i will answer that. again, this is dr. deb born. and i'm the operations deputy over prevention for covid. so, i think -- i want to take one step back and go back to what supervisor peskin said. health care does not understand, and many people don't understand, how people live in san francisco. i think one of the things that covid has really showed us is that we have to understand how people live in order to keep them healthy. and we need to deal with the equity and structural issues that have faced our communities. that has been one of -- i hate to say, but it has been a gift of the pandemic. so for the work that many of us have done for all of our lives, it is really brought to the forefront. one of the great things about this legislation, supervisor mandelman, is

that it echoed things that i had and other public health people have been saying, yes, leaders are looking at this, and you need to look at buildings and congregate settings, and you need to see how people are living. it is going to affect what we're going to see what we're going to see in this pandemic. we were talking about that early on, and the legislation actually gave a push. what i think we have to do differently, and what will be difficult, and what your question brings up, when we do this kind of legislation in the future, we have to be partners. where we are now i feel like is partners. supervisor peskin called me deb and not dr. born, and that's the answer, to be able to use where you're sitting -- and even in our prevention strategy that we've just created, and arial and i would love to have another time to talk about it, but how we work with you is part of our prevention strategy. how we use where you're sitting, to hold for san

francisco, and where i am sitting and where we're all sitting, to work 360. i think that's where we're getting right now. but the tension still remains what we can do for public health, and what makes good public health sense, and how people are feeling really unempowered to be able to address this pandemic. so we try to throw things out that we think will be the answer. and the science is changing all of the time. when you deal with the public, as you know, it is difficult to do. so, i'm sorry, this is a really long answer to your question. there are things we cannot do because we don't have the resources. we think we cannot do because they don't make sense from the public health perspective. they're not going to give you the outcome that you need. and there are things that we can do because we have to maintain safety. at the same time, there are ways that we work in partnership, and work hand-in-hand, and i know 100% we're going to get to the right answer for the

chinese. community. there are things in the legislation we cannot do, even if it is okay -- let's say, having 50 people every day go for outreach, but we don't have that. and we have to bring vaccine out. we do have, coming down the pike, mobile vaccines. hopefully using our resources for the outcome we all want. we're not going to be able to do everything in this legislation. but i think we're at a place where we're 90% in agreement we're able to do most of what is in there. if we did the legislation as it was written before, we would be testing with every single case -- >> i get that, and that was part of the dynamic tension. what i don't want to do is move forward in the world with a permanent mismatch between what we're legislating and what the departments are doing. so what i'm hearing from you, i think, is that

mismatch is not going to be there. that there has been a meeting of the minds. and that we're in a good place, which is the way it should turn out in the end, even if on the way it is a little rough. and i'm not sure if that is regarding other items. >> i think, and i've tried to be candid and clear about this, the place where there is still a rub is around hipa and notification. and that is still a work in progress. but that is actually a different kind of policy bucket than whether or not d.p.h. can deliver the promise of testing when there is an outbreak, whether they have the ability to isolate and quarantine people who have been exposed or who have covid. so i think we're past that hurdle. and a lot of this, as deb said, or dr. born, said,

was really around establishing trust between the community and the s.r.o. collaboratives and d.p.h., which, heretofore, there was no reason for that collaboration to happen short of covid. so all of these relationships had to be established in the last year. and it takes a while to build that trust. and, you know, everybody is busy, and nobody has the time. but bit by bit we've done that. and i think the legislation, as deb said, has helped focus people in that direction, and i think it has been positive. it was very aspirational in the beginning. but we figured out and field tested what is doable and what is a bridge too far. and i think that is largely reflected in what is before us today. >> and i agree that our local legislation should not bake in the ridiculousness of hipa and its limitations, or

believed limitations, on what it allows us to do. it sounds like we're in a good place. and i would also like to be added as co-sponsor, now that everybody has done all of the heavy lifting. >> chairman: thank you, supervisor mandelman and vice chair chan. >> thank you, chair preston. given the fact that in the richmond, we have less than a dozen of the s.r.o.s at this time, so the impact itself, as it currently is, it is only a small portion compared to district 3 and district 6. but i definitely would like to be added as a co-sponsor. i think this legislation provides a rural map for us for what is to come as well. i'm definitely hopeful that we're getting through covid-19 and this pandemic with the vaccination, but

we know that there are variants of this virus on the horizon. so i think this will be tremendously helpful to push forward with this legislation and set a precedence for us, a roadmap, for us to tackle it definitely in the future should that happen again. i would like to be added as a co-sponsor. thank you. >> chairman: thank you, vice chair chan. seeing no other comments from colleagues, if we could move to public comment. mr. carroll, do we have any callers on the line? >> i just a small bit of housekeeping. we presently have six members of the board of supervisors connected to this call. this meeting is not agenda -- ih of the several guests to this meeting are here for their particular agenda items. i believe supervisor safai

is here for item number three, and if he can disconnect -- oh, it looks like he has now. i will begin our routine for public comment on item one. mr. chair? operations is checking to see if we have any callers in the cue. mr. coop, can you let us know if there are any callers ready. please press *3. for those already on hold in the cue, please continue to wait until you're prompted to begin. for those who are watching our meeting on cable channel 26or s.f. gov., please follow the instructions on the screen, by dialing 415-655-0001 followed by entering the meeting i.d., 1871594674. following that, you press

## and then *3 to enter the cue to speak. mr. coop, could you please bring us our first caller for this item. >> my name is molino, i'm with the community development center. i wanted to, you know, bring a little bit of history. i think we've come a long way in the relationship (indiscernable). about 15years ago, when i started my career, the department of public health was actually trying to defund the collaboratives because they didn't fit into the two directors ago's vision of what public health looked like. i think with the words of

dr. born, who has dedicated her life to surveying our community and our community members, we have really come a long way in working out our differences in our long history. so we are excited to continue that relationship and continue to work with the department of public health. and i want to, you know, support this legislation and the amendments that have been described by supervisor peskin. i wanted to take a second to thank supervisor peskin's chief-of-staff for all of her help and her steadfastness in defending the rights and the lives of s.r.o. residents and i really applaud all the work that the department of public health, the board of supervisors, and the collaboratives have done, which are resulting in these pretty incredible results, when we look at our publicly available dash forward.

thank you very much for your attention. >> chairman: thank you for sharing your comments. mr. coop, could you bring us the next caller, please. is there a caller on the line? >> if you have just heard your line has been unmuted, this is your opportunity to provide your comments on agenda item number one. >> caller: hello, mime myname is allen franklin. to the board of supervisors, i just want to give a brief description of my experience, which is to say that we let drivers, the delivery food drivers,

to purchase our own p.p.e., which includes masks, wiping solutions, hand sanitizers, every week since march of 2020, when the broader implications of covid-19 became known to the public. >> chairman: i'm going to pause the speaker for just a moment. mr. franklin, i'm sorry to interrupt you. are you speaking on agenda item number two? >> caller: i'm sorry. i thought this was agenda item three. i'm sorry. >> chairman: that's okay. hang tight. we will deal with the balance of our agenda and then listen for when we call agenda item number three. and you can press *3 at that time to speak on that item at that time. mr. coop, can you bring us the next caller?

