>> yes, you'll be appellant for the case. >> great. >> okay. just one moment. okay. i've made you a panelist, mr. vitari. is there -- do you know, is there someone else assisting you? >> my wife was here over the phone. i don't know if you see her. >> okay. just one moment. hello, good morning. are you part of the case this morning? >> yeah. >> okay. just a minute. okay. so i will allow you time to speak when you'd like. i can't make you a panelist since you're calling in on the phone, so i'll just temporarily mute you, okay? >> okay. >> okay. so mr. vitari, you'll have

seven minutes to present your case. it's at your discretion if you'd like to turn your video on or not. it's up to you. >> yes. i'm having technical difficulties for my video limiting [inaudible] my workaround. >> okay. you don't have to -- okay. there you are. >> did you hear the oath at the beginning of the meeting? >> i did, yes. >> okay. so i'll start your seven minutes, and you can begin. >> okay. permit. so i sent the e-mail yesterday with whatever information i could provide. we purchased this property in 2014 with the existing buildout and work that was performed i guess directly from the bank. i was never aware of any violations in 2017 when we had the inspections from every department. i basically purchased -- i

mean, i purchased the property, and i was the purchase of [inaudible] which was quite confusing for myself, never having experience of any violations with the city or what that entails. therefore, i had a consultant working on the case until 2020, when she dropped out during covid. and i was taking the matter into my own hands, along with my wife, who is present on the call, to resolve this as soon as possible. i did send pictures yesterday to provide the advances that we have, and we're currently working with planning to resolve, like, the future of the building. however, we did pull any plumbing permit, and the contractor is working this week and the following weeks to resolve the foundations that we're meeting today. all i ask is that, i guess, give me the 69 days to complete

this and possibly mitigate the [inaudible] because this is work that i didn't perform, and i would love to get some feedback and understanding on that. >> okay. thank you, mr. vitari. is your wife going to be speaking as part of your seven minutes' time or would you like her to speak? >> yeah, i would like her to [inaudible]. >> okay. >> okay. thank you. >> hello, miss vitari. you're unmuted if you'd like to speak. you guys have five minutes. >> okay. thank you. yeah, just to reiterate, the entire process has been very confusing and hasn't been very easy to understand what steps you're supposed to take once you receive the violation. my husband and i have continued to do everything we can as soon

as we become aware. the meeting with the inspector had just come a few days ago or -- well, it must have been last week. a few days before, we had hired a constructor to pull the permits and start the work. the biggest issue is no one seems to know what to do, if we were to submit 100% of all of the correspondence from e-mail and phone call, voice messages, we've consistently been following up with every person that we've been aware of within the city as soon as we become aware. some of the department people take up to a month to respond despite how many follow ups we spent between the two of us by phone or by e-mail, and so the time that has -- it has taken is not necessarily because we're not doing anything, it's either because the communication cycle has been quite slow with the person from

the city or, as we have mentioned, we had a city liaison consultant who unfortunately was not able to direct us in the correct manner to resolve these issues as quickly as possible. >> okay. thank you. does that conclude your testimony? >> yes. >> okay. thank you. >> clerk: okay. we will now take public comment. is there any public comment on this matter? there don't appear to be any members of the public in attendance, so we will go to rebuttal time, to the

department, chief hernandez, you have three minutes for rebuttal. >> thank you, sonya. so at this time, the main violation for the building for the change of use is actually on hold because we understand, like the owner had stated, they are going through the process for a change of use issue. i do see the plumbing permit, and they have had a couple of inspections since july 14, so in regards to the code enforcement process, if you can see by the document, the case was actually put on hold since 2017, and just originally got set out for a hearing, so he was -- the department did actually provide ample time for the owner to actually obtain a plumbing permit to start to correct some of the violations. that's my rebuttal. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you, chief hernandez. mr. vitari, you have three

minutes for rebuttal, as well. >> okay. yes, as i explained and my wife, as well, our city consultant was definitely not very communicative on how we were supposed to proceed at this time, and it was not until 2020 that she told us that she was not able to help us anymore, and we were basically always in the cloud or in the gray zone where we had no idea what we were supposed to be performing in the meantime, and hence, we were always by ourselves. i guess that's all i can attest to. >> clerk: okay. thank you. miss vitari, did you have anything to add? >> yeah, just something, yes. >> clerk: okay. you can go ahead. >> oh, sorry. wasn't sure if i was connected. just to add on top of the communication, we do recognize

as a whole, from the city's perspective or the department, we've been given more than enough time despite the coronavirus. i think for us the main issue was we've been stalled in the planning department with one of the employees at planning, and we kept asking her what we need to resolve the issues on the building. she may not be aware, either, but we had no idea we had to pull a plumbing permit. it wasn't clear how to resolve the issue with every person we had asked. and yeah, we have nothing to say other than we want to resolve this as soon as possible. we just found out from the plumbing inspection last week that we found out what we have to do. the inspector said you have to pull permits, but before that, no one said, you need to pull a

permit to resolve the issue, therefore, we had no idea. >> clerk: okay. thank you very much. okay. vice president tam, you raised your hand? >> yes. thank you so much, and thank you for your comments there. i'm going to open it up to my fellow commissioners if you have any comments or questions for the inspector. >> through the chair, vice chair tam, chief hernandez, if you're available, please, just a few quick questions. >> yes. >> good morning. i dropped my internet here when you were starting your presentation, so forgive me if i'm asking questions that you already answered. so if i'm to understand this correctly, the -- the appellant

is in planning right now with a conditional use process to be started with the zoning, correct? >> yeah. >> do we know any detail oz that zoning with regard -- details on that zoning with regard to the appellant from the planning department. >> no. at this point, i don't know anything about that. >> okay. fair enough. then with regard to the permit, you went out to [inaudible] a complaint against this? >> yeah. i think the whole process was started by the department with a referral, and then, we actually went out there as a joint inspection task force to the building? >> so when you went out there, you came up with your violations, which would you remind me and go over them one more time because i missed that

at the start of your presentation? >> so the violations are restaurants, kitchen, a bar, a pool on the ground floor, a up stairs with a full bathroom with a hot tub and a wet bar, and a new commercial water heater. >> so all allowable permits in this building, right, leaving the planning outside? in other words, you would be allowed to apply for them and be able to get them approved by the d.b.i., correct? >> correct, and the idea was the plumbing permit would just cap all the plumbing fixtures, everything, and then that way, the owner would have the ability to go through the planning process and realize if this is a leave work area or has to go back to a warehouse which was the legal use of this

space. >> so what's interesting is it's a permit application and it's kind of given what you guys need to to inspect this, but as you look at it, all the work has been done? >> yeah. >> and it looks like it's been done for quite a while. >> yes. >> yeah, because the appellant said they bought in 2017, and if they bought from the bank, they usually don't have the greatest disclosure packages. it's a very quick type of deal, and sometimes, these things do not get called out in the disclosure packages. i've had the same thing in the past where permits were not pulled in disclosure packages, and you didn't find out -- so is there anybody occupying the building right now? is people living there? >> that's probably a question for the appellant.

i did see the space set up as a liveable space but [inaudible] space. >> okay. mr. hernandez, what are the actual fees for this space? what are we looking at dollar wise? >> dollar wise for plumbing? i don't think they actually assess a fine, but for the violation, i think it's actually a $1500. >> so to correct the violations, i think it's $1500, correct? >> yeah, but one of the confusions i think the appellant has is that he's trying to waive the penalty fee under the violations, which it's under the permit, so we still haven't gotten to that stage yet. and when the time comes when he gets his main building permit, we can do that fee, but the one

i can actually abate or remove is the code enforcement or assessment fees, which is the ones that we're dealing with. >> which is the ones to the dollar amount. >> the $1500. >> you can waive it. >> well, i can waive some of it. >> there's a percentage of that we can actually determine if the department determines to go there, and chief hernandez, thank you for your information there. with regards to the appellant, could i speak to one of them a second, please? >> clerk: they're still on the call. you can ask the question of mr. vitari. >> mr. vitari or mrs. vitari. >> mm-hmm. how can i help you? >> mr. vitari, thank you for your testimony today. i find your testimony very believable, and i understand how difficult it is if you're not in that world and dealing with it every day maneuvering,

particularly with two departments, so we see that a lot. so just wanted to stress that with you, and i do understand sometimes professionals, you know, it's easier for them just to do the job and keep them aboard, and when they go away, they can leave quite a mess behind, and that's something i see a lot of, so i respect that position that you're in, and my sense in listening to you and your wife that you are trying to get ahead of this. and so what i'm going to propose to the commissioners, and obviously, someone else can weigh-in, is to propose on waiving the fees as best we can. i don't think we can take all the fees down, and i can check in with the city attorney and then requesting that you be given that 90 days to get your permits in line and work with the planning department, which i do believe would take a little longer once you do get

your permits in place, so if there's a conditional use process, i'd highly recommend it. might have to get some more legal counsel if you're not in that way trying to get those applications filled out and get them into planning so they can start that process, which is a notification process and so on. just on the use of the place right now, what exactly is going on out there if you don't mind me going on, actually. >> clerk: and not to interrupt, just to let you know, i have unmuted mrs. vitari, as well, so both of you guys can speak. >> okay. yeah. >> i can speak to that in that regard. >> okay. mrs. vitari, go ahead. >> yeah. so during the pandemic, we were working with a consultant and planning for a use, which

didn't work out. at this time, we were trying to find -- we are trying to find a commercial tenant so we can finalize what the change of use will be. so at this point, there's no business or there's no one actually there, so right now, we're in the middle of trying to find a commercial tenant. >> yeah, and so that's kind of important, you know, that you kind of -- what the use kind of stays within the allowable zoning and so on, because sometimes, we find these, you know, buildings are used for different things. life safety is what we work on, and we want to make sure that that's maintained. so thank you, vice chair. i can make a motion or wait until the end and listen to other commissioners. >> any other commissioners like to weigh-in? >> i don't -- i just have some questions just have a time standpoint. so the property was bought in

foreclosure in 2014, and the items, the violations, whether it's the kitchen -- were those -- were those -- were those items part of the property when you bought them or is that -- was that -- is that new construction? >> i believe all the existing violations were from existing things that were there when we bought it in foreclosure. >> okay. >> if i can add, the oldest records we can find was a letter from 2005 that talks about the kitchen -- there's no plans about a kitchen, actually. they talk about a kitchen in 2005, and the old owner used it as a test kitchen. just some of the documents that i shared was in 2014 and 2013,

which shows the property for sale with that condition. >> and then, i have a question on the use. it's an s-2 right now warehouse, and you're going to the city to get a permit for -- i mean, to planning for live work. >> we are talking to planning about officially changing the use to community facility private, however, they -- as my wife mentioned, the building itself is currently vacant. we've used it before for our office space, but we vacated the property in the last few months, especially because we have all this spending paperwork with planning. >> no, i understand, but the new use that you're applying for with planning is a private community facility. is that what you're saying? >> yes. we're working with planning to maintain as much of the

existing building as possible. however, we have it for lease, so if a commercial tenant comes in, ideally, it will fit all the criteria that we need, the fitted use. >> okay. that's all the questions that i have. >> okay. thank you, commissioner bito. any other commissioners like to chime in? so this would be the m.l.s. listing for the property, and that's how you would have purchased it in 2014. what you have submitted, is that the old covered up by the green? >> yes. this is what you've done and the city signed off on. are you planning to keep any of the items that they've done or are you just going to cap it off and let the city inspect? >> so we filled in the pool and

that's as much as we could move forward because we had a lot of questions what to do with the second floor, and we're working trying to find out how to get rid of the hot tub because it's basically blocking all the balcony. and yeah, the brochure that you have for sale, that's before we bought it from the bank. when we bought it, there were no disclosures given to us. we actually found out this brochure just last month because my wife was actually a realtor, and she was able to find this from the old m.l.s. and find out that that was the condition before we actually purchased the property. >> okay. no, and i -- [inaudible]. somebody? >> no, to answer your question, the goal is to cap everything off and leave it that way for

the next commercial tenant to come in. >> got it, got it. i, too, find your testimony believable, as commissioner mccarthy has mentioned. i'm okay with moving forward with a motion. commissioner mccarthy, would you like to make a motion? >> so just a question from the city attorney about the fees. as chief hernandez had mentioned, we do have the ability to waive the $1500, and if so, what would that amount be and what could we bring it down to? >> president mccarthy, under building code section 105-a.2.3, which describes the powers of the a.a.b., it states that [inaudible] for a

substantive cost imposed pursuant to section 102-a upon a showing of substantial error by the department, so that's the standard that's in the building code? i'm not sure if there's sufficient evidence of substantial error in the assessment costs, but the board can take action on that. >> okay. obviously, there is no error. okay. so it looks like the best i could ask for here is to make a motion -- the board to hold the order in abeyance to allow time to obtain time for permits to allow for corrections. chief hernandez, can you weigh-in on the fees? maybe you would know something that could help us out here? >> yeah, so what we have done

in the past is we're able to reduce some of the penalty -- instead of nine times, we're able to reduce it to two times. for the code enforcement, we can work on our time to make sure that the inspector was on top, and if the owner has proof that the inspector was not, i can reduce some of the hourly rates here. >> okay. so that's maybe something you could work off with the appellant, if that's okay with you and on behalf of me and the commission. would that be acceptable to you, chief hernandez? >> yes, yes. >> so the appellant understands, mr. vitari, we'll reach out and work on anything here, and then my motion is as i called. >> commissioner mccarthy, i'm sorry to interject. i just want to clarify for the record the motion would be to uphold the order of abatement

but holding it in abeyance for that period. >> yes, and i believe it's 90 days for that period is what we're allowed, correct? >> correct. >> that's my motion. >> i'll second through the chair, yeah. >> okay. so the second was vice president tam? >> commissioner moss. >> commissioner moss. okay. just one moment, and i will do a roll call vote. >> could you repeat the motion again, please? >> so the motion is to uphold the order of abatement and hold this in abeyance for 90 days. there was a motion by commissioner mccarthy and a second by commissioner moss. >> no, i don't take any exception. i just wanted to hear it. i didn't hear everything. thanks.

