community supervision. >> thank you. we'll go to the next slide. so the crux of this was certainly about communication. regarding new charges and motions to revoke, which is the violation of supervision. as i mentioned before, we receive booking notifications through justice and we get those directly. when we receive the booking notifications, we are looking at every case individually. so what we are considering when we are reviewing a case for a motion to revoke, we're looking at the seriousness of the new alleged criminal conduct, the seriousness of the underlining offense. their compliance with the terms and conditions of supervision. are they engaging in services. are they reporting as directed.

are there prior motions to revoke or alleged criminal conduct. we're looking at victim safety and -- >> chief fletcher, i think you have muted yourself. >> sorry. >> we missed a few seconds of your speaking. >> just to recap, adult provision conducts the review when we receive the booking notification, that review includes the seriousness of the new alleged criminal conduct, the seriousness of the underlining offense for which somebody is on probation or supervision for. compliance with terms and

conditions of the supervision, engagement of services, reporting as directed, prior motions to revoke or criminal conduct. and we are looking at victim safety, especially in domestic violence related offenses and graduated sanctions. we have a rebust system around that. we have the goal and vision to make sure people are receiving services in a manner that supports their recovery and their rehabilitation. and their successful reentree back into the community. we utilize a whole host of graduated sanctions and consider those before we ever return somebody back to court on moderator low level new criminal activity. so considering all of those

things, my officers are making a filing decision as it relates to the motion to revoke. a combination of how well they're doing in terms of technical violations that might exist and any new criminal conduct. parallel to that, the da's office is making a charging decision on the new alleged criminal conduct. they're looking at the evidence and burden of proof. we're looking at both. what we're seeing from a new alleged criminal conduct in the police report and a person's successor failure on supervision. during that process, the da's office is notifying adult probation of their charging decision and trying to build a system and we have been successful in improving the process in recent months to really have a system in place where there's a real time communication about charging decisions that the da is making

back to adult probation. certainly, we have set up a more formalized communication system through a dedicated e-mail address where those individuals who are making the decisions in the da's office are sending that to probation on a daily basis. you all know about the agreements to streamline communication and provide consistency in repeat offenders announced yesterday. and certainly then the mlu that is being proposed and is pending feedback. so i think one of the things that supervisor ronen asked is to weigh in on where we are with the review of the mlu. we absolutely believe in the spirit of the mlu. i don't think there's anything we want more than improved communication and processes that are more effective but i think one of the issues that is a huge

concern for me from adult probation's perspective, we really need to talk more deeply about decisions to file new charges versus reverting to a motion to revoke new charges. what the da and i have spoken about several times is that just referring back to probation or parole for a motion to revoke is not always the best solution from our perspective. our clients often know that any criminal conduct is likely not to result in a new criminal conviction but rather a motion to revoke. we have very few opportunities when it comes to that motion to revoke. especially when it comes to mandatory supervision, there are certain criteria we have to meet and limitations on how long someone can be held in custody. that also applies to our

population. i know many people have referenced the lyon's case and to be quite honest in the case, the reason the person ended up in custody was because of the actions of probation filing a violation of supervision but that was after two other arrests in which charges were not filed. we can never second guess what the outcome of the new arrests would result in, but i think we need to do more work across agencies to talk about that elephant in the room. new charges or mpr's and what is the most appropriate response in these situations. and we're here to answer any questions that you might have. >> thank you chief fletcher. i think you hit the nail on the

head with the last sentence. i have seen it in the 20 years i have worked locally here in san francisco with agencies kind of pointing at one another and or departments pointing at one another. and this seems to be one of the biggest gaps in the system today. new charges or motion to revoke and what that means in a lot of the cases. i mean obviously you're not the charging officer, it's interesting because i heard another contradiction in presentation from the district attorney and what you said -- unless i misunderstood it. the district attorney said we leave it to adult probation to compel for drug treatment specifically and you said the court order compels drug treatment. can you expand on that a little bit or clarify? >> absolutely. so often times the da's office

and defense counsel are coming to a proposed disposition in the settlement of a case. once the person is convicted of the crime on a felony, they come to adult probation, we administer the risk assessment needs tool and then making recommendations to the court on what we believe should happen in terms of services and treatment. and then it is simply a recommendation. the attorneys in court can have conversations about what probation is recommending and then the court orders something. if the court orders residential treatment and they're placed on a local community supervision, we will compel them to do it if it's a court order and then we have avenues to take them back to court if they fail to comply. >> one of the slides you showed, showed that 74% of your clients,

maybe you can pull it back up. 74% of the clients under your supervision in the previous year were related one way or another to drug possession or use. if the district attorney or court is not compelling -- that's a pretty significant number and it seems to me, that's a big piece of either the disagreement or new charges or motion to revoke and court order compelling or not compelling. what are some of the ways you believe we can strengthen this

to better serve and better help people with treatment? >> so i think we're all on the same page. i think defense counsel and da in the courtroom understand the need for treatment. that 74% is a history of some kind of substance use treatment. i think certainly the advocacy of the attorneys to get that recommendation into a court order does happen. so i think a lot of our folks do have orders for treatment and i think just because there's an order doesn't necessarily mean that somebody is ready and or willing to get into treatment. that's the piece we struggle with as well and constantly are in this discussion with our clients around what is ordered, what is absolutely necessary for

their rehabilitation. and really trying to work with them through that individualized treatment plan to make sure they're linked to the appropriate service that works for them at the same time as meeting the level of service they need. >> so then it sounds like you do agree in some regard -- i'm not 100% sure on what you just said. if they end up being a court order, it doesn't sound like it's happening in all cases. but if there is a court order, you struggle in terms of the interpretation of what level of treatment is needed. >> no, this 74% shows there is a history of some kind of substance use treatment. so when we are administering our assessment tool and it is telling us that treatment is one of the needs, we are making that

recommendation. just because we all agree and just because the court orders it, doesn't mean the client is willing to do that. that's where part of the struggle is. my officers are out in the community working with people to get them into a level of treatment that meets their needs. i don't think that we have a problem determining the level of need because certainly we engage with dph as well and we get them links to outpatient or residential treatment. >> so i would say based on your numbers, 74% have a history of substance abuse and -- i'm not a professional in your regard, but it sounds like there needs to be a strengthening in terms of ordering or compelling for

treatment. we'll follow up on that. the other thing i wanted you to talk about and i know supervisor ronen has a question. you said the new charges which sounds like it falls into the da's lap versus the motion to revoke. can you expand on that a little bit? >> absolutely. my conversations was to really look at the decision making process. i know the da and he will say this better than i, they have a burden of proof to meet. so it is beyond a reasonable doubt for new charges but for a motion to revoke, it's

preponderance of the evidence. that does send a message to our clients that they get away with stuff a little bit. that has been my conversation over the years is sometimes the motion to revoke isn't always the best answer to the criminal conduct, especially in repeat offenders. very few have more than five booking events but there's a significant number that have two to four. i think we need to get a handle on that decision making process and look at outcomes for people who continually get diverted back to probation on a motion to revoke rather than having new charges filed in ongoing repetitive criminal conduct. >> is there any of that covered in the mlu? >> it does touch on that. that is the language we'll work on to clarify. >> i would say that would be a significant piece of the mlu. this seems to be at the crux of

some of the disagreement and if the district attorney has proposed the mlu including communication and decision making, this seems to be one of the important areas of overlap that i would say would be a strong emphasis. is the district attorney still here? >> yes. >> i'm going to ask you the same question. chief fletcher -- i asked what you said about leaving it to adult probation to compel for treatment. she said they follow through on the court order and some repeat offenders are not necessarily following through on the treatment. that's one question and then i'll ask you the second question i asked her.

>> great. thank you supervisor safai and for the presentation chief fletcher. i think a number of things that chief fletcher said -- are worth emphasizing. we're dealing with a population of people who have a range of challenges. that's what led them to get arrested. people not following the law. that's why we're prosecuting them and people making bad choices that hurt other people. that's why we're in most of the cases, the probation department is involved securing felony convictions against them. that's what triggers the adult probation's involvement in most cases. i would agree of course with chief fletcher, there are some people unwilling to or unable to engage with treatment plans. we know the path from addiction to sobriety is not an easy one

or steady or linear one and many people will relapse and relapse often leads to recidivism. that's a problem we see whether we're filing new criminal cases or revoke or sending people to prison. none of those interventions can by themselves solve the root causes for criminal behavior. but they are the tools we have available. one thing i want to make clear, my charging assistant district attorneys cannot file a criminal case. it would be unethical to file a criminal case when the evidence available to us will not satisfy without a reasonable doubt. we know we can't prove a new charge -- it is unethical to file the charge. that is a very important ethical guideline. we can't just send a message or file charges because we're worried about someone.

the reason we put people on probation or parole when they're released is precisely because we're aware of the risk of recidivism and aware of the need for supervision as people reenter the communities to protect public safety. i want to echo chief fletcher, there's no universe in which 100% of people with substance issues are going to succeed in all of their required treatment plans. but, when someone violates as chief fletcher said, whether it is technical or a new issue that perhaps was an arrest, the probation can legally justify someone's detention even where no new criminal charges are filed, even where the evidence of violation is far lower than what would be required to convict someone of a new charge. so these are different levers

and different tools but i want to be clear about the legal standards. to convict someone of a new criminal case or detain someone based on a new criminal filing requires a much higher legal standard of proof than to violate someone's probation or parole or detain someone based on allegation of probation of parole. that's the law and constitution. it's not up to me. it's how the system works and why we put people on probation and parole when we have concerns about their ability to fully and safety rejoin communities. >> why is there disagreement between you and chief fletcher? >> i'm not sure there is -- what disagreement are you referring to? >> it sounded like she ended her presentation saying -- and i asked her again. maybe i'll ask her to clarify. there's a struggle between the decision of new charges being

filed or motion to revoke. that's what i heard her say. that you have an ethical standard you have to meet before you can base on the evidence file a new charge. legally my office can't file new criminal charges. police make an arrest and present their investigation to us. we can file new criminal charges if we believe there's enough evidence or if the person is on probation or parole, a motion to revoke. both probation and division of parole have asked us not to file the motions to revoke, to let them make the decisions for reasons i think chief fletcher just articulated but it doesn't

reflect on new charges. what i heard chief fletcher say, there are cases she perhaps think we should file charges more often than we do. we have both options available to us. the question is should we use both. i think you saw from the presentation there were in 2019 significant number of cases where adult probation did not file a violation but the da's office did. one argument would be more filing of revoking is better, i don't know there's data to suggest that. chief fletcher said the range of interventions that are short of revoking in court, that her officers can and do used to manage the people on their case loads. we don't know what they're doing day-to-day unless they give us a report, usually ordered by the

court or file. then we see it and it shows up in our court system. but we cannot file charges if the evidence is insufficient to prove it. and we often defer to probation or parole precisely because they have more leverage and tools that require a far lower standard of proof and use fewer court resources when we're dealing with marginal cases in terms of the quality of the evidence or scenario of the accusations. >> thank you.

>> i just want to thank chief fletcher for the presentation

and data presented. that is very helpful and i think we should proceed with the hearing. >> the next person is our sheriff. >> good afternoon. i know it has been a long week for a lot of information, appreciate the patience and depth of the presentations so far. i hope that with our data we have been responsive in terms of what we have given to all of you so far. i hope also this presentation will be something we can clarify anything. we had a lot of data but much as what was referenced by the district attorney, we have a lot of data but not the technology to mine the data. we presented a lot of materials to you upon your request, hopefully they are responsive and answer your questions as we go through this. and before i start i want to

make sure we can get our presentation up. if we can get control of the screen? i have it here. maybe someone can help us with that. is our screen showing right now? just want to mention if we can move the slide forward one. our presentation right now, it will coincide with the other data sets we provided earlier and it is meant to be descriptive of the different information we provided in regards to bookings and arrests in our system in the last three years. hopefully it will be helpful in summary. if you have further questions or follow up you would like to have today or in reviewing the materials, please feel free to contact myself and my staff and we'll be happy to help you with that. some definitive things. when we talk about arrests and

bookings, our data sets are based on bookings and so as the agency responsible in the justice system to book into custody, arrests versus bookings is slightly different as referred to by the police and attorney district's office. an arrest could be an arrest with a cite release or something else that doesn't move towards a booking situation. what we have in the data sets are references to all bookings in the city for the past three years. and you can have arrests from other agencies as has been mentioned before by other presenters. you can have bookings from other agencies as well in terms of not just the pd but as mentioned earlier, we can book on probation, motions to revoke, things of that nature. >> mr. sheriff if i may

interrupt for a moment. through the chair, your slides are quite information dense. if you could change your display settings so we're just seeing one slide at a time so we can keep track with the presentation. >> i put the wrong screen up.

all the data sets are under the different subsets we're going to review for bookings. this is indicative of people having at least one new charge among the other bookings. one thing i want to identify, people can have multiple bookings on the same arrests as well. as we move forward with this, many was how many times people have been rearrested or rebooked and that's what we're going to follow. the total count for this data set is going to be based on the three years that we mentioned. the reasoning for the incarceration is going to be listed there and the data you have provided. when we talk about these things, i'm going to go into the answers to your questions in a second but i just want to make sure we

review this so you have an idea of what the data provides for everyone. there's a total in the three years of 46,799 bookings into our system and it is broken down by year. as you can see from the top right chart we have seen a decrease in total number of bookings from 18 to 20. of those as we go into detail for perspective on the next slide you see.

