have stable housing. that's part of the problem. how are you going to provide services that's in the millions of dollars and when it comes time to treat the patient, you can't find them because they're homeless? you're going about it tail end ass backwards. you know where they are, that way, they get their homeless and psychological services for the same time. you've been doing this 21 years. you've got 8,000 homeless -- >> clerk: thank you. next speaker. >> supervisor fewer: thank you, mr. brigwright, and that was a powerful presentation you gave to us yesterday. seeing no further public comment, public comment is closed. >> supervisor haney: may i -- >> supervisor fewer: yes. >> supervisor haney: so in terms of these additional

questions, is it normal for ucsf or the person that's getting their contract to not be here? >> chair fewer: yes. >> supervisor haney: so in terms of getting our questions answered, this seems to be a fairly large and long contract. what are the -- >> chair fewer: so we have the option to continue this hearing and have miss rugals bring the information to us or we can have a hearing on this to get down to the nitty-gritty, because in this committee, we also just deal with the finance of it. so if we wanted to go deeper, the efficacy, how many people do step down, how many people are enroled in these programs, i think that could be held at another committee hearing. is that -- supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: i think as miss rugals suggested,

a conversation about data measurement and outcomes and metrics and how the new director is thinking about approaching that with contracts across d.p.h.s portfolio makes a lot of sense. i would be uncomfortable holding this particular contract hostage to that conversation. i think they do important work. there's no reason to doubt that there's a problem with this particular contract, and i think that we should move this forward and get it done, particularly as we are about to head into a month of nonstop budget meetings related to our actual budget, so i think that we should move this contract forward? but i'm happy to work with -- well, anybody who wants to can call for a hearing which would probably happen in july or after the break -- this is a big issue of, you know, how d.p.h. measures outcomes and thinks about measuring out

comes, but i don't think this contract is particularly the right way to have that conversation. >> chair fewer: yeah. so i understand the level of being uncomfortable about this because it is such a large contract also, but also, supervisor mandelman, it should be told, we don't know whether or not the efficacy which is what i think supervisor haney is trying to get at, the measurements get at. but also, i want to say, when departments come before us, we had not requested that information in advance. so miss rugals, if you're asking for a contract for almost $50 million, we would expect an attached proposal. that's difference than miss

rugals, what is that -- that takes on previous sort of requests for funding if we wanted to attach this to it and ask the departments to attach efficacy information and impact information, then that is our prerogative to do so in the future. but in the meantime, i think this warrants a hearing of some deeper discussion about this. >> supervisor haney: yeah. is there -- in terms of the timing of this, is this something that if we didn't approve it now -- because it seems like some of the questions that we have, some of the metrics, improvements, oversight, and all of that, there could be some value to having that conversation or that hearing before we approve a many-years contract that oversees basically all of our primary provider of case management? >> supervisor mandelman: i guess -- if i could jump in, i doubt it would be useful to

have that before moving forward with this. this is a $10 million addition to the contract. it is not a huge amount by the standards of this committee, and i think -- so i think that on tuesday, one of us, somebody should request this hearing, but i don't think it should be tied to this particular contract. >> chair fewer: i think that many times i ask for information at this committee, and then, i ask for departments to follow up, and then, i approve these large payments -- or make a motion to approve them is that the departments never get back to me with the information. so once the contract's approve, it's like i don't have to respond anymore. so just to let you know, supervisor haney, that this is sort of the ongoing culture, i think, is that once we do fund it, that we never hear a response. if we care so much to have a

response, i would take the suggestion of supervisor manned will han that we can call a hearing on it where we -- hearing on it where we can dive deeper. and it's not just this contract, it's other contracts, too, as d.p.h. is one of our larger departments that works by contract. >> supervisor mandelman: and i would look forward to working with you, supervisor haney. >> chair fewer: okay. well, let's -- >> supervisor haney: well, i appreciate that. and i do think we should call a hearing. if it's okay, i'm still not going to vote for this contract just because i'm uncomfortable, considering how important this is, and how little i feel like i know about what they're actually doing. >> chair fewer: sure. >> supervisor haney: but i respect the wishes of the committee on this, if we could take a vote on that and then call a hearing. >> supervisor mandelman: i'll

move we forward it with a positive recommendation to the full board. >> chair fewer: okay. call the vote. >> clerk: chair fewer, there are two ayes and one in the dissent. >> chair fewer: mr. clerk, can you please read item number 6.

