasing this problem. we need to do something about that. [indiscernible] please, thank you. >> thank you so much for the public commenters. i also want to note that we

want to send a letter to the mayor to the controller office and board of supervisors regarding the issue and i think to what the public commenters said, i think we should include that in the letter because that's really important and we need to let them know. any further public comment? >> that concludes the in person public comment. moderator, do we have any over the phone public comment? there are no over the phone public comments. that concludes the public comment section for this agenda item. >> okay. on the procedural motion, we can't discuss just for clarification from staff, cannot discuss the particulars of the motion as a body, is that correct? >> you can not revote on the tay housing proposal and nor can we discuss the details of tay funding with julia in the room. >> i'm confused now. >> as a point of clarification, i want

to understand the reason this is on our agenda is because the vote taken in february was not done according to procedure that we now understand and therefore it is not valid. it doesn't change the discussion we had at the time, but because we have to recall then we can put this back on the agenda and make the recommendations. as our committee makes recommendation we do not allocate funds. but, our action today is not because we disagree with that proposal necessarily pro or con but it wasn't doneered cooing to procedures we just learned at that time. that i just want to clarify for us. >> thank you. >> what we are doing is simply trying to correct an issue and then we need to put this back on the agenda so the recommendations can be considered for approval in a appropriate voting manner. >> that's correct.

>> thank you. >> and so the next step would be to take a vote on rescinding the february 8 vote. >> correct. this is deputy city attorney kate kimberlen. the vote needed to be rescinded or needs to be rescinded based on the motion and second made prior to public comment because the vote that was previously made included vice chair d'antonio and the discussion ahead that vote and my understanding is that the vice chair was attempting to potentially recuse herself but perhaps there was a misunderstanding in terms of the procedure to be followed and also the number of individuals on the committee made it difficult to take the vote to approve that funding, but this vote would simply rescind the prior vote based on that procedural and substantive error in the

february meeting vote, but would allow this committee to recalendar that vote, reconsider the item and-let me take a step back. vice chair d'antonio has to make a motion to recuse herself from that matter, which has to be voted on. she can vote on a motion to recuse herself, but it also has to be affirmed by the committee because no member with recuse themselves without a majority vote and then you can revote and on the issue. it is a really fun thing doing government, isn't it? >> i recuse myself at the next meeting when the vote is taking place. they were just voting rescinding the vote that occurred? >> correct. >> i'll recuse myself and also recuse myself in today's meeting for the tay for now? >> yeah. >> no, for the budget recommendations item, we included tay-excluded all tay

funding. >> got it. >> across all service areas. >> got it. >> so you don't need to recuse yourself and you can vote on all of the non-tay funding programs. >> okay. >> based on the vote earlier that changed the bylaws how to approve things when we have limited members, we could not only put the february 8 issue recommendation back on, but we could also put budget recommendations on the next meeting related to what is not in today's budget recommendation? >> yes, you can put it on the agenda for the next meeting. >> just to clarify, vice chair you do not have to have a specific agenda item for recusal when the items come up that include a matter that you believe you should be recused from, you can raise that agenda item by agenda item

and move to recuse yourself if you think there is a particular issue that you should not be participating in. >> like if the conversation goes in a certain direction i might just pause us and recuse myself and step back? >> right, because it may not always be clear on something face at the start of a meeting whether or not one of you believes it may touch on a issue that comes up in discussion. that's entirely appropriate. >> okay, thank you. super helpful. >> my pleasure. >> like a master class in parliamentary procedure. >> that is why i came today. >> do public comment i think. >> we did. >> roll call. >> vice chair d'antonio, yeah. mr. friedenbach, yes. mr. preston, yes. member walton, yes. chair williams, yes. >> motion is passed.