of the about 10%, a little under 10% of the total amount of people that were booked in over the three year period. that three plus number. let's see, let's go back up really quick. going back to this one, we did breakdown the data set in response to your questions regarding people who were out on electronic monitoring and specific to the question of what the percentage of rearrest was,

that was at 51.8. you can see the raw data there reflecting the percentage. we monitor pre-trial or pre-sentence release. on any given day, a snap shot for today would be upwards of about 1755 people on some sort of supervised release. we have pre-trial electronic monitoring. we have people out on supervised release, residential treatment. we have people out on no supervision or people under case management or different levels of supervision. this is specific to electronic monitoring. next slide, please. going back to this one again,

just to reference the data set that is reflected here, we also looked at some of the numbers in regards to how many people were discharged on a motion for probation or how many people were released to other agencies or jurisdictions during the time frame. and the rebooking frequency and those numbers are here on this slide as well. going forward. as mentioned earlier regarding the supervised releases, we have people under pretrial electronic, electronic and certification management. our numbers there, we further broke down for drug only charges under pre-trial and drug and other charges or no drug charges you can see the numbers in the bottom right of the slide in reference to totals of the three

year period. i think previous presenters have gone into what the charges encompass. we didn't break it down further than this. some are categorized as drug only and some may include possession or sale. next slide. lastly, for our presentation, we do have information on our substance abuse treatment programs. one of the questions asked is what we presently have offered in county jail. i know there's a lot of information to summarize basically, these are the four main programs that we have in custody that deal with not just substance abuse but other aspects of our program process to provide wrap-around and complete services while people are incarcerated and in the custody and care. it was mentioned earlier about -- and i appreciated supervisor

safai, your perspective in your opening remarks that really focused on treatment and helping others. one thing we strive to do, we have a unique opportunity when people are incarcerated and in our custody and care and that is to provide treatment and programs and opportunities, there's a natural break in the cycle when they're in our custody. in this environment it is harder to engage in reoffensive behavior. we have the unique perspective to provide opportunities for people in an environment that we focus on everyone as individuals and although we have been challenged with the covid pandemic and how we deliver the services, the services are still there for people while incarcerated and we have met

with some challenges on the outside but have been able to maintain services on the inside. we do continue our partnership with the department of public health. i believe some of supervisor ronen's questions were in regard to treatment. and we do deal with people with co-occurring challenges and a lot of our processes are directly partnered with dph and jailhouse services staff in a lot of things we provide in custody. the last thing i want to report out regarding the in custody programs, too, we do have linkages based upon community based management and linkages for people being released. our linkages to the community are based in three major areas.

in partnership with dcyf. we deal with older adult programming with our partnerships and we have what we created back in the 2000s, no violence alliance and project that helps to provide people support and tools needed to succeed come the community by having wrap-around services offered by them. internally we call them high users and utilize what little

technology we have to identify with an automatic alert on the jail management system to case managers and behavioral health and employees to be able to provide them with successful reentree or at least the tools to have a successful reentree, that could be the safe passage, safe harbor partnerships that provide for travel and hotel upon release. we do have some things internally that identify high users but that's more along the lines of those who seek health while in the system and it's not so much rearrests or booking process. so i hope this has been helpful in terms of giving you a perspective and answering the questions you had presented to us. and i'm open for any questions at this time.

>> rearrests while on monitoring is 50%, that seems significantly high. can you talk about that a little bit? >> the data set that comes from is based upon people who have already reoffended. that is probably part of the reason why the number is high. looking at people rebooked on charges. while on electronic monitoring, i doesn't necessarily mean people are not going to reoffend. they have access to services, somewhat limited over the past year because of covid. we have experienced in this percentage over the years. we have a higher percentage of people that are under our supervision out of custody who are pre-trial. that may have something to do with it. and we also include there when we take people back in custody,

in terms of communicating with others, we reach out and do our best to mitigate these things. i think the da mentioned earlier as a technical violation when you have somebody who maybe their battery runs out or if they violated curfew, that doesn't necessarily mean people are going to be brought back in and taken off, that just means that's an opportunity for us to reach out and talk about the conditions they have to continue to maintain while under em. when we do have somebody who ends up being rearrested, that's because of the violation of the court order, the violation of the process. they may cut off their ankle monitor or reoffended and rearrested, those usually result in the affidavit that we approach the court and get the arrest warrant at that time. we try our best to mitigate that, but it is challenging because over time, over the last

three years we have seen a change in who qualifies for em and opened it up now because of covid, we have opened up the parameters so people who have more serious felonies, i don't want to necessarily say violent, but those who in the past were not qualified for em, are now qualified for em. we've had changes in the parameters for qualification. >> thank you mr. sheriff. we will -- i don't have any additional questions for you now. we can follow up with your office. i don't know if any of the committee members have questions. i see you nodding supervisor mar. supervisor stefani had a

question for chief fletcher but i wanted to know specifically for the sheriff. >> no questions but thank you sheriff. >> we'll follow back up with you. chief fletcher, i know supervisor stefani has a follow up question for you. >> thank you supervisor safai. i wanted to clear something up. my understanding about the way, and we're talking about inneragency coordination, the way it works with the da's office, it sounded like to me if the da believes he couldn't proof -- they couldn't proof a case beyond a reasonable doubt, they would hand it over to adult probation. and i had a different understanding of how that worked. i was just wondering, do you wait for the da's office to --

before you file an mtr? >> no, absolutely not. we get the booking notification through justice. we're conducting our review about the alleged criminal conduct, the underlining offense, the reporting, successor failure while somebody was under our supervision. simultaneously, the da's office is looking at filing new charges and often times we have already filed the mtr because we are looking at the police report we get coupled with the performance on supervision. we often have the motion to revoke filed before we hear from the da's office. >> thank you for clarifying that for me. that's all i have. >> it looks like supervior

haney has a question. >> it's for the sheriff if he's still here. >> i'm here. >> i appreciate a lot of the programs that you listed there that are happening inside of the jail and inside custody. do you -- could you give us a sense of -- are those happening now during covid? >> yeah. we have tried to continue our programs the best we can. we can't have the cohorts come together in the group settings that we usually have for the programs, they have individualized study packets that are provided from some of our staff, trying to engage with them. we've been hindered, no questions by the challenges of covid. we do our best to keep people engaged. we're working on a program in the pilot stage, we provide

tablets to people so there's more connectivity and can sit on zoom meetings like we do on a basis to provide that connectivity for the group settings but that's in the pilot phase and we have worked on -- the hardest challenge for us has been to wire and provide wi-fi for all of our jails, jails are not meant to be wi-fied up and have connectivity. we have been successful on getting that taken care of in other areas and our pilot has started for the connectivity for those in our care right now to provide additional services through the technologies. >> will you be prepared as soon as there's the opportunity to restart the programs inside the jails and what is your understanding of when that will be allowed and what are the

conversations with department of public health look like? i know at one point there was -- some sort of priority for those in jail for the vaccine. what does the conversation look like to restart these, under what conditions and will be prepared to start them when able? >> one of the things we try to do in the congregate living settings and environments is to reflect the community as best we can. we follow the tiers the same as everybody else. our population who are 65 and older were prioritized to get the vaccinations first. once we open up further, we'll follow the same protocols. in terms of opening up operations, in anticipation of the red phase for the community, we're planning on opening up

more opportunities for recreation and for people to gather together, not just for recreation but for some of these cohorts that we had for programs. there's planning in place right now and the opening up of things will be consistent with how we open up for the larger community. >> so you have guidance around -- how do you make decisions in red or orange potentially of when you can -- when you can -- what type of program you can do once it becomes possible. for red or orange, are there certain things you can do that you can't do now, is there guidance from the state or department of public health or figuring it out on your own. i don't know -- i know what red tier means for indoor dining but

what does it mean for what you can do. >> one i am very keen on, making sure we have the opportunity to go back to some of the cohorts we had for education. as you know, we have a whole jail built around a high school. we want to get back to the classroom setting for that. we look back to the state. some of the percentages for the restaurants have expanded out, we look at the same thing for rec areas and classroom settings. that's kind of how we want to follow it. a lot of the things around these processes have been clear as mud for us in the public. so it's the same for us in our setting. one thing i am happy with, i was sitting on a state sheriff association conference earlier and the different counties and

the way they are dealing with things in their jail settings were definitely ahead of the curve in a lot of areas and one of them i hope to continue to be ahead of the curve on is going to be opening up opportunities for people responsibly and safely of course in partnership with dph to start interacting amongst each other again. so it's the recreation, the classroom settings for programs and education. >> and i know there's an outdoor area at san bruno, can that be secured and used again? this is obviously a very important thing, a lot of attention given to it in context of reopening plans, do you have a written reopening plan for the various tiers of implementing these different programs? i know you shared some of the programs that exist, but it

seems like to get them operating again both in custody and out of custody, i know some of the outer custody programs are greatly hampered. what does it look like in terms of both using the outdoor area that exists and something that is a little more flushed out and detailed around when some of the programs will start again. >> we're involved in some litigation that centers around having access to outdoor recreation. a lot of our recreation areas are enclosed. we were in the process of access to outside area for identified members of the population. that is still in process and that is something that was absent covid on a different path in federal court. and in regards to what you just asked in terms of our planning, we have a living document, our

covid response plan does have components for eventually reopening on operations and expanding out from the covid safety protocols and that's a part of our ongoing plan. there are things in place to be able to structurally start moving towards getting more normal. we do have that available and i know internally we do weekly meetings on covid responses and biweekly meetings in the custody and jails to make sure everyone is consistent for planning to get open again. the other big thing i will mention, visiting. we have been doing visiting remotely as everyone else has through zoom. and we hopeful at some point we get to a point where we can open up for in person visits because the support system provided by family and loved ones when people are incarcerated is extremely important to make sure people have the connection. it helps us to keep people

comfortable in this environment and helps the community stay connected to people. we are working on the in person visitation starting up again at some point. >> thank you. >> okay. thank you sheriff. appreciate it. we'll follow up with your office. i would like to go to the last presenter. ceo of san francisco pre-trial diversion. david, are you there? >> i am here. >> thank you sir. >> hello. >> thank you for your patience. you get to close us out. >> okay. i will try to get through these quickly. i feel like we have talked about a lot of the concerns. i think there's a clear understanding. i'll try to go through it quickly. stop me if i go too fast.

san francisco pretrial as you probably know is a nonprofit community based organization. we've had the pretrial structure in place since 1964 and we're celebrating our 45th year in providing the services. we started in '76. a long history of providing and staffing the pretile services in san francisco. the first slide reflects the number of cases we present to the judges -- >> excuse me. i don't think we're seeing your slides. >> okay. sorry. let me get back here.

there we go. >> it will be up in a moment. thank you for your patience. >> we practiced so much on this. >> can you give me the ability to advance the slides or do you do that? >> you just tell us. >> next slide. thank you. again these guys worked through this and it was fine yesterday. these are the number of cases.

we present cases to the courts and it just shows the numbers we have done from year to year. and there was a decrease around bookings and crime stats and what our staff does, we go in and we look at data bases and issue report to the judges and they make a release determination. it should be noted in the staff, unresolved cases in another county, we may contact that county to make sure we can get a resolution and present some of that information. so these are for the bookings and then we present the information to judges. next slide please. here is just the review of the active clients. once we make that -- it's not a recommendation, once we present

the information to the judges, they make a release determination and these are the different ones they can make. own recognizant and we do courtroom monitors to make sure they show up for court. a mixture of check-ins and reminders and then assertive case management. that's the highest level, they are the clients we work with intensely. it starts with the relationship we build in the jail where our staff go into the jail and meet with a client, walk them to our office and then we develop a comprehensive treatment plan. that is one piece that has note been interrupted. we should note that pretrial has been functioning 24/7 every day of the year. we work christmas, thanksgiving to limit incarceration. incarcerations does not help support them once they are

released. we're offering 365 days a year. our staff have had that contact, one thing i would like to note, one thing severely impacted is the ability to do check-ins, in person, especially during the shelter in place. we can do on site wellness checks, medications, giving people food, clothing, on a daily basis. that has been impacted by covid. next slide please. here's some of the safety interventions we do.

we have just in response -- we do specialized therapeutic groups, we'll talk about those later. we're doing through zoom. we have embedded social worker and psychologist and housing placements and a new relationship with tipping point where we're looking at the jail user list that has been referenced and making sure those individuals are prioritized in connection to housing and other services. we will do a progress report to the judges just to make them aware of a situation. next slide please.

here are safety rates. again, across the three levels of supervision, we wanted to be transparent and break out. if you look to the right, we have an acm case load broken out as being intensive high needs clients including icr loads. in custody to release program. if it is requested by a public defender and da at times and judge. we'll go into custody and do an assessment and then write up a report and the judge will issue the release determination based on the report.

we document all new misdemeanor and felony cases, we correspond with the sheriff's office around electronic monitoring violations and one point there, we are not involved in electronic monitoring. that is done through the courts, some electronic monitoring, some individual and electronic monitoring on our case load and others are not. they're basically a regular client recommended for electronic monitoring by the courts and fall into the regular case loads and fall between all case load levels and acm. there are people on electronic monitoring across all three. when the clients are rearrested, to get back into the program for continued service, there has to be a judicial referral and we'll

look at the client treatment plan and release conditions and meeting the needs of public safety and our clients. next slide, please. (please stand by...)