>> chair fewer: and miss rugals, we have you back. >> yes. so michelle rugals from the d.p.h. office. so this is a contract that we've had for many years. it's a contract providing behavioral health services to extend the contract. we -- as you will notice, there are a lot of different programs that they do that are special which fell under groupings of different solicitations. the behavioral health section essentially has completed an enormous round of solicitations, some of which are joint with other city departments, such as the

intensive services and early childhood mental health. so they provide a range of services with a strong focus on services to youth, but also adult outpatient. the services are listed on, well, table 1 on page 14 gives you all the r.f.p.s, but it gives you all of the services, i'm going to invite allison who is the program services manager to come up, because i imagine you'll have service questions, and she can speak in great depth about the program utilization review and quality committee perk, which is one way that there is assessments and also the change in child and adolescent needs. turn it over to allison. >> hi.

i'm with the child, youth, and family division. happy to answer any questions. >> supervisor mandelman: well, maybe the same question of, you know, how do we think about performance metrics under this contract? >> well, in children, youth, and families, something called the cans, the child adolescent needs assessment is used, and it helps us identify what are the actual problem areas that we want to work on with child and family. and then, six months into that, we look at it again to see what kind of progress. and then, in a year, we look at it, as well, so we can monitor the progress. >> chair fewer: so actually, supervisor haney, i think this contract -- and as you see on page 14 of the b.l.a. report is that they serve a lot of -- in a lot of different areas, so

this is also, i think, something -- that you may also include that in the hearing that you would ask some of the same questions that you were asking in item number 1 around this, too. >> supervisor haney: and i imagine you heard that conversation. and i would ask my colleagues to -- again, that, you know, if we could fold that into a deeper conversation or a hearing, what the goals are, what the objectives are. maybe this is something that's collected another way, but it would help me understand on improving the needs of case

management. >> okay. does this mean that you're going to adjourn the questions for this meeting or is there stuff you would like to ask me today? >> chair fewer: well, i think the supervisors are going to be calling for a hearing on this. they may be asking for more information than you'll be able to provide today. as you've heard, the questions that they'll ask is questions around efficacy, the number of people that are served, the impact. and i know that this particular actually -- this contract actually covers a lot of different things that you're unable to answer today because it isn't your particular area of service. so supervisor haney, i think your question was should we continue this questioning until there's a hearing? >> supervisor haney: right. i mean, is there anything that you have to share on that now in terms of -- >> well, i can give you some

description of the programs and how we evaluate them, if that's helpful for today or helpful to information how you want to go forward? so the -- in the program, there is a number of family and childhood programs. there's intensive services, clinical supervision which is also in partnership with the department of child, youth, and family, and the juvenile probation department. there's something called sameas, and we continued that funding when the grant expired, and that's a program that specifically services unaccompanied minors who are brought here and provide what we call intensive wrap

aroundcaaround case services, and there's another program that's called safe passages which helps to transport gang members from one area of the city to another if they feel unsafe. in terms of evaluating those programs, i think michelle rugals spoke about our b.l.s. reports that came out, and what goes into that is the measuring of the cans. so when a child first comes in, there is a child assessment and needs assessment that is done. and then, six months later, it's looked at to see how much improvement, and a year later to see how much improvement. and as a monitor, you can go on-line and see the scores. now the one thing to keep in

mind is everything is fluid. so while someone's cans scores may look like they're not getting better, there's a lot of external reasons for that. when a person comes in for treatment, you can see the scores go down because they're dealing with traumas because the function does become inhabited by that. but then, you know, they would tend to go up after that. there's also so many socioeconomic factors that go into that. treatment is treatment, but i have to say i agree with my friend here. when you don't have housing and clothing and food, that's going to impact the treatment, as well. so we're happy to come back. that's basically the overview i can give you today. i don't have in front of me the numbers on that or the percentages how well they did? different things are measures in terms of how many hospitalizations came out of a program, how many kids needed to be seen in our crisis stablization unit.

