them. >> >> good morning. this meeting will come to order. welcome to the october 6, 2022 regular meeting of the government audit and oversight committee of the san francisco board of supervisors. i'm supervisor preston chair, joined by vice chair connie chan and supervisor mandelman. the clerk is stephanie cabrera and want to thank our team at sfgotv for staffing

the meeting. any aanounssments? >> the board and committees are convening hybrid meetings that allowed in person attend ens and public comment while providing remote access. the board recognizing equitable public access is essential and will take public comment-first public comment is taken on each item on the agenda. those in person will be allowed to speak first then take those who are waiting on the telephone line. those watching channel 26, 28, 78 or 99 and sfgovtv the public comments is streaming across the screen. the number is 415-655-0001. again, 415-655-0001. when prompted enter the meeting id24845498965 then pound and pound again. when connected you will hear the discussion and be muted and in listening mode only. when the

item comes up and public comment is called those in person should line up to speak and those on the phone dial star 3 be add today the speaker line. if on the phone please remember to turn down the tv and listening devices you may be using. we will be taking public comment from in person first and go to public comment telephone line. you may submit public comment in writing. e-mail to myself, the government audit and oversight clerk at stephanie.cabrera@sfgov .org. if you public comment it will be forwarded to the supervisors. you may send written comments to the office in sitdy hall, 1 dr. carlton b goodlett place, room 244 san francisco. finally items are expected to appear on the board of

supervisors agenda for october 18 unless otherwise stated. thank you, chair. >> thank you madam clerk. please call the first item. >> item 1 is resolution regarding non renewal of mills act historical property contract with claude zellweger and renee zellweger, 621 waller street assessor parcel block number 0864 lot number 0 # 23 under chapter 71 of the san francisco administrative code. notifying the assessor recording office of such non renewal and authorizing the planning director to send notice of the non renewal of the historical property contract to owner and record and notice of non renewal. members of the public who wish to provide public comment should call the line at ow 415-655-0001 meeting id-24845498965 then pound and pound again. if you haven't already done so please dial star 3 to be lined up to speak.

plaiz wait until the system says you are unmuted. >> thank you madam clerk. supervisor peskin is joining us today as the sponsor of this item and our resident mills act expert of these days. supervisor peskin, turn it over to you for remarks. >> thank you chair preston. the mills act of the state of california was enacted i think in the early 1970 which was a state law which authorize local governments to in exchange for work on historic resources by property owners those property owners in exchange could get property tax reductions for a minimum period of 10 years subsequent to the passage of the mills act. the san francisco board of supervisors adopted

chapter 71 of the administrative code which is our local implementing ordinance and there are any number of structures that receive mills act benefits under that law each and every one of those mills act contracts have to be approved by the board of supervisors. in this particular case, 621 waller, some 8 years ago in 2014 received a mills act contract that was approved by the board of supervisors predicated on work being done to the edifice which was supposed to have been completed legally pursuant to permits unauthorized illegal work was constructed on the structure, notice of enforcement and enforcement action undertaken by the planning department which resulted in a certificate of appropriateness being issued after the fact by the historic

preservation commission in july of this year. the historic preservation commission unanimously recommended to this board of supervisors that we not renew the mills act contract which means it would run for another 10 years and i am the sponsor of the resolution that would move to non renewal of mills act contract on 621 waller street. it would continue to enjoy reduced property taxes that would be reduced over the coming 10 year period until they reach zero at the end of that 10 year period. i want to thank supervisor mandelman who is the cosponsor and who's district 621 waller lies in and i and the planning department are available to answer any questions the committee may have. >>

>> thank you supervisor peskin. unless there are any questions or comments from colleagues, why don't we go ahead and open up public comment. >> thank you mr. chair. any members of the public who like to make public comment? please line up to your right. remote call in members press star 3 to be added to the queue. those already on hold please continue to wait until the system indicates you run muted. public comment is limited to 2 minutes. >> yes, hello. my name is renee zellweger the property owner at 621 waller street. we were notified monday we would have this hearing and he is out of town on business. we've owned this property since 2010 and we were in contract with the mills act starting in 2014. we started-we started working with

architects to do a overarching renovation on the house. submitted for permits and in 2016 my husband was out of work for half a year. when we regained ability to move forward with the house in 2016, we were actively engaged in renovations on the property. in 2017, 2018 we were working with rebecca salgado and are shannon furgenson on certificates of appropriateness for some of the work we were doing, and i think for us we were really enthusiastic, had very little experience with renovations and moved forward on some items that for example the

railings and the front-am i done? >> you have 30 seconds. >> anyway, we had moved forward on things that we didn't realize. in the meantime, we did make many repairs that were under our mills act contract totaling $140 thousand. we have been working with turnbill and the city since 2020 to try to get the unpermitted work and all of the work up to compliance and we hope you would reconsider our-- >> your time has lapsed. seeing no more in person comment. we'll move to the call in line. there is no more public comment. >> thank you. public comment on this item is now closed. any additional questions or comments or

supervisor peskin? >> with all due respect to the property owner and i just have to say for the record that when one enters into a mills act, one is held to a higher standard, and one actually affixes one's name to a contract and in exchange for that gets significant tax benefits, and if you look at the contract, which is a part of the file, the responsibilities including compliance with laws of the city and county of san francisco enforcement actions, what have you, are all set forth in this contract that the property owners signed on december 18 of 2014, and did not adhere to. i do want to say that the

recommendations of the historic preservation commission i thought were actually quite lenient. i actually-and we have done this in other circumstances. we could terminate the contract immediately. that's not what we are doing. we are calling for non renewal, which i thought was a very lenient if not kind position for the historic preservation commission to take. >> thank you supervisor peskin. seeing no other comments, supervisor peskin would you like to make a motion to send this item to the full board with recommendation? >> i would if i could, but i'm not- >> correct. thank you. i'm used to -i will make that motion. thank you. please call the roll. [roll call]

