tv Our City Our Home Oversight Committee SFGTV April 23, 2021 12:30pm-4:01pm PDT
146-187-9247. again, 146-187-9247, and then pound and then pound again. when connected, you will hear the meeting discussions, but you will be muted and in listening mode only. when your item of interest comes up, press star, three to enter the queue. best practices are to speak slowly and clearly and from a quiet location. please note that this meeting is being recorded and will be available at sfgovtv.org. >> all right. thank you so much, secretary hom. so welcome, everybody, to the our city, our home oversight committee for april 20, 2021, and we're going to call the roll. [roll call]
calendar and move to item 3, discussion by the committee regarding a general overview and member priorities for the fiscal year 21-22 and fiscal year 22-23 investment plan. i do want to point out, for item 7, which is prevention, we're going to separate out the adult items, so also want to point to item 9 for our liaison, our mental health liaison, brett andrews, if there are areas in there that you can speak to, you're welcome to present on those areas. also, secretary hom, in terms of public comment, we just want to make sure that we have time to get through everything today, so we will be shortening public comment based on how many commenters we have.
if we have a substantial number, we will be shortening it to two minutes, and if we have even more, we will be shortening it to one minute. i want to thank andrea evans and matthew dougherty. thank you so, so much. so we will go right into item 3, and i am going to turn it over first to our data officer and our systems investment liaison, cynthia. i'm going to turn it over to you first to give an overview of the process, and then, we'll
turn it over to each liaison so they can talk about their area. >> thank you. and i just want to thank each member of this committee, chair [inaudible], vice chair d'antonio, h.s.h., mohcd, and d.p.h. so this is a team effort, and i think i am glad that we wanted to be this collaborative and community input really shaped so much our thinking, so we thank everyone who participated. so sod, we're really going to go through each area of the four funding area, and kind of present each area. one thing to note is since we presented everything two weeks ago through our last ocoh meeting, we went through a number of meetings and controller staff to really get
better alignment on where we might have had differences with community input versus or committee input versus department asks, figuring out where we could come together on certain things, where it made sense to prioritize certain things that people were looking for in these presentations. so where we're at is even after many meetings in the public and community in recent weeks. we also had a large meeting with a public stakeholder group on friday, april 16. we also had some comments from that, as well. the controller's office sent a survey to committee members to get more input, and so that's how we're providing from where we are today.
i just want to preface everything by saying we are going to try to work through each section, have discussion of each section, and then a motor. one syringe i want to ask about each section -- and this is a question for the committee and chair williams. do we want to go through where the conflicts are or do we want to think about that now, would we like to -- >> i have spoken with the liaisons that have potential conflicts, so i think they are quite aware of where we have potential conflicts, so i would ask the potential liaisons if they have potential conflict to speak to that now in terms of what your needs are -- so yeah, i'll just turn to -- if you could raise your hand so i could see the participants, so i'll go to member andrew first. >> thank you so much.
good to see everyone. so yeah, i would probably -- i understand that i have running p.r.c., running a behavioral health organization, have a conflict on -- on my section, and i'm getting conflicting information because i heard there was an opportunity in through for there to be a general overview, and if i -- i'm not sure that if -- embedded within the conflict, there's still an tblt to talk high level about the process that we went through. so share williams, you're shaking your head, so i'll reserve my time and continue it for then, but i will acknowledge that there's a conflict. >> yes, and member ant ruse, you can do that during item 3, the mental health section, where we can piece out those areas that you're not
conflicted, if you're able to. >> honestly, i would just say then, maybe, from the outset, that given your e-mail to me at 7:00 this morning, that someone took a red -- a yellow highlighter to, that i wasn't a part of, i would recommend we continue the mental health discussion because i did not at all participate in that sheet at all. i signed off on a document in partnership with others that member nagendra is talking about the process, and somehow, this document that i'm talking about today at 7:00 in the morning is not the document that i signed off on. frankly, i think the controller's office and city attorney may need to lean in on this, but at this moment, i am ill prepared to discuss a document that i did not actually sign off and
introduce. >> that is totally fine, member andrews, and we can continue the mental health section. >> can i pose one question, and you may not be prepared or able to answer it. do we know who actually modified the -- modified the investment plan, mental health? >> so what i shared with you is not the investment plan. those what was the department was proposing. that's the department's proposal where there's questions, so this is different from the investment plan. >> okay. >> so the document that i shared with you was the department's proposal. so it's up to you. in item 3, i think you can still speak generally tot investment plan, but in those areas where there's still legal
questions, we can continue the mental health bucket mentality. >> yes. i think they're all related, so i think it would be important to have a weigh-in from the county attorney's office because what would happen it is would get coopted on one interpretation whether it fits within prop c or if it does not, and that somehow has to be a separate conversation that has to be fully reconciled, and we can have a full and honest conversation about the proposals that are there. i'm assuming that the other plans do or do not have challenges around them, and i would recommend, if that's the case, all of them are going to get murky and get muddy, if
they're going to fit within prop c? so that's where i am with this -- this -- at this moment. and so to that end, i would recommend that we continue the mental health proposal. >> thank you, member andrews. and i see that controller and laura put themselves on camera. did you want to discuss it. >> good morning, chair and members of the committee. i just wanted to add that our office did not have the time to review the mental health and eligibility of the measure? so i think a continuance until next week would allow us to conduct that review and comment
on that action. >> thank you. did you have comments, laura? >> just to confirm that that document was received by member nagendra, so it was modified by the -- so the department version had corrections in it? >> so thank you. all the reason we need to continue this item and come together on this piece. thank you, member andrews, and i will go to member leadbetter. did you have anything? >> yes. so i need to recuse myself from the housing discussion in its entirety, and then i understand i need to step away completely and then get reinvited back and
then pull out the pieces on the [inaudible]. >> thank you. i don't know if member miller has joined us yet. i'm not seeing her here, but if there's no other conflicts, i'm going to pass it back to member nagendra. >> i have not seen her come in. >> okay. thank you, member hom. okay. member nagendra? >> i'm just conflicted on the flex pool because i'm on the board of an organization that receives funding. i don't know if it's better to pull that piece out or if we have quorumed vote on it, i'm fine to stay out of the discussion, but whatever the best way to do that, but it's just one line item.
>> and is that -- those items are in the family as well as the youth. [inaudible] >> yeah, the flexible housing subsidy, that's a good point. >> i mean, i think we can do that if we're efficient. i need all your support on this. i think that is definitely possible. we just need to be efficient with our time. all right. so i'm glad we got that business dealt with, and now, i believe we can go into general comment about the totality of the recommendation and the investment plans, so do i pass it back to you, member nagendra, or do you want to have one of our liaisons go? >> i think we're ready to go into liaison discussion unless there's anything else any of our members do have anything
else? >> i would just like to say thank you, and just a reminder that we had such incredible community participation, and i just want to shout out everyone for that, and i think the intention is after we do this vote that we continue to build the voice of the community in this work, and i think the one question i have that i don't see allocated is around -- and i don't know if we could potentially make a motion on this to reserve some funds from the administrative bucket until we figure out how we're going to do our engagement with people with lived experience? we have committed to that week as a group. we just haven't gotten out to the community impact and communications groups, so even
if i'm understanding correctly, we're potentially setting aside $2.5 million for the administrative fees, and then the rest sort of maybe got reallocated across our bucket. but i think minimally, we should potentially reserve $1 million until we figure out how we're going to engage people with lived experience and their leadership through this process. >> thank you, member leadbetter. i'm going to go to the controller's office in terms of clarifying what's available in terms of the funding bucket. there's a motion on the floor, but i want to go to the controller's office first. >> i can confirm that we have pulled out $2.5 million, and that amount of funding is designated for the purposes laid out in the ordinance, which are kind of the
administration of the tax itself, the tax collector's role in managing the fund as well as the controller's managing the committee role. we're working up a plan now that contains the staffing that we need to manage the committee as well as some set-aside funding that address some of the funding but not formalized, . so one of the ideas that has come up in the past has been this community sort of focus group idea to sort of get input from the community. i think there's -- that needs to get kind of fleshed out and well rounded, but we have set aside money to support that. also, there's the charge of the
committee to do a needs assessment every three years. i think there's some on going work that needs to be done on what that means, but we've set aside some work on that, as well. we're kind of pulling a place holder in managing the committee in the interests of court of achieving your goals, so we can figure out how to implement that over time, but that $2.5 million is to support the administrative functions as well as the committee work moving forward. >> okay. member leadbetter, i think you were commenting about that outside of the 2.5 million. >> yeah. i'd like to make a motion to add that to the additional 2.5,
so you can take it out of the [inaudible] bucket if you need, but i think the 2.5 is also very humble on your part. so i just want to thank you guys for all of your work and recognize that that is absolutely needed to support the work of the controller's office. >> laura, did you have a direct response? >> i just wanted to flag that taking out additional funds, it means we have to recalculate all of the additional funds out of the fund bucket, which would make it difficult to come to decisions in the remainder of the items because the tally will be different. i think we need to figure out what the needs are from the committee and budget for them and create -- if we get clear
ideas of what the ideas of the committee are and what those goals are, we can create a budget for that and determine what the appropriations are and how they work. i want to caution that moving toward 3.5 million will result in a recalculating all of the budget. >> so i think, member leadbetter, we can urge something for another amount, but not order it, in terms of what we're saying. >> i'm wanting to be flexible, but if lawyer is is telling me that there's enough
flexibility, we could potentially get through 1 million again through conversation, that's fine. i just know we haven't gotten a lot of clarity through advance repayments. getting money seems to be harder than preserving. >> it's a two-year budget, but we can reassess in the second year if we need to and recalculate the fund balances if we feel like we didn't have enough to do the work that the committee wanted to do with that fund. we can reassess and reallocate in the next budget, as well? i'm not super clear on what the -- as well as the charge of the needs assessment and other
administrative staff, like our interpreters. so i -- if we can hear from the committee about the use that you have of that bucket, we can create an administration of that and rebalance from there? but it may make it a little more complicated for today's discussion to try to do that without a clear sort of plan or expectation from the committee around what to use the money to do. >> okay. [inaudible] >> -- from everybody, and i appreciate that. thank you. >> so member leadbetter, did you want to withdraw your motion. >> sure. yeah. i'll withdraw. >> okay. thank you. so we're now back on the general discussion of member priorities, and so i -- you know, you guys have the floor. if you want to talk about any
of your priorities looking at the entirety of the investment plan, you're welcome to. did you want to [inaudible] -- or i know you mentioned. i'm not sure, member andrews, if you're trying to unmute -- unmute yourself. >> okay. i'm here. sorry about that. it had to do with i had to do a quick e-mail. so are we just going to generally talk about what we are -- or yeah. so this -- i'm going to do my best to walk this fine line. so one thing that i just wanted to say is since -- building off of member leadbetter's comments, it was a comprehensive process, and it was herculean, chair, for
everyone who is a part of this process. that said, i'm struggling today because i feel that there are many games afoot, and as a behavioral health liaison, i'm not certain of all the conversations being had. so what i'm going to do now is just confirm the process that we went through and then just basically overall say a statement, and from that point on, i'm just going to recuse myself from the discussion. so like many, i participated in the community living session.
