that. so that would be, supervisor, the advantage of having it from earlier. you are. >> chair fewer: got it. i just want to say, before i call on supervisor mandelman, i think what we acknowledged here today is that we started on a pathway of release of funding -- we brought a proposal before the our city, our home committee, and so it's an anomaly this time. it just -- the funding and what happened and blah, blah, blah, and it was late to get the committee together, and so i'm wondering if it's more prudent to go to the committee first and putting together a presentation about funding for homes and an amount of money set aside for this purpose and, in the meantime, looking for it, as they are considering it,

and we get that confirmation that this bucket of money should be held in this suggestion? so that's it, and in the meantime, i'm calling on supervisor mandelman. >> supervisor mandelman: i guess i definitely -- i want to thank d.p.h. for their thinking about this -- thinking about the proposal and its evolution since -- when we were talking in the summer about the budget. i think -- i would be leery of

lumping that together. >> supervisor mandelman: -- that the only real option for their preservation -- we need to -- perhaps the city can provide some subsidies for some. we've put in place interim zoning controls to at least

require a conditional use permit for the changes, but really, the solution is probably to get these into public or nonprofit ownership to the greatest extent that we can. and so carving out category of r.c.f. -- of residential care facility acquisitions seems like a good use of these funds and probably a little different from just, you know, throwing more money into the beds category. that may be a distinction without a difference, but it's a thought. the other thing that i think, and i mentioned this earlier in connection with baby c, and i feel this way about both these investments and some of the h.s.h. investments, which is that just because something

will be of benefit to unhoused people doesn't mean that it will ultimate will -- needs to be ultimately funded by prop c. i think there's not another source for the work on the office of coordinated care and the case management, but ultimately, i'm not sure that, you know, going forward, those should be 100% prop c costs. and, you know, i asked earlier in the context of baby c if there's some way for us to kind of put a pin into the idea that these are funds transfers or these are loans that are being made out of particular funds that, as we identify other funds, might be able to get payba payback.

for example, the overpaid c.e.o. tax will start getting some money, and maybe using that for some of these projects would make sense. b but -- maybe that's ultimately not fully a prop c cost. that's just, you know, a thought -- i don't know how my colleagues feel about that, but that would be something worth considering. lastly, i feel that most acutely, actually, about the pharmacy. which, again, i understand the need is great, and we -- and we have 700 overdoses this year, and having a facility to get more buprenorphine out to people is critically needed,

and i get all that, and i want us to move forward on that, but 70% of the people that are overdosi overdosing are housed. so some of our -- i'm not sure that ultimately ought to be fully a prop c cost either. and i wonder, in the same way, if we could try to make the prop c funds whole all the time, or if i wonder, in this exigency, that we would have to use others. it's ultimately just a thought. >> chair fewer: thank you, supervisor mandelman. -- oh, does someone want to respond? >> i just wanted to say -- thank you for that point, supervisor mandelman. i just want to answer the first

one. we do have the preexisting problem of stabilizing our existing sites, but when we're talking about site acquisition, it would be a permanent home for what we're proposing to add through the proxy funds. >> supervisor mandelman: i just want to make sure -- i don't want us to do a lot of buys in the next few months, and we've acquired no locked secure beds, and all of the sort of things that are needed to get people out of jail, out of the psych unit at the hospital, that we haven't bought those beds. so i believe in buying up resident care facilities.

i just want to make sure that we're doing the different things that we need to do. if it's all part of the same fund, i'm fine, but any way. >> absolutely. thank you. >> chair fewer: thank you. supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: thank you, colleagues. i'm going to sort of make my argument now and my statement for what i hope the committee will do, if that's okay. services include a large expansion and the number of residential treatment beds where people experiencing homelessness can rest and recover, brand-new crisis response teams that can immediately respond and provide support to unhoused individuals experiencing mental distress or psychiatric crisis on the

streets instead of having police officers respond that often escalates the situation, an expanded s.f. service seen with expanded mental health capacity to see, treat, and diagnose individuals on the spot, and a new expanded pool of intensive case managers who can provide one-on-one support in navigating our clients without letting them fall through the cracks of our complicat complicated behavioral health system. these are all services that our neighbors will be able to tangibly feel, and by treating their mental health issues, these services will assist these individuals in being able to secure and maintain stable housing. each of the mental health s.f. programs are consistent with the letter of the our city, our home legislation that were approved by voters in 2018.

if you go to their website, the very first bullet on their plan states that these plans will be vossed to provide tensive mental health care and drug addiction services for over 4500 severely impaired individuals, which is the entire point of mental health s.f. every program is directly related to getting people off the streets and improving their well-being enough so that they can permanently access homelessness. none of this is being used to backfill old programs. these are all brand-new and expanded services. right now, we are facing an urgent need to release these reserves for mental health s.f. there is a raging drug and overdose crisis.

in november, we launched the very first mental health s.f. crisis response team and are currently on track to have all six budgets teams up and running by march of next year. delaying these preserves will completely disrupt services providing to our unhoused neighbors. this would delay d.p.h.s ability to identify residential treatment beds that fill gaps in our existing substance abuse and mental health treatment

beds. delays would also affect our on boarded case managers which are desperately needed to help coordinate care for people on the streets or that are in our jails. if you only have additional beds available but no street outreach to help bring people indoors, and no case management to make sure clients are being atiffly being provided

treatment in care, then we are not addressing clients'under lying mental health reasons which may be the reason that they fell into homelessness in the first place. again, right now, the budget committee is only voting on whether we -- to release reserves for fiscal year 2021. we will be coming back to the our city, our home committee in upcoming fiscal years. there will allow us to gather more data, meet with other groups, and engage in thoughtful analysis with the our city, our home committee regarding future prop c plans. we also can use that time to identify other funding sources, as supervisor mandelman stated. the board in fact, not this week, but the prior week, passed a resolution indicating our intent unanimously to leverage c.e.o. tax revenues to

support staffing needs and mental health s.f. however, to avoid derailing all of the planning and progress that has been made in will roing out mental health s.f., we are depending on the budget committee to authorize the release of the reserves, lastly, i really want to thank d.p.h., you know, for making an effort to accommodate the feedback from the our city, our home committee and make changes to our original request. i would ask that the budget committee allocate that $7.7 million that we've reduced from the mental health s.f. service and their admin costs to potential site acquisition. i do think it will make it easier to act fast, and we do know we needed those beds always, and that having the opportunity for d.p.h. to act fast is a huge advantage.

but then, i'd also like d.p.h. to come back to the budget committee in january or february with a proposal for releasing additional reserve funds to be used for capital acquisition developed in consultation with the our city, our home committee. this is a primary focus of the our city, our home committee and would allow the budget committee to consider a dollar amount for what is an immediate and full pipeline for acquisition. and so if i could ask a committee member to make a motion to adopt this budget request but moving the money, as dr. hammer laid out, moving $2 million from operating to the -- to capital acquisition or site acquisition and moving

4.6 million from the mental health s.f. service center to site acquisitions, i would be so appreciative. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. i see supervisor walton in the queue. and supervisor ronen, thank you. i actually just wanted to say that i think what we should do before we make a motion is actually to take public comment, and also, if there's anyone else in our panel here that would like to say anything, i'd just like to hear all the comments first, take it to public comment, and then, we can move on because i think that we have a proposal for expenditures for mental health. so let's look at where things are, and then, we can make a total request. so supervisor walton?

>> supervisor walton: thank you so much, chair fewer. i actually wanted to say that i actually echo supervisor mandelman's comments, and i think the way he framed it was perfect in terms of the thoughts around what prop c is intended for and not being 100% sure that prop c should be funding certain aspects of what services we're looking at here. and i just wanted to also say the pharmacy is -- is really bothering me sitting on -- on this -- in this budget request. but i want to appreciate your framing, supervisor mandelman, because i agree with you 100%, and i also appreciate you identifying additional resources, like supervisor ronen discussed, as well, with the c.e.o. tax. so i just want to -- definitely waiting to hear public comment,

but i think it's time most appropriately. >> chair fewer: just because you mentioned the pharmacy, is there someone that can speak to the mental health pharmacy and the funds that are going to the pharmacy? >> supervisor walton: and i'm not just saying with the pharmacy, i'm just saying with this pot of money. >> chair fewer: oh, excuse me, supervisor walton. i thought it was using some of these funds to help compensate for the pharmacy, i thought you were a little uneasy. just wanted a clarification for the funds being used for the pharmacy for your benefit, but if you don't want it -- >> supervisor walton: no. i'm not against pharmacies, but i just don't think this particular pot of money should be going to fund this.

>> chair fewer: sure. >> supervisors, it's jennie all lewis. can you hear me now? >> chair fewer: yes. >> about $2.7 million of those dollars would be directly related to pharmacy staffing to expand to evenings and weekends. about $1.5 million additional will be related to the expansion of the bhac hours to expand, also, to evenings and weekends, and also would support additional clinical support within -- within the bhac to allow for prescribing. and then, we do have approximately $4.2 million of the capital costs that we believe would be related only

in the behavioral health pharmacy and not to bhac to increase our capacity to be more hipaa compliant and a more patient-centered location. >> chair fewer: okay. thank you. so on that, i see no one in the queue. is there anyone else that would like to speak? seeing nobody with their hands up, supervisor ronen, i wanted to ask, and other supervisors here, what would you feel about the c.e.o. tax money backfillng the funding for mean tall health s.f., those funds? >> supervisor ronen: so just to be clear, the c.e.o. money won't come on-line until fiscal year 23, so that's something to take into consideration. i am totally open to that.

