>> dorsey aye. the motion passes with vice chair walton descenting in committee. >> thank you mr. clerk. it is on 2-1 vote item 6 goes to the board without recommendation. mr. clerk, is there any further business before this committee? >> there are no additional items on our agenda. >> thank you mr. clerk, we are now adjourned. [meeting adjourned]

and if you need a seat, take whatever empty seat if you need to sit down. first of all, good afternoon! and i want to say welcome to pier 70 in the dog pad's neighborhood. dog pat's is in the house. recently voted one of the hises neighborhood in the city. i want to start by telling you a story about a famous san franciscoian, born in 1835 held from connecticut and named the

niantic. yes it's appropriate that we gather at a pier today because the niantic was a ship, a commercial ship destined for trade with khien' until in 1849 her captain got word that hundreds of migrants were in panama looking for transportation to san francisco where no doubt their fortune and gold awaited. so the niantic crew rebuilt her for a passenger ship and left panama with nearly 250 pioneers. arrived in san francisco as one of the first ship to bring 49ers ashore. legend has it, newcomers would jump ship before it could even drop anchor in san francisco bay. within a few days, most of the nianic crew abandoned her for

the gold rush too. so the captain sailed the niantic as close to land as they could get, running her aground on the shore where clay and montgomery streets now meet. there, the niantic became a store, offices and hotel. somebody cut a door in her side and inscribed rest for the weary and storage for trunk, at last, a great fire in 1851 burned much of the niantic so the san franciscoians built the niantic whole known as one of the best in the city. then it too burned down in 1872. the next incarnation, the stone niantic atop the old ship and

hotel would not burn, instead, it was toppled by the earthquake of 1906. now surely any rational city would give up at this point, right? no. in fact, you might know where the niantic rest to this day, right at the foot of trans america building, an iconic part of our city where shavo is investing a billion dollars to the building and surrounding area from connecticut to china to panama, to gold rush to hospitalities offices, from a bond onment and fires and earthquake, the niantic persevere, our downtown persevere, our city san francisco will persevere! [cheers and applause]

if our ship, if our ship runs aground, we hang a welcome sign and we get back to work. if our hotels burn, we build a bigger one and if that crumbles, we built a grade pyramid. we are san franciscoians, we surpass to catastrophes, we are the city that knows how. [applause] the last few years have been tough. and our challenges ahead, even tougher. public safety concerns, a spiraling fentanyl crisis and

learning law among our children. i know that we can overcome these, in part because four consecutive concessions last year, our voters reinstilled every level of government with a mandate to get the basics right, to deliver the basics! [applause] to put children before politics, to put results before postering,ing and thank you to the voters of this city for electing our new city attorney! [cheers and applause] our district attorney who is combating open air drug dealing, taking on perpetrator of gun violence, prosecuting hate crime including against

our api communities and sending a strong message that accountability and equity can and in deed, must coexist. [cheers and applause] thank you, for elected supervisor matt dor see and joe longardio, who champion public safety and who like me refused to accept the rampant drug sales or struggling schools. i've been waiting for help like this for a long time. now let's talk about, last year we came together to fund new strategies, to recruit and fund new officers, to add new police

academy class to see add new louse against vending of stolen goods on our streets sko to allow for common sense tools like access to private security cameras. but our public safety challenges are not going to be solved in one budget cycle, the gap between how many officers we need and how many we is vas. we are at least 100 officers short just as hundreds of more are approaching retirement. this is not unique to san francisco, police staffing is a national problem, but we must solve it locally. to do it, we will expand recruitment strategies and work to retain officers, we will give them the resources they need, yes!, we must hold officers accountable but we must also respect the hard work

they do every day and respect them! [cheers and applause] we can support and ease their work with complimentary alternatives to police intervention that means ambassador in our tenderloin downtown and all across the neighborhood that provide that positive presence in our streets. it means our street crisis response team are out 24-7 respond to go people who are in crisis. our residents are demand thating we build a safe city, that we build back our police force and we need to deliver for them. the push for full staffing has to be consistent and it has to be sustained. the full staffing is still years away.

right now, our officers are working overtime to meet the basic needs of our city and in order to do that, we're going to have to make some hard decisions. so i'll be introduced a 25 million dollars supplemental to fund overtime and to keep our officers walking the beach, making drug arrests and dealing with [cheers and applause] , we need to keep our officers walking the beat, making drug arrests and addressing retail theft. [applause] and i want to make one thing very clear, i am not okay with open air drug dealing in this city, period! [cheers and applause] the families who are losing people to fentanyl are certainly not okay with it.

and the people who live in the tenderloin every day they're not okay with it. yes, we are pushing to innovative programs to get people into care and treatment including on working overdose prevention program, but we need to enforce the law. like wise, home and business break ins require a timely police response. and investigation and arrest and all of this requires having officers. and those officers need clear support from the leadership of the city. because public safety is not only about taking care of our residents, it's also about taking care of our economy.

over the last year, i visited business not just ceo but workers these are the people who ride bart and every day, who go to our bars and restaurants and who we need to bring downtown back to life. they're number one concern that i've heard over and over, office to office, public safety. and we have to listen. but even as we do, we must accept another tough fact. san francisco downtown, as we know it, is not coming back. and you know what, that's okay. empty office buildings have fuelled dire preconvictions of economic doom and screaming headlines about the death of downtown. but let's keep some perspective

here, in 19 07, downtown was ash, that's worse than today in how people are working. we have our challenges but that does not mean it's the end of downtown. like the niantic, it's a call to action to reimagine, what our future holds what we can be, to think about what kind of city we are and what kind of city we can be. the truth is that it will not be one thing that fixes downtown. it will be many things and the good news is that downtown san francisco, that's so many advantages, a beautiful water front location, local and regional transportations, a dense walkable neighborhood, restaurants, bars entertainment and iconic venues like or cal, park and chase center.

and most importantly, we have unparallel talent, a culture where it's common to dream of the next great idea that will change the world. behind me is astrandous a high speed internet across the world. millions of people can benefit from what is being built and designed right here. when asked why [applause] when asked from as tranous located in san francisco, their ceo pointed to the talent, the people, the denses collection

of engineering talent, anywhere, anywhere! [cheers and applause] pier 70 has a history of fostering the future, the fire that drove through the city's early history and two world war, the bart tunnels right here. and now a satellite company here building the future? that's pretty amazing. as people think about the changing nature of the work place, we have a once in a generation opportunity to recruit new business sectors and companies and to create a more diverse and resilient local economy, whether that's in finance or healthcare or green tech bio tech or driverless vehicles that are

out testing our narrow streets or artificial intelligence, a ground breaking industry that is just tapping into a new vision of what is possible and growing. right here in san francisco, they're talking about it across the world, it's growing in our city. [applause] our airport was just named the best in the country. [cheers and applause] you see, this city, it is ready to foster a spirit of success. and for the past several months, i met with business leaders, small businesses and workers to seek and share ideas. and today, we are releasing my plan. a road map for the future of downtown. [cheers and applause]

it called for reforming our tax structure to make san francisco more competitive, right now! we cannot until next year, right now. i'm proposing legislation to protect our existing companies by pausing tax increases on our retail businesses, hotels, and arts and entertainment. [cheers and applause] and to attract new businesses, we will be offering tax breaks for three year for any company that wants to start business in san francisco. [applause] we will work on tax reform legislation for next year's

ballot by collaborating with our controller, the board of supervisors, the business community and labor because taxes require serious thought and planning. and we have to stop the endless cycle of one off ballot measures around taxes thrown on the ballot without any real thought or any analysis. [applause] we're feeling the impact when businesses pack up and leave our city because of it. we will prioritize arts and entertainment downtown, to bring the streets alive! [cheers and applause] through rezoning efforts and investments and a new arts culture and entertainment district. we will dedicate, we will dedicate cleaning crews and is ambassadors to work alongside

our public safety officers. we will make it easier to open and operate small businesses downtown through improving our permitting process. [applause] we will hire for transit operators who we desperately need to bring muni service back to our city. and of course to recruit police officers and muni operators to create a more resilient thriving local economy, we need home that people can actually afford. [applause] the approval of our housing element, a plan for what we need to build over the next 8 years was a major first step. but it was only a first step.

to build the 82,000, the plan calls for me need to build homes three times faster than we did over the last decade. and that's in a market right now where builders are struggling to make project financially feasible. my plan, housing for all is how we make this happen. [applause] and it's built on a simple premise, we need to remove the barriers to build new housing, period. that's it. that's it! [applause] the plan starts with my executive directed setting out what our departments need to do. we will remove all barriers to all new housing, open up the housing pipeline, untangle city

processes and get the departments delivering results faster, cut fees and other costs, identify the funding for affordable housing to fund the goals and rezone areas all across the city and all neighborhoods, all neighborhoods have to be a part of the future of this city. [applause] and we have actually created much of the housing we need on paper. in addition to the 18,000 homes we built since 2018, we have more than 52,000 aoubts that have been approved, can you imagine that? but for many reasons, they're simply are not being built to open this pipeline, i will

introduce legislation to built the public infrastructure of our largest project faster. [applause] what does that mean? we will get the road, the pipes, the power lines built quickly so that housing construction can start. the portrayal power stations just down the road from here, is already on board and ready to go. [applause] you see, this project alone has 2000 new homes stuck in the pipeline and will create over 1,000 union jobs. [applause] this one project, with our legislation, we can break ground on new workforce housing this year. this one policy can help unlock tens of thousands of homes

including nearly 13,000 affordable homes. housing for all, is a promise. a promise that the next generation of san franciscoians will be able to afford to live here. that our families will have homes to raise their children that are workers can live near their jobs and not forced to long commutes that choke our roads and pollute our air. [applause] you cannot support families, workers, the environment without supporting and fill housing. you cannot say you want to address homelessness, without building homes. and yet so many of the critics who claim homelessness and all about and only about the lack of housing are the same critics that block prohousing policies

time and time again. [cheers and applause] time and time again. [applause] not anymore, we must build and we must build now. and speaking of housing the homeless, look at what we were able to do over the last couple of years, san francisco was the only county in the bay area to reduce homelessness, a 15% reduction on persons on the street. [applause] over the last year, we placed 2400 households into permanent suppose i have housing, 7,000 into shelter, nearly 10,000 households have received rental assistance and other support so

they would not end up on the streets. i know, homelessness can be frustrated and seem unsolvable, but remember, this is a national crisis impacting every city large and small up and down the west coast. we are in this city treating it like a crisis and making progress. this year, we will launch our new five-year strategic plan on homelessness. [applause] it will set clear goals for our department and nonprofit partners which we will demand that they meet. we will work to complete our plan to add new mental health beds and we will work with the state to add even more. we will push forward our overdose prevention plan,

working with supervisors dorsey and ronon to continue to bring overdose deaths down in our city. [applause] work withing supervisor mannedleman, we're start to go see some success in the castro reaching people who refuse service for years. that targeted coordinated consistent approach is working and we need to expand it to other neighbors. we will also continue to fight for reforms to california's mental health laws. our reforms have been defeated again and again in the legislature despite the heroic efforts of senators like scott wiener and susan eggman, but we're not giving up. we're bringing reforms back this year. because our opponents will not

be able to overcome the glare of public scrutiny forever, californians will not let people to suffer and die on our streets because we can't get it together. this year we will also continue to better serve san francisco's family through our children and family recovery plan, providing vouchers and subsidies for early education, paying early educators more. developing a pipeline to recruit and train more educators, offering opportunities and academic support to combat the law and paid internship for our kids, and mental health support. [applause] and we will build on what has

been a historic era, a renaissance for our parks and open space. and i see a number of our local 261 gardners and folks who take care of our parks here today. thank you. [applause] the renaissance is because of the hands of the people who take care of these parks every day. in 2022, we opened tunnel top, bal rebluff, francisco park with views that are unmatched anywhere in the world. [applause] the great highways, slow streets and shared spaces, transition from temporary pandemic responses to key elements of our city dedication

to safe and open spaces. and we maydaykay promenade a permanent safe place for all san franciscoa ns. we'll continue this in our park like india basis will transform for decades to come. [applause] san francisco will keep implementing our climate action plan aggressively, expanding ev infrastructure and electrifying and seeing our greenhouse free by 2040, five years ahead of state goal. we will continue to lead on innovative equity programs like dream keeper initiative. [applause]

the dream keeper initiative which does not talk about what we're going to do for the black community, it does what we need to do for the black community. [applause] an opportunities for all which is already made dramatic positive change in people's lives. we will continue uplifting and defending our trans people in the face of unspeakable bigotry around the country. [applause] we will do all of this while continuing reforming how our government functions. we started with hiring the new city employees, that means getting our mechanics, street cleaners and nurses and union

workers on the job sooner so they can take care of this city. [applause] supervisor stephanie is leading the efforts to bring accountability to contractor and she has my full partnership and support. we will make the hard choices facing us with our budget. i know work width board of supervisor under president aaron presston we will achieve our goals of while achieving our $100 deficit. we going to do it, filicia. we will not solve all of san francisco's problems in a year

and we cannot fear trying new things. because if we standstill, we fall behind. when we push forward, even if we stumble, we stumble forward. there is a whole ecosystem of in a sayers, counting san francisco out. of course we heard it all, earthquake destroys city, summer love, earthquake destroys city again, bubble burst san francisco. i want to say something to the media talking heads, the critics, to the men who point out how the strong man stumble or where the doer of deeds could have done it better. maya angelou said, you may shoot me with your words but still like arrow, i rise! [cheers and applause]

but you can write us off but you better write in pencil, because we have proved you wrong every time before and soon we will again. it's what we do. we endure, we adapt, we lead and in this city anything is possible! we turn ships into hotels and offices, power plants into housing and new neighborhoods, we built satellite that sweep across the sky and we create a world where young girls from the projects can be mayor! [cheers and applause]

that's what we do! [cheers and applause] i am, i am committed to you, i'm committed to this city. and i am inspired by the knowledge that together we will do what has always been done. we will rise, we will stumble, and we will rise again. with our voice in uni sense with our eyes to the world and we will show the world that this is san francisco and we will never ever give up. thank you. [cheers and applause]

the tenderloin is home to families, immigrants, seniors, merchants, workers and the housed and unhoused who all deserve a thriving neighborhood to call home. the tenderloin initiative was launched to improve safety, reduce crime, connect people to services and increase investments in the neighborhood. as city and community-based partners, we work daily to make these changes a reality. we invite you to the tenderloin history, inclusivity make this neighborhood special. >> we're all citizens of san francisco and we deserve food, water, shelter, all of those

things that any system would. >> what i find the most fulfilling about being in the tenderloin is that it's really basically a big family here and i love working and living here. >> [speaking foreign language] >> my hopes and dreams for the tenderloin are what any other community organizer would want for their community, safe, clean streets for everyone and good operating conditions for small businesses. >> everything in the tenderloin is very good. the food is very good. if you go to any restaurant in san francisco, you will feel like oh, wow, the food is great.

the people are nice. >> it is a place where it embraces all walks of life and different cultures. so this is the soul of the tenderloin. it's really welcoming. the. >> the tenderloin is so full of color and so full of people. so with all of us being together and making it feel very safe is challenging, but we are working on it and we are getting there.