>> clerk: okay. vice president tam, did you want to make a comment or just go ahead with the roll call vote? >> okay. let's hear it. >> clerk: okay. go ahead, sir. >> so i noticed based on the legal code that the attorney suggested, having a [inaudible] on the notice of violation, correct? i know it mentions the bathrooms being not legal, however, based on the 1987 plans that we pulled out of the building, it did shows two bathrooms in the building. they're obviously now different from what they used to be, but i don't know if that could possibly help. but otherwise, i'm fine with the 90 days it being enough to just correct everything that we can. >> all right. so you're saying that it shows

two existing bathrooms, but it's not that it's in the place that it should be. i'm assuming that would be something that you would work out with d.b.i. and the inspectors, and they would advise whether or not you can keep them. >> i'm sorry to interject again. one more modification that needs to be made to the motion. the maximum period of abeyance would be 60 days, not 90, so that would be the longest period you could hold anything. >> would 60 days be sufficient here? >> so since all the plumbing violations have been resolved, yes. >> so do you want to restate the motion to reflect 60 days? >> clerk: okay. so the motion is to uphold the -- the department to uphold the order of abatement and to

hold it in abeyance for 60 days. okay. so the roll call on the motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. the motion carries unanimously. thank you. >> thank you, mr. and mrs. vitari. i hope it gets all sorted out. >> clerk: okay. thank you. okay. so our next item is item d, general public comment. this is for general public comment for items that are not on the abatement appeals board agenda. there does not appear to be any public available, and so the next item is item e, adjournment. is there a motion to adjourn? >> so moved.

>> clerk: and is there a second? >> second. >> second. >> clerk: all in favor? okay. so this abatement appeals board meeting is now adjourned. it is now 9:41 a.m. we will reconvene as the building inspection commission at 10:00 a.m., and that is under a separate meeting invite. >> thank you, everyone. >> clerk: okay. thank you, everyone.

>> this meeting will come to order. this is the july 21, 2021 budget and finance committee meeting. i'm chair of the budget and finance committee. i'm joined by committee members safai and mar. i want to thank sfgovtv. do you have announcements? >> the minutes will reflect that committee members participated through video call. the board recognizes that public access to city services is essential and participation in the following way. public comment will be available on each item on the agenda, channel 26, 78 or are streaming the number across the screen.

opportunities to speak during public comment are available via phone call by calling 1-415-655-0001. again, that's 1-415-655-0001. 146 791 8550. again, 146 791 8550. then press pound twice. when connected, you will hear the meeting discussions, but you will be muted. when the item of reference comes up, dial star 3 to be added to the speaker line. speak clearly and slowly and turn down your television or radio. alternatively, you may submit public comment in the following ways. the budget and finance committee clerk e-mail. it will be forwarded to the supervisors and included as part of the official file. written comments maybe sent via

the u.s. postal service to city hall, san francisco, california. finally, items acted upon today are expected to appear on the board of supervisors' agenda on july 27 unless otherwise stated. this concludes my announcements. mr. chair, you're on mute. >> chair haney: looking forward to when that is no longer an issue [laughter]. can you please call item number 1? >> yes, item 1, ordinance waiving certain first year permit, license and business registration fees for businesses that either commence engaging in business within the city from november 1, 2021 through october 31, 2022, have shipmented first-year san francisco gross receipts of $2 million or less, have a registered business location that is ground floor commercial use and not formula

retail use and have gross receipts in the next three tax years of $10 million or less, or open a new business location for ground floor commercial use and not formula retail use reported san francisco gross receipts of $2 million or less on the most recent return and have gross receipts in the next three tax years of $10 million or less and refunding any waived fees paid to the comment. any members of the public, who have public comment on this item call 1-415-655-0001. 146 791 8550. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please indicate until the system indicates you've been unmuted and you may begin. >> chair haney: this was continued because it had subsequent amendments. i know we're joined by supervisor ronen today. is there anything you wanted to add? >> supervisor ronen: no, just

here in case there are questions. >> chair haney: colleagues, any questions or comments on this item? again, we are strongly in support and i'm proud cosponsor of this with you and i know our committee was strongly in support last week when we heard it first. madame clerk, any members of the public who want to speak on the item? >> yes, they're checking to see if there are callers in the queue. members of the public who wish to provide public comment press star 3 now. for those on hold, wait until the system indicates you've been unmuted. are there any callers who wish to comment on item number 1? mr. chair, there are no members of the public in the queue for item number 1. >> chair haney: great. public comment is closed. i want to make a motion to move this to the full board with a

positive recommendation. roll call. >> on that motion? >> supervisor safai: safai, absent. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> chair haney: aye. there are two ayes. >> chair haney: thank you. this will go to the full board with positive recommendation and thank you for your leadership. >> supervisor ronen: thank you so much. >> chair haney: item 2. >> hearing to consider the release of reserved funds to the public works placed on the full board of supervisors reserve ordinance number 165-20 in the amount of $537,000 to fund for completing detailed design of the new can options and moving into the prototyping phase. members of the public who wish to provide public comment, call 1-415-655-0001, meeting i.d., 146 791 8550. then press pound twice.

if you have not already done so, dial star 3 to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates you've been unmuted and you may begin your comments. >> chair haney: thank you. we have interim director from public works and team to present on this item. welcome. >> just wanted to bring this item before you. this is something we hear and have been working on for quite a while. cans are not as acceptable, they're easily rummaged through. this aren't efficient for any number of reasons, so over the last few years in public works, have been trying to design new cans doing a pilot. at this point we're coming before you, there were monies in

our budget that were put on reserve that would allow us to advance this project further. and we're now at the point where we're trying to prototype in three cans that we have and designed at this point and would like to ask advance the project further. i have my colleagues who can give you more of an update. >> hi. thank you, director. good morning, committee members and everyone in the audience. my name is lisa. i'm the project manager from public works who is managing this project. if i may, can i share my presentation on the screen?

okay. so, again, this is the project to replace all 3,000 + trash cans throughout san francisco. we're going to be quick on this presentation, but please feel free to stop me at any time if there are questions. just background information. there are over 3,000 public trash cans throughout san francisco and we know that we've experienced a lot of issues with them. they're near the end of their useful life and need to be replaced. here highlights some of the problems experiencing, which includes overflowing, locks that are broken, not durable, doesn't utilize a liner that cannot be mechanically lift and emptied. and we've experienced high volumes of vandalism throughout the years that requires very

high maintenance cost and effort. so when we engage our industrial designer to come up with a new design for the trash can, our goal was to address this efficiency we experienced and new features to accommodate a rolling rotor, anti-pests, ada compliant and we want to have an electronic sensor so recology knows when to pick up the cans or empty the bins before they become too full. when we first engaged with our industrial designer, we -- they came up with a handful, maybe a dozen and a half different design options. and with those, we chose three that we feel have the most potential. and through many design revisions, we came up with these three approved design concepts.

these are salt and pepper, slim, and soft square. these have been approved by the city review committee. our goal is to make these cans and make the prototype and see which one will work better. so the next few slides are just a few photos and renderings that show what the cans look like when they're in the streets. some of the design features. what the toter looks like and how they work with the can itself and how the exchange works. and also some design variations that can be implemented into these cans. and also like this option would need a custom -- just due to its shape and the size. here's the second option. some more views of this. this option would also require a

custom tote because of its unique shape. and this one are we're proposing to use a hopper-style opening with a foot pedal at the bottom. this option would not require a custom toter as it was designed to be able to enclose on to an existing toter. here's the slide on our schedule, the next step. the greyed out portion is what we've accomplished so far. we're securing the funding to proceed with the phase. once we have the money, we'll enter into contract with the consultant and design a fabrication stage. once the cans are fabricated, we'll install them on the streets and be used for 60 days by the general public. after that testing period, we'll evaluate and make design modifications if necessary.

and one step will be working with the final design package and we'll use that to solicit a competitive solicitation to purchase the cans and replace all 3,000 trash cans throughout san francisco. here's another look at a schedule and can chart style. currently, we're in july 2021. we're securing the funding to move forward with the prototypes. the design phase is planned to be eight weeks. prototyping phase is six to eight weeks. and then we install the cans once they're made and test them and put them on the streets and test them for 60 days. then we do the evaluation, which is maybe at 4-6 weeks and make modifications. so by the first quarter of next year we'll have the final design completed and we'll have that

design packaged to the trash can procurement. i wanted to highlight these schedules are based on what we currently know and they are subject to change due to market conditions and other actors out of our control. for example, our consultant has told me that the 6-8 weeks to fabricate the prototype might need to be longer due to material availability and worker availability and such. here's my final slide on budget. the total request is $537,000. and that would include the cost of design the trash cans and toters and make the prototypes. i would like to note that cost to produce the prototype is an estimate based on what the consultant told me which is a range. and the budget is based on a higher-end range.

in that design phase, we'll make decisions that will, you know, lower that cost to make the prototypes. i also want to add that at the conclusion of the design refinement phase our consultant will provide a cost proposal for the prototype. and that cost we expect to be lower than what is budgeted hopefully. so we're also seeking additional funding for public works to manage the project and purchase off the shelf trash cans. we'll test the off the shelf trash cans and compare it with the custom cans and see what works best. we're setting aside 20% contingency for unforeseen conditions. so, that concludes my presentation. please let me know if you have any questions regarding the trash can design, the schedule or the budget. >> chair haney: thank you for that. and i appreciate it.

and i can say that these new trash cans cannot come soon enough. the ones we have now are constantly broken, you know, overflowing. i think have a problematic design and create a lot of trash issues themselves, so, you know, i personally long been calling for those trash cans to be replaced, so i'm excited that we are moving along in the process to make that happen and it really cannot happen soon enough. i have a few questions. i'm going to jump in now and ask them. one is, just quickly on the last slide on the price, how many prototype trash cans are produced and what is the price of them? i saw the line item said 15 for $15,000. how many are we actually testing

of the three types and what is the cost of it? >> yes. good question. so, there are three designs, so we're making size prototypes of each trash can for a total of 15 trash cans. and as indicated earlier, the cost of the prototype is an estimate right now and based on a $12,000 to $20,000 per can as unit cost. so we're using the $20,000 per can as our budget, but with intention to move it toward the lower end. as for the toters, we're making five custom toters for each -- for two of the cans that require custom toters. we're not making custom toter for the third option because that does not require a custom toter, so we're making 10 prototypes as a cost of $2,000 each. >> chair haney: the one thing i

want to point to supervisor haney and i can see by the look on your face that the cost of can is a lot. and i won't try and make it seem like the amount that we're proposing is not a lot of money. it is. and the cost of that -- a lot of that is associated with the end design of the can. because at this point these are custom made cans they're not being mass produced. there is no other market other than us here in san francisco. that's why we are a pilot, we have a small amount of money where we're going to purchase off the shelf conditions. we have a dozen outreach. we have colleagues in portland who recently bought cans. we're going to try to buy some off the shelf options. those cans won't be as pretty and pleasing to the eye as the cans that are being designed for us right now, but hopefully,

we'll be able to weigh the pros and cons. we can have the can that is exactly the one we want. which is a very high premium. or go with the offthe shelf option which may check a bunch of boxes for us. we're going to try to provide everyone with the pros and cons and make an educated decision at that point. but you are absolutely right in your observation that the cost per can as of right now is very expensive. but -- >> and i -- >> but we think once we go to mass production of the cans, it drops off a lot. >> chair haney: $20,000 a can is, i mean, ridiculous. it's a fox news headline waiting

to happen there. really need to understand why it is so expensive. i'm also concerned about us testing so few. five of each design doesn't allow -- i mean, you know, one of the things that we need, i imagine we want to learn is, where -- how these perform in different areas in different parts of the city. the experience of, you know, having a trash can on market street or in the tenderloin is going to be different than the outer sunset. and we need to test these cans throughout the entire city. what exactly are we -- how are we approaching where the prototypes are going to be? and how are we going to evaluate their performance across the city? >> and the plan would be for us to work as operations division here at public works along with -- across the city to figure out where is the best place to put the cans.

we've decided to extend the duration of the pilot where we'll be able to place five cans of each type in various locations during that period. so we may place it in one location for the first 30 days, then move the can somewhere else to get a couple of different points of data as effectiveness of the cans. i can tell you for sure we're going to be working with our colleagues at the cbd and the tenderloin and the others to get their feedback on the placement and the effectiveness of these cans. >> so i know this is a decision that was made a number of years ago and it was before probably all of our time maybe. we say you are here for this, but why was the decision made to begin with to design our own

can? every city in the country, in the world, has public trash cans. i imagine there are many, many different types that have been tested for years and years in reality. the idea that went through our own design process and doing prototypes at $20,000 a can when this is not something that is that different as far as the need in our city as compared to any other city in the world, why aren't we just testing cans that are already in production or in use and seeing which one performs the best in san francisco and then going with those? why design a can entirely from scratch? it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. i realize we're pretty far down the path here already, but why did we choose this path to begin with? and why are we still doing this

rather than putting out a bunch of different types of cans that are already produced, that are much cheaper, that are already performing, i imagine well, in some other place and testing those in san francisco and then making a decision based on that? this is a very expensive, much longer uncertain process that we've chosen here? >> the one thing i can tell you, supervisor, regarding the other cans that are available off the shelf, that as san francisco, we're obviously a very -- the city is -- and we weren't happy with the look of the cans. the cans that were tamper resistant and these were bear resistant trash cans, so basically, a big box that was not expected to have on the streets of san francisco. so it's my understanding that we

ventured down this path to try to develop and design something that would meet the esthetic needs of san francisco along with cans that could also address the -- end pervasive problems we have. at the time there was not one can on the market that could meet all those needs. likewise, right now, and based on the research i've done, there still isn't something that meets those needs. they probably aren't going to check all the same boxes. they're not going to have the look and feel of some of the cans we have in our pilot, but they may check some of the tamer resistant and things like that. so that's where we have to make a decision. are we comfortable with a trash can that is effective, but may

not look as attractive on the streets? >> chair haney: well, i appreciate -- when was this decision made? my understanding it was a number of years ago? >> i believe so. it predates my time at public works. >> we began this design process back in 2018, but i believe that conversation about needing a new trash can probably dates back before 2018. but we started this process in 2018. >> chair haney: okay. so i just want, again, a note here it's been three years since the design process started -- this conversation, and the other thing i want to ask, i know that you said that, well -- i appreciate that we have unique needs in san francisco in terms of esthetics and other things.