and also for the juvenile justice involved programs, what the recidivism rate was. >> chair fewer: can i ask you whether any of your figures include client evaluation? you survey, and you actually include it as part of your personal measure? >> yeah. once, i think it's annually, there's a survey for clients to rate their care. >> chair fewer: so annually, you would have a client fill out a form of their level of -- i would say evaluate the program and the services that they've been getting. >> yes. >> supervisor fewer: so what about people that you've been working with less than a year? you don't do it -- what i'm hearing from you, and correct me if i am wrong, is you're doing an annual evaluation. so once a year, you're asking the clients how the services

are actually serving you, is that correct? >> yet. >> chair fewer: and then, what about if you have clients that you're working for for six months or so? you don't get an evaluation from them or do you get an evaluation from people exiting your program? >> some of programs do have exit interview? i couldn't give you that information right now. >> chair fewer: but you don't do an across the board survey of clients that are exiting, am i correct about that? >> i don't think we do. we have a griefance structure setup, where if someone has a grievance about their care, that there are a system setup to address that. >> chair fewer: supervisor haney, i think that's a question to ask, how many

clients have complaints and how many submit grievances. >> supervisor haney: i think there are things that we'd like to hear about in terms of case management, and ratios and case management, and all that would be something for me to apply to this contract. >> chair fewer: thank you. let's pivot to the b.l.a., please. >> the board is being asked to approve an extension of an existing contract through 2025. we summarized the programs that are covered under this project contract and how they were selected on page 14 of our report. the contract now is for two years, through 2020, for less than $10 million. it would be increasing by almost $19 million to close to $29 million under the approval process. and i think we also point out that not all of the programs that are currently covered by the program would continue by

the 2025 contract term, and we do summarize that on page 17 of our report. this is a contract that's funded by federal, state, and local moneys, and we recommend approval. >> chair fewer: okay. let's open this up for public comment. any members of the public? hello, mr. wright. >> okay. before i get started, i'm going to start off answering the question asked by the honorable co-worker stefani. she asked right here, tell us your wish list, as big as it is, tell us the supervisor -- >> clerk: mr. wright, please get on the mic so we can hear you. thank you. >> she asked, tell us, where do

we go? what is -- where do we invest our dollars? how do we stop putting someone back into the streets? okay. now, my demonstration further is compounded by a professional nurse practitioner who says it very clearly, study after study shows that programs that provide long-term stable housing with additional services pertaining to mental health and surprised services programming improves the customer's mentally ill homeless patients. now in order to do that, i demonstrated well over several times that you can get a public housing complex for $56 million, understand me, and it's a three-story building that houses 144 people. you can put the homeless people in these types of properties at a bargain rate that's cheaper

than each and every developer that builds a unit in san francisco. this is a nine-story apartment complex. you built a 27-story apartment complex, you take these homeless people off the street, you can perform the services that you're offering to provide for the people that you want to help. the people that got mental disabilities, drug addiction problems, and our senior citizens can be located on the floors closest to the ground in the event there's an emergency and is easy to access out of the building to emergency services. the remainder of the floors -- >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> chair fewer: thank you, mr. wright. any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is now closed. so colleagues, should we make a

motion on this? supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: i would move that we forward this to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> chair fewer: can we take this without objection? >> clerk: without objection? thank you very much. >> chair fewer: so mr. clerk, can you please call items 2 and 3 together. [agenda item read] [agenda item read].

>> chair fewer: okay. colleagues, i will make a motion to table this item at the call of the chair, and before that, i will call for public comment on items 2 and 3. any members of the public like to comment -- >> supervisor mandelman: continue to the call of the chair. >> chair fewer: continue to the call of the chair. thank you. oh, i'm sorry. i think i'm making a motion to table this. yeah, public comment. thank you very much. any members of the public like to comment on item 2 and 3? none? okay. public comment is now closed. i'll make a motion to table this item. >> clerk: so it's now to table -- >> chair fewer: table this item. have you very much. >> clerk: and you're taking it

without objection? >> chair fewer: without objection? groovy. thank you very much. mr. clerk, can you call items 3 and 4 together. [agenda item read] [agenda item read]

[agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: thank you very much, mr. clerk. and we have florence -- florence, is your last name pronounced quan? [inaudible] >> chair fewer: great. florence quan from the office of contract administration. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is florence quan with the office of contract administration, and i'm going to be presenting the recommendation for the official and outreach advertising services. part of what i'm going to be presenting today is a little bit about the background, the minimum requirements prudent to

administrative code 2.81 through 2.814, the official advertising bidding and recommendation and the advertising bid evaluation and recommendation. now, to give you -- some of you may know about the background for the official and outreach advertising. in 1994, voters passed proposition j mandating the office of contract administration, o.c.a., to bid out contract services annually per the administrative code, thus making the city require to publicly post notices of government businesses in newspapers that are locally published and printed. every year, o.c.a. conduct does the bids and presents the award recommendations based on the administrative code mandated evaluation guidelines? o.c.a. processes the bidding and contracts on behalf of the clerk of the board. then, the board of supervisors makes the official awards by

designating contracts for the official and outreach advertising. so the minimum requirements are actually all outlined in administrative code 2.81 through 2.814? for the official newspaper, the newspaper has to be printed in san francisco on three or more days in a calendar week and have a circulate of at least 50,000 copies per calendar week. for the outreach newspapers, the newspapers must be printed in san francisco on one or more days in a calendar week and circulate primarily in one of the follow communities. the lesbian gay, transgender, african american, or chinese. for the official advertising bid evaluation, we received two bids. one from the s.f. examiner, and

one from the s.f. chronicle. so you can see that all of this is actually outlined in the administrative code at the points and how we evaluate the point system. historically, the s.f. chronicle has never made it to our recommendations because historically, they have printed outside of san francisco. so for our recommendation, we are recommending san francisco examiner, and they have had the highest evaluation score along with being the lowest bid price and is the only responsive bidder meeting all qualifications set forth in the administrative code. o.c.a.s recommendation is based on the highest bidder who met all the recommendations set in the code, and for this fiscal year, 2019 through 2020, we are asking for $400,000 based on

current usage. moving on to the outreach advertising bid evaluation, we received eight bids. all received on time this year, and so it's also outlined the evaluation in the administrative code of the point system. the only newspaper we couldn't recommend at this time is sing tao, because again they're historically printed outside of san francisco, not meeting the minimum qualifications. so for o.c.a.s recommendation for the outreach advertising, we are recommending small business exchange, san francisco bayview, el reportero, bayview reporter, marina times, and the potrero view. for this contract, we are asking for fiscal year 2019 through 2020, for $40,000 based

on current usage. thank you. >> chair fewer: thank you very much, and there is no b.l.a. report on this. >> no. >> chair fewer: no. so on item number 5, i'd like to make an amendment, actually, and you have the amendment in front of you to -- we need to ensure the outreach to the chinese speaking community, so i'd like to amend to add sing tao and world journal in front of you. you already have your amendments in front of you. let's open this up for public comment. let's have members of the public comment on our print media. >> our newspapers is real important to me. as a person that has an unblinking eye on discriminatory practices, this is one of the materials i used for my presentations to demonstrate my opinion

accordingly. this newspaper pertaining to mental health, it says right here very clearly that nearly $400,000 a year is spent on mental health services for people that have mental stress disabilities on people in san francisco, and still, we're doing the same thing over and over and not making any progress. by the same progress, this article shows that existing beds for crisis people -- you've only got 183 for acute indigent bed. you've only got 132. for residential substance abuse, 94. for detox and appetite beds, you've got 174. this is why you've got to have housing in a location where they're paying 30% of their income for rent, and you can

provide services for in-home care and the mental health and detox services that they have and to deal with the mental health disability that they have. it just goes with my demonstration. this nurse practitioner, i repeat that study after study shows that programs that provide long-term stable housing with additional mental and medical support services improve performances of mentally ill homeless patients by having patients on the street and you're running around talking to them and making an appointment to meet them out in the homeless area where you're giving them advice and services, it's counter productive. >> chair fewer: thank you, mr. wright. any other public comment? >> hello, supervisors.