>> caller, go ahead. >> caller: hello. yes. my name is martin swiker. i'm a member of the local 595 i.e. w.. i've been a driver for the last four years. >> chairman: mr. swiker, are you also trying to call in to provide public comment on agenda item number three? >> caller: you know, i apologize. i just now received this e-mail for the agendas and haven't really had time to look. what is agenda number one, these please? >> chairman: at this time the hearing an

ordinance that makes changes for occupational hotels during the covid-19 pandemic. if you want to speak on one of the later items on the agenda, wait until we call that item. and the same goes for anyone else who may be on the cue. if you want to speak on agenda item number three, press *3 to lower your hand unless you're going to be speaking on agenda item number one. mr. coop, could you bring us the next caller? >> chairman: is there anyone on the line who wishes to speak on agenda item number one? >> caller: hi, i'm

sorry. i'm going for agenda number three. i made a mistake. i'm sorry. >> chairman: thank you very much. >> mr. chair, that completes the cue. >> chairman: thank you, operations. thank you, mr. clerk. so hearing no further callers, public comment is now closed. and supervisor peskin, do you have any additional remarks before we vote on amendments in the item? >> i do want to thank all three of you for hearing the item again and for your co-sponsorship, and i also want to, and was going to close, by thanking my chief-of-staff, sonny angulo, who has been doing all of the heavy lifting around covid and s.r.o.s since last january, over a year. so thank you, sonny, and

thank you, colleagues. >> chairman: thank you, supervisor peskin. do we have a motion to amend, outlined by supervisor peskin? >> supervisor mandelman. >> clerk: vice chair chan? >> aye. >> member mandelman? >> aye. >> chair preston? >> aye. >> mr. chair, there are three ayes. >> chairman: thank you. and can we have a motion to refer the amended item to the full board with recommendation? >> move, mandelman. >> clerk: on the motion item "b" offered by member

mandelman, vice chair chan? >> aye. >> member mandelman? >> aye. >> chair preston? >> aye. >> mr. chair, there are three ayes. >> chairman: thank you, mr. clerk. can you call item two? >> agenda number two is an ordinance amending the police code to require groceries stores, drugstores, restaurants and on-demand employers to provide health and scheduling protections related to covid-19 to employees, and to sunset an emergency ordinance with similar requirements. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this ordinance, should call 415-655-0001. enter the meeting i.d. of 1871594674. press ## to connect to the meeting.

and then press *3. the 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. mr. chair, i believe that the several callers who attempted to provide public comments on item one will attempt to call in for this item. if you were calling for the ondemand delivery service worker groups, you should press *3. >> it does sound like some of the folks who called in, who indicated they might be calling on item three from the nature of their public comment. it sounded like they might be trying to comment on item two. i would urge anyone standing by to meas look pleasek at the agenda so you can weigh in at the appropriate time. i would like to welcome supervisor haney to the

committee. and supervisor haney, thank you for your work on the prior emergency ordinances that preceded this one. and i would like to turn the floor over to you to present this item. >> >> thank you, chair preston, i appreciate that. and supervisors mandelman and chan, thank you. it is an ordinance for increased employee protections for grocery store, drugstore, restaurant, and on-demand delivery workers. we legislated an emergency ordinance that first took affect early in the pandemic on may 1st, 2020, and was reenacted several times since. this ordinance was sunset the previous emergency ordinance. cashiers, bakers, deli clerks, pharmacy clerks, and on-demand food services put their lives at risk so we can shelter

in place at home. they are still required to show up to work, and to make sure that the rest of us can put food on our tables and have medication to survive. many of these workers are still going without adequate personal protective equipment. every day workers are forced to make tough decisions regarding their health and livelihood. they put in a tremendous amount of unpaid labor, in addition to the paid labor to clean and disinfect their vehicles, to keep themselves and their costumers safe. this legislation strengthens worker protections that are covered by the health officer's orders during covid-19 by giving workers the mechanism to file a complaint with the office of labor, standards, and enforcement. the legislation provides face coverings, gloves, hand sanitizers or hand-washing stations or all of the above. and the covered entities

most provide workers with the social distancing protocol and educate all workers on that protocol. they must instruct all workers and costumers to maintain at least six feet distance from others. and it must require workers to regularly disinfect high-touch services and must pay the workers for doing so. they must approve an employee's work schedule. and they cannot discharge or threaten to discharge any workers for exercising their rights under this ordinance. i want to thank the supervisors for their continued support. i'm sure you will want to join as well, chair preston, in addition. i want to thank our city attorney, lisa powell, for all of your hard work, for

helping us think through this legislation and the office of labor, standards, and enforcement, as well as the office of small business. and i want to thank the organizers at "jobs of justice." gig workers rising, the chinese progressive association for their continued support of the workers in their ongoing struggle to make sure they're protected during this pandemic. there are some amendments that i believe have been circulated. i also just saw that supervisors mandelman and preston are added as co-sponsors, so thank you for that. the amendments we have are substantive in nature and would require us to come back again for a final vote. first they will change the word "employee" to "worker" and "employers" to "covered entity." and we worked with our city attorney to make sure, particularly post-prop 22, we were able to cover everyone as

possible. and we've also added a notice to workers section that would require a post on the website, and ways in which the information is translated and shared. and lastly, some changes to the maximum penalties for covered entities, and this was at the request of the office of small business. with that, again, i want to thank everyone for their support. there was an action in front of uber yesterday that many of the gig workers took part in. and they are still fighting for the rights that we want to codify and want to protect in this legislation. many of them are not accessing p.p.e. fairly, they're not getting paid for the time that they spend washing their hands or ensuring hygiene or

cleaning their cars. and it is really a travesty because not only is this about protecting the drivers, who are putting themselves at risk to provide an essential service during this time, but this is also about protecting the consumers and the riders, and the people who are ordering things, and some of whom may be very vulnerable. this is a fundamental worker protection, and it is a critical part of our response to covid-19, to make sure that no one is put at risk. and so i really do -- i want to close by saying i really do want to underscore the importance that these gig companies, specifically, the door dash, the ubers, the lyft, that they abide by this ordinance, and they do not charge their workers for p.p.e., and they provide it as no cost and pay workers for their time. i know many are doing

that. on the other hand, we also hear reports and the office of labor and standards has been engaged with this of people and companies who are not doing that. all the more important for this legislation to be renewed and for us to be united and steadfast in its enforcement. >> chairman: thank you, supervisor haney. were there any presentations planned? i know o.s.e. is available to answer questions. but any planned presentations that you would like to introduce? >> no planned presentations. i know they're here to answer questions if there are specifics around the enforcement or other pieces of the legislation. >> chairman: great. thank you. i would love to just hear what the experience has been under the temporary -- you know, the emergency ordinances, just around enforcement,

