Good morning.

The meeting will come to order.

Welcome to the July 23rd, 2025 meeting of the budget and finance committee.

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

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

Our clerk, it's Brent Halipa.

I would like to thank uh Kalina Mendoza from SFGov TV for back broadcasting this meeting.

Mr.

Clerk, do you have any announcement?

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 on this agenda.

When your item of interest comes up in public comment as called, please line up to speak on the west side of the chamber to your right, my left along 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 by the 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.

A L I P A at SFGO V.org.

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

You may also send your written comments via US Postal Service to our office in City Hall at one.

Dr.

Carlton be good place.

Room 244, San Francisco, California, 94102.

And finally, Madam Chair, items acted upon today are expected to appear on the board of supervisors agenda of July 29th, unless otherwise stated.

Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr.

Clerk.

And before we call the items, again, remind the public that we have budget and legislative analyst report for most of the item on today's agenda for those items.

We will have department presentation first, followed by the budget and legislative analysts report, then we will take questions from this body, and then we will go to public comment.

Due to the fact that not only that today is the last budget and finance committee meeting before recess, uh, and it's also the reason why colleagues and public to see that we actually have uh 19 items on the agenda.

Therefore, we will be limiting to public comments to one minute uh today as well.

And so with that, Mr.

Clerk, please call item number one.

Yes, item number one is an ordinance amending the administrative code to promote equitable access to shelter and behavioral health services by prohibiting the city from citing a new uh city-funded homeless shelter, transitional housing facility, behavioral health residential care and treatment facility, or behavioral health specialized outpatient clinic collectively covered facilities in a neighborhood where the neighborhood share of the city's shelter and transitional housing beds exceeds the neighborhood's share of the city's unsheltered persons, and prohibiting the city from citing a new city-funded homeless shelter within 300 feet of an existing homeless shelter, and authorizing the Board of Supervisors to waive these prohibitions upon a finding that approving the covered facility or homeless shelter at the proposed location is in the public interest, and providing that this ordinance shall sunset on December 31st, 2031.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And um, Sir Clerk.

With that, uh, I want to acknowledge and welcome uh Supervisor Balamamu, author of the item number one for this legislation.

This item was hurt last week and was continue uh for one week uh to today because of substantive amendment proposed by Supervisor Mahmood.

And I think I from my what I understand is there are further amendments today, and so the floor is yours, Supervisor Mamut.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, colleagues.

Um today I'm introducing a set of non-substantive clarifying amendments uh to my ordinance on equitable access to shelter and behavioral health services.

These amendments do not change the intent or core mechanics of the legislation, instead, they serve to sharpen the focus, ensure legal clarity, and reinforce what the ordinance is and isn't designed to do.

They reflect the thoughtful feedback we've received from departments, the city attorney, and community partners, and I want to thank all of you for the spirit of collaboration that's brought us to where we are today.

I'll read the amendments uh as described uh and provided to you as well.

First, on page six to seven on lines 20 through eight, we clarify and narrow the definition of behavioral health residential care and treatment facility.

The ordinance now specifies that applies only to city-funded low barrier treatment facilities, such as respite centers, sobering centers, and crisis stabilization units, not to state licensed facilities like psychiatric health facilities or residential care homes for the elderly.

Nor does it apply to behavioral health specialized outpatient clinics as well.

This ensures that the ordinance targets the type of facilities where the city exercises meaningful citing discretion and focuses the intent of this legislation again on those facilities that address street homelessness, which has always been the intent of the law.

Second, on page 10, lines 16 through 18, we make explicit that projects that applied for proposition one dollars are exempted from their fair share or the fair share rule.

Third, on page 11, lines three through four, we clarify that reporting requirements begin six months after the operative date, not the date of introduction.

This aligns timelines with when the ordinance becomes enforceable and ensures departments aren't prematurely held to standards before implementation begins.

Fourth, on page 11 lines 13 through 16, we add a new reporting requirement for each homeless shelter approved in a neighborhood that already contains one.

The city must report on the steps it took to identify and develop a site in a neighborhood without an existing shelter.

This amendment strengthens transparency and reinforces the ordinance's intent to reduce over concentration.

Fifth, on page 11, lines 20 through 24, we add a new section, section 124.5, compliance with confidentiality laws.

This clarifies that the ordinance does not override federal, state, or local laws protecting the confidentiality of family violence shelter locations.

All city departments must continue to comply with these protections in full.

Those uh complete the set of amendments non-substantive that we are introducing today, and colleagues look forward to your support.

Thank you.

And Supervisor Ingario.

Thank you, colleagues.

I just want to speak a little bit about uh this item and the journey it's taken.

I was strongly opposed to this legislation in its original form.

I understand the need to remedy deteriorated street conditions in the center of the city, but requiring one shelter in each district is not the solution to our homelessness crisis.

Instead, I believe we must use data-driven strategies and help connect unhoused individuals to comprehensive centralized services.

Placing shelters in the sunset and outer sunset, far from the core network of wraparound support services and service providers, risks further isolating those who are in need.

This will only contribute to worsening conditions for everyone and for our neighborhoods.

However, this policy has evolved significantly since its initial proposal through collaboration, compromise, and thoughtful revisions.

With mayor Lurie supporting the amendments to this legislation, I'm comfortable to move it out of committee today for the full board to consider.

Great.

Good to know.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Dorsey.

Thank you, Chair Chan.

I just want to um I want to commend uh Supervisor Machmood for the collaborative approach that he took to this legislation.

And you know, given the uh given the level of support that he had right out of the gate, I think there's an argument to make that he didn't need to be collaborative.

But I think, you know, when we talk about geographic equity in this city, it's not a new topic, but it really is a political can of worms, and it's there's a million ways this can go wrong, and not many ways that it can go right, but I really just want to commend the supervisor for his leadership in sweating the details and rolling up his sleeve and working with everybody to get to a place where we got this right.

Um I was gonna support this uh from the beginning.

I obviously I represent neighborhoods that feel disproportionately put upon for the services that they provide.

Uh, but I just as uh you know, a lawmaker, I am impressed with the job that you did on this, and I just want to say congratulations on that.

Um, when after public comment, it'll be my intention to make a um uh motion to amend the ordinance as read into the record by Supervisor Mockmood and then move it to the full board with recommendation.

But um I would be interested to hear from the budget and legislative analysts and then public comment as well.

I think we we had this, uh, but you have budget and legislative analysts have any further comment, you you reported last week, but if you have further comments with today's exemption or amendments uh to provide further exemptions, happy to hear.

Uh Nick Minard from the BLA.

I don't have any further comment.

I think that's a good idea.

Thank you.

Um I wanna say, you know, uh from the beginning when Supervisor Mammu proposed this, I concur with the sentiment that I think I have said it time and time again and concur with the sentiment that uh you know certain level of services and shelters are saturated in neighborhoods like the tenderloin and southern market.

And so from an equity standpoint, from that, you know, in terms of where we actually are setting up shelters, setting up services, uh, I do I do share the sentiment of uh that we need to do more to address that outside of those neighborhoods because they're such the saturation, the existing saturation and the data actually reflect it.

So um and I also from the beginning that concur with the that not only that sentiment, but to suggest that we let's evaluate and perhaps a uh language that is to post a moratorium in those neighborhoods that we identify with saturation, uh, provide some type of exemption for those neighborhoods, and then we we can look at everything else citywide, given especially that we this board has also approved the mayor's uh fentanyl crisis uh ordinance that really gave the mayor and the administration a lot of uh flexibility to to where they can actually set up uh and according to the needs.

Here we are with uh thank you to Supervisor Mammu being so open-minded, uh working with Mayor Lurie and working with colleagues and hearing feedbacks and actually in fact coming up with a whole sets of data that I'm I really appreciate.

Uh it there's also further amendments to where we're at today.

Uh, there were uh you know, requirement that was from a thousand feet apart uh from each shelter and a new shelter to uh now 300 feet apart, uh and that there are further exemptions from different types of facilities that is now included, uh different types of uh reporting and um operational date.

Uh I continue to have reservation about this legislation.

Uh I like to think about it a bit more uh you know uh where I'm heading to think because it at the end of the day that uh the main reason that I was on board uh with the fentanyl crisis ordinance that Mayor Lurry proposed when he first took office is with the understanding that we're addressing homelessness based on the needs of the people who are homeless, um and and that is really fundamentally what is critical here, and because that is truly a sustainable approach, geographic equity or geo equity in this term.

I do not know if this is uh actually I should say I disagree uh that this is uh an approach to solve homelessness.

It solve different kinds of problems, meaning for neighborhoods, but I think uh some for some neighborhoods, but I think in the end is starting to pit one neighborhood against another.

So for those, I continue for those reasons I continue to have reservation.

Um, but I concur with the fact that we should actually send this to Foubore with recommendation today, um, because of the good faith effort uh and that we should actually uh really make sure that our colleagues, especially the co-sponsors that we can see as a majority of our colleagues, should really uh be able to have way in and and uh support this uh as they see fit.

So with that, 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 uh of the audience who wish to address this committee, Madam Chair, we have no speakers.

Seeing no more public comments, public comment is now closed.

And with that, I would the supervisor want to give a closing word.

Oh, my apologies.

Uh Supervisor Mammood.

Um thank you again.

Just before we close and before the vote goes, I just want to recognize again the many people who've contributed to getting this ordinance to where it is today.

Um, as Supervisor Dorsey and Supervisor Chan mentioned, this has been an iterative process uh and a lot of collaboration.

Um, and it really goes a lot of credit to Sam Logan, my legislative director, who had to piece together feedback from state, local, city attorney, community groups, labor groups, uh advocacy groups, um, and experts as well, and it wouldn't have been possible to get this this really big legislation to this point without her leadership.

Um my sincerest thanks as well to Ann Pearson from the city attorney's office for her clear, steady guidance and deep commitment to both the legal and community impacts of this legislation.

And lastly, to the community organizations, neighborhood leaders, labor groups, and advocates who've been calling for fair siting practices for years.

It's your work consistency and hope that made this possible.

This ordinance is the product of collaboration across neighborhoods, departments, and sectors, and it reflects a shared belief that every community deserves both care and fairness and thoughtful intentional placement of facilities to rebuild that trust.

We know what happens when we overload certain neighborhoods, it deepens burnout, delays progress, and undermines the system we're trying to strengthen.

And for that, I respectfully ask for your support and moving forward.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Dorsey.

Thank you, Chair Chan.

Um, so at this time, I would move to amend the ordinance as read into the record by Supervisor Mockmood, and then send this legislation to the full board of supervisors with our positive recommendation.

Great.

Let's roll call.

And on that motion by Vice Chair Dorsey to amend this ordinance uh as written uh to accept the amendments as offered by um or as written to the record by uh Supervisor Mike Mood, and to forward this ordinance to the full board to the positive recommendation as amended.

Vice Chair Dorsey.

I Dorsey, I member in Guardio and Guardio, aye, Chair Chan.

Aye, Chan, I we have three ayes.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

And with that, Mr.

Clerk, please call item number two.

Yes, item number two is an ordinance amending the planning code to create a time-limited amnesty program for properties listed on the Department of Building Inspections Internal Quality Control Audit, and subject uh and subject to a notice of violation.

Consider those properties as non-complying structures and non-conforming uses following certification, and waive fees and penalties associated with the planning department's review of requests for amnesty and refund any fees and penalties already paid by amnesty projects, amending the building code to require certification of existing conditions for amnesty projects, prohibited prohibit expansion or intensification of non-compliant amnesty structures, create a streamlined process for reviewing amnesty project applications and waive fees associated with amnesty projects, and refund any fees and penalties already paid by amnesty projects, uh affirming the planning department's determination under the California Environmental Quality Act and findings of consistency with the general plan and the eight priority policies of the planning code and making findings of necessity and convenience, madam chair.

Thank you.

Uh this legislation is authored by President Amendoman and uh who has requested for a continuance of the call chair, and so with that, let's go to public comment on this item.