some of these cans look almost identical to some i've seen in other cities. one of them is a design that is in washington d.c., so it's just a surprise to me there weren't other ways to do this, even going to the manufacturers of some of these cans and saying there is a certain style we want or look, rather than producing our own in this way. the other thing that this relates to is cost. i mean, we have 3,000 cans. these prototypes are very expensive. but if we're asking if we go with one of these prototypes and we're the sole, essentially, customer for these -- for whatever type of can we produce, what is the difference in terms of the cost for a can that is being produced just for us versus a can that is, you know, already mass produced? hopefully, not $20,000 a can.

what if, you know -- do you have a sense of what the cost is in terms of cans that have been specifically, you know, designer-made for us versus ones that cities use all over the country. the difference could be huge. >> well, let me speak to that. the unit cost for the prototype. $20,000 for a can is an extremely high cost for a prototype. but these are prototypes and there is no mold or machines that are built to produce these, so, therefore, that extra cost. again, these are based on the approved concept and the approved concept indicated these are built out of stainless steel. so that drives the cost up also. so through that design refinement phase, some of the design decisions we'll be making will be just material like refinement. are we going to go with the stainless steel? are we going with a less

expensive material? so, you know, how are we designing the hinges? how are we designing the locks and how do they work together? all those decisions will contribute to the overall cost of the prototype. so, you know, the $20,000 per can is based on a very high end, the best materials and the most durable materials, et cetera. our goal is to just control that cost and have the final prototype cost to be lower than that. so, the second question is, how do these compare to an existing off the shelf tt can? we are, just like was said, there are many issues we experience with the existing cans. we may be able to find a can off

the shelf that may meet some of those needs, but not all. through the design process, we're trying to come up with the cans that will meet, if not all, most of our needs and address our deficiency. off the shelf cans based on their size and their style, i think they range from $3,000 to $5,000 per unit. and these cans we're trying -- you know, at the end of our design process, we're trying to create something that will be comparable to that when we are ready to go into mass production. >> chair haney: okay. and -- >> i also, you know, so we in our process to find the company who are able to make this prototype, we also talked to several manufacturers who are already in this business, you know, such as forms and services

and victor's family. victor's family declined to work on this project because they have designs that are based on a framework, so they're not able to meet our esthetic needs. costs for our prototypes are comparable to this company that we eventually selected. the average for this prototype based on the concept design is about $15,000 per can, but they are -- i don't -- i'm not sure where their manufacturing plant is, but this company we find is local in san francisco. they're actually -- they're in the mission design area, design district area. so they are within close proximity to our yard and we envision a very collaborative process during the prototyping process. >> chair haney: okay. i do hope we test some of the

other existing designs as well, particularly as we get into costs and things, we want to make sure there are options. and some of the ones that are already operating in other cities may actually have longer life -- i mean, part of what we don't know, you know, i mean with the prototype, you put five out there in certain parts of the city, you know, for a limited amount of time, that will tell you some things. but cans that have been performing in the city for years and years, what it looks like after a year or two years is also instructive. so some of those types of cans that have already been deployed is important. last question that i'm going to ask. we also had -- prototyping -- we did testing of some types of cans that are like big-belly-style cans. and there were 10 or so that

were out around u.n. plaza and other parts of the city that were our version of that type of can. how did that fit into this? what are the results of that? what is the timeline around that? i still have not yet heard what the outcome of that is? and a lot of people obviously come back and say, why don't you just have a big belly-style? and we pursued some testing of those, but what happened with that? >> and we have not tested that. so that option is referring to, i believe, in the fox square. that's the third option that lisa identified earlier. and that would be an option that we could be looking at. and the advantage of that option is that it does have the off the shelf toter. so we would not have to have a custom made toter for that. >> i appreciate that style is

closest to the sort of what people call the big belly-style can, but there are cans out there right now that were part of a small deployment of those style cans. not exactly the one that you put up here. that are in u.n. plaza, that are in a couple other areas, that are sort of big-belly equivalents that when we've had trash can hearings before, this was shared with me. so, i don't know what the status of those are or whether we like them or don't like them or what we learned from that process. but there are some deployed currently that are not big belly, but are that style. we have some of those out there. mostly around u.n. plaza. >> i'm not aware of those, because if they were set up for pilots, it was not put out by us here at public works.

so i don't have the information on that, but i can certainly go back and work with staff and see if i could -- [indiscernible] -- similar information on that. >> public works. so, yes, we did test a number of big belly look alike cans. the ones you mentioned are the solar street cans. the ones we tested at u.n. plaza. i would need to look back to operations to see the result of the test. but i know there were a couple of that tested and many of them did have significant maintenance issues. some of them had a hopper style with a handle and the handle kept falling off of them. the p.e.l. with the flap, i think they got jammed quite often. so, i will loop back with operations and i can definitely share and see if there was a formal write-up as to how that

pilot went. >> chair haney: great. thank you for that. yeah, i was thinking feedback, just put the big belly ones out? and usually through ccd, but public works felt like the big belly were not the right way. so there were big belly-like cans and put them out. and that was happening kind of in -- corollary to this process. okay, supervisor mar? >> supervisor mar: thanks, chair haney and thank you, director and emily for the update on this really important project on replacing our city trash cans. i think chair haney already asked a lot of the questions i had. i'll ask some follow-up ones.

just on the testing of these prototypes, i wanted to just get a clarification -- or hopefully, a confirmation that they will be tested in different neighborhoods in the city and different types of neighborhoods, because you just mentioned, director, that working with the cbds, that makes a lot of sense, but then we don't have cbds in most of the neighborhoods of the city. and during the pandemic, i know when people were, you know, sheltering in place and working at home and in the neighborhoods more, there was just a lot more trash put into the trash cans in the residential neighborhood like the sunset and they were overflowing much more frequently. i wanted to make sure that the testing of the prototypes is going to happen in neighborhoods throughout the city. >> absolutely. and i apologize, cbds meaning

that we'll be getting feedback from the board of supervisors and the community about where the best place for these trash cans and the point is to move them around once or twice in the privacy areas to try to get as many data points as we can. and i want to mention something as well, is we are hopeful we'll have a trash can as a dispenser inside those trash cans, so we'll be able to -- sensor, so we'll be able to run an algorithm on the optimum time to empty. the 50%, the 70% or the 90%. if you're in a high-traffic area, it may send a signal to recology at 50%, because it gets filled up faster, whereas residential area takes longer to

fill up. that's something we're going to be working with our colleagues at recology to try to refine the time that we empty those cans. >> supervisor mar: that sounds great -- or important to have that feature with the sensor, that would alert recology when the can needs to be emptied, rather than right now, we're relying on 311. and then i just had some follow-up questions around the custom design versus an off the shelf tt design of the trash can. i appreciate having a nice looking trash can and one that is san francisco in the three that you selected through this process certainly look nice, interesting, too. but beyond just the esthetics and maybe a distinctive san

francisco trash can, is there any actual function that an off-the-shelf can doesn't have that is on our list of priority functions? >> yes. >> yes -- >> i'll refer to lisa on this, but there are features on our cans that are as unique to protect the -- rummaging. but i defer to lisa. >> yes, i can respond to that. can i share my presentation again? so, yes we are. in the beginning of the presentation, i mentioned some of the, you know, issues that we experienced with the current cans. and one of the big issues is that yeah, people are able to rummage through the cans by reaching their arms and head into the trash can opening.

one of the features is to limit the size of the opening where you can toss the trash, where somebody is not able to reach or look inside or reach their arm in. particularly with this design, this slim silhouette, let's see -- we're looking to implement this feature in one of our cans and it's in this slim silhouette here. it could be incorporated into the other cans as well. but this tunnel sort of opening that would direct the trash into the bin directly. and people are not able to, you know, reach in at that particular angle and pull trash out.

so that feature, we want to definitely make it and see how well it works. but here's another view of it. here's the opening where the trash enters and here's the tube inside that directs the trash into the bin. so these are some of the features that we're working on the custom cans that are not available in custom off-the-shelf cans. also, we're experimenting with the shape and size of the trash cans. most of the off-the-shelf cans that we see that are already made are round or square. and they're pretty robust. and maybe not, you know, adaptable to some of the city's narrow streets, but you know, with this slim footprint, we think they could fit into a very tiny narrow without affecting the flow of the traffic and limiting the space for people to

travel. so these are just a couple of these, you know, designs that we are, you know, experiencing. for example, in the salt and pepper style, we're showing there is recycling change at top. so when recology comes to empty the bins, anything less can be tossed into the trash bins and be empty. this does not get to full. it does not get too dirty. does that answer your questions, supervisor mar? >> supervisor mar: yes, it does. so it sounds like you're saying that several of the features we're looking for in the new trash can, some way to prevent scavengers from getting into the trash can, a slimmer design to fit in narrower streets and then a recycle re-september cal and

would require a custom design? i find that hard to believe that there aren't trash cans in other city, existing ones, that have those three features? >> like we've mentioned in our previous comments, you may find off-the-shelf cans that meet one or two of these -- or maybe more -- or these design criterias, but not everything. for example, we -- we're proposing to use vertical slots instead of a full sheet of metal with perforations or edges that can be easily climbed by rats or

other pests. these are some of the things we thought about through in that design process. and are being implemented in our design. not that there isn't an off-the-shelf can. there are. and we're going to be purchasing some of those to test as well along with our custom cans to see which one works best. >> supervisor mar: thanks. i think it does come down to the real issue is the cost of the overall project, both the testing or the prototype project and then the full procurement. so, again, just following up on chair haney's question. so it sounds like the prototypes are fairly high cost. you mentioned maybe $15-20,000 per can and then the off-the-shelf existing cans that we're going to test included in the program might be from $3,000-5,000 per can. what is the expected or projected cost of the full -- of

the new cans in the full procurement? is it -- did you say that is going to be close to what the off the shelf? >> yeah, we're going to come up with coming comparable. maybe something higher, but not significantly higher. >> supervisor mar: got it. and then what is the budget for the full procurement and is that currently in the budget? >> the funding for these trash cans actually comes from -- rates. the rates that the ratepayer pays, there is money not from

the general fund, but those that is set aside to repurchase the cans. that's where the funding would come from. we wouldn't buy and replace all 3,000 cans at once, but we would do it over -- in the course of years. and the funding, it is there for that. >> supervisor mar: got it, from the previous ratepayers' revenue. okay, thanks. thanks, chair haney. >> chair haney: supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you. just wanted to say i'm really looking forward to this. i know there has been a lot of time, effort and energy put into this conversation. i think it's time that we update the receptacles. i like the three options out there. they're sleek, clean. looks like they're easy to service, maintain and monitor.

so if you guys want to pilot it in my district, go right ahead. we're ready to accept them [laughter]. >> yes. sorry, chair haney, you can't always have everything first, okay? [laughter] i'm just kidding. >> chair haney: we can share these trash cans. if anything, my concern is that five of each may not be enough to be throughout the whole city. >> supervisor safai: i know, i'm just kidding. >> chair haney: please make sure they're in district 11, too. >> supervisor safai: definitely, we want them everywhere. >> definitely, we want them everywhere. one of the things that happened over the years having worked at public works, i think that they've blended so much into the landscape that at some point in many ways they just -- they weren't necessarily something that people respected and people used in the right way.

i think that one of the things that we experience a lot in district 11 is people use them or their adjacent environment because they don't have the proper trash accounts, or they don't have their own service themselves that they're using them for illegal dumping, too. so i know that something that you all are concerned or care about. so we appreciate the thought and effort. i like the design and i think they're something that should be a good positive change for our city. so i appreciate the effort and energy put into them. thank you, mr. chair. >> chair haney: well, thank you for that, supervisor safai. is there a b.l.a. report on this item? >> yes, chair haney, severin campbell from the budget analyst office. yes, this hearing is to release $537,000 by the board of

supervisors last september for the design finalization and field testing of new trash cans, which has been explained in detail. we showed the budget on page 8 of our report. in terms of the per-can cost, this is a pilot program and, therefore, this was not a competitive solicitation as we sort of note under the admin code. but d.p.w. did tell us and did state in her presentation that the goal is to have the cost be closer to the lower-range, rather than the higher range. our understanding and maybe they can confirm, actual cans would be subject to a competitive process. it may not reach the administrative code requirement if the total cost of the initial purchase is less than $10 million, but we can explain and we do recommend approval at the release of reserve.

i'm available for questions. >> chair haney: thank you. i did have questions about that because i think with this program like everything we want to have the highest standards in terms of how selection is being done of contractors and so can you say a bit more about who is designing these cans? how are they chosen? and my concern with this is that if they're the only ones producing this style of can, these three, and we are planning to choose from one of them, most likely, how could we possibly have a competitive bidding process for the full purchase of the 3,000 if you've already chosen the only contractor who can make these three? it does seem -- i'm concerned about what this choice means for who will actually produce the final 3,000-plus trash cans? >> so the process that we have

right now, supervisor, is we hired a consultant to come up with -- and the designs and the prototypes. then working with our colleagues at the o.c.a. we entered into a pilot with the contractor who is going to fabricate the end of pilot cans based on the specification that we provide to them. and then they will do refinements to those specifications as they're going through and the fabrication process. at the end of the process, we'll have 15 cans that will be piloted across the city. and we as a city will learn a lot about those trash cans. for example, it could be that the handle on one of the cans is at an awkward angle. so it should be 5° higher, to the left, all of that.