recommendations of that expert and their counsel and advisors along the way. and i put that out there as a tee-up for conversations that you all are going to have today in your respective areas, and then later in the continuance of mental health proposals. that being said, i'm just going to stop there and thank everybody for your time and commitment to this really important work and also understand that it is not a conflict or three -- or not in the least challenging for many of us who have been in this work for many, many, many years, so good luck to you in all of your discussions today. >> member andrews, just want to clarify that you will be joining us for the votes -- because we're continuing the mental health -- >> i will be here for the votes for the other liaisons, for
sure. >> okay. thank you so much. so with that, i see member leadbetter -- >> no, that's a leftover. >> member friedenbach? >> just wanted to thank -- just wanted to thank brett for all of his work on the behavioral health section and also take some responsibility if there is something, you know, feeling of, like -- you know, like -- you know, disrespecting or anything like that, pretty's role in this. i think where we've kind of had the twist is where we've had these meetings with the our city, our home legal counsel and controller's office, and there was a whole bunch of
identification of issues whether they were in the prop c legislation by our counsel, and then, as controller rosenfield said, they didn't have enough time to drill down into some of the gray area questions, so chair williams suggested that we put those items that were identified in gray, put them off. there wasn't any other changes besides that, other than really wanting to weigh them. so in those areas, there was, like, what everybody had identified as continuing gray areas, and those were the areas that we wanted to go back and talk about. so there was -- in the legal analysis language, it was just identifying where that gray area was, so that is -- so that
was -- yeah. so i just wanted to say that this was -- you know, that was what was -- was -- was going on there, and i think it was really -- i really appreciate it because i appreciate the careful conversation of -- of -- of -- of the prop c language and intent and really trying to get clarity on these things that we don't have clarity on. so thank you today for -- this is -- as in all of the sections, which we'll be talking about later, a lot of struggle and a lot of work, and just trying to really balance these different needs, and that was really clear on the behavioral health section and what was going on in it, and i just wanted to say that. thanks. >> thank you so much, member friedenbach -- i think i see
member nagendra. >> i also wanted to underscore the discussion around the process. i appreciate what member andrews is also -- is reflecting on, and we have all, i think, tried to honor the process of being as transparent as process with the community members and with each other, and this has been an hour by hour day by day changing process. what i wanted to say was, member andrews, yes, what was sent to the controller, i sent that last night, so i want to take responsibility, and that i think everybody had been seen, the liaisons, and except for what jennie said. i'm sorry for that. definitely not an intention,
and as far as i think, it was different, but the language was the same as far as i can tell. thank you for bringing as much transparency to the process as much as possible, and member andrews, i thank you for your discussion on that. >> and i wanted to go to laura for the investment plan, so was there any input that you wanted to give? >> so i was doing that on part of the investment planning group. we didn't get any specific questions submitted? so i think it's more going through the final feedback development of it as it sort of gets flushed out, but i didn't see anything that would sort of
address the [inaudible] but i think that'll be reflected in whatever final document is prepared. >> thank you so much. so with that, i'm going to move us to public comment. so secretary hom, is there any public comment for item 3? >> members of the public what wish to provide public comment on this item should call 415-655-0001, access code 146-187-9247, then press pound and pound again. pretty star, three to enter the queue, and wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted to begin your comments. and at this point, i would like to invite our translators in to
>> my comment is that i would like you guys to really work to the people who would be able to have housing. people like us that have families, that have small children, that have an appropriate space to live in. i live with all of my family members, and we only live in one single space, one room. because the rent situation in san francisco is very
expensive, and the high levels of rent does not allow us to be able to move. thank you. [end of translation]. >> thank you. next caller? >> just one second, because they move around. so i'll take caller 20. hello, caller? >> hello. my name is catalina, and i live with my family in a single room for 12 years, and it's difficult to be safe with my family in the hotels. we share a bathroom and a
kitchen, and my kids cannot play in the hallway. i would like to invite you guys to come and see the hotels, to see the conditions of families with kids living in a room. and in closing, i want to mention that the prop c was passed as a measure of creating new propositions, and money should not be used to cover city that the city was already operating, especially those that do not create new situations. and i thank you for your time in listening to our comments, but this is really important that we live in a hotel especially with kids, that's a really difficult space. thank you. that's really all for me today. >> great. thank you. i'll take the next caller.
>> the numbers are moving around for me? hello, caller? >> yes, i'm kristin evans, and i was one of the three proponents for proposition c. i want to honor the work and the time that everyone has put in with respect to the time that everyone has put in for use of these funds, and i want to reiterate that there continues to be concerns about our city, our home funds about the list of the proposition c measure. there was so much time and every day put into passing that language, securing signatures about what was in the ballot
measure, and there's been persistent concerns about the department recommendations being inconsistent and incompatible with the language text. so, you know, i -- i want to acknowledge that there may be a feeling that there was a lot of time and effort being put into recommendations, but -- in the -- in the final analysis, we need to be consistent with what we committed to voters with how these funds would be spent, especially if we ever want to go back and increase the amount of funds available. we have to be honest and truthful about how we intended to spend the money, make recommendations that were consistent with that. as you know, we were tied up with a lawsuit for many years,
and the other side was arguing that we would misspend the dollars. so this is why this is so absolutely critical that we are consistent with what we communicated to voters and the legal text of the measure. thanks so much. >> all right. thank you. i'll go ahead and take the next caller. hello, caller? >> hi. >> hello? >> hi. >> yes, you have three minutes. >> yes. this is steve weiss, and just keeping this in the form of a comment, i think it would be helpful for the public listening to have a better understanding of which document was being discussed earlier in the context of potential conflicts, so i'll leave it there, and thank you all for
>> yes, hello. my name is carmen, and i would like to just comment that i am a mother of three children, and i'm actually living in a residential hotel, and i have a teenager and two smaller children, and living as a single mother in this situation is something dignified. i would like for you to work on the situation where you can help families like mine that have children. i would like you to help on the measure that allows for a
better situation. and as a final thought, i want to urge the city to approve these measures in a final way to better my situation, and that's to invest money in programs that are already going on instead of using them in this kind of a situation. that will be all. thank you. [end of translation]. >> great.
