Skip to main content

tv   Mayors Press Availability  SFGTV  November 25, 2021 6:30pm-10:31pm PST

6:30 pm
>> good afternoon. welcome to this cold dreary day. a day with challenging news. i want us to be optimistic. as you look behind you and see this rather uninspiring playground across the street. i want you to envision a space for gardening and gathering. in this block arts and entertainment with a memory walk celebrating this community's history. behind us basketball and barbecue. behind us all ages kids to
6:31 pm
seniors. all ages play space. then the fifth block for active recreation otherwise known as sports that is the dream here that this community has been working on for a long, long time. that is because of leadership of the two elected officials behind me and because of this community wherever so close to being able to actualize. we don't do these projects alone. obviously, today, we celebrate the western edition community. the supporters most active in re-envisioning and addvo indicating for change at buchanan mall. i want to acknowledge a few groups including the african-american arts and culture, trust for public land,
6:32 pm
great streets. my dear friend tie ron you will hear from later. citizens filling and the san francisco parks aligns that help -- parks an liians. the mayor's advocacy resulted in a big boost in the most recent parks bond. this is a big project. $5 million per block. we have been working to figure out how to cobble the funds together. along came senator weiner who called us and said i want to do something in buchanan mall. he knows the park system in and out and has delivered $5 million to this project. we have a big grant pending that we are supposed to hear from any day to be another $5 million. we have another grant that is
6:33 pm
pending which will be 3.5 to $4 million. we have two other sources of funding mapped out. if they come to pass we have the $25 million to make this vision a reality. i want to thank everybody, but today is really acknowledging and celebrating this community but the elected leaders who made it happen. i will turn it over to our park champion and chief, mayor breed. >> mayor breed: thank you for being here today. it is wonderful to be here to celebrate this incredible milestone. there is a lot of history that goes into what we are doing here. in fact when i served as executive director of this building african-american art and culture complex. myself and so many community members. we had a vision for what we knew this space could be. vendors, people who saw the things and products they made
6:34 pm
from this community, performances, events, recreation, open space. this buchanan mall many years ago when i was a kid used to be the space that we gathered in, hung out in, roller skated in. blasted boom boxes when we had to walk around and use batteries to power them. this was an amazing community. then we experienced a lot of challenges. a lot of gun violence, death, destruction, lack of resources, things changed considerably in this community. this once vibrant area that brought all of our communities together where we were one community, this area bay like a -- became like a ghost town. people weren't using it in the
6:35 pm
same way. fast forward years later when this community during the height of that violence we decided to come together and take our neighborhood back. we worked with folks like tyrone in green streets and hayes valley and the entire community to provide opportunities, to try to transform our community. something was still missing. what we did more recently a couple years back is invest resources into activating this space. you can see the lights and the seniors and people coming out to enjoy the gardens and sitting in the open spaces. there is so much that needs to be done. this has to be an area for all people who live in this community. now when i was a kid, again, we start up at oc, plaza east, slide down the slide, walk next
6:36 pm
to buchanan park and the playgrounds and up and down the block. we want to see that happen again. we want to see people from this community enjoy and use this space. the plan is to make it the kind of space that is usable, that is welcoming. that makes everyone feel that they are welcome to be here. we can use this space. hopefully we don't have to go through a lengthy permit process, bill ginsburg. we used to use it. now it is city bureaucracy. we will deal with that another day. this was so important one of the most recent bond $2 million was dedicated to this particular project. getting us to this extraordinary place was our champion and addvo
6:37 pm
cat in sacramento senator weiner bringing in $4.8 million. [applause] >> the resources to make this a reality is driven by this community. this community that raised me, that is near and dear to my heart, this community that has suffered for so many years and deserves it more than anything else. not only what i am hoping for to make sure this is reality. when you think about it when you visit other countries, they have marketplaces, vendors and people where you just go and pick up what you need. there are so many talented and creative people i have met during my time at the cultural
6:38 pm
center where they sell shay butter and clothing. the african-american art and culture complex are in stones town selling things they made. they are from this community. we want to make sure that this place is also a destination, a place to showcase how special it is, how talented people are. it will give us so much hope for the future. for the possibilities what it can be. i am excited about the money we have and we will get to finish this project for this community. i can't thank senator scott weiner enough. there are so many priorities and he made this project one of things budget asks priorities. i am very much grateful. we will do everything we can in
6:39 pm
the city to make sure this project, promise made to this community is fulfilled. i want to turn it over to state senator scott weiner. [applause] >> thank you, madam mayor and thank you for your leadership on so many issues around parks and otherwise and your commitment to western addition. i want to say, and i say this a lot. in an era where government is criticized so much and so many challenges in doing basic things, san francisco rec and park department has done an extraordinary job managing this massive park system. san franciscans don't fully appreciate how unique this park system is. it is so big and varied with with so many park props.
6:40 pm
renovating every rec center, park, tennis court because of the dennosity of voters and -- generosity of the voters. it is exciting. it is a bright spot especially during a difficult few years. hear it for rec and park. [applause]. we had a good budget year in the state. we were able to fund some local projects that you don't always have the good budget years. when i thought about what made sense, the buchanan mall project made all of the sense in the world especially coming out of this pandemic. certain communities were impacted much harder than others. we need to be very clear we are investing in all of our
6:41 pm
communities. we are not going to be leaving communities behind. the western addition community. it is an amazing community that struggled at times and has not always got what it needs from government. the mayor has changed that. we need to keep pushing in that direction. congratulations to the community. i look forward to celebrating all five blocks. it is amazing. let's keep working. thank you. [applause] >> we have a couple more speakers representing the group of people that are really driving change, which is this community. it is one thing to fund the project. you have to have the project to fund. that takes work and community convening and creativity and persistence. first speaker is eric flores for trust for public land.
6:42 pm
it is such an important partner. we have been able to do a lot, but sometimes government can't do it all on its own. we need partners, friends, supporters, philanthropy. the trust for public land is a steadfast partner and has gone deep and understands the importance of the history of uncovering and celebrating the history of the space. it is my pleasure to bring upper rick. [applause] >> hello. thank you, phil. i am eric flores community organizer with the trust for public land. i am so honored to be here to celebrate this milestone. we are proud to support this project. we believe all communities deserve high-quality space and beautiful parks. this community here is no exception. it is many, many long years of
6:43 pm
continued engagement, visioning, planning, dreaming. what does it mean for the community? how will there benefit the people of the neighborhood? increasing lighting, safety, beautification. connecting all sidewalks together to use by the community. fostering social interaction and recreation between youth and elders and families. developing opportunities for skills training and job creation. of course, celebrating the rich and diverse histories of the neighborhood and incorporating into the design of park itself. this project is so much more than just creating a beautiful park. we see this effort as an investment in the community that is affected by systematic injustices and wrongdoings over many decades. we cannot undo the past. this started with and will
6:44 pm
continue to uphold the community as the center and upload their voices leading change to the future. it is incredibly inspiring to hear the hopes and dreams for the youth, knowing the history, having a sense of opportunity and following in the footsteps of leaders, activists and ancestors. the project is no longer just a project on paper. it is real thanks to everyone here and strong dedication to see this built. i would like to acknowledge phil ginsburg and the rec and park staff and for the deep commitment. lydia for strong leadership in bringing in her youth voice. tyrone for his work with green
6:45 pm
streets. i would like to thank our leaders, senator weiner, mayor london breed and supervisor preston for their support for this project. our fundders come together to invest in this community. i would like to acknowledge the soma community for strength, resilience and add so cassie. there is to much work to be done. this is a huge milestone in-turning vision into reality. thank you. [applause] >> our final speaker today is the most important. tyrone mullins. he is representing the
6:46 pm
community. tyrone has worked really, really hard with community on this project with citizen film. he has helped organize community, give voice to community. it is my pleasure to bring him up to say a few words. [applause] >> first, thank you forego me to be able to come up here and show my voice. you are correct. the work we put in was a collective. collaboration and what it means. the work we put in behind-the-scenes stuff was a lot of heavy load. she won't take the acknowledgment but the glue that makes this stay together. i want to acknowledge senator
6:47 pm
wiener and mayor breed. thank you for making this a priority. i don't have to tell you how much this means to us. there is a lot more work to be done. i am committed. that vision you have seen. i will help see it through. 36 years old and i was part of that group that detoured some of the community in this area. we was part of the gun violence. we lost a lot of people. we hurt a lot of people. we hurt this community. not only my personal road to redetermination and one to create a better quality of life for my kids, my brother's kids and everybody else's kids and the elders who still remain. who knew it from the time and to
6:48 pm
create community again. it was two things that happened that got me to buy in. first, when we talked about the project. phillip with trusts for public land made the hayes valley playground and they did that over. i told him we wasn't happy about that. he said i have seen many people from the community at the meetings. i took that as a challenge to be present to know that somebody from my dynamic won't have our voices heard. i am with that. behind that shannon from plaza east a part of developmental process at green streets was shot on clarke street. unfortunately, i knew that more than likely it came from my side of the neighborhood.
6:49 pm
we had a decision to make in that moment. we had been in a position with the green streets to do work in hayes valley and plaza east. we had trust andage with us being from here. fully immersed in the project will create opportunity for it to be something beautiful here. the vendors, people being able to create and earn a positive dollar, those drive me in this project. the garden to talk about things like farm to table to teach people to properly feedsem selfs. to be aware what they are putting in their bodies. i lost my mom two years ago to
6:50 pm
digestive systems complications that is from not being educated what to put in our bodies and take care of ourselves. knowing we can create a safe space where people can earn an honest dollar and feel safe with the community pan have it be for everybody. it is a push we haven't seen since the panthers being able to say empower one another and ourselves no matter what the bias may be of me or how i look, to my core i am about my people. i know that i have a responsibility as someone who survived and seen. i am standing here today. i have got work to do. i have got work to do. i thank you. i will go over my listing of
6:51 pm
other community people to acknowledge. for buchanan leaders. jackie henderson. norma robertson brown, mattie scott, betty miller, marie mccull lum in the back. walker, charles, thomas censor. shannon wats. roger lee, sharon lee, chambers, janet white, james and
6:52 pm
dr. cheryl davis. [applause] to our youth leaders, lydia, sasha and thomas. those young ladies are on the mural by the senior building with me or breed on there as well. i thought that was to have them realtime be acknowledged as they grow and develop to show people what they was part of coming up in this neighborhood and what that would mean to other young ladies being acknowledged with the likes of mary rogers and mayor breed. lastly, we want to pay homage to those who passed.
6:53 pm
alice lang and eugene white. i want to send a piece to not only my mom but my grandmother louis harvey whose shoulders i stand on. as a little kid her taking me to the filmore center, different meetings where you would not want to go. she would say it is down, seat something or be quiet. she was primping me for this moment. my brother told me this morning you was being prepped to speak and you didn't know it. to share my personal story november 2009 i shot a man on fullerton street and withent to prison for it. black man in my neighborhood. i stand here today. when i stand on fullerton street and be able to do this work and know that i am guided by
6:54 pm
something bigger than myself that got me on this journey to do this work here. i want to say rest in peace to a friend who passed two weeks ago mental health complications. had it been more active stuff should have joined to give support to be more productive. you know what i mean? these are things i think about when i wake up. i know it another to be he -- i know to be here is a blessing. i got work to do. thank you. [applause] >> a few more quick thank u.s. i did want to acknowledge barbara thompson very involved in the project showed up at every single community meeting and event.
6:55 pm
thank you for your love. to the rec and park team. lauren chavez has given love and energy. stacy at the capital program and special thank you to the rec and park commission in representing the commission as one of our newest commissioners. mayor, we will deliver for you and senator we will deliver for you. thank you very much everyone. [a
6:56 pm
watching. >> ever wonder about programs the city is working on to make san francisco the best place to live and work we bring shine won our city department and the people making them happy what happened next sf oh, san francisco known for it's looks at and history and beauty this place arts has it all but it's city government is pretty unique in fact, san francisco city departments are filled with truly initiative programming that turns this way our goal is to create programs that are easily digestable and easy to follow so that our
6:57 pm
resident can participate in healing the planet with the new take dial initiative they're getting close to zero waste we 2020 and today san francisco is diverting land filled and while those numbers are imperfect not enough. >> we're sending over 4 hundred thousand tons of waste to the landfill and over the 4 hundred tons 10 thousands are textile and unwanted listen ones doesn't have to be find in the trash. >> i could has are the ones creating the partnerships with the rail kwloth stores putting an in store collection box near the checks stand so customers
6:58 pm
can bring their used clothes to the store and deposit off. >> textile will be accessible in buildings thought the city and we have goodwill a grant for them to design a textile box especially for families. >> goodwill the well-known store has been making great strides. >> we grateful to give the items to goodwill it comes from us selling those items in our stores with you that process helps to divert things it from local landfills if the san francisco area. >> and the textile box will take it one step further helping 1230 get to zero waste.
6:59 pm
>> it brings the donation opportunity to the donor making that as convenient as possible it is one of the solutions to make sure we're capturing all the value in the textiles. >> with the help of good will and other businesses san francisco will eliminate 39 millions tons of landfill next year and 70 is confident our acts can and will make a great difference. >> we believe that government matters and cities matter what we side in san francisco, california serve as a model phenomenal in our the rest of the country by the world. >> whether you do not to goodwill those unwanted text told us or are sufficient value and the greater community will benefit. >> thanks to sf environment san francisco has over one hundred
7:00 pm
drop off locations visit recycle damn and thanks for watching join us >> good morning everyone. this meeting will come to order. welcome to the november 18, 2021 regular meeting of the san francisco board of supervisors of supervisors. i am joined by vice chair co n nie as well as gordon mar substituting today for supervisor mandelman. the committee clerk is victor young. we will be joined later by our other clerk, john carroll.