my name is jay curran. i'm with the san francisco examiner. i appreciate you giving me a moment here. san francisco examiner is the highest circulated in san francisco city and county. it's the only newspaper printed and published locally. our commitment to printing locally means 69 jobs, and millions of tax dollars. we pride ourselves on being the heartbeat of the community. our editorial team focuses on coverage for the city and county of san francisco. it's important and relevant to the residents of san francisco. as a free newspaper publication, both home delivered and available in 830 rack locations in san francisco, it reaches deep into our cities. our readers get tremendous access to local san francisco businesses through our advertising as well as local community events that we

sponsor. even with the exponential increases in news print, we have still not raised our advertising rates for the city and county of san francisco. we are committed to continuing the same publication schedule for the city and county of san francisco. we provide flexible deadlines for the clerks of the board and other departments. thank you very much and if you have any questions, i'd be more than happy to answer them. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. thank you for being the heartbeat of the community. any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is now closed. i'd like to make an amendment to include the sing tao daily and world journal publication of san francisco. i'd like to make a positive recommendation to 4 and 5 as amended. we can take that without objection. thank you very much. i forgot to make a motion to excuse supervisor stefani.

if i can take that -- >> clerk: your intention is to excuse her from all the previous votes up to this point? >> chair fewer: yes. thank you very much. >> clerk: would we have to rescind the votes for each of those? previously she's listed in each of the previous votes as absent. >> chair fewer: so do i need to make a motion to excuse her? >> clerk: if you want to list her as excused if absent? >> chair fewer: no, absent is fine. i think she'll be joining us shortly. i think we're on item number 7. >> clerk: that's correct. >> chair fewer: thank you please call item 7. [agenda item read].

>> chair fewer: thank you very much. so we have mr. dan wade, director of water capital projects for sfpuc. >> good morning, supervisors. >> chair fewer: good morning. >> thank you for the opportunity to be here to present the mountain tunnel improvement management services. it's contract number pro-0096 with aecom technical services. may i have the slides, please. so the mountain tunnel is a 19-mile long tunnel that transmits water from hetch hetchy reservoir within yosemite national park, part of the system that transmits the water 167 miles across the

state to 2.7 million users in san francisco and the bay area. this map shows the location of the tunnel circled in yellow, and again, it's a 19-mile long tunnel that takes water from early intake after the canyon power tunnel to priest reservoir prior to down through the valley. mountain tunnel was constructed in 1917 to -25, and it's been in service since that time. it transports water from early use to priest reservoir. there's about 12.5 miles that was lined with concrete lining

that was installed when the original tunnel was constructed. over time, deterioration in the lining has been noted. there was an inspection in 2012 that caused significant concern, and so since that time, we have been planning additional inspections, which we've done in 2017. we did two contracts at that time. one was to do urgent repairs on the tunnel in preparation of -- we did a full inspection of the tunnel, and we also did some urgent repairs on the most significant deterioration in the tunnel. we did another phase two of those urgent repairs in 2018 and 2019. so as part of that inspection, we were able to approve the mountain tunnel improvements project, which is a project to improve the tunnel and ensure operation for the next 100

years to provide reliable performance standards and provide water to the san francisco bay area. the base bid is estimated at about $140 million. that's not including construction contingency. the reason the construction term is so long is it has to be done during outage periods so we can continue to supply water to the customers. this is a picture of the tunnel during the 2017 inspection when the tunnel was drained, and you can see repairs being made to the lining. the scope of this particular agreement is to provide construction management services for the seven-year construction contract, and the services are listed here. i won't read three all of these, but if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them. our request is to authorize the

sfpuc to execute contract 96 with aecom construction with a not to exceed contract value of $24.5 million and a not to exceed period of eight year. i'd be happy to answer any questions. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. so i think there is a b.l.a. report on this. >> yes. the board of supervisors is being asked to approve a seven year contract -- actually an eight-year contract between p.u.c. and aecom for $24.5 million. this is for project services for the mountain tunnel project which was been well described. aecom was selected through an r.f.p. process. we summarized it in our report. the total amount is for $24.5 contract. $23.5 million is for actual labor charges, which we show in our report, and we are

recommending approval. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. and i just have a question. the total project amount is 231,918,000, so you're asking us today for an allocation of that money to be put towards the first phase -- is this the first request that we've had out of this project budget? >> no. so as part of the capital improvement program that this project is a part of, the sfpucs capital plan for the water enterprise and the power enterprise, this project has been approved as part of that plan in terms of the allocation of funding. this contract is a portion of that funding to -- to authorize the instruction management services. now the construction contract itself would not be authorized or approved by the sfpuc until the ceqa process is complete, so there'll be another