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

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

Seeing no public comments, public comment is now closed.

Colleagues, I would like to move this item to continue uh to the call chair, and then with that, a roll call, please.

And on that motion to continue this ordinance to the call of the chair.

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

I.

Chan I.

We have three ayes.

The motion passes.

Mr.

Clerk, please call item number three.

Yes, item number three is a resolution approving and authorizing the mayor and the director of the mayor's office of housing and community development to execute a grant agreement with 180 Jones Associates LP in the amount of approximately 6 million for a 25 year term to provide operating subsidies for a 100% affordable housing project, housing for low income and formerly homeless households.

Effective upon approval of this resolution, approving the form of and authorizing the execution of the grant agreement had to authorize the director of Mo CD to enter into amendments or modifications to the grant agreement that do not materially increase the obligations nor liabilities to the city and are necessary to effectuate the purposes of the grant agreement or this resolution.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And today we have MOA Mayor's Office of Commu Housing and Community Development here.

Good morning, supervisors.

My name is Jenny Collins.

I'm a project manager with MOCD.

We're here before you today for a resolution to authorize the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development, or MOCD, to execute a grant agreement with 180 Jones Associates LP for affordable housing operating subsidies for a term of 25 years and an amount not to exceed $5,980,012.

The sponsor for the 180 Jones Street Project, Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation is here with me today.

In 2017, the City and Mid Market Center LLC, the developer of 950 to 974 Market Street, reached an agreement in which the 950 to 974 Market Street project could satisfy its inclusionary housing requirements by transferring the land located at 180 Jones Street to Moe C D and paying a total amount of $13,950,000 into the 180 Jones Affordable Housing Fund.

Ordinance number 49-17 helped establish the 180 Jones Affordable Housing Fund to facilitate the construction of a new affordable housing project for low-income households with a minimum of 60 fishing efficiency units at 180 Jones Street.

Pursuant to the ordinance, the 180 Jones affordable housing funds must be used exclusively for the development and operation of the 180 Jones Street Project.

The 180 Jones Street Project is a 70-unit building comprised of 34 affordable housing units, 35 supportive housing units, and one managers unit.

The project was completed in February 2024, and the loan was converted to permanent financing in February 2025.

The project came in under budget by 3,984,685 dollars, and those savings were returned to Moe C D.

In 2019, during predevelopment approval, TNDC proposed allocating half of the units to extremely low-income households and the other half to households earning between 40 to 85% of the area median income to cross-subsidize the homeless units.

In 2020, the project sponsor applied for state financing with this unit mix.

By 2022, with the COVID pandemic altering San Francisco's rental market, Moe City approved a capitalized operating subsidy reserve of approximately two million dollars to prevent the loss of state financing and to adjust rents to meet community needs.

This subsidy reduced 21 of the 85% AMIs to 40% and 60% AMI, aligning with current market demands and covering deficits over the next 20 years.

The grant agreement before you today increases the operating subsidy by 3,984,685 from a previously approved amount of approximately two million dollars to reflect increases in operating costs coupled with lower AMI levels for 21 of the 70 units from 85 percent to 40 percent and 60 percent AMI.

The grant amount of 5 million 980 includes an existing operating reserve and construction cost savings.

Additionally, the grant term extends the operating subsidy period from 20 to 25 years in ensuring TNDC can fully utilize the subsidy to support operating expenses over the extended period.

The sponsor and I are here to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter and for your support of the 180 Jones Street operating subsidy.

Thank you.

Item three is a resolution that approves an amendment or approves a newer grant agreement between MOHD and 180 Jones Associates LP, which is an affiliate of TNDC.

The agreement has a term of 25 years and a value of 5.9 million dollars.

The city funded a gap loan of about 14 million dollars back in 2022 to fund the development of this uh affordable housing project.

Uh the project construction came under budget, and so the the $4 million is now being added uh to an existing $2 million operating subsidy for the project.

Uh the purpose of which is to essentially subsidize the operating cost of the building uh because the rents um and other tenant income are not sufficient to pay for the building operations as they typically are for an affordable housing project.

So this subsidy will uh basically allow the units to be rented uh to lower income residents.

Uh you can see how the subsidy is scheduled over the next 25 years.

It starts at 44,000 this year and then escalates to just over 550,000 uh in 2048, and would presumably the city would be required to continue subsidizing the project um after that.

Uh according to MYCD, there are no other projects uh that are in the red and require an operating subsidy.

So this is a somewhat unique situation.

Um the funding source for this grant um are inclusionary fees from a project at 950 Market Street that can only be used for this project per the um per legislation previously approved by the board.

So we recommend approval of item three.

Thank you.

Um, I think the concern that I have uh for a situation like this is really about the I I am in support of of today's uh arrangement.

Um, what I do actually have concern about is um besides this particular arrangement, just all class, we know that our non-profit um housers managing these types of sites with operating deficits, it it's it's there are just this thin of uh of a line between you know actually breaking even and operating well to potentially having deficits in their operation because just so the the population that they serve is constantly at risk, um, be it the federal government potential cuts and more cuts that are coming, uh, or that just cost of living is quite high in San Francisco alone.

And not to mention the maintenance part of it and all of that.

Usually it's difficult to maintain maybe they're fine the first year or second year, but sustain like what do we do in terms of like long term.

I'm not expecting you to answer today.

I see I saw that Sheila's like getting nervous about it.

I I think what I am saying today is that I'm supportive of this because with that understanding that that this is a difficult situation, and and I'm glad that there's a solution that you're proposing a solution and bring it to the table and say this is how we can problem solve it.

We have identified funding for it, and and that this is could be a one-time thing, but I I think as an observer and as a policymaker thinking ahead that um, you know, managing these type of properties, it's already high risk and difficult, and it's like challenging.

So I can see that there's a variety of potential reasons that's coming in as a wave to us that we have to tackle.

So I today, again, you know, I I think that I'm supportive of this.

I thank you for finding the solution.

Thank you for identifying the gap and and bridge over.

Um, I think that we need to have a more in-depth conversation, just looking at the portfolio that the city has in partnership with with our nonprofit housers and and managements to say where do we go from here?

What is this you know, a more strategic way, and bringing our public housing uh partners to at HUD to say how do we manage other other you know, uh sites under your portfolio?

So thank you.

I'm just making a comment.

You don't have to answer that, you know, for now.

Um I know it's a it's uh it's not like a five minutes answer, you know.

It's a it's warn a conversation.

So I just wanted to put on record so that you're aware and thank you so much for your work.

Thank you, Supervisor Chan.

Thank you.

Uh so with that, let's go to public comment on this item.

Yes, if we have new members of the public, wish to address this committee regarding this item number three.

That was your opportunity.

Madam Chair, we have no speakers.

Seeing no public comment, public comment is now close.

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 to the positive recommendation, Vice Chair Dorsey.

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

I.

Chan I.

We have three eyes.

The motion passes.

Yes, item number four is a resolution approving an increase in the not to exceed amount for the general and administrative cost for clean power SF's participation in the California Community Power Authority by approximately 3.5 million for a new total not to exceed amount of approximately 8.3 million with no change to the term duration from January 1st, 2024 through December 31st, 2048, pursuant to the charter.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And we have SFUC here.

Good to see you.

Good morning, Chair Chan, uh, Supervisors Dorsey and Ingario.

Uh my name's Michael Himes.

I'm the deputy assistant general manager at the SFPUC responsible for Clean Power SF and our power resources.

Uh we have a short presentation for you on this item today.

Thank you.

Okay.

Today we're seeking your committee's support for a resolution that would increase the not to exceed payment for Clean Power SF's share of ongoing general and administrative costs as a participant in the California Community Power Agency.

Specifically, we're proposing to increase the not to exceed amount from 4,772,710 to 8,286,095 for the remaining 23 years of the funding approved by the Board of Supervisors in resolution number 47223.

The proposal increases the average annual contributions from Clean Power SF to these shared expenses from 100,000 per year to 200,000 per year with a five percent per year cost adjustment.

The SFPUC's commission approved this proposal in June.

Next slide, please.

Following approval by the Board of Supervisors and Mayor, Clean Power SF became a member of CC Power in April 2021.

There are currently nine member organizations of CC power representing over three million customer accounts across 148 municipalities spanning from Humboldt County to Santa Barbara County.

CC Power is subject to the Brown Act.

All of its board meetings are open to the public.

CC Power provides benefits to Clean Power SF and its ratepayers.

Membership supports our compliance with California Public Utilities Commission procurement orders and facilitates the purchase of energy products and services that might not otherwise be available or cost effective for Clean Power SF to procure on its own.

Since Clean Power SF joined CC Power in 2021, we have signed up to participate in several new clean energy projects procured by CC Power for its members, including about 20 megawatts of new long duration energy storage, and about 23 megawatts of new geothermal energy supply.

Participating in CC Power's procurements has helped Clean Power SF meet CC, excuse me, CPUC procurement orders for these types of resources while diversifying our procurement risk.

Through CC Power, we can commit to smaller shares of energy produced from more projects.

CC Power membership also allows Clean Power SF to participate in the bulk or joint purchase of other products and services that help us operate Clean Power SF.

For example, we have procured power market data and intelligent subscription services at a fraction of what these products would cost us to procure on our own.

Next slide.

In December of 2022, the CC Power Board adopted a strategic business plan focused on several key actions.

Hire a general manager, full-time general manager.

This was done in 2023.

And hire additional staff to support project implementation and conduct additional procurement activity.

CC Power now has five full-time staff members.

With strong and stable leadership and additional in-house staff, CC Power is now sufficiently resourced to execute on its key strategic initiatives, including implementing committed projects and building organizational capacity for further collaboration among members.

CC Power is also focused on adding to its portfolio of projects, programs, and services where and when there is value in members to do to members in doing so.

This includes continuing to assist members to meet current and future regulatory requirements and identifying new opportunities for efficiencies in procuring power supplies and providing programs.

This budget is comprised of staffing services and general operations of 1,515,789 and a contribution to operating reserves of 50,000.

Clean PowerSF's share of this budget is about 173,000.

As noted earlier, our proposed not-to-exceed amount is based on an estimate of these annual costs, about 200,000 per year, escalated at 5% per year.

That amount provides a little headroom for inflation and unexpected costs over the 23 years of remaining funding approval under board resolution 4723.

The term of this funding approval also aligns with the existing power purchase agreements we have with CC Power to ensure that we can meet our ongoing obligations of membership during that period of time.

Based on these assumptions, we're asking for your support to increase the not to exceed amount as proposed.

And uh with that, it concludes my prepared remarks, and I'm happy to take any questions you may have.

Thank you.

It's always good to see you, Director Heim.

And I think that the question, I don't have more questions.

I think that the future of our energy is uh interesting.

Um, that San Francisco is a leading model at this time.

Um I cannot wait to see what the state is really gonna do.

Are they gonna you know move forward with what was left behind by state senator Jerry Hill with the Golden Gate Energy?

But for now, I think this model works uh for us and it's been working well.

In fact, I think that really propel us uh to uh uh a different level when PGNE is dragging its customers behind and increasing the costs.

Uh Clean Power SF has maintained uh a stable and reliable source of power for not just the city, but really also for the customers in San Francisco.

And so for that, uh, I'm grateful for your work.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Public comments on this item.

Yes, we are opening public comment.

For this item number four.

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

Seeing no public comments, public comment is now closed.

And with that, colleagues, I would like to move this item to four board with recommendation.

And a roll call, please.

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

Vice Chair Dorsey.

Dorsey, aye, Member Angario.

Engardio, I, Chair Chan.

I.

Chan I.

We have three eyes.

The motion passes.

Mr.

Clark, please call item number five.

Item number five is a resolution retroactively authorizing the Office of Economic and Workforce Development to accept and expend a grant increase in the amount of uh 179,000 for a total amount of 679,000 from jobs for the future, a recipient of the grant award from the United States Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration for the Rapid Information Technology Employment Initiative during the grant period of June 25th, 2021 through September 30th, 2025.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Sorry, we have uh Office of Economic Workforce Development here.

