>> welcome to the february #, 2021 meeting of the land use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisors. i'm supervisor myrna melgar, joined by vice chair preston and supervisor peskin. the clerk is erica major. and i would like to acknowledge sfgov-tv, thank you for staffing this meeting. madam clerk, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes, due to the covid-19 health emergency, and to protect the board members and the employees and the public, the board of supervisors legislative chamber and committee room are closed. however, members will participate remotely. this precaution is taken to the

stay-at-home order and declarations and directives. the committee members will attend through video conference and participate in the meeting to the same extent as if physically present. public comment will -- [broken audio] and sfgov-tv.org are streaming the number across the screen. each speaker is allowed two minutes to speak. comments are opportunities to speak during the public comment period and are available view phone by calling the number 1-(415)-655-0001. again, that number is 1-(415)-655-0001 and the meeting i.d. is 146 646 6079 again, 146 646 6079. and then press pound and pound again. when connecting you will hear the meeting discussion but you will be in mute and listening mode only. when your interest item comes up

press star, 3, to be add to the speaker line. speak clearly and slowly and turn down your radio or tv. and you can submit by emailing myself eicca.org... and if you submit public comment via email it's forwarded to the supervisors and made part of the official file. written comments may be submitted via u.s. postal service to city hall 1 doctor carl goodlet place, san francisco, california, 94102. and finally, items acted upon today are expected to appear on the board of supervisor's agenda of february 9th, unless otherwise stated. madam chair. >> chair melgar: thank you so much. please call the first item.

>> clerk: yes. item 1 is an emergency ordinance to restrict landlords from evicting tenants for non-payment of rent due to the covid-19 pandemic. to provide comment call the number on the screen, 1-(415)-655-0001. and the meeting i.d. is 146 646 6079. and then press pound and pound again. if you have not done so already, dial star, and then three to line up to speak. the system prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand. madam chair? >> supervisor moliga: , supervisor preston will you provide your remarks? >> supervisor preston: thank you for getting this on the calendar and this was an emergency ordinance and very time sensitive when introduced. i would like to do -- to address it and i will be making a motion after remarks to continue the

item to the call of the chair. before today, madam chair, and the emergency ordinance to extend the eviction protections for non-payment of rent due to covid-related financial hardships. we introduced this item on january 19th, i was at the request of the tenant advocate community, who are expressing that the renters that were impacted and the folks they were counselling, were understandably terrified that the existing protections that were laid out under the state bill a.b.-38 were to expire on january 31st. yesterday, and although there were ongoing discussions of extending the state-wide protections there was a palpable fear that that would not materialize before the february rent and months of back rent became due. and so in response we have introduced this emergency

ordinance which sought to extend by 60 days the local eviction protections that we currently have in place in san francisco to cover rent starting february 1st. then on monday last week, we learned about the new proposal sb-11, the state level, that would extend the state-wide eviction law through june of this year. as well as create a program for rent relief. this bill was unveiled really at the last minute, negotiated primarily between the governor and leadership of the senate and the assembly without tenant advocates participating to a large extent, as far as i know, without a lot of input even from our s.f. san francisco legislators and delegation in the capitol. this was a leadership deal, left no time for amendments, no real opportunity for public input. no hearing such as this for the

public to call in and to be heard. it was passed on thursday last week and then signed into law by the governor on friday. this news i greet with mixed feelings. in an immediate sense, the state bill provides some peace of mind for impacted tenants that are worried about what would happen today on february 1st, when so many folks had their rent come due. so there's a five-month window before evictions are allowed to move forward and that is certainly very important and good news, particularly in parts of the state that don't have a city council or a board of supervisors that has been passing protections against evictions where these state protections are the only protections that exist at all. so given the proposed 60-day

effective period of the emergency legislation that's here before us in committee, and given the length and the timing of the state-wide extension provided by sb-91, and given the state preemption -- and i will address this a bit more in a minute -- but the state preemption of any further covid non-payment protections locally, i don't believe that our legislation needs to move forward today and as such as i have mentioned we'll make a motion to continue it to the call of the chair. before i do make that motion, i just wanted to share some additional thoughts on these developments and, obviously, things have been moving quickly with good news and bad news across the board here. but, you know, i think that broadly speaking, it is a positive step for the state to step in with a proposal to have protections and rent relief in california. but i see three real problems

here. one is the limited nature of what was passed. and the second was how it was done. and the third is the actions by the state in tying the hands of local government. so from the first point, what was done here is just not enough and it does not meet the needs of the moment. the state has the power to issue a complete and comprehensive eviction moratorium. the governor's press releases since early in the pandemic continue to inaccurately to portray his actions as if there is a broad eviction moratorium in place in california. and the problem is that the reality hasn't really matched up with those public statements. the governor has not and apparently will not issue a true eviction moratorium, nor has the legislature in california stepped up to pass that kind of true protection for folks who are struggling during this

pandemic. as for the rent relief part of the program, that program is voluntary. it will do some good in some cases but for most vulnerable tenants, the bill will leave them on the hook for 75% of their rent. better than being on the hook for 100% of their rent. but it's not relief and the state needs to step up in a more robust and bold way. second from my discussions with state-wide advowicates and i alluded to this earlier, the -- the tenant advocates were completely shut out of this process, despite months of dedicated organizing. and to wait to the last minute and then fast track such important policy decisions, to do that without the folks who represent those most vulnerable and have expertise on evictions, who for months have been demanding to be heard in this process, i think that it's a textbook way to make poor public

policy. and i think it shows in the resulting policy, which will leave most tenants vulnerable and in growing and massive debt. and, third, and perhaps worst of all, the initial reading of sb-91 indicates that efforts to provide stronger local protections will be preempted by the new bill. so even if after recognizing these potential shortcomings in the state law, san francisco wanted to pursue additional stronger local anti-displacement measures to protect tenants who are unable to pay rent because of covid, it appears that our hands have to some extent been tied by state. and i just want to say because we become a little numb to what some of these words mean and we hear them all the time -- preset. ion and state versus local -- you know, it's really outrageous i think that the state

government would be acting to stop localities like san francisco from going beyond what they're providing in state law when it comes to protecting our own residents. it is one thing for the state to set the floor of minimum protection. and we could criticize whether they went far enough. but they set a floor. and to allow cities to add to that locally, that's what the states should have done. it's quite another for the state to create some protections, but then wrap up in those protections bans on local legislative bodies taking additional steps to protect their residents. and i strongly object to that. and really i would say to the governor and to the leadership in sacramento, shame on you for including any preemption provisions in a bill of this kind as we're all working -- i

would hope all working -- to try to prevent displacement and alleviate rent debt that tenants are struggling under. the final thing, my office has also introduced legislation similar to what's on our agenda today that's not an emergency ordinance. it's a permanent amendment to the administrative code, a regular ordinance. and that will come before this committee in the future and i do intend to -- to use that as a vehicle really to explore every opportunity to protect our most vulnerable tenants, including protections that extend out beyond the state preemption, which runs through june. so with that and just relative to the items before us today we would like to make a motion to continue the item to the call of the chair, thank you, chair melgar.

>> chair melgar: thank you for your astute analysis and comments as always. supervisor peskin, did you have some comments of your own? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madam chair. i wholeheartedly associate myself with the comments that you just made. i am highly reluctant to score any recall of any kind, but i do believe that this governor is completely out of touch. i am quite despondent that there was no communication with the cities like san francisco, and other similarly situated cities. this notion of preemption that i think that you did a remarkably good job of explaining, you said it just right. it should set minimum standards. this city, along with many others that has been fighting

for repeal of the ellis act, which the real estate industry got their way with in sacramento, mostly folks like us get elected to local government to make the best and right decisions for our local population which in the case of san francisco even during covid remains a two-thirds renters' town. and the fact that the state of california is using their powers to preempt the city and county of san francisco and other similarly situated governments is as you have said truly outrageous. having said that, i will support just as a function of what has happened relative to sb-91, the continuance of this matter but i stand with you. >> chair melgar: thank you, supervisor peskin. madam clerk, do we have any

public comment? >> clerk: thank you, madam chair. we have two listeners and one in queue. and we have mr. koe assisting us today with the callers. so if you could please unmute the first caller. >> caller: hello committee, i wanted to thank you for letting me speak and thank you madam chairperson. i'm justin goodman, an associate attorney with zachman and patterson and i'm here representing the san francisco apartment association and the small property owners of san francisco. what i wanted to share with the committee which, obviously, the committee is well aware, is california sb-91 was signed into law last friday and has immediate effect and we agree with the statements of supervisor preston that it supersede the local authority in this area. while you're speaking on this,

we had particular concerns with -- i know this is an emergency ordinance, but like the rent increase moratorium it obviously could be extended and this was written in an open-ended language to allow further continuances, particularly with san francisco's smaller property owners. we thought that it was overbroad in including section 37.9, sub-b of the administrative code that is an exemption on the provisions for owners who rent bedrooms out of their own apartments and we thought that impaired our small property owners' right of privacy. but in general this is something that needs state-wide attention and unfortunately has gotten it and we appreciate that sb-91 has sought relief for landlords which is something that is absent from our local regulations in this area. and, again, particularly with the small property owners, many would have had difficulty meeting their own costs, including mortgages with lenders now suggesting they need to pay or they'll be in default and lose not only their rent units

but also their homes when they have not received rent for a year. so we appreciate that california has enacted what we perceive as a more balanced solution to this problem. and, certainly, there should be and can be more voices at the table in future legislation, but in the meantime we believe that this occupies the field and preserves section 11.7905 of the code of civil procedure that has the supremacy of state law in this area and we urge the board, obviously, to understand what supervisor preston has pointed out in that for the time being that there's no local authority to act in this area. thank you very much for your time. >> and, madam chair -- >> chair melgar: thank you, mr. goodman. yes, supervisor preston. >> supervisor preston: i'm not going to engage in a back and forth dialogue with the last speaker, but i will note for the record that in the early months of the pandemic, the san francisco apartment association repeatedly reported -- what is my personal experience as a

small landlord in san francisco, that the vast majority of their tenants were paying 100 cents on the dollar. so we've seen less of those reports from the apartment association, but i believe that the comments of the last speaker are not actually supported by that. >> chair melgar: thank you, supervisor peskin. do we have any other public comments, madam clerk. >> clerk: thank you, madam chair. can you confirm that there aren't any other callers? again, if you would like to be in the queue you would press star, 3, and you would see your number on our side and we can admit you. >> madam chair, we have no callers in the queue. >> chair melgar: great. so with that, public comment is now closed. and there is a motion on the floor. madam clerk, do you -- i'm sorry -- yes, vice chair --

>> sorry. i did want to comment briefly before we vote and just in light of the comment. you know, i just want to -- to make it clear that when -- when there is a reference by one of the leading eviction law firms in the city to go about the more balanced approach taken in sacramento, what that means, i just want to be very clear and make sure that the public understands that i as someone who has spent quite a bit of time working in our state capitol on tenant rights issues, there is a dynamic in our state capital where our state legislature and our governor refuse to act on landlord/tenant matters to protect tenants unless they get consent of the

landlords they are regulating. that is the dynamic in our state capital. where our san francisco board of supervisors is willing to adopt policies that protect tenants, even when at times those policies are opposed by landlords that we feel that it is our duty to do that and to prevent displacement and that occurs locally. and that occurs in other city councils and board of supervisors in cities around the state. it rarely occurs in sacramento where the landlord industry is given a virtual veto power over tenant protection. so when we have a behind closed door deal and then we characterize that as if there were a balanced approach taken in sacramento, what is really meant is that what was adopted is fine with the landlords who approved it and who were at the table when tenant advocates were

not. it's no way to make policy, we need bold leadership right now to address the issues that i know that you, chair melgar, and you supervisor peskin, have led on for years and years in san francisco. and it is a sad day when we see this kind of weak policymaking at the state level. and as i said though, the problem is not that sacramento has not solved all of the problems with this bill. i don't think that any of us expected that. but for them to then tie our hands is inexcusable. we will find every way that we can to get around that, to pass the protections locally that we need to, and, frankly, to work with our state legislators and we have been in touch with assembly member chu who is continuing to work on his bill, which is not the bill here that passed, right. and he is continuing to work on his bill with tenant advocates

to take effect when these current preemptive measures expire in june. so this is not the beginning of this conversation, not the end of this conversation. probably the middle of this conversation. but it's a very disappointing time for the state to come together to pass some protections, but then to use that as an opportunity to actually stop cities and counties from protecting their residents. thank you. >> chair melgar: thank you, supervisor preston. madam clerk, supervisor preston made a motion to continue this to the call of the chair. would you please call roll. >> clerk: yes, on the motion as stated by supervisor preston [roll call vote] you have three ayes. >> chair melgar: thank you.

are there anymore items on our agenda? >> clerk: that completes the business for today. >> chair melgar: thank you so much, so we are adjourned. thank you. >> this is the january 27th, 2021 meeting. this meeting will come to order.

i am matt haney, chair of the budget and finance committee. i am joined by the supervisors. i would like to thank sfgovtv for broadcasting this meeting. do you have any announcements? >> yes, mr. chair. due to the covid-19 health emergency the committee room are closed. members will be participating. this is pursuant to the orders. committee members may attend through video conference and participate to the same extent as if physically present. public comments are available on each item on the agenda channel 26 and sfgovtv are streaming the number on the screen. each speaker is allowed two minutes.

opportunity goes to speak during the public comment are available by calling 415-655-0001. (146)319-1053 then pound pound. you will hear the meeting discussions you will be muted. when your item comes up dial star 3. call from quiet location and speak clearly and slowly and turndown your television or radio. the budget and finance committee. e-mail will be forwarded to supervisors and included as part of the official file. items acted upon today will

appear on the agenda february 2 unless otherwise stated. thank you, mr. chair. >> thank you. today we have a full budget and finance committee agenda. thank you for being brief. please call items 1, 2, 3 together. 1. authorizing the mayor's office of housing and committee to submit application to the allocation committee. 2 residential revenue bonds in paamount not to exceed $90 million for 1151 fairfax avenue and 112 middle point road.

2. invest proceeds from future bonds in an amount not to exceed $150 million and authorizing the application to the cdloc to permit issuance of the mortgage revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $150 million for 1801 25th street. 3 future bond amounts not to exceed $108 million and to submit application and documented to the issuance of mortgage revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $108 million. for 1360 43rd avenue. if you wish to submit public comment call 415-655-0001.

please dial star three to speak. a system prompt will indicate you raised your hand. >> thank you. we have jonathan here to present on these items. >> thank you. good morning, supervisors. i am jonathan gagan, project manager at mayor's office of housing and community development on items 1 through 3 related to to proposed bond issuance for three projects. hunters view and shirley chisholm village. the purpose of the resolutions before you to approve the hearing the city conducted for hunter's view to comply with the

federal tax equity and financial responsibility act and enable all three projects to apply for tax-exempt bond financing with the debt limit allocation committee cdlac. it will not require the city to pledge any of the funds to the repayment of the bonds. i am going to provide brief descriptions of the three projects. starting with hunters view phase 3, part of item 1, the project is 118 unit housing development at 1151 fairfax avenue. 112 middle point road this. is the fourth and last affordable project in the hunters view redevelopment project. 82% of the residential units will serve householding earning less than 50% of the san francisco area median income.

the seconds project part of item the is potrero block b. 157 unit housing development to be located at 1801 25th street. it is part of the hope sf revitalization of the annex. the building will serve householding earning 60% of the area medium income and 75% of the units are replacement units for householding with the right to return to potrero. item 3 formally known as francis scott key. 135 unit housing development at 1360 43rd avenue in collaboration with s.f.u.s.d. it will provide housing for

paraeducators and educators. units ranging from 40% to 120% a.m.i. please note items one and two were amended at budget and satisfy nance to include he -- to finance. the items are continued to be heard at today's meeting. in terms of schedule, in the projects are awarded bond allocation, they will return to the board for issuance approval this summer. in all three projects to close on construction financing in fall of 2021. joined here by representatives from each project sponsor. we are happy to answer any questions the committee members may have. thank you.