>> i am iris long. we are a family business that started in san francisco chinatown by my parents who started the business in the mid 1980s. today we follow the same footsteps of my parents. we source the teas by the harvest season and style of crafting and the specific

variety. we specialize in premium tea. today i still visit many of the farms we work with multigenerational farms that produce premium teas with its own natural flavors. it is very much like grapes for wine. what we do is more specialized, but it is more natural. growing up in san francisco i used to come and help my parents after school whether in middle school or high school and throughout college. i went to san francisco state university. i did stay home and i helped my parents work throughout the summers to learn what it is that makes our community so special. after graduating i worked for an investment bank in hong kong for a few years before returning

when my dad said he was retiring. he passed away a few years ago. after taking over the business we made this a little more accessible for visitors as well as residents of san francisco to visit. many of our teas were traditionally labeled only in chinese for the older generation. today of our tea drinkkers are quite young. it is easy to look on the website to view all of our products and fun to come in and look at the different varieties. they are able to explore what we source, premium teas from the providence and the delicious flavors. san francisco is a beautiful city to me as well as many of the residents and businesses here in chinatown. it is great for tourists to

visit apsee how our community thrived through the years. this retail location is open daily. we have minimal hours because of our small team during covid. we do welcome visitors to come in and browse through our products. also, visit us online. we have minimal hours. it is nice to set up viewings of these products here. -

>> tenderloin is unique neighborhood where geographically place in downtown san francisco and on every street corner have liquor store in the corner it stores pretty much every single block has a liquor store but there are

impoverishes grocery stores i'm the co-coordinated of the healthy corner store collaboration close to 35 hundred residents 4 thousand are children the medium is about $23,000 a year so a low income neighborhood many new immigrants and many people on fixed incomes residents have it travel outside of their neighborhood to assess fruits and vegetables it can be come senator for seniors and hard to travel get on a bus to get an apple or a pear or like tomatoes to fit into their meals my my name is ryan the

co-coordinate for the tenderloin healthy store he coalition we work in the neighborhood trying to support small businesses and improving access to healthy produce in the tenderloin that is one of the most neighborhoods that didn't have access to a full service grocery store and we california together out of the meeting held in 2012 through the major development center the survey with the corners stores many stores do have access and some are bad quality and an overwhelming support from community members wanting to utilities the service spas we decided to work with the small businesses as their role within the community and bringing more fresh produce produce cerebrothe neighborhood their compassionate about creating a healthy

environment when we get into the work they rise up to leadership. >> the different stores and assessment and trying to get them to understand the value of having healthy foods at a reasonable price you can offer people fruits and vegetables and healthy produce they can't afford it not going to be able to allow it so that's why i want to get involved and we just make sure that there are alternatives to people can come into a store and not just see cookies and candies and potting chips and that kind of thing hi, i'm cindy the director of the a preif you believe program it is so important about healthy retail in the low income

community is how it brings that health and hope to the communities i worked in the tenderloin for 20 years the difference you walk out the door and there is a bright new list of fresh fruits and vegetables some place you know is safe and welcoming it makes. >> huge difference to the whole environment of the community what so important about retail environments in those neighborhoods it that sense of dignity and community safe way. >> this is why it is important for the neighborhood we have families that needs healthy have a lot of families that live up here most of them fruits and vegetables so that's good as far been doing good.

>> now that i had this this is really great for me, i, go and get fresh fruits and vegetables it is healthy being a diabetic you're not supposed to get carbons but getting extra food a all carbons not eating a lot of vegetables was bringing up my whether or not pressure once i got on the program everybody o everything i lost weight and my blood pressure came down helped in so many different ways the most important piece to me when we start seeing the

business owners engagement and their participation in the program but how proud to speak that is the most moving piece of this program yes economic and social benefits and so forth but the personal pride business owners talk about in the program is interesting and regarding starting to understand how they're part of the larger fabric of the community and this is just not the corner store they have influence over their community. >> it is an owner of this in the department of interior i see the great impact usually that is like people having especially with a small family think liquor store sells alcohol traditional alcohol but when they see this

their vision is changed it is a small grocery store for them so they more options not just beer and wine but healthy options good for the business and good for the community i wish to have >> the bicycle coalition was giving away 33 bicycles so i applied. i was happy to receive one of them.

>> the community bike build program is the san francisco coalition's way of spreading the joy of biking and freedom of biking to residents who may not have access to affordable transportation. the city has an ordinance that we worked with them on back in 2014 that requires city agency goes to give organizations like the san francisco bicycle organization a chance to take bicycles abandoned and put them to good use or find new homes for them. the partnerships with organizations generally with organizations that are working with low income individuals or families or people who are transportation dependent. we ask them to identify individuals who would greatly benefit from a bicycle. we make a list of people and their heights to match them to a

bicycle that would suit their lifestyle and age and height. >> bicycle i received has impacted my life so greatly. it is not only a form of recreation. it is also a means of getting connected with the community through bike rides and it is also just a feeling of freedom. i really appreciate it. i am very thankful. >> we teach a class. they have to attend a one hour class. things like how to change lanes, how to make a left turn, right turn, how to ride around cars. after that class, then we would give everyone a test chance -- chance to test ride. >> we are giving them as a way to get around the city.

>> just the joy of like seeing people test drive the bicycles in the small area, there is no real word. i guess enjoyable is a word i could use. that doesn't describe the kind of warm feelings you feel in your heart giving someone that sense of freedom and maybe they haven't ridden a bike in years. these folks are older than the normal crowd of people we give bicycles away to. take my picture on my bike. that was a great experience. there were smiles all around. the recipients, myself, supervisor, everyone was happy to be a part of this joyous occasion. at the end we normally do a group ride to see people ride off with these huge smiles on their faces is a great experience. >> if someone is interested in

volunteering, we have a special section on the website sf bike.org/volunteer you can sign up for both events. we have given away 855 bicycles, 376 last year. we are growing each and every year. i hope to top that 376 this year. we frequently do events in bayview. the spaces are for people to come and work on their own bikes or learn skills and give them access to something that they may not have had access to. >> for me this is a fun way to get outside and be active. most of the time the kids will be in the house. this is a fun way to do something. >> you get fresh air and you don't just stay in the house all day. it is a good way to exercise.

>> the bicycle coalition has a bicycle program for every community in san francisco. it is connecting the young, older community. it is a wonderful outlet for the community to come together to have some good clean fun. it has opened to many doors to the young people that will usually might not have a bicycle. i have seen them and they are thankful and i am thankful for this program.

program. the meeting will come to

order. welcome to the budget and finance committee. i am the chair chan and joined by member safai. for those in attendance, please handle your electronic devices so it does not intervene in the meeting. public comment by telephone. the board recognize that equitable time is taken for public comment. for those comments on the agenda and for those present and waiting on the telephone line.

in-person meeting. city hall, legislative chamber, room 250 remote access watch sf cable channel 26, 28, 78 or 99 (depending on provider) watch www.sfgovtv.org public comment call-in 1 (415) 655-0001 / meeting id: 2493 446 0403 # # remote access to information and participation the board of supervisors and its committees will convene hybrid meetings that will allow in-person attendance, remote access, and public comment via teleconference. visit the sfgovtv website at (www.sfgovtv.org) to stream the live meetings and watch meetings on demand or watch live meetings on san francisco cable channels 26, 28, 78, or 99 (depending on your provider). members of the public may provide public comment in-person at the above noticed location or remotely via teleconference (detailed instructions available at: https://sfbos.org/remote-meeting -call). individuals who wish to share documents during a hearing must provide them to the clerk 48 hours in advance (brent.jalipa@sfgov.org); equipment is not available to share hard copy documents received in-person. members of the public may also submit their comments by email to: brent.jalipa@sfgov.org; all comments received will be made a part of the official record. regularly scheduled budget and finance committee meetings begin at 10:00 a.m. every

wednesday of each month. committee agendas and their associated documents are available at https://sfbos.org/committees. public comment call in 1 (415) 655-0001 / meeting id: 2493 446 0403 # # (press *3 to enter the speaker line) with the observance of the president's day, matters will be brought to the agenda. >> we have the budget and legislative analyst reports for items today, total of ten items. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 15. for those items we will have the presentations first followed by the legislative analyst and then we will take questions and public comment. mr. clerk, please call item no. 1. >> 1. 230097 [de-appropriation and appropriation - district 10 general city responsibility - district 10 projects and services - various

departments - $250,000 - fy2022-2023] sponsor: walton ordinance de-appropriating $250,000 from general city responsibility and re-appropriating $170,000 to the human rights commission for district 10 safety plan implementation, youth activities such as sports, mentoring, college exploration, and on-site school support to district 10 schools, and $80,000 to the department of children, youth and their families for district 10 sports programming for basketball and football in fiscal year (fy) 2022-2023. members of the public, wishing to comment on this item, please call. public comment call in 1 (415) 655-0001 / meeting id: 2493 446 0403 # # (press *3 to enter the speaker line) >> today we have representative from the office to present this item. >> thank you, good morning. i'm

tracy gallardo from district 10. this is for human rights commission and children youth and families. this money was originally set aside for the participatory budget and into the allocation of these funds. district 10 currently holds in person townhouse twice a year. during the pandemic it was virtual. april 6th, april 20th with the final input session june 13th. in addition to these budget meetings, we hold them twice a year as a result the plan incorporated all the community concerns as well as meetings with various department heads. we continue to meet with departments to hear from them

regarding district 10. these meetings will happen again and january and march. this will prevent the domestic violence strategies outlined in the safety plan. thank you. >> thank you. and we have the bla report. >> thank you, chair chan. nick ménard from the legislative budget office. this item reappropriates $250,000 for a district 10 project to the human rights commission. we recommend approval. >> thank you. any questions? seeing none. mr. clerk, please go to public comment. >> >>clerk: thank you. those wishing to speak on this item, please lineup now. for those

calling in, public comment call in 1 (415) 655-0001 / meeting id: 2493 446 0403 # # (press *3 to enter the speaker line) seeing no in person speakers here in the chambers, madam chair, there are also no persons on the line for public comment. >> seeing none, this item is closed. >> roll call, please. >>clerk: [roll call] >> we have 3 ayes. >> thank you, the motion passes. please call item 2. >>clerk: 2. 220949 [designation of agents authorized to obtain disaster and emergency assistance funding] sponsor: mayor resolution authorizing agents to

act on behalf of the city and county of san francisco for all matters pertaining to state and federal disaster and emergency assistance funding and to provide the assurances and agreements required by the governor's office of emergency services. public comment call in 1 (415) 655-0001 / meeting id: 2493 446 0403 # # (press *3 to enter the speaker line) >> thank you, mr. clerk. today we have a presentation by mark mclean, director of human services. thank you for being with us this morning. >> thank you. mark mcclain. this is from the california office of emergency services requires every there is years the county agents that are authorized to ask for and receive emergency funding. this

proposed resolution has absolutely no financial or budgetary impact. again it's just identifying the positions in the city that can engage on behalf of the city with cal oes with matters that deal with emergency funding and public assistance. the proposed resolution is a universal resolution that will be effective for all disasters for the next three years. it's not limited to a specific incident. the three positions that are designated are the executive director of d.e.m., the comptroller, and deputy comptroller. this resolution has been previously passed for the last several years. i'm available for questions.

