grateful to those heroes. next slide, please. we presented -- i admit, i have lost track of time, but at your most recent meeting, we presented an original plan for rehousing, and what i intend to do today is provide updates on our revised plan, which we are really enthusiastic about and then move to what the urgent spending plan is in front of prop c today and next week, and i know that you will also be hearing from your community liaisons. i also want to reiterate that the commitment around rehousing is the community is not the street. we believe that housing is health care, but housing is not hotel rooms. earlier, we heard that they want to keep them open forever. but they do not have tenants'

rights there, and a better solution is long-term. i believe it's better from a public transparency perspective that we explain that these are shelter and not housing. while they are funding by a fund that may stay longer, given a change in washington, we hope that it will stay, but we know it will not stay probably even to the end of the pandemic, so we want to begin to exit people to stability, and we'll talk a little bit more about what that means. since thanksgiving week and up to the holiday, thank you to the many, many staff and h.s.h. partners. turkey was missed, cranberry was missed by many this year to form this updated proposal, and i really deeply appreciate the candor that provider partners brought and the collaborative

approach. in november through early december, we took an intensive outreach, and you can see those listed here, in order to collect better input. the week of november 30, h.s.h. provided preliminary briefings on the updated proposal with some of those stakeholders and again collected input. i do want to emphasize that stakeholder input on these topics does not mean that everybody agrees, but i believe from talking to people, we have a lot more alignment on this updated housing approach than we did with the original approach, but i want to make sure that it's clear that i'm not suggesting that groups have put a stamp of approval on this plan, but i'm grateful for their efforts.

next slide, please. thank you. thank you. so i want to very briefly highlight some of the early learnings from input sessions and from data and from our own learnings that have gone into this updates approach and spend most of the time going into the fiscal approach for prop c. so in developing the housing model, we have learned from -- we have disaster consultants luckily from hud t.a. because the housing is so significant and san francisco has more noncongregate housing than any other community. we are building our own. we are truly innovating. we also know from hud that they

allow us and are encouraging us to pivot to community standards during the pandemic, so that means that more guests in s.i.p. hotels will be prioritized for housing resources as they are covid vulnerable. we are also learning that diversion nationally, even communities that have taken up this short-term measure as a stable housing exit is less successful and less robust during a pandemic because it often relies on people moving in with other individuals, so we will be proposing a more robust, a one-year intervention. we know we need to improve communications to hotel operators, and we know this from focused groups with guests, that providers have a lot of information, so they're able to take what we're sharing and relay it effectively, and

other sites, they know very little, so that's beholden on our providers and workers to get the information that they need. we are working with our hud technical assistance providers to reduce barriers and speed up housing. a lack of data on guests made it difficult to implement this rehousing intervention. ocoh funding would ensure that we have the right interventions at the right time. next slide, please. one final slide on early learnings. just really wanting to continue to highlight for everyone in

this group and everyone in community which i think is a very obvious fact, but the way that it plays out is not always obvious, there's no national templates on re-hughesing. we're working with hud to develop our own template. the housing fair approach could be caused, which is a very focused kind of person-intensive approach -- could be paused because of the pandemic, and mark shift could change. as 2020 taught us, all the things that we never imagined are possible to come true. next slide, please. thank you, laura. so here's the upshot. the proposed timeline in the new approach extends phase one

timelines. this has been made possible by the $10 million in additional funding from the state, and so we are able to extend from december the phase 1 through march, and you'll note here if you look at the color coding that in november through january, we're focusing housing, and in february through march, consolidating hotels, and those still waiting for their housing exits either because they're being developed or because they're a good match would be moved before they're ultimately housed. and this allows to be able to move people forward if there was housing available and they were actively engaged in their exit plan, and it notes some added months needed by the city to deactivate the site. earlier, i preferenced pandemic priority -- referenced pandemic

prioritization. you know that we call the coordinated entry most vulnerable folks housing referral status, and the plan appropriates that people insights who are housing referral status would maintain that, and these would be the individuals who would have access to adult permanent supportive housing, including scaddered side, state senior supportive housing. based on our early much higher assessment data, we're up over 90% at phase one, which is [inaudible] we are extrapolating across the full assessment of care, increasing each day, that approximately 40% of people in s.i.p. hotels will be housing referral status. we feel reasonably competent about that at this point. there isn't a lot of reason to believe that as coordinated

assessment entries go up that this would change dramatically, but i do want to note that these are estimates as the data continues to improve. the new cases here are b and c, and we're particularly excited about these. the pandemic prioritization, as we know, people that are older are particularly nuvulnerable this virus. the pandemic prioritization c would be for people who are younger than 60 who would be -- who might be able to gain independence after a two-year rapid rehousing subsidy and significant workforce and case management approach as well as t.a.y. family rehousing and rapid rehousing which we are

recommending in further investment for this. so these are covid vulnerable individuals who are younger than 60, and so acknowledges that people over 60 are going to have a more difficult time increasing their income, and really, that many people in our system of care are seeking the kind of independence from a medium term subsidy. we want to make sure that we're reserving the permanent subsidies for people elsewhere, still on the streets or in the rest of the homelessness response system. there are a portion of people in the hotels who aren't covid vulnerable or unable to produce that documentation. this would allow them to work with the department of public

health or their health care provider to move from category d to c, which is why we've estimated a 10% in category c and 12% in d. next slide, please. this slide talks about the updated proposal includes clear definitions of housing resources and the projected need of each to rehouse the s.i.p. hotels, and so this speaks to permanent supportive housing and immediate housing

subsidies at the medium term, and what is funded and what requires funding expansion. through the pandemic prioritization, again, those who are seniors who are over 60 who are not housing referral status will be eligible for the statered site permanent supportive housing, and the adult subsidies would be for people who are covid vulnerable but under the age of 60. and i want to take a moment to provide slides to this committee about the 100-day challenge team. i know you receive a lot of information, but i thought these slides were really interesting. we provided them at the request of our provider partners who are working on the 100-day challenge. so at the request of the providers, we shared the slides and would encourage the committee to consider a presentation from this group at your next meeting so we can understand their enthusiasm and

the opportunity to scale both rapid rehousing and a flexible subsidy pool approach in san francisco at this time. next slide, please. here, we talk about rapid rehousing for families in t.a.y., both what is our funding capacity and funding that requires expansion. i want to draw particular attention to phase one. so the rehousing pandemic aligns the housing pipeline and the right resources available to each guest during each phase. the extended timeline gives us additional time to connect the guest to the resource while

balancing the need to preserve resources for people elsewhere in the community. in other words, the more we continue to extend and focus on the s.i.p.s only or bring more people in the s.i.p.s, the longer that other people have to wait, and this is a delicate balance that we're trying to strike here. the updated level of data that you're seeing in the slides includes the d.p.h. data. you can see that as of november 16, these are the number of the guests available, and then, the approximate number by population. and then, these categories, a, b, c, d, relate to the pandemic prioritization slide.

on the right side column, you see what is either available now or is planned, and we, taking feedback from our housing providers, slowed down the need to move people into vacant units while also knowing that we had to make time to scale the adult senior housing in the flex pool. so i'm getting close to closure. i know this group has a lot to discuss today. as we've been sharing, as we've shared with the urgent needs committee, we are recommending the release of prop c funds prior to 2021 to support the continued emergency response and s.i.p. rehousing plans. what we shared last week with

the liaisons was the draft, and i let them know that we were still crunching the numbers, so the numbers that we provided to this group yesterday is more up to date, and miss whitley will touch on that shortly. from a proposed housing perspective, recommending the expansion of housing, both in acquiring supportive housing, expanding the flexible housing subsidy for seniors. from your prevention bucket, enhancing problem solving so that we have the resources to do diversion plus, more like a one-year approach. and then, from the shelter and hygiene, requesting funding, recommending funding to wind down the s.i.p. hotel via the four-phased approach ending in november, and then funding to maintain and extend both the r.v. site, which is new during

the covid time and from the 2017-2018 baseline, and extend the safe sleeping villages which are otherwise slated to close march 15. also noted, we are recommending a one-time bonus for frontline workers. some of our contracts which we've touched for s.i.p., we've recommended to bring a bonus for those putting their lives in danger to provide services to the most vulnerable during this period of time. we think this is needed for workers who have put their

lives at risk to make sure everybody has a home. final slide, please. this group of shelter operators stepped up in the city with our hundreds of disaster workers to make these rooms possible. there's many more slides in the appendix so that you can work your way through during the coming days to understand the data better and pass your questions to us now or via the controller's office as you continue your recommendations. i'll turn this over to gigi whitney to continue the funding records request. >> do you mind my jump in here? this is jon givner, deputy city

attorney. >> yes. >> i have to jump out from this meeting, but i wanted to interject something before miss whitley presents. i wanted to encourage people who thought they might have conflict to reach out to me, and some of you have, and i just thought i would flag the issue again as you get into some of the details here. the main thing to look out for is if you're a committee member, and you work for an organization that may be entering contracts or receiving grants with our city, our home funds or receiving our city, our home funds or if you serve on the board of a nonprofit organization that will be receiving grants or entering contracts with these funds, you could have conflict. you don't have a conflict if

you're discussing and voting on general categories of funding, but the more specific the committee's discussion and recommendations get, if you're talking about precise areas of funding that you know or believe your organization is going to bid on or receive a conflict floor, you could have a conflict. if you have a conflict of interest, you would need to recuse yourself from any discussion and vote, so -- so if you think you're approaching that line, it's a good idea to announce to the committee that your organization may be bidding on this particular category and then leave that portion of the discussion. if you haven't reached out to me, and you have concerns about today's discussion, i would

suggest that, in the exercise of caution, that you recuse yourself today from my matters that your organization -- from any matters that your organization might have an interest in and then reach out to me offline rather than having a full on discussion here. and again, between this meeting and the next meeting, happy to talk with you in detail about any of these issues. just wanted to flag that before miss whitley gets into that. >> thank you, mr. givner, and i believe today, given our time, we're just going to hear presentations from folks and then next meeting, get into discussion. today, because we have an hour for presentation, we're going to get some basic questions answered and come back on the

15 really ready to vote our recommendations. >> great. and so during that intervening week, happy to have detailed conversations with any of you. >> that would be great. thank you. thank you so much. so we'll go to -- to -- is it whitley? >> yes, gigi whitley. do you need me to chair the excel? >> yes. >> good morning, committee members of t members. i'm gigi whitley, associate director of the department of homelessness and supportive housing. director stewart-kahn walked you through a lot of the details -- >> director whitley, could you make that a little larger? that's a little small, and it's

hard to see the spreadsheet. >> thank you. >> thank you, laura. laura marshall's driving. so a couple of quick framing notes is that this request is really focused on the current year, fiscal year 20-21 urgent needs, and many of what we're proposing are temporary interventions, and that is intentional. we want to be as precise with our thinking about what is urgent and what can be a budget conversation just in a few months when we come back to you with a more comprehensive budget proposal. but fiscal years 20-21 and 22-23 are here to show you what the potential conflicts would be of those decisions and how long those interventions would require funding. the second piece, as abigail

mentioned, is that this proposal really expands upon the existing h.s.h. budget. there are many programs that are in our base budget that are funded. there are 910 units that are already funded for the s.i.p. rehousing plan. this would leverage that plan to go beyond that investment and pilot new programs that would be sort of unique but appropriate for the s.i.p. so there's $32.8 million total request in the affordable housing bucket. of that amount, $2.2 million would be requested for youth interventions for transitional age youth under 30. so just to briefly walk-through those, for illustrative purposes, i've showed what our possible requests would be to

you for two new projects funded in the upcoming year. we were successful in getting two state homekey programs financed. westbou we were able to get a second program for a total of $68 million in federal funding, but that required a match that would enable us to start rehousing folks in the current year, and the cost related to those services are included on the second line. the operating costs, however, are being funded through a two-year state grant. additionally, as abigail mentioned, we're proposing a

one-time intervention of 24-month subsidies for 500 adults currently in the s.i.p. hotel that are not prioritized to need that high intervention permanent supportive housing. there's another pilot to begin a senior vulnerable adult program for seniors over the age of 60 for a permanent supportive housing solution. i mentioned t.a.y. we have a successful rising up rapid rehousing program. the city has made a $10 investment in that, but that would increase that by about 100 flat for this emergency. abigail mentioned a bonus pay. the portion we would like to allocate to the housing providers is $6.5 million, and the total shown here in this plan is a total of $10 million.

we have smaller operating costs that we proposed in the budget. this is really to help us plan for the future and get started on our hiring that we know we will need to begin to roll out the significant expansions and funding. this is over $300 million immediately coming in our budget. we're a pretty small department, and this would allow us to scale in the coming year to begin that hiring process to move forward. and then, we're showing $29.9 million in shelter and hygiene funding. that is the maximum we ko request. 5.9 is -- we could request. 5.9 is for equipment purchase., additionally, we have a number of safe sleep villages that

were scheduled to sunset in our budget. we would require $5 million in the current year to continue those projects past that march 2021 deadline. in both of these cases, we had assumed that fema would be an eligible source. when we proposed the original adopted budget, we were informed sometime in the fall that fema would not cover the cost of these congregate shelters, so you're seeing kind of a bigger gap than we had intended earlier, and we're showing c as really our only alternative source to balance that. the other big number in here, this $12.7 million is to implement the rehousing plan

and delay in winding down the s.i.p.s that abigail presented. there's about a $27 million cost of that in the current year. we're able to bring $10 million from the state for the homekey funds. we don't have the balance, and we're asking that come out of c funds. and finally, rounding out the $5.4 million in prevention proposal, what abigail talked about is this problem solving plus. there is $2.7 million in our current year budget that we're rolling out now for problem solving. this would leverage that investment to provide that additional rental subsidy that isn't funded in our budget to make sure that people exit into affordable housing. and that concludes our $64

million request. i'm happy to answer any questions. thank you for your time. >> is there any questions that members have at this time? i do want to transition to the presentation from our community liaisons? >> yes, chair williams. i have questions for abigail and gigi. thank you both for your presentations around this. my questions resolve around -- i see that there's a primary focus on getting people that are in hotels into housing programs, but my question is either a k question or data question. i'm wondering because i didn't see a list about r.v. or vehicle shelters, and i wonder if those people could be set in

that timeline, and i'm wondering for the folks that are in the r.v. hotels and tenttent encampments, how come they're not set up for a similar pipeline trajectory, and how can we get them into that pipeline? we are winding the s.i.p. hotels down, so why can't we get them into something? i don't know if there's a way to identify a way that they're included in calculations. from what i've seen so far, is what about us are the questions that i would have in terms of, you know, how do we make sure that there's a way to get into

some other agency that supports them. i wanted to give that as feedback to understand what we are going to do with that? >> okay. so i understand -- i think, member haines, i'm getting feedback. for director stewart-kahn, it sounds like a question for maintenance for people in s.i.p. hotels, where is that in this question? >> i understand the question a little bit different, chair williams. if you would allow me to clarify just so that i'm certain i'm answering the member's questions. so when you're saying the r.v. and the tent encampments, are you talking about those in the bayview?

>> well, i know that we have them in a couple of other areas in the last couple of years, but i think they're category areas as opposed to specific sites.

