restaurants. they're having trouble with hiring people, and we want to make sure a small business owner, that's a mom-and-pop shop, as they expand, they can find people to work in their shop and afford to live in san francisco. it's going to be a balance, so when there are resources available, there will be money in our upcoming budget that i will introduce to allow some additional support for our small business community, but we also have to continue to connect our businesses with the resources -- thanks goodness we have a new president and vice president because that has been so critical in helping to provide more resources to small businesses who have been struggling the most, so we definitely anticipate we will be doing more.

[inaudible] >> the hon. london breed: so part of why we added an additional $10.6 million in grants are for those businesses that are having the most difficult time, where they have to go through a process to access city resources. this is about those who could not get resources, who have, like, six employees or less who are struggling and need support. but also, we're not here to micromanage what they use the money for. we know there's a moratorium against evictions for rent. that moratorium expires for the state at the end of june, i think it is, june 30. we know that rent is still going to come down, and we're going to need these resources, so our office of economic and workforce development has been working so hard with so many of these businesses. it wasn't a loan pool, it was a grant pool, and we removed so

many of these barriers to be able to access this money. all right. don't forget, shop local businesses, #smallbiz, b-i-z, because manny doesn't know how to spell. small business challenge. thank you all so much. [roll call]

>> public comment for any items not on the agenda. >> make sure there is nobody in the queue. j.a.m. permits which is pretty huge. that surpasses the number of permits we have in the city

being at 196. and we have a lot of unique businesses we are permitting that we weren't permitting pre-covid. that's pretty exciting. sort of a way of broadening entertainment across the city that we kind of never envisioned we would have the ability to do. which we were able to do through this emergency and through shared spaces. so that's exciting. and applications continue to come in. we have another 15 that are under review right now. just to get into a staff and office update, you should have received an email from deputy director this past week. as a reminder, kaitlynne is on parental leave the next few months. we are very excited for her and her husband as they are welcoming their first child in the world. she will be out until the fall. a couple notes for you all, in her absence, inspector sevino

will take on a bigger role and supporting enforcement. he will actually be putting together your commissioner enforcement reports that you review for these hearings and giving you a presentation on that today and moving forward. really excited about that opportunity for him. i think he is going to be great. thank you so much, tony. and i will go back to some of that deputy director work that i did before, back in, you know, 2015 and up until '18. just doing permitting which is actually coming back online. we will have a couple permits coming up at our upcoming hearings which is pretty exciting. and final note i will make for all of you. i emailed you about yesterday. really around our offices emergency response efforts. so over the past year, as you are all well aware we have been supporting the covid command center and the city in general,

informing this group called the community education and response team. or c.e.r.t. which had a role of, you know, education and compliance for small businesses across san francisco. and really, almost everybody on our staff was working on c.e.r.t. at one point. some of us full-time. kaitlynne spent a lot of her efforts running that program. and over the past week, i will note that the timing was just really interesting that it happened with her departure, but we were able to de-scale the program quite a bit. which is actually really good news. we feel that it's trending along with the economy continuing to reopen and things coming back online. so we had, you know, previously had about 13 disaster service workers reporting to us, and now that's gone down to five. we are no longer going to be going out and checking on health order compliance on

evenings and weekends. meaning that department of public health, environmental health branch is going to be take back overall evening and weekend complaints in response. and c.e.r.t. will continue to move forward with a much smaller scope. they will be focusing on kind of random businesses like gyms and fitness centers and laundrymats and nail salons, auto shops, offices, hotels, retail, that kind of thing. it's a smaller scope. and that ultimately means that both mike and tony will be able to focus completely on entertainment enforcement on evenings and weekends where we really need them back right now. because we are getting probably double the complaints, at least, i need to dig into the data. than we did pre-covid. and so, you know, that makes a lot of sense given the fact that we have 200 new outdoor

sources we didn't have before. but we will dig into that more in tony's report and what's going on. we think we have a handle on it, but it is quite a bit. if you have questions on that report or anything i have gone over. feel free to ask now or later. i am around. >> president bleiman: any questions? >> president bleiman, if i can go. >> president bleiman: please. >> i want to compliment the amazing work with all your stuff with c.e.r.t. you were a huge asset for the police department. i don't think you guys got nearly the recognition. the work was incredible, also. we had the privilege of one of the people that works with me was assigned to you, kimberly ing. she did a great job. >> she did.

>> we he are happy to have her back but she can help again if needed. >> thank you. we had so many folks join us across city departments. it was really a pleasure getting to know all them and we got a lot of positive feedback on their experience. all in all, really good, yeah. >> i think it's really extraordinary how, you know, the city employs every possible type of person and type of position and everybody really stepped up during this crisis. i mean, we're not out of it yet, but everything i am hearing is we are on a great track with people ready to jump back in if needed. thank you. >> >> president bleiman: any other questions? all right. thanks again for the work that you did. and just in time.

we are back now with all these new permits. i think also with the parklet, the preferred spaces we will be fielding a lot of calls that have nothing to do with us, but other neighbors complaining about this or that. thanks for everybody you have done. is there any comment on director wyland's presentation? >> president bleiman not now. but i think we should show the slides as a courtesy. >> president bleiman: wrong thing. let me stop that. there we go. courtesy to show that again for anyone who wants to call in, or chat. all right. there is no one with their hand raised and no one calling in

right now. >> president bleiman: let's close public comment for that. we will move onto the next agenda item. number 4, a report from senior inspector sevino. >> hello. thank you, president bleiman and good evening, commissioners. it's been a full month since we last met and we are able to report on enforcement actions and a lot has happened since then. let me get you all to speed here. since our last meeting there have been 62 sound complaints and we worked hard to resolve the majority of these issues. i have the enforcement report. i will run through some of the businesses highlighted in yellow. there are nine big cases here to talk about. and there's a lot to say. i will keep this pretty high-level while trying to paint the full picture and then we can talk about any questions you might have at the end. just to mention, this is a very large report and to help you all follow along in that

report, the new cases we will be covering start on march 3rd. the first business i want to talk about, don pizzo's. this has been getting numerous complaints from one neighbor that continued to be substantiated. we visited and educated multiple times, set an appropriate sound limit and issued citation. however the business continued to receive complaints about operating outside of permitted hours. and there's some limit. director wyland took one additional step requiring the business to respond within 24 hours with a comprehensive compliance plan illustrating how their business operations will reflect compliance with the conditions of their j.a.m. permit. staff approved the plan which included posting signage to employees to not exceed the allowable sound levels by not

turning up the volume. since then we haven't received a sound complaint in several weeks. the next business i want to talk about is mr. bing's. we visited this business multiple occasions prior to this c.e.r.t.d scale responding to health order violations as well as sound complaints. unfortunately, we haven't been entirely successful at this location. the owner has not been forthcoming about business operations and does not yet have a j.a.m. permit. i will mention inspector had to deal with a patron attempting to light a fire work next to him from his last visitation. this has been reported to the public health and city attorney office. we will keep you posted with future sound complaints or follow-up as it pertains to entertainment permitting for this location. the next business to speak about is neck of the woods. as deputy sector reported last

time they received numerous come -- complaints, inspector worked with the manager do come up with the sound solution of not using any amplification during their comedy performances. the performance and outdoor dining areas are small and the comedian can still be heard without amplification. patrons have been encourage dollars to keep noise level low, we haven't received any other complaints. rock stem received a sound complaint for loud music and when inspector fiorentino found they were operating outside their six hours of allowed amplified sound on their permit. the manager was sincere and turned off the music right away. upon inspection of the next follow-up visit the business

was in compliance and not operating outside the listed hours of amplified sound. this case has been closed out. next up is soma street food park. this is a relatively new activation. and since their first couple days of being open early last month they received a number of complaints for loud music. inspector fiorentio attempted to visit only to find them closed. i was able to respond in real-time found they did have very loud music audible for more than 20-50 feet away. large gathering of people all standing and dancing. the business was also in violation of many health order conditions. but happy to report i was able to phone the manager who also holds another permit for fitness activation down the streed. i explained how they were out of compliance.

he appreciated the education and said he would stop hosting these events until further notice. since then we have not received any complaints. i will be going there this weekend to conduct a proper sound test. i would like to bring to your attention pacific catch. this business has received numerous complaints from one person who is located directly across from their speakers on a second floor. due totten reinforcement complaints and business reporting amplified sound outside their allowed six hours, director wyland requested they submit a compliance plan. similar to don pizzo's, director wyland directed this plan include outdoor speaker reconfiguration per inspector fiorentino's advice.

thus mitigate further future complaints. the business has come in compliance with the j.a.m. permitted hours, however we are keeping this case open we have yet to hear back from management about changing the location of the speakers. next i would like to talk about american bites. which is an interesting case. this has two businesses with the same owners management right next to each other on the same street. one being american bites and the other being makada. management has come into compliance with a j.a.m. permit but many sound complaints come in from back patio late night 12:30-1:00 a.m. not able to substantiate late sound complaints. the outdoor speakers were off but the inside of the bar was packed.

there were about 100 people in the bar, unseated, unmasked and the permit was operating as a bar without serving meals. finally, he returned to find a line of people waiting to get in. many witnessed a group of people spill in the street and started fighting. at that point it looked to be violent so inspector called 9-1-1. this call has been sent to d.p.h. and the city attorney's office. we will keep you posted what happens next. second to last report out for this evening is about midnight sun. this business is located 18th street closure in the castro and holds drag shows every saturday and sunday. neighbors submitted three complaints in the last week, back-to-back this past saturday. i was able to respond in real-time and educate the manager on the j.a.m. permit

and needed to turn down the sound levels. the manager was interested and expressed sincere interest in compliance. happy to report we received a genuine email from the complainant the following day explaining the sound level was much better and commending us for our efforts. this case is now closed. lastly, i want to tell you about butter on 11th street. over the past few weeks we have received complaints that the business is hosting loud music above their allowable sound levels along with complaints the business has been staying open with outdoor amplified sound past 10:00 p.m. i was able to visit on sunday and talk to the owner. upon my arrival the business was hosting very loud drum and bass music audible for much further than 50 feet away which

is their current sound limit. i urged the manager to lower the sound level and reminded all amplified sound needs to be turned off by 10:00 p.m. i returned later to find a crowd of about 50 people dancing and congregating about 9:45 p.m. the music was shut off about 10:00 p.m. but i walked inside to find all the 50 people standing and drinking around the bar. it's worth mentioning a party bus for someone's birthday was parked out front and told by a patron it just showed up out of nowhere. i will note the complainant mentioned hearing the music at their location at least 150 feet away until about 1:00 a.m. the business was in violation of numerous health order conditions and this case has been sent to d.p.h. and the city attorney's office. that is it for the report.