7:01 pm
i want to thank sfgovtv for staffing this meeting. mr. clerk. do you have any announcements? >> yes. the minutes will reflect committee members participated through video conference to the same extent as though physically present. the board recognizes sub pick access is essential and invites participation. first public comment is available on each item. channel 26, 78 or sfgovtv. comments are available by calling 415-655-0001. meeting id24963301479.
7:02 pm
pound and pound again. you will be in meeting discussions you will be in listening mode only. when your item comes up dial star 3 to be added to the speaker line. call from quiet location speak clearly and slowly and turn down the television. you may submit public comment in writing by e-mailing to the government audits and oversight committee clerk at john yarroll at sfgovtv. it will be forwarded and included as part of the file. you may send written comment by postal service to city hall. $1 carlton b. goodlett place room 244 san francisco california 94102. items acted upon today are
7:03 pm
expected to be on the board of supervisors agenda november 30, 2021 unless otherwise stated. >> thank you. mr. clerk, at the outset i would like to make a motion to excuse supervisor mandelman today from the meeting and allow supervisor mar to take his place. call the roll. >> on that motion. vice chair chan. >> aye. >> chair preston. >> aye. >> supervisor mar. >> aye. >> motion passes without objection. >> thank you. please call item 1.
7:04 pm
hearing on the 2018-2019 civil grand jury report. act now before it is too late aggressively expand and enhance our high-pressure emergency firefighting water system. i would like to make the last announcement. if you wish to comment call 415-655-0001. id24963301479. pound twice to be connected to the meeting. star key followed by the number 3 to enter the queue to speak. wait until you have been unmuted to comment. >> thank you, mr. clerk. supervisor mar will be leading
7:05 pm
this item. welcome back and thank you for joining our committee today. the entirety of our hearing and recognize supervisor mar's past service of the chair of this committee. i very much appreciate his continuing to follow-through on a lot of items he was leading on in this committee involving government oversight. this is one of those items. looking forward to this item we heard earlier this year, i believe. i know that we have presentations from p.u.c. and just i want to remind folks that presenters have a maximum 10 minutes each. >> thank you chair preston and supervisor chan for this opportunity to have this hearing to really hear updates from the
7:06 pm
departments and also presentation from the bla on the important work that the city is engaged in right now to address one of the major issues in our emergency preparedness system. to really expand our emergency firefighting water system to all neighborhoods recently unprotected and ensure that that really important emergency firefighting system is really built out city-wide as soon as possible. i want to give a background. this is a follow up hearing. chair preston, as you mentioned from the hearing in january. we will keep this brief. i know we have a full agenda today and many important issues. a little background. this issue of the need to really
7:07 pm
fully expand emergency firefighting system was really identified and started three to four years ago by neighborhood advocates raising alarm about the vulnerability of the website of san francisco and the southern neighborhoods in southeast san francisco to major catastrophic fire and major earthquake which we know another big one is coming soon. that led to in 2019 the civil grand jury issuing the report and highlighting the urgency for the city to really address this deficiency in emergency preparedness system. in 2019 at the end about two years ago the board of supervisors we passed a resolution declaring a state of urgency to rapidly expand the
7:08 pm
efws and really do the resolution to laid out a framework for the city to develop a comprehensive plan towards deadline of 2035, in 15 years. they laid out a number of important process steps with deadlines that the pc and other departments needed to follow to really more urgently address this really important issue. since january there is a number of important process steps laid out in the board resolution the p.u.c. and departments have followed through on. i really thank the p.u.c. and the fire department and brian strong from the office of capital planning for work on
7:09 pm
this. in june there were three reports issued. one is the first of annual progress report from the departments on their work to fully expand and build out the efws. there was also a special analysis report exploring feasibility of new sea water pumping station on the oceanside and in southeast san francisco to expand the sea water stations for efws that have been in place. the third report completed in june was comprehensive analysis of fire suppression needs by neighborhood in the city. again, i want to thank the p.u.c. for following through and meeting deadlines on these three reports. i want to highlight one important deadline coming up.
7:10 pm
december 31st as laid out in the resolution. they are to brent to the board and the public comprehensive plan for expanding the efws to all neighborhoods including financing plan. that is coming up. finally, one additional piece of work happened since the last hearing in january on this issue. budget and legislative analyst office did a supplemental report looking at financing options and how we can really finance and pay for this extremely important infrastructure and emergency preparedness project. today we want to have an update from the p.u.c. and the bla on the additional work they have done and allow for additional public comments. i know there are members of the public joining us to share their
7:11 pm
comments. >> thank you, supervisor mar. i did want to -- i mentioned 10 minutes per speaker our usual. we did have a request for a presentation to cover what several departments would otherwise be presenting can go up to 15 minutes. with that i want to turn the floor over to mr. scar poll la. >> thank you. let me share my screen. give me a second here. thank you for having us and supervisor mar for the
7:12 pm
introduction. the context behind the presentation is very helpful. i am joined by members of from multiple city departments the p.u.c., tom o'connor at the fire department, members of public works and brian strong from the office of capital planning. i am representing all agencies. if questions are better answered by colleagues i will pass to them. i will start for new listeners out there. what is the emergency water system. it is a high pressure water system built after the 1906 earthquake. primary source of water is the regional scatter system. secondary sources are two sea water pumps. one by the galileo high school and one in the basement of the fire department by the giants
7:13 pm
stadium. the transfer was in 2010 of the mayor's order. however, the fire department is the end user. all system im movements and expansion must be approved by the fire department apand public works. they have been working on this for decades. we use modeling to guide decision making. computer modeling to understand where we should move water, what new pipes, water sources. it is a very technical model to guide us here. today's agenda. supervisor mar talked about the study we submitted in june. we went over how these studies would be done in depth earlier this year. i am not going too deep into that. today are the findings.
7:14 pm
neighborhood firefighting study and sea water supply study. i am giving a preview of the proposed city-wide plan. what pipelines do we propose to be installed? what water sources to ensure the fire department has the volume and pressure that they need to fight fires after a large earthquake event? we are also going to talk about how the fire department resources are needed to best utilize the system we are proposing to install. let's start with the neighborhood firefighting demand study. this is a study to refine earthquake firefighting water demand and to do so looking not only at the current city but what about 2030, 2040, 2050? to develop these demand we use
7:15 pm
geotechnical data landfill or bedrock. we use at the materials, density. if they have sprinkler systems or not. we looked at vegetation. crecanopy map, parks. what resources the fire department currently has and could have in the future. we looked at other data such as previous fires that have broken out in san francisco. in order to look at what the current city buildings are and what future growth is like in the city we used a variety of help and information from other city and local government agencies. we used the planning department reports and pipeline projections on current projects that are in the books, looking forward.
7:16 pm
we used area development plans. there are over 60 million square feet of development in these large development projects throughout san francisco. that will make the city look very different in certain areas and changing fire demands as well. it is important to use those plans. we looked at capital construction projects. example the geary brt. utilized traffic analysis zones to provide projections on the housing in these traffic zones through 2040. we were able to extrapolate out based on the traffic zones already available to us. we also used the association of government planning 2040 documents to plan the bay area. those all of those information that we got from all of our government agency is how we looked to the future and model
7:17 pm
fire demand. as new information comes in. it has been five years new pipeline projections, redevelopment plans we would have to recalibrate. we use the best information from our colleagues and government agencies. we also looked at what is currently existing with the water system, what is funded for extensions and what we are planning. that also provides more ability for us to fight the fires. we look at current systems what we plan to do with it. this is for now, 2030, 2040 and 2050. we use model earthquake. 7-point on the san andreas fault. we look at building data to understand the buildings and ignitions that could be seen and
7:18 pm
model this thousands of times with the various fires that can break out. look at the tree canopy and the different ignitions by blocks that you can see the top right photo is potentially different fires that could break out. we do this multiple times. the bottom left is done multiple times. one-time model run. we look at our efws system. we will get into that map in the bottom middle. how we look at previous fires. hour resources were deployed, how quickly we fight the fires. all of this feeds into how much water do we need to fight fires after 7.9 earthquake looking to 2050. in this photo what you will see is this is a pattern for water demand overlaid on an aerial
7:19 pm
photo of the city. the yellow areas are areas of no demand from terms of fire. in a 3-d way you can really see where in this model run there are high fire demands. you can see that the high demands occur in the downtown area, inner richmond along geary, and i want to highlight inner richmond and we will come back. i want to highlight inner richmond and the mission district. there is a large demand out by lake merced. that is the campus. those are dense areas and that is where we saw large fire demand after 7.9 earthquake. this is one model run. this is a pretty typical model
7:20 pm
run in terms of where the demands are. the conclusion, large conclusion of all of the model runs, various analysis is that approximately 240,000 gals per minute at gpmis required to fight fires city-wide up to 2050 based to current development plans from the planning department and m.t.a. it set m.e time the earthquake hits to 25 hours out. that is the amount of water we need available for the fire department to fight potential fires that could break out city-wide. that is the water supply goal. 240 is what we need to get to. that is the close of that study. i will loop back to that as i talk about the city-wide plan.
7:21 pm
next is c water supply. i went over this in january. a high level looked at regulatory permitting, where we could site these sea water pump stations, geotechnical angie logical issues and sea level rises are big deals changes to coastlineits. we have to protect the infrastructure to site where we want to site it based on erosion and sea level rise challenges. looking at engineering, water intake types, what would be allowed by the agencies and protecting marine life out in the bay and ocean. what are the costs, both capital and operations and maintenance costs? we look at all areas of the city. east bay front, north bay front,
7:22 pm
rocky area north and side, and then southern dunes. these areas have different considerations both geologically and engineering perspective. also from permitting perspective. different agencies oversee different parts of bay and the ocean. it changes how difficult it could be to permit or not permit it. i want to go to the findings. key finding to address it head on is that satisfactory water pump station is not immediately advised for the west side. we support additional redundancies for all areas of the ews. that is important. we believe the priority is for the build out of the system to
7:23 pm
all neighborhoods for equitable fire protection first. that is why we don't immediately advice at the west side at the time. i can walk through that. i talked about 240,000 gallons permit requirement city-wide after the 7.9 earthquake. we look at the area served by the west side project. you will see that on the map shortly. both phase one and two, the gallon per minute need in the area served by phase one and two is 37,000 gallons per minute out of 240,000 gallons per minute. the water sources to be connected as phase one and phase 2 meet this need, cover this demand.
7:24 pm
lake merced with 1.7 billion gallons of water has more than 3 weeks worth of water to meet this demand. in all modeling scenarios even where the worst fires were seen, there was not a single fire that losted close to three weeks on the west side. there is plenty of water to fight fires on the west side when these two sources are hooked up. lake merced is the most efficient and quickest way to provide unlimited water 1.7 billion gals to feet fires on the west side. we are hooking that up first. in the currently funded west side phase one. that is key. the fire department was adamant first was lake merced. in addition, i be stalling the
7:25 pm
west side pump station would be difficult and lengthy permitting process. at federal level. the army corps of engineers and national park would be the primary permitting agents. there would be the national marine fishery services and u.s. coast guard. at state level the coastal commission is primary. the others are the california state lands commission, state water resources control board, regional water control board, and the california department of fish and wildlife. i would like to note the california ocean plan requires subsurface sea water intake. we couldn't do an open water sea water pump station on the west side. it would have to be drilled through the sand at diagonal direction and then go out into the ocean. there is a movement away from
7:26 pm
the shoreline at ocean beach. sea level rise and there is a movement to move away from the shoreline. there is a real question about if we could even get it permitted out there and how long it could take. also it is expensive to install and maintain the west side pump station. if we looked at installing a 3,000-gallon per minute pump station, a third of the size of the two existing pump stations which are each 10,000. $68 million in 2,021-dollars right now. if we want to install to cover all of the west side demands 37 gallons per minute. $180 million in 2,021-dollars to install that now. the life cycles to maintain them
7:27 pm
are costly. sea water environment is harsh. we know that. we have operated a wastewater treatment there and we see it every day. $70 million for small, and $286 million to cover all demands. costly to operate. >> i hate to interrupt. i would like to note 15 minutes elapsed. >> thank you. i will speed up. >> you have got two more. let's try to wrap up. >> we recommend on the east side due to water supply shortages on the east side it is more cost efficient to intall and maintain. expand the two existing pump stations and add new station to serve the southeast and east. city-wide plan will cover pipelines, additional water sources and resources for fire department. here the proposed pipelines.
7:28 pm
gray lines are existing pipelines in san francisco. red pipelines are funded and under construction. that is connecting to lake merced. black pipeline is phase two of the west side project unfunded. green and blue pipelines are additional pipelines we would like to have installedded to ensure equitable pipelines through the city. the inner richmond we are proposing two pipelines in the area. both adding the new green pipelines in addition to existing gray ones. we know that is an area of high fire demand. water sources to get to 240,000 gallons per minute. blue exist and they are funded.
7:29 pm
two pump stations and with the west side phase one lake merced is in blue. everything in pink is what we propose to connect to get 240,000 gallons per minute including modifying the two existing pump stations. this is what is connected to the water sources. lake merced and everything in pink is what we need to connect. quite a bit of water to connect. this is the price for this program as proposed in 2021. $1.6 billion. $900 million worth of pipelines, $700 million worth of water supply connections. the model laid out typical grand jury recommends 15 year construction period. that is very aggressive in terms of getting it designed,
7:30 pm
permitted including on the east side and implemented. we think 25 year is conservative. they are both here. 2.6 and 3.3 billion. summary look at the needs to 2050. cost of improvements $1.6 billion in 2021. the fire department needs the resources. we can put the system in. if they don't have the correct equipment to utilize it, it won't get the best use. i am happy to take questions. i apologize for going over, chair preston. >> thank you. supervisor mar. >> thank you so much, john, for the presentation and update on the work. important planning work that the p.u.c. and departments have been engaged in on this important project.