>> thank you. that is really crucial for us to recover and these rates that are exceeding the expectations. we appreciate the work that you and your team have been doing. thank you so much. mr. clerk, please go to public comment. >>clerk: those wishing to speak in the chambers, please lineup now. public comment call in 1 (415) 655-0001 / meeting id: 2493 446 0403 # # (press *3 to enter the speaker line) seeing no in person speakers here in the chamber, madam chair, we have no speakers in the queue. >> thank you. public comment is now closed. colleagues, i would like to move this item to the full board for

possible recommendation. >> roll call, please. >>clerk: [roll call] >> we have 3 ayes. >> thank you. the motion passes. mr. clerk, please call item no. 3. >> >>clerk: 3. 230100 [tax exempt and taxable lease revenue commercial paper certificates of participation (series 1 and series 2) - to fund board approved capital projects not to exceed $150,000,000] sponsor: mayor resolution re-authorizing the issuance of tax-exempt lease revenue commercial paper certificates of participation, series 1 and series 2, and taxable lease revenue commercial paper certificates of participation, series 1-t and series 2-t, in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $150,000,000 to finance the acquisition, construction, and rehabilitation of capital improvements and capital equipment approved by the board of supervisors and the mayor; authorizing the delivery of an alternate credit facility in the principal amount of $163,500,000; and approving and authorizing the execution of a second supplement to trust agreement, a second amendment to site lease, a second amendment to sublease, a revolving credit agreement, a fee agreement, an offering memorandum, and certain other related financing documents, and authorizing other related actions, as defined herein.

members of the public wishing to comment on this item, please lineup. public comment call in 1 (415) 655-0001 / meeting id: 2493 446 0403 # # (press *3 to enter the speaker line) >> thank you, mr. clerk. today we have a financial analyst from the comptroller's office from the office of finance. thank you. >> thank you. good morning, chair chan for considering this resolution. this is a resolution to reauthorize the city's commercial paper program and to support the program. to give you some background, commercial paper is a short-term or interim financing tool that we use to

fund capital projects often before taking it out to long-term debt and allows the city to fund these capital programs more cost effectively than debt at the outset. we have the $250 million commercial paper program. last year the board approved the replacement of one of the series of commercial paper in the amount of $100 million with a new credit agreement and the other two series are expiring in may of this year and we are replacing those with the credit to extend the program further. the current agreement are with u.s. states bank and with $5 each and replacing with the agreement for the wells fargo bank and maintain the program for the last several years. we

request for proposal and that will create some annual savings for the program. so, really it's a straight forward replacement of this facility with the new revolving credit. i'm happy to take any questions if you have any. we are requesting that you approve the resolution to approve it. >> thank you. >> item 3 is for approving a commercial paper program and for the facility. we have shown the projects on page 8 of our report

and the city will incur a cost of $554,000 to establish a new line of credit and on going cost of approximately $129,000 per year for the three year duration of this agreement. we do recommend approval. >> thank you. mr. clerk, seeing no comments from my colleagues, let's go to public comment. >> yes, members of the public who wish to speak on this item in person, please lineup now. public comment call in 1 (415) 655-0001 / meeting id: 2493 446 0403 # # (press *3 to enter the speaker line) if you are already in the queue, please wait to be unmuted. there are no speakers in the chamber and madam chair, we have no speakers in the queue. >> thank you. seeing no public

comment. public comment is now closed. seeing no other questions, i will circle back, not with you but separately with those departments about the multiple different projects for the resilient emergency system and capital repair. we'll move this to the full board with positive recommendation. mr. clerk, please call the roll. >>clerk: on the motion for possible recommendation by the full board. [roll call] we have three ayes. >> thank you, this motion passes. mr. clerk, please call items 4-8. >>clerk: 4. 230011 [grant agreement

amendment - meals on wheels of san francisco - home-delivered meal (hdm) nutrition services to older adults - not to exceed $35,653,759] resolution approving the second amendment to the grant agreement between the city and county of san francisco and the non-profit meals on wheels of san francisco, for the administration of the home-delivered meal (hdm) nutrition services to older adults program, to increase the grant amount by $4,173,350 for a total not to exceed amount of $35,653,759 effective upon approval of this resolution, with no change to the grant period of july 1, 2021, through june 30, 2025. (human services agency) 5. 230012 [grant agreement amendment - project open hand - congregate nutrition services for older adults - not to exceed $11,782,223] resolution approving an amendment to the grant agreement between the city and county of san francisco and the non-profit project open hand, for the administration of the congregate nutrition services for older adults program, to increase the grant amount by $2,224,772 for a total not to exceed amount of $11,782,223 effective upon approval of this resolution, with no change to the grant period of july 1, 2021, through june 30, 2025. 6. 230013 [grant agreement amendment - san francisco-marin food bank - citywide grocery access - not to exceed $11,228,328] 7. 230014 [grant agreement amendment - self-help for the elderly - congregate nutrition services for older adults - not to exceed $11,881,213] resolution approving a second amendment to the grant agreement between the city and county of san francisco and the non-profit self-help for the elderly, for the administration of the congregate nutrition services for older adults program, to increase the grant amount by $1,216,203 for a total not to exceed amount of

$11,881,213 effective upon approval of this resolution, with no change to the grant period of july 1, 2021, through june 30, 2025. 8. 230015 [grant agreement amendment - glide foundation - free meals program - not to exceed $12,055,383] resolution approving a second amendment to the grant agreement between the city and county of san francisco and the non-profit glide foundation, for the administration of the free meals program, to increase the grant amount by $4,187,149 for a total not to exceed amount of $12,055,383 effective upon approval of this resolution, with no change to the grant period of july 1, 2021, through june 30, 2025. members of the public joining us remotely wishing to comment on these resolutions, please call public comment call-in 1 (415) 655-0001 / meeting id: 2493 446 0403 # # when the system indicates that you have been queued for the

comments. we have representatives from the program and nutritionist from the human services agencies and for items 8 and 6, we will hear from cindy lynn and citywide food access manager from human services agency. let's take that by order by presentation, and we do actually have one item that has the bla report and then maybe we can ask the questions altogether. >> great. thank you. good morning supervisors, my name is elizabeth kearney from the department of aging services, also known as dos. we are asking the board to approve amendment for each grant amendment and one

is for meals on wheels and self-help for the elderly. each of these organizations have been providing quality nutrition support and our leaders addressing food insecurity. i would like to provide general information about the services as a whole and speak specifically about each of the modifications. it sounds like you want to take all questions at the very end, is that correct? >> that's correct. wonderful. >> thank you. meals on wheels, project open hand and programs are for meals and older adults in the community. the pandemic in the last few years has scored how critical this program is for vulnerable populations who are

higher at risk for food insecurity. we know that 45% of consumers that are in the programs last year were screened as food insecure. we also know that 97% of our nutrition clients surveyed last year reported less worried about having enough food to eat because they participated in a program highlighting the impact and difference our services make. doss meal grants have requirements and these requirements are essential ensuring the health and safety of our clients and perform a high level of performance by our partners and help meet the needs of our clients. also ensure that services meet federal, state and local standards. these

requirements include home assessments, nutrition screening, nutrition education, nutrition counseling and referrals. they also include food safety and sanitation monitoring which is essential when providing meals for at risk populations. we monitor all doss funded nutrition programs annually. additionally our meal partners submit monthly and quarterly reports to help ensure requirements are met and standards are maintained. it also allows for timely technical assistance should it be needed. meals on wheels are consistently compliant and continually meet outcome objectives. all three are on track to meet service deliverables this year. the 1st amendment we are requesting approval on is with meals on wheels for home

delivered nutrition services. meals on wheels is one of eight community partners that has a grant with doss to provide this service. their our largest providers for meals and service contractor to serve 132,000 consumers and provide meals annually. meals on wheels serves clients in every district and provides 2 meals a day every week to provide to a diverse population of clients they serve and the meals are wholesome and meet dietary guidelines and serve diabetic meals for individuals who need those. healthy home delivered meals is an essential and proven strategy to decrease the risk of food insecurity among our consumers who need meal support in their home to live independently,

safety and well nourished in their community. the meals on wheels grant modifications include the following, business increases to include 42,000 more meals and increase in rate per meal per year to help with the rise in food and fuel cost. lastly improving infrastructure funding in the amount of $353,000 from the california department of aging to support three electric vans and commercial printer. that is meals on wheels. i will move on to the next went. for project open hand, this one is for congregate meals. project open hand is one of ten doss funded organizations that provided congregate nutrition services. they have 10 communal

dining sites across eight districts and they offer a breakfast service. their meals are an eclectic mix of cuisine that serve their clients and healthy and meet the latest dietary guidelines. currently project open hand is providing meals to go as well as on-site dining for those who want to connect with peers and are ready to engage in wellness activities in person and at community sites. project open hand is contracted to serve over 4,000 clients in approximately 52,000 breakfast and 200,000 lunch meals annually. the grant modification will add funding to support 86488 more lunn meals allocated between this fiscal year and the fiscal years 24 and

25. these meals are needed to meet the current demand this year and projected service levels in fiscal year 24 and 25. the modification also includes the city's cost of doing business increase and infrastructure funding in the amount of $88,678 from the california department of aging for equipment purchases to support their food service operation. last but not least, is self-help for the elderly, also for their congregate nutrition services program. they are one of six doss nutrition partners who provide culturally responsive nutrition support offering chinese cuisine meals daily. self-help has nine communal dining sites located in seven

districts and opening another dining site in district 4 this fall. they provide lunch services and three of their sites they provide dinner services and offering on-site dining meals. they are engaging with their clients to determine on going needs for meals. they are on contract to serve 55 consumers and 325,000 meals annually. the grant modification will add funding to support 650,000 more meals also allocated between this year and the next two. these additional meals are to meet current demand that year and serve projected levels in 24 and 25. like the rest of them, the modification includes the cost of doing business increase and infrastructure funding in the

amount of $11,600 from the california department of aging to support purchase equipment needed at two of their meal sites. your approval of their amendment as well as meals on wheels and project open hand will in partnership with providers to continue to provide culturally responsive nutrition support for older adults and adults with disabilities in the community. thank you very much. i will pass it over to cindy lynn. thank you. >> good morning, supervisors, i'm cindy lynn, the supervisor at hsa to present the for the

grant and for supporting pop-ups throughout the city. our current term started through july 2022 and will allow us to go through the end of fiscal year. we are proposing an amount of $4,928,828, not to exceed $228,328. i would like to share a couple of highlights from the pop-up pantry program. all of these sites were started in the beginning from the pandemic in order to give food to community members. if you recall, it was

quite a hectic time at the beginning of the pandemic to get food especially the challenge for those who might be limited with funds or have disabilities or just couldn't stand in line for health reasons. right now we have 20 sites of these pop ups going. from july 2022 through december 2022, over 435,000 bags of groceries have been distributed. that's an average of 72,000 bags a month. that accumulates to almost 70,000 individuals served. we are also happy to report that this is a 21% increase in food support between last fiscal year and this fiscal year so far. also would like to share where these pop-up pantries are. i put up a map of the different

locations and pop-up sites by district. you can see we tried to work with the food bank to spread them out throughout the city for ease of access. here is a quick snippet of some client demographics. you can see that a very diverse array are served here identifying as api. every year the food bank conducts a service satisfaction survey with our clients. here are some of the results of last year's results also asking the customers about the pop-up pantries. 97% agreed that they like the food they get from the program. 98% of the respondents agree that the volunteers and staff provide great service and 96% agree with the statement. in my culture, we eat the food that is offered in the program. 71%

of the respondents said their households had experienced a financial loss due to the pandemic and that let's us know how crucial these programs continue to be. i will move on to the item. i bring before you a modification request for glides free meals program. this is quite a historical program. if you know san francisco. this modification request will add an additional $4,187,000 to the grant not to exceed