and feel free, let me know if you guys have any questions. >> well i have a question, i guess, about the fireworks getting sound bite sort of aimed at one of our staff. that seems very not okay. >> yeah. >> and possibly more than just reaching out, referring it to the department of public health. >> commissioner thomas, there was a lot more that went on the back and forth from the c.e.r.t. side of things, filing a police report, that kind of thing. that's not the route our inspector wanted to take. i will mention that as c.e.r.t. inspectors, mike and tony and other inspectors over the past year have gone through it, you know.

have definitely had much more negative reactions with just members of the public. chased to their cars. their cars are hit. their cars are spit on. they are spit at, yelled at, called names. some of which are really bad names. the firework incident was pretty huge. i will say that since that happened, mr. banes applied for a j.a.m. permit and they have been hard to get a hold of for additional needed information. this is one i'm considering potentially denying. because i feel as though these permits are a privilege to have. if you're not even abiding by the rules prior to applying or working to come into compliance to what the rules are, i'm not sure having a permit will help. we will see about that one. that's a weird one. >> got it, thank you. yeah, i understand our

inspectors and other emergency staff are out there and you know, emotions are high and people's, you know, under a lot of economic stress and otherwise. but that also doesn't seem like appropriate working conditions. i guess i wanted to say i appreciate all the staff that's been putting in a lot of hard work and i'm trusting that you, as the executive director are figuring out how to provide them with support going through this. so thank you, all. >> president bleiman: more questions? >> so what happens when it gets to this extreme? who actually steps in besides the entertainment commission. the city attorney sends them a letter? or health department denies

their outdoor permit? i mean, this seems to be the extreme cases. everybody pretty much has been in compliance. >> are you again referring to this example of mr. banes and the fireworks incident? >> correct. >> yeah. i mean, that one, it's definitely in the very top of extreme circumstances. and it was referred multiple times to the department of public health. since we are no longer partnering with that department on escalating our findings when we are out there. i mean, we, again, we are just eyes and ears and educators and they are the enforcement body for the health order. so at this point they are conducting evening and weekend inspections and doing enforcement follow-up. so yeah, i would say we are not going to respond to that particular business right now. because it is referred to another agency.

so if we get a sound complaint, that's one thing. but i don't want my inspectors going out there. therefore, why would we issue them a j.a.m. that's where i'm at. >> right. okay. >> question. and thank you, maggie for all this and our staff having to undergo such stressful conditions while they are working. other than referral to department of public health and city attorney, do our inspectors have the authority to impose fines? >> not with a circumstance like that but we can issue a citation if they are out of compliance with a permit. they are nominal. admin code and the first offense is $100. >> okay. >> i did, i will note especially for commissioner we did escalate that issue over to

central station. so officer matthias is also aware of that particular incident and the issues there. >> president bleiman: let me just add, executive director, if our inspector changes his mind, we can still take a police report. and i'll speak from a personal perspective. i think it's critical that that the city exhaust every effort when it comes to any kind of assault of one of our employees. i totally get, it's a personal decision. but it does limit our options if our employee doesn't want to pursue that. but nonetheless, i just want to point out. it's not too late if they want, if we want to make a police report, we can try to file it with the district attorney. >> okay. i will reoffer that, thank you so much. >> i'm happy to talk with him

offline. offer it and see if that's amenable. >> that sounds good. thank you for that offer. >> at a minimum if you can message back that all of us are concerned because that's completely unacceptable. >> thank you, that's very thoughtful. mike, inspector fiorentino has been the late night inspector. as the night wears on and people don't want to see him coming on, he has had a hard time. which is tough because he is literally going out and educating. >> i like his fast thinking calling 9-1-1. a lot of people could freeze in those situations. so good. >> any other comments? i also think that a police report is probably, might be

appropriate if he is up to it. you know, we are kind of limited in what we can do. which is fine, but the, you know, thinking forward, i do have thoughts about specifically around businesses who are going to want to make sure they have a parklet for shared spaces. and they will have to apply to the city. if businesses are completely renegade right now and not want to follow rules, i don't know why the city would -- they have to take care of and it will be shared with the neighbors. keeping a paper trail for all those things, i think is really important. again, i don't want to tell inspector mike what to do or not to do. but i think it's important to get that into the record. just get the message that we live in a community here.

you can't just act selfishly, no matter the circumstances, you know? i do think that's somewhat important. any other questions on this? thoughts? >> i think i just have one follow-up thing for you, president bleiman. just as we move forward with permanence for shared spaces, c.e.r.t. is going to be sort of a historical database for a lot of enforcement and education. so we will be working very closely with shared spaces in their review for permanent locations. >> cool. >> yeah. and you know, for businesses that really are actively, aggressively facing off against us and what we do, i do think there should be consequences

for that. they should get that message. >> one more thing, there's a lot of people trying to come into compliance. if they get away with it, why are the good people doing it. we don't want to send a bad message to them either. >> with you, commissioner. we need consistency out there. yep. >> president bleiman: any public comment on this agenda item? >> checking, there are no hands raised and no chats. >> president bleiman: okay, we will move to the next agenda item. number 5, an update on the music and entertainment venue recovery fund. i will just preface this by saying, i had -- i played an active role in this fund in helping it to get passed and coming up with it. we worked with very closely

with the mayor's office and supervisor haney's office to get this thing off the ground. i actually asked that director reggina would come today to give us a report on it. i'm thrilled you were able to make it and thank you for being here so much and i'm excited about this specific agenda item. >> thank you, president bleiman. and regina director of the office of small business. it's great to be before the commission. and director wie lands. -- wyland. definitely want to thank president bleiman and this commission for your advocacy on establishing the venue fund. it's an honor for our office to be the recipient, or the

designated entity to receive this venue fund. and administer the program and distribute the funds. tonight, i'm going to provide you an overview of where we are. in getting the grant program up and going and how the criteria around the disbursement of the funds. so dylan, is this now fully sharing on the screen? >> yes, it is. >> okay, great. so first, i want to go through

an overview, so the recovery fund. this recovery fund is to provide grants to music and entertainment venues that have been impacted by covid. supervisor haney is the sponsor of the legislation that established the ordinance. 22-21 on march 3, 2021. the grant fund has a $3 million allocation from general fund appropriations. the appropriation ordinance had its second reading today at the board of supervisors passed out. and so, within the next ten days, as soon as the ordinance is signed, then those funds will go into the venue fund.

we conducted weekly stakeholder engagement with the independent venue alliance and sf venue coalition, along with director wyland. and dylan reitz from the entertainment commission. ben van howtan from economic workforce development. sharky laguana and richard core rill lo from it's office of small business who is the program manager for this venue fund and myself. and these meetings, we have been taking a look at what criteria are we going to ask for as we -- for the application. so the eligibility criteria, there are five eligibility criteria that a business, a place of entertainment needs to

prove to be able to be eligible for the fund. one, they have an active place of entertainment permit as of january 25. the principle function is to provide live entertainment and this is to be defined by defined performance space, sound and lighting systems, marketing specific performers by name in print. digital publications and publications and/or social media. we are working to follow to save our stages in asking for documentation that mirrors many of the required documentation under the save our stages. businesses are not having to provide different sets of criteria for this grant fund, as well as the save our stages. so we are working to align

documentation for these criteria under the principle function that include pictures, receipts, insurance documentation and marketing materials. the third criteria, businesses have to demonstrate a commitment to maintaining its principle function as a live entertainment programming. some of those documentation that could be submitted will be box office and ticket reports. written agreements and contracts with performers or other documentation to satisfy this commitment. the fourth criteria, businesses cannot be owned in part of, or in whole, managed or exclusively booked by a publicly-traded company. the business signs under penalty of perjury that the

grant is based on rent, space, payroll, unsecured property tax, liability, insurance and utilities that are due. and that they are struggling to pay these expenses and has maintained and committed to maintaining the lease and or mortgage. once a business certifies and meets the eligibility criteria, then the next category that's asked for is the priority category. and businesses that have two or more of these priority categories are given a higher priority in terms of receiving the grant. these priority categories are, they are in imminent danger of closing. so there will be some documentation to support, will be asked for to support that.

they have been operating at least for 15 years. they are a legacy business. they are maximum occupancy is less than 100 patrons. and they may be located in a cultural district. and that may require some documentation or written testimony. so these five priority categories, again, are used to help determine how the funds are going to be dispersed. and in the working group, with our stakeholders, it's been determined that the grant disbursement, all eligible venues in this round will receive the same amount of grant. so every eligible venue will receive the same amount of grant from that $3 million.

the priority of issuing the grants will be eligible venue. priority two, eligible venue plus four of the five criteria and so on. again, that is just demonstrate -- we are using those criterias to determine the timing of the issuing of the grants. so target time lines that we are working on, we will have our city attorney provide, sign off on our rules and regulations. nine, april 19th, we will have an online application available. so we are working with digital

services to develop an online application. so it will be easy for businesses to apply. and will help expedite our ability in our review process as well. we will make this application online through sf.gov, link to osb and entertainment commission's website. and then, targeting 4/21, the funds will be in the account. in may, the application , we are going to keep the application open for two and a half weeks. may 5th, the application will close. we are targeting to review the applications and approve the applications between may 6th and june 4th.

this could take a bit longer but we are allocating one staff to do that. and then on by 5/26 we will begin to inform applicants of their status of the award being granted. things that we are still working on and still need to be determined is exactly the payment method that we will be paying out the grants. we are trying to work on a process where we can get the money out the door most expeditiously. with the venue coalition and

the venue groups. they were working on a fundraising campaign. this hasn't been activated to the degree that was initially conceived because of the city's, occur -- currently they give to sf, which is where charitable donations are able to be submitted. because of covid. and individuals are not able to make, determine where their donations go. they could not select an entity. so we are working with the controller's office to return give to sf, which it was originally designed pre-covid, was to be able to provide a menu of items that individuals or businesses can contribute to the city. so one of those items would be the venue funsd. -- fund. that is still in the works but

we don't have a date when we will be able to take individual credit card donations that individuals can specifically identify their donation to go to the venue recovery fund. then i know the question was asked about fundraising efforts. so once we have, we know when this, when the ability to take credit cards, when we are able to do this, then we will engage with the stakeholder group on how they would like to proceed with the fundraising effort. and with that, that's a very quick overview of where we are and i'm happy to take questions. >> president bleiman: thank you, regina. thanks a lot.

i know the independent venues have been wanting this for some time. and finally there are is money in the account. i will help them spread it around but i think they are pretty organized. they are getting the word out to apply for this grant. that's great. thank you so much. >> you're welcome. and it's been invaluable having representatives from both organizations helping us establish the criteria for the application so that they feel good about it. and it's meeting the needs of what this fund is intended for. >> president bleiman: great, thank you. >> can i ask a question? >> please. >> i'm not sure if i missed it during your report. first of all, thank you for your presentation and being here to share the updates. did you determine what is the

amount of grants that will be provided? >> we are currently saying there's a minimum of $10,000. so, because the decision is made that the $3 million will be distributed amongst the applicants, the number of applicants that meet eligibility requirements, we don't know what that final number is going to be. so there is currently 300 plus entertainment permits that are active as of february 25, 2020. but not all of those will meet eligibility criteria. so we are stating at this point the minimum is $10,000. but it will be more than that. >> thank you very much.