at this point, we don't have any additional public comments. oh, give me one second. i see a hand raised again. we'll take the next caller. hello, caller? hello? >> hello, my name is miguel cabrera. [inaudible] >> okay. so you have three minutes -- or no, you have two minutes. [inaudible] >> so i want to mention to
remind the committee and everyone in san francisco that when we created this proposal for proposition c, we had more money, that these -- this proposal that we were working on is for generating about 4,000 housing units if we [inaudible] but at the same time 1,000 housing units for families with children. so families that were living in a hotel coming to live in shelter [inaudible] so -- and then so i wanted to speak -- [inaudible] and then, so -- and
[inaudible] >> so yeah, i was mentioned that, so yeah, what we're recommending is [inaudible] that we were requesting for the families, and [inaudible] the many that we do spending from prop c, so we're spending on other programs and we want to create, and we don't want this money spending in all other areas that we already have. when we created this, we were creating it for hokeless --
homeless families and other people that need it. so thank you so much. >> thank you, caller. i'll go ahead and take the next caller. hello, caller? >> good morning. thank you so much. >> you have two minutes. >> my name is deana florez, and i'm the director of programs at the lourdes street services. we get to serve the tenants of the s.r.o.s in the mission district and also get to really get a sense of how our immigrant families are doing on the ground right now and want to really elevate not just the work of this committee but also all of the work of the people in the background and the coalition to engage everyone throughout this process of implementation. i'm calling in today to elevate not just the folks that could
make it today, who called in, but i want to make sure we remember the intention of this proposition and that in your decision making, we are clear of what many folks mentioned that we want to create a solution to homelessness, and we understand there are [inaudible] that the city needs to advocate for and create funding for, but there are portions of the homeless committee that aren't being spoken for. with that, you know, i think there's so many obstacles that we have, so many resources that are much needed. we need new strategies, and i
think that's the intention of prop c and want to elevate and move that, and thank you for your time. >> great. thank you. i'll take the next caller. hello, caller? hello, caller? hello, caller. you have two minutes. can the translator welcome our caller? [speaking spanish language] >> he speaks chinese. [speaking cantonese language]
>> okay. i would like to share my personal comments. i just find out that it had been years the housing abilities, programs, the supply is very scarce, so it probably take me a few years, even though i'm not able to be -- to apply for it. and also, i would much appreciated if you could increase the minimum requirement so that many of us would be able to be qualified to apply for this housing program because this is a very important program for us.
>> okay. do we have another -- >> okay. i'll move onto the next caller. hello, caller? >> yes, hi. can you hear me? >> yes. you have two minutes. >> hello. my name is anaya revelo. i am a single mom of three, and i want to share my little story. me and my kids were living in little rooms, and we were finally able to get a housing thanks to one of your housing programs, so i just want to say we need more permanent solutions, more housing, fore affordable solutions -- more affordable solutions that families can apply to. when my kids were living in rooms, it was very hard. we didn't have a place for them to make meals or a place for
them to play or have 23re7bds over, so it hurt them a lot, and i know many families are hurting right now because of that situation, so i ask that you please invest some of this money into housing. thank you. >> great. thank you. we'll take the next caller. hello, caller? hello, caller? >> hello? >> hello. >> hello? [speaking spanish language]
which is buy building structures and repurpose them so that they can have more homes that are more affordable. [end of translation]. >> great. i'll take the next caller. >> great. thank you hear me? >> yes. you have two minutes. >> great. okay. so i was born and raised here in san francisco all my life and live in the western addition. i have experienced homelessness for the last seven years, not being put in the proper places for me concerning permanent housing due to my dual diagnosis. i just want to make sure that the money goes where it needs to go and the city comes up with new programs because it's not doing what it's going to. i don't think i'll be where i'm
at today without the dual diagnosis, so i just feel that proposition c passed a measure for creating new permanent solutions to homelessness, and i did not -- not new programs. some of the programs that the city has there. i received it from some of the new programs that i have on board, and that's how i was able to get stable and get the support that i needed, from people being where i been, and like me, they came from the streets, and i would like us to collaborate on this for solutions. so i just believe that the city, they need to put the money -- money should be put to cover not the city programs but to create new permanent solutions, and right now, we
don't have solutions, so i'll stop. thank you. >> okay. thank you, caller. i'll take the next caller. hello, caller? >> hello, okay. >> can you hear me? >> yes. >> my name is martha davis, and i'm director of the homeless prenatal program. [inaudible] are key for the prop c program, and that solution is housing. while i believe that it's important to purchase hotels and keep single adults housed, it's very much like an s.r.o., and it's not suitable for families, we've heard that already this morning, as well, that they're just not a place that kids should be raised in, and so i'm hoping that you will
invest -- and i believe you will -- in families, but also in construction -- in new construction, housing. there's just not enough, and for years, we have tried to move families that are in s.r.o.s into permanent housing. but as we've also heard, the list is so long that people can't get in. i want to thank you for your work. herculean is an understatement, but housing, please, let's find housing for people, and it's not in hotel rooms. they need to have their own bathrooms, kitchens, and rooms to sleep in. so thank you for your -- and that's all i'm going to say in. one other thing, i would like to say i hope you would be flexible, after you're purchasing buildings, that you would purchase other items and
>> okay. i would like to tell you that i have been immigrate over seven years. i live with my husband and daughter six years old. we have been living in an extremely small room in chinatown, only about 80 square feet. you can imagine our space of activities is very, very small. so the only thing my daughter wants to do is go to school so she would not be crammed in such a small cubicle. i'll ask the caller to continue.
>> okay. i also would like to share with you my difficulties. since i have -- since i have to take care of my daughter, i am not able to work, and also, i find out even though i ply for the housing authority program -- though i apply for the housing authority program, the requirement is very high. can make it very difficult to qualify for such a program.
>> okay. all right. well, i also would let you know there are so many immigrants living in such small cubicles in chinatown, so actually, i'm coming here today to speak on behalf of them. we really hope that you would have the sufficient fund to really support all of us, and also lower the criterias in order we be qualified to apply for your program, and this is our sincerest request. >> great. thank you, caller. hello, caller?
>> yes. this is david elliot lewis, member of the public. you talk about people being homeless and lived experiences, and i have experience in both. the way you have configured webex, you hide the participant list, which is just wrong. i cannot see any other participants. that would not happen in a real-world meeting. if i came to city hall, i would see the other participants in the meeting. i also cannot see the chat. that's a chat, like, for your private members. i also cannot ask a question by
chat or use public comment chat. if you want to engage the public, please conform your meeting to the public, so we can engage. you've also turned off our video? if we were in public, you could see our faces. why can't you see our faces in this virtual meeting. none of this feels like. all of it feels exclusionary, and you're not the only working group or commission that does this, but it just doesn't feel right. regarding the other comments of sticking to the law, yes, of course, i hope you will, but i think that goes without saying. thank you so much for your time and attention, and thank you all for volunteering to do this. i appreciate it. that's all. david elliot lewis.
>> great. thank you. just give me one more second. i believe i've got everybody that -- that has raised their hand. great. the current hands that are raised, i've already got them. we can go onto the next item. >> great. thank you, secretary hom, and all the public commenters who came out today. we will now move to item 4, which is discussion and action by the committee on adult housing investments proposed in the fisk of year 21-22 and 22-23. when we move to the vote, there's been a request by
member reggio to pull out the flex vote items, so i want to turn it over to member reggio. >> thank you, chair williams, and appreciate the work of all of you and just express the efforts of the department in our efforts to pull together. i think in this section, we're close, but we're not entirely with the document, but in many ways, we are aligned. thank everyone for the votes on this. >> i'm sorry. i'm going to have to recuse myself in this section, and just a reminder, from the presenter bucket, there will be likely a $28 million transfer to housing if necessary. >> member leadbetter, if you want, you can just turnoff your
microphone. >> julie, i can go ahead and move you to the attendee list. >> okay. thank you. and then, the last item is the $28 million transfer from preventative to housing. >> thank you. so back to this, yes. i was seeing if i was muted, and i was not. are we able to bring up the graph of the adult housing? >> i can bring that up. give me one second. >> and as you are bringing that up, on the adult housing, there's two other sections related to housing, which is families, which i think we'll discuss next, and t.a.y., which is transition age youth. so what we're seeing is the
adult related housing, but i think it represents bringing on those additional units of housing that we recognize which are needed. you go to the top of that column, let me give you, before going into detail on this, let me give you the overview that what we're asking for is the funds to leverage the acquisition of 612 and 712 units. the number of units that will be produced are actually dependent on the funds from outside -- state funds, federal funds, other funds that might be applicable to this. so when i say we should be getting funds for this, it
could be a little bit more, it could be a little bit less. okay. can i get this back on here, the table? if we look at the fourth, fifth, and sixth columns, which are what we're asking for in the projected results. if you go to the second line, the $58.1 million, that is in line with the city's recommendation that ocoh funds be used toward the -- our obligation on the match obligation with the low-key
funding, which brought on the diva and renata hotels that brought in about 362 units that brought on units or some units that are being rehabbed or some that are still to come. moving on, this was a request of $11 million. it's now that we at the city are recommending $5 million to go towards the operations of up to 287 units at sites that are named in the far right column, and this is as a result of eraf funding, state funding that was pulled in in 2020, and that's where i made my request, as
well. this next line is really a very significant one. we had started out -- and i think that was brought to you in early april -- that was going to be $100 million of acquisition of properties, acquisition of rehab. this would be hotels, possibly student housing or places that would possibly be used for student housing, other places that might house adults as we negotiated, the other funding did not remain available to us. and through the back and forth with the city and some of the community members, we have that currently at $52 million, which, again, is leverage depending on what money would come in federally, what money would come in from state.