Good morning, supervisors.

If we can activate the screen for the slides, that would be wonderful.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, supervisors.

Thank you for your time today.

My name is Charles Paisley, and I'm with the Office of Economic and Workforce Development.

My colleague Jennifer Salerno and I are here today to present an accept and expend request for our jobs for the future Rapid Information Technology Employment Initiative, otherwise known as Righty Grant.

Next slide, please.

For an introduction and background, the resolution retroactively authorizes the Office of Economic and Workforce Development to accept and expend a grant increase in the amount of 179,000 dollars for a total amount of $679,000 from jobs for the future, a recipient of the grant award from the United States Department of Labor Employment and Training Apprenticeship, sorry, administration for the Rapid Information Technology Employment Initiative Righty Grant during the grant period of June 25th, 2021 through September 30th, 2025.

OEWD's Tech Initiative was selected as one of five partner sites nationwide and awarded an initial $500,000 grant in 2021.

The project ran from June 25, 2021 through January 31st, 2025.

Due to outperforming the other four partner sites, Tech SF was invited to extend the project beyond its original end date of January 31st, 2025.

As part of this continued partnership, TechSef was awarded an additional 179,000.

Next slide please.

And in closing, I would just like to add that at the end of the day, our goal is to provide job seekers with the training skills, knowledge, and experience needed to gain employment, or to continue on with their post-secondary and occasional goals, which the funding from this ready grant has absolutely helped us to do and will continue to do so if this request is approved as well.

This wraps up my formal presentation here today.

I'm happy to answer any questions you may have, but before I do, I just want to thank you all for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

This is the kind of retroactivity uh that I appreciate is because you've got additional dollar because you outperform.

Uh it's impressive.

Um, I am asking this question as a late person and trying to understand what that means.

Um, is the to create a sustainable pathway and programs that increase upward social mobility for job seekers.

Can you explain what is upward social mobility means?

And then also uh what do you how do you identify as a underrepresented in tech and tech-enabled industries?

Yeah, this is a great question, thank you.

I think in terms of upward social mobility, our goal is to provide people training.

There's a couple options.

We have a Comp TA certification and a Google Plus certification.

This provides people the tech skills they need to start jobs as like intro to IT help desk networking, just to give chance like folks a chance to get their foot in the door and start their careers.

The funding is twofold though.

While it also helps to pay for the training component, which is great, it also helps to pay for work-based learning opportunities and includes money for internship wages.

So not only do folks get to take the training that they've completed, the knowledge, the skills, the classroom experience, but then they get to apply that to real world experience working with host employers, and the funding pays for their internship wages while they're in training.

And it's great, it gives folks the chance to really kind of prove themselves to show who they are to network and ultimately find employment with those industries and employers or continue on with their education.

The second part to your question in terms of like how do we define who we serve, you know, the tech sector is so hard to break into, and when we think about the clients that we serve, these are definitely underserved folks.

These are people coming from non-traditional pathways to technology related employment and training, and so when we think about who we're serving, we're really looking at like who are folks that could use these this funding that don't have the traditional four-year degree but are looking for experience training education, and really just an opportunity to get their foot in the door, and this funding helps them do so.

I'm gonna ask one more like just a deeper layer.

Um, like, does that mean you know, a social mobility means like a platform, but that is in person and therefore there's networking opportunity, like conferences and meetings and that that workshops and that people can actually attend.

Yeah, okay.

And then how do you sorry?

Go ahead.

No, yeah, yeah.

Uh, and then for again for the underrepresented, how do you identify the candidates?

Like that do they do they sign up or are they through schools or are they through like city college and just neighborhood?

Yeah, it's a good question.

It's it's very much community focused.

This funding in particular uh we use to work with two of our CBO partners.

One is Dev Mission, and another is Meta.

And so they have deep roots in the community.

Those nonprofit partners then work to find folks that are interested in technology related training and skills and employment opportunities and um actively then recruit for folks to get into the program.

And uh I will also add that um dev mission also has a focus on serving more kind of TAI populations, so transition age youth, right?

So more of on the younger side, really again to like help folks that don't come from traditional pathway programs, four-year colleges, et cetera, to get their foot in the door.

Understood, and uh I I think uh it will be really helpful.

I know it's it's I think generally speaking for the office and workforce and economic development.

I I will really love to learn more about just the workforce development size of things and if there are ways to just kind of put in in the legislature files when you're whenever you have grant, kind of similar, it makes sense like having MATA like as a community partner, just overall a a little bit of more details about how do you identify uh the demographic?

Who have you served, the number of people that you have served, and who are your partners to identify these individuals?

What kind of workshops, maybe number of workshops, and it sounds like you also are partnering with tech uh corporations or you know, partners in on a local level, then then who are they, and and it would be really helpful.

Um, do you think I'm in support of today's grant, and not a problem, but if you could actually provide that information though so that we can include in the file before it comes to the board uh next Tuesday?

Yeah.

Not a problem.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for your work.

We're ready for public comment on this item.

Yes, if we have any members of the public wish to address this committee regarding this item number five.

That was your opportunity.

Madam Chair, we have no speakers.

Seeing no public comments, public comment is now closed.

And 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, the positive recommendation, Vice Chair Dorsey.

Dorsey I, Member Ingario, Engardio, I, Chair Chan.

I, Chan I, we have three eyes.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Mr.

Clark, please call item six and seven together.

Yes, item number six and seven are resolutions retroactively authorizing the Department of Public Health to accept and expend a grant from the National Institutes of Health through the following.

Item number six is through the Family Health International for participation in the program entitled HIV Prevention Trials Network, HPTN, in the amount of approximately 109,000 for the period of April 1st, 2024, through November 30th, 2025.

And item number seven is through the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center for participation in the program entitled Statistical Methods for Advancing HIV prevention in the amount of approximately 106,000 for the period of March 1st, 2023 through February 28th, 2026.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And we have Population Health Division here.

Yes.

Good morning, Supervisor.

Chair Chan, Vice Chair Dorsey and Supervisor Ingario.

I'm Susan Buckbinder.

I chair, I'm director of uh the uh Bridge HIV, which is an HIV and STI prevention research unit based in the population health division at the Department of Public Health.

And I'm here to talk about these two proposals.

Um the first is the National Institutes of Health uh funding through the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center for statistical methods for advancing HIV prevention.

The amount is 105,832.

Um the timeline is March 1st, 2023 to February 28, 2026.

Um as I said, the grantor is the National Institutes of Health through the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, and the um it supports our participation in statistical methods for advancing the HIV prevention program, where I provide scientific guidance in developing statistical methods for testing the safety and efficacy of vaccine interventions designed to prevent the transmission of HIV.

We're seeking retroactive authorization to accept this grant increase.

The initial project period for this grant began on March 1st, 2023.

DPH received several grant increases for this grant, and we received uh notice of the most recent grant increase on May 12, 2025 for a project start date of March 1st, 2025.

DPH brought this item to the Board of Supervisors after going through the fiscal approvals process, including the controllers office review and approval.

Um the second one is uh from the National Institutes of Health through Family Health International, the HIV Prevention Trials Network.

Um, this is in the amount of 108,968.

Um, the timeline is from April 1st, 2024 to November 30th, 2025.

Uh, and this is to support DPH's participation in the HIV Prevention Trials Network, where we're adapting and testing a suite of mobile health tools to increase HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis uh or PrEP and STI post-exposure prophylaxis or doxypep uptake and adherence among young Latino gay, bisexual, and other cisgender men who have sex with men.

The initial project period for this grant began on April 1st, 2024.

Um DPH received several grant increases for this grant.

Um we received notice of the most recent grant increase on April 17th, 2025 for a project start date of March 1, 2025.

So we brought this item to the Board of Supervisors after going through the fiscal approvals process, including the controller's office review and approval.

So again, we're seeking retroactive authorization to accept this grant increase.

We respectfully request retroactive approval of both of these items.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Very important work, and we really appreciate it.

Um I do have a oh my shirt.

Oh, yeah.

Uh I do have a concern, and just seeing that um the grants been going on um some times, but that they're mainly really for the specialists for physician specialists, um, uh paying for for the service for them to the provider service.

Um, recognizing potential cuts to the National Institute of Health.

Um, how confident are we that this grant will continue and should it not continue and being discontinued?

What are our strategy that we can actually or if their budget or conversation about retaining this critical service and retaining these physicians?

Yes, um so uh these grants have been maintained, there have been cuts in other kinds of grants, but these two um don't have not been cut.

Um we do seek other resources and other grant funding for uh other kinds of research projects to be sure that we have a full portfolio of research.

Thank you, and I I think they're doing great work.

We have to retain these physicians and continue and I'm preaching to a choir, I'm sure, and so uh we thank you for your work and thank you so much for keeping this going.

Vice Chair Dorsey.

Thank you, Chair Chan.

And actually the question was asked and answered, but I know that whenever we see federal um dollars here, I feel like either we need to ask did the money come in, did the check clear and uh or uh you know what's the prospect for uh how bad is it gonna be and what's the prospect for the future?

Uh I think the prospect for both of these grants is quite good.

Um I don't I don't foresee problems with either of these two grants.

Okay.

Good news, thank you.

Uh with that, let's go to public comment on these two items.

Yes, we're opening public comment for both these items six and seven.

If we have any members of the public oyster addresses committee.

Adam Chair, we have no speakers.

Seeing no public comments, public comment is now closed.

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

And on that motion to forward both uh the resolutions and items six and seven to the full board to the positive recommendation.

Vice Chair Dorsey.

Dorsey, I member at Guardio and Guardio, I.

Chair Chan.

I Chan I.

We have three eyes.

The motion passes.

With that, Mr.

Clerk, please call item number eight.

Yes, item number eight is a resolution authorizing the executive director of the port of San Francisco to execute a mutual termination agreement with SCOMAS Restaurant Incorporated for two port leases between the port and SCOMAS Restaurant for privacy use along Al Scoma Way over Bay Waters or Smoke House.

Effective upon approval of this resolution and to authorize the executive director of the port of San Francisco to enter into amendments or modifications to the agreement that do not materially increase the obligations nor liabilities to the city and are necessary to effectuate the purposes of this resolution.

Madam Chair.

Thank you, and we have SF Port here.

Uh good morning.

Uh good to see you, supervisors.

Good to be here again with another port item.

Um we've got a few in sequence here, but the first is the mutual termination uh of an agreement with SCOMAS restaurant for the facility we call the Smoke House, which sits along Alascoma Way um in the inner lagoon in Fisherman's Wharf.

Um it's long been vacant and was earlier red tagged in 2019.

Um we've been working with SCOMAS on a mutual termination to both provide some um assistance in cleaning up this lease um to facilitate their operation going forward and to make this area available uh through demolition for uh aesthetic and visual improvements to to the wharf that we really feel benefit the economic uh recovery and vitality of the area.

Um, this along with many other uh initiatives the port has underway currently.

Um the agreement uh saves SCOMA approximately 480,000 dollars over the remaining eleven years of the lease and the termination is effective uh with a waiver of rent upon execution uh and then waiver of liability upon ports um initiation of demo of the facility later this year uh which the the port has capacity and a contract for that we are uh moving ahead and with that on this item, I'll take any questions.

I don't have questions.

Just you know, it's a sentiment, the sentiment.

Just seeing it going away.

But um, thank you so much for all your work.

We we we know it's it's been a long time coming for SACOMA.

Yeah, and then this particular piece of the facility, I do think we'll add with it removed, though there is a plan to do some improvements to add a little viewing area.

Um, so we're hopeful that while um there's history and it may be missed that it will be an improvement that the public really enjoys and benefits from.

Will we anticipate a demolition or a rehab?

Uh it's demolition.

Um, it it's a red tacked facility.

Really, the structure is uh not viable for use.

Um, and it's really a hazard, frankly, for that area in the lagoon.

Um, so demolition, which should be complete before um, well, by or by early next year.

We're anticipating 2026.