>> any more questions? all right. i've got a couple. so my understanding is that the actual processing of the applications is for the lay person may just seem like an easy task but it's actually quite a herculean endeavor. i'm wondering if you have the resources you need to make sure your office can process these quickly and swiftly, and if you have considered maybe, if not, if you have considered reaching out maybe to o.e.w.d. or any other place that has grant scorers that might be able to assist? >> yes. we are in the process but that hasn't been -- that hasn't been -- we are working on

that. because it's our goal to get these done as quickly as possible. so part of the work in really trying to, with the grant application and make it clear what's needed to qualify and we are hoping that also simplifies, simplifies the need to have a good number of people to help process the grants. >> got it. and then i guess the -- i'm sure you touched on these. but just to reiterate. when and how can permit holders apply for these? the date and what's the best way to do that, just to reiterate that? the application is to go live on monday april 19th.

>> okay. and i've been in discussion with director wyland on working on an outreach plan, so that we can announce this. and announce early, what are the items that businesses are -- what's the documentation that businesses are going to need to be prepared to submit. so that they can have that ready to go, once the application is live. >> got it. >> let's say applications start on the 19th, do we expect that period, how long will that period go? two weeks or what are we thinking? >> we are keeping it open 2.5. so two and a half weeks. we will start processing the applications as they are coming in. >> and you probably can't say this so don't feel on the spot,

when do you expect the money would be distributed to the grantees? >> i -- well, it will be determined on how we -- it will be determined on our ability to -- how do i want to say this. it's based on how we are going to be able to distribute the funds. so we are working towards to give you an idea for the legacy business preservation fund grant program. we distribute the funds, we have businesses set up as suppliers, as they don't need, we have gotten the city attorney's determination they don't need to go through the 12-week process.

that way, once the supplier, the city can write a check directly to them. that will be the shortest amount of time. and we are working right now to see if we can get a city attorney determination again, because this is a similar type of grant to the 12-b compliance process, is a lengthy process. the other option is then, you augment a current grant that, and we would be working with o.e.w.d. on this, you have a non-profit disperse the funds. and that is a longer process. that takes a longer time to set up. >> got it. okay. so any other questions from anyone? so thank you, again. i know this is not -- it's in the per purview of your

office, it's something extra. i know how hard everyone is working so this is just another massive project, so i really appreciate that. i would really stress, you know, the speed of getting this money to the, you know, say under 100 venues that are suffering is really going to, it's going to demonstrate the success of this fund. and so, whatever resources you need, i just encourage you to reach out to this office, this commission, you can reach out to me personally, and we are happy to help unstick anything that might come along if we can possibly help with that. i know resourcing is an issue. and you know, there's too few resources and too much stuff to do. please, just doents don't hesitate to reach out. we don't want these funds distributed in the fall.

>> that is not our goal. that is not our goal. and i don't anticipate that it would take that long. so but i do hear you, and thank you for your support. i want to thank dylan and director wyland. they have been very instrumental in helping us with getting this process along. as well as ben vanhowten up next for a presentation has been really instrumental in terms of city staff providing the support. we wouldn't be as far along as we are without their partnership. >> got it. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> dylan and ben, it's all them. >> not this ben. that ben. >> that's right. [chuckles] >> a lot of beards to sort through. okay. thank you very much. >> all right. thank you. >> is there any public comment

on this agenda item? >> i'm checking right now. and there are no hands raised and no chats. would you like me to do the slide again? >> president bleiman: might as well. >> okay. >> all right. still no hands raised and no chat. >> president bleiman: we will close this agenda item and move onto our next agenda item. this is item no. 6, which is an update on business assistance in response to covid-19. and tonight we are welcoming here the man, the myth, the legend. he's got beard for weeks,

ladies and gentlemen. it's ben van howton. >> thank you. thank you, president bleiman. i truly do not deserve -- good evening, commissioners. it's nice to be back with all of you for a monthly update on life business assistance and policy developments. i've got a -- on the policy slides this time. and let me get this going. wonderful. it is, it's a little heavier on, here we go. walking through the presentations i made as part of the webinar on the reopening of live performances in different contexts recently.

just confirming this is showing up on all your monitors? wonderful. >> we are seeing the presentation view. >> you are seeing the presentation view. a-ha. let me swap them then. >> no notes. i would kill to see those notes. >> this will be a little reckless. first off, the shuttered venue program, applications open april 8th, on thursday. as of earlier today, the number of stakeholders, we are still waiting on the s.b.a. to issue some final guidance on the application process. s.b.a. did a webinar last week that was helpful in mapping out

what to expect from the application process. i think there's a certain amount of uncertainty on how the application process is going to go for business owners. given this is, in some respects, a first come, first serve. there's prioritization of applicants into a series of phases. the first two weeks, people who had 90% or more of revenue loss. then 70%. just about the money being exhausted before anyone gets that grant. we are keeping an eye on how this gets launched and what experience the business owners are having in the process. s.b.a. set up a portal i have linked which collects their information about the program. we have also got resources on the o.e.w.d. website and asking people to reach out to the

small business development center for technical assistance navigating the process as well. the second item here is something that came out of the american rescue plan. that was recently adopted. a $28.6 billion grant program for restaurants and bars. advocating for grants, not loans. people have been challenged by the insufficiency in many respects of the p.p.p. program. excited there will be a grant program for these businesses. eligible businesses will be able to apply for a grant relative to the revenue lost. there's no date set for the launch of that program. because it was just recently adopted in march federal package, it's not totally clear. s.b.a. said it may open this

month, that may be a bit ambitious. as compared to shuttered venue operators i think we have no illusions that $28 billion for all the restaurants and bars all the needs they have faced over the last year. that money will get scooped up too. so we are monitoring closely how to best support san francisco businesses. accessing that money moving forward. at the state level, today governor newsom announced a plan to move beyond the color framework by june 15th if conditions are met. that's according to the department of public health and their analysis breaking down what that means, what the factors are for moving out of the color coded framework and what that will mean for businesses. the governor said really the

goal is to return to business as usual. which is really exciting. and certainly you know, i think there is still, reading in the california department of health memo, there are still ideas about additional guidance for large-scale gatherings and events and travel and other sorts of things like that. there's a lot of information still to be filled out at the state level and local level moving toward june 15th and what that means. and so my remarks on live performances, best practices will be about where we are right now. so really tabling for future discussion this framework the governor announced today. then final point that the mayor, in march, introduced the small business recovery act as well as legislation to implement permanent shared spaces program. i know you will be hearing both

ever those items -- excited about both of those, as well as the venue fund project, which again, i will credit to director -- in the office of small business for their great work moving that forward. so i will spend the rest of my time walking through some of the key points on best practices for live performances. again, these are largely the same slides that we presented in a webinar last week to business owners. then i think got a lot of really good feedback on really helping them walk through -- set of rules right now. quick overview of this deck, what are live performances, i think you are well versed what we are talking about. activities where live performances may occur. the general rules for outdoor live performances, then rules

for indoor performances with indoor dining, really the only way you can have indoor performances right now. other considerations as well. in walking through this material, there are really two different components to it. there's number one, there's a set of activities that are permitted under the health order. for live performances and then rules for live performances themselves. in order for someone to do indoor dining with entertainment, you need to look at the activity, the outdoor dining and rules around performances. activity rules and also the rules for live performances are really important for understanding this. outdoor activities where live performances may concern. outdoor dining is certainly one of the most common, we have seen the j.a.m. permits happening.

outdoor restaurants fall operate, all patrons must be seated to be served. there's a per-table limit but no limit on the number of households. group reservations, two tables for maximum total of 12 people. but those tables must be separated and there could be no mingling between the tables. alcoholic beverages may be served without a bona fide meal. tables must be spaced at least six feet apart between seated patrons and per the state requirements -- with exception of barriers installed before december 6th. another new type of activity where live performances can occur, outdoor arts and music festivals and performances. outdoor outs and music festival

performance could include a maximum of 50 people who could attend that with seating. there's no assigned seating required. but members of different households must maintain at least a 6-foot distancing between them. food and beverage concessions are allowed. if food is available, the organizer must provide temporary seating or marked, they must be seated in designated area or seats before consuming food or drink. the organizer must submit a business plan five business days before the event but the plan doesn't need to be approved before it happens. they can hold is he quen shall events but must have 20 minutes in between to allow audience members to exit and members to enter and sanitize and clean the venue. this is different during a

performance with outdoor dining. after this presentation last year i got follow-up questions, hey i have an outdoor bar space. do i need to follow this 50-person maximum. this is a separate type of activity than outdoor dining. this is really for festivals and performances that may have food. that may not, that may occur in a variety of locations. the state also issued new guidance on outdoor permanent venues. state guidance is clear and elaborate. require submission of a plan at least ten days before the event. events more than 100 attendees must receive advanced written approval from the health office.

not going to dwell on those too long. there's that state guidance that provides a road map there. drive-in gatherings are another area. food and beverage concessions allowed there as well. as the entertainment commission staff knows better than anybody, there's a wide variety of activities where live performances might occur and do occur with j.a.m. permits. small gatherings, live performance, farmers' markets. you need to make sure you are following all the rules of the activity are you doing. in addition to the rules for live performances. sorry, one more.