>> 3 ayes. >> thank you. the motion passes. madam clerk, please call item 2. >> item 2 is ordinance amending the administrative code to name the permanent supportive housing development located at 1321 mission street in memory of public health advocate margotantonetty. members who wish to provide public comment call the public comment line at 415-655-0001. meeting id-24845498965 then pound and pound again. if you haven't done so already, please dial star 3 to line up to speak. the prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you will begin your comments when we go to public comment. thank you. >> thank you.

supervisor mandenman is the sponsor. i'll turn it over to you for remarks and introduce the speakers. >> thank you chair preston. margotis beloved by many people so it is my honor to (inaudible) permanent supportive housing building at 1321 mission street in memory of margotwho passed way (inaudible) works in the non profit world and civil servant (inaudible) she also influenced city policy on critical public health issues including hiv safety and mental health service, harm reduction and supportive housing policy. margotwas a champion for housing. and firmly committed to insure people thrived in permanent supportive housing. she was professionally committed to helping

the most vulnerable residents and the kind of person who would individually see people on the street and try to figure how she could help them person by person. margot's worked touched many aspect of homeless service. she founded housing (inaudible) invasion supportive housing non profit and spent 4 years managed the department of homelessness portfolio permanent supportive housing. people sometimes ask what we are do with all the money we spend on homelessness. margotis a reminder the city helped 10s of thousands of people exit homeless and (inaudible) formally homeless individuals every night who is otherwise on our streets and in the shelter system. naming 1321 mission after margot is a appropriate tribute to her legacy which serve as reminder we can all step up as individuals

and a community to do more to help end homelessness in san francisco. >> thank you supervisor mandelman and please add me as a cosponsor. madam clerk, if there are not further comments, do you have presenters on the item? >> i believe that we have lauren hall and cheryl adams, who are going to give a brief presentation. >> thank you. welcome. >> our point-i don't did it make it to the clerk? i can-it did not? okay. i have it, but- >> if you have a usb you can load to that laptop there. >> maybe i'll do that while you speak. thanks again. lauren hall the executive director for dish and had the amazing good

fortune calling margot my friend cht she brightened the room. margot spent decades working in the non profit sector and as a civil servant spurring the creation of hundreds if not thousands of units of supportive housing and influencing city policy for the better understanding what was needed for critical issues including serving folks living with hiv active substance users. she was a part of the formation of dish helping lay the ground work for the organization we dreamed becoming. she helped turn our shared commitment to operate housing without barriers to enter and supports to insure people thrive into realty. her focus was welcoming home the most vulnerable people. they often fell through the cracks in the safetynet of the city services to find stiblt care and dignity. she put the needs of the tenant

first but also had deep faith in our team and the team of non profits. she remained a trusted partner and most recent position of supportive housing department of homeless and supportive housing and a standard bearer in the early days of the department bringing deep knowledge what it takes to welcome someone home. marggot had high stands and held them to the work, outfit, shoes and skills making fun of life and sometimes each other. made us better at everything we did. the building the panoramic at 1321 mission is a example of supportive housing done better. i am grateful for the opportunity to operate the site on behalf of the city in partnership with ucsf city wide and compass family service. when we applied to operate the building we asked if we can rename the

site because it was dream to get the bidjug pay tribute to amazing woman. the twists and turns of the process as they unfolded we often laughed think how margot would have enjoyed the drama. i thank you in advance for supporting the request to rename the property to honor the incredible deerly missed fierce and fabulous woman. i'm turn it over to cheryl adams. >> executive director larken street. hard to follow lauren. that was beautiful. i think at the end of the day when i think about what margot meant to the city, i met her in 1997 when i joined baker places and she moved to the city and are i moved to larken street but when i think what margot brought to the city, what she

brought to people experiencing homelessness, she wanted to walk people home so i can't think of a more fitting way to honor her work, her legacy and her deep deep deep commitment and belief that nobody should live outside and that we collectively and individually had a responsibility to do everything that we could and can to make sure that people could come home. and so having a building named after margot the margotspds is a statement about walking people home. they are just about ready. >> thank you. >> i wanted to share, we talk about

supportive housing and you don't get a chance to get a view into the housing unless you come to the opening and tour and that is challenging to get a feel. i want to share a couple photos och the buildsing to get a sense of how amazing this property is. when we first-when margot first passed, she had been such a critical part of our work and we need to rename a building after her and maybe we want to find one not in the master lease portfolio, something with flash and flair and beauty but margot did love our properties. i want to show you a little of what we have and then also incredbable art piece that will be-been installed on the property in her honor. >> just checking, did you send me the e-mail? i have not

received an e-mail just yet. >> madam clerk, can we open public comment and continue working on this and maybe come back? >> i do have it now. >> great. >> i just need to open it. just one moment, please. >> supervisor mandelman, i want to thank your staff jacky, she is helpful to understand resolutions versus ordinances and what we needed to do so thank you for that. >> thank you for doing that as i should have done that. apologies to jacky and thanks to jacky. >> sure. if you can go to the next slide