7:31 pm
maybe, chair preston i would like to go to the presentation from the b la office on the financing options. >> welcome, ms. campbell. >> i do have a presentation if the clerk can give me options. >> we did look at potential financing sources for emergency firefighting water system. in the presentation. that is the wrong one.
7:32 pm
>> i can see it. >> it is the wrong presentation. i will go through very quickly rather than waiting everybody's time. we were asked to look at financing options. as noted there is about $1.6 billion in estimated costs over the next 25 years. 2021. $180 million is looked at as part of the 10 year capital plan. the city plans to issue in -- the capital plan provides
7:33 pm
earthquake and safety emergency response bond of about $217 million. that would include not just the projects but also public safety projects that could potentially be a source of funding for the project. we looked at the capital plan and we are looking at ways to identify within the capital plan would there be sufficientbonning capacity for additional funds for expansion? the city policy through the capital plan is that tax rate wouldn't go up above the 2006 rate. the existing capital plan there is in the outer years room for additional bonding capacity. the tax rate would fall below the 2006 constraints of the capital plan. within the existing capital plan there is room to look at
7:34 pm
additional bonds for the efws. the other thing that we looked at was capital plan provides in 2022 a $400 million transportation bond. we looked at the possibility with the approval of the federal infrastructure bond that there is about $39 billion in that bond that would be available for transportation projects. we don't know the impact on san francisco. we don't know how much would be available to san francisco. we thought that should be looked at as an opportunity to resize that bond and freeing up bonding capacity for an additional bonding capacity that could be used for the emergency firefighting system. that is existing 10 year capital plan. they we look at another capital plan to be approved from
7:35 pm
2024-2033. the board will be looking at. one thing that he pointed out in his presentation. when they looked at the need for additional infrastructure. there is a lot of development in the city. this was based on increased development. if you have increased development you are going to have increased bonding capacity. you will have more property tax revenues coming in and higher valuation of property to issue higher amount ofbons. that needs to be kept in mind. we looked at the next 10 year capital plan as the opportunity to really look at how to increase the bonding capacity and increase that $1.6 billion that might be needed for the total expansion of the system. i will restate that $1.6 billion is in current year dollars, 2,021-dollars. that is the capital plan. that is important.
7:36 pm
to request that the city do a five year long-term financial plan which they don't have. over the next 25 years how they would pay for the $1.6 billion system. those are in terms of capital plan those our main recommendations to look at the capacity in the current capital plan for issuing additional bonds in 2031. look at resizing the transportation bond if there are federal moneys to come in to be used for the projects and the city wouldn't have to issue $400 million in general obligation bonds. they could issue a lower amount. the next 10 year capital plan look at increased development. looking at the city having a long term financial plan, the
7:37 pm
city charter sets the debt limit at 3% assessed valuation. when they talk about analysis based on increased development in the city, that is going to increase the assessed valuation and amount of dollars that can be used for general opligation bonds. the other point is an estimate of the city now. 3% of assessed valuation. all bonds are at 1.8% assessed valuation. the city has room within the debt limto issue additional debt. in terms of other funding sources. our basic take away we looked at state and federal sources. we didn't see anything nearly the size of this project. we do think there will be a industry cost and cost -- a city cost and general obligation
7:38 pm
bonds would be the best source of funds. that is why we focused on the financial plan and general obligation bonds. there are other financing sources we make recommendations in the report and that we think need to be considered. the other thing that really struck me in his presentation was the development. new development in the city. the city has already assessed development projects for the efws system. mission rock appear 70. 333 california street is paying a million dollars f.there is increased development part of the development agreements should include funds for expansion of the system. it also raises opportunities for
7:39 pm
doing community facilities district and infrastructure financing districts. they are about former redevelopment areas. as there is development in hunters point, bayview, shipyard. there is the opportunity to create i from structure financing districts using property tax increment to fund those developments. to use to fund infrastructure to fund expansion of emergency firefighting water system. same would be true for development to look at community facilities districts in terms of special taxes that could be used to support development of system. those are other options. finally the other recommendation and this has been started is the city fire department has a portable firefighting water
7:40 pm
system. what they have now is out-of-date. 48 years old. quite old. they don't have a lot of capacity. the city has funded $5 million toward purchase of five new modern hose tenders with more pumping capacity to expand the existing system. it takes a year to purchase each one. the fire department doesn't be have a plan for how many are needed or when purchased. we think that would be important. one be of the factors for the fire department is storage. these are big pieces of equipment that have to be put somewhere. that would be a plan. in terms of financing plan that is much easier which the city can issue these revenue bonds. the san francisco municipal finance corporation approved by the board and voters. they are able to issue debt for
7:41 pm
this kind of purchase. they haven't issued much debt in recent years. it is low interest. it can be fairly low interest debt. one might purchase the additional hose with the revenue financing. we talked to office of public finance who agreed there is the ability to amortize that debt. i am sorry about the powerpoint presentation. those are the take aways. we believe within the existing capital plan through looking at resizing transportation bond or looking at capacity and outer years in 2031 to add additional debt. there could be more general obligation bonds issued to help finance especially phase two of the expansion of the emergency firefighting water system. we believe that in the next 10 year capital plan especially
7:42 pm
looking at plan development and increased assessed valuation of city properties there could be looking at increased funding for efws. one of the issues that was a stan alone that could at least be considered in the next 10 year capital plan. then financial plan over the next 25 years that really looks at how city development is growing, valuation is growing and the $1.6 billion could be financed. i am available for any questions you may have. >> thank you, ms. campbell. do you have questions and comments before we head to public comment? >> chair preston. i request we allow public comment now and after that i do have questions and comments. >> let's do that. mr. clerk, let's open public comment on this item.
7:43 pm
>> we are checking for callers in the queue. for those watching our meeting on sf cable channel 26 or by streaming link or sf goff tv call in by following instructions on the screen. 415-655-0001 enter id2492211 -- sorry. 24963301479. if you are in the queue rate for the prompt. you will hear a prompt that your line is unmuted.
7:44 pm
we have 19 listeners and four people on hold for public comment at this time. >> eilene coalition for san francisco neighborhoods speaking on my behalf. on july 23rd meeting the community heard testimony from the m ta regarding de factor route abandonment and service restoration. they were skeptical of information provided by m.t.a. management. be skeptical of the p.u.c. the community meeting the p.u.c. manager of local and government affairs stated the west side could wait 15 years for
7:45 pm
dedicated. the p.u.c. is very good at moving at whatever pace suits its purpose. there is an example. as part of water diversification a desalination in eastern koss tracounty is in planning for 14 years. when the water subcommittee of the citizens advisory committee was asked how the planning process was moving forward. the response was it isn't. i strongly urge the committee to hold feet to the fire, no pun intended and insist the city departments complete the action plan by december 31st, 2021 and that they are prepared to present to the committee in january of 2022 and that they also schedule the hearing in january 2022. thank you.
7:46 pm
>> thank you. can we have the next caller, please. >> hello. this is dick morton. i am a resident of the park district. yesterday 3.9 trimble is a reminder we face a major earthquake in the future. i commend supervisor mar to struggle to get a city-wide independent saltwater auxiliary water supply system for the 15 large neighborhoods. supervisor mar is attempting to implement the 2003 and 2019 grand jury reports calling for expansion of awsf, implementation is long overdue.
7:47 pm
join him. here are some concrete actions you may take. civil grand jury called for acquisition of 20 hose extenders, a temporary solution to the vulnerable neighborhoods. this move the water to fires. host tenders are essential components of existing aws system, largely confined to northeast quadrant of the city. the city should aggressively apply for state grants. it has receive some state money. it should acquire and submit orders for all 18 additional hose tenders since they are very specialized equipment. general funds could be used to
7:48 pm
expand, recruit city employees to be trained as host tender operators. general funds and emergency bond money could be used to build the facilities on city property. there is a state wind fall announced yesterday. >> your time has elapsed. next speaker, please. >> this isted lowenberg at the haight-ashbury. i am a former member of the puc citizens advisory committee focused on this issue. my purpose is to ring the alarm bell. it seems that the likelihood of a major earthquake hitting this area before 3035 is very high. yet the plan is the detailed and over manipulated to the point
7:49 pm
nothing is getting done. i want to point out that the united states put a man on the moon in less than nine years starting from the zero. everything had to be built, invented, created, thought out to get that to happen. this project is much more simple than that. i submit to you that if you don't act with the sense of urgency, time is of the essence then you are gambling with the lives of san francisco, the housing in san francisco with the very life of the city. please don't -- we don't want the gamble. you have got to speed it up, guys, thank you. >> next caller, please. >> good morning, supervisors. pat skane.
7:50 pm
member of the pine lake park neighborhood association. currently residing in district 4. i would consider providing written comment but having reviewed the public comment letters submitted by nancy, tom, dick more tan and others. the need to extend the emergency firefighter water system to the western part of the city. i urge you to heed these warnings. urgent call to action which these citizens provided you. for my part, i want to state that neither grand water or portable water from sunset reservoir should be used. plans some be mead for the two pump stations and use of
7:51 pm
non-potable and saltwater to supply and build out the emergency water system. as 30 year veteran of the san francisco fire department i am aware of the fragile water supply system. while working at station 42 in bayview. i had to respond to an incident which was a major fireworks explosion. at that incident there was no water. explosion broke the water main system and i had to make a 1,00a pittance of water to the site. loops, dead ends are a major problem. low pressure water system is not to be trusted. recently in our neighborhood the 54-inch water main connecting merced to sunset had a failure.
7:52 pm
700,000 gallons of water were lost in five hours. >> your time elapsed. i believe the next caller is the last caller in line. next caller, please. >> good morning, supervisors, catherine howard. thank you, supervisor mar for pursuing this. i live in outer sunset in wood building surrounded by wood building and strong winds from the ocean. the next earthquake is coming soon. once a fire starts out here, it will go over the hills and go over the rest of the city. our system out here should be as good as the rest of the system. we wonder why this wasn't done before, be that as it may. start with the west side and get something in place as soon as possible. i also share some of the concerns that have been expressed by other community members and looking into building a strong resilient
7:53 pm
system. please move quickly. 15 years is too long a time to hold us. >> thank you. >> we had two more callers on the line. next caller, please. >> good morning. jeffrey in the outer sunset. thank you, supervisor mar. it sounds like the future funding options includes so many ifs who know what would happen. it seems like using the hatch hatch water. there is tons available what happens with the drain. here we are going to use up the drinking water to fight fires.
7:54 pm
then what? last but not least, i think we need to do something immediately. i strongly urge the firefighting tenders immediately. we can't wait 15, 25 years or who knows how many years to get something in place. that is critical. i will leave it at that. thanks for talking about this critical hole in our infrastructure. thank you. >> thank you. next caller. >> good morning. i also want to thank supervisor mar for staying on top of this superimportant issue. i am erica flag in d4. i am part of the group. [indiscernable] we are following this issue closely since we heard the grand
7:55 pm
jury report two and a half years ago. i want to quickly tell you that we are totally against the use of portable water in such an emergency. these systems have to be kept separate. it is just basic simple logic that someone without expertise like me is putting out to you, and you know it. we need to get the pumps and use the ocean water. i think there has to be more explanation of grants including federal grants and the infrastructure bills at the moment needs to be on the list. the fire department chief has to explore grants and maybe be funded for a grant writer. also, i would like to see a hearing as the full board with
7:56 pm
the citizen experts, retired firefighters on the ground and listen to what they have to say. i understand the p.u.c. hasn't been that open to anything but their own thoughts. i would say as final thought and looking at many projects i have watched over many years in san francisco that we need an outside expert. a real expert. a seasoned expert reviewing this local plan. it is such a major under taking here. san francisco has failed really in many of their large projects so i would like to see a real expert. >> your time has elapsed. thank you. that was the last caller to speak on this matter. >> thank you, mr. clerk.
7:57 pm
no more callers, public comment be on this item is now closed. supervisor mar. >> thank you, chair preston. i want to thank the callers during public comment and most of you have been ring thing alarm bell about this emergency preparedness priority for years. you know, in all of your advocacy and pushing led to this becoming a much higher priority in the city over the last few years. thank you. i want to thank the p.u.c., fire department, office of capital planning for responding and following the board resolution two years ago starting to develop a real plan to get the job done and ensure we protect life and property in such a large part of the city that are currently unprotected.
7:58 pm
i had a quick comment. i guess rather than questions it is requests from the department. if it is an ongoing process. these hearings are helpful to have the board oversight and public input on this ongoing important planning work. the first comment is i think the actual plan technical plan to build out the efws to all of the neighborhoods currently up protected is coming together. through the presentation from john scar pula. i think the comprehensive action plan to be submitted to the board and public by december 31st. i am confident that is going to include a very thought out plan to build out the efws.
