Good morning.

The meeting will come to order.

Welcome to the July 16th 2025 meeting of the Budget and Finance Committee.

I'm Supervisor Connie Chan, Chair of the Committee.

I'm joined by Vice Chair Supervisor Matt Dorsey and member Supervisor Joan Guardio.

Our clerk, it's Brent Halipa.

I would like to thank SFGov TV Kalina Mendoza for bycasting this meeting.

Mr.

Clark, do you have any announcements?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just a friendly reminder to those in attendance to please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices to prevent interruptions to our proceedings.

Should you have any documents to be included as part of the file, they should be submitted to myself, the clerk.

Public comment will be taken on each item of this agenda.

When your item of interest comes up and public comment is called, please line up to speak on the west side of the chamber to your right and my left, blowing those curtains.

And while not required to provide public comment, we do invite you to fill out a comment card and leave them on the trade by the television to your left and by those doors.

If you wish to be accurately recorded for the minutes, alternatively, you may submit public comment in writing in either of the following ways.

Email them to myself, the budget and finance committee clerk at B-R-E-N-T.j.org.

If you submit public comment via email, it will be forwarded to the supervisors and also will include it as part of the official file.

You may also send your written comments via U.S.

Postal Service, Tower Office and City Hall at one Dr.

Carlton because the place.

Room 244, San Francisco, California, 94102.

And finally, items acted upon today are expected to appear on the Board of Supervisors' agenda of July 22nd, unless otherwise stated.

Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr.

Clerk.

And uh everyone would like to remind you that uh today uh we actually have 14 items on today's agenda, so it's quite long.

Um, out of which actually majority of them have the budget and legislative analyst report.

So we will have department presentation and then followed by the budget and legislative analysts.

Uh then we will take questions and then we go to public commons.

Uh again, because we have such a long agenda, um uh we're gonna limit public comments to one minute today.

Um, and so that we can complete in a timely fashion.

And so let's uh Mr.

Clark, please call item number one.

Yes, item number one is an ordinance approving uh the health service system plans and contribution rates for calendar year 2026.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And the sponsor of this legislation is uh Vice Chair Dorsey.

Vice Chair Dorsey, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Chair Chan.

And as uh the Board of Supervisors representative on the San Francisco Health Service Board, I want to start by thanking Director Reagan and my fellow commissioners for their diligent work in reviewing and approving the 2026 health plan rates and contributions.

Um these plans reflect the city's continued commitment to providing high-quality affordable health care for our active uh employees and retirees and their families.

Um, only in the context of health care could we look at an average premium in premium increase of 8.2% and call it moderate.

Um, but that is the reality of our times, not just in San Francisco, but nationwide with a disproportionately large uh generational cohort of baby boom retirees, and there's also new drugs that while promising for a multitude of health issues are also quite expensive and at least five years away from being eligible for um status as generics.

Um I should note that these rate adjustments come to come after a period of heightened awareness around provider access.

Um, for those of us here on the Board of Supervisors, we heard a lot from our employees and retirees and no small number of our constituents about some of the understandable trauma and uncertainty arising from the recent situation with Blue Shield and UC Health.

Uh, while no one ultimately lost coverage, many members, especially retirees, received notices uh about potential disruptions that were understandably quite alarming.

Uh, fortunately, an agreement was reached before any impact occurred.

But the experience underscored the importance of maintaining continuity of care and providing clear, timely communication.

On the Blue Shield and UCSF front, I want to express my appreciation to City Attorney David Chu for his leadership in joining me in a letter to express the city's intent to explore its legal options if necessary if the coverage were to be withdrawn in the middle of a plan year.

Um, but taken together these developments show how vital it is that we remain vigilant and transparent and proactive in protecting the health benefits of our workforce and retirees.

Um that's something I'm doing as conscious conscientiously as I can as the board's appointee to the health service board.

So, on behalf of the health service board, I'm hopeful that the city will improve these plans and contributions rates, and that all of these all those covered will continue to receive the care that they expect and deserve.

And with that, I believe, budget chair chair, you may want to offer some remarks.

Frankly, it's it's a critical time.

I'm just really grateful for first and foremost, you know, giving us the update.

Um in almost real time uh with this uh Blue Shield and uh UCSF negotiation, and thank you so much, Vice Chair Dorsey.

That in the midst of budget, I have to say, like he and I had a quick conversation about this, uh, particularly on Blue Shields and UCSF concerning this, and he got right to it, and I just cannot believe I do believe actually your work and along with Supervisor Malgar uh and with the Razo actually contributed to that, but um it does highlight uh the work ahead.

So I do um not look forward, but I know it's a necessary conversation for not just this year, but really upcoming year uh or years uh a projection of where the rate uh it's gonna be.

But that sort of leads to where we're at now.

The floor is yours.

Great, thank you.

Good morning, Chair Chan and committee members.

I'm Ray Gehan, the executive director of the health service system today.

Our chief financial and affordability officer Iftakar Hussein and I will be presenting information in support of the proposed ordinance to approve the San Francisco Health Service Systems Medical Dental Vision, life and disability insurance plans, as well as the contribution rates for these programs for calendar year 2026.

Let me begin by stating that the health service system agrees with the budget and legislative analysts report.

I also want to acknowledge the significant contributions and support of this work from our actuary Mark Clark from Aon Consulting, who is here with us today.

In this presentation, I'll begin by briefly mentioning the role of the health service system and the purpose of the proposed ordinance before you today.

I'll then turn it over to If Dakar Hussein, who will walk you through the cost drivers for the increases in the premium costs and the contribution rates, as well as the work our staff perform to help control these increases.

We'll then stand ready to answer any questions this committee may have.

The San Francisco Health Service System serves as employee benefit administrator for the city and county of San Francisco, the San Francisco Unified School District, City College of San Francisco, and the San Francisco Superior Court.

We currently are responsible for over 138,000 covered lives and manage over 1.1 billion dollars in annual premiums.

The city charter tests the health service board with reviewing the adequacy of the health care benefits provided under the these HSS plans every year and recommending their appropriate premium rates for the upcoming plan year.

The charter also requires the health service board to conduct a survey of the 10 largest California counties, not including San Francisco, to determine their average contributions towards health care coverage, and that average is used to determine the city's contribution for its retired members and a small number of our union groups.

This charter then assigns the Board of Supervisors with approving the health service board's recommendations through the ordinance that is before you today.

And with that, I'll turn over the presentation to Iftakar Hussein, our chief financial and affordability officer.

Thank you, Ray.

So this slide, I'll just orient you to this slide.

This shows the historical trends, the very dark line, the black line is the SFHSS trend, and the uh yellow line is a close benchmark that we followed that is the 10 county average.

Um so the couple of notable things on this uh on what the slide shows is that um we have seen a a very large increase beginning in 2024, which is a delayed impact of the pandemic, a very high inflationary 10 health care, and that it is somewhat last year, but it is a little concerning that it's kind of the rates have gone back again in 2026.

The overall health care trend uh from our actuary is between 7 to 9% for 2026.

So we've come in at an average of 8.2, so we are within the range.

And in the next slide, I'll I'll go over the detail by a health plan.

Um so within so we offer three uh health plans, the Kaiser Blue Shield and Health Net Canopy.

Um starting off with a positive, we the Health Net Canopy has consistently been very um um very good at affordability and not just this year but also in prior years.

Um the um opportunity there, there's a very uh low enrollment in that plan, but we have kept it because it's an affordable plan, it's a high quality, includes UCSF and other um really good uh providers.

Uh the Blue Shield plan uh is the flex funded plan.

Uh, the flex funded plans, uh HMO products have seen has this large increases, but the PPO plan had a very low increase, and on the right hand side, the retiree plan uh increases very low at 4.5, and that was locked in as part of the RFP process last year, and it shows like the the uh the power of the RFP to be able to um achieve our affordability goals.

Uh at the very top you see Kaiser uh very um and you know for this is actually the second time in three years that Kaiser has come in with very high rates, much higher than trend.

Uh those 2024 was the first, and then 2026 again.

Uh we've seen large increases from Kaiser.

Overall, we were able to get the medical cost inflation to 8.3, um 8.3%.

Um for the plan design changes, there are fairly minimal plan design changes.

The first is the regulatory requirement in California for enhanced fertility benefits, which um uh was made by all plans.

The second is the consistency on uh GLP ones uh where it is um allowable when there's a medical necessity, uh not just a weight loss.

Uh and the medical necessity is the morbid obesity definition.

So this makes the change in blue shield consistent with the design in uh the Kaiser product.

Uh the dental plans, you see, there's a large increase here, but the increase is really due to rate stabilization.

What that is is our ability to take surpluses in the trust fund from prior years from low claims and use those to fund lower rates.

So typically the surplus is reduced rates this year.

The surplus for 2026 is increasing rates because we we accelerated the recognition of those of the funding of those uh buy downs last year, and we don't have as much to buy down risk this year.

So you're seeing um this abnormality of a large of an increase, but it really is a smoothing effect of the stabilization.

Uh other increases in dental are fairly minimal.

Uh there is no uh price increase for the vision plan.

Um, VSP does an excellent job.

And for um life short-term disability and long-term disability.

We did have an RFP, and again, you could see the effect of the RFP.

We were able to save two million, which isn't, you know, um, it's a good it's a good amount of saving, but it's a 22% reduction in the spend for uh life short-term disability and life insurance that we will realize in uh 2026.

Um so that concludes my uh presentation.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Um, good morning, supervisors.

Nick Bernard from the BLA.

Item one's an ordinance that would approve the health service systems um plans and rates for calendar year 2026.

They include health vision, uh, dental and life insurance and long-term disability uh plans for active and retired employees.

Uh we summarized the cost of these plans for the city and for um employees on page eight of our report.

There's an overall 8.2% increase across all plans.

Uh that's mostly funded by the city.

The city cost of the plans in 2026 will be just over 1 billion dollars.

And in general, there are no changes to the health insurance providers or the kind of plan design or coverages within those plans, with the notable exceptions of an expansion of access to fertility care as required by federal law, and then a restriction on access to GLP 1 weight loss drugs, which is what we've seen in other jurisdictions as well.

We recommend approval of item one.

Thank you.

How has the um, you know, last year we have a lot of conversation about transitioning from United Healthcare to Blue Shield, particularly for all retirees.

How have that roll out been and and what is it?

What does it look like?

Yeah, so we had a very comprehensive plan to transition transition our retired Medicare members from Blue from United Healthcare to Blue Shield of California.

Um Blue Shield would admit that right out of the gate, there were significant issues that they had to work through.

The good news with that is those systemic issues that impacted a large portion of the Medicare population were resolved within 60 days.

After that 60-day period, where there were no more issues that were um brought up.

Any issue that was brought up after that March 1st date was individual to the employee relating to things like pre-authorization, errors committed by their medical group or their pharmacist or their doctor in prescribing a medication.

And so by and far by and large, um there have no been no more systemic issues impacting a large portion of the population since March 1st of this year.

Um so we are doing our best to have open communications with our retiree groups, including protect our benefits, offering monthly seminars and with the Blue Shield to answer any outstanding questions.

But as those issues come up, we do work to make sure that Blue Shield resolves those individual issues on a case-by-case basis as quickly as possible.

So we do feel that the transition, although it got off to wreck rocky start that at this point in time, uh I think Blue Shield has found their stride, and we don't see those um calls coming in like we were at the first of the year.

That's great, that's good to hear.

I mean, I think transitions are very easy.

Uh, the fact that you can resolve it within 60 days, that is good news.

Um, on top of your head, though, do you know roughly about how many or how many members were impacted uh on the in in for the during the initial 60 days period?

I don't have that number uh in front of me.

Um, it was several thousands.

And again, but as we talk about impacted, you know, there were a lot of members that were impacted, but they were not aware that they were impacted.

And so, you know, they were included in the issue or error, but if they didn't have to access care, they were not aware of that particular issue or error.

It was corrected, and um they would have received notification of the correction, but um, in terms of members having losing access to care or running into issues, um, by and far, it was a very small number, but but again, a number of uh we're talking in the thousands, you know, had some type of issue or error on their account, but again, those were all corrected by March 1st.

I understood.

So, what you're in what you're saying is if I understand it correctly, is members may not be aware of those issues because they were really um transition internal, well, not internally, but but really a transition from United Care to Blue Shields, but more of a behind the scenes and doc like trans system, it's a system transition uh uh issues, but not so much of members when they try to get care and not being able to access care.

That is correct.

Understood, um, like billing and things like that, that.

That just needs to be corrected.

And a large portion of the errors and issues were caused by the fact that in years past, we did have a different Blue Shield Medicare plan that we transitioned from to United Healthcare.

And unfortunately, when that transition occurred because they were moving to another plan, Blue Shield did not see the need to kind of wipe the slate clean.

And so when we transition our members back, unfortunately, there were duplication correct.

And so the plan does not use things like a primary care physician.

Unfortunately, the prior plan had record of those primary care physicians, and so that did have some impact to the members' care.

Again, you know, there were certain things that were not set up in the Blue Shield system correctly that charge erroneously charged a number of members uh incorrect co-payment when they went to a provider.

Again, you know, there was a smaller number of employees that were impacted, but again, because of the fact there was some concern amongst the retired groups, they communicated those issues out widely to the groups, which will uh resulted in a lot of communication, both to our staff and to um the Blue Shield team, where the member wasn't uh hadn't actually paid a co-payment yet, but nonetheless, they didn't they needed to be made aware of the issue and the correction, even though they might not have actually went and paid that um erroneous co-payment.

And so there were a lot of situations like that, you know, in ish and in total.

I think there were about six systematic errors that impacted a very large portion of the population.

And so I think um it was more uh and it and I don't want to uh minimize it because act you know, trust in your health care and your health care provider is uh important.

And so right out of the gate, I think we lost a lot of trust.

Our blue shield lost a lot of trust with our members.

Um, and that I think outweighed kind of the members that actually had the individual issues when they went to the providers, but again, uh we do.

You're weaking that trust.

We are slowly building that trust back up again.

We have ensured that our Blue Shield partners who are in the audience today are agreeable to those open and honest communications with our retiree groups.

Again, we have a monthly um agree to host monthly webinars with those groups where we answer those um questions on an individual basis, and we have a communication campaign again that instructs the our members on the best ways to utilize those benefits.