what i about will say is mental health s.f. is the vision and the system that the city is implementing to address our behavioral health system in san francisco. 25% of prop c money, which you can see, it's all, like, laid out on their website, is to be used to address mental health and substance use medical care of people suffering from mental illness and substance abuse. and again, i completely agree with what jennie friedenbach says. it has to be additive. it's not to be used to backfill a system that's already existing. we're talking about hiring hundreds of new case managers,

by acquiring hundreds of new beds in the system, creating a brand-new 24-7 alternative to psych emergency services where people will be treated with dignity and know that they can get help if they're experiencing a mental health crisis. so all of this is, i believe, absolutely in line with our city, our home, and so i don't know that it has to be the exclusive source of funding for mental health s.f. implementations, and that's where the c.e.o. tax money comes in, but i think those are the discussions that are going to be had collectively as a city with this board, with our city, our home commission, with the mental health s.f. implementation and

recommendation group, and thanks goodness we will have the time and space to do that because these bodies are now up and running after being very sadly delayed by the covid crisis. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. i see jennie friedenbach's hand up, and i see your hands up, supervisors, but i'd like to give miss friedenbach the opportunity to speak after those comments. >> yeah, thank you so much. i just wanted to clarify that -- that our city, our home oversight body is recommending funding of the beds, and so there was a proergs of the proposal the -- portion of the proposal in there to pay for beds. we are recommending that that would happen, and it would fully fund dr. nigusse bland's

recommendation. mental health s.f. is about having a thriving and wonderful mental health system. so there's some places where things can intersect, and then, there's some things, places where we need to think about other ways to fund it. we're not arguing about the validity of the items in mental health s.f. what we were attempting to do was to pull the item out that we felt was most in line with the vision of pulling people off the streets immediately, and that was an item that the department identified, as supervisor ronen mentioned, that could slow down the process. so if we put the money now, then we can move forward on getting the beds. and then, we were asking for a little bit of breathing room so we can think about acquisitions and think about having that layout and a data driven system about what's going to be, you know, the best way to pull

people off of the beds and be able to stabilize. so i think i just wanted to clarify because i think that the conversation sort of made it seem like we were not recommending the funding of the beds, but we are recommending the funding of the beds. and i think really looking at the right sides of those things, and how much do we need to invest in that are going to stabilize people off the streets, and that was what we were asking for was a little bit of breathing room on that. but, you know, we made our recommendations, and i just wanted to clarify that those were our recommendations, and -- and why, because that's

really, you know, you could hear a theme in the presentation really going forward. it's really about trying to go forward and maximize the use of the our city, our home funds. we know that people on the streets are not going to recover on their own. the other thing i forgot to mention is on the streets, there's some 24-hour capacity, sobering centers and those types of things where people could go in the middle of the night, so that is included in the recommendation there. so thank you so much. just wanted to clarify that. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: yeah. i guess -- and i have a couple of thoughts, and so one thing is, you know -- and i was peripheral to the crafting of

mental health s.f., but i did sign on on the end, and i think the thing that brought the sponsors around mental health s.f. and the mental health s.f. that i signed onto that does prioritize and put first the needs of our mental health population. i would not have signed off on that if it was legislation leading with the unhoused. i did not craft problem c. i supported prop c, but i will

say that prop c was it was going to be exits of numerous kinds, and then, this little tiny bit of shelter -- not tiny. 10% of $300 million is actually quite a lot. i take jennifer's point, and i think it's worth keeping in our heads -- i intend to make the motion, unless chair fewer wants to make it, the motion that supervisor ronen has proposed. but i think that we should think about, going forward, using prop c funds for places

and spaces that get people off the streets. there's a range of supports for folks, and there's a range of places, and i think that should be the priority of our spending of prop c. i am comfortable right now with the release of funds right now that d.p.h. -- the modified proposal that d.p.h. has come forward with and what supervisor ronen is asking us to do because i think that is, you know, largely reflective of super important priorities that we talked about over the summer, and i do think that we should think about backfillnin

. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. supervisor ronen? oh, you're on mute. >> supervisor ronen: thank you. thank you for that. okay. a couple of things. i slightly disagree with you, supervisor mandelman, because just like it's impossible to stabilize and get healthy if you're unhoused and have a mental illness or a severe substance use addiction, i think sometimes in many cases it's difficult to remain housed

if you have mental health problems or need addiction treatment. i'm just going to read this. first of all, it's the number one bullet point on the ten-point plan on the website. and then, it says mental health and substance use disorder services, and it's expanded explanation of how the many is going to be used. our vision is a system of care that is centered on and connected to the individual suffering from addiction or mental illness, and where care is integrated and wait time for care is eliminated. right now, we have a fragmented system where over 1780 homeless people each year are hospitalized in psychiatric emergency services and then released without care, where

our case management programs have no opens, and individuals drift from one closed-door program to the next, where programs are all full. rarely can people get care when they are seeking it, and too often, our only entry level into care is the back of a police car or another ambulance ride. eliminating waits is critical, especially for those with addiction, and i could go on. but my point is that what we told voters was that we are going to -- we have a broken mental health system; that that is part of the broken care and system that we have for our homeless people in san francisco. it's -- it's an intersected problem, and that prop c is -- is designed very carefully to look at each part of the

system, with the bulk of the money going to acquisition for permanent housing, but with a recognition that there is a need much smaller for short-term shelter and a need for a behavioral health system that actually serves individuals. so i'm just reading from what i thought i was supporting when i voted and campaigned and helped write prop c. so i just don't know why there's confusion around that now, but i really appreciate you making the motion, supervisor mandelman, very much. >> chair fewer: okay.

supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: yes. we could spend more than 25% on treatment beds and still need treatment care. i'm not saying that the treatment and outreach investments, some of it, maybe a lot of it shouldn't come out of prop c. i'm just saying there's competing needs for the physical spaces and the operational costs of the treatment beds, that that also needs to get paid for, and to the extent we can find other funds for the sort of rehabilitation of behavioral health services within the department of public health which will have -- it's critical. we have to fund it, we have to do it. if we can do not all of that on the back of prop c, i think that would be the right thing.

>> supervisor ronen: agreed. yes. i agree. that's great. >> chair fewer: okay. so we have been talking about public health, and we haven't centered our conversation on the h.s.h. allocation ask. when we vote on this issue, that there's a release of funds, that we would actually not include the release of funds for moscone and also for the r.b. site as staff has made

a commitment to go back and look at in january. that amount would be about $15 million, is that correct, ben, for the moscone west? >> if it's helpful, madam chair, i know our city, our home committee talked about what our recommendations were. if helpful, i can talk through a very quick summary of the h.s.h. proposal that would affect the numbers here. it's a little more complex than the public health. >> chair fewer: okay. so let me do this. i see supervisor walton in the queue. let me call on the supervisor first. supervisor, you have the floor. >> supervisor walton: thank you, chair fewer. i would prefer we keep the allotment for the treatment center at moscone west until we have a different treatment plan in place. if there's an alternate source

>> what i am hearing is your preference is to approve the funding formus connie west and the r.v. site afternoon if we should secure other funding, then the funds would be returned to backfill the loss of the use of the proxy funds. is that what i am hearing from you? >> correct, that would be my preference. >> how much would that amount be? i think then you were going to show us a list. the reason i am doing this, colleagues, i want to take public comment on both items. in order to call public comment on both items, i thought we should have a thorough discussion on both. mr. rosenfeldn. >> thank you, madam chair. if the clerk could permit me to share my screen.

thithis isthis is the summary tt translates to dollars. can you see this? >> yes, we can. >> this is a very simple summary. as you may know, we are assigned to work with staff. we have taken the recommendations from yesterday concepts and words and tried to translate to dollars for the hsh proposal. there is a $64 million request here from hsh today. these are the recommendations for the current year. not all recommendations affect you. you have heard from the committee members. there is a recommendation for additional funds for nonsip

residents the cost $745,000. additionally there are recommendations to allocate additional funds for work force development for the housing program $1.2 million in the current fiscal year. the committee recommended changing all allocations to just reflect current year needs. that would reduce problem solving funds by approximately $2 million. this shift from rapid rehousing to flex pool the committee recommended changes current year values by approximately $14 million. lastly the item you talked about. the committee suggested that alternate funding sources be sought for the emergency sheltermus coney and r.v. sites and return.

if the committee adopts all recommendations you would reduce release every serve request by $20 million and releasing 43.4. >> thank you very much. any questions from colleagues? i think what i would like to hear from now is ms. abygail conn about the rapid rehousing. there seems to be a fairly large disagreement on that. the rapid rehousing to flex pool. it looks like $14 million, is that correct? >> thank you, chair fewer. that is correct. we definitely hear the home committee and i are in agreement with that recommendation at this time. >> okay. mr. rosenfeld, when you showed the chart.

>> supervisor mandelman. >> i understand and i appreciate the willingness to compromise and accommodate the perspectives of the oversight committee. i thought i heard a little note about a little warning to the committee at some point during your presentation about the department's capacity to manage some aspects of this. maybe that wassent on that line, but i am wondering if when you get to whatever line it is if you could explain what you were saying more slowly for this supervisor about your department's capacity to manage programs. >> i am happy to speak to that now. thank you, supervisor mandelman. i will showdown.

i was on my second cup of tea. there is a couple capacity issues that we are concerned about. generally, that is the concern with housing more people in a year than the city has housed in anytime in its history. we are inspired and determined to make this happen, and this is a significant under taking as the board has heard me say repeatedly in other venues. the home committee recommended at this time only funding phases one and two of the rehousing proposal. they can correct me if i'm wrong, with the desire to come back and reevaluate and ad just before releasing funds. we are in agreement with that. we will be back quite soon t to request release of funds. i am concerned we won't have the

data everybody feels is necessary by then. the reason. we don't have funds for exits from the hotels beginning in may. the department's ability to plan for a year would be very helpful indeed. while we are a small and we attempt to be a nibble department, government process requires process. we heard the committee on that. we agreed to compromise. it is still our preference to fund all phases from an implementation perspective. the other challenge that i noted in the presentation, supervisor mandelman, were the additional funds put in that are separate and distinct from the sip hotels. additional funds for housing for families and for individuals in the bayview. while we certainly want to do that, and we are concerned like everybody on this call about the

over emphasis on the sip hotels leaving other people out. i am as candidas i can be. we will struggle to spend all of that money effectively and efficiently. what we had less time to consider is implementation of that much more permanent supportive housing to flex pool versus rapid rehousing. we need to talk about partners to take that on. from urgent perspective agreed with the committee's emphasis on permanent exits and agreed to move that forward. >> what i am seeing you are reducing -- revising release of the money. instead of $64,200,000,000, you are looking at 43? >> yes that speaks to the phase

one, phase 2 shift. if it was all it would be 64, which was our original request for appropriations from this body. the committee added several things the work force. we talked about that extensively. we are thrilled about that addition and the other additions recommended by the committee. >> if we were listening to or considering supervisor walton's concerns, we would add another $5,000,900 back on with a coughviet to look for other funds and reimburse the prop c funds to that expense, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> anything you would like to add? this is pretty cut and dry now. would our home committee like to comment on this at all? i feel like it is pretty

accommodating to some of your concerns. >> yes, in terms of -- i think our bottom line and other members please speak up. we want to leverage other resources when not adding beds. if that can happen, that is fantastic. we made it clear we were never intending to jeopardize the programs funded and we are 100% committed to them continuing we are trying to embrace the spirit of the initiative. >> i understand. i have said this often. when there is money at the table everyone comes to the trough. i know you want be to protect this money so we are not supplanting on what we have committed. in times of great budget cuts, yes, there is a tendency for governments to do that. really i understand your

concern. president yee said the same thing that this is to add more to supplant. thanks for that protection. having heard that everyone, i think we have everything together. we are ready to start public comment. madam clerk. if you don't mind, public comment for items 5 and 6. >> clerk: operations is checking to see if there are callers in the queue. items 5 and 6. >> yes, we have four callers in the queue. >> let's hear them. >> thank you. good afternoon.

i am wesley sabre. i am the policy manager for glide. one of the original co-sponsors for prop c. it has built in financial accountability, oversight committee to recommend funding and promote transparency. this panel of experts on homelessness have been diligently working to fulfill the promise. we ask you support the recommendations of the oversight body. to do otherwise is to betray the intention of the legislation. the work of the liaisons demonstrated a standard of excellence in an effort to conduct outreach to stakeholders and people impacted researching and generating proposals. their recommendations recommend represent what san francisco voted for. there are requests brought

before the committee to channel funds toward proposals not prop c. it was a people's initiative. the guidelines are clear as were the voters. that could havthat must not be . san francisco needs systematic change. permanent solutions to homeless will not fulfill the mandate of the dollars for the legislation. this moment hinges on the role of this committee right now. from the prioritized long-term solutions in a city-wide approach. please preserve the funds. fund housing for the residents. other proposals not approved by oversight need to be more thoroughly vetted. >> next speaker, please.

