they are very knowledgeable. very friendly. i think they are here to serve not only the asian community but to serve all communities in the richmond district and in san francisco. [♪] >> what is wonderful about living here is that even though our july is a very foggy and overcast, best neighborhood, the sleepy part outside on the west side is so rich with history, but also with all the amenities that are offered. [♪]

>> good afternoon, and welcome to the land use and transportation committee for the san francisco board of supervisors for today, monday march 11th. i am the chair of the committee and i am joined by committee member mattei haney to my left and shortly by our vice chair. miss clerk, do you have any announcements? >> silence also phones and electronic devices. completed speaker cards and any documents to be completed as part of the file and submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the march 19 the board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you. please call the first item. >> item number 1 is an ordinance amending the planning code to require all projects using the state density bonus law, regardless of environmental evaluation application dates to pay the inclusionary fee on any

additional units or square footage allowed by the state law and affirming appropriate findings. >> thank you. to supervisor haney, by way of a little bit of background, a long time ago, in these chambers in 2002, supervisor mark leno passed the first inclusionary law which required a certain percentage of housing and new construction to be affordable, and over the years that number changed and went up. in 2012, and what i always thought was an ill-fated deal between the mayor's office and advocates, they actually put -- they lowered the percentage and put it in the charter where the board of supervisors could not adjust it, and i think at my first meeting back on the board in december of 2015, i introduced a charter amendment with supervisor jane kim to take

it out of the charter, and that led us to our current inclusionary regimen that we now have, and at some point, supervisor breed, kim and i figured out the roadmap to peace , and that has kind of been the lay of the land ever since, that there has been an outstanding issue as it relates to collection of fees for state bonus -- the state density bonus projects, and in 2017, we had amendments to capture that, but when we cut our branch deal, we had a category of projects that were grandfathered based on the date of their environmental

application date, and when mayor breed came back to the board and wanted to extend that, i made it abundantly clear that i would attempt to capture the fee value from allstate density bonus projects, and so that, because most of the pipeline has been cleared out, it actually only applies to one project, which the planning department thought was unfair. i actually did not even know what the one project was, but i have since come to learn where it is. i'm not picking on anybody in particular, but as you can see in the record, the planning department recommended their commissions that we do not do this for one project which would raise about $1 million for affordable housing. i respectfully disagree with the commission on the department. we decided to bring it to the panel to see if we can take it

-- we always hear the stories about how there is no money for small sites, no money for affordable housing, here is $1 million. it will not cure all of the ills of the world, but it is a step in the right direction. it is a project on, and staff is here from the department, i think it is on mission and 14 th, i believe, the access project, i think. >> good afternoon, supervisors. the project in question is 34,414th street. it is on mission and valencia. the current parking lot, no demolition going on as part of the project. i don't have all the details in front of me. it is mostly residential and also has a small enterprise workspace going in as well. >> thank you. is there public comment -- yes, we can ask staff more questions. i wanted to see if there's any members of the public would like to testify on this item.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. i am here on behalf of the san francisco housing coalition. it is our understanding that the proposal today and the fee on the units are illegal under state law. thank you. >> seeing no other members of the public, we will close public comment and supervisors, it sounded like you had questions for staff. >> i have a lot of questions, i heard your introduction, i think it was fair to say the things that you said. we worked for almost a year to come up with what we decided was a grand bargain at the time. we did talk about state density. it was a vexing issue. the thing -- if you can cut go through some of the technical proposals and what this would mean and how it would affect an interplay with this, that would be one of the questions that i have.