>> so it's like for me, we're prioritizing the people who are in the hotels. if we're only prioritizing people that are in the hotels, we're leaving behind a lot of folks, in my opinion. so i wanted to share that as feedback and share that as

feedback on behalf of the committee because we need to make those expansions. >> yeah. i share that, member, and i think part of the reason we need to not just focus on the s.i.p. hotels and expand them is it focuses all the resources of the city on s.i.p. hotels, which is not going to be equitable. we need to shift resources from the s.i.p. hotels. the r.v. site in the bayview, which is why i was trying to make some distinction, it is not going to be shutdown on the

same timeline. we want to move people into housing for their own safety and also for fiscal prudence to make sure that resources that are expanding can be preserved for everyone else in the system. so in addition to the s.i.p. rehousing, we are continuing to expand housing. there is a shelter opening in the bayview, there is a t.a.y. shelter reopening. you're right; this focus on. s.i.p. rehousing is a del indica delicate balance to strike, and we're trying to strike that delicate balance at this time. >> thank you, member haines. member friedenbach?

>> thank you. my question is around rapid rehousing. families always had rapid rehousing vouchers that lasted -- shorter ones are about six months to 18 months, so i'm wondering why create a distinction? why not make them all rehousing. especially like since k goes along with that, why make that distinction? and then, is there any concern about being able to place people with the vouchers, especially t.a.y. for people who don't have, like, as much credit history? and with rapid rehousing, has that been a successful program? those look like the two largest strategies for that population, so those are my concerns about those aspects?

i don't know if you want to answer those or if you want me to go onto other areas. >> sure. i think the rapid rehousing is sort of a three-year approach for families and a two-year approach for individuals. the focus is to have covid folks longer to stabilize as we don't know the length of the pandemic, and also, there's allowances and limits within the o.c.h. funding. we're trying to be creative with our diversion dollars and make a more robust approach, six months or a little bit longer for those in the hotels that are not covid vulnerable. we have seen a lot of success in our transitional age youth program and feel that this is

really a critical moment to expand rapid rehousing for adults. again, if we give -- to the prior member's point, if all of these members in s.i.p. hotels access only the permanent vouchers, permanent subsidies, there won't be options for other people elsewhere in the system, so we are trying to match the right intervention with the right individual. >> okay. thank you for that response. yeah, i would love to maybe have -- and this is something for the committee that we could talk about from having, like, useful presentation from, like, people on the frowned, like, frontline, so i would love to have a presentation on rapid rehousing and frontlines.

would other buildings be evaluated, and how did we come to arriving to purchase those two. and then, the funding the first year, goes from 2.6 or 2.7 to 4.9, and i'm wondering why there's such an increase in cost for services? why is there such an increase of $2 million in year three? >> thank you for that question. through the chair, i'll answer the second question first because you hit it right on the head. so in addition to the $42 million in capital funds from the state, the state is also providing a generous two-year grant to cover the operating costs -- not the services cost,

but the operating cost at both sites. that is approximately an $8 million investment over two years. 5.5 for 1000 sutter, 5.4 for geary. after that money is exhausted, the note requires the city to provide those services at that site for five years. of course, the city makes a commitment to permanent supportive housing, you know, really talking about a really long-term 55-year commitment to those tenants and those buildings, so we would expect those costs to continue, but that is the reason for that jump. we're only paying for service the in the first two years, and the state grant goes away. your first question about how these two sites were, you know, found, accepted, it was a very,

very aggressive probable cause because of the homekey funds, so i believe the note from the state was released sometime in july. we needed to respond as soon as possible because the funds were being released on a first come, first serve basis, and we applied in august. and the deadline is really being driven because the bulk of the capital funding coming from the state is actually federal c.a.r.e.s. act funds, and those funds expire december 2020. it was really an evaluation from the state, do you have projects ready to fund or options for us? because if you don't, we're going to go to alameda county or napa county to fund them, so we were on a really tight timeline. we released a request for information for all properties for anyone who wanted to sell a

site to a nonprofit, we sent out a really quick r.f.i. we targeted owners that had a shelter in place contract, thinking that they might want to sell the property. one is an existing shelter in place hotel, one is a property that had been offered up as a s.i.p. hotel, but it wasn't appropriate. both were able to partner with episcopal, the housing accelerator came in really quickly with some bridge financing, and i have to say, in my 14-year career, it's one of the things that i'm most proud of, this project, and the city coming in with a broad set of community partners to do this on a very, very aggressive timeline. thank you. >> thank you, gigi. that was, like, super information and really helpful. my last question is around the

bonus for low wage frontline workers, and that was 2.3 million, which was very close to the 2.7 that h.s.h. wants to administer the funds, and so i'm wondering how many, like, bonuses is that? what -- how much -- is it going to be everyone gets the same amount? like, i just need more information around that because in my mind, prop c is really around the creation of housing, less so, like, more admin stuff, and so i just need a lot more around that build-in, personally. thank you. >> thank you. i see member friedenbach, and we can transfer to your proposal from you and member miller as our liaison. i want to thank director stewart-kahn and whitley.

director friedenbach? >> i've got three really quick questions, so i'm going to hold them till the end. they're, like, financial questions for gigi on things that have changed since the original change. so i just want to talk really quickly about the background, how i went around this process, and then kind of how i got input and then the process going forward so everybody's clear on that and then spend some time talking about the guiding principles to make the recommendations. and then, i'll have -- maybe i'll have the controller staff share the graph from them. so basically, you know, met with h.s.h. staff, got the details on what their proposal was, tried to kind of break it down in a way that i could get really broad input.

look at all the different testimonies that had come in and conversations at different hearings, etc., on the s.i.p. hotels, etc., and then put together a first draft and then brought it to a bunch of coalitions. homeless emergency treatment, our city, our home coalition, and then, i reached out to individual organizations that were not present in those other groups. and so -- and basically shared, you know, pulled that together, coalesced it, shared it back with h.s.h., some feedback from them, and then, from there, you know, also got input from a cup

of the members of the body of not exceeding that for limit but from the chair and from cynthia and from lena miller. so that was kind of process, and basically part of that process was trying to develop principles and getting input on those, as well. and the -- let's see...so the principles basically that would be for guiding principles to look at, you know, how to judge all of these things. there's stuff going to be coming from d.p.h., and it's a long list of items. so really, the feedback i got was we wanted to prioritize long-term solutions. there's a lot of pressure in the community to get people out of the s.i.p. hotels a, that ty

would be placed in long-term solutions and not back out on the streets. this was kind of lining the presentation that we had earlier about the revolving door. that was a chief complaint, that people are going from place to place, and they end up back on the streets, and it really does a left tuot of har. really trying to move people off the streets. this is really kind of a fundamental thing about prop c, and as one of the people, you know, architect of it and all of that, we wanted this to be moving the dial on homelessness. we weren't interested in this fund augmenting services, we weren't interested in the fund, you know, kind of, like, backfillng, you know, sup planting existing services, you

wanted, for the housing funds, new resources, new shelters, new resources for the behavioral health, you know, new beds -- you know, you get the idea, so that was the guiding principles, and that was what i shared with folks that people were really into. we really wanted to, you know, make sure that people who were disproportionate disproportionate disproportionately affected were included, and there was populations left out, and so we wanted to have some equity there and make sure that we weren't just focusing on this first piece around getting people out of the hotels, but making sure we had access for people that never had access to those. and the two groups that kind of rose up and came to the top was bayview and families, the children. and in the h.s.h. proposal, there was -- you know, there's

a lot less for families, as well. and then, we want to make sure that if we're doing temporary beds, we're balanced. that people aren't stuck in that situation. and also, we wanted to minimize the locking in future prop c funds to ensure flexibility because we haven't done this modelling yet. we haven't done this strategic thinks. we have some opportunities in the real estate market, and then, also some taxing in the legal sense and state voters. so those were the particulars that we were looking at, and there is -- yeah, so maybe we can do a screen share of the -- what's left -- i mean, where the fund balance is thing that ben did. >> we can do that. so either secretary hom or

laura, can you share first the fund balance document? i know we have sheets so we can do a side by side comparison. >> yeah. i just wanted to present it before ben walks through it, but yeah, thank you. thank you so much. so there's a couple things that we needed when we started looking -- you know, and i did this analyze around the fund balances. we're basically -- as you guys saw, the department is making recommendations to spend $64 million in year one, and one of the things that's happened is they shifted a one-time $60 million state match over to year two, so -- so it's 156.7 in year two, and it locks in

about 54 after that. one of the things to be mindful of is a lot of this is around the adult housing, and so that's where -- and ben will -- can walk us through this, but we've got 30.6 million in year one for adult housing, and 112 million in year two, and then, it locks in about 40 million after that. so when we're looking at next year, we would only have about 75 million in the fund, and then, we would have a deficit of 15 million in year two. so there was a lot of opportunity in the real estate market, and we didn't want to limit our purchases, and that's one of the things that we wanted to think about. so in the future -- yeah, i'm sorry. in the future, we have 53 out

of 93 million, so we have a lot of one-time expenditures that we have less money to do for the one-time acquisitions, and then, we have a future lock-in. we've accumulated money in the fund. [inaudible] and do that kind of stuff, and then, of course, what we're lock being in in operate -- locking in in operating costs for the future. and ben put together this really cool thing, and ben, if you're cool with walking us through this, anden th then, io through the recommendations. >> sure. ben rosenfield, city controller. we're obviously working to develop kind of reporting tools for you that will make your jobs a bit easier and help you understand where the pot is at, so this is our first effort to

do that. this's showing us what the current balances in the fund are and are projected to be in the future for each of the balances in prop c. it basically talks you through the columns and what they mean. there are funds appropriated and on reserve at the board of supervisors. the next column, unappropriated balance, reflects our updates to those at the time of the budget, and you'll note that there is significant information on the page [inaudible] that in the proposition f scheme to unlock the funds had to be held back,

but now that the city prevailed in the lawsuit, it is now released. so that's the difference between these two columns, basically, what we knew in july and what we know today. we've also -- scrolling over to the left a little bit here, the top line in each category showed you what the projected budgets look like. the top line shows you the projected balance, and the rows below that give you a sense of what is proposed, and then, down below, you see the d.p.h.

[inaudible] proposal, as well, so it gives you the pieces today so that you have a big picture. scrolling to the bottom one, and then, i will stop. those are what the total funds look like. we have a total balance in the current fiscal year of $721 million in the fund. that's higher than it will be in the future because that contains balances from previous years. if all proposals moved ahead, you would have $428 million remaining in the current year, and you can see what the balances look like after two years. so i hope that's helpful, and i will stop there and turn the floor back over to member

friedenbach. >> thank you, mr. rosenfield. i'll turn the floor back over to member friedenbach. >> thanks, mr. rosenfield. super helpful. so -- all right. so there's some big, like, basically some big differences, i would say. a lot of alignment, but in looking at those principles, there's some recommendations in getting input from folks, and the idea for process here, just so nobody freaks out, is that we would have a discussion today, besides me -- we would have a discussion today about what the members' thoughts are on this, hear public comment,

etc., and then, we would come back for a final vote next week. i'm hoping that people can get a proposal that's pulled together based on the input from folks early so you have time, like, maybe on friday by the end of the day, and then, you have time to look at it for the meeting next week and be able to digest it because it's a lot. i just want to acknowledge that, you know, because we're under these time pressures, etc., and we're making really important decisions that we need to be careful with. so part of it is that we're -- from the liaison recommendation that we fund one and two from the s.i.p. post down. we want to make sure that we it look at phase one and how it's

going. there may be changes, given what's happening with the surge and the pandemic. we may look at how much of the funds we can lock in, what other funds we can utilize to do some of this, and i think after conversations with a lot of uncategorical people that it became clear that we need today do this immediate thing, but we needed some more thoughtfulness. the other thing, we got a lot of feedback around the rapid rehousing. there is some differences here,

but most of the feedback that i got back was a real concern -- and also, i reached out to individual providers that had experience with these different things to get takes, as well. but for the rapid rehousing, the city's proposing 500 rapid rehousing placements. this real estate market is different, but one of the things that kept coming up is there's a fear, like i mentioned, around the revolving door, but another fear is landlords. the difference in san francisco from a lot of other municipalities to use this m e modality is they don't have the

same protections that we have he here -- i think it's we're nervous about throwing 500 out on the single adults, that we'd really be able to find these landlords. so there's a suggestion to shift over -- 300 of the 500 over to flex pool. now what we would be voting on, if those terms are accepted, are only on phase one and two. we could just -- in the rapid rehousing is going fabulously,

we could go on, but we could also change later phases, depending on how things are going. there's a lot of concern in the community about folks being able to take on the rent, of the revolving door back to homelessness and how much harm that does, and so that was the other piece in there, was to add that in. this next piece relates to city budgeting, and there's a request here for homekey grant match. i have confirmed with chair fewer that that money was allocated in the annual appropriations ordinance using general funds, and i realize the city, now their general funds are decreasing, and they

would like to use prop c money to backfill, and i think that we shouldn't do that. we should have the city pay for what they allocated with the general fund moneys that they allocated, but we also have money in proposition a. and chair fewer had been items in there for purchasing of hotels. there's some other funding sources, and the idea is let's not drawdown prop c again. we're trying to not have prop c pay for anything. we're trying to be strategic and thoughtful about this. voters were expected to have value added, not doing stuff this way. same issue with the extension of the emergency shelters. that was paid for originally by general fund, however, as gigi noted, it was budgeted to

include some funding for fema that they weren't able to do. this was the moscone centers, the r.v.s, and the safe sleeping villages, but so there was general fund allocation in there, and then, they expected some of it from fema, and perhaps at the end of this, we could get from gigi exactly basically, like, what the difference is there. and then, there's alignment around the senior flex pool and the rapid rehousing for youth, and i just got word that we should have 20 of the youth

rehousing from government. but the pay equity, that one also is -- you know, we're really either asking for pay equity to come out of the housing fund. it's to be used to pay for housing, and it's to be used for emergency shelter. that money is to be used to create shelters for folks, eviction prevention. they could actually use it -- use the admin -- there's a lot of admin cut because the fund has accumulated, that the city could pull it out of that section of prop c, but i think that it's not -- not really recommended to have it be taken away from housing resources that unhoused people would have. the other pieces, the s.i.p.

extension, you know, some caveats there. let's do the s.i.p. extension, not the demobilization. so there's a month that they're paying for cleaning the rooms and disinfection. with the human beings not there, we shouldn't be, you know, using the prop c funds for that, but we wanted a caveat in here that if stimulus money came, if fema extended, if those things happen, that this money would be return today the fund, so it would allow the city to move ahead on extending the hotels, but we wanted the funding repaid if these other funding sources come in play. and so maybe go next page on this? >> member friedenbach, i just want to open it up for

committee questions. i know we've covered a lot. >> i'm done. i just wanted that side-by-side comparison up on the screen when we ask questions, abobeca i think it has so much. oh, i'm sorry. wait, wait, wait. two things. there's two items in there that are equity items and that would go for people who are not in s.i.p. hotels. so i kind of mentioned them, but it's 20 baby pools that are not in s.i.p. and 50 family-plus pools that are not in s.i.p. >> thank you. additional questions [inaudible]. >> member haines, if you could just mute yourself.