thank you. it is not showing. one second. >> we caught a glims for a second. >> we will be quick, there is only 3 slides. maybe 4. i just wanted to take a quick peak of the building. the margot. 1321 mission, this is what we call it now. they are beautiful units. there's 120studio units and 39 units for families. as you see from the photos there is a beautiful roof deck, the units are new. they have very modern

amenities, full kitchens and bathrooms which we know we are not able to do in all the units of supportive housing. the next slide gives you another interior shot of the bedrooms, and then just a little of a glims of margot. if you go to the next slide. i want to say that margot was certainly held us accountable to all the work we did but also first to celebrate with us, showed up at opening of the properties. many providers can say margot was always there cheering on. this work is incredibly challenging and there are times the provider community and the city family sometimes have to butt heads because the program is challenging so we end up on opside sides but at the end of the day we are all work frg the same goal ending homelessness and margot was someone who could balance what the city needed to see happen, what provider needs were and feel we were on the team

together. if quou you can go to the next slide. i want to call out the art ss (inaudible) here today. a deer friend of margot's and she created now i believe the name is now the house margot built. an art piece that has-forget how many houses, sebastian. 189 houses that many of us put things inside to honor margot and so that is now in the lobby of the building as a way to commemorate all the different ways she impacted. there are city staff folks, community members, friends, family and loved one and it is reminder when you walk through the door all the impact margot had and how much we need each other to create supportive housing. a final slide as a piece you may have seen in the castro up to recognize her work in the lgbtq community and hoping to also have up at the building. i want to

thank you so much for your attention and patience with technology challenges that are totally my fault. we look forward to renaming the margot with your permission. thank you. >> where is that piece now? >> (inaudible) >> where is the last piece? >> it is hanging outside spunk salon of 19 and (inaudible) >> cool. >> yeah, it is beautiful. jrk r >> thank you very much for there presentation and all your work. >> any members in the public who would like to make public comment? please line up to your right. remote call in members, press star 3 to be added to the queue. those on hold please continue to wait until the system indicates you are unmuted. it appears there are no speakers in chambers. there are two listenings, zero in the queue. no speakers online. >> thank you, public

comment is closed. any final comments? >> no, just thanks again to jacky and also to all of the fierce women who have been around margot and are doing the work along with her. >> thank you supervisor mandelman for bringing this forward and is there a motion to send item 2 to the full board with positive recommendation? >> so moved. >> madam clerk, please call the roll. [roll call] >> 3 ayes. >> thank you, motion passes and please call item 3. >> item 3 is, ordinance amending the health code and police code to extend the sunset date for provisions governing medical cannabis dispensaries from december 31, 2022, to december 31, 2024; and

to allow the extension of temporary cannabis business permits for additional 120-day terms through december 31, 2024, rather than december 31, 2022; affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act; and making findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1. members who wish to provide public comment on the item call the line at 415-655-0001 meeting id-24845498965 then pound and pound again. if you haven't already done so please dial star 3 to line up to speak. the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. >> thank you madam clerk. supervisor mandelman is the sponsor of this item. want to thank for the leadership on this and tracking this issue so closely throughout the pan demgic bringing

this before us. i will turn it over to you. >> thank you chair preston and again thanks are due of jacky who worked on the ordinance as well inheriting all things cannabis related in my office from (inaudible) the ordinance would amend the health code and police code to extend the sunset date for provisions governing medical cannabis from december 31, 2022 to december 31, 2024. this is second time the board will have extended the sunset date with the prior extension. i authored and got passed last november set to expire the end of the year. the legislation allow long standing cannabis businesses including those operated prior to passage prop 64 to continue to temporary operate while applications are processed. the extend thd date is good faith by the city to help these local businesses that voluntarily came

forward to enter the regulated cannabis market place. smallconbus businesses would be forced to cease operation in the up paming year resulting in wide spread closure. (inaudible) i think we should pass this. and then, we do have sophie hayward from office city administrator and (inaudible) office of cannabis and (inaudible) from office of cannabis and nacesh may give a brief presentation. >> welcome. >> good morning. my name is (inaudible) san francisco office of cannabis and want to thank you for consideration and the opportunity to provide backgrond on the item. the ordinance will extend the sunset date

for provisions governing medical cannabis dispenseties and temporary cannabis business from december 2022 through december 2024 (inaudible) just to provide more context. first, the ordinance will amend the health code to allow the existing businesses operating under medical cannabis to continue until december 31, 2024. the deadline extension is necessary to successfully transition our medical cannabis dispensaries to recreational adult use and allow them to continue operation and to remain compliant while supporting the city broader equity goals. as part of the permits right now, these medical cannabis dispensaries commit to support the city equity goals and temporary authorization is a condition of their successful support for the equity program. these commitments typically include providing financial assistance technical assistance and donation and holding charity and event for

the equity community at large so we value the commitments these businesses provide. in addition the ordinance exz tend the effective date of temporary cannabis permit through december 31, 2024. these businesses operate under temporary permits as part of the amnisty program to allow non retail cannabis business operators to come forward make and activities known to the city and come into compliance with our laws. in conclusion, the ordinance legislation impacts local businesses that voluntarily came forward to enter the regulated cannabis space. they are businesses that avail of the city comprehensive cannabis rules and regulations. as noted in the absence of this legislation these small businesses could cease and as a result potentially return to the illicit space. the aufsh of cannabis is not immune from the challenges the pandemic brought and effected capacity to

