>> good afternoon, this meeting will cometo order. welcome to the 2021 regular meeting of the land use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisors . i am visor melgar joined by vice chair supervisor dean preston and supervisor aaron pelkin. the clerk is erica major and i like to acknowledge sfgov tv forstabbing this meeting today. adam clerk, do you have any announcements ? >>erica major: due to the health emergency and to test board members, the board of supervisors legislative chambe and committee club , however members will be participating in the meeting remotely. cautions taken pursuant to the stay-at-home order and all localstate and federal orders and directives . committee members will attend the meeting through videoconference toparticipate to the same extent as if we were physically present . public comments will be

available on each item on this agenda . they are screaming the public: number across the screen each member will be allowed to spea . comments or opportunities to speak during the public comment period are available by calling the number 415 655 0001. 415 655 0001. meeting id is187-788-1145 . 187 788 1145. then press #, #. you will hear the meeting discussion but you will be muted and in listening mode and when the item ofinterest comes up dial á3 to be added to the speaker . that's practices are to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly turn down your television or radio . alternatively you may submit public comment on the

transportation clinic at erica.major@sfgov.org and it will beincluded as part of the official file .written comments 80 sent via postal service to city hall . room 244, sanfrancisco california, 94102 .finally items acted upon today should appear 187 788 1145. >> can you the speaker there. >> ... unless otherwise stated. madam chair. >>myrna melgar: thank you mada . would you please call the first item? >>erica major: item 1 is an ordinance of building code to expand control and protections for project individuals and agencies and entities with a

history of significant violations . members of the public who wish to provide comment to call the number 415 655-0001, the meeting id is 187 788 1145 and press #, #. if you have not done so already please rest á3 to speak. the system will indicate that youhave read your . madam chair. >>myrna melgar: thank you madam we are joined by any beinhardt beinhardt ... [inaudible] >>myrna melgar: would it be possible for you tospeak louder closer ? >>amy beinart: i will speak louder,is this helpful ? >>myrna melgar: a little bit, yes >>amy beinart: i'lldo my best .

thank you for hearing this today . supervisor ronen and pesky announced this building permit system, several recent cases of serious and repeated violations in district 9 should cause us to hold a hearing about permit practices and then to draft this legislation. on behalf of supervisor ronen presented to this building inspection committee and received incorporated input, returned last week where he received a recommendation to prove this was presented to the planning commission last where commissioners indicate support . i'll be asking you to increase the number amendments today, these have beento you and your staff this morning and i will describe those you are under the legislation . i will go more quickly, there

are significant significant and repeated violations that we know about district 9, i'm fairly sure you have similar cases in your district as well. we know they are already laws in place to penalize serial planners after the fact but in order to protect the public this legislation amends the building code to direct the actions of dvi to in response to future applications from parties with multiple significantviolations and i have a very brief hour so i'm going to go ahead and share . ... >> again, this legislation, yo see that ? >> if you can pressthe presentation . >> sorry, my technology is just

not up to the. >>myrna melgar: if you turn off your camera will be the. >>amy beinart: okay, i think we're ready. can you see that? >>myrna melgar: we can see it. >>amy beinart: this legislation will amend the building code and the intent was to provide for expanded compliancecontrol and consumer protection in situations where there's significant and repeated violations of our building code . it starts with internal tracking serious violations and we are defining those significant notices of violation that will be recorded

and tracked internally to meet thefollowing criteria . misrepresentation of existing conditions, to circumvent notification or review. flexible work or demolitionof structural features without or beyond . unlicensed work where a license isrequired . other substantial noncompliance with significant health and safety risks and then for this internal tracking document, there were three or more significant notices of violation within two months triggers compliance control. that is public facing document. and the process for moving from this internal tracking to the expanded compliance control list is dvi inspection services staff prepare a preliminary report.a reach out to the

parties who are on the list in order to invite him to provide any extra literary info. dvi director makes a final determination. the di notifies a c, ddi maintains this expanded compliance control list on its website and provide quarterly reports to the building inspectioncommission. on the expanded compliance control list . once a party or a permit is on that list, it requires that the high report to applicable licensing board or regulatory agencies, something they are able to do now have consistently been doing and upgrades level of staffing and that is required to monitor and review the permit applications. both intake and along the way. we wanted to be very sure that

there are site inspections by the dvr and planning prior to permit issuance with the intent to make sure what planning approvals on what building inspections of our in conformance. we require that a licensed contractor being on the permit prior to issuance unless the application is submitted as an owner builder permit in accordance with state code. this would dedicate a senior inspector for inspections and any complaints for permit and then to just remind ddi they should be consulting with the city attorney about additional enforcement actions . and then the ongoing recording opportunities forappeal, building inspection mission receive quarterly updates . a good then hold public

hearings to discuss those the list he would remain on the expanded compliance control list for five years with an extension if there's any significant violations and a determination could be appeale to the building inspection commission . along with this we wanted to make sure that the staffing at dvi understand the expectations that are provided with both guidance and direction in terms of monitoring permits as they come before them so written guidance and training so that they can recognize the last permits to signal potential abuse and guidance so that staff understands are expected and have permission to escalate any applications that indicate potential abuse and then sends general sensitivity to the cultural differences .agents and other entities so we want to make sure we recognize that

that dvi doesn't staffing and who it serves has a very diversegroup of people . the amendments that are being, that and helping you, but i'm hoping you introduce today i'm certainly not going to read them all but the general, the purpose and intent of these are first to tighten the criteria for significant notice of violations that will be tracked. simplify the language around the internal process with the focus on what are the steps that are expected and what are the roles at thehighest levels between director and the building inspection commission . we wanted to make sure that we didn't have to wait 18 months to move this forward, that there are candidates currently for expanded compliance control this can be applied immediatel