So I think we're slowly rebuilding those trusts, and again, the due to the fact that we have not seen any systematic issues after that March 1st date, I think we have it under control.

Um, rocky um beginning, but again, I think we are on the right path at this point in time.

Good to know.

Thank you.

And I I think that um what I do uh request uh from ongoing and now uh I think that giving the unpredictability and just volatility of just health care market in general, bar particularly also um seeing just a coverage of changes in those dynamics around Medicare and and Medicaid in general uh just um how that would impact reimbursements for our service providers.

Um just would love to see um additional reporting on a monthly basis from from you uh and your team uh to the house service board uh and then through through um vice chair Dorsey that way uh we will really appreciate it.

Yes, we we will agree to do the do that.

We will set up that report, submit it for your review, and once we have uh understanding that this is what we will submit going forward, uh we'll make sure that we follow that process.

Thank you.

And uh let's go to public comment on this item.

Yes, we're now opening public comment for this item number one.

If we have any members of the audience who wish to address this committee regarding the health service system plans and contribution rates, madam chair, we have no speakers.

Seeing a public comments, public comment is now closed.

Supervisor Dorsey, Vice Chair Dorsey.

What would you like to?

I'd like to move um, I would make a motion to send this forward to the full board with positive recommendation.

Roll call, please.

And on that motion by Vice Chair Dorsey that we forward this ordinance to the full board with a positive recommendation, Vice Chair Dorsey.

Aye.

Dorsey, I, member on Guardio.

And Guardio, I, Chair Chan.

I.

Chan, I.

We have three eyes.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

And Mr.

Clerk, please call item number two.

Yes, item number two is a resolution approving amendment number three to the domestic terminal three common use club lease between American Express Travel Related Services Company Inc.

as tenant and the city and county acting by and through its airport commission as landlord to temporary to temporarily relocate the American Express Centurion Lounge from its terminal three premises to Terminal Two during the construction of the Terminal Three West construction project expected to last approximately two years with a temporary decrease of a minimum annual guarantee amount to approximately two million and of the annual promotional charge to approximately 9,000 and a day-to-day extension of the lease term from July 18th, 2014 through November 5th, 2031 during the temporary operation of the centurion lounge in Terminal 2.

Madam Chair.

Thank you, and we have SFO here.

Good morning.

The airport is seeking your approval for amendment number three to an existing lease with American Express Travel Related Services Company Inc.

operating as the common use centurion lounge in Terminal 3.

This modification would relocate the lounge to Terminal 2 for approximately two years.

Establishes a new annual rent of 2.03 million and a promotional fee of 9,035 per year during the relocation.

It also preserves the day-for-day extension of the lease and reaffirms the airport's commitment to constructing a new entrance to the lounge at terminal three and allows the director to enter into further non-material modifications of the lease.

The centurion lounge opened in Terminal 3 West in November 2014 and is an extremely popular passenger amenity, averaging 1300 to 1500 guests daily and often reaching full occupancy.

Due to construction for the Terminal Three West Modernization Program, modification number three presents an opportunity to continue operation of the lounge, which will preserve service for passengers, employee jobs, and revenue.

The BLA has recommended approval, and I am joined by a revenue development and management team if you have any questions.

The airport is leasing space to American Express and Terminal Three for a lounge.

Terminal three is under construction, so they're moving American Express to a vacant lounge space in Terminal Two that's smaller for just over two years.

Because it's smaller, it will reduce there's a lower rent.

So the rent to the airport's going from 3.4 million dollars a year to just over 2 million dollars a year.

Uh that also has an impact on the general fund because 15% of concession revenues go to the general fund, and we estimate the cost of the lost revenues over the 28 month period is 490,000.

Uh this is still uh less than the amount um that would be lost if the airport just canceled the lease entirely, which is eight million dollars over that 28 month period.

So we recommend approval of item two.

Thank you.

Um, what is the expected date for not just a terminal three lounge?

I guess is roughly 28 months for them to relocate back, but overall just the terminal three construction at this point.

So we are going through phases right now.

We are anticipating 2027, but depending on if there are any changes and uh construction dates that's the anticipated um finish date and then we have a longer time just in case we need a little bit more runway, but we hope that it will be done within 28 months.

Sounds good.

Thank you.

I don't see any name on the roster, and I don't have additional questions.

Let's go to public comment on this item.

Yes, we're now opening public comment for this item number two.

If we have any members of the public who wish to address this committee, Madam Chair, we have no speakers.

Seeing no public comments, public comment is now closed.

Colleagues, I would like to move this item to full board with recommendation and a roll call, please.

And on that motion, the forward to the full board with a positive recommendation, Vice Chair Dorsey, Dorsey, I, member on Guardio, and Guardio, I.

Chair Chan.

Aye, Chan, I, we have three ayes.

The motion passes.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And Mr.

Clerk, please call item number three.

Yes, item number three is a resolution authorizing the Department of Technology to enter into a first amendment to the enterprise agreement with Kerasoft Technology Corporation to purchase ServiceNow software products, increasing the term for an additional four years from August 31st, 2025 for a total term from September 1st, 2022 through August 31st, 2029, and increasing the contract amount by approximately 18.4 million for a new non-text seed amount of 28.3 million pursuant to the charter.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And we have Department of Technology here.

Good morning, supervisors and colleagues.

My name is Hal Seer, strategic sourcing manager with the Department of Technology.

I'm here to seek your approval of the First Amendment to the city's agreement with Calistoft Technology Corporation for the continued procurement of ServiceNow software products.

DT established this citywide agreement three years ago to help the City Department reduce costs and simplify the procurement process.

The proposed amendment only introduces two major changes.

First, it extends the contract term by four years.

Second, it increases the NOCTHCM up by 18.5 million.

ServiceNow, it's a cloud-based platform that supports IT, HR, and other business process automation.

Today, eight departments are using this agreement to purchase ServiceNow product deletely with an estimated annual spend of 3.7 million over the next four years.

Beyond direct purchases, DT also offers ServiceNow as a shared service to other departments.

Currently, Folding Department has subscribed to this shared platform.

For example, it has been used for public safety and emergency management, citywide procurement process improvement, and fiber to housing equipment request.

This amendment will deliver multiple benefits to the city.

First, cost saving.

Second, efficiency by maintaining a single master agreement for all city departments.

We eliminate duplicated Pokémon effort across departments.

Last but not least, this agreement increases transparency in citywide technology spending, enhances vendor oversight, and supports COIS strategy to improve service delivery through technology.

Before concluding, I would like to thank my colleagues, Eddie Pasha and Jolie Guinness for championing this CTY effort.

And Jeremy Paula for his excellent analytical support.

They are also here to help answer any questions you may have.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Item three is a resolution that approves an amendment to DT's contract with CARASOft extending the agreement by four years through August 2029.

CARASOFT is the sole authorized public sector uh reseller for the service now products.

And so they were awarded a contract originally via social source procurement.

We summarize the budget on page 16 and 17 of our report.

You'll see about half the contract is used by the Department of Human Resources to track people through the recruitment process and other HR processes.

We recommend approval of item three.

Thank you.

We don't have any uh name on the roster.

I do not have additional questions.

Thank you so much for your work on this.

Uh, we appreciate it.

Uh we know it's straightforward but also uh important and critical work.

Um just regretted that it's like this is the only contractor available in the market for now, and hopefully there will be perhaps better ones and may get more competitive in the future.

But thank you so much for your work on this.

We'll go to public comments.

Thank you.

Yes, if we have any members of the public wish to address this committee regarding this item number three, now is your opportunity.

Madam Chair, we have no speakers.

Seeing no public comments, public common is now closed.

Colleagues, I would like to move this to full board with recommendation and a roll call, please.

And on the motion to forward this resolution to the full board with a positive recommendation.

Vice Chair Dorsey.

Dorsey, I, Member and Guardio.

And Guardio, I, Chair Chan.

Chan I.

We have three eyes.

The motion passes.

Mr.

Clerk, please call item number four.

Yes, item number four is a resolution retroactively authorizing the Department of Public Works to accept and expend a grant in the amount of 626,000 from the California Department of Transportation Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant for a performance period from November 4th, 2024 through June 30th, 2027 to fund the planning of the South of Market under Freeway Park and authorizing public works to execute all required documents for the project has defined the herein.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

We have to come in public works.

Good morning, Chair Chan, Supervisors Dorsey and Ingardio, Clerk of the Board.

My name is Katie Taylor.

I'm a landscape architect with the San Francisco Public Works Department, and I'm here to introduce you to the SOMA under Freeway Park Concept Design Project and request your support and approval of an accept and expend motion for the Caltrans Planning Grant.

The planning project site is about 10 acres of state-owned land in District 6, seen on the screen as part of a modeling study.

Based on the 2017 AB 857 legislation that facilitates the low-cost lease of Caltrans property for the use of public open space.

The planning department identified this site as having potential for the creation of new public open space during the development of their 2018 Central SOMA plan.

The site includes the Caltrans property between 4th and 6th Streets, from Harrison to Bryant Streets, and as part of the city's welcome zones.

Today the Caltrans infrastructure is perceived as a barrier between downtown and Silman neighborhoods.

One of the goals of our project is to reposition the infrastructure as a series of neighborhood gateways.

Public Works Bureau of Landscape Architecture has been awarded a 626,000 grant from the Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program under the category of climate climate adaptation.

This grant is intended for the evaluation and study of an open space design based on public outreach and community input.

The grant funding will allow us to work with city agencies, community members, and others to understand the site's potential for increasing neighborhood safety and wellness through recreational amenities, stormwater mitigation, new trees and plants, art and lighting.

There is a local match requirement of 140,000, which we are meeting with about $90,000 of in-kind contributions and $50,000 that has been included in the capital planning general fund budget of fiscal year 25-26.

The proposed project would begin immediately and concludes by the end of the 26-27 fiscal year.

The scope of work includes technical site analysis, public outreach, meetings with city agencies, concept level design studies, and operation and maintenance recommendations.

The complete effort will then be documented in a final plan report.

Our request today is that you recommend to the full board the approval of the motion to accept and expend Caltrans grant funds in association with the SOMA under-freeway park study.

Caltrans issued the grant award in November 2024.

The resolution is marked retroactive because that award date precedes formal board acceptance.

However, no work will be undertaken until we receive Caltrans authorization, which requires both a fully executed grant agreement and formal board acceptance.

Public works will not begin work until these conditions are met.

This is a standard administrative timing issue and not a procedural exception.

Thank you very much for your consideration, and I'm here for to answer questions you may have.

Thank you, Chair Chan.

So as the district six supervisor and somebody lives not too far away from here, I was really excited to support this resolution.

I'm a co-sponsor to accept uh funds for the future SOMA under Freeway Park.

Um I represent a district that has historically had uh paucity of uh park space.

Um I think that's changing on the waterfront, and I think it's changing here.

I'm really excited about this because I have um high hopes for what we can do to reclaim underutilized public space to fulfill the promise of the uh the state legislation that made this possible and to really reimagine public spaces in a way that uh that matters um and that will I think really be utilized by the neighborhood.

Um I happen to be there this weekend because we had a neighborhood unification that started that was centered at the the uh tree nursery.

So I got to see the dog park um myself, and as a new dog dog dad myself, I'm excited, and I think my puppy is gonna be excited to see that the new space that he is to run around in.

Um so I just want to express my appreciation to the Department of Public Works and uh also to Caltrans for everything you're doing to support this vision.

I look forward to seeing this project move ahead.

Uh, thanks again.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I am excited about it too.

I think that um my old long time workspace was actually Hall of Justice and Six and Brian's, and just kind of going by that space for a long time, and this is like a while ago, um, and like 2007, 2008, so it's a long time ago now, and just kind of see how just never loved it, but it's a space that needs a lot of love.

I do have this curiosity about noise.

Like it's like what like I think you can do a lot, like you know, I I think it's a great, seems like you could do a lot of outdoor, but I think it seems like that's kind of what I'm seeing the schematic.

I I know that that's probably not where you're going to land, but I'm just a little bit curious about noise, about air pollution, um, to have that as an outdoor space, but it's low and and what what are what would be your approach and strategy to trying to mitigate that?

That's such a great question.

Thank you for that.

Um, honestly, we don't know yet.

Our very first kickoff will be to do site analysis and site assessment, and I think it's a great idea for us to be thinking about exactly those things.

Um, yeah, and we will that that will factor into what will work well in this space and and what won't.

Yeah, look forward to investigating that and solving some of those issues.

Um I recently visited.

Um I hate to always be that one voice to be like, I went to this great place, and it looks you know, in some foreign country.

Maybe we should think about that in San Francisco.

Um, but I think um I did went to Tokyo in Japan, and I visited in 2015.

Uh, it's right by actually the um uh train, the the train system underneath it.

It was dilapidated and it was it's kind of similar situation that we've been facing in this very same similar space, and that was 2015.

And I was like, oh, what are they gonna do with that?

Um they it it is also a structural issues for them that they actually have to figure out how to um uh make it work um because the train is it's going super fast on top.

So it's not even like cars.

Um, and what they end up doing in that space, which I just recently visit, literally um 10 years later, 2020, well, twenty twenty-four um December, they actually transformed that um into a a sort of just a pop-up um stalls for bus for bars and for it's a lot of work though.

It's it's a lot of investment.

It wouldn't be sort of this like let's kind of do some quick build style, but it wasn't much uh a long longer term.

Um it becomes bars and retails as well as uh restaurants uh underneath and truly they've done a lot of work, but I think they were they were doing that also for Olympic that they were able to invest in Tokyo and have that kind of money to invest into that space.

But I'm I'm I think the outdoor space, frankly, under bridge, it's always gonna be very I I just want to offset like to to manage our expectations about what outdoor space would actually look like under a bridge and when in reality that there could be a conversation that for truly a long-term mitigating that space and make it welcoming and inviting will have to be some type of enclosure.

Um, you know, I I guess I saw that you have like tables and chairs, again on your schematic.

I'm I don't know if that's where we're gonna hand, you know, landed, but but I know it it's not gonna be easy to to that under under freeway.

Yeah, great, thank you.

Yeah, this to be clear the the work that's been done to date was very preliminary and um the the what we will undertake with this grant funding is concept design for what would be permanent capital improvements, so it'll be something more than what you've seen.

Yeah, yeah, we I and it will take some time to get to a final built project.