compliance, and potential -- and if there have been any cases of retaliation, which is also covered by the ordinance. so if we have anyone from o.s.c., that would be appreciated. >> chairman: thank you, supervisor peskin, supervisor preston, supervisor mandelman. upon implementation, we initiated our reach to all affected employers. we did it through the city administrative office because we thought it would carry more weight. the ondemand service providers made adjustments. there were two corrective actions at that time, where there was

restitution made to workers. since then, they have all made corrections, that we thought were consistent with the legislation, and we have not received complaints since that time. granted,that does not cover all gig employers. this is specific to on-demand delivery services. thank you for that information. supervisors chan or mandelman, any questions for comments. all right. seeing none, i do want to thank you, supervisor haney, not just for bringing this before us, but i think it has been since -- i don't know, april, may, probably the first version of this, that you have been on top of this issue all the way through the pandemic. and i very much appreciate your work on it. and you are correct. thank you for recognizing that i would like to be

added -- i think i have now been added as a co-sponsor. but let's go ahead and open up public comment. mr. clerk, do we have any callers on the line? >> clerk: thank you, mr. chair. operations is checking to see if we have any callers in the cue who wish to speak for this agenda item number two. for those who have already connected to our phone -- sorry, who have connected to our meeting via phone, please press *3. for those already on hold in the cue, please continue to wait until you're prompted to begin. you will hear a prompt that informs you that your line has been unmuted. for those watching our meeting on cable channel 26 or through sfgof tv.org, call in by following the instructions. you will dial 415-655-0001. and then enter the meeting i.d., which is 1871594674.

following that, you'll press ##. and then press *3 to raise your hand to speak. mr. coop, could you connect us to our first caller, please. >> caller: hello. my name is sean smith. i'm an s.f. state student. before i take the time to say anything else, i want to ask a question: how essential can somebody be to you if you don't do everything in your power to protect them? when you call somebody essential, you are defining them as absolutely necessary, extremely important. yet the actions of these corporations does not reflect that. refusing to provide workers with p.p.e. and cleaning equipment has to be an adequate measure of how essential drivers are. why else would you force

your workers to sign a waiver and to just figure it out. imagine building a foundation, but the construction company says you have to buy the asphalt. in this case, the goal is not just to succeed but to do it safely. with that in mind, i find it hard that drive apps truly find their workers to be essential. maybe they see their labor and profits that way, but the people, not so much. we support today's ordinance to make sure that the bigger corporations do right by these people and provide them with the protection and protocols necessary to do the work. workers needing extra cash in their pockets is not an excuse to disregard their health in a global pandemic. i yield my time. thank you very much. >> chairman: thank you for sharing your comments, sean smith. mr. coop, could you bring us the next caller, please. >> caller: hi.

my name is daniel menzi. i've been a gig worker for about seven years. currently i do deliveries for uber eats. i would like to thank everybody in attendance back to october of last year, so that i can show just how serious that this p.p.e. issue is. you might remember that our former president contracted the coronavirus, and he was being treated at walter reed. at one point he decided to have the secret service drive him around the block so he could wave at his subjects. everybody was outraged. they said, how dare this man, who has a deadly virus, expose his staff for a ride around the block. now, i want you to remember that our ride-share drivers do this each and every day for the people of this city. the only difference is they don't know who is infected and who is not. i also want to talk about some of the objections that you made here for the

ride-share industry. they'll say it is too expensive, they're going to have to lay people off, that they might even pack up and leave san francisco. now, when they make these arguments, i want you to remember that uber, who is an industry leader for ride share, a company that is so ubiquitous that their has become a verb, hasn't made a profit ever. if you gave a dollar to a panhandler today, you made them more successful in 30 seconds than uber has been in 12 year 12 years. they didn't come up with the idea that exposing our drivers and costumers to a deadly virus is bad for business. if they figured that out in the first place, we wouldn't be debating this legislation because it would already have been done. so i want you to remember

these things when they complain about this bill. i want you to remember the last time you took an uber ride, and how the driver went out of their way to make you safe because that's what human beings do for each other. [buzzer] >> chairman: excuse me. the speaker's time has concluded. thank you for sharing your time. could we get the next caller, please. >> caller: good morning, honorable intoord intoord. board of supervisors. i'm a member of the drivers (indiscernable). as you know, when covid-19 hit, i, along with other drivers, were essential workers on the frontlines of the pandemic. during that time, many of us were too afraid to stop working for fear we could not put food on the table. some of us were exposed to the virus, and, unfortunately, some of us

died. in my case, i stopped driving in march of last year because i did not have the equipment to protect myself. and with lyft and uber, being an employee, as required by the law, it took me six months to start getting unemployment, because i was considered a non-person without basic employee rights. instead of providing the personal protective equipment, they put $2 million to take away driver's rights. and it passed. and still drivers do not receive adequate personal protective equipment. it is unimaginable. i'm pleased that supervisor haney and other supervisors are introducing this ordinance that would require any delivery companies to provide its workers with personal protective equipment and paid time to

disinfect their cars and equipment. i urge you, as people two care about workers' rights in san francisco, to vote yes on this ordinance, to help drivers, all drivers, work safely and earn a livable wage. thank you. >> chairman: thank you for sharing your comments. mr. coop, could you bring us the next caller, please. >> caller: hello. thank you for having me. my name is claudio. and i'm a student and a district native. i used lyft for almost three years. in those three years, i put on 90,000 miles on my care and i paid for all of the maintenance and daily required cleaning out of pocket. i beared the brunt of all of the taxes that supported our city as well. i do not drive anymore,

but i have a duty to speak up for other drivers who have fallen into the trap of lyft and uber, thinking they can make a living wage. they squeezed what they could from their workers. just a reminder that prop 22 did not pass in san francisco. this is a city issue. it is a voter issue. and you and i have a duty to protect gig workers as much as the residents of our city. please support supervisor haney and other supervisors who want to protect gig workers as much as i do. thank you for your time. >> chairman: thank you for sharing your comments, claudia. mr. coop, could you bring us the next caller, please.

>> caller: good morning, supervisors. i'm executive director of (indiscernable). i share a lot of emotion in the testimony today and that's because lives are at stake. there was a recent study about the risk of death for workers, which has gone up by 22% because of the pandemic. let me tell you, for food workers in particular, their risk of death has gone up twice as much. there risk of death for black, latinx, and asian workers has gone up disproportionately.

we all know that people have to work because they need to make a living for their families. so everything we can do to ensure that people who stock our foods, who cook our foods, who deliver our foods, are healthy and safe. and that's what keeps all of us healthy and safe. public health isn't about the efforts of one person or one business, but it is really a collective responsibility. i want to thank you all for your leadership, supervisor haney, and to the co-sponsers, for supporting this. and also thanks to the drivers who are speaking out. it takes real courage. thanks. >> chairman: thank you for sharing your comments. mr. coop, could you please bring us the next caller.