>> oh. >> i would like to hear from the department of public health because we don't have a lot of time, and ask any questions that time allow. member haines? >> jennie, thank you so much for your comprehensive overview on everything, and thank you, ben, for the presentation in terms of where we're spending our money. my questions overlap this presentation set and the previous presentation set, so i'm curious, and i share jennie's concern about phases and roll backs and shelter in place. my concern is that we are dealing with a response to homelessness as a priority, but we're also responding to

covid-19. i want us to be mindful of the economic impact, and we're doing that now, and comments related to people's ability to pay makes me think about, in addition to that, wraparound services. i didn't see, like, supportive services, which i didn't see in wraparound services, so i'm giving you comment in terms of can we pack that in there.

>> [inaudible]. >> i think you can speak now, member friedenbach. i think it's feedback from member haines. >> oh, sorry. i'm just saying it includes the budget services. whether or not it's enough, that's a question, but this is not 100% of the money going to rental assistance. it's just subsidies, and then, there would be a portion attached to it. and then, we also have the job services added in. and then, you can see here for these supportive housing services costs, these are support services for folks that are in the new hotel. so they're -- it's not delineated in a way you can see it, so that makes it hard to know exactly if it's the right amount, but that's -- that's in there. >> yes. thank you for that feedback, but my -- i hear that, and i feel that, and i'm in agreement

with that, but i'm also saying that there's an element to supportive services which i mean not just the items that we talked about. it's, like, including a space for other stuff. supportive services includes job training, but it also includes other stuff that i just didn't see in the budgeting line items or the proposed or adoption or thinking about that, so i'm just giving that as feedback. i'm trying to be careful because there were some cautions given earlier, but i'm just stating the structure that we need because the city is trying to implementing. hygiene services, i saw it listed, just the title, but what's the services around that? does it help people on the

street receive the basic underlying services that they need? that is what i'm going to give you in time of that. i'm going to close out with this commentary on we know that there is an economic impact in terms of all the businesses that have been closed and shutdown, and in the roll back, and my concern between that -- and i share the concern that jennie did about not necessarily wanting to have the roll back in there because i feel like i want to feel like we're prepared for the extreme downturn in our economy that's already beginning to happen now in our thought and planning processes and stuff like that. and so i just wanted to state that. i don't have anymore structured thought process on that. also have a little bit more to say in the next meeting, but i just wanted to give that feedback. thank you so much, jennie and ben, for providing all of this. like i said, you hit a lot of

my data points, but i look forward to seeing what the next presentation goes around my question, if i feel like there's something that i don't see. >> thank you, member haines. going to [inaudible] and member nagendra, and then member reggio, and then i'll move to d.p.h. >> i'll just make my comment as quick as i can, and i hope we have more time to chat in future meetings. i'll just say that the work that's put together with a lot of feedback, it's making urgent and immediate decisions [inaudible] we want them, the city, to be successful in ensuring that we keep people safe, that we're housing them as quickly as possible,

understanding the changes and how things are changing quickly day-to-day, and knowing that the city's decision can be changed by modelling of needs, to kind of form a multiyear investment strategy supported by a lot more data and kind of a comprehensive systems process, so i think this strikes a good balance. and i do want to say that, you know, so far, we've avoided a lot of the efforts that you see in other major cities, so i do want to keep that possible. and i do think, on the capacity side, you know, aside -- the capacity side, i just wanted to make a comment, and i hope that we're able to talk about this some more, is to ask the question of do the providers and does the system from the capacity -- i know funding is not the only thing that people need. they need funding, admin, and

scale. that is something we should be talking about. finally, i just want to say that i do think that having a variety of housing options in the system, i've seen this work in many other communities, and i'm seeing it work from many agencies. i think it would be great to hear from providers that are making it work about what makes it work and what doesn't make it work. because [inaudible] it's what we need on the back end is, you know, a bridge to a longer term subsidy or a shallow subsidy for people to just pay that bit of rent, that they can't make the difference between their income and rent, then we should, you know, think about that as a bridge in some of these short-to-medium term

subsidies. >> thank you, member nagendra. member reggio? i just want to do a time check. if anyone has a hard stop, i don't want to lose quorum. member reggio? >> i don't know. when would we get the -- [inaudible] a response from h.s.h. on some of this in the sense of i'm looking at, for example, a homekey grant, and their assessment was there was a sizeable, i think $66 million grant. there are other sources that can pay for that, too, and that needs response. i would hate to wait until we get to a vote next week to present such a critical piece.

i think there were other options in terms of senextensi of shelters, in extension of pay equity. are there sources from the department's point of view, from the controller's point of view that can pay for these and would not depend on prop c because what we don't want to do in any of these is lose those options. i would be less concerned with bonuses. i think bonuses are difficult. it means it takes care of people today, and it means next year, we have lots of low paid people again, and i would like the department to think in terms of a different approach that we put salaries to people and wages to people at the more

decent level. >> thank you, member reggio. i know that director stewart-kahn and her staff are little still on the line, and i know they will reply next week. for now, so we don't lose quorum, i just want the department of public health to make their proposal, and on the 15, we can get into more comments and questions if need be. so let's first go to public comment. secretary hom. >> clerk: member of the public who wish to present public comment on this item should cobb 415-655-0001. meeting i.d. access code 146-721-8821. press pound, and pound again. press star, three to enter the

queue, and wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. you have three minutes. we have one caller on the line. i'm going to go ahead and unmute this person. >> welcome, caller. >> my name is sandra rattler. i'm a patron at st. james and faith in action. we are concerned about the transition from the s.i.p. hotels will be undertaken for the primary event to a permanent solutions in the best ways possible. we support the recommendations being made by the immediate needs liaison. the prop c funding is not intended to sup plant funding in the city budget. we need to create systems and services that result in the housing of all san franciscans.

it is a matter of social justice and conscience. thank you. >> thank you so much, caller. is there any further comments? >> checking now. hello, caller? >> yes? >> you have three minutes. >> hey, good morning. good morning, members. my name is quinton mecky. i just wanted to follow up on a couple of comments that member friedenbacher made, in addition to other members. the intention of prop c funding, looking at the h.s.h. proposal, really want to caution everybody on using or eefsh thinking of prop c as backfillng budget items?

is that should be paid by the general fund. i think member friedenbach pointed out that voters voted for, it is a net new funding. it's tempting to look at a $700 million pot of money and think about what the urgent meeting needs that should be done right now by the general fund or the department itself, including operating expenses, raises for nonprofits. i think the question is how can you use this funding to make as deep an impact as possible in the city, particularly advisable street homelessness, which i think was such a trigger for people who they supported prop c. this is obviously a political issue. the board of supervisors is going to take a pass at this,

but i think the temptation -- i mean, d.p.h. is going to come at you with urgent needs. everybody is going to have urgent needs. i think the more you can have a strategic based planning process and the more you decide how deeply you want this money to go, it's going to benefit the most. you shouldn't keep whittling down the funds and justifying that they're all good things, but i don't think that's what the city of san francisco and the voters meant when they went and voted for prop c. you guys all know that, but i want to reinforce that in addition. on one last note, it is near impossible to find information about this committee on-line. one of the reasons is because it's called our city, our home committee, with no reference to prop c. the only reason i know is there

was a reference in a san francisco chronicle article that reversed thamentioned tha. i would urge that you really do something to make it more prominent. it's also not listed on the h.s.h. website at all. so, like, public comment on this is going to be minimal, if not at all, unless you possibly change that, if there's any other way to change that dynamic. thank you so much. >> thank you, caller. is there any other public comment? >> i'm checking now. give me one second. there are. let me help this person. hello, caller? >> hello. my name is mary kay [inaudible]

i wanted to call in and express appreciation for the thoughtful approach that this committee is taking and the immediate needs liaisons and doing this really trippy balancing act. i also wanted to thank h.s.h. for engaging the providers and the community in a more collaborative planning process than was originally undertaken, and i think we're heading in the right direction, but there are so many challenges. a lot of them have been outlined in the meeting so far, and so the want i want to -- the one i want to uplift that has been mentioned is family services; and i want uplift for families, the housing favored by [inaudible] is a basically one-size-fits-all intervention. that does not fit all families,

so i want to advocate for some of that [inaudible] city funding that some of you talked about. we have very high needs families in the system, and rapid rehousing is just not going cut it, and for those families that rapid rehousing will cut it, we need to pair that with work supports. there have been so many -- i i wa want -- so many -- i want to say 250,000 unemployment applications. related to that, i just want to uplift that there are families who meet the medical vulnerable criteria for these s.i.p. hotels who can't even get shelter placements right now, and that's an enormous issue in the system. it's not totally related to the matter at hand, but i do think it's worth pointing out.

thank you. >> thank you so much, caller. is there any additional public comment? >> i see one additional caller. >> hey, so my name is liz katy, and i really appreciate the thoughtful presentations from h.s.h. and from jennifer about the community response? i just want to lift up that i really appreciate the community response calling out more long-term subsidies? obviously, we are at a time in san francisco where rents are lower than they have ever been, and this opportunity to kind of lock in scattered site units at a reduced price is an opportunity for the city to have cost saving benefits over the long-term because it's a depressed market right now, and that's something that's not often happening in san francisco, and i just strongly

urge we take advantage of that. at my agency, we have been folks out of the s.i.p. hotels in the scattered sites models, and it's worked very well. i just encourage the committee to consider that a long-term approach provides a lot more stability than a short-term one. thank you. >> thank you so much, caller. any further public comment? >> there are no further comments. >> all right. is hali hammer, marlow simmons, jennie louie, still available? >> we are. >> okay. director simmons, i know we're over time, and i apologize, but i'm going to let you take the wheel. >> thank you, members, so much, for the opportunity to present to you today. i'm hali hammer.

i'm director of ambulatory care for the department of public health, san francisco health network. we're excited to share with you our proposals for prop c funding for immediate needs. this is an incredibly exciting but challenging time for public health in san francisco as we manage a worsening public health emergency and also work to address other long-standing urgent health issues faced by san franciscans. i'm joined today by d.p.h.s acting chief financial officer, jennie louie, and our behavioral health acting

director, marlow simmons. -- marlo simmons. next slide, please. we have crafted these specific proposals to align with the stipulations of prop c and align with your intention to support release of funds only for initiatives which are urgent and which will immediately be used to improve the health and well-being of people experiencing homelessness. i want to take the moment to put these initiatives in the context of well over a year of intent, focused work to transform our health care system to meet the needs of people facing homelessness,

working with our mayor, the board of supervisors, the director of mental health reform, and community partners, and that all culminating in the mental health sf legislation, which was unanimously approved by the board of supervisors in fall 2019. that seems so long ago. this work builds on our five-year whole person care initiative which was partly funded through a statewide waiver and was also for persons experiencing chronic homelessness. our focus has also been on behavioral health needs of this population and has moved us toward the implementation of mental health s.f. as you know, the target population is approximately 4,000 san franciscans facing substance use disorder and

mental health conditions. so these initiatives that we'd like to move forward align nicely with the our city, our home funding. next slide. today, we are bringing to you, as requested by the committee, our proposal that 30.3 million funding be released. the areas are one, meeting people where they are, two, making it easier for people to access care, and three, providing more access to care. we will greatly expand or

communication and care workforce. we also propose to extend hours and services while creating a state of the art and hipaa mental health resource center and a client pharmacy. in the third, we propose locations for mental health treatment and respite beds to fill gaps in the area. i know our time is short, but i want to give you some updates on these, and you'll here hear from marlo and anton. so meet people where they are, establish street crisis response teams and and provide a person-centered response which provides the person to

ongoing care services and removes the need for law enforcement. we're excited to have launched our first street crisis response team -- response team last week. this is a team made up of behavioral health specialists, behavioral health support -- behavioral health clinician, a peer behavioral health support, and paramedic. the team is out responding to 911 calls right now, and we are excited to learn from the experience of that first team and to spread to more areas of the city and more hours on a schedule that we've put forward. coupled with street crisis response, we propose to expand urgent care and crisis and urgent services. we're also excited to be piloting telehealth in the form

of telepsychiatry. one of the urgent transformational changing that we've been able to implement during the pandemic is more telehealth -- telehealth and the ability to prescribe without having an in-person face-to-face visit, and we would like to expand that capacity and make that availability of prescribers acceptable to the street -- accessible to the street crisis response team and to others in our behavioral health access center. the next thing is we need to get people to access to caacce.

it would make this area of accessing care having -- having a workforce who are dedicated to connecting with people, working with them until they land, until they access their source of ongoing care. that's really a huge gap that we've been trying in a more piecemeal fashion to bridge, but with the prop c funding, we would be able to -- to really build up this workforce, and i think it makes it much more successful in connecting people, especially people, again, in crisis or people coming out of the emergency room, coming out of jail, connect with them immediately, and then help them access care

appropriately. this would also entail a tracking system, so we know where beds are available and can much more efficiently and quickly get people into residential treatment based on where we have capacity. next slide. and then really quickly, because i heard from the chair, i know people have limited time, we're obviously able to answer questions because i am moving through this pretty quickly. so the next area is services making it easier to access care through -- whoops, i just lost the slide -- through expansion and really reprogramming of our

existing behavioral health access center into a much more patient centered trauma informed hipa compliant place for people to come both to access services as a mental health resource center and a renovated mental health pharmacy. so we know that both of those programs are -- i know they're not configured to meet the needs of our targeted population, and so we have a lot of work to do. we also know that there is an area where we have an opportunity with mental health sf and the implementation of the working group to improve access to care, so we look

forward to that opportunity to engage our -- our community that we serve, to the working group to help us really design this part of the mental health sf initiative. next slide -- oh, actually, go back one, please. okay. and then, the last bucket area is the expansion of the substance use treatment beds. as you heard from anton negusi-bland, we upped our beds

by 150 beds for treatment of care. this would help us identify new sites and new programs, including our drug sobering center and fill other really significant gaps in our ability to get people right into residential treatment based on their immediate needs. next slide. so -- so finally, in closing, this again, is our proposal for release of funds to the department of health for the implementation of these important projects related to the mental health sf program, and -- and really craft it to better address the behavioral health and substance use needs of our population of people experiencing homelessness with

coexisting behavioral health and substance use needs. so we're incredibly excited about each of these initiatives. we have working groups who are working hard to now be employees and ready to implement once we have more information from them and other worker partners, but these are proposals from the department of health for this current fiscal year. so i'm going to talk there. cogniza i'm really cognizant of time, and i'm going to turn it over to director hammer. >> i'm going to go to member friedenbach before we move towards adjournment, so member friedenbach. >> yeah, thank you so much for that presentation.