process these permits in a more expeditious manner. but with additional staffing provided through grant support from the state, we have hired 3 additional staff members who will be dedicated to working on permitting applications including converting applications that these medical cannabis dispensaries submitted and applications by temporary cannabis business permit holders. this concludes my presentation. thank you again for the opportunity to speak to the matter and i'm joined by my staff to answer any questions you may have. thank you for your time. >> thank you. vice chair chan. >> thank you chair preston. i think i like to understand a little. what are the numbers of back log at this moment? >> absolutely. so, when we speak about the existing industry, the industry that is effected by the ledgeilation, for medical cannabis we have approximately 33

medical cannabis businesses operating with medical cannabis permits at the time. there are approximately another 20not operating but submitted applications. to be threer, it is not-we are not sure how many of the 20 would move forward with the applications they submitted several years ago. we do know that of the total of about 50, 33 are active with our system right now and we suspect they will move forward for permanent conversion. on the temporary side, there are about 60 businesses that are operating with temporary permits. again, it is difficult to have a good gauge of how many of these will move forward for permanent conversion but the majority submitted applications for permanent conversion. supervisor chan, i hope that context helps a little bit. >> through the chair, i think the question also is then, i totally get it, like you wouldn't know whether they are moving forward until you actually talk to them and process their

applications, so it sounds to me there are about 33 medical as a existing medical cannabis permit and then about 60 that are just applications and permits and whether it is medical or recreational and another 20 that you mention also is that you are not sure-i think i just like clarification. break down- >> sure. i can break those number downs more. when we talk about the medical cannabis universe that is about 50 in total, but 33 of those have-are active within our system and the department of public health system now so they have a permit to operate and authorized by our office to engage in recreational use. the other 20 we have not heard from them and

not heard from them. the 33 that are active would move for permanent conversion and there is the possibility the other 20may, but it sun clear. >> what are the 60? >> the 60 refers to the number of businesses operating with temporary permits. these are businesses that are non retail. they are on the supply side and they are businesses that enter through the amnity program several years ago. of the 60 it is unclear how many will move for permanent conversion but fair to say the majority will because they have submitted applications. i'm happy to have ray provide additional clarity with regard to the temporary side. >> the temporary are temporary medical cannabis permits? >> they are temporary cannabis businesses. apart from the medical context. the medical cannabis are retail.

these 60 businesses are on the supply side. they are not medical cannabis, they are temporarily permitted for recreational cultivation manufacturing distribution. ray, anything else? >> thank you for the question supervisor chan. on the supply side, they manufacture cannabis products to provide for both medical and recreational use cannabis, and to your question about the 20 inactive mcd, in other words, i think the (inaudible) very well, but another way to understand is they all have their tickets to submit an application, but they have not done so yet, and another reason why we said for the 33mcd and the other 60 temporary permit holders they all submit the applications but we won't know how much they really want to move forward only because as a condition of their temporary authorization from our

office they were required to submit the permanent application in september 2018. if they did not do that, which means they are not able to keep the temporary authorization. that is part of the reason why we have those applications in our universe but we won't know until we review the application jz to your point in communication to know more about it. >> i am only asking these questions really because we extended once and this is you return for continue of extension and asking for additional two years. i just wanted to understand then what is your strategy and approach to clear your back log? >> absolutely. ray feel free to take a stab as well. we are highly motivate td to clear the back log. we are encouraged by the additional 3 members dedicated to permitting and probably most importantly, we have cleared the back log of applications we received from equity

applicants which means we can move to the mcd and temporary permit holders. there are a couple things we are doing that encourage me to think this will be completed before the two years. one is we have been in active conversations with planning and department of buildsing inspections to better understand what the pathway looks for these type of applications because they are different then the ones we have processed in key respects. one being for the medical cannabis dispenseties they are an operational business. they are in businesses that are more or less in compliance so suspect the pathway for conversion will be faster then for our businesses that are starting from scratch and on the temporary side, those businesses are varying levels of completion and compliance so suspect it may talk longer but there are cases that may move more expeditious. we are encouraged and we can resume processes those applications because

we've cleared the back log of cases mandated by the code to process firs. >> thank you, i appreciate it. with this reminded me the last time when we had the conversation either in the hearing or during the briefing was that you were trying to prioritize the equity applications and i think that was like if i remember the number correctly like roughly 98- >> that's right. >> 98 equity applicants you have to do deal with and prioritize so i appreciate the work you as a team have been doing, prioritizing equity to applicants and look forward to seeing you cleaning the back log and glad you have 3 additional staff. >> we appreciate it. we are happy to say we issued 31 equity permits which is double the number of 2021 so progress is happening. it is a little slow but hopeful to continue the momentum and add the existing industzry players. >> thank you and thank

you chair preston. >> thank you. unless there are further comments or questions, let's go ahead and open public comment. >> any members of the public in the chamber who would like to make comment for item 3? please line up to the right. remote call in members press star 3 to be added to the queue. for those on hold please continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. seeing no people in chambers, let's move to remote call in line. there are currently three listners and zero in the queue. no speakers. >> thank you, public comment for the item is closed. supervisor mandelman, any final comments or a motion? >> no final comments, but i would move we forward this to full board with positive recommendation. >> madam clerk, please call the roll. [roll call]