the other question that i have is i just want to be 100% sure -- how many projects have invoked the bonus program? i have a note here that there were 36,. >> we have already passed law saying mr. smith cheshire comments notwithstanding that we are capturing fees from state density bonus projects, that is already the law. this is just about the grandfathering and there were a handful of projects that were in the pipeline that were covered by the grandfathering, one of which is left, which is a state bonus density project that we could capture the fee on. >> this is really about one project. >> that is correct. >> when you originally proposed to this, was it about one project, or had you been given information that it was more of

one -- more than one? >> originally it was half a dozen projects. what happened is that when the mayor made the proposal to actually extends the grandfathering, supervisor kim and i made a number of amendments about how -- we kind of split the date in half and we ended up with december 2018 date >> that is what we're doing recently with the board at the end of the year. >> right. at the hearing, i wanted to add this provision, but the city attorney could not prepare it in time so i made it clear that that was the last element of that chapter and it which trail, and it is now here before us today. >> can you tell us more, through the chair to the planning department how many units are proposed of this particular project? can you give us more information >> absolutely, supervisors. you are correct, there's about three dozen projects that have invoked this bonus, this number

is now up by a couple more since we wrote the report. that is the total amounts that have invoked the bonus. only six of them were before 2016. of the five, that is how we got to one. >> and that one remaining project is -- it would be subject to the ordinance if it were passed. to extend the fee just on the state bonus density portion of the project to project before 2016, and this is separate from the overall grandfathering of inclusionary terms of on-site. [laughter] >> we are adjourned for the time being. >> we will reconvene the land use and transportation meeting for march 11th. we were in the middle of item

number 11 when the fire alarm went off and i think that jacob was at the microphone and supervisor safai may have been asking him questions. but as i said before, i mean, this is to me a matter of treating everybody consistently and in this agreed to liberalize the grandfathering so here's a chance to recapture value. >> thank you, supervisor safai, i think that you have asked about the one project affected by this. and i just had a couple details from the case report for that project. as i said it would be at 344 equip 13th street, a 56-unit project. and then there is 60 square feet of p.d.r. and the workspace and the current site is all surface parking. yeah, that's the detail that i got on that. again, it wasn't singled out by

the way that the code was written, it just is the only one with a site not written yet. >> how many units? >> 56 units. >> and then all of the p.d.r. that you described and the fee is a million dollars? >> a little shy of a million. >> yeah. and it's on a portion of the building from the density bonus is what we charged the fee on. >> and have you had -- >> i wanted to make sure -- have you had conversations with the developer to determine whether or not they can do this project, if they're faced with this fee? >> we did not -- we did not ask them this question. rather, when we started this analysis our first reaction was simply that we're kind of going back on the policy retroactively was our first concern. then as we dug deeper and realized that it only affects one project that was another concern in terms of the impact on this change itself. so we didn't get into a feasibility discussion with the project sponsor. we were simply looking at that

kind of on our own side and thinking about process and how we apply these things consistently over time. >> so let's talk about the retroactivity of this. and i than we had conversations. we struggled -- i don't want to say struggled -- but we spent a significant amount of time trying to get our inclusionary update correct. there were a lot of compromises made and this is one of the pieces that was remaining that was outstanding as it pertained to the state density bonus. as you said for the record, about three dozen projects have gone through the process and only six were ones that are really affected by this. and i think that the question is -- and i think that from the supervisors' perspective, not to put words in your mouth -- but the idea is why has it taken so long for them to move forward and to begin to pull their permits and file their applications so they would not be impacted by this? because i think that the other five are not impacted because they moved forward and this one has not. i mean is that fair? >> yeah, i mean, i wanted to capture the entire universe but

they got their site permits before we got this legislation through the system. and that is what it is. but fundamentally we actually -- they would have had to do more inclusionary had we not extended the grandfathering. and so -- >> well, this one was one of the few projects that was not entitled and it's still not entitled so it didn't get the grandfathering extended on the component. and they have already -- in fact, one of the reasons that they're continued at the planning commission is they had to go and readjust their inclusionary information to reflect the fact that it's not grandfathered for on site. so they'll do the 18% rather than the grandfathered 16%, because it was in the u.m.u. district. >> so that's on the inclusionary portion? >> correct. so they'll do 18% on site as a project. and this grandfathering was separately written just for the state density bonus -- >> without the state density