-- so you don't have access to charging stations and it's often kind of puts you at risk if you're carrying technology around and you're unstably housed or in the community. so it's just, yeah, it's a challenge that clients don't even have access to all of the opportunities that are out there. over 51% are homeless and, you know, about 55% are referred to housing placement. so it's just giving you a quick snapshot of our clientele. next slide, please. here's the support group attend attendance and we do in-person support groups. and to see how many few contacts

that we have. and it's another opportunity for our staff to build relationships with our clients and see them one-on-one and how they function in a group setting and helps with interpersonal relationships at the community level and there's just not been that level of access. next slide, please. just some solutions. we have been talking about this since may or april of last year and we approached a lot of different people that the board and the mayor's office level and just anybody that would listen to us, to be honest, trying to figure out if we could set up some community support group hubs. the sheriff actually ran the idea of using the voting center that was outside city hall, of places where the city can provide hygienic support around just cleaning things off where we could convene and people have access to technology where they walk up to a computer and they can do a support group or socially distanced support groups. just like some way, where not

only us but our community partners, we can host and facilitate those in-person support groups, because not only is the information valuable, but, again, just those one-on-one relationships and seeing people and how they're doing is incredibly important. people spend about 90 days on our caseloads. so pre-trial after care. it's the same as if you place someone in a job and you follow up to see how they're doing. and what is the successful completion from our program. and we're really excited about the new program by the mayor's office, that they introduced, where we sat in on the d10 public safety hearing yesterday and we're hoping that we can connect with all of these different pieces because we'd love to be able to hand folks off. the folks do really well under our care partially because they're being monitored by the court but also because our staff worked really hard to connect those interventions and build those relationships. but is there a way to hand off

those users to make sure they're still connected to a program and attending once they leave our case management? because we just don't have -- it's really, you know, we try to stick in our lane. we're a pre-trial services agency and we just don't have the staffing capacity to follow-up, because once someone drops off their caseloads they're always replaced by another person. a real reality in san francisco is the stigma of justice-involved individuals. and even the folks in our program that are technically presumed innocent, or if it's someone coming out of jail, we do run into obstacles in placing clients in programs, both city and community level at times, that just is they don't want to take folks that have been in the criminal justice system. and i think that san francisco could do a good job of messaging and helping people to understand that everyone should have access to services equally and make sure that we -- we hold folks accountable for doing that. and then this is a proposal that we talked to you the most about this, put together by the taxpayers for public safety. again, i think that the mayor's

new initiative moves us in this direction. and an office where we could coordinate and work on things like this m.o.u. look at funding that's out there, for example, there's an opioid grant that san francisco would be really i think positioned to get that we could apply for. to assist with the coordination and the collaboration, not only between all of the criminal justice agencies, but also the community-based organizations and then to make sure that we have that relationship and that connection, hopefully it will mean fewer board of supervisor hearings and then working at this at a high level and there's always eyes on the prize of protecting public safety. so that's the end of our presentation. and, please, let me know if you have any questions. thank you very much. >> thank you for the presentation, david. and for the important work of the pre-trial department.

supervisor safai, do you have questions or remarks? >> commissioner safai: i appreciate you, david, being part of the conversation and there's the intersectionality of your work and the work of all of the different departments. i wanted and one question in terms of the idea of you have heard today that the adult probation talked about court orders and compelling treatment, and then not necessarily there being follow-up. is there anything in particular that you wanted to add to that and how your group might be able to help with maybe compel -- not the right word -- but getting people motivated to get the treatment that they need. and how pre-trial could be more helpful in this regard. >> yeah, i mean, i agree with you, supervisor. compel is a tough word because you can't force someone into treatment. you know, it's a decision that

someone has to be in the right place at the right time. and i think that we just have to really to solidify those community-based relationships that, for example, if one of our staff can't talk someone into going into treatment and maybe we have a relationship with a family member or another community-based organization that can. but ultimately the other challenge is just the availability. like, there is a shortage of treatment beds in san francisco, just as an example, the in-custody referral program that i talked about -- so we go in and we do a work up and we present a report to a judge. and if we recommend a treatment bed, for example, a person may sit in jail for a month or two until that treatment bed is available. so even a judge can't do anything about it either. if there's not a space available, there's simply no place for them to go. and meanwhile they're incarcerated and that doesn't help anyone. so i think that a lot of is just culturally appropriate and having the sufficient amount of

treatment programs. because really it's one of the biggest challenges. because a lot of time, you you know, you can't always fit that square peg into a round hole, and if the program is available but it's not suitable for the client, you just have to pass because it's not going to work. does that answer your question? >> commissioner safai: no, that's great, thank you. supervisor stefani, did you have a question for mr. mar? >> supervisor stefani: , i do, and through the chair. i have a question about your safety rating. what happens when a client violates the terms of pre-trial? >> well, i mean, if they're arrested they go back through that process. so if they violate the terms of pre-trial we update the judges through a progress report. like i said, if there's something that there's a safety risk we doll an interim progress report and let the judges know. and also if someone falls out of

compliance, for example, we'll use that there are 12 anger management sessions and someone doesn't attend one of those sessions, they will have to report back to us. and our staff are working with them to get them back on track and into those sessions. so a lot is one-on-one work with the client to make sure they stay compliant because that's our role in the process. does that answer your question? >> supervisor stefani: yes, it does. thank you. and i think that it was 5.5, you showed us a graph of the quarterly average safety ratings for clients in the program. and i'm wondering if you could describe for us how that is calculated. >> so it's a definition that is used, it's a universal definition used by the measuring of what matters and it's also just, you know, we're going through an accreditation process through the national association of pre-trial service agencies. so we have vetted this definition. and it's based on whether or not a person is arrested on a new

felony or a misdemeanor, and is being prosecuted. >> supervisor stefani: so my confusion here, i think that i brought this up i think in 2019 with we knew that the contract came before the budget and finance committee, that it's my understanding that the national institute of corrections bases that safety rating on the entire time that the person is in pre-trial. so not just quarterly. so if someone is out of compliance with anger management or cuts their ankle bracelet off or so on and so forth, that the safety rating is measured -- the entire time that the person is in pre-trial and not in quarterly increments? >> right. well, i mean, if they miss -- well, yeah, there are different standard definitions and that's the standard that san francisco uses. so, you know, it's something that we want to modify and then we have to have a discussion among the pre-trial partners to decide -- and we just use the

acceptable standard -- we have a public safety assessment work group that is pretty much that is everyone in this meeting plus the courts, the bar association, and that's where we discuss those ratings and that standard. so i guess that's just a local decision. but i would add that someone misses an anger management class and it's not necessarily -- it doesn't reflect on the safety rating. as you know, they're not necessarily arrested, and if someone misses an anger management class and gets arrested, then they would show up on that safety rating. >> supervisor stefani: i'm talking about situations too that are much smaller, you know, dire than that, like someone cuts off their ankle bracelet and takes two kids in a van out of pacific heights, things like that. it's not just anger management class. so what i'm worried about in our transparency with the public is that if we're reporting out quarterly for the entire time that someone is in pre-trial that our safety ratings look higher than they really are. that's what i'm concerned about.

>> okay, well, i mean, it's a discussion that we could have among the partners and talk about. i mean, the other thing to note is that the standard period of time that someone is on a caseload is 90 days. so in many situations we only have people for essentially a quarter of the time. but, you know, we work with the collaborative partners on a regular basis and we're open for discussion for sure. >> supervisor stefani: okay, thank you, that's all i have. >> thank you, supervisor stefani. i don't know if you have any additional questions commissioner mar or supervisor haney, that pertain to this particular presentation? >> i don't. >> any from you, supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: no, i'm fine, thank you. >> great. well, thank you, thank you, david, and thank you for the work that you're doing in

partnership. i think that you hit a good point about availability of treatment options. like you said, it's not necessarily about compelling, but we do have to figure out a way to get people into treatment. and if it's about availability of treatment options, then that's something that you actually have three members of the budget committee here in the chair, the vice chair and the committee member mar. not that we could talk about that right now, but we're definitely seeing a major intersectionality between treatment, recidivism, and some of those adjustments that we have to make and we'll have to have follow-up with that, because it's not just an m.o.u. in terms of sharing though we'll follow up with the district

attorney, it is about looking at low-level drug misdemeanor possession that lead to larger crimes and then, of course, there's an announcement yesterday that we're still learning about the details of what that announcement actually means where some of that is presented today. so we intend to follow-up on that as well. and a big piece of that is let's not -- let's not miss this point that the amount of african americans and people of color that are part of the system and that are not being served well by this system, and ultimately, the system is not just failing them but it's failing all of us. so we have to figure out a way to do better. i appreciate all of the different departments for coming here today and i want to thank our chief bill scott, deputy chief david lazar, and the district attorney bodein, and

the director c.e.o. from diversion, and probation officer karen fletcher and their presentation. this was a very in-depth long conversation. i appreciate the leeway, chair mar, to have in-depth conversation. it would be my request that we would continue this to the call of the chair so that we can come back and report on some of the progress that has been made around some of these areas and drill down a bit and this probably will inform some of our budget conversations as we move forward. but i appreciate people's forthrightness and their honesty of saying what is not working and what areas need to be improved. one of the areas that i saw today around filing new charges, and there's motions to revoke -- if the bar is extremely high, so high that new charges are not

being followed. we have to follow the ethical guidelines and i appreciate the d.e. ample saying that but at the same time we can't just then put all of the responsibility back on the adult probation. and the idea of a motion to revoke. so we have to figure out a way to tighten that up. if technology needs to be improved to keep our system and information flowing better, that's important. that's also a budgetary request and/or a grant request. and then, finally, it sounded like -- and i appreciate the district attorney saying this along with the police department, along with the adult probation, that there needs to be multiple checks. there needs to be multiple systems of notification. you can't just rely on one office or department to do that work. sounds like the general orders are going to be updated and that is something that we'll follow up with, deputy chief lazar and

the department -- and the police department. and then we will follow up with the district attorney and his team on the m.o.u., and coordinating with the other different departments. i appreciate it, supervisor haney, calling out the issue on fentanyl. and something also that our office has been very focused on. more fentanyl deaths in san francisco over the last year than covid. and so interested to hear how the fentanyl conversation moves forward and just, again, fentanyl misdemeanor possessions can turn into larger possessions and turn into felonies and then the worst scenario, turn into violent crime and/or death of those individuals. and so i really appreciate this opportunity and all of the information. it was very informative to me. and thank you, colleagues, for your questions and, chair mar, i appreciate, again, the leeway to have a very in-depth conversation with all of these different departments.

so if you would not mind, i would appreciate a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair. >> thank you, commissioner safai for sponsoring this and the departments and the organizations for your presentations and discussion. and, you know, i think that it was -- these are really challenging and important issues to really address the gaps in the communication and coordination with the different agencies involved in our criminal justice system. and it was also good to hear that there's already some progress being made, you know, with the announcement. of course, yesterday by the mayor's office and the district attorney's office and the police department, about their improved coordination. and then today, i think that references to the m.o.u. that is being worked on among the departments. so i look forward to continuing this discussion. i see supervisor stefani called

for a hearing on similar issues that we'll have some time soon. so that will be another opportunity to continue this important discussion. so, thank you, everyone. we should go to public comment. so, mr. clerk, are there any callers on the line? >> clerk: yes, thank you, mr. chair. jim smith is with the department of technology is operating the phone lines for us today. for those callers who are already connected via phone press star, followed by 3, if you wish to be added to the queue to speak for this item on agenda item number 5. for those already on hold in the queue, please continue to wait until you are prompted to begin. you will hear a prompt that informs you that your line has been unmuted. for those watching our meeting right now on cable channel 26 or via a streaming link or through sfgov-tv.org, if you wish to speak on this item call in by following the instructions which should be displayed on your screen. that is by dialing 1-(415)-655-0001. following that, you would enter

the meeting i.d. for today's meeting which is 187 231 5946. following that you would press the pound symbol twice and star, followed by 3, to enter the queue to speak. mr. smith informed me that we have a few callers on the line. can you please connect us to our first caller. if you have heard that the line is unmuted it means that it's time for your two minutes to speak for the public safety and neighborhood services. >> caller: first and foremost, i would like to inform y'all that at one time you had the office of criminal justice, which mayor lee got rid of. i am listening to this long very dry conversation, and i always

like to link it with quality of life issues. so when david mauro said when somebody needs a bed and it takes a month for that person to be given a bed, what are y'all going to do about it, you supervisors? nothing? if you're going to part of this department and just look at how those prisoners or the people who are incarcerated they are living in despicable conditions. what are you going to do about it, supervisors? and i can go on with the situation of the mentally challenged. how many beds do we have? you look and they got rid of all of the beds.