>> i am sandra. i am a leader in saint james church in richmond. we are following with interest the discussions, decision process and recommendations coming out of the oversight committee. the committee serves as strong voice for the intent of the taxpayers when we voted to approve prop c in november 2018. we have been impress with the quality of discussion around the committee's recommendation before you today. we strongly support them. we understand the city's budget challenges. however, the prop c money is not to backfilled funding provided from the city budget. we need to create systems and services that result in housing all those in san francisco. it is a matter of equity, social

justice and conscience. thank you. >> next speaker, please. hello. this the miguel, director for the clinic for social justice at glide. we need t to support this. it was the people calling out the city didn't have enough resources and were able to find resources to get people off the streets. my concern is similar to what is happening now in d.c. at first president trump and his folks did not believe in covid. they called it a hoax. now they are first ones in line. i just hope that we listen to the recommendations that come before you from the oversight committee and that if the city

needs additional resources that, one, the city needs to prioritize the issues and make them a priority but not at the expense of what the community has done and worked so hard to be able to find other resources to get folks off the street, provide people dignity, and then i just hope that the committee, please, support the recommendations by the oversight committee. we believe it is thoughtful. we have been at the table with them. we believe it speaks for itself. thank you so much. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> i am edna. organizer with hotels not hospitals. we stand in solidarity with the our home committee. housing is a human right and is to care for homelessness and

must be a priority for the funds. we demand prop c money be used as intended. we urge the committee to take the recommendations of the our city our home committee. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hi, i am olivia. i work on the prop c needs assessment. we surveyed over 600 people experiencing homelessness. in the phoning cusgroups and surveys they wanted housing. prop c was put on by the people. what the people want are radical, root cause solutions for housing. please support the oco. that is not bureaucratic backfill.

100% community. support the oco. thank you and good night. >> next speaker, please. >> my name is martin ross. i am african-american senior who would like to address the committee. i would like to say that, you know, to tell people what is really going on. i have been in the sro for five years. i am 68 years old. i am 20 years older than anybody in the building. i would like this committee to consider that i can't get an upgrade in housing. i am not moving forward. there was a program where we were supposed to move forward

out of these sros so they could move other people into the building. that is not happening. i have had a dozen case managers since i have been in the building. i have been there five years. i have been a dozen case managers. none of them have done anything to help me to move on. i am 20 years older than anybody in the building. it is dangerous down there. i am in a dangerous situation. drug addicts and everything, violence and everything. i can't really get out of that situation. i want the committee to consider

my situation when you are implementing the homeless recovery plan because i am a guy 68-70 years old. they got me in a building with kids who are -- i am 20 years older than everybody. i can't get out of there. i had a half dozen -- >> your time is concluded. >> next speaker, please. >> hi, committee members. i am kristin evans, one of three proponents of prop c. one of the people that went around to talk to voters what prop c would do. i urge you today to an ad don't the recommendations of the oversight committee. i have to say that i was insulted by the department of

public health proposal to spend funds on anything other than housing exits for our unhoused neighbors. that is why the chamber of commerce spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to put lies about what we would be doing with the funds, we would misuse and waste and not spend them according to how we tell people we spend them. we have to do what we said we do. all eyes are watching us. we are vulnerable to not having renewal of prop c funds. we need to have prop c funds follow-through on the commitment to what voters expected them to be spent on. that is not a pharmacy. those are things that lead to people directly to exit from homelessness. i think about milton tanner who i met in the sip hotels who is 70 with asthma, in a phase 2

hotel, not contacted in the months he has been in the hotel by the department of hsh what he needs to do to secure a permanent exit. the department housed only 100 people in the entire time the sip hotels are in place. they should only have phase one and two funding now. we want them to deliver on commitments and see 1,000 people housed before additional release of funds from prop c. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> i. [indiscernable] i was part of prop c when it all came up. i am really like surprised at some of the ways that people are trying to not house the unhoused

people. i think we should use all of prop c to house as many as we can. thank you. >> next speaker, please. i am from the youth services. i want to thank the oversight committee, our city, our home and budget and finance committee for putting the thought and intentionality behind the hearing. thank you for considering and investing for exits for transitional age youth. it is important for a choice and range so we can ensure stability and long-term sustainability. thank you so much. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon, chair fewer, members of the budget and finance committee and our city, our home presenters. i am from the family services. i just want to acknowledge how difficult this all is. we support fully funded mental health sf mandate. we stand with the our city, our home committee and recommendations. we do prioritize permanent housing exits for the folks unhoused and in the sip hotels and everyone else who is really suffering right now. i want to appreciate the our city our home committee for going to the community groups for input from stakeholders, particularly those providers. i want to uplift the need for

more and more diverse housing for families. we are seeing rapid rehousing used as one size fits all in terms of housing exits for families. a lot of families do end up. they return to homelessness without a more diverse aware of options such as flexible subsidies. i appreciate the flexible subsidies to are families. i want to elevate the importance of that. we see families who cannot get housing referrals. they are medically vulnerable with no sip hotel rooms. it is dire for families underrepresented in the sip hotels. that is worth calling out at this time. thank you very much. >> there are seven callers listening and two in the queue. if you have not done so press

star, 3, to be added to the queue. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am eric, community engagement for glide. like many others have said, it is important to remember why the voters of san francisco voted for prop c. it is the intent and spirit. we also need to be consistent with the legal intent communicated to voters. please support our city, our home proposal. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hello. i am kelly. i live in the district 9.

prop c is intended to put an end to homelessness for as many people as possible. the voters mandated this funding would make provisions for people to be off the streets permanently, not to fund patchwork services and then send folks back to the streets. voters mandated that a committee made up of people experiencing homelessness, service providers and advo cats would be the ones to determine what the prop c revenues would be spent. when i was collecting signatures for the ballot. who is going to decide how the revenue would be spent? they were relieved to know the community of homeless folks and advo cats and providers would be on the committee to make those decisions. thank you. >> next speaker, please.

>> mamadam chair, that completes the queue. >> public comment is closed on 5 and 6. i want to thank everyone who participated today. i want to thank our city our home committee, also. i want to thank hsh and also public health for the thoughts on this and, of course, my colleagues on the board. i think i want to preface this by saying we have a very unusual situation here where i think it is not normally what we would do is have a proposal and then sort of va short period of time for the committee to analyze and go through and come to consensus on it. i think that we are very of an wear, and i am, that this was an

initiative that was brought fort by the community and written by the community. i think the release of funds should go through a community process. i want to be sensitive to the fact we are in a crisis now. there is fill significant funds left in the big c pot. i want to thank public health and supervisor ronen for hearing from the committee and cutting the public health down to be able to put $7.7 million into acquisitions as what i think big c was really about was actually to get people out of homelessness permanently and find placements and be able to purchase those boarding care homes. having said that, i want to thank hsh for coming to an agreement with our city, our home committee and to actually

agree on the $20 million difference in the allocation. now with supervisor walton requesting that we add back the $5 million on the contingent staff would look for other funding and then backfill if that would be appropriate. however, i am not sure we can do that because i want to call in our city attorney now that will clearly tell us as a board what we are legally able to do about instructions about money that we have released. this is release of fund. i call on city attorney pearson to clarify this for us. thank you, city attorney. >> good afternoon, members of the committee. i spoke earlier today about the authority over contracts.

i will say a couple words over release of funds. it is similar in both instances. here the authority is to release funds up to the amount requested and noticed in the agenda today. once those funds have been released they will go to the department to use them for the purpose appropriated. in the same way the board cannot condition approval of contract on changes to terms in the contract, the board here cannot condition its release from reserves on certain programmatic decisions by the department. that said, in deciding what and when to release funds the committee can take into consideration the requests made and can decide whether and when to release funds for those

activities. the one motion in the hearings is an oral motion to release funds in a certain amount. that amount can be calculated based on the request made and what it is you would like to see the departments do with the funds. the motion is not contingent on those activities. it is just release in that amount. >> madam, city attorney. when there is a different allocation than what is recommended, i think, about the $7.7 million. we header today there is going to be refiguring of where those funds go to the pockets, are we able to release that amount of funds that the purpose of it is actually going to be repurposed for a different purpose? >> so as long as the purpose is consistent with the purpose for which it was appropriated, i think that is acceptable.

the controller might want to weigh in on that. i am cautioning you about conditioning the funds on an agreement on the part of the departments to spend them in a particular way. i think all of the activities discussed today are well with in the uses for which the funds have been appropriated. >> if we were to put caveat with the release of the additional $5.9 million that supervisor walton has had concern about and we were to say but we would expect the department to keep their promise to our city our home committee to seek funds, we will release the funds but we would expect the department to keep its promise to the our city our home committee to seek other funding for this particular expense. would that be okay?

>> i am not sure that there would be a legally enforceable way. you can certainly ask that and people have made commitments to seek funding wherever possible. i don't think that would be a legal condition on your release. i think it is appropriate to voice that expectation. i have heard that it will be met. >> it is our intention that is what would happen. got it. mr. rosenfeld, something to add? >> i would add, chair fewer, following up on the comments. the appropriations of these funds in the budget are at a very broad level. the various uses you talked about today are within the parameters of the appropriation. no change to the appropriation is ultimately required to effectuate the changes talked about today. the other point the attorney is making here is simply the

departments have more discretion. what they are doing today is presenting commitments how the funds will be spent. many things happened in the budget process. our office is required to produce reports to our city our home committee. the departments will come back to you in is not too distant future. they are straying from the commitments and you have authority at that time to respond accordingly. >> supervisor mandelman you see confused. i will call you with your confused look on your face. >> i am so confused here, chair fewer, mr. controller. i want to see -- i generally

understand the concepts. because we appropriate something doesn't mean that the administration has to spend the money on that thing. i'm thinking i hear you saying that they can move things arou around. in the budget we did you have an appropriation contingent on the ballot measures. we put on reserve the appropriation for the b hack. so today the department of public health is in front of us saying you put the money on reserve for the b hack. if you release this from reserve we will spend it if at all on acquisition of ward and cares.

so then we release the funds in the same total amount we were going to release but for a different purpose. do they still get to pay for b hack and all we have you were on a committee and told us it was going to be spent on board and cares, what happened? >> departments are legally bound by the appropriation you adopt in the budget process. those can be very, very specific or broader. >> you were talking about appropriation, releasing for something that is different from what we appropriated for. >> in the budget. you were not appropriating funds as a committee. that was the budget process. the appropriation is establish understand the budget for these items. it was at a very broad level. within a fund called the our

city our home fund that includes various appropriations that are at the level required by the voter adopted ordinance. there is an appropriation for mental health, homeless, etc., through the different allocation. that is the legal control. >> if the department of public health wanted to use every dollar of prop c mental health money fo for acquisition of boad and scare and cares could three? >> as a matter of law, yes. matter of practice, no. >> interesting.