. the addition of naming a licensed contractor for work on a status compliance control list is something we realized for again so that it added. we gave building inspection commission the department of building inspection of the time to prepare for internal training and guidance and then added language around cultural differences and sensitivity to diversey. that is my presentation . the chair should be coming back. i wanted to get a lot of things to our deputy city attorney and john murray of dvi whose health was invaluable in drafting this legislation and deputy city attorney and has advised minutes before you are substantiated so on behalf of improviser ronen will asking for today is you vote to support the amendment and

continued for one week. john murray has asked that he opportunity or short statement. it's okay with you i will over to him. >> can you hear me? the afternoon supervisors, john murray, department of building inspection legislative affairs. the department ofbuilding inspection is committed to building safety so we greatly appreciate the opportunity to partner partner with you to expand upon these dvi policies to addresscode violators and protect the public . the proposed ordinance is a qualification of the quality control program which we instigated with some amendments and additions . the building inspection

commission proposal in the building code for a 70 2021 meeting and the commissioners to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance the following recommendation quote, there's a difference between contractor and honest mistake compared to someone who is a strategic system to avoid a public process . please continue to refine this legislation providing only apply to this deserving . we would like the supervisor trend, and her 880 for their willingness to hear our concerns aboutthe legislation as initially drafted and to address them. the bar is prepared to this ordinance should pass . thank you very much. >>myrna melgar: thank you very much. miss beinart? >> i want to thank supervisor ronen and her staff or 80 beinart doneall the heavy lifting on this . i want to thank my staff we have who in so far has been

working with miss beinart on the details also really want to acknowledge the building inspection, albeit prospectively a little bit late in the game for finally internally cracking down on what frankly is a handful of bad actors that is an embarrassment to san francisco, is an embarrassment to the building apartments and we know their names, i'll stay for the record i think heis under some form of investment , rhonda santos that has been one of the parties but there's been many like mister santos overtime. they come not in all gendersbut they come in all races . they were called jimmy jam, there have been many of these and full of people that have abused the system .in any

number of ways and quite frankly it's a detriment to everybody whether they are a mom-and-pop looking to the bathroom remodel or professionals that do this every day of the year. so i really want to thank supervisor ronen and her staff. also completely understand that the legislative process is a process of iteration and compromise. and clearly this legislation has benefited from a number of changes, some of which supervisor ronen by and through her staff miss beinart are asking for today. most ofwhich i support . " frankly, all of which are benefits to the building and development community there's one that i take exception with and hope and tried to contact supervisor ronen.

i hope will not be included at page 2 which is section 103 a, 6.1 subsection 4. that limits other substantial noncompliance to those resulting in significant risk to health and safety. and i think that is a bridge too far. i think it's entirely too generous and those amendments are introduced which i hope they will not be i will make a motion to strike that little provision. all the rest of which is heavily or really a subject or process of compromise and interactive discussions i can support. but i can't support that particular one it in the is part of the package of introductions. so thank you again to

supervisor ronen and other cosponsors, to professor amy and our respective staff and to dvi and its commission that wants tofinally we the bad actors . thank you madam chair. >>myrna melgar: thank you so much supervisor peskin. >>dean preston: i concur with what was just said by supervisor peskin and appreciate allthe work on this and just wanted to be added as a cosponsor to the legislation . thank you medicare>>myrna melgar: thank you supervisor preston.i also want to be added as a cosponsor . i concur with supervisor peskin about the amendment. i do think it's too generous. i will also say thank you so

much miss beinart andsupervisor ronenfor tackling this .we've been talking about it for quite a bit . and it's really heartening that the bic has wholeheartedly endorsed this and i think the staff at dbi will make a good-faith effort to implement this and having it go. my misgivings remain as i shared with you in my staff miss beinart that were still leaving it up to staff at dbi to put folks in the compliance list if they meet the new expanded qualifications. and that in the past have worked aswell as we would hope . so i would love to see if we had some point could see if this is working, if it's

working as weintend . and also perhaps someday add some mandatory disclosure requirements to consumers . somebody is on the expanded compliance list. most homeowners that i know don't check the website for the city regularly and often. usually you will get your information exactly through the person that you're hired who may or may not be on the compliance list so that an added incentive to keep it quiet so i would love to see if we could explore a mandatory disclosure just because it's not for you go down usually, some of us to is usually architects or contractors hold permits so having them tell you i'm on this is something that might deter somebody from getting hired. and you know, someone might not know the person that there

firing who they know through their bodies may have all these violations but thank you for putting in all of this work and all this thought and doing the work with the department to get us there. i think i said i wanted to be cosponsor but thank you . does someone, supervisor peskin, did you want to add west and mark? >>erica major: you are muted. >>aaron peskin: i share your concerns but i think given the fact that all of these findings have to be written, have to be part of a public process that if staff is failing and ultimately group a due process appeal to the commission, the

commission is failing, we all know that and see that they can make legislative corrections so i feel like the iterative process minus what you and i and supervisor preston agree on has worked in the proper way and it turns out that people are playing favorites for making their friends have or punishing their enemies , we can come back withanother piece of legislation . >>myrna melgar: thank you supervisor. so there is no comments from my colleagues, matt let's go to public comment on this item. >>erica major: we had maria from dc and she has confirmed there are 72 listeners with four included.if you can unmute the first caller please.

hello caller, you are online. youcan speak . let's return to this caller an take the next caller please . >>caller: thank you karen supervisor, i am ryan patterson and i'm a land-use attorney and i'mthe permitting process . thank you for thinking action to protectthe integrity of the entitlement process . i do have concerns about this ordinanceabstracted especially due process and statelaw preemption . first is the problem with guilt classification in section 103 8.6.2 the language says . [inaudible] agents or entities that have been associated with

three or more reported violations. it should be revised responsible for three or more reported violations. the person in business on the expanded compliance list will be unable to obtain permits in a timely manner which is a importance to the higher them. >>erica major: did we cut off mister patterson? we are having technical difficulties. >>caller: i'm still here if you're able to hear me. >>erica major: please finish. >>caller: thank you. a person on the expanded compliance list will be unable to obtain permits in a timely manner which is of utmost importance to those who hire them and will be unable to work in the city. second the criteria are not clearly defined discretionary

enforcement will be made by the director behind closed doors. i have great respect for director riordan of theprior director on the cloud of corruption scandal and we don't know the next director will be . these decisions would be made using the director's hearing process . third state building code allows chasing create local code permits for specific purposes and this is not oneof them. similarly this would effectively deprive state licensed professionals of the ability to work and that is a function reserved to statewide support . i want to note it would be deeply wrong and illegal to put someone on this list if that person is not actually responsible for the violations . such as the tile installer who works on a project that has an electrical violation. the director's hearing process would go a long way to sorting those sorts of things if we did sunshine and public participation including the

public's ability to present evidence on either side of wha happens. thank youvery much for your consideration . >>erica major: thank you mister patterson, next speaker please . ... could we have the next caller please?>> he is unmute it.>>caller: hello? >>erica major:caller, you are on . can you please put out your public comment. >>caller: sorry, that was confusing. good afternoon, my name is carolyn morse and i am san francisco resident and

homeowner. my husband and i have been trying formonths to get a renovation project underway on our house and the main issue we face is trying to get an architect and engineer willing to work with us in what is considered to be a small project . now we're being told our project is no longer worth the headache because of the proposed ordinance and the team were working with has said they either need to stop working on our project or raise the fees because of the extra risk which we obviously can't afford. i've been told this proposal could lead them to be put on the dbi blacklist through no fault of their own which will impact their ability to work on my projects or other jobs and while the proposed ordinance might be well-meaning it seems flawed in that it could result in honest consultants who may have had an unknowing association with a bad actor beingpenalized with guilt by association approach. i hope you will reconsider the