Yeah, and I I mean I can totally see a future where there could be like you know, food trucks and could be some enclosed like dining experience and not like an outdoor expose, but um I look forward to it.

I thank you.

Thank you for doing this.

Uh it's a long time coming.

I'm glad that you know that Supervisor Dorsey is being able to like get this uh going.

Thank you so much for your leadership on that.

It's amazing, it really is.

And it's like it's a really good investment.

I look forward to it.

Clearly, we're not the land use committee, we're just the budget committee, but money well spent, if I may say.

Like I I think more should actually be invested uh and and think about, and I'm in support of you know what other future opportunity to see be a grant funding as such to continue build this uh into something that is bigger.

So I just want to let you know that you know I understand the challenge, you know, to just sort of do doing these type of quick build, and that actually does mean that you will probably come back at some point and say now we have something that really real but require real in investments and I I want to recognize that and that to say that I'm in support of it.

Thank you.

And uh I don't see any other name on the roster, um, no additional questions for me, and then we'll go to public comment on this item.

Yes, right now opening public comment for this item number four.

If we have any members of the public who wish to address this committee, Madam Chair, we have no speakers.

Seeing on public comments, public comment is now closed.

Supervisor Dorsey, would you like to make the motion?

Sure.

Thank you, Chair Chairman.

I would like to move to send this to the full board with a positive recommendation.

Roll call, please.

And on that motion by Vice Chair Dorsey to forward this resolution to the full board to the positive recommendation.

Vice Chair Dorsey.

I member Guardio and Guardio, I chair Chan.

Chan I, we have three eyes.

The motion passes.

And Mr.

Clerk, please call items five and six together.

Yes, items five and six.

Uh item, yes, item numbers five and six are resolutions approving for purposes of internal revenue code of 1986 as amended of the issuance and sale of revenue obligations by the California Enterprise Development Authority.

Item number five is for an aggregate principal amount, not to exceed 10 million to finance and or refinance the cost of acquisition, construction, improvement, and equipping of various educational facilities to be owned and operated by La Schola uh International School.

And item number six is for an aggregate principal amount, not to exceed 80 million to finance, refinance, and/or reimburse the cost of acquisition, construction, installation, rehabilitation, equipping, and furnishing of various capital facilities to be owned and operated by national center for International schools and/or the International School of San Francisco.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And we have the controller's office here.

Good morning, Chair Chan and Supervisors.

Here to speak on both items five and six.

For the first item, also in attendance is Sir Darzov, the CFO from Last Schooler International School, and he can answer any project uh questions if there are any.

Just as a reminder for the committee and members of the public, the tax equity and fiscal responsibility act or TEFRA allows a tax exemption of interest on certain types of debt issued through the joint powers authorities.

In this case, the proposed financing is to be issued through California Enterprise Development Authority or CETA, which is a joint powers authority to which the city and county of San Francisco is a participating member.

The authority is authorized to issue bonds, notes, COPs, or other forms of debt, including refunding previously issued debt.

Federal tax law requires that the governing body of the jurisdiction in which the project is located approve the financing and the project after providing the opportunity for a duly noticed public hearing.

Public hearing on this item was published on the controller's office of public finance website on May 21st, and the hearing was held by telephone on May 29th.

There were no comments from members of the public received through the public hearing process.

The proceeds from the sale of the bonds will be loaned to last school or international school to refinance a portion of a loan incurred to pay that was incurred to pay cost of capital improvements to various facilities, including new classrooms, a visual arts workshop, a soccer field, and a teacher's lounge, which is located at the borough's K through eight campus at 3270 18th Street.

Assuming all required approvals are obtained, CETA will issue tax exempt bonds in an amount not to exceed 10 million.

The bonds will be paid entirely from payments by the borough under the loan agreement, and the city and county has no obligation to repay the bonds.

Law School International School is an international baccalaureate world school serving students from preschool through grade eight.

It was founded in 2002 and offers over 400 students a diverse multilingual and multicultural language curriculum at its San Francisco Dog Patch and Mission Campuses, as well as its Silicon Valley campus.

The school's stated mission is to inspire brave learners to shape the future, and it's paired with its values of cultural curiosity, international awareness, and embracing differences in its students and the community.

In the 2024-25 school year, the school awarded approximately 2.6 million in financial aid.

The project is located in District 6, and the legislation is being sponsored by Supervisor Fielder.

Again, the CFO from the school is here if there are any questions, and that concludes my presentation for this item.

Thank you for the presentation today.

I always appreciate the reminder.

And with that, I don't have any name on the roster.

I do not have additional questions.

Thank you so much.

And we'll go to public comment on this item.

Yes, we are now opening public comment for both these items five and six.

If we have any members of the public or as this committee, Madam Chair, we have no speakers.

Seeing no public comments, public comment is now closed.

Colleagues, I would like to send these two items to full board with recommendation and a roll call, please.

And on that motion to send both resolutions to the full board with a positive recommendation.

Dorsey I, Member Ingario, and Guardio I, Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan I.

We have three eyes.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

With that, Mr.

Clerk, please call item number seven.

Yes, item number seven has a resolution approving an agreement between the city acting by and through the Office of Contract Administration and the Dutcher Group for a custom crane barge for the uh port for an initial term of approximately two years from final execution of the contract by all parties to July 14th, 2027.

With an option to extend for a period of one year for a total not to exceed amount of approximately 16.7 million, and to authorize OCA to make necessary non-material changes to the contract prior to its final execution by all parties that do not materially increase the obligations nor liabilities to the city and are necessary or advisable to effectuate the purposes of the agreement.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And we have the Office of Contract Administration here.

Thank you.

Uh good morning, Chair Chan, Supervisor Dorsey, Supervisor Ingardio.

I'm Sailor Jacarella, the director of the Office of Contract Administration.

And I'm here today with my port colleagues to seek your approval to proceed with the uh proposed contract for procurement of a crane barge.

The custom design crane barge will allow the port to support maintenance and repair of its diverse waterfront assets.

The proposed contract is awarded to Dutra Group selected through a competitive solicitation by OCA in February of 2024.

It will have a not-to-exceed amount of 16.75 million dollars and a duration of approximately two years, expiring on July 14, 2027, with an option to extend for one additional year.

The Port of San Francisco is responsible for maintaining 7.5 miles of San Francisco's waterfront, comprised of a mix of piers, bulkheads, seawalls, and reinforced shoreline.

The department has demonstrated tremendous cost savings for marine construction projects by performing the work with its own crews.

However, its current crane barge is undersized and at the end of its useful life, requiring that the port use third-party vendors to implement these marine projects, costing the city significant time and money.

The procurement of this custom design crane barge will allow the port to directly maintain its waterfront assets for the next five decades.

The port has been planning for this procurement for a number of years with the design and specifications developed in 2017 in partnership with internal port staff and the port's engineering consultant.

As you can see here, the crane barge will support a number of the port's mission critical functions, including maritime operations through maintenance of shipbirths, including at the cruise ship terminal, maintenance and repair of commercial fishing and recreational boating assets, real estate development activities through waterfront waterfront building repair, environmental protection activities, compliance with public access mandates, and waterside disaster response.

The contract not to exceed amount is an all-inclusive price that consists of fabrication of the custom barge, installation of a prefabricated crane, functional onboard testing, professional services, transportation from the Gulf Coast Shipyard, final delivery and acceptance at the Port of San Francisco, a three-year warranty, a contingency, and sales tax.

The purchase will be funded by two funding sources.

Seventy-five percent of the cost will be covered by California State Lands Commission funds in the amount of 12.7 million dollars.

These are in-hand funds that must be expended by December 31st, 2026.

The remaining 25% of the cost, approximately $4 million, will come from the Port of SF Harbor Fund.

In conclusion, the procurement will provide for a generational piece of equipment, allowing the port to perform its mission critical functions, maintain the city's waterfront assets for 50 years, and utilize its own crews, leading to substantial cost savings for the city.

OCM OCA and the port respectfully request your approval of the proposed contract.

Thank you.

It's existing crane barge is 40 years old and smaller than this new one.

So it's beyond its useful life.

We detailed the budget for the purchase on page 22 of our report.

It includes all costs for design, manufacturing, delivery, and insurance and related warranties.

This is uh 15% more than an independent cost estimate prepared by the port.

Uh but there was only one respondent to the RFQ used to um procure this vendor, uh so there's no other options.

The port also costed out um operating um uh this crane versus renting a crane uh and determined that renting a crane would be about double the cost of operating the annual operating cost of this crane.

So there are savings over time uh from the port actually owning this asset.

Uh the this this will be paid for by um about four million dollars from the ports harbor fund.

It's a non-general fund enterprise source, um, and then 12.7 million dollars will be paid for by a state grant.

We recommend approval of item seven.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for your work on this.

Uh, we appreciate um the work.

It's even better that's not general fund.

Um, so I appreciate this.

Um, and I don't have any additional questions.

Um, I don't see any name on the roster.

We'll go to public comment on these two uh on this one item.

Yes, we are now opening public comment for this item number seven.

If we have any members of the public wish to address this committee, as soon as you begin speaking, I will begin your time.

The chair did uh did declare we are timing each speaker to one minute.

Okay, good morning.

My name is Jonathan Uramie.

I'm a field rep for the NorCal Carpenters Union, also out of local 34 POL drivers.

We uh represent Powell drivers, bridge wharf, and dock builders out of Oakland.

Um before I got into this for 10 years, I was out there building the waterfront with Dutcher Group, Power Engineers, and uh a vital tool that they have that keeps advantage from the port is having those Derrick barges with cranes, right?

And the crew is not the problem.

Having crewed up, we could obviously get you a crew, but having that crane right there could save San Francisco a lot of money.

Um you would do all your maintenance without bringing them in, and then we can man the power for you to run the crane that you own.

Umce again, Norcal Carpenters, we support this, and uh thank you.

And thank you much for addressing this committee.

And if we have no other speakers, madam chair, that completes our queue.

Thank you.

Um seeing no more public comments and we appreciate your public comments today.

And with that, the public comment is now closed.

Colleagues, I would like to move this item to full board with recommendation and a roll call, please.

And on that motion to forward this resolution to the full board to the positive recommendation.

Vice Chair Dorsey.

Dorsey, I, Member and Guardio, and Guardio, I, Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan I.

We have three ayes.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

And with that, Mr.

Clerk, please call the next item.

Item eight.

Yes, item number eight is an ordinance amending the administrative code to expand the scope of emergency procurement provisions for goods and services, hence, allow city departments to modify agreements in ways not contemplated in the original solicitations.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And again, we have the office of contract administration here.

Hi, good morning.

My name is Stephanie Tang, and I'm a deputy city administrator.

The item before you is about procurement and specifically emergency procurement.

I know we all share the goal to have a government that best serves the public, and this includes being adaptive when we are in an emergency.

And as the office of the city administrator, our central function gives us a special insight into working with the board and the departments in how we are forward thinking and advance our operational readiness.

The administrative code before you was last updated in 1999.

In the last 26 years, 25 years or 26, we've had experiences and lessons learned and how we can do better.

And this legislation is informed by our learnings.

So the next time we have an emergency, whether it's the big one, inflation based on an unexpected trade war, or a cyber attack from a national or international threat.

We think this legislation helps uphold our values and improves our city's readiness to respond.

I invite Sailija Corella, the city purchaser from the Office of Contract Administration, to walk you through the specifics of the legislation.

Thank you.

This legislation addresses, oh, next slide, please.

Thanks.

This legislation addresses two specific procurement challenges.

First and foremost, as Stephanie mentioned, it tackles significant limitations with Chapter 21, emergency procurement regulations.

In the midst of the pandemic and during the recovery phase, it became clear that the city's emergency procurement regulations were woefully inadequate to meet all potential emergency situations, hamstringing the city's ability to respond quickly to protect our citizens, remedy harms, and avoid disruptions in the provision of essential services.

To guarantee the city's ability to respond swiftly, the law needs to cover all potential emergency situations and allow for additional necessary approaches to address those situations.

Additionally, the proposed legislation improves the procurement process generally by permitting the city to respond more nimbly when city needs change.

Next slide.

Emergency procurement regulations limit the city in three critical ways.

First, the definition of emergency in the code has proved to be much too narrow.

Second, the code does not provide clarity on application of municipal code provisions for emergency purchases.

And third, the code only addresses new purchases and does not address use of existing agreements to handle specific situations.

The legislation legislation solves these issues by expanding the definition of an emergency and by including good governance reforms authorizing additional actions to respond to an emergency.

Next slide.

So starting with the definition of an emergency.

An emergency exists under current law only under very specific extraordinary conditions and as historically interpreted only upon these events having already occurred.

It thus does not explicitly allow for prevention of imminent harm.

It also does not address other situations that can critically disrupt continuity of operations.

You may recall the prolonged inflationary surge during the pandemic, affecting many different commodities and manufactured products.

Our contracted prices and price adjustment terms did not keep up with the severe inflation, and our suppliers indicated they could not continue to deliver at contracted rates, risking serious disruptions to city operations.

Now the global trade war and threat of tariffs are having the same effect.

The proposed law now addresses prevention of harm as well as situations that affect continuity of city operations, specifically global or national supply shortages, exceptional market conditions such as inflationary surges we've discussed, and other adverse impacts to operations such as cyber threats.

The current law specifically covers physical conditions only, whereas the proposed law now includes threats related to our interconnectedness, both technologically and as participants in the global market.

Next slide.

Moving to municipal code provisions, as it stands, many of our contracting programs require that city departments obtain a waiver of the law from the enforcing agency before proceeding with an emergency procurement.

During the pandemic, these internally imposed regulations caused confusion regarding compliance and slowed emergency procurement significantly.

Protection of essential services and public safety are paramount in the event of an emergency, and it's critical the city identify ineffective processes and consider methods of expediting internal controls when we need to move quickly.

So the proposed law provides an explicit exemption from municipal code requirements specifically for emergency purchases as defined under Chapter 21, enabling the city to move more speedily more to more speedily respond to the situation at hand and prevent harm.

It additionally exempts emergency purchases from competitive solicitation requirements, but it does still specify that department shall attempt to obtain multiple quotes if feasible.

I would like to note that charter provisions will still apply, including Civil Service Commission's authority governing the contracting out of work and Charter Section 9.118 governing contracting approvals by the board.