so, supervisors, i think that this type of long, boring discussions should be done by ourselves off-line. and you supervisors as legislators so that you can improve the quality of life issues and on that you get an f minus. that's all i've got to say. >> clerk: thank you for sharing your comments, mr. de costa. mr. smith, bring us the next caller. >> caller: good afternoon, supervisors. my name is carolyn goossen and i'm the s.f. policy director with the public defender's office. on behalf of the public defender, i wanted to express our commitment to working with our criminal justice partners and the board of supervisors and the mayor to address these public safety issues. and to improve the outcomes for our public defender clients who

participate in all of the systems discussed today. what we know is that many of our clients need trauma-informed services, both for substance use and mental health, so they can address the root causes of addiction. and if we want to impact the crime significantly, we strongly advocate that people be able to access these services on the front end as well as the back end. and, finally, i just wanted to mention that as the sheriff mentioned and supervisor haney, programming in the jails, including substance use and mental health programming has been deeply impacted by the pandemic. i wanted to note that we join the sheriff in advocating for vaccines for people incarcerated in jails. we are anxious for folks to get the vaccine so that in-person programming can start as soon as possible. thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you for sharing your comments, carolyn goosen. mr. smith, you can bring us the

next caller, please. >> caller: hello, this is roma guy from taxpayers for public safety. and thank you for this long hearing because basically one of the points that you are raising is that we all have to have discussions at a higher level and not only do coordination across silos, but to do collaboration and problem solving. and as david maurof said, that the taxpayers have some recommendations on how this level can be done, but the mayor has started the process, but we want to say that in addition to the partners that the mayor brought together, that we should include the j.j.c., the behavioral health, especially related to fentanyl crises. and pre-trials should be there and the office of equity. over 60% of african americans are in our jails, of the jail

population, even though we closed jails. so to me that is really important and for the taxpayers. so, please, keep it at a higher level, but after we finish hearings, we have to have a structure in which that collaboration and the problem solving and accountability has to occur. thank you. i appreciate your work and leadership. >> clerk: thank you, roma guy, for sharing your comments with the committee. mr. chair, i'm hearing from mr. smith that we have reached the last caller. >> great, thank you, public comment is closed. colleagues any final remarks before we close this hearing? >> i do, chair. i will say thank you to roma guy. i really appreciate those comments at the end. i think that they're a good addition to what we talked about today and my office will follow up on that as well. >> clerk: mr. chair, if i may interrupt -- oh, no, i'm sorry

to give you this play-by-play. we had for a brief moment someone else who raised their hand but they dropped the call so we're still clear. sorry to interrupt. >> got it. any other final remarks, colleagues? why don't we move to close this productive hearing. per safai's request, i move that we continue this to the call of the chair. >> clerk: on the motion offered by chair mar that the hearing be continued to the call of the chair [roll call vote] mr. chair, there are three ayes. >> thank you. supervisor safai, do you have -- was there something that you had around item number 4 -- >> commissioner safai: yes, i wanted to wait until you finished this item. i was going to ask if the committee could rescind the vote

on item number 4. i have a very small amendment, it's not substantive in any way and just a clarifying amendment. so if you could rescind item number four and i will clarify and we can get that into the record. >> so, i move that we rescind the vote on item four. >> clerk: on the motion offered by chair mar, the vote to recommend item number 4 to the board of supervisors to be rescinded. [roll call vote] mr. chair, the vote is rescinded and the item is back before the committee. >> great. supervisor safai? >> commissioner safai: great. thank you. so just wanted to just clarify really quickly this amendment will add the department of recreation and park to the list of the departments who are urged to coordinate on this issue and otherwise is just intended for clarity. so if you would like, i can read the item or just give a brief

summary. it's very similar to what was already there, but it's just -- it's one of the resolve on -- i believe the third page that the san francisco board of supervisors urges the joint city, school district, city college, joint select committee, and the mayor's office and the human rights commission and the children of family and the department of recreation and parks and the department of public health, san francisco unified school district board, sfsud student advisory board and the parent advisory council, to coordinate on the creation of an itemized list of goods and supports that support the members of the sfsud class of 2021, under local health guidelines and that require funding. and then the clause goes on. so if we could make a motion to accept that amendment, i would appreciate it. >> sure that makes a lot of sense. so, yeah, i move that we accept the amendment that supervisor

safai just presented. >> clerk: on the motion offered by chair mar to accept the meaks amendment [roll call vote] mr. chair, the item is amended. >> and then i move that we have the item as amended to the full board with positive recommendation. >> clerk: now on this final motion to recommend as amended, [roll call vote] mr. chair, there are three ayes. >> thank you. mr. clerk -- >> thank you, colleagues, i appreciate it. >> thank you. any other further business, mr. clerk? >> clerk: there is no further business. >> okay, we are adjourned. goodbye, everyone.

>> we are approving as many parks as we can, you have a value garden and not too many can claim that and you have an historic building that has been redone in a beautiful fashion and you have that beautiful outdoor ping-pong table and you have got the art commission involved and if you look at them, and we can particularly the gate as you came in, and that is extraordinary. and so these tiles, i am going to recommend that every park come and look at this park, because i think that the way that you have acknowledged donor iss really first class. >> it is nice to come and play and we have been driving by for

literally a year. >> it is kind of nice. >> all of the people that are here. ♪♪

>>erica major: hello collar, are you there? >>caller: okay, teresa flanders, longtime resident of north beach. i have been an advocate for a number of years for tenants who are experiencing the result of bad actors. who have repeatedly gotten away with false all sorts of things. i also attended the joint commission hearing between planning and dbi. and they had talked about yes, they know there are bad actors read my request was to flag those bad actors and that was began years ago so i am

thrilled and very supportive of this legislation. thank you very much area. >> thank you miss flanders, any other publiccommenters in the queue area . >> . ayes, ma'am care, we have one more color and sheila is commuting the caller now. >> this is anastasia anonymous, a memberof san francisco tenants union . i agree with the previous speaker. i support thelegislation . the expanded compliance controls list will place a candidate on the left for any egregious violation, even if the candidate doesn't have three separate violations within 18 months training and there's fair and efficient use of this because for each candidate, the chief inspector must have the summary report, describing the violations and any exculpatory evidence

relevant to whether the candidate should beplaced on the list and then the summary report is then evaluated by the deputy director . requestinginformation , additional from the dbi staff and then the written findings are issued and then there's an appeal . of your determination ofthe list gets put on the dbi websitei think it's good to put it on on a quarterly basis . thank you for this legislation . >>erica major: wehave one more that popped up so we are going on you back home . >>erica major: >>caller: my name is david kane and i work as an engineer in the city. i like to thank you for your interest in rooting out on

profit in our great city. i would love nothing more than to be able to practice my profession free of the influence of bad actors but i believe assigningparties to a naughty list for an unknowing fleeting association with after is unfair and illegal . personally i believe there are already plenty of laws and regulations on the books to deter fraud enforcement is made a priority in addition to the actions can be taken by the city attorney when unlawful acts are committed the board of supervisors could provide oversight of dbi'sexisting ab 40 which includespolicies and procedures forreporting unlawful or unprofessional conduct . again oversight and enforcement is needed , not additional regulations andlaws . iq. >>erica major: thank you mister kane martin, the other speakers ? >>erica major: db has confirmed that was the last caller see one seeing theother colors, public comment is now closed colleagues, is there a motion

to assess these amendments ? >>aaron peskin: minus the amendment i spoke to earlier so i just want to be clear that the amendments that were discussed and are set forth and were circulated to this body do not include on page 2 at lines 19 and 20 . the implemented words that result in significant risks to health and safety of the building's future occupants, workers or adjacent neighbors so as long as that is not in the amendment i can vote for the amendment or we can take the amendment has offered by supervisor ronen strike that amendment as you wish chair. >>myrna melgar: miss beinart, would that be acceptable to the sponsor? >>amy beinart: yesit would, thank you .

>>aaron peskin: those words are not part of the amendment page 2 on lines 19 and 20. >>myrna melgar: you have made themotion. madame click on that motion , the amendment is accepted for the language thatsupervisor peskinhas called out on the record . will you please call the role . >>erica major: on the amendments as stated with the language as stricken from the legislation on page two, lines 19 and 20, supervisorpeskin . [roll call vote] >>erica major: you have three ayes. >>myrna melgar: the motion passes and theordinance will need to come back to us again on monday, march 1 . madame clark, will you please call item 2 through 4 together.

>>aaron peskin: they are the onestatement we continued item ? i think we have to vote to continue iron but before we do that, i do want to ask for the record insofar as we are not in receipt of any advice from the city attorney to my knowledge that there is inviolate of the law but one gentleman who indicated that he was an engineer did not say that he was a lawyer. stated for the record that this was illegal. if this is illegal i'm not been advised such or by city attorney pearson the opportunity to say this is entirely legal and enforceable if indeed that is the position of the city attorney'soffice or the city and county of san francisco . >>myrna melgar: miss pearson, are you on?

>> that is the position of the city attorney's office, we approved this legislation to form and i'm happy to speak of the some of the comments that were made that i believe were in reference to the state contractors law . it's a state law that generally licenses and regulates contractors and does indeed preempt some activities by locality including the requirements ofadditional licensing requirements for contractors who are otherwise licensed by the state . this intent however does not do that. this regulates the process by which we review applications by permit and localities are free to scrutinize those permits in the way that we see that to ensure that they are accurate and the work is done consistent with the application and requirements . >>aaron peskin: thank you miss pearson through the chair and you practice law and that individual can practice

engineering and ilook forward to , let me just make a motion to continue this item as amended for 1 week. >>myrna melgar: we probably will on that motion madame clark. >>erica major: on the motion to continue to the next two items, supervisor peskin. [roll call vote] you have 3 ayes. >>myrna melgar:thank you, the motion passes and we will hear this again on march 1 . will you please call items 2 through 4 together?>>erica major: and ordinance amending the zoning act to reclassify a portion of the 542 through 55 howard street project site and as shown on figure 1 of the transit district met specifically to rebuild a portion of the project site . and to declassify the

heightened districtdesignation for a portion of the project . with portions of the planning code to allow projects to satisfy affordable housing requirements and adapting appropriate funding, item number three is an ordinance of the development agreement between the city and county of san francisco parcel s llc or certain real property known as 542 through 550 howard street located in the redevelopment project area. item number four is a resolution asking in its capacity as the legislative body to the successor agency to the further redevelopment agency of the city and county of san francisco approving provisions of a variation decision by the commission on community invested and infrastructure.members of the public who wish to provide public comment items two through four should call number

on the screen. 415-655-0001, the id is 187 eight 1145. then press pound pound again. if you have not done so already pressá32 like to speak. the system will indicate you haveraised your hand . man chair. >>myrna melgar: thank you ma'am clerk. i understand that supervisor katie who is the sponsor of these items as an unforeseen emergency and we are joined by hischief of staff , abigail. miss mesa would you liketo say any opening remarks ? >> i'm here on behalf of supervisor he. the parcel f project you are considering today will develop one of the last parcels in the train the redevelopment area providing a mix of uses,

residential, hotel, commercial and retail project provides a connection to the transit center and pedestrian bridge translate part. over the last year we've worked with the project sponsor to a significant affordable housing contribution for the project. people about 160 percent of the typical feelings which will go to oci to fund affordable housing units in the trends they. specifically oci intends to use this to fund 193 units in affordable housing projects at trans-bay block four. parcel f has been in the works for some time now and on approval project sponsor intends to fill the site permit understanding is shortly thereafter). over time as a 14 5 years of construction projects will be a 5000 construction jobs and once completed the project will support 1550 jobs. the project has been approved by the planning and ocii

commissionshas the support of key stakeholders in the community . the community for a better park in chinatown and federal families collaborative as well as local 2 the building trade as well as united ass, all are supportive of the project and have sent letters to support independent of this meeting or will be calling in the legislative package before the board was when an amendments a development agreement and a redevelopment plan valuation, both of which codifyaffordable housing fees 150 percent . we are excited to move this project forward to help generate much-needed affordable housingin our district as well as stimulate our economic recovery . we also have some substantial amendments that we have previously circulated this afternoon and we should have received an email from oe wb.

the revisions to the resolution and those amendments provide corrective references to the variation request which was resubmitted in late december 2020 to receive approval for instead of offsetting the portable unit. the revision referred to a successor agency commission , finding and approving a variation to january 2021 and also provide a reference to development agreement which establishes a timing for the improvements. other minor revisions are included and as i'm going through the document a lot of it is grammatical as well as a clarification of the redevelopment plan affordable housing provision which appeared on page 2, lines 15 to 18 and there's also one last amendment which is a description of the affordable housing fee by the development

agreement been moved from page 3 and line 18 through page 5 and 113that's been clarified on pages nine through 22 and i'm reading through my notes , i believe they are not substantive in nature so will not require us to go back to committee i just kind of set the stage for what we have we do have nick foster from planning and sally from oc from ocii who will be getting the joint presentation i believe calling first man chair and then they will be explaining the details of theproject . also on staff is the project sponsor seen as well as the city attorney and other city staff can answer a lot of the fine detailsregarding the project . thank you for your time . >>myrna melgar: thank you so much and we will take ... supervisor peskin, go ahead. >>aaron peskin: this project has a lot of history and it obviously goes back to the days of trends they legislation that

was undertaken by then state senator john burton that conveyed mostly former caltrans properties to a agency under ocii, lisa in the state of california. that was really predicated on the development of those days a percentage of affordable housing,correctly i'm wrong about surely will hear this which i believe is 35 percent which we have not met . and in the interim between my two cents on board of supervisors with translate plan was approved and approved with impacting another number of parks, quite a distance away in chinatown. i'm sorry that supervisor he is

unable to attend and hope he's okay. but i did want to say that the boom to district 6 relative to the economic department this project represent affordable housing that we will bring hopefully new construction jobs that will bring and maybe hotel industry recovers from the canada, the jobs to our friends at the hotel employees and restaurant employees in localto medical brain , it is as a matter of fact going to shadow a park in chinatown formerly known as the chinese playground, today known as willow lawn playground. that actually reopened a couple of weeks ago after spending 14 and a half million dollars of public money to renovate facility and i know that we're

all led to believe the shadow impacts are allegedly minimalist 15 minutes a day in the mornings, primetime for tai chi families, recreating in that very heart of san francisco two weeks a year out of 52 weeks, that's pretty significant. so i really want to have that public policy conversation. i really want to go down into what modifications could actually bemade to the structure and this happens all the time . to reduce or eliminate that impact? and i want to have conversation just because the transbay plan was approved the opposition of 35 years ago was met by a joint

meeting of the park commission and the planning commission doesn't mean that we have to land all the special approvals, zoning hinges, consents to various decisions, we don't have to do that so i want to know what our options are and i want to start with that and let me be very, very clear. the chinatown community which i think after 20 years so close to and you've heard this in the chief of staff to, supervisor 80s presentation is reported that area i want to get to the bottom ofthat as well . because one thing is bluntly clear about proposition k that shadow band ordinance approved by the voters in hezbollah today pursuant to a list city attorney decision i believe in

the year 1986 we do not trade shadow for money so i want to get to the bottom of that as well and with