impacts of this ordinance on ordinary city residents like me and my husband and my family . thank you very much . >>erica major: next caller please. >>caller: good afternoon supervisors, i'm an architect in san francisco and i have been working closely with both the public policy advocacy committee and small fund committee of aia . we are actually one of a number of concerns have been brought up but i think there's very concerning due process issues as well as guilt by association. many architects in san francisco are hired to obtain permits for their clients that are not included during the consumption phase of the work puts us at a real disadvantage to be able to highlight areas where contracts are or

subcontractors might be in violation of the code. but because our names are on the permit application, we get swept up in what we sort of termed as a dragnet and have no recourse to prove our lack of responsibility you during the mlb process. we only have the opportunity once three violations have occurred and if that happens after 18 months, and there's a potential lack of ability to clearly show what our role was in a project and that we have no responsibility for the code violations given the time that passed , people who might have participated in the project that are no longer in the area, evidence that might be covered up on all kinds of other issues. so we think that the legislation is very well-meaning we also think that we need to refine it to allow the participants and entities not to sort of get swept up and put on the compliance control

list prior to the enhanced list to get anopportunity to prove that they don't have responsibility for the violations that have occurred . thank you very much. >> thank you. next caller please. >> this is john christian and i'm the executive director of the realproperty support corporation for the archdiocese of san francisco . among the responsibilities of our office is theoversight of our many construction activities in the city . this includes of course our voluntary seismic upgrade projects for our school campuses. we have successfully completed voluntary seismic upgrades for many of our schools with more projects in the planning stages subject to raising the necessary funds. we are very proud of our good working relationship with the

mayor's office of resiliency. we support the goal behind the proposed legislation. to identify and public published listings for all individualsagents or other entities responsible for significant violations of the building code . with increased scrutiny . seismic work is typically concentrated in thesummer months . we thoroughly vet the professionals and union trades with whom we work as timing is everything. i want to echo the concerns of the building inspection commission as set forth in its february 18 correspondence. there is a big difference between a contractor making an honest mistake compared to someone who deliberately and strategically manipulates the system. please take care and refining the legislation. sothat it only applies to the deserving . and it does not otherwise

imperil or unnecessarily delay laudable safety oriented construction projects such as school seismic upgrades. it sounds to me like the proposed amendments are a step forward in keeping with this goal and for that, i am grateful area thank you for your consideration.>> thank you very much. next caller please. >> thank you. >> hello, are you there? >> my name is markgilligan, i'm a structural engineer . and i've got a number of problems with this ordinance. one, it does not address the

root cause of the problem. the root cause is you have a dysfunctional system here that incentivizes these bad actors. this is just adding another layer of dysfunction and you are not addressing the root cause. in addition we're being told about some amendments to the proposal. at the last minute but these have not been made available so people, the public cannot comment on it. i think that is a problem. i want to also reinforce the concern that this is about. regulating engineers architects and contractors. this has been preempted by the state. you do not have authority to do this. and so this is a very flawed

bit of regulation. and it should be rejected. thank you. >>thank you mister gilligan. next caller please . >> good afternoon supervisors. corey smith on behalf of the housing action coalition area i very much appreciate all efforts to root out corruption and fraud in the entitlements and permitting process area for the vast majority of people who do things the right way, the goal is absolutely astep in the right direction . one of the pieces of the feedback we have heard from our

members is general concern about the workload associated with the enforcing this piece of legislation. dbi is already understaffed and so doing things to again move forward the goal of rooting out corruption is absolutely laudable and ensure that that is managed with all of the other things that we are asking dbi to do at the same time. his walking and chewing gum that all at once so again, these are i very muchappreciate all efforts and look forward to this continuing conversation . thank you. >>thank you mister smith, next speaker please . >> hello. >> welcome. >> good afternoon, my name is sean coogan with the

residential builders association, good afternoon supervisors really want to thank my thinking dbi for first initiating the policy area i want to thank you provider ronan's office for codifying the policy and i need to acknowledge amy's work as the stakeholders and attempting to address the concerns. i'm calling to support the legislation area prior to my main point i'd like to add the backdrop i like to point out a few factors. construction ishard work and has always been a popular industry amongst the immigrant community . and in the community that may not speak english or may not have acollege degree , yet this is the group which receives the most compensated permits in san francisco, many of which are conditioned list permits. the second factor is most of the residential work in san francisco is designed prior to

loss. because of this and many other reasons it's common to come across unforeseen circumstances in the field . supervisors, most of the problems that i work to solve involve a combination of these 2 factors. it is an inviolate right for this sort of complexity. it usually involves honest, hard-working individuals and well intended neighbors and for the most part, dbi, the contractors they design team and the neighbors eventually work things out. but we would always have these problems in san francisco. these issues and they can be serious times generally arise from honest mistakes. there are however very different from what has occurred in a few were far too many cases. we've all heard about those who deliberately and strategically misrepresent conditions to bypass the process.we've heard about this these instances where premeditated

alkylated maneuverswere done to gauge or circumvent the progress . supervisors, i see that. >> thank you. next caller please. >>. >> member, are there any more colors in the queue. >>. >> let me double check. looks like thecolor is unneeded. >>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 grateful for the partnership. i learned about an issue coming to our board and to our staff for years. we are eager to work with any other district who would like to really take on the intertwining issues of serving people living in vehicles and the effects on parking in the public spaces. >> thanks, director mcguire. as you saw in the presentation

there are 18 individuals that exited and i think that for this to be effective city-wide strategy is in need and to have multiple places throughout the city because of the demand, because of it the largest increase in those living unhoused prior to covid, it requires for this to be effective we can't just have one site. we have to have multiple sites based on the current population of individuals there for the census and then work with s.f.m.t.a. to provide areas where people park anything the neighborhoods as off limits. once you have enough safe parking it is easy to restrict parking. that is the point. we did that and we didn't do it immediately. we waited about six months or more before we worked with your

department to legislate that. that was part of the agreed upon deal with the community. >> thank you. i don't have any additional questions or comments. woe can move to the next presenter. that will be captain chris from thening el side station. are you there? >> yes. can you hear me. >> yes, sir. >> thank you for inviting me. i want to talk today about the police department's role with this vehicle triage center. before the triage center was open we participated in a number of meetings before me was captain jack heart that attended the meetings before the triage center was open and during the time the triage center was open we had a liaison, a sergeant

attend those meetings. for the meetings before the center was open, we attended those monthly meetings to see about the progress, any public safety issues to deal with or any anticipated issues. then we also had a talk with security. we know there is a 24 hour security at the triage center. i believe that was very beneficial. mutual understanding with the private security police department is only if needed. on site security was there to resolve issues within the center and contact us if they had any issues. like i said, i believe that was instrumental to have that security there and also to have that direct cell phone. going through those community meetings we were in discussion having direct contact with security not only for the police

department for us to talk back and forth regarding possible issues but that cell phone number directly to security was given to community members. if they had any concerns as well so they could reach out directly to them to share the concerns and work on the any issues. as i stated before we assigned a lay he son to the tree -- lay eson center. sergeant that worked with security to resolve possible issues. i know any issues related to the vehicle triage center that was assigned to that center area. there were questions how many calls for service at the triage center during this time, this one year span? min mull calls for service.