up to 50% of the capacity and maximum of 200 people, not including personnel. indoor dining tables have to maintain at least six feet of distance for diners due to different tables and patrons have to be seated at the table. the per table limit is up to 6 people from three different households. and have to be operating as a restaurant, not a bar. all patrons must exit by 11:30 p.m. those are all the different activitis. now the general rules for outdoor live performances. what types of performance activity are allowed under the

health rules and what are considerations in terms of making those activities safer? vocalists, one of the big developments out of the recent changes to the health rules was really allowing vocalists and i will talk about wind instruments as well, in a number of ways and it's really exciting to have performances with singers, speakers, wind instruments as well. for vocalists. while it's recommended that all performers wear facial coverings to the extent possible there are some instances they may be unmasks. singers and speakers may perform without face coverings. must maintain six feet of physical distance from other performances. unmasked must maintain 12 feet of distance. because singing, shouting and other vocal projections, that's

a riskier activity that can produce floating aerosols. using amplification to perform at a lower volume. wind performers also may perform outside with or without facial coverings. if a person playing a wind instrument they must maintain six feet of physical distance from other performers. what that means in terms of wearing a mask, the bell of the instrument has to be covered with a mask or other fabric. instrument cover should be made of material similar to face coverings. they must replace the facial covering when they are not actively performing. to cover their nose, they may wear face covering with a mouth slip in addition to an

instrument cover. if the person playing the instrument is unmasked or doesn't use an instrument cover while performing that person must maintain 12 feet of physical distancing from other performers. brass instrumentalists must enter their spit in cloth they must carefully empty after the performance or take it home. should consider using a large plastic on their chest and lap to collect spit. in terms of number of performers outdoors, any number are permitted allowing the space allows for enough physical space. then of course, the overall activity is subject to the

specified capacity limits for their activity. we talked about distance from performers but distance from audience is another consideration health rules talk about. generally speaking audience members need to be 12 feet from performers. however for dining, they may be six feet where they are masked and using instrument covers. wherever possible people are encourages to use a barrier or queues to demarcate the performance or stage. audience should not enter the performer space, performers should not enter audience space. mixing boards and sound engineers must be placed at least 12 feet away from the audience. other performance considerations. performers should not share or pass around instruments or props during a performance. dancers must wear facial

coverings at all time. not encouraged to choreograph that are strenuous that may cause the mask to move. p magicians cannot bring audience members on stage. no sharing props or devices in the magic show context either. additional rules for indoor performances. indoor dining is the only area we really see indoor performances. due to ongoing risk of covid transmission. singing, chanting, shouting strongly discourages indoors. all performers must be masked and instruments must have instrument covers. performers with wind

instruments may use a mask with a mouth slit. all performers must maintain minimum of 12 feet from other performers and 12 feet from the audience. no cap on the number of performers but capacity is subject to the occupancy limit specific for the activity or number who can maintain physical distance, which ever is lower. additional considerations to think about. in terms of best practices, businesses are encouraged to consider a physical barrier between the performer and others. though it doesn't reduce the amount of distance that needs to be capped. have performers position themselves so voices and air exiting from instruments are directed away from the audience. encourage performers to get tested within 48 hours of

performance date. and take care to make sure they don't have symptoms of covid-19 or not in close contact with someone with covid-19. that's just the current health rules. in addition there are other rules, whether inside a business or outside a business, in a shared space. the entertainment permitting as well. whatever the rules of the applicable permit, the health rules are just one piece of the puzzle here. and in this deck, which is available online, a whole lot of links to all of the different reading materials that people will need. so that's, again, that's the current rules right now. there have been a number of announcements around the future of indoor performances without dining. indoor performance venues at reduced capacities that the state announcement there, reasonably and this

announcement about heading toward this june 15th date. in addition, you know, san francisco is occur currently in the orange tier. if when we enter the yellow tier. there's all sorts of potential for these rules to change over time. i guess, based on some of the questions we got during the webinar, just expressing an empathy with anyone trying to navigate these rules because they are complex and things are often feel they are perpetually moving in a number of different directions. so you know, we are here to support businesses as they navigate all these rules to make sure everybody can do the activities they want to do in a safe and health-compliant way. i think lost in some of the

technicality, this is the complexity of the rules, we have been moving in the right direction. and that live performances are newly permissible and possible and a lot of new and creative ways and that's really exciting as both a reflection of where we are and in terms of the direction we are heading from an entertainment perspective. i think i will leave it at that. and happy to answer any or all of your questions in excruciating detail about these rules or anything else. >> president bleiman: questions? >> of course, i do. >> president bleiman: start with commissioner thomas. i saw her. >> go ahead, laura. >> my question is, thank you for presenting all of this. and i realize some of this is coming from the department of public health. but given the specificity of the -- instructions around wind

and brass instruments what is the evidence based behind those recommendations. developed by just this department of public health, or is there, yeah. who is doing research around this and where are these coming from? are they just people that get informed, best guesses on what would minimize transmission? i'm just, yeah, i'm interested in the evidence behind it. and i don't know if that's a question you can answer. >> i can't. but i can say some words around it. in terms of any of the health rules really, it's a number of different layers to wear best practices and research, there's the state guidance suggests or encourages. there's -- and then there's the local determination by the health officer in the department of public health

around how to adopt or go beyond those restrictions, depending on what feels comfortable, based on their determination. i can't speak to the specifics of it. i think candidly, the move, where we are where we could have wind instruments, i almost said wininstruments again. i got a lot of grief about that last week. i think the ability to have singing brass and wood winds, that's major for us. and that has been a real frustration of folks for a while. which is not to dismiss your question, it's a very good question. how are these rules determined. and if there are ways in which they feel impractical or just unnecessarily complicated. director wyland and i had conversations with folks doing

instrument masking and other contexts in the limited conversations i have had with people make this feel doable. i think that, even just getting to this point. answer the questions why did it take so long to get trumpets. i said, those are all fair questions. i would be happy to work with director wyland to convey to the health team, to get a request in for more kind of insight on some of the underpinnings there. >> i'm super excited we are moving in this direction. i'm aware we have learned so much about aerosols and how they are transmitted. and sort of how covid is transmittable in different scenarios and situations. and so, yeah. i'm interested in understanding

better the kind of, what research is underpinning the -- you know, and are we, is san francisco sort of making these decisions, based on very conservative readings of the evidence. or just kind of best guesses or trying to analogize from one sort of set of aerosols to this. yeah. and that's just me wanting, the public health person on this commission wanting to make sure that whatever is affected the entertainment world is, you know, is as ex pan sieve as possible as well as keeping members of our entertainment community as safe as possible. i'm certainly looking forward to moving even beyond these things. and i also feel like certainly

people's vaccination status makes a difference as well. but that's kind of an overall kind of social, cultural issue about how do we distinguish who is at risk and who is not at risk in this new world. any rate. thank you for the presentation. it was very detailed and i appreciate the information. >> thank you, commissioner. >> president bleiman: commissioner lee, i think you are next. >> ben, the question is, the six feet and wearing a mask for the singers, what if the performance area has an acrylic screen, because i have seen this in some of the photos of other clubs. they are kind of in kind of a protective barrier. because everything is mic'd anyway. but some spaces are very tight. you have people sitting kind of very close to the stage.

maybe a little closer than six feet. but if there is protective acrylic in front of the singers, and they are still wearing the masks, still doing everything they would normally do, wearing a mask, singing, is there still going to be a restriction of the six feet from the audience, you think? or is that something we can bring up? >> yeah. that's a great question. so just to reiterate the distance from audience which is different from the distance from performers. in the outdoor dining context, masked performers can be six feet, but other context 12 feet. indoor dining it's a 12-foot rule as well. 12 feet between the audience and performance area. i think, as you note, as exciting as it is we are reopening in this direction, we should also have no illusions that small spaces are going to

face challenges trying to implement, 12 feet, 6 feet, it's not historically how these spaces were designed or financially viable, which is a real challenge. i think, you know, i certainly again, happy to serve as a conduit to help escalate questions. my understanding is that barriers that they really want to emphasize the distancing. that sort of different, and the masking. and different barrier approaches aren't necessarily going to serve as the substitute. barriers right now outside, barriers outside used to serve as a substitute for 6-feet of distance for tables but no longer do. which is based on a state health determination. that was adopted late last year. i think that, i'm not expressing a skepticism toward

the idea, again, i think, the recommendation best practices, implement barriers, masking, all of it. but i totally appreciate that, you know, under the rules as they are, the implementability and number of spaces may be limited to, you know, very unfeasible. >> yeah. i mean, i heard the presentation of performers, you know, in general. without any protective barriers between the audience and the performers. so i'm just wondering if you can ask what happens if there's plastic protective barriers. almost like the cone of silence, remember in the "get smart". i don't think young people will know that. and the plastic dome that came over the face of everybody. and it kind of shields it inside. since everything is mic'd anyway, if they are going to give us maybe a six-foot distance instead of a

twelve-foot distance if there's protective barrier in front of the performers. i'm just curious if that could be brought up later on. >> yeah, i think, you know, honestly, putting together the webinar and digging into all the different guidance contexts which entertainment and live performance is possible and hearing questions during that webinar and also during this commission hearing as well. are really helpful to, i think we are getting a lot of really helpful ideas, questions, desire for clarification around this, you know, now expanding world of entertainment in our health environment. >> right. okay, thank you. >> commissioner wang? >> thank you, the best we can do is eliminate ambiguity, so

that's really helpful. as you mentioned, it's super encouraging we are seeing the enabling of live music and cutting of red tape. i know all of this is under temporary authorization. how, can you give us a little bit of a status update on some of the work undergoing to make some of this permanent or to streamline some of those approvals. >> yes. i would be happier to do it in two weeks. when i see you all again. >> okay, okay. [laughter] we can talk more specifically about that. but you are absolutely right. you know, we are in a place where there's been, the j.a.m. permit and shared spaces are a couple, for me at least, a couple highlights otherwise what's been an incredibly difficult year for so many. i think, i would be more than happy to talk about how those

things can be, are moving forward. the ideas thinking about fitting temporarily in the permanent system. but i would prefer to -- that's a great teaser for the next commission hearing, how about that? >> i'm just lining you up. >> that's great. appreciate it. >> president bleiman: commissioner perez? >> thank you. hi, ben, thank you so much for your presentation today. i really appreciate it. it's very timely because a lot of us who are festival organizers are trying to figure out what we are going to do for the summer season. i have a few questions for you. number one, you mentioned. twelve feet from the performing, performers to the audience. that also applies to the people in the back stage who are part of the crew and production staff?

>> that's a great question. and there's actually, there's additional guidance -- really, this is not me, i would encourage you to dig, the outdoor festival guidance has a lot of really operational specifics on some of this stuff. having a big enough back stage area so different music groups can be both back stage in a way that is safe and appropriately distanced. and there's guidance around personnel. keeping distance from other personnel as well. i'm happy to look into that and circle back with you. i would say, actually this is a good time. i should have said this disclaimer at the outset. i provided a very, very surface level take on all of the health guidances that are out there. i think the outdoor festivals, in terms of digging the most into festival performance and event performance that's really

the one to most squarely check out for those sorts of questions. but i'm happy to look into that and circle back as well. >> okay, then with the 50 people maximum requirement for festivals, okay. number one, to organize a festival for 50 people, to me doesn't sound very viable. because the cost of creating the space and the marketing and all of that is, for 50 people, to me, doesn't make sense. but i'm just wondering, who is going to enforce that 50-person rule? if we are in an outdoor park, where potentially, we can probably cordoned off and put barricades, but there will be people beyond the barricades. how does that bourke? -- work. do we need to get police officers to enforce the

50-person rule? do you have any feedback or insight on that? >> yeah. and commissioner, this is also a question that came up during the webinar. you know, and i think it's really extremely relevant in the outdoor event and outdoor festival context. you are outdoors, so by nature a lot of that is in very public space and people will be passing by and what does that mean? what does the obligation of the event organizer, what are best practices for the event organizer? it's absolutely foreseeable, if you are in a big open space and somebody says, i like what's going on. i will stand and enjoy this. and trying to find the right balance, you know, from a, what the right balance, right set of strategies is to navigate that in a way that is health compliant and also, you know, i

think there are safety and other considerations to think about there. i don't know if there's a, kind of explicit set of best practices there. but i completely agree, as we think more about, and especially as 50, if we continue reopening phases and 50 is a number that is more viable, then, once we get to -- you know, if when we get to a point where we say 200 people could be in attendance, i think these sorts of things, -- 100 even, these things are more likely. but that question about how to navigate, you know, beyond just control of your space. how to navigate what obligation or what is the best way to tackle the surroundings of your space. i think you hit the nail on the head, honestly. that's absolutely one of the key challenges, if somebody is walking by eating food.