i think, so, the big picture for us, you know, i got a bunch of input from folks on this, and it's locking in a lot of money once we get to year three. almost 66, 67% of the funds would be locked in, and most of this is for beds to get people off the streets. also, a lot of these items seem to be out of the our city, our home purview. there's a lot of concern around the street crises team. there's two different groups. there's the community group and the mayor's groups that are looking at alternatives to policing and coming up with recommendations. the street team was something the mayor's office did and then got expanded by supervisor

ronen, but it's a very, very expensive model. they're handling the code -- particular code calls and -- that are for folks that are in mental health distress. there's about 10,000 calls of those a year, and the team has a paramedic and a clinician and a peer, and a lot of those are very low level calls. a lot of thinks that people want to do before locking in a large amount of money. lot of concern about the mental health service center and what it would do. not really clear -- and it's also civil service. is it -- so very, very expensive model, and not really clear -- a lot of clarity around community -- i would say not a lot of support from

community members on spending that money on a service center in terms of if we could do other things. a lot of concerns about we couldn't do a lot of other things that we wanted to do for locking in so much money up front. so let's take mental health, let's do a lot for strategizing and see what we can do. this discussion for immediate needs don't have to be our last discussion for immediate needs. there's this big rush to get to the budget and finance committee, the last one of the year after our next meeting next week on the 16, and so i think that folks were really kind of, like, whoa. we need to think about this and have some more consideration before we throw tens of

millions of dollars in, given all the stuff that's come up from the proposal. so the immediate needs, i'm recommending not having this go to the budget and finance on the 16; that we wait and consider immediate needs at a slightly slower pace for all three requests. >> thank you. thank you, member friedenbach. we'll go to member miller, who's also part of the immediate needs liaison. >> i think jennie's pretty much kind of encapsulated what i wanted to say. you know, as she mentioned, we have a lot of appreciate to make these budget recommendations by next week, and i think, you know, given all that we had to consider, it was a lot, but we had a dedicated group of people that really spend time trying to think about these things and make responsible decisions.

at the last meeting, we also identified a group who would go through the same process for behavioral health needs, and so i think, you know, it deserves some time to really be looked at, to be considered, to be thought about before we make recommendations, and so i just want to echo what member friedenbach says, which is i think any time that we have, we really need to spend it on immediate needs to make sure that people do not go back into the street for phase one and phase two. so again, that that should be looked at by the behavioral health needs group. >> thank you, member miller. we'll go to member nagendra and then member ledbetter. i do want to remind folks where we are time, but i do want to go to member nagendra. >> yeah, echoing what member

miller said. i personally just feel a tremendous amount of responsibility here to make thoughtful decisions and doing what we -- what the -- we're making the impacts, the long-term impacts that we want to make and visible ruxs in homelessness. i do think that this is not our only time to consider these immediate needs, and we want to give the departments what they need and the people what they need to get through the next few months. with the behavioral health asks, they're very important, that they're integrated in a process across departments, that we're sort of aligning needs for people that include mental health and behavioral health access folks, and that we're not making those decisions in isolation from each other, and that we have kind of that systems approach that will public model where we're trying to get to. >> thank you. we'll go to member ledbetter,

member haines, and member andrews. >> great, thank you. it looks like we're not going to have time today to reflect on what we've seen, but i just really want to take the time to thank the immediate needs work group and the liaisons, and it was really a tremendous ask without a lot of support. i think just the fact that i've been out in the community, and, like, be an immediate needs worker, be an immediate needs worker tells me that you were out there, pounding the pavement, talking to folks, and just in a really short amount

gathering a lot of incredible feedback and a lot of input, of which we're also sort of sorting out and figuring out where we stand with each other, i think, as a community, so i just thank you for doing that. i can't say enough. and then, for the behavioral health sufficient, i just am curious how this committee can help and target what our real mental health needs are as a committee. i think from an acquisition per -- perspective. so what's out there, how are we dealing with those higher level problems that we've had in our community forever?

likes these proposals focus on a lot on access, and then, getting people in the system. we're holding these people in our system, but then, there's something else, so what about prop c is going to help us fill those gaps? spe i'm just very curious to participate in those conversations because the behavioral health dollars can be used for acquisition. i just want to make sure that we're taking that very seriously, and thank you, everyone, for the departments. i feel that we've come so far in such a short period of time, and i'm excited to get to this point where we can have the discussions in the system modelling contest where we can g begin to breakdown our housing modelling in terms of clarity. [inaudible] it's assisted

living with all of its neat and creative opportunities, with medicare dollars coming our way. i'm just excited to get to that point where we can segment out, and then, we can ask questions, should we be rushing to get everything into an undefined bucket of long-term care [inaudible] intervention. again, thank you guys so much. i really do feel like we've come a very long way, and looking forward to talking next week. >> thank you, member ledbetter. we'll go to member haines, member andrews, and then vice chair d'antonio. >> thank you, chair. thank you, julie, and also thank you, hali, for your presentations.

my concerns and questions that we've been talking about the last few minutes evolve around what the undering or get a little understanding of what the [inaudible] are, and what the teleservices entail? with the teleservices, would they be a little more inclusive about service needs, so not just mental health, so it could have that wraparound component, so if we could get more details perhaps at a future meeting, but what that would look like, what people's thoughts have been in that? and also, the jail linkages, and what we can do to understand and support those linkages are, but also have better support so that those individuals are put into the same resource category so that

they can get housed or so that they can get other supportive infrastructure immediately upon their discharge. so instead of just leaving the prison industrial complex with, you know, a black bag of their belongings but so they can get something a little more substantive so that they can resource and pipeline into the other solutions. so i just wanted to put that out as a direction. i know you can only provide so much information in a presentation, but my desire would be to see more detailed structure that the other members have requested and what these things are all are going to mean long-term. >> thank you, member haines. go to member andrews and vice chair d'antonio. >> thank you, chair. wanted to say au few things.

first, thank you to the departments and their presentations. very thoughtful, continued detail comes our way, and it really helps in making these important decisions. you know, as i think about what we're doing, sometimes words mean things, and i know we're using the phrase immediate needs, and i think in some great degree specifically around s.i.p. hotels and all that is related, i completely agree in a lot of what has been presented today. i other thing, i think is around behavioral health issues. when you think of immediate needs, i sometimes would replace immediate needs with immediate investment because a lot of what we're going to be doing, certainly in behavioral health, but the sooner you can make the investment, the quicker you'll be able to address what has been a

long-standing -- and i'm even just thinking about the time it's going to take to hire and bring on-line and train the clinicians and social workers, and the longer you wait on that, the less opportunity you have to be successful on the back end. so i just wanted to bring forward a distinction between what is an immediate need and an immediate investment to a long-term solution, and to the extent we can have a more nuanced conversation, i would appreciate that. i think we need to look at the hiv community where new funding was identified. it did two things. one, it assessed the system of care that we had that needed long-term -- that needed

investments in it being made, and also, it launched new innovative programming. because my nervousness is if we're focusing only on new programs, you could run the risk of building is on sand, meaning we haven't assessed the overall commitment to care, especially when it's more challenging and needing to be outgoing. i want to say it's both and, and not an either-or as we move forward. thank you. >> thank you, member andrews. we'll go to vice chair

d'antonio. >> what if was going to say wa yeah, prop c targets those people. i want to be really intentional with the behavior health plan, and i want to make sure that we're targeting really intentionally those folks, and at the margins, i don't feel like we're targeting that. also, echoing what member ledbetter said, which is around acquisitions, is yeah, i really want to talk about acquiring just acquisitions period, and i'd like to work backwards from that. i'd like to know what buildings are available for acquisition, and then from there, see how

much they cost and then work backwards from there to see how they would be sustainable for us. they create solutions? they are investments in homeless people? they are an asset that we have? and yeah, right now, one of the callers said, public comment was right now is a really good market for us to be doing that, and i think we should be talking about that, so thank you. >> thank you so much, vice chair d'antonio. i know we're going to have more time on the 15 to continue this conversation, and as has been mentioned, we want to continue the conversation over time, also bringing in the mental health s.f. board that is not on-line yet, but i believe they're going to be meeting next week and would like to have some voice in what we're doing, as well. member friedenbach, you look

like -- >> yeah. just process wise, what i had laid out at the beginning was just trying to take this feedback from folks and come back with a proposal? i just wanted to make sure that, before we adjourn, that if there's people that have reflections, because of the brown act, i'm not going to be able to communicate with everybody independently, but i'm trying to get a consensus process, and i've taken notes on what everybody has said, but there might be some reflections from folks about how they're feeling about the proposal that came forward. if there's any changes that they would like to see, that we could do that in this one last time. >> thank you for that. is there members --

>> chair williams, i just want to process a question there, because it appears that the work group has brought it back to the main committee, and now, it's similar to what we [inaudible]. >> your sound's breaking up again. >> sorry. is that better? >> yes. >> okay. it feels more similar to what we did with the bylaws, where the work group is bringing it back, and i think the chair and the staff could probably send it out to the whole committee so that we could all respond with feedback at this point if that makes it a little bit easier. >> that sounds great. >> i make enough laws that i would let the city attorney chime in on that. >> it's already posted, so i just want to clarify that it is already posted to the website, the current proposal that

was -- was shared, so they can review it in more depth. >> [inaudible] it would be appropriate for either feedback to go directly to the liaison or to the chair regarding what you've seen here presented, so that could be one-way feedback that could go to a single if t the -- single point, and then synthesize that and come back next week. >> thank you. and we can also just push out where we are based on the conversation today, the sort of

final thoughts on, you know, over those proposals. i know there's just been a lot shared. is that correct, directsecreta d om ahad -- hom and laura? >> just because of the amount of information that we've processed and discussed today, they're not going to be ready by next week. >> because i've watched a lot of feedback, i have a liaison's sense of them. i would hate to characterize someone's feedback. we've heard from some members today, we've not heard from others. so i would say it would help to have members provide feedback

one way to a single member, and that member could come back and report on what they've heard, and we can take action as we see fit. >> so if there's feedback on what member friedenbach presented, send it her way, and if you have feedback for everything else, send it my way. is that okay with you? member haines? >> thank you, sarah, and thank you for bringing up the topic of feedback. it hasn't been a super important area of concern, but it's becoming an increasing area of concern. if you can define how we create resources for us to give you feedback.

we receive these documents, and instead of e-mailing, i wonder if we can have a system where we can provide the feedback where you can see that sort of on a timeline so you don't have to sift through so much of that when you're trying to get the feedback. that way, when we receive documents from the city and we're looking at them, we can put it in whatever struck sur is going to make it more beneficial to keep that attractive, so it's easier for your analyzation, so i think it can be some sort of system where okay, i'll spend some sort of time in putting it in sort of a structure where you get it, and then, an individual method of structure between the

city liaisons. >> thank you. member reggio? >> sorry. i was unmuted. a little bit of this is rep repetitive. i would want to be clear, from my perspective, that this point is subject to further discussion. i think it's important that the

department find a way to go forward, and if it requires these funds, i am not opposed to that. i would be wanting to hear more in that regard, i would say i'd like very much to point the immediate out that committee member friedenbach spoke of making sure that the longer term subsidies are there. the short-term subsidies, i do think there are a number of people that would benefit for that, but i think having the long-term subsidies for the support that are needed would be helpful, too. i would ask the committee, if we had time, what basis do they have for -- not the committee, the department. what basis do they [inaudible]

and finally, i would say, you know, i would hope we're taking into account the need throughout all of this for important support services for people [inaudible] and that's it. >> thank you. i do want to call our attention that we are on item 6, and speaking specifically to the department of public health behavioral recommendations, just as a point of process. trying to manage that. but yeah, i believe that director stewart-kahn and nurse hammer are still on the line, in partnership with the liaison, so we can coalesce all these things together and get them together with the committee. if you have questions or comments, you can reach out to staff, you can reach out to myself as chair.

i see director stewart-kahn has turned her camera on. did you want to respond to that quickly? >> just we'd be able to provide a memo to provide the clarity in terms of the questions that we're hearing in terms of what funds are available and what are not in terms of these other resources specifying but in general, so happy to do that as quickly as possible. >> yes, and i do want to recognize director hammer to do the same. i know there was a lot brought up in terms of the immediate needs proposal that she brought to our body, so if you could follow up on some of the [inaudible]. >> we'll do that. we'll convene and also circle

back to the liaisons and collect the feedback and then be ready to speak to those in the finer in our proposals next week. >> okay. all right. well, i apologize for going over time, but these are very substantive items. let's open it up for public comment. >> members of the public wishing to provide public comment should call 415-655-0001. meting access code 146-721-8211. press pound, and pound again, then press star, three to enter your comment. please note you will have three minutes. checking now. there are no hand raised for the public comment. >> great.

thank you, secretary hom. we'll now go to item 7, future agenda items. i know it's been brought up, discussing the other community liaison rules. i believe, member ledbetter, you had another -- i know you had a future agenda item, as well. >> yes, just going back at how we're going to continue to operationalize the work groups. i think we very briefly talked about that structure that we're moving toward. we had mentioned that there's philanthropic interest to helping staff and support these groups, taking some of the administrative burden off. that's still there, and i think we have already identified the system modelling work group, so that's going to get kicked off.

i'm just wondering how i should move forward in sort of making those relationships real and active at the request of the committee. >> we will definitely add that to our future agenda. any other future agenda items before we take public comment and adjourn? member haines? >> yeah, thank you, chair, for bringing the desire to have that conversation about those areas. it would be great to see them staffed. i think it will be very supportive of all the other communities, specifically, once again for myself and the interest of both communications and community engagement. like, i feel like i'm pretty good with working with people to knit things together and

also breaking that information up into digestible packets for other people. so that's what i would love to do on this commission. that's what i felt called to say. but i also wanted to ask for an agenda item of maybe having a little bit more conversation around our focus area? i know we get some other presentations from other commissions, but maybe a little bit more conversation about how we can engage them going forward. i know the liaisons, i feel confident that you're doing some of that work, i just want a little more structure how we can do that and feel more that moving piece. >> i know it was brought up, the criminal justice act, and also, the mayor's office of community development, if approximate we're starting to

think about acquisition, just having that representation involved, as well. any other future agenda items? all right. we'll now go to public comment. >> can i just -- at this moment when we're talking about future agenda items, we do have a meeting coming up next tuesday that needs to be agendized. i heard from the previous commenter that there would be an agenda item on kind of following up on the immediate need proposals, so assuming that it's slated for -- for next tuesday, are there other -- are any of these topics that are being proposed, do any of them need to be sort of urgent or proposed for additional for our next tuesday? if we need to reach out to

people, we need to know. >> no. we need all of this time that we're going to have next tuesday for the current items. all right. we'll now need to go to public comment. >> can i clarify, because maybe it's not a future item. i can't remember if we [inaudible] staffing conversations, maybe we don't need an agenda item about it, we can just start operationalizing it. >> yeah. i think we'll have another meeting to have those future conversations, so you definitely have a green light. >> okay. okay. great.

thanks. >> all right. we'll now go to public comment? >> members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call 415-655-0001, access code 146-712-8211, pound, and pound again. if you haven't already done so, press star, three to lineup to speak. a system prompt will indicate you have been unmuted. you will have three minutes to present your comments. i'm checking for hand raised. there are no hands raised, no public comment. >> thank you, secretary hom. is there a motion to adjourn? >> so moved. >> all right. so been moved by member reggio and seconded by vice chair d'antonio. any further discussion on adjournment? all right. we'll go to a roll call vote. [roll call]

>> great. >> all right. so motion passes, and we are adjourned at 12:23 p.m., and feel free to reach out before our next meeting. thank you, everyone.