>> there are 3 ayes. >> thank you. the motion passes. madam clerk, please call item 4. >> item 4, hearing on the city's rent relief program to get greater clarity on how funds are being allocated, make sure funds are going to as many tenants as possible, and to explore how we can use all available resources to ensure that no tenants are left behind; and requesting the mayor's office of housing and community development to report. >> members of the public who wish to provide public comment call 415-655-0001 meeting id-24845498965 then pound and pound again. if you haven't already done so please dial star 3 to line up to speak. the prompt will indicate you have raised your hand, please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments when we go to public comment. thank you, chair. >> thank you madam clerk. colleagues in

june 2021 this committee held a hearing as the city was standing up a local rent relief program to get clarity on how funds were to be allocated and explore how we could use all available resources to insure that no tenants were left behind. when we learned on september 21 of this year just a couple weeks ago that the mayor's office of housing and community development was putting a pause on accepting new applications to the rent relief program effective two days after that announcement september 23, we decided to revive this file, bring this issue back to committee and get some additional clarity on how and why the decision to pause the rent relief program was made, and perhaps most importantly how to make sure we continue to protect impacted tenants, make sure they get the help they

need to stay in their homes and avoid mounting rent debt cht i want to note our city has really gone above and beyond to insure that we have local funds available to meet the tremendous need from tenants impacted by the pandemic and we were among the first cities to study the issue with october 2020 bla report my office requested. that report laid the groundwork for this body to come together to allocate $42 million of prop i revenue in 2021 for covid related rent relief. we continued to add funds for that purpose and by march of this year, that figure had grown to approximately $52 million to insure san franciscans did not lose their homes, funds that were approved by this board for that purpose. my understanding and we'll get into details during the

presentation and q & a, the full up mount of funds dispersed and available to date is at just over $76 million which is a really significant commitment by the city to tenants during this pandemic. when the state of california on march 31 of this year stopped accepting applications to the state rent relief program, we as a city and really among the leading cities in certainly in california but probably across the nation were in a position where we had the funds to make sure we could continue providing assistance despite the state really abandoning tenants starting in april this year. so, i want to recognize the work of ocd, hsh,

all the community based non profit partners standing up these programs in a constantly changing landscape, a bit of a rollercoaster ride through the pandemic around state intervention and federal interventions. i know that the leadership and staff from ocd and hsh spent a lot of time insuring the program is reaching san franciscans in need and i can tell you i have spoken with most of our cbo partners and the non profits and their staff have been working tirelessly to make sure residents are connected with resources and relief. i want to be clear that this hearing is not in any sense to take away from any of that work or to criticize any of that work, instead it is to get really clarity on where the program is, but i do want to express the concern that the board of supervisors, my office

included and i believe the entire board were notified literally 48 hours before the local program was going to be paused for a period of what we'll get clarity but believe months. i can think of few issues more important to most of the constituents, particularly those renting their homes then the availability of rent relief and we need to communicate with the constituents especially after we set aside all the funds to make sure that the administration is continuing to get those funds out the door. i really hope that this not only opens up a good or bring clarity today, but also going forward that there is more open line of communication and the board is given significantly more notice and the public significantly more notice if these kind of changes are

happening. we got a lot of residents that are struggling still to make rent that we have-we'll hear more about it, we have some existing local protections against evictions but the rent debt is still mounting for people. that is the point of the program is eleaveiate rent debt and bring peace of minds to folks who have many things to be concerned bu about now. i understand director shaw from ocd is presenting. i don't see him in chambers so assume remotely. director shaw, are you available? >> i'm here, mr. chair. >> welcome, the floor is yours. >> thank you very much. good morning chair and members. my name is eric shaw, director of housing and community development and are

pleased to share a status update on the emergency rental assistance program with you today. chair, next slide. as you know we had a state program for some time within san francisco. the operations and scale significantly changed as we responded to covid. prior to covid we had $3.8 million in local and federal sources kwr we served about 2400 household s annually through a number of what were then pre-hsh providers but similar. during covid recovery we got a significant amount of federal resources and state resources and are over the next 18 mujts that scaled to $206 million with 20thousand households with significant operation around operations and for

outreach and operations from both state and local partners. next slide, please. i am proud to say that we probably had one of the most effective outreach campaigns within local history. as it relates to mobilizing 10 local based community organizations and other community partners around both outreach and the distribution of funds. i'm happy to say in response i think to leadership of the mayor and input from the community and yourselves, we made sure to have a multi-lingual program. our program became the model how the state provided their translation services and we significantly reached the most vulnerable with 93 percent of the funds going to people between 0-30 percent ami and having a real commitment to respond to communities of color. we go who is

disproportionate impacted rental assistance and rental needs with 36 percent of resources going to the latinx community, 16 percent to african american community and 13 percent to the asian american community. as you know, we actually gone through a series of iterations we talk about the emergency rental assistance program. we launched as a loclt program with local funds and then-i believe that started in march or april of 2021 with us transitioning in june to the state program because they were able to administer the resources a lot more. in that instance the state processed about 3 quarters of the applications but there was still some local resources that are mobilized before. there was case management of applications before the transition to the state, and then now as the state stopped accepting applications

as of april 1, 2022, we have transitioned back into our-transitioning back-i won't say we have, into a locally administered program with our local partners. next slide, please. i do want to note that emergency rental assistance program is more then just cutting a check. there is significant outreach to make sure different communities, especially communities in need are understand the resource is available. we made significant partnerships and coalitions with a number of non profit partners and including department association to make sure both landlords and tenant know about the program and make sure diverse populations and multi-lingual. there also is a component of case management especially in a post-as you think about sort of a longer

term covid recovery, we are looking at not just the immediate need around rent but the connection to other services where oewd to make sure people are-they say they need employment resources are connected to jobs but there is a lot more case management happening. in addition to that, whereas, we are still also doing significant amount of verification to make sure people have income and are connected to verifying the address and doing the additional reviews and monitoring that is needed, and then there is distribution. a lot of people think they ask for the resource and are then a check is cut, but there are series of (inaudible) to make sure we are stabilizing residents, and connect to the services needed and responsible stewards of the money and mobilize the resource jz working with