there's a million different potential considerations around how to deal with passers-by, quasi patrons. >> okay. and my last question. try to monitor when we have this herd immunity. i'm hearing that by june, we are going to have everybody vaccinated by that time. so that's just a few months away, that's perfect during the summer season. when this rule, will it be, will we revise it as we get more information about herd immunity? and could this potentially be revised, how soon? >> i would say that, you know, all of the information i presented at the best information about right now that we have. but certainly, there are a number of different factors that can and will lead to revisions or changes in this. if we move, as we move in health tiers, that changes it.

as the state makes new decisions or carves out new areas of performance we think about locally and our health officer thinks about how to pursue those new activities. i think, you know, i -- i appreciate that one of the challenges this industry has faced since the beginning of this thing is feeling a total lack of certainty about the future. and a lack of ability to plan for, you know, six months from now. next month, you know. and that, in every direction. as hard as it has been to shut things down. similarly when one is told good news you can reopen very soon, that could be challenging too. especially in the universe of festivals, events and performances which, you know, those are all things that, as you know, as we all know take

time to plan and to execute successfully. which is, you know, it is not unreasonable to say hey, i want to know, you know, what things are going to look like two months from now, three months from now. i wish i had an answer. i wish i had the answer. though that would be a lot of responsibility if i did have that answer. i think, if the -- if the request, i mean, i think a request to the -- to the health officer and department of public health, as much as we can foresee things moving forward and get a sense, especially with all this exciting reopening, the entertainment community wants to know, just like what we should be planning for. i think that's absolutely understandable and a really good and important piece to add in the set of questions and

feedback that director wyland and i can escalate on. >> all right, thanks. any other questions? i just had a couple questions. so you have become pretty well versed, some might say even an expert on the capture and disposal of human saliva in this process? can you tell us maybe what your biggest surprise has been learning about that? and maybe something you learned about yourself even? >> so unfair. [laughter] so unfair. look, i get that some of these rules can feel strange and even some might say some of the discussion of spit collection is kind of nauseating. but they are what they are. and the industry is well served by going into this eyes wide open. >> we ask now, but when big saliva calls you with a

six-figure job down the line, you just walk right out of this into a huge opportunity. so you are welcome, from all of us. and thank you for your presentation. i really appreciate it. it was actually, quite in-depth and i appreciate that. it's good to get all those facts in a row. any more questions, comments? is there any public comment on this agenda item? >> president bleiman, i'm checking the queue and there's no one with their hand raised and no chats. >> president bleiman: all right. we will close this agenda item. thank you very much, ben, you are a gentleman and a scholar. we appreciate you doing all this work for everyone. >> thank you. thank you, everyone. >> president bleiman: all right. and the next agenda item, final agenda item is commissioners comments and question and new business requests. who has got something they just need to talk about?

>> i don't have anything. >> president bleiman: nothing? okay. well no new business requests. i'm sure we will come up with some stuff in the meantime. i, for one, am happy we are out of the c.e.r.t. business and back in the entertainment business. that's back where we belong, but the work we did there was amazing and i want to reiterate our thanks and praise for our staff pulling double duty was amazing and awesome to watch. here is to a brighter future, everyone. commissioner camino? >> yeah, so i do want to just say like, you know, as the city is reopening and we are all kind of coming back into this new normal, just listening to the inspector's report and, i

actually would like to join in a ride along. just to really get an idea of what else is needed as we all kind of come back into, you know, going out and being together again. i think we all probably need to have a level of kindness, forgiveness, compassion towards one another. and with all of the incidents of a.a.p.i., hate and violence that are happening right now, i think we really need to recommit ourselves to providing a safe and inclusive environment. and so, you know, i would love to see how we can reengage and ensure that we are creating a safe environment for all. thank you. >> president bleiman: are you sure you want to do that, dory, last time we did at super bowl,

you wanted to go home early. [laughter] >> thanks, steven. >> it was only 2:00 in the morning. a time when i still had a lot of energy. >> so full of shade, we should probably end it now, ben before [indiscernible] >> president bleiman: i'm just happy that got into the public record, officially. >> she was a trooper. she went out, that was the first time she was on the commission. let's go outdoors. >> from someone just complaining earlier about having to stay up until 11:00 p.m. >> that's how much time flies, we have been sitting at home, you know, kind of not partying any more. >> president bleiman: i have a fantastic idea. let's have this conversation without a quorum after our commission hearing. is there any public comment on this agenda item?

>> i'm checking, and there are none. >> president bleiman: all right. in that case, we will close public comment and we will adjourn the meeting at 7:18 p.m. thank you, everybody. it's been a pleasure. see you soon. >> thanks,er one. >> thank you. >> have a good evening, bye-bye. >> bye.

>> good morning, everyone. this meeting will come to order. this is the april 21, 2021 budget and finance committee meeting. i am matt haney, chair of the budget and finance committee. i am joined by community remembers and is miss linda wong with our clerk. i want to thank sfgov tv for broadcasting this meeting and madam clerk, do you have any announcements? to protect board members t legislative and committee room are closed and will be participating remotely. this is to the various local,

state, and community members will attend through a video conference to the same extent and if they are physically present. and the number across the screen. each speaker will be allowed two minutes to speak. comments or opportunity to speak are available via phone call by calling 415-655-0001. meeting i.d. (187) 355-1611 and press pound twice. you will be meeted in the listening mode only. when the item is star 3 and best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and turn down the television or radio. alternatively, submit email to the budget and finance clerk and

if you submit via email, it will be included as part of the official file. items acted upon are what will appear and this concludes the announcements. >> thank you so much, madam clerk. please call item one. >> item number one, resolution authorizing the small business emergency relief program and authorize oewe to enter into agreements not to exceed $7.3 million including one or more funding/loan agreements with the california rebuilding fund, llc, in an expected amount of $4.2 million and one or more funding agreements with kiva microfunds in an expected amount of $3.1 million. members of the public should

call 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 187 355 1611 and press pound twice if you haven't already done so. dial star 3 to line up to speak. the system prompt will indication you have raised your hand. wait until the system indicates you have been admitted an you may begin your comments. >> president: thank you, madam clerk. this was a continuation from last week. colleague, does anyone have any follow-up questions on this item? we heard this last week. >> chair? supervisor safai? > supervisor: i got a lot more clarity on the item. and the only thing i want and i talked about this with the mayor's office, the only thing that i was hoping to do in this resolution is say after 90 or 120 days that they would come

back and report to us on the demand for the loan. i am concerned that the small business that we have spoken to are not as excited about loans and are more excited about grant opportunities. so i understand taking the money and leveraging it and taking the interest rate and is not high for the small businesses but it would be great and i consider this a friendly amendment that oewe which report back to us. and if not, convert and i think they have the flexibility to convert into grant

opportunities. >> an i think we had somebody this could not be here. is that okay with you all? >> thank you, chair haney. if that is the will of the committee, that is fine. we would prefer 120 days just because as we go through trying to make sure we have the right outreach strategy and product market fit, more time obviously and happy to come back and transfer to grants if we need that >> president: supervisor safai, what is your -- >> supervisor: i am fine with 120 days. i know we will be in communication and it would be nice to get it on the record and see where this group of loans and the previous report and a few other targeted loans for

latino, and african-american businesses to give us an update on that. that will be great. >> great. deputy city attorney pearson, is that clear what we are asking for? >> to come back in 120 days. >> the loan program. >> do you want to make that amendment now? >> so moved. >> a roll call vote and an amendment, please. >> clerk: would you like to take public comment prior to adopting the amendment? >> president: do we need to before adopting the amendments? >> clerk: that is the practice, but we can take a roll call

vote. if that is what you wish to do. supervisor's safai's amendment. [roll call on amendment] there are three aye's. members of the public who wish to provide public comment, press star 3 and continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. are any callers who wish to comment on item number one?

i believe there is one caller in the queue. please unmute the first caller. ed >> the caller has been unmuted. good morning, caller. >> it is my understanding that the caller has been disconnected. are there any other callers in the queue? for item number one. >> there are no other callers in the queue. >> president: i want to make a

motion to recommend the item to the full board with a positive recommendation as amended. can we have roll call? >> clerk: vice chair safai on that motion. >> aye. >> member mar? >> aye. >> chair haney? >> aye. >> there are three aye's. >> all right. that will go to the full board with a positive recommendation as amended. thank you so much. madam clerk, please call item two. >> resolution two designating agencies qualified to participate in the 2021 annual joint fundraising drive for officers and employees of the city and county of san francisco. members of the public who wish to provide public comment should call 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 187 355 1611 and press pound twice. if you have not already done so,

dial star 3 to line up to speak. the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand and wait until the system is unmuted and you may begin your comments. >> president: we have the city administrator's office here to present on this item. >> thank you, supervisor. i am from the office of the city administrator. each year federations send applications to the board to request to participate in the combined charities campaign. the office reviews the applications and report whether the federations meet the requirements of the ordinance. all of the five federations applying to participate met the criteria to participate. and you have those materials for your consideration. >> president: thank you. is there a bla report on this

item? >> clerk: chair hane, i did not have a report on this item. >> president: colleagues, any questions or comments? all right. can we go to public comment please? >> members who wish to provide and wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted. >> there are no callers available at the time. with no further questions or items and to move to a full board with the positive recommendation. >> roll call vote please. >> on that motion, vice chair

safai. >> there are three aye's. >> and in the aggregate amount not exceeding $100 million and authorizing the mayor's office of housing and community development, mohcd to submit the application and related documents to the california debt limit allocation committee to permit the issuance of the residential mortgage revenue bond in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $16 million and c3.1.

and sixth street at avenue c. item four is the intent to reimburse the expenditure of future bonded indebtedness and authorizing mohcd to submit the application and related documents to permit issuance of residential mortgage revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $16.5 million for 241 sixth street. item 18 a resolution declaring the intent of the city to reimburse certain expenditures from proceeds in the aggregate principal not to authorize $16 million with the amounts and the scattered sites at 4101 noreiga, 200 randolph, 409 head, 2206,

