designated bus lanes service from mission. it will display the history of the city. van ness avenue. >> good morning. the meeting will come to order. welcome to the thursday, march 25th meeting of the public safety and neighborhood services committee. i'm supervisor gordon mar and committee member matt haney will be joining us. and we're also joined by supervisor melgar for item number 3. thank you to john carol and i'd also like to thank sf gov staff for this meeting. do you have any announcements?

>> i do. for one thing i want to note that, mr. chair, in order to protect the board members in the 2019, the chamber and committee room are closed. this precaution is taken pursuant to all local federal state and local orders and directives. committee members will attend the meeting. if they are physically present in their committee room. public comment will be available for each item on this agenda, both san francisco cable channel 26 and sfgovtv.org. you have an opportunity to speak and provide your public comments on today's agenda by dialling by phone (415) 655-0001. once connected the meeting i.d. is 1874560963. press pound. when you're connected.

you will hear the meeting discussions ongoing but your line will be muted and on listen-only. when your item comes up, press pound followed by star 3. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. best practices are to call from a quiet location to speak clearly and slowly. everyone must account for potential time delays and speaking discrepancies we may encounter during the live streaming. alternative, you may submit public comment in either of the following ways. you may e-mail me john carol. my e-mail address is john.carroll@sfgov.org. you may submit your public comment by paper by mailing it to our office at city hall.

city hall 1 dr. carlton b. goodlett place, san francisco, california 94102. >> supervisor mar: thank you, mr. clerk. can you please call item one. >> clerk: agenda item 1 liquor license 496-14 street. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this hearing should call the public comment number which i will repeat. (415) 655-0001, enter the meeting i.d. of 1874560963. press pound and then press star followed by 3 to enter the queue if you wish to speak on this hearing.

mr. chair. >> supervisor mar: thank you, mr. clerk. we're going to first hear from the san francisco a.d.c. liaison unit. officer sellenson you're here to report. >> yes i am. good morning. bar part time if it's approved this allows an on-sale beer and wine public premises. there are no letters of protest or letters of support. they're located in block 403 which is considered high crime. 202 is considered high saturation. alcohol liaison unit recommends with the following conditions that a petition shall actively monitor the area under their control in an effort to prevent the loitering persons adjacent to the property as depicted on the a.d.c. and no noise shall be audible at any nearby

residence and as of february 3rd, the applicant had agreed to those above listed conditions. >> supervisor mar: great, thank you officer sell nenson for that. i would like to see if the applicants would like to make a remark. >> sure. justin dillal here. along with my colleague jeremy castillo here as well. we are extremely excited to be opening a bar in the mission in san francisco. it's been a dream of ours for a long time. jeremy and i have both worked in bars in the city the last several years and, yeah. kind of crazy opportunity due to the covid. a lot of shutdowns that happened. but we're super excited to have this opportunity to do what we've been wanting to go for a

long time now. >> supervisor mar: thank you. and you're agreeable to the recommended conditions by the a.l.u.? >> absolutely. we're 100% committed to working with the neighborhood to make it a positive place for everyone involved. >> supervisor mar: great. thank you. colleagues, unless you have any remarks, why don't we go to public comment. mr. clerk, are there any callers? >> clerk: thank you, mr. chair. for those who have already connected to the meeting by phone press star followed by 3 to be added to the queue if you wish to speak for this item, agenda item number 1. for those in the queue please wait until you're prompted to begin. those watching on our meeting through cable channel 26, if

you wish to speak on this item, please call in now by following the instructions on your screen. i will repeat them. dial (415) 655-0001. enter the meeting i.d. of 1874560963. mr. chair, just for a moment while i check. we have no callers in the queue. >> supervisor mar: thank you. public comment is now closed. i understand that supervisor mandelman is supportive of this transfer in his district. so given that, i would like to move that we direct the clerk to prepare a resolution determining that this license will serve the public convenience and necessity and that we send the resolution forward to the board with positive recommendation. mr. clerk, can you please call roll.

>> clerk: yes. i will prepare a resolution finding the public needs and necessities will be served and on the motion by chair mar that that motion will be recommended. [roll call] >> clerk: mr. chair, there are three ayes. >> supervisor mar: great. thank you. thank you mr. dolezal, and good luck with your new business. >> thank you very much. >> supervisor mar: mr. clerk. please call agenda item number 2. >> clerk: agenda item 2. liquor license transfer. located at 845 market street will serve members of the public that wish to provide public comment on this hearing should call the public comment number which is still

(415) 655-0001. meeting i.d. 1874560963. mr. chair. >> supervisor mar: thank you, mr. clerk. welcome back officer sellnenson to represent the report on this item. >> okay. bloomingdale's has applied for a type 21 license and it's proved to allow them to provide an off sale general premise. zero letters of protest. zero letters of support. they're located in a plot 210 which is considered high crime. high saturation. the tenderloin station has no opposition. a.l.u. approves with the following condition. no distill should be. no wine shall be sold in bottles or containers less than 750 milliliter. beer or malt beverage should only be served in prepackaged

multi-unit quantities. number four, the following alcoholic beverages should not be sold in quantities more than three individual containers for sale. that would be beer, malt beverages, and malt liquor products. pre-mixed wine products commonly known as wine coolers and premixed distilled cocktails. and they shall monitor the area under the control to prevent any loiters on the premise. and, as of yesterday afternoon, i received an e-mail from the a.b.c. licensing rep that the applicant had signed those above conditions. >> supervisor mar: thank you, officer, for that report from the a.l.u. is the splint jacquelyn hercshfield here to

make any comments? >> yes, sir. i'm here. can you hear me? >> supervisor mar: yes. we can hear you. good morning. >> good morning. on bhaef of bloomingdale's requesting recommendation of approval from the safety and services committee. as well as the planning department and the police department have granted their approval. we are looking to enhance, you know, the high end shopper's experience at our locations. we currently, you know in our home section provide accessories, high end wine and bar accessories and we would like to provide high-end alcohol as well. for a one-stop-shop type of situation. >> supervisor mar: thank you. >> we will comply with conditions. we have agreed to that. sorry. >> supervisor mar: great.

yeah. thank you. thank you for that. colleagues, do you have any questions or remarks? if not, why don't we go to public comment. mr. clerk. >> clerk: thank you again, mr. chair. we're checking to see if we have any callers in the queue. i will repeat the routine. if they're interested in giving comment on agenda item number 2. you will dial (415) 655-0001. enter the meeting i.d. of 1874560963. press the pound symbol twice and then press star followed by 3 to enter the queue to speak if you wish to speak on this item, agenda item number 2. hang on just a moment, mr. chair, child i check one more time. and i'm seeing we have no callers in the queue for this item, mr. chair. >> supervisor mar: thank you.

public comment is now closed. colleagues, i understand supervisor haney, in a you're supportive of this transfer? >> supervisor haney: correct. >> supervisor mar: so i would move determining that this license will serve as public convenience and necessity and that we send the resolution forward to the full board with recommendation. mr. clerk, can you please call role. >> clerk: yes. i will prepare a resolution that the necessities will be served at the direction of the committee and at the motion of chair mar will this item be recommended to the board of supervisors. [roll call] >> clerk: mr. chair, there are three ayes. >> supervisor mar: great. thank you. also, thank you officer

sellmanson for your work and your presentation this morning. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> supervisor mar: please call item number 3. >> clerk: agenda number 3 is the city's reimbursement practices and maximizing funding. including but not limited to mental health med-cal administrative activities. members of the public please call (415) 655-0001 to enter for public comment. >> supervisor mar: thank you, mr. clerk. thank you, supervisor melgar, for calling attention to this important issue. >> supervisor melgar: thank you so much supervisor mar.

i'm so excited to be in front of your committee for the first time. thank you supervisor stefani and haney for providing us the opportunity to hold this hearing. what i am hoping to achieve today is for the board and the public to gain a better understanding of the city's medi-cal reimbursement practices and how we are not taking advantage of every available state and federal funding source for mental health services. at the board, there has been a lot of attention focused on the mental health crisis for many of our residents and the monumental efforts under way with mental health sf, thank you supervisor ronen and haney. i think we can all admit that after a harrowing year, we are facing a parallel pandemic with a mental health crisis. for all of us maintaining

mental, physical, and social well being. how we as a society, we will address our collective trauma. we are receiving increasing reporting of young people visiting the hospital due to suicidal thoughts or suicidal iduations. there is a deeper challenge to provide comprehensive mental health services to our children and youth specifically. so when i learned of prior board hearings and the california health report that san francisco was leaving millions of dollars on the table in medi-call reimbursements, i was pretty floored. every dollar we have claimed means we have left funding to

impact support for children and our youth. that's not something we can live with. not when services are underfunded as is and when these services make such a tremendous difference in the lives of children and families. one of the components of the community school model that is the foundation of the students' rights initiative that supervisor ronen and i have been working on is mental health services. both preventive and treatment available to young people and families at our public schools. youth organizations such as chinese progressive associations youth mojo have been working on this issue for years. it successfully got the school board in 2019 to pass a resolution to create schools as a space for student driven healing, transformation and growth and bring more resources into the schools like pr counseling. the youth commission is also watching this issue very closely and offering incredible insight on how to ensure

responses that are led by youth voices. i look forward to future discussions about building out a comprehensive mental health system for our youth and children. today, i want to focus on the technical aspect of funding and administrative support systems. so i'm really excited to share this that many efforts are under way and i want this board to be active partners to lift up and support this work. today, we have alex briscoe who is the principal of california's children trust. also, the department of public health and our own budget and legislative analyst office presenting. i want to note before we start that some of the department and agencies we requested to be here are not present today because their direct billing goes through the department of public health or dcyf.

the san francisco school district was unable to staff today but their work will be covered and they are a very crucial partner in this work. through chair mar, i would like to start with the presenters and ask that we save our questions until the end after we all present and i am very excited to ask alex briscoe the principal of the california's children's trust to begin his presentation. thank you. >> thank you supervisor melgar. i wonder if i can have the screen share activated help. that's activated. thank you. so i'd like to begin by acknowledging the many public sector leaders who've made today's presentation possible. in particular, the department of public health, the all children all families

coalition, dclyf, hsa and numerous others. and, i'll ask that the elected officials and others listening take a deep breath. i had a mentor who said to me we have the most complicated descriptions for the things we understand the least and there's probably no more winding road and difficult public sector administrative challenge than medi-cade. california devolves the vast majority for understanding and accessing these funds to the local level and it's really complex and difficult. and i will without doing too much on my background, i have directly worked in and built. i've been an emergency social worker, worked in schools, directed and designed mental health services for children. and for seven years, i was the health director in alemeda county. i worked having to work payroll. so i have the deepest respect

for drew, dr. cofax and their team. this is tough stuff but a great opportunity. with that, i'm going to jump in. i'm going to move quickly because i have about 10 minutes. i'm going to give you some of the detail. i'll skip it because supervisor melgar nailed it. there's something going on with kids. it's not just them crazy kids. there's actually real data. it's a uniquely difficult time to be a young person. if you didn't believe that before the pandemic, you probably believe it now. and we could spend the next weeks discussing why. is it 400 years of structural inequality? is it the availability of social media platforms on mobile devices beginning in 2009? is it a wealth of value that equates with merit? the answer is all of those things have made it an extremely difficult time to be a young person. and i'm going to take you through the map of medi-caid.

and then i'll name the four projects that we have initiatived. and i'll finish with a couple comments about some statewide reform which hopefully will make your work easer. first, supervisor melgar's comments the lives of children something happened. twice as many kids in our culture have tried to hurt themselves. there's a 100% increase. while length of state meaning the numbers of days you spend in the hospital decreased across our health care system for all disease burdens. it increased for pediatric mental health. young people told us. we actually asked them and they told us since 2005 they have self-reported need and it should come as no surprise, despite our progressive rhetoric as a state, we rank among the worst states in the nation in terms of access to

mental health services. only 5

across our state. san francisco outperforms this data by about a percentage point. san francisco is about 6.5% in the number of children who touch the system. the good news is you guys do better than the state. and we project as you all know that this number will increase meaning the number of working poor families that are falling into poverty is growing significantly. hopefully the stimulus act will impact that. and you always have to aggregate this data by race. 81% of those 6 million children are nonwhite. the suicide rate for black children is twice that of their white peers. so if we make -- if we have committed to making systems healing centered, it's just not

a question of the mechanics we're about to talk about. it's not about getting that few million dollars here and if i million dollars there. we have to acknowledge the impact of structural racism on poverty and the social and emotional health of children. it's not like all of a sudden twice as many kids got that logical. more than half the children who attempt suicide have no diagnostic history at all. hopefully, the resources we're about to talk about can contribute to that reimagining. i'm going to skip this slide. supervisor melgar did it better than i did it. go team. we suck clinically. we are seeing dramatic increases in utizization. whatever you call a crisis. that's what we're in now.

oakland has seen a 100% increase. things are tough. so i want to teach you medi-caid in one slide. the underlying financial structure is always the same. and this is what i would ask elected leaders to hold. i'm not going to ask you to hold every piece of business transaction that drew and his team have to do. but you can understand the basic concept of it because every dollar includes these two pieces. every dollar includes the federal dollar and the state or local dollar. these have technical terms. the nonfederal dollar is called federal financial participation. but you can distill every medicaid structure to this structure. you can think of it like a pot of gold sitting in dc. you get a dollar if you put up a dollar. the rules are different for each transaction. the ratio can be different.

every dollar, every expenditure has a local and a federal match. so i would invite elected leaders and those listening today to be c.p.e. hunters. think of yourself as someone who's always looking out into my network of expenditures and say where am i spending money on low income people. this is the formal definition from the department of health care services c.p.e.. these are all fancy words to mean a federal match and a local expenditure. let's talk about how that federal dollar flows through the states and counties. how does it show up in the lives of children and families. the first and biggest way is the health plans. in san francisco, you're a two-plan county that's the san francisco health plan and anthem blue cross. the school districts can bill medi-cal directly. really important the state plan amendment was just passed that

expands their ability to bill. community health centers. health 360. and also your own san francisco health network are all federally qualified. they get an enhanced reimbursement. the public health department itself can claim for case management and administrative activities. we'll talk about that today. public hospitals have their own way and the regional center. these are the seven different ways and not all of them are within your control. some of the health plans are directed by the state. some of the regional centers are surround the local health systems. the challenge for children and families is they don't care about these lines on the map. for them to negotiate these multiple systems who continually struggle with lack of resources, lack of accountability between and among them, we really struggle. and, again, it's nobody's fault. if you want to ask why are we where we are given that we have the fourth highest tax base in

the nation and the 38th most spending, this is why. when everybody's responsible, nobody is. if you think of these thing, our children, our families trusted us to meet with key stakeholders and identify opportunities and we did. and we were able to secure a philanthropic resource. 26 family resource centers received more than $15 million. so they received first five more than safe and sound and we analyze every single one of their budgets and the department of public health. and we developed a strategy.

the rest of the frcs will come on board july 1st. it's a massive collaboration with all of your players. it's very much a pleasure to work with so many people aligned and this will produce about a $15 million to $16 million expenditure ongoing. what's really important to note is if you can't reduce the amount of money you give to the frcs because any time you reduce the funding you spend, you reduce the claim you get. are you with me? we've been really clear that these dollars have to be considered on top of existing investments, not as a mechanism to reduce your existing investment. with that said, the next project we identified with ocof was the children's center.