>> is it appropriate for us to attach an amendment to this that requires a report on the spending plan on how everything was spent? i think you have to do that anyway, right? i am not going to be here but you guys will be. you are going to be concerned if those allocations were spent in the way indicated and presented today by the city departments. >> i think it is typical for the committee to indicate by verbal direction you respect to see reports from the departments how the funds are implemented. you are having a much bigger piece of the conversation how much control the board of supervisors would like to retain. we would be happy to have that

conversation with the board. it is a much more fundamental discussion you were having than the item here today. >> is all of the money that we appropriated for prop c, are all of the dph prop c funds for this year's budget all-in-one fundable pot to be spent on any of the prop c priorities pretty much as dph likes with the only check being on it if they come back and spent it wildly out of step with the way presented to us we would be unhappy? >> i think there is the legal answer to that question, supervisor and practical one. it is true throughout the appropriation process. you are talking as a matter of law the matter is appropriated into a single pot in the fund, the department has broad

discretion in that appropriation to spend as it would. as a matter of practice the effect would be counterproductive for the department they would not make commitments they did not intend be to fulfill, from my experience. >> this is such an education for supervisor mandelman here today. >> jenny with dph. i will say you have our commitment. we have the spending plan developed with the mayor and board of supervisors. we have no plans to significantly to deviate beyond regular variations as proposed. >> you know what makes this more difficult, colleagues? this is a committee initiative. a -- community initiative.

a promise. when we see the allocation and we don't have authority to actually enforce that they are spent in the right buckets. it is a promise of our bureaucracy. i want to say i don' i -- peoplt have a lot of faith in the bureaucracy. it is a community initiative and covenant with the community, if these -- we release these funds and if they are not appropriated in the way that is described today, we don't have any recourse. they are able. it is a leap of faith that our city departments are going to spend the allocations in the way described today. i want to emphasize that. i see mr. wagner.

do you have something to add, mr. wagner. >> i was going to add to clarify further. should the committee wish to further restrict that appropriation to codify the recommendation here today, our office can prepare an amendment to the ordinance and the board can add don't -- adopt that. should i wish to restrict control, that would be the way to do it and our office could draft that legislation for you. >> that is a level of control that didn't exist in the original appropriation, is that right? >> that's correct. >> supervisor, i would just say i know ms. louie responded. this would not be the first time the legal boundaries of the appropriation were less specific than the intent. we always for all of the reasons

that ben described. we represent what our intent is to do and we do it. we do understand that we have discussions about our intent in the budget appropriation and those have meaning. we will be back before this board regularly and will be back before the our city our home committee regularly. this legal issue exists in other appropriations but our practice is that we make a commitment about our intent on how we will spend the appropriation and we will abide by that. >> thank you, mr. wagner. in short, it is a leap of faith, colleagues. supervisor mandelman, you have a motion on the table. >> well, i was going to move the

modified hsh relief -- dph release. >> that is actually item 5. would you please restate your motion. >> i move that we release the dph portion of the prop c appropriation in accordance with the revised spending plan deta detailed by dph. >> for the full amount of $30,000,300, is that correct? >> that full amount, yes, thank you, madam chair. >> chair fewer and supervisor mandelman. that includes the suggestions made by supervisor ronen,

correct? >> yes. >> thank you. >> roll call vote, please. >> on the motion. supervisor walton. >> aye. >> supervisor mandelman. >> aye. >> chair fewer. >> aye. >> three ayes. madam chair could we please file this hearing? >> yes. let's file this hearing. item 6. i think that we have an agreement with our city, our home committee. we have agreement with the hsh that they are willing to reduce the amount by $20,789,000. supervisor walton would like emergency shelter for future

consideration and added back in the amount. i think that comes then to total allocation to be released is $49,311,000,000 start? is that correct? >> that is exactly right, madam chair. >> that is good. we have a motion to release the funds. of the amount of 49,000,003 $11,000 and roll call vote, please. >> on that motion supervisor walton. >> aye. >> supervisor mandelman. >> aye. >> chair fewer. >> aye. >> there are three ayes. could we please file this as well?

>> yes, please. now, madam clerk. do i refer these items at all to the full board? no. >> no. >> thank you very much. thank you everybody. this is a very long hearing. thank you, madam clerk. i am sorry this is so long. we have two items to come back to. item 2 and 3. let's take item 2 first. madam clerk, do you need a recess? >> no, madam chair. >> any of my colleagues need a recess? i would like to call kristan holland from the public defender's office for an update where you are on the three recommendations that were

brought fort at the committee at the last meeting. >> good afternoon, chair fewer, supervisors. i am kristan holings, cfo for sheriff's office, public defender's office and sheriff's office spent hours since the last hearing doing really good faith negotiations with each other. we have come to some agreement but not full agreement. there are some amendments to the resolution that i believe that we sent to your legislative aid. i believe he shared those with you so we have some agreement on what the resolution ough auto lk like but not rules 5 and 13 that were subject to the discussion last week.

>> on recommendation 1 you have agreement, is that correct? >> roughly, yes. >> i mean there is a one word that we were still debating back and forth, yes, in general we are in agreement that this is something we do. we are happy to add attorney's names to the contact list so when we are contacting people we will also contact attorneys. >> mr. public defender, is that are you in agreement with the changes for item 1 that have been voiced by mr. holland? >> yes, i am matt. public defender in san francisco for over 14 years. thank you for hearing us out on this issue. we were hoping to have much greater changes to the em

program but we did focus on three representations that we gave. it is very disappointing from our end we were only able to agree on one. we want to continue to work in the future to see if we can continue to make these changes to the program. i did spend a number of hours with mr. holings and the attorney for the sheriffs and some of the sheriffs that i worked with, lieutenants and i listened to them care fully. it was beneficial to understand their point of view on the issues. i am hopeful on the first issue where we had agreement we would avoid countless persons being returned to custody for technical violations like a battery on the device dies. we hope by not just adding the

attorney's name but contact person like case manager that a criminal defendant might put down it will avoid resources being spent reincarcerating people. i believe we have agreement on the first of the three recommendations that we made. as to the other two, there were rules 5 and 13 that were on the sheriff's rules form and, you know, my understanding having listened carefully. the reason those were on the form to provide transparency to the person who is participating in the program, right? the question is whether we are able to balance that need for transparency so the people administering the program and people on the program can understand the obligations and balancing that with having a criminal defendant inadd very departmentally waiving the fourth amendment rights. we went around and around on

this. we have done proposed language to resolve the issue. the other part of this was that the sheriff's office acknowledged they are not able to make these orders, only a judge is able to make the orders. the forms were merely tracking when the judge previously stated in court. we hope to get agreement on all of these. it is very disappointing that we have not been able to get agreement on all three recommendations today. we thought these were three areas that we needed to do and we are not able to do that at this time. we want to keep working on it. >> i am disappointed, too. i wish you had come to an agreement. i actually think what i would like to do is codify your agreement for recommendation number one. i think that is there official language that we can send to the board for consideration or can you read it verbally to us and send it in a written form?

>> yes. what we put into the draft resolution, which we shared with public defender who came back and did not offer any amendments to that particular line was that whereas the sheriff's office whenever possible contact program participants, emergency contacts when the electronic monitoring device battery is low and the sheriff's office is not able to reach the client directly. yes, wherever possible we contact the contacts and we are happy to put whoever is there. we are deeply disappointed. on the contact information this is something we have been doing

for a long time. we are happy to formalize it for the public defender. we have that in a whereas clause. >> mr. rosen is that to your agreement and what you agreed on? >> yes. it does state that whereas the public defender is available to act as the client emergency contact if requested by their client. i thought we were going to include other individuals besides just the attorney. that is something that we can agree on. >> okay. that is great. madam city attorney, could i ask you a question? >> yes, you may. >> may i set this amendment to the electronic monitoring rules and regulations to be included in the program rules and regulations then as a board we approve them and then make an action as amended?

can we amend it to add in this agreement and then we either continue it or move to the board as amended? >> madam chair, i circulated a couple moments ago a copy of the resolution that shows the amendments that i understood the two departments had agreed to. i did not prepare these amendments working together to prepare these and amendments as introduced are highlighted in yellow. they are whereas clauses that reflect agreements made to include certain practices about notification to clients, attorneys and other commitments. the board may amend the resolution to include those whereas clauses today. that amendment would not be substantive. if you wish to continue the item

so that the parties could continue to work on this and additional amendments made that is fine as well or the board could make the amendments and take action on the resolution itself and send to the full board. >> okay. let's do this. let's make a motion to approve the amendments to be added to the rules and regulations. i would like to make a motion to approve that amendment. >> open up for public comment again? public comment on item number 2, please. >> we are checking for callers in the queue. please let us know if callers are ready press star 3 to be added to the queue. if you are on hold wait until you are unmuted. let us know if there are callers on item 2.

>> yes, i have one caller. >> good afternoon, madam chair. policy manager for glide. our organization and partners were to hear at the wednesday december 2 meeting the sheriff's department was to revisit the rules of the electronic monitoring. more work needs done. we work with people formerly incarcerated and families. many have been on electronic monitoring. it extend to our community and homes. costly, harmful and counterproductive. there is no conclusive data or evidence that suggestions that it works. electronic monitoring is a condition of pre-trial release

in federal and state systems since 1984. the impact on pre-trial is abysmal. there is no difference between electronic monitoring and release in reduction ever of. [indiscernable] we urge the immediate implementation of policy recommendations that take a harm reduction approach. our recommendations were submitted to the sheriff and public defender on december 10th to address people's success and protect civil rights everyone deserves. we ask the city to invest programs that explore all possibilities. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. any additional callers for this item?

>> madam chair, that completes it. >> public comment is closed on item 2. i see supervisor walton in the queue. >> thank you, chair fewer. i am removed. >> i would like to make a motion to approve the amendment to the electronic monitoring program. roll call vote, please. >> on the motion. supervisor walton. >> aye. >> supervisor mandelman. >> aye. >> chair fewer. >> aye. >> there are three ayes. >> thank you very much. having done that i would like to continue this item to the call of the chair as amended. >> on the motion, supervisor walton. >> aye. >> supervisor mandelman. >> aye. >> chair fewer. >> aye. there are three ayes.