>> thank you so much for the presentation. do we have any questions or comments from committee members? >> chair haney. >> i wanted to thank jonathan for the presentation and thank mayor breed for your work on these three really important affordable housing projects. especially i want to highlight item 3. the shirley chisholm village. this is the city's first ever affordable housing created specifically for teachers and paraeducators. we all know how urgently needed this is to support our teachers and other school workers to be able to stay in the city to live in the neighborhood, hopefully

that they teach in and to support the district in retaining and hiring and retaining teachers and employees. it is also very important for the sunset district and my district. it is really the first affordable housing development moving forward in the sunset in a long time. i want to thank the mayor's office of housing and the school district and the developer of shirley chisholm village. >> thank you for your leadership as well. vice chair safai. >> thank you, chair haney. i want to say quickly it is exciting to see and congratulations to supervisor mar. it was years in the making and you pushed that forward. congratulations a wonderful model for educators.

keep us moving forward inspite the negativity. as we have in my district, we need more density in affordable housing in parts of the city that have not had it before. i wanted to say it is really exciting to see both item 1 and 2 revenue bonds for potrero and hunter's view. i started my career in the city at the housing authority. came back later to be a commissioner, work with mayor newsome and many people to come up with the concept of hope sf, and this is another step in that process that started back in 2004 and 2005. this is years in the making. we will be truly reimagining

these as mixed income. market rate, moderate, low and extremely low and preserving all public housing units. this is a wonderful milestone and i am proud to see these move forward. madam clerk if you can add me as a sponsor for items 1 and 2 and 3 to support supervisor mar, i would appreciate that. >> thank you. i want to echo the gratitude for all of these projects. when i was on the school board, i had some involvement with the project on 43rd avenue and very excited to see it move forward and to see it funded. of course, there were many years where we were told as school district at the time this wasn

possible and we couldn't do this. there were barriers why we couldn't build educator housing, and here we are today approving the bonds to make it happen. i especially want to celebrate that project and the other two, which are all important. i would love to have my name added to the other two items as well. i did want to add. i hadn't heard the story behind this until the project manager. how is it decided on the name for shirley chisholm village? what is that process? it is an exciting and powerful statement that we decided that this will be the name. was it the developer that made that decision or educators? if you could let us know that.

>> i am alley gaylord. i can speak shortly. we knew that we wanted to rename frances scott key to have an impactful name and in light of the events of this summer with the racial justice reckoning going on. we worked closely with s.f.u.s.d. decided to honor the first black woman elected to the united states congress and to seek the majority nomination for the president of the united states. to honor that wonderful woman. i don't know if jonathon or supervisor mar would like to add anything? >> thank you, that was great. >> i know this school district

led the process with stakeholders to consider new names and appropriate names and they ended up with this. i would agree it is a great name for this extremely important project. >> thank you so much for that history. most wonderful that we will provide housing for paraprofessionals and educatessors. wonderful to celebrate a trailblazing hero in shirley chisholm. any members of the public. sorry. any bla report on this item? >> no, there is no report. >> thank you. are there members of the public who want to speak? >> operation is checking to see if there are callers in the queue.

please press star 3 to be added to the queue. if you are on hold continue to wait until you are unmuted. if there are callers for items 1, 2 and 3. >> mr. chair, there are no callers in the queue. >> great. public comment is now clothessed. i -- closed. motion to move to the full board with a positive recommendation. i don't think we need an actual motion. roll call vote, please. >> on that motion. vice chair safai. >> aye. >> member mar. >> aye. >> chair haney. >> aye. >> there are three ayes. >> thank you. those items will be moved to the full board with positive recommendation. thank you again everyone for

your hard work. this is very exciting for our city. we appreciate it. will you please call item 4. >> authorizing the community choice joint powers authority for the public electricity and authorizing deviation from otherwise applicable contract requirements in the administrative code and the environmental code for purchases that do not otherwise require board approval. for public comment call 415-655-0001. press pound twice. please dial star 3 to speak. the system will indicate you have raised your hand. >> thank you.

i believe we have john here from the p.u.c. >> thank you, chair haney. good morning, supervisors. here this morning quick update on this item. we are working with the commissioners and our external partners to develop amendments. we are not quite there yet. i would ask if the supervisors would continue this to the call of the chair until we develop the amendments for you all. >> thank you. vice chair safai, you are not on mute. protecting you there. >> i hit the mute button. i don't know why it wasn't working. i was trying to find ahead it is. >> no worries. any comments or questions on the

continuance? >> okay. madam clerk, any public comment? >> mr. chair, operations is checking to see if there are callers in the queue. if you have not done so press star 3 to be added to the queue. if you are on hold continue to wait until the system indicates you are unmuted. please let us know if there are callers for item 4. >> there chair we have no callers in the queue. >> thank you, public comment is closed. i want to move to continue this item to the call of the chair. madam clerk. roll call vote, please. >> vice chair safai. >> aye. >> member mar. >> aye. >> chair haney. >> aye. >> three ayes. >> thank you. we will see you soon. thank you.

madam clerk, please call item 5. resolution approving an emergency declaration of the san francisco public utilities commission pursuant to code section 6.60 to replace and repair fences onala needda watershed damaged by the s c.u. lighting complex fire with a total cost not to exceed $4.5 million. members who wish to comment on this item call 415-655-0001. id1463191053-pound pound if you have not done so please dial star 3 to speak. >> thank you, madam clerk. we have the p.u.c. here to present on this item. >> thank you, chair haney. good morning. tim ramirez division manager for

land management. i have slides. i will share my screen. this is a shot taken on august 16th. one of our staff out on the east bay watershed lands in santa clara county. took this of a rainbow. i happened to simultaneously coincide with the lightning strike. this is how the fire started. it was a traumatic photograph. this is early morning august 16th looking over a reservoir. the result of what happened with the lightning strike and dry context. most of you know this fire started that day and the next

two days as a very small series of fires that grew to one giant fire that damaged some of our property. this is a quick glance what the fire looked like as it burned during the first part of the fire end of august and beginning of september. this is the post fire picture. i wanted to show the context about the terrain we are looking to work in since repair and replacement. this is an hard to access area of the watershed lands. you can see the reservoir in the foreground. this shows the boundary of the complex fire in five different counties. it was almost 400,000 acres. that is hard to fathom in terms of scale. in the left-hand corner you can see the watershed.

the upper alameda creek and the far right all drain into the reservoir. san antonio reservoir was burned. this is just zooming in where we have property by the green color. we don't open all of these watersheds. we own the bottom parts near the reservoir. that is where the damage took place on our fences. this is a map of the fences and our property boundaries that is part of the report that you have. you can see the damage inala needda and santa clara and the sections in red and in the orange color. there is about 50 miles of fence work that we are looking to get done. we are about ready to get started. we are hoping to get it done as

quickly as we can. we hope to use the authority that is presented this morning. that is all i have to share. i am happy to answer questions. >> thank you. i believe we have a bla report on this item. >> chair, budget analyst office. item 5 approves the emergency declaration by the general manager for the complex fire consistent with administrative code 6.60 for emergency work up to $4.5 million. table two of the report page 13 if estimated cost of the work $3.8 million. because of the change in cost to amend the proposed resolution to reduce emergency work from $4.5 million to $4.25 million. that would allow for 12%

contingency. we recommend approval as amended. we will answer any questions. >> any questions for the p.u.c. or for the bla? >> i do not see any. i believe the p.u.c. is aware that we are going to ask for the acceptance of the bla's recommendation. i want to move to amend the resolution. sorry. first public comment. madam clerk, police vehicle for public -- please check for public comment. >> please let us know if callers are ready press star 3 to be added to the queue. if you are on hold wait until you are unmuted. if there are callers for item 5.

>> mr. chair there are no callers. >> public comment is closed. i move to amend the resolution to accept the bla's recommendation for this item. madam chair, roll call vote, please. >> vice chair safai. >> aye. >> member mar. >> aye. >> chair haney. >> aye. >> there are three ayes. >> i will move to recommend the item to the full board as amended with a positive recommendation. madam chair, roll call vote, please. >> vice chair safai. >> aye. >> member mar. >> aye. >> chair haney. >> aye. >> there are three ayes.

>> great. thank you. to the full board with positive recommendation. please call item 6. >> ordinance exempting from requirements of the administrative code and the environmental code between the san francisco international airport and federal aviation administration for services to commission a ground based augmentation system at the airport and affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act. if you wish to comment call 415-655-0001. press pound twice. dial star 3 to speak. situate until you have been unmuted to make your comments.

>> thank you, madam clerk. we have i believe deana from the airport is here to present on this item. >> good morning, thank you for having me. the airport is seeking approval for the agreement between the airport and federal aviation administration from administrative code requirements for a ground based augmentation system or gps system to provide landing to airport to enhance arrival and landing at the airport. it requires providing technical over sight, inspections and training faa technical operations personnel. the faa require the airport to execute reimbursable agreement for the faa servicers. does not allow modifications to the forms of agreement.

that is the request for the full swear from the city's environmental code. despite the efforts for a limited set of exemptions. the reasoning it enters into agreements of operators and did not want to negotiate special exemptions within multiple operating agreements. they have recommended approval. i am happy to answer any additional questions. >> thank you. it is good to see you. colleagues, any questions. supervisor safai. >> no questions. thank you for your work on this. i just want to make a statement about the faa. they have not been good partners with san francisco over the last number of years, particularly as it pertains to technology they

force upon the airport that created a more steady stream of low flying airplanes over the city and county of san francisco as they cross over. tremendous amount of people in the southern part of the city have been barraged prior to the downturn in the county and covid with noise annoys pollution, -- noise pollution. a lot is inability to work with san francisco airport. this is just another example of their inflexibility to work with us and follow some of the wonderful and important administrative code changes we have in our contract. this is a small contract. i will be supporting it today. it was initiated this entire upgrade was initiated by our team.

we did have a conversation with the director, and it will increase the technological capabilities and the efficiency and do the opposite of what the faa has done by imposing other technologies on us. this will allow for less pollution, less noise in consideration to the surrounding communities and southern part of san francisco to increase probably and efficiency in landing. i want on the record the faa has not been a good partner. i am hopeful with the change in administration and we will we wl continue to push and work with leadership to work with us here

locally both senator feinstein and with nancy pelosi. >> we have a bla report on this. >> item 6 would exempt the airport from orreimbursible agreement from the city's administrative code requirements. this is summarized. the reimbursesible agreement is for insulation of the ground based augmentation system. on page 18 of our report we are recommending approval because the installation of the system requires the faa involvement and because the faa is requiring it be executed on their form. i am available for questions that you may have.

>> any questions for the bla, ms. campbell? any public comment on this item? >> mr. chair. operations is checking for callers in the queue. please let us know if you are ready press star 3 to be added to the queue. let us know if there are callers to comment on this item. >> mr. chair, we have no callers in the queue. >> public comment is closed. i want to move to recommend this item to the full board with positive recommendation. roll call vote, please. >> vice chair safai. >> aye. >> member mar. >> aye. >> chair haney. >> aye. >> there are three ayes. >> thank you. this will go to the full board with positive recommendation. we have another airport item.

will you please call item 7. >> resolution approving amendment number 2 to the international terminal duty free and luxury store lease between the dfs group and the city with a structure to 33% of sales through the earlier to occur of december 31, 2023 orreinstated of the minimum annual guarantee of $42 million contingent upon completion of certain construction projects by december 31, 2021 with no change to the 14 year term to commence upon approval by the board. call 415-655-0001 if you wish to comment. (146)219-1053 and press pound twice. please wait until the system indicates you are up muted to begin your comments.

>> thank you again. the airport is seeking your approval for the second amendment to the international terminal duty free and luxury store lease to continue the temporary mod i fid rent structure of 33% of sales the board of supervisors originally approved in june 2020 through december 31, 2023 orreinstatement of minimum annual guarantee of $42 million whichever comes first. original lease in 2017 includes 16 locations. the group comprises 75% ownership and 5% airport concessions disadvantaged business enterprise owners. four are local. due to the impacts of covid-19, airport international traffic is currently at 15% of prepandemic numbers. without changing represent structure the fs group and partners stand to lose

significant amounts of money. under the temporary modified rent structure the airport anticipates receiving $62.8 million through lease year four. they recommend approval and i am happy to answer any questions. >> colleagues any questions? i believe there is a bla report on this as well. >> yes, the item 7 approves the seconds amendment to existing lease agreement between airport and the dfs group. it would continue the suspension of annual guaranteed rent through december 2020. it would continue to reduced percentage rent under the existing lease approximately 45% up to $100 million this would reduce to 33% of gross receipts.

on page 26 of the report the estimated reduction in revenues to the airport to extend be to 2023 would be $24.3 million there. is an annual service payment to the city general fund. this reduction is $1 million per year to the general fund. however we do consider this amendment to be consistent with prior board actions and we recommend approval. >> any questions or comments from the bla report? seeing none, can we open up to public comment? >> yes, operations is checking to see if there are callers in the queue. please let us know if callers are ready press star 3 to be added to the queue. for those on hold wait until you

are unmuted. please let us know if there are callers for item 7. >> we have no callers in the queue. >> great. public comment is now closed. i want to move this item to the full board with a positive recommendation. roll call vote, please. >> vice chair safai. >> member mar. >> aye. >> chair haney. >> aye. >> vice chair safai. >> aye. >> three ayes. >> this will move to the full board with positive recommendation. thank you again. i appreciate it.

good to see you. will you call item 8. appropriate $5.7 million from the general reserve to the mayor's office of housing and community development for rent relief under the rent resolution and relief fund and $5.7 million for acquisition and creation and operation of affordable social housing under the housing stability fund in fiscal year 2020-2021. if you wish to comment call 415-655-0001. star 3 to speak. please wait until you are unmuted to begin your comments. >> thank you. i believe we have kyle from supervisor preston's office. >> thank you, chair haney and committee members.

kyle snealey. this supmental budget appropriation is based on three month projection provided by the controller in november 2020. it estimated income from proposition i would after baseline allocations total $11.4 million. our office was made aware on monday that as part of the controller's six month budget projections there will likely be increase in the projected revenue. that will be published soon. we believe it is prudent to pause briefly on this request for a more complete picture of the anticipated revenue. we are requesting the revised figure from the controller be provided in the next 10 days. we would like to request this committee continue this item for a period of two weeks to the meeting of february 10th.

thank you. >> thank you for that. that may beings sense to me. thank you to you and supervisor preston for your leadership on this. colleagues any questions for mr? >> i will save the comments and questions for when they return. >> thank you. is there -- we will not take the bla report today on this. any members of the public to speak on this item? >> operations is checking to see if there are caller in the queue. please let us know if there are callers ready press star three to be added to the queue. for those on hold please continue to wait until the system indicates you are unmuted. please let us know if there are

callers to comment on item 8. >> we have no callers in the queue. >> public comment is closed. i move to continue this to the february 10th buck budget and finance committee meeting. >> vice chair safai. >> aye. >> member mar. >> aye. >> chair haney. >> aye. >> there are three ayes. >> great. thank you, kyle. we will see you on the tenth. >> please call item 79. >> resolution and proving amendment number 2 to the agreement between the regents of the university of california and department of public health for behavioral health narcotic addiction treatment services to increase the agreement by $20.2 million for a total not to exceed $44.2 million and to extend the term bicycles years from july 1, 2021 for a total

agreement from july 1, 2018 through june 30, 2027. members of the public call 415-655-0001. dial star 3 to speak. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted to begin your comments. >> thank you. we have jackie hale here from dph to present on this item. >> actually you have michelle ruggles. i am joined by jim still well, senior analyst from behavioral health services substance abuse. thank you and good morning. this is one of the very important services in our

continuum of care. we have been providing the service for year. they have high-quality. they achieve the highest monitoring scores and they also scored the highest when they had the points for solicitation. under this contract they provide medication assisted treatment for opioid addiction throughout patient programs, office space and office space to opiate treatment programs. we are asking today to continue this -- not continue to extend the contract bicycles years of what is -- contract by the six years under the solicitation. i provided links and supplemental information that i thought might be of interest to

you specifically with your interest in the city's response to covid. they have done exemplary job as well. they reached out to receive state and federal approval to bring doses to individuals who are directed to isolate or quarantine. then in that document also there are some demographic information. in 1920 of the services entered into the billing system, you can see there is 1094 unduplicated individuals. it is because of that the services that they provide and type of services that they provide that we are asking for the extension of six years. i will limit to that. if you have program questions, jim still well is the expert. i will turn that to him if you

do. >> supervisor safai. >> thank you. a couple of things. it looks like from the bla report that the programs that have been asked to return or have been evaluated scored pretty highly on the evaluations. do you feel comfortable about that? some were too new to be evaluated. that slowed the evaluation process down. one of the things i thought about in this was that i wasn't able to get and would be good for us to know. the number of clients served in these contracts also as we have been doing in the city over the last two years looking at things through a race and equity lens, and so wanting to know the

number of clients and also ethnicity, race, and lbgt. it would be good to have that information and understanding if the organizations that are contracted to serve are familiar with those communities and have the strategy designed to serve those communities. can you respond to that? >> yes. we will include that as a regular part of what we provide and probably can work with the bla office to include that into the report. i sent this very late this morning. no problem you didn't see it. you have an attachment and e-mail that comes from me and michelle rug els. in it on the last page is the

demographic information. we did not ask bgbt. it is broken down into clients 1094 in 1920. it provides age, gender and ethnicity. of those clients in fiscal year 1920, 29% african-american, 2% asian, 14% were latin x. >> i see it now. i didn't get it. it came very late. >> i apologize. >> here we are. this is important for us moving forward also to know how many individuals from lbgt communities are also served. we see overlap and i am sure you see a lot of african-american

lbgt in some of the addictions. it is an ongoing conversation, as you know. for this board to understand how certain communities are impacted. we had a significant conversation yesterday about justice and policing and understanding how to bring equity there in terms of policing. it seems as though based on opioid addiction in the city disproportionate share of african-american to their population. it will be good to know what the number of lbgt is as well. >> sure. >> thank you for that. supervisor mar. >> thank you, chair haney. i had a question about the

number of clients served through this important program. it looks like the second contract amendment is extending for an additional six years at the current funding level for the current year 4.5 million per year. i was wondering what the assessment is about the need for the services and whether there is a need for increased investment in these services. you know, i think we are all aware of the huge drug addiction and overdose problem and supervisor haney, a lot of it is in your district.