the most prevent interaction is in the first three years of their child's life. they go 12 to 15 times. we structurally deny access to services to the mom. you can only bill once a day. so we work with the state and fed. plus being adopted around the state. also, we're working with san francisco unified school district. they have over 105 social workers that are not claiming medicaid. they're also getting a flood of money for school re-opening and other sources. we anticipate almost $100 million of new revenue will come into the school district, but it will be one time. so teaching and working with

the school district for those kids who stop showing to up to zoom. everyone is aligned there. there's big opportunities. we've been working with the department of behavioral health services division to look at the opposition. associated with the 1135 waiver. that's the federal disaster declaration that changed some of the rules of medicaid for the duration of the pandemic. there's opportunities for year department of health under that waiver. there's also opportunities to claim for administrative opportunities. these are defined as different direct services like health fairs like engaging communities and services. we will begin a direct charge

long winded way of saying that if you divide all four of these projects up you end up with somewhere between $6 million and $10 million revenue. these are all conservative efforts demonstrated. so in conclusion, this is what we call the trust for frame work solution. how will we reinvent mental health. so overtly anti-racist. we will figure out how to get more money because we're not spending enough. we will change the nature of the benefit. that's the new benefit we created with the state. so that we can promote justice.

thank you for having us and again, thank you to all of the public and private funders who are supporting our work. >> supervisor melgar: thank you very much. i'm wondering if there's any questions before we move on to the next presenter? >> supervisor mar: i don't have any questions, but i just really wanted to thank mr. briscoe for this really informative presentation and, yeah, just highlighting yeah, such an important issue and work that's happening and then more specifically the need to maximize us to maximize the federal funding that's available to us to really address the needs here in our

city. >> supervisor melgar: i worked in a nonprofit agency that provides a substance abuse order. one of the great things about the work that you're doing is the capacity building that you are providing for the department in terms of being able to, you know, train the trainers. to understand some of these issues and i am wondering if you think that the staffing infrastructure that we have currently with the four project is adequate to be able to make this work sustainable in the long run. >> well, i think i need to defer that question supervisor melgar, to drew and his team. yeah. i think it is.

and i think actually that the skill and will is there. there is, you know, first of all, i need to say i'm a san francisco constituent. so i love living here. and, sometimes what it's meant is that we've funded things that in other jurisdictions, you have to claim for and so that means it's as much unpacking the kind of history of progressiveness as it is any kind of capacity issue. drew, charlie, sair, marleau and team are all excellent. they know this work as well as anyone. historically, there hasn't been energy and pressure to get these dollars. yeah, again, so i don't see it as a capacity issue. i just see it as a almost focus issue. in terms of the staffing necessity, i think we need to figure that out.

>> supervisor melgar: okay. thank you so much. i know when you were in alemeda county, you were tenacious about getting the reimbursement dollars when other counties made an effort. and i am curious how you went about, you know, building the system's culture because that sounds to me like what you're saying. it's not so much a capacity issue. it's sort of a culture of wanting to do it. >> first. i need to say my mentors, vanna chavez who has since passed away. she grew up in a trailer in hayward, didn't have a college degree. and she used to say to me you have to hustle for medicaid as hard as poor people hustle for rent. and i feel that same energy from drew and their team.

everybody's super open and they want to do this. i think if you ask where that culture came from it was from the people who taught me this work. >> supervisor melgar: i love that. hustle for medi-cal dollars. so that pieces out perfectly to welcome drew morell from the department of public health who will present on that department's efforts. >> thank you. >> supervisor melgar: drew, are you with us? >> how's that? i unmuted myself. thank you supervisor melgar. thank you, alex. i appreciate this time to kind of talk through.

i think i would like to level set and make sure it's clear. like i'm really speaking to the behavioral health portion of alex's slide. the california children's trust and the engagement they have with the city right now. the target for my presentation today is the behavioral health portion of it. particularly on the f.r.c. side and additional claiming opportunities. but the presentation today, the focus is on what we can do for behavioral health claiming both in mental health and other opportunities. i appreciate the time to speak to it. it's an important, somewhat technical issue. sometimes people are bored by it but i'm always excited to speak to it. and i'm excited. i'm happy to be joined by fara

aremond. let's go. here is an overview of the overall neighborhood health budget. it gives the flavor of the spending on the and authentic then on the right is the revenue sources. we're really talking about the medi-cal reimbursement here and our administrative and other costs that have sometimes exceeded the state limit of allowable amounts. now, all of this is a big caveat for 1920. i think alex mentioned there was a waiver by the governor to lift the cap for the duration of the covid public health emergency. so we're really dealing in a different world this year with not having the same limits on what we can claim for administrative and other

reimbursements and that's really meant a world of difference. we're still preparing the cost report but we expect it to be about a $3 million difference for d.p.h. this year. inclusive of that or external to that, we continually work on optimizing our revenue and claiming practices. for direct services, the focus it has been to continuing to enroll clients in medi-cal, improve our screening and enrollment practices. we look for any opportunity we can for direct billing including peer services. outside of the direct treatment services, we have taken this year with alex's prompting a really targeted review on how we can better leverage our claiming opportunities for administrative costs. that includes utilizization

that often falls into an admin and claiming diversity bucket. in addition to that, we're reviewing and this is really where alex's work is directly involved. opportunities for mental health medi-cal claiming, this is a particular claim that says if we have the support of a time study or otherwise can say it's 100% of effort, we can claim cost directly to the state. e.p.h. had previously participated in that program and we ran into challenges starting in 2016. so i'll speak to the challenges. and this is where we have like a friendly discussion when,

alex, i appreciate the work and the partnership. i do cringe a little bit when we talk about a federal match guaranteed. it's not guaranteed that we have a federal match. we've had the experience of state audits that come six and seven years after the claim has been submitted and they find that there's a gap of 15 minutes in a particular employee's time and we are subject and lose the money six years back well after the money is out the door. that being said, that time study requirement was something that the state chose to implement in 2016 to say there's a new requirement for

both to allocate their time in the clinical codes and allocate their time with d.p.h. mh.m.a.a.. so this is really where we're challenged to implement mental health maa is to find ways and there are ways to claim under mental health maa without having to time study. in addition to the time study requirement, there are claims and that is some of the work that alex referenced was outreach. so there's particular type officers outreach that would be qualified ungd mental health m.a.a. that we are reviewing right now. we're reviewing the top 10

contracts that hold outreach dollars and trying to find areas that we can pinpoint mental health m.a.a. in one particular point. that would be for us to claim for that under mental health m.a.a., fund it without the need for a time study. the challenge there is the audit window. we would be in a position of claiming funding a contractor, and then holding on to time records for that contractor for six, seven years and waiting to see for audit risk. i think that's manageable, but it does put some pressure on a choice of basically an audit deferrell or audit risk threshold. all of these are manageable. this is what we're working through right now with alex's help and i think happy to take any questions. appreciate the time. >> supervisor melgar: thank you. so much, drew.

i know how challenging it is to work with the state and the medi-cal and thank you so much for all your diligence and trying to get every penny that we can. i know that -- i had heard that you were working on developing a new app to figure out how to do billing in an easier way for providers. is that still happening? are we leveraging some private funding to do that? >> i think that's one of the elements of alex's work and that would be to the extent that we do have a time study app that helps when a clinician or a contractor engaging from the mental health m.a.a., but before we get there, we're at a stage where we may not need a time study. if we are able to find activities be civil service or

contractors that are dedicated to a particular mental health. in those situations, we just direct charge and there's no need to time study because 100% of their time is dedicated to that. in that case, the state has a different threshold for what document nation is needed for mental health m.a.a. >> supervisor melgar: also, for this board of supervisors, we can convince the state to not require this anymore because it's not a federal requirement, right? >> that's correct. it was a choice by the state for implementing mental health m.a.a. in 2016 and i hope to convey just how much their different choices at the state level have an impact on what we can claim and what we can't and that's really born out both with the lifting of the waiver this year going from 15% to

30%. that emergency action by the governor really changed our claiming dynamic for 1920. and this implementation plan, you know, when that was chosen introduced a time study requirement that was really prohibitive for us continuing with mental health m.a.a. this is all changing the document requirements and working with the time line for audit reimbursements. i see is very much in line with the cal efforts which is just in general to make it less complex and less time burdensome for locals that the state is pursuing. >> supervisor melgar: well, thank you so much, drew. and i think, you know, i'm not going to speak for my colleagues but i think we are all very interested in making sure you're successful in that we can raise as much money as possible to support this work.

thank you. and so next through the chair, i would like to invite fred russo and carl fatell from the budget and analyst office to talk to us about those efforts. >> okay. thank you. chair mar, members of the committee, and supervisor melgar. i'm fred russo from the budget legislative analyst office. i'm going to speak today about our review of current efforts to increase medi-cal reimbursement for behavioral health services. i do have some slides. i will share here. and, are those showing up? >> yeah. we can see it. >> okay.

great. so supervisor melgar asked our office to do a review of medi-cal administrative costs and reimbursement practices and the city's behavioral health services division of the department of public health and the background of the question was this information that supervisor melgar mentioned and the other counties had been increasing their reimbursement through this mechanism called mental health m.a.a. or medi-cal health and administrative activities. it's a charging mechanism, reimbursement mechanism. so just the background on that fiscal year 2018-19. only 12 of 58 california counties filed claims using this mechanism. as mr. murell mentioned, san

francisco discontinued claiming against this in fiscal year of 2015-16. but we did find that alemeda county had began claiming and this is when alex briscoe who spoke earlier was there and they increased their mental health m.a.a. reimbursements from $3 million to $17 million annually betweenen 2004 and 2014. going after the mental health m.a.a. dollars. the reports we showed got an increase statewide from $17.9 million in fiscal year 2017 to $41.7 million reimbursed in fiscal year '20. while that sounds good, it's a small number of county that is are claiming. in fiscal year 1920, for example, los angeles county

only got reimbursed $4 million and obviously their administrative costs are significantly higher than that. so there's a general reluctance to use this mechanism by counties. alemeda county being a great exception and we're interested, of course, in can what occurred in alemeda county be replicated here. very quickly for context, the behavioral health services budget and drew mentioned this also. but we are looking specifically at the mental health side of behavioral health services and not including substance use disorder in this discussion today. so for fiscal year 2018-19, $316 million. drew had an update for more current years but we wanted to focus on this so we can track through how the reimbursements

have worked use the that year as our baseline. and, on the revenue side, here we show the total of the $316 million again and you can see the federal financial participation which you heard referenced earlier was about $91 million. the state money that's shown here which is realignment in two versions and mhsa and mental health services act funding is shown there in the three rows and that all together amounted to $133.9 million or about 42% of the revenue services and the county general fund is a big piece of the revenue sources for san francisco more than you find in many other counties in california because the city is committed to providing general fund revenues beyond what is required for medi-cal reimbursement. quickly, this is just a pie

chart and it shows the breakdown and this is showing the county department of mental health provider network. you can see kind of the breakdown here mostly state and federal resources. and, here, this shows the community based organizations in san francisco general hospital. similarly, there's a big chunk for federal and state. but what we also see here is the general county funds and work order money about $70 million in fiscal year 2018-19. so a lot of that is directed to our community-based contractors who provide behavioral health services. i won't go through this. i think it's been discussed in detail, but just generally back to this idea of the federal government provides a match of the 50% level of cost. so between the state and the federal government, the city is eligible for this one-to-one match of our costs that are

incurred using the state and local funding and then matching it with the federal financial participation. and, this chart is just showing how certified public expenditures work. it's pretty straight forward. i think it starts at the local level, goes to the state, funds are matched, and the federal government provides the 50% match. and then it tracks back down to our department and the direct service providers be they either contractors or to the department itself. so the behavioral health services division can claim medi-cal reimbursement through four basic services. direct services is the bulk of it. that's charging for or claiming reimbursement for costs that are incurred in providing services to medi-cal beneficiaries. then there is a mechanism called general administration and, through this, the

department can claim an automatic 15% on top of the or on the direct service costs that are eligible under medi-cal for services. so all kinds of administrative costs like outreach and contract administration, planning and policy development can be billed through that mechanism. a third is quality and utilization review. but it's also performed by clinicians and others in addition to providing direct services and other tasks that they perform. and then finally, this fourth mechanism mental health m.a.a., which we've talked about, this can be claimed in addition to this 15% general administration and there are certain categories of activities that are allowed under that that were also allowed under general administration. but there's a reason to claim

both and i'll get to that in a minute. the key to all of this is behavioral health services cost report. this is a very complicated reporting system that tracks staff and contractor activity by activity and modes so that they can determine whether or not certain staff costs and contractor costs can be claimed for medi-cal reimbursement. on the general administrative costs, and that's the second one shown in the box here where there's 15% of costs that can be claimed. what has happened in san francisco in recent years is that the actual eligible cost exceeds 15%. and so, in that sense, some money is being left on the table because only 15% can be claimed. now, some of that could be recovered through mental health m.a.a., but as we mentioned, san francisco's department is not claiming mental health

m.a.a. and hasn't been since 2016. so there's the potential for additional funding for behavioral health services we conclude and this is after we've spoken to drew and some of the staff people in behavioral health services and looked at some of their documentation and also interviewed alex who's working with them. alex briscoe from c.c.p. this is the type of activity that can be reimbursed as i mentioned previously. so how to increase the reimbursements. there are a lot of these categories that can be shifted. right now, there is staff and contractor time spent on what's called mode 45 activity which is medi-cal speaks for certain administrative activities. but it's not eligible for financial participation or reimbursement. this could include, for example, outreach. but if it's outreach for people for nn medi-cal programs, it

wouldn't be reimbursed through the current mechanism. but medi-cal outreach can be reimbursed under mental health m.a.a. and that's right now included in that 15%. but it can also be claimed under mental health m.a.a. so the idea would be to shift those mental health activities and claim mental health m.a.a. and allow other act its that are not being reimbursed to be claimed through the 15% general administration mechanism and/or mental health m.a.a. because both mechanisms allow for reimbursement of the same activities, but the 15% general administration mechanism allows for more activities to be reimbursed than m.a.a.. they can be moved in to m.a.a. that allows for the department to claim some of these costs

that are not being recovered now because they exceed 15%. in addition, there's a strategy that can be employed and alex mentioned this so i won't go into a lot of detail which is if the contractor's direct charge for some of their administrative activities, that can be reimbursed and it doesn't require the extensive time studies that are needed to fully utilize the mental health m.a.a. mechanism. so this chart is sort of showing what i just described and it's shifting a lot of the activity into the mechanism that allows for reimbursement of those particular activities and tasks and taking full advantage of these two sources, the general administration up to 15% of direct services cost and then mental health m.a.a. which allows for additional reimbursement that's being

obtained now. we intended to come up with what might this actually entail or what this could mean for additional revenues because i think drew made the point quite strongly and we're certainly sympathetic. this is not just easy of filling out forms, there is a time quality requirement which is time tracking by staff and contractors that isn't being done now. it would be an additional task that they would have to take on. there's an administrative cost to rolling it out and making sure it's done right and ensuring that, you know, an audit down the road will not show that, in fact, some of the funds that were claimed and reimbursed have to be repaid to the federal government. so but putting that aside just to get a feel for some of the numbers, on this 15% cap of what's left right now, we estimate about $3.2 million