people-the organization distributing the checks to make sure they are in compliance with our fiscal and reporting requirements. next, please. so, where we are right now, to be candid, is that we have about 4500 pending applications. and we are trying to understand the nature of those applications and we are trying to understand the resources and systems we can tweak internally to make sure we are more responsive. we have a really strong outreach operation. i think we have been very effective making people ask for that resource, but there really is bottlenecks in the terms of doing case manage ment and verification and cutting the checks and so the analogy i would like to use as it

relates to this is that when we launch the initial program locally we were building a plane and flying at the same time. i want to thank our team and i want to thank our community partners for having the plane be built, but i know sometimes that we have to distribute the weight and make sure we are rebalancing appropriately to keep the plane on the trajectory. that is where we are now. we were understanding and processing-we were doing the appropriate analysis to understand how many applications we were getting in, what the nature of the applications were, and how many applications could be processed in a year. i mean processed in a month. what we are seeing right now is that we are getting a lot more applications in then can be processed and the expectation of timely responsiveness to constituents to address the true emergency need understanding capacity constraints of the

system as a whole, we made a decision to pause receiving more applications to be able to clear the back log we have right now and are to make the necessary administrative adjustments such that we can continue to have a streamlined and responsive steady state program. and so, that took series of analsis and consultation with (inaudible) and fellow directors (inaudible) partner with them on the funds and the determination was made. as you know, we have worked really hard to be a partner with the board of supervisors making sure we have shared communication plans and we just realized we were at a critical

moment with applications we were seeing and what was being processed that we would not-and we were hearing feedback from the front desk, we want to be responsive and timely and being able to award these assistance out and we knew we were straining the system. that is where we are right now with the intention doing this pause to make sure we process the applications we need understand where we are and who has been applying, understand capacity of our partners, understand capacity of the respective teams and understanding in the end that we have appropriate amount of (inaudible) within the system around tenant protection, such that a pause in e-rap-there

are other tenant protections and other programs we felt comfort that a pause is still the appropriate protection in place to keep people in their homes. next slide, please. and so, as i started to mention we are in-we are not in a steady state. we are transitioning from what was a local program to state program to local program with residual related to the state program, and so we at some point were prioritizing folks not funded by the state program. we know some folks got 18 months assistance and there was additional resources needed and understanding how to supplement that. there is a lot of spaces right now that we are not in a full steady state program. we are looking now how to clear any back log that may have been from the transition itself. there was a moment where we needed

to stand up, we will never have the equivalent resources the state has to process these applications and we understand and doing learning from the challenges the state had with the volume they had and lessens learned to make sure to apply that support our community development partners that are resourcing and operationizing this program. as with ourselves as a city and cbo partners there are capacity challenges as relates to staffing and we are trying to make sure we recognize and supporting not asking our partners to do more then they can do and then penalizing them or straining them more. i think everyone is working as hard as they can to get as much done as possible to be as responsive as possible but we do have to recognize there are capacity challenges around the operation of this program. the

realty in the end is we know that financial impacts continue, so i think we initially thought 18 months back rent would reset a lot of folk jz think we are seeing right now there are still lingering impacts economically to some of the most vulnerable households and we are asking ourselves now, we need to have the case management to understand and address structural issues that were highlighted and exacerbated by covid-19 and continue to exist (inaudible) and there is still economic uncertainty now that we are seeing not just the impact of economic shutdown but the impact of inflation and other costs coming up now that there still continues to have that exist so there are new shocks that are impacting houses asking for assistance. next slide. and so,

the realty is we are still as we think about this transition to steady state and operationalize the space, we do want to recognize there are local funds available from prop i and prop c. prop c being long-term. we are learning once again from our-from who applied for the assistance before and who we know are the most vulnerable and are that instance you want to note we are prioritizing past homelessness, extremely low income and risk of eviction in terms of getting these resources out with the prioritization if someone is formally homeless and they are at risk now we want to minimize any shocks that put them back into homelessness. we are recognizing with evictions now and displacement and i know that chairman preston this is something you asked of

us before. we continue to work on that and we are looking at right now is also a pipeline. there are structural issues around very low income folks is emergency rental assistance the best investment to stabilize them. we continue to work with the housing authority. (inaudible) housing authority hud and the state to understand how we can identify people who are structurally in need of permanent resources to housing and how that aligns with the existing voucher es and programs from the state and federal government to invest in them. once again, we are understanding our portfolio of affordable housing and where people are within the list for accessing our housing and different housing programs, but we see once again as we transition to permanent space that we will prioritize

those most vulnerable and at risk. we are understanding the amount of resources that will be coming in for us to make decisions about how we prioritize and how we are able to get resources out, and understanding how to be more intentional and systemic and connecting to our other housing stabilization programs where there are actually resources for keeping people and putting people in homes. next slide, please. as we still note there are existing protections for tenants and tenants will continue to be protected. we have emergency ordinance permanent prohibiting eviction through the covid-19 rents originally due from july 1, 2022 to the emergency proclamation is terminated. as you know, we fully fund tenant right to counsel and we are still making sure that tenants are connected to that resource. we have-we are working really closely with the case managers to

understand evictions that are going to court and understanding how to mobilize those resources and work with the court to deploy to minimize eviction and we are continuing to keep with our counseling, mediation and other assistance programs. with that, i'm joined by (inaudible) ramirez the program director and (inaudible) the director of policy and government affairs and i'm happy to take any questions that you have. >> thank you director shaw and appreciate the context and really all the work you and your team have put into this. i will say for those who at the beginning of the pandemic assumed that this might turn into an eviction epidemic as well as a health one, i think san francisco has shown that when we want to take action and dedicate the funds and