22268 highway and 135 eddy street. call 415-655-0001 and meeting i.d. use the meeting i.d. and pound twice. you may begin your comments after hitting star 3 and waiting to be unmuted. >> president: thank you so much, madam clerk. i believe we have my and will turn it over to you all and the bond manager from mohcd and

avenue c known as treasure island parcel c3.1 and knox sro and 4101 noriega street. to 2268 great highway and 1353 to 1367 eddy street. and the knox sro and with the financial responsibility and enable all three projects and bond financing with the california debt limit allocation committee. the proposed bond issuances will be conduit financing and not require the city to pledge any of the funds to the repayment of the bonds. treasure island c3.1 is a 138

unit including one manager's unit affordable, new construction housing project to be located at sixth street and existing catholic charities and other house holds on treasure island from 130% to 136% area median income and currently live at treasure island. the knox sro item four is with the manager's unit and 100% of the units will serve households at or below 40% of the san francisco county area median income. no residents will be displaced as all residents will have the right to return after the

rehabilitation project. sfha scattered sites item 8 is the affordable located across five small sites in four different neighborhoods in san francisco. the project is currently public housing and will convert to nonprofit ownership and operations as part of the rehabilitation project. 100% of the units will serve households serving less than 80% of the san francisco county area median income. and no residents will be displaced as all residents will have the right to return after the project. if the projects are awarded a bond allocation in august, they will return to the board for bond issuance approval and i am joined here with my colleague amy chan and the project sponsors.

we are happy to answer any questions that the committee members may have on the three projects and thank you for your consideration. >> thank you. appreciate your work and your presentation. >> is there a bla report on this item? >> clerk: chair haney, we have no report on this item. >> president: colleagues, questions or comments? obviously these are projects we are all supportive of and couple in my district. and do you want to add anything? >> and the scattered sites in particular and i started my career with the housing authority and are long overlook and neglected, so we are super excited they will be given the attention and revitalization they deserve.

thank you. >> all right. we can open up for public comment. >> clerk: yes, mr. chair. members of the public who wish to provide public comment, press star 3 to be added to the queue. for those on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. are there any caller who is wish to comment on item three, four, and eight? >> there are no callers in the queue at this time. >> >> president: public comment is closed. colleagues, i would like to make a motion to move items 3, 4, and 8 to full board with a positive recommendation. madam clerk, roll call vote please. >> vice chair safai? >> aye. >> member mar? >> aye. >> chair haney? >> aye. >> there are three aye's.

>> president: items three, four, and eight will go to the full board with a full recommendation. thank you for being here and for your great work. madam clerk, call five, six, and seven together. >> clerk: item five to retroactively approve the cares act community block grant coronavirus round 3 program and authorizing the mayor to apply for and accept and expend the city's cares-cv3 program entitlement from the united states department of housing and urban development in the amount of $9.6 million for the period of december 1, 2020 through june 30, 2023. item 6, resolution retroactivity approving the amendment of the cares act emergency solutions grants coronavirus round two from the u.s. department of housing and urban development in the amount of $10 million for operations and services for

congregate shelter. and item 7, resolution offering the office of housing and community development to accept the in-kind gift of software and service development software from the bay area community services and for the period of april 2021 through december 2022. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on these items should call 415-655-0001 meeting i.d. 187-3555-1611 and press wound twice. the system mrofrpt indicate you have raised your hand and when you have been unmuted, you may begin your comments. >> thank you so much, madam clerk. so i believe that we have -- we have eric shaw to present on these items. >> thank you.

>> good morning. i am pleased to be here today to present the proposed uses for the cares act clars and i will also be presenting on the platform from the u.s. treasury funds and emergency rental assistance. next slide please. >> excuse me. madam clerk, may i have control to share the slides? thank you. >> thank you. thank you. item number 5, the slide summarizes the breakdown of the cares act allegations received by the city. the first round of funding was based and the annual formula allocation and we allocated the funds to stabilize people experiencing homelessness and move into shelter in place

hotels led by the department of homeless and homeless outreach team with emergency rental assistance. with the additional funding from the city to the round three, we are proposing to fund a number of items with a broad impact with the city's priorities. and allocated to staff and infrastructure at the partner cbos and expansion of the existing home ownership emergency loan program which will be necessary and eviction prevention efforts for presenters. and in response to the pandemic widening the digital divide, we propose with the internet access and 400 laptops for high vulnerability and the round of cares act clars on capital improvement with the community

partner facility with the retrofits as we recover. the capital dollars are important going forward as that portion of the city budget was spend down last year. as we are proposing funding support for low income businesses and food pantry operations retroactively. next slide please. item six, this is the proposed round two act which the board of supervisors approved for allocating the $43.6 million to shelter in place hotels. in light of partial reimbursement to hotel cost, we propose to shift $10 million for services and operations of the congregate shelt taernd total amount remains the same. next slide please. for item 7, in order to launch the u.s. treasury funded local assistance program with the neighborhood based community partners that target the most vulnerable households, the user

friendly application and assessment are necessary. we have partnered with all home a nonprofit focus and regional solutions to create a regional application program for municipalities to administer the emergency rental assistance and in order to distribute the dars exwitbly and with the department of housing. i thank you all for your leadership and we appreciate the opportunity to share our proposal with the crucial funding to play an activitial roll in the recovery. this concludes the presentation. i am joined by colleague and on these items if you have any questions. is there a bla report? >> a chair haney, we have no

report on this item. >> great, thank you. >> president: director shaw, can you speak about what has been happening at the shelter and how many people have been serve there had. for how long, and a little bit more of a breakdown on the cost there? it looks like it's $10 million retroactively. if there could be more information shared about how exactly that is being used and how many people are being served there. >> chair, i am waiting for the hsa colleagues to join. >> good morning, chair haney. i'm emily gibbs, the budget director for hsa and we have been working with hsh on that

musco needs shelter operation. they have had a capacity of up to 20 # o clients in the congregate setting at musconi. and there are about 140 client there is right now. and the $10 million is supporting the staffing and meals and hygiene trailers and cleaning and rent for the facility. when we began this operation, we were hoping to receive fema eare imburrsment and fema is not for the congregate shelter site and this is not something they are reimbursing for and so this is with the emergency shelter grant is a way to rebalance the budget

because we initially thought that fema was coming in. >> president: all the people there do not qualified? >> i am not enough to know that 140 definitely don't, but the intention of the site was to provide a place for people who are not sip eligible to shelter. >> president: considering how much we have gone back and forth on sip eligibility, my understanding is the last couple of times we had hearings and presentations and emergency ordinances on sip eligibility is our interpretation now is very broad. so i don't understand why those 140 people are not in sip hotels particularly when we are paying for this, the sip hotels and the

musconi shelters at a tune of $10 million when most of that could be paid for by fema eare imburrsment in with the information about why the folks are not in the hotels and particularly at a greater cost to the city? >> it is understanding they are not sip eligible and that has been the use of the site. is there someone who can -- i don't know who is operating the masconi site, but $10 million is a lot of money. especially when we are paying for it and you thought it would be reimbursed and it is not, and

not clear why we are spending so much money on it unless we identify they are not sip eligible. is there anyone from h.c.a. or the controller or who can speak to the specifics and why they are not sip eligible? >> i can speak to the fact that my understanding of folks who were coming out of isolation and quarantine who didn't meet the age or vulnerability and this is a way to offer that exit and this is retroactive. and do we know for $10 million,

and is this retroactive in the sense that this is funding the operation from when to when? what time is this funding? >> i believe back to july. and more than 140 people are served over the course of the event. and how many total? i don't have that, but i can get it for you. and the money from shifting and shifting $10 million from what we thought was going to be for sip hotels and putting it to masconi? did i read that last slide correctly? and the unexpected need and less

of a need for around the sip hotels with the reimbursements? >> fema is not willing to reimburse for the congregate shelter and population there. and with the increase to 100% reimbursement of eligible cost and less of a need on the sip side with the other sources. and i will open it up to my colleagues, but i may need to continue this later into the meeting if there is somebody who can really speak in detail and how many people have been serve and the specifics of the demographics and served in sip hotels. it is concerning to me that the neither of them and the expansive definition and who

qualified in the way that most people are qualifying. and when it comes to the cost to the city when the shelter in place hotels do not come at the cost to the city to the same degree. and i really question and want to better understand why we are spending $10 million and not clear and convinced those people are served at the reimbursement and open it ep to colleagues. i will open it up for questions or comments. >> let's open this up to public comment.

members of the public who wish to comment should call 415-655-0001 and using the meeting i.d. and press pound twice. >> public comment is now closed. so director shaw, and ms. gibbs, i guess i could give you two options here. to bring this back next week and have a more in-depth conversation, or i can defer this to later in the meeting. we do have one item here that is likely to be pretty long. and so we could come back if there is somebody who can answer this in more detail. i think that my question, i

hope, is relatively clear which is for spending $10 million on this that we thought might be reimbursed by fema but is not. i really want to understand why we aren't serving these folks in sip hotels. >> excuse me, supervisor. pay i speak? i am here from the department -- thank you. i am here from the department of homelessness and supportive housing. i am helping the department on behalf of the cfogg and with the budget and fiscal advisor in the department. and i'm sorry, while i just came recently to the department and i can't speak specifically and in terms of the effect of the proposal, basically bottom line effect since it is retroactive is to save general fund costs at masconi in the past. it doesn't have any impact on

the future options for the people at masconi. and in the future it is time limited. and to find other options for the people there to free up that space as they come back. and this legislation doesn't really affect the choices about the options for those people. the bottom line effect is to replace general fund costs being able to use the funds that have been made available under the cares act to save general fund costs at that facility. >> so the -- what we're funding here is only retroactive? it's not supporting any of the ongoing operations starting today? because if it funded any ongoing and then it could potentially be affected if people were moved to other situations and right now.

>> you are correct. it is entirely retroactive. and the costs to otherwise be general fund. going forward to free up the time crunch and already looking for the options and shelter there. >> president: great, great. thank you for that. and that is important clarification and i would like more answers around the decisions that are made to mean we will spend $10 million on this that we might have spent on something else if we were able to pursue options for individuals that could have been reimbursed by fema. i would like the explanation for that and better explanation of who these 140 people were who we kept in masconi rather than sip

hotel. >> can i make one other point? even if we expanded the eligibility, some of the people are being funded by general fund and other grant funds because fema's eligibility is restricted to whom they consider vulnerable to the pandemic and eligible for the fema reimbursement. there may be a distinction and to get fema funding for those individuals in the hotels. >> absolutely. we have had long conversations around the ordinances that we have put forward here as a board. my understanding is that to the d.p.h. in the controller and that we are using broadly inclusive and we see able to be

reimbursed and fits the criteria that we believe makes them eligible. to apply that retroactively and there are 140 people still there. i would like to even though this is funding for retroactive, i would like to understand what the plan is for those people. when they will be moved, how they will be moved. and why they aren't in hotels as i said. so to go from isolation to quarantine. i don't know if -- i want to better understand why that decision was continued

throughout even as a potential assessment of some of the folks to be fema eligible. and ms. chan has her hand up as well. >> hi, chair haney. i would like to propose us being able to the committee to move forward items five and seven and defer item six if you still have outstanding questions like it sound like you do to later in the agenda when some of our colleagues at h.s.h. and h.s.a. may be joining later in the discussion and can answer those questions if that works for the committee. >> president: that is fine with me. just to make sure i am clear, deputy city attorney pearson and madam clerk, that the particular issues of concern and questions that i still are in item six,

and so we want to move forward items five and seven right now. with the meeting to answer my question today and move that forward today. if not, we may have to come back with more detail. madam clerk, is that clear? >> clerk: if you would like to move forward with five and seven and come back to item six, we can certainly do that. great. i want to move items five and seven to the full board with a positive recommendation. can we have a roll call vote please? >> clerk: on that motion, vice chair safai?

i think he may have had to step out. >> safai, absent. member mar? >> aye. >> chair haney? >> aye. >> clerk: there are two aye's. >> president: items five and seven will go to the full board with a positive recommendation and we will come back to item six. thank you to everyone who is here. madam clerk, please call item 9. clerk tt resolution approving and authorizing the mayor's office of housing and community development to execute loan documents relating to a loan to provide financing for the acquisition of real property located at 420000 gearry boulevard and predevelopment activities for the construction of the 100% affordable multifamily rental housing project consisting of 98 units for senior households and

commercial space known as 4200 gearry boulevard in an aggregate amount not to exceed $14.5 million million. members should call 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 187 355 1611 and press pound two. please dial star 3 to line up to speak. the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. >> thank you so much, madam clerk. we have ian from supervisor chan's office and jonathan from mohcd to present on this item. >> great. thank you, chair haney. i think am i okay to present? i think i am. >> please go ahead.