$350,586,000 and we predict it will continue to continue to do so and this is predicted at a higher rate. a little bit of background on the daily free meals program. it is open to everybody in the neighborhood and anybody who just shows up. no people are turned away. there are no eligibility requirements, no exceptions, no exclusions. this program began in 1969 as a public dinner for 50 people, but now glide on average serves about 1600 meals. that's inclusive of breakfast, lunch and dinner. they are only closed one day of the year, new year's day and very accessible to the community. again here are some client desk graphics. you can see that they serve a pretty wide range of

clients, and like i said because no one is turned away, these can shift from year to year but these are the most recent surveys that they did with their clients. again, i would like to share some of their survey responses. glide does try to survey their clients regularly, but it's particularly challenging with glide because again no one is excluded and not everybody comes everyday. so here are some of the responses from their last survey. 100% of the respondents rated the quality of the meal as excellent or good. i am told that in particular, fried chicken thursdays are amazing. 98% of the respondents felt less worried about meeting their needs because of the program. and 98% of the respondents reported an increase in fruits and vegetables and whole grains

because of the meals they access here. that's the end of my presentation. thank you. >> thank you, ms. lynn. >> thank you, chair chan. items 4-8 as noted approve an amendment to an existing agreement with meals on wheels, project hope and glide to all various forms of nutrition assistance as just outlined by the department. when we look at grant agreements, we look at the reasonableness of the budgets within the agreement and the not to exceed amount in the resolution. we also look at the performance of the contractors and their financial condition. i can tell you today that as of today, we didn't see any red flags across any of those areas. we did have a recommendation on the glide resolution to request a report back to the board about their status as a non-profit. we

did learn from the department yesterday that their status has been accepted. i am withdrawing that recommendation and recommend approval for the recommendation on file. we did have a recommendation for item 6, yes. thank you. to clarify that the approval of the amendment is retroactive. i also just want to point out that when we looked at the performance, what we noted is that the providers are delivering more meals than they are actually contracted for. so even with these increases that are proposed by the amendment, if the providers remain on budget, it will result in a service cut to the nutrition assistance program. to put some numbers on it, if you look at the meals on wheels, project open hand and self-help for the elderly and glide meals

delivered, there were 2.2 million and that would decrease to 2.5 million. with the marin food bank item, they have been delivering over 70,000. they will have to deliver fewer groceries or do fundraising which is not included in the budget that we have seen. so i do want to note that for the board as you consider these items. thank you. >> thank you. the comment that i want to make in general for this body in both contract amendments as well as grant amendments with the same period of the contract and grant contract that you are coming back for a grant increase in this case is concerning always

because we know that also means no matter what the program is, you are overspending and you are exceeding your spending in a dollar amount but in this case it's a very challenging time because of the pandemic and the needs have increased significantly as i'm learning, and i think the cost of doing business, the cost has significantly increased due to inflation. this is a harsh reality that we have to face. i think the additional alarming situation for me when we think about these grants is the fact that calfresh is coming, the emergency allotment is coming to an end, and with that, it means that at least from what we learned from director trent and from your memo is telling us

that calfresh, households that have calfresh can lose any where from $95 and $517 per month. that's huge, i think. so does that actually mean that these programs will see also increase in fees if they lose household benefits significantly. with that said, i'm very supportive of today's grant amount to deliver these critical services and thankful for the work that you and our partners have been doing during this pandemic and our partners should think about ways to have these conversations and considerations as we move forward with budget conversations and thinking about how we really utilize our

resources and where do we put our money, and i for one think that this food security should be a priority for san francisco. vice-chair mandelman? >> supervisor rafael mandelman: thank you, chair chan. i share some of the concerns that you've raised and the point that the bla raised that this doesn't really work over time. the demand has grown so much over the pandemic and lots of work but we are not contracting to continue the work at the same level. i guess the first thing i want to see is what is doss and hsa's thinking about where we are because it looks like we are headed for a cliff and chair chan has pointed out that this going on with calfresh that

seems could be related and exacerbates the need. are we thinking about this and when do we think it's coming and when will it address us? >> your name and title? >> good morning. susan -- for hsa, the glide budget is privately fund raised and it's not a cut and the city supports only a portion of the budget. inflation, obviously the cost has increased particularly with food costs and that increases the amount. it's not a 50-80,000 cost but the future budget includes the city and private money. >> we aren't necessarily anticipating that funding them at less than what they are

currently delivering means they have to reduce. >> no, inflation means the same dollar amount doesn't go quite as far but half the funds are private and they have been doing a great job and people are interested in donating to this cause in the last couple years. >> then this turns chair chan's concerns into a question. what is going into the calfresh production and what these providers are doing? >> we are tracking through data what the current level of service demand is with our before and after this policy change. and so, at the outset, we anticipate that there will be more demand among the food providers for the support, and we are going to just keep close track to understand it from the data perspective on how the policy change is affecting the

need in the community. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> supervisor safai? >> supervisor ahsha safai: thank you. i have a few questions. again, i think we saw during covid and the increase in demand and many ways of uncovering levels of food insecurity that we might not know existed or were exacerbated by covid. we did a few things and one is we passed legislation to promote food empowerment market. i understand that's making its way in getting off the ground in bayview. there is a lot of people that just don't and we heard this over and over again that don't feel comfortable standing and participating in standing in line outside. they don't want people to know they are experiencing that level of food insecurity. that's what we have been trying to push.

i would ask folks here today when given the client demographics to the food pop-ups, does that demographic information, does that correlate with the level of poverty and demand of food insecurity, because it doesn't seem to reflect what we have seen out in the community. i'm glad that there is significant demand, but i just don't know if that correlates with the level of poverty and demand that we are seeing out in the community. >> thank you for your question, supervisor safai. this is just for the pop-up pantry. the rest of the data will show what is through the covid programming. >> it's a little bit misleading because when it says client demographics and it says client demographics and gives you

demographics that they are presenting to us. >> right, but it's just one part. >> i get it. it would be helpful to have more clear information. >> sure, we can get that work from the food bank. >> one thing that we heard from the latino task force of the program and there is greater demand and we put that in the budget last year. greater demand for prepaid cards that can support local businesses. so individuals that have a demand and need for food insecurity, they can go and these cards are attached and related to existing small businesses in their community. again, this is something that they can self motivate, go on their own, support a local business which we want to do with our local economy. versus having to go and standing and getting a box of food, and also keeping their identity or their situation a little bit more private. so

that's something that you have been thinking expanding more of? >> yes, that's what we are currently considering expanding and we support the model with edsf, and that is a very similar model where participants receive vouchers and spend it at neighborhood stores. that's a really popular program that we support that has a constant waiting list. so it is something that we are trying to put more resources into once we know our resources for next year. >> when i see for instance in terms of delivering groceries, one of the groups is contracted for 40,000 groceries delivered but they are delivering 70,000. is that an independent choice they are making and are you all funding that beyond some of these other programs and ideas that are out there, or are they coming back and asking us for more money because they have

exceeded their contract and now we are increasing that contract? >> so for the 40,000 that we put in our minimum for appendix a where they are deliverables, that's what we put out to bid. the food bank was the only bidder for the rfp and the food bank can provide that program at a lower cost and they are able to go way beyond 40,000 units. >> that's great. what i'm asking is are we obligated to pay beyond what we are contracted? >> no. >> because we are doing a contract amendment already, is that correct? >> correct. >> to chair chan's point, that they are coming back and asking for a contract amendment beyond what was originally contracted or is it just a life of the contracting now and you are extending it? >> for the food bank in particular is an extension of

the same amount. unfortunately we were only able to enter into a six month contract with them and we received more resources and why we brought that item here today to ask for the extension and more dollars to support the program. again, i would like to share that our resources for that grant covers about 66 percent of the cost of pop-ups while the private food bank funds the rest of it. >> that's very good. i'm in favor of all of these programs. i think they are extremely essential. i'm just trying to get more data because some of this is not making sense to me. the other too is this an exhaust to the pantry because it says three but i can count five that actually pop-up. >> i believe those are not considered pop-up pantries that were run by the food bank. they

were partners with other organizations to provide. and these are pop-ups and you might be thinking about other distribution sites that are in your district that are unrelated to the food bank. >> i'm not. because i see the food bank truck show up. so that's why i was asking is this an exhausted list because this is not extensive. >> i'm happy to defer this question to our food bank representative. they might know a little bit more about specific locations. >> that would be great. >> maybe sean, would you like to take this one? >> thank you. please state your name and title. >> good morning, supervisors, sean brooks. food bank. yes, supervisor safai we have quite a number of food banks across the county. we support

220 food pantries in san francisco that provide weekly groceries to constituents across all the districts and 20 of those are pop-up pantries that are currently supported by the food bank and other resources. >> got it. so what's the difference between the pop-up and a food pantry? >> we have been supporting food pantries for years and during the pandemic many pantries closed but not all and we stood up these emergency programs initially for the food pantries that closed and faced an overwhelming demand as you saw with long lines. we have been supporting these programs and normalized them in different ways and people have times to

show up and get food right away and avoiding some of the concerns that you talked about waiting in long lines. you won't see those lines as you saw during the pandemic. these programs offer similar food to pantries that you see in your neighborhood and produce and protein and grain. >> okay. all right, i guess we can follow up more. >> i'm happy to answer anymore questions. >> thanks a lot. >> supervisor connie chan: thank you. i appreciate the questions and as you can see this body really cares about food security. facing budget deficits and facing the needs across the city, i think ultimately the question that we will have in the coming months as we are going to the budget conversation is how do we bridge the gap and meet those needs. we understand and we are grateful for all the partners that are

here for their stepping up and raising funds on their own to meet the demand. we do understand that however way that we are going to view this, that we do see as part of our responsibility as city government to actually work with the partners to bridge that gap. i look forward to seeing the briefing and conversations about how do we problem solve this budget gap and funding gap. mr. clerk, please let's go to public comment. >>clerk: thank you, chair chan. for members of the public who wish to speak on these items, please lineup along the red curtains. for those calling in, public comment call-in 1 (415) 655-0001 / meeting id: 2493 446 0403 # #

there will be a signal to begin comments, please go ahead and step up. public speaker: good morning chair and committee members, my name is jeannie cooper and impact officer at the glide foundations. i would like to thank mike and kathy and cindy lynn for presenting today and working on this amendment, as well as the offices of supervisor ronen, preston and safai. thank you very much. i would also like to thank you for the hard work that supervisors are helping us combatting food insecurity in san francisco. we appreciate the modification of our contract for the daily meals program and we respectfully request the committee's approval. we operate our daily free meals program in line with our belief and food for all. no exceptions and no exclusions. the program has no eligibility requirements, providing the free nutritional meals a day 364 days

a year. we have done this for decades. the need to prioritize this safety net is dire in san francisco. including more than 70,000 homes in san francisco received their last allotment which provided the critical boost needed during this pandemic. we are facing a collapse in this buying power that will affect our community members that will result from $570 million in benefits to san francisco and 11.1 million. some people will go from receiving $281 a month to just $23 while food prices are at an all time high and getting consistent and equitable access to nutritious meals. we appreciate your consideration

today to these modifications to be able to combat hunger in san francisco. thank you very much. >> thank you for your testimony. >> public speaker: my name is hana crosby. i want to echo the sentiment of my colleagues and appreciate your vital concern and awareness of which community members are hurting. i would like to add more context. first there is 100 cliff looming. in addition to the emergency allotments ending, there is a food cliff. the food bank in addition to the private funding you heard of secures over $90 million in donated food annually. previously that was significantly more and in the

previous year it was 10, and now 7.5. so there is less food available. it is 60% higher cost, and the demand continues to be a persistent level. this specific pop-up program that you heard about serves 18,000 households weekly. the food bank serves 56,000 households weekly. our pop-ups currently have a wait list of 2200 people. with this amendment, contract funding will be extended until june 30th. there is currently no funding after that. there is a funding cliff. there will be greater need in the community. we appreciate your support for this program. the crisis response is now an equity centered dignified culturally

responsive, trauma informed and participant centered program presenting a vital service and we appreciate your support of this vital program in our community. thank you. >> thanks so much. seeing no further speakers here in the chamber, madam chair, we have no speakers in the telephone queue. >> thank you. seeing no more public comment, public comment is now closed. colleagues, i would like to send these items 4-8 to full board with recommendation. mr. clerk, please call the roll. actually no, i need to make an amendment for the retroactive. my apologies. i did that again. i would first like to make the amendment for item no. i believe for the no. 6, to amend the item to indicate that it is

retroactive, and from the grant period of january 31st to february 1, 2023. with that amendment, mr. clerk eric please call the roll. >> >>clerk: on the amendment to identify the contract term, 2023. [roll call] >> we have 3 ayes. >> thank you. the motion passes, and let's move items 4-8 including item 6 that has been amended to full board with recommendation. mr. clerk, please call the roll. >>clerk: on the motion to forward to full board with a positive recommendation. [roll call] >> we have 3 ayes.

>> thank you, the motion passes. >> mr. clerk, i would like to call items 9 and 10 together. >>clerk: yes, items no. 9 and 10. >> 9. 230103 [accept and expend grant - retroactive - heluna health - patient-centered outcomes research institute (pcori) - $133,515] sponsor: mayor resolution retroactively authorizing the department of public health to accept and expend a grant increase in the amount of $33,632 from the patient-centered outcomes research institute (pcori) through heluna health for a total amount of $133,515 for participation in a program, entitled “patient-centered outcomes research institute (pcori),” for the period of october 1, 2020, through september 30, 2021. 1/31/23; received and assigned to the budget and finance committee. 10. 230104 [accept and expend grant - retroactive - heluna health - patient-centered outcomes research institute (pcori) - $134,528] sponsor: mayor resolution retroactively authorizing the department of public health to accept and

expend a grant increase in the amount of $34,645 from the patient-centered outcomes research institute (pcori) through heluna health for a total amount of $134,528 for participation in a program, entitled “patient-centered outcomes research institute (pcori),” for the period of october 1, 2021, through september 30, 2022. members of the public, wishing to comment, please lineup. for those calling on the line, public comment call in 1 (415) 655-0001 / meeting id: 2493 446 0403 # # (press *3 to enter the speaker line) >> we have representatives here on the line. >> thank you, madam chair, and good morning supervisors. i'mal lou from san francisco department of health. i will be presenting these items. both are from the outcome research institute with a study where we

are looking at two different mobile health different technologies to help support create prophylaxis use for medication that is highly effective for hiv prevention, however, we do see a significant drop off after two periods of people continuing 6-12 months of starting prep. our study is text messaging intervention as well as mobile to see if we can improve adherence and retention of care. the study is focusing on transgender men and women who have been highly impacted by hiv and also focusing on those who are newly starting this medication and having trouble

taking this prep. we are enrolling in this city in public health clinics and in washington d.c. and will be looking at a number of patient outcomes. this plan does have an advisory group and including hiv activist including local and state experts to help inform the design and implementation of the study. thank you for your consideration. >> thank you. >> do we have any questions? seeing none, i understand that directly through these activities understanding this grant and also trying to determine compliance of the behested payment law, and so i hope that it's all clarifying

now, and seeing no other comments and consequence, mr. clerk, please go to public comment. >>clerk: yes, members of the public wishing to speak on these two items and joining us in person, please lineup now. for those joining us on the public line, public comment call in 1 (415) 655-0001 / meeting id: 2493 446 0403 # # (press *3 to enter the speaker line) please wait until you have been unmuted. madam chair, we have no speakers in the queue. >> thank you. seeing no public comment, public comment is closed. i do see that vice-chair mandelman has questions. >> i would like to be added as a sponsor. >> thank you.