. . . >> we are all available to answer your questions during deliberations. i will provide a brief overview and hand it over to sally to discuss the redevelopment plan variation. so this project site is in the heart of the transit center district plan uniquely positioned along to south western edge of the transit center with four contiguous lots bounded by howard to the south and ottumwa to the north and is presently underdeveloped at grade having served a z a construction staging area for the adjacent center during the construction. the project includes the construction of new 61-story mixed use as shown on the right side of the screen to reach 800 feet. the project contains three primary uses -- residential,

hotel, and office with 165 dwelling units, 189 hotel rooms and approximately 276,000 gross square feet of office floor area. the project includes about 9,000 square feet of retail uses located at both the ground floor and on level five. level five will be link via pedestrian bridge to the adjacent sales force park on the roof of the trans center. the pedestrian bridge is one of only three elevated horizontal access points to the park. the pedestrian bridge, the publicly accessible elevator accessing the bridge and at grade and mid block crossings through the project site constitute unique features that serve a significant public benefit as they increase public access to the transit center.

that was approved in january of 2020. the proposed change from offsite warranted change to the entitlements and january 28 the planning commission unanimously approved this 7-0. they found it to be on balance and consistent with the plan, the downtown plan and the transit center district plan. in affirming the findings, they found the division of both areas plans through the construction of an intense, true, mixed-use development within walking distance of the downtown core. amongst the suite of entitlements, they approved two resolutions. one amending approval of a development agreement between the city and project sponsor. broadly, the planning code and

map amendments would achieve four primary goals if amendments would rezone the western edges of the site on assessor's block 3721 near approximately 2,000 square feet from p or public to c30sd. and thereby eliminating the existing split zoning on the site and create sang l uniform zoning district for the entirety of the site. between a height and bulk swap on aseser to's 2731. and about 1600 feet and lot 126 to rezone and 750 feet. and correspondingly 5900 square feet would be rezoned to allow that height and a difference of

175 feet. and dedicated to dwelling units and residential uses to 15,000 with the inclusionary affordable housing requirements in exchange for entering into a development agreement for the portable housing fee set forth in the development agreement. the development agreement outlines perms for the project of inclusionary affordable housing provisions to have the payment from the project sponsor and equal to 150% of the increasable affordable housing feel that would otherwise require. ocii would apply toward a t affordable housing requirements within the transbay area. the base inclusionary housing fee otherwise would have applied

to the project where otherwise available would be 33% and approximately $30 million. instead, the development agreement stimulates the payment of the in lieu fee with an increase in $16 million. at this point i will hand over the presentation to sally who will go over the variation agreement. thank you. >> thank you, nick. good afternoon. i'm salary orth, interim director of ocii. this requires on site, affordable housing. however, the plan also provides a procedure and standards by which this requirement can be modified or waived. the original concept for the project was to meet the affordable housing obligation by off siting the units at transbay block four which would have required a waiver of the redevelopment plans on-site requirement. however, as the developer worked with the city and ocii on these projects and became clear that

parcel office faced significant lending sites with the affordable housing obligation tied to the completion of a separately financed project such as block four. the project sponsor maz proposed an alternate method to meet the affordable obligation by paying the in lieu fee for 150% of the standard fee which could be loaned back into the block four project. in essence, the mechanism has evolved over time and the original rational for the need is the same. and more specifically, based on the findings with the unique later of a project like parcel f and the hardships it can create. and specifically the challenge that unique projects like parcel f face where the units are at the pop of the power and would be subject to high hoa fees and

state law prohibits any adjustments based on the homeowner's income level and the h o, a may raise the fees without any time on the homeowners. when they increase for bmr owners and the bmr owner may have difficulty making the payments and may be forced to sell the unit at the reduced prices under the limited home equity program with the unreasonable limitation and to create affordable housing for the longest feasible team by the oci commission at the meeting on january 19 of this year. and to describe the in lieu fee in accordance with the redevelopment plan procedures and rould as a result in practical difficulties and create an undue hardship for property owners. as they are a successsor agency to the former redevelopment

agency, the board of supervisors must approve the changes and is included in part of today's hearing but in addition the board will hear this at a committee of the whole at the meeting on march 2. that concludes the presentation and as nick mentioned, we are happy to answer any questions as well as representatives from the parcel f project team. thank you. awe thank you. >> supervisor peskin? >> would this be heard at a committee of the whole body -- only if this body forwards it to the committee of the whole? in other words, i think some of these items are in the jurisdiction of the committee,

albeit under the board's rules they can be called, etc. madam city deputy attorney, can you edify this body on that question that? >> good afternoon. i am joined by the deputy city attorney who has been working on this area and the motion to veen at the whole. and is available to log in and would be more familiar with the issues. >> the consent on the variation decision and the zoning map, i presume, those only get heard by the full board if and only if this committee forwards those items to the full board, is that correct or incorrect? >> i would say that that is

correct, but i guess i would parcel it out a little -- i would parse it out a little bit to the extent that the board is sitting as a committee as the whole just as related to the variation to the redevelopment plan. >> so that would be item four and only item four. >> thats a right. >> as items two and three, those are short of somebody calling it from committee in the -- which is the absolute jurisdiction of the committee. >> that is right. >> okay. thank you. >> was that the extent of the question, supervisor peskin? >> yes. >> chair melgar, i think wurp muted. >> did you have any comments?

>> i have a question, thank you. to try to lip read and make sure i wasn't jumping in and cutting anyone off. through the chair, to mr. foster, and actually either of the presenters, or if the units have been provided onsite in this proposal, how many units would that have been? the on-site requirements would have been 20% or i believe it's 33 units. that's correct. 33 units would have been the requirement for on site. >> supervisor: and that's 20% of the dwelling units, not dwelling units and hotel rooms. >> correct. the inclusionary requirement is only based off what the on site principal project n this case the market rate units, is 20% as

of 165 units in this case bmrs. >> thank you. just to the comments regarding the ocii position, i wanted to explore for a minute. i think we are all frustrated with the hoa fees and this pertains not just to this project, but i am curious how it pertains more generally. what you stated and what the commission found would seem to be an argument to basically preclude -- in today's san francisco, market rate projects, i think the argument around high hoa fees and the ability of those fees to rise in the future and our inability at the local

level to regulate those would arguably apply to any project, and yet we share the goal and to diversify who gets to live in the new construction. >> i am curious, at this point, is it ocii's position or the commission's position that with will offer any significant project and we will not -- we will see a request for this kind of variance to fee out? or is it in some ways is it more unique to this project if you could explore that, i would appreciate that. >> and that is a good question. it is very much related to the unique nature of the project. what is unique about the transbay redevelopment project area is it did have this on site requirement unless like other areas of the city where you have multiple mechanisms to meet the

affordable housing requirement. what we have seen is that it is very feasible and doable in a rental scenario to have that mixed income and many more financing tools available to you and it is easier to include both of those housing types where the problem lies and in the home ownership type of housing where the affordable home ownership program that is offered by the city and ocii is a first-time home buyer through a limited equity program. that does set the home buyer up for success and what we and the mayor's office of housing have seen over time is the h.o.a. increases can spike quite significantly and have created a burden for home buyers. and we have seen this in a

project before and we are nearing the sunsetting of our work in transbay so we don't anticipate this being a glut of projects like this. this is a very unique project where the residentials only at the tippy top which has very high anticipated h.o.a. fees. >> thank you for clarifying. and appreciate the history. and i do just -- hi, i actually have to call you back. >> deputy city attorney pearson, i think you are unmuted. and maybe some background noise there. >> supervisor: this is -- i just want to say this is an issue thatment cos up a lot in a lot of context. i am very curious and don't know the answer. perhaps my colleagues on the committee do. i don't know of any efforts to change this at the state levels. it is limited not to this

project but is so often a barrier to creating affordable home ownership opportunities in new construction. if we are not actively washing to change that and empower us locally and to regulate h.o.a. fees in affordable housing. if we are not doing that, and more of an editorial comment and thank you for clarifying how it applies in this project. >> thank you so much, supervisor preston. i want to ask about the comments made before the presentations made by supervisor peskin. and i am wondering if there is somebody from the project team that can talk about the shadow impact on the playground and be specific about when, how, what

times. i sat through the presentation on parcel planning commission. with the second time it was heard and there was a lot of a lot of work that was done and i have not heard from anyone in that community for a while. if somebody from the project sponsor's team is here, can you explain what, if anything, has happened? what are the vad doe impacts on the playground? >> madam chair, i think it's 15 minutes of shadow between november 15 and november 22, and january 18 and january 25 at approximately 8:30 in the morning plus or minus. >> thank you. i wanted that on the record. >> and i still would like to understand what since last time

in i saw this project at the planning commission it has gone to both planning and i wanted to hear what, if any, work has been done. >> madam chair, not to interrupt you, but we should probably make sure that which i said is independently verified by the project sponsor. i did not mean to interrupt the policies. >> who is here from the project sponsor's team? >> land use counsel and i can speak to those questions. we also have the shadow consultant adam noble. >> madam chair -- >> a private attorney is making representations on the public agency? no offense to ferella -- you used to represent me. but wait a minute.

don't we hear this from staff? >> supervisor: i specifically asked for the project sponsor, supervisor peskin. >> my apologies, madam chair. >> and i am happy for staff to field this question as well. but supervisor peskin is correct with respect to his factual description for the most part. the maximum daily duration during that period between november 15 and january 25 is approximately 15 minutes. it is an average of about 11 minutes during that period. so sometimes it's less than 10 minutes during that period when the days are shortest. and i would also point out that it's bounded on both sides by periods of shadow. so it is a period -- it is a fleeting period of sunlight that is interrupted by this project rather than uninterrupted

sunshine that introduces shadow to the project f that makes any sense. >> can you clarify what you mean by that? >> so you mean it's shadow from other buildings, not this particular building. >> correct. that is correct. >> what he means, if i may s that there is existing shadow and this exacerbates the existing shadow. would that be a fair representation, counselor? >> that's fair. and as to the factual nature and that accurately describes it. a shadow influenced in the tcdp. it is playing out as the reason of the shadow budget for this park was increased. and in that regard that was part of the plan. as far as what has happened and when the project was at the planning commission, i think you

left before the project passed through planning commission, i believe, is that correct? >> yes. >> okay. so we -- the project sponsor entered into a couple of agreements with various constituencies in chinatown that address the shadow issue and supports sro and the project sponsor has named a couple of commitments to try facilitating inclusion of permanently affordable projects for sro families at the local subsidy programs being forthcoming. and so we can't and incorporated

into the block four project. it is our hope and desire. if that is not feasible because the subsidy isn't available or for any other reason, the project sponsor is committed to sake taiking the off-site and within two miles and be available for permanent housing for sro families. if that is not available or feasible, they can purchase a vacant lot and make a contribution to nonprofit affordable housing developer to be converted to provide housing for 80 sleeping units or 40 units of housing. >> supervisor peskin, did you have a question? >> an i do.

>> there is a number of what if scenarios and what is the dollar value of the last scenario? >> $8.5 million. >> is there you go. >> i would submit this is al bee wit a third party of the 1986 city attorney's opinion that you cannot trade sunlight or shadow for money. whether with a third party inso far as this board is voting on this and in so far as we have just been told that basically the deal here is with people that i admire and i have been dealing with for 20 years, so this is not a fun thing for me to say, but that they're trading shadow for cash. it's violative of the 1986 post

prop k opinion. i don't think it's right. i don't think it's legal. although, i generally don't sue the company that i work for. >> through those comments, can you take us through the rec and park commission? and does the shadow impact on this park stay within the range? this trading cash for shadow or an additional voluntary community benefit that the project sponsor is putting on the table here? >> thank you, chair melgar. >> let me provide context for the sort of framework for

allowing additional shadow on these park, right or wrong. prop k was in 1994 and codified in planning code section 295 in february of 1989 our planning commission with the recreation and park commission jointly got together and said we need to figure out a way to add quantitative and qualitative assessments for shadow loads on downtown parks and create acls, otherwise known as shadow budgets. and 14 parks were identified. and they set a range of budgets and with the e.i.r. done in

2012 identified additional shadow loads with the upzoning of the transbay area. and that is the result of increasing heights on particular parcels including the tower, this project, parcel f, 181 fremont, amongst a few others. accordingly to connect the policy argument that this is the most ponceable place to load the most intense development and ie, the feature development of the job center around the transit center. it was the upload and the shadow budgets were adjusted to account for the upzoning. specifically the union square park wuwuwon did have the shadow increases and from 0 to 0.3%. and numerically that is a small

amount quantitatively. qualitatively, yes, there is an argument that it is nonetheless still casting a shadowened a shadow is shadow, but .003 of a budget was created. parcel f as a project and emblem project can add .01% of the shadow and to absorb the budget for the park. and i can abc more questions if that's curious. >> thank you, mr. foster. supervisor van ness. as section i don't remember,

beened awe planning code and let's just try that. 295. that is with so let's pull it up that is in the what you are doing real quick. and i think what you are relying on is a misinterpretation and

with the when the supervisor wrote that, it was meant to have the study done by professor bosleman and that was then adopted. but -- and for 20 years that stood until then mayor willie brown convinced a city attorney con fibs vinsed them that it was a process that could be done again and again. chinese playground was a zero tolerance playground, but every time you got another project n this case in supervisor haney's district, that shadows it, you rely on 295 sub c to bring together two majority appointed

mayoral bodies to vote to raise the budget. and it's .01 and then .03. and then you have another high-rise that hits it again. but that's not what 295 and prop k and the voters intended in 1984. >> to the chair, i am happy to add whatever color i may add on that commentary. i was a wee lad in 1989 and i wasn't around. it is my understanding that the commissions, both planning commission and the recreation and park commission in 89 believe they have broad discretion under prop pigs k to both create the acl and revise them as seen fit. >> i challenge you to present me with any document or transcript that sets that forth in the record through to the chair respectfully.