bonus, how many units would this site get? >> right -- i believe 11 of the units were coming from -- around 45, i think nine units. i don't have it right in front of my so a 35% bonus. >> and the 11 are not without and the fee is an additional -- >> yeah. >> it's the equivalent of an additional, what, three units? >> um-hmm. >> there you go. so we opened up public comment and closed public comment and, colleagues, if there is supervisor haney. >> supervisor haney: to be fair, how many units on site are affordable? >> well, the project is having to revise that because they did lose their grandfathering. there had been -- let's see he here... excuse me. i'm slipping between different

case reports that have come out. so they were going to have seven. so the base project was 42 units, supervisor safai, i had wrong. and so 18% of 42 would be eight units, would be on-site and in addition to that they'll get another 14 units through the bonus it appears. and that floor area is the part that would have the fee applied to it that then go into the affordable housing fund. >> because it's just 14 market rate and then pay a fee on it? >> that's right. a fee on that whole floor area that came through the bonus, whatever amounts it was. >> got it. >> yeah, that's how the fee is set up. so we will do that for the projects that came in after 2016, which is 30 and growing and it was just a question of the six that were given the grandfathering when the inclusionary ordinance was recently amended and the question was simply whether we should be changing the metric for those projects. >> supervisor haney: got it. so i would just say now that i have learned that it's not

entitled at all and that this fee applies to other density bonus projects, just seeing no reason that we should not capture this one. so, colleagues if there's no objection can we send to the full board with a positive recommendation? seeing no objection, that will be the order. next item, please. >> clerk: item 2, to enact expedited and streamlined permit process for solar energy systems and affirming appropriate findings. >> supervisor safai: thank you, miss major and before we hear from the department of building inspection i'd like to thank the former supervisor katy tang who handed this off to me before she left and we're finally getting it there. and with that i do have some amendments that are before you, colleagues. that are on pages 5, 6, 7 and 8, all of which further clarify

that this would not apply to historic resources. so with that, mr. strom? >> thank you very much, supervisor. bill strom, the department of building inspection. yes, this actually -- this legislation will codify a long-standing practice at the department which is to expedite these solar energy permits. as i know that you know, the state has a law here a couple years ago requiring all jurisdictions to do that, even though we were doing it, we aren't codified it and we tried to introduce it. and then it kind of got lost. and we're very happy that you're willing to resurrect it now. but, yes, i think that we'd love to see it move forward and finish the codificatio codifica.

>> supervisor safai: any public comment on item number two, seeing none, public comment is closed. and is there a motion to adopt the amendments that i mentioned on pages 5 through 8? supervisor safai. and on the item as amended, can we send that to the full board with a positive recommendation? without objection, that would be the order. madam clerk, next item, please. >> clerk: an ordinance for various sections of the building code, the existing building code, plumbing, electric a elecd housing codes to correct or clarify the existing code language. re-enact a long diagnose standing permit requirement for fences with the finding required by the california health and safety code and enforcement provisions for the building inspection and maintenance program. >> mr. strom. >> thank you, supervisor. d.p.i. these series of mostly non

non-substantive corrections made through our technical services group working closely with the deputy city attorney and we're just cleaning up the code as we go along here. especially as we get ready for the new code cycle. >> supervisor peskin: any item on number 3, seeing none, comment is closed. colleagues can we send this to the full board with a positive recommendation? without objection, that is the order. next item. >> clerk: item number 4, ordinance dedicating property under city jurisdiction and located on the portion of state trust parcel 2, commonly known as mission bay park p5, and adjacent to eldoor aido street north and el dorado street south between channel street and long bring street as open public right-of-way in motion bay south naming the new park mission bay dog park accepting and

recognizing the findings. >> this is parcel 5 along channel street in mission bay. and for what i think has been nearly a year this park has appeared to be complete to most of the neighbors, many of whom are very anxious to use it and it's gone through what has certainly felt like a lengthy approval process is and the ordinance before us today allow the city to accept the park from a developer so that we can open it for public use and this is still something that comes up all the time. and my office gets calls about it. you can imagine how hard it's been to have a park that's right there that looks done, that is fenced off and this will finally allow us to open this park for neighborhood use which i can assure you that there are many people who are about to break down those fences if we don't open it soon. so, thank you, everybody, who has worked on this. i think we have a couple folks who are going to be here to