could be claimed and that's just the funds that are over the 15% cap that aren't being claimed right now and this is a portion that potentially can be reimbursed through federal financial participation. and, by the way, that's -- i think we're being conservative. we believe there is probably more and you dig into the cost report as alex and his group and drew and his staff are doing now as they start this analysis that's under way. on the contractor side, this is, right now, we have about $286 million budget and that's from fiscal year '20 for contractor time. that includes some of their administrative costs but they have a lot of administrative activities that aren't getting reimbursed because they aren't claiming against the mechanism like mental health m.a.a. and they don't have the 15% general administration reimbursement in

the same way the department does. so contractors have some opportunity here. we just came up with an estimate to give some feel for the magnitude and this is based on the assumption if the contractors are spending like say 5% of their time or costs covering unclaimed administrative time which we do not think is an unreasonable assessment, that would translate into about $7 million in reimbursable costs and the portion of that could be and maybe could be reimbursed to this direct charge method that i described a minute ago that doesn't require a time study to the extent the contractors do implement a time study mechanism the funding reimbursed could be probably higher than the $7 million. but this is just to give some feel for the magnitude and to address the question of is this worth doing. whether it's a time cost study

or burden staff and what we would be obtaining in additional revenues. this shows that the $3.2 million that we estimated for potential additional reimbursement based on the 15%. and, here you see there's $25 million that was incurred and identified in administrative costs for the department, but only 12 -- or $9.6 million of that was reimbursed to the federal financial participation. whereas, $12 million or $3.2 million more could have been if that was all claimed and reimbursed using mental health m.a.a. in addition to the 15% cap. i've talked about the contractors and other staff as well and the potential there. it wouldn't require time to stud to do at least some partial claiming for their administrative costs, but it

won't capture all the administrative costs. so the good news about that is there's even more potential to be reimbursed. the bad news is it does require implementing time study. on the horizon, the federal waiver and other speakers that mentioned this where the general administrative costs can go up at least for a year starting in 2022 from 15% to 30%. so that's certainly good news. we'll allow for increasing the federal medi-cal reimbursement for department costs and we know already that they are more in the neighborhood of, you know, 20% or more of costs that have been identified it probably will not be difficult to get the full 30%. and, then the initiative that's under analysis through c.c.t. and the department will certainly aiming at increasing medi-cal reimbursements and we're optimistic about what we

understand what we're doing that there's potential there. and, finally, the cal aim initiative will simplify medi-cal claiming requirements in the future and that's certainly good news for the department too that has to deal with this complex reimbursement process on a daily basis. we did provide some recommendations and thought that just given the complexity of this and the difficulty of tracking medi-cal revenues, we thought it would be wise for the board to request the b.h.s. report back on a 6-month basis or so on how this analysis is going, what changes are being implemented such as time study requirements and what kind of results are occurring as hopefully medi-cal reimbursements increase as the changes get under way. >> supervisor melgar: excellent idea. thank you so much, mr. russo.

thank you for the presentation and the recommendation. >> thank you. >> supervisor melgar: so that's it for our presenters. chair mar, we do have dr. faraman here from the department of public health. i do have one question for her before, you know, we close this up if that's okay. dr. faramond, are you here with us still? >> i'm here. thank you supervisor melgar. hi everyone. >> supervisor melgar: i was wondering if you could tell us a little bit what efforts are under way to ashrine and coordinate the system of care centering children and youth and, you know, i know that when we spoke, you have some ideas about what additional funding if were available you could use for this. >> yes. thank you, supervisor melgar. hi everyone. thanks for having this hearing. i want to start by -- i will

get to your question, supervisor melgar, but i want to just start by say echoing what supervisor melgar said at the beginning of this hearing. there's a lot of focus on the mental health. and as you can see in drew's presentation, the children and family behavioral health services is a small fraction of the budget in compareson to the rest of the system. even though we are a smaller system and children and youth and families is a smaller population in san francisco, it's really important to invest in children, youth, and families to prevent them from being target populations in mental health sf. so i really appreciate this effort to identify for resources and support to invest in the children and youth family system of care. i have to say, we do have a robust mental health. i can speak to the specialty mental health system that i oversee. there's a lot of nonspecialty services that happen in primary care and other preventive efforts, but in thinking

through the specialty mental health services, we do have a robust system and we have really tight partnerships with the school district, child welfare and juvenile probation. there are a lot of efforts to reenvision the care. board of supervisors close juvenile hall work efforts. there is a lot of efforts around thinking through a continuum of mental health care from prevention all the way to sort of a secure and detention facility that is going to look different than the current one we have in place. so there's a lot of efforts where we are aligning our systems and thinking through a continuum and there's a lot of effort and focus with the school district between dcyf, the school district, and children and youth families. i just wanted to take this opportunity to pitch. i know i mentioned this to supervisor melgar. i just want to put out into the

ethos while i have this platform that two of the major needs we have right now as a behavioral health system for children and youth family, especially this past year, the increase in acuity of youth the increase in referrals, intense management, wrap around support, hospitalization stays, contact with our crisis system, acuity is through the roof and our top two needs are three beds for a crisis residential type of setting, like a 2 to 3-month stay. beds are hard to come by. all younger kids get placed out of the county and those are for short acute stays and the residential beds are also really hard to come by and they have to be system involved. so the school district or child

welfare has to do that. if we have a two, to three-month bed stay that would be one top need. just $1.1 million and then the other top need is substance use. if there's anything that we're really lacking in our system, it's substance use treatment and the needs are increasing. so we need to expand outpatient providers, get a residential bed and $2 million would help us with that. i also just want to say at the state level we're really a model of san francisco county for our behavioral health services, for our use of our data and in our agency partnership and with the school district child welfare and k.p.d. >> supervisor melgar: thank you so much for all the work that you do. chair mar, i'm wondering if any of your committee members or yourself have any questions for

the presenters about this issue? >> supervisor mar: thanks again, supervisor melgar for calling importance to this hearing. actually i did maybe have a question either for mr. murrell from d.p.h. or mr. russo from the d.p.a. for this issue that was heighted. it seems like there's an opportunity for us to get more reimbursements through medi-cal and through the state for administrative expenses for these very important programs. but then the -- there's a question of whether that extra burden on tracking those hours and reporting is worth it. so i'm just trying to understand this issue a little bit better and so for d.p.a. and mr. murrell.

i understand from a.

>> chair mar, if i can just direct that for a moment, the data we have shows $17.9 million claimed across the state so definitely there's been an increase. more counties are claiming it. but i have to add, alemeda

county is about half of that. so they definitely can be the leader which tells us can be done. i think more assessment should be done about what they did specifically. luckily alex briscoe used to be the director there. other counties have done it as well and increased their reimbursement, but not at the level i suspect of their actual costs but there's an uptick in it and resistance to it as well for reasons that have been discussed this morning. >> supervisor mar: thank you. i think i noticed from your, mr. brazir from your presentation, you mentioned on the horizon there is a federal waiver that will allow us to increase the administrative -- allowable administrative reimbursement from 15% to 30%. so basically doubling it. >> correct. that is i believe and probably

mr. murrell can confirm this, i think it's a one-year deal. it will be great to catch up but it's not an ongoing arrangement. >> it's actually extended for the life of the public health emergency. so it was initiated effective in march 2020 and has been ongoing since then until the governor declares the end to the public health emergency. >> supervisor mar: do we have an estimate how much that increase from 15% to 30% allowable mental health administration expenses means for the city? >> yeah. it's a little tricky, but preliminary for 19-20 we think it netted us about $15 million in the initial cost claim.

part of the difficulty is managing that estimate between our initial claim which is due in a week on march 31st for '19-'20. and reconciliation that comes five years after the fact, many of the costs count against the admin and others and counted as direct services which allow more cost to go to admin and other and we're playing with the 15% cap. but our initial estimate is about $2 million to $3 million in '19-'20. >> supervisor mar: thank you for all your work on this. and supervisor melgar for your attention on these issues. >> supervisor melgar: thank you, chair mar. i think that i will also hope that we can, as a board support

the work in a meaningful way. >> supervisor mar: supervisor stefani. >> supervisor stefani: thank you, char mar and through the chair to supervisor melgar. thank you so much for this incredibly important hearing. i care so deeply about the mental health of our children and the issues around substance abuse. i definitely want to partner with you on anything i can. i also want to again call attention to the recovery summit working groups recommendations around youth programming and what we should be doing more for substance abuse programming for youth and the question we don'thave to get into now and whether or not the funding in question today is what exactly can be reimbursed in terms of the youth programming on substance abuse issues whether or not that can be used for absence based programming with full

blown, you know, not just harm reduction which is obviously extremely important as well, but whether or not we are allowed to match public dollars when it comes to absence based programming. i also had recently met with a lot of addiction doctors from ucsf and this was a conversation we had as well and i want to do anything i can to help on this issue and again, supervisor melgar, huge fan. thank you so much for this incredibly important subject and for pushing what we need which is the matching dollars and of course the programming and thank you to all the presenters as well. >> supervisor mar: thank you, supervisor stefani. for making the connection to that. it's really important hearing you held recently. and let's -- supervisor melgar,

i don't know if you have any final further remarks. >> supervisor melgar: just thank you supervisor mar, chair mar. i just want to thank alex briscoe for being here. i'm really excited for what we're going to do together. i want to make a special point of thanking maria stew, the director of children, youth, and families and our children our families counsel for leading this effort for bringing alex in, for having the vision and the foresight to elevate the mental health of children and, thank you to drew murell at the department of public health. marleau simmons, dr. faramond, the department of public health and of course to fred russo and carl for the budget and legislative analyst. so in closing, i'm hoping, chair mar, that you would be willing to continue this at the

call of the chair so that we can check in as mr. russo had advised us to do on this ongoing work and to see if we can make progress. thank you so much for the time and energy. >> supervisor mar: thanks again, supervisor melgar. and, yeah, i'd be happy to make that motion after public comment. mr. clerk, are there any callers on the line for public comment? >> clerk: thank you, mr. chair. we're continuing to work with the department of technology for caller who is want to comment on this hearing. for those who want to speak on this item, now is your opportunity. please do so by calling the following number. (415) 655-0001. after you've dialed the number, please enter the meeting i.d. which is 1874560963. press the pound symbol twice

and then press star followed by 3 to enter the make a motion t

excuse supervisor haney. can you call roll, mr. clerk. >> clerk: on a motion offered by chair mar to excuse supervisor haney. [roll call] >> clerk: mr. chair, there are two ayes. >> supervisor mar: thank you. and i move that we continue this hearing to the call of the chair. >> clerk: on the motion offered by chair martha this item be continued to the call of the chair, vice chair stefani. [roll call] >> clerk: two ayes once again. >> supervisor mar: thank you, supervisor melgar. and all the presenters. we look forward to seeing you back at the following hearing. mr. clerk, can you please call

item number 4. >> clerk: agenda number 4 is an ordinance amending the police code's require peace officers who request a temporary emergency gun violence restraining order. and to apply the california penal code pro vision penalizing violations of different types of restraining orders. parallel to gun violence restraining orders issued by an out-of-state jurisdiction. members who wish to provide public comment on this agenda item please call the public comment number. (41) 565-5001. i.d. number 1874560963 and press pound. >> supervisor mar: thank you, supervisor stefani, for your incredible leadership and dedication to the issue -- the

extremely troubling and serious issue of gun violence in our country and especially coming after, you know the past week of just more tragedies. so thank you so much and thank you for sponsoring this legislation. the floor is yours. >> supervisor stefani: thank you, chair mar. i really appreciate that. obviously, it's been a very trying time. not only did we have the mass shooting in atlanta and boulder, but there were other mass shootings that weren't as publicized and it's just tragic that this type of violence continues to happen in our country. it is very emotional. it is -- it's angering. it's so many things and you know we just have don't to push and use everything we possibly can to combat gun violence in our country because the american experience here is unique and it's one that we must do everything we can to

erase from this on our country and i just thank you for those remarks. i'm turning our attention to the ordinance before us today is the expansion of our local law here on gun violence restraining orders. i know you know what that is. i will say again that gun violence restraining orders they're also known as red flag laws and they empower house hold members or law enforcement officers to petition a court in order to temporarily remove a person's access to firearms before they commit violence. we know in many shootings that there have been signs and warning signals to family members like the one in isle vista in santa barbara where my dear friend richard martinez lost his only son. then, the family called the sheriff's department, their son had written a manifesto and they just had an inkling that

something bad was going to happen. there was nothing they could do. they could not remove the weapons or do anything, and, unfortunately, lives were lost. so our first g.v.r.o. was passed in california in 2014 and luckily, i was able to pass a version of that in 2020. that allowed us to create this new tool which is a civil tool, not criminal. and it allows the san francisco police department to prohibit or join an individual from owning, purchasing, possessing or receiving any firearms or ammunition when that individual poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injure to themselves or to others. we know now that the need is greater than ever. we were just hearing about mental health in the prior hearing that the -- that suicide and mental health is something that is plaguing our

children and not just children. obviously, i've had an increase in suicides in my district over the pandemic. and, also, we're seeing a rise of violent threats from right-wing white supremacists nationally and locally. here, shootings in san francisco are up 62% from 2019. and the problem is getting worse. in quarter four of 2020, actually, october through december, shootings were up by 219% from 2019. we've been in extended lockdown. it's put an incredible strain on our residents' mental health and the intensity in number of calls into the suicide prevention hotline has absolutely increased. so the ordinance before you today takes advantage of recent changes to state law that allows localities to strengthen

our existing gun violence programs. this ordinance enhances our current programs in two ways. one, officers are required to serve and file g.v.r.o.s with a court in a reasonable alternate of time. now reasonable is defined as no later than three days after issuance. and, two, it allows san francisco to treat gun violence restraining orders issued in other jurisdictions as if they were issued locally. this means that we will not have to file a separate gun violence restraining order if one has been issued in another state. in addition to expanding our program, these changes will update our local law to conform with california state law. i do have a minor nonsubstantive amendment. the amendment adds the phrase "in coordination with the city attorney's office" in three places. additionally the title on page

1, line 5 has been changed to "as specified" rather than "no later than three days after issuance." despite this minor change, it remains in the body of the ordinance. so if you have any questions, the city attorney's here of course. i have invited commander raj and sergeant patrick sway to present and answer any questions about the program or the proposed changes and i just want to say to commander viswan and sergeant bay, thank you for your service. we all know that in boulder, officer eric talley gave his life to protecting others. he was the first on the scene and he didn't lose his life. he gave his life to protect others and he had seven children and i just know every morning you all do the same and

i can't thank you enough for the service that you provide to san franciscans. so, commander viswany if you'd like to present now. >> thank you very much and good morning. thank you for your support, supervisor stefani. members of the public safety committee and members of the public that are joining us. my name is commander raj vicswanny. within the investigations division, we have the crime gun intelligence unit and that unit specializes in gun crime. they interact with local partners, federal partners, state partners on reducing and tracking gun violence and gun crime. and, within that unit, sergeant pat specialty in addition to going out there every single

day doing search warrants, getting guns off the street, he is the department's liaison for gun violence restraining orders. he manages the program, he trains and he also interacts with the city attorney and makes sure that the gun violence restraining orders are at least reviewed and filed correctly. i apologize for -- i will repeat some of this stuff here. i'll try to be very brief on it. okay. did that show up? >> yes. we can see it. >> okay. so i'll quickly go through the definition of gun violence restraining order as the way the police department sees it in our policy and our bulletins. we do have bulletins and training that dictate gun violence restraining orders.