Yeah.

Spring 2026.

And I'm sorry, uh maybe I missed in the presentation.

And what what are we anticipating to be in that location again?

It ru in that location specifically.

So the facility will be removed, and what will come back will be a pretty simple um just viewing deck or platform, so not a um not a leasable facility, right?

The pier itself will be removed.

We're gonna retain an area and then make improvements that provide just better pedestrian connection from Jefferson Street back to SCOMA's restaurant, which will continue to operate.

Um SCOMA's is also supportive of the item as it's kind of you know, they're paying rent on a red tag facility, it's very much a drag and and is is kind of blight along the path back to the restaurant currently.

It does make me want to go out now and take a photo with Socoma.

Like, you know, just put it put it on a postcard and then just remember it at least you know, have like a photo of that before and after.

Um, thank you.

I know it's not easy work to do this, but SOCOMA has been a long standing space and uh restaurants in the war on a wharf.

So and to clarify what SCOMAS will remain in business and operating the restaurant.

So we're happy about that and happy to support them to they continue to do that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, okay.

They so they will continue to operate.

Yeah, this is not the actual restaurant.

So to be clear, this is a separate lease that was entered into with intent to open a uh an expansion of the restaurant.

They called it the smoke house.

Yeah, um there were plans contemplated some time ago.

They were never able to move forward and fund the project, and then the peer has continued to deteriorate, and it in this market it's really not something they can take on, and so we're kind of freeing them from that obligation.

Um, and hoping the the break in rent helps them continue to reinvest in the restaurant itself and and stabilize the business there.

So SCOMA's restaurant remains and is and is operating.

Understood.

Um, it's like that's like hard because it's like I'm trying to understand the mapping of the lease.

Understood, okay.

I might come back, not right now, but I may come back.

Uh, let me go through the files and then come back for a mapping of the locations specifically.

Yeah, and happy to send um some further uh maps or other things to clarify the location.

I would appreciate that.

Uh thank you.

And so with that, let's go to public comment on this item.

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

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

Seeing no public comments and public comment is now closed.

Colleagues, I would like to move this item to full board with recommendation and the 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 on Guardio and Guardio, aye.

Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan, I we have three ayes.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Uh sorry, and let's call item number nine.

Yes, item number nine is a resolution retroactively approving the a port commission lease with Autodesk Inc.

located at Pier 9, suite 116 in base one through three for a 36-month lease with one 12-month option to extend the term from February 1st, 2025 through January 31st, 2028, for approximately 33,000 square feet of shed space, approximately 1,700 square feet of shed space for storage.

Approximately 6600 licensed square feet of roof space, and approximately 6600 licensed square feet on the marginal wharf located between Pier 9 and Pier 15 for use as office research and development workshop space and public access for a monthly rent of approximately 147,000 and to authorize the executive director of the port to enter into any additions, amendments or other modifications to the lease that did not materially increase the obligations nor liabilities of the city or port and are necessary to or advisable to complete the transactions which this resolution contemplates and effectuate the purpose and intent of this resolution.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And again, we have SA port here.

Um thank you.

So for this item, I'm also joined by Don Kavanaugh, our property manager, who covers this asset.

Um this is a consolidation uh and renewal of a lease for a short period of time.

Autodesk has been a tenant at um Pier 9 for uh many years since 2012.

It serves as a um support center, and I would call it a maker space for their research and development.

Um, and it's nearby their headquarters office at one market.

Um, this has been an incredibly uh an important asset and tenant for the port, just given the revenue it generates from Pier 9.

It is probably um one of the top revenue generating leases we have.

Um, when we entered the discussion with with Autodesk, um they had been contemplating a move from this location, but um fortunately have decided to uh extend for a short period of time uh and potentially continue to grow and invest in the facility, which is fantastic.

Um so this this lease is a three-year term with a few additional uh or a single year of an additional extension option available.

Um, and as you can see, over the three years, it's roughly five and a half million dollars of revenue for the port, um, with the extension close to 7.3 million.

Um, and as was mentioned, there's various leases in and around Pier 9 that will be consolidated under one agreement with this approval.

Um, so with that, I'm happy to answer any questions or um my colleague Don Cavanaugh can ask can answer questions.

Thank you.

Item nine is a resolution approving a new lease between the port and autodesk.

Uh uh they are an existing port tenant, and they would continue to lease about 35,000 square feet of uh port land.

The leases for three years, it's retroactive to February 2025.

There's a one-year um option to extend, and we summarize the other lease terms on page 23 of our report.

Uh, and as we show on page 24 of our report, if um the three year if they stay for the three years and the option to extend is exercised, this will generate 7.3 million dollars uh in revenue for the port.

Uh there was no competitive uh award of this lease um as required by the administrative code, uh, but the rents are consistent with parameter rents set by the port for this kind of uh use, and so we recommend approval of item nine.

Thank you.

Uh I don't have further questions.

I don't see any more roster.

I think we're all good on this one.

We appreciate it containing keeping auto desk, and let's go to public comment on this item.

Thank you.

Yes, we have any members of the public who wish addresses committee regarding this item number nine.

Now is your opportunity.

Madam Chair, we have no speakers.

Seeing no public comments, public comment is now closed.

And colleagues, I would like to move item nine to four four with recommendation and a roll call, please.

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

Vice Chair Dorsey, Dorsey I.

Member Ingario, and Guardio, aye, Chair Chan.

Aye, Chan I.

We have three eyes.

The motion passes.

And my apologies.

Let's call item number 10.

Yes, item number 10 is a resolution approving a port commission lease.

Uh tech of California, or with Tech of California Inc.

for approximately 22,000 square feet of shed space uh space and 11 and a half thousand square feet of paved land at Pier 80 for a three-year term effective upon approval of this resolution with three one-year options to extend for a not to exceed amount of approximately two point seven million.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And we have SFOR again, and I should have called those items together.

My apologies.

No worries.

So item 10 uh, if if we go to the slides, is a new lease in the southern waterfront.

Um, they operate a um really commercial truck repair and maintenance facility out of our shed pier 80 uh gear and maintenance shed.

Um this lease expired on January 31st, 2025 with an exterior land lease that expired on June 30th.

We're consolidating those into one agreement similar to Autodesk, with a new tour new term of three years, with three one-year extension options.

Um, this facility uh is uh a great benefit for that district and for the truckers and commercial activity there.

Um, the space itself is approximately 21,000 feet um of shed space and 12,000 feet of land area, as I mentioned.

Um, and uh the lease is being approved, the interior leases being approved under a current um port program that'll provide some ramp-up leasing incentives where we ramp up to our parameter or new parameter rents, um, to give the tenant the benefit of absorbing those over time and reinvesting in the facility with a new lease.

Uh and the total revenue to the port exceeds one million, one point two million over the term close to three with the extension options exercised.

Um I'll go to any questions on this one.

I have Jennifer Gee, our property manager, and a representative from tech of California here.

Uh, if there are any questions for them.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item tens of resolution that approves a new lease uh between the port and TEC California.

This is a three-year lease with uh three options to extend the term.

Uh we summarize the lease terms on page 28.

This space is used to um service commercial trucks and um park them there and uh storage for spare parts.

Uh the lease is also generally consistent with parameter rents um uh set by the port for this kind of use as we show on page 30 of the report.

If all if the lease is um extended for the full six years, this would generate two point seven million dollars uh in revenue for the port.

We recommend approval of item 10.

Thank you.

Again, I don't think that we have additional questions.

Thank you for continuing.

Thank you for doing this lease and um and let's go to public comment on this item.

Yes, we are opening public comment for this item number 10.

If we have any members of the public who is to address this committee, madam chair, we have no speakers.

See no public comments.

Public comment now is now closed.

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

Can on the motion to forward to the full board with a positive recommendation of Vice Chair Dorsey.

Dorsey, I member Guardio and Guardio, I chair Chan.

Aye, Chan I, we have three ayes.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

And Mr.

Clerk, please call item number 11.

Yes, item number 11 is a resolution authorizing the port to accept and expend a grant award in the amount of 12.4 million from the California State Transportation Agency port freight infrastructure program to fund the Pier 80 subsidence uh project for the period of August 1st, 2025 through June 30th, 2028.

Madam Chair.

Thank you again.

We have SA port, but last item for port.

Good morning, supervisors.

Uh, I'm Boris Celepine.

I'm the port's uh government affairs manager as the clerk mentioned.

This item uh seeks to authorize the port to accept and expend uh 12.4 million from uh the California State Transportation Agency or Calsta in 2023.

The port was awarded 21.6 million dollars through the port freight infrastructure improvement program to support $36.6 million dollars in enhancements at our maritime eco-industrial complex, which is piers 80 through 96, located in District 10.

Pier 80 is the port's principal cargo terminal.

It's a 60-acre site that's uh used for auto import and export.

The grant will fund uh essential drainage and surface enhancement work at Pier 80, including stabilizing sunken areas, raising storm drains, and installing a new pump station, or current use of Pier 80 is limited because of the current condition.

Calsta has a requirement that uh projects must commence within six months of final allocation.

This project was in the design phase when we were last before you for approval.

We're now ready to begin that work on the site and advertise bids next month.

The project duration will be uh 12 months, and we respectfully request your approval.

I'm joined by the project manager, Noel Aquino, and we're both here to answer any questions after the BLA report.

Thank you.

Item 11 is a resolution that authorizes the port to accept and expend 12.4 million dollars from the state uh California State Transportation Agency, and also approve a related grant agreement for the revenues.

The funding will be used for the Pier 80 uh improvement project, which we summarize on page uh 34 of our report.

We also note that the grant comes with a matching fund requirement that the port will meet by using the um harbor fund, which amounts to about three million dollars, and together with this grant that these two funding sources will pay for this project, total project cost of fifteen million dollars, which should be complete by November 2026.

Thank you.

Um sorry, because you will return this fall.

Is that what it is?

No, we're we we approve the three private prior projects under this grant award.

This is the fourth and final project.

Got it.

Okay, thank you.

I don't have any other questions, and with that, let's go to public comment on this item.

Yes, we're opening public comment for this item number 11.

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

Seeing no public comments, public comment is now close.

And 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 Ingario and Guardio, I, Chair Chan.

I Chan I.

We have three ayes.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Port Team.

Uh Mr.

Clerk, please call items 12 and 13 together.

Yes, item numbers 12 and 13.

Our resolutions approving grant agreements between the city acting by and through the Department of Disability and Aging Services and Self-Help for the Elderly for the provision of congregate and home delivered nutrition services, respectively, for older adults program, and to authorize the executive director of the Department of Disability and Aging Services to enter into amendments or modifications to the grant agreements that do not materially increase the obligations nor liabilities to the city and are necessary to effectuate the purposes of the respective grant agreements or resolutions.

Item number 12 is for a term of four years from July 1st, 2025 through June 30th, 2029, and for a total not to exceed amount of approximately 11.1 million.

And item number 13 is for a term of four years from July 1st, 2025 through June 30th, 2029.

For a total not to exceed them out of approximately 13.9 million.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And we have our Department of Disability and Aging Services here.

Thank you.

Good morning, supervisors.

My name is Tiffany Kearney.

I am a program analyst and the lead nutritionist for DOS.

Today we are requesting your approval of two new four-year grant agreements with self-help for the elderly, one to provide home delivered meals and the other to provide congregate meals, both for San Francisco's older adult population.

Self-help offers a wide range of services that promote health and independence for older adults.

They are a long-standing and valued community partner with extensive experience serving San Francisco seniors dating back to the 1960s.

They are especially recognized for their culturally relevant and essential services for the city's Asian population.

Self-help is one of DOS's largest nutrition partners, providing home-delivered meals in every district and operating 15 meal sites across seven.

Their nutrition program model effectively reaches and serves the target population by providing Chinese meals that are diverse, culturally appropriate, and thoughtfully created to align with the current dietary guidelines for older adults.

These meals support the management of common health conditions such as hypertension and diabetes while promoting overall well-being.