at the end of the process, we'll have -- we will choose a can that will be a city can. and we'll have the design and specifications for that. at the end of that process, as you heard before from ms. campbell, i want to confirm, we at public works and the city will go through a competitive bidding process. we will then take those designs that we have, go out to market and say, the industry, this is the can we want, here are the design specifications for those cans and give us your price to manufacture that can. and so it will be a competitive process. i don't believe that the provider we've chosen locally to do the prototype will even be a competitor. i can't see if the future, but it's not likely they'll even

compete, because that's not what they do. they are a prototyping company. that's what they do. they don't really compete in the area of the mass production of goods and services. we anticipate at the end of this, we will have a design and put out the bids on the much larger market and we anticipate getting multiple bidders from there. and the good thing with all of this is, we own that design as well. so there could be some possibilities where we may be able to get -- as a revenue source for us as well because the city is going to own that design. >> chair haney: okay. that's helpful. the design itself will be put out to bid in terms of who can make those specifications. can we check if there is public comment on this item? >> yes, mr. chair.

checking to see if there are callers in the queue. members of the public who wish to provide public comment, press star 3 to be added to the queue. are there any callers who wish to comment on item number 2? >> we currently have one caller. i'll put them through. >> thank you. >> go ahead, caller. >> good morning, supervisors. this is the executive director of the tenderloin community benefit district and i'm also calling this morning as the co-chair of the cleaning and sanitation committee of the shine on s.f. initiative launched last week. we have been working closely with the director who is also on that committee to have the vision to partner on some

additional thinking about the distribution of trash cans and bringing in issues about maintenance and service and these operational issues to compliment the design work that the department has done. we're very excited about the release of this. we urge you to release this money so we can test the -- so that public works can test the three prototypes. we're also very excited that public works is open to off-the-shelf options. we think it's good to consider three types. like supervisor safai, we want some of the pilots in our district, in the tenderloin. we are testing right now 68 big bellies that we were able it

bring to the neighborhood, thanks to the funding from the d6 addback and the mayor's's office. we have increased the number of big bellies and have a lot to bring in the conversation about it what takes to maintain the trash can and what the right distribution is. i'm here to say we're excited to work with public works on this question of trash cans in the city and the next step is the release of these funds. so please support it. and thank you very much. supervisors, thank you, director. thank you, everyone. >> chair haney: public comment is closed. i want to thank you and your teams for all of your hard work on this. i'm going to echo some of the things said by mr. bertrand, which is i do hope we can work

closely with our community partners, neighborhood organizations, local businesses, to get their feedback about these designs. i know we'll have a particular design focus of how they operate and whether they hold up, but it's good to get it in a broader sense whether people like the design, whether it's working in the neighborhood. i hope there is a survey element to this as well. i would also say that it's important we work with our labor partners directly with the recology workers, directly with our own workers who are engaging with these cans on a regular basis. and then we get their feedback as well. i wouldn't want to do something where we say, oh, this works great, and they say, no, we're dealing with it every day and it doesn't work great. they have a lot of expertise, teamsters, local 350, i hope we engage them. and the last thing i'll say, i am going to support this moving

forward today. i don't know if this was the right decision originally to do it this way. if only because it's been three years. and we still have the same cans and the same problems that we did three years ago. so even for how long this has taken and how expensive it's going to be, i'm not convinced that having our entire own design process that took this long was the right way to do this. but i appreciate everyone's work that has been done so far and we're now at a place we can test these cans and hopefully move forward and get the new ones on the street as soon as possible. so we are here and many of us were not here when this original decision was made to move in this direction, but we're now at a place where i think it makes sense to move forward and i appreciate everyone's hard work on this. i want to make a motion to move item 2 to the full board with a positive recommendation. roll call vote, please.

>> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> chair haney: aye. >> there are three ayes. >> chair haney: great. thank you so much for your work. appreciate it. thank you. go to the full board with a positive recommendation. please call item 3. >> item 3, resolution retroactively authorizing the police department to accept and expend an inkind gift of 984 units of naloxone valued at $73,000 through the naloxone distribution project which is funded by the substance abuse and mental health services administration and administered by the department of health care services. if the public wishes to provide public comment, call 1-415-655-0001. 146 791 8550. the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand.

mr. chair? >> chair haney: great. welcome. >> good morning, chair haney, supervisor safai, supervisor mar. i am the chief financial officer for the san francisco police department. this morning we're requesting the committee's recommendations of 984 units of naloxone to help with the department's response effort to the growing opioid pandemic affecting san francisco. our officers have administered naloxone 21 times in 2016. 28 times in 2017. 74 times in 2018. and 135 times in 2019. i don't have the full numbers for 2020, but i do know it was more than the 135 times that we provided naloxone in 2019. naloxone has been an invaluable resource in saving lives of those who are suffering through

substance abuse. and it's an important resource for us in the opioid pandemic. if you have any questions on this resolution, i'd be happy to try to answer them. >> chair haney: great. thank you. is there a b.l.a. report on this? >> chair haney, we do not have a report. >> chair haney: great. any public comment on the item? >> yes, mr. chair, they're checking to see if there are callers in the queue. if you wish to provide public comment, press star 3 now. let us know if is there rcmp -- are any callers? >> there are no callers in the queue. >> chair haney: public comment is closed. i know that naloxone saves lives and it's critical that our first responders, our police officers

have access to it and i know they've saved hundreds of lives through reversals over the past few years and will continue to. we appreciate your work and the work of our first responders and police officers in responding to the deadly overdose epidemic in our city. with that, i want to make a motion to move item 3 to the full board with a positive recommendation. a roll call vote, please. >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> chair haney: aye. >> there are three ayes. >> chair haney: great. thank you, to the full board with a positive recommendation. can you call item 4? >> item 4, resolution retroactive authorizing the police department to accept and expend a grant in the amount of $61,000 from the california governor's office of emergency service for the paul coverdell forensic science improvement program to procure ammunition for the forensic testing and

controlled substance hand held raman spectrometers for the criminology laboratory. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item, should call 1-415-655-0001, meeting i.d., 146 791 8550. then 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. wait until the system indicates you've been unmuted and you may begin your comments. mr. chair? >> thank you. we have received a grant from the california office of emergency services to purchase supplies to assist our forensic testing efforts. our granter has requested a formal copy of a spend resolution and we're requesting the committee's recommendation for the acceptance of the grant. if there are any questions regarding this grant award, i

would be happy to answer them. >> chair haney: is there a b.l.a. report? >> we do not have a report on this item. >> 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 you've been unmuted. are there any callers? >> there are no callers in the queue. >> chair haney: public comment is now closed. i want to make a motion to move this item to the full board with a positive recommendation. can we have a roll call vote, please? >> on that motion, vice chair safai? >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> chair haney: aye. there are three ayes.

can you call items 5 through 7. >> resolution declaring the intent of the city to reimburse expenditure from future bonded indebtedness and authorizing the director of the mayor's office of housing to submit an application to cdlac to permit the issuance of bonds in amount not to exceed $90 million for 600 to 7th street. item 6, declaring the intent of the city to reimburse certain expenditures from proceeds of the future bonded indebtedness. to permit the issuance of mortgage bond in aggregate principal not to exceed $58.7 million for the 1500 block of sunnydale avenue. item 7, resolution declaring the

intent of the city to reimburse certain expenditures from proceeds of future bonded indebtedness in an aggregate principal of $63 million and authorizing m.o.h.c.d. to submit application to the cdlac to permit ifshance with of a mortgage revenue bond for 351 and 151 friedell street. members of the public who pitch to provide comment public comment should call 1-415-655-0001. meeting i.d., 146 791 8550. if you have not done so, press star 3 to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. >> thank you, madame clerk. welcome. >> thank you, chair haney. good morning. and good morning to supervisors

safai and mar. i am project manager at the mayor's office of community and housing development. i'm here on items 5 through 7 related to the bond issuance of the sunnydale hope s.f. block and 151 and 351 friedell street, known as the hunters point shipyard. the purpose of the resolutions is to approve the hearing for the city conducted for 600 7th street to comply with the act. and enable all three projects to apply for tax exempt bond. it will not require the city to pledge any of its funds to the repayment of the bond. 600 7th street, is a

multi-family housing project on the corner of 7th and brandon street. 54% of the units will serve homeless households, adults and families, subsidized by the city's operating subsidy program. the remaining units will serve family households with incomes ranging between 50% and 80% of the income known as a.m.i. item 6 is for a housing project on sunnydale avenue. sunnydale is within the second phase of the hope s.f. revitalization of sunnydale and the building will serve households earning between 50% and 74% a.m.i. per the development agreement. the san francisco housing authority has been assisting households living within this

phase to relocate to units been the sunnydale public housing site. and hunters point shipyard block is a 112-unit affordable multi-family housing project located an 151 and 351 friedell street. the jonathan rose condition and bayview hunters point senior services are the developers of the project. the building will serve households earning between 30% and 50% a.m.i. they plan to return to the board for bond issuance approval this winter. financing for the projects are anticipated to close spring 2022. with me today are my colleagues, amy chan, elizabeth and the project sponsors to answer any questions that committee members may have on the three projects. and thank you very much for your consideration. >> chair haney: great. thank you so much for your work. this is a very exciting project.

and we appreciate everyone who has contributed to it. is there a b.l.a. report on this item? >> chair haney, we do not have a report on these items? >> chair haney: great. is there any public comment on these items? >> yes, mr. chair. checking to see if there are calls in the queue. members of the public who wish to provide comment, press star 3 to be added to the queue. for those on hold, continue to wait until the system indicates you've been unmuted. are there any callers? >> there are no callers. >> chair haney: public comment is closed. colleagues, any questions or comments on these exciting projects? i want to move items 5 through 7 to the full board with a positive recommendation. can we have a roll call vote, please?

>> clerk: on that motion, chair safai? >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> chair haney: aye. >> there are three ayes. >> chair haney: great, to the full board with a positive recommendation. thank you so much again. much appreciated. and we will now go to items 8 and 9. >> item 8, resolution retroactive authorizing the department of emergency management on behalf of the city of san francisco as the fiscal agent for the bay area urban areas initiative uasi grant fund in the amount of $1 million for a total of $33 million from the u.s. department of homeland security through the california office of emergency services for the period september 1, 2020 --

grant of homeland security, urban bay security and the agent for the uasi approval authority securing the city's program grant in the amount of $1 million for the total of $3 million for the united states department of homeland security for the period of march 9, 2021 through october 30, 2021. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on these items, call 1-415-655-0001. meeting i.d., 146 791 8550. then press pound twice. if you have not already done so, dial star 3 to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates you've been unmuted. >> chair haney: thank you. welcome.

>> good morning. good morning, member safai and mar. department of emergency management presenting on items 8 and 9. the two grant awards are increases to already approved funding. the uasi is an increase of $2 million for the statewide risk management program which san francisco manages for the entire state and we are working through our approval authority who have directed us towards that. the securing the city grant program is a 10-year cooperative agreement. we're in year two and hence the increase. we cover 49 counties in california and one county in nevada for this grant program. and it's a 10-year program. and i'll be happy to answer any questions that you might have. >> chair haney: thank you. is there a b.l.a. report on this item? >> chair haney, we do not have a report on this item.

>> chair haney: any public comment? >> mr. chair, we're checking to see if there are 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 already on hold, continue to wait until the system indicates you've been unmuted. let us know if there are any callers who wish to comment on items 8 and 9? >> there are no callers in the queue. >> chair haney: public comment is closed. i appreciate the update on sort of the general increase in numbers. this is a fairly large set of money from the united states homeland security office which i think for a lot of folks may raise some questions. can you describe in a bit more detail what these funds are going to? >>, of course. so, you're talking about the urban areas grant? so san francisco access the fiscal agent on behalf of the 12

bay area counties and 108 cities plus and includes the three core cities of san francisco, oakland and san jose. so the funds are divided up through an extensive process whereby the various hubs in the bay area meet and determine the needs based on risk and threat. and then it's voted on by our approval authority. san francisco is the fiscal agent for the bulk of the funds, the extra $2 million is for the statewide funding of a risk management program on behalf of the state of california. does that answer your question? >> chair haney: i get to where the fiscal agent for the funds going to all the different cities, but what are the funds being used for? >> they're being used for all kinds of things, including community resilience projects, an extensive training and exercise program that is run out of the offices.

they also purchase large equipment items. some of the things that are purchased are security, you know, rescue vehicles for emergencies, fire department emergencies, police emergencies. health department items such as testing equipment for -- that was used extensively during the pandemic. i'd be happy to provide you with a greater list if your office wishes it. >> chair haney: how did san francisco end up being the fiscal agent for all of these different cities? how did that happen? >> originally, san francisco, years ago, in 2003 when the grants first began to be funded, san francisco had its own grant award, the city of oakland got its own, the city of san jose

got its grant award. then in 2006, the federal government combined the three cities into one group. and we were required by the federal government to come up with a -- create a working group. the urban area working group that had to be approved by the federal government. and then we created -- we have m.o.u.s and by-laws for all the agencies and then we have representatives from the various counties within the bay area who meet regularly and then they conduct these -- they make the determinations and guide what the urban area does. >> chair haney: okay. all right. well, not seeing any other questions or comments from my colleagues. madame clerk, i called public comment on this already, right?