>> december 9, 2020, this is a remote meeting via video and teleconferencing. this meeting is being held by a webex, pursuant to the governor's executive orders with the proclamation declaring the existence of a local emergency. during the coronavirus disease, the fire commission's meeting room at city hall is closed and the meetings will convene remotely. you may watch this live at sfgov-tv.org, participating by phone, please dial 1-(415)-655-0001.

and mut use the access code, 143 1828. members of the public will have opportunities to participate during public comment. and the public is asked to wait for the particular agenda item before making a comment on that item. comments will be addressed in the order they are received. when the moderator announces that the commission is taking public comment, members of the public can raise their hand by pressing star, 3, and you will be queued. callers will hear silence when waiting for your turn to speak. the operator will unmute you. when prompted callers have a standard three minutes to provide comment. ensure that you are in a quiet location, speak clearly, and turn off any tvs or radios around you. item 1, roll call. [roll call]

she is waiting to get in. we know that she's present. [roll call] item 2, general public comment. members of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes on any matter within the commission's jurisdiction. that does not appear on the agenda. speakers shall address their remarks to the commission as a whole and not to individual commissioners or department personnel. and do not enter into debate or discussion with the speaker. the lack of a response by the commissioner or the department personnel does not necessarily

constitute agreement with or support for comments made during public comment. i will check the public comment line. and nobody has their hand raised. all right. >> president covington: seeing that there's no public comment, we will close public comment. item three, approval of the minutes. the action to approve the regular meeting minutes of november 10th, 2020. >> president covington: all right. do any of the commissioners have any comments on the draft minutes? >> no, i move to approve. >> president covington: is there a second. >> i'll second. >> president covington: okay.

>> clerk: roll call [roll call vote] i don't believe that president covington is online yet and there is nobody for public comment. so the minutes are approved unanimously with the four commissioners present. >> excellent. >> clerk: okay. item 4, chief of department's report, report from the chief of department jeanine nicholson on the current activities and events within the department since the fire commission meeting on november 10, 2020, including budget, and the outreach to other government agencies in the public and a report from administration, deputy chief jose velo on administrative divisions and facilities and status and

updates and finance and support services and training within the department. >> good morning. chief jeanine nicholson. good morning, vice president fed commissioners. and i just spoke with the president and he said that she may have to call in on her phone. so just a heads up on that, maureen. this is my report for wednesday, december 9, 2020. so we all know that there has been a covid surge in the city, and we were sent into purple earlier this week with more restrictions. we are seeing a really worrying trend. the cases have quadrupled since the beginning of december. and if we continue at this rate, you know, there are different predictions, but suffice to say that we will run out of i.c.u.

beds, you know, within -- between two and four weeks. they are seeing a bump in cases since the thanksgiving holiday and so, you know, for what the department is doing, we have doubled down on our incident -- incident event plan and we are ensuring that everyone is continuing to do the things that we've had them to do for so long, decontaminating the stations, wearing masks, and doing the health check when they get to work. so we have had a total of approximately 50 members within the department with covid. some with symptoms, some without. some with long-term symptoms who have been off for quite a while. and we have as of yesterday we had 13 people in quarantine.

not all of those had tested positive for covid, but some had close contacts. moving on, our instructions, i know that mark corso has spoke to the mayor's budget office and gotten some instructions but the department heads will get them in the next week or so. so we will get right back into working on our budget for next -- the next fiscal year. and, again, the city is asking for, you know, more cuts and so that we are -- we are doing our best to make our case for, you know, to cut down to the bone. so more to follow on that. and vaccines -- as the city we're having discussions on -- on the vaccine itself and who it's going to.

and internally in our department, the e.m.s. division has come up with a plan for how to both receive and to provide the vaccine, not only for our own members, but to help the city to roll this out. so that is a lot of work that went into that by our e.m.s. division, so thank you all for that and we're going to be a team partner in rolling this vaccine out. in terms of when we will be getting it, because there are not enough doses right now, we have been put second in line. we are 1b. 1a is the health care workers in the hospitals and most likely elderly folks in these care homes where they've had a ton of outbreaks and then we are 1b. so it's going to be a couple of months before we are able to get

the vaccine for ourselves and i really encourage all of our members to get it. if they're afraid, i'll be first in line. i have no problem getting this vaccine. we had a successful launch of what we are calling the scrt, street crisis response team. again this came out of e.m.s. chief tom and chief pang and many others have worked diligently on this. this is the collaboration with the department of public health, with an events health care practitioner and with a peer support person onboard, someone who has experienced homelessness or mental health issues or both. so that rolled out last week. they -- they basically were working 9:00 to 5:00, and i think that it is 10:00 to 6:00

now, so we may add monday to friday. we may add a saturday in. in late january we're hoping to have more units up. but i really want to thank all of e.m.s.6 and, you know, all of the e.m.s.' efforts on this from simon, april, and mike and, everyone, you guys have just done phenomenal -- phenomenal work, so, thank you. station 35 -- the floating structure has arrived. and we are pretty excited about it. chief dewitt has been working tirelessly on this and we are still waiting for pg&e in terms of how to best electrify this station. this has been an issue for a while, and so we are working

proactively with them to try to get this done. but it's looking, you know, probably mid year for the -- for the completion. now the ambulance deployment facility is moving along and we are hoping to have that substantial completion at the end of january. possibly move in in february. but more to follow on that. and we are in the process of -- we signed up for a therapy dog from a non-profit, and we had an informational session yesterday with a couple of folks from that non-profit. and many of our members joined on because they're interested in this program. and i think that it's going to be a great addition to our department and to our behavioral health unit. and really looking forward to this, really grateful to this

non-profit. and then i know that you'll be hearing from the -- the officer who is in charge of the diversity equity and inclusion office today, captain brice peoples. but i know that there are a lot of people here as well from the racial equity action committee, and i really just want to thank all of them for all of their work. this is -- this has been a monumental effort to get this up and running. and i'm so grateful to have all of your different voices involved in this, and i'm so grateful for your work. and keep it coming. and, you know, it's one foot in front of the other with this plan. it's the big one. and you all have really -- have really come together on this. so, thank you so much, and thank you to captain peoples for

organizing all of this. and that concludes my report. >> and i don't see any hands raised in public comment. you're on mute, vice president. >> vice-president feinstein: yeah, you all were lucky there. i know -- let me turn to my fellow commissioners first of all to see if anybody has any questions or comments for the chief. and i know that i have one about the scrt program that probably chief pang or -- or chief tom -- i see -- everybody keeps moving around in the little picture. so, anyway, why don't i hear

from fellow commissioners. anybody have any questions or comments for chief nicholson? >> vice president feinstein, i do not have questions for the chief at this point and i will wait until the other report to see if there's any questions that come about, thank you. >> vice-president feinstein: very good, thank you. and commissioner rodriguez, anything? okay. and i know -- oh, yeah there's commissioner cleaveland, he removed from one end of my screen to the next. again, do you have anything to say, commissioner cleaveland? >> commissioner cleaveland: no questions, thank you. >> vice-president feinstein: and i'm presuming that we can't yet hear president covington. >> commissioner cleaveland: she's come on. i see her. >> vice-president feinstein: i see her, but i can't hear her. no.

okay. my one question, chief nicholson, or to whomever you wish to send this question is that i understand what scrt is. i don't quite understand the intersection between scrt and e.m.s.6. and how you are coming upon your scrt clients or patients, whether there's an overlap -- i am just not quite clear on that. >> thank you for the question, madam vice president. and i don't know if you know that number 4 is an update from the community paramedic. that particular program, e.m.s.6, and community paramedicine, and i know they would be more than happy to address that then, unless you want me to right now. >> vice-president feinstein: i'm fine to wait.

i apologize. >> it's fine. >> vice-president feinstein: thank you. >> you got it. >> vice-president feinstein: all right. then we're moving on. >> chief velo you have the ball. >> thank you, deputy chief jose velo from administration. this is my report for the month of october. i will share this in a little bt but we have november and december reports in our meeting in january, due to the reduced schedule that we have now. and i will now present october. so let me share the screen. and hoping that you can see that. go back to the beginning. i apologize for that. can y'all see that?

>> vice-president feinstein: yes. >> thank you. again, this is my report for the month of october. i will start with a brief update on mutual aid on the -- we had some -- not responding to mutual aid but we coordinated the mutual aid to the city to the memorial service, and so that was a lot of work put into that. we also had some strikers that were prepositioning a program that the state put together in place to assist in case of red flag warnings and projected fires. and those units were put to work immediately, not in our area, but they were down to the south. so that system is still working. unfortunately, the system that we're in, we had red flag warnings last weekend and some coming up this weekend as well. and we have serious fires that we haven't been called yet to assist but they're having fires there as well too. so unless we get some rain it's going to be a long year. all right. training -- our division has

been having some training with our folks. i spoke about the investigation that we conducted with the city attorney's office, focused on our r.c.s and we did two more of those in the month of october. we hosted three sessions of firefighter bill of rights training that was funded by cjep. and i included in our report a glossary of terms on the last page so i'm hoping that will help you as we add more terms from the second reports and those will be growing, so and so we joined recently as a combined effort between the labor and administration. and a funds for training of apprentices which is the first three years of a firefighter's year. we host classes by props so it's a really good program that we use for that. in addition, we also hosted

leadership and team building training. we did a trainer-to-trainer class and we selected 25 members of the department, and the ranks of captains and above, including rescue captains, to be our trainers for this project that we are pretty excited about. leadership, in general how to communicate the mission and values to the department to our members so they can project it to our citizens. and also how to address personal attitudes in the way that conforms with our policies and procedures and basically also going back to the mission of how we do that. so we are very excited about this group of folks. they did at first the training session last month, when we selected 23 lieutenants that were there. here's a picture of them. and the instructors to the right, captain peeling and captain hutchinson, and they were the instructors. so this is to have this rotate through different sections and our goal is to provide this

training. it's a two-day class to our folks in the next year or so and make sure they all get the same curriculum. so we're very excited about the fact that we have our own folks train our own individuals. so it helps a lot to that and they relate to the culture and they understand the process. that's a process that we have been trying to do and many other things within the training. and continuing to do more training at s.f.o., and the culture rescue training and training with the coast guard units and the bay. and we continue to do our medical training every single year. and i didn't list all of the things they did in the report, but they celebrate the 30th anniversary, and due to covid, obviously, it was virtual meeting. and the members celebrated this a couple saturdays ago and it was very exciting to see all of the members there. our chief of health has been extremely busy. continuing to do the meetings

and we are selecting a new set of turnouts for the contract and there's a lot of parts to that puzzle on how it works we'll have members try it out and give feedback and fit the one that fits better to our needs. we hosted the flu clinic at headquarters. she was extremely busy and making sure that the plans for the services, the vigil and the memorial for firefighter cortez met with the city's health plan. and continuing to meet with the peer support teams and the critical incident response teams. and continue to work with our behavioral health unit and formerly known as the thrft unit. and working on the rollout that we have now and we are basically on some days we have members that are going out there and doing -- helping our members to do self-testing for covid, for p.p.e. and contact tracing and so forth. so we are reactivating for that purpose. and she's working and updating our prevention plans which are

due for renewal. and when i come in here, jim green assist us with the flu vaccinations in october. we're still gathering data. we know that we gained more from last year but we still have members not selected and update their information online so we can get an accurate count. we know with the doses that we give, that we did more dose this is year and we need the members to update it, and we keep pushing for that. and continuing to do random tests and all have come back negative. and continue to assist the doctor's office with the provision mucprovisions of phys. and we continue to update equipment and apparatus. we believe in battery operated

fans to reduce emissions inside of the buildings. we are issuing that and having new ventilation -- and we continue to update those units and make sure they have the most up-to-date equipment to use. and apparatus, and they continue to be out for bid. there was some issue with some of the o.c.a.s requirements so we continue to work on that. the inspection trip for the six engines that were there, we had some concerns about the covid conditions in louisiana and travel to, so we are waiting for that to improve to be able to go there and to do it. and we received a mutual aid command vehicle and we're waiting for the receipt of vehicles, and i will show you a picture in a second -- next slide. and the trucks are in progress and the model is back for adjustments. that's what we do, we bring one, make sure it works and it's back in louisiana they have to do the adjustments that we identify here.

this is the apparatus that we're getting. five of them from the state. it's a same process that we have our current type one or engine 361 and basically they give us the apparatus when they call to help, and there are reports to staff it, and we can also use it in our own city to help out with any fires. it's a mobile quick apparatus that can -- small grass fires, it can be used for that, and four-wheel drives and it can go into trails and so forth. so we're excited about helping the state and helping ourselves at the same time. and they continue to fulfill the requests for upgrading the emergency generation stations. it's an ongoing process. and as one becomes old we continue to do this. as you recall, station 15, which is being rebuilt, so that's the only one saved due to historical nature. they're going to rebuild it and build it there again, but more

seismic fit. this is prior to the removing of the station 35, some of the projects that were being done there. and i want to show you a quick video on the night that the barge moved to station 35. it's a short one. so they moved in the middle of the night, 2:00 a.m. move, and the construction was able to attach the two pylons there, that would anchor the station there. the station is moving along real well, the chief said that we're waiting for the issue of the connection with pg&e and other than that the ramp that connects to the station has been completed. and now actually able to walk down there to see it under the construction, but it's there. it's very exciting to see this. and we expect, again, some time in the next year, april, we may be able to move the station there completely. but it's moving along very well. it's a beautiful station and

unique and it's the first one in the country, i think that it is. station 49, moving along very well. some of the projects that they have lately worked on is the outside parking lot and the paving of the entrance there. so everything is going well. the interior looks beautiful. as you can see with the racks for the equipment and so forth. and the offices are almost ready to go too, so we're having also minor delays due to pg&e and we expect to move some time in mid-february of this coming year. so we're excited about that. and just to finish, a quick project that we were involved just by luck having to meet a member of the community, and they were building desks for children that have, you know, to go to school at home virtually and don't have a place for them to do their homework and to do their school. so they asked us if we could assist them in delivering these desks to the kids of t.i. and we happily accepted.