As with all DOS nutrition service grants, these agreements include compliance and quality assurance requirements to ensure the health and safety of our clients.

These standards promote high performance, support positive outcomes, and ensure that services meet federal, state, and local requirements.

Additionally, services under these grants include referrals, nutrition risk and food security screenings, and nutrition education.

For clients receiving home-delivered meals.

Services also include in-home assessments to help identify other needs and connect individuals to further support if necessary.

Food safety and sanitation monitoring are also included and a critical component, especially when serving older adults and other vulnerable populations.

DOS conducts annual program monitoring for all nutrition service grants as noted in the BLA reports in fiscal year 23-24.

Self-help served 89% or more of the target number of clients in both programs and provided 99% of the contracted number of meals.

Continuing their success, current end-of-year data for fiscal year 24-25 shows that self-help exceeded the target number of clients in both programs, and they delivered 95% of the contracted number of home delivered meals and 86% of congregate meals.

They surpassed all outcome objectives in fiscal year 24-25 as well.

At least 97% of older adults reported increased consumption of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains, and they said they felt less worried about food security.

Client satisfaction also remained high with 95% of congregate and 88% of home delivered meal participants rating the meals as excellent or good.

Highlighting the value of community meals and the essential role our services play in reducing isolation and loneliness.

These new grants will enable DOS in partnership with self-help to continue providing vital nutrition services that help older adults live independently, safely, and well-nourished in our community.

Thank you for your attention and consideration, and I will do my best to answer any questions you may have at this time.

Thank you.

Items 12 and 13 are two resolutions that approve grants from the human services agency department on aging services, excuse me, disability and aging services for them to grant funds to self-help for the elderly.

I am a nonprofit.

Item 12 is a grant that funds congregate meals at a value of 11.1 million dollars for the next four years.

For that same period of time.

We are noting for item 12, the congregate meals.

This grant is a substantial reduction in services.

There's a 61% reduction in meals and 30% reduction in clients relative to service levels in 2324, given the amount of money that was budgeted for this for this service and HSA's budget this year.

But again, there's no performance issues.

And then for item 13, we also note as a policy consideration.

So if you were to bring that cost down, you could actually double the amount of meals delivered to clients each year going forward.

Now HSA reports that the reason for the higher cost for self-help for the elderly is due to they're a smaller organization than meals on wheels, they have fewer economies of scale, and they also specialize in Chinese cuisine.

HSA has a policy of you know serving the community preferences, uh cuisine preferences for various communities in San Francisco.

But there may be an opportunity to bring those costs down going forward given the local and now federal funding costs to nutrition assistance.

So we're noting that as a policy consideration, but recommended approval of items 12 and 13.

By Chair Dorsey.

Thank you, Chair Chan.

And I'm gonna be supporting this, but it occurred to me there was a news report in the chronicle earlier this month about the aging of the Bay Area and demographically.

This is a worldwide phenomenon, but San Francisco is actually among the 20 largest metro areas, the third oldest.

So it occurred to me thinking when I was reading that that we are probably going to be hearing from you a lot about the need for more budget and services as our demographic gets older.

So it and it probably highlights the need to find deficiencies where we can.

So have we worked with Sahel for the elderly or similar organizations that we can see with specialized meal and cultural competent meals?

Have we had discussion with them directly?

Kind just try to compare to meals on wheels cost, uh, or just across the board.

How do we what are the what is the what is the piece that really creates the increase or escalated um increase um of well I think a lot of it does have to do with economy of scale.

So I mean meals on wheels is a much larger organization.

They also um they also prepare their own meals in-house, but again, they're able to do that because they are a much larger organization, and you know, they sort of cater to the masses, if you will, right?

Um, but certainly, as you know, we be it, you know, should we get additional funding um for um, you know, self-help or any other um, you know, culturally responsive nutrition provider, those costs do go down, um, with more meals.

Um, it simply because they don't necessarily have um you they don't have like some of those same sunk costs, like staffing.

Let's say to do um, you know, to do, let's say, assessments, you don't necessarily need to bring on a whole n a whole nother person to let's say do you know a thousand more meals, right?

So it the the costs, the way the budgets work, they they do go the cost per meal is not necessarily not necessarily fixed.

It does vary.

Um, you know, again, with with with more funding, that cost does that cost can go down.

We do work with our providers, um, but they are also um dealing with, you know, increased food costs, increased labor costs, um, just increased operational cost as well, which are the impacts for a smaller organization, even though self-help is a very large organization, um, you know, they those are real costs for them.

Yeah.

I can see that.

I mean, I think that bulk when you buy in bulk versus uh more customized.

In a salve, it's it's a cost uh difference.

Uh, I can see staffing, that makes sense, you know, like you do need one person to manage maybe 250, maybe maybe the person can actually take on a thousand, like you indicated, and then that still a one person, a one staffing.

And so I can I can see what you're saying about the cost per meal versus everything else, um, and and how how it actually adds up.

I I'm interested.

I think there are many conversations about food security that's coming, be it in like our jail and hospital, which is the good food policy is coming, um, about standardizing and purchasing where like where do we where do we source our food?

SFUSDA trying to centralize uh upgrade their central kitchen to provide more efficient meals and better meals uh to their students, and I think that the ongoing conversation and and clearly meals on wheels, uh just like Marine Food Bank actually have their sites and commercial kitchens in Bayview and and and storage, and that really makes a huge difference when when it comes to production uh per cost per meal.

Um so thank you.

I I uh we'll we'll contain this conversation and I agree.

I concur with Vice Chair Dorsey.

We're gonna have more of these conversations.

Um we will return in the fall and have have an in-depth conversation then.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for your work.

Uh with that, let's go to public comment on these two items.

Yes, we are now opening public comment for these items 12 and 13.

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

Thank you.

And seeing no public comment, 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 the motion to forward both resolutions to the full board to the positive recommendation.

Vice Chair Dorsey, Dorsey, aye, member in Guardio.

And Guardio, I, Chair Chan.

I.

Chan, I.

We have three eyes.

The motion passes.

Yeah, that Mr.

Clerk, please call item 14, 15, and 16 together.

Yes, items 14 through 16.

Our resolutions approving the amendments between the city hacking by and through the Department of Disability and Aging Services, and authorizing the executive director of the Department of Disability and Aging Services to enter into amendments or modifications to their amendments that do not materially increase the obligations nor liabilities to the city and are necessary to effectuate the purposes of their res uh of their respective amendments or this res or their resolutions.

Item number 14 is with the institute on aging for the provision of the community living fund program, increasing the amount by approximately 16.2 million for a new total not to exceed amount of approximately 27.6 million effective upon approval of this resolution, extending the term by two years for a total term of four years from July 1st, 2023 through June 30th, 2024, clarifying the scope of services and adding appendices consistent with the ongoing receipt of federal funding.

And item numbers 15 and 16 is with the San Francisco Health Plan.

Item 15 is for Cal AIM, community support services for a term of four years from July 1st, 2024 through June 30th, 2028, with an anticipated revenue to the city, not to exceed approximately six million.

And item number sixteen is for enhancement care management fee for services, having anticipated revenue to the city, not to exceed approximately four million with no changes to the term of July 1st, 2023 through June 30th, 2028.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And again, we have the Department of Disability and Aging Services.

Good morning, supervisors.

My name is Mike Zog.

I am a program director with the Department of Disability and Aging Services.

I'm joined today by my colleague Ziquing Lee, who will be uh today we'll be walking you through these three items.

These three items, the first item is a uh grant extension with the community living fund program uh service provider institute on aging.

The two additional resolutions relate to accepting a contract agreement with the San Francisco Health Plan to raise revenue to help fund these services.

Uh community Living Fund program, what does it do?

It helps um facilitate discharges from skilled nursing facilities, also helping divert um people away from skilled nursing facilities, um setting up supportive placement environments in community, um supporting the most independent and least restrictive environments uh for folks.

Uh why do we why do we do this program?

I think there's a a near universal value that people want to be in community.

People want to be near their neighbors, their friends, their family, they want to be things they're interested in and involved in.

I think the flip to that is as community members, we want our friends, our family in community with us.

They are part of the fabric that make our community strong.

We have a legal obligation to keep people to do these types of programs and to avoid unnecessary institutionalization.

There's a limited supply of nursing and facil uh skilled nursing facility uh beds available, and we need to be exploring alternatives to that.

And then finally, we know that programs like the community living fund cost less to to fund than institutionalizing people in nursing homes.

The next slide went back.

Yep.

The other direction.

There we go.

This is kind of our umbrella of services within the community living fund program.

I think to note there are really two sort of interventions here.

It is case management services coupled with purchase of services.

That case manager role is able to assess and evaluate the situation, utilize that purchase of service authority to set up needs to to create that supportive environment in community.

Our orange or orange-ish items towards the left are kind of our traditional services that have been in place since about 2006-2008.

Our blue ones to the right are worth noting.

They've started since about July of 2023.

These are our CalAM funded services.

These are also our revenue generating portions of the program.

How do we know that this program is performing?

How do we know this program is doing well?

We have a variety of program service objectives and outcome objectives.

Here we have a chart of just looking about the last five to six years in kind of client served.

The dark blue line is our contracted level of clients to be served, while the orange is our actuals.

We see some decline in the area of 1920, 21, 22.

I think that was in the era of COVID, uncertainty around Laguna Honda and other things.

But we've had year over year improvement in this program, including last year, 2425 where our provider served exceeded contract goals serving 391 clients.

As noted in the BLA's report, we don't have that data for the last two years, or it's kind of spotty for the last two years due to some retooling of the database.

That work should be completed this month or within August, and we hope to have that data back up and looking at it in 2526.

In the meanwhile, the California Department of Healthcare Services, who is leading the CalAIM services, is looking statewide and studying their effectiveness.

So they put out an annual report.

When we looked at the one from April of 2025, we saw when we focused in on the community transition services and the nursing facility transition services, which are which are included in this program, we saw tremendous cost savings by using these programs instead of institutionalization.

We saw inpatient services down by 73%, emergency department costs down by 57%, as well as 20% reduction in long-term services costs.

Talking quickly about referral pathways for these services.

Referrals come in from community.

That means hospital staff, social workers, family members, community members can refer folks in through a public-facing website that goes into our DOS benefits and resource hub, uh located at Two Gough.

Folks can also call in with those referrals.

We also now, with our agreement with San Francisco Health Plan, we are able to electronically through our database system receive referrals directly from the health plan.

Up until a couple years ago, community was the primary source of referrals for this program.

We have now seen a significant shift in San Francisco Health Plan is actually the majority uh uh source of where these referrals are coming from.

Uh last slide, uh, let's talk about revenues.

Um we are projecting with these resolutions within our enhanced case management program from July uh of 2023 through June 30th, 2028.

Uh, we're projecting about 3.9 million in revenue.

Um we have already um recovered uh 1 million um in costs or funding to support these services.

DOS community supports the grant agreement starts July 1, 2024.

Um that it didn't really get up and running.

Um we didn't see our first referral into there until February 2025.

Um we are projecting six million in revenue.

We currently have claims in for about a hundred and sixty thousand dollars um uh in services.

Overall, uh we're projecting or forecasting 9.9 million dollars um in revenue uh through these agreements with the health plan.

Um in the community supports realm, the six million, that money will go in and and fund those services that are being provided.

They will they will pay for themselves.

In the enhanced care management uh uh segment, uh those funds will come in and support the enhanced care management services as well as help stabilize the general fund uh portion of the community living fund uh program services.

Uh with that, I'm happy to answer any questions after the BLA.

Thank you.

Item 14 is a resolution that approves an amendment to HSA's grant agreement with um Institute on Aging to administer the community living fund.

Uh there's an existing two-year agreement that was approved by the board uh for $16.2 million dollars, and this amendment would increase the grant value to $27.6 million and extend the agreement by two years through June 2027.

Um this continues to fund purchase of services and goods uh for people in the CLF.

Um it also uh funds uh case management essentially and other kinds of social work for people to adjust to living in the community and also to find housing.