7:59 pm
the major technical issue in the current plan of concern is that apparent lack of consideration and commitment to the sea water pumping station, particularly on the west side. i appreciate the current through john's presentation the current plan to improve and upgrade two existing bay side seawater pumping stations in san francisco. for the west side i share concerns of the current plan to tap water from lake merced and the sunset reservoir. great concerns what that would mean to the environment of lake merced that is struggling with low water level there is a major
8:00 pm
problem to be addressed. to pap it for firefighting reasons. even the discussion of scenarios of fully draining lake merced after three days is very concerning. of course, sunset reservoir, a main source of drinking water for large parts of the city will be needed to be maintained for that purpose after a catastrophic earthquake and major fire. a lot of concern about that. my request is in the comprehensive action plan to be developed that it includes scenario to include sea water pumping station on the west side as sennary job. secondly, really i appreciate the bla work looking at
8:01 pm
financing options. this is a big major cost to do this right. this important infrastructure project $1.63 billion was the current estimate. $188 million of that is currently in the 10 year capital plan. there is another $1.4 billion that is still financing that needs to be planned for and quickly if we are going to get this done by 2035 as civil grand jury and board of supervisors had set as deadline. i would want to see the comprehensive action plan include financing plan to fully do it right and build out the afws. john is that something that the
8:02 pm
p.u.c. and departments would be willing to include in the comprehensive action plan you are preparing? >> john scarpola. the pump station question first. lake merced is three weeks of capacity. i want to clarify that piece. yes, we certainly have looked very closely at sea water pump station. i would like to clarify the way we set it on the west side it would be supplementary, it would supplement the current plan as opposed to taking away the resource from another area where needed. the request is look at supplemental west side pump station as opposed to taking
8:03 pm
away east side or pipelines that are needed in other areas. we can ask our folks to include that. supplemental west side as opposed to removing assets from another area. >> just to clarify that. since the west side efws is totally separate this would supplement or replace the sunset reservoir and lake merced. that is the request from the community who have been looking at this issue for many years. that should be the primary source of water for the west side efws. >> many reasons why making sea water the primary source is not advisable.
8:04 pm
engineering wise, we don't use sea water on the east side. you don't be want it in the hydrants, pipes, valves. it will completely deteriorate them and to use it on the east side we have used it twice in 100 years. we have to immediately flush the lines to get the saltwater out. it is very corrosive. that is why off the bat we wouldn't use it. getting water and fire protection to the west side as quickly as possible. as i detailed in terms of permitting the pump session on the west side that is a long endeavor. we have the funding. we have the pipeline. we can connect lake merced quickly and efficiently. i suggest if we want to look at connecting sea water on the west
8:05 pm
side look at two options. in addition to the west side pump station in addition to lake merced and option and looking at adding sea water as replacement to sunset reservoir. i recommend against taking lake merced off. there is no large water source on the west side. we don't know if we can get it permitted. i suggest looking at it supplementing. option two supplementing lake merced and removing sunset off the table. those are option to look at. >> it will be included in the comprehensive side as part of the scenario. what about the financing plan?
8:06 pm
there is a projected cost for full build out and big number. bla identified financing options giobond. can we include this in the comprehensive action plan as well? >> brian strong or bill barnes from capital planning to step in here and talk about how the financing mechanism can be analyzed. >> sure. thank you. good afternoon, supervisors. brian strong. bill, please jump in if you see a need as well. i would say it is going to be difficult to -- we can provide context within the next month or so. with a month to put together a comprehensive financing plan
8:07 pm
would be really challenging. from resource wise and also, you know, a lot has to do with where we are in thinking about the city's capitol needs. that is one of the reasons why we wanted to talk about having that discussion in a larger context of the different demands that are coming upon the city. there are many of them. it is capital planning to have the discussion about not just the bond but the cap and those things. whether or not we keep the cap or how that works in concert with some of the other bonds coming forward. i would mention for the next 10 years we have in the current capital plan a victim of our own
8:08 pm
success $2 billion of bonds. next two years $1.25 billion in capacity for the entire city that is not enough to cover the $1.6 billion we are talking about for this project. those are the challenges we are facing. the other thing to add is that some of the assumptions in here are around development and plan bay area and growth on west side. some of what ms. campbell and i agree with what she was saying the opportunity is under development. if we have new development it may provide opportunities for community facility districts or for development agreements. part of that discussion, i think, would be what do we think is happening in terms of development? what are those opportunities? that would be another aspect that i would like us to look at but would be hard to do in 30-days. >> i hear you on that, brian.
8:09 pm
i do agree the next 10 year capital plan and all of the planning around that that is going to happen next year is an important opportunity for us to ensure that the financing for efws will build out as higher priority. again, as you mentioned the bla recommended or identified some other financing options outside of the office of capital planning. development agreements and the infrastructure financing district and community facilities district. it seems like there is a need for coordination among the different city departments that are responsible for these other types of financing eewd and -- oewd and the controller's office and you guys in coming up with
8:10 pm
comprehensive plan to giobonds. the bla identified are the most clear source for such a big ticket item. it is going to involve a number of other creative financing options as well. there is a need for more coordinated financing plan. >> i agree and we do look at community facility districts there is a policy in the capital plan around infrastructure financing. the challenge is that they do reduce general fund revenue. that needs taken into consideration. community facility districts again we are using them in some of the newer areas treasure island and at pier 70. we have those at capital planning committee and would
8:11 pm
want to include them in analysis to bring in everyone. >> brian, i hear you that december 31st is not a realistic timeframe to try to get the comprehensive financing plan together. what do you think would be more realistic timeframe given the $1.6 billion overall cost that we are looking at right now and the urgency of us getting the job done as soon as possible? >> right. there are projects underway. i encourage those do not get slowed down. i don't know that i can give you a specific date off-the-cuff. i would hesitate to do that. certainly like you said this is an off-year.
8:12 pm
we will be doing a lot of work around collecting needs for the capital plan this spring and next summer. summer of 2022. that is really when we will be putting together that information. that is really, i don't know if i can give you more detail right now. we are looking at trying to put together. we are getting demands and needs around sea level rise and climate. we are looking at putting together some options in terms of how we can fund some of these large capital needs in that area and we certainly would include that, the efws projects and needs in that analysis as well. that may provide some information. we look to do that in the next 6 to 8 months.
8:13 pm
>> thank you, brian. my office will be following up with you and other departments. there is an urgency to get this together as soon as possible. we will work with you on that. >> chair preston. one time question more directed at the fire department. around the fire department plan to acquire and operationalize the necessary number of new hose tenders needed. these are not just for efws or emergency firefighting system to help protect at least interim to provide some protection to the neighborhoods that are currently unprotected by the efws. it is used on a regular basis
8:14 pm
for fires. i guess my request is can the fire department come up with a plan to acquire and operationalize the necessary number of host tenders we need in the system given the aging that we currently have and the five that are in the pipeline right now that i have heard the number in the grand jury report that we need 20 tenders. >> thank you, supervisors. we can come up with a plan for that. currently we only have three hose tenders funded with the first delivery in july or august. down to the granular level of putting together the final details and getting the pumps tested in texas as we speak. we can come up with the plan. it is the funding from the board of supervisors.
8:15 pm
roughly $1 million each. we would have to set up a capital plan for the next couple years and delivery of two to three per year over the next number of years contingent upon funding from the board. with necessary funds we could provide a plan. >> what about the bla recommendation of looking at revenue financing? could that be included in the plan as well? >> yes, absolutely. >> thank you. deputy chief, when would you be able to put that plan together by december 31st, since that is the deadline for the comprehensive action plan? how much time would you need? >> i would coordinate with the
8:16 pm
bla. i am sure we could get it together with you. >> thank you. thank you, deputy chief. i see supervisor chan on the roster. >> thank you, chair preston. a question for mr. armstrong about the financial planning as well as for the capital planning. i just wanted to have a clarifying point on the infrastructure district that you mentioned. it will decrease if one were to establish, which i know we are looking to establish in places like treasure island or mission walk, a special district. you mentioned infrastructure
8:17 pm
finances would then decrease general fund. would you walk us through how that is? what is the rationale? >> again, i am not an expert in these different be tools. my understanding is that instead of tax increment be financing tool. what it means is that the there is a development and there is added value or tax benefit, that added tax benefit can be used to invest in infrastructure to make in from structure improvements. part of that added tax benefit if it did not go to the infrastructure would go to general fund. that is where the rub is or the impact on the general fund would be.
8:18 pm
>> this is better for the office of public finance under the controller's office with the finance tools for clarification. my impression and understanding typically what you do have these type infrastructure it also means it is with the projection of growth. while you may be true that is not going to general fund with assumption general fund is continuing to grow in a different rate while the extra, the top goes to the infrastructure for that money to infrastructure designated for the district. it is my assumption. >> i agree.
8:19 pm
that is how i see it, too. >> i also just want to say thank you to chair preston, supervisor mar for your leadership on this. no doubt it is very critical conversation. i time and time again i brought this up during our briefing on this. there were moments talking about the former aid about upgrading our city-wide sewage and water pipe system. then was 2006 and the conversation around $1 billion for the entire city and city-wide. then right now that number has significantly increased if we were to do that, but sometimes
8:20 pm
we have to start somewhere. i am glad that we do have prop b and that we can actually start somewhere and continue. i do look forward to continuing the conversation to really find ways to fund these projects and the development of the firefighting emergency firefighting water system. i do also agree with sfpuc presentation that, you know, both the east and west in this case through the map, southeast sector of the city also in need to have emergency water system and water source. knowing that there is a lot of
8:21 pm
industrial use in the southeast sector of the city. i am eager to see some improvement in water source developed there as well. that is what i think is not at the expense of west side development where we are making progress. i do look forward to continuing the conversation around saltwater ponds. i look forward to the conversation about possible new technology that may give us more options in the times to come. thank you, chair preston. >> thank you, vice chair chan. i appreciate your comments. i want to echo my thanks to supervisor mar for his ongoing leadership and supervisor i don't know if you have comments or questions or a motion to make, you are welcome to bring
8:22 pm
this back. it sounds from the conversation this is not the last time we will review this. the floor is yours to wrap up. >> thanks again, chair preston and supervisor chan for this opportunity to share this update hearing on the important work. i would move we continue this to the call of the chair. >> thank you. call the roll. >> motion offered by marthis be continued to the call of chair. vice chair command. >> aye. >> member mar. >> aye. >> chair preston. >> aye. >> there are three ayes. >> thank you. the motion passes. welcome back, mr. carroll. item 2. >> hearing on the interim use plan for 730 stan yan street.
8:23 pm
members should call the public comment number 415-655-0001. entered d24963301479. press pound twice to connect to the meeting and press star followed by 3 to enter the queue to speak. please wait until you are up muted and you may begin your comments. >> thank you, mr. clerk. i requested this hearing on the sudden abandonment of the city of homelessness and hsh of the project to serve public use in the haight-ashbury in relation of commitment to open a drop in center at 7:30 stanyan by the end of october. the stacket that this was promised publicly to the
8:24 pm
community as to my office and later that promise was broken are facts that i do not believe are in dispute. let me start with back ground on his site. this is owned by the city. sat vacant for years before i took office despite the detailed community proposal and promises by the city then mayor of community development in 2018 to activate interim use on the site. it is the future home of 100% affordable housing. that has very broad support in the community. in may of 2020, my office partnered with the emergency operations center, now known as code command as long with homeless youth, larkin street youth services and neighbors to
8:25 pm
launch the safe sleeping site referred to buy the neighbors as a camp at this location. despite a lawsuit by a lawyer to stop the project and creation of facebook group formed for the same purpose to stop the project and other efforts, the safe sleeping site was launched. i think at this point it is not in dispute. the speakers and presenters will concur. it was most successful safe sleeping site in the city by any metric run by the homeless youth and larkin street youth to transition people off the streets. extended twice. then was wound down as was committed at the start was wound down at the end of june of this year. our office insisted the site remain active for the community
8:26 pm
rather than vacant and that there are showers and drop inserises, referral and information for the homeless transitional youth population in this period before the development begins. per our advocacy and as part of ongoing emergency response to the pandemic they agreed to have such inper rum services at -- interim services at the site. in august we were informed plans were on track but delayed one month and guaranteed our office services would launch by the end of october at the latest. this representation was made to the community august 19, 2021 at a virtual community meeting regarding the site in which hsh
8:27 pm
confirmed to open the drop in center in late october 2021. it was made firmly and hsh explained the proposed drop in senator would provide -- center would provide bathrooms and washing stations and showers and daytime drop in services to other resources to support making homelessness rare, brief, one-time. to utilize the reduction approach and be operated by nonprofit provider with focus on services for transitional aged youth. hsh at solicitation for proposals on september 7, 2021. the homeless youth alliance was selected and preparing to open
8:28 pm
critical serve services on the site. on october 21st. the senior staff informed our office the project would not proceed. vague reasons were provided. none of which, in my opinion, added up. hence, this hearing to go deeper into this. since we announced the hearing request, the mayor has given several different explanation why the plug was pulled on the plan. a group that opposes any services for the homeless in the haight claim this led to the mayor abandoned the plans. it isn't going to happen in reference to the promised site. we hope they can give clarity for the reasons for the change of plans and the current plan for the site. our purpose is to get more
8:29 pm
clarity on how this happened and learn be how to work together to activate the site to serve community needs. with us today to present our directtor mcspadden and her team at hsh and director shaw at the housing and community development and available for questions are dr. born and from dhh and marry howe the director of homeless youth alliance. with that lengthy introduction but hopefully we can agree on what the facts are and a lot of that timeline is going to go back through each step. i wanted to lay it out there. i wanted to welcome director
8:30 pm
mcspadden and director shaw and their teams. go ahead and i will turn to floor over to them for 10 minuter presentation. >> you appear to be muted, director. >> thank you so much. thank you for the opportunity to present to you today, chair preston and community members. i appreciate the opportunity. as you mentioned, chair preston. director shaw is here with me and will be presenting as well after i talk for a few minutes. i see you have the slides up.