doesn't exist. >> thank you. supervisor supervisor we have been doing this for 20 years. the former zoning administrator agreed with that until he left. then there was a perverse version by the city's attorneys ufs and that is what is before this committee on this day. >> supervisor: thank you. if there are no other comments, we will go to public comment -- or this is it, mr. foster? >> madam chair, before we do that, the seminal question that i asked which i thought was a reasonable and constructive question was what tweaks would be necessary to this building to not shadow the park from 11 minutes to 15 minutes or two

weeks a year and spent $15 million on and most densely packed neighborhood in san francisco. no one has answered that question. >> supervisor: that is right. that is one of the questions that i wanted to have the project sponsor answer as well. along with shadow in the community work. mr. hinckley, can you answer that? >> yes, supervisor. i believe that mr. foster has a slide that also sheds some light on this f you will. in order to reduce the shadow, the building would have to be reduced by 206 feet on the south side and 250 feet on the west side and reduce the building from 62 floors to 39 floors. if there is no project that is left in order to avoid the shadow.

and no subtle sculpting that could be done, no sort of ability to move the bulk in order to avoid the shadow and it's really not a project anymore. if the shadows are avoided. >> supervisor: unless you dpo to the lowest point, right? and that would take it out all together. in the lowest point would cut out how many floors? >> 43 floors -- no, let's see. sorry. 23 floors. >> and madam chair, has that been independently evaluated by somebody who is not the project sponsor? no offense meant. >> supervisor: and be someone at the planning department who could who would opine on that. you are muted, mr. foster. >> sorry about that. thank you, chair melgar.

this is similar to a couple of state projects that we have had and asked the project sponsor to produce a couple of similar zero shadow graphic and i will admit the first time ever saw one of these, i scrutinized that and seems to be a lot of significant number of floors that we would lose, but the rationale is that you lose the core elevator. so in effect to where the red line stops, you would lose, as mr. higley mentioned, 23 floors there. and based on the floor plans nor particular project, i have verified that is around floor 39 or floor 38 depending on how you account for it. >> supervisor: so the green is all good and goes who to what floor? -- it goes to what floor?

>> i believe the mid 30s. i have to pull up a separate graphic. i apologize. one moment. do you have that info in front of you by chance? >> i don't have that info in front of me. but i might suggest that adam noble who prepared the shadow study for the project in the ceqa document and -- >> and the yellow means what compared to the red? and what i would call the minimus shadow. >> this is adam noble. commissioner, can you hear me? >> i am not a commissioner. i am a supervisor. >> supervisor, i'm sorry. my first time. >> who are you, mr. noble? >> thank you. this is a graphic that was produced in my office. and the red color indication is less important than the blue part of the building which is

the proposed building penetrating the shadow envelope which is colored. and once you penetrate that vertically you create shadow and union square and willy wuwu. >> supervisor: wait, so the blue is the offender or the red is the offend sner help me out. >> the blue is the proposed building. when that pokes through the red area there, that means that element, that masking element will create a net new shadow on one of the open spaces in question. >> supervisor: and the colors that we are supposed to ignore, mr. noble, of red, yellow, aened green mean what? >> we use those internally as height markers, but in this case we -- we use the call outs for heights above grade for the architect to indicate where the

problems were starting to show up. >> supervisor: so green is no problems, is that correct, mr. noble? >> yes. >> supervisor: and yellow is a little bit of a problem? >> you start to get into areas where you can't see through the building but there is a different shape inside the mapping of the building. and we are indicating you are starting to get into areas where you can start to create new shadow. >> supervisor: and red is hitting union square and willy wuwu is that correct? >> where the blue is seen, that top portion of the building, that is all creating a problem. >> supervisor: and everything above red even though it's not red is creating a problem but the way the image would appear would look, it sounds like you could sculpt the building a little bit. that is the way the image looks. >> the red that is showing on

the edge in front is an area you can actually build but it would be very dangerous to build there. the colored shape is the shape of the maximum building you could do if that were actually a building. the blue and -- >> supervisor: dangerous because of engineering considerations or dangerous because of -- explain. >> dangerous because you are very close and there is estimation going on with the square foot calculations, that while this graphic shows you aesthetically where you can build, if you get near there, we are warning you that the calculation set, the data run would create new shadows even though you are not showing in this graphic. >> mr. noble, your bonefied as what? >> excuse me? >> your background in this? >> identify yourself, mr. noble. >> we have done this since 1989. we took over when the u.c.

berkley system broke down. engineered it -- >> you are with bosleman's successor? >> yes. >> and you work at u.c. berkley? >> no. i went to u.c. berkley, but i don't work there. >> and what i am asking you, what is your educational background and who do you work for, if i may, through the chair, respectfully. >> sure. u.c. berkley architectural graduate and started a company called capd with noah kennedy. we have done visual analysis and shadow analysis since 1989 and earlier. we have done over 100 of these shadow studies. we develop this tool that you are seeing here. we call it the shadow envelope. that gives architects an early warning or early control of how big a mask before shadows are

introduced. we work with the city on baselining if existing shadow modes for the downtown parks about five years ago. you have a consistent understanding of what the shadow currently is on a park with the existing conditions. and the city and rec and park and creating a central source for park boundaries because we were running into a lot of problem where people were using different bound ris and getting different numbers. we worked hard to bring consistency to the process and methodology. and that's where we are as of today. >> supervisor: did you deal with the penumber of the sun? >> that is not part of the methodology defined by u.c. berkley. we use hard line edge. the sun is considered a point source, not a disc. there is lots of -- i mean, we could talk about methodology,

but in 1986, it was the best solution we could come up with. >> supervisor: i have been down that road a number of time. it is kind of mind boggling. but let me reiterate my question, which is, can this building be sculpted in such a way to a nontechnical person who does not have any bonefied background as you have, be done in a way where the blue parts could remain and the red parts could be removeed? >> no, the blue parts that you are seeing are what would have to be removed. the colored parts would remain that wouldn't create a problem. >> aha- >> unfortunately, in the extreme winter angles -- that is why it is only 15-minute data point because it's real steep, very short lived, but creates that

maximum envelope before it moves up. >> supervisor: thank you, mr. noble. and then can you please remind us, how many stories are in the green? how many in the yellow? and how many above the yellow? >> i would have to defer to the architect and project sponsor on that. we just give them the data and the design is their. >> can you answer that question please? >> thank you for your candor, sir. >> thank you, mr. noble. >> you bet. >> i can't answer that question with certainty. my belief is there are 39 floors in the green, which is why the shadow report for the project says in order to create a building with no shadow impact would require that it be reduced from 62 floors at the current height to 39. and so that's my belief and understanding. >> supervisor: let's delve into the yellow.

i am looking for options for this board. because i don't want to kill this project, and i would like to make it go and not that i have the power to kill it, but i want to make it go. and so how many are in the yellow? and what is the impact in the yellow? >> my understanding from mr. noble's explanation is that any of the colored areas present the potential for a shadow, for the creation of shadow. and i think the reality is that reducing even the portions that you see there in blue which will create shadow are totally different from the last thing. this is not working, sir.

these are different colors for different maps for different reasons. >> is there any way from a financial feasibility perspective that you could get rid of, what, 20 floors? in any of the colors to bring down the total height of the building? >> no, removing 20 floors would make it infeasible. >> either the hotel or a combine nation of the hotel housing an office. >> that is correct.

>> okay. >> supervisor peskin, did you want to comment more? >> an i think there are other to the original transbay promise and how that is being realized and manifested that as a separate body of public policy i would like to pursue. but, no, thank you. and i appreciate the answers to the questions. >> okay. so we can go to public comment now. or do you want to come back and ask those questions? >> we can do it after public comment. i want to say or i want to ask and can answer now and now or later and relative to the original state and legislative mandates, where are we now? how many units? what were those percentages? what will this do? and why respectfully are you not further ahead of the game?

>> thank you, supervisor. sally orth, interim director of oci,. you are correct. it is a 35% requirement that all new units created in the entirety of the transbay redevelopment plan, 35% be made available to it will low and moderate income households. ocii has worked very hard to meet that goal and we believe that we will achieve or exceed that goal. we are not done with all of our building in transbay, so it is an in-process goal. this project parcel f is a critical part of helping us do that. it also helps block four which is a significant amount of affordable housing in it. helps us meet that goal.

the temporary terminal site where block four and will be and 100% affordable project needed to come later, again, because the temporary terminal site was needed. there was a bit of phasing that was required as transbay gets built out. parcel f is in zone two and is not an ocii sponsored project directly. we focus on the projects in zone one. but we have been working very hard to see that this along with block four will help us meet or hopefully exceed the 35% and again, we do believe that we will achieve that goal. >> i will leave it at that. let's go to public comment, madam chair. i'm sorry, i did not mean to interrupt my colleague. my apologies. >> supervisor preston. >> thank you, chair melgar.

and just one question and one overall question. and perhaps in the fairly extensive material. are there the hotel and office space raises questions around is this thing realry going to happen? i am curious if any of the permissions sought here and approval of the development agreement change and and as the condition or any kind of timeline or use it or lose it type provision? or are we entitling a project and i am sure the project sponsor is confident in their ability to move forward and do this. but i think we all recognize there is some serious uncertainties in the market for hotels and the market for office

space and downtown san francisco right now. and are any of the conditions tied to any kind of timeline to use or lose? >> mr. foster and to the policy of the planning department and with entitlement? and if i could, supervisor preston, i have an additional question on top of that, which is what that would do to parcel four. block four, sorry. >> thank you, supervisor preston, for the question. our planning department entitlements have vested time lines and the vast majority have three-year time frames and what they say is project sponsor, we're asking you to diligently act upon this vested right, file a permit and go through the process diligently, get your conduction document and build

what you say you are going to build. most are three years and the office allocation and the shorter window is only 18 months and the downtown project authorization which is the effectively parent's entitlement for the entire suite which is admittedly enough of alphabet soup entitlements given it is a complex site, it is all three years. the development agreement, i believe, has a 10-year shelf life. and ms. lipinski, can you correct me if that the 10-year would supersede any of the affordable housing provisions? and how do those relate? i think the 10 year supersedes the three-year requirements. >> yes, hi. this is lee from oewd. >> the d.a. for this project has a 10-year term. that expires on the 10-year earlier road project completion. and various specific terms in

the d.a. and when the affordable housing fee must be paid. >> answer your question hopefully. >> yes, thank you. i'm sorry to bring you back, and what you are saying is that the fee must be paid before the expiration of the permit. >> sure. and the purpose of the development agreement with the whole purpose for the project is to codify the developer's responsibility and obligation to pay the 150% affordable housing fee. and part of the development agreement in terms outline essentially a schedule of payment for that fee. that is the key term of this da and that funding is what's going

to enable ocii to move forward with the block four project to produce that affordable housing. and so once a permit is pulled by this sponsor, there is specific timeline within the d.a. that outline when that fee must be paid in terms of to your question, supervisor preston, and is there incentive in schedule performance? that is the key thaerm we address in the d.a. force through the chair, can you lay the timeline for the payment of the fees out for the public and for the record? >> sure. >> i can walk through that. as we have been talking about the intention for the use of this fee is to put it right back into block four so the way i tend to think of it is the first step is that they are going to provide us with a letter of credit for that fee that allows ocii to go ahead and issue our loan and allow the block four

project to move ahead and all the many complicated state funding applications of any affordable housing project will need. if for some reason the block four project does not come to fruition as we are negotiating that dda, we are protected and there's been a second tier of a two-year time frame assuming that the parcel f project has pulled the first building permit. on that point they would pay us a fee and could spend it on any affordable housing project within the transbay plan in compliance with the redevelopment plan requirements. so we feel that we are both incentivizing both parcel f and block four through the series of agreements, but are also protected should we not ultimately come to agreement on block four and still receive the fee and will be spent on affordable housing in transbay. >> thank you. supervisor peskin. >> thank you, madam chair.

i don't know who this is to, but how did that work out at ocean wide? >> supervisor peskin, respectfully, i did not work on that project, so i can't comment. >> okay. who here can? >> mr. higley? >> i am not familiar with that project either. i understand it is not moving forward or a portion of it is not moving forward. >> mr. foster? >> i hate to add the third here. but i similarly did not work on oceanwide and not familiar with details. i apologize. >> planning commissioner chair melgar? >> sorry, i don't know the answer. >> deputy city attorney pearson?