we are targeting anywhere from 250 to 350 units of housing, and if we can bring in more leverage or external funding, that would make that stretch further. but that's basing an assumption on the cost of those units being 350, closer to 400,000 per unit, and that would provide us, again, using this leverage, obviously, to do the math -- this doesn't provide everything, but bring us about 250 units. next line, 350 units. remember, we're hoping we get 350 units out of the possession, so we're projecting the cost of running the operations and services adequately funded at roughly
20k per unit, which is about the same as the city is projecting on that, and that would cost, over the course of two years, $8.8 million. we go to the next line. this one is $7 million over the years of two years toward operation and services for the 339 or 362 residents of the properties. chair williams, help me on this. we're skipping the flex funding right now? >> we're going to take it as a separate vote. if you can talk about it -- >> okay. i hope this doesn't compromise what i'm going to say right now. in a way, it's a trade-off.
if you have more flex spending, flex pool units or subsidies, then, there is less money available for acquisition. we put more into acquisition, we would have less money available for flex pool. in listening to the community and in some discussion back and forth, on the committee side, i think we were of the opinion that we should keep that acquisition as is and keep the flex pool, which i will talk about in just a minute or a little bit, as it. so skipping it for now, let's go to the short-term subsidies or medium-term subsidies, which are rapid rehousing, let me just make sure -- someone stick
with me a minute. if you look at the outcomes, it's additional units for s.i.p., shelter-in-place recipients. we had rejected some of that in -- we had discussed some of that in our december meeting, and it would augment it to 285. it also includes some form of workforce development with the scattered housing in safe sites. it is providing $4.7 million for 50 slots over a course of two years, and that would be specifically related to justice-involved persons,
persons exiting incarceration that, in other cases, may be entering the homeless community here in san francisco. so if you put all of that together, that's an ask of -- well, no. excluding the flex -- >> so you can include the flex. we're just going to have two different votes. >> oh, i can talk about the flex -- [inaudible] >> -- i just want to enter the discussion. if there's going to be a trade-off of a type of it was that a member has a conflict with and whether or not to spend more or less money on, we're going to have to set that out at the beginning so the member can leave the conversation. for example, if cynthia wants to enter the conversation, it
can't be about the subsidized housing, as with. >> -- as well. >> great. so i think that cynthia understanding that. member reggio, if we could move on. >> great. so i think the next slide is line 10. i'd like to talk about that. thank you. so line 10, flex pool, we're asking for $49 million, almost $50 million, to provide 650 s.i.p. residents a place, to provide rent subsidies and services in scattered sites. yes. and i think that's in line with the city request that was part of the s.i.p. exit plan. we had granted or recommended
million in order to do the things i find in here. >> thank you so much for all of your hard work, member reggio. i know this is a big, big pot, so thank you so much for all your dedication. i'm going to open it up to the committee, as it has already been flagged by laura and myself. any discussion in regards
to tradeoffs, regarding flex and acquisition, if you have a conflict, please recuse yourself from the discussion. it doesn't mean have you to log off, just do not speak to that item. and i'm going to turn it to vice chair deantonio. >> thank you, so much, member reggio, for all of your hard work on this. this is really comprehensive and really great work, and i'm excited to share this as well. my only, like, qualm that i have is what i brought up last time, really around the inflation rate. i still feel like it is high. i feel like, especially we're doing hazard pay and bonuses and the cost of inflation is really tied to the increases in labor costs. so, like, it feels kind of redundant to me a little bit. but that is just me. i feel like committing to 3% inflation rate, like,
ongoing is very high, in my opinion. but, yeah, that's my only little thing, so, thank you. >> thank you. member reggio, did you want to make any comments to that? >> yeah. and i can't claim expertise in that regard, but i can say my experience, when i was director, that is really not a high number. by the time you put in, let's say, a moderate increase in salaries, that are, in many case, way too low, and arguably should be raised more than 3%, and then you look at every vendor in town going up, despite what you think, going up to that level, you look in -- it is just something where 3% is barely going to make it. to do less than that, i think puts us in a
position where d.o.c.h. funds are not going to cover it. and it depends on the budget here. we're bringing on new units. we're paying for operations to fund, and yet we're saying it may not cover the whole thing. so, personally, i think the 3% is conservative. and i would not recommend that we go lower than that. >> chairwoman: thank you so much, member reggio, and i just want to say to the channel 10 at this the committee at this time, we just want to move through these items, and if there are motions that the members want to put on the table, i know we've had a significant amount of time to go through these proposals and ask questions and dig into this, so is there a motion for the adult -- i know we're going to separate out, member reggio, the flex pool from this motion. if we could, if there is a motion -- i see member reggio, and member
freedombach. did you have a comment? >> thanks so much for all of the hard work on this. i know this was a bear, a difficult one. i wanted to make a motion, just before we vote on the section. i wanted to make a couple of motions just generally about the prioritization of the type of housing. so it's not like a change to the specific work sheet, but basically i'll fill out the motion more specifically, but basically around asking the city to prioritize tourist and student housing that has bathrooms in suite, and kitchenettes, and the ability to convert to adult housing.
just putting that out there as a body is really important. i would like to see us kind of expand the housing stock. we could buy a tourist hotel or s.r.o.s, and it gives us more poor people's housing. i wanted to make a general thing around that, and a similar motion around families, trying to make sure that acquisitions -- we're not talking about acquiring buildings that are already occupied, but buildings that homeless people could move into, and that we have some big units in the mix. so i wanted to make some general motions around that. i want to ask if this is the appropriate time to do that? >> chairwoman: you can make the adult motion right now, member freedombach, so if you want to restate the adult housing motion. >> okay, great. oh, this is a lot of documents on my screen. okay. so i'm making a motion that for all adult
acquisitions, we recommend that the city prioritize geographic diversity, tourist and student housing, with in suite bathrooms or ability to convert to studios in order to expand dignified housing for impoverished homeless people. >> chairwoman: thank you. is there a second? >> second. >> chairwoman: it has been seconded by vice chair deantonio. >> chairwoman: can you call the roll. [roll call]
>> chairwoman: all right. so the motion passes. thank you. i'll go back to member reggio on the entirety of the package, separate from the flex, if we could do that. >> so let me just comment on one thing. i saw that laura marshal was going to remark. and, laura, let me invite you in, if you want to clarify that, too, or add to this. but there is an issue on here, on the shorter term subsidies. >> i think we can work that out on the back end. >> can we do it on the back end, or do we need -- good. a reflection of whether or not we were exceeding the 12%. so let's not worry about that. thank you, laura. chair williams, should i offer -- >> chairwoman: yes.
[laughter] >> let me make a motion that we pass -- that we recommend the adult permanent housing as presented, excluding, for the moment, the flex housing section. >> chairwoman: thank you, member reggio. is there a second? >> second. >> chairwoman: all right. so seconded by vice chair deantonio. any discussion on the motion? >> i have a clarifying question, member freedombach, about moving the money over from prevention. >> yes. >> when we vote on this, does this include the money added in from prevention or exclude? >> chairwoman: i see a note that says this is in the red, member reggio, can you clarify? >> well, what we say right now is this does not include any money being moved over from prevention. i have been party to
conversations knowing that that was possible, that it would come, but i did not have a figure, and i didn't calculate it in it. i would be inclined to say that would be most welcome, but that we not move on that. it would take a level of analysis right now in allocation, that we hold on doing that, and perhaps carry that over to whatever the special meeting is, if there is going to be an extra $24 million available. >> chairwoman: laura, can you speak to that? i see the note there? >> i don't know where that note came from. i think that was a proposal by julie saying that there was extra funding in the prevention and sort of proposing that it be moved over. there are technical details around how it would move. it has to comply with the funding breakdown. so there is, like -- assuming the committee
passes the recommendation around the bucket, there would potentially be funding left over. and because prevention is not a cap, you could go below the threshold and move that money to other things, but it would need to come into the housing bucket proportional to the bucket, so the subcategories. so it wouldn't be $28 million in the adult section. it would be spread throughout, and there would be some back-end work we would need to do to recalculate all of the percentages around that. i would concur with member reggio's suggestion to not include that in the current recommendation, the current array of funding choices, because they don't actually account for that change in the numbers. >> chairwoman: thank you so much, laura. member reggio, your motion is on the floor. is there a second? >> we had a second --
>> chairwoman: sorry. from vice chair deantonio. thank you. member freedombach, it sounds like we will address that at another point. >> and the exiting, sheltering street, under -- oh, wait, we're talking about flex pool, yeah. so that piece, i just wanted to make sure that was in there. we've gotten -- unone of one of thethings that happened during the zip hotels, some people were offered treatment, and they were offered treatment and hotels. and they were opted out, and i wanted to make sure we had the language in there so those coming out of treatment could get access to those. at the previous meeting, i know there was mentions including folks from other shelters as well, and treats. so, yeah, i just wanted --
>> i did think that the stuff in red -- i don't know if we want to make it more clear in the motion. [simultaneous talking] >> it is just notes on the document, but it looks like the numbers that were actually presented here, the $52 million, it does not include the $28 million for prevention. that is just a note. to your point, i don't know what shift you would like to add to -- >> just suggesting that the exiting treatment shelter in street be put into black by laura, and we're clearly voting on all black language in the chart. >> is that correct, member reggio? is that exiting treatment shelter street -- >> yeah. it was definitely intended for street and sheltered and the exiting treatment
makes perfect sense to me. i think that is completely a reasonable change. >> this is actually not included in the original motion because it excluded the flex pool. >> chairwoman: that's right. we're not voting on flex pool right now. [simultaneous talking] >> i apologize. >> chairwoman: all right. so it has been moved and seconded. any further questions or discussions before we go to roll call vote? all right. hearing or seeing none, secretary, could you please call the roll. [roll call]
>> chairwoman: we're doing a roll call on the adult portion, except the flex pool. >> yes. [roll call continuing] >> chairwoman: so the motion passes. thank you, everyone. thank you, member reggio. we're now going to the flex pool portion of adult. so member reggio, or any member that would like to make a motion. >> i'd like to make a motion we approve the flex pool recommendations, including -- including the red language around
exiting treatment shelter in street. >> second. >> chairwoman: is that vice chair deantonio? >> yes. >> chairman: okay. thank you. actually, i want to pause and, secretary holm, can you ask if there is specific public comment on item 4. i know we have some general public comment. so is there a way to kind of do that before we go to the roll call vote? i want to respect that process. >> i do want to ask john, though, our city attorney who is on the line, currently we're taking votes, but i wanted to make sure that we are supposed to be taking public comment before each vote. is that correct, john? >> yeah -- >> chairwoman: typically, yeah. >> deputy attorney general john gibner. sorry, i should have jumped in before the last
vote. you should take public comments before all of the votes. you should take public comment before taking any vote on an item before your first vote. one other note. the committee said that member nagendra is going to recuse on flex housing. >> chairwoman: yes. >> if that is right, before you take that second vote, member nagendra, you should step out of the virtual bay. >> thank you. >> chairwoman: thank you. yeah. the thing is, it is hard to distinguish with the public comment which item -- if we could, secretary holm, before moving to the vote, if we could ask there are comments specific to item 4. from the public. >> yes. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item
should call 415-655-0001, i.d. 1461879247, then ##. if you haven't already done so, please dial *3 to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comment. please note you have two minutes. again, this is specifically for item 4. translators, would you be able to read the script as well, and indicate they will have two minutes, and this is specifically for item 4. >> and also commenting and no questioning, right? >> chairwoman: no questioning. just commenting.[speaking forein language] [interpreter speaking]
>> i'll speak in mandarin again. [interpreter speaking] >> i'm finished. thank you. >> okay. i'll take the first caller. hello, caller? [simultaneous talking] >> we have family here waiting to speak for the third item. is that okay that the family is here that can speak for that item because they are still waiting. >> chairwoman: we're on item 4. is this for item 4? >> no. it is for item 3, the prop "c" funding allocation. the family here are still waiting.