15 after we did a summary of the calls to that location. the vast majority of those calls for service involved the low priority between staff and residents refusing to leave. there was one fire call incident that was noncriminal. it was an electrical issue to assist the fire department. regarding the referrals. any referrals that people asked us about referred to hsh. any recommendations that if this were throughout the city i would recommend this model whereby we have a liaison officer assigned to the triage center for each station and to attend the monthly meetings. as stated before regarding the cell phone numbers directly to security, to the police departments, we have that.

also to share that cell phone number to the community members so they could reach out. we need that voice to share input and concerns to reach out directly to resolve those issues. >> thank you. you have been part of the ongoing working group say they were surprised how well this has worked out for the community. really appreciate your partnership and know that having this on site security and on site providers like to be referred to as security was part of the success of the model.

the other thing we heard from individuals because it was adjacent to the bart and because of lighting and presence, a number of people felt more secure and safe as they come in and out of the bart station because of light and presence provided on that site. that is a little more evidence. in general, would you say this was a positive addition to the community and something that exceeded your expectations in terms of what might have been some of the initial fears that you heard from community members? >> we had very little calls for service to that location. our homeless resource officers made contact with the staff almost daily if not daily. we provided supportive and personal role to the triage center. we will continue supporting the efforts of the city in that

fashion if we expand throughout the city. keep in mind we are trying to move forward as best as possible. we will try to use other city resources to try to help with this issue regarding the free another triage centers. >> thank you. i know you have moved to a new position. congratulations on your new post. thank you for taking the time to be here today. if there is any questions from members, i think chair melgar might have something to say. >> i just want to say thank you so much to captain for all of your work at whatever you are moving on to next. best of luck to you. >> thank you, ma'am. >> next person that we are going to call up are the ones who

helped to make the site usable and move quickly in partnership with everyone mentioned already. i know originally it was the director himself but i think he had to move to another meeting that he wasn't able to hold on to. we will have the pm, project manager from the team that was involved from the beginning. rachel alonso. >> thank you for having me here. i am the project manager with san francisco public works. rachel. i worked beginning in spring 2019, i believe, looking for sites. andids potential sites and the

pros and cons of the sites. the location had been identified and myself and my colleagues at public works worked with hsh program staff to do the site layout, different options based on program considerations regarding bathrooms and showers, number of passenger vehicles versus large scale r.v.s. do we needy electrical or not? working through the details and putting on paper and plans to be something to permit and build. we also worked with different vendors in the city and outside of the city to provide material, lights, bathrooms, fence coverings, temporary fencing to exist at the site. security cameras and everything to keep the site safe to make it functional. we obtained cost estimates and

informed hsh on the final program and the final cost and what it was likely to be. once the decisions were made and we had a layout we were happy with, then our operations bureaus worked to oversee the install. we did the electrical work, gate work, asphalt work, building repair, street environmental servicestor street cleaning. they functioned as the general contractor for setting up the site, if you will. that was really our role. i want to keep it brief. i would be happy to answer any questions if anyone has any. >> i think that just one thing i would add, air el. i know we had conversations in the beginning. should we have on site showers,

mobile showers, on site bathrooms? that was the lighting and electricity was straightforward. pumping services for blackwater straightforward. talk what that meant in terms of the upgrades to the site. >> there were a lot of trade-offs. it is 30,000 square feet and very irregularly shaped and very long and narrow. that really minimized how flexible we could be with what we were placing on the site. we got to where we were comparing different bathrooms or showers to see what it would due to the overall number of parking spots. we were so tight with space. r.v.s are large. they need a lot of space to

maneuver around more so than in a normal parking lot. we had to make tough choices there. another aspect related to that was the cost and the time. do we have temporary utilities? solar lighting. temporary generator allowed for temporary projects. if we had alonger term projector site access for longer we may have made different discussions interest permanent utilities or sewer and water. when you look as how long you have the site, how many people you can serve, how much space the upgraded services take up, if you will, bathrooms and showers. for all of those reasons cost and scheduling and space or scope punished to something more

temporary. it as the first site and we were learning from it. for the future site decisions may be different. it was eye opening and key part of making the site work for people knowing what is going where. >> i think that was one of the biggest debates. the truth is if it weren't going to to be a little over a year we would have looked at utilities a little differently. thank you, rachel. we will go to the next presenter. the co-chairs of the working group. i have both lina miller and steven courier.

happy to have them here today. we will go to lina and then steven. are you there? maybe she is not there. steven, are you there? >> i am. i want to thank you for your tremendous work. the working group was an interesting gratpart of this. you went above and beyond. there were so many things you did as community to help support the individuals living there, families. i know you treated them and thought of them as neighbors. just the building of the community support made such a tremendous impact on the success of this program. really excited you will have an opportunity to speak to the committee today about this.

>> thank you for that introduction and thank you for allowing me. i am honored to be elected by my peers as co-chair of the vehicle triage center. one of the things i said all along is that one of the most important things about projects like this is that we have community buy in. i think when the community came on board and like you said a third foris, a third against it and a third questionable to elect a co-chair from the community and secretary barbara to take notes. if anybody needed to refer to something we talked about, we had it. it was in lightning -- enlightening to us especially in a district where we don't see very many homeless maybe like in district 6 but to house temporarily people living in vehicles and to provide them

with services from the department of health and job training. the salvation army brought in food. the community was awesome regarding toiletries and diapers and dog food and cat food and water. at christmastime a christmas tree was donated and decorations donated. they put together a wish list and the community went out and brought presents for them. they were our neighbors. we were really happy to do this. like the captain said, very little incidents negatively happened on the project. you know, i urge any of the community of san francisco that wants to do this or desires to do this like i heard from

supervisor melgar and supervisor in district four, one of the issues that we had when we knew that we were being sunsetted back in november. we were able to keep it until march 1st. the community was worried about where these people are going to go when they leave? one of the things i encourage in the budget process we get funding to carry on this important endeavor in the city. i think it is important. we know now that some of the best clients have been graduated or moved to permanent housing which is what we wanted at the beginning. supervisor safai, i am grad you

entrusted me and the community group to be part of this working group and i am available for questions. >> i think one of the most important things is that this is an ongoing commitment from neighbors and community members and those that were part of the initial vote that we took as a community to move forward. having that consistent oversight allows adjustments. people knew we were going to have to make adjustments and work with individuals and understand what needed to happen as we moved along. i don't have any questions other than to say this was an integral part of the process for this to

be successful. thank you, steven, and thank you to all those involved. coalition on homeless was part of that, new mission terrace improvement, we had individual nonprofit members and folks from the surrounding community as well an outer mission. this was extremely well supported within the community once this got off the ground. i know that i called on lina. we will i think barron wilson is here. can you speak on behalf of urban alchemy to talk about your role and your part in this?