>> i am in the same company. i don't know the answer. >> supervisor: i know the answer. >> enlighten us, supervisor. >> the truth is they never paid a cent. they never paid a penny. not one cent. it was still a violation of prop k section 295, sub section c of the law as i read it, as billy maher intended it and the voters voted for it in 1984, but in oceanwide, nobody paid a penny. and by the way, i am trading shadow for cash. and i am not trading it for a letter of credit. i am trading it for credit. but i don't go there either. >> can i ask you, so suppose the project is not moving forward

and there is no payment attached to pulling of a building permit. will block four still be built? would it make it difficult to be built? what happens? >> well, we are still negotiating block four, so i don't have all the details of its financing finalized to know what any impact might be. i would suspect that if parcel f could not move forward, then it might create challenges and for this same development team to move forward on block four. and the projects were in vision to go together. and so i would venture to say yes, there likely could be a challenge. >> thank you. >> okay. so if there are no more comments from my fellow committee members -- >> supervisor peskin, go ahead. >> i will shut up for the rest

of this meeting other than to vote. until those deals are locked down, this is not right. >> thank you, supervisor. madam clerk, let's go to public comment please. >> madam chair, eight listeners with three in queue. >> are you hearing me? >> yes, we can hear you. >> you will probably get that a lot. we haven't figured out a way for callers to get confirmation that we are the ones that have connected. >> we are going to pause your time one second, ma'am. i am going to pause your time. just to clarify, when we unmute

you, it notifies you that you can speak. i don't know if you heard that. it is like a soft prompt. but go ahead with your time. >> thank you. so my name is cynthia gomez. a research analyst with unite in local two and hotel workers union as supervisor peskin referred to. so our comments are in support of these project and cia and i am not sure if what we are speaking about and right now include the technical terms and rezoning, etc. and we supported the project and the initial improvements and before the planning commission and supported in the current iteration and we have signed an agreement with the project sponsor to guarantee when that hotel comes to reality and when there are eventual hotel

workers, there will be an agreement that will protect the rights of the hotel workers to choose a union without form of the interference and should form a union and that provides a path to stability, to benefits, to affordable wages, to affordable health care which are really critical for people in this key industry. for those reasons we have supported the project and spoken at the various hearings which i think are stacking up now. and we do the ask that you support the approvals today. and we will be following this with some interest since it sound like there is quite a lot of discussion about it. thank you. we ask that you support the project's approval. >> thank you so much, ms. gomez. >> next caller please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. >> thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today. >> i am a field representative

at carpenter local 22 located in san francisco. and i represent approximately 4,000 carpenters and 40,000 throughout northern california. and the carpenter's union is here today in full support of the transbay parcel f project. not only will this project bring much needed housing to san francisco but also jobs. parcel f will provide 409,000 construction joplins and 1550 permitted jobs from office, hotel and residential unit. the transbay f sparse el will provide millions of dollars to san francisco during a time when it is desperately needed. 56 million in one-time revenue to the city from both city wide and the transbay impact plan and impact fee and hotel property and over the next 30 years from parcel f and 497 million and to

support the transit center district over the next 30 years and 177 million to the city for parcel f land process to complete phase one. the total benefit to the city is over 1.1 billion dollars. in closing t carpenters support this project for all of the benefits and will provide to the community and including the much needed housing and union jobs created. and with the transbay parcel f project as is. thank you for your time. >> thank you. next speaker please. next caller. >> thank you. my name is john corsoa business and local steam fiters and the delegate to the san francisco building trade council in total

support of the project to create jobs before, during and after the construction and local 38 completely support this is project once again. thank you. >> thank you. madam clerk, do we have anymore speakers in the queue? >> yes, ma'am. we have one more caller. just want to remind folks if they would like to speak, they need to press star 3 to be added to the queue and only press this once. and continue to hold and the system will indicate that you have been unmuted once we unmute your line. and indicated there is one more caller. >> go ahead. unmute the next caller please. >> supervisors, on behalf of the community development center and we understand the concerns voiced by the district supervisor aaron peskin, we remain very supportive of the

project because of the project that the developer has done with the community. many times we create confrontational relationship with developers when they come into the neighborhood or in the project and in the neighborhood and applaud the developer for this case working with community members and the impact of the development and therefore, we stand in solidarity with the brothers and sisters in labor and others that in supporting this project as described today. thank you very much. >> thank you. do we have any other callers in the queue? >> yes. we have one more caller that popped up. unmute that caller please.

>> hello. this is in listening to the comments of the labor and tenant advocate there, i lean to support the project and also taking into conversation supervisor peskin's issue about shadows. too many times the shadow impacts are overlooked, and this legislation needs to be fixed. thank you. >> are there any other public commenters in the queue, madam clerk? >> thank you, madam chair. and has confirmed that was our last caller. >> public comment is now closed.

>> supervisor peskin. >> and i violate that which i said and make a motion with the question of which is the committee of the whole is scheduled on what date? >> i can answer that, supervisor. it is on march 2. >> i would make -- i was going to do this anyway. i make a motion to continue the items -- we can do it for one week. i would actually say two. i think getting really good answers to questions and i really want to appreciate everybody and will take more than between now and next monday. i would suggest that we continue the committee of the whole and continue this meeting. i would make a motion to continue these items two, three, and four to the eighth day of march of 2021.

>> i'm sorry, supervisor, what would you like to happen between now and march 8? >> i think we have outstanding questions in any number of policy arenas ranging from section 295 of the code to off site in lieu to the larger questions of transbay meeting is 35%. and to trading money for shadow and the side agreement that is worth as represented by the project sponsors $8.5 million, sculpting of the building. i think that will probably take a coup of weeks. >> so you are thinking that this would come back to the entire board for another presentation? and have -- >> i'm sorry. i did not mean to interrupt, madam chair. >> i just wanted to understand

what you wanted to see on march 8. >> well, i would like to continue all three items to the 8th day of march, 2021. i believe that only items two and three as was earlier referenced by the city attorney are not subject to the committee as a whole but to keep offering committee and i imagine that item four could be heard at the full board on the 9th day of march 2021. >> i'm sorry is to ask you, supervisor. i am new here and trying to figure out the process of what you want is for the items except for item four to come back to come back to the committee. march 8. >> madam chair, respectfully, i am making a motion to continue items two, three, and four to the 8th day of march of 2021.

>> all three. >> madam chair? >> go ahead, supervisor preston. >> you may have been going this direction. i am trying to figure out the sequencing and curious if the -- if these items were moved but not the committee of the whole whether that poses a problem or whether continuation of these three items that were heard before the committee of the whole. and a little unclear on the relationship between the two and whether it's important that we hear and vote on this in committee before the committee as a whole or not. >> i think supervisor peskin is moving them both so we would still be hearing these items again in committee and then the following day hearing committee of a whole. >> is that what you are suggesting, supervisor peskin? >> yes.

we could definitely schedule -- well, i don't want to predispose this committee to actions that we may or may not take on the 8th day of march, but i would not be offended by scheduling all of those items as a committee of the whole on the 9th day of march. obviously subject to what this committee decides. >> right. just to clarify part of my question is, obviously this committee doesn't control the committee of the whole hearing. if we were in theory moving these items the two weeks as suggested by supervisor peskin's motion, we might still have a committee of the whole as currently scheduled on part of this on march 2 or would that necessitate that being moved until after? >> i will defer to competent counsel. >> ms. pearson? >> i am having a discussion with the clerk's office about the very question the supervisor has

posed. the board did approve by motion the committee of the whole which is now scheduled for march 2. and so it's correct that two of these items are not required to be sent, but one is scheduled to be heard there. i am eager to hear the input of the clerk about what would happen on march 2 if this item has not been moved to the committee by that time. >> madam chair, i am happy to make a motion on march 2 at 2:00 p.m. or thereafter to request that three of us and majority of our colleagues continue that item at least one more week. >> okay. i am just trying to figure out what the repercussion is to the

project. you have been at this for a year already. >> if i may, i will say this on behalf of the project sponsor and the project sponsor and everybody else is happy -- welcome to contradict me. but the impacts will be nothing. they have been screwing around with this thing forever. if they think two more weeks is going to hurt them, i want to hear it right now on the record. >> i am okay with a two-week continuing this for two weeks. >> madam clerk, will you call the role please? >> items two, three, and four, supervisor peskin, is requesting and moving them to be continued to march 8 date.

i just need to clarify. the r.t.a. committee of the whole is scheduled and it was not noticed because it does not require one. this is the provision of the variation and all that would occur is agendaized for march 2 and then the board would take action to continue it to whatever date this committee actually sends the matters forward to and is just a hearing file at this point.

the motion made is march 2, correct? >> it can be agendaized without them but they won't be up for consideration because they won't be before the board. we can act on the hearing alone. >> thank you. so items two through four. >> supervisor peskin? >> aye. >> supervisor presa canario? >> aye. >> supervisor melgar? >> aye. >> you have three aye's. so the motion passes. madam clerk, please call the

next item. >> item five is the administrative code extension of temp raren the nant protections due to covid-19 and ordinance amending the administrative code to limit residential evictions through june 30, 2021 unless the eviction is based on the nonpayment of rent or is necessary tu to violence-related issues or health and safety issues. if you have not done so, dial star 3 to speak. the system prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand. when you get to public comment, the system will indicate that you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. >> thank you so much, madam clerk. supervisor preston, thank you so much for your leadership on this issue. will you provide remarks? >> supervisor: thank you, chair melgar. i want to thank president walton

for waiving the 30-day rule and chair melgar for getting this on our business dicalendar. this is a time sensitive matter and i appreciate it being here today. so i am asking for your support, colleagues, to extend the local moratorium on no fault residential evictions to cover the period through june 30 of this year. the california legislature recently enacted sb91 extending statewide eviction protections for nonpayment of rent due to covid hardship through that same date, june 30, 2021. the state legislature also preempted new nonpayment protection locally. but importantly, the state law did leave open as the previous state law did on this matter, left open the ability of cities to regulate other types of eviction other than nonpayment. and this past october this board

unanimously passed an ordinance to prohibit no-fault evictions like capital improvement and owner moved through the end of march, 201 and that is coming up soon. the ordinance before us today extends the ban along with the statewide period protection through june of next year as i mentioned. i think it is a common sense extension and certainly no good reason a tenant should lose their home, particularly through no fault of their own, particularly through during a pandemic. and i hope the board will continue to support what has been a robust and impressive effort by the mayor and by the board of supervisors to curb evictions during the pandemic. one thing before going further that i want to mention is our

office was made aware of a minor forming error which i would like to correct today by amendment that was circulated to committee members previously. and that is on page two, line 22, the effective period for this legislation needs to be amended to reflect the extended time period and replacing january 31 with june 30. so this was the current version and version as introduced already listed the correct june 30 date for the new expiration and it did not present the january 30 first change and removal in a proper formatting. so we are amended version corrects that. and what is essentially a typographical error deemed knob substantive by the city attorney. in closing, i want to thank the

co-sponsors supervisors ronen, haney and walton, and also others including hopefully supervisor peskin will be signing on as well. we are limited in our discussion of these matters before committee hearings. but he was a strong supporter of our prior efforts to do this as were other colleagues on the board. with the amendment that i intend to make, i ask for your support in moving the item forward today. thank you for having it on the agenda. >> supervisor peskin. >> supervisor: madam chair, supervisor preston is stealing my thunder. i would like to be listed as a co-sponsor. >> thank you. >> thank you, supervisor. i would also like to be listed as a co-sponsor as well. and again, supervisor preston, thank you for your leadership. >> with that if there are no more comments from committee

members, we could go to public comment please, madam clerk. >> yes, madam chair. they have confirmed there are no callers in the queue. >> okay. well, with that, public comment is closed. is there a motion to pass this out of committee with a positive recommendation? of the committee report? >> chair melgar, if i could move to the minor amendments that were previously referenced. >> thank you, supervisor. madam clerk, will you please the call the roll on this item. >> madam chair, there is actually one person up in queue if that is okay. >> thank you. >> thank you so much. unmute the caller please. >> welcome, caller. >> i apologize, madam chair. the person disconnected.

so there is no callers. >> okay. if you could call the role please on the motion. >> absolutely. >> on the call -- on the motion to amend. >> yes, as stated by supervisor peskin. supervisor peskin? >> on the amendment as stated by supervisor preston, aye. >> preston, aye. >> supervisor peskin? >> aye. >> supervisor melgar? >> aye. >> melgar, aye. you have three aye's. >> thank you. that motion passes unanimously. madam clerk, will you call item six? >> before we do, madam chair, motion to refer the item as amended to the full board as committee report with recommendation. >> yes. thank you so much, supervisor preston.

>> on the motion introduced by supervisor preston. supervisor peskin? >> aye. >> peskin aye. >> supervisor preston? >> aye. >> preston, aye. >> supervisor melgar? >> melgar, aye. >> you have throe ayes. >> the motion passes unanimously. thank you. now, madam clerk, please call item six. >> item six is a hearing to review the outcomes of the safe parking and vehicular triage center located at the balboa park upper yard to highlight the successes of the upper yard site and identify the steps necessary to expand the safe parking program to other districts in san francisco. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on item six should call the number on screen. 415-655-0001, the meeting i.d. is 187 788 1145. then press pound and pound again. if you have not done so already, please press star 3 to line up

to speak for item six. the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted. you may begin public comment. madam chair? >> thank you so much, madam clerk. i think we have supervisor safai with us. can you confirm that supervisor safai is with us? >> i'm here. >> great. welcome, supervisor safai. i want to say thank you so much for bringing this item. it is one of particular importance to me and my district seven. so i just want to thank you for your leadership and for the accountability that holding this hearing entails. thank you. i will turn it over to you to please set context and call the presenters. >> great. thank you, chair melgar. vice chair preston and member peskin, this to me is an ongoing

issue that has been a couple of years in the making. i will give context and history for the record. i know that i have talked about it on the record before, but it is important for me to help people understand where this all began. and the ideas hopefully that this will show success and this is a model that we should take city wide. and it was only a few years ago that in our district we started to see major increase in individuals living in r.v.s and living out of their vehicles. and admittedly a lot of the initial response was to essentially just ask for more no overnight camping signs, vehicles larger than 22 feet in height. and so on. and in a lot of ways that was motivated by neighbors and

motivated by a response to what's been done in other parts of the city. but we quickly learned that is not a long-term solution. i wanted to credit supervisor brown for reaching out to the office to extend her hand in partnership to come up with a long-term solution. we then approached the department of homelessness and supportive housing and other individuals in looking at and what looked like what that might entail. the city has been in a long-term debate about whether or not city parking was a good long-term solution. and we then approached the mayor. we had a conversation with her and asked her to fund an initial pilot. and we were able to secure that

funding. and the idea was even though this had not been done in san francisco before that we wanted to show in the pilot farm a year or more that this could be a successful model. it became very apparent very quickly that based on the statistics, 70% of the increase in homelessness prior to covid had been individuals living in vehicles. so we felt compelled to come up with a real solution that could potentially be a model for a citywide conversation. we then were able to find a site in my district which was the balboa upper yard. we worked with public works and who you are going to hear from today. we worked with our department of homelessness board of housing. we worked with sfmta. we worked with department of public health, the planning department, and more importantly, we worked with a

cadre of good group of neighborhood leaders, activists and those that were individually involved from the adjacent neighborhoods to balboa park upper yard that could come and speak and build support for this potential idea. before we did actually move forward with the balboa upper yard, we had community meetings. we met with these individuals. we put together a working group. and it was from there we decided and voted on that we would proceed with this opportunity and then after that we moved forward to a larger community meeting for almost 1,000 individuals showed up. and admittedly about 1/3 of the room was staunchly opposed. 1/3 of the room was apprehensive but willing to listen. and about 1/3 of the room was agreeable.

and we then moved forward with the commitment that the surrounding neighborhoods would no longer allow for overnight camping and sleeping. we moved forward with the commitment that we would have a community partner on site services slash presence on -- we don't like to call it security, but on site security presence services. we chose a provider, the city did, urban alchemy, and we're going to hear from them today. i have to say after over a year of this being in the district, we've housed individuals. we have done it at an effective cost after remove the initial capital investment. it comes to less than 15,000 per individuals and be screened and

referred to to provide and the majority supervisor melgar and victim nine, supervisor ronen 10, and supervisor walton and of course, our own district. and i have to say that at the end of the day, we think this has been a tremendous success. and for those staunchly opposed or op apprehensive, a number followed up and say this far exceeded their expectations. this was done in partnership with our local police station, engleside police station, the bart police, sfmta public works, public health, department of homelessness, supportive housing, urban alchemy on site, and of course, our working group.