>> chairwoman: city attorney gibner, i want to take the comment, but we're on item 4. this is what i was just talking about. so can we accommodate the family that is here, or wait until our general public comment later. >> we do have an item regarding family housing. so there is a future item they can speak on if it is related to family housing. >> you should generally not take public comment out of order because it will mix it all up. you could maybe -- if there is a member of the public who has time constraints and won't be around when you reach the family housing discussion, you could call that public comment separately after you call this one. but you should really
parse it out so that people aren't crossing lines. >> chairman: thank you. i knew you were going to say that. so, i'm sorry, but can you both move to that public comment, caller, when we get out of the adult public comment. if you could just hold on with us for a little longer, we'll get to you very soon. so you can give us about five minutes, and we'll get there. >> hello, caller? >> caller: hello. >> do you need translation? translation? cantonese or spanish? harvey, can you please translate. [interpreter speaking]
>> speaking through interpreter: that's the reason i appear in the meeting today. i really hope the city will highly consider to have more funds allocated in measure "c," so that we will be able to move out from the cubic in chinatown, asap, to be able to participate in the affordable housing program, and that there will be 30% of the funds that we can apply. finished. >> chairwoman: harvey, can you say in cantonese and chinese that we're taking only public comment on adult housing. and we'll take public comment on family housing shortly.
[interpreter speaking] >> do i need to translate in mandarin? >> chairwoman: no. just cantonese and spanish is good. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> hello, caller. can you translate in spanish, please. patty, can you translate in spanish we'll be taking public comment on the next item? [speaking spanish]
>> chairwoman: thank you so much. secretary holm, if you can call any public comment for adult housing, if there is any public comment on adult housing? you're muted, secretary holm. >> sorry. hello, caller? >> caller: yes, is this for adult housing? >> caller: yes. i speak chinese. [speaking chinese] [interpreter speaking] >> speaking through
interpreter: i want to discuss about family housing program. >> chairwoman: that is next. if you could reiterate we're going to talk about that in the next five minutes. [interpreter speaking] >> interpreter's finished. >> hello, cawrm. caller, is this regarding adult housing? [interpreter speaking] >> can you make sure that it is for -- >> okay. [interpreter speaking] >> caller: i wanted to discuss about family housing. i know it is not ready yet. i'll be waiting, then. >> great. thank you. hello, caller.
this is for adult housing. this is public comment for adult housing. [interpreter speaking][speakingn language] >> i have already advised attendees about this. >> thank you. hello, caller? >> caller: yes, this is david elliot lewis, regarding item 4, adult housing. resources are scarce, and i hope you will use the money well by investing in more cost-effective units, which would include housing that is already built. there are already hotel
and apartment buildings for sale, that could be purchased at a much less cost than brand new supportive housing. and there is also emerging forms of prefab, modular housing, that can be built in factories. community housing is using factory o.s., that are building prefab units, that can be brought on the site, i think it is 30% less cost construction-wise, and there may be less expensive prefab housing. so it gives you more housing for the dollar. and i hope you'll specify these more cost-effective housing. david elliot lewis. that's my comment. thank you. >> great. thank you so much. i'll take the next caller. hello, caller?
can you -- [interpreter speaking] >> i advised him to wait for the while. the interpreter is finished speaking. >> thank you. let me just take one final look. there are no additional comments for item four. >> chairman: that. thank you to our translator. it is all about language. it is really great to see this. and so we'll talk the roll on the flex pool part of the adult housing investment. secretary holm?
[roll call] >> chairwoman: all right. so the motion passes. thank you, member reggio. and we'll now move to the next bucket, and what we've all be waiting for, and we'll take the public comment on family housing now because we know we have a number of folks waiting. so if you could -- >> can i make a suggestion? we could, perhaps, combine items 5 and 6 and hear them both together as a way to kind of streamline the agenda, to combine both 5 and 6 to hear about family and day housing, and we can hear public
comment for both and review the items for both, and then hear motions on both. and i think that the attorney general, john gibner, might have additional guidance on the last item before we move on. >> chairwoman: is that possible, attorney general gibner, to combine those? >> yes. you can combine public comment on those two items, and then take the vote separately after public comment. one clean-up piece on the last item, because you took a couple of votes before public comment. is i would recommend you retake those votes. so you can rescind member friedenbach's motion. and to adopt member reggio's motion, approving all of the adult housing in the flex. >> chairwoman: great. let's do it. member reggio, if you could rescind the adult
housing motion separate from the flex pool, and then member friedenbach, if you could do the same on the priorities. we'll start with member reggio. >> i would move to rescind, if i'm saying that correctly, the motion to approve the adult housing recommendations, minus the flex pool. is that correct? >> it's just a streamlined thing. you can move to rescind and readopt. >> so i move to rescind and readopt the adult housing recommendations, exclusive of the flex pool. >> chairwoman: great. thank you. is there a second. >> second. >> chairwoman: thank you vice chair deantonio for seconding. any discussion on the motion? seeing none, we will take the roll call vote on
this. [roll call] >> chairwoman: i just want to say, member nagendra, you're not recused on this. >> i'm sorry. >> chairwoman: no worries. i know this is getting a little squirrely. e . >> so i can change myanswer to . >> chairwoman: so the motion passes. >> i rescind and reintroduce my motion to pass flex pool subsidies for adults -- >> chairwoman: no, it is just the priorities. >> the -- >> chairwoman: the statements made about prioritizing -- >> oh, okay.
so i rescind and reintroduce my motion that for all adult acquisitions, we recommend that the city prioritize geographic diversity and (indiscernable) for unhoused and impoverished people. >> chairwoman: thank you. a second? >> second. >> chairwoman: seconded by vice chair deantonio. any discussion on the motion? seeing none, we'll do do a roll call. [roll call] >> this one i am recused on because it is the priorities for the flex pool. is that correct? >> chairwoman: it is all of it. but i believe -- i'm sorry. oh, no.