explain how we got here and what the next steps are. >> on behalf of public works, miss moore. >> good afternoon, supervisors. just putting this into the record that the project is located in the mission bay south redevelopment plan area and it's part of the infrastructure plan for mission bay. and i think that as supervisor haney mentioned that the park is beautiful, and i don't know if people can see the graphic that i put up there... we even have a fire hydrant on both sides of the park. >> (indiscernible). >> and this park is part of a network of 40-acres of open space in parks and the mission bay area. and this great dog park is right here. improvements were constructed

with the mission day park plan specifications and the department of public works had an issue of it being complete and ready for its intended use. the planning department has determined that the construction and acceptance of the mission pay park 5 improvement are consistent with the city's general plan. the eight priority policies of the planning code section 101.1 and it does not trigger any further ceqa environmental review. the office of community infrastructure and investment determined that the construction acceptance of the park, improvements are consistent with the mission day south redevelopment plan and planned documents. and the operations and maintenance costs will be funded through community facilities district funds managed by the offices of community investment and infrastructure. we request that the land-use committee approve and recommend approval to the full board. >> supervisor peskin: any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. and supervisor haney do we have a motion? >> supervisor haney: yes, one quick thing if maybe somebody

can address this and i think that this -- this could also go to mark. can -- can you explain quickly why this took so long? i get asked that all the time. >> i think that a lot of things that people can't see that are sort of in the hands of the developer -- documentation, test results, city agency review. i think that mark wants to add more, i'd be happy to have him... >> good afternoon, mark sutken, project manager. i think that there was some construction problems that we had to work through. i mean, there's a.d.a. slope ramps that were not properly slopped so they needed to be repoured a couple times. i know that was one of the reasons. but it looks done way before it is done. there's, you know, just 90-day plant period just to make sure that the plants take. there's a lot more that has to happen, i think that in this case it was the grass that gets rolled out. so it's just -- it adds to the

aggravation and it's hard to convince the neighbors otherwise that there's still more work to be done. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. with that a motion? moved to the board with a positive recommendation. okay, we will do that without objection. and madam clerk, could you read items 5 and 6 together. >> clerk: yes, item numbera 5 is an ordnan amending the building code to adopt standards for constructing homeless shelter ands to create an alternative approval procedure for homeless shelters during a shelter crisis, and affirming the appropriate findings. and item number 6 is an ordinance amending the administrative code and planning code to streamline contracts for homeless shelters and siting of homeless shelters by, among other things, authorizing the department of homelessness and supportive housing. >> supervisor peskin:

mr. chin, is there something that you want to say? no, all right. i want to thank the clerk's office for accommodating these two items which were transferred to our committee and scheduled very, very quickly at the request of the mayor. and with that, miss emily cohen, formally of h.s.h., and now of the mayor's office, good afternoon. >> good afternoon, supervisors. emily cohen with the mayor's office. thank you very much for hearing these items and accommodating the change of committee. i'm going to walk you through the two ordinances that the mayor has introduced as part of the shelter crisis package. and i'm happy, of course, to take questions. as everyone in this room, both sides of this room knows, we're are facing a crisis in our community, with 7,500 people experiencing homelessness and on any given night in our community, about 4,300 of those folks are living unsheltered.