>> dillon have you been communicating with barron? >> i have. i believe he is on here. maybe we are having technical issues. >> i know that lina had to leave around 4:00. >> it looks like he signed on to the public comment phone line. he didn't have access to the teams link. i will send that to him or provide public comment when we get to that portion. >> we don't want him to speak in public comment. is there any way the clerk can call on him, madam chair?

>> i can resend the invite if you can confirm the e-mail address. >> let me get the e-mail and send it over to you. >> thank you. is he the last presenter? >> yes, he was for sure. actually, no, department of real estate. >> let's go to department of real estate, madam clerk. >> director, are you there? >> yes, i am. good afternoon, chair melgar and supervisors. i am director of real estate. i would like to share in the congratulations for the success of this project. i think there were a lot of good lessons learned that we can take

and mirror this success in other locations. as you know, the real estate division plays a support role in trying to help secure sites for this and other purposes throughout the city. those potential sites fall into two categories. third-party either lease or purchase and in those cases it is easier because there is more availability but the downside is cost. we have landlords and sellers putting properties on the market. they want their market value that comes at a premium. the other group of potential sites comes from city-owned or leased property. that isn't so of an acquisition but a policy call that needs to be made because it usually

requires the current use be suspended or moved in order to make room for this safe sleeping site. now that we have had success of this site under our belt, real estate stands ready and ready to work with hsh to find additional sites so we can stand up something similar in other areas. that concludes my presentation. >> thank you, director. i understand. in many ways it is harder to talk about an identified site. we wouldn't want to do that without going through a community process without a conversation with the community. one of the things in this situation that allowed for this to be successful and move in a way that would be expeditious to the sense it would be usable was the fact this was a city-owned or city-involved site versus

privately owned. because this site was purchased through city funds with the nonprofit mission housing, it allows us to move in a very quick manner whereas there wasn't necessarily any rental cost or purchase cost associated with that. there were capital costs to get the site ready but there wasn't additional rental or purchase cost. that is an important factor when we are looking at sites around the city. if there is an individual that wanted to donate on a temporary one to three year basis or if there was a city-owned site it reduces the cost. i know in the past when city-owned sites have been made public it causes anxiety and resistance from neighbors prior to knowing the plan. i would think the process would be to work with the district

supervisors, hsh and come back. supervisors have identified sites to investigate. we can work with your office on that. >> thank you, supervisor. happy to help. >> is barron ready now? >> let me say thank you, supervisor safai, thank you, thank you, thank you. you were instrumental in this and gave alchemy a chance and we want to thank you from the depths of our hearts. thank you, dillon for your heart in this and captain.

what a wonderful community. according to our community, we heard from the community. one of the things that it is dangerous on the streets. they were afraid to be on the streets, to leave mobile homes and this rided the opportunity for safety. they were having break-ins. one of the things we learned sometimes it takes the community to get involved. everybody got involved. what we learned is that it is a safe place to sleep without someone approaching them. that was huge. we wanted to make sure our community they gave us an opportunity to work with them, but they gave us more than we can possibly give them. one of the things we keep those restrooms clean. they wanted clean bathrooms and

showers, they wanted food. we provided that. showers were great for dignity. they responded well. staff support. everyone got involved. we do this with a temporary situation. people lost everything. we heard this consistently lost jobs, homes, things and what we did was give them an ear. we knew the city was providing the long-term solution permanent housing. we want to make sure they were heard. thank you. i want to say thank you, supervisor safai. you were the first to give us an opportunity. 24/7 is the model you talked about. that came directly from myself and the whole entire alchemy team. thank you.

>> thank you, barron. i am glad we worked out the technical difficulties. i can't state enough how of an important role you played. i have expressed that to lina and to your organization but i do want to say that having two individuals on site 24 hours a day, having the presence of people that understand the population to work with and having people there that understand the kind of the plight of those individuals and work with them to connect to services is such an integral part of the success of this program. we greatly appreciate your

ongoing commitment and the fact that you were there to hold people's hands dramatically to get them transitioned into permanent housing and settings makes all the difference in the world. i want to overemphasize that. we want to take this model city-wide and we think that it is such an interesting gratpart. i have to say initially there were conversations do we need two individuals, 24 hours per day? the opposite of what we could be talking about today could be if this was not managed properly, some things going wrong and the community pushing back not able to take this model city-wide. i don't have additional questions. other than saying were there particular things that you saw that were different about this population versus the

populations that you have worked within terms of living in vehicles and how you tailored your response to working with them on site? >> not really. we knew the population was a challenge. you have individuals living in cars and you have individuals living on the street. that is everything they have. some people you might see it everything is in a basket. some people have a vehicle that is everything in the car. we knew those were challenges going on. we wanted to treat the individual was the same amount of love and respect. that was everything they had. the populations in the vehicles i can say is different. they have a place. the goal is permanent housing.

everyone wants permanent housing. we know this is a transition. being this is transition. the goal was to think about what is the long-term? of course, keep that in mind. at the end of the day there is work. the city has to do work. they realize that. they need to work on themselves. they responded well. so no. thank you. >> okay. chair, melgar. that is the end of the presentations. if committee members had any direct questions to any of the city staff, any questions to pose we could do that or move to public comment and take questions after that. >> i did have a couple questions. thank you. i see that supervisor preston has his name on the roster. i will ask first.

my first question is to mr. will wilson. district seven has a large population of folks living in r.v.s and cars. a couple years ago san francisco state university, the neighbor, did a survey door-to-door or car to car. what we found is that most of the folks were living in r.v.s and cars up there on winston heavy and along the lake were working people. i wonder if that was your experience with the vehicle triage center as well. these folks were living in cars and r.v.s and were people that went to work every day? >> absolutely. 60% of the people were working.