i was wondering whether there was analysis put in to what the need is and whether maintaining the current funding amount. >> i will make one comment and let jim still well comment on trend. typically because we don't know what funding will be available, but we are confident with the funding because this level is in the baseline so that is how it is presented is flat. we have a contingency 12% which allows if we increase funding if we receive more we can add to the contract. if it goes beyond that we come back. assuming jim still well is on, he might speak to the trend analyzing the direction and

changes in need and population. >> the major proposal is the time to address overdose crisis. you can't untangle the overdose crisis from opiate addiction services anyway. for the little background to it. the bulk of the services offered by this program through the department of substance abuse medicine are methadone maintenance. that service can expand instantly. >> can you repeat what you just said? what did you say? >> yes, because medical is a fee for service that we bill, for

regular methadone slots we wouldn't need additional funding to expand. obviously we would need additional approval for the expenditure, but there is a variable slot at any given time. this is one of nine outlets. the expansion area is created around fentanyl. the problem with fentanyl. it is harder to attract some of the folks into the clinic. in fact, it is harder to eye --o identify the wide variety of folks that take fentanyl and the overdose statistics to find some of it is different population. fentanyl is mixed with other

drugs that people that wouldn't have previously have thought to come to the opioid treatment program. the new proposals focus on when and where and how to meet the additional client road that is appropriate for opioid treatment. that is the risk coming forward. one of the most difficult things about it is in fact determining the need, determining who is the client base out there? i don't think we have really ever understood totally who the regular heroin users are. it is more stable. fentanyl users with the overdose have skyrocketed and become at the moment difficult item for us to be able to offer a decent

population or estimate. we know that the need, just based on the overdose reports, the need is very considerable. indeed taking a leading role, not just in this program but also the ones in the hospital and indeed also in primary care in trying to provide mechanisms to estimate what the population needs are, where they can be met and how they can be engaged. something that wassent mentioned that this contract does provide. i am sure you are aware street medicine is delivered to street contacts directly. a lot of the support was for that both in terms of medical

consultation and testing and counseling and dealing with the medical paper work is under this contract. >> thank you. just a couple follow-up questions. can you speak to the need for these particular services, medication assisted treatment for opioid addiction looking back over the three years of the program. this is the third year. it looks like it is operated by u.c.s.f. has the need grown over the last two to three years? >> i will say quickly this is a new contract after an r.f.p. it is not a new service. they have been doing it for

years. >> it depends which items are under medication. at this very moment medications that could not be dispensed in that situation or for that use even four years ago. it is changing federal and state regulations. sort of a broadening of the categories to allow a wider range of intervention. i think just on a down-home on the sidewalk level i don't know that we are out to folks with a wider rake another range of treatment -- wider range of treatment approach available than five years ago. i predict indeed it will grow. i think also. i think the effective population

has grown. >> just so i understand the point you are making around be expansion of this important program and services can that happen through the 12% in the budget as well as midacal -- medical drug medical? >> listening back we are able to start each year with the budget we have and make adjustments we need to. i think in terms of keeping traditional methadone slots open we can continue to do that. i think there is going to be additional need that are involved in the proposal that the department is developing.

>> some of the proposals developed are indeed. [indiscernable] much larger approach to the whole issue. >> thank you. i don't have any other questions. >> thank you. i appreciated those questions. there is there a bla report on this item. >> yes, item 9 is a resolution approving the seconds amendment to existing agreement for narcotics addiction and treatment services. the amendment extends the term bicycles years to 2027 and increases by $30.2 million. the funds on table 34 of the report. the funding for the agreement is included in the dph budget for

2021-21-22 and we recommend approval. >> any questions for the bla? any public comment on this item? >> operation is checking to see if there are callers in the queue. please let us know. if you have not done so press star 3 to be added wait until the system waits until you are muted. please let us know if there are callers to comment on item 9. >> we have no callers in the queue. >> thank you. public comment is closed. i want to move this to the full board with positive recommendation. roll call, please. >> on that motion. vice chair safai. >> aye. >> member mar. >> aye. >> chair haney. >> aye. >> three ayes.

>> thank you. >> positive recommendation. thank you to your respective teams. we appreciate it. good luck. madam clerk. please call item 10. >> resolution retroactively approving a lease amendment between sfii1390 market street llc as landlord and the city as tenant for space occupied at 1390 market street at base rent of $704,000 per year with annual rent increase 3% to november 30, 2025 subject to earlier termination by the city and authorizing the director of property to execute documents,

make certain modifications and take certain actions in furthererrance of the amendment, the lease, and the resolution as defined here in. 415-655-0001. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted to begin your comments. >> thank you, madam clerk. we have director pennick here with a presentation. >> good morning, chair haney, supervisor safai, supervisor mar. director of real estate. i am joined by -- joined. i will get into the details of

the proposed lease amendment. >> thank you. i am denise peyton. good morning. i am here to share the occupational plaza given the pandemic. at fox plaza despite the department working primary remotely the reduced space for the services we provide. example during emergency child and youth care we used half of the space for food to get delivered when we first ran the program. we staged all of the devices as well at all of the stations to set up with the proper licensing to get delivered to the 81 sites, the hubs that you are aware of. it is important to have the space to help us be able to prepare and we serve as backup

in terms of newtrician and meals provided as well when our vendor is moving to new hubs and delivering the services. at this time if you have any questions feel free. i would be happy to answer. >> thank you. now, i will share my screen and walk through some of the details of the lease that may seem fairly complicated on the face but when boiled down it actually is a fairly straightforward. can the members see my screen? >> yes. >> again, i am before you seeking your positive recommendation on before of dcyf for a five year lease extension with two year off grant for space for dcyf at 1390 market

street known as fox plaza. this is 10846 square feet. the lease is fully serviced and began in 2005. it was extended in 2010 and 2015. basically the original lease was a five and two fifes. it expired november 30, 2020 with dcyf paying $57 per square foot. i would like to keep that 57 per square foot number in mind as we talk about the per mutations that i will explain in the amendment. basically, what would have happened under the original lease is that we would have gone into a month to missouri rate -- month-to-month rate. the hold over rate of $71.25. that would have commenced december 1, 2020.

that did not happen because of the negotiations that have led to the amendment before you today. we do appraisal. the appraised value of the space occupied by dcyf is $64 per square foot. the first year of five year lease. this includes a covid discount. the proposed amendment and there are a lot of blocks here. i want to walk you through one by one. on the surface this amendment extends the term of the lease by five years. initial rate of $65 per square foot with three year annual increases. that effective rate comes down based upon free rent and allowance negotiated by real estate and offered by the landlord. as you can see in your year one

$704 ending at $793. however, in the first two years there is a rent credit which represents 2.5 months of free rent that would be given to the city. this represents a dollar value $146,000. i am rounding. first year. $151,000 in the second year. the reason the numbers changed because the value of credit increases 3% year-over-year. in addition to free rent there is an allowance. the allowance is distributed in three buckets, if you will. the first allowance of $22,000 is in the first year. another $22,000 allowance in the second year.

these allowances can be used against rent that is due. so we basically would take as rent credits to add to the free rent that we currently would receive. the last allowance is $118,000. it is in the out years which can be used in years 3, 4, 5. it is possible and we will get to this in a moment when we come to the bla report that speaks about a penalty or pay back. that only occurs if this $118,000 is used in the first two years. if this $118,000 is taken by the city in the first two years and the city chooses to exercise its right to terminate after the second year, then those funds would have to be then repaid. if the city waits and decided to stay in the space for five years and uses the rent credit 118 in

the third year or any year there after, then this money comes with no penalty. that is the terminology used there. the effective square foot with these credits and allowances is listed before. 49.40its. the averaging over the five years is $60.52. currently, coming out of this lease, dcyf is paying $57 per square foot. you can see how that $57 compares to the effective rate of the lease before you today. we are well below what we are currently paying, thus near term budget savings in the first two years. as the years progress we catch up and exceed that amount in year 3. then the overall average we are still below the month-to-month

rate of $71.25. as a matter of fact we wouldn't pay that level of represent until the last year of the five year if we were to choose to stay for the five years. put another way, the represent concessions from the landlord in the first year equal free went $147,000 which represents 2.5 months of rent. that same rent concession is repeated in the second year. value 151 increasing by 3%. the tenant improvement allowance with no penalty going back to the first two years of using that allowance, not using the allowance reserved for third year is $44,000. this gives a total represent concession $342,000. to touch briefly on why this lease iscomming to you

retroactively. we have been in negotiations with the landlord after consultation with dcyf about a year ago, long before covid. however, when we first started the decision-making process whether or not it was better for dcyf to move or to stay, we looked at the possibility of moving to other third-party space, looked at the possibility of moving to city-owned space. we came to the conclusion based upon the needs of the department that staying at fox plaza at reduced rent was best option at the time. after that point covid hit which caused delays and as you can see a little bit is because of the complication in the rent structure it took time to negotiate this rent. the landlord wanted five year deal similar to the pattern that

was in the previously. we wanted two years immediate budget reduction and flexibility. this rent structure provides what both parties needed. the landlord gets the five year lease option, the city gets a two year deal with the option to make a business decision as to whether or not it is better to stay or go or continue on with the five years. the reason that we have the retro activity is that is for the benefit of the city because it took some time for us to get before the board, this item was also pushed on the board's calendar twice. the retro activity allows us to take the benefit of rent reductions we negotiated. otherwise, if we were to start

the month-to-month on december 1st as provided under the current lease, we would now owe the land lord approximately 1 $28,000. this is -- i will come back to this slide and slide 6 when i take your questions but basically this is the lease arrangement that we are recommending to the board. although this lease would allow for a five-year term, we recommend that we terminate the lease after two years and lock in the savings that we have negotiated. this basically gives you a summary of what those financial terms are in that two-year period. again, the free went for 2.5 months in each of the two -- two

years no penalty allowance, effective annual rent and 49.40 and 50.49. the averaging rate $50.17 is well below the $64. also below the $57 which is current and below $71.25 in a month to the month hold over. i am going to skip this one because we have talked about early termination option. we don't want the real estate division is recommending. the bla proposed amendment that states and they will explain in more detail that we come before the board before we consider whether or not to stay for the third year or terminate this lease after the second year.

we thank the bla for hard work in analyzing this lease proposal. we agree with their recommendations as proposed. lastly, this slide here is just to give you a snapshot of the various options that were available to real estate dcyf. first column gives the month-to-month of $71.25. it shows the annual represent expense. this is all based on year one data. the appraised value $67.90. the five year lease. this is the average over five years $60.52. that lease cost. then the two years we recommend again average 57.17 -- $50.17 in that annual expense.

that concludes my presentation. i am available along with ms. peyton to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you so much. we appreciate it. i know there are a few questions. vice chair safai. >> thank you, mr. chair. i heard you talk about the rent credit. i didn't hear about the alterations allowance. there is a timing aspect to what you are talking about. if you terminate the lease before two years, then the rent concession you pay a penalty? where is the alterations allowance reflected in your calculation? >> can you see my screen? >> yes. >> you are talking about the

allowance in this third row. >> does that add up to $162,690, yes, sir. >> the penalty and that is a misnomer. the penalty comes into effect if this $118,000, which can be used by the city at any time in this five year period is used before the third year. that is what is repped by this drawing. if we move this forward. >> the change on the improvements. you can't use more. >> in the first two years. >> it is an incentive offered by the landlord to make us stay. if you want to get this extra 118, you have got to stay for the full five. otherwise you have to pay it

back. >> okay. >> as long as we don't use it and we propose not to use it and it is not in our budget projections, there are no pebble teen for -- penalty for leaving in two years. >> bla says if you don't perform tenant improvements you can use alteration allowance as rent credit. >> that's correct that is what we plan to do. 22359 in the first year. same in the seconds year. >> you can't use the entire amount? you can only use $44,000 as rent credit. >> if we only stay two years, yes, sir. if we stay for full five we can use 162. >> if you use full five it goes to 58 and jumps back up to 71 in year four? >> that's correct. >> that answers the technical questions. i guess the larger question is

what are dcyf's plans? what is the goal, objective? you keep talking about we are coming bain two years. looking at two years. has there been space identified that city-wide owned that dcyf is looking to move and this allows time and opportunity to do so? you could make the argument you could remain month-to-month and find another space that is cheaper because the market has shifted downward dramatically. there is a lot of available space. you might have more favorable terms somewhere else now than you would in two years if you are planning to move to a non-city property. if you are planning to move to city property it may beings sense to leave them here for two years and time the transition in

a two-year period. that is what i think is important to understand. i understand from some of our earlier conversations that one of the things attractive about this bcyf is the conference room space and other things for staging. some of the weighs in which we operate services in the city due to covid has caused us to take a step back to reflect. there is a lot of rec and park space, tire for dcyf in community. what is this transition plan? what are the overall objectives for dcyf? >> those are all excellent questions, supervisor safai. thank you for giving me the opportunity to help explain them from my real estate perspective. i will defer to ms. peyton on the programming side as far as

the dcyf needs. the concern with the month-to-month is that you are correct there have been some definite changes in the market due to covid. we have seen 15 to 20% discount in rental rates. in reflects that dis count, by the way. we have been successful in negotiating those discounts in other leases. what concerns me about a month to missouri especially at -- month to the month we are now looking for that alternative space that might be at a better rate as a fire sale. we are paying exorbitant rate over market, in my opinion. we are in a hurry to find a new space. we don't have luxury of time because we are paying $71 per conveyor foot. with this proposed lease it

allows the same analysis that you so correctly outlined at a rate below market. we have ability to find space, negotiate a lease and even negotiate a delayed entry in the space or double rent if the space is too good to pass up. in other words, we have the ability to negotiate the timing of new lease that coincides with expiration of this lease. we are not in the situation where we are paying so much money we have to take the first good deal that comes our way. you cosign and do the two year option and look for new space with the city or in a privately owned building at more favorable rate? >> that's correct.

that is exactly what we will do. we attend to look for -- to make the business decision to stay or good a year or 18 months out. even though this is a two year lease, we are going to have those conversations and start looking for those alternatives about a year from now. >> would you like to comment at all? >> i think director covered it there. we understand that we need to adjust during covid and post covid and our response to it. it changes our conversation. we are going back to the drawing board to partner with the team. we started those conversations already around the nutrition portion of how we serve the community as well. this really as you mentioned having the two years to work on that and having the space to

work on that would be very helpful. >> i would like to add that month-to-month is a two-way street. the city gets to terminate on 30-days notice, but so does the land lord. this certainly takes that element of risk away while we do that search. >> i think the strongest point you can sign this amended lease with a lower rate, terminate prior to if you found a better deal that was attractive long-term basis. the question we haven't flushed out. what analysis is being done based on city space and/or the city looking to purchase additional -- this is the time to purchase, this is the time to buy property. it is one of the things i

emphasized over and over again before i was on this committee. we stopped and/or redirected a number of deals that were going to be leases that we redirected one notable was hsh when they assumed space to the former san francisco housing authority property. i am very inclined to continue to move city run operations into city owned buildings to save taxpayer money. can you comment if there is available city space for dcyf and what is the plan to potentially purchase or look at purchasing properties in the down market? >> i will take the city availability question first.

there technically isn't space currently available for dcyf in its current space configuration need. that is probably aninartful way of saying pre-covid they performed operations in a way that required approximately 10,800 square feet of space. the only place i have to accommodate them as we speak at this moment is a space that is currently available but slated for another city department. if i were to move dcyf to that space, then i would be left with solving for the other city department that would be displaced. that said, covid has taught us how to operate in a different environment. real estate would have to sit down with dcyf to see whether or

not 10,800 square feet is still the right size. we would have to look at the operations post-covid and right size the operations. with that information we would then look to see what is available. with regard to the ownership question, i agree with you whole heartedly. right now the portfolio i administrator is 4 million square feet. it is owned in leased space. it breaks down to two-thirds owned, one-third lease. i would like to shift that ratio to 80% owned and 20% leased. i am working with the current acting city administrator and look forward to working with the new city administrator to have her review my plans for possible

city acquisition. obviously, that will require enough investment on part of the city to see those long-term gains but what i would say as it relates to this particular lease is that the two-year period singhs up this lease with other leasing opportunities that would facilitate the ability to transition dcyf from lease space to owned space. >> how many people on your office staff are coming to the office at fox plaza. >> at this time we are be low the threshold recommended of 25% at a time. typically we have five or six folks coming in. we steppinger their schedules. it juggles between the device configuration need, troubleshooting devices or we have our servers there as well.