we have a growing number of seniors experiencing homelessness and we certainly have folks with mental health and behavioral health challenges experiencing homelessness. and, of course, with chronic health issues. it's a highly vulnerable population and there's consistently over 1,100 people on our shelter waiting list each night. in 2018, it body and at the time mayor ferrell passed and signed the 2018 shelter emergency. and this ordinance was exceptionally helpful in opening up 340 new temporary shelter beds in three navigation centers that have served nearly 1,200 people since they opened, among those sites alone. so it's 1,200 people that we would have not sheltered but for the authorities granted in the shelter crisis ordinance. and we had one supportive housing building bringing 50 new unit thes of supportive housing

online. this expired march first and, of course, unfortunately, our crisis continues. the 2019 ordinances, a pair of ordinances, build off the successful work in 2018 and expands it a bit further. so the first ordinance, which is actually item number 6 on your agenda, the first in my presentation here, streamlines the contacting process for construction and operations of homeless shelters and programs. are removes the planning barriers to opening up shelters in certain zoning districts that currently have limitations or restrictions. extends the existing navigation centers beyond the two-year current limit that is currently imposed. and it would also require the department of homelessness and supportive housing to hold a robust community engagement process prior to opening up any homeless service site. the ordinance is intended to be in effect for five years, or until there's a 30% reduction in homelessness in our community, whichever comes first.

and on the accountability side, the ordinance requires the public works and the department of homelessness to report to this body annually about exactly what contracts are entered into under these provisions. important to point out that this does not change anything about the board's oversight over contracts, so the threshold that the board is required to hear contracts does not change under this. that would remain the same. >> supervisor peskin: only the charter can change that. >> exactly. and this was unanimously supported at the planning commission on february 28th. i'll move on to the second ordinance or item 5 on your agenda, and this -- this ordinance is focused on the building code. this ordinance activates the legislation that allows for jurisdictions to declare shelter crisis and to propose alternative building procedures during said crisis. in lieu of the discretionary

building permit for homeless shelters, the ordinance has an alternative process which is between d.b.i., fire and public works and planning which outlines the procedures for written confirmation that the project complies with all applicable health standards and is representative from each of the departments today who can answer any questions that might come up related to the implementation from the departments' perspectives. the other big thing that this ordinance does is that it adopts california state building code append appendix n which providea consistent and available standard with which -- you know, san francisco can develop emergency shelters and provide building standards for compliance. so these standards have been proposed and approved at the state and this ordinance was adopted them in san francisco for a very short period of time. the ordinance is tied to 8932, and the provisions allowed there, so this is currently set to expire in january -- on

january 1, 2021. this ordinance was also unanimously approved by the building inspection commission on february 20th, and following passage from the board of supervisors it will require signoff from the department of community and health department. we're not the first to do this, there were several communities sort of allowed -- sort of these authorizations in 8932, and a couple others that have taken advantage of it, so we have been sort of learning from those other cities as we developed this ordinance. and then i'm happy to take questions or defer to my colleagues in the department. >> supervisor peskin: all right, are there other departmental representatives to add anything, fire, d.b.i., planning? you're welcome to chip in, mr. decosio. >> good afternoon, supervisors. dan decosio, fire marshal.

this is streamlining the process for the homeless shelters. in doing so it does not waive any requirements. for that reason on those grounds the fire department does support this. >> supervisor peskin: excellent. >> good afternoon, ron alameda, the deputy director for public works. and i have nothing more factual to add. i think that the presentation covered things quite well. and there has been a track record in the last year of working together with all of the authorities having jurisdiction with the department of housing and supportive housing, to advance expeditious delivery of shelters while maintaining the care of life safety and permitting. so with that i'll vouch my support for the ordinance as well.

>> supervisor peskin: good to see you, ron. maybe i'll get my navigation star that i have been trying to get for three years. all right, members of the public who would like to testify on this item? i have a number of speaker cards. the first one i think is mary kate and i can't read it -- dee dee workman and sherry woolridge and nancy nielson.

>> the chamber and our partners strongly support the mayor touch effort to build new homeless shelters to help individuals and families get off the streets as quickly as possible. we are encouraged by the diversity of approaches that the mayor has been taking to address the shortage in different ways. creating alternative procedural procedures in expediting contracts and the appeals process. are creative -- they are creative solutions that will meet san francisco's needs sac to address the emergency shelter