Next slide.

Current law does not clearly address or authorize important contracting approaches that may be necessary to ensure continuity of essential public services.

As examples, supply chain disruptions occurred during the pandemic across a variety of industries, as I've discussed, including the chemical industry.

This threatened the city's supply of water treatment chemicals because our supplier would not honor the contracted prices, resulting in the potential for a citywide boil water order.

The law is written required a new solicitation to create an entirely new emergency contract instead of simply authorizing an amendment to the existing contract with renegotiated pricing and commercial terms.

Additionally, during the pandemic, substantial staff resources were committed to the emergency response, and departments were unable to resolicit for non-emergency contracts that were expiring.

Laundry service contracts for the hospitals, food and food service contracts for the juvenile probation facility and its clients, and basic janitorial service for various city departments are examples.

Extension of those contracts became necessary to maintain essential public services and city operations.

Now I'm sure you can agree, such significant pauses or the risk of pauses in city operations due solely to procurement law, is not a good outcome for the city.

Multiple supplements to the COVID emergency declaration were issued during the pandemic, and the board, in fact, passed short-term legislation during recovery to authorize the two specific actions this proposed law now addresses.

Specifically, renegotiation of commercial terms on existing contracts in emergency situations, an extension of expiring contracts that cannot be resolicited while the city is responding to a prolonged emergency.

With the proposed legislation, these approaches would become permanent rather than temporary.

Next slide.

Finally, the proposed emergency procurement legislation increases the board approval threshold for emergency contracts to the minimum competitive amount and imposes a new annual annual reporting requirement for all chapter 21 emergency procurements.

Importantly, the proposed law also requires the purchaser to issue rules and regulations within 60 days of enactment, specifically to ensure appropriate guidance and controls are put in place to govern emergency procurements.

And in particular, when it comes to renegotiation of commercial terms, we recognize the critical importance of requiring sufficient due diligence on the part of departments in order to control prices and prevent profiteering by our suppliers.

Next slide.

And finally, the proposed law also includes provisions to simplify regular non-emergency procurement as well.

Departments needs sometimes change during the term of an existing contract, and is not always possible to identify or predict every single current or future need at the time the city conducts a solicitation.

Under current law, the city needs to conduct a new solicitation when departments have new needs, even when a competitively procured contract for substantially similar goods or services exists.

This is not a practical practical or sensible approach when solicitations can take months.

The changes allow the city to amend existing contracts to purchase more quantity of a good or service, replace obsolete or discontinued items, and add new goods or services that were not specifically included in the original solicitation only when those new items are substantially related to the contracted goods and services.

In closing, next slide, yes.

In closing, the proposed legislation, I want to note is forward thinking as well as grounded in past experience and lessons learned.

If approved, it will significantly strengthen the city's ability to respond to emergencies and ensure city departments' operational needs are effectively met.

Thank you.

I'm happy to take questions.

I do.

Thank you.

I mean, I think I can concur with the sentiment of what you're doing here, and I think that makes sense.

I am I am saying that it is a well-thought-out approach to you know purchasing goods and services in case of emergency nature that now that we've just been through a pandemic, I think there are actually a lot of lessons learned, and I I appreciate how this is actually rewritten and updated accordingly.

What I do have questioned though, and I would like to see a clause, and my apologies that I'm sort of spraying like I'm spraying this on you right now at this moment.

Is you know, I and I again, and when I say this, I also want to say I'm open to like a conversation.

Um, you know, in terms of emergency, I'm gonna give this example, emergency repair uh at any given time that the department uh you know within that authority actually can exercise that repair immediately, but within I believe either 30 days or 60 days of that uh initial uh announcements of re repair that the department head has to actually prepare a resolution to the board supervisor for approval about and with that not to exceed amount for that repair, and describing the repair and why it was an emergency in nature while retroactive, you know, in nature, it's still actually warrant a discussion about why it was emergency, what was actually being done, funding and then funding sources, and and I think what I'm not seeing here, and maybe I'm incorrect and help me if it and direct me to the language if that's actually there, is that um really about a similar language that I totally get that you need to do what you gotta do in case of emergency and in different kind of nature, including sort of like a proactive time that, hey, you know, we're running out of mask, or we can see that we're not gonna have enough mass to sustain us for another 90 days, we need to start actually doing that now because we can predict a supply change issues that from far, far away.

And so while we cannot be sure that it's going to arrive at our doorstep in 90 days, but we we are now projecting as so, and that it's a change of the definition of emergency nature here.

I see, makes a lot of sense.

We're not waiting until it actually happened.

Now, however, though, like what does that mean?

Because once you make that purchase of good, um, will then not be a discussion at all about that.

And I'm just trying to understand, like, how does that overlapping with the 9.118, you know, within the boards like you know, authority.

I'm I'm not trying to overreach that authority at all, is not what I'm saying.

Um, but I don't see any reference, so how me understand, like, you know, that if if it's within the if it's uh all above the limits of 9.118, we're still coming back to the board, but not in the same fashion, right?

Because this is the emergency nature.

So then we'll then we duplicate that language to say retroactively you will come back within.

I'm not saying you have to come back in 30 days, maybe 90 days, you know, that you come back, you know, with a reso for that conversation, especially given you have slightly changed the nature that's included, including a proactive response to emergency potential emergency uh situation.

So I'm gonna lay that thought for a minute and and for you to think about.

Um yeah, uh yes, uh very um uh very astute comments, and I what I do want to clarify is that the existing law itself or the proposed law has not substantially changed in terms of approvals from the current law.

Current law requires that departments uh must either seek approval uh or have them have the mayor uh create a declaration or issue an emergency declaration.

They, as a department head, if they work under uh a board or commission, must declare an emergency.

So there is some public sort of um public notice of the declared emergency by a department head and their commission.

Departments without a commission may directly declare the emergency, but in all cases in the proposed law, departments must come to the board of supervisors for approval of their contract if the contract is above the minimum competitive amount.

But I'm specifically talking about the city administrator.

Well, okay, so how does then this work here?

Uh so and again, I just want to clarify the proposed law, except for the minimum competitive amount, uh increase or the threshold increase to minimum competitive amount for board approval has not changed.

The current law, if you're talking about city administrator and office of contract administration specifically, the law has all always allowed the purchaser to act um expediently and not require approval by the board of Supervisors.

To address this, we just made sure that we included an annual reporting requirement for any department, including the purchaser and office of contract administration that issues emergency procurements.

But you're right now expanding the definition of emergency purchase, and what you're trying to say, what what I'm uh learning and and help me understand that what you're saying to what we're changing in this law is to scope the emergency, but we're not changing how the emergency services or be it goods and services or even emergency repair, that actually how it's getting approved.

That's correct, with the exception of the increase in the threshold amount for board approval.

Understood.

Could you help me understand?

I think this is a where I'm a little bit confused about this language and and um and I'm kind of getting a little bit into the we, so my apologies, and it's me trying to catch up with my homework.

Um it's on page eight line four of the legislation of the legislation uh for the rules and regulations, um, and specifically is the purchaser shall develop regulations regarding subsections 21.15, and then and then that's within the 60 days of enactment of this ordinance to give guidance on ensuring price controls and modification.

Can you help me a little bit understand a little bit more when it comes to price control in modification?

Like what what information exactly we're looking at?

Um thank you for that for that question.

Um again, very pertinent question.

Um, and I would like to note that I believe that OCA actually has some significant experience given our past um issues that we've uh experienced with contracts during inflationary surges and now with the global tariff and market trade war trade war.

Um we in fact recently issued guidance on how departments should address tariffs when they're dealing with existing suppliers.

We provided very specific information about due diligence, including documentation that departments should um receive, should make sure they receive from the vendors to ensure that the suppliers are not just profiteering, their their requests for price increases are based in fact.

Um, during the pandemic itself, uh and as I mentioned, when we were dealing with um significant inflation and price adjustment requests uh for critical uh goods and services, we took a variety of approaches, and I would say that our rules and regulations and guidance documentation would reference those approaches, which I think were very reasonable and grounded in, you know, um thoughtfulness about uh ensuring price is not uh price controls were in place.

Then I would like that document on the legislative file.

Currently, it's not on the legislative file.

There's no reference for me when I as I go through or anyone really, you know, to read through this piece of legislation and actually have some understanding what exactly you in this legislation is basing on when it comes to the price control guidance.

And so I would really appreciate that documents in itself, that guidance actually is attached to the legislation itself, because within 60 days, um, you know, it's all in your hands, right?

Like it basically what you're saying here is trust us in 60 days of the approval and the enactments of the legislations, all the guidance is now like by the by the purchaser, which makes sense.

Purchasers should actually have that authority to tell the board and the legislat you know policy maker about what that guidance of price control should be.

But I think on the record, we should at least actually understand the parameters and framework and be able to give feedback.

I have a lot of feelings about this uh right now to say that I want to send this out to full board recommendation because of those information.

Would you be inclined to at least just allow us one more week and and I am committed, I'm I'm conceptually I am supportive of it again.

It is my bad that I I feel like I just don't have enough understanding of this legislation.

I should have asked for more clarity before we arrive here today.

Um but I think that uh I not just me, I think that general public, too.

I think having that guidance on the record for us just one more week to process before we we send this out to full board.

Uh clearly I need my colleagues to be in agreement of that, and but but I I just need that one more week to just help me understand a little bit more, but but conceptually, I absolutely agree with you that, or I should say principally too, and just that like it's it's time for us to update this and and that you can be better adaptive.

In fact, I think that the state should also consider this.

And you know, stockpile is a conversation that we haven't really talk about uh, you know, as a city to to anticipate potential another pandemic or any type of uh disaster that we we should consider.

So absolutely that I think that uh in that sense you should have every um authority to make those decisions for the city uh in all levels and and help us uh make those analyses and including price control.

So I'm not uh I just want to say I'm a supporter of it, I just need a little bit more information.

Certainly.

Um, happy to share the uh tariff guidance we issued to departments maybe just a month ago or a couple months ago.

Um, and happy to we have we don't have a draft of the rules and regulations yet, but I'm happy to um bullet point out um potential guidance that we would issue around price controls.

Thank you.

Um, colleagues, what are your thoughts?

Is it okay if we just continue just one more week and just get those documentation?

I don't want to jam them in a way that you know that they have to do it by before Tuesday.

Yes, yeah, okay.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for your work, quite fairly.

Thank you.

We'll go to public comment on this item.

Yes, we're now opening public comment for this item number eight.

If we have any members of the public of Western Justice Committee, Madam Chair, we have no speakers.

Seeing no public comments, public comment is now closed.

Colleagues, thank you so much for um you allowing this.

Uh I would like to move to uh continue for one week um to our next meeting on the 23rd.

Roll call, please.

And on that motion to continue this ordinance to our July 23rd meeting of this committee.

Vice Chair Dorsey, Dorsey, I member Guardio and Guardio, I, Chair Chan.

Aye, Chan I, we have three eyes.

The motion passes.

And that Mr.

Clerk, uh, please call item number nine.

Yes, item number nine is a resolution retroactively authorizing the Office of the City Administrator to accept an expanded grant award than the amount of approximately five million from April 21st, 2025 through June 30th, 2028, from the state of California Energy Commission for Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure for Government Fleets.

Madam Chair.

We have the city administrators' office here.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Chan and Supervisors Dorsey and Ingardio.

I'm Sophie Hayward from the Office of the City Administrator, and I'm here on behalf of the fleet division.

The resolution before you today would retroactively authorize the city administrators' fleet division to accept and expend a grant in the amount of five million forty-seven thousand one hundred and sixty-seven dollars from the California Energy Commission to fund the procurement and installation of 403 electric vehicle charger ports on city-owned sites for the city's light duty fleet.

So just by way of background, uh the city's goal is to achieve full light duty fleet electrification by 2031.

And currently 60% of the existing 3,000 light duty vehicles in the city's fleet are still gasoline-powered vehicles.

One significant hindrance in progress toward electrifying our fleet is lack of uh sufficient uh charging infrastructure.

To meet the 100% electrification goal, fleet estimates that 1,500 electric charging ports are required.

And I'll say again that the proposed grant plus the identified 2.8 million dollars in matching funds will allow for the procurement of 403 new charging stations across 15 city departments and 36 city owned sites.

The grant requires installation within just two years, so that means that we'll be on track to make really significant progress toward our goal in a pretty short timeline.

We are eager to get started in part because we want to meet our goal, but also because of the threat of tariffs and supply chain issues.

If all of this sounds familiar, it's because I was before this body on April 23rd seeking acknowledgement of support for the application from the Board of Supervisors, which was a requirement from the state.

We appreciated your support then.

We're hopeful for your support today, and that concludes my short presentation.

But I'm joined by Camilla Tofic, who is the business manager for Fleet, and she and I are both available for questions.

Thank you.

Item nine is a resolution that would accept and expend $5 million from the California Energy Commission and approve the underlying grant agreement associated with those funds.

The revenues would go to the city administrators' fleet division to help install 403 electric vehicle chargers across a range of departments, which we list starting on page 31 of the report.

There is a matching fund requirement of 2.8 million dollars.

We saw the budget for that spending on page 28.

You'll see these grant revenues will fund the city's labor at the Department of Public Works and Fleet Management to install the chargers, and then the 2.8 million dollars of matching funds will primarily be used to buy the chargers.

The grant requires that they be installed by February 2027.

And because the city is already primarily using chargers from a vendor called PowerFlex.

We were able to price compare these chargers with other electric vehicle charger charging vendors based on data submitted by the fleet manager finance manager.

And they appear to be within the middle of the range, price-wise, and there's efficiencies for continuing to use the same vendor that the city is already familiar with.

So that's the backstory on procuring the chargers.

We do recommend approval of item nine.

Thank you.

I don't see any name on the roster.

Thank you so much for your work, and we'll go to public comment on this item.

Yes, we're now opening public comment for this item number nine.

If we have any members of the public wish to address this committee, Madam Chair, we have no speakers.

Seeing no public comments, public comment is now closed.

Colleagues, I would like to move this item to four-board with recommendation and the roll call, please.

And on the motion to forward to the full board to the positive recommendation, Vice Chair Dorsey.

I Dorsey, I member in Guardio.

And Guardio, I, Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan, I, we have three ay's.

The motion passes.

And Mr.