Uh we note the performance of the contractor on page 53 of the report.

They serve the number of clients that they were meant to, uh, and people reported that they were satisfied with the services, but as was noted by HSA, the department was not able to track outcomes.

Uh so for example, an outcome of someone leaving the uh nursing home and the extent to which they were able to live independently in the community that is supposed to be tracked by this grant, but was not for the past two years because of a database transition.

That database transition was funded by the city through this grant agreement over the past couple years, according to HSA.

We also note on page 54 that this because of underspending in prior years, the grant agreement, the proposed value is overfunded by about two million dollars.

Uh we believe that they will only need to spend 25.7 million dollars for the um including prior spending and spending going forward and a 10% contingency.

And so we've recommended that they reduce the grant agreement to 25.7 million dollars.

Um, and if they agree, we recommend you amend the resolution to reflect the new grant value of 25 million, 676 683 and recommend approval as amended.

Thank you.

Would you like to respond to some of that?

Uh yeah, we are in agreement with the recommendation from the BLA to reduce as designated.

And um, how about the data transitions and tracking of the outcome and how and I I'm just asking in a sense where I I feel one way or another about you know the city investing and funding data tracking, because on one hand is actually is what we need to make it more efficient uh and and making sure that things works and we're tracking, but on the other hand, we're just trying to understand a little bit more.

I the outcome that came out from that funding the data transition.

Yeah, there's there's two in particular that we are that we didn't get through our data system, and one was um placement in community um for at least six months without any sort of disruption, and we're look we're targeting a 90 percent target.

We know that in counting backwards, I think 2223 was the last year we had full year data.

They they met that.

They were slightly above that.

We had some spotty data into 2324 that that continued that.

Um so we're not I don't think we're super worried about that dropping off.

The the while it's not great that we let outcomes kind of go by the wayside.

I think a lot of attention was spent setting up our system to streamline for these health plan referrals, which is a very complicated process.

Um, so I think, but is also advancing kind of how the department leverages CalAIM and other resources, including Medicaid funding, um, in advancing the overall uh program.

So uh, yeah, but will we then go back and and start tracking the outcome and both of those remain in the grant agreement um and we we believe that we are on track to have that functioning in August.

Okay, and so we absolutely it will be part of our monitoring, and we'll be back in two years, and better have a good answer by that.

Yeah, sounds good.

Uh Vice Chair Dorsey.

Thank you, Chair Chan.

I saw that um 20% of this is funded by federal sources, and just continuing on the theme.

Sometimes that we have some concerns about the uh the reliability of the federal funding or that's or its future.

I just wanted to invite your perspective on that.

Yeah, here's what I would say.

I would say we have nothing on hand that says that this CalAM funding source is ending.

I think we know more broadly that the federal at the federal level that interest in funding Medicaid and services that support community are not a priority right now, so I think there is some legitimate worry about what the future looks like.

What I would say is that we should continue going with what we're doing here because what we're doing is we're learning um about meeting need of an aging population, meeting it, meeting that need, um, and cost effective strategies to address that need.

Because I think if the federal government pulls the plug on uh Medicaid funding for skilled nursing or even this program, we are still gonna be left at the state and local level with trying to understand different ways to address this issue and ways to do with that in a cost-effective manner, and I think we're kind of doing that work right now and building up some of that knowledge.

Thank you.

And uh I don't see another name on the roster.

We'll go to public comment on these items.

Thank you.

Yes, we're now opening public comment for these items 14, 15, and 16.

If we have any members of the public, I wish to adjust this committee.

Madam Chair, we have no speakers.

Seeing no public comments, public comment is now closed.

And colleagues, I would like to send these three items to four four with recommendation and the roll call, please.

My apologies, we need to amend item fourteen.

Yes, sir, please.

Thank you, Chair Chan.

I would like to uh make a motion to amend item 14 to reduce the not to exceed amount from 27 million, six hundred thirty thousand, eight hundred and sixty-eight dollars to twenty-five million six hundred and seventy-six thousand, six hundred and eighty-three dollars.

And then send this to the full board with our positive recommendation.

Roll call, please.

And on that motion by Vice Chair Dorsey to amend the resolution in item 14 accepting the BLA's recommendation to reduce the amount by approximately two million.

And to forward all three resolutions to the full board with a positive recommendation, item 14 as amended.

Vice Chair Dorsey.

Aye.

Dorsey, aye.

Member Guardio, and Guardio, I.

Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan I, we have three eyes.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

Um with that, Mr.

Clerk, please call item 17 and 18 together.

Yes, item numbers 17 and 18 are resolutions retroactively authorizing the police department to accept and expend the following.

Item 17 is for an in-kind gift of office space from Ripple Labs Inc.

for the police department's real-time investigation center.

Valued at approximately 2.1 million for the period of May 22nd, 2025 through December 31st, 2026.

And item number 18 is for gifts of equipment services and funds totaling approximately 7.2 million to support the police department's real-time investigation center for the installation of fiber internet service, purchase of 12 docks and drones related software and services and data integration software and employee parking fees with the start date of April 30th, 2025, and authorizing the police department to accept and expend feature gifts from the San Francisco Community.

Sorry, San Francisco Police Community Foundation for support of the RTIC.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And we have our SAPD here.

Good morning, Chair Chan, Supervisor Dorsey, Supervisor Inguardio.

My name's Tom McGuire.

I'm the commander of the San Francisco Police Department Investigations Bureau, and I'm going to talk a little bit about our real-time investigation center.

Back in March of 2024, after the passage of Proposition E, we started up the Real Time Investigation Center Arctic.

It's proven very successful in contributing to the reduction of crime in San Francisco.

In 2024, we saw a 27% drop in part one crimes.

So far, year to date, we're seeing again another 27% drop in crime.

So the technology has proven to be successful.

We've assisted in over 500 felony arrests in the year 2024 from the Arctic.

The Arctic's helping officers safely manage and prevent vehicle pursuits.

It's assisting in locating missing persons quickly and effectively.

During the year 2024, we toured some potential sites for the Arctic because unfortunately the current location of 850 Bryant is proving to be outdated with the infrastructure that's required to run the technology that we're attempting to run.

The infrastructure, the facilities is limiting our full potential.

To carry out this critical public safety mission more effectively, we are seeking a contemporary office environment equipped with upgraded technical technological systems to meet our demands of real-time operations.

This site at 315 Montgomery is uh I'm gonna talk about the timeline here.

Uh the Montgomery sub lease is valid from April 30th, 2025 to December 31st, 2026.

The official move-in date for the Arctic is anticipated to be August of 2025.

A permanent facility housing the Arctic and the Investigations Bureau by January 1st, 2027.

So the Montgomery site is designed to be a bridge facility to get us to where we need to be.

I'll talk a little bit about a timeline that we're looking for as we uh take this further.

Uh by January of 2026, the department must define its space and programming needs for the new location, and it includes whether the space will serve only as the Arctic or also include other divisions.

We will uh determine the number of full-time employees to be moved.

We'll require space adjacencies, parking needs, and other operational considerations.

By March of 2026, the depart the department will decide whether to move forward with relocating to a new site by June of 2026.

The police department will work with the mayor's office to identify funding sources and with the real estate division to identify and assess locations that meet the police department's needs and coordinate site tours with the police department.

And by July of 2026, the real estate division will submit the final negotiated lease to the Board of Supervisors for approval.

The occupancy of the real-time investigation center at Montgomery will house 40 members of the Arctic Strategic Investigations and the drone unit and the long-term facility not yet identified, and the goal is to relocate the entire investigations bureau with a target operational date of January 1st, 2027.

Real estate and the SFPD search begins now.

That concludes my presentation, and I'd like to ask if anybody has any questions.

We'll go to BIA report.

Item 17 and 18 are two resolutions that approve gifts to the police department from the San Francisco Police Community Foundation.

This is a nonprofit.

The gifts were originally donated by Chris Larson, the CEO of a company called Ripple Labs, a cryptocurrency financial services firm.

And so the two gifts are one, a sub-lease at 315 Montgomery.

Ripple is renting three floors of that building.

One of the floors they're no longer using, so they're proposing to sub-lease one of those floors to the police department through the remainder of Ripple's lease, which ends uh December 31st, 2026.

And then that's valued at 2.1 million dollars.

There's also a gift of equipment and services of about 7.3 million dollars, which includes 5.6 million dollars in cash and 1.6 million dollars in equipment and uh related services to install a wall of screens to assist the put the police special investigation units uh with real-time surveillance work.

Um and so that the that money and those services would be accepted under resolution 250723.

That resolution also provides delegated authority from the Board of Supervisors to the police department to accept further gifts from the San Francisco uh police community foundation related to the real-time investigation center without further board approval.

Um so I think there is I would not call this real estate transaction efficient or effective because it's going to require the police to move twice in 18 months, and I think with better planning from the city administrator's office, they could have found a permanent location uh to meet their immediate space needs.

I agree that the Hall of Justice is probably not suitable for their for the staff, the police staff and other staff that are currently there.

Uh, but we do note this as a policy consideration that they're gonna have to move twice.

We also know that that is the most expensive market in the city.

So if they remain in the financial district, they will after 2027, it will probably cost the city half a million dollars a year more than if they moved into Pacific Center, where the city has option to lease additional space at about half the cost of the rent that um Ripple is paying now at 315 Montgomery.

Uh we also note as a policy consideration uh that there again there's delegated authority in one of these resolutions.

We highlight that as we do for any delegated authority in case you want to remove that language so that they have to come back to the board of supervisors uh for future gifts.

Uh, so we recommend you take that language out.

Happy to answer any other questions.

Thank you.

Um thank you.

I think uh I I we have some of these conversations, uh trying to figure out where do you go next.

Clearly, Ripple is a great space, no doubt, uh, but it's not necessarily uh uh great space for the long term.

Um I think that we, through your presentation today, I uh appreciate the commitment to uh recognize that that we ought to actually find alternatives.

I also do understand there's a sense of urgency and need to have this really set up now and get it done.

Um I think there's many questions that I have.

Uh let's focus on one thing at a time.

Let's focus on the gift itself at the moment, which is to ripple lab, and then we can talk about sort of just where we're gonna go long term.

Because I know that the long-term wise, we're still you're still working on it, uh, with the help of the city administrator.

Let's see what other ways to identify.

I do want to say that I concur with the sentiments that the uh investigation bureau and the real-time uh crime center should should remain together.

It it's there if we're gonna invest in it, let's make sure that it is the like uh it is what the SFPD deserves.

This is what San Francisco deserve.

Let's make sure that this actually works well together as a unit.

Um, so I I think it's worth our time and investments to make sure that the center and the bureau, investigation bureau, stay together.

So you have my agreement and commitment to that.

Uh Ripple Lab, the fact that it's located in the prime location, let's put uh aside the real estate market value, but just the building in itself.

Um my question is that you are sharing, I'm not too sure who are the tenants in that building at the moment, but let's uh focus on a little bit of the access to your facility temporarily.

How do you um identify ways to secure the site and data?

Clearly, you have very sensitive information in that space.

Uh, you have personnel uh coming in and out, and at this time you have identified roughly 40.

Um, so how do we ensure that because it's temporary, what is your investment?

How do you get that to secure?

Yeah, the um building's very secure.

Uh, there's security at the front, their uh security ID check, badge ID access, um, secure access to the floor.

Um, to be honest, it's probably more secure than the hall of justice is.

And but are there any other tenants in the building?

There's other tenants, but it's separated, so the eighth floor would uh they would not have access to that floor.

Understood.

And have you identified other tenants like in the building?

Like, do you know who they are?

And I don't have their uh names.

Yeah, I think it's important to know who the tenants are as you move in with highly sensitive data and information.

So I I would like to understand um I'm supportive of this item today.

I'm not holding this up, but what I would like that is that then let's actually also have the information about a list of tenants on site on the record for the legister file so that we can understand just who who is who is cohabiting with our SFPD in that space.