alright. yes, about the letter. i think this is highly important to member friedenbach's comments earlier. we need to be able to come back to business and we are not getting appointments in timely matter and interested to know who the 6th member is. that is awesome. >> chair williams, we agendized it as part of the nextetum item so you can take a vote on the item. >> any other comments? so- >> i think just in general we like to see bodies people apointed to comeate eand love to see the controller seat appointed as well and just be able to conduct our business and have also a lot of thought partnership because when we don't have a full committee we are lacking in different areas of thought partnership that we are intended to have because every seat is specific to

a expertise so now we are lacking in that, so we need to do better. >> yeah. >> i don't know fl is other thoughts but seems we need to make a motion to send a letter urging the mayor board of supervisors and controller to make appointments, correct? >> that's correct. >> okay. and so, so moved. >> second. >> moved by member friedenbach and second by member walton. any further discussion? do we need to take public comment on this motion? yes? >> memberoffs the public who wish to comment in person please line up at the podium now. members who wish to comment over the

phone, please refer to instructions in the agenda posted at sf.gov/ocho. wait until the system indicates you have been unmute jd you may begin your comments. each person has twob minutes to speak. we will begin with in person public comment fallowed by public comment over the phone. for the record, there are no in person public comments. moderator, do we have any public comment on the phone? for the record there are no additional phone public comments. this concludes the public comment section for this agenda item. >> thank you so much. any other further comments on sending the letter? okay, roll. >> vice chair d'antonio, yes. member friedenbach, yes. mr. preston, yes. mr. walton, yes. chair williams, yes. >> motion passes. alright. so, there was a question, is there a presentation for item 5?

>> yep. >> i'm looking at the time. >> we have time. yeah. do it quickly. okay. so, again just to reiterate, these are budget recommendations with all the tay funding carved out of each service area. just a quick overview of sort of how these recommendations were prioritized. really work wg the liaiz onthroughout the process. there was emphasis and continued implementation of the investment plan that was also delineated in all the departmental spendsing plan as as you heard from hsh, dph and mohcd as well. there was also a desire to preserve all committee recommended programs across service areas, and lastly, it was really thinking big picture and connecting our city our home

programs really to city wide efforts to address homelessness and to leverage other funding as needed. we'll start with permanent housing. this is all little what, -in interest of time what this will lay out in terms of format is each service area i tried to delineate the programs the committee is able to make a recommendation on and then at the bottom you'll see the programs the committee isn't able to make a formal recommendation on. so, for adult or general permanent housing, the committee recommending to the mayor and board of supervisors to fully fund all the services that are listed on this slide just below the draft recommendation that are reflected in the department of homelessness and supportive housing budget proposal for both fiscal year 25 and 26. in addition, the committee is

recommending finding additional sources of revenue to address the projected fy-26 shortfall in the ocha fund for adult and general permanent housing as they impact the programs listed below. the committee isn't able to make a formal recommendation regarding the tay housing services area for family permanent housing there are two recommendations. the first is recommending the mayor and board of supervisors fully fund all family permanent housing programs at the levels reflected in hsh budget proposal for fiscal year 25 and 26. the committee is also recommending to the mayor and board to identify alternative sources of funding outside of the ocho fund to allocate $5 million ongoing for 5 year rapid rehousing subsidies for 40 families.

for prevention and problem solving, the committee is recommending to fully fund prevention and problem solving service lested just below the draft recommendation. these were were all the programs. the recommendation is fund those programs at the level projected for fy25 and 26. for shelter and hygiene, the committee is recommending to fully fund the servicess again reflected in the hsh budget proposal for fy25 and 26. lastly, mental health has a few slides just because of how we broke out the programs, but for outreach overdose prevention and allocated costs, the committee is recommending funding at the levels reflected in dph

budget proposal for both of the budget years. there are no tay carve-outs in these programs. for treatment beds, similar recommendations as other services areas to fund treatment beds and services listed below. at the levels reflected in dph budget proposal for both budget years. case management, again to fully fund mental health case management services listed just below at the levels reflected in dph budget proposal for both budget years. and lastly for drop in services, same recommendation to the mayor and the board to fully fund mental health drop in services which are mental health service centered at the level reflected in dph budget proposal for both