we are working remotely, the servers are on site. some worked with the team. there wasn't usda graded flooring and conference room space. now that we are in covid, are we assessing whether or not conference space is necessary or if we could stagger staff schedules going forward. it is really important that usda grade flooring and refrigeration for the snacks stored on site. >> you guys use the fox plaza astor rage for food? >> yes refrigeration and flooring. when we toured pre-covid the one the team recommended that was another concern that we had with that space. >> which space?

i don't know what you are referring to. >> 1650 mission. >> got it. >> 1650 mission is a possibility you had issues because you weren't sure whether or not the flooring would meet year needs? >> correct. >> got it. thank you. i don't have any further questions. i will say i know the bla will make an amendment to have the real estate division report to us at the end of the year and update us on the plan. not just for these city tenants but other once listed. city attorney is moving, public health. i would say i accept that recommendation. i think that is a good recommendation. i think a whole host of city properties, city owned -- city leased space is not being utilized now because of covid

and very limited fashion and this is causing everyone to retake a look. this is a lot of money overall in terms what we can utilize more for programming, city owned space. i would only say that it would be good not just having the fiscal feasibility of moving city tenants to city-owned space but also ask for that report to include to be analysis of city purchasing. not just moving all of the city tenants from fox plaza to city own soace but include what the city's plans are for purchasing property. >> i have no objection to that

recommendation, supervisor safai. i would caution that. >> you don't have to identify the property. >> yes, there are confidences that we would like to keep. >> we don't want you to ruin the deal before it is done. if there is an actual plan in terms of finances, certificate of participation but there is a detailed plan as well as just the fiscal feasibility of moving tenants to city-owned space, two-pronged. >> understood. i have no objection. >> thank you, mr. chair. >> thank you for the questions. i was going to ask about city space. it seems like we have opportunities and appreciate those answers and the attention to what this moment provides as well as how we utilize the space we do have as best as possible.

i believe there is a bla report on this item. >> yes. the proposed resolution before you is retroactively to approve the lease amendment between sf1390 market street and city for space at fox plaza. you have had a detailed summary of the provisions and costs it is on page 38 of our report. we discuss the early termination options on page 38 of our report. as discussed during this presentation, we do have a recommendation to amend the proposed resolution to have the real estate division report back to the board by december of this year on the feasibility of moving the city tenants to the

office place and early execution of the termination of the proposed lease. we recommend as amended. i am available for questions. >> in light of what we just heard, any other questions or comments for ms. campbell? seeing none, is there any public comment on this item? >> praises is checking to see if there are callers in the queue. lease let us know if callers are ready press star 3 to be added to the queue. those on hold continue to wait until the system indicates you are unmuted. let us know if there are callers for item 10. >> no callers in the queue. >> thank you. public comment is closed.

i move to accept the bla amendment. also the recommend and amend this item. roll call on the amendment. >> if we could accept the bla recommended amendment and include that it would include the idea of analysis of city purchasing property as well. >> yes so we would have a presentation before the end of december of this year that looked at city space and also the possibility of purchasing as part of that presentation. >> yes, memorandum. thank you, supervisors. >> mr. chair. the motion would be to amend the resolution to accept the bla recommendation and include the

city analysis on city purchasing property in the memo? >> yes. >> on that motion supervisor safai. >> aye. >> member mar. >> aye. >> chair haney. >> aye. >> three ayes. >> great. we will move this as amended to the full board with positive recommendation. >> on that motion vice chair safai. >> aye. >> member mar. >> aye. >> chair shane ne. >> aye. >> three ayes. >> great. so moved to the full board with positive recommendation as amended. we appreciate your work and look forward to continuing the conversation on this item and the broader questions around city office space and city owned property and acquisition. thank you.

>> thank you. really appreciate it. >> please call item 111. resolution retro actively authorizing the department of public health to accept expand grant increase in the amount of 431 $73,000 for a total amount of 124 $904,000 for the centers of disease control and prevention through the regets of the university of california san francisco for participation in a program entitle recent infection surveillance consortium for the period of august 1, 2019 through septembe. please call 415-655-0001 to speak. wait until you are unmuted to begin your comments.

>> we have willy mcfarland from dph here for this item. >> i think it is good afternoon, supervisors. i am representing the sfdph. i am director of the center for public health research in the health department. i am here to spoke about item 11 and answer questions. this project is called the recent infection surveillance consore shut. they are providing technical assistance to 10 countries severely affected by h.i.v. most active in vietnam and libya. we are happening with surveillance systems and prevention programs to incorporate new testing for h.i.v. this new test identifies people that are recently infected with h.i.v. in the last six months as

opposed to sometime that might be in the past. we feel this this new test has a good chance of helping us with the epidemic by identifying people recently infected. we may catch where transmission is active and ongoing. identifying the clusters of h.i.v. transmission. we can then concentrate our contact tracing there. the project is funded through u.c.s.f. subcontracted for the city for part of my time. u.c.s.f. enlisted us because we are among the first in the world to use this test in surveillance and prevention and because we have achieved success in reducing h.i.v. in the city. we are asking for retroactive approval to expand this grant

because dph only received the award in october 2020. that is briefly what it is about. i am happy to answer any questions. >> thank you for your great work. wonderful to know we are able to share best practices with folk around the world and help save lives. this is very much appreciated. it may beings a lot of sense be to me. questions or comments, supervisor safai? >> mr. mcfarland thank you for being here today. this is important work. a couple questions that comes up at the full board. the previous item on the agenda was retroactive. it ended november 30th. we negotiated past the deadline

but wanted to begin this one we received the grant october 2020. it says on the title here for the period of august 1, 2019 through september 30 of this year. can you explain that to me? >> yes. the award is an increase from the previous two years. >> that was the beginning of the previous grant? >> yes, and the clerk can correct me but i believe the award was an increase over what was already approved. >> that is what it says for the period. does dph work with you csf -- u.c.s.f. to look at infection surveillance in heart hit communities in the u.s. as well?

is this a separate focus on vietnam as a way to study high rates of transmission? we still have significantly high rates of transmission in certain communities in the u.s. as well. are we looking to help and study those as well? >> we are. they are totally separate streams of funding. this is from the international fund. there is a parallel program looking at this idea every sept infection surveillance and intervention domestically. it has the same name. trace. >> are we involved in that in the city as well? >> we are. >> this is separate funding? one is domestic, one international? >> exactly. >> thank you for your wonderful work on this. >> thank you, mr. chair.

>> is there a bla report on this? public comment, please. >> operation is checking to see if there are callers in the queue. lease let us know if there are callers ready for those on hold continue to wait until you have been unmuted. let us know if there are callers for item 11. >> no callers in the queue. >> public comment is closed. any other questions or comments from colleagues. i am going to move this to the full board with positive recommendation. roll call, please. >> on that motion vice chair safai. >> aye. >> member mar. >> aye.

>> chair haney. >> aye. >> three ayes. >> great moved with positive recommendation. thank you for your work. >> thank you. >> call item 12. resolution

for the san francisco police department. i am joined today by captain jack heart of the police academy. we request the committee recommendation for our resolution for a grant we have received from the california peace officer standards and training for post funds to be used to support the development and certification of a limited english proficiency training course. it is to be developed for a distance learning environment. it will be offered to law enforcement personnel statewide once post certification is achieved. there are over 22% of residents

in san francisco have limited english and 19% in california have limited english proficiency. the grant provides funding for personnel cost and supplies and equipment needed for the course. we are requesting retroactive approval. it was necessary to start some of the grant activities in order to meet the grant goals and objectives within available performance period which is nine months long. we did encounter several delays during the process. the post commission did not finalize the grant award until october 21st. we did submit our resolution package to the controller mayor's office november 5th. there were issues that resulted in delay of the resolution being introduced at the board of supervisors until december 15th. because of the holiday schedule

and with the new budget committee, the resolution was not able to be calendared until today. this project helped the sfpd address several recommendations from the d.o.j. initiatives and helped racial equity inclusion and helps reduce capability gaps that exist in the services that we provide. captain heart, anything you would like to add? >> thank you, patrick. good afternoon, supervisors. on behalf of chief scott i am from the academy and want to thank you for consideration of this item. when the pandemic struck california post recognized the innovation and wisdom for the profession are shared through in person conventions, seminars anchorses in academies and training centers throughout the state.

they needed to capture, document and transmit wisdom on community policing practices throughout the state because of the urgency of the recent events. our profession has been brought to nes twice in six years to show excellent work so that it can be throughout the 58 counties in california. our professional development units spotted this and did work to submit a winning proposal around the true, unique, innovative of the language access liaison officer car in coordination and implementation in government partners including francis shea and adrian and the public safety team and the department of police account ability and others to ensure the police department can meet members at residents, and visitors and guests where they

are by speaking languages they speak or connect with interpreters and technology to manifest trust, connection, service and healing. through this policing course we hope to develop with approval and acceptance to broadcast to the four corners of the state the sfpd story why we do what we do with empowerment in this way and to offer other agencies a blue present of their own program with challenges and lessons with the technical, practical, legal, budget legislative and lenses from which we somewhere struggled and learned from. rights in the constitution areful evident but not self-executing. police brings the laws to life to manifest justice, the highest aspiration of civilization.

we have capacity for right and wrong. through this course we have a good story to tell. of 2990sfpd employees 762 are multi link gal. officer car speaks six languages. her work in a serious incident last year was no less than wonderful. in the year 2020sfpd took 3858 reports and used video over 6,000 times. we will eliminate the lessons learn to let the officer to manifest justice and heal communities in both districts 10 and 11 and acknowledge imperfections and lessons from the good orchard bakery to accelerate learning growth for other agencies and communities they serve. supervisors, thank you for your passion and commitment to

language access of the city and consideration of this matter and also thanks to the police commission for the resolution urging this item's adoption. >> any questions, colleagues? >> supervisor safai. >> thank you to captain heart. >> thank you for the great work. thank you for coming today. language access is something myself and former president yee spent a lot of time on following up with 911 and pd. language access is extremely important. the only question i have and thank you for the great

presentation. why are we doing it retroactively? we get that question at the full board. it is helpful to have the full answer. >> right. there were delays. [indiscernable] >> i can't hear you. >> sorry. >> there were delays in the process. the implementation timeline was set by post and rigid start date. the times doesn't line up with where we are. we know the work is important. we began development of it and expended funds and pray it can be retroactive so the costs can be covered. >> start time was rigid based on the grant, is that it?

>> correct. the project period starts on october 15, 2020. the actual grant award was not final until october 21st. however, the natural start date it is october 15th. just by that because of that, that was retroactive resolution. there were other delays. we had to go through the police commission to obtain approval before we presented to the board of supervisors and calendared to the committee. we did start that process back in november. there were some additional delays and the resolution was introduced at the board of supervisors level on december 15th. we did reach out to the budget finance committee at the time to see when it would be calendared. because of the holidays and

because of the new budget committee members, the resolution wasn't calendared until this week. >> so you went through the police commission in november? >> let me see that date. yes, it was signed on november 5th. >> november 4th is the meeting date. >> okay. >> thank you. we might get that question at the full board. it is good for us what the timeline was. >> we will provide that

information and we will e-mail it to the group. >> thank you, mr. chair. >> i just wanted to commend sfpd for your work on this applying for the grant and getting it and developing this very groundbreaking and much needed curriculum for officers. this is important as you stated in supporting our community policing, strategic plan, expanding language access within the department and our community and serving as a model for the entire state. this is wonderful. i have a question about how this would -- the product of the grant. it is more of a curriculum, distance learning curriculum for

officers. how would that fit into our professional development, department's professional development work and lead to increased trained and certified bilingual officers in the department? >> that is a tremendous question. yes, it is great we received the grant. it is forcing us to be able to fully document everything we have done. we create reports to the board of supervisors on an afternoon another annual bases about goals in terms of increasing languages spoken beyond the five core. recruits at the academy. this has added to the presence and wisdom sharing of our community and government partners. by us developing this class it gets us to account for goals we

reached and opportunities we have. [please stand by]

. . >> we then submit that to p.o.s.t. for their certification. they then give it their certification number so that officers arc the state can get continuing training. we call it continuing education training for themselves, and one we have the training and technology in place to present it, we press a button and distribute it internally and

externally. one of the things that chief scott has done is placing officers on something where once a week for them there's a day of training. we can not only get the content great, beta tested, and get it rolled out on an expedited basis. >> supervisor mar: that sounds great. thanks so much for all of your work on this. >> thanks, supervisor. >> supervisor haney: thank you, chief. i echo the support for this work. in the tenderloin, we have such a diverse population in our

city, and i often hear that we need officers that are able to communicate with all of our citizens, and if we can, in creative, cost effective ways, do that work, that's great, and there's a lot of ways that that can be shared across the department. i don't believe that there's a b.l.a. report for this, miss campbell. >> there is no report. >> supervisor haney: thank you. are there any members of the public who wanted to speak on this item? >> clerk: mr. chair, operations are letting us know if there are callers in the queue. if you have not already done so, please press star, three to enter the queue. for those already in the queue, please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. mr. tue, are there callers who

indicate they wish to provide public comment on item number 12? >> operator: mr. chair, there are no callers in the queue. >> supervisor haney: thank you, mr. moderator. i could foresee this about this being something that comes up to the full board when that gets there. with that, i want to move this item to the full board with a positive recommendation. roll call vote, please. >> clerk: yes, sir. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> supervisor haney: okay. thank you. much appreciated. thank you for your work. madam clerk, can you please

call item 13. >> clerk: yes u. item 13, resolution authorizing the mayor's office of housing and community development to expend soma community stabilization fund dollars in the increase amount of $78,000 for a total amount of $378,000 to extend a grant supporting trauma informed systems training and counseling for students, families, faculty and staff at bessie carmichael school, and amending a grant agreement with ucsf hearst program to provide the specified services to extend grant term by one year for a total term of july 1, 2018 through june 30, 2021.

>> supervisor haney: thank you so much. we do have presenter claudine del rosario from mohcd on this one. >> good afternoon, supervisors haney, safai, and mar. can you hear me okay? >> supervisor haney: yes, we can hear you fine. >> great. i'm claudine del rosario, and i'm here on behalf of the mayor's office of housing and community develop to authority the mayor's office of housing and community development to expend soma community stabilization fund dollars in the increased amount of $78,000 for a total of $378,000 to extend a grant supporting trauma informed systems training and counseling for students, families, faculty,

and star at bessie carmichael school, and amending a grant agreement with the ucsf hearst program to provide the specified services, to extend the grant term by one year for a total term of july 1, 2018 through june 30, 2021. they're at the point where, without additional funding, they would not be able to keep the program began. since distance learning began early in 2020 from the pandemic, educators and staff are more stressed out than ever due to the pandemic and racial injustice, families are struggling more than ever due to the pandemic and racial injustice. bessie carmichael serve more people than ever, people without housing security and

undocumented immigrants. since hut has a long-standing relationship with members of the bessie carmichael community, they've been able to effectively and actively serve the school community by providing telehealth through individual and family psychotherapy, by coleading groups for trauma impact children with a social worker, and support for staff and faculty through leadership meetings, trauma informed care teams, wellness groups, observation and consult ag for teachers, and classroom support for teachers. at this time, mohcd requests to

extend the trauma informed systems training and counseling and amending a grant agreement with ucsf hearst program to provide the specified services, to extend the grant term by one year. they have a goal of beginning new contracts later this year that are responsive to the stresses because of the pandemic. thank you. that's all for my presentation. >> supervisor haney: thank you so much. are there any questions or comments? colleagues, of course, this is in my district, so i'm very appreciative of this work, and i'm familiar with the program, you know, both from -- as a school board member and now a supervisor and really

appreciate the work that's been done to continue to support it and also to make sure that we are able to, during these challenging times of distance learning, continue the work as best as possible, and i note i do not believe there's a b.l.a. report on this item. is there any public comment on this item? >> clerk: yes, mr. chair. operation is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. operations, please let us know if there are callers that are ready. if you have not already done so, please press star, three to enter the queue. if you have already done so, please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted before you begin your comments. operations, are there any callers in the queue? >> operator: yes, i have two public callers.

>> supervisor haney: great. two minutes each. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is [inaudible] at soma playas. bessie students tend to see traumatic things just walking to school each thing, so in this community, we already now that young people are already faced with a lot of trauma in their home and their community. when you add in the pandemic, it has been hard to provide services, so i just urge you to support this today, and thank you so much. >> clerk: for your comment. next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is connie ford, and i also serve on the soma stabilization committee and have for a long time.

i just want to remind chair haney and supervisors safai and mar that these funds were provided from a development on potrero hill, and they have been providing are the program with -- providing the program with funds ever since. i'm speaking as a proud grandmother whose granddaughter attends bessie carmichael and has for the last six years. she's going to supposedly graduate, whatever that means, during the spring. so i urge your support for this very vital program in a very important area. thank you.