Clerk, please call item number 10.

Yes, item number 10 is a resolution authorizing the police department to accept and expand very uh expend various gifts valued at approximately 866.5 thousand from the San Francisco Police Community Foundation to distribute to the 10 police department district stations to support officer wellness events and initiatives and support community engagement events and provide equipment for the police department district stations.

Madam Chair.

Thank you, and we have SFPD here.

Thank you.

Uh good morning, Madam Uh Madam Chian and uh Vice Chair Dorsey and Vice Chair and Guardio.

Uh my name is Jim O'Miro.

I'm the acting lieutenant with the community engagement division of the San Francisco Police Department, and I'm here hoping for your support and approval of this resolution.

The San Francisco Police Community Foundation is a 501 C3 benevolent nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting the San Francisco Police Department while helping to strengthen our relationship between officers and the broader community.

The SPD applied for funding and was awarded a total of 866,500 to be distributed to the 10 district stations around the city.

That resolution was to support officer wellness events, initiatives, community engagement events, and provide equipment to the district stations.

The gifts will serve a dual purpose of approving police officer wellness morale and fostering community support and engagement.

We also understand that the SBT SAPD must obtain Board of Supervisors approval to accept a donation with a market value of more than $10,000.

I also wanted to mention some of the events we have coming up in the summer, fall, and winter, pardon, summer, fall, um, and uh winter.

Uh, some of the events that we uh have coming up that we can definitely use this money for to support of is national night out, the night markets.

We have a couple night markets coming up in the uh Richmond and Terreville district.

We also have a community police academy that we're gonna be starting, and then in the uh the fall and winter, we have the pumpkin drive, the Turkey Drive, the toy giveaway, Christmas tree to uh toy giveaway, and we're constantly have it requested to have meetings to help out with uh blessing scams, gypsy scams.

So we're out there supporting the community, and we definitely can use this uh these funds uh to help uh with not only community but officer wellness.

I'm here to answer any questions that the uh committee might have.

Colleagues, I just want to say I'm excited to co-sponsor this item because it's gonna help provide resources and support to our police officers to strengthen relationships with the communities they serve.

Um, from Christmas toy drives at Bayview Station to movie night at Ingleside.

Uh, we have quarterly community engagement events at Terravel Station in the sunset.

This funding will have a significant lasting impact in building trust between community and our police department.

I've seen it firsthand of the significant impact that the community engagement plays, especially in the Sunset District, with officers at Terreville Station and including our community safety liaison.

So, whether it's engaging and building relationships with merchants, hosting, we have coffee with a cop at the Lucky Grocery Store, or dedicating a quarterly station event to celebrating cultural events like Lunar New Year.

When we invest in these opportunities to connect police with community, that's how we improve public safety outcomes.

Uh lastly, I want to thank the work of the San Francisco Police Community Foundation and every civilian officer, lieutenant, captain within our neighborhoods because your commitment to serve San Francisco and our communities is deeply appreciated.

Thank you.

Thank you for that.

Vice Chair Dorsey.

Thank you, Chair Chan.

Um, I am very much in support of this.

And I just just to anybody who would look at something like this and think that this isn't really substantive.

I would just ask that people understand that this is actually part of what police reform is.

And this goes back not just to the San Francisco Police Department's work on the collaborative reform initiative, but President President Obama's task force on 21st century policing found that it was really necessary to make investments in relationships with communities.

This is really a foundational kind of um thing that law enforcement agencies needs to do with the communities that polices to win public support and just build relationships.

So I'm happy to support this, but I it really does occupy uh an important role in the police reform work that SFPD has done and continues to do.

Thank you.

And uh I don't have any additional questions.

Thank you for your presentation.

That let's go to public comment on this item.

Yes, if we have any members of the public who wants to address this committee regarding this item number 10.

Now is your opportunity.

Madam Chair, we have no speakers.

Seeing no public comments, public comment is now close.

Uh supervisor and guardio, what would you like to do?

Sounds good.

A roll call, please.

I guess we have the speaking team mic.

Yeah, send us to the full board with recommendation.

Thank you much.

Uh and on that motion by member and guardio, that we forward this resolution to the full board with positive recommendation.

Vice Chair Dorsey.

Dorsey, aye, member Engardio and Guardio I.

Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan I, we have three eyes.

A motion passes.

And Mr.

Please call the next item.

Item.

Item 11.

Yes, item number 11 has an ordinance approving and authorizing the director of property to acquire certain real property located at 601 to 617 Laguna Street, approving and authorizing an agreement of purchase and sale for real estate for the acquisition of the property from Pacifica SFOLC for approximately 11 million, together with a construction management agreement attached as exhibit E to the purchase agreement for the completion of certain improvements and the repair of deficiencies on the property by the seller for an amount not to exceed approximately 8.1 million that includes a construction management fee on amount not to exceed 800,000 for the city contingency and an amount not to exceed 30,000 for closing costs for a total anticipated not to exceed project cost of 20 million, authorizing the director of property to make certain modifications to the purchase agreement and take certain actions in furtherance of the purchase agreement, exempting the project from contracting requirements in the administrative code, approving the seller and its architects, uh consultants, general contractors, subcontractors, employees and affiliates without competitive bidding, but requiring the payment of prevailing wages, implementation of a local business enterprise utilization program in compliance with the city's local hire policy and first source hiring ordinance, and placing the property under the jurisdiction of the real estate division, affirming the planning department's determination under the California Environmental Quality Act, and adopting the planning department's finding that the purchase agreement and the transactions contemplated therein are consistent with the general plan and the eight priority policies of the planning code.

Madam Chair.

Oh no, we have real estate.

Oh, hi, Director.

Bit of a surprise.

Good uh morning, Chair Chan, Supervisor Dorsey, Supervisor Ingurdio.

Uh the real estate division's portion of this presentation will be done by Mr.

Jeff Suisse of my office.

Mr.

Suisse is my transaction team manager.

He's been with real estate for more than 10 years and manages a team of six transaction agents.

You'll be seeing Jeff at the podium more frequently in the coming months.

Uh and with that, Jeff Swees.

Well, it's good to see you, Director Penning.

This is not your last presentation.

It may be, yeah.

Let's not be, but like well, it should it be, then I I feel like this committee will probably want to honor you in the board chamber whenever you're ready.

Thank you.

Mr.

Sweese.

Thank you, Director Pennick.

As Entrico just said, I'm my name is Jeff Case.

I'm with the uh real estate division, and I am the transaction team manager and I am gonna bring it up.

I'm here seeking your support and approval for the acquisition of 601 to 617 Laguna Street.

The um the Department of Public Health has been seeking to acquire assisted living facilities, uh, in an effort to preserve these services in the community and expand the number of assisted living beds in San Francisco.

The real estate division working with the um Department of Public Health identified two facilities on Laguna Street, and approximately a year ago.

Uh the board approved our acquisition of 624 Laguna Street.

We're here now to seek the approval of the um the sister facility, which is just across the street, kind of kiddie corner to it at 601.

During our um, can you yeah, during our due diligence, we identified um that there was some seismic work that needed to be done in 1997.

The um the building had had gotten a seismic upgrade, but it had not been done correctly.

When we did some destructive testing, went in there and identified it, the seller agreed to at their sole cost um make those changes and corrections in that at a cost of approximately 1.6 million dollars.

The city wanted to take the seismic and upgrade it a little bit further, and at the same time address some of the deferred maintenance that we had identified on the project and adapt it to DPH use.

So since the architect was already engaged, the seller was ready to move forward with it.

Um, we're asking that they essentially deliver a turnkey project so that we can put it into service.

Next slide.

So this is our budget that we're looking at.

The purchase price is 11 million thirty thousand dollars.

We're anticipated approximately six million dollars in construction and two million in construction side costs, soft costs where we have a substantial reserve both in construction and project reserves so that we make sure that we we have sufficient funds to be able to complete everything needed to put this building into service, and we have $30,000 in closing costs.

The not uh total not to exceed would be $20 million.

Now I'd like to turn the microphone over to Kelly Kirkpatrick, the director of new beds and facilities, so that she can tell you what DPH intends to do with this building once it's completed.

Should you approve this?

Thank you, Jeff.

Um, thank you, Chair Chan, Supervisor Engario and Supervisor Dorsey.

Kelly Kirkpatrick Care from Behavioral Health Services.

We are planning to operate 601 Laguna as an adult residential facility, the same use that it has been in the community for the last number of decades.

Um I just wanted to recap what an ARF, our adult residential facility is often referred to as an assisted living facility or board and care.

These are state licensed facilities that provide dignified 24-hour care in a home like setting.

They serve individuals who cannot live independently due to either their behavioral health or other care needs.

Residents receive support with tasks of daily living, including meal preparation, housekeeping, hygiene, and medication reminders.

601 Laguna and 624 Laguna, which we already purchased, as um Jeff mentioned, is a critical opportunity to expand and preserve residential care in San Francisco.

We have a shortage of appropriate long-term residential placement as identified in President Mandelman-led residential care and treatment work group.

This project will preserve these critical residential care services in the community that will be continue to be a part of the vibrant Hayes Valley neighborhood.

It will maintain a long-time community asset and will serve about 40 individuals who are stable in their behavioral health conditions.

This will allow us to continue to serve vulnerable residents in county and in county-based programs.

We know that being a good neighbor is paramount to a successful program.

DPH has had a robust community engagement process with a local neighborhood and business group since the beginning of 2024, including coordination with Supervisor Mahmood's office in those outreach efforts.

The good neighbor policy, the DPH will uphold requires designated points of contact for neighborhood concerns among many other key points.

Ensuring that clear and open dialogue by the provider in the neighborhood will ensure a well-managed and respectful environment with 24 hour staffing at the program.

So with that, happy to answer any programmatic questions, or of course, if you have any real estate questions to defer to our partners at real estate.

Item 11 is an ordinance that approves a purchase and sale agreement with Pacifica SFO LLC for the purchase of 601 Laguna Street.

It also provides waivers from chapters six and 14B of the administrative code for the seller to undertake seismic improvements funded by the seller, and then up to $9 million of building renovations funded by the city.

Does still require that contractors used by the seller to do construction still pay prevailing wages and um do a kind of a version of an LBE program.

Uh the purchase price is $11 million dollars that is confirmed by an appraisal and appraisal review.

And we detail on page 38 the cost of the purchase, the operating costs of using this building as assisted living facility, um, and then how it compares to other DPH projects.

There haven't been that many.

This is the fourth purchase, behavioral health purchase um in the past five years.

Um this is sort of in the middle of the pack in terms of uh cost per square foot for purchase and renovation.

Uh all of these costs will be paid for by proposition C homeless gross receipts tax.

You recommend recommend approval of item 11.

Thank you.

Um I mean, I think this is more or less a little bit about uh questions for the Department of Public Health.

You know, I think generally speaking, um how uh help us understand a little bit about your the Department of Public Housing vision of who's gonna be at the site occup both in terms of occupying the site as well as operating the site.

Yes, in terms of clients, these are low-income San Francisco residents who have um stable behavioral health needs but have care needs such that they can't live independently.

Um they need help um with their hygiene, um, bathing, medication reminders.

Um they might have uh mild to moderate behavioral health diagnoses but are able to be supervised in a 24 hour setting.

Um clients um are under the care of the provider who must know where they are at all times.

Clients may leave and go um uh to medical appointments.

Um they can um venture into the community, but they have to be known where they are at all times as part of the provider.

We are seeking to contract the services, DPH contracts for over 500 boarding care beds and our residential care portfolio.

So there are many providers who provide this level of care in a community-like home-based setting, which is really our goal.

The goal of a residential care facility is to really provide residents with a community-like setting where they can be stable in their health conditions and either receive long-term care if that's what they need, or some clients do step up or step down to higher or lower lower levels of care depending on their needs.

They might be able to transition to um independent living, um permanent supportive housing.

Um, their medical conditions might advance while they are in the facility, so they might have to go to something like a skill nursing facility, but we have staff on board at all times to help kind of monitor and help assess both with behavioral health services and the proposed provider to to monitor a client's needs and ensure they're at the right level of care.

Where do you think uh how do you anticipate uh my assumption is are they going to be transferred from other facilities to here, or are they your existing clients?

How does that work?

This facility um may enable us to move clients as part of the behavioral health center um uh change proposed um for the mental health rehabilitation center there.

So there are clients at both the RF and RCFE, adult residential facility and residential care for the elderly facilities at the ZSFG campus.

601 and 624 Laguna would provide the opportunity for clients to be relocated there, should they choose and it meet their care needs.

We are optimistic that having these community-based um programs in a very welcoming community.

I will say the neighborhood associations we've spoken to have been very supportive of our involvement with the um with the property, and so we would enable kind of clients from the BHC to move together if if that is to their choosing, but we have fully committed to meeting every client's needs where they are.

This could be one option for those clients, but currently they are actually cared by um if if so, for example, right, like if they are actually moving from where they're now in transfer and they choose to be at this site, they would no longer they would likely be cared by contracted um partners and not city workers, correct?

We are sorting through the details of that.

We are going through the civil service commission process and engaged in conversations with SCIU about our plans um to operate 601 and 624 Laguna.

So that is that is being worked through through the Civil Service Commission right now.

Yeah, I I since it's going through a process.

I don't want to, I don't want to discuss any further in details, and I don't expect you to, but I I just wanted to flag, yeah, that is a concern from I just want to flag it publicly that it's a concern, and I like to learn more about the plan before we we executed.

I mean, it is a commitment to to acquire the site uh and to say this is where we want to continue.

But at the same time, I think that it is a worthwhile investment overall in the portfolio for care.

Um, in and if we actually have the funding and dedication to do it, I think we should, whether it actually resulted in the transfer of patients uh or clients uh in your term uh from one from SF general to to this site or not, um, you know, to be determined.

Um, but I think that at the same time it it is good to have this increase in our in the in the department of public health portfolio.

Thank you, Church and we agree.

Thank you.

Uh and with that, I don't see any I don't have any more questions, and I don't have any other name on roster.

Then let's go to public comment on this item.

I guess we are now opening public comment for this item number 11.

If we have any members of the public wish to address this committee.

Madam Chair, we have no speakers.

Seeing no public comments, public comment is now closed.

Colleagues, I would like to move this item to full board with recommendation and a roll call, please.