budget years. and those are all of the draft recommendations that we collaborated on over this process. >> great. thank you. is there any thoughts, comments, questions from committee members? >> you are jumping to the liaison discussion and then do public comment? >> um. sorry. we can open up for public comment before and then do discussion. thank you. >> members of the public who wish to provide public comment in person please line up at the podium now. members of the public who wish to comment over the phone, please refer to instructions in the agenda posted at sf.gov/ocho. each person will have two minutes to speak. we'll begin with in person public

comment fallowed by public comment over the phone. >> hi, again. on behalf of [indiscernible] we fully support these draft recommendations. i'm still unclear why you can't discuss the tay proposal but i guess it is procedural and still dont understand it. i have to say that tay providers, particularly unhoused and unstablely housed tay providers are reeling from the $25 million from the cut. reeling from what seems to be defunding of tay program. oewd did not fund tay workforce last year. no idea if it is funded this year but dcyf concentrated all the cuts in tay unhoused service programs. it is pretty distressing. we are begging you to please not let the mayor sweep these tay ocho funds. we have a plan and very well

thought out to get youth off the streets in housing and mubing along a continuum from the streets to shelter to transitional to supportive housing to their own housing. i am hoping that the tay plan is up for vote next time. super worried the mayor will try to sweep again and we will spend all our energy trying to prevent her from doing that while we are still trying to strategy and deal with the loss from dcyf and unknown from [indiscernible] thank you. >> hello members of the committee. me again. as we gather here today let's not forget the families currently navinating homelessness waiting for the lifeline of supportive services that can offer them stability security and hope. there are parents trying to provide for children. grappling with unforeseen [indiscernible] in face oof urgency we cannot afford to delay.

we cannot afford to let bureaucratic hurdle or constraints stand in the way for the families that desperately need them. i call upon members of the committee with the power to make a difference to release the funds now. let's not wait another day, meeting or budget cycle. the time for action now. every moment that passes fear and instability for the families. let not feel in time of need. let's stand united to insure every family in our community has access to the services they require to rebuild their lives to thrive and flourish. release the funds now. the families are waiting and their needs cannot wait any longer. thank you. >> hi, again. my third time here. well, i guess you know what i'm

going to say. release the funds. insure there is permanent housing prevention and all the resources needed for families and people out there who right now need it are able to succeed in the future. i myself was homeless. thanks to an organizations that helped me out, i'm now housed and i can share my story. i still fear ending up in the streets and that is one of my nightmares because homelessness leaves you with trauma, so prevent people from suffer going through the trauma and helping people exit that trauma and enter a path of recovery and feeling safe and feeling happy. just urging you guys to do the right thing. you guys know what is the right thing and i don't have to tell you. thank you.

>> please release the funds. i will say again. just as confusing for me to be here and listen to and understand what's going on, sure it is just as confusing for it public, so please release the funds so we can be productive and feel like that these committees are actually working. thank you. >> hi. [indiscernible] yeah, for the first thing i want to mention, again, i want to support the youth. we need-i want to repeat again, we need to [indiscernible] can not take $25 million from the youth programs.

no. use the money finding money, [indiscernible] police officers give so much money to these guys. don't touch money for the families and poor people. dont touch money we create together. the families and the people. don't touch the money from the [indiscernible] this money is for the people who we create this program [indiscernible] i want to keep fighting and organizing the communities and bring together right here to let know the mayor it isn't okay what she's doing. it isn't okay because we have so many homeless families outside. all most 400 families waiting for bed and shelter. we have 1100 youth in the streets every night without housing. how it is possible the mayor want to touch the money?

no. we understand, we have a crisis, we have a global crisis. we are going to fix the crisis but we need to work together. let the mayor know, don't cut this money. it is for the family homeless and youth. thank you. >> i just wanted to do a shout out. miguel celebrating 30 years of kick ass community organizing [applause] >> amazing. thank you so much. i want to note the cuts that happened through dcyf are impacting our providers and as a body we should send a statement. i have gotten several text messages about the cuts. i think it is imperative we note that in our letter and we include that in the other letter. >> yeah. >> thank you. alright. also want to recognize- >> i have to check over the phone. moderator, do we have public