>> clerk: thank you for your comments. are there any other callers in the queue? >> hi, good afternoon, supervisor haney, supervisor safai, and supervisor mar. my name is carl a[inaudible] -- carla [inaudible] of the west bay filipino services center, and i urge you to support the hearts program. this is one of the few programs at bessie carmichael for teachers. we're really severely underresourced. we have a really high rate of homeless students. actually, the most out of all sfusd schools and a high percentage of young people that are experiencing trauma. as you guys know, we only recently got a nurse, and through a community push, we

were able to get a second social worker just to have one at each of our campuses, middle school, second, and elementary. this is one of the only ways we had to help our students be successful, especially during the pandemic. i urge you to continue the ucsf hearts program, especially during the pandemic when people are experiencing so much trauma. thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. are there any other callers in the queue? >> operator: mr. chair, that completes public comment. >> supervisor haney: thank you. i want to thank all the people who called in that are part of this school and program and the huge importance of this. i think sometimes we don't think of soma as a neighborhood that has a lot of children, but it absolutely does, and there is tremendous need. bessie carmichael has the

highest percentage of students that are experiencing homelessness. many also experience poverty and violence and other things for which this program is hugely important and has helped the school make incredible strides in terms of the culture and well-being overall. so with that, i would like to move to -- this item to the full board with a positive recommendation. roll call vote, please. >> clerk: yes. on the motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> supervisor haney: thank you. this will go to the full board with a positive recommendation, and thank you, miss del rosario, for your work. appreciate it. madam clerk, will you please call items 14 and 15 together? >> clerk: yes.

item 14 is an ordinance appropriating $287 million of revenue bond proceeds to the kmuns transportation agency for street and transit projects in fiscal year 20-21 and placing these funds on the controller's reserve pending receipt of proceeds of indebtedness. item 15 is a resolution authorizing the sale, issuance, and execute of not to exceed 300 million aggregate principal amount on a amount exempt or taxable basis of revenue bonds by the municipal transportation agency to provide funds to finance capital improvements for the municipal transportation agency's purposes, approving the form of certain financing documents,

and making the appropriate findings and approving related matters as defined there in. >> supervisor haney: thank you. i believe we have samuel thomas here from sfmta. >> yes. thank you, chair haney. so we have tim [inaudible] on the car, as with will, and he wanted to say a few words of introduction, if i'm not mistaken. >> yes. good afternoon, chair haney, vice chair, and supervisors. my name is timothy [inaudible] and i am the budget manager at sfmta. so this item that we're bringing to you today is for new money revenue bonds sfmta wants to issue. these new money revenue bonds are tied to the bond refunding that was brought to the budget

and finance and to the bull board of supervisors yesterday. so the idea is we want to try and do these as one transaction. these revenue bonds are for the sfmta both to help close the revenue loss at about $202 million that we saw on the capital side. plus, this provides an option for us to flex some of our capital dollars for operating budget to help close our deficit and to help avoid things such as layoffs and other tools that we might need to use to close our deficit. so without further adieu, i'll leave it to samuel thomas to go into the further details. >> thank you so much. chair haney --

[inaudible] >> -- which projects the money will fund. so the sfmta has a good credit rating. we have aa credit, and our ratings were affirmed by both moody's and s&p, and as i'm sure you're aware, rates are extremely low right now. i'm sure that sfmta would not have another opportunity to take advantage of these rates, and i think you know over the past week treasury rates have gone up slightly, so we want to do this transaction in the same window as our refunding, but we also want to move quickly in case rates go up, so again, we wanted to secure those low rates so we can pay the lowest cost possible on this debt. you'll see in this package that

what we're requesting is the option to issue up to 300 million, but what the proposition lists is 287 million, and the reason for the discrepancy is when we initially brought this to our board of supervisors, we conducted a rough order of magnitude analysis. we knew that this was something we wanted to move ahead with, but we needed to do some initial analysis of our capital plan to get some idea of what projects to fund and where we could get some capital into the budget. with that, we decided that 287 was the amount that we wanted to move ahead with, and that has been approved by the m.t.a. board as well as the capital planning committee. we believe this measure bolsters our budget during these unfair financial times and provides us the flexibility to support our operating budget

and mitigate any potential layoffs that we might see as a result of our revenue losses. so this provides -- this slide provides a bit of an overview on where we are with our capital program funding. so in the two years of this budget, so f.y. 21 and f.y. 22, what we're predicting is a $92 million loss, so the entire five years of the c.i.p., we're predicting a loss of $202 million. as i'm sure you're aware, the general fund has been diminished and impacted us, but also sales taxes and of course our --

[inaudible] >> this slight puts in more detail which of our programs have been impacted, and you'll see here that fleet and transit optimization, which have taken the biggest hit in our reductions. under our current c.i.p., what we're averaging right now with our revenue losses is $467 million per year. what we would need in order to reduce our $3.2 million state of good repair backlog is $632 million per year. that's a big discrepancy, so really, the purpose of this new money is to help fill in that gap so we don't fall farther and farther behind on our state of good repair. of course, the state of good

repair has significant impacts on the transit system's reliability and our timeliness, so we view this as a repair on our system that will aid in our recovery. we want us to be stronger than when we entered it, so we don't have incidents with overhead lines coming down in the subway, shutting us down for an extended period of time. this is what the appropriation and schedule looks like? what we think is this is be weighted to the outer years, and that provides us from the immediate flexibility as we're recovering from covid-19. so what we're doing is pushing the amortization, when interest payments rostart, to hopefully

when we're out of the pandemic and recovering, so that provides us flexibility in our debt service. the interest rate right now is 2.3%, and the same factors that are driving mort gauge rates lower are also -- mortgage rates lower are also driving [inaudible] but if we do the back load structure, we're looking at lower amount of debt service in recent years and then higher debt service payment down the road as it becomes a smaller and smaller percentage of our operating budget. what our current projection is is that with our current budget

in 21 and 22 and slight rebound in 22 and 23 moving ahead, the payments will be no more than 6% of our operating budget. currently, debt services are 2% of our debt policy. this low bubble of debt service is something that both moody's and s&p noted of us in their ratings and list that as a strong credit for investors. we're also assuming that this is a 30-year term, so we'll be paying off the proceeds of this action through 2051. we do have an option for a debt service reserve fund, which you'll see in the next slide, but we'll only be using that in

case it provides us a pricing advantage, which it looks like in this current market that it won't. what we've seen is in current city issue weans, whether or not you have a fund, issuers are not giving a debt service reserve, that that's really not providing a pricing benefit in today's market, so most likely we won't move ahead with that benefit, but you'll see that we do have it listed. total project amounts will be 255 million and the remaining 38 million which will provide us a buffer in case of changes during pricing. so that's a high-level overview of this -- of the appropriation, and this provides a bit more detail as

to our two project areas? transportation equipment is a part of our purchases. it lowers operating and maintenance costs for us in the long run and is really important for us to be able to provides the reliable service that we would like. this slide provides a quick overview of what we expect to spend down to look like. so we expect that the proceeds of this bond will be expended by fiscal year 24. we have gained a significant amount of experience in managing bond proceeds and spending that money down quickly over the past five

years, and that's because we've had our g.o. bonds that have been allocated, we've also had our 2014 and 2017 bonds that have been allocated. so part of what we've learned, we want to place the money on projects that are going into construction soon and also placing largements on single projects where they can be expended quickly. so that's what we're doing here. this slide gives us a highlight of our fleet, so primarily we'll be using this on l.r.v. expansion. 1200 15 street will be our replacement for our parking control officers, which are a high demand service in the city and county of san francisco. we hear all the time that we need more p.c.o.s on the street to reduce the burden on

officers and aid the transit program in addition to the meter enforcement that is important in our operations. our current structure on fifth and bryant is not large enough to house the number of p.c.o.s that we would like to hire, so moving into this facility will allow us to expand our workforce? not only that, it will allow us to do away with $1 million of rent that we pay every year, and that will be used to pay down or currently scheduled debt service that would be issued and we would be responsible for after this transaction. additionally, we have our parking meter replacement, which again, is very important for us to be able to manage our revenue generating assets here at sfmta. parking meters are a big revenue sources for us. they're a big enterprise revenue. they're a big thing that we

have control over, and they're one of the pledged revenues. we have old meters that need to be replaced with better 5-g technology. not only will this allow us to collect more revenue, but we'll be able to replace meters damaged in the past by vandalization. so the fact that there will be fewer meters will save us on o.n.m. costs but also allow us to collect more revenue? so i should state as well that we have undertaken a certification process with s.n.p. to get these bonds labelled as green. so that is -- we'll have those results later this week, i believe, or early next week? and speaking with them, they were very impressed by how green our operations are.

l.r.v.s promote ridership and reduce emissions here in the city, and they run on 100% clean energy that's provided by the p.u.c. and hetch hetchy. additionally, 1200 15 street will be built to our green standards. so we're very much looking forward to that certification by s.n.t. and their judgment as to how green these bonds actually are. so that brings us to today's approval, which is one, to authorize the director of transportation to move ahead with the transportation? so that authorizes the transportation and moves to market as well as the supplemental appropriation to extend these proceeds, and of course, these will be heard at the board of supervisors hopefully very soon following

this. so that concludes the presentation? tim and i will be happy to answer any questions that you might have. >> supervisor haney: so thank you for that, and thank you for all that you're doing to be creative in both meeting the needs of our transportation infrastructure while also taking advantage of some unique opportunities in terms of financing. you know, this is obviously the second time we've had a similar conversation and appreciate what you're doing also to secure funds that can be used right now. supervisor mar? >> supervisor mar: thank you, chair haney, and thanks for the presentation from mr. thomas. i just had a few questions around the rationale around this large bond issuance. that wasn't previously in the five year -- sfmta's five year

capital improvement plan. i guess -- yeah, it looks like there's a projected deficit of $92 million loss of revenue and then 292 million the year after that. can you just describe that loss of revenue? >> yeah, i can take this one. hi, supervisor. again, timothy [inaudible] at the sfmta. so regarding the 92 next year and 292 in a few years, not only this year but next fiscal year, 134 million deficit and that slightly grows to 163 million in fiscal year 23, and that's after we apply the fiscal relief that we got in h.r. 133. so both things are connected, and one of the things that sandra mentioned is we also want to use these to flex dollars from the capital budget

to the operating budget. so these revenue bonds also help create that gap that we have in 22 and partially in 23 of our operating budget. and to give you a little bit more detail, and i won't go into too much more, the metropolitan transportation commission gave us the ability to flex funds from capital to operating, so it's a unique opportunity because of the pandemic where we have this ability given us to by the m.c.c. >> yeah, and i would also add that this also provides us the opportunity to pursue new funding sources that are longer term solutions? so for example, i believe that you may have heard that community facilities district that we're planning to pursue as well as additional funding sources that we would take to

the ballot. this is a stopgap to help us get there, and as i mentioned, we don't want to fall farther and farther behind on our backlog on our state of good repair. so this is to both offset the covid bosses as well as to capitalize on those low interest rates so we can fill in those current gaps. >> supervisor mar: thank you. as chair haney said, we certainly appreciate m.t.a. being as creative as possible right now in figuring out how to fill these huge gaps. and then, i had a few questions around the selections of projects that would be funded through this bond. you know, all five of them certainly look really important and worthy. are any of these projects or even the scope of the work of the projects new -- new work that wasn't previously planned?

>> so as i mentioned, these are projects that -- that we already had slated. >> supervisor mar: sure. >> so for example, the meter replacement project, we were actually going to fund with our operating budget out of our fund balance, and this new money allows us to fund that out of our operating budget. all of these projects were already slated, so they were already existing. as i mentioned, we've learned a lot of lessons about extending bond funds in recently years -- recent years, and one of those is you want to go with bond projects that will soon be in construction, and we think all of these candidates will meet

that. >> supervisor mar: thank you. that's great. i think particularly for my district, with over 100,000 riders daily -- or precovid, at least, that rely on the l taraval, the l.r.v. replacement and train control system upgrades are extremely important. will they -- will the bond funding for these change the timeline -- like, say for those two projects, for example, or perhaps allowing them to be implemented even sooner? >> you know, i'm not sure about moving them even sooner, but i do know we're leveraging current schedules that are already existing, so we're basically moving these funds in to see the gaps that we've seen

from revenue losses, so i'm not sure that we'll necessarily accelerate projects, but it does allow us to not defer them farther into the future. >> supervisor mar: mm-hmm. well, that's something that's really desirable right now, too. thanks again for all of this. i don't have any further questions, chair haney. >> chair haney: thank you, supervisor mar. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thanks, chair haney. i just want to say a few of the things that i've got on the record from conversations with the sfmta. one of the things is vehicles and light rail purchases, that we're not making some of the same mistakes that were made in previous purchases. last time we purchased light rail a year ago, m.t.a. came

back and said it had to be adjusted because the training was not way the drivers were trained, causing additional money. the door sensors were to sensitive, and they had to be additionally adjusted. from what i heard from director tumlin, this particular contract is from siemens, and they adjusted all the kinks, so i just wanted to see what the response was on the record. >> yes. thank you, supervisor, for that question. throughout the process of the l.r.v.s, we've made incremental improvements to all deliveries, and all of the things that you mentioned there, we have worked out with siemens to correct. we expect, moving ahead, we will not have those issues. >> supervisor safai: and the other thing i appreciate about the identification of the

projects here is that some were about increasing optimization. you brushed over it, but the other thing that -- one of the things that gave me a little bit of hesitation, and i understand you're not going above funding 6% of your total operating funds, that gave me somewhat of a pause. but then, i also heard from director tumlin that what this does -- and you did mention it. i just want you to reiterate it again, put it a fine point on it, is that you're going to be taking some of your federal grants that allow you some

flexibility in capital and shift them to operations. i just wanted you to talk, put a fine point on the flexing or the shifting of the federal grant money, what that amount is, and how that helps your ability to keep operator lines and service going? >> yeah. tim, do you want to handle that? >> yeah, i can take that. so this isn't the first time that we're doing this? with the c.a.r.e.s. act funding that we got, the first round of federal funding relief, those funds could be used either for capital or for operating, and we chose to use those funding for operating. the same federal relief -- or not the same, the second federal relief that we will get, the h.r. 133, will be structured very similarly, so we want to take advantage of that so that -- we want to take

advantage of that so that we can shift over those funds that we're getting from capital to operating. so yes, this does help us close the deficit that i mentioned earlier that we have in fiscal year 22 and fiscal year 23. we went to our board, the sfmta board back in january 5 with the recommendation to shift no more than $25 million from capital to operating, so that was our up to target amount mostly because of what samuel mentioned earlier mostly because of that $200 million loss in our c.i.p. capital is important, making sure that the overheadlines stay where they're supposed to, over our heads, is very important, and so we want to use this for state of good repair and city operations as much as possible. >> supervisor safai: so this time around, the shifting is 25

million? >> yeah, that was the recommendation that we gave to our board, to shift no more than 25 million. >> supervisor safai: and how many operators and how many lines does that impact or operation does that impact overall? >> that's a good question. i wouldn't want to give you a figure off the top of my head. especially since the sfmta is made up of mostly operators, i can say that it's a significant number of operators that it would impact and impact our level of service pretty significantly. i can get back to you with a specific number. >> supervisor safai: that would be good. i know there was conversations several months ago about the sfmta putting it out there that there would be potential layoffs and service reduction.

we did an introduction led by supervisor melgar yesterday, asking and ensuring some of the lines that have been eliminated or put on hold -- eliminate is probably not the right word -- but cancelled in the short time based on funding. it would be important to know how much of the 25 million that impacts and how many operators and lines would be impacted. i know that over in lakeview, my service had been decreased, and i know some of the historic lines in the city have been moth balled, so there's definitely service around the city that has been put on hold, so having that 25 million and using creative way to do revenue bonds to fund additional capital improvement will increase revenue and also impact the bottom line in your operating is important overall. so if you could get back to us and let us now how much the 25

million impacts, that would be helpful. >> yes, absolutely. >> supervisor safai: thank you, mr. chair. >> chair haney: thank you, supervisor safai. do we have any other questions or comments on this? do we have a b.l.a. report on this? >> yes. this involves the appropriation of 287 million of bond proceeds. the tables on page 44 and 45 of our report summarize the sources and uses of those bond funds and also how they would be specifically allocated to projects at this time. and then, on page 50, we summarize total debt service over the term of not just of these funds but all about standing m.t.a. debt, including the refunding bonds that have been reviewed by this committee. as we saw the comment on page 40 of our report -- well,

first, i want to point out, that we looked at these, and this is consistent with m.t.a.s debt policy. and then, as sort of been discussed here, we commented in our report, the project that was being commented in these funds [inaudible] to transportation system and then the ability to swap funds that have been diverted from these funds back into the m.t.a. budget, and there's been some discussion about that in this committee. this is to assist in covering projected shortfalls and other sources that would defund projects in the five year capital improvement plan. because we find this is consistent with m.t.a. policy and considering the reasonableness for this sector of funding, we are recommending the approval of bonds and the appropriation of funds, and i'm available for questions.