>> that's correct >> chair haney: i want to make a motion to move 8 and 9 together to the full board with a positive recommendation. roll call vote? >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> chair haney: aye. >> there are three ayes. >> chair haney: all right, these go to the full board with positive recommendation. item 10. >> item 10, resolution authorizing designated city and county officials to execute and file on behalf of city and county of san francisco and any actions necessary for the purpose of obtaining state and fisherman financial assistance under various grant programs. members of the public who wish to provide public comment, should call 1-415-655-0001. meeting i.d., 146 791 8550. please wait until the system indicates you've been unmuted

and you may begin your comments. >> chair haney: great. ms. sanders. >> good morning, again. this is the governing body resolution that we are originally required to submit annually for many, many years. and now the state of california is giving us three-year window where we must name the three grant years and all the grants involved. and so i come to you today for -- then you won't see me for the next three years. it's the governing body resolutions for all of our homeland security grants for the department of emergency management including the state homeland grant. the emergency management proportionalance congratulate, the local government oil spill and hazard mitigation grant. we're asking approval to move this to the full board with a positive recommendation, thank you. >> thank you. b.l.a. report on this item? >> we do not have a report on

this item. >> chair haney: any public comment? >> mr. chair, checking to see if there are callers in the queue. members of the public who wish to provide comment, press star 3 to be added to the queue. >> no callers in the queue. >> move forward with a full board with the positive recommendation. >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> chair haney: aye. >> there are three ayes. >> chair haney: great. thank you, again.

madame clerk, please call item 11. item 11, resolution retroactive authorizing the department of office of economic and workforce development to accept and expend a grant in the amount of $136,000 from the university of california san francisco ucsf for supporting the community construction outreach program with referrals of local residents to contractors on ucsf projects to meet the volunteer 30% goal during the grant period of july 1, 2020, through june 30, 2021. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call 1-415-655-0001. meeting i.d., 146 791 8550. then press pound twice if you have not already done so, please dial star 3 to line up to speak. please wait until the system indicates you've been unmuted and you may begin your comments. >> chair haney: great. thank you, madame clerk.

and we have o.e.w.d. to present on the item. >> thank you, supervisor. good morning, board members. grant is to provide support on ucsf projects, to support the construction outreach program for local residents. city build is the administrator of the city. it's a state entity, so we're supporting them to make sure that they get the opportunity on ucsf projects. >> chair haney: thank you. b.l.a. report on this item? >> we do not have a report on this item. >> chair haney: seeing no questions or comments from colleagues, madame clerk, any public comment? >> checking to see if there are callers in the queue. members of the public who wish to provide comment on this item, press star 3 to be added to the queue. for those on hold, continue to

wait until you have been unmuted. are there any callers? >> there are no callers in the queue. >> thank you. >> chair haney: public comment is closed. this is a great program and we're happy to see it and support it. and thank you so much for your work. i want to make a motion to move item 11 to the full board with positive recommendation. >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> chair haney: aye. there are three ayes. >> chair haney: great. move to the full board with a positive recommendation. madam clerk, please call item 12. 12, resolution approving anding the director of property to lease real property located at

1360 mission street for an initial term of four years at base rent of $644,000 per year with 3% annual increases and authorizing the city to contribute up to an additional $200,000 in tenant improvements to commence upon substantial completion of the installation of the tenant improvements necessary for the city's occupancy which is expected to occur on or around august 1. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item, call 1-415-655-0001. meeting i.d., 146 791 8550. then press pound twice. if you have not already done so, press star 3 to line up to speak. wait until the system indicates you've been unmuted and you may begin your comments. >> chair haney: thank you. welcome, director. >> good morning. director of real estate.

i am before you seeking a positive recommendation for a four-year lease of approximately 17,000 square feet of space at 1360 mission street on behalf of d.p.h. i have a brief presentation. hopefully, you can see my screen. as i indicated, 1360 mission is leased on behalf of d.p.h. it's split on two different floors. on the first floor, approximately population health covid-related staff for the short-term will be housed on the first floor. on the second floor related but different use of approximately

73 behavioral health and mental health staffers will be located. this includes teams from the office of coordinated care, street and justice services, utilization management. the terms of the deal are very favorable and straightforward. the term is for four years with two one-year options. rescindable by the ownership. the reason that the options are rescindable by ownership is because ownership has redevelopment plans for the building. so we have four years guaranteed and if available we have two additional one-year options. rent is $38 per square foot. which equates to $644,000 annually, or $57,000 monthly. we have escalations of 3%. and as indicated in the title, we anticipate tenant improvements at $200,000.

in addition to a competitive base rent, we also have an eight-month concession of free rent. commencement is upon completion and acceptance of the improvements, which we anticipate being on or about august of 2021. that concludes my presentation. i have rita knewen, marlo simmons to answer your questions. as am i. >> chair haney: thank you so much. >> supervisor safai: thank you. director, i mean, i guess maybe this is not necessarily directed to you, but whoever wants to speak on behalf of d.p.h. my question is, d.p.h. has a lot of real estate. they're in a lot of different places. you know, was there an assessment done to look at their

existing use? and see if they were fully utilizing those spaces before we went out and rented some additional space? the reason i ask that question because we had a very similar conversation on the same building a couple of years ago on the budget committee for h.s.h. i believe h.s.h. was trying to rent some space in this building and we pushed them to use turk, was a more appropriate location. it was centered in and around a lot of their services and work they do was provided. so i'm just curious, you know, i understand that there is a lot of expansion in this work. i know a lot of people were redeployed and some new-hires, but i just want to hear from d.p.h. we were not briefed from their department on this. and i'm curious why the need for

expanded space and not utilizing any existing space in their real estate portfolio? >> that's an excellent question. i believe d.p.h. is prepared to answer that question. >> hello, supervisors. my name is lisa chen. i think the video is not on me at the moment, but i work in our facilities in capital planning unit. both of these programs are kind of surge staffing that we're going through. and they both suit this kind of short-term surge. so for example the covid hires are grant-related hires where the grants are about two to five years, which fits well with the four-year lease timeline. our behavioral health unit, this site is about one block from our

1380 howard behavioral health administrative building which is currently full to the proximity. especially expanding this very important program was great actually for us. and please know that we are also in the process of rehabbing space at our laguna honda hospital right now. we're still in the finalizing design document phase where we do plan to move out staff from that 1380 howard site that i just mention. so again, the timing works out well. we're anticipating that we'll be able to complete that laguna honda renovation project and start moving staff in there in 2023. so this site gives us a good

buffer between needing certain space now and more space for the long-term staff in a few years from now. >> so what happens when covid-related work or surge staffing, as you referred to it, is over? so, do you anticipate not renewing this lease? and what happens to those staff? are they all new-hires? you said they're all grant-funded. what is the long-term -- i understand the more short-term as you described it. just curious about the -- and it makes sense and i appreciate that argument, proximity to the service is important. grant funded-related activities and short-term staffing, that all makes sense, but just curious then what happens at the end of the grant period for the workers that are hired to do

this? >> i would just say, just to preface, i would say that our plan for this site in particular is that we would, you know, end the lease as soon as, you know, we're able. we're not planning on continuing the lease outside of the four-plus potentially one or two option years. we would like to -- we have a larger plan to kind of, like i said, you know, invest in our existing facilities and move staff. d.p.h. does have a lot of space. so we also have a lot of older space that needs renovation. needs seismic improvements, et cetera. so, that work is under way. so that we can expand our footprint within our existing buildings and speak to the grant-related staff in

particular. >> i can also weigh in from the framing of the reality that covid is not going to be an endemic that the entire globe has to contend with. although for the last year and a half we relied on temporary surge staffing, you know, experts in the field including the state and cdc recognize that this is just new reality. that covid is not going away. and that's when we do -- and that when we figure out a way to deal with it, it requires massive infrastructure. so the funding is on the scaling of $50-60 million from the state and the cdc. just recognizing the new normal that we're in and that public health infrastructure generally needs to be supported. hence, these grants that have just come our way. the intent that we suspect for many of them is it's going to be ongoing funding for some of the cdc and state grants. none of that is set in stone.

but some positions, we would imagine, might end up being permanent infrastructure to support public health going forward. >> thank you, mr. chair. thank you. >> chair haney: thank you. madame clerk, any public comment? >> checking to see if there are callers in the queue. members of the public who wish to provide comment on this item, press star 3 to be added to the queue. let us know if there are any callers who wish to comment on item number 12? >> there are no callers in the queue. >> chair haney: public comment is now closed. i want to thank you everyone for their hard work on this. and i want to make a motion to move item 12 to the full board

with a positive recommendation. can we have a roll call vote, please? >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> chair haney: aye. >> there are three ayes. >> chair haney: great, this goes to the full board with a positive recommendation. can you call item 13? >> item 13, resolution approving and authorizing the director of property to amend the lease of real port located at 650 fifth street with townsend association for $159,000 per year with 3%, for an initial term commencing upon approval. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item, call 1-415-655-0001. 146 791 8550. 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. you may begin your comments when unmuted. >> chair haney: madame clerk, we have claudia gore am for the city administrator's office. good morning. >> good morning. as stated, this is a lease amendment to an existing lease at 650 fifth street. it is the first lease amendment. it's exercising or basically in lieu of exercise of the first renewal option. the department of public health has been at the site since about 1999 which includes patrol 3060 square feet with four parking stalls. d.p.h. has been operating its jail administration services,

which serves as the main leadership hub that serves to provide overall, comprehensive and integrated services to inmates in the san francisco jail. the last renewal lease was approved by the board in 2016 and it had a five-year term with one three-year option. this being that option. the proposed amendment basically changes the term from 3-5 years and adds options of one year each. the department desires to basically relocate the program and staff at this location with staff at 198 brandon to one site. currently, there is not enough site at any city owned facilities to do that. through discussions with the department and the landlord, we basically recommended a longer

option to provide the continual operation of the program without interruption and allow the possibility of the program and all related staff to relocate to a city-owned space and perhaps a new building. so accordingly under the amendment, the lease continues through june 30, 2026, with two one-year options, basically at 95% of the prevailing market rate. the proposed amendment also provides that the base rent will be $52 per square foot which is substantively lower than the existing rate. the lease provides -- the existing lease provides for the rent for the option term to be no lower than the current rent. however, based on an independent appraisal, the rent was $52. that is why now we would like the amendment, because it amends and adds an addition year to the option term.

ownership agreed to that and therefore, we can lower the rent. it's about a 10% reduction. all other terms of the lease remain the same. there are representatives from the department to answer any questions, including marten soto about the program and the question busy the lease. and we -- questions about the lease. and we ask that you give this a positive recommendation. thank you. >> chair haney: is there a b.l.a. report on the item? >> we do not have a report on this item. >> chair haney: any public comment on this item? >> i just want to note that vice chair safai has his hand up to speak? >> supervisor safai: just to add on to the previous. we have a few lease extensions,

new leases and requests from d.p.h. i've been very reluctant on this committee and prior to that to sign leases and continue to sign leases when we have the opportunity, particularly with d.p.h., that has the ability to get larger grants that has additional support and resources from the city to buy property. i'm happy to hear in the presentation that the idea is to sign this lease for continuing the operations, but then also to be looking for permanent space and space that the city could potentially purchase. so i just want to put it on the record that very supportive of the idea of looking for buying a building and if this is going to be a permanent need and having a permanent home for this rather than paying rent to landlord when we have the opportunity to buy property. so other than that, thank you, guys. thank you, all, for your

presentation. and i'm supportive of the extension. >> chair haney: thank you. so, madame clerk, any public comment? >> yes, we're checking to see if there are callers in the queue. members of the public who wish to provide comment, press star 3 to be added to the hold. for those on hold, continue to hold until you've been unmuted. are there any callers? >> there are no callers in the queue. >> thank you. >> chair haney: public comment is closed. we make a motion to move this to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> chair haney: aye.

>> there are three ayes. >> chair haney: so to the full board with a positive recommendation. madame clerk, can you please call item 14. >> item number 14, resolution approving and authorizing the director of property to extend the lease of real property at 555-574 polk street with matteson family trust with the a base rent of $500,000 per year with no annual increases, commencing upon the later of august 1, 2021. expiring on july 31, 2026. members of the public who wish to provide public comment should called 1-415-655-0001, meeting i.d., 146 791 8550. then press pound twice. if you have not already done so, please dial star 3 to line up to speak. please wait until the system indicates you've been unmuted and you may begin your comments.

>> chair haney: thank you, madame clerk. we have, again, ms. gorm. >> good morning, again. as statemented, this is a proposed lease extension for 55 a-557 polk street pore the exercise and only option for five years. the department of public health behavioral health community justice center is located at this site and has been since approximately 2012. it's consists of approximately 18,000 square feet on the second and third floor of which the first floor is subleased to the state administrative office of the court. which also pays over half of the rent. the community justice center provides court authorized alternatives to incarceration.

currently, the lease expires on july 31, this year. the lease provides that the extension base rent shall be 95% of the then fair market rent, however, it cannot be lower than the current base rent at the time of the extension. as no appraisal was required by the code because the rent value per square was less than the threshold, a set of comparables was reviewed that indicated that the price actually would be a bit more if we were to use an -- were to use comps. so the parties negotiated that the rent would remain the same. so the rent for the next five years will be at the current base rent with no adjustments. that means it's about $27.84 per square foot or about 5364 per year. the office of the court will pay over half the rent. i think it's 61% or something

like that. and all other terms remain the same. director is here from the behavioral health services to answer any questions you have about the program. and i can answer any questions about the lease. we ask that you give the proposed lease extension a positive recommendation. >> chair haney: thank you. questions or comments from colleagues? supervisor safai? no? b.l.a. report? >> supervisor safai: no, i'm good, thank you. i've said pretty much what i needed to say. thanks. >> yes, the proposed resolution approves the five-year extension of existing lease between the city and matteson family trust for 555-575 polk street. this is subleased to -- a portion to the administrative office of the court and the

balance is space occupied by the department of public health. the first year rent, actually the rent remains unchanged over the five-year term, less than $28 per square foot, which the real estate division considers favorable to the city. the estimated lease cost over the five-year term, we recommend approval. >> chair haney: great. thank you. is there any public comment on this item? >> mr. chair, we're checking to see if there are callers in the queue. members of the public who wish to provide public comment, press star 3 to be added to the queue. for those already on hold, wait until the system indicates you've been unmuted. are there any callers who wish to comment on item 14? >> there are no callers in the queue. >> thank you. >> chair haney: i want to make a motion to move this item to the full board with a positive recommendation. roll call vote, please.

>> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> chair haney: aye. >> there are three ayes. >> chair haney: this will go to the full board with a positive recommendation. and thank you so much. and madame clerk, are there any other items before us today? >> there is no further business. >> chair haney: great. meeting is adjourned. thank you, all.streets.

>> (speaking foreign language.) >> i wanted to wish you a best wishes and congratulations the community has shifted a lot of when i was growing up in the 60s and 50's a good portion of chicano-american chinese-american lived in north beach a nob hill community. >> as part the immigrant family is some of the recreation centers are making people have the ability to get together and

meet 0 other people if communities in the 60s a 70s and 80s and 90s saw a move to the richmond the sunset district and more recently out to the excelsior the avenue community as well as the ensuring u bayview so chinese family living all over the city and when he grape it was in this area. >> we're united. >> and growing up in the area that was a big part of the my leave you know playing basketball and mycy took band lessons and grew up.