comment over the phone? there are no public comments over the phone. this concludes public comment section for this item. >> i also want to recognize all our liaisons . mr. walton, friedenbach and preston. thank you for your service. you have several meetings around the recommendation and want to provide time to talk about the process so i'll start with it permanent housing area. member walton. >> i am not that liaison but was filling in which is fine. i think the thing across what i saw in all the liaison meetings is that, the great programming that has been funded and created under our community, our community our homes and also with the prop c money, that we are-because of across the board funding

challenges, both the city general fund and the ocho money less then what was expected and dropping the last number of years, that the goal was that there will be some unspent monies in the fiscal year-next fiscal year, that we want to look forward over the next four years and realize that the money will fall short to keep the existing programs, the created programs, the ones that started or just starting going, so our goal in these discussions was to make sure we could try to maintain the quality programs that have been created to date and i state that because, in the first year there will be some leftover money, but that will be needed to keep the funding moving. those programs moving forward in future years. i think the programs that were

created were well described to us and some were just getting underway. others are fully implemented and so i found that very exciting to see and the concern is how do we best keep those programs going and not over-spend over the next few years. this is a two year budget cycle, we took a long look at the next four years to see there would be future deficits. separate from any other department cutting and so forth, we were just looking at the ocho funding but it is happening across the city and also of concern. those were the main comments from not only housing but all the liaison meeting i participated in. >> thank you so much member walton. any other comments on permanent

housing? >> just wanted to note that we do have short-falls in three of the housing categories that really going to want to encourage the mayor's office to back-fill. want to note that. >> i was pleased that is in our recommendation. >> yeah. >> our goal is obviously to not only maintain but hopefully over time increase availability of housing, but clearly want to make sure we maintain what has been created to date. >> absolutely. for our staff, do we want to take these each item as we go or? take it all together? >> you can do it all together. >> i want to provide reflections member friedenbach on area 2, shelter and hygiene. >> i'll be quick. basically we are looking good on shelter and hygiene. we don't have a short-fall yet

but in year three there will be a $7.47 million shortfall and counting on a grant that we don't know for sure so that could change. it is a nice mix. nice mix of population served and types of shelter and so i think we are looking pretty good there. there is a short-fall made up for by one time revenue sources but when we get to year three we don't have those. >> thank you member friedenbach. anything on shelter and hygiene from the rest of the committee? reflections from prevention and problem solving. >> yes. thank you. i was joined by scott walton and met couple times with prevention and problem solving. folks involved in looking at that budget and carrying it out and

want to second what member walton said about how we projected out about four years looking at the budget short-falls and trying to look at keeping these programs that have been-some of them just getting underway. keeping that progress and not rolling back that is the goal. so, i think there is good planning, but definitely more funding needed to add programs that people have shown can have really good impact on preventing homelessness. so, just really pleased in hearing the plans under prevention, and problem solving, and happy with the budget recommendations.

>> thank you so much member preston. item 4, mental health. member friedenbach. >> so, the-this is going to be a big struggle years out. we got about a hundred million dollar in operating for behavioral health and no where near that, $60 million approximately for anticipated funds coming in on the dph programs. that again is there is a bridge being created that is really significant that we are going to have to address in year three, and i felt dph was very transparent and has been all along about this and i am loving they are bridging it rather then just cutting it, so that's good because who knows what will change.

but i think this is something that is as a committee in particular we might want to do some special planning on and starting to figure out how to get input from consumers of behavioral health services and figuring it out because if there is things that are not as effective and we do end up having to cut programs, it would be good to center people who are consumers of those programs in that kind of process. i think that yeah, that's kind of where that's at. just from my perspeckive i always prioritize beds. i find it really hard to address your behavioral health needs if you are unhoused and so that's always pops to the top for me. we have been doing a lot with behavioral health and serving a lot of people and a lot of people for