>> good morning. i am the project manage we are mohcd. i am here to request your approval for agenda item number nine before you today related to the proposed affordable housing development that will be located in the inner richmond. project is known as 4200 gearry and is being developed for the tenderloin neighborhood development corporation. in this resolution we mochd to execute a loan in $14.5 million and the finance site acquisition costs and predevelopment expenses. the project is one of two and which is the notice of funding availability and issued on december 7, 2019.

and with little in terms of investment in affordable housing. mocd issued this as a result of san francisco voters passing proposition a and affordable housing measure on the ballot. and that project will serve low and extremely low income seniors with units at 60% of ami. in 20 of the units subsidized through the local operating subsidy program. it is anticipated that 30 of the units will be subsidized through the senior operating program as well. thank you for your time. i am joined by other staff and representatives to answer any questions you might have. and i would like to thank you for your consideration of this resolution.

>> thank you so much for your work. 100% affordable housing. we love to see that. and appreciate you being here. ian, as well. is there anything you wanted to add? >> thank you, chair haney. good morning, supervisor safai and mar. thank you for having me. i am with supervisor connie chan's office. i wanted to really thank the the mayor's office of housing and tndc and the housing accelerator fund for helping make this project a reality. the office has been extremely supportive and we appreciate mohcd and especially working with our community and taking feedback, being responsive to what the community has been pushing for in terms of deeper levels of affordability in the

project. we are excited about where this project and how far this has moved. our office has been working since the passage of prop a, the affordable housing bond, to bring the project actually before the passage of that to bring 100% affordable housing project to district one. so we're extremely excited about this moving forward and just wanted to really voice our strong support. thank you so much. >> president: great. thank you. and thank you to supervisor chan as well for her work in leadership on this. supervisor mar? >> supervisor: thanks, chair haney. i just also wanted to express my excitement and strong support for this project. and thank mohcd, director shaw, and the team and all the work on it. and thank tndc, the developer, and supervisor chan and ian.

and it is really exciting to see this move forward alongside the affordable family housing project in the sunset direct on irving street and the two projects are just incredibly important step toward expanding affordable housing and ensuring that low and extremely low income seniors and families are able to live on the west side. i did have a question just about the subsidy for seniors because i know that's been an issue that a lot of folks in the senior community and faith in action have been pushing on. and just the fact that, you know, the rent charged to low income and very low income seniors in affordable housing aren't really afford to believe seniors. so i know there's going to be the loss subsidies for 20% of the units here and so that's

clear. but can you talk a little bit about -- jonathan, i think you mentioned there would be additional sos subsidies that might be tapped for this? >> yes, that's correct. yes. so sos will subsidy i think it's about -- additional units and basically the way it will work is that these units will be underwritten at a very low rent. and the subsidy will cover the difference between the lower ami and the 60% ami rents. >> supervisor: and you said that's projected to be 30% units on top of the loss units? >> yeah, i will pull up the exact -- hold on. let me look at the exact unit. i think it is about 30 total units in addition to the loss units. but i would like to -- to double check.

there will be 30 units in addition to the loss of units anticipated to be subsidized through sos. >> thank you. with the total amount and the subsidy amount? with the construction loan closing. can you also remind me with what the status and the funding amount that we have allocated to. that is also an issue and not to expand that subsidy pull.

>> i will defer to hsa on that question, supervisor mar. >> hi, amy. i just had a question about sort of the current status or the amount that we have available for the sos subsidies. and i'm happy to follow up with you about these issues as well. this is sort of a broader issue than just this item in the 4200 gearry project. >> sorry.

i have some technical difficulties. >> supervisor: amy, we can follow up on this if you need pull up other information. >> supervisor mar, if we can follow up with this, i think amy is having some technical difficulties. >> supervisor: that sounds great. we'll follow up. and thanks again, all of you, for all of your work on this. >> thank you. >> president: all right. thank you, again, everyone for your work. can we open this up to public comment please?

>> clerk: yes, mr. chair. we are checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. members of the public who wish to provide comment, press star 3 now to be added to the queue. for those on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. are there any caller who wish to comment on item number 9? >> at this time we have one caller. i will put them through. >> thank you. >> caller: hi. am i on? this is in response to mandelman's place for all. >> clerk: excuse me, ma'am. >> caller: hello? >> president: sorry, that item has not come up yet. this is for a different item. we expect it should be probably another hour or so until that item has public comment.

>> caller: so i have to call back in an hour? >> president: yes, this is an entirely different item. we can't legally allow you to give public comment on other issues. sorry. we hope you can call back later. >> clerk: are there any other callers in the queue? >> there are no other callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. >> president: public comment is now closed. ms. campbell, we have a bla report on this item. >> yes. i just actually really want to point out i the board is approving -- being asked to i a prove the $14.5 million agreement for acquisition and predevelopment. i actually want to point our recommendation to i a amend to enter into a purchase and sell agreement at the closing of the construction loan in which the city will take ownership of the land at 4200 geary boulevard and

enter into a land agreement and we recommend approval as amended. >> president: great, thank you. i want to make a motion to accept those amendments. madam clerk, roll call vote please. [roll call vote] [please stand by]

>> clerk: and to extend the contract warranty period to april 29, 2025.

members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call 415-655-0001, i.d. 1873551611, then press ##. if you have not already done so, please dial *3. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comment. >> we have tom mcguire here from sfmta to present on this item. >> okay. good morning, supervisions. we're here to talk to you about -- sorry, i don't have my camera right here. i'm sorry. okay. good morning, supervisions. we're here to talk to you about a contract amendment for the central subway. this is for a subcontractor, who my colleague mr. walton, and we'll walk through the

details of. this is not to bring you the main contractor, who has constructed the subway. and there are several other smaller contracts that e.m.t. has directly with key technical firms (indiscernable). this is to install -- it is a modified contract in which the contract would install the train control signaling, which controls the flow of trains through the subway. >> do you have the presentation that you can share with us? >> i do. i'll bring them up now. and i believe they just made me a presenter. >> chairman: okay. great. >> the only key thing i want to share, supervisions, is that while the sfmta is in the process of accepting the substantial completion from the prime contractor, as you can see here the project's budget has grown over time, from a little over 1.6 -- from 1.68 to

1.89 billion dollars. we're at the point where we're in the middle of testing, and much of the word that lisa is going to describe to you has already been done by this contractor at risk. there are a lot of lessons, but we had a great discussion at the transportation authority commission about how we're applying those to other capital projects with the m.t.a., and other capital agencies. the action before you is fairly narrow, which is related to a contract that is with regard to a technical consultant. and i'll hand my mic over to lisa to walk you through the details of what talis has delivered. >> thank you, tom, and thank you, supervisions, for your time today.

this modification really entails three separate items. this just gives you some of the background of when we entered into the contract with tutor, and then we severed the atcs away from tutor for implementation and testing. the first item, as tom mentioned, was work that was performed by talis in the past year, at risk. and these are the type of items that come up generally in this type of a large project that, you know, after the construction is done, we find out that, oh, that equipment won't fit there any longer because a supporting pole had to go there. or the track had to have changed because they really couldn't get it when we went into construction at the grade that the original decide was calling for etc. so these are things to correct those items that due to construction and other constraints needed

to be adjusted as we moved forward and into implementation and installation of the train control system equipment. so that is one of the items included in this change order before you today. the other item in here is during the construction and build in the last couple of years, the fire code for ventilation within the tunnels changed. and it changed and we were notified of that change, but the ventilation system had already been built. so that meant that it had negative impact to the operations of our service, our rail service, within those ventilation caverns, and they had to do assessments to figure out how we could appropriately and efficiently run trains through the ventilation cavern while still maintaining the compliance to the fire codes and the

fire ventilation codes, which really meant in certain areas of that cavern, we could never have, on either side, actually, northbound or southbound, we could never really have more than one train in that ventilation cavern. so we really had to automate that compliance because it is a portal, and there will be a lot of movement within that area, within that space. it's a turnaround, it's a crossover, and it's a large cavern. we automated the movement of those trains to assure that no train -- no two trains at any one time will be within those caverns, and we laid out how the whole system then would react downstream as well, and maintain headway through that. so given that change, and this is one that is a large change. it is a new feature for the train-controlled system that isn't in our metro tunnels today. we also paid for acceleration to assure that this feature is

completed, tested, and safety-certified, to assure our current revenue opening schedule. and then the last item is a delay claim that we see from tallis. and this is as we were really crafting the contracts and working to sever this are particular contract and work with them on a couple of other things. we were trying to work with the various contractors to determine a start date for system testing innovation. and, unfortunately, that process meant that we really gave talis several different start dates, and we couldn't give them a firm start date based on negotiations between tutor, talis, and ourselves. so we negotiated with talis this particular delay claim for a year

plus delay, to maintain staffing at the level we would need them because we weren't sure when we were going to start. so that's my presentation. i'm ready to take questions from anyone -- any questions you may have for myself or tom mcguire. >> chairman: thank you. is there a b.l.a. report on this item? >> yes, there. chair haney and members of the committee, the proposed resolution would approve an extension of an existing contract with thales, and increase the amount by $12.8 million to $27.7 million. we show the contract budget on page 14 of our report. this is paid from the total central subway report, shown on page 15 of our report.