the resources to preventing that that we can. so, i did have some questions to get a little more detail. you addressed some of the things that were-that i was going to ask, so thank you. a few others. one is i-one of the slides said there are 43 million available remaining that is available for rent relief. can you clarify how much has been spent to date through this program and how many people have been served? >> would you like to answer? >> you can do that. >> good morning chair preston and committee members chan and mandelman. (inaudible) mayor office of housing and community development. so to date our local program has served all

most 5,000 households with all most 34 $34 million so the $43 million is still available for additional financial assistance for pending applications. >> thank you for that information. also, what-can you break down what is the sources of-the total-it is 34 that has been distributed and 43 that still on hand. can you break down the sources? familiar with most of it, but if you could just take- >> certainly. most of the $34 million is made up of one time u.s. treasury funds for the first round of emergency rental assistance. and several-the remaining is mostly prop c funds. our city our home funds that were

allocated last fiscal year and so the remaining $43 million is comprised primarily of general fund from the mayor and board budget. i think that was $32 million. additional $10 million in prop i supplemental and prop cfunding as well from the current fiscal year. prop i, prop c, and general fund. >> thank you. and then is the funding for radco -those loans is that-that existed pre-pandemic. is that ongoing in addition to this? the radco funding? >> great question. radco is rentsal assistance distribution component. it is a long time rental assistance program at

the edc. radco is what the edc calls their rental assistance operation when in fact it is really sfe rap. radco at edc is not separate and distinct it is sfrrap at edc. that program as indicated in the presentation will continue to be available to tenants facing eviction in court primarily through the edc since the edc straddles both eviction legal defense system and sferap. >> thank you. one question that came from the e-mail we received around the pause in the program was sent to the board, there is a comment that said that the controllers constraints on grantee

advances limits the dollars that our cbo partners can disperse monthly. can you describe what-just explain that and describe what those controller constraints are? >> yes supervisor. all our community development programs actually operate on a reimbursement basis, and i think that as we talked about before, this unprecedented amount of resources -there was clear feedback from community partners that we are asking for community partners to front the money with a gairen tee they will receive the funds on a rebim bursement basis. we work with the controller's office to understand if there was a way to advance a portion of the money to make sure that we

were not straining the balance sheets of the community partners and we have been working with the controller's office and working and understanding the budget of the community partners to right-size the amount of money that we were able to advance that we believe could be managed by the partner and monitored by our office. and so in that instance, it is not a direct grant to these partners and we have been working with the controller's office to understand how much money we can advance based off the budget and capacity and monitoring capacity of our organization and the organizations who are partnering. >> is that currently one of the bottlenecks in terms of clearing up these claims? is

it a limit how much we can advance? just wondering how we unstick that, because- >> yeah, so i would say no. yes and no. i would say no. i think that right now i want to thank the controller's office and fiscal team. benjamin, (inaudible) only see him at budget and him and fiscal director have been working very hard on this. it is not necessarily the financial, because for a while and i think the applications we are getting we didn't have that advance space. we didn't have that advance in the initial iteration of the erap program and partners deliver. i think our negotiation to work with the controller's office accelerated this. once again, the bottleneck is that we are getting a lot more applications then can

be processed by staff and the case manage agement and verification piece so it is less on the fiscal piece then it is on just the overall capacity of the system to absorb what is coming in and process that. it takes a week to apply for a application. it takes a week maybe less then that, but it takes a member of weeks for verification for case management and for cutting checks, so we are seeing it is easy to get in the system but takes the system to time to move you through the system. >> okay. >> so, we have the (inaudible) we learned something from our initial local program with the state in particular with the non profit partners where case management exist or verify income. we are trying

to find a way to batch those. (inaudible) if we know they are (inaudible) working with property managers, case managers and others to identify bunches to move through. (inaudible) how to work with the property managers to make sure we leave no one left behind and that was a big-that was a big push and (inaudible) we were able to get our permanent supportive housing providers to work with the state and mobilize the partners to do one large check to clear the back log. we are doing the process improvements (inaudible) exist already due to standing relationship that a resident may have with city services. >> got it. thank you. i just want to be clear because what i hear is that the-i

understand the staffing completing this verification basically reviewing and assessing the applications, it sounds like that's-the back log is primarily attributable to limits on the ability to process this large number, not because of some constraint from the controller or otherwise around advancing funds? >> that's correct. >> thank you. and on the decision to pause the program, i want to ask you a little about that. what is the problem with continuing to accept applications--because we are not approaching any situation where we are running out of money. there is $43 million, so presumably if every application

has come in was approved verified and appropriate for distributing funds we wouldn't have run through the money. obviously when we first heard you were pausing that was my alarm. my concern was have we run through nunds and we are just hearing about it two days before, because as i always said and i think a lot of colleagues on the board have said, if we are at that point we want to hear from ocd and have a discussion with the board about approving additional funds, but we are not there. we got $43 million. so, why does the back log cause us to pause? i understand why the back log would cause us to take more time to process a application, but why are we-why was the decision made to no longer accept applications for this time? >> thank you for that. it is about being