>> finally, i don't know if we have someone from the controller's office or not. they did an analysis, and it showed very favorably that that was an innovative solution to be taken city-wide and it was cost-effective to the city. i am moving to our presenters. i will start with dillon snider from the department of homelessness and supportive housing. thank them for the work. before i call you, i want to recognize my staff that has been involved first. cathy meyer, monaco chincia as we got into the planning, community meetings and policy and implementation. she did a tremendous job to get this off the ground.

now lauren is working with us the last few months. sadly, we will have to transition this out. this site will be as agreed and was committed to from the beginning. it be affordable housing. mission housing will build 137 units on site so we will we having a larger conversation. we will hear from the department of real estate today to talk about potential other sites city-wide. without further, i would like to call up dillon for the presentation on behalf of the city. >> thank you and good afternoon. it is a pleasure to be here today. i will pull up my presentation. we always test to make sure it works. are you able to see that

presentation? >> we can see it. >> again, thank you for having me here today. i am the manager of policy and legislative affairs for department of homelessness and supportive housing. she, her pronouns. i am here with you to share. this is my first project when i joined the department and it feels extremely fitting and i am grateful to speak about early learnings from the pilot and what is next. i am joined by members of our other city departments and site operator and members of the community working group. i will try to keep my remarks as brief as possible while still providing information especially including the findings from the controller's office evaluation memo and we will pass to other

presenters to get to questions as well. starting from the beginning, the vehicle triage center, the pilot was opened as part of safe parking ordinance passed in april 2019. the center program model provides low barrier height model for guests and it was intended guests could store the vehicle on site or reside in the vehicle on the site while accessing the homelessness response system. this site has been operated by the nonprofit service provider and i will get into my gratitude towards the end here. the vehicle triage center was located in a parking lot in district 11. this has been said, it was available on short term basis until it developed to affordable housing. it provided 29 spaces for both

recreational and passenger vehicles. you can see the nice drawing here from d.p.w. of the project location. i want to speak about the infrastructure that supports the site. these have been formed, the early learning. they came as surprises, some came as expectations and many are learnings that we will take forward to new potential sites. the vehicle triage center offered bathrooms and blackwater pumping on site, mobile showers and laundry services that i visited three times each week. confidential meetings, electricity, security camerases, diesel generator, two solelar lights. pedestrian and vehicle gates for entry and exit. while there were many, many partners that made this possible. i want to talk about those that

provided services on site as part of the program model. urban provided 24/7 monitoring and staffing, unarmed security and practitioners to address guest needs daily. we had mobile showers and lundy provided by dignity on wheels as subcontractor to the site. hsh homeless outreach provided case management through the hot case management team. case management was not funded in the original program model and ordinance to the site. we felt it was critical to make sure we were helping people navigate to the next step, housing problem solving. we will get into this was a big take away and early learning we

will talk about later. it included supporting guests within the homelessness response. coordinated entry and exit planning and services. they provided outreach to those unsheltered in vehicles providing referrals. the department of public health medicine team provided on site health and medical. they were on site once each week as well as as needed with sf hot team and urban amend lchemy. they provided sulport to implement prevention to ensure the site continues to operate safely. big thank you ever.

chang thank you to those that stepped into a new landscape. i want to thank the committee. we also had the ptc community working group that met regularly from fall of 2019 up until present day. i believe the last meeting is next month. these meetings were open to the public included members from the community, supervisors office, department of homelessness and supportive housing. urban alchemy and other partners to provide input.

these are from the memo from february. this report collected data on the pilot program during the first year of operation. from november 19 to november 2020. i want to thank the controller's office and staff for the work on this memo. in the midst of the pandemic we appreciate thoughtful time analysis. i want to thank them for the work on the evaluation. the link to the full memo is on the hsh website. it has a lot of great information. i have tried to pull out highlights. i will note that the information in the memo does cover the first year of operation. the data is very representative. it hasn't changed. we will concentrate on this data in the next few slides. happy to answer questions about

the subsequent months. who did the center serve during the first year of the my lot program? they served 75 individuals with an average length of stay of 103 days. the guests were 2-1 male to female. 12% were lgbq plus. racial demographics of the first 75 guests, 44% white, 32% latin x, 18% black. 4% asian and 1% native-american and pacific islander. further trends show the guests trended slightly older than the general population of people experiencing homelessness. they were more likely to be seniors, 50 or over. two-thirds of the guest were

living in r.v.s with 67% of households -- of those 67% of those households were multi person households. remaining third of the center guests entered in passenger vehicles with about 60% of those guests living alone. one-third of the clients who entered the center were in supervisor district 11 prior to the stay at the site. you will see that the majority of those guests served in the first year came from district 11. this reflects commitment from hsh to the community to prioritize those in vehicles in their districts and supporting keeping guests in the community which they continue to care from those with an important part of accessing services across the city.

you will see a large population originated from district 10 and 7 as well. i also want to point out back to sf's roll referrals and intakes wear manage by sf hot team. outreach began prior to site opening specifically district eleven sf hat providing flyers, providing information about what the program was and how to contact sf hot for referral and sharing information generally how to connect with the homelessness response system. we did priortize unsheltered individuals housing referral status or eligible through care not cash or medical issues that were exacerbated by living in a vehicle. this is similar to other low

barrier models such as navigation centers and helps by providing stabilization and that navigation to the next step. >> 10 minute time has gone off. >> i will finish in two minutes. >> i am going to skip past this. you can see from the report. coordinated entry we served both housing referral and problem status guests. housing transferred to higher level of care as well as high level of voluntary exits for a variety of reasons. again, the cost there is much more detail in the memo. i will skip this. if you want to note the controller's office did conduct a survey with guests at the site.

overall, the guest responses were indicated their stay was highly or adequately valuable to achieve stability. they did note certain aspects they would like to see more of in future programs. early learning. this is where i think the meat of this is. a couple things. originally this program was thought that 50% of guests would store vehicles on the site while accessing services. what we saw was that almost all of the guests prefer to stay on the site residing in vehicles. this particularly references the power grid. when the site was first developed it was only on half the site. we thought half of the vehicles needed access to elect. the recommendation for any future site is ensure the power grid available to all vehicles on the site. the importance of case

management and recommendation is that case management is a service integrated in the program model for future sites. if that is part of the contract or subcontract but having that on site case management to provide wraparound services on a daily basis. cost projections. there is good information on the controller's evaluation memo. it depends on several factors and varies based on unique site set up. utilities available which makes it difficult to project ahead of time what the standard cost would be. hsh continues to explosion potential sites and develop criteria to inform site selection for potential new sites. i think we covered the community. great gratitude for the community process.

we have learned what we take forward to any new projects. lastly, the vehicle triage center closes march 2021. we are exit planning with guests to make sure are offered appropriate resources. we are exploring sites for safe vehicle triage center developing criteria based on early learnings of the site. of course, funding is always an issue. we very much appreciate the $1 million that was in the fy 2021 budget which was used to extend this site through march 2021. we do anticipate a shortfall of about $3.5 million to support the operation and construction of a new site so we are looking forward to continued conversations during the budget process. i have had conversation with many of your offices and community members and providers.

we continue to hear this is a priority for all. again, thank you so much to all of our partners, to supervisor safai and staff, city partners and the community. this was anincredible experience. we all agree it was a success. we look forward to implementing and incorporating the learnings in future projects. thank you for allowing me to go over. i am here for questions along with my colleagues. >> you are muted. >> i wanted to ask a couple questions. we can move on to the next presenter. you brushed over this and thank you for your hard work. i appreciate it all. can you talk about the cost for client? when you factor in the capital cost $22,000 per client for the

year. $15,000. it sends up $38,000 in year one and then $15,000. relative to other program in the system, this is relatively cost-effective program as it pertains to providing transition for those unhoused? i want to give you an opportunity to talk about that a little more. you were rushing through the end of the presentation. >> thank you, supervisor safai. i did rush. i was excited about the presentation. yes, i think we have seen this cost-effective. i do think some of the challenges with the cost projections for the programs are identifying the site and then understanding what the one-time capital costs are as well as integrating those case management costs into the

overall program budget. as you mentioned. the controller's report shows $105 per parking spot per night. pre-pandemic navigation centers were $100 per person per night. same low barrierheiservis model. i do think further analysis is needed on the cost-effectiveness. we see this within that range of temporary shelter programs and at the lower end. >> can you talk, and i know that urban alchemy is going to speak. i don't want to under be appreciate the service they provide. can you talk about hsh and the roll that urban alchemy made to make this a success. >> i am happy to. i think their executive director

will present. urban alchemy is a remarkable provider that came in to run the site. their ability to work with clients is remarkable. they provide staffing at the site 24/7 model. really never been done. they had site monitors that worked on a daily basis addressing needs. they had a site manager. as you mentioned they were a co-chair of the working group and worked closely with the community to express needs of the guests on like, work with community collaboration on donations. on the day-to-day operations they made a space and program that welcomed people, made them feel safe and secure and helped the community feel that presence. they kept the site grounded, kept clients engaged and

supported the community and the site itself. >> i know they are going to present on their own. i wanted to hear from your perspective. i will say that we pushed really hard in the beginning to ensure that we would keep people on site 24 hours each day. that made significant impact. a lot of the cost ended up beings for the purpose of success for the program, it is important. we can come back. i don't have any additional questions right now based on the presentation. i want to move on the that is okay. unless colleagues have questions for hsh at this moment. >> let's get to the presentation, supervisor safai. i don't see anyone on the roster. thank you. >> i am going to say that hsh is

working with us. i will call up tom mcguire from s.f.m.t.a. s.f.m.t.a. had an overall policy in the city not to continue to add more over night parking signs. really worked with our office to ensure that there would be a positive transition with this. again, the model we have here is that this is based on screening and referral only. i wanted to give them an opportunity to speak on the perspective of s.f.m.t.a. they were an important partner along with their commission in moving this project forward. tom, are you there. >> i am here, yes, thank you for inviting me. tom mcguire happy to talk about our role in this program.

while the m.t.a. has authorities for parking rules about five years ago our board which is a legislative body for parking rules in san francisco challenged us to not simply not put up oversized vehicle parking signs in neighborhoods if all we would be doing is pushing around people who are very vulnerable living in vehicles. that came after some consultation with stakeholders from the people experiencing homelessness. we know there are serious issues that come from people living in vehicles on the streets that can't be denied. in some areas they can tie up parking former chants, businesses and residents. there are some health issues from vehicles that don't have

the ability to dump waste. likewise, in some part of the city there are reports of bad behavior disturbing to residents. we need to sweep the streets as well. that said, we header consistently. we hear every time the m.t.a. board considers an over size vehicle parking restriction in place from the vast majority of people living in vehicles, the majority are conscientious and struggling. they are trying to push the problem around this response to restent complaints we had a group of vehicles were parked for a long period of time in supervisor safai's district rather than simply going in to put up signs, that was the

trigger that got us involved in this vehicular triage center. the m.t.a. had two steaks. -- two stakes. the upper yard near balboa park station had been used for years for m.t.a. employee parking. it was important to the transit workers that we give those employees with the orderrest shifts an opportunity to park. with cooperation we were able to put together an alternative to those employee vehicles moving up to the upper reservoir site. we cleared the upper yard of parked vehicles and allowed hsh and all the great partners to

put together the vehicular triage center. the final piece of the puzzle and that is what you catch working deeply in partnership. we want to make sure the neighbors who by and large with the supervisors leadership came around to support with compassion. we wanted the neighbors who brought that compassion to the statements about the center weren't burdened with large amount of parking as employees our vehicles outside the center. this did put the services to people living in the vehicles first. we did work and legislate no overnight parking adjacent to the center to make sure it was able to serve the purpose without creating spillover effects in the neighborhood. it was aninward process and

gr