Um, and help me understand like I'm I'm ready to move on to the next space, and clearly you're the expert.

I am not, so I'm asking this from the very lay person perspective as you go into identify the facility for the long haul.

What is it that you see that SFPD needs that San Francisco needs to make sure that the facility in a long term works for us?

I think from a uh infrastructure standpoint, we need something that's far more high-tech, the hall of justice, obviously, very aged facility, downloading video speeds, uh, high-speed internet, data data that now is evidence is uh getting significantly larger year by year with phones and computers.

So that high speed uh IT infrastructure is very important.

Electrical infrastructure, very important, uh coinciding with the IT.

Um ease of access to come and go, um, parking is a uh big issue in the city, and due to the nature of the business where our police officers come and go from crime scenes, even from the investigations bureau side, there is a fleet need, there's a parking need.

Uh proximity to the Hall of justice because the courts are still at the Hall of justice is um is definitely something we want to measure, so we wouldn't want to be on the other side of town or somewhere where an investigator may have to go to court and spend uh significant amount of time traversing the city.

I think proximity to the district attorney's office where they're located on Rhode Island is another consideration consideration because there is a lot of uh back and forth work that goes on with them.

Um so we set up some sort of a matrix as we look and explore facilities, we rate them based on a criteria, and then um hope to score them.

And like I said, we've looked at some places, but we certainly hope to continue exploring those, and uh I certainly do appreciate your support with keeping the Arctic with the investigations bureau because the Arctic truly is the centerpiece of the Bureau and has proven to be very effective that way.

So I appreciate your support with that.

Of course, I I think um, well, I I would hope if all people are SFPD can issue their own parking permit uh so that you have flexibility of where you park.

So so that's one that I hope that we can start thinking a little bit of uh creativity in problem solving for you uh with our support.

Uh I just want to put it out there that you know I I know that there's a lot of restriction, but I also understand you want to maybe secure your fleet uh in a different manner, and therefore you need secure parking.

Uh so I and so I'm not saying, you know, I I'm saying meet us some way, then to to help us identify facility that that could really work for you because I think regrettably the way that things have been going with the city in terms of urban planning, in terms of like changing of our landscape, it's it has changed so much in San Francisco.

Um but I also hope with technology uh that has now widely implemented in the city that also give you flexibility of the building.

Hall of Justice is I think we've both been there and we understand it's not it's not what you there's no way that we could accommodate a 21st century and what SFPD needs in 2025.

So there's I I think there's no debate here at all.

I think not even with the BLA.

I think we're all in in agreement.

You're not going to be at Hall of Justice.

I do have this question though, and I I think I know the answer to it, but I'm asking this so that we can have this conversation publicly.

But why uh can you not be locating this um whole unit in investigation bureau as well as the Arctic the real-time uh crime center in your current headquarters, which is in Row Island, not Hall of Justice, correct?

I'm sorry, could you?

So SFPD headquarters, SMPD headquarters.

Yes.

Good morning, supervisors.

Um we are just simply out of space in headquarters.

So we are at max capacity to the point now, especially with return to work, that we are having to relocate some of the people who would be returning to the um police uh headquarters to a different facility altogether.

So we just don't have one bit of space left.

We are at max capacity.

Yeah.

And we have this conversation too about you know, and I appreciate, you know, the need of be close proximity to the court to the district attorney, uh, and because the reality is to be able to find a space, then it will be all the way up southeast sector of the city, you know, and it's it's a bit far.

And so I uh urge you to consider the 1455 market location.

Of course, then again, you know, that does not mean that it will work out either.

Uh, there's probably other barriers.

I will leave that to you and the city administrator to really sort out.

I think that you have in my opinion very little time.

Uh, you know, because January 2027, the way I think of it, it's already in the corner.

Um, you have I believe my support and my colleagues support here to support you however way it is that the mechanism that it will legislative tools that you will require to get your to get you there so that you can actually look identify location and be somewhere in the long haul.

Um I think you have our commitment here.

I don't want to put words in my colleagues' mouth, but I think that they are generally ex have expressed support uh to make sure that we have a 21st century police department.

Um, I think that um if I may, I want to make sure I do have questions about the um equipments and everything, but would you like to go first?

And this is the logo.

I am I'm done with the questions on real estate, because I think we had some of those questions and uh you know answer and discussion, but I just wanted to bring it in in this hearing today, and thank you so much for your work.

We know it's it's a huge task.

Vice Chair Dorsey.

Thank you, Chair Chan.

So I am supporting this, and I will say some of the uncertainty around the um where we go next for real estate, some of these um uncertainties, I think are issues that really um as Chair Chan mentioned, these are sort of the natural consequences of our uncertainty about the Hall of Justice.

And I have prioritized in my conversations with Mayor Lurie and his team to do everything we can to prioritize getting out of there.

And working with the Judicial Council, and I've even had a conversation with the Judicial Council about that because of the courts.

But I mean, there was a story also in the chronicle earlier this month about some of the seismic risks of city-owned buildings and the hall of justice.

This goes back to the nineties, is a seismic hazard three.

I mean it's meaning it's rated for appreciable life hazards, and this is where we have 30,000 people coming for jury duty every year.

And it just feels to me like this is a this is something that we can't have on the back burner anymore, and maybe especially now that we are we are thinking bold about our downtown and things that um we are doing to revitalize downtown to make this part of the conversation.

So that's something I'm encouraging with Mayor Lurie.

It would be nice to know.

I'm hopeful, um, that maybe we will have a conversation about what we do next with the hall of justice reimagined somewhere else, and then we won't have to be thinking about you know where we're sort of putting putting this in, and we won't have a it'd be.

I mean, from my standpoint, it would be nice to have a district attorney's office and a public defender and the courts and the police and everybody in what a hall of justice that we're supposed to have for a major city, and we should just get rid of like move on from the hall of justice after talking about getting rid of this for 50 years.

So beyond that, uh and I don't know if this is the question you had.

I wanted to ask about the delegated authority.

Can somebody explain to me what is the rationale for that?

Uh, can you there was a so it's my understanding that there was it is in the ordinance that your delegating authority that we can accept that that the police department can accept gifts without coming back to the board of supervisors?

Um budget legislative analyst, am I understanding that correctly?

Yes, there's a resolved clause in um the resolution related to the materials and equipment gifts that says the police can accept further gifts from the foundation if they relate to our tick without coming back to the board.

I'm yeah, I'm not um I'm not averse to you know speeding processes and finding efficiencies if there's something onerous with Board of Supervisors oversight.

But my sense is right now, you know, you don't have a budget committee that's standing in the way of things.

Is there some what is the rationale to not come before the Board of Supervisors with in the future if there's a answer that?

Yeah, I mean, I I believe generally the rationale is that with especially with a lot of technology, um, to line item everything right up front and say this is our need, and we're gonna be there for a year and a half.

I think it gets pretty difficult to line item that right up front.

So there are things that um may need to come in, uh, whether it's uh something as simple as a piece of equipment, maybe a piece of technology, uh a new computer uh outside of the computers we put up front for the amount that we need, um maybe desks or things like that.

Uh so we don't have to come back for a bunch of separated line items.

I believe that's the rationale for that.

Okay.

Um, yeah, okay.

I I think um that couple of things.

One is I'm actually looking at the two results.

I'm trying to find a result clause of the further delegation.

I am not seeing it.

It either in the 23 or the 22 files.

I must be I I either I'm looking at looking at the versions.

Are you looking at the moment there's two?

One about the lease and then one about equipment and services.

That's right.

And then so like I'm looking at the two five zero seven.

So I'm looking at items uh 17 and 18.

I'm looking at the further result classes on both.

I am not seeing them, but maybe I am mistaken.

The last one on file two five oh seven two three.

Two three?

Okay.

So I'm looking at page five.

Are you saying the last clause accepted and gifts and for possible additional support?

Is that what it is?

And but not limited to funds for the installation of car readers.

I see.

Um sorry, go ahead.

So that so like in my view, those are it's future additional gifts.

And it's limited to Arctic, so it's it's scoped uh for that.

Yeah.

Uh, but for example, if they it could be more drones.

Yeah, it could be more it could be any it could be anything to support the investigations unit.

And you know, the it would that sentence it's just one sentence, but it cuts the board out of the process and it does speed things up, so that's the trade-off here.

Yeah, absolutely.

Thank you.

I thank you so much for reading that and then identifying that.

Um and that does lead to my next questions about equipments and what's going into it, and I am I am not expecting and no one should expect me to actually understand everything that you're gonna articulate to me, um, because clearly I will not have the uh knowledge about all the equipment, and I don't expect you to be able to make me understand and and but help me um uh I I think here's my concerns.

I think my concerns here are that you know, I I don't uh wanna opine on the technology required to do what you do.

Uh but I would like to understand that the both the um way to obtain the technology and keeping the data and again because you're compiling sensitive information, uh confidential information, crime information, um how do you then help me understand how how with the acceptance of these equipment?

How are you uh keeping the data secure in the site?

Uh is it your own, because you're accepting these gifts.

So my assumption is you do have your DT department are readily available and they're equipped to accept these gifts and manage and secure these uh equipment and data.

Yeah, I think I understand the question.

I mean, there's there's kind of the physical security side of things, which we talked about, and we have great processes in place for that.

And then there's more the cyber security.

There's very sensitive information.

It's um no different than any other technology that the police department is taking in and uh utilizing.

It is um heavily vetted through the uh IT department, our CIO and the uh IT team uh have very stringent standards about uh technology that's brought in as far as uh data security.

Um if you wanted more on the in-depth technology behind that, um that would probably be a question for our CIO.

Um but the standards are are robust.

Cause I think at at the end also it's like proprietary, are they proprietary?

Because you're waiving 14B and 21B, you know, uh rules already.

Um or particularly I really 21B.

So my assumption is these softwares and these equipment are proprietary uh equipment.

Um so just I'm just trying to understand if there's a knowledge gap between what was given to us and what is gifted to us versus of what you're currently staffing like in terms of their technology like in terms of their skill set and knowledge about the the equipment and technology that they're receiving, and that's sort of jump into the the leap into um, you know, potentially future gifts again.

What does that actually uh and I'm explaining this in a way that um, you know, oftentimes be it SIPUC or SFMTA, we we they build they build software, they have uh proprietary or so source uh equipment, and and the tendency becomes that once we receive it, then we are relying on whoever that was given to us, and and because it's proprietary or they're sole source, and so it becomes a unbeknownst to us.

Well, I wish I say unbeknownst to us, but but it sort of essentially trap us into a contractual relationship for the long term when it initially is a gift, but eventually it becomes a contractual relationship.

So that's what I'm trying to articulate and trying to understand.

I mean, I understand your concern and and uh from the way that I perceive that is that a lot of the technology that we're receiving, whether it be uh drone technology, um, whether it be automated license plate reader technology or even software integration.

Much of this, that it's a very competitive market right now.

It's uh it's actually a uh really uh growing business right now.

There's a lot of competition in the space for what we're doing.

Um I would not see that we would be cornered into something and have to uh at the end of this gift that we would be cornered into having to go with one or the other.

I think that there's a lot of uh opportunity for other options out there.

Thank you.

And and so because of that, thank you for validating that.

And then because of that, I I want to say that um I would like to seek amendments to this clause about you know, um uh future gift, and that I would like to see at some point, because as you indicated, it is a competitive market.

I I would like to see SFPD working with city administrator to just actually go out.

You know, we accepted flock safety for our automated license plate uh last year because it was presented to us as this is the way to go, we can get this done right now, and it's a gift, and it's by the state.

Let's go.

And and I concur with that still, very much so today, that this is a gift, let's go, it's available to us, we are facing budget deficits.

Um, you know, you're ready, and and I'm gonna trust that you know that you're gonna find ways to secure not only that, secure the data, secure the equipment, and that you're gonna train and that we have staffing that are ready to be available to secure that and operate that.