so our folks from 48 and our folks with trucks were able to deliver these desks to the kids so we're very excited and it was a great moment for all involved to do that. and that's the end of my quick report. happy to answer any questions that you may have. stop sharing... thank you. >> [broken audio] hello? [echo] >> i can hear president covington but there's an echo. does anybody else hear the echo? >> okay, that's feedback, so i'll turn it down. all right. while i work out this wrinkle,

continue, madam vice president. >> vice-president feinstein: all right. do we have public comment, maureen? >> clerk: there are no hands raised for public comment. >> vice-president feinstein: all right, then public comment will be closed. and let me turn to my fellow commissioners. and i'm just going with here, based on where you are and what the grid is in front of me. so commissioner cleaveland, any questions or comments for chief vela? >> commissioner cleaveland: yes, madam vice president. there's a delay with pg&e hooking up station 35. do we know what the reason is? >> yes, the reason, commissioner, was that in the initial plans they had planned a specific point of connection for station 35. after further review much the point of connection, they identified that the voltage needed was not sufficient, so

they identified another one and we're working on those plans to make sure that is the proper one. so that's the delay. it was in the build-out and the design of that point of connection. but i believe that we identified other points of connection and we're working on that separate point of connection from now on. >> commissioner cleaveland: okay, but that just -- just identifying that point of connection pushed the schedule back by several months it sounds like? >> that is correct. because you have to construction from the cables that right now doesn't exist, so, yes. >> commissioner cleaveland: okay, thank you. that's all of my questions, madam chair. >> vice-president feinstein: okay, thank you, commissioner cleaveland. next up i see commissioner nakajo. >> commissioner nakajo: thank you, madam vice president, thank you very much, chief vela, for your comprehensive report. as well as chief nicholson, thank you for your comprehensive report. chief velo, i have a few

questions. one of the questions would be directed at chief dewitt. on your report, chief dewitt, on page 32, it talks about the bond 2010, and about the eastern bond 2014. chief dewitt, again, just as a point of information to the rest of the commissioners and an update to myself, we are i assume by this report working still off of ballots of easter bond 2010? and equally off the balance of 2014? that's one of the affirmations that i'm looking for. and is there a time limit when we're supposed to expend those dollars or is that up to us that we have been allocated and we can disseminate the dollars as we move along, through chief

nicholson to chief velo. >> chief dewitt, are you available? >> she was having trouble with her connection. so, chief velo, if you could answer this, that would be helpful. >> thank you -- >> i'm sorry. i saw mr. corso also raised his hand. i'll defer to you all. >> thank you, vice president. yes, that's correct, commissioner nakajo. all of the projects allocated through the bond 2010 and 2014, will continue, and some of them are, you know, due to the process that takes a long to get there. and so there's some remaining bonds there and i'm going to refer to mr. corso on how much that balance may be and forward to the project. but all of the projects funded by that, especially the station 35, for example, so that's a project that continues until we

finish that project. but, if you want to add anything to this? >> sure, good morning, everyone. thank you, chief. yes, just briefly, on 2010 easter bond we're wrapping up the main project there is were station 4 and then station 5 and 16, and as those close out -- have closed out -- it's a matter of reconciling the small remaining balance. 2014 bond, yes, there's a number of projects still underway. the chief had mentioned the new station 35. so that one is definitely still a balance, and we're working on a number of focused projects along those lines too. i think that as far as timelines, the goal is to have as much done as possible before the next bond series comes up. it just looks better, obviously, that it shows that the city is working and expending those funds bestowed upon by the voters. so we work closely with capital planning and d.p.w. on the assignment of the projects and the closeout of the respective

projects that we have. >> commissioner nakajo: all right, thank you very much for that update, director corso and chief velo, and chief dewitt. for my fellow commissioners, again, just a point of information that we have been fortunate enough to have these bonds in 2010 and it helps to describe that we're closing out on that and that station 4, which is the new station down there, and station 5, and station 16 down in the marina, were all part of that. and the bonds that we're presently in. director corso, we just finished getting approval for our most recent bond, is that true, is that accurate? >> correct, there was a bond in 2020 that was passed, a big piece of that from our perspective is the fire training facility and the neighborhood fire station. so we're working closely to kind

of finalize that project. but that's the main piece of that bond for us. >> commissioner nakajo: all right, so very fortunate from the year of 2010 all the way to now, presently 2020 going into 2021, that we've had the resources for 10 years plus of bond dollars to be able to take care of that and use that within the department. thank you for that. chief velo, in your report you reported that we did some on october 26th to orange county, and did we actually send units to the blue ridge fire or were we standing by? >> we did send units down there and, yes, we did send units down there. >> commissioner nakajo: okay. and could you describe how many units we sent down there? >> five teams, so five engines

and a chief and a leader. >> commissioner nakajo: all right, thank you very much, chief velo. and as a point of information, in your nert report, have we ever -- has the department been able to select the coordinator of the nert program in terms of a new staff person that has oversight? >> so we did go out for interviews and we have one candidate, and i'm working with the chief to make sure that the candidate is able to do the job. but, yes, we have selected one person that we think that is great, and i will update that in the next commission meeting. >> commissioner nakajo: okay, thank you very much, chief velo and madam vice president. that's all of my questions. >> vice-president feinstein: thank you, commissioner nakajo. commissioner rodriguez. >> commissioner rodriguez: thank you, madam vice president. and thank you, chief velo, for your report. i just have two questions and i'm still learning stuff here. you mentioned something about an apprenticeship class and then

you mentioned that it lasted for three -- i mean, the apprentice classes were three years. so i'm kind of curious, is that -- when recruiting ar recruits , they do three years and then that's it and they have graduated to become a firefighter? that's the one question. and the other, maybe i missed it, but could you explain what the mutual aid vehicle is that was approved? >> absolutely. so the first question -- california joined the apprentice -- a program started by the california department of (indiscernible) and the office. and we joined this in 2012, and basically what it does is that we sign up our recruits. it has nothing to do with a probation period or the way that we characterize our provision of firefighters, it's just that we

enroll them into this program and for the first three years of their career basically, we get specific amount of dollars per hour of training that we do on them. and then that fund is created and it's handled by the program, which is hosted by the professional firefighters in sacramento, and when we have any training, like classes or equipment that we want to buy for training, it has to be training specific -- not personnel, and not overtime but just specific vendors coming to teach something or we want to buy some props for the training facility or whatever that we do, or equipment for that, and then the bill is sent to them and they pay it from the fund am so it's a program that we enroll into it. and we also have another program through city college that the first year we also get some funds -- kind of a similar program for that. so what we do is that the first year that the money comes from the city college agreement agred year two and three from cjac funding. so it's a great program and a way for us to get some funding.

in response to your question about the mutual aid vehicle -- so when we send a strike team of five engines we have a leader and assistant leader that goes with them. our vehicles are quite old and not four-wheel drive. so another program that we have is that for every deployment that we get a percentage of the cost of that or fees back to the department to maintain the mutual aid program. these are the funds that we use to buy the apparatus that we have from the state, to buy equipment that we use, hose and so forth and shelters, and we have money that we use for this vehicle too. so this vehicle is used to go there, and it will be the main vehicle when we cen send a strie team and that's where the leader and the system would lead the strike team to deployments. >> commissioner rodriguez: thank you very much. >> vice-president feinstein: all right, i'm just going to check in, madam president, any progress?

we can hear you? >> president covington: oh, my goodness. my goodness, i come from a long line of people that never give up. >> vice-president feinstein: there you go. well, i hand you the gavel. >> president covington: i'm talking on the phone. >> vice-president feinstein: it's working. >> president covington: all right. well, i did have a question. and thank you so much, madam vice president, and thank you, everyone, for your patience. it's always something. so chief velo, i wanted to know about station 35. actually, this is not a question for you and it's just a general statement regarding the press for the rollout of station 35. there was an article in "the chronicle" and then i also saw it on the evening news. it was wonderful to see, you

know, all of this equipment coming in. it was just a wonderful occasion because we've been working so long on this. however, i must say that we don't get any press releases from the press section of the san francisco fire department. and for the press to be aware that such an event is taking place and the commissioners have not received that information, i think that's an oversight on the part of the department. so i'm hoping that the chief of the department will correct that and make sure that all commissioners get the same information that the press gets. so that we're not playing catch-up and we know exactly what's going on. so that's my comment on that. i am just very, very happy that

everything is going along smoothly regarding 35 and then our new paramedic facility. so that's all good news. now the o.e.s. apparatus, this is for you directly, chief velo, i know that previously we weren't allowed to use that o.e.s. apparatus, it was just in the fire houses until mutual aid was needed. but you say that with this new apparatus that we will be able to use it at any time? >> that is correct. so i checked with o.e.s., as you recall that our retired chief franklin is now the o.e.s. for our region. and so normally, you know, we try not to use the apparatus but

it's clearly that we have significant incidents or we have to do a modified o.e.s. and o.e.s. would put their apparatus out of service for mutual aid until we finish with the incident. that's part of the agreement with them. and the same with 361, if needed, if we have a major event, we can use 361 and we need to let the state know. so if they are counting on that apparatus to go somewhere else, they know that it's used for san francisco. so it's the same thing. >> president covington: well, very good, that's also good news. all right, i believe all of the commissioners have spoken and put forth their questions. so, madam secretary, can you double check that there's no public comment? madam secretary?

>> clerk: i'm checking now. >> president covington: thank you. >> clerk: there are no hands raised for public comment. >> president covington: okay, thank you. all right, will you please call the next item. >> clerk: item 5, resolution 2020-03, this resolution was actually on last month's agenda and we never got to it because we ran out of time. and this is the discussion and possible action to approve resolution 2020-03, recommending that the board of supervisors authorize the san francisco fire department to accept and expend a safer grant from fema in the amount of $13,760,604, to the hiring of 36 new firefighters. >> president covington: wonderful. thank you.

commissioners, do i have a motion to approve? >> madam president, i move to approve. >> i will second that. >> president covington: thank you both very much. is there any discussion before we do roll call vote? okay, seeing none, i just want to say that i am so excited to get this money and i hope that the board of supervisors will approve it very, very quickly. all right, so -- >> clerk: [roll call vote] the motion is unanimous. >> president covington: very good. and thank you, everyone, who worked so hard on this thank you, mr. corso, and your

department. >> clerk: there's nobody raising their hand for public comment. >> president covington: okay, public comment is hereby closed. then we can go to the next item. >> clerk: item 6, update from the san francisco fire department's draft racial equity plan. equity officer captain brice peoples to provide an update on the department's draft racial equity plan. >> president covington: thank you. welcome, captain peoples. >> thank you very much, president covington. it's nice to be here today. i want to start off by just greeting president covington and vice president feinstein and commissioner cleaveland and commissioner rodriguez and commissioner nakajo. i have met commissioner nakajo over the years and it's nice to see him again as well. i also want to address and say thank you to the senior leadership, chief nicholson and chief vela for all of their help

in this project. i'm going to have a little presentation here in a second and my name is brice peoples. i am the very first diversity equity and inclusion officer for the san francisco fire department. i have been practicing how to say that, it's a mouthful. it's a very, very rewarding work thus far. and so we're looking forward to seeing what it will do with all of the support from this body and as well as the senior leadership and the membership. as we are going to have a powerpoint presentation here, i'll try to get this going. one second. let's make sure that -- let me know if you're able to see what i see. >> yes. >> looks good, captain. >> okay, thank you very much. so this is our presentation of the san francisco fire department's racial equity plan. this plan we perceive going into

effect next year and it's already talked about how to integrate into our strategic plan. and we'll talk about that as we move along. but there are many people that we have to thank here. the first is the committee that put this plan together. they've been working tirelessly and through a lot of challenges. we call them the reac, the recreational advisory committee. and we will talk about who that is and how many people are doing that a little bit later on in the presentation. but there's been challenges. and, number one, it's never been done before. so there's no bread crumbs to get us there. nothing that we can refer to. it's been pretty much just ingenuity on the part of the committee and the assistance from the office of racial equity and the senior leadership. we also got a little bit of a late start as we know that covid has been having many

implications this year. and so we actually didn't get a chance to get started fully on this until august 11th of this year. that's no time at all if we think about the huge lift that we've been asked to do here. there's also been virtual meeting learning curve. as you know, the fire department committees, we're used to being in the same room with each other sharing in real-time and in real space, not a virtjul space. so that's been a little bit of a challenge, but they were able to overcome that. so we are really impressed by their dedication. a couple other things just for context. a lot of the members were preparing for promotional exams and while helping to develop this action plan. there were deployments and other administrative assignments they've had, and their normal day-to-day responsibilities. and then just some of the recent

tragedies that the department has experienced. so it's been a huge challenge, but, again, very proud of the reac committee. and we wanted to say thank you to the senior leadership. from day one they have been just absolutely behind this project and supporting it wholeheartedly. very enthusiastic about it, and they have been just helping us to organize and to get that process, and establishing the very first diversity equity inclusion office, and we'll talk about that a little bit, and the purpose of that office and providing resources and oversight (indiscernible) and so the point of our presentation today is to serve two purposes. number one, to deliver or present the racial equity action plan draft to the commission for city ordinance 188-19. that's an ordinance passed this

year, signed off and it's something that comes with quite a huge footprint in the way that we do things nowadays in all city agencies. we will talk a little bit about that legislation and what it looks like and how it affects us and what we're supposed to do to comply with it. and number two, to give the overall process and intent of the legislation. a lot of people are unaware of it, and how much this body, i don't know how much this body is aware of this legislation but we'll provide background so that we can all understand what we're doing here or trying to do. so overview for this presentation is, number one, why the they need the racial equity plan. or as we said the wreath. and what is the racial equity plan is and then the office of racial equity, who is that and their city-wide framework that they provide.

and then the process behind living up to that framework. and then number four, who is creating the wreath and what will the reap do, and how much is it implemented in a quick summary and then next steps. it's not a long presentation and we don't anticipate that and we want to go over the main points here. if you can pick out who -- this person is here -- you do have something special for that. so, anyway, as we move further along, why the sfpd needs the racial equity plan. and the bottom line is that the legislation itself says that each city department shall develop a racial equity plan in alignment with the racial equity framework by december 31, 2020. that is law. so we have no choice but to comply with this process and to try to make it work for the department, which we are actually excited about what the

intent of this process is. we're happy that it's being mandated. it's something that i do know that chief nicholson and her administration were excited about, even before the mandate came out, she was very emphatic about identifying ways to develop our people and to make sure that people aren't being marginalized and bringing them more to center. but now we have the law that actually goes along with that. so we need it because basically as we said it's the law, and it's also consistent with our mission and values as we will see. and it is needed as we talked about. it's good to have a strategy to see how we bring in talented people, talented qualified people, and how we develop them. so this is exactly what this plan is that we will see that will do. and here's a quick snapshot of our mission and value statements. as you can see, part of it is

not to only put out fires and deal with emergencies and to educate, but to provide a work environment that values health, wellness and cultural diversity and freedom from harassment and discrimination. and a highly trained workforce, that is diverse, and that we have some control over the environment that we send our people in to work and make sure that it is places they can come in and be a whole person. so what is the racial equity action plan? this is taken directly from the office of racial equity city-wide framework. and the racial equity action plan advances racial equity in all aspects of the department's work over the next three years. so we're looking forward to seeing how that plan is going to be implemented, but that's the intent and the purpose of what that plan is. and then the legislation

actually talks about and introduces us to the office of racial equity, we call it r.o.e. and r.o.e. was legistated in response to the city's growing racial disparities and as a mean to address institutional racism in san francisco and the delivery of services to the public and its own internal practices and systems. so it is basically a top-down review of everything, all of the city departments, the services that we offer to our citizens, and also to our employees. we want to take a look at absolutely everything to make sure that we aren't marginalizing individuals and that vulnerable populations are looked after equally. what else is in that legislation that c.o.188-19? well, it mandates the appointee of racial equity leaders in every city department. so the police, they're going through this at this point. and p.u.c., everybody who works for the city has to have racial

equity leaders and has to go through the same process that we're going through right now. it protects those racial equity leaders from retaliation. racial equity leaders, are the ones primarily responsible for developing this racial equity action plan, and they will review that process every three years. and then prior to submission, the department must present the racial equity action plan to its commission, which we are doing today, even though it's in draft form, but, again, timing is a little tough at the moment. the reap will appear on the department's website and the reap is intgreated into the department's str strategic plan. and they'll submit the reap with their annual budget and reviewed by the mayor's office and the board of supervisors during that process, as well as the office of racial equity. so a lot of people will be looking at our action plans, transparency across the board, and they're going to take that