>> chair haney: thank you. any questions for miss campbell? seeing none, is there any public comment on this item? >> clerk: yes, mr. chair. operations are checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. operations, please let us know if there are callers in the queue who wish to comment on items 14 and 15. >> operator: yes, we have two callers in the queue. >> chair haney: great. two minutes each. >> eileen boken, coalition for san francisco neighborhoods, speaking on my behalf. these items appeared on the january 20, 2021 capital planning meeting as agenda item number 5. at the c.a.c. meeting, i spoke

in opposition to this. this amounts to $300 million in debt, bringing the total to amount $500 million. it is my understanding that the three main sources of m.t.a.s revenues are fare box revenue, packing and traffic fund, as well as advertising. fare box revenues are down 95%. it is my understanding that parking and traffic fines revenue is also down significantly. i cannot speak to advertising revenue. the m.t.a. seems to believe that after the vaccine, this old normal will return. however, many experts believe

that covid has caused a paradigm shift in how this incident will play out. until this plays out, i am opposed to any new debt undertaken by the m.t.a. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> can you hear me now? >> yes. >> my comment on items 14 and 15. david pillpel. i wasn't sure how much debt would be added to the operating budget over 30 years, but then, i found it adds up to $586 million in 30 years for 285 million in funding. that's $331 million in interest costs. not project costs, but interest

costs, $331 million over 30 years. i see the tension between low interest rates and unknown project rates due to unknowable future agency needs at this time. while we need to maintain most m.t.a. assets, i think the system may be larger in the future. not smaller, not the same size. i support the refunding bonds that are already in the works at a lower interest rate, but i oppose the new money bonds to the extent that it gets short-term access to new money on a huge credit card, burdening m.t.a. and future generations with 30 years of new debt. to linda, please post today's m.t.a.s presentation on the web, and i agree wholeheartedly with eileen bilken's comments,

as well. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. mr. tue, are there any other callers in the queue? >> operator: mr. chair, that completes the queue. >> chair haney: thank you. appreciate that. thank you, public callers. public comment is now closed. i believe that we did have an amendment on this, correct? >> clerk: yes, mr. chair. i believe that our deputy city attorney, ann pearson, can speak on that. >> chair haney: great. deputy city attorney ann pearson? >> hello, chair haney. deputy city attorney ann pearson. there is an amendment for your consideration. it is to section 10 of item 15, which is the resolution, and it concerns the ceqa determination as introduced, it states that

the board made the ceqa determination, when it is the planning commission that determined that it was a finding not made by ceqa, so it's a determination that the finding was made by planning and not the board. >> chair haney: great. makes sense. i want to move those amendments. can we have a roll call vote on the amendment? >> clerk: yes. on the motion to amend item 15 -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chair haney: and those amendments pass, and can i now have -- can we move this item as amended to the full board with a positive recommendation? roll call vote, please. >> clerk: yes. on the motion to recommendation item number 15 to the full board with a positive recommendation as amended -- [roll call]

>> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chair haney: great, thank you. >> clerk: excuse me, mr. chair, could we please take action on item number 14? >> chair haney: oh, yes. for item number 14, i want to move that to the full board with a positive recommendation, as well. roll call vote, please. >> clerk: yes. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chair haney: great. so 14 and 15 will go to the full board with a positive recommendation. thank you to the staff of sfmta for being here and for your work. we appreciate it. with that, madam clerk, can you please call item number 16. >> clerk: yes. item number 16, hearing to

review investment of services for the lakeview, oceanview, merced heights and ingleside community from 2013 through 2020. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call 415-655-0001. meeting i.d. 146-135-6013. then press pound twice. press star, three and wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted to begin your comments. >> chair haney: thank you so much. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you, chair haney. i just want to make a motion to continue this item to next week. we had originally anticipated this item going a little bit longer, but some folks and community departments needed a little more time to prepare for

community presentation and information, so if we could entertain a motion -- or i'd like to make a motion to continue this item for one week. i know we still have to take public comment if there is any, but that would be my request. >> chair haney: of course. let's go to public comment. >> clerk: yes, mr. chair. operations is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. operations, please let us know if there are callers who wish to comment on item number 16. >> operator: mr. chair, we have no callers in the queue. >> chair haney: great. public comment is now closed. seeing any further comments on this, if we can take vice chair safai's motion to hear this on

february 3, roll call vote, please to continue it to february 3. >> clerk: yes. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chair haney: okay. great. are there any other items? >> clerk: there's no further business, mr. chair. >> chair haney: great. meeting adjourned. thank you, everyone.

during the coronavirus disease, emergency covid-19, the citizens general obligation bond oversight committee will convene remotely, legally to meet in person. each speaker is allowed three minutes to speak. comments or opportunities to speak during the public comment period are available by calling

415-655-0001. access 146 289 8016 code and then hit pound and pound again. you will hear the meeting discussions but you'll be muted and in listening mode only. call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and turn down your television or

radio. item one, roll call. (roll call) thank you. we have a quorum. it's 9:36 a.m. for the record.

chair mchugh, would you like me to call item 2? >> yes please. >> opportunity for the public to comment within matters in the jurisdiction not on the agenda. members of the public who wish to provide public comment should call 415-655-0001. access 146 289 8016. then pound. and then press pound again. if you haven't already done so, please dial star 3 to line up to speak. the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and then you can start your comments. you have three minutes to speak. i'm checking public speakers.

i don't see any hands raised. so, madam chair, would you like me to go on to agenda item 3? >> yes. >> approval with possible modification of the minutes from the december 14, 2020, meeting. >> i make a motion to accept. >> i second. >> clerk: was that member mathews first and who was second? >> i'm going to take roll for this. >> before we take roll, we need

to see if there's public comment on this matter. >> okay. sorry. okay. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call 415-655-0001. access 146 289 8016 and then pound and then pound again. if you haven't already done so, please dial star 3 to line up to speak. the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you can begin your comment. please note you will have three minutes. i'm looking at the que and i don't see any hands raised. so can i go ahead and take roll then? >> yes, if there's no public

comment. >> thank you. (roll call) okay. we have a quorum on that vote. chair mchugh, should i go on to agenda item 4? >> yes please. >> presentation from various departments regarding the

embarcadera seawall earthquake safety bond, liaison report, the embarcadera seawall earthquake safety bond and possible action by the committee in response to such presentation. this morning we have carlos colon presenting. >> good morning. i'll be presenting with brad benson, the program director. let me -- >> there you are. >> let me go ahead and share. >> thank you carlos. my name is brad benson. i'm the waterfront director.

this is our first time presenting to cgoboc, we're happy to be here. i'll give reasons as to why it's the first time. we have been delayed in the bond issuance since recently but today's presentation -- we want to give you an update on that. we were involved in some litigation that held up the bond fail and the resolution of the mitigation. what we are doing with the embarcadera seawall program and resilience program at the port is developing a long range capital effort so we'll give you an overview of that planning effort. we'll focus in on two main prongs of the effort. the embarcadera seawall program, covering the area from

fisherman's whatever to mission creek and then we'll talk about the plan. we're at the point in the planning effort we're starting to develop seismic and flood measures to deploy along the waterfront. and then carlos is going to walk through our first 2018 proposition a quarterly report and describe next steps. next slide please. so, as i mentioned earlier, the city was sued by regarding the way the city published its ballot question and ballot simplification statement among other issues. the city attorney successfully defended the city's action at trial and that decision was

upheld at the california court of appeals. just recently, the california supreme court denied a petition for review. so it was really because of that litigation that the port and controller's office were not in a position to issue the first bond fail until june 2nd, at which time we issued the first bonds in the amount of over $49 million. in the interviewing period, the port has been using city and port operating revenues and state grant funds to advance the program. we do have a plan to reimburs eligible expenses using procedures and bond sale. next slide please.

so the program was formed by director forbes to address seismic and flood across the waterfront. the most of the work was in the embarcadera zone but has been expanded. i'll get into this more. we have very significant spread risk in the fill areas of the northern waterfront and in blue, sea level rise mapping that shows that overtime with increasing amounts of sea level rise, we have very significant impacts beyond the port's jurisdiction to the city. next slide please. we have developed a draft statement. the port's waterfront resilience program will take action to reduce seismic and climate change risks that support a

safe, equitable and vibrant water front. next slide please. underlining that, draft principles that we have been working through with the public. we have been out in a series of engagements with the public over the last two years keeping them aprized of the work we're doing. the first goal is to prioritize life safety and disaster response, including city and regional disaster response. we want to advance equity throughout the waterfront resilience program looking at not only the communities we engage but contracting and job opportunities through to the decision making process. we are looking for opportunities to enhance and sustain economic and ecological opportunities. people love the water front. we want to continue to inspire an adaptable water front that ensures public access, preserves

the historic resources along the water front and provides opportunities for diverse families and neighborhoods to thrive. and throughout all of this effort, we want to lead a transparent program. next slide? there are a number of efforts that comprise the water front resilience program that vary by geography. some are bond funded, many are not. support wide, we're developing an adapt plan and this is looking ahead for the next couple of deck odds at the work we have to do to make the water front resilient. and port-wide is this army corps flood resiliency study i'll tell you more about. the embarcadera seawall program is focused in that area between fisherman's wharf and we have

been working with the planning department and sfmta and other departments on an adaptation strategy, that's cal trans grant funded and seismic assessment is port operating funded. next side please. getting into the embarcadera seawall program. i'll start by saying the seawall was built in segments over a 40 year period well over 100 years ago. a marvel of engineering. but it is in need of significant investments because of risks identified. we just completed more than two year multi hazard risk assessment to inform work on the embarcadera seawall area. this was -- efforts called out in the bond report of

proposition a. next slide please. this program is in a planning phase from 2017 through 2021 this year. followed by design and construction, looking at both seismic and flood risk associated with the seawall. we're very grateful to voters for bonds of support in 2018. and our big concern, you know, we have the embarcadera historic district which is highly at risk. next slide please. so what is the multi hazard risk assessment? it's a very refined investigation of seismic and flood hazards along -- and the consequences of those events along this stretch. the engineering team looked at four different earthquake levels, a range of different sea level rise scenarios,

quantityfied all the assets and services in this zone that the city owns or port owns. the city has quite a bit of infrastructure in the embarcadera. it was an advanced geotechnical investigation that took about a year to support this effort to better understand soil conditions in this area. and then, a team developed models to predict damages from different events to these assets and services. next slide please. so, the final is it's very high level up to $30 billion in damage and disruption by the end of the century. the geotechnical program did identify some areas that were less at risk. we're happy to find out there's low lateral spread risk in the

south beach area south of the bay bridge. there's very deep mud in this area. we identified that the bulkhead warf and buildings along the embarcadera north are at the greatest risk of seismic damage and we'll show you why in a moment. from the sea level rise perspective, very significant flood risk between 2-3 feet of sea level rise. it's a very flat water front built on a certain elevation. once you get to the top of the shoreline edge, there's extensive damages into downtown. next slide please. we found that the embarcadera

roadway, that has very important transportation and utility assets in it is at significant risk to ground shaking. in fisherman's wharf, it is vulnerable to ground shaking. a vulnerable area of the city. next slide please. this gives you a sense of how the seawall was initially constructed, they went out to deep water and trenched, created rock dive about 100 feet wide at the base and 30-40 feet tall. and then they constructed wharfs supported by piles driven through the rock and then the piers extend out. it's an unusual manmade shoreline with a lot of infrastructure and development

in it. behind the seawall and mud under it are very weak soils. their performance was not good in a seismic event. this is what we're concerned about happening in some areas of the water fronts. very strong shaking, we're talking about a strong event, soils begin to cause damage in the roadway and in that bulkhead zone i was talking about earlier. to the right, you can see pictures along the embarcadera of this kind of phenomenon. this was near pier in the earthquake. the wharfs serve another

function, they provide flood protection where they exist. we're studying and developing a wide range. the army corps of engineers uses curves that you see at the bottom of the left hand graphic. they have a low, intermediate and high curve. state of california published its guidance just a few years ago and you can see the state of california one in 200 chance and

significantly higher than the army corps. on the right, you get a sense of what happens with sea level rise. you know, initially we're worried about 100-year-old flood event that came over top the seawall. they're 1% storm events with waves could overtop the shore line. but as sea level rises, we start to worry about high tides and daily flooding and it's permable shore line, we could see increases in ground water with high tide affecting infrastructure below grade. now we want to get into the army corps of engineers flood study. we're very lucky to have this

effort ongoing. next slide please. we do have during king tide events and storm events a couple times a year was really -- continuing authorities program investigation with the army corps of engineers that they recommended doing a broader flood risk study for the entire port water front. the benefit of working with the army core, a third of the nation's coastal flood experts. we think it's a seven year effort with the army corps subject to a 50/50 cost share. port pays half the cost and the army corps pays the other half. we're working broadly with community to gain input. if they find interest in a project along the water front to

reduce flooding, it could open the door to significant federal funding. two thirds paid by the federal government and one third match on a local basis. so, army corps opens a specific process of developing studies like this and i will say that the word study is a bit of a misnomer. what this effort is driving towards is a tentatively selected plan for flood risk production that would be recommended to congress if the army corps finds federal interest. this is really developing a project. that's a way to think about it. where we are, working on the future of the project, this is a comprehensive model effort looking at flood risk including private building, in the future

flood plain through 2090. it is calculating the potential flood damages overtime because that will affect the nation's economy. the army corps uses a planning construct of looking at problems, opportunities, strengths and considerations. we go through a planning process where we develop an array, meaning a range of alternatives so we can evaluate the cost efficiency. this is driving towards a plan, a plan for the seven mile area that would be endorsed by the army corps and the city that would undergo environmental review under the national

environmental policy act and be included in a feasibility report to congress with recommendation of funding, we would expect that to happen by 2026. next slide please. this gives you the sense of public and private assets that are in the future flood plain that we're looking at. more than 40 miles of roadway, 25 miles of cable car track. 2600 residential and commercial buildings. it's a very diverse area and includes major waste water infrastructure affected by sea level rise. we're collaborating with the san francisco public utilities commission. next slide. going to share briefly the kind of planning work that we're involved with now.

what kinds of actions can we take to reduce seismic and flood risk. so we're looking at a range of seismic measures. we have a very strong engineering team that has started the concept design of different approaches. as you see in the seismic measures table, there's a top row, shoreline stabilization. if we want to eliminate the expanding, a new seawall. that would involve creating new land along the embarcadera. similar concept, a land side doing ground improvement in the embarcadera to create a stable

shoreline. we're looking at targeted measures, retrofit as a way of reducing the seismic risk exposure. for each we have cost estimates, impact analysis and looking at adaptation for sea level rise. and this is going to be significantly disruptive work, it could end up in a position of having to close the northbound lanes of the embarcadera and reroute traffic.

so in our -- minimizing seismic risk along the embarcadera. next slide please. in the army corps study, we're at this sort of high level focused array but we have been looking at conceptule approaches for flood risk. we looked at break waters and i think we eliminated it as an effective mechanism for the san francisco water front. deployables are options for the near term. we have the embarcadera muni tunnel that is potentially exposed to a 500 year flood and deployables may be an approach there on the interim basis and looking at ecological measures to reduce flood risk, more or

less applicable in some areas of the water front. this has more room to deploy ecological improvements. next slide please. now, i want to give you a sense of where we are in the schedule and then hand it off to carlos. next slide please. we have done this existing conditions analysis, very detailed risk assessment and understood the consequences of earthquakes and flooding. we have been in the process of developing seismic and flood measures. right now, we're in a process of developing alternatives for consideration by the port commission. we think this will be a presentation to the commission of different alternatives in april and may time frame. then we'll go back in june or july to recommend the initial

proposition a projects for the committee's understanding, we think it's a multi billion dollar program we're dealing with just along the embarcadera zone. proposition a is a down payment on a broader program of improvements over time. we're going to focus on life safety and disaster response improvements for the first set of expenditures. when we have the commission's endorsement of proposition a, we'll start sequel and do a detailed investigation and start design of the projects with the goal of starting construction in 2024. the adapt plan i mentioned earlier will provide context for the public about how we plan to overtime address remaining risks along the embarcadera. carlos, do you want to take over

from here? >> sorry, had to unmute. good morning i'm carlos colon, the water front program administrator. i'm going to let you know right now i have a toddler and infant at home and i'm going to put my head phones on because they are back. one second. this is the overview scope of budget and bond from the accountability support before the first bond fail. this is what we projected back in 2019.

things will change. as brad described, we're in the selection process which will be finalized by the summer and so probably in the third or fourth presentation to the committee, these numbers will be adjusted. these are some of the highlights and accomplishments, upcoming milestones we have accomplished so far. brad has kind of gone through most of them. the multi habit risk assessment was a two year effort. let me move the screen here. we are developing alternatives and should have that done by the summer. the main thing here, the risks because i deal with the money, this is the biggest risk for me,

the second bond fail. if we don't have the funding needed to continue this work, then the work will stop. luckily we are in a good place right now. we have sufficient funding from the first bond fail that should get us through this calendar year and i believe the first half of 2022. so right here, this is sort of the overall program and all of the funding that has been used to support the program. right now you can see it is about 78 million that's been allocated to the program to the bond. we've had a $5 million grant from the state as well as port funding. now what i want to point out here, we did receive $9 million from capital planning, the

evolving fund to jump start the program. we did reimburs them 6 million after the first million and we will reimburs them another 3 million in the next fiscal year. you'll see that in the gray from capital planning. this is a snapshot of what it looks like now but the 3 million will go away the next fiscal year and be part of the bond funding. the port supported this program with a loan when we presented from the first bond fail. they gave 11.5 million to continue this work. i would say after rereimburs them the next fiscal year, the total will be reduced by about 14.5 million. we'll go from 78 to 54.

now, this is focused just on the bond expenditures. as you can see here, we have sort of spent oral , allocated half of the bond. we do have 9.3 million in our contract. now, this is a snapshot of what it is right now. so we will be abaiting some funding of port labor and contract later this fiscal year and we do project that -- they project to spend about 12 million this calendar year. we do expect to spend about 3 million in port labor this calendar year. as you can see in the balance, we do have 23 -- project about

14 calendar year and expenditures, you can see we have enough money to get through the calendar year and i believe the beginning of the next calendar year. we expect to start the new bond process in january of 2022. this is another way to show the categories in the accountability report back in 2019. this is just describing what i already described and i would be happy to answer questions at the end. and so that's the end of the funding and bond presentation. brad and i are here to answer any questions you may have.