8:31 pm
i just want to start by saying giving a little overview, not to dispute what you have said. 730stanyan is city owned in development. during the worst days of the pandemic it was operated as a safe sleep site, very successful one. past summer when we thought the development project was going to break ground, the safe sleep site was closed and residents were relocated. at finishing we heard development timelines were delayed and gave the city the opportunity to utilize space in a different way. fiscal year 21-23 budget included add back for the site with pop in center for youth experiencing homelessness. it was for $90,000 this year
8:32 pm
and $130,000 this year to activate the site for this purpose. of course, the ad back did go to the department of public health. the department of homelessness and supportive housing moved forward to activate a pop in drop in center including release of interest for provider. only one submission was receive to the request. through the program development process and as we have started to bring staff into the process it became clear that add back dollars could cover staffing but insufficient to cover the cost of the program including showers, supplies and insurance. it will cost minimum of 3 $72,000 annually to operate the program at minimum standard to safely deliver these services. there was a $280,000 funding gap
8:33 pm
we opted not to move forward. as proposed and funded the project would have limited impact on housing placement and expansion goals we outlined in homeless recovery plan. what happened we agreed on this when i was taking leadership of the department. as i worked with the staff and really looked at the priorities i am concerned that we need to focus on housing placement and housing expansion. we do not have a lot of bandwidth right now on our staff and they are over extended during covid and worked as a team to bring our priorities back in line with what we can actually do. that is part of what we are doing here. while we thought we had the funding and were going to push forward with this. the fact we didn't have enough funding and have started to understand what our priorities
8:34 pm
are and what our resources are to carry this stuff out, we are starting to try to pull back on some of the things we think we can do this year. we continue to be deeply committed to serving homeless youth in our community and significantly expanded services for this population through investments in that transitional flexible housing subsidy, two new buildings to house the transitional age youth, recently opening the new center with third street youth center and clinic and continuing to fund dedicated outreach. at this point i want to paps it over to my colleague, director shaw, to talk about what the use will be for interim use from ocd from that perspective.
8:35 pm
>> thank you. this was the site for 100% affordable housing. currently we are finalizing designs and entitlements and application for state financing. we want to make it clear interim use policy for all sites. the policy for all sites is to prioritize youth for city partners or city serving youth. right now we are currently allowing youth with other city agencies to use for interim purpose aligning with timing for construction of the housing. we believe that housing on state financing will begin in september 2023. the goal outside of interim use
8:36 pm
is to make sure the site is secure. for all sites we have a standing contract in which we invest the resources for 24 hour security. those are the protocols happening now as we consider other uses for the site as we outreach to other city partners. priority is to make sure the site will be safe and secure in line with our regulations and policies of the city. >> thank you, director shaw. i have a number of questions. i do want to start by just i think there is a lot of pressure to not do things with this site. i want to start by recognizing that both of your tenures have marked a bit of shift in that way in not only the partnership
8:37 pm
of the administration, our office and providers in launching safe sleeping site but your openness, both of you, and your departments and teams to looking at launching something rather than keeping this site vacant. moving those conversations forward. i don't want that lost. part of my alarm and reason for the hearing and desire to dig deeply into this to find out what happened is that i think in many ways on what has been a controversial site there was beginning to be more of unified approach around the need to serve, particularly the community and coming off the successes of is safe sleeping site. there were many in our office who were looking forward to this next chapter which things
8:38 pm
abruptly changed. i didn't want that to get lost on how things changed and recognize that work that went into working with community members, listening to community members, talking and meeting and envisioning this site. my understanding is the homeless alliance and department of public health are on the uv questions. i may have some for them. i want to clarify. i will start by apologizing to the public here and my colleagues. i have a lot of questions. i submitted these questions to both hsh and department of public health. to be honest, i did not get answers to the specific and
8:39 pm
direct questions that i posed. that will require us to cover some ground here around the details at my request to our presenters and departments to the extent we can to try to just keep some of the answers brief unless more time is needed. we need to understand the timeline of what happened here. to start with to either director mcspadden or shaw. can you clarify whose decision was it to open 730 stanyan as a drop in center? >> i will answer that question. that was a joint decision between hsh and opd. >> thank you. then was that approved by the
8:40 pm
mayor or just a decision made by two department heads? >> i want to clarify. director mcspadden we have a hierarchy who we engage. the conversations were when we realized that the time was extended for the site being available, director mcspadden and i met to say if you want to continue take use we can discuss that. that was the conversation there. it was our hierarchy is dph and hsh during covid recovery around the interim youth. a must be are offered covid testing or safe sleeping sites for the parcels we are developing right now. it was our intention to make
8:41 pm
sure dph, dph or shh had priority for youth in these plans. >> thank you for the detail. did the mayor approve that attu that -- atthe time directly? >> that site had been there before so the conversations were can we continue what is there. we were removing infrastructure and there was conversation around what could happen to keep the infrastructure there. there is a clear timeline. we thought this was going to be developed. this is a continuation of the conversation. it was a conversation that was late. director mcspadden. it had been wound down.
8:42 pm
>> at some point the decision changes. i am trying to understand who is approving or not approving? in partnership with dph that you can make the decisions and that is how the decision was made? that is one thing. i am asking if in addition to what you described whether the mayor directly approved this at the time that decision was made. >> chair preston. decisions like this program and site decisions are made at department level. policy kind of higher level decisions and directions. we go to mayor breed for. at this decision level it was made at the department level. this decision was made at department level. >> thank you for clarifying that. >> at the time that you posted the solicitation, director mcspa
8:43 pm
den, what was you're inning of the funding that had be ask secd or committed for this interim use. >> my understanding and as i mentioned i was new when we started this process and this is one of many things i have been working on. we would be able to cover the costs of this program with the dollars in add back. we had thought we would be able to lower the costs of the bathrooms. we thought we might have options to lower the costs of bathrooms and showers. it turned out that the costs were a lot higher than we thought. as we had these conversation also, you know, the way we do it when there is add back dollars
8:44 pm
to put in we have a lot of conversations with the various board offices and work through this process at executive level. when the staff started digging in to what was needed. we realized there was more dollars needed. that was my fault for not vetting this further and earlier, but i started to understand that we would need a lot more dollars than we did. you know, of course, as budgets unfold in the early months of the new budget you start to understand there are a lot of places where that is happening where things might cost more or you might have to shift things around. i started to say, okay, we have to focus on clear priorities. we have so much on our plate as a staff here. we opted to not try to find the
8:45 pm
dollars for that. >> you're inning then at the time the solicitation was posted was that add back that district five provided for 90k in the first year and 113 the second year was the entire budget for opening a drop in center, interim drop in center? >> i think we thought we would get partnerships to cover some things that we didn't get. >> thank you. director shaw, can you address that. obviously we have quite a back and forth on this. was it every understanding prior to the posting of that solicitation that this district five requested add back was for all of the costs including rental of the bathrooms and showers, security, insurance.
8:46 pm
was it ever you're inning that that was all paid for out of a small staffing add back that our office had obtained? >> chair preston, the discussions i had with hsh did not relate to the add back, in particular. our conversations were were there any costs associated with keeping the site secure that would in some instances be able to be added to the space and the determination in the end was that the way we were calculating this we still had to devote resources for this being a 24 hour secure site. the dollars to be contributed to the site weren't going to materialize as they were. >> once you confirmed hsh was going to move forward, you're
8:47 pm
inning at that point in time that they had secured the funds to launch the site, right? >> no. from that instant right now as we said, the way we said hsh this was available for programming. there have been discussions about it being a center and director mcspadden and her team were going to do what they had to do to secure and analyze what the program would look like. those are conversations that hsh and ocd had. our goal is to keep the site safe and secure. that is our space. once again referring to our partners around how they want to program and operate that is that we defer to the department for that. >> how were the bathrooms paid
8:48 pm
for? add back in. >> i don't know that? i will defer to one of my staff in this case. emily collins. >> i believe the initial funding for the bathrooms used during the safe sleep came through the covid command center. i would have to look into that and get back to you with more certainty. >> that is my understanding as well. when those were in jewelry moved, much to the shock of the community, given there were promises for interim site and those were removed, director shaw, you and i discussed that and you stated no cause for alarm. the contract was pretty high on those once on emergency basis and the replacement ones would be moved in and infrastructure was there to support them. is that accurate?
8:49 pm
>> my recollection of that conversation was that because there had been delay in the construction of the site that at the construction of site and this also may have been me being new in the space was, you know, the ability to restore what had been removed may have been easier. that was perception on my part in the conversations i had with you. they went away, put them back. that is a space where i learned to defer to the partners to the programs they want to do for the interim use. >> were there any commitments of any funds to this site prior to publishing the solicitation? other than the staffing money our office?
8:50 pm
>> the commitment be was that the site would be available. that is from ocd. the site was available for use by the department. >> director mcspadden for hsh, were there commitments obtained for funding this site from any source above and beyond add back in. >> no, although once we realized we would need more. we did reach out. i reached out to department of public works to see if we could use this as one of their pit stop sites. we thought that may help with bathroom situation. they already had their map and they had some close by this was not on their radar. they weren't able to shift. we had no other funds committed. >> as you say realize this was
8:51 pm
going to require funding in excess? >> once we started to dig deeper to the program design with staff here at hsh, we started to realize i don't know when that was. i can defer to director cohen and we can get that information for you. >> i would have to get that information. >> can you estimate the months? i am trying to understand when this shifting came or realization occurred? >> this was an evolution. we looked at it and realized the bathrooms aren't coming in as affordable as we hoped they would be and we tried. that was august and sept as we were working through the program design that costs continued to be out of line with add back and
8:52 pm
the additional resources were a challenge to support the project. >> in august would that be the best estimate of when you realized or believed that did costs would exceed what would have been set aside? >> september is probably a better estimate. >> once you had this understanding, did you contact our office, the provider, anyone outside of hsh to share that concern? >> director cohen, can you answer that question? >> i believe we contacted public works as director mcspadden
8:53 pm
said to see if there was a way to leverage resources for that. i don't know about other contacts in terms of letting folks know around the resource question. we worked on it internally. >> did you rescind the solicitation posted seeking a provider. that was posted in september. >> did you notify the group that was selected to provide the services homeless youth alliance that you had this realization there wouldn't be funding for these other aspects of the project? at the time you had the understanding, you came to this understanding. did you contact the homeless youth alliance when they had been selected to provide
8:54 pm
services on his site? did you let them know there wasn't funds to launch it? >> at that time we did not let the provider know, nor did we pull the solicitation. we remained optimistic we would find a solution and get costs down. the challenge continued to grow and persist. >> where were you going for the funding? you didn't pull solicitation or notify provider because you were trying to look at cost containment efforts and secure the funding or alternate department of public works to help. where did you go for funding? you didn't reach out to us. other than talking with d.p.w., what outreach was there to what possible sources of funding to deliver on this project?
8:55 pm
[please stand by] >> no, i'm saying that two things happened simultaneously.
8:56 pm
we would have proceeded if we had the opportunitying and we had it all locked in and we didn't have it locked in. >> when our office was finally notified of this in late october, by deputy director cohen, and we specifically asked were we to -- we don't accept there was a funding gap but were we to find a way to razor find those funds. would it proceed we were told, no. so, i want to first just confirm that with director cohen, that is accurate. when we spoke on october 23rd, that you confirmed that even if we were -- you confirmed the funding gap was the reason it wasn't opening and opening but also that even if we found the money, that you couldn't guarantee that it would open? is that accurate?
8:57 pm
>> i believe that i did say that the funding gap was the primary reason as well as our priorities and i could not guarantee if funds were raised we would open the project. thank you. i will move on to other signs of questioning and i want to say just a very clear and i happy to give my of you including department of public heath or anyone on an state differently but let me clear for the public and the residents of in particular and it was absolutely never considered by anyone involved in this by any department and the small add-back designed to have a service provider at this site, the idea that is it is claimed
8:58 pm
that is the budget for this drop-in center is accurate and only claimed begins late october. never before that. was there any suggestion that that add-back would cover the cost of renting showers and handwashing-stations and insurance and so fourth so that would obviously require additional funding and funding that we were never asked to try to find additional funding because everyone knew the project was funded. i don't know if -- i mean, is welcome, if you believe that that add-back was to offer all those costs, and i believe it
8:59 pm
was the time the community meetings and if that's the position of any of the departments on this call, i would like to know that. thank you. let me switch gears in terms of the other reasons that are out there and give you a chance to address these regarding why this site was not open. so, the mayor was in question time last week before the supervisors responded to questions on this topic. cited three different things regarding when asked why the site was not opening. one was that quote the entire
9:00 pm
community if not wholeheartedly in support of having services provides at that location. the -- i want to quote from hsh employee dillon schneider on the call who stated at our august 19th community meeting and i concerns on the interim use, quote, we've heard overwhelmingly from the community that there's a need continue these services and so we support our unhoused neighborhoods so let me just that seems like that a conflict between what the mayor was and i what was stated at the community meeting. is opposition from community members one of the reasons that the plan to open this drop-in center was abandoned?