they were scared to leave this because cars are targeted. >> for the folks that you were able to help transition to housing, was one of the impediments coming up with security deposit so expensive. if that was the case was there any specific assistance provided to either access programs to help people with the deposit or help people with savings? >> that would have been more -- >> thank you, chair melgar. the housing is through hsh and case management. what i can say for those housing referral eligible and matched with housing, the largest delays are due to the pandemic across the board especially with some

of the government offices not being as easy to get identification or social security. we always work with both housing referrals and problem status guests to help them along the way to make sure we are removing barriers with providers. for the problem solving status one resource is one-time flexible grants to help with the deposit. help with finding location assistance, finding apartment, putting down security deposit and working with patterners through human services or others to connect and understand what benefits they are eligible for or receiving to be put towards more permanent stable exit. >> thank you. my next question was to you. one of the things that i heard from folks when i bring up the

needing safe parkings sites on the southern end of the city. they are afraid folks will come here from other counties. i heard the distribution from supervisor safai how many people towards the end came from district 7, 10, 9. i didn't hear anyone coming from outside the county. i am wondering if during the time this was operating you encountered folks coming from other places needing services at the triage center? >> that is an excellent question. i would need to go back to really understand. we prioritize those engaged with the system, housing referral status or had medical conditions to make them extremely vulnerable and records of participation with san francisco. that is a really good question.

i will go back to the team. >> let me also jump in, chair melgar. one of the things we did and i glad you asked that. one of the things we did with the community process with hsh and with other departments was that we did a census. there was an actual census of the existing vehicles and those living in vehicles in the city at the time right before when we were going to open the safe parking. we knew license plates, we knew individuals, teams went out and documented. second piece was you wouldn't be able to drive up. that is why the conversation around the signage at the site. you wouldn't be able to drive up to say i am parking here until you have space for me. i am not from this part of town or this town, that is not how this worked. this worked strictly on

screening and referral. there might have been individuals and in some cases there were that were not eligible to come to the site depending on mental health status, whether they were overly addicted to drugs or alcohol. they needed a different type every feral. this was -- referral. please doublecheck this, you know, you can follow back up. this was done based on referral screening and individuals part of the original census. that is important to the conversation about this being a magnet for individuals outside of town. >> thank you, for that explanation. the folks that we have in district 7. it is the know population. we know who they are, it is stable, in our district there have not been people coming from other places to park. it would be helpful to have the

data. as we build this out, you know, we want to make sure that we uphold the learning and institutionize best practices and can answer the questions that are posed. thank you so much. >> another thing to your point. the date that that dillon put up. the other part of the conversation and this is part of the replication model when you are talking to surrounding neighbors we will prioritize our district first. you saw that in the data that an overwhelming majority were district 11 residents. that is what we talked about with district 11 population in general to build support. i think that ones people heard this individual has been living out here, i live across the street. they have been there three or four years. that is why these are neighbors,

people that have been here but we need to provide safe transitional space. >> thank you, supervisor. supervisor preston. >> thank you. thanks supervisor safai for your work on this and everyone who has spoken. i did have a question about the demographics. you put up the slides about the breakdown by gender, by race. i want to better understand those and i don't have numbers in front of me. my recollection is that compared to the pit count information for the broader homeless population that the vehicle triage center numbers have a much lower

percentage of unhoused african-american folks, higher percentage of unhoused white folks. am i right on that? what causes that? do we have demographic data on who is living in the vehicle? i am familiar with the broader point in time count numbers which is everyone unhoused. i guess what i am getting at is i am trying to figure out if it is outreach and by either by neighborhood or how we are going about the outreach that it is skuing more white, less african-american. is it an issue of who is in the vehicles? that it is representative of that? can you address that issue. >> the southern part of the

district district 11 and district 7? >> i will share the controller's vote they compared the demographics to pit count what we can compare and what we can't compare based on the different methods. what i will say is that the 2019 point in time count. we weren't able to conduct the unsheltered survey this year. it is older data. higher percentage of black or african-american people experiencing homelessness than what we saw. in terms of latin x15 to 18% homeless individuals. we see that a little closer with latin x if you want. i do think some of it has to do

with geographic locations in which we were outreaching. one of the commitments was to prioritize the district 11 community that might have skewed who we were finding. as we saw, due to the short term length of the site as well as the impacts of covid, i don't think we saw the program to its full potential because we did cause intake for a moment. i would have been curious to see those demographics had we fully used this at full capacity both with intaking throughout the pandemic and getting the flow going to housing. in terms of the question about the demographics city-wide of those in vehicles, the best data we have right now is that point in time count. i think always thinking of ways to collect more information and demographics about the various populations of people experiencing homelessness is very important.

i know you raised some of these questions before. >> i think through the chair. to follow up because i guess i am still not clear. you mentioned the numbers with respect to the latin x population more specifically. with respect to the bi population. the point in time count has the last one 37% folks unhoused are african-american. this program has 18% african-american. it is half. again, that could be a number of factors. it can be as chair melgar references because of a particular area of the city targeted, because you have a small sample size, frankly. maybe if expanded you wouldn't see that kind of data. it can also be -- what i am unclear on and what i think is

important. maybe we have the data. it sounds like there was a certain amount of the direct outreach to folks. i wonder do we have a handle? what i am getting at is not the critique. anything in the outreach causing us to not be doing outreach in the same way or if it is more a factor of geography and who happens to live in the vehicles in the immediate neighborhood. i can't tell from the numbers without knowing whether the demographic data for folks in vehicles is similar to the broader pit count data or not. >> i would jump in for a second. i don't remember when they did the initial census of the individuals living in vehicles city-wide. i don't know if they recorded demographic data.

that would be something that you can go back to look at. i will say it is influenced by neighborhood. if you are doing this city-wide, you are going to get a differently response. i would guess that there is a slight difference between those living on the streets and those in the vehicle. it jumped out at me as something i noticed as well. i am interested to see when and if we do this in supervisor melgar's district an analysis -- i am not trying to force this. >> i want it. >> look at who is living along lake merced that is in her district. in candlestick point what the

demographics are living in vehicles. we saw some of those individuals and it might be neighborhood-based. we have to say. i don't think dillon has that information handy, but i think we can get it. i can tell you one thing. the way we frame this was specific in the sense if we do a site in a particular neighborhood it is important to the surrounding neighbors to prioritize first. not exclusively but essentially have them be primary. you saw the immediate neighborhoods the 9, 10, 11 had the highest concentration living in r.v.s and vehicles. you might get a different number with vans and cars. definitely i don't know if that is an issue in your district.