i understand there may be about a half dozen callers waiting on the line. if you are one of those folks, and you hear your line has been unmuted, then please begin. >> caller: hi. my name is tyler. i live in district 6. i've been doing door dash for a little over a year can. i think there is maybe just a little bit of a disconnect between what we just heard, and i couldn't catch everything because my audio is a little off. in my experience, the door dash, to their credit, has been providing free masks, including the ones you wear and throw away, and then the double layered ones and free hand sanitizer. but in terms of paying people for cleaning, they pay an extra 78 cents per

day. i have no idea where they got that number. i've been in contact with the office of labor standards, and she asked me, how did they come up with this number? i have no idea. so since prop 42 allows them to pay the minimum wage, i think they should be paying a lot more than that, certainly, for time spent cleaning. i ride a bike, but i still spend a little bit of time cleaning that as well. obviously, i urge everyone to vote yes, and i expect they probably all will, but i think there is probably more to do beyond this as well. and maybe i'll followup with an e-mail and try to understand what complying with this actually means, because it doesn't seem to me that they've really been complying to the way the law is written. thank you. >> chairman: thank you

for sharing your comments, tyler. could we get the next caller, please. >> caller: hello. my name is martin swiker. i'm a 30-year electrician, been a member of the local 595 i.d. w. for the last two years. about four years ago, things got slow on my job and i became a lyft driver and i loved it. the first couple of years were amazing. the money was fantastic. the last two years were too few. that is just the reality of it. i understand how these younger drivers get drawn into the fact that, yes, it is a gig, but the beginning drivers, the early drivers always make a killing, and they real real,real you in.

they reel you in. so we need to figure out how to keep that payment going, or to restructure that payment. if you think about it, there are a couple of things that i've realized about driving is that, number one, if i don't love to be around people, i'm probably not going to be happy being an app worker, period, anywhere. number two, if i don't enjoy driving like it is my second nature, i'm probably also not going to be happy with it. number three, the most important thing is that if i don't have 24 hours, seven days a week, 365 days a year to drive, i will never be able to make enough money as a human being deserves. our economy has gone way beyond the ability for a 9to 5 anywhere to sustain a lifestyle.

you must be able to develop a residual income if you don't, this 21st century is going to leave you in the dust. 20 years from knew, app drivers will be a thing of the past. 40 years, for sure. [buzzer] >> chairman: your time has concluded. thank you, mr. swiker, for your comments. could we get the next caller, please. >> caller: my name is sally okowa, and i have been working for door dash. and they have not provided any p.p.e. they try to give three ounces of hand sanitizer for a month's use, which is not enough for me at 12 hours a day. i have had to buy masks, face shields, hand

sanitizer, because many costumers do not wearing masks. my co-work just got covid two weeks ago. i am scared because it makes me think that the pandemic is not over at all. i'm losing my rest and break time to clean my cars before, after, and throughout the day. and i'm losing my money to buy p.p.e. from my pocket money every two weeks. please, i urge the board of supervisors to support this ordinance and hold these companies accountable for keeping us workers safe on the job. thank you. >> chairman: thank you. >> caller: hello, my name is eddie hernandez. i don't have experience driving or delivering for gig companies, i can

comment on the (indiscernable). specifically, before the pandemic, employees had time off, extended access to mental health and health care. before the officials of san francisco shelter-in-place movement (indiscernable). on top of unlimited p.p.e., they extended flexibility to employees who are care-givers, and by the time i resigned, they even announced early access to 2021 cash bonuses and additional stocks. [audio is mumbly]

>> i urge the board of supervisors to support this ordinance at minimum to hold employers for keeping employees safe on the job. thank you. >> chairman: can we get the next caller, please. >> caller: hello. i worked for an app six years ago. we don't have any social distancing. i have about 30 passengers every day. some work 12 hours.

at least one passenger is going to be with covid. we help old people get in the car and put their stuff in the trunk because they can't. uber didn't pay us to clean the car. we don't have any p.p.e. protection for nothing. so i really want you guys, please, to support the ordinance and hold these companies accountable. we really need to be safe at work. thank you so much for your time. and i hope everything will go well for everyone during the pandemic. thank you. >> chairman: thank you very much for sharing your comments. mr. coop, could you bring us the next caller, please.

is there another caller on the line? we can hear you. please begin your comments. mr. coop, can we bring in the next caller, please? it looks like this person is idle. >> caller: yes. good morning, this is barry. i've done some door dash deliveries. i want to echo what a previous caller said. yes, they are paying 78 cents per day that you do a delivery.

they also are sending out e-mails, occasionally, offering you p.p.e. foryour work. the only issues i have is that relating to your work with the app, if you recall, the young man who's kids were in the car when the carjacking took place, and i think there has to be more leeway for the delivery people, when they go to apartment buildings. it shouldn't have to be required to have to leave the vehicle in an unsafe space or to go upstairs to make deliveries. this is very much a big concern. also, they need to reimburse better for mileage, especially when you have to go long distances. there should be minimums that costumers have to pay for deliveries that are across-town deliveries, especially late at night.

but they do actually compensate you if the actual delivery fee was not enough for the time you have to spend making the delivery. the ordinance is important to make sure to keep them in line. as you recall, if you look at the articles that have come out, kroger just decided to close some stores because they are refusing to pay the extra hazard pay to their workers in certain locations. so even though san francisco hasn't had to face this issue, i think a corporation that is going to close doors rather than compensate their workers properly is a big concern and ought to be discussed and addressed. thank you for your time. >> chairman: thank you for sharing your comments, barry. mr. coop, could you bring us the next caller, please. >> caller: good morning, everyone, my name is lucas chamber, and thank you for allowing us to speak

regarding this situation. i've been an uber driver, door dash, post mates, since 2015. i started working with instacart since march 2020. i'm putting my life on the line for these costumers. and we're not treated equally. these companies are not providing us with a lot of p.p.e. i have to spend $200 to $300 a month on masks, gloves, hand sanitizers and wipes. and, also, i have to take time off to clean my vehicle. and i'm not getting paid for that. i'm based in san francisco, california, and i'm part of reachout progress. it is just so sad that

these companies are not helping us out. we're putting our lives out there. there -- sorry. it is just too much. they really need to do something. seriously, please, i beg you to please help us out. we deserve better. these companies are not going to help us out. our lives are in your hands. thank you vietnam. very much. >> chairman: thank you for sharing your comments, lucas chamber. mr. coop, could you bring us the next caller, please. one last reminder -- yes, please, go ahead.[speaking foren

language] [speaking foreign language]

>> chairman: mr. chair, we did not receive a request to have staffing from o.c. available for public comment, interpretation services. mr. coop, could we please have the next caller. are there any further callers on the line, mr. coop? >> caller: hello,.[speaking forn language]

>> chairwoman: please begin your comment. >> caller: hello. i am (indiscernable). i am calling today to urge the supervisors to do more to ensure essential workers safety during this pandemic. they need to show us the respect we deserve. i know that in my job i have seen a lot, a lot of protective equipment, in addition to social distancing. workers have had to bring our own masks to work. and we have not had (indiscernable) during this whole pandemic. [audio is not clear] >> workers like myself have kept the communities

afloat. we expanded our services. essential workers, especially fast-food workers have little protections, and they are shaping the industry. it will leave the corporations accountable. [inaudible] even before the pandemic, it was at the hands of the corporations that just don't care. thank you. >> chairman: thank you. thank you very much for translating the previous speaker's comments. mr. coop, could you please bring us the next caller.