>> mr. clerk, >> roll call, please. >>clerk: [roll call] >> >> thank you, the motion passes. we have three items, 11 and 12. 11. 230102 [acquisition of real property - 4200 geary associates, l.p. - 4200 geary boulevard - 100% affordable housing - $11,064,369 - ground lease with base rent of $15,000 - loan not to exceed $20,537,592] sponsors: mayor; chan resolution 1) approving and authorizing the director of property, on behalf of the mayor's office of housing and community development (“mohcd”), to acquire real property located at 4200 geary boulevard (“property") from 4200 geary associates, l.p. (“borrower”) for $11,064,369 under an agreement for purchase and sale (“purchase agreement”); 2) placing the property under the jurisdiction of mohcd for use in constructing affordable housing for san franciscans; 3) approving and authorizing the director of property and the director of mohcd to enter into a ground lease to lease the property back to the borrower for a term of 75 years and one 24-year option to extend and

an annual base rent of $15,000 (“ground lease”) in order to construct a 100% affordable, 98-unit multifamily rental housing development affordable to low-income senior households, including one manager unit and ancillary commercial space (the “project”); 4) approving and authorizing an amended and restated loan agreement in an amount not to exceed $20,537,592 for a minimum loan term of 57 years (“loan agreement”) to finance the development and construction of the project; 5) adopting findings declaring that the property is “exempt surplus land” pursuant to the california surplus lands act; 6) determining that the less than market rent payable under the ground lease will serve a public purpose by providing affordable housing for low-income households in need, in accordance with section 23.3 of the administrative code; 7) adopting findings that the project and proposed transactions are consistent with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1; and 8) authorizing the director of property and/or the director of mohcd to make certain modifications to the purchase agreement, ground lease, and loan agreement, as defined herein, and take certain actions in furtherance of this resolution, as defined herein.

12. 230101 [multifamily housing revenue bonds - 4200 geary - not to exceed $60,000,000] sponsors: mayor; chan resolution authorizing the issuance and delivery of tax-exempt multifamily housing revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $60,000,000 for the purpose of providing financing for the construction of a 98-unit, affordable multifamily residential rental housing project for seniors located at 4200 geary boulevard within the city; approving the form of and authorizing the execution of an indenture of trust providing the terms and conditions of the bonds; approving the form of and authorizing the execution of a loan agreement; approving the form of an authorizing the execution of a regulatory agreement and declaration of restrictive covenants; approving modifications, changes and additions to the documents; authorizing the collection of certain fees; approving, for purposes of the internal revenue code of 1986, as amended, the issuance and sale of residential mortgage revenue bonds by the city in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $60,000,000 to finance the acquisition and construction of the 4200 geary apartments; ratifying and approving any action heretofore taken in connection with the bonds and the project, as defined herein; granting general authority to city officials to take actions and execute any other documents necessary to implement this resolution, as defined herein; and related matters, as defined herein.

>> members of the public joining us remotely, please call public comment call in 1 (415) 655-0001 / meeting id: 2493 446 0403 # # (press *3 to enter the speaker line) madam chair? >> thank you, mr. clerk. i'm a proud sponsor of these two items, and thank you so much to the mayor and the mayor's office for housing community developments for the partnership to really build the much needed 100% affordable housing on this

site. i just want to thank my predecessors supervisors to get this started and going. i'm only the beneficiary to her work here. and today we actually have sheila, director of policy, and i believe ophelia wash as well whos the project manager and both from the mayor's office of housing and community development. >> thank you, chair and supervisors. sheila -- last year, the board brought two housing developments to this community and we are finalizing six affordable housing projects and that will serve low-income and seniors. this is the first since 2011. it's an important step in

meeting housing goals to high resource neighborhoods. we acknowledge a significant need for more housing like this to provide stable homes to low-income and elderly. we have been working with other state agencies to the housing needs assessment and will be working closely with the dedicated position with the planning department for that needs assessment. the six projects we are bringing to you this spring will produce more than 600 affordable units and the housing goals. all of these projects rely on significant dollars for these projects. >> thank you, good morning, chair chan and supervisors. my name is ophelia wash, with management ocd. i'm here to present items 11 and 12 for

affordable housing development located on geary. the resolutions today are to approve affordable housing financing to begin construction this april 2023. item 11 provides approval for most to acquire property for $11,064,369 under a purchase and sale agreement with the sponsor for an amount of $20,537,592 and approval of city ground lease. item 12 is authorizing bond issuance in an amount not to exceed $60 million. 4200 geary will be a new 98 unit 100% affordable senior housing development in district 1. in 2018, it was selected as 4200 geary for housing noted for housing availability. approved a

$14 million development in january 2021 which the board of supervisors reviewed and approved in april 2021 under final 210363. upon approval of financing we are now returning to the board to finally approve this transaction. a permanent loan in approximately $20 million. the proposed project will include 98 residential units which includes 41 studios and 57, one bedroom units. 4200 geary will also include 22 local office subsidy, 32 subsidy units with ami 30% and affordable housing units and the rest for households with income up to 50% am i. the project will pro

needed housing to a growing population of older adults that are homeless or at risk of homelessness and will less seniors age in place. this will also create new construction on the san francisco west side which has not seen affordable housing development since 2011. the project will be financed with the state of california housing development. after a successful application for 2022, 4200 geary was awarded $32,842 for september 22nd. mhp funding from acd which was awarded in 2021, $1 million from the federal home loans grant program in 2022. 4200 geary has secured a construction lender and now ready to start construction this april of 2023 and expect the

december 2024 completion date. thank you. this concludes my presentation and we respectfully request your approval for these two items presented to you today. i'm happy to answer any questions. we also have a member from tndc, and ocd director of housing development who are also available to answer questions that you may have. >> item 11 is a resolution that approves a number of agreements related to an affordable housing project at 4200 geary. it approves a purchase and sale agreement for the city to acquire that property, a ground lease to tndc to operate this site of affordable housing and also approves an amendment to the loan agreement. as of 2021, the board did approve a $14.5 million loan to tndc that

included $11 million to purchase this site, and $3.5 million for predevelopment cost. under the purchase and sale agreement here, the city would become the land owner of 4200 geary, and wave repayment of the $11 million acquisition portion of that loan that was already approved by the board. the administrative loan agreement increase the city's funding for permanent financing to $20.5 million. we show the detailed development budget on page 44 and 45 of our report which is $87 million or 890,000 unit approximately. about $100,000 per unit is the acquisition cost. we do recommend approval. >> thank you. and i see vice-chair mandelman has questions?

>> >> supervisor rafael mandelman: statements, comments. i don't think we need to belabor the high per unit cost. we talked about it last week, but i do think we have to figure out ways to get these projects done for less per unit. at the same time i'm very excited to see this project happening in a neighborhood that has been unrepresented by supervisors who want to see affordable housing happening in richmond and as i found in district 8, challenges around costs and looking at the

site on my computer right now. i'm thinking this will be a very positive addition to the neighborhood and let's try to get more affordable housing in d 1 and d 8 and all the other districts that were called out in that bond. thanks. >> i would like to be added as a cosponsor. >> this is one of the hardest types of housing to build given the limited funding sources for senior housing. so we appreciate it. there is a fast growing aging population that's in significant need of affordable housing, and we want to ensure that that population is served and supported in san francisco. so, this is a really phenomenal project. i really appreciate all the hard work of staff and all

the different people that were involved in this. i think this is a great addition to the community and please add me as a cosponsor. >> thank you, supervisor safai. i'm grateful for this project as well and thank you so much for the partnership with tenderloin neighborhood development corporation. it's a great site. it's right in front of the bus stop, walking distance to farmer's market and clement street and the community center is opening on clement street as well and there is already the medical center right there to be able to help some of the seniors if they need. also i'm grateful of this conversation of adding veterans units which is really helpful. in fact, i think that it's a conversation, a fruitful conversation that we had with veteran affairs commissioners

as well as the va hospital about having housing right at this location is really conveniently located serving our veterans in the neighborhood. so, for that, i'm grateful and thank you, colleagues for your cosponsorship. mr. clerk, let's going to public comment. >> yes, ma'am. members of the public wishing to speak on this item, please lineup to speak along the curtains. for those calling in, public comment call in 1 (415) 655-0001 / meeting id: 2493 446 0403 # # (press *3 to enter the speaker line) seeing no speakers here in chambers, please unmute the

first caller, please. >> >> public speaker: supervisors, as you see there are very few people that are going to give public comment. what i do is i observe all of this wheeling and dealing and even though the state is involved in many ways in this funding. and i'm calling because when the people are chosen, i hope you use the lottery system. and we need real human beings

representing the most vulnerable of those making under 60,000, under $80,000. you all may not know this, but hundreds of people are dying on the streets of san francisco. that's a crying shame. that's all i have to say. i have been a fighter for affordable housing, in fact i am going to start a project that we have our entitlements very soon.

so i am fully aware of these. thank you very much. >> madam chair, we have no more callers in the queue. >> thank you, public comment is now closed. colleagues, i will recommend these both items to be sent to the full board with a positive recommendation. mr. clerk, [roll call] >> >> thank you. the item passes. please call item no. 13. >> 13. 230002 [administrative code waivers and delegation of charter contract approval authority - biogas utilization project agreements, southeast treatment plant]

ordinance authorizing the san francisco public utilities commission (sfpuc) to exempt certain design, construction, finance, operation, and maintenance services and related agreements for the public-private partnership (p3) delivery of the biogas utilization project at the southeast treatment plant (sep), located at 1800 jerrold avenue, from chapters 6, 14b, and 21, and section 23.30 of the administrative code, but requiring compliance with the underlying public policies, including the payment of prevailing wages, implementation of a local business enterprise participation program, and compliance with the city's local hire policy and first source hiring ordinance, as applicable to such agreements, and permitting a best-value selection of the contractor team if the city elects to proceed with the project after completing its review under the california environmental quality act; and delegating to the sfpuc the authority under charter, section 9.118, to approve all necessary contracts that are $10,000,000 or more and/or in excess of ten years. (public utilities commission) 12/27/22; received from department. 1/10/23; assigned under 30 day rule to the budget and finance committee.

>> members of the public wishing to provide public comment, please call the line. public comment call in 1 (415) 655-0001 / meeting id: 2493 446 0403 # # (press *3 to enter the speaker line) >> we have representatives available to present this item. >> thank you. the technology is available but we would like to use the deliver cost-efficient way. >> good morning supervisors. i'm

presenting the information for the project. it is located at the south east treatment plant and will be built within the boundaries of the biosolid digester facilities project. it must be operational and ready to accept the biogas from the new digesters. it is showing a beneficial use of the buy product of the processing facility. it injects into a pipeline into the plant. it represents best value for the biogas and provides environmental benefits for two reasons. first, because of the renewable credits associated this gas and also because it replaces the plan for having a combined heat and power for this site that requires -- here on

the last you can see puc enterprise will still be responsible for the process and as well as maintaining a permit to operate the new facilities and will own the connection for the pg & e for the pipeline. on the right you see the scope of work for the private partner. it includes finance, design, construction, operation maintenance of the biogas utilization system. as well as brokerage of the renewable natural gas, sale and environmental credits associated with it. compliance with their permit that puc would own in coordination with the design and construction of the pipeline

inter connection. so we will now talk about why we need a special ordinance to deliver the services that we just listed in the previous slide. basically to allow the puc contract to provide a solution to the use of the biogas generated at the southeast plant. the ordinance basically would allow the puc to deliver all the services under one contract. the san francisco administrative code currently does not contemplate a p 3. so we ask for exemptions of chapter 21.23 of the administrative code to allow the puc to select based on best value. this would still be a competitive procurement. we would still meet the objectives of the chapters listed above.