so basically, it is a temporary gun violence restraining order that the officers initially file. it evaluates the person and looks at if they are an immediate threat to themselves or others and if they're in danger of causing public, causing personal injury to anyone by the use of a gun, access to a gun or purchasing it. like i said, it is a temporary order initially and what officers look at is there are other less restrictive ways and, of course, that somebody has already prohibited this order wouldn't apply to that. this is for generally people that fall within that gray area and that gray area's really important because and this is very timely to boulder, colorado, and a lot of these mass shootings or these shootings that fit into the

gray where somebody really doesn't have a criminal record. they don't necessarily have mental illness to the point where they're 51/50 but family members are concerned and that's actually been expanded. so i'll go over some of the background. so ab14 in 2016 authorized the courts to allow police officers to use the gun violence restraining order as a tool. initially, it was for law enforcement and certain members of the family that generally live with the subject that we're going to get the restraining order for. since then in 2019, ab61 expanded that and actually work place environment expands it to workers, co-workers and

schools. if somebody has a concern in those different locations, they would get authorization from their employer or notify their employer before they seek a gun violence restraining order. again, the purpose of the gun violence restraining order is for the officers initially to take and seize the guns and issue the person a 21-day order preventing them from access to guns and purchasing guns, but what it does allow, it allows the person to stabilize and there is a due process where the court can actually review what's going on. and they can have family members testify. they can have people that are concerned that basically testify. in that, so the one other thing that ab61 triggered is ab12. so initially, it was a one-year

ban that a permanent gun violence restraining order can restrict. that has now been extended for up to five years with the option of every year the person can petition for the order to be reviewed by the courts. so there is a built-in due process. and, these are rare, just to let you know that somebody has to legally be able to have a gun for us to use that. but like in boulder, and i used this with just i wanted to tell you that i don't know all the details of boulder, but what i do know is something like that, if that was to happen in san francisco and we knew that ahead of time, this would definitely be appropriate to be able to prevent that person to purchasing that gun and if he already had a gun and allows us

to see and evaluate what's going on. we do train our patrol officers that this is a tool. what they do look at is they do look for a firearm nexus either into threats or access to it when they interview family members, witnesses. does this person have the up of a legal gun or are they in the process of trying to get a firearm or possess it from somebody else? they'll collect the evidence, video, they can directly file the gvro with the judge or they can go to the cgic unit. the second role in this is our investigations bureau. they will investigate after the fact and get an exparte gun violence restraining order if that is necessary. if for some reason patrol didn't think it was necessary,

investigations can seek it. they also work with our crisis intervention team. if there is somebody with access to firearms that is showing some type of mental distrust or some type of concern our c.i.c. unit can initiate that. of course the city attorney's office and liaisons helps us file and some cases even track the order through court and the court's role in this is, of course, the evaluation. i've already covered everything on that. so, as far as the gun violence restraining orders, the type of incidences would be something like a road rage incident. the states would have side shows. a lot of the side shows, the guns we're recovering are illegal guns. if somebody did possess a legal gun that was theirs, we would seek a gun violence restraining order against that person.

so somebody discharging a firearm in the air and they were detained, that shows they were in police disregard for public safety. we would probably seek a gun violence restraining order and have the court evaluate if it should be permanent. and, of course, any kind of credible threats to workplace or schools. if we run the person and find out they have firearms and the threat is credible, we would seek the gun violence restraining order. patrick faye who is also online, patrick, if you can chime in. if you can give us an example of a recent case that we have sought gun violence restraining orders. >> yes, sir. good morning everyone. one case in particular that came to mind almost immediately was last year, in the early

spring, officers responded to an incident that it was two neighbors. it was for lack of a better term an escalating argument that had gone on for over several months. the argument started with a verbal argument banging between walls for people to quiet down. at one point, the subject in this case came out holding a baseball bat, got into a further argument with the neighbor and then the final incident was that person came out and said i'm going to kill you. spit in the face of the other person. officers responded out. after interviewing multiple people in the building, this gentleman who possessed an older firearm but that was not registered, other neighbors had seen him with the firearm. and due to the diligence of the officers, they were able to establish a firearm nexus, obtain a gun violence

restraining order. our night investigations unit came out and got a search warrant from a judge and we were able to search that person's residence and seize the firearm. it's a pretty clear cut case as you see escalating arguments that most likely they probably prevented an incident from rising to the level of actual gun violence. >> thank you very much. there was another incident actually in supervisor stefani's area which was somebody was doing donuts in the middle of an intersection in a truck, and that person was shooting a firearm out. the officers got the plate, they got the location of where he was at and they made a traffic stop and seized that firearm. i believe with that one, we also applied for a gun violence

restraining order because it was a illegally owned firearm by that person. just to give you an update right now. last year we had eight. this year so far, we've had one. and, again, we continue to train our officers on this and we're going to actually expand the training. we currently are using this state video for training. we're going to actually do our own video and highlight different circumstances. i've also been in touch with lieutenant molina of c.i.t. and i remind him that we do have the access to gun violence restraining order resources for the c.i.t. unit. he just says that recently, most of his contacts are people that are already prohibited. so he didn't need to seek that. he was able to seize the firearms without it. and, before i close, again, i

wanted to thank supervisor stefani on just highlighting gun violence in general. it is definitely a problem in most metropolitan cities. san francisco has seen a 390% increase. to give you an example, year-to-date, 2020, we had 10 shootings. this year, 2021, we're over 50. so just to highlight where everything falls. just last night, officers were in pursuit of somebody with an assault rifle and they recovered multiple guns last night. so it is -- we deal with it daily and really appreciate your suspect. thank you. the if there are any questions from anybody. >> supervisor stefani: thank

you, commander. that was very helpful. yeah, i mean obviously gun crimes in san francisco, they need to be taken seriously and a three hundred ninety% increase is absolutely unacceptable. i do have one question for you. what is the biggest obstacle to expanding the usage? i'm very happy to see that we've gone from one to eight and i know you're working extremely hard on educating everybody and it takes time. and, again, i thank you for the attention you've put into this and same with sergeant faye. so just wondering if there's an obstacle to expanding the usage of the pandemic or anything like that. >> and i actually talked to sergeant faye about this that do we have more people that should not have firearms that are displaying some type of threat that it could escalate into gun violence. what i was told was during the

pandemic, it's still going on, but during the initial year of the pandemic, they've had a few of them. this year, they haven't had that many. most of the gun violence we're seeing is a lot of illegal possession of firearms. they're either [inaudible] used by members shooting at each other. but i will continue to champion the availability and the tool. and, as you know, any one of these incidences could be a mass shooting. so just having that tool is really important. and i think as new officers come in, this is something i think we'll have to keep continuing because it is still fairly new to san francisco. so it is something that we're going to continue to check. i want to start in-person training where they actually go station to station.

we're just waiting for all our officers to be vaccinated and everything and then we're doing more in-person training. so that should be happening within the next two, three months. >> supervisor stefani: thank you so much for that and i think people need to know too that last year was a record number of guns in this country was purchased. 50 million to 70 million i think and there's already 400 million guns in circulation and, also, you know, we see at the federal level a background check bill still not being able to be passed at this point in time even though 90% of americans believe in background checks on gun sales and i don't think people realize that 28 states do not require background checks on all gun sales. and those guns move over state lines and i said yesterday or

two days ago at the board meeting what happened in gilroy, the gilroy garlic festival. i cannot get the image out of my mind about that little 6-year-old jumping in a bouncy house and losing his life because of a gun that was purchased in nevada which wasn't allowed here in california. so this is serious. the fact we have more guns in circulation. we're coming off a pandemic where we just had a hearing about the mental health and the trauma that so many are experiencing. this is something that we cannot ignore. and, again, i really cannot thank you both enough for the attention you're giving it. when i went to the san francisco police department originally to pass this, the first ordinance in 2020, you know, you were -- everyone was so great and we really appreciate the thought that you're giving to it in terms of going station to station and getting everyone educated because everyone needs to know about this tool. and not just police officers,

but we need to let our hospitals know, we need to let our c.b.o.s know that this is something that can be utilized to protect someone from taking their own lives and to protect someone from taking the lives of others. so thank you again. and i also want to thank my legislative andy mullen. so thank you, andy. >> thank you everyone. any other questions? >> supervisor mar: yeah. i have a question. i want to thank commander vaswanee for implementing the gun violence restraining orders here in san francisco. yeah. i had a question around you said there were eight gvsos in two thousand twenty and one this year. i was just curious whether any

of those involved were a result of a request from a loved one or an employer or school or were these most or all resulting from just a police investigation of like a side show or things like that. >> no. these were police investigations. so an actual family member can go directly to the court to petition it. these are all police generated. >> supervisor mar: got it. yeah. do you know for gvso's that are more initiated by loved ones, what the numbers are. >> i don't know what the numbers are, but what i hear

from just the is that the type of incidents are where family members go get one would generally be dementia, where somebody older has maybe firearms that they've purchased over the years, but now they're in a condition where they really should not have a firearm because mentally, they're having challenges. they'll get a notice from the doctor or they might even ask the doctor to participate in getting a gun violence restraining order. so most family instances are that. >> supervisor mar: thank you. and just my other question with -- so the gvsos that are issued through this ordinance that supervisor stefani really has led on through law enforcement, these are temporary?

for one year? >> they are initially 21-day temporary. the court can make them permanent to one year. they have the option to make it 1-5 years depending on the gravity of the case, what type of threats they were. you know, like a neighbor dispute can continue over years so the judge can make that determination. some of them, the judge might decide it's a shorter order, but it gives the person time to stabilize, get treatment, get help and then state would have to come back to the court to remove the order. >> supervisor mar: got it. thank you. thanks again, supervisor stefani, just for your leadership on this and in sponsoring, you know, the first ordinance, that created the framework for the use of gun violence restraining orders and

through law enforcement and now this ordinance to sort of further strengthen it and clarify it and align it with state laws. i would love to be added as a cosponsor. why don't we go to public comment. are there any callers on the line? >> clerk: thank you, mr. chair. we are continuing to work with maria pena from the department of technology to bring in public commentors who wish to comment on this ordinance. for those watching our meeting on cable channel 26 or streaming through sfgovtv.org. call in (415) 655-0001 following that into the meeting i.d. of 1874560963. press the pound symbol twice and then press star followed by three to enter the cue to speak. while we're waiting for our first caller i'm going to note that supervisor haney returned

to this meeting and has been here since 11:29. ms. pena, can you bring us our first caller? >> hi, my name is ruth bornestein. i'm part of a leadership team of the san francisco chapter of united against gun violence. we are very much supportive in gvros in general and these amendments in particular to enhance the process. so thank you, supervisor stefani, for bringing it and, supervisor mar, for now cosponsoring. i do want to add that it was really, as a brady member but also as a citizen of san francisco, it was just wonderful to hear commander viswanee speak about this and also learn more about the sfpd's effort. so i'm glad i was able to join and hear all of that and i thank all of you for your

attention and work on this. thank you. >> clerk: thank you very much ms. bornestein for participating in the discussion. there is another caller on this item. caller, please go ahead. >> thank you. committee members, my name is barry pearl. my wife and i are also members of the san francisco leadership team of brady united against gun violence. and, as ruth indicated, brady united supports efforts nationwide to adopt and implement red flag laws such as the one adopted by california and san francisco and we

support the efforts to strengthen and further implement the gun violence restraining order as proposed by supervisor stefani. my wife would also like to briefly talk about her own experience and how if such a law had been in place at the time it would have certainly helped her situation. >> anymore callers on the line? >> no more callers in the. >> i do want to thank ruth bornestein who's done so much

work with brady to make sure we don't have gun shows who i've honored at the board before. thank you to you both. again, we need people like you to keep going on this issue. so, yes, so, first i would like to move the amendment that i've handed out and that i spoke of in my opening comments. >> okay. >> supervisor mar: mr. clerk, please call roll. >> clerk: [roll call] >> clerk: mr. chair, there are three ayes on the amendments. >> supervisor mar: supervisor stefani would you like to make. >> supervisor stefani: yes. i'd like to move the around

ordinance amended with a positive recommendation by the board. >> clerk: authorize that the ordinance be recommended. [roll call] [please stand by]

>> i second that motion. >> thank you. we have a motion and a second. roll call vote. [roll call] >> all right. that brings us to item six, the pledge of allegiance. [pledge of allegiance]

>> item number seven is announcements. please be advised that members of the public have up to three minutes to make public comment. audio prompts will signal to dial in participants when their audio input has been enabled for commenting. please dial in when the item you wish to comment on is announced. please do note, if you're watching this meeting streaming on sfgovtv on the internet,

there is a delay between the broadcast and when the item is announced. dial 415-554-0001, and dial 187 d -- 187-691-0199, then pound, pound. press star, three when your item is called. that brings us to item eight, public comment on items not listed on the agenda. >> thank you. we will now open the phone line for public comment for items not listed on the agenda. >> thank you, president

brandon. at this time, we will open the queue for anyone on the phone who would like to make public comment on items not listed on the agenda. please dial star, three if you wish to make public comment. the system will let you know when your line is open, and others will wait on mute until their line is open. comments will be limited to three minutes per person. the queue is now open. please dial star, three if you wish to make public comment. >> thank you, jennica. do we have anyone on the phone? >> president brandon, at this time, there are no public callers on the line wishing to make public comment. >> thank you. seeing no items on the public call-in line, public comment is now closed. please call the next item, please. >> that would be item nine,

director's report. >> i am elaine forbes, the port director of the port of san francisco. this last week marked one year of shelter in place and measures that we've had to take to fight the virus. i'm very proud the role the port has taken to fight and will continue to fight the virus. in my report today, i will provide economic recovery and equity updates, and i will update on the embarcadero safe navigation center and the jefferson street project. i will conclude by providing an in memory for ann halstead. at this time, we are looking at moving into the orange tier, which will allow for more

activity. i am hopeful that the move to orange tier will bring back more economic activity to the waterfront. as you know, the pandemic has brought unprecedented financial woes for our tenants and for the port as an enterprise. in a minute, you will hear from the port c.e.o. and the port's finance director who will present steps we must take in order to mitigate the economic impact to the port. staff and members of the public shared appreciation for our transparency and commitment to leaning in and confronting the looming challenges head on. while the future is looking brighter, the gradual reopening of business and activities will increase travel and interactions throughout san francisco. with the risk increasing, we need to remain vigilant to

avoid community spread of the virus and an increase in cases and hospitalizations. we must continue to wear masks, social distance, hand wash, and avoid large gatherings. public health officials will it be to monitor the key public health indicators, particularly case counts and hospitalizations, to ensure that san francisco has the necessary resources available for those who contract covid-19. this will influence what activities within the orange tier that can reopen and on what timeline. let's work together to make the success of our reopening a reality. while san francisco recognizes and is attempting to align with the state's framework, the city will continue on a reopening path based on its local health indicators and the unique challenges and success of its reopening. onto equity. first, i would like to open with acknowledging last week's