the first time are getting diversity of care. that is something for all of us to be proud of, including all the dph folks and contractors and all that because this is a really tough one and you know, we got a lot of people dying from overdose and people with severe mental illness and suicide and it is a lot you guys. i feel like a lot of this is the after effect of neglect basically of systemic neglect and not providing housing and compoundsing the issue when homeless and having the new drug epidemic our system is no where prepared to handle. it is like the pandemic like showed all the holes in our health system. but, that said, we are making progress so that's great. just wanted to note that, but we will have a lot of work to do over the next

couple years. >> thank you so much member friedenbach. i believe we need to take public comment. >> we did public comment. >> we did? on the whole. thank you so much for your service and working with the departments. if there is a motion we can proceed or is there is more comments from committee. >> i move to present the recommendations as listed in the document prepared. >> i'll second. >> moved by member walton, seconded by member preston. any discussion? alright. we'll take a roll. >> vice chair d'antonio, yes. member friedenbach, yes. member preston, yes. member walton, yes. chair williams, yes. >> moved unanimously. >> i would liveg like to move to

recuse member d'antonio. and circle back around to the youth recommendations. in particular- >> we have to take a unanimous vote to recuse. >> okay. thank you. >> you moved [multiple speakers] >> we have a motion and second. >> need to take public comment. >> yeah, this is-- >> if you leave we don't have quorum. >> okay.

yeah. >> [speaking in the background] >> let's see, it is 1134. >> i thought-we carved out the tay recommendation, so why does-- [multiple speakers] >> [unable to hear speaker because microphone isn't on] >> but it is okay to [indiscernible] because we already have quorum. we are good. >> we need to vote on my recusal. >> we already did. >> we need to vote on the recusal. >> i don't think we did the roll. >> and we dont need public comment. [multiple speakers] >> it is just election. >> i think we need to think about the chair because i have been at this for since the beginning. >> should we delay this

discussion for the last item on the agenda? >> we could do that. excellent. we move item- >> you want to table it? >> i will withdraw my motion. and the second. >> thank you. alright. we have officer elections. >> okay. that's right. let's do it. >> are there any nominations for chair and vice chair? >> i like to nominate the existing two, chair williams and vice chair d'antonio. i think you are doing an amazing job. >> i will second that. >> alright. let's-- let's call the roll. or wait, public comment.

>> member oz thf public who wish to comment in person please line up at the podium now. members of the public who wish to provide public comment over the phone, please refer to instructions in the agenda posted at sf.gov/ocho. wait until you are unmuted and you may comment. each person has twob minutes to speak. we'll begin with in person public comment fallowed by over the phone. there are no in person public comments. moderator, do we have any public comment over the phone? for the record, there are no additional over the phone public comments and this concludes the public comment section for this item. >> thank you so much. move to roll. >> vice chair d'antonio, yes. member friedenbach, yes. member preston, yes. member walton, yes. chair williams, yes. >> alright.

i think all we have is-do we want to table the tay? >> i would like to just do something really quick if possible but i will make a motion to recuse vice chair d'antonio. >> can i ask the chair to recall-to go back to item number 5 on the agenda? i assume that is-- >> we did that. >> we tabled that one and now just want to get it on the record you are going back. >> we are going back to item 5. >> i make a motion to recuse chair d'antonio. >> i second. >> moved by member friedenbach and second by member walton. any discussion? roll call. >> vice chair d'antonio, yes. member friedenbach, yes. member preston, yes. member walton, yes.

chair williams, yes. >> thank you. so, i'll wait a moment for vice chair d'antonio to exit the room. thank you so much. sorry you are being banished. [laughter] very interesting. okay. so, i would like to make a motion that encouraging the mayor's office to find funds to back-fill-i mean to excuse i like to make a motion for the mayor's office and the department and homeless department to use the existing

acquisition dollars and the existing operating dollars to replace the proposed funds that were cut from the recommendations. >> moved by- >> and we have 50 something million surplus in tay housing, and that, $49 million is acquisition dollars and or 39, excuse me, so we have $8.5 million acquisition in that category that i like to put back on the table, the explanation here and then we have enough in operating still to operate that the original budget estimate was off and it was over what it needed to be and the operating for that housing project is now estimated to be $800 thousand. i like--i'm also going to recommend around the other cuts to tay, but i wanted to just start with that