[speaking spanish]

>> chairman: gracias. is the interpreter who was available previously to interpret miss lima's comments still available? my apologies, mr. chair, while we get this worked out. >> can you hear me? >> yes, we can hear you. are you still there? >> yes, i'm here. >> are you the individual who provided interpretation services a moment ago? >> yes, please. >> please. let's begin. >> thank you. hello, everyone. my name is anita.

i'm (indiscernable). i'm calling you today to wish that the supervisors who have this ordinance -- to make sure workers are protected during thirs this pandemic. essential workers like me have had to bear the brunt of serving the communities. [inaudible] workers in san francisco are being exposed to great risk because of not complying businesses. we need our local elected officials to require things like masks, gloves, and safety protocols (indiscernable). it is amazing to think that workers have to demand p.p.e. in order to get it provided. us workers have always known we need these

protective equipment, but it is a demand. you, supervisors, should make sure that we have all that we need to have safe work places and conditions. [inaudible] to date, it is off not. we need to make sure (indiscernable). thank you. >> chairman: thank you very much. once again, for being on hand to provide interpretation of the comment. mr. coop, do we have any further callers. >> mr. chair, that completes the cue. >> thank you, operations. thank you, mr. clerk. and thank you to the individual who provided the interpretation services on the fly so that we could make sure we heard all of the public comment. so hearing no further callers, public comment is

now closed. and i did have a question for the deputy city attorney pearson. i believe supervisor haney mentioned, when discussing the amendments, that he believes them to be substantive. just in reviewing them, i'm not clear why that is, and i wanted to make sure that is right and find out maybe if it is a particular one of the amendments that is triggering that? before we vote on any amendments, i would like clarity on that. >> deputy city attorney ann pearson. there are a number of amendments being offered today. i agree that not all of this are substantive. i need to open the draft to point you to the pages where they are. one of the amendments is to require employers -- excuse me -- not only to require their employees or require workers that they disinfect and clean

certain areas, but also that they compensate them for the time that it takes to perform that cleaning. so there is a new payment requirement. and there is also an adjustment in the penalties that are to be imposed for violations of the ordinance. and i think where they were originally up to $1,000, they are now at least $1,000 under some circumstances. >> thank you. and i don't know if this is for you or for supervisor haney, but can we get some clarity also on the existing protections -- o they expire? i'm concerned with the timing here. if these are substantive amendments, that puts it off until our next hearing, march 4th. i want to make sure we're

not having a gap in coverage as a result. where do the current protections expire? >> i'm not aware -- i don't know that answer. i could easily find it out. it might be that supervisor haney knows the answer to when the most recent emergency ordinance would have expired? >> i do not know that off-hand. >> i could pull that unreasonablely quickly, though. >> and supervisor haney, i would defer to you on how you want to proceed. if time is of the essence, one question could be whether it makes sense to potentially duplicate the file, move something forward today with certain amendments and then have it duplicated, that wouldn't trigger -- >> i believe that it expires, based on my chief-of-staff saying,

march 22nd, 2021. and so there would not be any gap in coverage. >> i'm also looking at the board file, and for the most recent emergency ordinance, the file action was taken on january 22, so it expires 60 days later, so march 22nd. >> thank you. supervisor haney, what is you preference to have all of the amendments voted on today, and then we would be able to vote on the amended file on march 4th, or would you like to proceed differently? >> yes. >> okay. great. and any closing remarks on the items, supervisor haney? >> yeah. i just wanted to thank all of you for your support, and i want to thank all of the people who called in, especially all of the

workers. as you can see, this is really shockingly still an issue for many workers. a year into this pandemic, there are still companies and employers, some of them very large, who are not providing the basic protections for their workers. and it's really shameful. these workers are absolutely on the frontline. they have allowed countless people in our city to stay at home, to access food, to access medicine, the most basic form of survival, and they are helping to provide for people, and they should have the strongest possible protections in every way, but at the very least with being able to have protective equipment. i want to say one last thing, which is that i want to thank pat, from the office of labor standards and enforcement. i really hope we can follow up with some of these questions that have been raised, like the

approach that door dash is taking 78 cents a day -- it is not reflective of what we are doing with this ordinance here, which is they should actually have a process to report the time that they're spending and be paid for it directly, not 78 cents a day. i don't even think that could provide for the minimum amount of time that is taken on just one of their trips. so i do hope we can follow up on some of the things that have been brought forward. with that, again, thank you to the committee and to everyone who helped pull this together. >> thank you, supervisor haney. so on the motion to amendment -- >> chair preston -- >> chairman: go ahead. >> i wanted to just correct something that i said earlier because i've been contacted by the drafting attorney who has worked on this legislation. the previous emergency ordinance, which was enacted by the board on

january 22nd, actually had retroactive affect at the time, so will expire a little earlier than march 22nd, as i previously indicated. it seems it will expire closer to march 10th or 12th, we're trying to do the counting. but probably around march 12th. i just wanted to correct that statement that i said earlier. >> thank you for the clarification. i don't know if that changes anything, supervisor haney, or if we should proceed. >> i think we should proceed. >> thank you. all right. on the motion to amend, supervisor haney, please call the roll. >> on the motion to amend, to have the amendment as provided by guest supervisor haney. vice chair chan? chan aye. >> member mandelman? >> aye. >> chair preston?

>> aye. >> mr. chair, there are three ayes on the amendment. >> chairman: thank you. and the motion to continue? >> on the motion to continue as amended to the next government audits and oversight committee, which will occur on march 4? vice chair chan? >> aye. >> member mandelman? >> aye. >> chair preston? >> aye. >> mr. chair, there are three ayes. >> chairman: thank you, mr. clerk and supervisor haney, we will see you on march 4th.

>> thank you. i appreciate the opportunity to have this conversation today. we have a list of speakers we have been working with from the mayor's office on housing, community development, controller's office and real estate and homeless and supportive housing as well a a cochair of our city our home committee. before the speakers speak, i want to frame the context and why we crafted this resolution. there is a lot of conversation and many members on the body and our board have pushed to utilize

the opportunity to really take advantage in a lot of ways downturn in economy to get people off the streets into hotels that arevay can't. we have worked really hard in the city to formalize agreements in many cases i think a lot of us believe we haven't moved fast enough to get people off the streets there. is debate about whether or not this would be a long term sustainable idea. the state and federal governments have created the opportunity through the governor's office with the home key program. last fall we talked about this in the resolution. we were able to receive hose moneys and purchase two buildings. we have a historic opportunity not with shelter-in-place but any hotel that is out there that could be suitable for long-term housing and supportive housing