events in atlanta which were truly, truly chilling. we also faced violence against the asian community here in san francisco and in the bay area. the port stands in solidarity with our asian brothers and sisters, and we must do all we can to find xenophobia, misogyny, and this racism. our pacific islander community needs our support now more than ever. it is so important that all of us take a stand against the violence and hate. we are one community, and we must come together to standup for our brothers and sisters who are under attack. the unspeakable violence perpetrated in atlanta and right here at home in san francisco and around the bay area is an attack on all of us and on our core values. we must do better, we can do

better. the port, the port's race equity team had -- continues to make progress to build a strong foundation for our department wide equity initiative. we are pleased to share that staff hosted its first meeting with the port commission equity subcommittee. in this meeting, we shared our vision for equity, provided an overview of the short-term race equity action plans this year and proposed our implementation plan. i would like to thank president brandon and commissioner gilman for their service on this subcommittee, continued partnership and leadership. to assist with recording the port's milestones and challenges, staff are working with two rivers corporation, a

women-owned small business enterprise to develop a race equity tracker to generate reports that we will present to the port commission biannually. i'm also happy to report that the port welcomed over 400 participants to the port's annual open house. this provided an opportunity for small businesses to learn about the port's priorities and contract pipeline as well as to meet staff and other business owners. staff worked hard to pull off the virtual event. as always, the contract open house is a model of interdivisional collaboration, bringing together staff from across the port to connect with our l.b.e. partners. i would like to thank president brandon for her warm welcome remarks and her steadfast

advocacy and support. two key items. acknowledging president brandon's report on the embarcadero safe navigation center. this is operated as a covid negative covid unknown site. the capacity is limited now to # 8 guests to ensure compliance with social distancing protocols. referrals are handled through covid command centers, and that includes the public health system and street outreach teams. site operations and partners continue to work collaboratively with neighbors to as concerns. concerns the advisory group is meeting quarterly and getting answers to questions about issues at the site and also city services. in good news, the last count of unsheltered homeless people in the area conducted last month found 60 people in the outreach zone and 15 midges in the safety zone. this is a notable decrease from

the 179 individuals in the outreach zone that were found living unsheltered two years ago prior to the construction of the navigation center. overall police incidents in the safety zones from decreased. 2 jefferson street. this is phase two of jefferson street. the final three blocks of the five blocks of main street through fisherman's wharf will be completed this spring. the only exception so that is the guardrail along the inner lagoon, which has been delayed due to the seawall condition, covid, and cooperating with numerous city agencies. at this time, we estimate that the construction may not occur until late may or early june. in good news, the sfmta plans to run the f-line street car in

mid may. i would also like to report that the s.f.jeremiah o'brien returned to her birthplace this morning. staff had worked extraordinarily hard to remove debris and make repairs to allow for her safe return. the o'brien will remain closed as she's undergoing renovations. this is an important step for us in moving past the calamities of 2020. i would like to conclude my remarks in memory of ann

halstead. ann serves on the port commission from 1984 to 1995, the first woman to sit on the commission. she served as port commission from 1988 to 1990. ann lived her adult life in san francisco and was devoted to bringing people together to improve the city and vibrancy of the region. she was instrumental in helping the city secure funding to transform the embarcadero, and to push for the creation of the blue-greenway along the waterfront. ann was a feminist. she knew certain values went together. when proposition h was passed

in 1990, commissioner halstead was the voice of the port commission to create a process that welcomed the engagement of all to create our first waterfront land use plan. her devotion to the waterfront continued after stepping down from the port commission to lead the port northeast waterfront advisory committee before being appointed to the san francisco bay conservation and development commission, bcdc, which she served as vice chair prior to her passing. in addition to countless boards and commissions, she served on sfers from 1983 to 1997. in the words of former sfers president jim kappel, ann is a gentle giant, an individual so committed to social and environmental justice, a hero to so many, young women

especially. ann was a very gracious person, and the many of us who had the privilege to know her remembered her welcoming yet firm style. the port expresses its deep condolences to ann's husband and her family, and we'd like to close the meeting in her memory. this concludes my director's report. thank you. >> thank you, elaine. [inaudible]. >> anything about the meeting with the [inaudible]? >> i did not, commissioner brandon. that is a good one to cover. would you like me to say a few words? >> please. >> we were able to host the army corps of engineers here at port of san francisco. we had leadership from washington, d.c. present, along

with district office leadership with our team to discuss the three by three waiver request that is going to washington, d.c. a little bit later this year. president brandon joined us. we had an excellent conversation about our study and our partnership to date, and it was followed by a tour of the san francisco waterfront. >> thank you. thank you for your report. we will now open the phone lines to take public comment on the executive director's report for members of the public joining us on the phone, jennifer will be our operator and will provide instructions now for anyone on the phone who would like to provide public comment. >> thank you, president brandon. at this time, we will open the queue for anyone on the phone who would like to make public comment on the executive director's report. please dial star, three if you wish to make public comment. the system will let you know when your line is open. others will wait on mute until their line is open. comments will be limited to

three minutes per person. the queue is now open. please dial star, three if you wish to make public comment. (. >> thank you, jennica. do we have any public commenters on the phone? >> yes, president brandon. we have one caller at the moment. thank you. unmuting the line now. >> hello, president brandon, director forbes, and commissioners, my name is faye tsen. as you know, ann cared very deeply about the waterfront.

she was my predecessor on the treasure island development committee. for those of us who sit on public commissions, you know what a responsibility, i would say privilege, it is to serve the city as stewards of the public realm, and ann was the exemplar of civic duty. she dedicated her life to making better her neighborhood, her city, her region. ann and i sat on the board of many nonprofit organizations, sfers, greenbelt alliance, the chinatown development corporation, just to name a few. we shared similar ideas, and working with her on these mutual passions, i found her to be always wise in her counsel,

knowledge about organizational challenges, astute about the political lay of the land, and, of course, above all, she was gracious and elegant. we've lost a friend, a great citizen committed to public life.

>> so many of you have written and spoken so passionately about ann halstead. so many of you will continue,

especially about our seemingly inexhaustible energy and her commitment to our waterfront. many of you at this meeting knew her very, very well. she was a lovely and remarkable woman. we all will miss her very much. i wanted to say a few words to add them to this meeting to honor ann, and also say that i'm serving as the chair of a committee that is cochaired by ann's husband, to acknowledge ann's life and efforts by staging a citywide dedication hopefully in may on the plaza. with your concurrence, we feel very confident that we can raise funds for this event as well as the dedication of the

inaugural class. we will work closely with the port and dan hodak in particular to design a commemorative plaque, and we forward to coming back to you in april to present more details related to the event and the design and the installation of the commemorative plaque. thank you so much for the opportunity for speaking today, and i really look forward to your support in this effort. thank you. >> thank you. are there any other callers on the line? >> president brandon, there are no other callers on the line

wishing to make public comment. >> okay. seeing that there's no other callers on the line wishing to make public comment, public comment is pleased. commissioner [inaudible]? >> thank you, director forbes, for that lovely report. it's been over a year since we've had to shelter in place, and i am looking forward to the coming months in san francisco. i did want to say a few words about ann. i met ann over a decade ago, and i met her through two iconic people representing the community that i love the most: north beach and chinatown.

i met her through reverend norman fong, sitting at her table. it was my first actual banquet at empress of china. weeks later, i ran into her on telegraph hill at a presentation to support other organizations that ann loved. ann took me around that room. she introduced me to people. ann became a friend, she became a mentor, and she became someone i could always turn to. i only hope as i serve on this commission, that i could live

in her legacy for turning the public waterfront into a realm for all of san francisco. ann was an icon for the city. i want to give my deepest condolences to her husband and to the community at large. i want to say i'm fully supportive of honoring ann with a plaque at the entry to fairy landing here at san francisco. i look forward to helping on that and doing anything i can, and say i'll truly miss here as a fellow san franciscan, as an

urbanist, and as a fellow women. >> thank you so much. commissioner burton? >> yeah. i've known annie for over 40 years. we've spent a lot of time together with wells and my old racquet ball partner.

my sympathy to wells. at the time he was struck with his cancer, and we never thought that he would live to see the day, nor would he, thought that he would outlive annie. i want to do what i can to support and raise money in her memory. she was a piece of cake, just a wonderful person, and i just loved her to death. >> thank you. [inaudible]. >> yeah, sorry. i don't know if you called on me earlier. i was having some audio

difficulties going on for a while. i just wanted to say that i did not know her very well, but when i was port commissioner, i remember her coming up to me in several different events and reminding me of her past association with the board. she struck me as an amazing person, and those were big foot steps to follow in her time at the waterfront. i just wanted to also use this time that i really appreciate director forbes mentioning all of the events happening to my fellow asian american community that have been happening the last couple of months. i think it's unfortunate that not only is it one community,

but all communities such as this one because the coronavirus has raised more tensions, and in many cases, the people who have been targeted are absolutely innocent. and in some cases, if it was designated against chinese, it's really a tragedy to see some of those things that happened in the bay area and across the country, culminating in georgia. i just want to says the port thinks about its equity and social document document -- say that as the port thinking about its equity and social position, i hope we can take a leadership position to speak up and do

something in making sure that the community does come together, that we standup, and as we look at it from the port's standpoint in our equity plans includes everyone in our community equally, and i just wanted to make that point and just say elaine, thank you, for emphasizing that today. it's been a sad week. there have been a lot of leaders who have spoken up across the country, and it's finally getting attention in washington. it's not just a few erratic situations, it's all across the country, and i think we all need to come together and realize that what we're experiencing is not the fault of one community or one country, but we need to come

together with liberty and justice for all. thank you. >> thank you. i want to assure you that our racial equity includes all communities of color, and we do not want racism against anyone, any community, so thank you so much for those words because i really agree with all you are saying. before i move onto vice president adams, i know there is staff that would like to say a few words about ann. [inaudible], did you have your hand raised? >> i did. i'm sorry i missed my little slot, but i first of all, wanted to thank you, president woo ho, for your words.

proposition h back in 1990 was a pretty controversial deal for the port, and through her grace, she showed that she's not just a great urbanist but a great humanist, too, in terms of welcoming the public into a public process that i was honored to be able to be involved in for the waterfront plan, but to show all of us what the real promise of the waterfront was and its relationship to the city and the region. and in all of the different roles that she played over the course of her life, that was her goal, was to bring people

together in this special public place and to appreciate and support each other, so i just want to thank ann for all of her guidance, her quiet, persistent, and gracious, you know, direction and support that she provided for so many, and, too, i will always remember her in my heart, so thank you for letting me speak. >> thank you for those kind words. is there anyone who would like to comment? okay. vice president adams. >> first of all, i didn't know ann halstead at all, but clearly, hearing everyone talking about her, she was an icon and treasure here in san francisco. when somebody passes away,

there's a certain value that we all have, and ann halstead, certainly, may she rest in piece. director forbes, i appreciate your words, and director woo ho. this needs to be called what it is: an attack of hate, attributable to the former president, calling it the wuhan flu and heating the debate. we have a social consciousness, and we have to speak out and call it what it is. it's unacceptable. i appreciate, commissioner woo ho, what you're saying about inclusion. i know that commissioner brandon and you are working on that, and also, we need to speak out about the horrible

tragedy of the boulder police officer who lost his life in boulder, colorado, and the other nine families. something is wrong with our country, and we have to speak out against this kind of violence, this kind of hate. we've got to be able to live our lives where we can go to a store, go to our work go anywhere we choose as americans and not feel that we're going to be shot or intimidated or assassinated, so i'm going to call it out for what it is, and i'm glad this commission is, too. may we remember them, the families, and also remember the police officers, not only in colorado, but every day that put their lives in the lines, and just the ordinary people working in the stores and just the ordinary people that want to go out. what's happening in georgia has

been happening in our country the past year. when politicians are afraid to speak out, speak truth to power, something is wrong, and we've got to call it what it is. some people are saying what happened in georgia wasn't a hate crime. it is a hate crime, and to me, violence against women is unacceptable. i'm glad that we on this port, we standup, and we speak to a better world. thank you. >> thank you, vice president adams. i just don't think i could have said it any better. there's so much going on in the world today, and we have to say that gun violence on anyone, whether it's a police officer, the women in atlanta, the

families in boulder, we all have to come together. it's just a really sad time right now, but director forbes, thank you so much for your report. it was very thorough. you covered a lot. the port has been extremely busy over the last couple of weeks. i want to say a few words about ann. as director forbes said, she was the first woman appointed to the port commission and the first female president of the port commission. when i was appointed to port commission in 1997, ann was one of the first people who reached out to me. ann was a wonderful person. we did a lot of work together on the waterfront land use plan and the adoption of it. we had joint meetings with bcdc. she became my mentor, she

became my friend. i think the last time i saw her was at my 20 anniversary celebration, and she showed up with warm words and open arms, and she will truly, truly be missed. she's just done so much for san francisco and for the waterfront, and i'm happy we are closing the meeting in her honor, and i'd also like to close the meeting in honor of the victims in atlanta and the victims in boulder, colorado, so thank you, everyone. carl, next item, please. >> good afternoon, president brandon, vice president adams, commissioners, and director forbes.

i am katie patricione, the port director of finance and administration. we are here for an informational presentation about two supplemental ordinances. amending the port's operating and capital budgets for fiscal year 21-22. as you know, we have a closed two-year budget, and this proposed legislation would make incremental changes to reflect the revenue decline that the port has experienced as a result of the covid-19 pandemic. this is a moment of great financial challenge and great financial uncertainty for the port. working with the controller's office, staff has developed a financial projection that suggests that it will take at least five years for the organization to rebound from the revenue losses that we have

seen in the last year. we will continue to refine this forecast as we receive more information about revenue, and as we see how the rollout of vaccines affects tourism, hospitality, and office use. these projections are our best guess today, but we know for a fact they will change, and we will update you as we do. the port faces a monumental task. we must restore the organization to financial stability in a way that ensures equity. this work will be difficult and will require creativity and determination. as you are going to hear this afternoon, staff proposes to tackle this challenge in two steps, starting with the budget changes that are in front of you this afternoon, and then, with a ten-month economic

recovery initiative that will allow us to develop thoughtful analytic proposals in the budget for fiscal years 22-23 and 23-24. the budget proposals that we are going to outline this afternoon are the product of a great deal of hard work by all of the port's divisions. i'm so appreciative of the organization's willingness to roll up its collective sleeves in the search for budget savings. i am also incredibly appreciative of the hard work that my two-person finance staff, nate and colela, have put into developing the two supplementals and all of the supporting material. now, i'm going to turn it over to nate to walk you through today's presentation.