And on that motion to forward to the full board with a positive recommendation.

Vice Chair Dorsey, Dorsey, aye, member and guardio, and guardio aye, Chair Chan.

Aye, Chan I.

We have three eyes.

The motion passes.

I may I would like uh I will call them separately.

I will call them separately.

Um, uh item item 12.

Please.

Yes, item number 12 is a resolution retroactively authorizing and approving the director of property on behalf of the Department of Homelessness and Support of Housing to negotiate and enter into a new sub-lease agreement for 312,000 square feet of property owned by the California State Lands Commission and lease to the California Department of Parks and Recreation for the city's use as the Bayview Vehicle Triage Center at Candlestick Point State Recreation Area for a term of approximately one year and four months with a retroactive commencement date of January 13th, 2024 through April 11th, 2025, for a base rent of 312,000 per year, affirming findings under the California Environmental Quality Act, and finding the subleases in conformance with the general plan and the a priority policies of the planning code and authorizing the director of property to execute documents, make certain modifications and take certain actions in furtherance of the new sublease that do not materially increase the obligations nor liabilities to the city and are necessary to effectuate the purposes of the sublease for this resolution.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Chan, Vice Chair Dorsey, uh Supervisor and Guardio Emily Cohen with the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing.

I'm here before you today with the final piece of legislation that will allow the city to close out our sublease with the state for the candlestick point recreation area for use as the Bayview Vehicle Triage Center that closed back in April of this year.

I am joined by my colleague Andrico Penick from the real estate um from the Department of Real Estate.

If there are additional questions.

Sorry, for the vehicle triage center parcel.

Since we since the board passed that resolution and lease, the state requested additional changes to the approved form of the sublease, and those changes require reapproval by this body so that we can pay our rent, our final rent check and close out our partnership with the state for the vehicle triage center.

Uh this the language in the sublease does change, but none of the uh terms of the lease change.

It is still three hundred and twelve thousand dollars, and the lease term ended in April 2025 to coincide with the closure of the property.

And we respectfully request your approval of this resolution, and Rico and I are available if there are any questions.

Thank you.

It's rent, it's due.

We owe back rent.

Gotta pay REN.

Gotta pay rent.

Um, even we were a city and a county of San Francisco.

Uh would like to go to public comment on this item.

Yes, so we have any members of the public who wish to address this committee regarding this item number 12.

No is your opportunity.

Madam Chair, we have no speakers.

Seeing no public comments, public comment is now closed.

Colleagues, I would like to move this item to full board with recommendation and a roll call, please.

And on the motion to forward to the full board with a positive recommendation, Vice Chair Dorsey, Dorsey, I member and Guardio and Guardio, I chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan I, we have three eyes.

The motion passes, please call item 13.

Yes, item number 13 is a resolution approving the third amendment to the grant agreement between abode services and the Department of Homelessness and Support of Housing for problem-solving fiscal agent services, extending the term by 22 months from August 1st, 2025 for a total term of August 1st, 2022 through June 30th, 2027, and increasing the agreement amount by approximately 7.2 million for a new total amount.1 million and authorizing HSH to enter into any amendments or other modifications to the amendment that did not materially increase the obligations nor liabilities or materially decrease the benefits to the city and are necessary or advisable to effectuate the purposes of the agreement.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And we have again the Department of Homelessness and Support of Housing.

Good morning again.

Emily Cohen with the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing.

I'm before you today with a resolution that would authorize our department to amend our agreement with abode services for the continued provision of problem-solving fiscal agent services.

This agreement was heard by the homelessness oversight commission in June, heard and approved by the commission in June.

The resolution is the third amendment to our grant agreement with abode, and they are essentially providing back office support to all of our problem-solving providers throughout, or the vast majority of our problem solving providers throughout the city.

So as the problem-solving provider works with a family or an individual, identifies a solution to their homelessness.

Abode has a dedicated team that can cut checks rapidly and ensure that we are administering our financial assistance as seamlessly and quickly as possible.

This amendment would extend the term to June 30th, 2027 and increase the not to exceed amount to just over 17 million dollars.

As I mentioned, this is this contract is for very much a support function to allow our problem-solving providers to work closely with families, identify their solutions to homelessness, and efficiently get the resources into their hand to get out of homelessness and into housing.

Abode was the fiscal agent for other nonprofits providing the services.

81% of the funds that Abode has distributed under this program model have gone for move-in costs.

So directly helping families or individuals leave homelessness and move into secure housing.

This is a problem solving is not for everyone.

We know that it's not going to work for everyone.

It works for a small portion of people experiencing homelessness, but for those folks, it works very well.

You know, we've seen families leave homelessness and stay out of homelessness.

About 75% of the households that utilize this program stay out of our homeless response system within the 24 months following utilization of the financial assistance.

So very successful for a very reasonable dollar amount.

Abode has been a great partner in delivering this service and helping ensure rapid administration of the money, fiscal oversight, and compliance.

And they did recently undergo fiscal monitoring in May of 2024 and had no findings and underwent program monitoring in February of 2024 and also had no program findings.

So we're very happy and excited to continue this partnership with Abode, and my colleagues from ABOD are here in case there are any questions for them.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item 13 is a resolution that approves an amendment to a grant from HSH to abode services.

This grant funds the problem solving fiscal agent program, extending the agreement through June 2027, and then increasing the grant value from 7.2 to 17.1 million dollars.

We detail the budget on page 41.

It's about $3.5 million grant per year, serving about with a goal of serving 500 people.

Summarize that on page 40 of the report.

Is that whether they're delivering payments on time, which is defined as 48 hours, and they are generally doing that.

So we recommend approval of item 13.

Thank you.

I don't I have a lot of questions, but I I think that it's not about abode.

It's not really actually about I I think it's just our overall ongoing uh HSH contracting um approach and strategy and your procurement and overall that so it's not just about this one, um, it's just the the ongoing the grant agreement amendments that you're gonna continue to roll in.

Um so this is not about abode.

I I just want to clear that.

So and and that's why I I don't think that today it's the it's a forum for us to go into that, um, but separate and apart.

Let's have a conversation and as you go as you're going through your uh contract procurement uh process because I think that's what you're gonna do in this.

It's like it's a big overtake, undertake, overtake, undertake, you know, for the coming year.

Let's have a conversation about what your approach is and before your new role, your new waves of contract come coming back to us.

Um so I just want to say I understand that, and I am in support of this uh this amendment um for now, and then I think we we will have some conversation um hopefully before budget comes again.

So feels like it's already coming.

So thank you.

With that, let's go to public comment on this item.

Yes, we are now opening public comment for this item number 13.

If we have any members of the public who wish to address this committee.

Yes, good afternoon, members of the budget and finance committee.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today on resolution 250684.

Um, since August 2022, a boat services has served as San Francisco's trusted fiscal agent for problem solving initiatives, coordinating tailored um financial assistance, rental support, and service referrals to assist people at risk of homelessness.

This partnership has leveraged community-based solutions to prevent homelessness before it begins.

Um, and some of the reasons why it matters is you know the proven prevention impact.

About has already demonstrated strong outcomes in stabilizing households, preventing evictions, and reducing shelter entry, um, cost effectiveness, uh, with say enhanced coordination and just overall equity driven expansion.

Um, this amendment does allow a boat to deepen its reach into historically underserved neighborhoods, ensuring culturally informed support and language access.

Um, so it is a smart and compassionate investment by enabling a boat to continue to expand its evidence-based work, and the city builds resilience, support housing stability, and saves taxpayers.

Thank you.

And thank you much for addressing this committee.

And with no further speakers, Madam Chair, that completes our queue.

Thank you.

Seeing no more public commons, public common is now close.

Colleagues, I would like to um move this item to full board with recommendation and the roll call, please.

And on that motion to forward to the full board with a positive recommendation.

Dorsey, I, Member Ingario, and Guardio, I, Chair Chan.

I.

Chan I.

We have three eyes.

The motion passes.

Okay, Mr.

Clerk, please call item number 14.

Yes, item number 14 is an ordinance amending the administrative code to require the city to approve one new homeless shelter, transitional housing facility, behavioral health residential care hand treatment facility or behavioral health, specialized outpatient clinic collabor uh collectively covered facilities in each supervisorial district by June 30th, 2026, and prohibiting the city from approving a covered facility that would be located within a thousand of another uh covered facility, unless uh the Board of Supervisors waives that rule by resolution based on a finding that approving the covered facility at the proposed location is in the public interest.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

I my apologies, colleagues.

I did I just realized uh now m all my colleagues are here.

I want to acknowledge uh the sponsor of this legislation, Supervisor Baloa Mammu is here.

Welcome, and the co-sponsor um of the legislation supervisor from On Watton is also here, and so um we'll start with Supervisor Mammu.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, colleagues.

Um today I'm introducing uh this legislation titled The One City Shelter Act, and we'll be discussing a set of amendments to our ordinance uh as it reimagines how San Francisco plans sites and funds its shelter and behavioral health services, no longer through a patchwork or guesswork or politics, but through data, transparency, and community partnership.

Right now, our system unintentionally reinforces deep geographic imbalances in its delivery of services.

A small number of neighborhoods from the tenderloin, SOMA, host the overwhelming majority of our shelter and behavioral health facilities.

These communities have opened the their doors time and again to help those most in need from across our city, but the result has been saturation without reinvestment or service without recovery.

Meanwhile, swats of the city are service deserts, leaving unsheltered residents far from access to life-saving resources and services, often isolating them in undignified conditions, creating a roadblock to bringing them indoors.

This ordinance recognizes that and it proposes a different approach, one that ensures we prioritize investments in areas where need is high and access is low, so that every San Franciscan has a real local path to stabilization and compassionate dignified care.

Discussing the amendments, I'll discuss them at a high level.

First, on page eight, lines eighteen through twenty-two, we use a point in time count data to guide future funding decisions.

The ordinance will now prevent new city funded facilities from being placed in neighborhoods that already have a higher share of shelter and transitional beds than their share of cities unsheltered population without a waiver.

This isn't about spreading the issue, it's about targeting services where they're most needed.

Second, on pages eight through nine, lines 23-2, we add a 300-foot buffer, limited to city-funded homeless shelters to prevent excessive clustering within a neighborhood and preserve community balance.

Third, on page nine, lines three through ten, the ordinance establishes a waiver process designed to occur early in the process of citing a facility.

If the city wants to explore a project in a deeply impacted neighborhood, we want that neighborhood to be brought in from the start and not surprised at the end.

We've seen what happens when that doesn't occur, like sober living facility that was planned in Chinatown, where the project collapsed due to late engagement.

But we've also seen what success looks like, like with the Marina Inn, where departments, the supervisor, and the community partnered early and transparently, and it's made all the difference.

We've seen the consequences when communities aren't brought in early.

Projects stall, trust erodes, and outcomes suffer.

But we've seen also how early transparent collaboration between departments, elected officials, and neighborhoods leads to stronger, more sustainable solution.

This legislation will enable that from a legislative process.

Fourth, on pages nine through ten, lines 28, we include targeted exceptions for projects with financing already in process, sites that expand upon an existing facility's footprint, facilities replacing closed services in the same neighborhood.

These are intended to allow for the economies of scale as well as those that occur occasionally within DPH sites.

Fifth, on page eight, lines four through 17, the ordinance requires a biannual shelter equity analysis based on the most recent pit count to keep decisions grounded in real, up-to-date up-to-date data.

Sixth, on page 10, lines 10 through 24, we add semi-annual reporting requirements so that progress is visible, measurable, and accountable.

Seventh, on page 11, lines 1 through 4, we include a sunset date of December 31st, 2031.

This is a policy test.

We'll monitor it, adjust it, and evaluate whether it's delivering to the people who need it most.

And lastly, on page 11, line 17, we note that this ordinance shall become operative on January 1st, 2026.

We're proud to bring this ordinance forward with the support of a broad and diverse coalition of community leaders, neighborhood activists, and civic institutions who have experienced firsthand the urgent need to build a more balanced data informed system of care, one that meets people where they are and helps neighborhoods thrive.

Our community and organizational sponsors include the tenderloin community benefit district, tenderloin housing clinic, code tenderloin, SOMA West Neighborhood Association, that on the political front, we have the San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee, where even Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi and Congressman Mullen voted in support of the resolution at the committee.

We have labor unions from Local87, the janitors, local five, USV UFCW, and local two are hotel and restaurant workers as well.

Bay Area Council, San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, and former supervisors of the tenderloin, Jane Kim and Matt Haney.

Their support underscores a shared belief that neighborhoods deserve a voice in shaping how services are delivered, and that partnership, not surprise, is the path to successful sustainable solutions.

This ordinance reflects years of advocacy and a collective effort to strengthen the fabric of our most impacted communities.

And let's be clear, these services are not inherently negative for a neighborhood.

Shelters, clinics, and supportive housing are powerful forces for good.

When they're part of a balanced and intentional system.

But when services are stacked in a way that outpaces local infrastructure or overwhelms community identity, it makes economic vitality and revitalization nearly impossible.

It shifts perception beyond repair.

The tenderloin that I represent is home to 3,500 children, and yet they don't have a single toy store, a single ice cream shop, or a wholesale grocery store.

There is no revitalization of San Francisco without the revitalization of the tenderloin, and the same is true of so many neighborhoods that are saturated throughout the city without being given investment or consideration for how to counterbalance a healthy neighborhood makeup.

This ordinance is not about shifting burdens, it's about aligning services with need.

It's about rebuilding trust with communities that have felt left behind by the city, and it's about showing that public services and neighborhood revitalization can and must go hand in hand.

For the hundreds of unsheltered residents in areas of the city that currently lack services, this shows a commitment to bringing life-saving services to them when they need the most.

It's an open hand to come indoors, heal, and have a chance in dignified conditions.

And most importantly, this is a budget decision, and budgets are moral documents.

They show what we value and who we're willing to stand with.

So we are simply saying that city dollars should go first to communities with unmet need.

Colleagues, I ask for your support today, and approving these amendments and sending it to the board with a positive recommendation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Supervisor Walton.

Thank you, Chair Chan, and thank you to the rest of this committee.

I want to associate my statements and my comments with Supervisor Mahmood.

I won't belabor the point, but I do just want to say a few things.

One, want to thank Supervisor Mahmood and Supervisors Dorsey, Souter, Filder, and Melgar for their co-sponsorship and bringing this legislation forward.