and then there is a delay for claim in this contract modification up to $2.5 million. and because of that, we consider approval of the proposed resolution to be a policy decision for the board of supervisors. and i'm available for any questions you may have. >> chairman: thank you, ms. campbell. mr. mcguire, i know that you had mentioned that there was a robust conversation, it sounded like at the m.t.a. board, about central subway and learnings, and it may be in line with the other report we had about management of big projects -- >> right. >> chairman: is any of that discussion things that we can improve on either around timeline or efficiency, costs -- is any of that constructive

on what is happening here with this particular contract? are there things that you would have done differently, or will do differently in the future, and if you might talk about that a little as it relates to central subway, and even this item in front of us. >> yeah. thanks for the question. some of the key lessons we talked about at the commission last week that are relevant to central subway include the -- both the way in which we procure our contractors and the way in which we, as the client, and our general contractors, share the risk for the project. i think in retrospect, we would have made a decision up front about whether or not the thales work went into the general contractor, that and are

the shifting start -- the shifting start dates really did cost us some money here. that said, the bulk of the dollars that we're asking for approval on today can be attributed to the fire code change. and that's not something we necessarily saw coming when we did the central subway contract almost a decade ago. i guess the -- and, yes, there is still a learning there, too. most of our projects are not 10-year projects. thankfully most of our projects don't take 10 years to approve. and we're involved in the professional organizations to help with things like safety codes and fire codes, so we have an opportunity to see those things on the horizon and plan for the better in contracting. >> chairman: thank you for that. and when will the work of

this particular contractor be complete? >> let me an lisa answer that. >> we anticipate completion april 29, 2022. >> chairman: okay. and when will the central subway be complete? >> great question. we're planning to open it for service in the spring of '22. so we're about a year away. >> chairman: so around -- your work is completed essentially when we expect to open it, around -- >> this project, yes. >> this is critical path. >> chairman: got it. okay. well, in shalon. this has been long-awaited, and there has been a number of ways

in which the cost has gone up, and the timeline has been extended, and i understand there are a lot of reasons for it, but i'm also glad that we're assessing, in a more broader, strategic way about how to do this better in the future. madam clerk, can we open this up for public comment? >> clerk: yes. d.t.is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. members of the public who wish to provide comment on this item, please press *3. and wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. are there any callers who wish to comment on item 10? >> there are no callers in the queue at this time. >> clerk: thank you. >> chairman: public comment is now closed. colleagues, questions or comments? i don't see any. i am going to make a motion to move this to the full board with a positive

recommendation. madam clerk, can we have a roll call vote. >> clerk: on the motion, vice chair safai? vice chair safai absent. member mr. ? >> aye. >> clerk: chair haney? >> chairman: aye. >> chairman: item 10 will go to the full board with a positive recommendation. thank you so much for being here and for your work. thank you. >> thank you. >> chairman: madam clerk, can you please call item 11. >> clerk: item 11, ordinance amending the administrative code to require the department of homelessness and supportive housing to establish a safe site program to provide unsheltered persons with a safe place to sleep overnight and affirming the planning department's

determination under the california environmental quality act. members of the public who wish to provide public comment should call 415-655-0001, i.d. 1873551611 and then ##. if you haven't already done so, please dial *3 to line up to speak. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comment. and i wanted to note that our spanish interpreter has joined us, and will be assisting members of the public who require spanish translation services on this item. thank you. >> chairman: thank you, madam clerk. i believe that we have our own colleague, supervisor mandelman, who is here to present on his legislation. welcome, supervisor mandelman. >> supervisor: thank you, chair haney, and members of the budget committee. thank you for your time this morning.

so a lot of things have been said and written and tweeted about a place for all, since i introduced it with our former colleague sandra lee fewer back in october. much of that chatter has been untrue. so i want to take a moment to explain what this legislation, if enacted, would actually do. and that's basically three things: first, it would establish as policy of the city and county of san francisco, that as long as we do not have permanent exit for homelessness for every unhoused person in san francisco, we will establish and operate another safe sleep sites or other temporary shelter options to offer temporary placement for every unsheltered person who cannot have or is unlikely to accept a referral. this is a commitment san francisco has never made, although other cities have. and as you may have

gathered by now, it is not uncontroversial, but i believe it is right. second, the legislation would give the department of homelessness and supportive housing four months to prepare a plan to meet that policy mandate. this implementation plan will provide a roadmap to expanding the sites or other temporary shelter to accommodate all unsheltered people likely to accept shelter within 24 hours. it would plan h.s.h. to provide an estimate of shelter placements needed to implement the safe sleep program, a list of the site that could be used to meets the mandate, an estimate of the cost, a description of services to be provided at each site, and a description of accommodations at each safe sleep site, whether cots, tents, sheds, tiny homes, what have you.

the ordinance also mandates that the plan show geographic equity in this selection of sites. although the legislation does not require that all new shelters be safe sleep sites, it requires certain mandates. based on some of the things we've learned from the safe sleep sites that have been open during the pandemic emergency. these include limiting the capacity of the sites to no more than 150 people per site. requiring a safety plan for each site. requiring access to clean and regularly serviced bathrooms and showers. to ensure that people who may need assistance getting to safe sleep sites are able to get there, h.s.h. will be required to provide transportation. the controller would have to submit a report assessing the program

every other year. depending on what h.s.h. and we learn on the implementation plan, about costs and sites, the third thing this legislation will do is set up a conversation at city hall following submission of their plan about whether we and our constituents are willing and able to move forward with this version of "shelter for all" in the city and county of san francisco. if the answer is yes, the board will have to make the appropriation necessary to implement that policy mandate within two years. so some of you have asked me why i am doing this? after all, there is no known interest group clamoring for san francisco to become a "shelter for all" city, and there are loud voices on both the left and the right arguing against it. so here is the deal: i believe a "place for all" aligns with the values and sensibilities for the majority of san franciscans who want an end to street homelessness and believe no person

should have to sleep on the street. these are the people i believe who voted for proposition "c" but expect the city to use some of the hundreds of millions of dollars we spend on homelessness to actually improve conditions on our sidewalks and our plazas and in our parks. and i believe that coming out of this pandemic, our constituents expect us to finally do something meaningful, game-changing, even, about the street encampments that have earned this city an international reputation for failure and condemnation by the united nations. now, some on the right say we can just enforce our way out of this. even if we wanted to do that, we couldn't legally because of the ninth circuit holding in boise. but the reality is that those everyday san franciscans that i just mentioned, that are fed up with street encampments, they don't want an

all-enforcement, no compassion approach, but they also doesn't want people camping on the sidewalks, and they definitely don't want the harassment and crime that often accompany treatment encampments. now, i believe in housing first, and i support prop "c," and i will continue to support pretty much ever effort to get more housing. but the findings in this legislation tells a many decades long story about san francisco's significant investments in permanent housing for formerly homelessness. we have moved thousands of people from the streets into housing. but one lesson of those efforts to me is that without significant and sustained additional state and federal investment, no city acting alone can solve homelessness. this legislation

recognizes that reality and aims to directly address the intolerable, unsustainable, and unacceptable impacts of street homelessness. which brings me to the cost of the program, an issue raised by skeptics and opponents left and right. we will hear from the b.l.a., which has prepared an analysis of the potential cost of the legislation based on the safe street sites that have been opened and operated during the pandemic. i think the costs are identified in the b.l.a. report, and i think they're unacceptable high and can be brought down from their pandemic era, first-time pilot prices. and we'll learn that from the implementation plan. but the reality is that decent shelter will cost money. safe sleep sites should be a relatively quick and cost-effective alternative to traditional shelter, but there is no reason to expect them to be significantly cheaper on an operational basis than traditional shelter. but even if full

implementation of this legislation were to cost tens of millions of dollars, that money would be a fraction of the many hundreds of millions of dollars this city spends each year for housing for people exiting homelessness without any impact on street conditions. if we want to make a difference on our streets, we need a comprehensive plan to meet the needs of those who continue to sleep on those streets. it won't be cheap, but i believe it is both necessary and doable. i want to take a quick moment to describe the amendments that should be before you. which is largely based on feedback from the department of homelessness and supportive housing. i want to be clear, lest there be any doubt, that the coalition remains in strong opposition to this legislation, but i want to thank them for their engagement, and i do believe this is better legislation for their input. i want to also thank h.s.s., especially dylan

and director sam. first, the amendments before you make clear that the board must approve an implementation, and this is not automatic. this was always the case, but we're making it extra special clear to address any concerns that the board may have for a program for which we do not have a plan. i'm not asking you to do that today. but i'm asking you to adopt the policy and we can revisit it once that plan is complete. the amendments are substantive, so although i would ask that someone move the amendments today and the amendments get added to the file, i will also be asking that you continue this item to your next budget and finance committee meeting to actually vote on the underlying legislation. more amendments, based on

feedback from h.s.h., we have a lot more time to establish the program once approved, two years rather than 18 months, as well as additional time to prepare the implementation plan, four months rather than two. we have revised the legislation to be very clear that safe sleep sites are only one of the options for meeting the policy goal of "shelter for all," and h.s.h. may plan and open any temporary shelter to implement "a place for all." it could be acquiring hotel rooms or creating more safe sleep sites. the legislation restates that the city's first priority has been, and must be, to create as many permanent exits from homelessness as possible. "a place for all" again is for those who do not have a housing exit. based on feedback around minimum standards for safe sleep sites, we included access to electricity, and garbage service, which

seems obvious, but was not provided, and showers, as well as access to prevention and substance abuse treatment, and we have seen an implementation of measures to prevent the spread of covid-19. and it includes additional feedback from the coalition, and making referrals to safe sleep sites as well as standards for community building and meals at safe sleep sites. in response to the coalition's request that the legislation be scaled back from a right to shelter, which is a shelter for all, to an expansion of safe sleep sites to accommodate 500 people, we added a requirement that the implementation plan analyze that (indiscernable) to full program implementation. and finally, on feedback from h.s.h. and the coalition, that safe sleep

sites will operate 24, to 8:00 a.m. to 8 p.m. before i close, i want to thank from the bottom of my heart rescue s.f. for their partnership from day one on this legislation. it is a citywide organization of neighbors demanding a more compassioned response to homelessness from their government. they have been simply amazing. i also want to thank the hundreds of san franciscans who have is written the board to express their support for this legislation, and the many organizations that have signed on in support, including the san francisco coalition of neighborhoods, cathedral neighborhood association, pacific heights association, jerica valley neighborhood association,

castro cares, castro merchants, civic center c.b.d., and the consortium. i hope you will join them and me in ensuring that san francisco has a place for ul. and, finally, i want to thank erin munday in my office for all of her labors on this legislation, and ann pearson who has been pulling many all nighters and doing a lot of work. >> chairman: thank you, and thank you to your staff for their hard work on this and for the amendments. ms. campbell, i know there is a b.l.a. report on this item. >> yes, chair haney, members of the committee. the report is based on the legislation as it

currently exists and do not include the amendments. the ordinance would approve the city's -- excuse me, would approve the city's safe sleep program. we based the estimates based on the city's existing safe sleeping village program. that program actually does have different cost components than the proposed ordinance. under the current program, the estimated cost per person per night is $190. we estimate, based on the pro post ordinance, $93 a night. we do, however, have an amendment, because these are based on existing contracts, and we didn't have full contract understanding of the cost components of the contract. so we're asking that the department of homelessness and supportive housing and the covid command center provide details to the board of supervisors within 60 days on safe sleeping program costs and