crisis as quickly as we can. we urge you to support both of these items. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm with the lutheran social services and part of the human services network. we want to add our voices of support for the critical nature of both of these proposals. we deal with every day with people living on the street. we see the agony, we see the agony only in the people living there, but with the folks we have been working with who warehoused and now every day are reminded how vulnerable they are even in their current situation of returning. it is a critical need and we really support and appreciate your efforts in making this happen. >> thank you. after, i have a few more speaker cards. come on up.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. and executive director of the providence foundation that has operated shelters since 2,000. we currently operate three shelters and we are here to lend our support to the mayor's order to eliminate the crisis of homelessness. i'm sorry i did not fill out a card, but we were outside with all the fire gels. thank you so much. we urge you to support this effort. thanks. >> thank you. >> hello, supervisors. i'm here to speak in favour of the two proposed ordinances. the crisis on our streets i think is, in many ways, primarily one of a lack of shelter, there are lots of other cities that have similarly sized homeless populations in san francisco where the crisis is not as severe, and not as visible because they provide people with shelter. san francisco provides about between 0.3 and zero-point for

shelter beds per homeless person whereas a city like new york city, which has a unlearned number of homeless people per capita provides 1.1 or 1.2. anything that helps us produce more shelter beds and get more people off the street and inside where they can receive services is good and really, really a necessary step. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. my name is erica, i live in san francisco. i work for a nonprofit healthcare provider serving 30,000 californians and 10,000 very low income san franciscans annually through our primary care treatment and mental health services. more than half of clients and patients are experiencing homelessness. we support your support legislation to expedite siting and construction services of shelters throughout the city. as you know, our city has a fragmented system where each year hundreds of unstable he house people living with mental

health and addiction disorders are released from hospitals without follow-up. according to the 2017 performance audit of d.b.h., almost 40% of people discharged from they psychiatric emergency services where without follow-up services, even when they were homeless, living with dual mental health and substance to just -- addiction disorders. very often, we have no option but to do the same. that same year, we discharge 600 people from treatment into unstable and unsustainable living conditions, making it more difficult for people to maintain treatment gains or stay connected to ongoing services. there is a broad overlap between low income san franciscans with behavioural health needs and the nearly 7,000 people experiencing homelessness in the city. we appreciate the mayor and board of supervisors commitment to increase housing and save opportunities for people expensing homelessness in the city. in particular, beds for people coming out of residential treatment. we have had great success of this -- with this model as they are given help as an extension of services while accessing

treatment on an outpatient basis clients would be back on the streets without these beds. with these ordinances, it would drastically improve how we serve the people living or barely living on our streets, and that begins with access to housing. this helps us move towards a system that helps us offer predictable housing and healthcare including addiction and behavioural health services to approve the efficacy of care, otherwise work is done in vain. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> afternoon, supervisors. my name is sam, i'm the the executive director of mission housing -- we are a nonprofit affordable housing developer. end of our current 1600 units, 500 of them are for formerly homeless individuals, i'm here today to express our support for both measures. i think the proof is in the pudding. you have a service after service provider helping right bills and install services that are here

and they too supported. this is an opportunity for u.s. leaders of the city to take action and show that you want to lead us out of this crisis and i ask that you vote in favor of both measures. thank you. >> all right. are there any other members of the public for public comments -- comment? seeing none, colleagues, the matter is in our hands. if there is no objection, we will send these -- go ahead. >> real quick, i wanted to ask for the record, i know you talked about that this would last -- can we talk about the five years or 30% reduction, and then you also, you said there was something legislatively that the members of the board could do as well. could you clarify that one more time? >> item number 6, the abdomen and planning code ordinance does have a sunset date of five years or 30% reduction in homelessness