>> (speaking foreign language.) >> allergies welcome to the community fair it kicks off three weeks of celebrations for the year and let's keep everybody safe and celebrate the biggest parade outside of china on february 11th go best wishes and congratulations and 3, 2, 1 happy enough is enough. >> i grew up volley ball education and in media professional contrary as an educator he work with all skids whether or not caucasian hispanic and i african-american cumber a lot of

arrest binge kids my philosophy to work with all kids but being here and griping in the chinese community being a chinese-american is important going to american school during the day but went to chinese school that is community is important working with all the kids and having them exposed to all culture it is important to me. >> it is a mask evening. >> i'd like to thank you a you all to celebrate an installation of the days here in the asian art museum. >> one time has become so many things in the past two centuries because of the different did i licks the immigration officer didn't understand it became no

standard chinese marine or cantonese sproupgs it became so many different sounds this is convenient for the immigration officer this okay your family name so this tells the generations of immigrants where they come from and also many stories behind it too. >> and what a better way to celebrate the enough is enough nuru with the light nothing is more important at an the hope the energy we. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> relative to the current

administration it is, it is touching very worrisome for our immigrant frames you know and some of the stability in the country and i know how this new president is doing you know immigration as well as immigrants (fireworks) later than you think new year the largest holiday no asia and china those of us when my grandparents came over in the 19 hundreds and celebrated in the united states chinese nuru is traditional with a lot of meaning. >> good afternoon my name is carmen chu assessor-recorder i want to wish everything a happy

new year thank you for joining us i want to say. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> (speaking foreign language.) >> i'm proud to be a native san franciscan i grew up in the chinatown, north beach community port commission important to come back and work with those that live in the community that i grew up in and that that very, very important to give back to continue to work with the community and hope e help those who may not be as capable in under serving come back and give

[♪♪♪]

>> my family's starts in mexico in a small town. my parents are from a very, very small town. so small, that my dad's brother is married to one of my mom's sisters. it's that small. a lot of folks from that town are here in the city. like most immigrant families, my parents wanted a better life for

us. my dad came out here first. i think i was almost two-years-old when he sent for us. my mom and myself came out here. we moved to san francisco early on. in the mission district and moved out to daily city and bounced back to san francisco. we lived across the street from the ups building. for me, when my earliest memories were the big brown trucks driving up and down the street keeping us awake at night. when i was seven-years-old and i'm in charge of making sure we get on the bus on time to get to school. i have to make sure that we do our homework. it's a lot of responsibility for a kid. the weekends were always for family. we used to get together and whether we used to go watch a movie at the new mission theater and then afterwards going to kentucky fried chicken. that was big for us. we get kentucky fried chicken on sunday. whoa! go crazy! so for me, home is having something where you are all

together. whether it's just together for dinner or whether it's together for breakfast or sharing a special moment at the holidays. whether it's thanksgiving or christmas or birthdays. that is home. being so close to berkley and oakland and san francisco, there's a line. here you don't see a line. even though you see someone that's different from you, they're equal. you've always seen that. a rainbow of colors, a ryan bow of personalities. when you think about it you are supposed to be protecting the kids. they have dreams. they have aspirations. they have goals. and you are take that away from them. right now, the price is a hard fight. they're determined. i mean, these kids, you have to applaud them. their heart is in the right place. there's hope. i mean, out here with the things

changing everyday, you just hope the next administration makes a change that makes things right. right now there's a lot of changes on a lot of different levels. the only thing you hope for is for the future of these young kids and young folks that are getting into politics to make the right move and for the folks who can't speak. >> dy mind motion. >> even though we have a lot of fighters, there's a lot of voice less folks and their voiceless because they're scared.

>> clerk: during the coronavirus disease emergency, this committee will convene remotely until the committee will be authorized to meet in person. public comments will be available on each agenda item. each speaker will be allowed three minutes to speak. public comment opportunities to speak are available by calling 415-655-0001, access code 187-596-3686, then pound, and pound again. when connected, you will hear the meeting discussion but will be muted and in listening mode only. when you hear your item that you wish to speak on, press star, three to enter the queue.

please note that this meeting is being recorded and will be available at sfgovtv.org. >> great, thank you. so welcome, everyone, to the our city, our home oversight committee. it is tuesday, july 20, and we are calling this meeting to order. madam clerk, can you please take the roll. [roll call] >> all right. so we do have quorum, and we'll now go to public comment on any matters that are not on the agenda in our jurisdiction. do we have any public comment? >> clerk: members of the public

who wish to comment on this item should call 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 187-596-3686, then pound and pound again. when connected, you will hear the meeting but your line will be muted and you will be in listening mode only. when you hear your item of interest called, press star, three to enter the queue. you will have three minutes to speak. may we have our spanish interpreter, please. [speaking spanish language]

>> clerk: thank you so much. cantonese translator, please? [speaking cantonese long] -- language]

>> clerk: great. thank you. i do see a caller. i'll take the first caller. hello, caller. you have three minutes. >> great. good morning, commissioners. my name is wesley saber, and i am the director of glide, and we were one of the first supporters of prop c. prop c was the people's initiative. we incorporated the oversight body to ensure that homeless people and their needs were centered, and you all have done that. thank you on behalf of glide for your dedication to this process. thank you for the thoughtful development and deliberation over the recommendations that you put forth over the course of this year, and thank you for working diligently to help fulfill the promise of the proposition. i've said it before, but the

immediate needs liaisons have really demonstrated a standard of excellence in their efforts to engage with the community, and their actions have been exemplary, really, in ensuring an equitable citywide approach. going forward, we would like to see some transparency, maybe some easily digestible dashboards over the process, but while you have little control over the products once they leave the committee, the product you that you develop really -- the products that you develop really reflect what san franciscans voted into law in 2017, and thank you so much. >> thank you. >> clerk: there are no other public commenters. >> okay. we will move to item 3, which

is approval of our minutes, with possible modification, of the minutes of june 15 and june 25, 2021. is there a motion. >> i move to approve the minutes of june 15 and june 25, 2021. >> okay. it's been moved by member friedenbach. is there a second? >> second. >> okay. there is a second by member leadbetter may we have public comment on this item.

>> clerk: members of the public who wish to provide public comment should call 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 187-596-3686, then press pound and pound again. press star, three to enter the queue, and you will have three minutes. spanish interpreter, please. [speaking spanish language] >> clerk: great. thank you. cantonese interpreter, please? [speaking cantonese language]

>> clerk: great. thank you so much. there are no public comments. >> okay. i'll now take this to a vote. if you could just call the roll. >> clerk: great. [roll call]

>> all right. so the motion passes. we'll now move to item 4. this'll be an update on the permanent supportive housing acquisition, with supportive action and discussion by the committee. do we have our rep -- jessie? i believe our representatives are here. >> yes. ben adams is here to present on the p.s.h. acquisition, and dan, i believe you can share your screen. >> i will give it my best shot here. it looks like i can. really happy to be in conversation with you all. first, again, my name is dan adams. i'm senior advisor to mayor breed for housing initiatives.

i have been at the city in recent iterations back in this role, previously worked in housing and community involvement for many years, serving as a deputy for housing and active director. currently, in my new role, i am solely focused with the singular mind said on acquisitions for [inaudible] supportive housing. this is very much in alignment with the work that you all are doing, of course, and what i will do is share my screen and then happy to answer questions.

make sure that -- whoops. there we go. i think i have a little gap in [inaudible]. can folks see my screen now? >> it's blocked. >> and sometimes i have to stop my camera because it's just too much for my internet to handle? >> try this. >> clerk: if you want -- if you want to e-mail it to the controller's office, to jessica, maybe that's good for you. >> yeah, i have it. i'll do that. >> okay, well, i'll do that. >> i don't know if anyone on this committee has been having this trouble, but the last two meetings, the system has been

very hard to log onto. >> i've been having the same issue. >> i believe webex has to do an update, yeah. i see it now. >> okay. i was successful. next slide. the work i've doing with h.s.h., mohcd, is guided by this frame mold, and the first really is our efforts within a broader shelter in place rehousing plan, so the city was extraordinarily successful in housing over 2,000 of our unhoused residents during the pandemic in hotels and the temporary housing in delegation and rehousing efforts. this includes folks in our

[inaudible] portfolio, but the most rapid answer to the rehousing work is to acquire a number of shelter in place hotels, so we're working on that and the s.i.p. rehousing. and, very importantly, we still have a broad community need for rehousing. this works very well with our our city, our home efforts and bond that including acquisition moneys -- that included acquisition moneys for this

process. we want to move quickly, the economy is changing, the market is improving, which is coming back, which is a good thing. people are coming back, and the market opportunity will shift, so we want to be agile and move quickly. so city had issued a [inaudible] and we got 86 responses. other properties were either

undeveloped parcels of land or just very, very small. so we have a kind of cohort of gaining properties. i'll say this a couple times. these are not 80 properties on the market, these are 80 properties where the owners took the submit to fill out the flier and submit it to the city. these are properties where the owner might not be inclined to sell, but regardless, it's a very robust cohort of properties is that we're -- properties that we're looking at. we've visited them, sometimes more than once, and we're looking at 20 properties, meaning that they meet some requirements with regards to size and we've reached out to owners to have a conversation

about pricing. then, we have an l.o.i. that allows us to conduct due diligence, to really kick the tires on the property, see if there's seismic issues. we have a team of consultants that go out and visit the property. we do an environmental assessment, all kind of property levels, and it does provide us assurance that if we do move forward with acquisition that we'll be in good shape. we don't have any signed purchase of sale agreements, but we are engaged actively with those five properties. next slide. so here are priorities when we look at properties, and, you know, no two properties are alike, so we're always comparing apples to oranges, but this is what guides and

provides focus for our work. first is we want good properties that have the maximum accessibility. now, full accessibility, it does not meet those requirements, but we can adapt to it or provide in general good access to our diverse population. we definitely want to attest to a specific set of program needs, are guided by budget allocations by our city, our home in those categories. always privatize provide baths and if we can have them, private kitchenettes.

geographic equity, so we want to spread them out. we're looking at properties that aren't be used as shelter in place hotels which usually have a very high occupancy, and in some places, the sites really prove to be advantageous for longer term development. this would be development as 100% affordable housing, but some of these motels, maybe the building itself probably won't be there for another 100 years, but it's on a great site, so we've looked at those opportunities as potential acquisitions. next slide.

sometimes there's a really good piece of property but it might not be in a good location, or other times, there's a good location but it might not be on a good piece of property, so we

real that there's no such thing as a perfect building. but we want to make this work, and we ask ourselves, are there particular things that would make this work? and then, we stretch our programatic muscles. it's a fantastic opportunity, but it will process out of what has come out of our standard modus of operating just coming out of this wonderful abundance of these courses. next slide. here's a quick overview of our processes. we do a quick site visit just

to confirm the general building conditions and also that it can pass programatic muster. we then meet as a group, h.s.h., mohcd, to confirm our initial priority assumptions for that building. if all goes well, we'll move into the r.o.i., and simultaneously, we'll draft and eventually move forward on a purchase and sale agreement. all of these elements must be introduced at the board of supervisors for approval and then subsequent mayoral approval, and then, we'll close on the financing. this process will take anywhere from six months -- let's say

six to nine months to get to this. next slide. so i mentioned sort of the stretching of the different operating models. we've -- you know, our -- certainly, my experience at mohcd, we most commonly -- the city serves as a funder, either a grant maker or a lender and works with a nonprofit housing provider. that's nphp. the city is leading this effort, identifying the properties, negotiating with property owners, and in all cases or likely the majority of cases, we'll be acquiring the property. this is not like when i was at mohcd, we'd move to gain properties, mostly abandoned

properties under an r.f.p. it's a little bit different in the housing space than what would be to directly work through the nonprofit housing provider. once we own the property, we've got two choices. we can transfer title to an owner-operator, so this would very much look like a mohcd property so that there would be a nonprofit who would phone, manage, and provide services to the population. but in some cases, we could also look at the city's holding title over a period of years and then enter into a master lease or operating agreement with the service provider or property management entity. in no case would the city be providing direct manager services, and we'd be working with our provider network to

provide services. it's advantageous to provide services over a period of time and [inaudible] and provide asset management for that? for the remaining properties that don't lend themselves to a property owner at least in the language term. next slide. so these are the key issues that we're still working through. again, this is the ownership and operating model, and this can really vary by property. we're trying to tailor our approach, given the properties that we're looking at. where we do hold title, we're not anticipating at all providing direct management property services, but there will be direct needs to oversee an asset that the city owns.

we have started to draft an r.f.q. for our owner and operator and provider selection. and in some cases, we already have a provider working at a property. this is in the case of s.i.p. hotels, and the solicitation and procurement process may look a little bit to brand-new properties in our portfolio where we don't have any current relationships, but that r.f.q. process, we're just going with signing that. once we acquire a property, there's a discussion of acquisition to p.s.h., and then, in other cases, we may just want to time the conversion to manage work flow to make sure that we'll be able to tend to all of these units and they don't come on-line

all at once. maybe i'll leave it there, and that's my presentation, and i'm, again, very happy to answer any questions. >> thank you so much. i'm going to go to the committee. we'll start with member friedenbach. >> thank you so much for that presentation. really, you know, it's really exciting and really appreciating kind of the laser focus on acquisitions and trying to take advantage of this unique time that we're in right now. i've got a couple questions. i noticed in the goals part that you're focused on s.i.p. hotels. i guess that concerns me a little bit because there might be opportunities for buildings that are not currently for s.i.p. hotels. that currently could be really good and just wondered if you

were looking at all buildings or just those. and then also, i'm wondering if you had a unit target at this point, and part of my question is around, you know, we funded a certainly number of units through prop c, but we were really counting on a pretty aggressive, you know -- not leaving it just at prop c, but, you know, going after the state funds, going after the federal funds, and using acquisitions and other aggressive efforts to maximize funds. but thank you so much, and those are my two questions. >> those are great questions. thank you so much. we are looking at acquiring two s.i.p. hotels, so it's a pretty modest acquisition effort recording our current s.i.p. portfolio. so in other words, we are definitely looking at other properties. other l.o.i.s [inaudible].