9:01 pm
>> no, the mayor is correct in saying that we never have full agreement from san franciscans on anything we try to do. it's absolutely true and it's not what we were looking with with this site. as i mentioned, we understood we didn't have the full amount of money that we needed simultaneous to the fact i was trying streamline our priorities as the department. the 27th argument raised by the mayor was around the money budgeted not being enough. we've gone through that and discussed that and my question
9:02 pm
is we respect to this site and the decision not to proceed with the drop in center and wire concerned about cert advises part of that may. >> so we have concerns about accountability always with all of our providers and we need to do as a department is to really get a handle on how we're track ago count ability and looking at outcomes that is something that i'm tasked with doing and as we buildup our monitoring staff and really look at our contracting, that's one thing that i'm very
9:03 pm
concerned about. as a department. we're not concerned about any one program. we have issues of accountability across the board and that's because we've been understaffed and are really working with our providers, somewhat, not just internally but thinking about out comes and thinking about accountability together but no, i don't think specifically for this site and that is not something that came into the decision to the department. >> thank you for clarifying. i appreciate of course the accountability is a big part of the work you do with providers and i really and it sounds like issues around accountability involving services for youth were not a factor in your
9:04 pm
december not to proceed. i don't want to put words in your mouth. >> i know that mayor breed has a lot of experience in the district and may no more than i do about accountable issues in the directing and that was not what caused us to not move forward with this. >> thank you, do you know what accountability issues the mayor was referring to? >> i do not. >> do you have accountability concerns with respect to the -- on larkin street and how they conduct homeless services? >> i do not. thank you. the mayor is quoted in a co valley improvement news letter as having a meeting with that group and a group called state
9:05 pm
health that was informed to oppose the safe sleeping site. according to the cbia news letter, the group met with the mayor october 21st at 4:00 p.m. which the mayor stated, quote, let me just say this before we start, it's not going to happen during the conversation about the interim site. the mayor believes, i don't believe the group chose to manage the drop in center had the best interest of the neighborhood in mind. can you -- do you agree with that characterization of the group selected? >> i don't know enough about the group selected honestly, to make that characterization. as i said, i've been in job a very short time and i'm trying really hard to meet with all the providers we work with. i have yet to meet with that particular group. i'm trying to get through the
9:06 pm
list but it's a lot. >> who selected with the solicitation is there a pan et or is it a individual discussion? i mean decision on your part or whose decision was it to select them to fulfill the services laid out in the solicitation? >> as i said, they were the only applicant to the s.o.i. that we put out and i would have to defer to director cohen about whether there was a panel because my understanding is usually if there's only one that there's not a whole panel but those decisions do not have happen at my level.
9:07 pm
it's believing the group it's in a position to carry out services in the solicitation, correct. >> yes, providers would have to make the minimum qualifications to be considered whether or not there's only one applicant. >> did hsh staff attend if i meetings in-person or virtual with safe healthy as described in their news letter? >> don't worry about their news letter. did you attend meetings with those groups? >> i was in one meeting. >> when was that? >> i don't know. i would have to go back through my calender and look. >> do you know what month? >> it was in october. >> and do you know about how
9:08 pm
long before it was announced to our office and the provider that the plans for the drop-in center were no longer going to proceed? >> i had briefed the mayor before that meeting happened that we were not planning to move forward with this. we didn't have enough money and that we really needed to focus on our priorities. >> when is that? >> i'm sorry? >> when was that? >> it was before that meeting. >> ox. i want to reiterate, this is the reason we submit all these kinds of questions pre hearing, as i understand, sometimes you need to reference calendars or talk to folks to nail down when different meetings occurred.
9:09 pm
when public comment is happening if you can pull that up or just it's important when that meeting and when you advised would occur and when the meeting occurred. did those groups express opposition to interim use of 7:30 standing? >> >> it was only one group that i met with and i don't know the other group. yes, people were concerned about 7:30 standing in the interim use. >> was this the meeting was the mayor said it wouldn't be happening, that was i was quoting from or was that a subsequent meeting? >> i don't recall that part.
9:10 pm
there was discussion about that and it was more of a listening session. >> who from hsh told these community groups that opposed the site the interim use of the site that it would not be proceeding? was that deputy director cohen "snl." >> i don't believe we told this group. >> that was the mayor's statement at a meeting was the only notice to those groups? >> do you know if the providers of the youth alliance had been notified before the mayor had notified the opponent that this wouldn't move forward. >> i don't know the answer to that, i am sorry. >> supervisor preston, the homeless youth alliance was notified the same day i notified you. >> ok.
9:11 pm
>> thank you i'm just looking to see and it looks like that's the same day that cbia met with the mayor and the mayor said it's not going to happen. that was the day you notified our office as well? >> was this done the same day? >> i don't know the date of the mayor's meeting i can't speak to that but i know that we alerted your office and youth alliance within hours of each other. >> thank you.
9:12 pm
what are the -- what are the plans for this site. director shaw talked generally about them but are there specific plans right now to provide any services of this site? >> that would be a question for director shaw and i believe he is on by phone. i believe he said his computer died. >> i am, thank you, very much. so right now as i shared, i believe in a conversation with you as well, we had been actively talk to go other departments in line with our policy for interim youth but the plan right now is to ensure this site is secured and that security will be there. we are having conversations with other agencies that may have interest in using the site as well. >> so no current plan by
9:13 pm
homeless services and any other youth that is in place. >> that's correct, sir. we are a shared and we've had conversations with other departments if they have interest in the site once again the questions on funding and the program capacity but there's a clear direction and fingers crossed and the site has to be delivered to the developer for construction of 2022 and there are requirements around access to the site for soil testing and other things that may need to happen in lieu of this?
9:14 pm
>> so i think director shaw, i'm sorry, director cohen can talk about our other things that we're doing beyond what i said, maybe a little bit more detail about how it effects. >> absolutely. as director mcfadden said, we're rolling out services for homeless tay and we're excited about the flex subsidy pool as well as the two new acquisitions that the director spoke about. i think it's also important and dph is on the line so i don't want to speak for them, but there's new funding for tay behavioral health they're that goes to dph and there's an opportunity to work with the
9:15 pm
community to determine sort of the process for those funds and how it might be well paired with these add-back dollars. again, those conversation are just being initiated and then are a community process for those funds. >> thank you. any plans currently for a homeless -- a tay navigation center? >> we would be open to that discussion but no site has been identified as a viable opportunity. >> thank you, i did want to bring in department of public-health. thank you for your patients. i believe dr. ford is on with us. i wanted to just ask you, welcome you and ask you a couple questions and thank you for your
9:16 pm
responses to the pre hearing questions. maybe i can just run through the statements you made and just confirm some of these things. you stated that department of public-health met with hsh to discuss services at the drop-in center at 730 stanyan and whether any discussion of budgetary experience was part of that. >> i have to go through my calender but it was when, shortly after the add-back money and we did discuss the funds would not be enough to cover and we were questioning why such a little amount was actually put to that. >> what were you told in response to that?
9:17 pm
i think your responses to the questions consist of, our understanding, that the 90,000 was intended to have staffing at the site and when you raise the terms about the other costs, what was the response? >> i think it was everything that the director brought up that they were going to look for other ways to actually cover the cost of the facility. >> did they ask dph to cover the cost? >> well the funding came to dph and we discussed it wasn't within our scope and certainly we're in support of whatever would be the best for the community. so, we did discuss what would be some of the alternatives but we don't -- it's not something the
9:18 pm
department of public-health does outside of covid when we were able to support and even then. for any kind of facility it's not something that the department does. >> when did you learn that plans for the site would not proceed and there was a change of plans? >> after she had found out which i think is actually on a different day. we didn't find out and i had it confirmed on the 28th of october when i reached out to hsh. >> got it. is there anything else you'd like to add? you've been listening to the whole discussion and president-elect.
9:19 pm
is anything you wanted to add? >> no questions but i can answer any questions you may have. >> i was going to move to public comment. i may have some additional questions after public comment. supervisor chan. >> thank you, chair preston. and i really appreciate the line of questioning. frankly, it's being painful to listen to some of the answers by our city department heads as well as our staff because i think that structurally, the challenges for our city
9:20 pm
department to do good work, without political influence, is evident along this line of questioning. at least that's from my observation. during the last, you know, a good 20 or 30 minutes of this back and fourth and trying to drawdown a timeline and i think the elephant in the room is the fact that it seems that there was a good-faith effort to move forward with the pop-up servings transient youth but because of political influence, by the administration, the decision was up ended. i just want to put it out there.
9:21 pm
to really i look forward to hearing from them as well. thank you. >> thank you supervisor chan and i appreciate your comments and say do want to recognize that it's pretty rare that any of us bring before commit, i think this is crucial because of the importance of supporting homeless folks and it is a steed wide issue but it relates when a department makes a promise to the community unambiguously to do something. i don't think we can take lightly. it's undermines frankly efforts
9:22 pm
by hsh, ocd and others not just here but in other parts of the city and to the folks who apply and to solicitations and if the rug can just be pulled out and certainly really need to kind of get to the bottom of it. before we go to public comment, i did want to welcome and acknowledge the director of public youth alliance who has been on and is available for questions and mary howe, thank you for your work on the safe sleeping site and reporting our unhoused neighbors in the hague. and i want to give you an opportunity to make limited comments and also specifically on the issue of funding. i would like to better understand, as i said before,
9:23 pm
our office asked, if we were to find this money, would you then honor your promise hsh to open this site and we were told no, we can't guarantee that and i'm curious on your end, if there was any thought given to other sources of funding if anyone has raised months ago and said hey, we wanted to do this but there isn't enough money because of xyz whether your organization would have been or may have been in a position to secure those funds. and open that site. so welcome mary howe. >> thank you exercise preston and everyone else present. and thank you for calling this hearing. i think it was made very clear to us as we chose to wind down the safe sleep site that the city was committed to leaving the bathrooms and showers and hygiene facilities on site.
9:24 pm
if that once the case, obviously we would have advocated for a much higher add-back to fund the services appropriately. it was very clear to me that those facilities were to be left on site and it was really just about the staffing for the project. that was never in question on my side. >> thank you. and had that been raised, i don't want to get too much into hypothetical but had throw threemonths ago, you were told there's a $200,000 gap, obviously our office would have advocated for additional funds but i am curious whether your organization would still have been pursuing this and trying to find additional funding, had that been going to you? >> definitely, i think even now it's a little unclear if the
9:25 pm
city is open to do anything on this site. we would be willing to try to secure additional funds if we were given like a clear budget of how much those items cost. we have a quite a large donor base. >> can you speak to the issue that i was having some back and fourth around just the timing of this and it's very strange from our office perspective how last minute this notice was regarding this change of plans. had you heard -- what's your understanding of when the youth alliance was notified verse wheg having a drop in center were notified and do you have any recollection about that? >> i do. i was told on october 22nd, at around 6:30 in the evening that
9:26 pm
was friday, and in that phone call i was also told that the neighbors had already been notified. it was clear to me that we were maybe not the first to know. >> obviously, on behalf of a representative of the city, let me apologize for that, although it was not my doing, i think after the truly heroic work that you all have done through the pandemic, on behalf of folks who are so often forgotten about and left to die in the streets, and i know you all worked around-the-clock at great personal sacrifice, and to not get a heads-up as the provider who is against stepping up to the plate to serve the most vulnerable folks in the hague, i just to the ex tents i request speak on behalf of the city i
9:27 pm
want to apologize to you for that. with that, mr. clerk, can we open the public comment lines on this item. >> clerk: thank you, mr. chair. we continue to work with michael from department of technology who is bringing us the public comment callers wait north the queue for their opportunity to address the committee. for those watching our meeting on cable channel 26 or streaming link or through sfgov call in now following the instructions on the screen. call and after that enter the meeting i.d. which is 249 211-8986 and then press the pound symbol twice that will put you in listening mode. if you wish to speak, dial star followed by 3 into the queue to speak. for those on hold, wait until you are prompted to begin. you will hear a prompt informing
9:28 pm
you your line has been unmuted. we have about a dozen callers in the queue. could you please connect us to our first caller. >> caller: thank you. i would like to first state before the dozen or so callers who only represent the people who could speak at the middle of the day on a thursday, which is does not include most of the families in a surrounded area working right now but supervisor preston's description of community support for this project are at best ignorant and at worst knowingly lying. there is obviously people who support and people who oppose this project and to categorize it as overwhelming support and a local minority who oppose this is blatantly false.
