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 experience. and taking seriously that that is what is at stake. it is a shift of language. like, we came with leadership, and leadership and lived experience. and building a leadership with people, building a movement. and it's very different, so i'm here to help and any way to sort of keep that at the center as well. so thank you so much for your work. >> chairwoman: thank you so much, member ledbetter. i believe this plan has incorporated a lot of what we discussed. i believe we need to bring that liaison structure back, but the things have shifted with our committee, in terms of our work going forward, so this is a living document. and i think the team has tried to be response supervise to some of the things we've brought forward, but, of course, we can amend as needed. this is not going to be voted on today. this is just kind of introducing our thinking and building out that work plan.

i really appreciate your comments, and we'll keep working at it. so i'm going to vice chair deantonio and then member friedenbach. >> thank you so much, jesse. i think this is a great canvas for us to layer on, is how i see it. just like -- okay, some thoughts: i would like there to be a slide. it is easier for me to visualize with seeing all of the timelines align together, to see the different components that will be worked on in the same timeframe. i guess if we could elaborate and add administrative data analysis. like, i don't know if that is something as a group we should figure out what data points you want to be looking at, or if that is exclusively decided by the city, or how that goes, or even what it would be,

like, defined as. it is just words right now. i don't know if you could define it will little bit, what that looks like? >> yeah. when i think about -- i don't know if that is me echoing. when i think about administrative data, i'm thinking about the data that is being collected as people for administrative purposes, right? so i would include things like the point in time count, which is a funding requirement, right? and the youth count. but as well as, like, services data, right? there is a lot of information about -- that is collected in the administration of services that can tell us a fair amount about sort of what -- who is using what things and where are people successful? you know, i think it's, um...i think the ordinance

itself says "to the greatest extent possible." so it is looking at what is the data that already exists out there, in terms of the more quantitative data that can help us see part of the picture of the needs, right, and homelessness generally. i'm very familiar with the continuum of care sort of data, but that is not the limit of this -- of our city, our home, right? so i think there is also some discovery work that needs to be done around, for example, s.r.o. families and understanding sort of how the pipeline fits into that, what's available there. the same on the mental health side, right? that is an entire system unto itself, right? i'm not as familiar as what the administrative data is there, and there will need to be some discovery work about sort of what can we know about homelessness through the

data that they're collecting. >> yeah. thank you. and i think part of that, at least for myself, is, like, us having a conversation about, like, things we would like to see. either if there are already electric measurements on that, or things that we would like to be measured, like, ongoing, which maybe we won't have data for, like, today or now, but, like, in our needs assessment in two years, we can say we would like to see this and it is not being measured yet. i know especially around, like, success -- i know i talk about this all of the time, but what is a successful placement and, like, the measurement of retention. i get differing responses on whether we have that data or not. and i've never seen it, so that is something i would really like to measure. i'm sure that everybody sitting here has different metrics they would like to see measured. so that might require us

coming together and talking about that a little more. so that is one thought i had. another thought that i had was just around the complementary initiatives that are going on. i forget what the language is on that. the housing authority, and i know i also keep bringing that up, but it is something we should also be aligned with. i would love to have them come here and tell us about their five-year annual plan, or tell us what is going on at the federal level. during the pandemic, we received 100 section 8 measures, and that goes towards housing and how many people are being housed, and adding them to our housing unit count. so there is that. and then, like, for me one of the biggest things was really around, like, community engagement, and paying folks for their data. and, like, paying folks to participate and being really granular with that.

and i think there is a lot of -- i think we could start that earlier than what i see, i guess, on the timeline. and really set some specific goals around that, which i think is kind of like what julie was saying as well. i think that also has to do with our liaison role because within each of our liaison roles, there is an opportunity for different communities to engage with. even though i am the community engagement liaison, the different roles -- there is, like, sub-populations within that that i think would be important to, like, pull into these conversations, as far as folks with lived experience. and i know, like, we're not going to decide those things today, but i just wanted to shout all those things out and, yeah,

really just, like, highlight that i think we should start the community engagement process earlier. and, sorry, also to elaborate on that, in our previous, like, stakeholder meetings and community engagement processes, we heard that focus groups don't work for everybody. and if we're talking about equity, i think it is important for us to, like, look at different ways of engaging folks, beyond focus groups. we heard especially for black youth, youth of color, that the focus groups do not work for them. and then, yeah, so -- yeah, there is a lot of questions -- things that need to be answered within there. this, i think, like i said, is a really good starting point, and we can all kind of build on this expertise and knowledge. so thank you. >> chairwoman: thank you. we'll go to member friedenbach. >> yeah. thank you. thanks so much for all your work on this.