>> thank you, katie. nate cruz of the finance division. let's go ahead and advance to the next slide. so before we get into the details of the supplemental that will be before you for a vote at the next meeting, it's worth looking at the port and through the bigger lens of the city overall. the economic impact of covid has been severe. as of march, the region in the metro area was down 80,000 jobs. initially, after the outbreak, it was down much more than that, so we've climbed back quite a bit, but we're still down 80,000 jobs. [please stand by]

volume will be there by the end of 24 but we won't see the spending return until the summer of 2025. when we take this timeline and apply it to the revenue history during covid we come up with the forecast. i have a line graph but more than recovery, to provide context, this graph goes back 15 years to 2005.

covid came around and it looked like we'll end this fiscal year somewhere back around $60 million where we were 15 years ago. you can see the recovery in medicine and those are forecast barrie ants and the pace of recovery slows as we wait for business and convention attend' that's that aspect of tourism to return. over all, that valley, that v-shape. when you compare that to what we might call a normal year, a pre pandemic revenue levels, a pre pandemic revenue level might have been $110 million and the $120 million peak had one-time revenue it. but compared to $110 million,

the revenue lost that would have been received have not been the pandemic is over $100 million. as you look back at the 2010 portion of the graph on the left, it doesn't even show up. it's merely a flattening of the line. that was last recession that we went through so, these are really unprecedented in times for us and we have to consider how to use our pre anxious precs resources. when we think about how to use those scarce resources, those revenue dollars, we're an enterprise agency and we need to operate and we've done so without any general fund support and we need to maintain our mission and our revenue capacity at the same time. we have a duty to the maritime industry and to provide for the

life safety of all the waterfront visitors, at the same time, we need town vest in our facilities so we can charge rent and exist and per duty as a perpetuity.capital investments t sufficient and before covid we have a one billion dollar backlog from a state of good repair perspective and we had been spending roughly 20 to $25 million a year to keep our facilities in good shape and we can't afford that any longer. and the final thing we need to consider is our fund balance. that's the port savings account and our reserve account and we've been relying on that heavily through the pandemic. we can't just spend that down to zero and we've been working on our and we made a number of

adjustments that you approved last summer. to summarize those quickly in the operating side, we reidentified 12.5 million of savings and largely through staffing adjustments. we created what you could probably think of as a soft hiring freeze, we were only filling vacant positions that were critical to revenue or life safety and when we did so we tried to prioritize internal promotions. we also eliminated the creation of a number planned new

positions and in addition to the staffing adjustments we had expenditures for our pro certainly ver ises contracting and equipment, service 0 other city departments and i.t. spending. on the capital side, we reduced by $29 million with the current fiscal year and largely by deferring the ports' investment in the mission bay ferry landing project. unfortunately that wasn't enough all by itself. we need to do quite a bit more so what's before you today is i'll cover this in the operating side as well as the capital side. the slide before you shows the adjustment and overview of the adjustments to the operating budget. on the salaries and benefits side, and it cost $1.8 million

and then we were able to identify additional savings to offset that by moving some port-funded position costs to non port funded positions or non port funded sources rather, if also those are going to be a last resort there's a rent

adjustment so that's the result of a market adjustment and materials and supplies and they are down because tour many of traffic along embarcadero and work orders show a increase just like the cost of living adjustments increases the ports salaries and benefit cost and it also increases those the department that's rewe lion ford mitigate the full increase cost because we also reduced work orders due to decreased traffic and a street maintenance work order as well as a cruise ship security because of the reduced calls we think less security

services. the next adjustment is problematic and $200,000 and to release because of the economic conditions, the likelihood of increased vacancy is real so i want to make sure we have the resources to get rent-paying tenants in those facilities so we've increased that project budget and the last adjustment is a minor one of an increase of $73,000 and that effects the south beach harbor and it's effecting all city employees. next slide, please. the capitol spaces is broken

into two components and the first is this deappropriation effort. we went through, port staff went through prior appropriations to try and identify places where we could recapture those funds we found from the projects in this slide and these are projects that are still certainly important projects and given our financial situations, we have a ler priority and the deputy risked every project that we had that we had funded and identified those that were most important and those which fell below and lastly, the

$11.5 million that the report had advanced to the resilience project when it was clear that litigation would low up their efforts to issue ponds and in this supplemental appropriation, the resilience project is baiag the court back so all told that's that's up with portion. next slide, please. the other adjustment to the upcoming years budget. the last slide was prior budgets

or prior appropriations. so the changes are to the project management office which is a staff of project managers dedicated delivering capital projects. we reduced $640,000 roughly from their budget by -- that reflects vacancy that were already in the office and as well as shifting some of their work to the resilience projects and some non port funded projects. we're also moving a fire protection engineer from the operating budget where it better fits. we're making no changes to the waterfront resilience program appropriations that is to cover expenses which are not eligible for bonds proceeds. we're not making any changes to the homeland grant match. we're adding a million dollars to the port's over all contingency that's to allow and deal with cost overruns on existing projects and that way we have a trallized con stinziano again see when there

are calls on it for different projects. we can prioritize which ones can benefit from the contingency and which ones might have to wait. we're also reinstituting the facility condition assessment project and we've where we see a team of engineers to really give us a granular look at the useful life of the different facilities and how much it would cost to replace it and what it really does is allows us to make a much more data driven decisions when we're making these capital investments. it's been exhausted because of the fire and also our property insurance is is inkeysing so we need to replenish this amount if there are any additional problems and awe new project for

a separate contingency for unforeseen products. it's an uncertain waterfront and things happen so any emergencies, any adc projects that might pop up, this is a separate contingency from the lines above and we have identified the responsible parties so, we're opening these funds can be largely reimbursed but as quickly as the jurisdiction in charge of the harbor and make sure the clean up was not enter by negotiation and that funding was available to move things forward quickly and no changes in the southern waterfront and southern waterfront future indication means unadjusted and the project upgrades allow obviousel to call on pier 80 and those will move

forward. so after the supplemental appropriation, there's still more work to do and this is a second step in what we're calling the economic recovery initiative. now, the results of that won't be seen until the next, the following budget years and fiscal year 22 and 23 and after that but the work to figure out what these improvements will be starts now to rethink and redesign how the port delivers its services and the ultimately come out as a more financially sustainable port and changes might include and these are just hypothetical new revenue sources that will be pursuing stimulus and other forms of federal state relief, grants or debt funding for the funding we cannot afford. we might identify operating savings like resizing the ports space or new locations and tele

commuting and identify through streamlining workflows and holding more positions vacant for longer than soft highering freeze again. we're looking at a inter fund borrowing situation where this is a new concept where we might be able to look to some of our sister agencies across the city to help us soften the blow of the covid-19 revenue short falls through an inter fund borrowing situation and that is still uncertain if that's going to workout at this point. as a last row sort, staff layoffs are also on the table. again, the effort to understand what these changes might look like is starting now. the effects would not be implemented the fiscal 22, 23, 24 budget was presented to you next february roughly. what it would be before you for approval. next slide, please.

so, this is a complicated slide and i apologize for that. this slide shows sort of an over vow of port finances for the next seven years, if we successfully implement this savings strategies that we talked about. the supplemental and the economic recovery initiatives savings that we need to accomplish. what you see walk through a year as an example is useful and the first column, fiscal year 2021, we started the year with a $68.5 million fund balance and showed the revenues coming in for the year and expenses going out for a net operating income or a loss of almost $50 million. we anticipate basically taking $48.4 million out of our fund balance leaving us with $20.2 million. it carries over the to next year with the revenues coming in and expenses going out and the fund changes across the years. the blue rectangle represents the savings initiatives so that's where you see that

capital defunding in the first row and the blue area of $38.3 million is critical and the new operating savings line, and some are on going savings and you see the savings continue in the out years and the future e.r.i. savings, the economic recovery initiatives savings are in that last blue years of the last row of that plumas area and you can see we can make capital appropriations and you can see the out years, capital appropriations of $15 million a year and and we build back our fund balance of $38 million and ultimately, when the recovery is through we still need to build

back fund balance closer to $60 million and it's during the crisis floor you could think of but a long-term target $160 million. next slide, please. so, as next steps, we'll be before you at the next hearing for approval of the supplemental appropriation budget. and it goes to the board of supervisors and that includes those step one savings that we identified and are baked into that supplemental appropriation. and then the deputies will begin the economic recovery initiative work in april and the work that goes into identifying those savings will be done over the next month. many months really. but implementation will come in the following budget cycle and fy22, 23, 24, obviously, we'll be before you with updates as the eri process sort of advances and more information is available. and with that, that's the end of my presentation and i'm happy to

take questions. before we move forward, can you tell us briefly when you guys did the port and the couplet were there any comments or concerns that we should be aware of? >> no, i think at the hearing we had comments that were largely appreciate of a of the hearings being so inclusive and making sure we have an opportunity to receive public comment and elaine, did you have any relation of feedback that would be useful for the commission? >> i do recall that staff asked questions about voluntary work furlough. that is something that voluntarily staff can take but it cannot be mandatory without a city wide effort so we clarified

that. other than that, i would conquer with nate. it was thanks for coming and explaining all the information and being transparent. staff has known we're facing financial challenges for some time just by looking at our portfolio and knew before covid-19 that port had financial challenges and so they were pleased to hear and concerned about the layoff news and were looking forward to that being a last resort and hopeful that we would find other strategies, obviously. >> great, thank you. i'm really happy we were proactive and went to the employees and the communities and told our story. thank you so much. ok, now let's and you open the phone lines and take public and

members of the public who are joining us on the phone. jennifer will be our operator and. >> at the time, we will cope the queue for anyone on the phone who with like to make public comment on items 10a. please dial star 3. the system when your line is open and others will wait on mute until they're line is open. comments will be limit today three minutes and dial star 3 if you wish to make public comment. >> there are no callers on the line wishing to make public comment. >> thank you. >> public comment is closed. commissioner. >> thank you, katie and nate for

this report. i know you worked really hard and looked under all the stones you could look at to come back with this difficult exercise. i think it's very telling to me that 15 years of progress that can be wiped out in just one year and in terms of revenue and it's very dramatic and impactful and i appreciate that slide. i know you have gone through lots of detail to prioritize all these various lines and i'm not going to go into impressions but there were a couple that i did have and a trade off i wanted to understand better. now, i understood and of course it feels prominent that we are going to experience a typical normal rate increase in our rent at pier 1. it's waterfront partners and our

landlord so to speak and are we paying it to simon -- well, yes, i guess i said that correctly. what we have done for our tenants and given our current situation it just seems to us that have we had a discussion to discuss how that rate can be slowed down given our circumstances since we have done so much work for our district tenants rather than just feel like this isn't the contract, and i'm a little surprised, also, to be honest, that we should have known about that 3 million when we prepared the budget to begin with if they were start to look at commercial rents in san francisco, that rate increase is probably going to be an outlier if not already,

very soon. because rents are coming down. so, i just feel like that's an item that i think we need to press back and have a conversation to see what we can do about that rent increase because it's a big number. a lower increase but we should not just accept as is and because we worked very hard with the other end and we're on the receiving end this time ourselves so that's comment your one. the other comment, which is a very tough one because i know it's very near and tear to several commission's hearts and the southern waterfront fund and we haven't touched that because we have delayed projects but i question is the projects that you have prioritized to proceed with that if we did not do them,

that the state of repair would get worse and it would cost us more to repair. i think if we have projects that we want to do that are near and tear to our hearts as the southern bue case should we not considering, eliminate, would we consider whether we do more trade off on that number. if it's just to beautify and not because we're trying to prevent more delaptation and i would suggest we look at this number too and see whether we can come in a little closer. those are the two lines that really, i looked at this, really sort of spoke to me about if you were going to i request that

effort. i think those were the two that stood out for me whether we needed to take another look and analyze and examine with the idea, with the philosophy that i are tick lated we're on the receiving end of the rent increase and on the other, it's whether in a difficult time, if we wait on some of the projects under the southern waterfront beautification fund, could we time them as far as going

forward and i firstly think that we may see the business and convention tourism resume a little faster but i certainly am not a perfect -- i'm not an expert. that would be a hope and i'm hoping ha tourism perhaps will return sooner than later to san francisco but that is something that has to reply out and that would just be an advantage if that took place. i'm going to end here because the phone is ringing here and making noise. >> thank you. so, i will -- i am not an expert on the process that we are engaging in with our landlord for pier 1. so, i might look to rebeca for a little assistance on what the

lease speaks to in terms of the process and i can say that the lease does in deed include a process for determining what the reset market rent will be. it involves a -- i'm having a senior moment. an assessment, yes -- [laughter] thank you, becca. and we're doing that right now and so that should take into account market conditions as of now and then we will compare the port -- we will have an appraisal and then we'll compare them and then if we are unable to get to an agreement then we

will go into some kind of an arbitration process. beck a. i think you can probably speak to this a little more elegantly than i can. >> good afternoon. rebeca from real estate and development. katie had it correct. they provided their offer of the rent which our finance team rightly and constructor actively included in the budget and we've asked that we have anna praiser look at it so we have an appraiser and they are involved in this process as well and they may use anna praiser of their own sort of market information and hopefully will agree on rent and if not we have to go through arbitration. we have go through this with our tenants. as well as waterfront plaza last year they went through a market rate reset with us where we did increase their rent through that market rate reset process and we're looking at all of the potential options on the table in terms of the negotiations.

we're very cognizant of that shape that made showed us which shows we're going to come out and it's going to take us time and the market rate reset for pier 1 occurs every 10 years so we have 10 years that we're thinking about really closely with nate and kady to troy to match all of our negotiation informs what we expect the revenues to be. so much more to report on that as we proceed. right now, we're engage in looking at the marketplace and other vacancies in pier 1 and leases signed around us. we're looking closely to make sure we get the best deal we can for the port. >> so you are not hearing what i try to say. you followed the process correctly 6789 and i appreciate the reset process and in normal times it wouldn't be an issue. we've gone out of our way, because it's not normal times, to figure out how to accommodate our tenants.

we're not insolvent at this point but you can see the dramatic impact of what the pandemic had on us. we said share the pain, share the prosperity in discussions. yes, there's the contract that is legalities and the attorneys can argue with each other in terms of how this process works. i just think that for us, and it seems like the number is a surprise, it came in this version of the budget. it didn't come no the earlier version so it's a surprise so it wasn't anticipated. so, why that happens, that's a whole different discussion, we don't have to go into that. i do think, given what it is and given our circumstances, it's not a question of did we follow the right process, and i am a process person, i think this is just sitting down and saying this is what we're all the circumstances we're doing, how can we figure out a way that works for you and us and not just say, forget everything else

that's gone on in the world and last year, and we'll just follow exactly what the contract says. that's what i'm talking about. so, it does mean that, and i'm giving you cover to say that we support that everyday to negotiate a better teal and i hope they support me in saying that pel. >> very good. >> so, is to you fund i would just say there were a number of years in which we s we should have been into the fund and we failed to do so and in some extent what you are seeing in terms of budget for reunification fund over the a

catch up for where we owe the fund from prior years. i'm not sure if that is helpful orb but it is definitely the case. >> i'm aware of that and so it's a tough and painful conversation to have when you are in the circumstances that we are, all i'm asking is to take a look at it and i understand that i wish we had spent the money when we had the money and now we don't have the money so it's a tough decision to make so i just think that in terms of balancing against the fact that keep we must have reserve and we cannot lose our ability to bond in the future so we have to make sure that we are keeping on what we can in possible and so i -- that's just my own suggestion is to take a look at it and i'm not

saying take it out entirely, stretch it out and be creative. we still want to continue on that path. i know we discussed it but we did not do when we had more money and i wish we had the money and we wouldn't have this painful discussion today but i think it's my fiduciary responsibility as a commission to point that out at this time. it's a little more, what i'm saying, there's a little more discretion to it than -- it's different than what we talked about as far as the rent increase so i leave it on those two items because they jump outside at me most in terms of where i thought i could make a contribution in the discussion. i appreciate you have worked hard on this and i know it's never easy and to go through the

budgeting and i appreciate doing the right thing and we want them to do the right thing and we want to do the right thing for the beautification fund as well. it's all timing. >> thank you very much for that and i will say that this is felt like a series of very choices we're making here. >> first of all i want to start, katie and seth, thanking you for all the hard work and diligence. it's obvious from the report and how you went through it and i have similar on the rent issue at commissioner that could be a place that provides support. this could be my blind spot so i apologize.