one is with the s.i.p. hotels, and the other four are non-s.i.p. properties, so i think that kind of ratio is probably likely to continue as we provide ways to move property. so it's a component of this effort, but it's a subordinate subset of the overall effort. so in terms of our vehicle, consistent with the mayor's budget and the kind of impending determination on a per-unit basis the acquisition will cost, we think 800 to 1,000 units. but that is without, without accounting for a potential

state, primarily state level. the acquisition and [inaudible] costs that flow [inaudible] we are seeing things are more expensive. so it's likely the $400,000 per unit goal, it's likely we're going to see closer to $500,000 after the rehabilitation that we take. that is not a problem relative to our goals to the extent that we're able to access state resources. we think we're going to be in a great position to access those

resources. [inaudible] we are waiting to see what might flow from the federal level from this work? we have received the city, as i'm sure you know, a fairly generous allocation of americans [inaudible] housing vouchers, so we're trying to make those kinds of matches. those would benefit placement of folks in city owned or nonprofit owned p.s.h. definitely helps the operating expense [inaudible] to the property. however, those are tenant-based vouchers, and we can't underwrite them as part of a financing, so we can't leverage additional debt on those prices. a very long winded answer to your question. but we generally leverage state

money, and if so, that'll go farther, but it depends on how this shakes out on agreement. >> did that answer your question, member friedenbach -- >> yeah, really, that sounds great, and i think that's -- that's what we want to hear, so that's fantastic. >> [inaudible] what i get to. >> yeah. >> thank you. we'll go to vice chair d'antonio and then member reggio. >> yeah. my questions are more like on the tangible items and tangible things in the categories. i don't know if you could answer this today, but if you could follow up with us just on where the locations of the 80 submissions were. i guess one area i'm kind of thinking of is at the end of

geneva, and i'm wondering if there's any submissions over there because, yeah, the planning department has a lot of intent for that area, and i just think it would be good to get some units over there, as well. and then, yeah, i'm just wondering, like, out of the list of, like, sort of, like, things that you're looking at when you're deciding on hotels or sort of, like, submission of properties, i'm sure there's, like, a combination of things, but what kind of reigns supreme, so a lot of my questions kind of, like, focus on, like, where, yeah, and if there's some locations where we

don't have units, like, if we're not going with those, like, why would that be, so, like, kind of that, like, thought process a little bit that for me. so yeah, those are only my two question, like, comments, because we only hear about geographic locations, and those come up all the time. >> yeah. it's a challenge, given that so much of our multifamily and hotel building stock is located in the [inaudible] of the city, primarily district 6 and [inaudible] 75. so i can get you the specifics of where the geography of each submission is. i will say primarily district 6, but a number of district 3s, some district 5s, and then,

just a smattering of other districts. i don't think i've seen anything from district 7, i don't think i've seen anything from district 4. and that's not to say we can't be more proactive and look in those districts. and we are -- if somebody calls me and says hey, i heard about a building, great. we can go take a look at it. it's not a closed system for analysis, but it is true that d-6 is where the bulk of or so many of them are. we're really trying to get -- of course, any of these buildings, you know, can drop

out because of -- it doesn't matter our kind of buildings, but we are in conversation about a d-8 opportunity that actually did not come in under the r.f.i., but we want to [inaudible] a really important district, and then -- but we have more d-6 properties that we're looking at because of building conditions. it's how you make this assessment, really, of what you pursue, and many of the needs, these are intentions -- it's hard because there's one property in d-6 that's, like, it is ready to go. like, it's a great property,

and i so wish it were in district -- d-10. we're struggling to find properties in d-10, so i think this can be -- other groups, we should really think creatively about how -- what are -- there are either other kinds of districts that don't have the building stock. we can create a fabric out there -- can't create a fabric out there even though there's demand out there [inaudible], so it is -- we're guided by those principles, we're guided

by the funding allocations that were set up in prop c and, you know, frankly, to my perspective, we're focused on the kind of diversity that i read within your prioritization. this is -- we don't want to shoe horn the need, we want to find diverse solutions to various needs. but we're really trying to achieve that balance. >> all right. thank you so much. >> okay. we'll go to member reggio. >> so also want to echo appreciation for your presentation, dan. i'll say it's good to see you in the effort there leading it. >> thank you. thank you so much. >> yeah. i think great confidence, and i also might be -- you know, at the beginning, we were talking about the priorities that were involved, so the real alignment of the things that we've talked

about within our own process, and i think there's clear understanding of that. i have two questions. in our work, and i think also the budget that is passed at this point by the committee of the board, and then the mayor's priority, there's something that we would bring on this year, and we look to operating funds this year that we put in that there's significant housing stock going on during this current fiscal year, and i think just listening to you this year understandably, that may be a stretch. when you say six-to-nine-month process, and you say 800 to 1,000 units, do you have any sense of when those would actually come on?

are you saying, by spring, that we would have a significant number of units come on, and if not, when would you anticipate that happening? >> that's a great question. so it's kind of on a case-by-case basis. we should have the units come on by spring of next calendar year, so i would say yes to that. i'll just lay out a few different scenarios. one scenario is where we are purchasing a s.i.p. [inaudible] again, not all of our efforts, but a majority of our efforts, part of the purchase is it can help accommodate the schedule of demobilization. so we can [inaudible] to attend to that housing need as that demobilization effort happens for longer periods of time. not forever, but it may, as

they move that s.i.p. model into a permanent option for a year. [inaudible] happened this year. there are some properties for which we want to invest some money in a rehab process, and so that might -- six months, let's say, in order to -- and during that time, we'll be doing the site conversion piece, but actually, that might be later next year, given the need to do rehab workup front, so that would delay that. buildings that are kind of ready to go, we do have a couple of those. we should be able to start those leasing up, you know,

early next year. the two things that i want to -- in terms of imposing deadlines, we want to make sure we have some flexibility in imposing deadlines that are on [inaudible] for home fee dollars at state levels. they close, and we don't want to close prematurely to prevent ourselves from competing for dollars. [inaudible] similarly, some flexibility for closing dollars, so that they can find a 1031 exchange and an investment property, so it's an inducement for us to work with owners to provide that. so there's a little bit of slack in the schedules for various reasons? so i would say that i don't think we'll see a majority of the units come on-line in the spring, but we will start to

see units come on-line in the spring -- i'll just finally say i think some pacing of the conversion [inaudible] just given our [inaudible] kind of work flow, not only for city staff but for the greater provider. we want to move quickly, quickly, quickly, and some pacing is advantageous just given our [inaudible]. >> and the second question, briefly, was protecting where we're looking to acquisition families. this is operation, but we had suggested, i think, from the committee that work through mohcd and that, you know, they bring in the nonprofits or the housing developers from the beginning and let them be out there searching. do you know if that process is -- first of all, was that approach bought for -- meaning is that adopted in this agreement, and secondly, is

there any movement in that regard? >> so my understanding, we worked very closely with mohcd. lydia is coordinating the meetings we have every tuesday, so we're very much in alignment with mohcd. i had understood the family units are the most challenging to acquire, right? so many or most of the properties we have are good for single or [inaudible] or couples -- oh, crap. i think i froze there for a second. >> yes. >> okay. sorry. so -- so finding those family acquisitions is -- my understanding, in talking to mohcd, and i think [inaudible] there's an option for the

family units to fund the mohcd pipeline, so that's support the pipeline, so that's still on the table. i would rather find those units and acquire them and lease them up in the near term than some of those in the construction pipeline. but you all tell me if there's a different understanding. but again in acquisition terms, it's the most difficult cohort, so we have to look at different options. >> [inaudible] i didn't totally catch up. i can catch up later on that, though. but i think we were thinking, when we did our

recommendations, that it would be [inaudible] that for some of the family housing, that development and acquisition would be the way to go, and that's why we were looking at the suggestion that mohcd put some priority on these increased funds, but put priority on those new funds on getting the developers involved right away to go seek properties and relatively quick development. >> yeah. i think those conversations are still very much active, and i'm sort of trying to give just a little bit of [inaudible] to provide some more immediate family opportunities, but if we're not able to identify properties out in the world, that option is still available. but feel free to reach out to me directly if you want to talk more about this. >> great.

so i don't see any more from our committee, but i just want to thank you, director adams, for this great presentation. i know you'll be coming to the committee on a regular basis and updating us on this work. >> great. thank you. i really look forward to working with you all. >> great. thank you so much. so at this time, we'll go to public comment. secretary hom, do we will any public comment on -- do we have any public comment on this item? [inaudible] >> clerk: -- please dial star, three to lineup to speak. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted before beginning your comments.

please note you will have three minutes. spanish interpreter, please. [speaking spanish language] >> clerk: thank you so much. cantonese interpreter, please. [speaking cantonese language]

>> clerk: great, thank you. there are no public comments. >> okay. thank you [inaudible] if you could put the agenda back up on the screen, and we can go to our next item. >> sorry. i'm flailing here. one second. >> all right. so we'll now move to item 5, which is a presentation of the proposed fiscal year 2021-2022 work plan for this committee, and i'm going to turn it over to jessie to get it started. >> okay. that is great.

i'm going to share my screen again. all right. let's see -- i don't know. sometimes this shows kind of small, so i think i want to present slide show. all righty. good morning, guys. we're turning our attention now to the year ahead and to the responsibilities that are laid out in the ordinance for the our city, our home oversight committee. it is an ambitious set of responsibilities. the needs assessment, identifying barriers to safe and successful exits from

homelessness, soliciting substantive input from people that are homeless, facility tait transparency in the administration of the fund, and promote implementation of the funded programs in a culturally sensitive manner. system models has been the framework, i think, overtime that has sort of gained momentum in this committee to link together sort of these oversight and planning activities, and so i know you've looked at different moments at some of the system modelling work that was done in alameda county. chair williams asked me to share a brief presentation on the process that i worked on in alameda county to refresh your memory, and then, we'll talk more about how it fits

together. so system modelling is fitting together in the fight against homelessness. it asks the question, what do we need to fully meet the needs of everyone who experiences homelessness? the needs assessment is really the cornerstone of a system modelling process, and then, that allows communities to develop that strategic response to homelessness, right? it is really rooted in data and really supported efficiently and effectively getting people what they need, allocating resources in ways that are fair and meet people's needs. and of course, part of the appeal, as well, is that system modelling quantifies the solution, right? so using mathematical model to arrive at the number of beds, the number of units, the kinds of programs, and the costs associated. system modelling has multiple steps, so we've been sort of talking about it as one thing,

but it sort of has several, several pieces, right? and one of the first steps is this needs assessment. understanding the needs of people experiencing homelessness. understanding the scope and scale of homelessness, how many people experience homelessness each year, the response of homelessness, what is working to meet people's needs, and where the programs are falling short to meet people's needs. so just to sort of bring it back to the process in alameda county, right, between 2017 and 2019, homelessness increased there by 43%, and unsheltered homelessness grew by 63%, and that gave new urgency to homeless system planning, so much so that in the summer of 2019, there were three

different agencies each planning their own separate gaps analysis, and i bring this up because system models is kind of an opportunity, this kind of needs assessment and gaps analysis is an opportunity to develop a shared vision, a common plan, an image of what it means to end homelessness and how we can get there, and the kind of collaboration -- it is a process that engenders that collaboration which is not naturally occurring, right? so it takes a lot of time and effort and attention to really build that sort of common vision for ending homelessness. the needs assessment in alameda county was a mixed methods approach, so it looks -- it looks at quantitative data, it

looked at system performance, sort of how the system was doing, where we were seeing sort of challenges. you know, going into the needs assessment, alameda county knew that three people were touching the homeless system for the first time for every one person that was obtaining the home, and that was kind of the headline of the process, and the subheading was we were seeing long lengths of homelessness, long stays in programs, and the binding list had 10,000 households on it, so the system was totally swamped. so the conversation was very much focused on the housing market as the driver of homelessness. we knew we were seeing the same kinds of racial disparities in the homeless populations that are present throughout the country, and alameda county was really looking at race as more of a descriptive characteristic

of the homeless population while the homeless system was sort of overwhelmed by working fairly, right? a couple of things happened that i think transformed the process in a way that will be interesting to this group? one is that our homeless management information system, our hmis, was in a place where system performance could be disaggregated by race and ethnicity, so taking apart sort of those big system performance measures made really clear that black, native american, multiracial people have -- were having much worse outcomes than others. the other thing that happened was that, you know, there was really just -- i don't know. this table, this graph in

particular landed differently for people, and there really was this push, particularly from elected leaders, to look at racial equity and to develop a system that would work well for black, native american, multiracial people. and there was a lot of anxiety on the part of really me because i was going to have to sort of hold and manage this. and i think among the c.o.c. players because we just didn't know how we could look at race and racial disparities without, for example, violating fair housing or things like that. so we went to h.u.d. and said, you know, we know you're looking at racial equity, we know you're pushing communities to look at racial equity. our leadership here is saying that we need to do an analysis

and a modelling process that looks at race, and h.u.d. said okay. so that was a big shift. so alameda county moved forward with a racial equity assessment. it was really looking at how different racial or ethnic groups are affected or served in the homeless program system. the project used a universalist framework, which is to say the group that the project is working least well for will remove those barriers and design a system that works well

for everyone. if we look at the least well served, we will have a system that is effective for all. we looked -- the process looked really intensely at qualitative data, at performance, at outcomes, and disaggregated everything by race. and sometimes that shows conclusive things, and sometimes it didn't. and then, there's a qualitative research component, where we're guided by the outcomes research, right? asks new questions of different people experiencing homelessness. what are the root causes, what are the systemic barriers? how can we make the system work better for people, and we find that the system multiplies