>> gentlemen, thank you for your hard work on this together. i hope that you can come to an agreement sometime on item your recommendations number 2 and 3. i think that what we are missing and i am glad everyone has a deeper understanding about each other's work and that is beneficial. thank you for going to the table on this and getting it as close as we can get at this point. i look forward to more progress. i won't be here but i wish you guys the best of luck. thanks so much. >> thank you. >> back to item 3 now. madam clerk. >> is it michelle? >> yes. >> it seems yesterday i was talking to her. what say you? >> what i say is thank you for letting us come back on the same day. i sent you all an e-mail at 2:1d

resolution. essentially what we are asking is going along with what the bla recommended as wording and the city attorney pearson to amend the proposed resolution to request to exercise the option to extend the contract through june 30, 2022 rather than june 30, 2024, which was what was state understand the resolution. then increase is not to exceed amount by $16,088,000 from $9.8 million to $25.9 million. the change if you recall there was overspending in the original time period so we just made that budget be the budget instead of

taking that out of contingency and then kept an extension of 1.5 years to june 30, 2022. kept the same amount you have already seen. then added the full contingency. should i read the whole revised resolution? just the beginning? into the record? >> yes. >> okay. resolution approving amendment number 2 to the agreement between cross-country staffing inc. and the department of public health for as-needed registry personnel to maintain mandated staffing level to increase the agreement amount by $16,088,000 for an amount not to exceed 25,000,009 $28,000 and to

extend the term by one and one-half years from january 1, 2021 for a total agreement term of july 1, 2019 through june 30, 2022. >> that is perfect. i may being a motion to approve that. i am seeing varied expressions on colleagues faces. any comment or confusion? good. would the motion be, madam clerk, to accept these amendments? >> yes, madam chair. prior to that could we police are public comment on this item? >> could i have public comment on item 3. >> we are checking for callers in the queue. please press star 3 to be added to the queue. on hold please continue to wait until the system indicates you

are unmuted. please let us know if there are comments for item 3. >> madam chair, no public speakers. >> no public speakers? did anyone hear that? no public speakers? >> madam chair, no public speakers. >> okay. >> no callers in the queue. >> not that i don't love public comment but we have had a long meeting. i would like to make a motion to accept th amendment.

roll call vote, please. >> supervisor walton. >> aye. >> supervisor mandelman. >> aye. >> chair fewer. >> aye. >> three ayes. >> i would make a motion to move as amended to the full board with positive recommendation. >> on that motion supervisor walton. >> aye. >> supervisor mandelman. >> aye. >> chair fewer. >> aye. >> three ayes. >> thank you. i want to thank dph. i also really want to thank our bla who assisted us and our attorney and everyone. madam clerk. any more business before us today? >> no further business. >> thank you everyone. >> see you next week. >> sea you next week.

>> hi. my name is carmen chiu, san francisco's aelectricitied assessor. today, i want to share with you a property tax savings programs for families called proposition 58. prop 58 was passed in 1986 and

it was helped parents pass on their lower property tax base to their children. so how does this work? under california's prop 13 law, the value we use to calculate your property tax is limited to 2% growth peryear. but when ownership changes, prop 13 requires that we reassess properties to market value. if parents want to pass on their home or other property to their children, it would be considered a change in ownership. assuming the market value of your property has gone up, your children, the new owners, would pay taxes starting at that new higher level. that's where prop 58 comes in. prop 58 recognizes the transfer between parents and children so that instead of taxing your children at that new higher level, they get to keep your lower prop 13 value. remember, prop 58 only applies to transfers between parents and children.

here's how the law twines an eligible child. a biological child, a step child, child adopted before the age of 18, and a son-in-law or daughter-in-law. to benefit from this tax saving program, remember, you just have to apply. download the prop 58 form from our website and submit it to our office. now you may ask, is there a cap how much you can pass on. well, first, your principal residence can be excluded. other than that, the total tap of properties that can use this exclusion cannot exceed $1 million. this means for example if you have two other properties, each valued at $500,000, you can exclude both because they both fit under the $1 million cap. now what happens hwhen the totl value you want to pass on exceeds $1 million. let's say you have four properties. three with current taxable value of $300,000 and one at

$200,000, totaling $1.1 million in value. assuming that you decide to pass on properties one, two, and three, we would apply the exclusions on a first come, first served basis. you would deduct properties one, two, and three, and you would still have $100,000 left to pass on. what happens when you pass on the last property? this property, house four, has been existing value of 2 -- has an existing value of $200,000, and its existing property value is actually higher, $700,000. as i said, the value left in your cap is $100,000. when we first figure out your portion, we figure out the portion that can be excluded. we do that by dividing the exclusion value over the assessed value. in this case, it's 50%. this means 50% of the property will remain at its existing value. meanwhile, the rest will be reassessed at market value.

so the new taxable value for this property will be 50% of the existing value, which is 200,000, equaling 100,000, plus the portion reassessed to market value, which is 50% times $700,000, in other words, 350,000, with a total coming out to $450,000. a similar program is also available for prepping transfers fl interest r from grandparents to grandchildren. if you're interested in learning more visit our website or >> the goal is simple. it's to raise women's voices. >> learn a little bit about what you should be thinking about in the future. >> we had own over 300 -- over

300 people who signed up for the one-on-one counseling today. >> i think in the world of leading, people sometimes discount the ability to lead quietly and effectively. the assessor's office is a big one. there are 58 counties in the state of california and every single county has one elected assessor in the county. our job is to look at property taxes and make sure that we are fairly taxing every single property in san francisco. one of the big things that we do is as a result of our work, we bring in a lot of revenue, about 2.6 billion worth of

revenue to the city. often, people will say, what do you do with that money, and i like to share what we do with property taxes. for every dollar we collect in property taxes, about 68 cents of it goes to support public sstss, our police officers, our fire departments, our streets, our cleaning that happens in the city. but i think what most people don't know is 34 cents of the dollar goes to public education. so it goes to the state of california and in turn gets allocated back to our local school districts. so this is an incredibly important part of what we do in this office. it's an interesting place to be, i have to say. my colleagues across the state have been wonderful and have been very welcoming and share their knowledge with me. in my day-to-day life, i don't think about that role, being

the only asian american assessor in the state, i just focus on being the best i can be, representing my city very well, representing the county of san francisco well. by being the only asian american assessor, i think you have a job to try to lift up and bring as many people on board, as well. i hope by doing the best that you can as an individual, people will start to see that your assessor is your elected leaders, the people that are making important decisions can look like you, can be like you, can be from your background. i grew up with a family where most of my relatives, my aunties, my uncles, my parents, were immigrants to the united states. when my parents first came here, they came without any relatives or friends in the united states. they had very little money, and they didn't know how to speak english very well. they came to a place that was completely foreign, a place where they had absolutely nobody here to help them, and i can't imagine what that must

have been like, how brave it was for them to take that step because they were doing this in order to create an opportunity for their family. so my parents had odd jobs, my dad worked in the kitchens, my mom worked as a seamstress sewing. as we grew up, we eventually had a small business. i very much grew up in a family of immigrants, where we helped to translate. we went to the restaurant every weekend helping out, rolling egg rolls, eating egg rolls, and doing whatever we need to do to help the family out. it really was an experience growing up that helped me be the person that i am and viewing public service the way that i do. one of the events that really stuck with me when i was growing up was actually the rodney king riots. we lived in southern california at the time, and my parents had a restaurant in inglewood, california. i can remember smelling smoke,

seeing ashes where we lived. it was incredibly scary because we didn't know if we were going to lose that restaurant, if it was going to be burned down, if it was going to be damaged, and it was our entire livelihood. and i remember there were a lot of conversations at that time around what it was that government to do to create more opportunities or help people be more successful, and that stuck with me. it stuck with me because i remain believe government has a role, government has a responsibility to change the outcomes for communities, to create opportunities, to help people go to school, to help people open businesses and be successful. >> make sure to be safe, and of course to have fun. >> and then, i think as you continue to serve in government, you realize that those convictions and the persons that you are really help to inform you, and so long as you go back to your core, and you remember why you're doing what you're doing, you know, i think you can't go wrong. it's funny, because, you know,

i never had thought i would do this. i became a supervisor first for the city under very unusual circumstances, and i can remember one day, i'm shopping with friends and really not having a care in the world about politics or running for office or being in a public position, and the next day, i'm sworn in and serving on the board of supervisors. for many of us who are going through our public service, it's very interesting, i think, what people view as a leader. sometimes people say, well, maybe the person who is most outspoken, the person who yells the loudest or who speaks the loudest is going to be the best leader. and i think how i was raised, i like to listen first, and i like to try to figure outweighs to work with -- out ways to work with people to get things done. i hope that time goes on, you can see that you can have all sorts of different leaders whether at the top of city government or leading organizations or leading teams,

that there are really different kinds of leadership styles that we should really foster because it makes us stronger as organizations. >> take advantage of all the wonderful information that you have here, at the vendor booth, at our seminars and also the one-on-one counseling. >> i wouldn't be where i was if i didn't have very strong people who believed in me. and even at times when i didn't believe in my own abilities or my own skills, i had a lot of people who trusted and believed i either had the passion or skills to accomplish and do what i did. if there was one thing that i can tell young women, girls, who are thinking about and dreaming about the things they want to be, whether it's being a doctor or being in politics, running an organization, being in business, whatever it is, i think it's really to just trust yourself and believe that who you are is enough, that you are enough to make it work and to make things successful.

[roll call]

>> clerk: we have quorum. >> chair peskin: madam clerk, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes. i will make an announcement on public comment. public comment will be available on each item on this agenda by calling 415-655-0001, and when prompted, enter absaid code 146-501-3359. press pound, and pound again, and when your item is called, press star, three to speak. your line will be muted, and it will be unmuted when it is your turn to speak. best practices is to speak

slowly, clearly, and turn down the volume of any television or computer. >> chair peskin: thank you. madam clerk, can you please read the next item. >> clerk: certainly. item 2, chair's report. >> chair peskin: thank you, madam clerk. i will be brief, but i wanted to end the last meeting of the year for the san francisco transportation authority, but i wanted to express my appreciation for two commissioners who will be departing this commission, commissioners norman yee and sandra lee fewer. you two have exerted leadership

on transportation as well as san francisco and your respective districts while you've been members of this body. commissioner yee not only chaired this body for many years but was one of the original authors of our city's original vision zero ordinance a year after he joined in 2018. he helped create our vision zero committee, which i still serve on and served as vice chair for two years, led as chair for five years, and during this time, commissioner yee passed many pieces of legislation and led any number of traffic safety policy initiatives, including calling for the priority of safety

measures over traffic and parking, expanding daylighting citywide. commissioner yee championed funding for quick bills, traffic calming, red light enforcement, and other actions to protect seniors and children and all road users. he advocated along with walk s.f. and various families for safe streets, both here and in sacramento and nationally, in washington, d.c., and norman, i really want to thank you and acknowledge these accomplishments as well as stuff that you did in district 7, like the undergrounding study and bike path study around lake merced, to name a few. you have been a god send, and i know you are going to join all of us to continue to advocate for automated speed enforcement