I also want to thank Supervisor Makmoo for his willingness to work with others cooperatively to move to move towards a successful and equitable way to combat homelessness across the city.

I do want people to understand that I don't view this legislation as an anti-shelter strategy in certain communities, but more of a pro-shelter and homeless service strategy across the city and in areas that have more opportunity to provide support.

A lot of work has gone into getting us here.

And although I don't feel that this legislation has the complete necessary teeth to guarantee shelters spread throughout the city, and that services spread throughout the city, it is the first legislation of its kind that recognizes that shelter and services for our unhoused population should be in close proximity and available for all.

So I hope this committee supports the goals of this legislation.

And again, I just want to appreciate everyone coming together to get us to a place where we can achieve agreement.

Thank you, Chair Chan.

Of course, thank you.

And Vice Chair Dorsey.

Thank you, Chair Chan.

I just wanted to express my gratitude to Supervisor Vobwood for introducing this legislation, which I'm happy to co-sponsor.

Thanks as well to Supervisor Walton and the other co-sponsors for their everybody's leadership on this, but especially uh Supervisor Mahmoud.

I know this has been a lot of back and forth.

Um historically, our respective districts have taken a disproportionate share of homeless services, and the level of saturation we have seen can present enormous challenges to the neighborhoods that we represent.

I've seen in District 6 that concentrating our vulnerable populations can too often exacerbate rather than solve issues related to homelessness.

And it's not just deteriorating street conditions.

I think at least as concerning to me is deteriorat deteriorating public support for worthy services that vulnerable San Franciscans need.

I think this legislation provides a framework for a more careful consideration of where these facilities are located.

It offers a more thoughtful and fair approach.

It provides a framework for smarter siting decisions that are grounded in data, transparency, and early community engagement.

These are principles that District 6 residents have consistently asked for.

They're embedded in both the ordinance and the proposed amendments.

They strengthen the legislation by ensuring clarity, coordination, and accountability across city departments, and I appreciate too that it allows flexibility for some things that are really personally important to me in terms of expanding opportunities in these services for recovery-oriented services and drug-free options that I don't right think right now we don't have enough of.

Align closely with ongoing work in District 6, including the bar the broad broader behavioral health infrastructure strategy.

These amendments help ensure that any proposal for already distressed neighborhoods like SOMA and the tenderloin come with clear expectations for interdepartmental coordination and meaningful community input from the outset.

This doesn't say no to new services, it says yes to the right services the right way through a citywide community lens and that balances responsibility, respects communities, and ultimately builds a more effective and trusted system of care.

So I want to also give a shout out and express my gratitude to the many district six residents who've engaged on this issue, including the SOMA West CBD, my colleagues on the Democratic County Central Committee, and obviously people I don't represent, but whose uh whose leadership I really respect from other communities who you will hear from.

I'm proud to support this legislation as well as the new amendments before us today.

Thank you.

Item 14 is an ordinance uh that adds chapter 124 to the administrative code um to us, it essentially creates um geographic restrictions uh for new facilities that include homeless shelters, transitional housing, and then behavioral health residential um and outpatient facilities.

It provides geographic restrictions for establishing new programs across San Francisco.

One is in neighborhoods where the neighborhood share of unsheltered people is uh greater is less than their share of the beds uh of shelter uh their their share of shelter beds relative to the uh statistics citywide, and then it also establishes a 300 foot radius around existing shelters um within which the city could not establish a new shelter program.

The legislation also provides uh waiver a waiver process where in which the Board of Supervisors could waive these geographic restrictions uh for a new program, and then these um the kind of neighborhood analysis would reset every two years and then sunset uh in 2031.

Um, and that re that two-year resetting happens with the annual point in time count.

You can see we mapped this out on page 46 of the report.

This report covers the amended legislation that Supervisor Mahmood was um describing earlier.

Um, and so you can see the neighborhood level um moratoriums on new programs, uh, as well as the 300 foot radius for existing shelter programs.

Um I think the primary effect there's two primary effects.

One is that for the neighborhoods that have a high concentration of programs like Tenderloin and Soma, uh those neighborhoods would not get um, you would need a waiver to open a new uh covered program within those neighborhoods, and then there are certain other neighborhoods that because they have a relatively low amount of unsheltered people uh would also have a moratorium on these new programs.

I think that you know the fiscal impact, the the ordinance is not requiring a certain set of shelters be created.

Uh so it's hard to estimate the fiscal impact.

It will really depend on the real estate that's available and the contract awards that departments make.

The budget that you preliminarily approved yesterday included a hundred million dollars for 630 shelter beds over the next two years.

Um, and so it may, I think it's safe to say that this makes it harder to find places uh to establish those programs, and so it may take longer to get the beds online, and some of the sites may just be smaller and drive up the cost per unit.

Uh, this is a big change.

And uh so on page 49, we discussed several policy considerations.

Uh one is potentially limiting the application of these of these geographic restrictions to larger programs.

Right now it applies to all covered programs.

Um, and then other another idea we had is to simply limit just sp state the neighborhoods that you don't want any new programs in rather than going through this biannual process, um, which might be a little easier administratively to administer.

Um, and then thirdly, we also thought about sort of like the root cause of some of the neighborhood impacts of these programs, um, and another option you could consider is to actually just fund additional like police, mental health community ambassadors at these programs to mitigate some of those neighborhood impacts.

But approval is a policy matter for the board.

I um I concur with the sentiment though, I think Supervisor Mamou and I have these conversations that some of the neighborhoods, including the ones in the jurisdiction in, you know, like in yours in District 5 and also in District 6, tend to loin and South of Market, really tend to bear at the brunt of the shelters and the sort of just providing that service, not just even shelter, just just even day to day providing service for the homeless and house individuals in San Francisco.

And I think that it is time to really holistic look at those neighborhoods and say, you know what, like it's not just only those neighborhoods actually have unhoused individuals.

Like in fact, I I think that more of the time, like most people think, seems like West Side, it's fine.

West Side is not fine.

The West Side too have in house individuals.

They just look different in a sense where we see them in RVs and we see them in cars mostly.

We also see them and just uh they they have places that seems like they're less visible because we have Golden Gate Park, we have Sutal Heights, but they're there.

And I think there are definitely needs, be it treatment beds and be it shelter, also on the West Side.

It's not like it's easy for them to have access to go back to the east side for service either.

So I think there is definitely something to be to be really considered to say, you know, it is time for us to have some of these facilities, including the cover facilities as defined as legislation, somewhere else, and and that to also kind of look at um neighborhood commercial corridors and look at people actually also living those spaces too, the tenants and the small business owners, and look at their surrounding and neighborhood and recognizing when you have a saturation of any kind of things, um, I would say any any type of business or any type of services uh is is uh pose a challenge uh for that neighborhood.

Um so for that principle, I I am in support of it to looking at this.

I also really appreciate Supervisor Mammu that you have um and I concur with the sentiment that Supervisor Walton has uh expressed and the gratitude that you know you are you've been open-minded.

Uh, you take in a lot of feedback and you take in a lot of suggestions.

I think I I have to uh say that when it first introduced, I I was not on board.

Um, and because I think that to simply mand day one in every district does not make sense.

Uh you and I have that conversation and I so appreciative of you saying when I suggest it, let's look at something that is like how we understand this better, that is like how me how me understand through data, like what are we trying to accomplish here?

But but principally I know that day one we we were in agreement about saturation of shelters and services in certain neighborhoods, including Tendeloin and South Market.

And you came back with data.

You came back with a whole list of data, and I really appreciate it.

And uh, and I think that right now the question is then, you know, with this data that we have with this policy mandate.

I think the question though, I am really I have is for HSH.

Um, with this data that we have and with this information that we have, what does that mean for us in terms of this approach?

Like maybe this is actually end up being more consistent of what you've been trying to do this whole time because we understand the challenges that you may have when you're trying to have actually shelters in other places, and we see those.

We see those challenges that at times that their neighborhoods which actually are resistant, having some of this, you know, those in their neighborhood in our neighborhoods.

Um, so help us understand with this mandate from this policy anything different, or you just uh really continue to align with what you've been trying to do.

Thank you, Chair Chan.

Emily Cohen with the Department of Homelessness and Support of Housing.

And I want to thank the supervisor first off for just such a collaborative process in developing this ordinance.

It was a really thoughtful um discussion.

And I think you know, we generally agree with the sentiments of this ordinance with the idea that people experiencing homelessness should have the opportunity to be sheltered in many different parts of the city and not relegated to any one or two neighborhoods that is very much aligned with our approach and our belief.

And we are, of course, driven by the practicality of the challenge of finding spaces, parcels available for shelter.

And they're not on every corner.

You know, we definitely are challenged.

Us and our colleagues in the real estate division continue to struggle with finding places that are large enough to accommodate shelters at a size that make them cost efficient that have the infrastructure needed to host a shelter.

Um it's not an easy process.

And while we've always strived for geographic diversity in where we cite shelters, we're often limited by real estate and what is available and what can be leased or purchased.

And so I think this ordinance sort of forces the function and says, yes, it is a challenge, and it will continue to be a challenge, and these are the guardrails by which you need to work to ensure that we are distributing shelter services throughout the city.

And so I think it really balances that, of course, this will make, you know, it's just one more sort of parameter of all the other list of things we need to identify on a site in a site to make it viable.

Um, but we also recognize that the overarching policy vision is one that is good for all San Franciscans.

What I appreciate, um, this uh policy, and then in terms of the data that come with it, is this.

I actually think that we've been talking about the matrix of measuring success um been a long time.

I think that now what is going to help us understand is that if we have the percentage of each neighborhood of unhoused individuals identify, then would like to see then again how then do we, in the events that with this implementation of this policy and identifying shelter beds or whatever it is, the services that would then require to house whatever percentage that is.

And for me, I'm gonna speak for the Richmond.

I see that you know, Richmond having that two percent, and we see those.

We actually do see them in the Richmond, and the question then that allows me to ask again and again is then what do we do with that two percent, and then two years from now, because that's what the legislation requires for that reporting and we, you know, a discussion, is that have that percentage come down?

And if so, what are the factors contributing to lowering that percentage?

And I my assumption is all supervisors should really start looking at each neighborhoods that are under their district, and to say, wow, this is the percentage of individuals.

What do we continue to actually go and do to to bring it down and how do we compare?

Not that we don't have pointing time count, you know, previous years, we have those, but I don't think that we have ever seen we have ever tried to solidify that percentage and say then that is a neighborhood problem and not a citywide problem.

So I'm gonna leave it that.

Oh, Supervisor Mammoot.

Just have a briefly, thank you, for the the context.

I think one critical part of the legislation I didn't mention before is that every six months we're gonna require a report.

And I think to your point, um, what that report is going to require is um for every site that was cited in the last six months, a comparative analysis.

Where else did you look?

What was the cost in those other real estate decisions?

Um, what is gonna be the economic what has been the economic impact in that siting?

And I think that's also a level of analysis that has never been done before.

And I think this is this legislation starts a process to be able to answer the questions that are often unknowns, unknowns in the siting of facilities to better understand what is the comparative cost to going in one neighborhood versus another or within one block relative to another block, which we just often community hear over and over and over again, and we just haven't had the answers.

I think this will hopefully be one of many forcing functions to give the community the answers they need as to the decisions that were made.

So thank you.

I do see all the public commenters eager to provide comments, but no, not yet.

I just went a long time before we could go to the case.

I do, but I I think that we have actually set from the beginning that we're gonna go to like allowing this body to have that discussion.

We have the BLA report, and then we will go to public commons.

And so before we do that, I I wanted to let the public commenter knows as well, and then general public.

The proposed amendments that proposed by Supervisor Matmoot today.

Uh, uh I assume that um that it's in support of this committee to uh make the amendments and I I uh and look to Vice Chair Dorsey to make the motion to amend.

Um, I am in support of those amendments today.

However, I want to have a confirmation.

If I understand correctly, uh Deputy City Attorney, help us understand they are substantive and they will have to be continued for a week.

Um good afternoon, supervisors, deputy city attorney Brad Rossi.

Yes, the amendments proposed by Supervisor Mahmood are substantive and will require the ordinance to be continued to a future committee meeting um after they're adopted.

Thank you.

And so with that, we will go to public comment.

Yes, now we are opening up public comment.

Uh, if you wish to address the committee, now is the time to line up along those curtains.

And with the first speaker.

Thank you, Randy Shaw, director of the Chandler Housing Clinic.

I just want to make a few points.

Uh we did try to do this in 2015 with Jane Kim with our supervisor.

She only passed a resolution which wasn't binding, and that's where we got this into the mess we're in.

We need to be honest here, and if we can take some honesty at the Board of Supervisors today, because the reality is is that we need geographic equity, but we have geographic geographic inequity right now in the tenderloin in lower polk.

We have the Monarch Hotel, which HSH, which claims they're all in agreement with us.

HSH placed the Monarch Hotel as a shelter that can't be a minute.

The Monarch Hotel is a shelter right across from MSC North, right across the street, and it's wrecked every business across the street.

The same HSH has something on Geary Street right now, the Adante Hotel, next to another one within 300 feet.

And they recently they for a long time they had 685 Ellis, which the city owns the shelter with the Cova Hotel within 300 feet.

So if we really want to make a difference, let's let's impose geographic equity now.

Speaker, so this law takes effect.

It's not retroactive, but let's let's look at the existence of much.

Speaker's time has expired.

But thank you, Randy Shaw, for addressing this committee.

Next speaker, please.

Honorable supervisors, my name is Rihanna Baylord, and I'm the chief operating officer of UC Law, and I'm here in support of the proposed legislation.

Uh I will just comment that we have seen a lot of sighting in the tenderloin.

The reason for that, of course, is because of the proliferation of open air drug dealing, and it's also because of the saturation of the amount of services that are provided there.

We have incredible sympathy as a neighborhood and desire for these services, but the question is where should these services be provided?

And to have Supervisor Mahmood take this step so that we are actually seeing a commitment in writing through legislation about the needs of the tenderloin and the impact that these services have had.

I want to applaud Supervisor Mahmood for that.

Uh and also seek to ensure that as Supervisor Walton said, this ends up with the teeth that are necessary to ensure geographic equity actually happens.

So thank you.

And thank you much for addressing this committee.