, whichever comes first until the end of the waiver. item number 5 focused on the building code, is a much shorter term legislation. it currently can be authorized up until january 1st, 2021. this ordinance also includes a provision by which any member of the board of supervisors could bring an ordinance and it would need to pass by a majority vote to essentially disallow the expedited welding procedures for any specific sight. so there is a veto power and the board's hands to not permit -- to require the shelter to go through the traditional birding permit processes. >> that is an item number 5. >> correct. >> i just wanted to clarify. and it says, doesn't really say 30% reduction, or it gives the number? >> it gives the number that represents the 30% reduction. >> so the number we have today is what? >> our point in time count from

january 2017 on any given night, we have 7,499 experiencing homelessness, and so we would base any reduction, or the measure of that reduction would be based on a subsequent count. >> i assume that is your 2017 counts because you still have not released your 2018 county. >> correct. we do not have the date from the 2019 count. >> still, it boggles my mind that it takes so long in san mateo county and they get it two days after the actual count. >> it does take a long time. we have traditionally always released that data in the late spring, early summer consistent with where many of our neighboring jurisdictions released their data. >> supervisor haney? >> thank you. i have a few questions. so the first is that there would be some removal of the

competitive bidding process, not just for shelters and navigation centers, but for all services that relate to homelessness. can you talk about what are some of the examples of that? i do imagine -- do you imagine that that part of it will account for the projects, or are you expecting that this is mostly more directly about shelters and navigation centers? >> that is a great question. for clarification purposes, the provisions for public works are limited to the construction of safe centers and navigation centers, and then the provisions for the department of homelessness and supportive housing are certainly for the contracts to operate those programs, but also extend to the contracts to operate other homeless services that might not be site-specific, rapidly, housing, for example, is an example of where we will grow investments, and the ability to move those resources quickly has

a direct impact on the length of time that people spend homeless, wanting to make sure that those type of contacts are also able to move quickly to be not just building the shelter, but also able to get folks into the housing that we also making available. in terms of the proportion, i'm not entirely sure. gg from the department of homelessness can probably better speak to that. >> thank you. i'm deputy director of admin and finance for the department of homelessness and supportive housing. as she was saying, most of our services are housing or ongoing housing support, but we have a variety of services we provide in addition to temporary shelter and permanent supportive housing , including the mobile and ancillary services that support both the shelter and the permanent supportive housing, for example, we have arrangements for meals at all of the navigation centers,

nonprofit run community, transportation, and our problem-solving grants and flexible subsidies because we want to really make sure that folks don't have to come to shelter or it may not require permanent supportive housing in order to get their services that they need. it is a package of programs to enable the department to respond to the crisis as quickly, expeditiously as probable -- possible. >> what is a safe centre or safe centre, which is referenced in here, it is something, as far as i understand, we don't have any of those yet, and yet we are expediting the approval process, but it is a pilot that we don't know what it is. >> sure.

it is basically taking the best practices that we've gathered from the navigation centers in terms of lower barriers to access, people could bring at the navigation centers, partners , their possessions, there is adequate storage, even their pet. it is trying to take that navigation center model which is nationally recognized and successful, and scale it into a more cost-effective, larger facility, so it is really a rebranding as well as an expansion of the model that's worked successfully, but trying to expand it to a larger number of beds per shelter, as well as get some efficiencies across the shelter in terms of cost, or navigation centers. they are relatively small, and the price point per bed is much higher than our traditional shelters. we want to get that price point down, but we don't want to sacrifice the services, the

enriched services, as well as the model that really helps folks that are resistant to coming into our shelters access that service. >> thank you. so basically it is a larger navigation center, but we haven't tried it yet. we are intending to try it, so just to clarify on that, and one of my concerns is that we've had this navigation center model that we believe has been successful, it seems partly because of the size of it and because of the level of services and intensive support in the type of communities that we have been able to build. will services be reduced in a sense that if it's cheaper, that means that there is less social workers per person, or less councilors per person because there's more people there, because he economy has suggested

to me it is maybe because there's less support to go around. is that not accurate? >> i would say that's not accurate. essentially, the navigation centers were piloted in or around 2015, it might have been our first navigation center. since then, especially with the last three we have opened, we have learned a lot, we've also been more innovative about how we want to deliver services. so the sacrifice is not going to be on the service in richmond, but it may be how we deliver the services. for example, we may not have the same ratio of dedicated case managers on site, but a more mobile team, especially around some of the health intensive or case management intensive work, so some of our navigation centers, now, for example, or up to 128 beds. the department, through