>> you can participate in this vote. it is all right complete. already done. >> i say yes. thank you. >> chairwoman: all right. so the motion passes. we're gooving. so we're going to go to public comment for family housing and for day housing. so any for public comment for housing and day. we're taking that public comment right now. >> member of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item to call 415-655-0001, i.d. 1461879247, then ##. if you haven't already done so, dial *3 to line up to speak. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comment. please note you have two minutes. translator, can you go ahead and repeat that same thing? [interpreter speaking]
>> hello, harvey, would you be able to translate that piece? >> my name is -- i'm sorry, i forgot to unmute. i have been living in the cubical of chinatone, and the. is very, very terrible, because we have to share a kitch, toilet, and bathroom for many units. and my unit is very close to the toilet and bathroom, and i suffer a lot of noise pollutions when i'm staying there. okay.[speaking foreign
language] >> i want to let you know we are a family of three. especially i would like to let you know my wife has mental issues, and then living in a crowded space is really causing a tremendous impact to her. and especially i want to share how difficult my life is. my daughter has to go to school, but she has to wait more than 20 minutes
for bathroom and restroom because it is shared by many members of the units.[spean language] >> speaking through interpreter: and i also would like to emphasize this cubical, or room, if you can call it, is very, very tiny. so i really would like to have the -- if the city would consider giving more funds for the people living in the cubical area for so long so that we will be able to move out asap and have a better
living environment for our family. thank you. >> interpreter is finished speaking. >> she has 30 seconds remaining? [interpreter speaking][speakingn language] >> speaking through interpreter: during all of these years, i have filled out all of those applications with no response. i come here sincerely, and please set up more funds for these kind of families
the bed. and then even though we have no room to sleep sometimes, my husband has to sleep on the floor. and then we have to wait so long for the toilet and the restroom. and sometimes because the area is so humid and with my two youngest sons, they all have skin issues. i would just like to share with you all our living condition and situation -- it is really worse than you can imagine. [interpreter speaking]
[interpreter speaking] >> great. harvey, i believe you're on mute. >> speaking through interpreter: okay. i also would like to let you know during covid-19, all of my kids have to shelter in place, and they stay at home all of the time. can you imagine 24 hours they have to be together, in a small area. and even though if they were able to move out for a few minutes, the neighbors were not happy with us for moving around.
so you could imagine how difficult we have been suffering. and i hope you could understand our situation. i beg and beg for you guys to on the measure "c" you could consider giving more funds for the group of people that we've been living in the cubicals or small area like this. >> the interpreter is finished speaking. >> thank you. hello, caller? you speak chinese? [interpreter speaking][speakingn language]
[interpreter speaking] >> speaking through interpreter: hello, everyone. my name is shou. and i have been living in the cubical in chinatown when i immigrate into the united states. we've been staying in the cubical in chinatown for so long, not because there is no other option. it is because the rent outside has been so expensive, we cannot afford it. we have moved from place to place, still within the cubical within chinatown. it is only because the
situation that we're facing is getting worse and worse. i give you an example. the last one we lived in a cubical, there was a mental unit neighbor that keep on harassing us verbally and also physically. and we have no other option to move in other cubicals in the chinatown. but i could tell you, wherever we move, the situation would not be getting any better. [interpreter speaking][speakingn
language] >> okay. >> speaking through interpreter: well, as i mentioned before, you could imagine how stressful and how nervous and how tense and high pressure when we were living with a serious mental neighbor. so once we moved out from the last cubical that we lived, the one we live now are not even better. there are so many cockroaches in the area. and the air and the room is very stuffy and it is
hard to breathe. we have an air machine, but the reading is almost always 200 and above. my kids always have issues, coughing, nose bleeding, and this kind of thing we can never stop. so we really need a place we can really call a decent place, to be able for human beings to live. this is the great concern that we really want to speed up and share it with you folks. [interpreter speaking] >> she has 30 seconds. >> okay.[speaking foreign language]
>> okay. >> speaking through interpreter: well, i also want to let you know during the past few years, i have been applying for the affordable housing, but we never got it. i'm not quite sure whether because the number is very scarce and limited. and we would also like to share my feeling is because living in such a situation and environment, it really gives a negative impact for the kids growing up in this area. i hope you would seriously consider giving more funds under measure "c" and understand our terrible situation that we've been facing for those people living in cubicals in chinatown. >> interpreter is finished. >> hello, caller. >> yes. this is david elliot
lewis. i wanted to talk about the importance of having dignified and healthy housing. if you're going to invest money in housing, every unit, whether it is purchased or purpose-built, should have a bathroom and cooking facilities. the cooking facilities and bathroom are both critical for hygiene and for health. asking people to live in congregate facilities with congregate cooking facilities or having them eat out, that doesn't make sense in the age of covid, which will be with us for years. i just think there should be a minimum requirement, both bathrooms and cooking facilities, in anything that you buy or build. david elliot lewis. thank you for your time. >> thank you so much. hello, caller?
>> okay. >> speaking through interpreter: well, as i told you, i have a family of five. the youngest son always asking me how long i have to wait to have my own bed because all five of us have been living on the same bed for that long. and my mouth keep wide open because i have no answer to my kids. [interpreter speaking][speakingn language] >> okay. >> speaking through interpreter: as i told you, i have been applying for the affordable housing the last 16 years.
i'm very disappointed we are not able to get one. i imagine because the criteria is so high, and that we are not able to qualify. [interpreter speaking][speakingn language] >> okay.[speaking foreign language] >> okay. >> speaking through interpreter: well, i hope folks will understand that we really have been having a serious health issues,
that we've been all together in such a small space, 24 hours around the clock, during shelter in place. every one of us have respiratory problems. and because of the air being very terrible and stuffy, i really would hope and beg that something would happen soon and that we have more funds allocated to the group of people like us so that we would at least have some hope in the future. >> let her know she has 20 seconds remaining. [interpreter speaking][speakingn language]
>> okay. >> speaking through interpreter: so i'm really asking that during our waiting, i'm asking you to allocate more on the measure "c." i also was asking for some kind of financial subsidiaries for the people who have been waiting for getting approved to get into the housing program because this kind of living environment is really creates a terrible negative impact for the kids who grow here. we really have suffered so much in all these years. i hope our requests will be heard and be understood, and we really appreciate your help and support. >> interpreter speaking is finished. >> great, thank you. [please stand by]
>> it's really important that san francisco supports this population that have been widely underserved in our community. [inaudible] >> -- and considering that women are most often the sole or primary caregivers or children is vital that these women get the support that they need while they're navigating and challenges the systems face: mental health, trauma, and housing.
it's important that they need the space and time to work on these things, get back on their feet, of course, with the goal being that they're on track to permanent and stable housing. it's really, really important that we work on keeping the women and children together as a family unit and work on treating them not as individual adults because we see more positive outcomes when families get to grow together. thank you for all the work that you've done, and i implore you to work on housing stabilizations for women and their kids.
>> thank you for your call. hello, caller? hello, caller? there's no additional public comments at this time. >> thank you very much. >> could we just -- last time, there was a bunch -- could we just do it one more time with the interpreters so i can make sure that nobody gets missed? >> okay. so interpreters, can you -- >> oh, sure, oh, sure. [speaking cantonese language]
and secretary ho, can you check? >> we do have a caller. >> hello. my phone cut out. are we on prevention investments? >> no, we're on family housing. >> okay. thank you. >> no further callers. >> okay. great. so i see member friedenbach, you have your hand raised, but member reggio, if you could walk us through the family and the t.a.y. >> okay. let's go with family first, if we may, having just heard somebody -- so many people speak to the families.
so again, we're going to start with that column and the outcomes related. so previously in december, we released for family $4.7 million. released meaning recommended to the board. there was a little bit of bonus pay for that and families. there was $100 million that would be leveraged in this case for mostly construction where we would see mohcd active in the strike team acquisition. the reason we're doing this is we believe there will be a more limited supply of housing that
is suitable for families given the size and the level of need there. and the downside is it takes a little bit longer to develop and acquire. we're looking at mohcd hoping that mohcd would take the funds, issue a [inaudible] to the developer, and this fund would be leveraged, having to be brought in some other sources, as well. leverage is a guess, but guessing it would pull in about 560 k for development. we would be considers in the provider -- would be looking at
increased, up to $13.4 million per year as the number of units would increase to 450. the funding would allow us to get the buildings. by 2023, if we can get to that 450 over the course of time, and there will be additional commitment over time, which is why we're reserving some funds here. we're going to skip affordable housing for now. if we can go up to t.a.y. -- or do you want me to do everything? >> yeah. we're doing everything for t.a.y. >> okay, so i can go through flexible? >> you can go through everything. >> okay. the community was not recommending with us that we go
with rapid rehousing and short-term subsidies but rather long-term support. initially, we had this at 500 units. we couldn't afford 500 units with subsidies. we couldn't afford that, so we're leaving it at 300. we're very impressed by the folks that were calling, including the homeless population, in our view, folks who were housed three, four, five six in a room with a bathroom down the hall, and
that would be at a cost of the 340 k per year subsidy. and if we can go to the top one, the t.a.y., we previously released in december, 5.5 for 20 flex pool and 60 rapid rehousing. we are recommending $90 million released to develop at least 225 units acquired in rehousing and approximately 25 for those with behavioral health needs. we're assuming the cost of about 350 to 400 per unit. and while we're covering the full cost here because -- or
doing the math, we're putting in full cost because of the greater challenge we think it might be for leveraging outside funds for an aging population. nevertheless, we're encouraging the strike team as it goes about its work to look at how to bring that above that 90 number. we're looking at acquisitions, plus goods and services at folks who are in the eraf funded -- any way, i think it's called the artmar.
skipping down, operations, specific, if you go down to line 23, the bridge housing would be 2.3 million. flex, that would be 4.6 and 7.5 over the two years. that's a total for t.a.y. that's being requested of $114 million, and chair, i don't know if you want a motion now -- >> thank you, and we're actually going to -- member nagendra is going to recuse herself for all of this, so if there's a motion for family, we'll take that first. >> i see member friedenbach has
her hand raised. >> umm, thank you. okay. am i unmuted? okay. so i have a motion for family that i had mentioned earlier that, really just concerned about making sure that when we do acquisitions, we don't acquire buildings that are already filled from tenants and we can't make room for new tenants. so my motion is for all family acquisitions, we recommend that housing include some larger units, and in any acquisition, that they be at least two thirds vacant so homeless can move in. >> okay. we have a motion. can we have a second? >> second.