Next speaker.

Hi, my name is Dale, and I'm from the TL.

Uh I wish we were here today talking about the saturation of smoke shops and liquor stores.

But unfortunately, we're here talking about the saturation of human beings.

Sometimes we talk about the man in Washington, just treating human beings like pieces of merchandise.

Are we doing the same thing right now?

Now, I I agree it and I support every supervisor in the city should be proud to say they have a homeless homeless center in their district.

Just like you want to say, I got a uh whole food to my district, I got a homeless shelter.

That should be a matter of pride.

I just want to say that we're gonna get the negative input from, you know, because I've settled on the homeless board for over 10 years and I know a little bit about homelessness, lived in every shelter myself, is that if we don't have all the services at that one site out there, 16th Avenue, wherever, we're gonna have people going from the shelter to the muni.

The people that live in between there, that's who we're gonna impact.

So it's important that we do add all so HSH to be aware of to add all services at that site.

So we don't have the people running all around those neighborhoods.

Thank you.

But thank you much, Del C Moore.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon, Speaker.

Good afternoon, Supervisors.

I my name is Prativateke, and I work for Turnalone Housing Clinic.

I've been in front of you all many, many for many years, asking for geographic equity.

I know that supports the Jane Kim did a resolution in 2015, which I very well aware of during HSH when HSH was supposed to open at 440 took uh service.

I just want to applaud Supposed Abilal Mahmoud, who has been talking to us from the very beginning about geographic equity, took our concerns from the neighborhood very seriously.

I appreciate you doing that, and I hope we can turn the needle on this for our neighborhood for Tenderloin and for other neighborhoods.

I know sixth street is saturated with services too, and so is um uh Bayview District.

So I hope this can change and it can be real equity that we were looking for.

Thank you.

And thank you, Prati Pateki.

Next speaker.

Hello, uh, I'm Deanna Dakovna, a proud resident of Soma West.

I'm writing to express my strong support of Supervisor Mahmoud's equitable shelter distribution ordinance.

Soma is a desirable place that like any other community faces its challenge.

However, it is the home to some of the most interesting, dynamic and diverse individuals you can find, both housed and unhoused neighbors will benefit from the thousand foot requirement, which was changed to 300 feet, which still lets the clustering that was mentioned before take place.

Logic and our lived experience demonstrate that the distribution of facilities improves access service and efficiency and success as well as community acceptance.

I usually just support the step towards citywide equity and encourage you to vote yes in the ordinance and help ensure that no neighborhood bears all the burden alone.

I believe that this is a step in the right direction.

I would also like to add an amendment that takes into account private facilities that also house homeless services.

We have one that moved in across from us, which there was no input at all from any of the public, so the fact that you can stack a private facility right next to an HHS could be problematic.

Speaker time has expired, but thank you much.

Next speaker.

Good morning.

My name is David Singer.

I'm a Soma resident.

I speak in support of the proposal.

In brief, I believe it is offensive to think that neighborhoods should benefit from solutions that they are unwilling to support and be part of.

Estimates are that close to a quarter of the people in shelters and seeking housing are working in this city, they are cleaning our houses in our streets.

They are serving us coffee.

Surely they should be able to live in the neighborhoods they are working in.

Supportive housing and shelters provide stability for essential workers and services that we all need.

I urge giving this policy robustness by focusing the support for homeless issues on those neighborhoods who are supporting and not resisting solutions and not allow this policy to perpetuate historic inequities.

Policing aside, sleeping, for example, and drug usage should be proportional to the needs of the neighborhood and to the extent that the neighborhood is supporting solutions and not in response to wealth or history.

Finally, I note that every letter on this proposal supports developing the shelter beds and housing to solve the problem and supports that those beds should not be all in the same districts.

The mayor included, supporting building enough beds as part of his management.

Speaker's time has expired.

We have an extraordinary opportunity.

Thank you much for addressing this committee.

Next speaker, please.

Next speaker, thank you much.

Good morning.

Jennifer Kiss, Chief Strategy and Growth Officer for Dignity Moves.

Dignity Moves appreciates Supervisor Mahmood's partnership with the mayor's office, with fellow board members, and with the community in crafting this ordinance.

At Dignity Moves, we wholeheartedly agree with the goal of ensuring that there are beds available across the city to meet people where they're at and create local pathways to stabilization.

We also appreciate the flexibility the ordinance provides because it's critical that we do not further constrain the system or slow down the process with bureaucracy.

Street homelessness is a crisis, and we must move urgently.

We believe this ordinance is pragmatic and strikes the right balance.

Thank you.

And thank you much for addressing this committee.

Next speaker.

Hello, everyone, Adam Hong, Westoma residents.

I just want to thank the Board of Supervisors for hearing this, and in particular, Supervisor Mahmood, Supervisor Dorsey, who's my supervisor for putting this legislation together.

I am concerned about the change from a thousand foot to a 300 foot ordinance.

Soma blocks are 800 feet, so that could still result in clustering, as um Dan said over before.

I do urge the board of supervisors to look at a couple things beyond just geographic equity in the sense of shelter positioning, but also in the sense of how we enrich the neighborhood.

So SOMA has the least amount of green space in the city, despite having one of the largest populations and one of the largest growths in population.

That's something else that we can look at in terms of spatial equity.

Um that's it.

Thanks, everyone.

Thank you much for your comments.

Next speaker.

Hello, Board of Supervisors.

I've been a resident of SOMA West since 2015, and I'm also involved in the Soma Business Association, neighborhood association.

I want to speak in strong support of this piece of legislation.

I think geographic equity should is a critical goal for our city.

We've for too long seen too much concentration of services and very small geographies.

I also wanted to highlight that this is I think part of the economic recovery for our city.

The tenderloin and Soma are in some of the main commercial corridors for the city.

They border market street, they're near downtown, they're near Moscone Center, and yet we've continued to see a lot of the um visible homelessness and challenges on the street concentrated in those areas.

And so for us, I know some of the opposition letters were concerned about the cost of this, but I also think we really need to think about the future economic recovery of the city and the resources that are needed to serve those districts to support that recovery.

I think geographic equity is a step in the right direction for that.

So thank you.

Thank you much for your comments.

Next speaker.

My name is Brendan, and I've been a resident of SOMA for over a decade.

Um, and I've worked downtown and in Soma for most of my time here.

Um prior to the pandemic, I had friends that lived at NEMA at Tenth and Market and all over Soma and downtown and even in the tenderline.

And now, since with the concentration of services and urban decay around City Hall, Market Street, and the convention center, I don't have friends that live in any of those places.

If I walk to Tenth and Market now, I expect to see dead bodies, gangs dealing drugs, literal dumpster fires, and all we're doing is concentrating more services and more problems in those areas without enforcing crime, without enforcing the quality of life things we need to fix in those places.

And we're subjecting more and more poor people to those conditions by putting them there.

Thank you, Brandon.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon.

Uh Barbara Swan from Lower Knob Hill Neighborhood Alliance, and I want to express our complete support and thanks to all the sponsors of this amendment to the administrative code.

Um as many of you know, and I've said here before, we are 20 blocks with 11 facilities, and we are struggling so hard to get resources in our neighborhood.

We don't have police presence, and we have a lot of crime and drug dealing.

Um so we hope that this is the first of the this is the beginning of more equitable management plan for city facilities.

Thank you.

Thank you, Barbara Swann.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon.

My name is Abduhadwan.

I'm with CIU Local 87.

As uh many of you guys know that our office is located at 240 Golden Gate at the heart of the TL, and also a lot of our members work and leave in the same in the same district.

And we are here in the full support of this ordinance.

So thank you so much, Supervisor Mahmud, for this piece of legislation.

And I hope it will pass.

Thank you.

Thank you much.

Next speaker, please.

Afternoon, esteemed members of the committee and supervisor Mahmoud, thank you so much.

Deep gratitude for this ordinance.

I speak on behalf of myself, um, Linda Mantell.

I am a 56-year resident of our wonderful city and a 20-year property owner at the corner of O'Farrell and Leavenworth.

I speak not only for myself, but for a community group called the O'Farrell Neighbors Group, and we are in complete support of this ordinance, and we see it as simply homelessness is a problem for the city of San Francisco.

Therefore, let us allow, encourage, and demand that the entire city be part of the solution.

Thank you.

And thank you for addressing this committee.

Next speaker.

Good morning, supervisors.

My name is Kristen.

I'm the resident of San Francisco in SOMO West.

I'm here to I'm here today because I deeply support the solutions of homelessness, including supportive housing, but I want to be very clear.

I oppose the overcoming concentrations of these services in Soma West, and I urge this body to take more equitable approach on how we distribute supportive housing across the city.

SOMO West is doing more than its fair share.

The neighborhood already hosts an outsized number of shelters, navigating sensors and permanent supporting housing units to service individuals struggling with mental illnesses and addictions.

This is originally temporary solutions, is quietly becoming a permanent dumping ground.

Not a strategic plan, but a shortcut, and one that is unfair burden to our residents, businesses, and family.

This is not compassion, this is segregation by hardship.

Ask yourselves, would this be allowed in Noe Valley?

Would it be welcome to Pacific Heights?

If not, why is it acceptable in Soma West?

Thank you.

Thank you much.

Next speaker.

You cannot contain us.

This is a rallying cry for a lot of us in the Tinderloin.

My name is Zan Looper, and I represent TLCBD, and you can see it on the sweatshirt.

And it's really talking about the decades of what really felt like intentional containment.

Now we know it's more nuanced than that.

But this new proposal, an amendment to the way we've been doing things, really is a step, a continued step in the right direction of saying we are one city.

And just listening to the dialogue here, we all get it.

We know that there will be problems and challenges, but as John Adams said, every problem is just an opportunity in disguise.

Thank you, Son Looper.

Next speaker.

Hello, supervisors, uh Dr.

Megan Rohr.

I serve as a policy director at Compass Family Services, but for today's purposes, I'm just a nerdy historian who has served the homeless community for 20 years.

And I want to celebrate the LGBTQ Black and AAPI communities who have done so much work that we have oversaturated populations and services so that we can care for our own communities in times when civil rights was hard.

But federal funding has changed, and we don't have to only expend money in those districts.

And so, as someone who cares for homeless families, I want to make sure that any family, whether they're on the streets or in a vehicle, can make sure they have a place to shelter that's near their kids' school.

We have 303 homeless families, which is 918 individuals that would love to shelter in the district where they are residing and where they work.

Thank you.

And thank you much for your comments.

And Madam Chair with no further speakers, that completes our queue.

Thank you.

Supervisor Mammu.

Thank you, Chair Chan.

And I think before we go to a vote and close, I wanted to uh close again by thanking uh everyone uh from the community who came out.

Um really it was because of you that this ordinance was birthed into action.

I want to thank a couple of the people who were instrumental to this process.

Uh first and foremost, I want to thank Sam Logan, my legislative director.

Um, she's been working on this legislation since day one of my office uh and has been working diligently on doing the research and the diligence and talking to just to the departments to the community members to experts, and really developing a first of its kind, very data evidence-based uh approach to this type of legislation, and she deserves uh the preeminent amount of credit.

Um, second, I wanted to uh uh thank Ann Pearson from the city attorney's office who drafted this legislation and worked closely with us through every amendment and iteration with clarity, collaboration, and deep care for both the legal and human impact of this work.

I wanted to also extend my deep gratitude to Nicholas Bernard and Christina Muller uh from the budget legislative analyst office for their thorough and thoughtful report, which provided a strong analytical foundation for this discussion.

And lastly, again, thank you to all the community organization and advocates who have been fighting for geographic equity and neighborhood investment for years, many of whom have never stopped showing up, and even when it felt like no one was listening.

This ordinance reflects their persistence, their vision, and their belief in what's possible.

Lastly, in closing, this ordinance has been shaped in deep partnership with the tenderloin leaders, community advocates, service providers, and organizations across labor and business.

Their backing reminds us that equity doesn't mean doing less for anyone, it means doing more where it is needed.

As a city, we are we are at a pivotal time in defining what the future will look like, and we can continue down the same, we can continue down the same path of reactive crisis driven response, or we can choose another path, one that delivers better outcomes for our unhoused residents, eases the burden on over concentrated neighborhoods, and assures an opportunity at revitalization to build a more just and functional city citywide.

So colleagues, I ask for your support as we take this step towards a more responsive, equitable, and unified San Francisco.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Chan.

Thanks again to uh Supervisor Mockman and all the uh co-sponsors, and thanks to everybody who worked on this from the departments, and obviously thanks to everybody from the public who came to speak.

Just for everybody's edification, because the amendments offered today are substantive, the uh public noticing requirements of the Brown Act and Sunshine Ordinance will require the order the this to be continued, and so I would move to amend the ordinance as read into the record by Supervisor Mahmoud and then continue this item to the budget and finance committee meeting of July 23rd, 2025.

Roll call, please.

And on a motion to amend this ordinance, accepting the uh amendments offered by Supervisor McMahon.

And to continue this ordinance to the July 23rd meeting of this committee as amended, offered by Vice Chair Dorsey, Vice Chair Dorsey, aye.

Dorsey, aye, member and guardio and guardio, aye, Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan, I.

We have three ayes.

The motion passes.

And um thank you, Supervisor Mammu.

Um colleagues, uh, I would like to make the motion though, and my apologies to resend our vote of continuance for item number eight, um, because it's come to like that I do intend to support this legislation.

I just require a little bit more information.

Um, it is uh the hope that the city administrator or the purchaser would like to make sure that we have that information, but also be able to formally pass a legislation with true reading before our recess.

So um I would like to move to resend the votes on item eight.

Okay.

Henana, motion to rescind.

Vice Chair Dorsey, Dorsey, aye.

Member Engardio, and Guardio, aye.

Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan, I we have three ayes.

And instead, I would like to move item number eight to full board with record with recommendation pending the documents, but uh with recommendation and a roll call, please.

And on the motion to forward the ordinance to the full board to the positive recommendation.

Vice Chair Dorsey, Dorsey, aye.

Member Ingario and Guardio I, Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan, I, we have three ayes.

The motion passes.

And Mr.

Clerk, do we have any other business before us today?

Uh, Madam Chair, that concludes our business.

Thank you.

And the and we the July 23rd meeting is going to be our last meeting before we says we're likely going to cancel July 30th, and this meeting is adjourned.