and, um, i understand where member ledbetter is coming from, in terms of nervousness around how this is moving forward. i think that, you know, we all have a lot of experience within the city of san francisco, having a lot of kind of fake community processes, for lack of a better way to describe it, and a lot of fear around community members having any kind of, like, real -- you know, real self-determination in terms of how to shape public policy and fear around unhoused community members having real power. and i think that as we've gone through this in the

last year, we've seen that response over and over again, where there has been, you know, kind of a negative reaction to -- you know, to a body that is, um, as active as we are and is empowered. there is just a lot of skill, i think, among the membership to be brought to the table. and that should be embraced and should be brought on in really a leadership role. and i think it was really phenomenal work that was done over the past year on making sure -- you know, i mean i get feedback constantly from folks, from folks who are unhoused, who never had their voices heard, that feel really listened to in this process and they don't in other processes. and that is a skill. that means we know how to do this and we know how to do it right. and so we don't want to kind of abort that process.

we want to build on it and get stronger and stronger. and so i think building on the liaison piece. i also want to make sure in the needs assessment process that we include revolving door. it could be raw data from that, etc., but there is a lot of information there and a lot of work that was done with, you know, four different universities. and i think there is so much data sitting there that hasn't even been tapped into. and so that's -- you know, the idea was to help with the needs assessment, and that's what we did that. the last thing on timeline: i'm a little bit concerned on the timeline. so we will be doing our needs assessment -- in terms of our timeline kind of lining up with the budget process for the city and county of san

francisco -- so there is going to be adjustments we want to make on our investment plan. there are going to be some one-time monies that will be freed up and other decisions that will be able to be made. it won't be as overruling overwhelming in terms of this first year, in terms of the amount of money we're working with and all of that, but it seems like we need to complete the needs assessment earlier in order to then engage in the budget process in a way that -- we wouldn't start from scratch. we would build off of the needs assessment. but there is going to be a lot of hard decision-making as a body, that we're going to need to create space for. post-needs. so we're looking at the needs assessment and then making decisions. the budget goes into the mayor's office january, february -- and sometimes it goes in as early as

december, though. it would be nice to be in alignment. it doesn't have to be, but just thinking about that timeline, but definitely wanting to impact the mayor's budget, at least. so i think april is a little late. so -- for the needs assessment to be completed and have time to make all of those hard decisions. or else i feel like we're going to be rushed again. and that was the thing we swore we weren't going to do again, being rushed -- we had the big rush in december, but then it was pretty rushed after that, too. so those are my comments. oh, and just, i think, as we -- so to just be a little bit more -- a little more substantive, my comments -- when, for example, the focus groups are being -- our the

outreach methodology, however we're getting input, we should have the liaison present to make decisions about how those things are structured. we're missing a data officer right now, and so that needs to be scermd scheduled. i don't know if we want to wait for the reappointment. but the present officer should be present when deciding what data needs to pull in. so people are actually there from this body in those rooms where the discussions are taking place. so that's going to be really important as well. thanks. >> chairwoman: thank you so much to all of our committee members. we're definitely taking all of these notes. i believe the document will go out, so if folks want to respond on their own time and digest it and provide some written comments, to myself and vice chair deantonio to work with and the controller's staff on

really refining this plan. i agree with member friedenbach on getting all of our seats and all of our free appointments done so we can really have a full body to take on the next phase of this work. i think that is super important. and i definitely agree with all of our liaisons being at the table at different pieces of this work. so if there is no further comment, i'm going to go to public comment. if there are no further comments from the committee. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call 415-655-0001, i.d. 1875963686. then pound and pound again. if you haven't already done so, please dial *3 to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comment. please note you have two

minutes. spanish interpreter, please. [speaking spanish] [end of translation] >> clerk: thank you. cantonese interpreter, please. [speaking cantonese]

[end of translation] >> clerk: great. thank you. i'll take the first caller. hello, caller. hello, caller, you have three minutes. >> caller: can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. >> caller: this is steve rice from legal aid. i just want to thank all of you for your work and your recommendations, and i'm looking forward to the needs assessment. and i just wanted to, you know, make one comment. there was an item that was dropped that the committee recommended, but the board dropped, about civil legal services. and, you know, obviously there is a great need for housing and housing first and acquisition of