>> okay. can she rereal it. >> so my motion is for any family acquisitions, we recommend that housing include some larger units, and in any acquisition, that they be at least two thirds vacant so homeless can move in. >> okay. we've got a motion and a second. can we call the roll on this? [roll call] >> so the motion passes. so it's -- member friedenbach, did you have -- >> yeah, just one more motion. i'm going to combine these, even though they're not totally
connected. i want to make sure that in our line -- or row 32, p.s.h. operations and services and new acquisitions, that we add, slash, new construction, and that where we mention families, we say families and pregnant people. >> all right. and that is a -- all right. city attorney, laura, can we take that language or do we
need a motion? >> so are you just saying insert the policy discussion around these items, you would want to make sure that it's families and pregnant people? >> correct. >> okay. i have a motion to ensure that -- i guess i'm wondering whether that is, like, are we changing a definition in sort of this? >> we're calling out the need that pregnant people have that are currently underserved by our system, so we want to definitively put that in there as we're moving this forward that pregnant people are considered. >> yeah. and my question is, is that definitional for the ordinance. are we redefining something about this for this bucket? >> we're not redefining.
i'm adding it in from a policy perspective. >> okay. >> so do we need it as a motion? that's the question. >> can i jump in? hi. is it -- could it be possible -- and this is to member friedenbach. could it be possible in the notes to the right that we just specify that we have a lot of things in there, that we say sort of a little more information on what we mean by it? so in there, if we also say understanding that families who are homeless also include woman who are pregnant. >> yeah. member freeden bomb, it sounds like the statement is we want
pregnant women to be recognized as families, so member friedenbach, if you could make a motion far that. >> so we move that pregnant women are recommended as families in our family housing section. >> i'd like to make a friendly amendment, as someone who cannot biologically have a child. can we focus on people like me who cannot have a child? >> she said pregnant people. >> so i cannot be pregnant, so how i'd like this language to be modified is to include
pregnant people or individuals who are in the process of -- i don't know how to put this right, but i'm just going to say it, individuals who are preparing to have a child, so individuals regardless of biology. >> yeah. that sounds great, member haines. >> i would hate for a situation to come later who says, i cannot get pregnant, but i am preparing to have a child, so i would appreciate the language to be inclusive of that. >> thank you, member haines, for that discussion. hello? hello? >> hi. this is deputy city attorney givner. just following up on laura's note earlier, if the committee is proposing to appropriate
funds into the bucket that must support families with children under 18, then the statement must include families who are preparing to have children but do not currently have children under 18 may expand that bucket. i'll look into that further and get back to you, but i want to flag that as potentially a definition. >> well, pregnant people would include people under 18 because zero is zero and above. that is the piece i think member haines is now adding in there, so i -- i mean, i would just say, it's up to you, member friedenbach. >> i'm going to restate the
motion. so i'm moving to include pregnant people and those who are preparing to have children if legally allowable in the family housing section. >> thank you, member friedenbach. is there a second? i think vice chair d'antonio, you were the seconder. >> yeah. i'll second. >> okay. so -- >> i would -- there's obviously not time to get complete clarification from the city attorney, but we're trying to be inclusive, and i appreciate member friedenbach for her willingness to be inclusive there. it still sort of creates an
opportunity where those people are unfortunately not going to get it, so i don't want to beleaguer this point anymore, other than it's my thought that we be a little bit more inclusive in their language to include people who cannot have a biologically unable to have children but are preparing to have a children themselves. >> i don't think we can do that now, but i want to -- [inaudible] >> sure. i just want to be clear where i can. you all know that i'm two spirited and that i would like to have a child. i did have a knee jerk the way that came, and i know that others did, as well. >> thank you. we need to have a vote, so secretary hom, can you please
call the roll on this motion? [roll call] >> yes. so the motion passes, so member reggio, we're now on thai and complete families, so if you or someone else would like to make a motion on the t.a.y. and family pods? >> so i would move we approve the recommendation as presented for both the t.a.y. and the family contemplations. >> and city attorney givner, quickly, do we have to separate that out or can we take it together on both, the vote? >> you can take it together.
[roll call] >> okay. the motion is approved. we have some extra time. there's an sfgovtv issue that we have a little later, so we do need -- we don't have that much time because they'll have to stop recording, but we can kind of hopefully at least get one more through, and then, we can check in before we do the next one. >> okay. awesome. so i'm going to turn it over to cynthia for number 7? >> thank you, chair williams. so i want to acknowledge member leadbetter for being the liaison and doing the incredible work that involves working with mohcd and h.s.h.,
so i'm going to do my best through get through this, and i'm going to go fast. i just wanted to give some quick overall comments just to contextualize this so i can go faster. so the first three target homeless prevention, eviction prevention, problem [inaudible] we're putting together for a reason is sort of the bulk of the program. this is the work that mohcd and h.s.h. have been doing with their provide network to expand their prevention system and
really start to scale to meet that need. and this is focusing on a more targeted homeless prevention which is building on their eviction prevention and housing stabilization work. there's not many in the first year, but eventually, it will be added. right now, those are added to special populations below, and eventually, it'll have problem solving, as well. the other thing that we have in this proposal is really combining some of these short to medium term rental subsidies. really, we heard loud and clear from communities, from city departments, to make this set of strategies more flexible especially during this list of
rad gees to have greater caps and more flexible uses, so that's really what's kind of embedded in these recommendations and the targets range depending on the household needs. but we heard the calls for the increasing amounts. so i will just say that, and i'll go through them a little bit more in detail. you can see the bulk in the top homelessness prevention and the whole sort of immediate -- short to medium term flexible subsidies, and the description where we thumb from, it was really a mix of the departments and the listening sessions, and you can see that the plexible financial systems and the targeted homelessness prevention are really meant to serve people who may become homelessness and that reaches out to into housing situations
[inaudible] and some multiyear, and any unspent funding in these subpopulation categories could then eventually be reallocated if it works out. this is something that really came through the listening sessions, and to exit homelessness and ensure housing stability for adults that would be available at access points and other facilities that serve adults, so training stipends and stuff like that to help people increase their availability and income. then, we have short to medium term rental subsidies for housing stabilitization purports? so we specifically have for
justice involved people, we heard this in justice involvement listening sessions, to make sure that this is allocated here specifically for people who are justice involved to make it more accessible or equitable for justice involved. with regard to justice involved women and their children, this is for housing stabilization. problem solving plus for the shelter in place rehousing. that's in the h.s.h. specifically for the shelter in place that are in the hotels currently. then, you have a series of flexible problem solving, flexible [inaudible] bucket for
transition-aged youth, and then, we also have a specific bucket for veterans to layer on these flexible subsidies along with whatever is available to veterans in the shelter in place, flex pool, other categories of funding. legal and support services to support disability income is here and other workforce strategies to support young adults. there's also direct -- i believe one of these is direct cash. in row 16, there's direct cash transfer. i want to point this out. the flexible subsidy is direct cash transfer to youth and young adults experiencing homeless, so i wanted to call that out, as well. i'm going to stop there and see if there's any questions, discussion, or anything i've
missed. >> thank you, member nagendra. we're actually going to go to public comment? >> members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call 415-655-0001 and enter access 164-187-9247, then press pound and pound again. press star, three to enter the queue to speak, and wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. you will have two minutes, and translators, could you also go through your speech, as well? [speaking cantonese language]
these. 69% of our clients are experiencing homelessness or are marginally housed. the covid-19 pandemic has hit low-income tenants in the bay area especially hard. approximately 140,000 households are behind on rent, owing nearly $500 billion. every day at g.l.i.d.e., we see people making difficult choices, including food and health care. that's why an integrated model
is just so important for reducing the total number of homelessness in families. in a survey conducted by our family, youth, and child care, 93% of respondents reported income losses due to the pandemic. 46% did not have any weekly income, and 71% of the women surveyed said g.l.i.d.e. has helped them avoid hunger, so please support these programs so san francisco can provide comprehensive rental and related assistance for unhoused and other vulnerable populations. thank you. >> thank you. secretary hom, how many public commenters do we have in the queue? >> we have two more. >> okay. two minutes is fine. >> we have one more. one dropped off. hello, caller?