opportunity for discretionary action at that time. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. are there any members of the public that would like to comment on item number 7? seeing none, public comment is now closed. i'd like to make a recommendation to move this forward with a positive recommendation to the board. take that without objection. thank you very much. please note that supervisor stefani has joined us. >> clerk: that's right. >> chair fewer: and mr. clerk, can you please call item number 8. [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. i believe we have carolyn

mccormick from the mayor's office of housing and community development. >> hi. i put folders in the inbox right there. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. >> all right. good morning, supervisors. my name is carolyn mccormick with the mayor's office of housing and community development, and i work on our small sites program. and today, i am requesting your approval of a not to exceed loan amount for six small sites projects for a loan amount not to exceed $48,656,000. your approval is necessary on

these projects because the loan term on the loans is 40 years. as background on our small sites program, we -- since we launched our program in 2014, our portfolio has grown to 29 buildings, 211 residential units, and 13 commercial spaces, and we currently have 18 buildings, 164 units, and 20 commercial spaces in our pipeline. the core of our program continues to focus on acquisition and rehabilitation of five to 25-unit buildings and s.r.o.s, and we facilitation this by acquiring loans to rehabilitate the

building. so a little bit about who we serve with our program. the target a.m.i. for small sites is 80% building wide average while also allowing an individual household to go to 120%, so that's sort of the max program cap, but we require the building to maintain an 80% average? you'll note from this graph that 75% of the households in small sites buildings are below 80% a.m.i. average. our average is 50% a.m.i. we ensure these community assets remain affordable by recording a deed restriction with a term of no less than 75 years. they retain ownership by the sponsor, but we record that deed restriction on it. all six of these will be leveraging the seismic loan program as senior financing.

the past program will enhance mohcd's ongoing preservation work under the small sites program. this resolution is also approving use of past funds. by replacing the more expensive conventional debt with low cost long-term senior path financing, the city will significantly reduce borrowing costs and the need for other public resources such as f.f.p. i'll provide a little bit of background on the six projects that this resolution addresses? between june and august of this year, mohcd expects to close on

transactions with c.c.cdc and a for a total of 69 units and 12 commercial spaces. you can see the locations of those buildings as well as the number of units in this map. the buildings have already been acquired by meta and ccdc using bridge financing so that they could move quickly on the transactions in a competitive market like s.f.? and now mohcg is coming in to provide the permanent financing on these projects and also the deed restriction. the population serves in these buildings include seniors, low to moderate income households, monolingual households, and school aged children. the b.m.i. is between 40% and 45% a.m.i. so we have a lot of projects,

and i'm not going to run through a deep dive of every single one, but just a few examples, this is 421 green. it's currently occupied by long-standing monolingual multigenerational households, and mohcd has addressed tenant safety as well as quality of life improvements. you can see the before and after. in addition, they are constructing an accessory dwelling unit on the ground floor of the building, so there are increasing the supply of affordable housing. we'll have one extra unit here. and then, a second example -- i'll do a little bit more of a deep dive on. got 4830 mission street. meta is the sponsor. district 11, it's 21 units and

six commercial spaces, and this building was built in 1990, so it wasn't subject to rent control, so we're really proud that we were able to put a permanent deed restriction on this one and preserve it for low to moderate income households in the future. and then i'll just run through quickly. you've got 1201 paul, 17 units, one commercial. 3280 17th street. 1411 florida street, six units plus one a.d.u. being added, as well. and then, 65 woodward, six residential units in d-9, also meta. so with that, i recommend your approval of the resolution so that we can -- so mohcd can provide the permanent financing necessary to preserve these

buildings as affordable housing, and i'm happy to answer your questions, as are my colleagues. thank you. >> the board of supervisors is being asked to approve loans up to 40 years and up to $48.6 million for the six properties that were described by the representatives from the mayor's office. we show on page 28, table 2 of our report, we show the six properties in the loan amounts. so the loan is for about $48.4 million. our understanding is this includes a 10% contingency in case there are unforeseen site conditions that would require a greater loan amount. the other -- on page -- table 3, page 30 of our report, we do