after you go, and i am committed to getting it through the state legislature and enacting it locally, so i look forward to working on that with you, even after you're no longer on this commission. commissioner sandra lee fewer has been on the commission since 2018. although her time was shorter, she was involved in many acts. she led the call to bring rail to the west side of the city and met with the b.a.r.t. general director and our executive director, tilly chan, to lay the groundwork for those plans. supervisor fewer ensured transportation funds for major infrastructure projects and

supported key smaller efforts in each and every district. and last year, along with supervisor brown, she created the office of racial equity. and now, our t.a. is among the first to submit racial equity plans in response to that legislation, so thank you, commissioner fewer, for your leadership in these areas and for your efforts for safety and equitable transportation, not only in d-1, but across the city. you will be missed, and we wish you the best in your endeavors, and with that, colleagues, i conclude my remarks. thank you. are there any comments on the chair's report? >> president yee: can i -- >> chair peskin: please. >> president yee: thank you for those very nice words, and again, vision zero has been a joint effort from all of us. there's nobody on this commission that doesn't care

about pedestrian safety measures, so i want to thank everybody for being supportive of the things i brought forward. but you forgot two of the most important things i did around pedestrian safety, and i have to say it, because it probably will disappear. soon after i started, i brought back the idea of school crossing guards. i had hoped that it would be a program with all of the elementary schools, but it hasn't happened. i think eventually you had about 14 schools that participated in it. and then, the other thing that i'm really proud of is

pedestrian safety. it took a lot to repair. it was going to come back at the beginning of the year, but then, covid hit. so please, remember, it was so kindergarten and elementary kids to learn about good pedestrian habits. we have funding that's supporting that program, and for you to let them know that we want it back in san francisco. thank you very much. >> chair peskin: thank you, commissioner yee, for my omissions, and i suspect we

forgot many other things along the way, but duly noted, and miss chan let me not forget his parting admonitions as to crossing guards in ed's neighborhood. commissioner fewer? >> supervisor fewer: yes. thank you, chair, for the kind words, and i also want to thank president yee, commissioner yee, for his service in all things transit. i just also want to give a shout out to angelina yoon, in my office, who helped with so many things. i think president yee -- i mean, commissioner yee and i have been hit by vehicles in intersections, and so we know how dangerous it is for folks

to be crossing our streets now, and in my district, sadly, we've had multiple fatalities, and sadly, a couple of them were fatal. but sadly, we had people injured, disabled, their lives altered for the rest of their lives because of these collisions. i just want to say thank you to this committee and for this department under the leadership of tilly chan, and also the collaboration about traffic calming strategies in my district. i am fully ware of other districts, and your transportation issues are much more complex than my district. i watched you advocate for things in your district to help

mitigate these naturals that you have. i commend you for knowing your streets, knowing your intersections well, and you are help to guide the work around the t.a. and the m.t.a. and your constituents. it has been an honor to serve with all of you before, and we leave it in your hands, your good and capable hands, and thank you to all of the public servants who worked so hard to deliver a safe and dependable transit system for san francisco. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you,

commissioner fewer. commissioner yee? >> president yee: i'm sorry. i forgot to thank tilly chan and her department for making things happen. i was i want to say to tilly, you are the best hire that this board has ever made. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you. seeing no other names on the roster, why don't we open the chair's remarks open to public comment. miss milton, are there any public comment on the chair's report? >> clerk: yes, there's one caller. hold on just one moment, please. >> chair peskin: first speaker. >> clerk: hello, caller. your two minutes begins now. >> thank you. good morning, commissioners. this is jodi madeiras, and i'm the executor director of walk san francisco, and i'm here to say thank you to both

commissioners fewer and yee for both of their success and dedication to safe streets. the list is incredibly long for supervisor yee's championings and resolutions for vision zero. one of the most significant measures that supervisor yee did support was establishing the san francisco bay area families for safe streets. as we all know, those are the victims of traffic violence and survivors. we've just been so, so lucky that he has channelled his pain and his devastation that he went through into action, and we cannot thank commissioner yee enough. i do also want to recognize his work for the push for the sfctas committee, and having this forum has made a

difference for safe streets and our policy needs, and we really do hope that this attention continues as we quickly approach our city's vision of vision zero in 2024. and i cannot talk and recognize safe streets without recognizing supervisor fewer. she's mentioned today in her remarks that district 1 hasn't been without its traffic violence and tragedy, and we're so grateful for her leadership, and she also will be missed. thank you so much. it's been a great time. >> clerk: there's another caller. >> chair peskin: next speaker,

please. >> clerk: hello, caller. your two minutes begins now. caller? >> hello? >> clerk: hi, caller, yo. your two minutes are starting now. go ahead. >> hi. my name is ally geller. i'm the walk s.f. vision zero manager. supervisor yee, i want to congratulate you on this milestone. on behalf of every one of the san francisco bay area families for safe streets members, i want to thank you for making san francisco bay area families for safe streets possible. i'm here today because of your leadership commitment, heart, and soul. because of you, i'm able to partner with san francisco families for safe streets. every time i thank you, you

brush me off and respond with such humility and deep commitment. our families for safe streets members have told us that they want to turn their grief into action to change this heartbreaking epidemic. actions are powerful, and this is what your vision represents. you're laying the groundwork for vision zero, and pushing initial tafs like daylighting through san francisco. you championed san francisco families for safe streets. our advocates are inspired by your leadership. families for safe streets are critical to our efforts. your empathy is clear, and we are so grateful for you not

just supporting us but standing by our side. i want to thank you for all the work you do and for leading the board of supervisors in a commitment to vision zero. we look forward to continuing to working with you until we no longer have to. thank you so much. >> chair peskin: thank you. >> clerk: thank you, caller. >> chair peskin: are there any more members of the public callers for the chair's report? >> clerk: there are no more callers. >> chair peskin: okay. we'll close public comment, but i'll go to jamie with the sfcta who has some more comments with regards to commissioners yee and fewer. >> yes. thank you, commissioners and chair peskin. i'm jamie parks with sfcta.

i manage the sfcta's liveable streets division, which oversees san francisco's traffic calming and bicycle programs, and vision zero is absolutely core to all of the work we do. vision zero doesn't lend itself to easy technical answers. it's about culture change, ensuring in a country with 40,000 traffic fatalities each year that even one death is too much. commissioner yee, there's been such a long list of things that

you've done. commissioner fewer, it's kbn a pleasure working with you, as well, on so many safety projects in the richmond district. throughout it all, you have both done plenty of pushing. you' you've asked lots of difficult questions, and to be honest, answering those questions have not always been fun, but i've always enjoyed working with you and seeing you on this board. >> chair peskin: thank you, mr. parks.

any final comments for commissioners yee or fewer? if not, why don't we open this up to public comment -- we already did that. excuse me. why don't we go to the executive director's report. miss chan? >> good morning, chair peskin and commissioners. let me add my thanks at the top of my report to commissioners yee and fewer. we echo part of the appreciations that you've heard already that chair peskin mentioned, jodi at walk s.f., the families for safe streets, and jamie parks. i wanted to share with you these framed prints that we will be delivering to your offices. they may even be on their way, but really, a heartfelt thank you to both of you. on the left, you'll see commissioner fewer's, and on the right, commissioner yee's. as you can see, the image that grabs you right up front is you

holding those hearts, and that was a campaign that you can see. your passion, your compassion really for this topic is unparallels, and we were so, so lucky for you to be an original coauthor of vision zero, and for you to carrie that advocacy throughout all of those activities, whether we saw you at city hall or the nation's capitol, where you can see on the speaker's balcony. i also saw you at your old alma mater, whether it was advocating to bring back the old school crossing guards or safe routes to school type events. you'll see in my executive director's report reference to

your events, and so we appreciate your guidance there, and we'll continue that work along with so many other things. the m-line work, the lake merced work, and the advocacy around safer speeds and automated enforcement and everything that will make our streets safer for everyone. and, of course, commissioner fewer, i want to thank you so much. it's been too short, but we appreciate, however, the time that you've had on the t.a. we love that picture of you smiling on the muni bus. there was one of you at p peabody, and on the steps of city hall, advocating for safer transportation. i also want to mention your one richmond initiative which really i thought was a hallmark

of your time on the board. in terms of transportation, we appreciated all of your work for access improvements throughout the district, new mobility and making sure that everyone will benefit from technology changes. both of you really advocated for a fair and inclusive and equitable transportation. you put your foot down, rightly so, when we were debating the regional measure three measure. so that groundwork has been laid, as supervisor peskin mentioned. hope to see you both in all of these endeavors going forward. finally, i want to echo your thanks to angelica.

that's the quick thank you, and then, i'm going to go and quickly provide the rest of my update, if that's okay? >> chair peskin: of course. >> okay. great. turning to a more sober topic, the covid relief talks in congress is part of the deliberations in congress, and we appreciate speaker pelosi's leadership and still trying to ensure that transit will be a part of that. now, the new number we're hoping will get passed is $15 billion in transit relief funds. originally, they were talking about $32 billion. it may not be able to stave off all of the cuts, but it will help our drivers for muni, which faces a severe deficit, 68 in fiscal 21, and up to 168

in fiscal 22, with potential layoffs on the horizon. we are going to be working closely with them, and i know many of you have asked our office to help with that to see what, for example, kinds of capital funds can be flexed to operations, and we will keep you posted on that. upcoming workshops in the bay area include the bay area 2150 final plan, presentations around the region to present analysis from the final blueprint. that's the final pay area 2150. we advocated strongly for it, and i think we'll do really well, and we need to continue that through the implementation stage, and that'll be the coming years to put up the implementation plans, and you'll see that in a later

item. cpuc, we had some nice outcomes there, and thank you, chair peskin, for working with sfmta and director tumlin and our teams. we were able to get a decision by the cpuc commission to include goals around equity that would include disabled equity and digital access, so that folks with smart phones, as well, can benefit from automated or driverless services in the future. turning to district 4, a mobility study, we had an amazing town haul with commissioner mar. thank you so much, and your staff, edward wright, for helping to cohost that -- or for cohosting that. we supported that with rec-park, and sfmta and over 500 participants in that webinar where we presented a number of potential designed

for the roadway that folks can access at our website. school access planning work is also kicking off, again, there was a request from commissioner mar, and many of you have had interest in this, and we are working together with sfusd and department of dcyf, children, youth, and their families. for more information, please check our website, and we want to thank commissioner mar for putting some matching funds on that land grant, as well. district 11, the alemany resurfacing project is nearing its end. thank you, commissioner safai, for working with us on that. i think it touches district 8, as well, and the project will install 42 curb ramps, install sidewalks and bulb outs and

other projects funded by the california p.u.c. and the sfmta. you may have also noticed, as far as project deliveries and red lanes being built on vanness avenue, so that is in the stage where the undergroundwork is behind us, and we are now working on -- the sfmta is working on building the median islands and the bus facilities. the plan is to test in fall of next year, and it's scheduled for end of next year time, so we can't wait for that. september 2020 did yield revenue of about 7.7 million. that was a 6% increase over the prior month of august. total collections for the first quarter of fiscal year 21 is down dabout 10%, but we'll be