Now, I think the next step is that like I really hope as you transition from Ripple Lab and acceptance of these gift to the next phase of the long term, then we procure it, we we go out and really identify equipments that make sense for SRPD and for the needs uh in a competitive market, and to actually say what is it, what is what else that we actually would need uh in a way that works for SFPD specifically.

And I'm looking at to your CFO, Kimmy Wu, because she kind of holds your purse.

So and your contracting.

So Kimmy Wu uh.

Chief Financial Officer from the police department, um, yes, these were the items that we're receiving now, and have been uh reviewed as um Commander McGuire mentioned by the CIO and himself on what is appropriate to use at this time.

Um but if we are to need additional equipment um and the need arises to go out, um then yes, we can.

Um, however, at this point we are seeking to waive that um for the RTEC as part of this.

You're seeking what waiver.

I mean, I think for now, yes, yes, but but for the future gift, I I don't think that I I am in a space where I would like to see you return.

Um, you know, you're only gonna be there for like a year.

Um, so if there are more things that you need, I think that, and not only that, like technically, as a process, and this is clearly the budget committee and not the rules committee, but technically, that as you continue to receive these gifts, you will have to go back to the rules committee and update your surveillance policy.

It actually requires you to report back of what kind of surveillance technology that you're using and how are they comply, you know, surveillance policy that the city has.

I'm gonna give you an example.

Clearly, the voters actually has banned facial recognition in San Francisco, and should there any but further gifts?

I'm not saying that there is, I am just giving an example.

That should there be gift that somehow incorporating AI technology that has facial recognition, I think that's a conversation to be had for San Francisco and through COIT and through like surveillance policy, and before we can even accept that gift.

But the technology itself yields the conversation for the actual policy conversation around surveillance.

I don't want to be in a space where I go ahead and accept this gift, but including this clause for future gift when in reality you will need to actually go back to rules committee to go through for a policy discussion before you can utilize those gift.

Does that does that make sense?

Yes.

Okay.

Um so I am now looking back to theater attorney.

How can we amend this in a way that works for them and that still provide the flexibility that they do need and and making sure the implementation and installation can we say instead of future gift, but how about can we say anything like specifically about the installation of it?

Meaning that the technology the equipments that they need.

And I can see I I'm again being a lay person trying to figure out like maybe there are things that they actually need in order for them to install the gifts that they they are accepting right now, but not further equipment and further technology, or that's that's new from what it's being defined here.

Deputy City Attorney Brad Russian um I think two questions that I have.

First, are we this reads to me as though it could also apply to the Arctic even when it's no longer located at 315 Montgomery?

I see.

So I think your understanding was that it's only limited to gifts related to the facility that they're going to be moving to downtown for that year and a half.

I see.

Understood.

So how would you uh suggest if we were to amend to limit it to only the 315 Montgomery Streets?

Okay, and then my second question is your your intent is to limit it only to facilities related gifts that are funded, not you know, other technology for surveillance purposes or whatever.

So I think maybe we could say um in the final resolved clause that the police department is authorized to accept and expend future gifts from the foundation for possible support of the um facilities needs of the RTCI or Arctic, so long as it's located at 315 Montgomery, including internet services.

I don't know that it has moving expenses, that's not really facilities.

If you'd like to add that or cut it out or I'm fine with the moving expenses.

And additional facilities costs and also include the card readers too.

Because I can draft something for this, but I think that is the intent that you're yeah, I mean, so you know, some of it could be I mean, you know how quickly computers change, right?

And something in the year and a half, we may need a computer that's faster.

You might need a bigger screen.

You uh something might break, a drone might break, and you might need to buy a new one.

Um infrastructure needs for things like uh wiring and things like that gets expensive.

Uh there's there's costs that come in with with just wiring up a place, whether it's electrical or wiring.

And I think that cover in the term of additional facility costs.

And again, the moving was a big thing for us.

Uh, the expenses um so if we I see nodding heads, I think Vice Chair Dorsey seems Vice Chair Dorsey.

So I think the one I just would say I don't want this to listen to seem like we're looking at gifts a gift horse in the mouth, and I really appreciate to Ripple and Chris Larson and the philanthropic support for this uh worthy effort.

Um I will say, as a member of the Board of Supervisors and our vice chair of the budget committee, you know, we do have an administrative code provision for all city departments that when it's a gift of over $10,000, there's a reason you come to us.

Um I think for this kind of thing, I'm gonna be an enthusiastic supporter of it.

But I'm hesitant to create a rule for one department, then somebody's next gonna say, Well, what a you know this?

I don't want to start seeing these in resolutions when there's a reason that we have a legislature here to or a legislative body to have some oversight.

That's why I was asking if there is some if there was something in particular that was onerous about this or that we were creating an obstacle to philanthropic support, then I'm open to to wave waiving it.

Um but if it's something where it's just uh if it's a little time and just to give us the ability to check in, um I would be inclined to amend it the way Chair Chan is uh describing.

If unless I'm hearing from something that this is means, we're gonna be saying no to future philanthropic support.

How onerous would this be if we were to ask you to just adhere to the to the uh amendment that the chair was proposing, right?

So I think that what everybody is looking for is the ability to accept and expend the funds quicker, and I think that that has been a challenge along the way through this process in trying to stand up our tick and get everything in place.

So I think it's not so much to, but I I completely understand what you're saying.

If we have no oversight of that, you know, are we going to be accepting gifts run unchecked?

And you know, I think that that's not the intention here.

I think and I don't think that you're implying, I think it's just a concern.

But I think that really the only reason that that went in there is to make the process speedier and for them to get the technology and infrastructure in place that they need to fully get up and running.

Yeah, then I think that maybe we're in all in agreement to just limit to 350 Montgomery, just get it all set up and get you ready to go.

And I think that the city attorney has uh uh Brad Rossi has uh suggested language that will will get you there to to be the focus on for 315 Montgomery.

You'll come back.

You know, should there be gift, which, you know, I would look back to you and and the mayor, you know, uh, for this, uh if the there's a generosity from the foundation continue on for your actually long-term moving, I look forward to that, and because then you will have to come back uh for your long-term lease and all the other stuff anyways, and then we can have a discussion about what those gifts and those should there be any uh and would look like.

Understood.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um supervisors, I would just prefer, if possible, that we work out the language exactly before you vote on it.

So um if you want to move to the next item, we could come back to this and so you can adopt the amendment specifically.

Yes, and we do want you to actually look at the language before we vote on it and that you you feel comfortable as well.

So we'll we'll leave you to that and then we'll call the last item if that's okay.

Thank you.

Oh, we have not gone to public comments on these two items.

Let's go to public comments on these two items.

Yes, we are now opening public comment for these items 17 and 18.

If we have new 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, and we will come back and to these two items.

And with that, Mr.

Clerk, please go item number 19.

Yes, item number 19 is a motion approving the amendment to the professional services contract agreement with WCG Inc.

or West Coast Consulting Group for Software Development Services to implement a new state-of-the-art legislative management system to the extent that funds are appropriated for that purpose to increase the non-tech seed amount by two million uh to approximately 3.2 million for an initial term of five years ending on August 31st, 2028, with two options to extend the term for five additional years each, and directing the clerk of the board to take all necessary administrative action to amend the contract accordingly.

Madam Chair.

Thank you, and Madam Clerk, thank you for being here.

Thank you.

Members of the committee, Chair Chan Angela Calvio.

I am the clerk of the board, and I'm here together with Dr.

Edward De Asis.

We manage the contracts in the department of the Board of Supervisors.

And today we are requesting the approval of the motion that's before you requesting the authorization to execute an amendment to the professional services contract agreement with West Coast Consulting Group to increase the not to exceed amount by two million from one point one from one million one hundred and ninety thousand four hundred and seventy-six to three million one hundred and ninety thousand four hundred and seventy-six to continue the important work.

We have two slides, and that means one minute per slide.

So I'll make this relatively efficient.

The contractor West Coast Consulting Group, that's WCG Inc., was engaged by the city to build a basic legislative management system to correspond to the board's rules of order, the existing charter sections, the administrative and municipal codes, as well as the hundred and seventy-year-old clerks process.

The contract's current not to exceed amount is one million one hundred and ninety thousand, approximately one million of the current contract amount was approved and funded by COIT for phase one of the project.

Phase one of the project focused on our basic system as described above.

The remaining 190,000 is for the local business entity.

That is a subcontracting requirement.

It's 16% required by the administrative code.

And we're happy to include uh local business entity to work with us on language uh managing different languages for the system.

The current contract that we have is four years as stated by Mr.

Clerk, three years, four years and three months to August 31st, 2028, with two options to renew the agreement for a five year uh agreement for a period of five additional years each.

This motion does not change the existing contract term.

The project has the potential to generate external revenue to the city.

This board has already approved and the mayor has authorized the sale of licenses to other governments.

We have received interest from other units of government in San Francisco as well as externally, and so we are are expecting more potential customers as well.

The motion before you today incorporates the two million dollars uh granted by COIT and approved by this committee and the board of supervisors, uh, and won't be effective for this project until August, uh, and would continue this important work for phase two.

Phase two incorporates our uh innovation.

It would um add the necessary innovation for a confidential legislative drafting tool for the city departments to draft their legislation on pleading paper.

It would include boards and commissions for city departments to automate their processes as well as ours, in addition to a heat map that the public would use to track legislation before the board affecting specific neighborhoods in the city.

We're really excited about that part of the project.

These innovations are not available.

Well, at least the confidential drafting tool and the heat map are not available in the market today.

These innovations will increase the attractiveness of our system to other governments.

And uh for phase one, we are beginning the um testing process, and we'll go we will go live with that in the fall, and are already beginning the uh requirements for phase two.

Thank you for your time.

We appreciate your consideration of this contract modification.

Thank you.

Thank you, madam clerk.

We um we so appreciate you.

Thank you so much for the thinking forward about the fact that we can establish this system that we can provide licensing revenue uh for the department, and we cannot thank you in now and thank you, Dr.

Sat.

At work, thank you.

And with that, uh, we'll go to public comment on this item.

Yes, if we have any members of the public oyster addresses committee regarding this item number nineteen.

That was your opportunity.

Seeing no more 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.

Hi.

Dorsey, I member in Gardeo.

And Gardio, I chair Chan.

I.

Chan, I, we have three eyes.

The motion passes.

And with that, um, I think let's go to five minutes recess and then allowing this to we'll come back.

Fairwell.

Sorry.

The twelve thirty, yes.

Twelve thirty.

Twelve thirty it is.

We'll return at twelve thirty.

San Francisco.

Government television.

Now we're returning to for continue our discussion on items seventeen and eighteen on today's agenda.

I it sounds like we have reached some consensus on the language, and uh maybe city attorney can help us, and Brat Rossi can help us uh read it out loud on the record.

Sure, Deputy City Attorney Brad Rusty.

So the amendment would be to the final resolve clause on page five, starting line sixteen to read further resolved that the police department is authorized to accept and expend future gifts from SFPCF for facilities costs and um software and technological equipment to support the RTC RTIC as long as it's located at three fifteen Montgomery, including but not limited to funds for the installation of card readers, moving expenses, technological upgrades, internet services, and additional facilities costs.

Um that is item I believe eighteen as re out loud by um the deputy city attorney Brad Rossi for and a roll call on the amendment, please.

And on that motion to accept the amendment.

So read into the record by this uh deputy city attorney.

Dorsey, I member and Guardio.

And Guardio, I chair Chan.

I chan I, we have three eyes.

The motion passes.

Sure, and I'd like to make the motion.

By Vice Chair Dorsey.

Then we forward both of these items to the full board with our positive recommendation item eighteen as amended.

Roll call, please.

And on that motion.

Vice Chair Dorsey.

Dorsey, I.

Member in Guardio.

Hankardio, I, Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan, I.

We have three ayes.

The motion passes.

And I hope that before we vote next week, uh, we have a list of tenants uh at Ripple Lab.

Thank you.

Take care of that.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

No problem.

Oh uh Madam Chair, should we adjourn?

Uh Madam Chair, that concludes our business.

We know that people we said that we can.