these barriers to housing stability while at the same time appearing housing neutral and unbiased. i just wanted to give you sort of a moment to see, like, this is the kind of comparison, right, really breaking down -- this was federal fiscal year 2019, h.u.d. system performance measure five. this is reported by continuum of care annually. h.u.d. is part of the consolidated application for continuum of care funds. this is people entering homelessness the first time and really people touching the system in alameda county for the first time, so disproportionately black, disproportionately native american. and then, taking it -- taking it to the people, right? so going to the people and talking and getting clear sort of what was going on. and the thing that was really

important was really looking and talking to people illuminated places where, you know, where the social -- the social determinants of health, right? the sort of adverse impacts on people's health of racism, you know, educational barriers, different economic barriers, right? the prison -- right, mass incarceration, like, these sort of dynamics, like, how they were showing up in people's lives and really creating conditions that led to homelessness. so what we learned, right, what was learned in alameda county is both the kind of resources that we had that were in the system and then the size of the

inventory were not right size to the homeless population's needs or to the scale of homelessness in that community, and that the imbalance led to really high lengths of homelessness and returns to homelessness, both of which impact black, multiracial, and native american households. from there, you know, we really -- we realized a number of gaps in our system, and that led us to reimagine the system. so the shelter inventory exceeded the permanent housing inventory, and so people were not exiting from shelter. shelter was not working the way it was is designed to do. there really weren't permanent options for people with housing

disabilities, it was unlikely they were going to be able to increase their income to pay rent within six to 12 months. that was the situation there at that point in time. households with earned income, we were seeing -- needed something to bridge the difference between their income and rent. and then, the proportion of it that we had in relation to our shelter inventory, right? so we needed to -- we had no

shallow subsidy. there was no dedicated affordable housing, which was affordable without a lot of services and p.s.h. for seniors. those were all things that needed to be developed? and there was a lot of things that needed to be developed. rapid rehousing, housing slots, and permanent supportive housing. the model allowed us -- allowed the community to really look at what we had, what existed in the system, right? another exercise that happens every single year for h.u.d. in the continuum of care. and in order for a system to be the correct shape for proportionate, to function well, we would need a lot of additional units and at an estimated cost. and this is i think one of the

estimated appeals of modelling, you can get to this place of saying exactly -- or pretty close, right? how many units, what kinds of things to bring -- to reconfigure and bring the system to where it needs to be. and the last thing i'm going to show you on this, is also helping the community understand and see that this is a system, right? and adding -- you know, once the system is sort of reconfigured to be able to work in its sort of more efficient way, it needs to be brought to scale, and that means sort of adding capacity in sort of -- i don't know, in groups, right? like, it's not enough to just

add capacity to shelter because there also needs to then be permanent housing exits from that, and there needs to be some homelessness prevention, right, added there, too. so this is sort of the package of -- of interventions for 100 households. this is with only adults that needed to be -- we were trying to get people to understand that, you know, adding capacity to the system meant adding it in this structure, and that just sort of picking and choosing wasn't going to end homelessness, wasn't going to lead to a place where our system continued to work effectively. so i'm going to pause here. i know we're, like, a little bit crunched on time, but i did want to pause for a second to see if there are questions before we sort of turn to thinking about the ocoh work plan. >> yes, of course. we'll go to vice chair

d'antonio. oh, you're muted, vice -- >> sorry. thank you so much, jessie, for that presentation, and i was just saying how hopeful i think for all of us, as well, like, all the callers on the line just to give them, like, the framework on the line. all of my questions are really around framework and definitions. so the first one is rapid resolution, slide ten. could you just explain to us what that means? >> it's taking the process and figuring out what are the implications are -- what does that mean our programs need to look like, right? so kind of this program design

and program modelling. so i think in alameda county, they kind of came up with a few different interventions that fit in that homelessness prevention bucket. you know, housing problem solving, lots of flex funds and things like that. some eviction prevention, but it really -- it really should speak to, like, what does the needs analysis tell you that, you know, could -- to work for people? what are you seeing in the data, and how does that inform the program design, and i think that's with all the different pieces, was really looking at, okay, is rapid rehousing -- okay. it's a tested and -- right? there's a lot of research around rapid rehousing and the impact it can have. like, what does it mean? what do people need in our

system to be attached to that, and do they have what they need? and again, it's -- you know, it's -- our -- the process is really, like, starting with that needs assessment, like, what -- what's going to make sense for people based on the needs that they're showing, and what -- how the interventions are working? >> well, then, my other questions, they're all, like, language-based questions. so on slide 11, dedicated affordable housing just felt,

like, broad to me. was that in response to finding that there wasn't enough affordable housing at extremely low-income levels and that was for, like, that category? >> yeah. the thing in intervention that allowed there to be deeply subsidized housing but also a relatively low support services rate, that was -- support services need, so that was one of the things that we found was the case in that community, was that there was a good chunk of people who needed a deep subsidy but who didn't necessarily need the services that went along with permanent supportive housing. >> and then, my last one is on the last slide, slide 12. does the acronym h.p. stand for housing pipeline or something else? >> that's a good question. >> probably homeless

prevention. >> yeah, homeless prevention. that table gets really big and dense if i write everything out, and again, it's not a recipe, right? so it's not just about sort of applying it here, but again, going back to that needs unless and saying what is going on with the homeless population? where is our system working well and we should build on that? where is our system struggling, that there needs to be, i don't know, some additional maybe retooling, right? what needs to be added here? like, how do we match the resources to the needs, and that needs piece is, i think, really the focus of this next year of work for this group. >> great. thank you, and i agree 100%. >> yea. >> so thank you. >> wonderful. is there any questions before we move to the next part of the

presentation? all right. you can go ahead, jessie. >> sorry, you guys. i was trying to raise my hand. it's julie. so is it questions only or comments? >> either one. member leadbetter. >> yes, jessie, thank you so much for presenting this. it's really helpful to see. i think the committee had to -- kind of got a sense with this a few months ago, and then, we got really absorbed with the allocation process. it really makes my heart sing to be starting this work, and i think i care -- i just deeply appreciate the focus on the needs assessment and really, like, the -- it's not a generic systems planning approach, right? and what changed and was really part of my experience with this work in alameda county is that

the focus groups, the lived experience work really changed what the system plan is understood as what was possible. i think for many of us, who's done this work for 20 or 30 years. we're used to working within the constraints of the funding sources or the models that come to us from other communities, all of this. but this turns everything upside down, and this is why it's so important so we can build an infrastructure that can just not only feed into the systems modelling work but everything having to do with our systems in san francisco, and with the [inaudible] and from our mandate from the city

as a whole who voted not just for the dollars but for the needs assessment and the infrastructure, i'm happy that we made it come to light and also in this modelling work that we have to do, and i'm really looking forward to talking through how we, you know, create an infrastructure, support people who need the support in this process, so thank you. >> yeah, and there are a couple of -- you know, your purview, the purview of this committee is a little bit broader, i think, than what was happening in alameda county, which is a dry continuum of care focus, right? this is -- you know, we have connections, the public health, the mental health piece, the prevention piece. like, all of these are?

-- are in the frame, and this is exciting, how we do a needs assessment and what it looks like exactly. and it's how we underline and emphasize -- -- it changed how people looked at homelessness, and it put racial equity as a major driver, right, of homelessness, right, and it sort of took something that had been at the periphery and put it at the center, and that it was really powerful for, i think, everyone who participated in the project. so i'm going to move onto the work here, because there's a lot. >> i believe that brett has a

comment. his hand is raised. >> yeah, just really quickly, and full disclosure, jessie and i had a great conversation a couple of days ago, and it ended up focusing on this. i'm glad that we're talking about it. every time you see a chart, and you see the disproportionate representation of black, african americans, and people of color, it is an indication of really how systemic racism is. i believe that, i want to make sure in our continuum of care

is followed through on, and then, on the back end of it, housing is one of the goals. it's how to apply for dignity to the fullness of their lives, and job opportunities, and ways they can have upward mobility in their lives. so i book end it with all the great work that we're doing, but i'm super focused on how we prevent it, and i want to focus on a strategy of how we prevent it because i'm too committed to building a system of care that just takes care of brown and black people. jessica, thank you for bringing this to us and raising our consciousness of how we're looking at a solutions system of modelling. >> thank you.

>> i think we're good on this, so if you want to proceed. >> okay. so again, a lot is on your plate for this coming year, and i hope i've been able to sort of underscore how important, right, needs assessment really is. i've worked out a timeline of

organizations, and i'm looking forward to your suggestions and revisions of this work plan. i think this is work that we really need to have done by march in order to use the needs assessment to inform the -- the budget recommendations that the committee makes, right? so we need to get launched quickly, right? i think this group, this committee probably needs monthly status updates on how things are coming along, what's learned -- what are the learnings that are emerging from the administrative data analysis, right, and then sort of incorporating some stakeholder engagement to get

to that march deadline. i think we should -- you know, looking to the needs assessment, really, to estimate the number of people in households experiencing homelessness each year as well as subpopulations and demographics characteristics, so deep into that population, identifying housing and service needs, analyzing that population data to figure out what -- what we think people need. some of this work is done each year, but again, looking to other systems to fill in a bigger picture of what's available to people experiencing homelessness in san francisco, looking at system performance, and bringing in strongly that racial and ethnic disparities piece, looking at outcomes, and identifying barriers to safe

and successful barriers out of homelessness, and using that qualitative data. all of that by march, using the data to make your fiscal year 22-23, and i think 23-24, budget recommendations to the mayor and the board. thinking of having sort of a technical team that's probably primarily staff, right, to really meet weekly and work through that administrative data, sort of the production process, getting that data together and ready, right, for people to look at, and then having a steering committee that's meeting one to two times a month to set priorities and report back to this committee and other stakeholders.

this is just sort of, like, an initial thinking about it, but the mayor's office, h.s.h., mohcd, someone from this -- representation from this group, the local homeless coordinating board, mental health s.f., advocacy and nonprofit providers. it's attention to keep the group small enough but also inclusive to really develop that community understanding, a shared understanding of what homeless -- what the needs of homeless people are from the system. [please stand by]

what opportunities are there to expand, you know, the role or to create new

opportunities for people with lived expertise to help direct the priorities of the funds? >> we have some website and public reporting work that needs to be done. this fall i'll be working -- i hope to be working on moving the committee materials to sfgov, and it has some of the language accessibility features built in, and it is a little more streamlined, for people to be able to find information about the meetings, find out how to participate in the meetings, and learn a little bit about what is going on at the committee. we're also, this fall, working on dashboards, right? descriptive and performance data visualizations, and providing quarterly updates to this committee using those dashboards.

fund oversight and the budget process, right? so this fall, i really want to get an o.c.o.h. budget graphic on where everything landed after all of that, and then the spending dashboards to be able to track sort of what is the status of the funds? how are things going with the fund? right? providing those kinds of status updates to this group quarterly. and then, again, in the spring, we're back to it, right? crafting budget recommendations, and making those recommendations to the mayor and board of supervisors, and reviewing the mayor's budget proposals, and making recommendations to the board of supervisors as needed. and then your committee meetings. we already have a lot on the agenda, right? so we're having, you know, dan adams, who was here today with p.h. acquisitions, and he and i

talked about doing those every other month. it may make sense to do them quarterly, but we'll start right now with every other month, you know, getting that funds status update quarterly, getting dashboarding updates every quarter, paying attention to where we are with the work plan, and then getting feedback about the needs assessment and the qualitative work that is happening and the stakeholder assessment, all the way to next spring, working to work planning again. so there is a lot going on. um...i just want to emphasize, you know, we've talked today, right, about the committee, about our city, our home, and the work that needs to happen for that group. there are a number of complementary initiatives that are happening, from the strategic framework refreshment, right, that is happening over at

h.s.h., mental health assess, and the mayor's office is working on some unsheltered homelessness public reporting. and so we're just actively in communications and conversation about how we can align those initiatives to both build that common vision and avoid duplication of work. this modeling, we think, is kind of squarely right. we want to keep that at the center of the visioning work that we're doing right now, all four of us. so next steps for the committee, right? i think there are questions with the sort of general work plan that i've laid out about sort of what other stakeholder engagement work, i think in particular, may need to be incorporated into this work plan. obviously focus groups with people with lived

expertise, but is there additional stakeholder work you would like to see? how be the liaison roles or functions change or remain the same in this work plan? how do you want to engage as committee members in the process? and then just looking forward for the controller's office, right, in the next couple of months we're looking to start convening that technical group for the data and dashboarding work, and begin contracting for that stakeholder engagement process. and that is the end of the this. i feel like i've talked for a really long time. so i'm interested to stop sharing and hear what you guys have to say. >> awesome. thank you so much, jessie, for this conversation. i want to open it up with the committee, starting with member ledbetter ter

and then deantonio. and member friedenbach. >> thank you. i'm having a reaction because it feels like we made a big vote, and then we came back, and now somebody has planned our work for us. and it is a very qualitatively different experience than prior to the voting process. and, you know, i think i would need to hear a little bit from the chair in terms of sort of where they've played a role in this. i think this is the time for us to sort of talk through this, right, and see, i think, probably pull back our liaison structure, which we had adopted and voted on and is in our bylaws. map it to the work plan. and look and see if the

work plan -- whose work plan is it? it feels like the city's work plan, but our committee has been very much a committee that takes leadership role, that convenience stakeholders ourselves, that we really are, you know, active. and i think it has been a key to the success. so i think i've got a lot of questions about that. and then when i look at the diagram, i feel like our city, our home should be much bigger. it is because we have the largest source of funds. we are the centrifigal force. that is an important amount of money, and our responsibility as an

oversight committee, to make sure we're sort of taking that very seriously and using it as strategically as possible. i'm not sure if we just have a chance to keep talking about it, but i would definitely like to pull back that liaison structure and see where that falls in line with the work plan. and i would like to say, also, despite my reaction as of this moment, there is a lot in there that is about what we have said over and over, with this collective impact. we need to be engaging with mental health s.f., and their committees and with the mayor's office. all of the stakeholders are incredibly important to this work. i don't want to make it seem that that is not at the center of this, and reasserting the values of people with lived experien