one. let's see-- >> basically i put together a couple slides. this first slide outlines the vote that you all took on february 8 that is now rescinded, but this lays out what was recommended as part that vote, and then based on the correspondence we had. just a couple of changes and so, i'm laying out here what those changes are, which is, the first is that you wanted to allocate-the committee wanted to allocate $3.7 million ongoing for a hundred tay flex pool subsidies and the original recommendation was 50. and we are changing the

allocation for the support services at the potentially new acquired small site forte,ing and we are sort of clarifying what we meant by that amount, which is it is actually $1.47 million ongoing. so, i put this together because it is a little confusing, but it is part of the revote for tay housing, so that's a little divorced from the budget recommendation conversation we just had, but we figured it made a little bit more sense to do it this way. just having to revote on it. >> member walton is asking to make a more articulate motion. >> not my language. [laughter] just clearer.

>> happy to. okay, i move to encourage the homeless--the city of san francisco including the mayor office and homeless department to fund a full 100 tay flex pool subsidies at $3.7 million and to fund the $1.4 million for ongoing services at a new tay housing site, and further, to operationalize these as quickly as possible. >> moved by member friedenbach. is there a second? >> i think because you all rescinded your vote, it would be best to revote on the whole proposal. >> okay. i thought we couldn't. you said earlier we could not revote. >> that's the vote you all took earlier. >> okay, so this is a new proposal. i wescind my previous-doing a friendly amendment to my own motion.

okay. i am recommending that the ocho committee recommendation listed by the controller's office in their presentation be supported and put into operations by the city of san francisco. >> alright. so moved by member friedenbach. >> i'll second. >> seconded by mr. walton. any discussion or anything from staff? is that correct? okay. do we have to take-- >> yes. >> public comment for sure. >> members of the public who wish to comment in person, please line up at podium now. those who wish to comment over the phone please refer to the instructions at sf.gov/ocho.

we'll begin with in person public comment fallowed by over the phone. >> hi. thank you. super confused. this is great. i am assuming the $39 million or the delta. super confused but thank you for at least retaking the vote and counting the narrative that tay don't matter because they do because they are the future adult homeless population so thank you. >> hopefully not. i just want to-i know what the member of the public was referring to was the $39 million in additional acquisition. the 8.5 we are talking about is part that. or the $8 million is part that, so there still will be money left

in the tay bucket that we could program in the future, and i would suggest doing that at a future agenda item and we can take a look at that. just wanted to make sure members of the public knew what was going on there. hopefully that was clear. >> for the record, there are no in person public comments. moderator, do we have public comment on the phone? for the record, there are no phone public comments. this concludes the public comment section for this item. >> thank you so much. >> just want to underscore that when we look at how we move this forward that we consider the future short-falls as well. just concerned we not fund programs that will eventually not have funding, but happy that we are able to sort of go back and come back to those original recommendations, which we all--

>> any further comment? alright. we'll take roll. >> vice chair d'antonio, recuse. member friedenbach, yes. member preston, yes. member walton, yes. chair williams, yes. >> alright. moved unanimously. any comments? >> i just want to appreciate everybody for this and a lot of it tay providers and i know we got a lot more work to do. just want to make a general policy statement here that it is really important that we honor the voters wishes and the voters were really interested in making sure we go upstream and tay and families are served along with adults and so i know there is wispering about taking money back and that is making a lot of us very nervous because just last

night actually i was in front of the office and there were three kids out there and i started to talk to them but and swear to god they didn't want to tell me their ages but it is really troubleling and so, those little sweethearts i would love to see them in housing. >> thank you so much for your hard work. we have future agenda items, but-we don't have quorum. >> we can take a motion to adjourn, right? >> thank you everyone and all the public comments. sorry for being late. [meeting adjourned]

>> good morning everyone. welcome. i'm katie lamont and with me isroxany huey and together we are leading tndc as interim co ceo. so pleased to have you with us this beautiful day to celebrate the reopening of ambassador and ritz hotel. exactly! this day has been a long time coming,