for example, we know 14b has lbe goals that are associated with a fixed price, how far, for a p 3 project, we do not have a fixed price. puc would not be making that capital investment. however, we would work with cmd to develop the requirements that would be appropriate for a puc contract. chapter 6, chapter 21, also talk about a fixed price or a guarantee max price however there is no price. the ordinance would bring back the objectives or meet the objectives but we wouldn't have the conflicting requirements that we would have without the ordinance. i would like to reiterate the ordinance does not approve the project. we plan to return to the board for award of the

contract. our proposed action, we ask the committee to recommend this ordinance to the full board, and we ask the board to adopt the ordinance authorizing the puc to exempt certain design construction finance operation and maintenance services in related agreement for the development. the exemption again would allow us to have one contract responsible for the entire scope of services that we listed today. and we have a slide showing the schedule associated with this project. we are initiating the procurement process. we are anticipating a two step process with rfq and rfp. we are anticipating returning to the board for a contract award in july of 2024. it's important to note that this design build will take approximately two years and we will have this facility

operational in the fall of 2026 to take on the gas generated by the new digesters. thank you. with that, i'm open for questions. >> thank you. i don't see any questions on the roster. i want to put this in context a bit more for the public to say that this is providing exemption to the procurement process for sf puc to identify a contractor to carry out one single contract for the biogas project and it's important because we want to deliver simultaneously around the same time for the biosolid project. and we are looking for exemption of 14b and administrative code 23.3, they are prospectively the exemption

for construction contract and local business requirement and 21 for services and goods and the 23.3 is really for the lease of real property. and in this case, particularly we do identify based on your presentation that we are working with p.m.ed to use the existing pipeline to deliver the biogas. with that, i also know that you have mentioned in this ordinance with the discussion about delegating charter section 9-1-18 for approving the contract for delegating the authority to puc but through our conversation, as i understand that you have accepted the fact that since it's a single contract coming through a

resolution to the board, it's deserving of us to have that contract and what it looks like and the contractor that you selected and allow really not just this committee, but really the body, the boards including colleagues on district 11, district 9, particularly district 10, to at least really understand and have conversations on the new constituents and public process and approval of this contract. with that, we have come to an agreement to strikeout the language delegating that authority section 9.118. thank you. seeing that no other comments from colleagues, mr. clerk, please go to public comment. >> thank you, chair. members of the public wishing to go so to speak on this item that

are members of the public, please lineup. and members calling in, public comment call in 1 (415) 655-0001 / meeting id: 2493 446 0403 # # (press *3 to enter the speaker line) >> seeing nobody in chambers. please unmute the first caller. public speaker: david. i am excited and supportive of the biosolids project of the southeast treatment plant. it's a very important infrastructure project. i have no issue with the p 3 procurement method. my issue is with the delegation of authority that you just discussed but i want my comments on the record. the charter

provides for such project approval and prior to the first approval of the board of supervisors by resolution. the charter is specific about both methods of approval and timing and no delegations contemplated and the board would approve the contract by the board of supervisors by resolution and the approvals to form 126 reporting with the ethics commission. we don't know who the contractor is at this time. the board of supervisors may have concerns about the contractor. i have no idea. today's puc presentation on slide 4 states the puc will return to the board for approval or award of the contract. if that is true, then why is the 9.118 delegation needed which you can avoid this. either way, you should amend the subsequent

sections because it's section 4 and not section 5 and page 10 and 11 need to be renumbered sections 4 and 5. there is no bla report. this is definitely a policy matter and bla background would help if this amendment is deemed substantive and you can review the item on your own or amend or forward to the board as amended. those are my comments. >> >> next speaker, please. >> public speaker: this came before the san francisco public utilities commission some time ago without any decision making. it's now come before this committee we have a new person

in the contract monitoring. i believe that is beverly tan g. she should have been here to answer a few requests and contracting to answer a few questions. the way the puc is this will go directly to one or two of the board of supervisors and one of the board of supervisors who is in the chair was talking as if she knows a lot about this when she knows nothing. when we are dealing with pg & e, with we are dealing with an entity who we don't know who this contractor is that is going to be chosen. we have to have these standards. we must understand very clearly that the sf puc has no standards. there

are several people who are being indicted so we will have to be very cautious. just like the non-profits. we have over 31 non-profits that are in not good standing. san francisco public utilities commission is not in good standing. the manager from being an attorney, to becoming the general manager to make a $500,000 salary. >> i do apologize, but we are timing the speakers at two minutes. madam chair, that completes our queue. >> thank you. seeing no more public comment, public comment is now closed.

colleagues, i would like to make the amendments to this legislation. removing the delegation of the charter authority of section 9.118 to the board from sf puc. correcting the title on page 1, line one, removing page 5 entirely, line 10, 1-13. mr. clerk, >> roll call, please. >>clerk: on the motion by striking the delegation charter approval of language. [roll call] >> >> we have 3 ayes. >> thank you, the motion passes. i would like to make the motion

to move the amended ordinance to the full board for positive recommendation as amended. >> >>clerk: [roll call] >> >> we have 3 ayes. >> thank you, the motion passes. >> mr. clerk eric please call item 14. >> >>clerk: 14. 230049 [modification to license and services agreement - airport research and development foundation - application-based commercial ground transportation trip fee collection services - aggregate amount not to exceed $1,970,000] resolution approving modification no. 3 to license and services agreement no. 50037 between the city and county of san francisco, acting by and through its airport commission, and airport research and development foundation, a not-for-profit corporation, to extend the services term of the agreement for two years through march 12, 2025, and cap the payment of the administrative services fee by city at up to $144,000 annually for the period of march 13, 2023, through march 12, 2025, for an aggregate amount not to exceed $1,970,000.

>> for members wishing to comment, please lineup in chambers. for those wishing to call in for public comment, public comment call in 1 (415) 655-0001 / meeting id: 2493 446 0403 # # (press *3 to enter the speaker line) >> we have governmental affairs and officials from the airport online. >> good morning, committee members. the third resolution will approve the modification to the license agreement of the airport development foundation. the airport technology to monitor transportation companies such as uber and lyft and collect fees on licenses and technologies used at other

airports. this was by sf -- and the technology and defines this ground transportation at the airport of collection of trip fees. this licensing agreement was originally approved by the board of supervisors in 2015 for an initial two year term, the 3 year options to suspend and approved the modification with an additional two year option to extend and reducing the cap of administrative services fee to $144,000 annually and a non-profit trade organization to continue to offer assistants to other airports. currently there are 33 airports using this system. this will consider the option to extend and by increasinging the amount of

$288,000 to not exceed amount of $1.1 million and this is to collect service development fees when they license technology to other airports until the contract extension expires in 2025. while the airport has paid $8.6 million in admin fees over the term of the agreement, collecting fees and fines in the last year alone. we are extremely proud of this technology and ability to license to other airports and collect revenue. i'm happy to answer questions along with our operations team. >> thank you. >> item 14, approving

modification which is an agreement to allow trips to the airport and properly assess the fees for those rides and technology for other airports. we show the fiscal impact of this agreement. page 49 of our report which shows that the airport would pay $$288,000 over two years to the contractor, but generate approximately $92.4 million net revenue from trips primarily but other licensees of other airports for using this technology. we recommend approval. >> thank you. seeing no other questions, mr. clerk, please go to public comment. >>clerk: for those joining us in person, please lineup. for those on the line, please call

public comment call in 1 (415) 655-0001 / meeting id: 2493 446 0403 # # (press *3 to enter the speaker line) seeing no speakers here in the chamber, we have no speakers in the queue. >> public comment is now closed. colleagues, i would like to move this item to the full board with a positive recommendation. mr. clerk, please call the roll. [roll call] >> 3 ayes. >> thank you. the motion passes. please call item no. 15. >> thank you. >> >>clerk:

15. 230067 [real property lease amendment - 33 gough, llc - 33 gough street - $1,372,000 annual base rent] sponsors: mayor; dorsey resolution authorizing the director of property, on behalf of the department of homelessness and supportive housing, to amend the lease with 33 gough, llc, as landlord of the real property located at 33 gough street, for continued use as a non-congregate cabin program; setting a base rent of $1,372,000 per year; extending the term for two years for a total term of march 14, 2020, through march 13, 2025, with a one-year option to extend; and authorizing the director of property to execute documents, make certain modifications, and take certain actions in furtherance of the extended term under the lease and this resolution, as defined herein. members of the public who are joining us remotely wishing to provide public comment for this resolution, please call public comment call-in 1 (415) 655-0001 / meeting id: 2493 446 0403 # # when the system indicates that you have been unmuted, we will

hear your comments. >> we have the director of legislative affairs for the department of homelessness for affordable housing project. we approved this before. this is an amendment of the existing lease. it does have a bla report. >> good morning chair, supervisors, emily cohen with the department of homelessness supportive housing. i'm here before you today with a resolution to authorize hsh to extend our lease of the property at 33 gough to allow us to continue to use the site as a cabin community. this resolution is a 1st amendment to our lease agreement with 33 gough llc to run the 49,000 square foot property and surrounding parking areas for continued use. the current term of the lease started in march of 2020, and expires in march of 2023. the new term would extend the

lease by two years through march of 2025, with the one year option to extend. the amendment would increase the rent amount from $1.26 million per year to $1.37 million with no annual increases. just to give a short program overview, many are familiar with this project. this was the first cabin community or tiny home community piloted in san francisco. it's been up and running about a year. we originally used the property as a safe site as part of the initial covid response. in partnership with dignity moves, we have been able to pilot this innovative and creative shelter model in our community which includes the use of private cabins, about 64 square feet, small units, individual rooms with a bed, desk, heating,

storage and outlet and most importantly a door that locks, really offering sheltered guess dignity and privacy as they work with on-site services to move out of homelessness. there is two dining areas. we provide meals, there is a computer room, showers and services. i have been at this site and really get really positive feedback from clients and really the dignity and safety they feel when they can lock the door behind them. this is a really well received program by guest and i must say by neighbors which is refreshing. with that, we request your support for the extension of the lease. thank you. >> thank you.

>> item 15 is a resolution approving an amendment to an existing lease with 33 gough llc, the amendment would extend the lease by two years with an optional one year extension through march 2026. the lease as noted is used for the city to operate a tiny cabin site, a pilot shelter program. we detailed the fiscal impact on page 56 of our report the base of the lease is increased by 9% to $1.3 million a year. that, we did review information provided by the real estate division to confirm this is at or below market rate. we also note in our report that the operating costs

for the program on-site which amounts to about $78,000 per cabin per year. finally, i want to note there is companion legislation on the agenda today that would approve an accept and expand of a state grant of $10.9 million that will be used to fund the cost of the lease and the program for this fiscal year and the majority of the costs for the next fiscal year. we recommend approval. >> thank you. supervisor safai? >> supervisor ahsha safai: thank you, chair. i have a question as i dug into this. the department of affordable housing treats these cabins. what bucket does this fall under? shelter? >> yes. you are treating these tiny homes as shelter, not

supportive housing? >> correct. >> is there a limit on the stay that people can remain there of people coming and going? do the units turnover frequently? can you give us information on that? >> absolutely. there is no length of stay limit. folks can stay short-term and people stay very short-term. >> can i interrupt? >> sure. >> it makes a difference if you are going to a shelter bed or more congregate shelter, you might not necessarily be assigned the same space every night. you might not be able to leave your items in a place. you might have to put them in a secure location. so this is a different model of shelter. each person has their own

individualized room, bed and privacy. >> this is more similar to the hotel base shelters that we are now operating coming out of the program with people having individual rooms. so similarly, no length of stay limit across the entire shelter system. we have served 128 households with 156 people since the program began, and 60 have left. so we do have a relatively stable community here. it's not a very high turnover shelter. i think that speaks to its popularity. it's also a very robust with amenities and well established community at this point. so you served 128 individuals? >> households. about 20 couples. >> 156 individuals? >> correct. >> 60 have left? >> correct. >> can you talk about the 60

that have left and where they went? >> i can tell you that 16 have gone on to shelter or permanent housing and 5 returning to the streets. as anyone who works in shelter or i'm sure you are familiar, we don't always know where people go when they leave. we try to conduct exit interviews but it is quite often that people abandon and basically they don't come back one day and we don't know where they went. unfortunately that is pretty common in shelter. i got the question from your staff this morning, supervisor and the question i often get how many people went to housing from this shelter? how did this shelter do in placing people into households. i want to be very clear. that it is not solely the shelters responsibility for getting people into housing. we have housing placement and navigation system. if you stay for two

weeks, but you have a fight with your neighbor and the bed next door and something happens and you switch over to next door. or you go stay on a couch for a couple of days, we don't want you to lose your housing progress. given the transit nature of people experiencing homelessness, tying housing placement to a specific shelter matters because people move for a variety of reasons. that is why having a large centralized placement process and to that end in the fiscal year to date, we have moved over 1400 people into permanent housing out of off the street or out of shelters. >> i get that. i'm just trying to zero in on this model at this particular location. do you get their data when they arrive, put them in the system, that part of the agreement for having

individualized bed. >> correct. >> you track them when they arrive but you do not track them when they leave. did you say some went onto another shelter? >> yes. >> what kind of other shelter would they want to go to that is not individualized private room? >> people have all sorts of reasons but the data indicates they went to another shelter. >> okay. the other thing that i wanted to talk a little bit about was the operating cost. you said $78,000 per person. can you break that down a little bit? because the reason i'm asking about being classified as a shelter, is that you are providing two meals a day for each of these individuals. can you give us a little bit about

the information of the demographics of the folks that are there because that would seem that would add some significant costs and coordination to the site. do you do that at all of your shelters you are providing people two meals a day at all of your shelters? >> yes. >> if you can breakdown the $78,000, that would be helpful. >> sure. in terms of the operating costs of the cabin is about $2 million per year, taxes and lease expenses $7.1 million. meals $5.5 million. >> repeat the breakdown. >> sure, 3.2 in operating with contract. $1.7 million in lease and taxes, $528,000 in meals

approximately. for a total of $5.5 million. one of the reasons this property is a bit more expensive to operate than others is the lease. we are paying market rate here. it's not quite big enough to get to the economies of scale with the 150 bed facility, but if you have been to the site, it's on two separate parking lots divided by a building and considered two separate projects, so the staffing economies of scale are much lower. you have to have security at the top lot and the bottom lot and monitors the

bathrooms at the top and back lot and that requires more staffing. >> i want to go back that you are paying market rate. this is college owned land? >> it is with the private developer, a nine year lease with a private developer. they are planning to break ground on housing development there. it was delayed because of financing and costs on their end which is why we have the opportunity. >> >> who is the private developer? >> 33 goughllc. >> they decided to charge us and we agreed to pay market rent because we want to use this as a demonstration. the problem is it's showing the operating costs per unit is pretty high.