driving around this d5 i know that over on webster near the churches for a while there were some individuals living in r.v.s and vehicles over there. there aren't as many pockets that you have that aren't predominantly residential and that are permit parking by zone, right? >> you mentioned western addition along the panhandle. there are areas. yes, definitely varies. >> d10 hey the highest numbers of industrial and residential. lake merced is one of the larger areas where it is nonresidential

parking. in my district there is pockets that were beginning to concentrate around certain streets as well. it is a question to follow up on. >> i was going to add that the survey that we did -- san francisco state university did a census and survey of the folks livings on winston avenue and a long lake merced. i will try to get those numbers. my sense is that they were not that different from the demographic distribution that ms. snider presented. interestingly, yes, that is how we got that information about who folks were working. i think it was quite higher than 60%. the other interesting piece of information that came out of that survey is that most folks

did not identify themselves as homeless either. they saw themselves as living in cars. there are differences. >> for sure. we heard that as well. supervisor preston. >> i want to figure out what we know versus what we need. through the chair do we have the city-wide race and gender data for folks living in vehicles? is that something we would need to get or generate from other data? >> through the chair. i would need to check on that. we do it through the pit count. i don't know that back and forth well enough to know if that is something to extrapolate if it is not available. let me check on that. thank you for the question. i think this is why these

evaluations in the reports are so important because these are the questions we need to ask about our programs to make sure they are serving everyone in the city, particularly the global majority. i want to thank you for the question. i will check to see what we have and are missing. as we look toward the new site any gaps are what we want to address based on this to make sure we are providing the equitable access to programs. >> thank you so much. just one other question for you through the chair. i am curious if you can reflect on just as we are talking about the success of the program and potentially ramping up in different ways as supervisor safai referenced how the overlay

of the fema reimbursements and hotels. does that inform our thinking around this strategy. there are different purposes served by the vehicle triage center. safe store -- storage of things and physical safety. for some of those things with the sip hotels for the foreseeable -- temporary solutions looking out over the next six months to a year, we have more opportunities in sip hotels. i realize it is a potentially

big question but i am curious if in the analysis of the short term whether the availability of more sip hotels changes anything in terms of utilization and strategies or if they are serving different populations? >> can i ask through the chair? are you saying does this change the focus away from parking because of the sip hotels because of the urgency of that? can these things be done in parallel? i want to understand your question. >> i think what i am asking is what to the extent that the potential -- we all agree the sip hotel numbers are certainly

not contracting, if anything they are expanding to some extend in light of the funding. whether that impacts in any way what scope and scale of the vehicle triage center in the short term? my thinking maybe we are dealing with two different populations? a population that needs somewhere to go in a vehicle and would not be interested or qualified for a sip hotel, which would strongly suggest to me regardless of the sip hotel reimbursement it wouldn't impact the extant to which you are ramping up the program. >> you answered the question. >> maybe. if, however, you have people who would be preferred or better off in a fully reimbursed sip hotel

room and with their vehicle stored safely somewhere, then you have a different model and use for the vehicle triage center potentially. i am curious to the extent to which we purr receive the population to be served by this program to over lap with the sip hotels now that we are getting 100% reimbursement on sip hotels. i don't know the answer if it impacts our thinking or not. >> through the chair another excellent question, supervisor preston. i think we need to look at all of the interventions that are possible and what is going to work for each population. both as the pilot vehicle triage center and the triage hotels are new. we have learning about which

strategies works for whom. one of the interesting findings from the vehicle triage center program is that most of the guests that access the vehicle triage center had not otherwise accepted temporary shelter through homeless response system before. it is a different population in a different way. i will share i think one of the things i hear about -- that surprised us about the site where the number of guests that decided to stay with their vehicle on the site and what we often heard was what you pointed to. they don't feel comfortable storing the vehicle, there is no place to store it. there is an and/or. could we try more of a storage sight? there is a need to address this population. it working well to have the engagement on site to connect them to available resources.

i will also say in the larger funding we have a little bit of finite budget here. some of what we were hoping we did get out of this pilot is to learn enough to start thinking about what models work, could be put two models together? what can we do to continue to get at who we are serving and how to serve them best? >> thanks so much. my final comment on that is that it is a value of pilot to look at all of these things and i think to chair melgar's point earlier for a lot of people the vehicle really becomes home in a lot of ways. it isn't just interchangeable with a hotel room. then for others it may be.

that is just to the extent there are either interviews with guests or providers. they have a sense as we become more able to, hopefully, have more shelter-in-place hotels available, looking at how to interact with the strategy. thank you for all your questions and for your work on this. >> thank you, chair. i want to give liman miller a minute or two to say something before public comment. >> thank you for advocating for this project to begin with and for urban alchemy. i think the most important thing to think about is that when

people become unsheltered, they are experiencing a trauma. whatever people's situation is and the stuff they have is very, very personal. there are all kinds of models. i think it is important to offer people. a lot of people don't want to go to hotels for whatever reason. some people are living in cars, some have r.v.s with children. they have created a living space. i think as we begin to grapple with homelessness on this scale that the key that we are seeing that it is not one size fits all. you have to find a place where people feel comfortable being. then they can begin to get stabilized, to let the cortisol level drop to develop relationships and community with where they are. it may beings it easier to place

them in permanent housing. the vehicle triage center has been a wonderful experience. our guests have created community. they have developed great relationships with the people there, and as you see through the report we have been able to place them in more permanent housing. i think it is one of those options. it is an option that worked for some people very well. the more options that we have for people the more we are going to have a chance at getting people into permanent stable situations. the key is not to pull them out of situations where they feel safe right now. people feel safe in their vehicles. we have had great relationships

with the community, too. that is one thing urban alchemy is good at. what we hear in the neighborhoods is that the neighbors feel, oh, god, this is going to attract tents or some activity, all the feedback has been that it is a great experience for neighbors as well. >> thank you. that is it with the presentations. if we could go to public comment. we can come back with last questions if we have any. >> thank you so much. madam clerk are there public commenters in the queue?