solution rather than spending 600 or $700,000 to construct a new unit or purchase a unit in existing form and rehab it, we have an opportunity here in many cases to buy properties from willing sellers that are in really good condition and that are designed in many ways similar to supportive housing with minor tweaks. i think that is the case that we saw in the granada and diva. 344 units just like that. the mayor has a goal of 1500 supportive housing units. we support that and believe this is a historic opportunity to move aggressively acquire property to create and expand supportive housing stock. we reached out early onto our

city our home and talked with them. thankfully we have the opportunity with prop c dollars, designated 50% toward housing. the committee is in agreement a good portion of that 50% should go toward acquisition. they are finalizing the numbers. i will let jenny talk about that. i hope she is on now. we believe we should move ex exh usually. we believe the market will come back and we believe we have a list of properties that have been identified and ready potentially for purchase. we will hear from the department today. we have asked them in the next month to come back to present the ones that seem to be the

most ripe for purchase and then we have to have a conversation about an analysis and how quickly we can move on that. to your credit we have prop i dollars. it is described as social housing. that is a conversation we can have down the road if that is a source. we have prop c dollars and the ability to take on debt with existing funding streams coming in over the course of time through taxes if we got to a point where we needed to do that. thankfully, we have the city housing accelerator fund, the former head of that like we do with small acquisitions the move quicker to cut through bureaucracy. we have a lot of options for purchase. we felt it was really important to prioritize in the context of the debate should we move people

off the street to property that might not necessarily belong term solution? i believe we should do that. this i think is more of a permanent long-term solution, and i am excited to work with the mayor's office to achieve that 1500 unit of supportive housing goal. we intends to push on this and welcome any support. we have cosponsors with walton and haney. i am happy to answer any questions as we move forward. i will say before we go the presenter that you all were e-mailed about an hour or two ago some amendments that we made and essentially that was designed to clarify that this wasn just about purchasing existing shelter-in-place hotels. it could be any hotel that was

suitable for long term supportive housing solutions. if you look on page 1, we added the word federal into the opening paragraph. we added up sheltered -- unsheltered on 16, shelter on 24. 10 through 23 on page 2 we clarified the process which the home key money came in to purchase the diva and grenada hotel. on page 3 we talk about purchases and long-term leasing solutions to meet the criteria for potential permanent supportive sites from the request for information being used. we further define clearly the number of units that were in the geary and the existing appropriate sites on the bottom of page 3. again on the last page more

clearly about how it is through the r-5 and looking for appropriate sites and long-term leases how this is intended to help save costs working with different departments. we strike the department of california department of housing and community development. that was just clarifying language. we wanted to be clear this is not just about shelter-in-place hotels. i want to go to the first present to present. i appreciate all her collaboration. the co-chair of our city and our home oversight committee. jenny. this intersects a lot of departments and addvo cats.

just urging all presenters to try to keep it to no more than 10 minutes. i will remind you when 10 minutes is up to wrap up to be efficient with our time. >> thank you. coalition on homelessness. to clarify i am member of our city our home oversight. our chairperson is the amazing janel williams. i don't want to take anything away from her on that. >> i gave you a promotion. i apologize. thank you for inviting me and for the resolution. this is an intersection of unprecedented opportunities. in over 30 years of work organizing unhoused people and solutions to homelessness, here right now in the midst of the

grief of the global pandemic we see this potential to move the dial on homelessness of the it is a singular moment to address the cries cease. we never imagined the hotels an the solutions. we spent a lot of time trying to protect against and failing to keep the tourist hotels from gobbling upper manent housing. this is to transform and this is not going to last. the federal government recently released news that fema would reimburse 100% of the cost of sip hotels and other pandemic related expenses incurred by the city and county of san francisco back to january 2020 and to october 2021. this is expected to be $83 million. we were told oversight committee

was told day before yesterday $83 million. this funding which is unexpected could be captured through budget supmen tell by the board of supervisors perfect for acquisition. there is the 70 tourist hotel owners willing to sell. revenue options for additional housing choice soichers, stimulus funds from the new presidential administration to add to what supervisor safai mentioned. as we talked about the positive ruling prop c our city our home funds from half a percent tax on income over $50 million are available to be used. housing, treatment for unhoused in san francisco and preventing homelessness for those at risk. our city, hour home oversight body we respect in the process right now of developing a

strategic model to determine the best use of those funds in next year's budget. we are also determining what funds should be released from the fund in this years budget. that decision since those funds are on hold with the budget and finance committee for release, this plans is critical. we are doing it as quickly as we can and attempting to have the recommendations -- to ensure used in most effective way. we are looking at acquisition. >> you froze for a second. >> sorry. we have multiple people using internet here. while we are focused on

acquisition definitely as one of the strategies and in particular acquisition of hotels, and while the recommendations are not finalized, willing of our members have publicly stated enthusiasm for purchasing the tourist homes for housing with the idea of leveraging prop c funds with other funds. you have acquisition and ongoing need for funding for operating costs and support services. we need to figure out how to use which funds where in the best possible way. as already stated, the state of california released funding. there is expected to be more funding for purchasing hotels. the first round led to 360 rooms. that was completed within 120

days. you know we also know through the pandemic we put 2500 unhoused in the tourist hotels. big shout out to supervisor preston for thinking around using the tourist hotels. you know they were starting to protect most vulnerable in the pandemic. most of those are seniors. african-americans, both populations due to structural inequities, you know, our particularly vulnerable to covid. in our connecting with those who are residing in the sip hotels, the gratitude lucky enough to land the hotel room is profounds. there is tremendous fear of losing that soft bed. in the words of one resident who spoke out yesterday in a statement not for herself who is

in lean for housing for others stuck on the streets they do want to be housed. they have no desire to continue to live in tents. what do the hotels have to offer? unlike construction of new housing or safe sleeping. they have toilets in the room, baths, showers, electricity, water, garbage, kitchens, elevator, all dignities that we can offer. they can be easily converted to studios with little rehabilitation. could be available practically immediately instead of the four years that new construction requires. in my role as immediate needs for our city our home. i looked into cost of acquiring hotels. estimated cost is 300k per room including rehab. cheaper ones require more and

less ex pen i ones. it averages 300k per roof, half the cost of new construction. the cost of operating and support services of the two hotels we purchased is 13.6k per person per year. as i mentioned, these were up and going within 120 days. i want to end by saying last week over 50 organizations signed on to a letter sent to the mayor published in the medium. faith and different community organizations that are asking the mayor to take two steps. one to house those who are document ready outside of sip hotels in safe sleeping villages. the other piece is to utilize the fema to do acquisitions such as purchasing additional hotels. this is to illustrate the broad support this concept has and the

common sense approach. thank you, supervisor safai, for inviting me to make comments. >> thank you. really appreciate your hard work and lifelong commitment to this. i don't think we would be in a position to have this conversation if you hadn't pushed so hard on prop c. i know that you don't want to use prop c but without prop c we would not have this conversation. there are multiple sources and the opportunity to take on debt. there will be additional we know that very soon there will be additional state and federal money coming for the home key program. the fact we have a track record of the two we have already done and the team of people some of whom we are to hear from

provides the opportunity. i am very encouraged to hear those 50 signatures signed on. great story in the paper that came out today that talked about this. i will tell you i have spoken to the mayor. the mayor and her team are very supportive of doing this. we will continue to work with them. i think one of the key points is timing. you hit on that. it is a historic opportunity to take advantage of this. interest rates are low. some of the areas of these tourist hotels or what we have heard some of the categories they are like student hotels. some people have come in to study on international basis that market has dried up. you have these owners realizing they might not have a market that they have created over the next couple years. they are willing partners to sell. as you said, reclaiming some of

the land that might have gone away. it might provide an opportunity because of what happened where the hotels exist. i appreciate the presentation. stay around for further questions. next person. that should

in the opening remarks he noted the opportunity. this is tremendous in terms of if we can leverage and find a silver lining in covid.