monitoring this holiday period, and of course, a lot of it depends on the receipt of covid relief funds from washington. i'm happy to take questions. and thank you to you and all of your staff for this productive and year-long work that we're able to do here at the transportation authority. so from our staff to your staff, please have a safe and relaxing holiday season. look forward to seeing you all in the new year. >> chair peskin: thank you, miss chan. seeing no other comments from members, is there any public comment on the chair's report? >> clerk: at this time, callers, you are welcome to make a comment, any comment for item number 3. >> chair peskin: i meant the check tiff director's report. i'm sorry. >> clerk: there's no --

executive director's report. >> clerk: there's no public comment at this time. >> chair peskin: with that, public comment is closed. madam clerk, can you read the consent agenda. >> clerk: yes. items 5 through 8 constitute the consent agenda, and will be voted on by a single vote. >> chair peskin: okay. is there any public comment? >> clerk: oh, there was someone, but they put their hand down. >> chair peskin: okay. with that, public comment is closed. can i have a motion, please? >> supervisor fewer: so moved. >> chair peskin: so moved, and

seconded. madam clerk, may i have a roll call, please. [roll call] >> clerk: we have 11 ayes. the consent agenda has final approval. >> chair peskin: and miss melton, i will be here all day today. if you would like to bring me those instruments to sign, i will be here until at least 6:00. all right. next item, please. >> clerk: item 9, allocate up to $5,773,403 and appropriate $150,000 in prop k sales tax funds, with conditions, for

potrero yard modernization. this is an action item. >> chair peskin: thank you. and i know that staff would like to present, but i also know that commissioner walton has comments, so why don't i start with commissioner walton? is. >> supervisor walton: thank you so much, supervisor peskin, and i am going to really be pushing to continue this item to the call of the chair. there's some major issues we need to iron out with sfmta in terms of their affordable housing commitment to this project and portions of this request are retroactive, which my office only found out yesterday. more discussion is needed for clarity to honor a request of this side. if you look at the description on page 87 of our packet, it lists the resources, it you can at tha -- it talks about housing, but it doesn't even mention affordable.

i'm worried that sfmta is trying to push forward without outlining in the r.f.q. we need clarity on funding and prop k requests on a project of this size. they are teetering and tottering back and forth when we have conversations. they're not truly committed in the conversations that they've had with my office and the surrounding community. there are a lot of items to consider and request, and this item should be continued. >> chair peskin: thank you. and without predisposing our colleagues, i suspect that after the presentation, that will likely be the will of this body per your request. just one question to counsel, i believe, our counsel. miss chan, i know that, board

of supervisors, we in committee continues things to the call of the chair insofar as this entity has its own set of rules that are different than the board of supervisors. do we have a protocol to continue this to the call of the chair? >> yes, absolutely. >> chair peskin: okay. just wanted to confirm that, and with that, why don't we go to miss laforte for the presentation. >> thank you, commissioners. >> chair peskin: i will note, miss laforte, that we do have a

number of members of the sfmta present, including director tumlin, so with that, let's go. >> okay. so the request let forth before you today is primarily from the sfmta for just about $5.8 million in prop k sales tax funds with a modest request from the sfcta for $150,000 for the potrero yard modernization project. this is a project to redevelop the 105-year-old bus facility that you see on your screen into a modern bus facility to serve projected capacity and future battery electric fleet. the new facility would score 213 buses, which is -- store 213 buses, which is a 50%

increase in capacity from current operations, and the sfmta has worked with the mayor's office of housing and community development and other agencies and has landed on a concept that would provide housing above the bus maintenance facility. and the proposal is to have up to six -- six levels for a bus facility with an additional seven levels of residential space above the facility with up to 575 mixed-income units. the proposal is to develop this yard under a joint development project delivery method, and so the m.t.a. is requesting funds to undertake the process to select a master developer that would also be responsible for design, build, finance, and maintain the full facility under what's called a project

agreement. the private developer would lease the housing and current development from the m.t.a. m.t.a. has already released and received responses to our requests for qualifications, which is in part what the retroactive funding would be -- is being requested to cover. the r.f.q. process has resulted

in three qualifies short listed candidates or master developer firms that are being put to the request for proposal phase, and that m.t.a. would release this in early 2021, depending on the outcome of this process and also some legislation from the board of supervisors that i'll get to in just a minute. the proposers would be selected next summer. the funding would also be used to evaluate the request and there's some requests until 2023, when the project is expected to be completed. over

and our work would be funded in part through this request. this is in recognition of the

scale and the impact of this project as well as the novelty of the joint project delivery method

the building is seismically insufficient, and we must retrofit it as a safe location

for our employees. the project strives to an exemplar of the sfmta's complete policy vision, with fully developed streetscape enhancements, urban design that supports transit riders, pedestrians, and cyclists. we also support the citywide vision for housing on this site and has provided a transparent forum for all stakeholders to engage in developing the housing program. the purpose of today's request is to advocate requests to allow the project to proceed and to continue conversation about the overall site development program. the sfmta has been at work on this project since 2017, when

we first began assessing space needs and maintenance requirements for the bus facility, which will occupy the first three floors and 75 foot in height from grade of the site. in 2019, after several rounds of designs and our frontline management, we transitioned a detail cost estimate and began to analyze what the sfmta could reasonably pay to support operations and maintenance of the new facility. the sfmta seeks to learn from prior capital facility project delivery and to incentivize the building to high quality construction. with the bus yard component itself estimated at over $400 million, the sfmta also looked for creative ways to finance the project and deliver it on time. in 2019, the sfmta, oewd, mohcd, and s.f. planning, in consultation with our consultants, and as an outgrowth of 1.5 years of

community input, assembled a conceptual starting point that included 450 units, 50% of them affordable. the purpose of this concept is not so finalize the housing project, but to provide a financial reasonably feasible starting point to procure funding. accordingly, this language was included in the r.f.q. and will be included in the forthcoming r.f.p. the sfmta ran a pro forma analysis on the original concept. this was reviewed by oewd and mohcd, and the project was demonstrated to pencil in the analysis model. several projects require a unique project delivery method, the largest one being

flexibility of long-term financing of a high-dollar project. inclusi inclusion to incentivize durable construction, and housing of a commercial land use program. the sfmta partnered with public works to increase capacity to deliver this complex project and enlisted the support of erap to provide joint technical advice. the sfmta has completed the r.f.q. for this project, and just as a little edit to anna's comments, we have received responses to the r.f.q., and we are in the process of identifying the short list of three firms to proceed to the r.f.p. process. i will now pass the presentation to my colleague.

>> thank you, supervisors. good morning. my name is ignacio, and i am with erap. i'll keep my remarks brief, but first, i want to say that -- just highlight the process by which we have come with the sfmta and public works to a decision on an infrastructure led joint development process as really the best way forward for this project, and that is fundamentally based on kind of a rigorous analysis of three things. first is the range of all the different delivery options that are available, considering those very carefully. second, forming that position by a market sounding that was started earlier this year, and where we spoke with over 30 firms in the industry, and then

thirdly, by looking at case studies and what are the lessons learned that we can bring into this project of case studies of similar joint developments around the country and around the world? and really, the infrastructure led joint development process is -- what is important is because it is a joint development where you have a single building with a dual purpose, what you need is a process to ensure the deliverability of the bus yard, of the public infrastructure component under all scenarios regardless of fluctuations in the market and, at the same time, creating a platform that allows for the development of the housing, including and, very importantly, the public housing component of it. next slide, please. so in these case studies that we analyzed, we looked at case

studies here in california, around the country -- in new york, there's some very good examples -- but also internationally even. and really, one of the common themes that he with found in these -- that we found in these case studies is the need to have a flexible commercial and financial structure that allows us to reconcile the different uses in those projects. each one of these projects in the case studies are somewhat different from potrero yard, but there's a commonality in that theme of a structure that reconciles multiple uses within a single facility. next slide, please, eusenia. now, in terms of the procurement strategy and the process to get from the stage where we are now, where the feasibility of the project has been demonstrated, and we're starting a procurement process to the point where we can have

a successful delivery of this major project, there are many steps that need to be taken. and this procurement strategy is fundamentally about mitigating and managing risk and resolving the multiple -- the many aspects that are needed to be addressed by the city in partnership with its infrastructure partner. and those involve ceqa, involve outreach to the community and stakeholders, how those things influence and shape the design that ultimately is built, and then also the financing and contracting for the projects, all through competitive procurement processes at multiple steps in the way. and the point i want to highlight in this process, which is a little bit different than in a conventional procurement, is right in the middle of this diagram, the inclusion of a predevelopment agreement phase that bridges the gap from where we are in

the early stages of an r.f.q. and r.f.p. to increasing levels of investment both by the city on the public sector side as well as the development partners on the private sector side to get to a successful financial closing and beginning of construction of the project. the next slide, please, please, eusenia. so i want to make just a quick reference. i think anna made the key points that needed to be made with orespect to one of the elements that we were asked to address in this, the reimbursement payment. i want to emphasize what are the benefits of doing this and why do the owners in infrastructure procurements such as this one typically include such a reimbursement

payment. and the benefits are twofold. first, at the front end, attracting high quality firms, large firms that can lead development, but also, smaller firms that can lead the development in the next major phase, which is the r.f.p. itself. and then, the other set of benefits really relate to what does the city get back in exchange for the payments, and that is, first and foremost, is are the work products from the r.f.p., albeit successful proposers, which integrate designs and other he ctechnica concepts that could be applied in the next phase. and then, the next is multiple as he can approximates, but one of the major ones is a waiver of protest rights that allows for the orderly progression of

the procurement. and incidentally, this is something that is in alignment with u.s. department of transportation guidance for transportation infrastructure procurements of this type. next slide, please, eusenia. one element i also want to highlight from anna's comments is the reimbursement of local business enterprise design firms. that was a requirement of the r.f.q. and will be a continuing requirement in future phases of the project which would be a requirement in san francisco. these large firms, they have the ability to invest funds at risk in many of these processes, however, many of the contractors and subs that support them don't have that capability, and especially the l.b.e., the local business enterprise firms, so part of the reimbursement benefit agreement is to prioritize the -- the payment for those

firms. the next slide, eusenia. i also want to highlight precedents that we were asked to put forward. this is just an example of a larger number in california, some bigger and some somewhat smaller than this one, although you can see there's precedents around the country, as well. you can see the reimbursement payments in these, from 500,000 to $2 million. what we have estimated for potrero is at the low end. next slide, please, eusenia. so i'd like to close this presentation by highlighting some high-level elements of the financing plan. the first, on the uses side, on the left-hand side of the screen, this is clearly a very

significant investment. it's over $800 million total capital investment up front, including construction costs, the major driver of that. roughly a little bit over half of that is for the bus yard public infrastructure investment. now when you look at the -- on the sources, and how do you pay for that investment, especially the public infrastructure side of it, what the joint development approach allows is for the sfmta to really optimize how its structures have available source of funding, and here are the two payments for the project. the first is a milestone payment and then a series of availability payments over 30

years that amortize the cost of the investment. generally, that's often a smart way of agencies to make the -- to capture affordablity for the project. [please stand by]