>> well, i had one. can we go back to the schedule? on the right side of the schedule out past 2022, you've got the lines broken, preliminary design only goes out so far, goes beyond the end of the schedule. what do you envision as being the end dates for those two things? >> so, this is brad. we expect that it will continue through 2023 and into 2024. and that construction will start

in 2024. however, the reason we're not showing that schedule here today is a lot of the schedule depends on the projects that the port commission selects for bond funding. so, you know, some of those could be much more complicated or simpler for purposes of the design and permitting processes. we don't want to give false confident about that in the schedule. next report will come back with revised information on the longer schedule. >> and i wasn't looking for solid dates, just wanted to get an idea of the time frame and you answered that question. for the construction projects that you are in design or about to start design for, are you going to go into pe for, do you have enough money in this bond

to pay for those projects or do you need a subsequent bond to pay for them? >> well, we think there's about -- within this bond, we think there's about $300 million worth of improvement that we'll be able to make. we think this is multi billion dollar effort. which is why we're very pleased to have the army corps working with us in a move towards federal funding, we're pursuing other state options, we're very pleased there's a resilience bond in the city's go bond schedule. i think it's about $130 million for 2026. we're going to need to build on the success and identify other bond sources overtime.

and that's part of the program development effort we're in right now. >> on a related question, the public outreach you have been doing, what have you been saying to the public? it seems to me you have a lot more information that you still have to acquire before you can make any real presentation to them about what they're actually going to see. at this point you're showing options of what might happen. >> we've been carrying the public along during the risk assessment project. we actually had a pretty successful series of community engagements in all three geographies of the port's water front over the past two years. more work in the embarcadera seawall area, that's when the program started with its focus. and walked people through the hazards, walked people through

understanding of what city and public infrastructure this given area -- gotten a sense of public priority in terms of what to focus on, what they value about the waterfront. i actually think we have a strong public understanding of where we're headed. i think there's alignment on the principles i mentioned earlier, focusing on life safety and disaster response resinated with people. i think that's a strong foundation for moving into the next phase of project selection. so we're hoping that with that investment of time and energy, we'll move into permitting with as little public controversy as we can manage. we expect public controversy.

>> you haven't gotten real serious negative feedback like let nature take its course and -- >> we hear a broad range of ideas but i think people love the waterfront and they are things they want to preserve. of the work i have done at the port over 20 years i have never seen such public support for the effort. i'm cautiously optimistic. >> i hope it stays that way. i enjoyed your presentation. it was a lot of information though. i look forward to hearing subsequent ones. >> thank you.

>> i want to commend your team on the presentation, brad. both the written and oral was fantastic. thank you. i presume it's published on your website and members of the public will access it. it was very clear and answered a lot of my questions. i also took one of the port's tours of the embarcadera ferry building area and that is very dramatic when you can see where the water level is now and where it could be, etc cetera. kudos to your team. if mark is still on the call, as brian was pointing out, this is going to be a huge project for the city and seems to me time is of the essence and can't happen fast enough but there will be vast quantities of money going

out for it. mark in the controller's office, the audit team, i presume you'll really kick into gear to make sure all funding is proper since we'll have a lot of contractors involved and giving the public assurance that the seawall bond as much or more than others given the massive size of the project we're talking about here, you guys are on this. >> that's right. member post, members of the committee, yes. the 2018 seawall safety is next step in line on our work plan for expenditures audits. we're working on one on affordable housing, i'll give you the details in the update. but definitely noted and we have this on our work plan. >> thank you. and again, great work and keep going, keep moving forward brad

and carlos, thank you for the presentation today. >> thank you. >> i was sent an e-mail that member pontoja couldn't make the meeting and will give his presentation at the next meeting. madam chair, would you like me to take public comment assuming the q&a is over with. >> yeah. and we'll hear from member pontoja next meeting. >> members of the public who

wish to provide public comment on the item should call 415-655-0001, access 146 289 8016 then pound and pound again. if you haven't already done so, please dial star 3 to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. please note you will have three minutes. i don't see any hands raised for public comment. so madam chair, may i go on to item 5? >> yes, please. >> opportunity for members to take action or comment on any matters within the jurisdiction, number one fiscal year

2020-2021, expenditure audits, public finance, up coming bond issuances. number two, other committee business. fiscal year 2020-2021 work plan. fiscal year 2021-2022 work plan. housing survey, follow up on public integrity review, independent review of the whistleblower program. >> hi everyone. this is peg stevenson. unless the chair or vice chair have comments on the items, i can walk down the agenda item. >> go for it peg. >> okay. thank you. good morning everyone. actually, let's just suggest we

take one item out of order. our public finance manager has to leave for another meeting. if you have any questions or comments about the upcoming bond issuances and the schedule that was in your packet, it would be great to get her before she leaves. if we can go to item c and just ask anna to refresh your memory about the content of the memo and then you can ask her questions before she has to depart. anna? >> sorry about that. having some technical challenges there for a second. so we've been very busy to date with our go bond issuances currently the next few we have

on our calendar are the affordable housing bond issue. following that, we will be looking at our next nta bond sale, we're developing also the first health and recovery bond sale. and then as you heard today, seawall will be next and finally it's looking like we could have another issuance. with that i'll see if folks have any questions. >> okay. if there's no questions about the upcoming bond issuances and

i know anna has to go. if you guys have questions we'll be available. going back to item 1a standardized templates. the way it is listed is we have everything listed for action or not. we can bring them up as needed. movement on standardized templates. i think member chu was designated to be the liaison for it and do work with my staff when we can make time available to look over the templates being submitted and the format of the bond program materials you get.

expenditure audits. i'll call on mark to let you know where they are on that. >> thank you peg. controller's office, actually may i share -- just wanted to give you a refresh on what we have completed so far and what's lined up. can you see -- let's see -- >> you may want to switch to reading view, mark. >> yes.

i've been having issues this morning. i'll just walk you through what i have. so as you probably know, we have completed nine geo bond expenditure audits so far. there's one currently in the pipeline that we had some delays due to the covid pandemic response. we currently have the 2016

affordable housing geo bond audit that is currently ongoing. we resumed that in december of 2020 and we plan to issue that by march of 2021. in a couple of months. the 11th one in the pipeline that i mentioned, per committee member question, the 2018 seawall safety improvement geo bond is planned for the next round of geo bonds. as soon as we complete the 2016 affordable housing, we'll resume that seawall safety as part of the expenditure audit program. moving on to other committee business. csa work plan. again just to refresh your memory, we would normally have

continuous updates on published work plan for the fiscal year. because of covid deployment, we didn't publish in the normal format. just to give you update on the performance side and then i'll ask mark to do the same for the audit side, my staff have been 100% deployed to covid except for mary hawn who is our business administer and doing committee administration. we have paused work on almost all our other work except for basic maintenance on nonprofit monitoring, performance metrics publishing and a few things charter mandated in that way. what we're doing now, between the january, february, march quarter, we are trying to reduce covid hours a little bit to do work on basic charter mandates we need to execute like support to the performance program, the

performance measures can be published in the mayor's budget book. the nonprofit program requires basic work to keep it carried forward and on schedule and we're supporting a critical path project with human rights commission on the city's office of racial equity development. during the april, may, june quarter, we hope to reduce covid deployment hours a little further so we can work with your committee on the list of items on your work plan and start work planning for next fiscal year. there's a public safety project that is of high interest that we're interested in carrying forward. everything depends on how the covid emergency goes. should people have been following this we are now getting underway with the vaccination program and the city

is putting effort into preparing high volume vaccination and preparing community based vaccination programs and at the same time, a new reopening effort starting now. the bay area will emerge from state restrictions this week. (please stand by...)

>> a good portion of our staff are responding to the covid-19 through our cost recovery function. what this means is we are basically leading an effort that is trying to get as much of our fema dollars and cares act dollars as possible. this is part of our emergency response plan for the city, with the c.s.a. audit being the

lead cost recovery function. so most of -- or a good portion of our staff's time is really devoted to gathering documentation from the various city departments in terms of their covid-19 response costs, and we then pre-audit them and submit them to fema, and then on the cares act relief finding, c.r.f. funding, really our staff has been tasked with also doing some pre-audits of the costs that are being devoted to the covid-19 response efforts. so that's about a good probably 45to 50% of our time. the remaining hours really are devoted to the other ongoing work that we continuously do, given that we cannot stop our audits and oversight function. so we continue to conduct

audits and assessments since i think we last reported, and we've completed a few of our performance audits, issued our medical examiner drug audit, our d.p.h. option program, our force data option we issued back in the fall. we continued to do our construction audits, as have been mentioned. we are continuing our geo bond expenditure audits. and we're doing something very similar requested by the s.f. p.e. group, and so we're doing revenue bond expenditure audits on behalf of the commission as well. in addition, we're doing our security audits and other mandated audits. in addition to that, as you know, we are also conducting or public integrity assessments. we completed four preliminary assessments so

far, and we have three in the pipeline that relates to the muhammad new room, as well as the harlin kelly case. and as you also know, we continue to do our whistle-blower program administration. we continue to follow up on our audit recommendations, and, also, we continue to complete our obligation as internal auditors to comply with government auditing centers, and we're repairing for our review that will be coming up some time in the summer or the fall. that's the required government auditing standards, the effort for us to say that we are in compliance with government auditing centers. we're going to go through our training review sometimes in the next few months. that's all for us c.c. audits. >> chairwoman: questions or comments for mark? >> thank you, mark.

>> you're very welcome. i'm sorry, i don't have my video. i've been logged off every time i tried to share my video this morning. so i apologize for that. >> chairwoman: and then, mark, remind me -- i'm sorry if you said so and i missed it -- but you are planning on issuing affordable housing bond audit report -- >> that's right. >> chairwoman: what's the expected date? >> march, actually, 2021. we are continuing our field work right now, and we're hoping to complete that in the next few weeks and go through our quality assurance process. >> chairwoman: okay. if there are no more questions or comments for mark, the next item is your own work plan for the committee. and i made some updates to it, and there was a draft in the packet of materials that were posted.

so i want to say where i think you are, and then ask the chairs for their feedback, and we can it it rate on this going forward. you had a pause in your meetings during 2020 during the covid-19 situation, and it picked back up in the fall, and then you had what i would describe as a grueling series of hearings, when you heard from all of the bond program managers. i know we all appreciate everyone sitting through that. having the seawall bond on today catches you up to the full program of bonds under your oversight. so for the meetings that are going to go on for the rest of this calendar year, we can have a more normal cadence. i tried to drop in the see sequence of presentations into your calendar for the next calendar year. and let me actually --

rosanne, if you can pass my the presenter ball, maybe i'll try to pull that page up while we talk about it just for a second. >> while you're doing that, would this be a nice time to introduce our newest member. i don't know judy, and i would like to welcome her and say hello. >> chairwoman: sure. why don't i stop and -- >> since we're talking about our work plan, and she'll be a part of it, it might be a nice time. welcome, judy. >> thank you. nice to meet you all, to see your faces. i guess -- do you want me to tell you a little bit about myself? >> yeah, just for a minute. >> okay. well, i'm kind of new back to the city. i'm an army brat, and so i've lived all over, but

this has always been my home away from home. i've been back in san francisco for a little over to years. i'm a controller, and i have been there for little over a year. so i'm a finance accounting c.p.a., by background, but i have a long history of office improvements. so that's kind of my interest. i live here with my wife, and i have two grown daughters. one is in college in north carolina, and one is in florida. what else? i'm a member of the grand jury, which is how i made my way to this committee. >> i was wondering what -- [simultaneous talking] >> i'm a grand jury appointment. >> good. >> so i am learning a ton about the city and how it works, and this just adds to my learning. >> thank you, judy.

>> thank you. >> chairwoman: are people seeing my screen? >> yes. >> chairwoman: and do i have the correct tab up. it's your work plan draft update? >> yeah. >> chairwoman: because i have a couple of tabs open. so, here you are on monday, january 25th, and then i'm trying to scroll down to the rest of the meetings for the calendar year. i think the date that you settled on ends up being the fourth monday of the month that you meet. so we would fill those dates in here. you would go to a cadence of having one major bond program at each meeting, instead of multiple. and then if there is also an expenditure audit that is related to that bond at the time, you would have that on the same agenda. so that's what is shown in march. affordable housing bonds and the audit that mark

and i just touched on. and then i think the decision was you wanted to see and hear a report from the whistle-blower program probably twice a year, so i need to drop that in in one of your meetings in the fall. i'll update that. and then the next meeting in may, you would have the park bonds programs, all years together, and the port park bond at the same time. they got out of sequence as well, but you would hear them together. i think this notion of the sea own annual report is not correct, but we can come back to talking about what you want to do about that. and then we would have the city-wide capitol plan, and i think they'll have a draft of that. and this is where we have the city administrator's

capitol program, come and present to you on their updates and projections for sort of overall need for bond funding, preferred maintenance, their analysis of the city's buildings and facilities, and the long-time horizon that they view and how it would impact bond programs going forward. and then you wouldn't meet in june or july. so you would normally have skipped may to july, but july is a very busy month for everybody that works on budget and finance here, due to fiscal year-end close, so it seems prudent to skip that month. so you would meet in august. and you would have the all year's earthquake safety bonds. by that time, we'll have a fully completed work plan for the fiscal year that will be under way at that time. and then, again, we'll roll that into your other business. at your october meeting, you'll have both the

transportation and the road improvement, and the paving and streets safety bonds, all years, before you. and your last meeting in december, the public safety bonds and the housing bonds again. although you heard them in march. but it feels that the way you've been running these meetings, there is a strong enough interest in the housing bond and the rapid development, that having it back on your calendar in december makes sense. there is reference to the city-wide bond report, i think, is not correct. but i can update you on our thinking about that. so any questions or feedback on the sequence there? >> no questions from me. it makes sense. it has been a little while since we've heard from housing, so it will be good to have that up next. happy to see that in march.