>> let me say something quickly. we had you and the department of real estate. since that was three presenters in to one, i think we have time if you want to dive in without acceding the amount of time but if it is the share's will all three presenters that followed are condensed into this presentation. >> thank you for that clarification. go ahead.

>> thank you. as i mentioned. the department of homelessness and supportive housing share the goal of continuing to acquire and expand supportive housing for most vulnerable this. is most effective intervention in ending homelessness and preventing future homelessness. we have an opportunity before us to build a long term strategy around the acquisition of supportive housing. what we want to move as quickly as possible. we know that haste is not always the most productive way to build that long-term strategy. we want to balance both. as the supervisor mentioned, we don't want to limit options to hotels or sites already known to the city as participating in the sip hotel program or otherwise known to the city. we issued an rfi for other potential buildings to be acquired for this purpose.

a point of reference, the mayor launched her homeless recovery plan this summer which previously mentioned includes the development or acquisition of 1500 new units of permanent supportive housing, additional placements and pipe will you through the mohcd. in addition to the supportive housing side, there is significant plans to expand congregate shelter and homelessness prevention and maintain safe sleep sites. this is the largest expansion in permanent supportive housing in 20 years. we are excited about this. it is a significant body of work that will be impactful for the resident of our city. we have a pathway with more new

acquisitions. on top of what is already determined for this plan. in addition to the one-time acquisition funds, the city needs ongoing service funding as well as staffing resources to make this a reality. i will ask my colleague from the real estate division to jump in here and just give an overview of the current real estate market trends. i think there is a lot of hope and desire for there to be deals to be had and opportunities to be had. i want to make sure our conversation is based in the data that we are seeing from the real estate market. i will turn it over. >> thank you. good morning, chair preston, supervisor chan, mandelman and safai and director of real

estate. i am wearing a mask because i have a staffer also in my office. i don't think it will come as any surprise to you when i tell you that the real estate market is in flux at the moment. we are seeing basically residential rent and office rent take a dramatic drop while at the same time we are seeing residential home prices and office and commercial property retain their value if not increase in value. this disconnect is based upon basically buyers and tenants on one side apsellers and landlords on the other side seeing the current market in two very different ways. buyers and tenants are focusing

on available supply while landlords and sellers are still looking past the current covid uncertainty and hoping for a pre-covid prices. however, the shelter-in-place, downturn in economy have made some owners much more willing to discuss potential purchase of their property than they might otherwise have been. this is not across the board phenomenon. these are certain owners and i think supervisor safai mentioned a few of those that may be running international student hotels, certain other hotels that rving difficulty weathering the economic downturn created by the shelter-in-place situation we find ourselves in. from arel estate standpoint that means we have opportunities but we have to be strategic in

selecting those opportunities. not every hotel operator that has put their name forth on our request for information is going to be a suitable candidate for this program. however, we believe that the list that we have is a good start and we are also expanding our scope to find those opportunities where we can purchase property that is in the best interest of the city. unless there are questions, i will turn it back over to ms. cohen to continue the presentation. >> thank you.

it my help our hearing you if you turnoff the camera that we are also getting in addition to the presentation. i will take off my mask. i want to review the actions that have been taken so far as we have been moving forward on this effort for a few months. i have spoken about the mayor's recovery plan. in july we issued rfi100 to gather information about potential sites for acquisition and long-term lease. this includes but not limited to sip hotels. as mentioned we have acquired two buildings in 2020. in 2020granada and the diva. we are applying the lessons

learned in that process. there is a lot of discussion about cost. i want to bring in some examples of the costs that we have incurred for recent acquisition and rehab. granada hotel was $409,000 per door in development costs including purchase and rehab. the diva was about $560,000 per door. a building in the mohcd development pipeline was more expensive. a bit of an apples and oranges to say these leases or acquisitions are so much more affordable than new construction. they are pretty different buildings when it comes to

amenities private bathrooms, kitchens, qualities. it is apples and oranges. they bring housing units online quickly. >> i would just say to director's point there is a timing aspect. you talk about the cost, but there is a timing aspect. rather than waiting for four or five years, acquisition happens immediately, rehab can happen a lot quicker. there is also an opportunity cost and timing cost that is not factored in. it is still apples and oranges. >> absolutely. that is one of the benefits of the master lease program has allowed us to move into existing buildings much more quickly. we have had about 65 responses to the rfi, request for

information. we are in the vetting process for these buildings. we want to ensure we are getting buildings that meet the needs of the future tenants we are looking to house and ensure that what is reported in the rfi is accurate. there is a lot of work being done to review the rfi submissions and to vet the buildings. we are also preparing and doing a lot of this work in preparation for additional home key funding that we are anticipating in the next budget. statewide we are anticipating $700 million in home key funds which is an exciting opportunity, and trying to use this time to develop a sustainable process for ongoing acquisition. i have also received a lot of questions what is it we look for

in the buildings? this slide i won't read it all. it outlines some criteria we use to vet buildings. we want to make sure it is an appropriate size building. economies of scale and not have them so big they are impossible to manage. we don't want buildings with high occupancies. we are looking for vacated buildings. amenities are a desire for tenants and accessibility and we want to make sure they comply with building codes there. is significant work to upgrade hotels to housing standards. that needs to be take into consideration as well. the rules and responsibilities. there is a lot of us working on this. i want to make clear what we do.