>> i'd like to acknowledge the commitment to affordable housing through the presentation. it's not lost on me that the strong affordable housing language came after expecting concerns. i'd like to move this item, i'd like to continue this item to the call of the chair so i can have a conversation with mta and give them the same page about how we prioratize and move forward. >> thank you, commissioner. it's better to iron this out at the front end than the back end. i have been informed that i actually, in my capacity as chair can do that unilaterally and do so after we hear from director of transportation the

floor is yours sir. >> thank you, sir. i'm in complete agreement we would like to make sure all of you have your questions addressed we would like a clear since of priority including the number of affordable units in the project. i'm happy to defer this until later so we have time to make sure the rest of the issues are resolved. there is a lot of work to be done and we would like to provide the strongest assurance and making sure we are on on the same page. thank you for giving us the time to make the presentation and i look forward to working with your office to iron out the remaining issues. >> as i said, none of us are

going anywhere because there is nowhere to go why don't we open this to public comment and i'll continue this to the call of the chair hopefully we'll get back to it in january with the discussions happening over the next three weeks. any members of the public that would like to comment. >> yes, at this time there are five callers and many hands are coming up. let's get started with the first caller. hello caller. you ten minutes begins now. >> i'm peter and part of the neighborhood working group. i just wanted to voice my support to the project. the neighborhood associations is relatively new.

the staff has done a great job informing us and bringing us into various parts of the discussion. as we know, investments are now more important than eever this is a tremendous benefit and the important details around affordable housing can be worked out i just wanted to voice strong support towards the investment and give you an update. >> thank you. >> thank you caller. >> i'll move to the next caller now. hello, caller, your 2 minutes begins now. >> good morning, this is kat carter with san francisco riders. we support this project. the yard is over 100 years old

and unsafe being out-of-date and can't prepare and maintain safety properly and efficiently. as we delay maintenance the impact and delays of san franciscans. the 30, 14, 22, and 5 continue to be used during the pandemic. they have done a lot during the difficult time. we need to make sure we will approve the funding and not allow anyone to impact it farther. thank you so much. >> thank you, caller.

hello caller, your two minutes ends now. i'd like to offer some of the first one is that this will be a slow step-in inbe happy and

safe. i'm with local 250 a. everybody is in support of the project and need more housing and the city and county of san francisco very serious health and safety aspect. they judged the lack and majority of the transit operators to provide the service for the city of san francisco. they don't live-in the city they have to travel here. sacramento and etc.

one of the last encounter is driving around in circles an hour. they have planning on getting more buses on the road the biggest support and in one way we need to do that to move forward is ensuring the working-class workers have a parking space somewhere within there. if you are a transit operator to not find a parking space the bus won't go out. we will have delayed buses, over crowded buses. i'd like to bring this up as a health and safety issue to make sure everybody nabbeds it's not about parking for the

operators. it's a safety issue and pertains to the amount of service that we can and should be bringing out here. please, take that into consideration for the working men and women. thank you. >> thank you, caller. >> can you hear me now? >> yes. >> i recognize the facility need i question the timing of the project. and the survival. it's not clear to me right now what the needs will be going forward. i'm not sure how much farther you should proceed with the

project. we might need it in the future but capital resources some of which could be shifted to operating. so, i'm questioning that in the future. strongly with the comets there is no employee parking at the new facility which i think is not realistic planning for the project. there are operators and maintenance staff that start at 4:00 a.m. and end shifts at 2:00 a.m. to subtle guest they would have to take a shuttle or find another way to get to a vehicle parked at a different location is just unfair and unrealistics. those are many comments at this time and more in the future. thank you. >> thank you, caller.

>> hello, your 2 minutes begins now. >> hello i just want to talk about having the commitment that you will get a certain percentage of affordable housing an also there are affordable parking. it operates 24 hours per day. it's a slap in the face and tell them there needs to be a way the as prices go up they must be pushed farther and farther away from the city you

need to make sure they get housing and parking you will have good public transit service because you have employees that are well rested that don't have parking they are not allowed to buy a parking permit. it's really ridiculous. there are no more calls for public comment. public comment is closed i'll continue this to the call of the chair and work with commissioner balton and

ronon. with that madam clerk next item please. >> going into to close session, evaluate public performance and on injectives for 2021. >> could you also ready [clerk reads names of members in ready temperature 11. >> the executive direction tor for 2021. this is an action item. >> colleagues, last thursday as we do every year the committee of the transportation authority met in open session to do the performance evaluation for the executive director as well as for the coming year. i'd like to thank chair mannedleman and commission

ronon that's before you today. we evaluate our executive director in any number of areas and if any member would like we could go in closed session and review that. if no members would like to do so as it's happened if past year let me report that we all agree that ms. chang as done an outstanding job and has exceeded her performance goals for the year 2020. to that end after evaluating similar pay scales for positions in other transportation agencies of similar or smaller or larger

size and looking at that information understanding that sales tax revenue is down and the county transportation authority relies on them and after wrestling with that we came to the conclusion as to a 4 % pay raise. ms. chang has recorded them in other municipal sectors as offered to return one half of a percent of that for 3.5 %. the pay raise, if that's acceptable. i will make a motion to amend the resolution accordingly. i'd like to defer to the other members of the committee and the rest of the members of the

county transportation commission. if anybody would like to go into closed session i'm happy and able to do so. >> yes, thank you chair, is it appropriate to describe an in open session how we came to our decision or is that in a prop ate. >> i think that's entirely appropriate if you refer to the council. >> yes, chair, thank you. commission erie would council against talking about anything that was discussed in closed session unless it's set forth in the resolution that's proposed in connection with this item number ten.

>> maybe what i could say, i think in a high level i described it and maybe commissioner. >> yes, i can describe -- okay, i understand it and i'll be very careful. i wouldn't disclose anything talked about in closed session. i'll talk about some of my thinking in making the decision. this was a difficult decision because we are in a time of financial crisis all over the country. i know many of us on the board of supervisors are supervisors -- has given their raise back due to covid-19 response. those who are privileged to

receive a paycheck have calms about receiving more money. there were several things that went into my thinking about voting to give a raise. number one work is just excellent. in personnel committee our grading system and i think we are fortunate and lucky to have our executive director and goes beyond every single day she's an example to her staff and not just the board. if you look at comparative pay

scales transportation districts, we are a midrange salary we are not the highest or low howest. given the given the fact we could retain the high quality staff we have the rest of the t.a. staff received a raise this year as well. i felt it was important to, you know, recognize that different which will in pay scale, you know rises together. so, those are the considerations that i, i was wrestling with when voting the way i voted.

i thought giving more context wouldn't be helpful in the situation. i'd like to express gattitude to you for the unbelievable work you do every single day. thank you. >> a little mighty agency that can. thank you commissioner. i think you did that perfectly. ms. chag. >> i'd like to appreciate your kind words. it's our press sure to sever you all and for the entire staff consider my review to be an opportunity to proudly present our accomplishments and seek your feedback in guidance. it's a privilege to work as a transportation authority and at this time, we will receive compensation for that work

that's what we do. we review our staff provided an average of 3.8 %. we did go through that evaluation. i'm proud, the staff worked hard this year to support our sister agencies. support your offices, and really support the community here in san francisco who we know is struggling each and everyday. thank you. >> thank you, seeing no others on the roster. sounds like we don't need to go into closed session. why don't we open public comment on item number 11. >> thank you, there is one caller. >> first speaker please. >> hello caller, your two minutes begins now. >> can you hear me now?

>> this is item ten and 11. >> agency you just discussed. they will see decreases in other revenue and they have to slink as shrink as a result of resources. possibly the ability to preform and deliver projects and all of that. given the comments about the performance my question if the salary changes as needed. i heard you discussion and i get that and the different

concerns. i do note that grantee agencies might be laid off in the next few months and projects and the services that reduced significantly. as it kids like to say it might not be good. it will show leadership to deny or completely decline a raise at this time. maybe we should hold out the possibility of a reduction depending on the finances. at a minimum the amendment should be used to replace that. other than that i don't disagree. i agree strongly the performance has been great.

>> thank you, caller. >> are there any other callers for this item. >> there are no other callers. public comment is closed. thank you to the speaker for noting that date needs to be corrected. i'd like you to concur the change in the last section needs to be changed from 2019 to 2021. is that correct? >> yes, that's correct. i'd like to make a motion to reflect that change and reflect that per our discussion the total

compensation would be the amount. a 3.5 % raise. >> second. >> on that motion made and seconded madam clerk a roll call please. [roll call]

>> five ayes the motion passes. >> i'd like to approve the item assay mended. >> second. >> on is that motion a role call please. 1-415-655-0001 role role [roll call]. >> we have 11 ayes and the

motion passes. are there any new motions. >> we have to vote on item tenement >> ten . >> item ten is a closed session right. am i missing something? >> chair, if i may this is jenna sitting in general council. there is a resolution in connection with item ten in the board package referred to the commission in orer to adopt that resolution a vote would be needed. you would not need a second. >> i can just call the roll-on item ten is that correct. >> that's correct. >> okay, thank you madam clerk a roll call please. >> i'm item ten the

objective. [roll call] >> we have 11 ayes. the motion passes. any new items. >> thank you you all very much.

>> seeing no introduction are there any general public comment? >> there is no public comment at this time. >> okay, public comment is closed. happy trails commissioner yee. we are adjourned. >> thank you commissioner. happy holidays. >> candlestick park known also

as the stick was an outdoor stadium for sports and entertainment. built between 1958 to 1960, it was located in the bayview hunters point where it was home to the san francisco giants and 49ers. the last event held was a concert in late 2014. it was demolished in 2015. mlb team the san francisco giants played at candlestick from 1960-1999. fans came to see players such a willie mays and barry bonds, over 38 seasons in the open ballpark. an upper deck expansion was added in the 1970s. there are two world series played at the stick in 1962 and in 198 9. during the 1989 world series against the oakland as they were shook by an earthquake. candlestick's enclosure had

minor damages from the quake but its design saved thousands of lives. nfl team the san francisco 49ers played at candlestick from feign 71-2013. it was home to five-time super bowl champion teams and hall of fame players by joe montana, jerry rice and steve jones. in 1982, the game-winning touchdown pass from joe montana to dwight clark was known as "the catch." leading the niners to their first super bowl. the 49ers hosted eight n.f.c. championship games including the 2001 season that ended with a loss to the new york giants. in 201, the last event held at candlestick park was a concert by paul mccartney who played with the beatles in 1966, the stadium's first concert. demolition of the stick began in late 2014 and it was completed in september 2015. the giants had moved to pacific

rail park in 2000 while the 49ers moved to santa clara in 2014. with structural claims and numerous name changes, many have passed through and will remember candlestick park as home to the legendary athletes and entertainment. these memorable moments will live on in a place called the stick. (♪)