>> it is pretty high. every site is different. just because it's a cabin model, doesn't mean that every cabin model will have the same operating costs because the physical layout is so important to the staffing partner. we really staff based on what the site requires. if this is all in one parking lot, rather than two, i think our staffing costs would be lower. >> okay, the lease, that kind of jumps out at me but the operating, $3.2 million, can you break that down? what are we getting for $3.2 million? >> this includes 34 staff. 24/7 staffing with two staff to monitor the showers and eight staff for security. this is a very service staff intensive model. >> wow. as well as case

management services. >> is that your normal at your shelters? >> it varies at sites because of the location. but this is a higher staffing ratio than we see at some of our more congregate shelters. >> interesting. i guess why i'm asking is because when we did our safe parking, we had two on-site 24 hours. i get that is an important piece of the model, but i'm trying to understand how the decisions were made with 34 staff to how many tiny homes do we have? >> 70 cabins, 100 people at a time. >> that's more than a classroom. i'm not trying to be funny, but

that is a significant staff to client or patient ratio. so i would hope that, we want it to be successful. what are the staff doing beside security and monitoring the showers? >> they are working directly with the clients. >> are they service providing on-site, mental health, job training. what are we getting for 34 staff? >> you are getting monitoring, case management, long-term care and service, housing assessments, referrals, a lot of motivational interviewing and working with the guests. i think this is an area where everyone wants shelter to be cheaper than it is and we all struggle with this and this is a site with one of the most peaceful atmospheres of any shelters that i have been to. it is also a neighborhood that is improved because the shelter was placed here. the

encampments in the area have reduced hosting the community meeting for this extension was a pleasure. neighbors were coming out to thank you should -- urban alchemy and community moves. the level of staffing helped. >> no question about it. my only point that i'm trying to underscore is that we have a model that we are trying to scale, 3-1 staffing ratio is not a scaleable model. we just don't have the money for that. >> i don't think that would be necessary. >> again, i would love to waive a magic wand, but what we do, this is not a scaleable and i want a scale on a tiny home. the last question i will ask and i know supervisor mandelman is on there and i hope i'm not dominating too much, but i did

want to ask one more because we understand there is a different in how this was put together in terms of the cost of the actual tiny homes versus what we heard last week in supervisor ronen's last week that the cost is 100,000 per unit potentially. can you talk about that? >> i can talk a little bit about that. i think the paper sort of blew that out of proportion. >> that's fine, but from your own perspective, then. >> as you might be aware, the cabin community at 33 gough was possible because of the partnership with dignity moves and representatives are here as well. we were able to get the cabins donated and labor donated, but when speaking with dignity moves in all estimate of

costs, with ada accessibility, bathrooms and community rooms and all the goods and services that they were able to get donated including utilities and powers is probably $50,000 per cabin. as we think about the city delivering a similar project, we estimated that the costs of goods would change slightly because of inflation and the cost of building terms, so we estimate about $50,000 per cabin and the costs that the city has to pay if we do a project. that said, public works is going to be putting out the mission cabin community to bid, and we won't know what the actual cost of that is until we get those bids in. >> in this model, the cabins were purchased and installed for

free? at no cost to the city? >> at no cost to the city with the agreement that we fund the operations. >> who owns the cabins now? >> home first, a non-profit organization who is a partner with dignity moves. >> got it. i have a few more questions but i know supervisor mandelman has been waiting patiently. i apologize. >> before we go to supervisor mandelman, i know we have the bla report and then we'll come back. >> did you already do that? >> yeah. >> i have so many questions you forgot about the report. >> that was a positive recommendation. >> let's go to vice-chair mandelman. >> thank you, chair chan. i'm not going to have you stand too long because we are going to

have you back for the place for all community as a whole and getting to a lot of questions then. i am curious, somewhat along the lines of what supervisor safai was going down there. well first actually before i go down any lines, i do want to thank dignity moves, and i want to thank tipping point and hsh and urban alchemy for trying this model out because two or three years ago there have been the experiment with the sleep site that i was a big champion of and the same with tents and the same concern with the operating costs. we need something that is scaleable to get many more people off the sidewalks than we are able to get off the sidewalks now. we

will talk about this more. that report felt a little bit like waving the white flag. there is just no way to do it. we know what the real costs are. they look like $70-80,000 operating a shelter bed, whether it's a tent, a hotel, whatever it is, you are just stuck with that. get used to it. and i think we have to push against that in the same way that we could not accept a $2 million noe valley bathroom, i think we should try not to accept a 70-80,000 operating costs for whatever we do that is not the sidewalk. there were experiments during the pandemic with the unmonitored safe sleep site or minimally monitored safe

sleep site which was cheaper i think but quite bad for the neighborhood and quite bad for the people in it. and i am interested and will be pressing to see and some of my colleagues as well is there something between the unregulated sidewalk or largely unregulated parking lots in the tenderloin that came run over by drug dealers than this $70-80,000. these places feel safe. that is urban alchemy's intention and they put a lot of staff there and there is an a lot of very high need individuals there in all states and you should -- urban management keeps it under urban

under control. and we are dealing with the cost that is not manageable. we have lack of information, lack of data about unhoused people in san francisco. do we gather in flow data from people at our shelter sites like 33 gough? are we asking where were you last housed, how long have you been in san francisco? it seems like the very least since a lot of what we are doing is extrapolation, and guessing, that that information will probably be useful. >> we do some data collection on this. the administrative data from my understanding and i will be better placed to speak about

this at the hearing, is similar from what we get from the point in time count, but we have a lot of missing data in this field. absolutely. but back to your original question and point around the costs of shelters generally, i think we have some policy decisions to make as a community about where we cut costs. we provide two meals a day. does that -- >> i don't think the $500,000 is the driver. >> i don't think it is. do we only open shelters on city-owned property, that would give us fewer options but it would be cheaper. do we not do ambassadors and security and do we want to pay workers less? do

we want to have fewer bathrooms to client ratio. these are some of them that are in the admin code and some of them have developed out of the advocacy from people with lived experiences from homelessness and shelters and this board and all of this together has driven the price and i think for a good reason. i know we all want to solve this issue, and we all want to solve it as efficiently as possible, but this is not an expensive issue to solve and it's not going to be, but we as a community and you as policy makers, that's where these decisions will be made and these are hard trade offs and what we modeled in a place for all and what you are seeing in the 33 gough is what we think shelters should be. a dignified safe place where you are fed and do get case management and there is security and the neighborhood feels positively about this site. we can do this cheaper, but we'll need your help to

determine where those cuts should be because that would be very hard for either the guests or the community to handle. >> but i think even the portfolio that you meteorology, there is different urban alchemy site that is different than yourself and the different staffing ratios where people are sharing rooms versus on a parking lot where you are trying to maintain order and you yourself suggested a split parking lot is less efficient than. i'm not imagining that $70-80,000 operational in a year becomes 20, but it's 55, there is less shelter that you can get. the other though you the that i have is so much of what hsh has done since this inception has been chasing after

ideas thrown at it by politicians, community, whoever, that in some ways, the department hasn't had the opportunity to drive its own kind of plan, but also i think, maybe agreeing with you, you haven't gotten a clear direction from policy makers about what we actually want. i tried to give you some direction and even that came about as pretty muddy and you are getting conflicting messages about. so in some ways of getting our story straight for what we want you to do, i want you to end shelter homelessness and get as many people off the sidewalk as we can but have not given you the consensus statement by decision makers to give you clear direction to make it clear to get these shelters open as quickly as possible into service. i do want to talk more with you

about in flow and how we use the data from the services that we provide to get a better sense of what our unhousing population is like because you can tell me that it's 30% not san franciscans, and i'm not sure i agree with that and i would love to have more information. i also, i think you know i have the suspicion that hsh thinks the solution to homelessness is housing, it is to some sense, but that you are pursuing that as your policy and over investing in psh and other investors as that and you should be doing and if you are able to keep track where people go out of shelter, how many of them are

being navigated to something else, how many are just walking away? and is there any way over time, the 72% of these people are san franciscans and going to stick around, are we seeing them pop-up again two years later and able to track, you were at this shelter and now you are at this shelter. some of those questions we can pursue later on. i think that's it. >> thank you, supervisor mandelman. supervisor safai? >> supervisor ahsha safai: i just want to say for the record that i think that in intuitively, tiny homes and cabin makes sense to me to be able to have your own private room that you may not have had that privacy and dignity for a

significant amount of time. i want to say that and i really appreciate this. it's very similar to the questions that we had with safe parking. it was done no where in this city and we did it in balboa and didn't have to pay $2 million a year for rent because it was non-profit. that was my question, if this was a private developer, i would have hoped that we could have worked out a better deal. that is an area for me where we can have an additional cost satisfaction -- savings. in terms of operational cost, to get a real clear policy. some might require more and some might need less. you want 24 monitoring, security on site and the relationship with

the security and the local police force and local programs. the cost of the cabins is going to come back because we can't replicate it and we can't have installation as part of that public private partnership. that's something that we have to dig in on. the origin of where the cabins come from, if they are prefabricated. that's an important question that this board will talk about and grapple with. that's why i brought that up but that we can have more conversation about that later because it's important that we are doing something that the city cares a lot about and respecting the men and women and the trade that they do and that's an important piece of the conversation as well. so, i just wanted to get some of

these questions out there in preparation for the large community as a whole. the idea that we are thinking about shelter in a new way, i think that's something that should be driving our conversation. the last thing i will say just to end on is that one of the other motivating factors for prop c was to really begin a conversation about having your department be more data driven, and ensuring that we are looking at the data, that we are learning from the data, that the data is driving a lot of the policy decisions. i haven't necessarily felt that in a lot of the conversations that we've had. like supervisor mandelman said and having a real intake to get the understanding of the individual that you are dealing with, how long they have been in san francisco, when they arrive, what are some of their needs and crafting their response based on that, i think that's helpful.

and i don't necessarily feel that then goes into a system so if they end up not coming back one day and they end up in a shelter or somewhere else in the system, we have that individualized system already in place that leads to better outcomes. i haven't gotten that sense. >> that is very much a part of what we do through the program intake which is to collect that data. we of course also allow people to opt out in answering questions and we don't make shelter contingent upon answering questions. so we do get some that opt out and we do have that information and i want to assure you that we are collecting data. >> okay. we can talk more about the data because that is something that i haven't necessarily gotten a full answer

on the data because the answers came back that we are not really required to gather that, we don't push people too hard and where was the last question that you had as a residence, and they say san francisco. we can talk more about that. thank you for this. i want to end with i think this is a great model and idea that hopefully we can find a way to make it financially feasible to scale. >> >> supervisor connie chan: thank you, supervisor safai. maybe it's my bad, i should have probably called on item 16 with this one which is according to the bla report which is part of item 16, a state grant roughly

$10.9 million, is really part of what we are looking at here with 33 gough, and so, i have to say. i agree with my colleagues that the cost is too high, but i am grateful that partly we are receiving state funding to keep this going. however, i have two questions noted that both alchemy and salvation army is what we are working with to provide these services at the two sites and especially supervisor safai talked about the non-profit status. what is the status for both urban alchemy and salvation army? >> the majority is the lease and not the costs. urban alchemy is

in good standing. i'm wondering about salvation army because they are the meal -- i'm not sure they are the meal provider. i actually thought it was meals on wheels. so i would need to get more information. >> thank you, judy. >> the meals are moved to our meals on wheels contract. urban alchemy is not on the state delinquency list. i can look up salvation army but i don't believe they are on this either. >> so you are moving salvation army to meals on wheels.

>> sorry, i meant to introduce myself. it's the director of administration of finance. if the board were to approve the lease extension, we would start extendinging the agreement and the meals will switch over to our traditional meal provider for our shelters which is meals on wheels and that would occur in march once we amend the agreement. >> okay, but both agreements will not be coming to the board because they do not meet 9.118? >> correct. >> i want to remind my colleagues, today, yes, we are only looking at the lease amendment allowing this to continue, really just the

physical cabinet to allow the 70 units. without it, it's just the site because the developer has no intention of doing anything until 2026. the programming though, in terms of how they run the program, why the staffing of 68 fte's full-time with over $30 million of annual operating costs for urban alchemy and others is not coming to this body for any questions. so any questions that you have about the programming, i'm afraid you will have to have a separate briefing with the department of homelessness and supportive housing. now, i too have questions about just the program itself, but today again we are looking at the lease amendments. but i am open to the conversation of approving this item, moving this

forward without recommendation, or just looking at the lease itself. i would say on an empty lot and being able to have this annual base rent, slight increase from the previous, however it is not going to be an annual increase. this is for the next two years until march 2025, with the option of extending it to march 2026. there is no increase for the next three years. so i'm open for discussion to see if we want to move this without recommendation, or do we want to move this with recommendation, but hold your thoughts because we have to go to public comment. why don't we go to public comment while we all noodle on this. mr. clerk?