conversation with community providers really wants to limit these safe centers to about 250 beds, so we're not talking about a massive shelter. we are trying to scale it appropriately, and then the more innovative -- be more innovative about how we deliver benefits navigation, services navigation, case service management and other health services. >> can you say if this ordinance were to pass, how it would impact the seawall project, the one that we currently have proposed? >> these ordinances are critical to opening this in a timely fashion both on the construction side and on the contracting side we are able to move that project along at the pace at which the community needs, certainly we

know we have folks in that neighborhood our plan for that site relies on many of the provisions on many of the audiences to ensure that we are able to open it in a timely fashion. i don't think it should have a negative impact at all in terms of the program design, but we are iterating and building each time with each new sites that we open and learning from the time before. i think we have a great foundation. h.s.h. has a great foundation of the program model that they will be moving forward, but this will allow us to do robust community process and the contracting to open the facility and a streamlined way that could otherwise take much longer, many more months would be added. >> what is the process that will be removed from that if we pass this, other than the bidding? >> there is a contracting side, then on the building code side,

essentially what would happen is that the department would enter into an m.o.u. for m.o.u. and then the inspection processes as well. we would save time on the building permit component and go directly to the roundtable review signoff, inspection, sign-up process. we're in the process of negotiating the m.o.u. between the departments that outlines exactly how each step will take in the process for the sign offs to be completed. >> okay. there's a piece of this where you changed the section around navigation centers. there's a description of what he navigation center is in the time limit on it and such which has taken out completely and replaced with a line about opening up navigation centers can you say -- i'm concerned that we have a model of navigation centers that is working, that has worked and

then we have a future model that we haven't tried yet and then we are wiping the table here of some of the elements of the navigation center that has worked before we tried the new model. >> thank you for the question. there is a number of reasons for this change. and first we have request -- met the requirement of the 2016 ordinance to open six navigation centers. we currently have those navigation centers up and running, additionally we have learned that my having such a short term use, the component of the navigation centers that this ordinance changes is just the two year provision, and we have learned that setting up and taking down navigation centers is incredibly costly, and we want to save resources on the construction and take down and be able to operate programs for longer while we continue to need the beds. two years is far -- two years is too short of a time to meet the

need of the community. we want to be able to operate these navigation centers when they are on sights that will allow a longer term use. we want to be able to operate them longer. knowing that all sites are different and sometimes we will be in temporary facilities, we will have to work with that, but this will give the city more flexibility to use a site for a longer period of time and save on those construction costs. >> okay. i have expressed this before to you all around this and i know the chair brought this up in terms of his desire to see navigation center in his district, and i know others would like one as well, i think that i would like some language added to the findings portion of this that makes that commitment and makes it clear that we have a goal to expand to other supervisor districts and two neighborhoods where we currently

don't have navigation centers or safe centers. but i think that's really important. i don't think that will be a major change to this, but it is something that i would like to add for it comes forward to the full board. >> so do you have language suggestions, or would you like to draft that language in the intervening week between now when he gets to the board? >> i would like to draft it. i have language here which it says that the city plans to expand upon the successful model this would be in section d. pag.

>> that is the recital in regards to the 2016 action by the board. >> yes. at the end of that, at the end of section d., the city plans to expand upon the successful model of shelter and service delivery with greater geographic diversity across the majority of supervisorial districts. >> i would take that as an amendment right now. it sounds like you have articulated it. is that okay with you? okay. without objection, we will take that amendment as written into the record, and you will provide that to the clerk. >> thank you. >> a couple questions, emily, hot teams, are they under dh or are they under d.p.h.? >> it is under h.s.h. >> got it. thank you for that.

colleagues, if there is no objection, we will take the items, one amended, one not, and send them to the full board with a positive recommendation and we will do that without objection. we are adjourned.

>> good evening. i'm like to welcome everyone to the meeting and turn off your electronic deef electronic devices and please stand nor pledge of aleth -- for the pledge of allegiance. good evening, president her -- hirsh i'd like to take roll call. [roll call]