show the per unit cost of each of these projects that would be funded, and because some of these projects -- actually, the funding amount is over what was advertised in the notice of funding availability and over sort of the terms of -- for each type of loan, we are considering this to be a possible matter for the board of supervisors. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. let's open this up for public comment. any members of the public like to comment on this item? hello, mr. wright. >> you know, this is another example of how jacked -- two of you coming up here and talking about affordable housing. affordable for who? people in the same bracket as you? s.f. viewer, please. i'm real tired of this. you claim affordable housing, and you set the lowest

requirement at the housing scale. that's $68,500 a year in order to be able to move into that apartment complex. so everybody's income that's below that's below $68,950 a year is not included in the opportunity coming out of the mayor's office of housing. you're so deeply involved in your god damn discrimination, you discriminate against people with your own skin color because they're not the in the same income. i can't get you under skin color, but i can get you on discrimination for income.

every housing that comes out of the mayor's office by making it too hard for most people to get it. $103,450 in order to be a tenant in the building. you've got information from h.u.d., cite that says that every apartment is -- 15% of every complex is supposed to be for low-income or very low-income people, and you don't include that -- >> chair fewer: thank you, mr. wright. any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is now closed. this is a policy matter, and i checked, and i see no representation here from those supervisors where they're in their district, i move to continue this item -- oh, that's not how it works, i

think. >> supervisor mandelman: coming in hot. >> chair fewer: the comp exceeds the original amount by $4.2 million, but not the original cost. so can there be a motion, please? >> supervisor mandelman: i move that we forward this to the full board with a positive recommendation with the unanimous sense of all three of us that we would love to see some of these projects in our districts. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. we can take that without objection. thank you very much, mr. clerk. mr. clerk, can you read agenda item number 9, please. [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: thank you very

much. i think we have colleen del rosario with the mayor's office of housing and community development. >> i am here today to request the authorization of expenditures of the soma community stablization fund dollars in the amount of $919,954 for services that address the destablization of residents for fiscal year 2019 through 2020. the c.a.c. unanimously approved the list of funding recommendations that you see before you in may. if approved, there would be a remaining balance of about

$729,000. on behalf of mohcd, i respectfully request you approve the resolution before you, authorizing $919,954 in soma community stablization funds, and if you have any questions about our projects or about our history, i'm happy to answer those, as well. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. could we have a b.l.a. report. >> the board of supervisors is being asked to approve the funding allocation for one year, $900,000 for the soma community stablization fund. the r.f.p. process and who bid and what their scores were are shown on page 34 and 35 of our report. the actual selected funding allocation for fiscal year 19-20 is shown on page 35 and 36 of our report. we recommend approval. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. let's open this up for public comment. are there any members of the

public who would like to comment on item number 9? >> this, too, is a further demonstration, and how come there is no type of stablization to provide housing for the 8,011 people that are homeless out on the street with a combination of both mental and physical disabilities? you can't pain and claim the first thing that you're going to help the homeless when you're running for office? to answer supervisor stefani's question, what are we going to do? i showed you a project that houses 22,871 people. building trades will be working on this. when the census bureau goes out

and does their count for homeless, there won't be any homeless in san francisco. but you keep doing the same thing. every stablization bond, every housing bond is only for homeless. it took me years to stop you from giving hundreds of millions of dollars to twitter. they don't need no god damn break. the homeless people out on the street that i'm speaking out for all the time and you claim that you want to help, that's who i'm speaking out for. when are you going to stop this? you've got instructions at that mission rock that say 15% of that 1,500 apartment units is supposed to be for very low and low-income bracket people. 15% of 1,500 is 225, but yet,

when it comes time to put in application, you make the lowest income about 45,000 $45 $55,000, and you make it a hispanic female, and you know she can't pay it. >> chair fewer: thank you, mr. wright. any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is now closed. i make a motion to move this to the full board with a positive recommendation. mr. clerk, is there any further business before us today? >> clerk: there is no further business. >> chair fewer: yea. meeting adjourned.

>> supervisor mar: good morning. the meeting will come to order. i'm supervisor mar, the chairman of this committee, and i'm joined by supervisor brown and supervisor peskin. thank you to