>> for those wishing to provide public comment, please lineup now in chambers. for those wishing to call public comment call-in 1 (415) 655-0001 / meeting id: 2493 446 0403 # # >> for those waiting for the signal to begin your comment. public speaker: i'm lizbeth, the founder of community news. this is out of the norm and i had a feeling that this was going to be attractive but i didn't realize it would be so well received. i think it's really been the right thing at the right time. i want to reflect your comments back to you that we really need to figure out how to do this to

scale. we have done several of these around the state. the most important thing is that we really take advantage of the fact that people want to do these and we can move these around from time to time but you really have a great opportunity to do this at scale and maybe have different levels of services and programs for what people need. thank you for being innovative and flexible. >> stacy will share her perspective. >> this is really hard for me. my name is stacy. i want to thank you for letting me speak. i'm very new at this. i'm a 52 year old native of san francisco and i have been in

shelters until february when the building got renovated after years of finally -- having permanent housing. my building burned and i was in housing and people were walking by my bed saying things and it was such a big open space with so many people with so many issues that i can't judge, but i was afraid of. so i stayed in a tent with a few friends of mine. it was safer and we kept watch and we were supportive of each other and we were by a church where people were constantly there and people were saying, we have a spot for you and i'm saying oh god, here we go. and they told me about it and i

could not believe it. i had a bed and a community of people and everyday i look out and i'm almost at home except i can't stay. tomorrow it could be gone. and for the money i have spent to eat in san francisco, i would be willing to give it everything i had in san francisco to stay because i'm not ready. >>clerk: the speaker's time has

elapsed. >> i'm sorry. >> are there any additional speakers for this item? >> public speaker: these are my comments for the budget analyst. the budget analyst and the city attorney has to pay attention to quality of life issues in san francisco. you noticed that you don't have many segments of the population either speak at public comment or even come to the chambers. hundreds of them are dying. some of them middle-class. some of them immigrants who take

whatever they get. the conditions on our street are horrible. especially when you don't know how to speak english and you have all the cartels and the drug dealers doing what they do. the city attorney and the budget analyst should go spend some time in a tent. like one of our previous supervisors to really see that it's cold, the inclement weather to see how that has affected those that have fallen on hard times. to say $80,000 a tent, $65,000,

bullshit. it's disgusting. i am the presidio. the city has this -- >>clerk: i apologize for cutting anybody off. >> next speaker, please. public speaker: good afternoon, my name is nina, the senior program officer for assistive housing. i'm calling to express support for the 33 gough. first i want to thank her for speaking about her experience and appreciate her strength and the stories behind each person seeking housing.

we know that preventing homelessness before it starts is the humane approach and most costeffectiveness. the city building this homeless housing is extremely important to san francisco. specific to the 33 gough, the space provides a space for 70 cabins which is much needed in san francisco. we know that people today experiencing homelessness and address a need and system of care that should show a reflection of that and this is critical to help people p stabilize on a path to stable housing. we know in part from that experience and recognize that

effort to be able to use at the site. the city is investing in 33 gough is part of this expansion. thank you very much. >> thank you for your comments. madam chair, that completes our queue. >> supervisor connie chan: thank you, mr. clerk. seeing no more public comment, public comment is now closed. >> colleagues, you are welcome to share your sentiments. >> supervisor ahsha safai: i want to thank stephanie for coming today. to speak about your own experience, i know you are feeling very vulnerable and it means a lot for sharing firsthand. i want you to know

about sharing this and this conversation is not about you but about the budgets and with this parking, we know it was going to be affordable housing that the city negotiated and purchased along with the non-profits and the city did not own the land, it's not owned by a developer but a 99 year lease which is what we have here. we have been asked and we are in a tough situation because if we say no, we don't want to continue to pay for this rent, what happens to this community that has to be relocated and which is something that someone has experienced on a daily basis. this is not a decision

that i would have made upfront. i understand that there was public private partnership and it was great to get things donated, but now we are on the hook for millions of dollars of lease which i think we could have done a better demonstration in a much cheaper location. i will support this today because it's important for continuity, for the community, important for us to continue to learn lessons but i'm not happy to being asked to make a decision after the fact that it is already being laid out. maybe we made a decision collectively and probably would have that but not aware of the long-term nature that there wouldn't be an opportunity to renegotiate a lease after the time. i would have preferred for this lease to have gone down significantly and not being paid market rent, but that's the decision that we are

handed today. anyway, thank you, chair. >> supervisor connie chan: thank you. supervisor vice-chair mandelman? # >> supervisor rafael mandelman: yes, i have enjoyed the opportunity to continue the conversation with hsh about our shelter system and broader homelessness response, but i don't have any real questions about this particular lease. i think we out to forward it with positive recommendation. >> >> thank you vice-chair mandelman. so seeing that then i'm going to make the motion to move this item to full board with positive recommendation. mr. clerk, please call the roll. >> >>clerk: [roll call] >> we have 3 ayes. >> thank you, the motion passes.

>> mr. clerk, please call item 16. >> >>clerk: 16. 230105 [execute standard agreement and accept and expend - retroactive - california business consumer service and housing agency - encampment resolution funding program - not to exceed $10,849,033] sponsor: mayor resolution retroactively authorizing the department of homelessness and supportive housing (“hsh”) to execute a standard agreement with the california business, consumer service and housing agency (“bchs”), through the california interagency council on homelessness, for a total amount not to exceed $10,849,033 of encampment resolution funding program grant funds; to retroactively accept and expend those funds to support people experiencing unsheltered homelessness for costs incurred upon approval of the standard agreement by bcsh through june 30, 2025; and authorizing hsh to enter into any additions, amendments, or other modifications to the standard agreement and grant documents that do not materially increase the obligations or liabilities of the city or materially decrease the benefits to the city. members of the public joining us

remotely, who wish to comment on this resolution, please call public comment call-in 1 (415) 655-0001 / meeting id: 2493 446 0403 # # >> supervisor connie chan: thank you, mr. clerk. we have the department of homelessness and supportive housing. you have a presentation for this item. >> thank you, chair chan. emily cohen with department of homelessness services and supportive housing. i'm back with you with this resolution to support the office of housing to accept and expend this grant. the funding grant is a competitive grant for services

for unsheltered and homelessness in the state and the goal is to provide immediate assistance while being in care for people living in shelters and this is an agreement for an amount not to exceed $10.8 million. we are proposing to spend this funding on direct services and shelter for people coming out of encampments and off the street. about $9.9 million will be spent on shelter including 33 gough which we just spoke about but also non-congregate sites and spending $830,000 for workers and ada accessible vehicles to help people transport from the street to shelter locations. the

state requires that we obligated 100% of these funds by june 30, 2024 and spend by june 2025. we received this in late october 2022, and we were required to sign a standard agreement within 30 days which is why we are here for retroactive approval. the state signed the agreement on january 25th of this year, and we are now able passage of this to spend this money down. we are very much looking forward to putting this program into effect and to continue to fund shelter and services for people coming off the street. >> i'm willing to take any questions you might have. >> thank you. i think we definitely have questions but we will not go into it with this

item at this moment because i don't see any names in the roster. mr. clerk, please call for public comment. >> thank you. >>clerk: for those wishing to speak on this item in chambers, please lineup right now. for those calling in, public comment call-in 1 (415) 655-0001 / meeting id: 2493 446 0403 # # seeing no speakers here in chambers and no speakers in the queue. >> we have this money but spending on what we are already doing rather than investing in new intervention to get unsheltered folks off the

street. can you talk a little bit about that? >> yes, my colleague is also on the line and able to chime in where i may fall short. we introduced this program with one time funding and the state has made unprecedented investments one time every year. we have taken advantage of a lot of these resources to set up a program that we are going to have to up lift for knowing how to keep them going on a long-term basis. so this opportunity for the state grant gives us an ability to continue programs that we would otherwise likely have to close or find another funding source. through this grant ensuring that these resources are going to to people experiencing unsheltered homelessness and become a tool for outreach teams as they are out on the streets going to encampments every day. we want to ensure that our outreach

workers are equipped with the resources they need and that is an attractive she would bed and that is what we are funding with this grant. >> thank you. >> okay. >> i have one quick question. is this a normal, have they funded this type of work in the past? >> this is brand new. >> this is brand new money to get people into shelter? >> yes. >> we can talk more about it at our hearing. great. >> all right. seeing no more questions, so, i will move this item with a positive recommendation. supervisor safai would like to be added as a cosponsor to this

legislation. mr. clerk, please call the roll. >> >>clerk: [roll call] >> we have 3. >> thank you, the motion passes. mr. clerk, is there any other business today? >> madam chair, that concludes our business. >> all right. this meeting is adjourned. >> [ meeting is adjourned ] >> >>(music).

>> i started the o was with a financing and had a business partner all ended up wanting to start the business and retire and i did was very important to me so i bought them oust and two weeks later the pandemic h-4 one of the moments i thought to myself we have to have the worse business in a lifetime or the best. >> we created the oasis out of a need basically so other people

bars and turning them into a space and when the last place we were performing wasn't used turned those buildings into condos so we decided to have a space. >> what the pandemic did for us is made us on of that we felt we had to do this immediately and created this. >> (unintelligible). >> where we would offer food delivery services with a curbside professionalism live music to bring spectacular to lives we are going through and as well as employ on the caterers and the performers and drivers very for that i think

also for everyone to do something. we had ordinary on the roof and life performances and with a restaurant to support the system where we are and even with that had terribly initiative and hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt had to pay our rent we decided to have an old-fashioned one we created club hours where you can watch to online and or be on the phone and raised over one quarter of a million dollar that of incredible and something that northbound thought we could do. >> we got ourselves back and made me realize how for that

people will show up if i was blown away but also had the courage but the commitment now i can't let anyone down i have to make the space serviceable so while this is a full process business it became much more about a space that was used by the community. and it became less about starting up a business and more about the heart of what we're doing. this building used to be a- and one of the first one we started working on had we came out what a mural to wrap the building and took a while but able to raise the money and pay 5 artists to make a design around many this to represent what is happening on the side and also important

this is who we are this is us putting it out there because satisfies other people we don't realize how much we affect the community around there when he i want to put that out there and show up and show ourselves outside of those walls more fabulous. and inspires other people to be more fabulous and everyone want to be more fabulous and less hatred and hostility and that is how we

>> hello everyone. welcome to the bayview bistro. >> it is just time to bring the community together by

deliciousness. i am excited to be here today because nothing brings the community together like food. having amazing food options for and by the people of this community is critical to the success, the long-term success and stability of the bayview-hunters point community. >> i am nima romney. this is a mobile cafe. we do soul food with a latin

twist. i wanted to open a truck to son nor the soul food, my african heritage as well as mylas as my latindescent. >> i have been at this for 15 years. i have been cooking all my life pretty much, you know. i like cooking ribs, chicken, links. my favorite is oysters on the grill. >> i am the owner. it all started with banana pudding, the mother of them all. now what i do is take on traditional desserts and pair them with pudding so that is my ultimate goal of the business. >> our goal with the bayview bristow is to bring in

businesses so they can really use this as a launching off point to grow as a single business. we want to use this as the opportunity to support business owners of color and those who have contributed a lot to the community and are looking for opportunities to grow their business. >> these are the things that the san francisco public utilities commission is doing. they are doing it because they feel they have a responsibility to san franciscans and to people in this community. >> i had a grandmother who lived in bayview. she never moved, never wavered. it was a house of security answer entity where we went for holidays. i was a part of bayview most of my life. i can't remember not being a part of bayview. >> i have been here for several years. this space used to be

unoccupied. it was used as a dump. to repurpose it for something like this with the bistro to give an opportunity for the local vendors and food people to come out and showcase their work. that is a great way to give back to the community. >> this is a great example of a public-private community partnership. they have been supporting this including the san francisco public utilities commission and mayor's office of workforce department. >> working with the joint venture partners we got resources for the space, that the businesses were able to thrive because of all of the opportunities on the way to this community. >> bayview has changed. it is growing. a lot of things is different from when i was a kid.

you have the t train. you have a lot of new business. i am looking forward to being a business owner in my neighborhood. >> i love my city. you know, i went to city college and fourth and mission in san francisco under the chefs ria, marlene and betsy. they are proud of me. i don't want to leave them out of the journey. everyone works hard. they are very supportive and passionate about what they do, and they all have one goal in mind for the bayview to survive. >> all right. it is time to eat, people.

well, welcome. i'm doug shoemaker for mercy. housing. uh, california. i'm pleased to be here with our partners from episcopal community services and all the other partners in the room. um to start with like to begin the program by recognizing that we are gathered on ethno historic tribal territory, the indigenous aloni tribe. we recognize the importance of this land and welcome indeed, galvan , a member of the aloni indian tribe, to say a few words. thank you, andy. good morning. horse shay to he barakat. andrew galvin.