>> i don't know, shavan, have you worked with judy to help with the bond programs, to help spread the workload? >> not yet. there are a few open liaison spots, but we can touch base on that off-line. >> chairwoman: okay. i'm going to take the presentation down, if i can figure out how to do that. okay. can you see each other again now? okay. and we can always make adjustments to this based on what happens during your hearings. i will work with staff to drop in the whistle-blower program event at the right moment. so let's just talk for a minute about your own annual report. and then the bond report that our office produces

and supports it. and just to refresh your memory, and since you have new members as well, my office, the controller's performance group, does a sort of wrap-up report on all of the programs, the geo bond programs, where we look at scope, schedule, and budget. we publish it at a high-level summary level, with a little bit of narrative on the status of each bond program, and common graphics to show their achievement and the schedule and budget. this is something that the controller values, and we've been doing it to support your report and generally for public transparency on the bonds. we were trying to do one fiscal year at a time, but that was blown off by the long development it took to get all of the capitol program information into the city's knew financial system, s.f. p., when it was built.

we had one recorder that ran from january 2017 to june 2018, and then be caught up with a normal report for 2018/'19. that's what you heard presented on during your last meeting. typically you have written a summary report on your own activities. doing it on a fiscal year cadence seems to make sense. sort of the thought process here was that after the close of the fiscal year, you would get reports submitted from each of your liaisons, summary of their activities, we would submit an documentation from our report. the two don't have to go in concert, but it takes us some time to get all of the correct information and do what we need do do with all of the bond managers. so by the time

june 30th, 2021, rolls around, you probably will want to be doing an annual report of your own that you won't want to hold up for our report, but you can think about that as a committee. i believe what our reporting will do, again, is wait until the fiscal year closes on june 20th, 2021, and we'll do a two-year report, looking at fiscal years '20 and '21, and we would publish that some time during the fall, as long as it took us to get the information. we certainly hope to get it done before december. so that's our plan and the supporting bond program report. and you can, again, decide as a committee what you want to do about your own report. i just wanted to make people aware that our report essentially serves as a supporting documentary report. so you don't have to worry about having a lot of

detail in your report. i'll stop there and see if the chairs want to speak to that. >> i don't have a strong opinion about that this year. i don't know how much sense it makes to not align them. what do you think, james? or does anybody on the committee have more experience with this? >> yeah, brian and i have done this before. >> yeah. >> and we would submit or comments -- they're fairly brief. they're basically reiterating what you would have said in your liaison report, or the report from the prior fiscal year, just in summary form. three paragraphs, not three pages, to supplement what the city puts out. i guess -- i think we should do it, right? just to be on record that there are members of this committee, and we do pay

attention, just so that it is in black and white somewhere, right? rather than archive videos of the bi-monthly meeting. as i said, it is not that heavy of a lift, just keep your notes from the liaison report, and you can just chin up two or three paragraphs for the annual report each year. and it tells you what the deadline is, when you need to submit them to her staff, and that's that. it is usually during the summer. >> it is our only tangible work product, so we should definitely do it. three paragraphs is fine, as lauren said, but they should be complete and bring home the point of what we did, that we've earned the massive amount of money we get for doing this, and prestige (laughing). >> okay.

i'm happy with that, if everybody on the committee is? >> definitely. it is not too much, in my experience. so it shouldn't be a problem, i don't think. >> okay. >> at your may meeting, you can make a decision about the timing of it. and i'll have a better idea, by that time, of when we might be able to expect to finish the work on the wrap-up bond report. >> chairwoman: okay, any other comments or questions on the work plan? housing public perception survey, so, again, for new committee members, one of the products that our office ran at the commit's request in recent years was a public perception survey. this is where we went out and asked members of the public what their experience was on bond

improvements, were they aware of the connection to the bond program, their satisfaction level with the improvements. we touched on two bonds the first time we did this. there was a parks project and a street improvement project. and i think we all found it a really valuable exercise, to try to come up with a short survey that elicited that kind of information from users of the facilities and improvements. the controller's office usually has a pool available of survey firms because we do surveys for other purposes, including the city-wide public opinion survey. so we had this work done through a personal surveyor. they're out in the field, stopping people at the site and asking them questions. and then they do a rigorous analysis, including demographic analysis of the responses, and we publish a report. again, we were all really happy and found the product of that very

valuable. wanted to do it for more bond programs. the highest interest of the committee after the first one was done in having something done for the housing bond programs, given your interest in the performance of the city's affordable housing bonds. so that is next on our list. it would be an interesting -- ie an interesting sort of design issue there, where there is a couple of different audiences that we have talked about. the people who are users and tenants of affordable housing, the builders and developers that participate with the city, the citizens who supported the vote on the bond issues, and other shakeholders, so very interesting sort of design task lies ahead of us. again, i think it is probably smart for us to reach out to the professional survey designers that we have to do this. we won't be able to do work on it in the current quarter, but i'm committed to doing work on it in the

april, may, june quarter. that's the update on that. i believe with member notoli being liaison to the housing bonds, that she would work together with us on the design when we pick that up. i'll stop there and see if jane or everybody have as comments, but that's where the status is. >> no, that sounds good to me. i know you've been backed up due to covid, so i've been waiting to pick this up when you get some capacity again. definitely there is interest in housing. i'll be curious to see what the survey firms say in terms of how we can construct that. i'm a little curious what that product will be. but i think there is a solution, so i'm looking forward to that. >> peg, do you know what format we could even use during the covid era of contact-free surveys?

>> again, that's one of the interesting design challenges. i mean, we had other issues where we would have been doing intercept surveys in other areas of our work during covid. the street cleanliness and other things. and we just haven't been doing it for all of the reasons you can imagine. even if it would possible to keep socially distanced and all of those requirements, we think all of the skews you would get to the data due to the current conditions would make the data unreliable. if our professional surveyors think that intercept surveys would be not a good idea by the time we have this in the field, we'll ask them to do phone surveys and web surveys, each of which have their own sampling biases, but they can work with us on the design to deal with current conditions. >> that would be interesting, because even if there were three groups

looking to survey, we know who the users are, i would think, and we know who the contractors and developers are. it is just getting to the public opinion that would be difficult. but maybe it is worthwhile doing an even more indepth survey of the contract and users, even if we can't get to the public for an overview. although that is probably a pretty important part of this. maybe we can hear some more about how they're doing that, and if it is even a possibility. but you're saying we might not have time for that this quarter with covid, anyway? >> chairwoman: not this quarter, but during the april, may, and june quarter. so we can carve out some staff time to begin working with you on the scope, and put a scope together so we can get something out to bid for our contractor pool. again with housing, intercept surveys were important for the parks and street improvements, and not so much with housing. i think we should be able

to go forward with a survey design. >> yep. okay. >> chairwoman: so public integrity reviews. here i'm going to ask mark to speak to where they are on the sequence of work that they're doing in the public integrity world. a quick update. >> certainly. as i've mentioned earlier, we've completed four so far. so i think the last time i reported before the committee, we've completed -- id on the first two, which were the public works contracting and then gifts to departments through non-city organizations. we have since completed our report on the department process, which we issued in early november. just a couple of weeks ago, on january 11th, we issued our fourth public

integrity assessment on the ethical standards for contract award process at the airport and other commissions and wards. so those constitute the four that we've completed so far. we do have, as i mentioned, three that are currently in the pipeline. one is the city-wide ethics reporting requirements that we hope to issue next month, in february. the other two are currently ongoing. the sixth one is the one on the department of building inspections policies and procedures regarding their permanent work process. and the other one on the s.f. p.u.c. public utilities commission contracting process. as we also mentioned before, we are going to be working on a final final report that will basically incorporate a lot of what we've reported so far, as well as those that run across these various

assessments. i think i've mentioned in the past, being one of those topics that cut across the various issues that have come up. so that is our current plan. and then we hope that by the next -- let's see, next month is when we will be issuing our next deliverable and ethics reporting. i'd be happy to answer any questions you have. >> so next month being march, or end of february? >> end of february, yes. >> and when do you expect the other two? >> so the d.b.i. will come next after the ethics one, that is forthcoming, and we're anticipating about a march or april -- i'm hoping -- probably april, based on our data

collection, and the p.u.c. will be sometime in the spring, as well. >> chairwoman: if there are no more questions or comments for mark, item 2d, the independent review of the whistle-blower program, and, again, just for new members, this is a desire the committee has had to have an outside entity take a look at the design metrics success of our whistle-blower program, best practice review, trying to give ourselves confidence that it is accomplishing the purposes set out in the charter. i will stop there and -- i'm sorry, i've forgotten who the whistle-blower liaison is, who will speak to it is. >> it is me. i think this is very important, and we're still just trying to figure out how to get the request for

qualifications, right, peg? >> that's right. again, there is a pool that the controller's office has of outside firms that can perform audit work and various types of workforce. but i think the desire of the committee ended up being not to use the pool either. which means a slightly more complex and longer task of designing something and putting it out to bid and the broader market. so that's where we landed the last time you discussed it, i think. and i think the organic limit on this may be our staff time to support it, you know, once your committee has worked on the scope. >> has there been an independent review before? >> mark may be able to speak to this, but not in so many words. not like a published

report. but -- >> that's right. the last review that pertained to our whistle-blower program was the civil grand jury report. and i cannot remember when that was issued. it has been at least over five years ago. but that was the last one. there has not been any external review of our whistle-blower program. this is one that really -- that actually our own whistle-blower program has tried to, more recently, reach out to our peer whistle-blower administrators in other jurisdictions, given that we do have a network of whistle-blower hotline administrators throughout the country. we're trying to assess whether any of them have actually gone through some sort of a review or a peer review process, and we're awaiting response from that survey that i believe was just deployed by the

program last week. based on our understanding, none of them have gone through a peer review, but we will try to confirm that. and if they have actually gone through a peer review, we'll try to find out how they've gone through that process. >> okay. great. if you can send any information like that my way, it would be appreciated. and we've been talking about beyond an independent review of the whistle-blower program, that it would be useful to do a user -- potential user survey of ease of use or confidence, or perhaps roadblocks to using the program, and that could be really valuable as well. >> that's right. >> so that would be predominantly to city employees, or just the general public, i guess.

so we'd like to do that as well. >> okay. that concludes the agenda items listed, unless members have any other questions or comments for me or for mark? >> thank you. >> chairwoman: so, rosanne, do you want to go ahead and take public comment on this? >> sure. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call 415-655-0001, access i.d. 1462898016, then pound and then pound again. if you haven't already done so, please hit star 3. please wait until the

system indicates you have been unmuted, and you may begin your comment. please note you'll have three minutes. i'm checking for raised hands. there are no raised hands. can we close public comment and adjourn the meeting? >> chairwoman: yes. thank you, rosanne. >> thank you, all. for the record, it is 11:03. >> it is a miracle, you get 25 minutes back on your day. congratulations. >> thank you.

>> coping with covid-19. today's special guest. >> i am chris manners, you are watching coping with covid-19. my guest is the director of economic and work force development here to talk about the programs the city has in place during this crisis to help small businesses and vulnerable and disconnected residents. welcome to the show. >> thank you for having me. it is a pleasure to be here, chris. >> start by talking about gift to sf. it provides many of the resources we are talking about. could you tell us a little bit about the focus of gift to us. then we will talk about specific programs. >> i very much appreciate the question. for anyone who is watching right now, so much of the work that has been accomplished to serve

most vulnerable is because of very generous donations to the give to sf covid-19 response and recovery fund. over $28 million has been fund raised to support areas as important as housing stabilization for vulnerable communities, food security programs which has been a big issue not only in san francisco but up and down california and of course across the nation. very much thinking about workers and family members who may not have been access to state and federal programs the same way that others who are impacted have and do. that was to make sure families and workers were supported with relief. small business community to make sure they have access to loan was and grants. we are excited how diverse we have been able to do this. we have been able to roll these

out to ensure that our communities are supported by our city together with all of us with city funds and philanthropic dollars to help realize them on behalf of the community's needs. >> that is great. now, many of our small businesses don't have large payrolls. they are unable to qualify for the federal ppp loans. does the city have active programs available for small businesses to help with ongoing expenses such as rent while they are still closed? >> certainly. one of the programs we launched in partnership and because of the ability of the give to sf loan fund presented us with was for loans and grants to do that. we knew in the beginning that it was not easy for smaller businesses not connected or those who were to get an answer around relief provided through ppp.

we have seen success of the program. we knew it was important at the time to also have the san francisco hardship mcwas emergency loan program be launched and designed to support businesses who needed resources the most. we have committed $15.5 million in ongoing covid-19 small business financial relief. we have awarded grants and loans to over 400 small businesses thus far. we wanted to make sure that we were equitable about that approach always guidings work through racial equity lens. one of the most important pieces is ensuring every district would be represented and also more equitable work and places where we were doing that work would be supported through these efforts. in the first phase $1 million to 128 small businesses and 29 different neighborhoods with up to $10,000 in funds to support those who were experiencing

loss. we set aside a minimum of $2 million for low and moderate income owners to ensure they were supported with relief efforts. neighborhood goes like lower filmore, bayview, castro and excelsior. long-term businesses have given to the city and we want to give bamto them as well. then because we were looking for additional funding sources, we took dollars that we had with existing partners already with our partners to do small business work and help convert to support women entrepreneurs around san francisco and very specific neighborhoods for mini grants to serve immediate needs. every little dollar helped. >> one of the programs that just become available. right to recover.

>> i am glad you are asking about right to recover. we know that it is extremely valuable right now as we look to incentivize community members disproportionately impacted by covid-19 by economic hardship, spaces to work in because they need to provide for families, having access to the economic relief or wages that you count on to protect yourself, stabilize your families, support your families and children or parents or extended family. that is a huge disincentive if you believe you may not have access to quarantine to do what we want you to do. if you are sick to get tested. if you test positive to quarantine and stay home. so that you can get better and not infect anyone else. that comes at a cost. you are not going to work, not

making wages. for so many low income workers that is not acceptable. this is to provide relief based on the individual to give minimum wage for that period of time. when they walked into the testing site they knew if i test positive is there a program to help me, we could say yes? that was important to mayor breed, extremely important to supervisor ronen and they worked together to make $2 million available to support these individuals. together with the department of public health we have a holistic system to fill the gaps that may exist to encourage people to get tested to do the right thing. wear a mask, social distancing, not going places when they are sick and doing our part to make sure they were incentivized.

>> not having sick pay with the virus would be really stressful. >> it is important for undocumented. we know the lat inx is more than 50% of the positive cases and may not have access to sick leave or financial hardship to do the right thing and to quarantine with financial relief. >> as we start another new releaf program. african-american small business revolving loan fund. how will that fund work? >> well, i am very, very proud. this fund. i do have to give a shout out to our invest in neighborhoods team who worked day and night with the african-american chamber of commerce and main street launch to support the zero percent

interest loan up to 50 thousand dollars. we have been striving to be specific and target communities of color and african-american small business entrepreneur community. it is so much more difficult for this community to access resources and it was important to do something in this moment that is reflective of a movement we know has been emotion for such a long time. for us to do something real, provide financial relief for the community in this way and for them specifically. we are very proud to get this up and running. we look forward to applications being live so people from the african-american and black business communities to get relief. flexible terms. forgiveness up to $50,000 for those loans which can make a huge difference fought only for

relief when you think about rent for a small business but also in terms of long-term recovery and being smart about the moment. there are businesses with the ability to be open, even a little bit. it is a stress on them. there are others that don't have the ability to do this at all. where is their relief? they wait for us to do our collective part to ensure we can re-open. these dollars, very specifically for the black entrepreneur community are important for long-term viability success. that is good for them, the diversity of the city we hold dear and we need to be proud of. >> do we have active programs for disconnected or underserved communities? >> absolutely. as i was mentioning just simply about the right to recover program. when people go to the mission hub at 701 alabama within the mission district to serve the

community, they are providing food security, access to resources. what they have done is extraordinary in terms of partnering with the city with relief efforts to help pay and maintain food distribution for families. thing are important like the latin x to do so many dishes with one item masa. access to rise, cereals, milk, butter, fresh foods and vegetables. that is across the city in the entirety in those areas of need. to ensure those programs are made available for our most vulnerable communities. seniors or families who desperately need that help. >> finally, is there a website specifically designed to provide access and information about

these resources? >> one of the easiest things to do, people have a general question and to want don't have access to the internet call 3-1-1. reach out. we have been working closely to ensure the members and staff have the information they need to get what you need. as you call in. most specifically for workers, employers, nonprofits to go to our website oewd.org and click on covid-19 which is a large button on the site. you will find a full list of information specifically designed for you as employer, as worker and nonprofit so that you know where to go for resources. also, our phone number 554-6134 for the small business hot line. the incredible staff are administering those lines. if they don't answer they will get back to you so you can talk

to a real person in multiple languages. also e-mail sfosbasfgov.org. again, visit the website oewd.org and you can find that. in terms of workforce (415)701-4817. someone will get back to you if they don't pick up immediately to answer your questions if you are a worker. then to donate. give to sf.org. all of that information is to find to the website if you need resources or you need an understanding how we are phasing re-opening or updated information, please visit us. we will get back to you. we look forward to serving you and the community to get through

this very, very challenging time. >> that is great information. thank you so much for coming on the show. i really appreciate the time you have given us today. >> it is a pleasure, chris. thank you for helping get information out to our communities. people are aware your government is hard at work on your behalf to get you what you need during a dynamic and challenging time. >> that is it for this episode. we will be back with more information shortly. this is coping with covid-19. i am chris manners, thanks for watching on sfgovtv. >> mayor london breed: good afternoon, i'm san francisco mayor london breed. and thank you so much for joining us here today to provide some good news for a change as it relates to just the rough year that we've been having as a su