housing, but i think not enough attention is always paid to how to make that sustainable in the long-term, how to allow people to transition to living more independently. and they've found in alameda county that disability benefits advocacy, getting people the money they're entitled to from the federal government really does help people to transition to more stable housing in the three-year pilot with the city and tipping point, and we've seen those outcomes in just three years' time. i hope that disability and benefits advocacy are considered as part of the needs assessment, and that the need there is reassessed. thank you. >> clerk: great. thank you. there are now additional callers. >> chairwoman: thank you so much, and thank you to all of our public commenters. at this time, i have a

hard stop at 11:30, but i want to go to item 6, which we have a transition from our committee. member hanes will be transitioning, so i wanted to give him an opportunity to talk about his transition, and some of the work ahead. so i will turn it over to member hanes. >> thank you. thank you forgiving me a couple of moments, and i'll be brief. i'm glad that the mayor appointed me to this role. as i told her, i had prayed for it before this position came into existence, to serve on one of our city's homelessness commissions, to be that individual with that lived experience to represent from that perspective and hoping to shape something to give greater benefit to those in need.

even though my time on this particular committee has been short, my efforts in that vain will continue on with my efforts on my own non-profit. my full-time job is not going to allow me the four hours every month engaging with you all outside of commission efforts, but to the affect that my non-profit organization will hope to work on some of these funds to provide supportive infrastructure, in addition to all of the other (indiscernable) elements. [audio is breaking up] so i have had some good communications with jessica and other city hall staffers in terms of my transition, and i feel

that we have left off at a point where ultimately anybody with a good communications background and skills can really take off from where we had left, which was really hoping to sort of get some other members with our collective hopes and aspirations, in terms of doing a robust job with communications and how that can overlap with the community engagement. and so i believe that jessica will be able to, you know, take good stewardship of that with my notes that we have shared and the many conversations that we've had in previous commission meetings, with a good amount of my energy, in terms of feedback there that can be called in. i will always make myself available. so if people feel like they need to reach out to me individually to get some additional information, feel free to schedule some time. i have a limited amount of time in this calendar week to complete any of those

efforts because next week i actually have meetings with the job, even though i start on monday, tomorrow, and so i'm waking up at 6:00 a.m. to start these efforts with the new job. i feel like we're at a point where those who are still going to be deeply engaged with the efforts will be able to take off. and i'm happy that i've been able to spend the time to learn from each and every one of you. what i will say is what i have always said to people, good-bye is something isn't always meant to be forever. the other thing i learned about city hall and serving as part of the city family is that you actually -- you never get to leave because they're always asking you back in some way, shape, or form. i look forward to seeing you in some future meetings, asking for some of these funds to fully implement my program, or hanging out and having a good time in the community, now that we get

to go out and have a good time. >> chairwoman: thank you so much, member hanes, for your service. it is definitely not good-bye. it is see you later because i know you're have been engaged in this work. i'll open up to the other members of the committee if there are proposed agenda items or any other updates that committee members would like to give at this time. >> just graduations on your new job, sean. and thanks so much. >> chairwoman: great. all right. so i think we need to go to public comment for this item. >> i also just wanted to thank you for all -- everything you've done for this committee. i think you're leaving with a very strong inspiration. i think we're going to get into the moment in which we can do the community impact liaisons, but i know you won't be going too far. and if we need, we can ask

for your expertise. so thank you for all of your work. and good luck and congratulations. agenda item, that comment from the public comment on legal makes me realize that maybe we should review what was included in the budget and how (indiscernable). i did not think about the legal gap. and so maybe i'll make a little bit of a followup on that because it was a recommendation. and to bring back the liaison charts and review where we are for that. >> chairwoman: absolutely. for august, we'll be looking at that budget, that will be the entirety of that meeting, what god got funding and what is missing. any other future agenda items? all right, so public comment. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this

item should call 415-655-0001, i.d. 1875963686. then pound and pound again. if you haven't already done so, please dial *3 to line up to speak. asystem prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comment. please note you have three minutes. spanish interpreter, please? [speaking spanish]

[end of translation] >> clerk: great. cantonese interpreter, please. [speaking cantonese] [end of translation] >> clerk: great. thank you. i do not see any hands for public comment. >> chairwoman: i will now take a motion at this time to adjourn. >> so moved. >> chairwoman: all right. is there a second? >> second. >> chairwoman: seconded

by member friedenbach. you can call the roll. [roll call taken] >> chairwoman: so we are adjourned at 11:33 amount m.. 33:00 a.m.thank you, everyone. >> good luck, sean. >> congratulations.

>> and parking authority commission to order. secretary silva, can you please call the roll. >> clerk: yes, thank you. [roll call] . >> clerk: chair, you have a quorum. places you on item number 3, announcement of prohibition of souns producing devices during the meeting. we have no announcements since we are in a virtual meeting, and places you on item 4,