into consideration as they look at our budget and there could be ramifications if we are not making good-faith efforts to apply and to implement that action plan. and, yeah, so we will try to avoid that, absolutely. as far as the office of racial equity, just a little bit about them, r.o.e. they're part of the process, they establish the bar that the city -- that all city agencies must reach in their action plan. and they're a resource with the racial equity leaders and then they provide the city-wide framework and the action plan template. so just so people know, where do we get a lot of the information in our action plan, and the context behind it? and the overall drive? we're going to talk a little bit that city-wide framework, what they have provided and the template that our racial equity leaders or reac were able to use

as they developed that plan. here's a snapshot of the city-wide framework. you can see this is their actual snapshot of their p.d.o.. and it's a book that provides history on why it's needed, that legislation is needed, and what the overall intent is. and also their timeline in there as well. so we're going to show you now a little bit about the process, about how our department, these racial equity leaders, will be represented with and then how they went about coming up with the information. and then how it's going to look in final form. so here's that template here, that framework template. and you will notice that this -- and we will talk about where it touches on in a little bit -- but in this case it's under hiring and recruitment. this comprehensive template is touching on everything in our department, including our boards and commissions. and it basically targets -- it

tasks our department or our racial equity leaders to come up with the content that we'll see in a second. so these are r.o.e.s words, they provide context, the actions and the indicators for success. and even the sub-topics here, dealing with hiring and recruitment. and then our department, our racial equity leaders, came up with our overall department goal. the resources that we will commit to achieve in this particular task or this action, the timeline that you see here, and the implementation plan itself and the status and then the lead. so this is what our individuals, our racial equity leaders, were working on. and this is only one page of a pretty large document. we're using it as an example. you can see r.o.e., what they provided and then what our

membership provided. in the end, here's one of our pages of our document, how it's going to look and exist in the overall end. we're pretty close to that now, but we're still making revisions as you can imagine. and this is how it will be laid out in our actual document. it's in a call and answer approach. so we have r.o.e.s words in blue and here's our departmental goals here, and here's r.o.e. providing the lift again. this is our answer to those -- that particular -- that particular task. and so at the end of the day, this is a collaboration between r.o.e.'s expressions and also the fire department's expressions. and for that it provides back around and in context for individuals who will be using this in the future. so who is creating this action plan? as we talked about, here's the

legislation again, 188-19. it says that each department shall designate at least one staff person to serve as a racial equity leader. we cannot imagine anyone by themselves doing this project. it is huge. so we don't think that anyone does. but if you have a budget over $10 million, you have to have at least one per departmental division. and thankfully we had actually 25 people step up and to want to be part of this process. so we actually selected and convened the very first group of racial equity leaders on august 4th and then they were organized into an advisory committee and we have just been going full tilt on trying to develop something that is comprehensive, that is thoughtful, and that is practical, and we think that they have pretty much nailed it. so they started working --

though they were convened on the 4th, they started working on the 11th. there's 25 members as we have said. it's a diverse group, all across the divisions of our department, and they vary in seniority from people who have a very short time to go, to people right off of probation. so what will this equity action plan do? again, this is r.o.e.s words of the office of racial equity. it's a strategic plan by the city-wide framework to enact institutional and structural things to achieve racial equity. so -- and we have even expanded on that to make sure that we have left no one out. it is just not folks in racial equity, that is the primary impetus in the law, but as we have seen in our department, we are making sure that no one is left behind or anyone being marginalized. that's why we have broadened this to include the diversity

equity and inclusion across the board. so everyone -- any particular culture or limitation or belief is welcome in our department. again, as long as it coincides with our mission statement and our value statement. so that action plan, there are seven sections in that action plan. and hiring and recruitment, retention and promotion, discipline an operations and leadership and management, mobility and professional development, organizational culture of inclusion and belonging, and board and commissions. as we said earlier, it's quite comprehensive. there's a lot of information here and a lot of things to do. and a lot of them are actually welcome. i don't see anything that we have talked about in that plan that will not be welcomed in how it will impact the department. how will it be implemented? well, as we said earlier, the

department created its first diversity equity and inclusion office on october 1, 2020, this year. we also appointed the very first diversity equity inclusion officer, and now we'll be seeking future staff and funding to make that office effective. so that's the how it will be implemented and that plan will be the playbook for this office, this diversity equity inclusion office and we'll implement the programs that will come from that plan. so you can see a slight organizational change here. here is chief velo, the deputy chief of administration. and that office exists right in his chain of command. it works in harmony with our own internal department of human resources. the reac works out of that office and operates out of that office as well. we have a community outreach

recruitment and education committee, which is made up of volunteers that will work out of that office. our member steak holder stakehof that office and we want to formalize that relationship with them. and then we'll have future staff that will run the robust programs and we'll be looking for full-time employments and we understand that is going to be a huge ask and a huge lift, but as we see this is something that we cannot -- we don't have an option, we have to do it. and so we will be focused on that the talks when we do discuss the budget with the stakeholders. and then we're going to be developing internal partnerships and here's just a couple examples of the city college, and also the unified school districts. some really good programs are already existing in there, but we'll formalize that process and make them part of the branch, our intake branch and our

pipeline. some of the programs that we have discussed are going to come from this. and we have identified talent acquisition, which is a best practice model, a promising practice model of our old outreach and recruitment and how we onboard and we'll discuss that program a little bit later on. the employee development, including leadership and mobility. part of that was mentioned in chief velo's report regarding the leadership. the fact that we have broadened that and to continue to develop our people across the board for leadership and mobility. even in executive development program and the command staff and even some of our higher managers in the civilian aspects will be touched on in these programs. overall succession planning, and the program will come out of this. human relations council to help us with some of the special concerns with our affinity groups and the general

membership and the disciplinary case review and the internal promotional testing assistance, which is a huge component that we'll look at. and how we test and what is the best model for testing and how our people do well, and we're going to try to develop programs that support our members and how they test. so they can be successful. and then training and mentoring and education is huge in this action plan. so in summary, the three fundamental principles of this plan -- transparency is a good thing and that's what you will see that we will be asking for out of this plan across the board. transparency is a good thing, let's see what is going on and why have we made the decisions that we made and where can we go from there. and candidates and employee development is a huge part of this action plan. and then practical support as needed. so we'll be able to pivot resources and staffing to

different things that come up based on what our findings are. so what's next? we want to continue to finalize the racial equity action plan. we are in the final stages of that now. a big push in order t to meet tt december 31st1st deadline, and n we can submit it to the office of racial equity. and then technically it goes live and we have a place already on our web senate we're going to -- website that we'll approve with the other stakeholders, to be able to publish that on the website. we'll then seek out funding to staff, the d.i.o., and seek resources for them. then we'll develop the robust programs outlined in that action plan. as you can see there's quite a few programs that are there and that will help all of our membership across the board. and then we will implement those programs with the day-to-day operations of that office. so in the end, the end goal will

be to get this plan passed and approved. and then reap the benefits of what we call the relationship, the racial equity action plan. that's all i have for the presentation, unless there are questions that i can help anyone with. >> president covington: thank you very much for that presentation. i appreciate it so much. let's see, madam secretary, do we have any -- anyone who would like to speak? >> clerk: there is nobody with their hand up on the public comment line. >> president covington: okay, thank you. all right, i'll go to my fellow commissioners. beginning with vice president feinstein. >> vice-president feinstein: thank you, madam president. captain peoples, i've got to say that was a knock your socks off

presentation. i am sure they could come up with something more heartful, but that's just what is coming into my mind. and the amount of work that has clearly gone into this in the world's shortest time frame is incredibly impressive. i think that you're going to -- meet with nothing but success here, and, yeah, really not ju t to serve the department, but really serve our city really, really well with the implementation of these steps. and it's so organized and together and linear, and, you know, i think that it's doable. you know, there are always roadblocks along the way, but i've gotta tell you that i have every confidence in you -- just to hop right over those roadblocks but i just -- i wanted to get it

out there that this is really cracker jack work and i thank you for getting everything together so quickly and in such a superior format. what you have accomplished is really to be commended. and i thank you. >> thank you very much, commissioner feinstein, madam vice president. again, i would love to sit here and take all of the credit for it but it's an amazing team tead they're dedicated and the administration has just been forthright and so supportive. so you can't help but to succeed in this climate, so i just want to say thank you very much. and i'll pass that on to the team as well because they're the ones who are doing the work. >> vice-president feinstein: please do, please do. thank you. >> president covington: you have no questions, madam vice president? >> vice-president feinstein: no, that's it. >> president covington: okay, thank you.

i will go to the commissioner nakajo. >> commissioner nakajo: thank you very much, madam president. i don't want to be redundant but i need to express the same kind of comments that the vice president did. this was very, very impressive, captain peoples. very impressive. in terms of, again, the timeline, the inclusion of the 25 volunteers that i think that you mentioned, i use the word "comprehensive" a lot when it comes to our officers and presentation and that's exactly what this is. to have it in the draft format, terribly impressed with the slides, and, again, it was comprehensive. it went from step-to-step. as i was listening to this action equity plan being presented, it dawned on me that this presentation and this

format would be an excellent example for anybody in terms of trying to put together a program with inclusion and the steps that you have taken. again, the amount of work that your committee put in is pretty evident, to try to make this by the december 31st deadline is impressive. i think that we have more than a body of draft, we definitely have a comprehensive piece as well. and i do believe that i can see and we can see the amount of work that went into it, both in terms of the comprehension and in terms of the slide presentation and touching upon every area from the city's equity department to how it translates. i have a question, captain peoples. in terms of your commission statement -- mission statement, how did that come about? >> how did our mission statant

in come about? it started -- that's a great question. i do know that the backdrop of the san francisco fire department's history, recent history, and i don't want to speculate either too, i can only give you from my chair -- coming from the decree, and i know the volatility of the workplace and i know that something had to be incorporated in our mission statement that had to deal with more than just saving lives and property and environment. and also the components as well, we wanted to provide a workplace that people can bring their whole selves to and contribute. i don't know when that change was. i came in 26 years ago. as far as i know and recall, it's always been that way. but i could be wrong and i can get back to you on that if need be. or maybe somebody could help me out as well.

>> commissioner nakajo: well, i appreciate your comments because i was curious, because it totally looks like the mission statement that the san francisco fire department -- i'm very appreciative that you made reference to the consent decree and the changes that occurred from my point of view being a 25-year commissioner, i remember when the mission statement was put together, when the chief was appointed as chief of the department, that the outline to provide a work environment that values health, wellness and cultural diversity, that is free of harassment and discrimation, was a big huge piece that we wanted to implement after the consent decree was ordered by judge patel. and to be able to see that and then to be translated to this, with the value statements, that's on the same page, again, tells me that the folks that were on your committee and yourself in terms of the leadership position, that have

all lined up to exactly what this is supposed to be -- a racial equity action plan in terms of this department and in the year of our lord 2020, going into the 21st century. i definitely feel very, very hopeful and encouraged and i get excited about this product. i get excited because to me it reflects the atmosphere and the members of our department, both men and women, and all of our genders included within that. again, captain peoples, you should be commended as well as please extend to your committee how appreciative this commission is with our commissioner colleagues in terms of this action plan. it's a hell of a great way to go out on 2020 as we move forward. thank you, captain peoples. thank you, madam president. that's all i have. >> thank you, commissioner. >> president covington: thank you, commissioner nakajo. commissioner cleaveland.

>> commissioner cleaveland: thank you, madam president, and thank you, captain peoples, for your comprehensive report here. i think that it was a very professional -- i really have to echo my fellow commissioners' comments that it's a knock your socks off report. and a hell of a start here to reforming a lot of systems that needed to be reformed. i had a couple questions. you talked about having a members stakeholders or affinity groups. can you you elaborate a little t on that? and my second question, you will seek funding for staffing and resources for your department, and i wanted to know where that money or funding may come from. >> okay, thank you very much, thank you for your questions and your comments as well, commissioner. related to the very first one, as far as our stakeholder

component of the office, is that currently -- and it's been a b.l.a. report, 2014, i believe -- that said that there was no formal relationship with the outreach component of the affinity groups. they usually go out -- they're pretty proactive about trying to get people to become interested in the fire department and to apply, but after that it's kind of left up to them and the support that they bring. we want to actually formalize something with them so that we can continue to use them and use their outreach potential. and to have them to continue to find viable candidates and then we want to bring them in and to be able to support these talented individuals that they've identified and to continue to help and to work with and to develop them so that we will always have a diverse, qualified and talented applicant

pool. we also seek components of a human relations component. we know that they have specific needs. right now the current model that we have is that we can only go to the chief of the department, that's how our chief is with the open door policy, but i think that some of the routine things that need to be done can be handled in this office and any other concerns, any of the culturally inclusive concerns can be worked out in this office with our racial equity leaders and the action plan itself. and the chief can have open door policy as they do with all of the membership, but when it comes to specific cultural and equity and inclusion issues, that can be handled in this office and i think that just the day-to-day mundane routine things. and that's how we kind of see that. that is the initial right off of the top of -- or the initial look at which it will be developed later on.

to your second question and i may have to refresh myself on the second question -- and i didn't get a chance to write it down, sorry, commissioner. >> commissioner cleaveland: it was the cost and you thought that you might find some funding. >> great question. well, i'm glad that we have other people on this call at the moment. we're looking at mark corso who is here and we do understand that this is a huge budget constricted time based on covid and the fallout because of that. we're looking to still go through the budget process, the general fund process, and we're going to also look to try to identify in some cases grants and private partnerships if possible. but let's not kid ourselves, this will have to come a lot from the arm of the general fund. so we have to ask, even though we know that it's an uphill ask, and we'll have to see what they

say. i don't have more on that, maybe somebody else who could speak on that? >> yeah, i'd be happy to speak on that for you, captain peoples. this is chief nicholson. and, commissioner cleaveland, in terms of the funding of this -- of this office, this is where the rubber is really going to meet the road. and we are going to, you know, really need to push and advocate because this office needs to be appropriately funded. and it needs to be properly supported. so we're going to have a big push ahead of us, especially -- i'm hearing an echo -- especially in, you know, these challenging budget times. so it is a concern of ours and we're going to do everything that we can because if this

office isn't properly funded we're going to have a really near impossible time of getting all of this work, important work, done. >> commissioner cleaveland: thank you very much, chief. and, again, thank you, captain peoples, for your report. very, very impressive. and i look forward to its implementation thank you, madam chair. >> president covington: thank you, commissioner cleaveland. commissioner rodriguez? >> commissioner rodriguez: okay, thank you. thank you, captain peoples, for your report. it's really exciting to see that something like this is going into action, you know. my only question has been basically that if all that the report -- or all that you'll try to achieve will be open to everyone and you answered that,

that it would be straight across the board, that it would identify things that needed to be fixed or offered to the new people that are trying to come in or the existing members and that it would be -- that would be offered to everybody. which i think that is really good. and if you bear with me, i just want to share something really quick. you know, i was -- i belong to a union for 37 years as a fire sprinkler installer, right. back in 37 years ago when i got in, things were a lot different. there was this thing if you were a non-union sprinkler fitter, you were called a scab and you were looked down on because you weren't union. and there were all of these names and attitudes. after a couple of years the united association, which governs nationwide all of these unions, plumbing unions or sprinkling unions, came out with a program for organizing

non-union workers and trying to educate our existing members that those people out there that weren't part of a union, which is frankly people trying to make a living like we were, and that they should be afforded the same have and the same benefits that we have. and i know that it's a different kind of compared to when you talk about that and maybe racial equality and stuff. but, still, some of the problems that we had i think that the department might be face figure they don't handle it correctly. and i mean by educating the current firefighters why this is needed. and i think that a lot of them with their attitudes have changed over the years, knowing that things aren't the way that they're supposed to be. but as long as they know that the recruits that are coming in have to -- how do i say this --

you know, the attitude when we were bringing in non-union sprinkler fitters, they were taking tests to see where we would fit them into our apprenticeship program. and we would try to share with the other members that they were deserving of what they were getting, not that it was something just given to them because we were trying to meet a quota. and on the other side of that, also for the recruits that are coming in, we thought that it was really important that the recruits felt that they weren't just being handed something if they had to work for it and to earn it. some of them we had them going to night school to get ready. because we had to take a written and oral and have a high school diploma. so we would send them or help them or set up classes to help them to get in. but that way the recruits when they did get in felt they deserved to get what they got. anyway, again, i want to applaud you and your report. and i wish you all the best and whatever i can do to help, feel

free to give me a call. thank you. >> thank you, commissioner. and just -- just to go on what you brought up. nothing in this action plan diminishes the competitive component of applying for that job. you mentioned to assist people and to continue to grow and to develop so they can compete successfully, that's the aim of this. >> commissioner rodriguez: okay, thank you. >> president covington: thank you, commissioner rodriguez. >> president covington, can i interrupt. one of the committee members, julie mau, has her hand up to make a comment. she's part of the committee. is it appropriate for her to make her comment now? >> president covington: well, let me follow up since we started with the commissioners and then since i'm the last commissioner and then miss mau

can certainly chime in. >> clerk: very good. >> president covington: okay, thank you. excuse me. captain peoples, let me add my voice to the chorus of praise for your presentation. and thank you and everyone -- all of the 24 other people who have been working so hard on this. i have some questions and actually some of them are kind of a follow-up to what it is that commissioner rodriguez was speaking about. so, again, your compression of these 47 pages into the presentation that you gave us is just an incredible indication of how organized you and your fellow committee members are. so that's much appreciated.