prologic is -- i guess i'm confuse. i thought along the waterfront all of the fiscal assets, technically, are part of the public trust support san francisco and so with prologic be our master tenant who has been leasing back to us? i'm trying to under the leasing relationship? >> yes. >> they can't be the owner, they must be the master tenant? >> correct. >> so then i do want to say i do think -- i want to advise push back regardless of the appraisal and the office rental market because i disagree with the controller's assessment of tele coming back. it showed on your slide it was 23 or 24. it's just more in other work i do, in my day job i'm not sure only 10% office work returning that robustly to san francisco is -- i'm much more weary about

that. i think than the numbers you showed out that came out of the controller office particularly with mtv and abag looking for the reductions they're looking for over all for the bay. to talk about the amount of increase and whether the increase should be suspended and kicking at a later date so i think we should explore that and they are our master -- someone needed a duel role and there's a master tenant and i want to look at if there's rent load and other sites to us, et cetera, before we enter into this rent increase and it just at this point seems a little absurd particularly if there's any funds that are owed to us from them. or other projects or for the master lease and anything they have on port property and i hope we can explore that and look into that. and then the only other thing i

was going to know was just, i do not think the return to work will be as robust. i grow that business and tourism will pick up faster and there's pent up demand and i'm really concerned about office and over all for the city and vacancies are down and so, i just, you know, want us, for our own office that we manage and the fact that our businesses rely on staffing, in the city, being in the financial district and it drives other business enterprises on the port and i think the controller is beg optimistic that those were my two comments and i want to thank the staff and the department division heads for doing the exercise and i know how hard this could be. and just one last question. on the possibility my

understanding was those are vacancies and i just wanted to clarify that. >> the vacancies that we're carrying in the project management office are staff who are managing capital projects so delivery of capital projects and not working on development projects so, the development projects are going to ultimately be an economic engine for us and we are really trying to focus resources on places where we know ultimate low they will help -- help us make money sothere s

a result of those vacancies. >> thank you. i assume also, i know whether staff -- and we're doing that crosswalk to have equitable distribution with how we balance our own books and move forward with projects we need to do. >> looking at all of these decisions through an equity lens whether it's reduction of projects or if we end up in a place where we have to effect layoffs and i'm very conscious of wanting to do that in as equitable a manner as possible. >> thank you, again, to all the staff in your team for all diligence you put no this presentation. thank you. >> thank you. >> no comment. >> thank you.

vice president -- >> thank you for the presentation. madam president, i'd like to get the executive director's feedback. >> certainly. this is the most difficult financial charge that the port has faced. i think staff has done a very, very good job balancing with what we call low-hanging fruit. this is a supplemental that adjusts the budget you already approved. given the grave situation we're face tag this balanced budget does include up to five layoffs, we're hoping to avoid those five layoffs with other balancing strategies primarily layoffs and resignations in and the

following years the financial challenges are more extreme and it will be more difficult to avoid layoffs so, getting stimulus funding is important and the first strategy we'd like to deploy but we're really facing the most dire, significant downturn, the port has faced and the line graph is an important graph to show that in the last downturn, our revenues were essentially flat. this is not the situation now. so those would be my primary comments but i think port staff has done an excellent job balancing where what we call low-hanging fruit and cutting tremendous amounts, almost $40 million out of capital, et cetera, in order to about the and move forward with only up to five layoffs. >> thank you, director forbes.

and as i said, katie and nate, they laid it out and i wanted to hear from you. at the end of the day, what would we rather face? what is behind us. what is in front of us. and i think katie and nate and director forbes, you just laid out the truth unvarnished and that's what we needed to hear, as painful as it is. and commission, i agree with where your point is but this commission, we have to make some he decisions and they're going to be painful. that's our job. that's why the mayor appointed us to make these tough decision and we have the brain power and we're going to do what we have to do and i just appreciate the staff bringing it to us and no one can play monday morning quarterback, we haven't been here. lock around at the city of all the businesses that are boarded up in this city and everybody that is feeling the pain and we

are not immune from feeling pain too. is i have a better understanding and the truth is laid out to us and as a commission, we have to decide to lead to the path of resistance and not a decision. we have to make a decision, stand behind it and own it. thank you. >> thank you, vice president adams. and thank you katie and nate and the whole team for putting this presentation together. i know this was extremely hard and extremely difficult and painful because just to see, you

know, where we were and where we are and where we still have to go is difficult. i have the same concerns the commissioners and not knowing that was coming up right now and i think as you guys have done, we continued to look at out of the box ideas and so i recommend that we have a conversation to see if we can see layer do something to -- because we're going to have to work with our tenants and we do have a bottom less balance sheet, as we can see. regarding the southern waterfront and the beautification funds, as we see over the past year we've not

spent much money. and as we can see, most is coming from the seven waterfront. during this time maritime has really saved us. our revenues have come from maritime. and so, we're defunding what has saved us, so you know, we keep taking our focus away from infrastructure and building up our maritime industry that is now saving us because there is no tourist so we have to be mindful of where we invest in our recovery. the funds are not used for just beautification. we use those funds to finish the park, we're using those funds to

funds our loans programs to get through it. so, the staff is making extremely hard decisions and which comes to, i know that we have policies so how do these decisions affect our policies as far as the capital investments policy requiring 25% of operating revenue to be satisfied and operating reserve equal to 15% of operating expenses. so how does this new proposed budget effect that and are you asking us to change our policies? >> i believe the staff report addresses this very briefly and you are correct, commissioner

brandon, that we are not able right now to meet the policy of setting aside 25% of net revenue for capital for the 15% reserve requirement. so, we do not in no way that we for the fiscal '21 and '22 budget and that would be

with one requesting approval. so, based on that policy, what you are asking of us, would be final numbers, so, for reserve .>> so, such an excellent question and one that i am not prepared to answer one we can get the answer to so if not needing those policies where are we.

>> clerk: 11a request approval of a resolution recommending the board of supervisors approve the mission rock community facilities district financing and including the issuance of bonds and an aggregated principal amount not to exceed $68 million and the execution and deliver row of financing documents including one the form of bond purchase agreements and the form of first supplemental to fiscal agency agreement and continuing disclosure certificate and form of preliminary official statements and authorization and directing the executive director to cause the package to be submitted to the board of supervisors and to work with the director of the office of public financial to finalize the distribution of the preliminary official statement and the issuance of bonds and this is resolution 21-11.

>> thank you, commissioners. my name is ray van anderson and i'm a project manager with the port's real estate and development team and i'm here to present this why for your approval of a resolution for a district public financing. next slide, please. it includes 537 new homes

including 199 below market rate units. two office buildings with over 550,000 square feet of office and one is exploring the possibility of life science uses and phase 1 also includes 65,000 square foot of groundfloor retail and over 5.5 acres of parks and open space including china basin park. they are currently under construction. next slide, please.this slide sl financial structure of the mission rock projects at the bottom of the graphic, you can see the early sources of funding for mission rock. these include developer and port equity, the earliest sources of funding.

>> today's special guest is dr. andrew tanner. >> you're watching "covid with covid-19". today our guest is dr. andrea tanner at san francisco's command center that is located in the musconi convention center. she's here to talk about the city's high volume vaccination sites and san francisco's vaccination efforts. dr. tanner, welcome to the show. >> hi, thank you, it's good to be here with you. >> let's start by talking about the high-volume vaccination centers and the new mission neighborhood center. how many centers are we setting up? and where are they located and

how many people will they be able to vaccinate? >> so we're setting up three high-volume sites. so we tried to locate them in some of our highest prevalence neighborhoods that are easiest to access. so we have one located here at musconi center at the south of market area. another at city college of san francisco which is in the oceanview and ingleside neighborhood. and the third one that is coming down the pipe is our produce market that is in bayview. so as far as the number of people that we can vaccinate, we are hoping that once we have adequate vaccine supply we'll have the capacity to vaccinate over 10,000 san franciscans a day combined across san francisco. as i'm sure that you have heard in the news and other settings, vaccine supplies have been a big challenge. but our goal is to try to make sure that we have the infrastructure in place so that when vaccines are available that

we can -- we can get it into arms as quickly as possible. we also though have some other sites in addition to the large-volume sites and the mission neighborhood sites, for example, set up in an effort to expand the vaccine access across the bayview as well as the other neighborhoods with the highest infection rates for covid-19. and it does have limited access to health care services. so that site, when our vaccine increases, we may expand to have 200 to 400 vaccinations a day. and we have through the department of public health a network of community clinics and neighborhoods across the city that are providing vaccines. so we're trying to give people as many options and in whatever way is comfortable for them to get vaccine when our supply increases. so we're trying to have a menu of options available so that we can get people vaccinated as quickly as possible. >> i think that the city college location has a lot of capacity as well, right? >> yes, they can do 3,000 plus

and right now it's limited by the vaccine supply. but, yes, it's got the capacity to do quite a few patients. >> that brings me to my next question, where are we getting the vaccines from and who is providing them to the state and to the city? >> so a really good question. so it's distributed by the federal government who procures the vaccine and it goes to each of the states. the states then distribute the vaccine to large multicounty health systems. so kaiser permanente and the university of california, and the remainder goes to the county health departments. and those health departments then can disseminate to other -- to other entities. unfortunately, we don't determine how many vaccines we receive per week, so while the supply is still very low, the state has been determining our allot mament. that's based mostly on population size, and somewhat on the number of health care workers that are registered as working in that county. but we take any of the vaccines

that we're offered and we're hoping that the supply will pick up soon. >> do we know how many residents have been vaccinated so far? and as we move forward, how are people going to know when it's their turn and how to go about making an appointment? >> yeah, so the health department and the hospitals and clinics within san francisco have administered over 130,000 vaccines per date that that is a significant portion with those with second doses. this is a higher number than the state recorded number of san franciscan residents who have been vaccinated so far. because the majority of people vaccinated to date have been health care workers in san francisco. and more people work here than live here, we have a disproportionate responsibility for vaccines relative to our population size. as far as knowing when it's your turn and how to get an appointment. we have set up a website at sfgov/getnotified and people can check their priority status, so

based on your age and type of employment. and sign up for an email or text message when your priority group is authorized to be vaccinated. there will be links to sites where you can make an appointment. as we get more and more sitings online and as our vaccine ramps up, that's the area, so sfgov/getnotified and you can see what groups are available. right now because the supply is so limited, there can be limited vaccine appointments but keep checking back and as we get more and more supply, and more and more appointments will open up. it is though for us and for the system in general important metric to track how equitably the vaccine is deliberated to ensure that it's going to neighborhoods and populations that have experienced the highest prevalence of mortality. and the highest prevalence of

mortality and our interventions for the covid-19 response has sought to intervene to try to reduce disparities in health care. so we are anticipating that these efforts are going to help us to advocate to receive more vaccine quickly from the state once the systems are implemented. >> can you pick which vaccine you get? and do you think that we'll be using the johnson & johnson version shortly? >> so currently there's two available. one is made by pfizer and the other is made by moderna and they require two doses each. and the johnson & johnson is the newest to apply for authorization and it is being evaluated by the f.d.a. obviously, we have to wait for the f.d.a. to give it an emergency authorization before we can give that vaccine. but it has so far in the data that has been reported has been shown to be very effective and only requires one dose, which is great. so all of the vaccines are distributed to local entities and we don't get to pick which supplies are distributed to us. they make an allocation and we receive whatever they give to

us. so in an effort to make sure that we have as many appointments available as possible, we just assign -- as you register, you original for the appointment and whatever vaccine that is available is the one that you would receive. the good news is that all of the vaccines have been shown to have great effectiveness in preventing death from covid-19 as well as great safety protocols. and on a personal note i work also as an emergency physician at san francisco general and i received a second dose of the vaccine and i have not had any problems, which is great. i had a little arm soreness and that was it. so, you know, i think that we're very excited that we've seen such good results with the vaccine so far. >> well, that's excellent. well, as we wrap this up, do you have anything that you would like to share with our residents about vaccines? >> yeah, so my hope is that all of our san franciscans are learning all that they can about the vaccine and preparing themselves to get vaccinated. i know that it can be a scary thing to do something that is

new. but there actually is very good data available about the vaccine and so i'm hoping that people can learn about this, we are trying to help to put out information around the vaccines so that people can make an informed decision and get vaccinated as soon as vaccines are available and their turn comes up. as an emergency physician, i was not in the very first group vaccinated. i think that i got my vaccination appointment a few weeks later, but as soon as my turn came i jumped on it. so i'm hoping that others will do the same. i do truly think that this is our ticket out of this. and i know that this has been a long road. and everybody is tired. san francisco has done really well throughout the pandemic, thanks in large part to our citizens. and the people listening to science, and wearing masks, social distancing, doing all of the things that science and public health experts have asked them to do. i think that this is -- this is our way out and i'm just very

excited. i wish that everybody had their vaccine yesterday, but we're getting it as soon as we can. >> that's great. have been helpful information that i hope that has shed some light on our vaccination program. >> i think one of the hardest parts has been, you know, how -- how the supply issues that we just wish that we had, you know, we wish that we had all of the doses on the first day and we could just give them out. but i'm hoping that that will improve and hopefully, you know, this will be behind us soon. >> i hope so too. well, thank you once again for coming on the show. >> thanks, it's good to be here with you. >> that's it for this episode. we'll be back with more pandemic related information shortly. you have been watching "coping with covid-19," i'm chris manners, thank you for watching.