9:29 pm
supervisor preston is trying to get homeless alliance a government contract on city land going to painstaking efforts to make sure that they manage this site and before he was elected supervisor, he made it very clear that he wanted homeless people alliance to manage this site. he even put his name on support proposal for an interim youth in response to a rfp in 2018 to manage this site. he gave the executive director of homeless people alliance accommodations from the city within his first month of office to tee them up for this site. this is very clearly a conflict of interest and supervisor preston is in violation of city code section 21.39 collusion and contracting and section 2.11 for non interference and administration. i encourage the other members of this committee to seek feedback from other members of the
9:30 pm
community, folks who perhaps cannot attend a mid-day thursday meeting. approach the neighborhood association and coal valley improvement association all did not support homeless youth services at this site. and it is only one neighborhood group of which supervisor preston has supporters. >> your time has concluded. sorry to cut you off. all speakers have two minutes to address the panel and i want to remind all members of the public who may be waiting to speak that you are invited to directing your comments to the entirety of the panel gao member and not any one member of the committee. could we have the next caller, please. >> caller: hi, my name is melissa and i'm speaking as a
9:31 pm
supporter of this site and speaking as an employee of homeless youth alliance and as well as someone who is born in san francisco and has also experienced homelessness. i wanted to say i hear what you are talking about, the priorities of hsh and i want to say these drop-in sites and people being able to get into housing and i have seen it time and time again that youth are called in for housing and no one can find them because there's not where they can access and stay in contact with these people. these sites just open a door for a lot of people and provide -- i mean handwashing, the bear necessities we all need to stay
9:32 pm
healthy and be able to be a part of society. so yeah, these things are important in building people's confidence and being able to build communities, which i think is something we can all relate with, as these neighborhood groups come out, this is all being in community with one another so we need to give these people who haven't had as many opportunities the same kindness and the necessity to be successful. thank you for listening. >> clerk: thank you for sharing your comments. could we have the next kale, please. >> caller: hell though, i'm a member of the member of the coalition for a complete community at 730 stanyan and i'm perplexed by the cancellation of this weekday drop-in services for youth at that site. the bos approved funding, hsh
9:33 pm
was tasked to do it and they did go ahead. they even solicited someone and they got someone entered into a contract and it appears the mayor canceled the services plan with no public hearings, no outreach to the community at large. youth who are unhoused need to get clean, food and get help with job training and housing and more. on this large site at 730 stanyan, understander um youth h programs such as those that were proposed several years ago by the coalition for a complete community. remember the youth who are homeless are still human beings and they deserve to be treated as well as other san francisco residents. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for sharing your comments. could we have the next caller,
9:34 pm
please. >> caller: hi, my name is evan and i live in district 5. i'm calling in support of the city using 730 stanyan for the youth drop-in center. we badly need as many resources as we can muster for youth homeless and homeless in general. i'm appalled the mayor has decided to put the interest of the neighborhood who want to turn the hague and coal valley into a community. above the human rights of unhoused people in the neighborhood. i don't buy the excuse that has been put forward by hsh that there's not enough funding and staffing. it's false and it's very obvious since the mayor has made
9:35 pm
commitments to neighborhood groups that this site won't be moving forward and they're during up for a addition that she's already made. it's disgusting, i yield my time. >> clerk: thank you for sharing your comments. i'm going to mention once again the call-in instruction for members of the public to clarify clarify. they provide public comment on this hearing matter should dial the public comment call in number which is (415)655-0001. the meeting i.d. for today's meeting is 2496 330 1479. after you've entered the meeting i.d. press the pound symbol twice and if you wish to speak on this item, after your hearing the meeting proceedings through your telephone, then you should
9:36 pm
dial star followed by 3 and if you wish to be entered into the speaker line and wait signal that says your line has been unmuted. could we have the next caller, please. >> caller: my name is calvin and i'm co-chair of the coalition for a complete community. i would like to rewind the board that in december of 2018, mow submitted an rfp for interim uses for the site. we're now entering the fifth year of the city's acquisition of this site and the only interim use other than the successful camping site has been a parking lot for merchants on hague street. yes in december of 2018, moe
9:37 pm
laid out a desire for an interim use that let me quote, a public service for which at least 51% of the clientele is low and moderate income persons, such as childcare, healthcare, recreation programs, education programs, public safety services, senior services and homeless services among others. we submitted an rfp for those uses and the city canceled any interim use because it was more concerned about parking for merchants and than it in meeting our own. i would remind the board that as we sit today and the fifth year of this site being vacant, moe has proposed no public process for the creation of an interim
9:38 pm
use that will cover the next year that is now required because the mayor changed the requirements for the affordable housing, adding a year and a half to the process in which the site will remain vacant. unacceptable to the vast majority of the people of this neighborhood. >> clerk: can we have the next kale, please. caller, please. >> caller: i'm chris tanevance a merchant with two businesses at the block from this site and i'm calling in support of seeing homeless services provided in the hague ashbury. i was a proponent for prop c and
9:39 pm
i was reminded when i heard the mayor say that homeless services are unpopular and when prop c passed it passed 62% but in the precinct that all border 730 stanyan it was overwhelmingly two-thirds support and she's saying less than a third of this community's voice and i think that's very obvious when people try to paint this as an unpopular community choice. obviously there are people that are going to disagree on whether the solutions for addressing homelessness in our community but many of us have fought long and hard to secure resources to draft a community of homeless individuals that have been frankly underserved and ignored by the city and i remember
9:40 pm
having a conversation where i was asking when we would see showers restored to the neighborhood. they were providing them through 2019 one day a week and he unaware the services were taken away but had little interest sharing the services be restored. for those of us that talk to homeless individuals in the hague everyday, we know what they niederreiter and we know that they need and love our compassion and listening and they need our help. let's do that. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for sharing your comments. could we have the next kale, ne. >> caller: dear chair preston and other community members, thank you for this opportunity to engage on this issue. my name is john and i'm a
9:41 pm
resident district 5 and a member of the san francisco outer circle neighborhood groups that supports our unhoused neighbors and i'm a community development worker working with displaced communities internationally and locally. i'm calling in support of this city to honor promise to open up the interim use drop-in center at 730 stanyan and i want to highlight the access to water hygiene services are essential human rights established by the state of california and the united states and the united nations. earlier in 2021 the coalition of homelessness highlighted san francisco is falling well below international minimum standards for maintaining such a water access for the majority unhoused san franciscans highlighting we have a humanitarian crisis on our vulnerable canadian members. for context of the situation would be acknowledge humanitarian crisis and this was happening in africa, asia,
9:42 pm
middle-east and latin america context but here we're blinded to it. i believe that 7:30 standings can be a place where our vulnerable homeless youth members of our community can access showers and bathrooms, receive health and hygiene services and along request other essential services. i hear a lot of talks about costs. the reality is that we already are paying a high cost for not opening and the high cost of city agencies are already paying to to san francisco community by housing this drop-in center. >> clerk: next caller, please. >> caller: hi there, my name is
9:43 pm
carlos watkins i'm a human rights organization. thank you to the board and supervisor preston for having this hearing. i just wanted to call in strong support the city honoring its promise to the neighborhood and to youth homeless folks in the area of opening this site. it's frustrating to me that y'all were so far along in the lines of opening this up and having a place to go and then dropping at the last minute. it's also super frustrating as don touched on is it's funding and funding attached to water and bathroom access and and we know we're at such a deficit of water access and in february there was low water housing for folks in san francisco. it seems like any time a bathroom or shower is taken away it's a crisis and for that to be
9:44 pm
the reason this drop in center is not opening up, it's just unthinkable. i think there's funding available and it doesn't seem that they did a super intensive job of looking for other funding for the harm and higher trust has been willing to put in a lot of effort and notified and i think there's time here to look for other funding to get the bathrooms back in and open this site up and i would love to see the board and the hsh push for that to happen. thank you, i yield my time. >> clerk: thank you for sharing your comments. next caller, please. >> caller: hi, my name is sarah and i live five blocks away from 730 stanyan and i've been in the neighborhood for close to five years now. i'm calling in support of the drop-in center in the city actually going through on its promise. i don't think it's too late. i think we can correct this and i really urge the mayor's office
9:45 pm
and the two departments to reconsider this. i think we can find the funding. i know lots of people in our neighborhood are willing to do what we can to make this happen. i think it's so necessary as many people reiterated, especially with this age group. transitional age youth. according to the last san francisco point in time count, 83% of k youth are unsheltered. 83%. they need services. also according to that same point in time count, the top two reported needs from the survey was food and clothing. we need a drop in center and it's rare for this space to come up and we have it. i encourage the city to reconsider and i thank supervisor preston and supervisor chan for calling out what it was. it was just political interference and it's not the best of our neighborhood housed
9:46 pm
and unhoused. it would be great if you could get up date of how many people or the queue. >> clerk: we have a dozen people in the queue. >> caller: hello, supervisors, and thank you supervisor preston for calling this hearing. my name is david woo and i was born in raced in the hate where i still live and i'm a member of the coalition for a complete community of 720 stanyan and an organization that came together for the interim and final uses of 100% affordable housing at 730 stanyan and through a series of community meetings held by the coalition for complete community, they developed a community-based proposal for
9:47 pm
interim uses that service seniors and families it provides services for sen years and families and the lack of transparency and the site without any consultation with the community that has been engage with this project for years has been astonishing and this includes the most recent pulling out of promise and so the promise is that they must be reinstated. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for sharing your comments. could we have the next caller, please. >> caller: hi, my name is mark and i'm the a joining property
9:48 pm
owner to mcdonald's, i request this property sit vacant until housing is built. perhaps a vacant lot will motivate the city to build housing. not on all the political grandstanding and divisive shows. the massive eight-storey project being built on our street is dramatic enough but these projects are really unbearable and unnecessary trauma for the neighbors. build the housing and stop all these other developments. have some sympathy and respect to the residents that have to live this nightmare. you don't need to vilify the neighbors and the groups. this is their right as citizens, they are not opposing housing unlike many groups in this city. they want a safe neighborhood for their children free of meals, human waste, aggressive behavior, that is just dis respecting us. i lived in wallard for 15 years and my partner for 40 years, my
9:49 pm
a joining neighborhood is a fourth generation in his house. we know this corner. old man gonzales, the managers of mcdonald's reach out to me when i ask and even senior vice presses would call me within cases of the e-mail or a call to them. no one from the city have reached out to me. in fact, they reuse inform acknowledge my e-mail. i reached out to the health department for the hundreds of kids football size rats that have invaded my home chewing into my building and dying making my tenant's life a hell. causing me to lose half my income and reduce compensation because of this camping site. my behavior my neighborhoods have had is destroyed in gardens damaged by the rats. not until we killed over 100 of them that this stopped.
9:50 pm
>> clerk: thank you for sharing your comments. next caller, please. >> caller: good afternoon, this is is tab buckner, i lived in the haight-ashbury since the mid-80s and it's important to remember that the affordable housing that is designated for that 730 stanyan is in part supposed to be for transitional aged use. so it means to me it means it's completely illogical that we are ignoring this population for the years as we're awaiting construction when in the meantime, we've had homeless youth for over half a century living in the community. we saw recently some success happening from the safe sleeping site, where people were referred and in some cases found permanent places to go to and so i think it's only a win
9:51 pm
situation is that we accommodate our youth now before we wait several years ago before the construction the building and supervisor preston said there was extra funding that we could have acquired if that was the issue and i'm deeply disappointed and concerned about the back door shenanigans that's are going on that are holding up this whole effort. thank you for having this hearing and i strongly support having interim for homeless youth in the meantime. >> clerk: can we be connected to the next caller, please? >> caller: this is marty reagan and i'm calling in support of 730 stanyan as an interim
9:52 pm
drop-in site. we are completely in support and endorse adequate funding that provides much needed bathrooms, showers, hygiene, first aid, food, therapy and appropriate staffing for transitional youth suffering with homelessness. we don't need a parking lot with tents but a fully staffed, adequately funded interim drop-in site which care adequate staffing and compassion. this should have been happening. there's a non-profit ready to go and there's support and there's funding. there's no reason not for it to go forward. >> hello, my name is ian james and i am working at the
9:53 pm
coalition on homelessness and i'm a resident of the lower haight and i'm calling in support of the city making good on its promise to open drop-in center at 730stanyan. he used to live at frederick and stanyan and in the weeks opening up to the safe sleeping site went door-to-door to talks about any neighbors and over 80% over four out of five people actually supported having services on this lot and i've often seen firsthand the amazing resources that homeless youth alliance offering in the neighborhood and setting up on the side of the sidewalk to get people hot meals and other necessary resources. it seems so ridiculous that the city is not able to deliver on such a simple solution for such a massive problem. it's not too much to ask for a place where youth can get showers, bathrooms, hot meals with some semblance of privacy
9:54 pm
and confidentiality. we can find the money and is he thank you. >> thank you for sharing your comments. can we have the next caller. please. >> caller: i support dph and hsh decision not to place homeless services at a lost of $372,000. it was any understanding any temporary use was supposed to be self-sustaining and not cost the city money. i applaud the city oversight how this budget is spent. the city has a staff pit stop offering a bathroom and handwashing stations across the street. if an interim use is necessary i
9:55 pm
would ask that a much more public and much more well publicized call for proposals that serve the community for free including seniors who are overlooked. [please stand by]
9:56 pm
-- being used for traditional aged youth and/or elders. >> thank you for sharing your comments with the committee. can we have the next caller, please. >> hi, i work for larkin street
9:57 pm
services. we were a supportive partner to homeless youth alliance and operated at 730 stannion over a year. i really appreciate the neighbors who have chimed in about the success of that site. we met with neighbors biweekly to meet their concerns and i support the basic needs of the youth that operate in the haight and we operate a center and encourage you to stop by any time. we have hygiene flies we don't have a shower there. we need showers and regular access to water and i support
9:58 pm
more funding to provide these basic needs to young people in the haight. thank you. >> thank you for sharing your comments with the committee. can we have the next caller, please. >> hello, my name is dan gella. as an employee of homeless youth alliance i want to emphasize service to these and these drop-in centers are essential not only to connecting people with housing but to the basic life-saving services they need in the meantime. to deny people basic hygiene such as hand washing stations and showers in the midst of an ongoing pandemic not only a human rights but basic rights issue and the truth is they have nowhere else to go. in our the time and for holding this hearing. >> for sharing your comments. can we have the next caller,
9:59 pm
please. we have five callers remaining in the queue and we're unmuting a caller. caller, if you hear announcement that your line has been unmuted it's your opportunity to begin your comment. >> hello, my name is flip saro. i'm calling because of overwhelming concern about having the drop-in center at 730 stannion. i guess the supervisor and i live in different universes because when the safe sleeping site went in, my neighbors and i would not call that a success. during the time that the safe sleeping site was there we had
10:00 pm
not several drug incidents. we had violence, we had defecation and had tents on our street. there was screaming every day and drug use and people shooting up and it's not that we're complaining about services for people who need them, what the problem is is that the community they don't take care of the surrounding neighborhood during this time when we're all providing services. in the spring of this year, one-third of our neighbors moved out of this area. we have sent so many letters and e-mails to supervisor preston's office and what we got back was
10:01 pm
a canned auto-response and our pleas were not taken seriously. forgive me but when we're concerned about another service going into that area and we are afraid that we'll get the same reaction that problems will arise on our streets in front of our houses and supervisor preston will ignore it. >> thank you for sharing your comments. a reminder to all speakers, we have a two-minute time limit. i'm sorry to cut anybody off but if you reach that time we have to cut you off to everyone has time to speak. can we please be connected to the next caller. >> hi, my name is michael howley i live in the 800 block of
10:02 pm
stannion street. i pass by this site every day. i was happy when the city bought the property and planned to put in 100% affordable housing. we need it and was happy when the city took advantage of the empty lot to provide much needed services to our unhoused residents. i walk past the site every day while it was in use and i can see people were being helped. the city was providing essential services as previous callers said, basic human rights to dignity and sanitation and clean water. but then the city closed the services. the need didn't go away. the people who need help still need help. it's up to the city to keep fulfilling that need. we can't say we don't have a funding source to provide for the needs of the people and city government is responsible. the need is there. you need to find the funding. it's ridiculous to me that
10:03 pm
certain hours in the city wave their hand when people still need this help and the lot still sits empty. i don't like taxpayer money going to security guards going to empty lots when help people and i reject the idea we need to provide services but not here and the city is failing them. thank you for your time. >> thank you for sharing your comments. could we have the next caller connected, please. >> this is peter warfield. i'm a resident of district 5 and live a few easily walkable blocks away. i certainly would like the city to honor its commitment. i never served any difficulty. it seemed very quiet and very well run.