and captain peoples on page six, you have here the implementation plan, and it will consist of a review of scores. can you talk a little pore about that? it's the last paragraph on page 6 of the handout. >> okay, thank you very much, commissioner. i would love to go into a deep dive into that particular particular part of that implementation plan to explain it a little bit better, but as far as the scoring, it's just basically a way -- and we don't know how we're going to do it

yet. >> president covington: then that's okay, that's okay, because i can wait until you've had more time to develop that. but the review of the scores was a question that i had. will this be coming to us again -- it will be? so there will be more on that. that will be good. and also on page 7, item 1.2.2, foster relationships with non-traditional outlets. what did you have in mind there? >> well, currently we have -- well, number one, just to explain the 1.2.2 in the presentation -- this is the actual ask from o.r.e., the office of racial equity themselves. so what we're looking to do is to just to make sure that we aren't just using the current pipeline model that we have,

which is a group pipeline with our n.t.m., and just some low-hanging fruit agencies. we actually want to scour and to look and to search -- it just means that we're going to not use the ordinary traditional model of getting people into our department. we actually are looking at something that is currently called cit e.m.s. core that is a wraparound service that targets individuals who have certain vulnerabilities and works with them and helps them to meet the qualifications and to become competitive in our process. so reaching out to individuals or agencies like that to make sure that we're going across the spectrum and we're not leaving any -- any potential talented

candidates out, because we have not identified them in our traditional outlet. if that makes any sense. >> president covington: yes, that certainly makes sense. i was just wondering what kind of non-traditional organizations. that is something that certainly i can give you a list of suggestions, that might be helpful with that. >> please do, please do. >> president covington: definitely. and i encourage my fellow commissioners to do the same. if there's any -- anyway that we can assist in, you know, the continued success of this endeavor, then that would be great. then i had -- the evaluation of the written and oral testing formats. i am wondering is there going to

be a component that includes the security of the exam? because historically from time to time there's been a problem. some people have access to the exam and most people don't have. so i hope that that is going to be included as to how to secure the integrity of the examination process. >> i appreciate it, commissioner. as we said, one of the principles of the principles of this action plan is transparency. we are going to want to look at everything that we do when we -- when we test individuals, how the test is being conducted, how secure it is, and the results and all of those things across the board.

transparency is a good thing. so hopefully we will find answers to all of those things and be able to rate the current testing process, make adjustments where needed, or maybe even to look at re-doing the whole thing. we don't know. that's speculation at this point and we won't know until we start doing a deep dive into these particular programs and policies. >> president covington: okay, that sounds good. and, let's see, 1.2.6, reject the practice of quote/unquote, degree inflation, that exacerbates racial disparities. so in my mind, when i see degree inflation, i think degrees are very important, they're very good. and i think that along with the

degree, we have to also remember that when you go to college, you are in with everybody else, right? and you learn to get along and listen to people who have differing opinions. so my point is that i don't want the degree to be devalued in any way. so that one of the very, very important things that happens in college is particularly young men find out how wonderfully intelligent young women are. and how to get along with outspoken and intelligent women. they didn't have to do that in high school because they played football in high school so all of the girls were like, woo, there he is.

so college has a lot of benefits in terms of people intermingling with people that they ordinarily not mingle with, all right? so just don't devalue the whole college experience. that kind of jumped out at me. >> commissioner, if i could just answer it that. again, that's -- that's the office of racial equity's ask, and so we didn't change what they expressed as far as the degree inflation. and we're not looking to devalue any degree or any effort that people have used to better themselves. thankfully in our department, all entry level departments, you're not required to have a college education. and promotional tests aren't based on that at this point either. it's based on secondary criteria. so even though we had to answer that particular ask from o.r.e., but that is their particular concept. and we're going to evaluate that

and respond to it. but i do appreciate your expressions. >> president covington: all right, that's good. and it's also important to point out that these days in the department in order to become chief of the department that it helps to have a degree. because the last couple of chiefs have had degrees. so that's enough of that. and i see the last thing i wanted to ask about is page 9, 1.5, and then also -- excuse me, 1.3, and also 1.3.1. can you -- do you have the --

the entire document in front of you? >> yes, and it has been -- since we have delivered it to you, it has changed to a degree and been drafted a little bit different. but you said 1.5.1? >> president covington: i'm sorry, 1.3. i misspoke. it's 1.3. invest in a diverse and equitable talent pool by formalizing robust -- i don't have my glasses -- intern fellowships, preapprenticeship. and the apprentice program. just to piggyback on what it was that commissioner rodriguez was saying, please look at ways not to stigmatize those people who are going through that process.

so that people are not giving feedback to that these folks, they were not ready before they apprenticed and they're not ready now, because they think that it's a different doorway, a different pathway, to being successful in the department. so i just wanted to raise the red flag on that. and how to make sure that there is no stigma attached to going through this particular process. okay, as you can see i have a lot of feedback but that's enough for now. >> okay, thank you very much, commissioner. i'm quite sure that we will be having a discussion with you and your body about many of these things. but, thank you very much for your additional feedback. >> president covington: and thank you. and is it captain mau, madam

secretary? >> madam president, this is commissioner nakajo, can i make an additional comment before we go into public comment on this item? >> president covington: most certainly. and if any other commissioners would like to chime in again, please do. go ahead, commissioner nakajo. >> commissioner nakajo: thank you very much, madam president. i wanted to make reference there when i talked about equity and action plan, and i talked about the mission statement, i did mention former chief bob demonds as part of that origin of the mission statement. i recall that because i was there with we talked about it. and i wanted to make mention that this couldn't have all happened without the support of our administration as captain peoples has pointed out. and i appreciate chief nicholson's remarks about the funding source that has to be attached to this. and i'm grateful that captain peoples is the officer assigned. and i wanted to also make mention that through this equity action plan, with the origin of

chief demonds, that to this point, captain peoples, it's been a long time that we have been able to struggle internally to get to this particular point. and i wanted to duly note and to acknowledge the era of chief white while she was chief of the department as well, in terms of her concepts of equity among the members in the department as well as women. and sexual orientations as well. so i just wanted to say that as we got to this area and definitely chief nicholson and the administration in terms of their support, thank you very much. >> president covington: thank you. madam vice president, did you have an additional comment? >> vice-president feinstein: i did not, thank you. thank you very much, madam president. and it's a very, very insightful discussion and, yeah, i would

say that it's a great plan. we've just got to bring it to fruition. but just really want to thank captain peoples for getting this together so quickly. and so comprehensively. but i still like knock your socks off better, so there you go. >> thank you. >> president covington: thank you. commissioner cleaveland? >> commissioner cleaveland: no additional comments. >> president covington: thank you. and commissioner rodriguez. >> commissioner rodriguez: yeah, i'll throw in something really quick if i didn't mention it before. so, like i said, this program is long overdue, right? and i'm glad that it's law and it's something that we're all going to go forward with. but i also really understand how the moral fiber of the fire department has to be -- how do i say this -- intact?

the firefighters are out there working together as one cohesive unit and they really need to work together. and so i really think that it's important that it's looked at and that, you know, the process -- the process is applicable to the existing fire force and the new fire people that are coming in, but they mesh and that they are -- i know that -- like on an individual basis they have to accept what's going on, but everything that the department can help to make this happen, to me is very important. that was all i wanted to throw in. thank you. >> president covington: thank you. all right -- >> i'm sorry, madam president, i have one additional comment if i might. or, you know, maybe it's a question and i should maybe know the answer to it. but, you know, i really agree with what commissioner rodriguez

just said in terms of, you know, folks from a fire station going out to whatever kind of emergency they're going to address and they need to be a unit. and they need to have each other's back. , and you know, boy, have i learned a lot about the dangers of the job regardless of what the assignment is. and so, you know, i am hoping and assuming -- well, i'm still learning a lot about the department -- in addition to the abbreviations and the acronyms of which you have more than i can possibly fathom, but -- but, you know, i assume whoever the captain is, i'm not sure what the rank is at a station, is making sure that each deployed unit is going out with agreement and unanonimity and the same

goals in mind. and if that isn't happening, we need to know that, because that's when people get, you know, hurt, get in trouble, something fails. so i really -- you know, in my heart i feel that, you know, there was a lot of what i read that goes towards that and i also hope that if this is going on, that those in command -- and i'm not sure what level that i mean by that -- but those in commander going to say that they're having a problem and -- you know, with whatever it is. and, you know, we -- we as a commission -- and i'm just like randomly speaking for everybody and they're perfectly capable of doing that themselves -- but that's just a core mission for

us. is the safety of our people and the safety of our citizens. so if there are issues, we do need to trust and all of you to address them and to bring them forward. that's just my final comment, and i promise to not make anymore. >> president covington: thank you for your comments. >> clerk: the chief of department has her hand up? >> president covington: i'm sorry, chief nicholson, just a moment, chief nicholson. i do want to really say to captain peoples and his team about how very, very proud cleef nicholson is -- chief nicholson is of this team and the work that they've been doing. so, go ahead, chief nicholson. >> thank you, madam president. if i just may indulge you for a

moment -- just in response to some of what the commissioners have been saying. our department is a leader in this initiative because of our support at its core considerations for years. for example, in our mission statement. and we have come such a long way and i -- you do not need to concern yourself with us not getting along and not taking care of ourselves and the public on calls. to me this plan is a much deeper dive into real equity and the institutionalized issues that we have. it is -- so i just want to put your minds at ease that i have great trust and faith in our teams and our crews to get the job done and to have each other's backs out there. so i just wanted to throw that out.

so, please, don't concern yourself with that. this is sort of a different type of dive into this in terms of equity and inclusion and access and the like. >> president covington: okay, thank you, chief nicholson. let's see, we have heard everybody. okay, public comments, madam secretary? >> thank you for your time this morning. this is captain julie mau as part of the erac committee. i wanted to reiterate what captain peoples said previously and it was quite an undertaking and quite a heavy lift in a compressed amount of time to get this job done. but i want you to know that the 25 members that sat with the

racial equity advisory committee, really care about this department and put in a lot of effort to get this document together in our timeline. we also understand that this is not fixed in stone. this is something -- our hope was that we take this document, we review it, we apply it, we work on it, and we continue to make it better. it's not something that we wanted to get done for the deadline for the city and then have it sit on a shelf. so that's not the intention at all. we want this to be a working, living document. so thank you chief nicholson for your commitment and to express your commitment and the department's commitment to this process. and we're very excited for this -- for this document, for this committee, for this direction for the department. thank you very much. >> president covington: thank you, captain mau.

madam secretary. are there any other -- >> clerk: there are no other hands raised. >> president covington: oh, okay, thank you. all right. i think that this is just a wonderful beginning and there's so much going on that it's wonderful that people were able to concentrate on this. with everything else, you know, that's happening. so my last question, captain peoples, is you said that in your presentation that we might be looking for nine full-time employees just working on the racial equity piece? (please stand by)

so, yes, that's a firm nine. and we think that's just from the initial assessment of looking at the programs. >> with those monies for those

nine staff members come from the general fon du lac our come through the -- general or come through the office of equity? >> i'll probably let the chief -- >> i can speak to that. yeah. thank you, madam president. yes, it's unclear at this time where that money is coming from. and we are, you know, having discussions and we'll get our budget instructions within the next week. that will be one of the questions that is also, you know, going to be on a larger level. so we don't know. we do not know yet. >> all right. thank you, chief nicholson. everyone has had a chance to speak and praise, which is always nice. madam secretary, next item, please. >> clerk: item 7, continuation of the november 10th, 2020,

ems-6 community paramedicine in the sffd presentation. chief simon pang, captain april sloan and captain michael mason and dr. clement yeh provided an oversue of the paramedicine and the sffd and we ran out of time to conclude the questions and answers. >> ok. >> president covington: thank you for that. is there any public comment on this item? >> there is no public comment. >> president covington: okay. i will close public comment. and go to my fellow commissioners, who now have the packets -- packet of information regarding this item before them. are there any questions from my

fellow commissioners, beginning with commissioner rodriguez. commissioner, rodriguez, did you have any questions, follow-up questions regarding ems-6? perhaps he can't hear me. can you hear me, madam secretary? >> clerk: yes, i do. we'll go to commissioner nakajo. commissioner nakajo, any follow-up questions? >> thanks very much, madam president. at this particular time, i do not have any additional questions, just a comment. i was very much appreciated the presentation by chief pang. and i understand and i can see

captain sloan on the screen. i appreciate the follow-up of materials that was sent from chief tom on the presentation. i just wanted to comment that the recent rollout of the program, with the publicity on the tv media and the news was very, very good. i think it goes well in terms of the leadership and the initiative chief pang in terms of what we're trying to accomplish. it's a major, major step in trying to have some effect. i think this is a good time, madam president. i do not have any other questions on the e.m.s. presentation. i appreciate the last presentation. thank you at this time. >> president covington: thank you. madam vice president. >> i would say -- re-ask my

question, because i also thought the presentation was excellent. and i really am finding it helpful as i did today with the captain's presentation. sometimes it's hard to keep up with the, you know, i don't know the power point or whatever these preparations are, just on the screen when you don't have them in front of you. so having chief pang's and chief tom's presentations delivered to us was really very helpful. you know, ems-6 is amazing. and my question was, i understand who the client of ems-6 is. i'm a little less clear on who the skirt clientele