>> we are checking for callers in the queue. press star 3 to be added to the queue for those on hold continue to hold. it looks like we have one caller. >> good afternoon, supervisors. this is the director of strategic partnerships from urban alchemy. i want to thank the supervisors office, particularly the community group we worked with this past year when urban alchemy started in november 2019, we couldn't have predicted covid happening and our relationship with hsh as

grown. we have been able to help with the sip hotels and sleeping villages. we are grateful for the opportunity to serve the city and our unhoused neighbors. thank you. >> are there any other speakers in the queue? >> that was the only caller. >> thank you, madam clerk. supervisor safai, would you like us to approve to the call of the chair, continue and come back in. >> one more question for lina. i wanted to ask her. >> i am here. >> i wanted to ask if you have any advice on scaling this up

and taking this to other areas in the city or what would be needed to do that from your perspective? >> urban alchemy, that is not just a promotion but it is very important that you have that balance where people, you know, feel safe and really have certain types of relationships that is different. why we are so successful in so many models sip hotels to toilets to showers. it is important to think what would i want in i was in the situation with my children? if i was fleeing from fires and just got ejected from the house and all i got was my car and everything i own is in my car? especially a lot of people work. showers are extremely important.

toilets, of course, a lot of people have pets, places for pets to take the dogs out to let them walk around and relieve themselves, places for people to congregate. one of the things to push in urban alchemy is set out tables and chairs. people like to wake up with a cup of coffee. big coffee urns to get started. most important is relationships. they feel safe with the people there. they can communicate with them and that is the basis to get them into long-term housing or permanent housing. i think it is just thinking what kind of amenities would i want for me and my family had i been in that situation? like our safe sleeping village. we have a lot of hygiene

products in little kits, razors and people bring out clothes instead of bringing them in bags, having clothing hangers to go through on the rack instead of feeling like they are digging in bags for used stuff. all of these things. sometimes people only come with clothing on their backs. washing service. we do that. we have been kind of finding ways to wash clothes for people. i think to have some kind of -- they do have mobile washing machines same as the showers. we have seen mostly in los angeles or a washing service so we can have access to commercial washer and driers. we have kept people's stuff together. washing can be very, very expansive.

those are some of the little things that may being a huge, huge difference. coffee, places for animals, hygiene. does that answer your question. >> yes, that is very helpful. i appreciate that. thank you. we will continue to work with all community partners in the different district supervisors. >> thank you, ms. miller. i want to tell you we have another caller who has lined up for public comment. we will hear from them now. madam clerk. >> hello. i am mary harris. i was part of the working group. i was honored to be selected.

i have been a community member since 1974, and i just wanted to thank my supervisor for his compassion and humanity of starting this during his re-election. it could have been risky business. he pushed forward and i think that it has been very successful. i would lobby to taking this model city-wide with improvements that have been brought forth from both the controller's office and the agencies that were involved. i think that this was -- we didn't know when we started there was going to be a pandemic. i know just as a homeowner how

stressful it has been for me and my family and having a couple family members that had covid. i can't imagine living in my vehicle and through a pandemic. this is something the city should embrace and do for other communities. i don't think it attracted anybody from outside. we did prioritize the community and the neighboring communities. if you look and drive around the 11, you can see the vehicles all over on the streets, especially near city college and they don have showering, they don't have cooking, they don't have garbage disposal. they don't have all of the things that are provided at the vehicle center, not to mention

the supportive services that they have. i hope that you will -- anyway thank you everyone, especially steve courier and everyone so compassionate. thank you. good-bye. >> thank you ms. harris. supervisor would you like this continued to the call of the chair? >> no, i think this was a specific hearing as it pertained to the upper yard. i certainly would if there was a way to amend it to come back for further conversations. my intent is to work with the different district supervisors to continue to expand this. we want to work on taking this

model on a city-wide basis. there has been strong interest from particularly adjacent supervisors. i just want to really appreciate everyone's involvement in this, willingness. i will say to supervisor preston's point. the sip hotels is a different population of people than those living in vehicles. quite a number of them are aboutable this happens to be the most affordable option to continue to live in the city. there are some people that are down on their luck and transient to the city. we have learned quite a bit from this initial model. we will take this city-wide and do it in partnership. if there is a way to keep it on an ongoing -- to the call of the chair we would. since it is written specifically about the upper yard i will

leave that up to the chair to decide. >> i will make a motion to continue it to the call of the chair. if we need to come back and talk about this we can. >> great. thank you for your attention and time today. >> thank you, supervisor safai. madam clerk, can you please call the roll. >> on the motion to continue to the call the chair. >> supervisor peskin absent. >> preston. >> aye. >> melgar. >> aye. >> you have two ayes. >> thank you. the motion passes. madam clerk are there any other items before us today? >> that concludes the business for today. >> thank you so much. that means we are adjourned. thank you everybody.

>> by the time the last show came, i was like whoa, whoa, whoa. i came in kicking and screaming and left out dancing. [♪♪♪] >> hello, friends.

i'm the deputy superintendent of instruction at san francisco unified school district, but you can call me miss vickie. what you see over the next hour has been created and planned by our san francisco teachers for our students. >> our premise came about for san francisco families that didn't have access to technology, and that's primarily children preschool to second grade. >> when we started doing this distance learning, everything was geared for third grade and up, and we work with the little once, and it's like how were they still processing the information? how were they supposed to keep learning? >> i thought about reaching the student who didn't have

internet, who didn't have computers, and i wanted them to be able to see me on the t.v. and at least get some connection with my kids that way. >> thank you, friends. see you next time. >> hi, friend. >> today's tuesday, april 28, 2020. it's me, teacher sharon, and i'm back again. >> i got an e-mail saying that i had an opportunity to be on a show. i'm, like, what? >> i actually got an e-mail from the early education department, saying they were saying of doing a t.v. show, and i was selected to be one of the people on it, if i was interested. i was scared, nervous. i don't like public speaking and all the above. but it worked out.

>> talk into a camera, waiting for a response, pretending that oh, yeah, i hear you, it's so very weird. i'm used to having a classroom with 17 students sitting in front of me, where they're all moving around and having to have them, like, oh, sit down, oh, can you hear them? let's listen. >> hi guys. >> i kind of have stage flight when i'm on t.v. because i'm normally quiet? >> she's never quiet. >> no, i'm not quiet. >> my sister was, like, i saw you on t.v. my teacher was, i saw you on youtube. it was exciting, how the community started watching. >> it was a lot of fun. it also pushed me outside of my

comfort zone, having to make my own visuals and lesson plans so quickly that ended up being a lot of fun. >> i want to end today with a thank you. thank you for spending time with us. it was a great pleasure, and see you all in the fall. >> i'm so happy to see you today. today is the last day of the school year, yea! >> it really helped me in my teaching. i'm excited to go back teaching my kids, yeah. >> we received a lot of amazing feedback from kiddos, who have seen their own personal teacher on television. >> when we would watch as a family, my younger son, kai, especially during the filipino

episodes, like, wow, like, i'm proud to be a filipino. >> being able to connect with someone they know on television has been really, really powerful for them. and as a mom, i can tell you that's so important. the social confidence development of our early learners.

good afternoon, welcome to the february 23, 2021 regular meeting of the san francisco board of supervisors. please call the roll. >> supervisor chan. we will come back. >> supervisor haney. >> present. >> chanpresent. >> supervisor haney. >> present. >> mandelman. >> not present. >> supervisor