>> good afternoon. this meeting will come to order. welcome to the mar22, 2021 meeting of the land use committee of the san francisco board of supervisors. i am joined by dean preston and aaron peskin. i am myrna melgar. do you have any announcements? >> yes, due to the covid-19 health emergency and to protect board members city employees, the committee room are closed. members will participate remotely. this is taken pursuant to

statewide stay-at-home order and all local state and local directives. committee members will attend through video and participate as if they are physically present. public comment will be available on each item on the agenda. channel 26, 78 or 99. we are streaming the number on the screen. each speaker is allowed two minutes to speak. opportunities to speak are via by calling 415-655-0001. the meeting id is (187)859-1223. then pound and pound again. when kecked you will hear the

discussions -- when connected you will hear the discussion but in listening mode only. dial star 3 to be added to the speaker line. call from a quite el location, speak slowly and turndown your television or radio. alternatively you may submit public comment by e-mailing the land use and transportation clerk. if you submit public comment via e-mail it will be forwarded to the haves and made part of the file. comments may be sent to city hall. finally, items acted upon today are expected to appear on the board of supervisors agenda of

april 6 medicals otherwise stated. madam chair. >> thank you very much. will you please call items one and two together. >> yes, item 1. resolution extending zoning controls for six months and findings for proposed change from residential care facility and affirming appropriate findings. 2. hearing to receive six month report on interim zoning controls for removal of residential care facilities. call 415-655-0001. if id (187)859-1223. press pound pound. if you have not done so already.

dial star 3 to line up to speak for these items. the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. madam chair. >> supervisor mandelman: we are joined by jacob to share remarks. welcome. >> thank you, their melgar. good afternoon supervisors. supervisor mandelman was not able to join you today. the items before you today are resolution to extend existing zoning rolls that require a conditional use for proposed change of use away from residential care facility to other use and required hearing on the planning department report for those controls. with respect to the controls supervisor mandelman original originallyproposed these in reso

the long-term care crisis in the report from the city long-term care coordinating council assisting living working group. that report documented the alarming rate at which we are losing these facilities. as of 2018, san francisco had 43 fewer than in 2012 t.242 critically living builds were lost in those six years. the trend has continued since then with an additional loss of 11 facilities including 226 beds in the two years since that report was issued. the intent of these controls is to discourage the further closure and conversion of facilities and slow loss and and dress the challenge. when the supervisor put forward the 18 month controls we did not

participate the covid pandemic to divert attention and resources from efforts including this one. today's resolution would extend by additional six months to the 24 month period for an entire rim control as we consider making the conditional use permanent and also look at responses that may go beyond land use controls. operating subsidies or identifying ways to match existing operators with interested buyer that may revisit the city policies on looking for acquisition as well. these conversations are underway and we look forward to discussing those solutions that may be available to us with you all in the coming months. on the controls themselves i want to note that it is important to know we are only just beginning to see the first projects come through to the

planning commission that triggered the conditional use requirement. first one was heard this month. another one in april. we feel like it is useful to keep the controls in place to look at how the projects turn-out as we consider permanent planning code requirements. we understand there are other projects in the pipeline or out there being considered for conversion. those are all the more reason to keep the additional scrutiny that comes with these controls. as you will recall i was here last week. that was to request a continuance on this item. the reason was we needed time to prepare amendments necessary to properly reference modifications to these controls that had been made in december 2019. they were omitted in the extension resolution before you today. i have circulated the amendments to you all and to your staff.

let me just briefly summarize for your consideration. first, there is amendment to the long title of the resolution as well as to the finding on page 2 line 24-inch concluding reference to resolution 539-19 which was that resolution that modified the original controls in december 2019. second set of amendments is non substantive changes to rear to another refer to zoning districts called out in the monitoring report and incorporated in the findings page 3, lines 22-25. the amendments to clarify the resolution today is extending and modifying the original controls. the extension retaining language of the original resolution from october 2019 rather than the language that had been added subsequently in resolution

53919. this is achieved with proposed amendment to the resolved clause which would read resolved that this interim controls imposed by resolution 430-19 and modified by 539-19 are here by extended and modified to revert to the controls by resolution 430-19 and shall remain in effect until october 11, 2021. supervisors for the record the operative control extended by this resolution is the language you find in the following resolve clause on page 5 line 21-23. that language reads as drafted. further resolved any proposed change of use from residential care facility as defined in 102 and 890.50e of the planning code shall require conditional use authorization while the controls

are in effect. that remains the language for clarity. supervisors while these will have the effect of continuing the controls they do not carry the language from the modifying resolution. we are no longer requesting this as committee report but do appreciate your consideration and ask that you consider moving these amends forward so the resolution can be considered for recommendation at the april 5th meeting after recess and so that the controls can be extended prior to their current expiration date april 11 of this year. chair, melgar, we have susie smith of the deputy director of policy and planning at hsa available to provide background on the loss of facilities and answer any questions. aaron starr of the planning department is here for item 2, required report on the controls.

with that thank you so much. i am available for any questions. thank you. >> thank you so much. we do have susie smith here from the human services agency who i believe is prepared to make a brief presentation. ms. smith, welcome. >> good afternoon, supervisors. thank you for having me today. jacob asked me to provide context to the 2019 report and update the data to share with you. are you going to share the pdf? thank you so much. i am deputy director for policy and planning at the human services agency. we developed a report in 2019 that provided context. in the next slide is the name of the report supporting affordable

assisted living in san francisco. next slide we talk about the background for the initiation of this report which was the long-term care coordinating council which many of you know is advisory to the mayor on planning and delivery to look at the integrated and acceptable long-term care delivery. this particular study was sponsors by those needing assisted living were not able to access it. it has an impact on low income residents. the next slide we just share is the findings between what is known and the documents and data. we see a steady decline in assisted living across the residential care facilities for the elderly as well as the adult

residential facilities and the impact is particularly with smaller boarding care homes and those adult residents. >> are we missing ms. smith? >> for example -- >> susie, maybe if you turnoff your camera. you are cutting in and out. >> i am sorry. can you hear me? >> yes, we can. >> i must we having internet issues. decline in both residential care facilities for elderly as well as adult residential facilities.

since 2012 the city has seen 9% decline in assisted living beds. we have seen 5% decline in rcfds, 22% decline in the adult residential facilities. this is being driven primarily by small facilities which have been more affordable for low income residents and community members. since 2012 we have seen a staggering 40% decrease in number of beds available in small board and care homes. then on the next slide shows the information about the residential care facilities for the elderly. looking across the facilities and beds. here we see between 2012 and

2018, san francisco lost 21rcfes which represents 26% decline in number of facilities. most of this was in the smaller homes. the bed capacity has decline add much as 5%. impact is disproportional. on the next slide we look at adult residential facilities which have been more pronounced trend. we had 22 fewer arps since 2018 than we did in 2012. most of these are small facilities. out of the 42 licensed arp, 27 were actually board and care homes with six or fewer residents. we are talking about very small facilities more home like and more appropriate for certain members of our community. for this hearing, supervisor mandelman's office asked to

update trends since 2019 study. we provide that data on the next slide. we have about 2300 beds in the residential care facilities for the elderly. we have about 440 beds for adults under 60. we see the change since the last report. we have seen some losses pan some gains. facilities lost driven by board and care home closures. we had five of these smaller facilities compared to 2018 report. most closures predate this zoning policy. closures occurred prior to october 2019, four. two closures on the mission and

two in sunset and one in inc. el side. there is expansion of larger facilities over 100 beds. this is mainly due to opening of the new frank resident memory care at sf campus for jewish living and launch of the gardens at the home. switching to the arp. we have seen a net loss of four arp and 40arp beds since 2018. this is driven by the closure of four boarding care homes operated by one company. the closure of aurora residential care homes which is a series of four universities in the excelsior area.

the losses were offset by one board and care opening. then we saw the closure of a larger 24 bed facility in the mission which closed in august 2008. the larger policy issues with the ability to actually financially make these facilities viability is getting increasingly difficult as property values increased and costs to run the facilities increased. we can't spread the staffing costs out accordingly. i am happy to talk about the solutions beyond zoning if that is of interest and answer questions for the committee. thank you for the opportunity to share the updated data. >> thank you, susie.

if there are no questions for ms. smith or my colleagues. supervisor preston, go ahead. >> sorry i was muted. i want to ask ms. smith on the demand and the need side. what the trends on? we see the concerning picture with so many beds and facilities lost. i don't be know if we have data on the need. is the need flat, rising or changing in any way we are tracking? >> yeah, we are seeing the demand has not flattened. it is increasing as the population continues to age. on the prior report we haven't updated numbers on demand. we see in terms of mental health

behavioral health beds and it is helpful for homelessness. we are trying to get support as well as older adult population aging. we haven't seen a decline in the demand. i can provide updated data if interested on that side as well. >> thank you. i don't think from my perspective it is necessary with this zoning. moving forward to look at the bigger policy issues, it would be great to have that as part of the presentation so we know what we are doing with terms of up met demand. i appreciate supervisor mandelman's office work on this crucial issue when the time is right after public comment i would be happy to move the amendments which supervisor mandelman has offered and appreciate your time in walking

our office through the fairly technical and complicated interaction between the original resolution and the changes and now getting this right to paysicly back to the extension of what was the original purposes of this ordinance. this resolution is essential and just appreciate all of the work on it. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor preston. thank you, susie. for last presenter we have mr. aaron starr of the planning department to discuss the interim controls. >> good afternoon, supervisors. aaron starrs, legislative affairs. they were adopted october 1, 2019. they were in effect for 18 months which expires april 11th.

it requires conditional use authorizes from residential care to any other use. in addition to standard c.u. findings they outlined four other findings that we must consider in reviewing this application. those are outline understand the report. when the packet was published there were none. this facility was a residential care facility in what was previously single family home that accommodated about 12 patients. opened in 20,000 and closed april 2019. it was sold to the current owner in -- sorry 2020. the new owners seeked to change from residential care to single family home.

staff recommendation to approve conversion. condition on selling two units instead of one since the property is zoned rh-2. during the hearing the financial feasibility was called into question by commissioners. planning commission voted to approve conversion with only requiring one unit which is what the applicant had wanted. vote was 3-4. this is a split vote not over the conversion over whether or not to require two units per staff recommendation or just one. in addition to this application there is another one pending before the commission. that is located 628 shot well street. this is similar to 801 in that it would convert closed have been care facility to two. it is calendared in planning but continued. there are two other applications to create new residential care

facility also. 1535 van dyke and 5500 mission street. they are to increase capacity of existing residential care facilities. those were at 1301 bacon and 658 shot well. department is aware of three sites to delicense out of residential care and operate as group housing facility. 141ly land, 128 highland street and 220 delores street. they are through the housing and community development and h.i.v. age related care facilities. because of advancements they month longer need medical care required in the early days of the epidemic. that concludes my report. i am available for questions should you have them. thank you. >> colleagues, any questions for mr. star?

i have a question. that is about the staff recommendation for the conversion that you just talked about. i know that this issue of losing beds and facilities is something that we have put in the medical services master plan. we all worry about it. you know we have created this interim control process of coming before the planning commission. it puzzles me as to why the staff recommended this. could you talk about that decision how we weigh the policy of needing to preserve facilities against other uses and things we need like housing. >> yes, it is a difficult one. in this case staff was looking at the fact that the facility had already closed and the believe had already been sold.

the interim controls didn't have an impact on the sale or closing of the facility. i think they were just saying balancing the need for housing and wanted to turn into a housing unit and the fact the residential care facility was long gone at this point. it wasn't coming back. >> i don't mean to give you a hard time. i don't think you were the staff who recommended it. that is exactly what the interim controls were for to give any buyers pause that they have to go through this process if they intend to do something besides the facility. >> yes. i think that when this happens they probably weren't aware of that at the time. one problem is that a lot of people aren't aware the interim controls are there and not part of it and it should be identified by the seller.

i am not sure if there is a solution to that. it is also difficult for us if we tint let the conversion go and there was no buyer for it, it would be sitting empty. it is a difficult decision for the planning department. >> thank you. supervisor peskin. >> madam chair, if i may venture to speculate. i suspect that if you were on the planning commission you would have voted in the disisn't. we just had a case at 424 francisco street, very old. the board voted unanimously granted it wasn't about residential care but it was about a history. the idea that the successor interest is lost of all sins --

washed of all sins of the previous owner does not meet the policy goals supervisor mandelman and we are trying to advance. no disrespect to staff or the planning department in this recommendation or the 4-3 vote by the commission, but ultimately this is a policy of the lawmakers and c.u.s are appealable to this board of supervisors. sorry for speculating, madam chair, as to how you might have voted. >> thank you, supervisor. okay. if there are no other questions or comments. madam clerk. let's take public comment on this item. >> we are checking for callers. if you have not done so, press star 3 to be added to the queue to speak for items 1 and 2. if you are on hold continue to wait until the system indicates you are unmuted.

it looking like we have one person in queue. unmute the first caller, please. >> hi. thanks everybody. i amnate. with national union of healthcare workers. i am calling to support this item about conditional use for residential care facilities. we represent mental health clinics for the eph contractor and operate an adult residential care facility. 33 bed facility on broderick street. we were recently involved in some negotiations involving their lease, which was renewed recently. i just wanted to add that it is

our experience that this policy has created additional protections that helped safeguard these beds. i think that it will continue to do so. in our experience it totally changes the balance of power with the private property owner here. changes their economic incentives. they cannot quickly flip it. we think, you know, when you look at the data of how this policy is working, it is not just the conditional use permits you guys have already looked at but you should think about deterrent effect that it has with the care facilities that are currently out there. especially in this category which are public contracts but private landowners, property owners. what we think is playing a

protective role in this case, and we hope the city will eventually be able to buy the property which i think they are trying to do. thank you for your time everybody. >> do we have any other callers? >> there are no more callers in the queue. >> thank you. seeing no other callers, public comment is closed. colleagues, do we have a motion to adopt the amendment as proposed by the staff? >> so moved. preston. >> madam clerk, please call the roll for item 1. supervisor preston. >> aye. >> supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> supervisor melgar. >> aye. >> you have three ayes. >> thank you. the motion passes.

as we originally noticed this item as possible committee report but because the amendments are considered substantive by the city tore, the amended legislation will need to be heard at the committee again at our next regularly scheduled meeting monday april 5th, 2021. madam clerk, please call the roll for item number two. >> remaining balance on item one it is continued? >> i am sorry. yes. >> on that motion, supervisor sr peskin. >> aye. >> preston. >> aye. >> melgar. >> aye. >> you have three ayes. >> thank you so much. will you please call roll for item 2.

>> the motion to continue it or file? >> i am sorry. i think this is to hear it on april 5th. or did we just do that? >> for item 1 it was amended and tipped to the fifth. >> i would make a motion to file item 2 if that is acceptable to the chair of the committee. >> yes, thank you. >> on the motion to file. supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> supervisor preston. >> aye. >> supervisor melgar. >> aye. >> you have three ayes. >> thank you so much.

the motion passes. please call item 3. ordinance amending the planning code to prohibit retail workspace in chinatown mixed-use districts, affirming appropriate findings. members of the public should call the number on the screen. 415-655-0001 id1878551223. pound pound. if you have not done so, dial star 3 to line up to speak. >> thank you very much. today we have laurel from the mayor's office of economic and worke forcer development and andvery on neca flores to preset to this item. >> i would like to fix my name

as cosponsor to this measure promised to chinatown when what became proposition 80 the ballot. i would like to be a could sponsor. >> thank you, supervisor. >> thank you, chair melgar. i am laurel. i am the director of business development for the office of economic and worke forcer development. thank you, supervisor peskin for cosponsor add. this was developed in partnership with the chinatown community after concerning from community members retail workspaces could impact the long standing efforts for a delineation between their district and maintain their role as attraction. it would prohibit retail

workspaces in line with the request we heard from the community. we request your support today. the planning commission is here to speak on it as well. >> welcome, ms. flores. >> thank you, chair melgar. good afternoon, veronica flores, planning commission staff. this was before the planning commission on february 18th. they unanimously recommended approval of said ordinance. this concludes the commission report. i am available for any questions. >> thank you very much. i appreciate that. supervisor peskin, did you have any further comments about in. >> i do not. i think everything that needs to be said has been said. >> thank you. with that, public comment on this item, please. >> we are checking for caller in

the queue. press star 3 to be added to the queue. on hold please continue to hold until the system indicates you are unmuted. >> there are no callers in queue. >> okay. seeing no other callers. public comment is closed. do we have a motion to pass this out of committee with a positive recommendation? >> so moved. >> okay. madam clerk, please call the roll. >> the motion as stated by supervisor peskin. peskin. >> aye. >> preston. >> aye. >> melgar. >> aye. >> you have three ayes. >> thank you, the motion passes. are there any other items for us today? >> that completes the business for today. >> thank you.

we will be on spring recess next week and we will return to the regularly scheduled meetings april 5, 2021. we are adjourned. thank you.