>> hi. this is steve culbertson, the director of swords to plowshares. the secretaries of h.u.d. and the v.a. declared one week ago today that they are going to work on educational backgrounding veteran homelessness again and we are committed to ending veteran homelessness. there are currently as of today 305 veterans on the list in san francisco, and with this fund ing that's committed today, we believe we will be able to end veterans homelessness -- veteran homelessness in san francisco. we want to thank you for your hard work, specifically for julia and cynthia for including this in the section, and we
look forward to working with you into the future. thank you. >> great. there are no additional public comment. >> okay. thank you. i'm going to go back to member nagendra. do you have a motion for prevention? >> i move to vote on the prevention -- i move to vote on the entire block of prevention recommendations. >> thank you. is there a second? >> can i clarify that you're moving to recommend the entire block. >> yes, i recommend the entire block, and we're going to move to recommend the entire block and just vote on them as one block. >> okay. great. thank you. is there a second? >> i'll second. >> second. >> all right.
i heard a second from member reggio. any discussion? i think we've discussed quite a bit, but secretary hom, could you call the roll. [roll call] >> all right. so that motion passes. thank you, everyone, and we are at 12:42. i'm going to check in again with our staff. if we can go to shelter and move through that briefly. laura, mary, are you guys good? can we -- >> yeah. we have a hard stop at one for our translators and for our video, so we may have to pause
if it goes long. >> we're trying to get -- i have a hard at 1:00, too, so let's get into it, so member friedenbach, please. >> hi. thank you, chair williams. so the shelter section, this was the recommendations that used 100% of the shelter funds, so we kind of had to -- in order to get community priorities in there, we had to reduce some of the stuff from the city, and i think we landed as a really good balanced spot after a lot of really positive discussion. but you'll see on that first row is the previously released, and then, that includes our release, december 30, 2020, with the backfill things. so the first thing that's the trailer program that's out in the bayview, out in the water
there, and they were able to reanalyze their costs and bring those down, which is great, and this would continue 120 trailers through -- in an on going way. the next piece is the safe sleeping spots, and that is basically continuing and aligning with the city's response. we reduced it slightly because the safe sleeping village on stannion is supposed to close, but we're talking about increasing the spots in 22-23, and there was a request for navigation operations from the city, and we partially funded that.
we've mostly funded that, but shaved some of that. their ask was 16.5, and we moved it down to 13.5. this was asking them to come up with other sources. prop c doesn't have to be the only funding sources. this is really exciting. we heard a lot about this, about wanting to have a safe parking program in the bayview. this is about 100 slots. we also have this beautiful opportunity for the drop-in shelter, which we heard from the community, to able to convert a hotel to a drop-in center for family. we're trying to partner with
parole for folks coming out of jail to have a place to land, and we heard a lot around d.v. and pregnant people and families, which includes adopted families, anything that -- however people identify as families, about wanting to have some more interventions there? and we ended up doing hotel vouchers, emergency hotel vouchers, to expand to those that were happening in both d.v. and the homeless system so we could have about five hotels per night for folks fleeing domestic violence when the shelters are full and shelters for pregnant people. there were a couple of things that were zeroed out that i kept on there that i want to make we come back and look at
when some of these funds goes? we have a congregate living center in the mission. consider moving away from that so there's a little bit more privacy there. we have folks with more severe behavioral health issues, and it would be wonderful to be able to do that, and there's a hotel where we could do that if we wanted to do that in the future where the owner is really amenable to doing that, and it's a really nice space. so those are two things that are not on there but that i just wanted to mention. we have about 600,000 leftover at the end of next fiscal year but i said it would be freed up to do some other stuff. big things that we want to do in the future in the shelter system as a whole. i'll stop there. >> thank you very much, member
friedenbach. did you want to make a motion? >> yeah. >> i'm sorry. did we need to take public comment? >> oh, yes, we need public comment. secretary hom? >> members of the public who wish to make public comment should call 415-655-0001 and then enter access code 146-187-9247. press pound and pound again. please wait until the system indicated you have been unmuted and then you may begin your comments. you will have two minutes. translators, could you provide your comments. [speaking cantonese language]
>> thank you. secretary hom, do we have any public comment? >> i do not see any public comment. >> okay. so member friedenbach, if you would like to make a motion, the floor is yours. >> yes. i'd like to make a motion that the body approve the shelter recommendations as outlined in the chart. >> okay. is there a second? >> second. >> seconded by -- oh, seconded by member leadbetter. welcome back, member leadbetter. any discussion on the motion? seeing none, secretary hom, do a roll call. >> i see several speakers. >> i think those are from the previous one. >> okay. i'll go ahead and call the roll. [roll call]
>> so the motion passes, and we now have to go back to general public comment, item 1, so is there any general public comment for items not on the agenda? >> i will go ahead and call. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call 415-655-0001, access code 146-187-9247, pound, and then pound again. if you have not already done so, press star, three to speak, and the system will indicate
>> thank you so much, and this is again for actually item 2, items that are not on the agenda, so is there any public comment for items that are not on the agenda. >> i don't see any public comments. >> okay. thank you, secretary hom, and i just want to affirm with city attorney givner, we are tabling item 9 and item 10. do we need a motion for that. >> madam president, you do not need to take a motion.
the chair can decide not to proceed. >> thank you. just making sure. all right. is there a motion to adjourn? >> can i just take a second to note, i think [inaudible] this is quite a historic day, and i just want to recognize that for many of us, we've lost loved ones, we've worked in that field for a long time, and i just want to take a moment to remember all the lives out there that were touched out there. stay safe, everybody, and thank you for your work. >> thank you so much, member leadbetter. i should pause, as well. this is a very intense day for us. we're going to have the results, i know, of the george floyd trial in the next hour,
and just want to say i appreciate all of you guys so much. this is monumental, and i just want to tell you that i appreciate everyone. we've got five minutes on the clock. is there anything that anyone -- >> so since some items are going to be continued, we're going to try to schedule the follow-up meeting for next week, so just be on the look out for that. it'll be for the behavioral health section only, but -- and the last item. so just -- just to flag that we're going to loop back for that, so be on the look out for a poll or just a meeting invite, so we'll try to get that done asap. >> thank you. and again a big thank you to our interpreters and city
attorney givner and for sfgovtv for hanging with us. any other -- >> i've just got to say, this has been such a long journey for me personally, getting this to the ballot, and this is just a lot of blood, sweat, and tears. everyone here, i just think this is an such an amazing team, and i just want to thank all the brilliance and everything that they bring to the table and all of us who worked on prop c because it was a monumental effort, and, like, it's coming to fruition, and this is going to be so amazing, so big love. >> thank you all. appreciate it, and is there a motion to adjourn? who wants to do the honor? >> so moved, with gratitude to
all of you. >> all right. so it's been moved by member reggio. is there a second? seconded by vice chair d'antonio. let's do a roll call on this, secretary hom. [roll call] >> and we are -- i see member miller, did you have your hand -- oh, no, you're good. so we are now adjourned at 12:57 p.m. big thanks to all of you, and we will be setting up the mental health meeting with you all.
>> >>[music] >> i came in with her impression of what i thought it was good >> what i knew about auditing with the irs spears i actually knew nothing about auditing >> in my mind it was purely financial. with people that audited the pain no one wants to deal with it >> now i see a lot of time explaining auditing is not just about taxes. >> oftentimes most students believe that auditing is only financial whereas when they
come into a government environment we do much more than financial audits. we do operational audits that were looking at the operations of the department for economy and efficiency and effectiveness. >> when i hire an intern some of the things that i am looking for first of all is is this individual agile and flexible because i am our environment is so fast-paced and where are switching from project to project depending on what's going on in the government at any given time. >> primarily i didn't with audits on utilities management across city departments. >> citywide this ods management audit was also been assisting with housing authority audit program >> the homelessness audit >> the it functions >> [inaudible] >> were starting any water on the department of public housing environment allows >> i also assist with the [inaudible] program. >> then additionally i really enjoyed having staff who have
some critical thinking skills. because i believe the basis of auditing is not do you know how to audit, but to have critical thinking skills [inaudible] >> [inaudible] even though i've only been here for short time our quick in-depth analysis and research >> analytical skills there's a lot of taking enlargement of information a compacting it a very concise report because we've a big focus on [inaudible] if you're transmitting this information to the audience you need him to be able to understand it. >> so i work with the sparrow program primarily. broadway stan abused [inaudible] they prepare me for full-time employment because i knew i could not to challenge myself in order to be an auditor. >> at the [inaudible] we are a content feedback and communication and they pointed out areas where i need to grow.
>> one of the things i like about working at [inaudible] is that they actually give you quite a bit of autonomy i feel like kevin sage trusted me. >> the environment really [inaudible] to everyone feeling super collaborative and wanting to get to know one another. which i think at the end of the date is a better work environment and gives you a better workflow. >> i believe that a really is a great experience because it provides an opportunity to have a better understanding of how government works. >> i think what i've learned so far is that every audit is unique everyday. different learning opportunities. >> the recordation we make in on its i can honestly go home at the end of the day and zack and treated [inaudible] in a better way. >> even of not familiar with what auditing is you should deftly find out. it's been really really awesome he was it turns out there's a whole world of auditing that i cannot open file oriented performance and