10:04 pm
it was there and then disappeared. i'm concerned about the process about a public comment and this was a wrong i.d. saying either you dialed the wrong number or the meeting has not yet start and for all we know there's people waiting for the public comment and i appreciate you made the connection and a called the office and thank you nor the hearing, supervisor, preston luckily somebody answered and took care of may have taken care of alerting folks. the whole question of process and notifying people there was no signage about disappearance or else to go if you were coming there for whatever services and homeless housing there was provided.
10:05 pm
and this same thing seems to have happen with the 730 stannion project and where that went in terms of folk providing information previously. so i would like to say what the others have said and agree with them with respect to honoring the commitment and i would call $2.7 million going for the renovation of a dog run in golden gate park at a time when we wanted to have classes at city college, the city is making choices and i think the choice should be to give humane and decent services to everybody. thank you. >> thank you for sharing your comments. can we have the next caller, please. >> hi, thank you. i'm a city resident. i think it's absolutely crucial
10:06 pm
for us to continue funding these sort of basic human services for our neighbors who need them. clean bathrooms, showers, hot food, they're not luxury items they're essential parts of everyday life and whether or not our neighbors can afford their own home or not shouldn't impact their ability to have access and i'm dismayed that the city has shown so little creativity or energy towards solving this problem towards getting the funding together, towards making this a priority because for the people who use the bathrooms and in joy the meals and who utilize the showers, this is the difference between being able to enjoy life with dignity and and
10:07 pm
i would encourage everyone in the city government to challenge themselves to find a solution and open te drop-in center and i thank supervisor preston for the attention. >> thank you for sharing your comments. can we have the next caller, please. >> hello, i live in district 5 very close to 730 stannion. listening to all this i want to call attention to the fact that the majority of the speakers in favor of having that drop-in center are actually working in homeless services industry. isn't this political interference? supervisor preston can't believe the mayor's office on housing and hsh would have a funding reason for not being able to
10:08 pm
continue with this plan. it's very obvious the mayor is trying to put money into permanent solutions and turning them into homeless showers and maybe she doesn't think it's a good idea to have a shower across the street the golden gate park and think it's a good way to spend the money and it isn't because when it's over the money's gone. it should go to permanent services and there's already services for this traditional what do you call it traditional -- transitional aged group in our neighborhood that have been serving that population for years. an they should continue and maybe get more funding for them. and if there's any interim use for that site it should be something for the whole
10:09 pm
community. we have hundreds of children in this neighborhood and families and why should you use that whole space just for one small population? what about inclusiveness to the whole neighborhood. we could have a soccer field, we could have food trucks, we could have music. there's a lot of things we can do with that space and it doesn't have to be for the homeless and that's all i have to say. >> thank you for sharing your comments. could we have the next caller, please. >> hello, my name is lisa aubrey and i'm a 30-year resident of haight ashbury. i live within a block of the site at 730 stannion. i realize there is disagreement among neighbors and residents among unhoused neighbors but
10:10 pm
when they have a petition and want something and speak for all of us, it's not accurate. the site has been vacant since june, which is very sad. it's a massive site. the safe sleeping village was among the most successful in san francisco largely because of the support from local residents like me and others who cooked meals, donated canopies and tents and clothing and shoes and toiletries and also because of the hard work of piya and larkin and we took supportive action. a bunch of us call ourselves allies and we're allies of our unhoused neighbors and we're actually allies of youth and we're allies of the hssh and
10:11 pm
allies of mayor breed because we are doing the hard work of trying to serve and help these people in addition to the work you're doing. and i just don't understand why it comes down to fear and loathing on social media because if more people rolled up their sleeves to help shift the suffering of our people who are really suffering during a global pandemic, maybe we could accomplish something. thank you. >> thank you for sharing your comments. could we have the next caller, please. >> hi, my name's richard isenho and live about three blocks from 730 stannion and would like to see the proposed interim use restored.
10:12 pm
i believe it sets a really bad precedent for a city agency to make promises and rescind those promises. construction on the site won't start until at least summer 2023. and i don't think we need an empty lot for another two years even a well secured empty lot. the people who are opposed to homeless services should realize that transitional aged youth are one of the three groups the community wanted for permanent housing and one of the two groups selected for permanent
10:13 pm
housing and dph is on this call and probably will agree that having bathroom, showers and hand washing stations will enhance not only homeless youth but for the community as a whole. thank you. >> thank you for sharing your comments. can we have the next caller, please. >> hi, my name is eliza wheeler and i was the project direct for a sleep site at 730 stannion. i was there almost every day for 13 months. the site often felt like the insurmountable challenges of the global pandemic and soaring overdose rates and wildfire, smoke and wild life and rain, wind and aggressive criticism
10:14 pm
from residents and groups in d5. we created a beautiful community that provided safe shelter for 84 individuals who had been living unsheltered in dd5 and we're aware of the drones they sent over for their twitter feeds and every day we were approached by neighbors and residents of d5 who donated their time, resources and support to us and the residents of camp and received enormous generosity and care from d5 residents and those who lived adjacent to the site. the statement the majority oppose us are not our experience and we're grateful for the caring and it's devastating to walk by te parking lot that was once a home and now sits empty and guarded we a city security
10:15 pm
guard and please reconsider transforming 730 stannion back into a space that provides life-saving support services and a digniied plan even for a short respite during the day and a want to share how we had zero covid cases among staff and residents. residents hat a private place to sleep and access on site medical care and mental health support and case manage. ment and other resources. >> thank you for sharing your comments. could we have the next caller, please. >> i live in the neighborhood. i just want to say that this process is ridiculous. people are sitting about camp
10:16 pm
and like it's a referendum like voting whether or not it's a good idea and they got a wildly inaccurate number so people have the competency to run these things i don't think we'd have to argue so much. i hope he government can get it together because we're stick of stepping around this all the time. >> thank you for sharing your comments. mr. chair we're receiving word we have heard from all the callers on the agenda item 2. >> thank you, mr. clerk. public comment on the item is now closed. i did have a couple find questions for director , is
10:17 pm
there a cost for this for the drop-in center. >> i'm in for director mcfadden. we have an estimated budget what we think the project would cost approximately $370,000 a year. >> no, like a budget, a document that breaks that down? i understand you presented the number in the presentation. is there an actual budget that breaks down the cost? >> yes. >> when was that created? >> i do not know. >> i've been asking for that including pre-hearing questions and have not received that so can you commit to providing that breakdown to my office? >> yes. >> thank you. and as well as the response as to when that was first created. >> um -- i'm not entirely sure i
10:18 pm
can determine when a document was first created but i can certainly make the document available to you. >> okay. and give me an estimate please when you think it was created because even by month. i wanted to ask deputy director cohen, we talked about our conversation regarding what, if additional funds there were but as we sit here today, if the funds are identified and provided to fill this gap even without even seeing the breakdowns, the figures you put forward, will hsh open the site as promised? >> as i said to you previously and director mcfadden laid out funding is part of the issue and the prioritization is the second
10:19 pm
component of the issue so i can't guarantee we open the project. >> and there's someone with the means watching the hearing today and calls up and says, that $200,000 if they can show me the numbers are real, i'm willing to write a check. if that happens, is the site according to hsh not opening regardless of that offer? >> my understanding is regardless of that offer, we would not proceed with the project. >> and i don't flow if director shaw's still on, i know we've been going for a while. i see you again. hi. can you say is there a commitment to have an interim youth on the site during the next two years. we heard from a lot of callers
10:20 pm
and i share the frustration. i wanted to clarify to the commitment to activating other sites. >> [audio digitizing]. >> what unhoused. >> i will follow the lead from dsh i'm follow what deputy director cohen stated on that. >> i see supervisor mar.
10:21 pm
my apologies. go ahead. >> thank you, chair preston. i wanted to sort of state that i -- first, i appreciate all the work that you and your staff and many in the neighborhood have done to work on creating a plan for interim use at 730 stan on that addresses the urgent need in the neighborhood and i do realize and certainly from the hearing today understand there's different ideas and opinions that exist in the neighborhood about priority uses for sites like 730 stannion and this is a youth that needs an urgent need. it came from the community members and organizations themselves the proposal the city made a commitment to moving ahead with this and there's already been a lot of work done
10:22 pm
to around timing to make it happen. i think again this is an important hearing today and a thank you for calling in highlighting the problematic process that's played out around this recently. i want to thank you for the hearing. i want to say this does highlight a broader issue to me interim use of sites like this. and serve important needs in the neighborhood. while the predevelopment work is happening and 730 stannion is obviously an extremely important project nor long-term use. by having my district the affordable housing project and supervisor chan you have 4200 gery in your neighborhood, i think it's really important we look at interim uses for the
10:23 pm
sites just to meet urgent needs in the immediate neighborhood. it's important from ocd and departments to work with supervisors on figuring out what the best uses are because we're uniquely positioned with our relationship in the neighborhood and information of the needs in the neighborhood to help identify priority interim uses. that's something i would like to see moving ahead. more collaboration with the district supervisors and identifying and making priority interim uses happen for these sites. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor mar. and let me just wrap up with a couple comments and again i appreciate everyone's time. unfortunately, i see this as the latest chapter in what i view as an ongoing betrayal of the
10:24 pm
haight. we have seen services work. we need more of them, not less. in so many ways, hsh especially the folks from director mcfadden on through the staff understand that and it's a commitment their mission is to extend services to folks and look it continue to partner but this is problematic when we have a commitment to the community and folks unhoused to open services and then reneg in this way. and unfortunately there are folks, i understand there's disagreement, but there are folks against homeless neighborhood. they believe it's a magnet and believe the services are the problem. i fundamentally disagree and unfortunately some of those
10:25 pm
voices have really dominated our city's policy in the haight for most the last decade and the safe sleeping site was a breakthrough in showing in a tangible way what works and a solution with complex of services and all branches of our government committed to making it successful. and so i believe we should still be opening the promised interim service and believe we should make services for haight part of the permanent housing plan and look to interacting with the director and leading for ground spaces in the building the community's asked for and the decision to renege on this promise to open the drop-in center for homeless youth is not about funding and it never has been and with all due respect, the plan was always for the
10:26 pm
infrastructure that was already funded by the city to remain in place and all the costs referenced around renting facilities and insurance and security and so forth to continue on and everyone knew that and the effect was only to provide a service provider on the site. the complaints are the reinvention of the history and a poor excuse for what is increasingly obviously a power flex by the mayor. we heard even with the money that hsh would not follow through on its promise to open this center. what happened here is the mayor heard from a small but vocal anti-homeless services group of activists in the haight who are used to having their way in the neighborhood and met with them over an hour which should tell you a lot if you've tried to
10:27 pm
meet with the mayor on anything and at which time she pledged the project would not happen and lo and behold the project was killed. so enough already. let's deliver on our promises that solution work and not petty politics on things that have been promised to the community at the last minute. i strongly believe unhoused people are best served by having the dignity of bathrooms, showers, resources to get off the streets and i also believe housed neighbors and we heard are best served with unhoused people have these facilities and services. denying the human need and right to back -- bathrooms, showers and referrals is counter productive and inhumane and i'm very disappointed hsh would
10:28 pm
promise services and reverse and let's get the funding and i urge them to reconsider that position. finally, we cannot expect dish said this earlier, we cannot expect our communities to trust the promises of our homeless service and really any arm of our government when explicit promises can be broken in this way with no meaningful notice to community or public input in accountable and transparency have come up in talking about nonprofit. it's also important for our government to function effectively and gain the confidence of the community. unfortunately at this site what we're seeing is the betrayal of that trust and the dret -- debt rim of unhoused people and most of our questions submitted in writing were not answered by dhs and we got none of the documents we've requested and for that reason i'd like to move to continue this item to the call of the chair.
10:29 pm
>> mr. clerk, please call the roll. >> clerk: the hearing being continued to the call of the chair, vice chair chan. >> aye. >> member mar. >> aye. >> mr. chair, your vote. >> aye. >> mr. chair there are three ayes. >> thank you, mr. clerk. obviously we only got through two items. we have a busy agenda we're going to go ahead and recess for 15 minutes to give everyone a break and then we will reconvene in 15. >> clerk: 15 minutes from now will be 1:50. we can >> thank you for your patience
10:30 pm
during our recess we're continuing our regular meeting from the audits and oversight committee. clerk are there reminders you'd like to make now that we're back? >> clerk: i'll proved struck for public comment. will be open for items that remain and cable channel or sf gov tv are streaming the numbers to allow you to speak or other opportunities to speak during public comment on the agenda by dialing 1-415-655-0001. the meeting number is 2496 330 1479


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on