hsh is tweaking this working with our city our home committee for an investment plan around acquisition. we are lead applicant for state and federal funds for this work and work with other city providers, partners to operate the sites once they are acquired as supportive housing. i will turn it over to dr. shaw to discuss mohcd's role in this work. >> hello, i am the director of mayor's office for housing and community development. we played a key role in the home key project that came up. there was some statement for us not just in terms of supporting acquisition but being in line with affordable housing policies and how we invest in affordable housing. one key things for home key and the work there is making sure it

conforms with the model of nonprofit ownership with restrictions for 55 years that is one of the core tenants how we have framed our expectations around affordable housing development and rehab in the city. i want to note that this was a little out of the wheelhouse and the fact we usually are funding projects through bonds or tax credit. in this instance we know these acquisition products would not be competitive if not for home key funds from the state. in this instance the mayor's office is playing a core role in implementation of acquisition and due diligence around the project and placing relating to the rehab. we are vetting the codes around ada, upgrades, health and safety provisions. we have a construction team that

monitors quality and progress of construction. housing development we are under writing construction and operating budgets around financing. i have a team around the expertise of occupied rehab and relocation. for sponsor review and as set management to make sure we ensure the integrity of the property and the investment over the long-term. in addition, i serve as the chairman of the loan committee. the contracts and the under writing and city financing that goes into these are managed -- approved and reviewed by the loan committee with members of ocii, hsh, housing authority and controller's office. that is the framing where we have the role. i want to reiter rate this really was a heavy lift on the

part of our team. we take more time around the due diligence and scoping. it is a heavy lift. i want to thank the city for energy in this. the mayor for her leadership and my fellow directors and departments for partnership and getting this across the finish line. >> we will discuss the roles and responsibilities of the real estate division. >> basically, the real estate provides a wide range of real estate services to city departments. they fall into four major categories, transaction services, property management, facility maintenance and fire

life safety contract management. it is the transactional services that are most pertinent to this discussion today. i don't see the correct slide but basically as part of our transaction services red leaves negotiation of acquisition and sale on behalf of city departments. we negotiate leases for the city. >> hold on. emily, for whatever reason we can't see. okay. it is up now. thank you. >> as i was saying, red leaves the negotiation for both acquisition and sales of city property on behalf of most but not all city departments. we also negotiate leases with the city with both the city as

land lord and tenant. we do ongoing lease administration and management of the escrow and closing process. at request of city departments we assist in the search and vetting of potential sites. both ms. cohen and director shaw spoke at length about the vetting process. real estate lends expertise with pricing and negotiating strategy. the other departments lead on identifying the sites appropriate for the intended purpose. once identified real estate takes the lead role in the acquisition. back over to ms. cohen for the balance of the presentation. >> thank you. i want to wrap up by identifying next steps. we are working to identify the appropriate funding going forward. i know we spoke about fema reii

option reimbursement. we are thrilled to have 100% reimbursement. the dollars freed up through reimbursement are not 100% fundable. we are trying to determine the puzzle pieces to put together funding for service type of work. we will work with our city, our home to gather input on process and priorities of identifying buildings and preparing for the next round of home key. prop a funds we want a unified strategy to work through the rfi process to do this. i will stop here and stop sharing my screen. we are available for questions. >> thank you, emily. the last part. the one thing we did talk about

was the rfi list. i think that was -- we have done that three times. we did it in the fall, in november and again in january. three iterations of request for rfi. >> two iterations. >> so we are coming up with that iteration and we have asked to come back in the next three to four weeks to present with the top candidates. i think that is something that is important because we want to take advantage of this historic opportunity. i appreciate the medium and longer range solution. we are going to get federal and state dollars coming down. the fact you all have the strike team. the director shaw and the rest

coming together and ready to go. at the same time waiting until the budget process. i think the budget process is important for post-fall. sounds like this money is coming out from federal and state government $700 million within weeks. i want to talk about that to make sure we are ready potentially for other opportunities. did you want to talk about that for a second? >> round b-2 of home key funding about $700 million statewide. that is not just san francisco that is the state. i believe that is coming out through the state budget process. it is not immediate but it looks likely to come through. >> the question is are we ready

if it comes out sooner than the longer process? that is what i wanted to emphasize. >> i think through rfi process we can be ready to identify buildings to pursue and still doing due diligence. hsh is taking the first pass. does it meet the criteria? we work with real estate and the mayor's office to appropriately finance from a construction perspective for the deal. that is not just the hsh role. we will work with real estate. early days but moving forward we have had staff on site at some of these properties already. >> what i understand from the state conversations is that is closer to $750 million, $250 million in the current

year, 500 next fiscal year and so the $250 million they haven't released in grants yet, but it is part of the current relief package. the governor announced relief moneys yesterday and today so there could be some of that $250 million could be there now and because of our ability to move because i know there is a timing aspect of it to make us competitive. i want to overemphasize the $250 million might be coming immediately. we are ready i understand we have had this conversation. for the record i understand you are stretched really think. we have conversations and director and his team going out. we are pushing them to instead of these leases we want be you to go buy buildings. we know you are stretched really thin, and if there is a need for

a conversation about some additional support for this in the immediate environment we know your staff have been reassigned to covid command. this is part of the larger conversation dealing with the crisis. it is part and parcel. we want people off the streets into supportive situations that are in environments with bathrooms and kitchens and buy those so they are part of the long-term strategy. i want to overemphasize we need to be ready that $250 million might come out sooner than next year's budget. >> i appreciate what you said about the strike team this. is the same team that worked on shelters and worked as you mentioned. it is strike team plus is needed for striking on a lot of fronts right now.

>> can you just clarify one thing. from your perspective the role of the board and the extent to which there is consultation regarding the sites identified through this vetting process? obviously, eventually at the end of it these things end up before us for approval. i would like if you canlaborate on the extent to which the vetting analysis of the sites includes talking to the district supervisors for the districts where these properties are located. >> absolutely. if you want to jump in as well, i know for thegranada and diva working with supervisor peskin's office has been important. the building is identified in your district that looks like it is promising, we will look with the board member before it comes

for a vote. >> maybe to make it more concrete. if i haven't heard if your strike team about a site in district 5 is that because there is no site vetted in district 5 or someone didn't reach out to us? >> we are not at that phase. we are kicking the tires to make sure that when it does it has an elevator. when we get to top 10, 15 we will be speaking with the supervisors. >> we will have that list in the next three to four weeks. we are continuing to work with you, with directors. we will continue to push that conversation. i want to doublecheck. we were going to hear from the controller's office. is somebody here from the controller's office to say a few words about this? >> certainly through the chair, district controller. i don't have much to add beyond

what is contributed by my colleagues. i am here to track the conversation and help with follow-up and questions you have regarding this. >> can you state for the record the potential amount of money from prop c toward acquisition from winning the lawsuit that could be leveraged with federal, state moneys, any stimulus? all of that i would like to see what is available and that is why we are pushing this conversation. >> certainly. there are multiplally coitions within prop c. -- allocations within prop c. 50% on permanent housing is the right bucket here for this sort of acquisition activity. a portion of that 50% can be for

the general population, subportion that is for families and subportion for transitional age youth. the total within those buckets currently available that has not yet been allocated by the board of supervisors is $189 billion in the current year. we would expect the same buckets to receive $170 million in the budget year. there is a number of demands on those funds. we have talked about many of them today. on the operations side same funding stream to support operations. those are the current balances. we provided some scale for you. >> i just wanted to just put that on the record there. that is a good chunk of money to be leveraged. we are respectful of the process and the way the voters set it

up. the our city our home oversight committee and our member spoke on that behalf. we have a letter from 50 organizations stating acquisition should be a priority. we have good support for this process it is doing our due diligence. they are doing some site visits right now to see if there is an elevator if they said there is one. as things get more real to your point, supervisors need to be made aware how things are moving forward. this is all very encouraging based on where we are. we will continue to monitor this. i do want to add one point of clarification to ms. cohen. you said anything we do in terms of acquisitio