responsive. we also listen to the front desk. i get a front desk report on what are the number one calls we are getting and it was getting to a point that with 4 thousand applications, we are working to clear the back log and trying to get hopefully to a thousand applications processed a month. we are not there yet. when someone calls for emergency rental assistance the hope in the end all is turn around time and there is a real moment creating like legitimate angst for residents that were seeking emergency program, but not being able to receive that resource for months out. i would say this is a level of-a gut check but also a process check is that if someone asked for emergency rental assistance we need to

be honest about how quickly we can respond to that and i think we need to be honest and right-sizing the space to be able to have certainty about a response time and because there is still more going into the system, there can't be a moment and we were on the state about this where people submitted applications in november and didn't get their checks for emergency rental assistance until april or may and that isn't a space of ocd wants to function. we want to be responsive and timely program and we were looking at the analytics in the past, looking going forward in the future, we were getting strained to a moment that the timing factor for responding with the resource was getting such that the emergency nature and then the need to respond to the emergency were not

aligning. and that instance right now we needed to stop applications coming in to reform the system, to clear this, to give a little breather for all of us to be able to reset what we can to have-to build more certainty in the ability to respond to an application that comes into the system going into the future. >> is the decision to pause primarily to manage the expectations of the folks applying? is that- >> i would never say management expectations. it really was a question of-it was starting to be challenging to meet a immediate need. i think with the transition from covid

relief where there was eviction protection and a guarantee of 18 months, we felt comfortable that the money could take longer to come because we knew the eviction protection was there and had certainty on the amount and knew it would come and were talking to department association. in this instance right now, the protection still exist, but the folks applying are applying for back rent but sometimes applying for immediate rent so in that instance we want to make sure we can have a timely response to meet an emergency request because we are seeing a little of covid back log and seeing current financial issues now we want to be responsive to. it isn't managing expectations it is certainty how long it

takes for us to respond and need to clear the system with past covid debt to get to the right amount of time. >> how many new applications was the city receiving at the time the decision was made to pause the problem? on a weekly basis how many applications were we receiving? >> wasn't it about 700? i differ to (inaudible) on the team. >> sorry, i are was muted. yes, we were receiving most recent about 250 to 300 per week. >> 700 a month. >> thank you. do we know roughly or any sense of the breakdown of the rental periods this was covering and with a eye toward-i'm trying to figure how much of that was rent that was due from before july 1, 2022 and how much is this more recent period

from july to the present. do we know that? >> we are still assessing that. that is something that we are closely analyzing. i could tell just from reviewing these applications in the system that most of them are pre-july 1, 2022. as you know chair preston- >> you said for rent pre-july 1? >> pre-july 1, 2022, that's correct. most recent applications are. some of the back log does include request for the covid-19 rental debt period. that older rental debt, but more between the state effort and local effort over the past year and a half or so, most has been cleared out but there is still some tenants who need help with it, so i would say that most of

the recent applications are for the period between april and july 1. april 1 and july 1. >> thank you. i just want to flag this is one of the concerns with the pause for rent debt that is after july 1, our local law is back in effect. we are saying that any rent debt occurred in july in august september, october if the reason for not payment is covid related that can't be the basis for eviction until the state of emergency is up. so, for that period of time tenants have that protection so the rent from before july 1, from the earlier periods when the state rezeme was in effect the state protections have all gone away, and our city is limited in our

ability to regulate that rent from the time period state law was in effect so that is certaining if folks are applying for rent relief for that period of time earlier this year and before which sounds like a significant number of applications those folks may be vulnerable here. >> chair preston, i apologize, i are misspoke, it is for the period from april through june. not sure if that is what i said earlier. sorry, through more recently. it does include the period that is protected. the requests for rental assistance spans mostly april through september. so not concentrateed in april through june. it is april through june that is highest priority for the reason just cited so that will be the

primary basis for the eviction diversion component of erap where again whether or not a tenant has a pending application they will be triage because they were most at risk for the state and local protection so april through june. >> right. we are in agreement who is highest risk. i'm wondering if there was any consideration or is any consideration of unpausing the applications for folks who are seeking the rent for that period? in other words, it is one thing to pause for the rent in september or october when we know people cant be evicted over that rent because of the local law, but getting allowing those applications to continue coming in for the time periods where tenants might be vulnerable for eviction. administratively if you can do that but

wonder is that something you considered or might consider? >> go ahead. >> supervisor, the answer is yes. the pause doesn't mean the works stops and case and outreach stops. in that instance we continue to look case by case basis but i think also that there has been some time to take the process of the applications as well. i don't anticipate a lot more applications coming in for that period. i think that we were really clear-we were very aggressive telling everyone march 30 apply apply apply apply apply for the straight for the state program and the state program stopped taking applications and very aware monitoring the interim period, but i think as

said, tied to the eviction diversion, tied to case management, the hope is our outreach team did a great job and we touched a lot of people that i really feel like this is the-if you ate a snake, this is the meal going through still right now, but i don't anticipate anymore from that time coming in. >> when do you anticipate resuming allowing applications? >> i think we are still evaluating that now. we are still trying to understand the data, understand how long it will take to clear the back log we have and work-trying to understand what systems have to be reformed. we understand this is a critical tool within

our tool box around tenant protection but we want to get it right and make sure we don't overwhelm the system again too quickly. i think we will be responsible in how we time this. it will be in consultation with the service providers. it will be in clear consultation from the outreach partners and we want to get it right because we really are trying to make sure we transition to a steady state. >> no time estimate that you can give us? i understand there are a number of variables and things you are working on, but are you- >> i think we can give you a report back in a couple weeks on that when we have done the analysis and done some of that work but i can't commit to a date now. >> okay. just one

other comment and i will turn it over. i know vice chair chan has questions as well. i just want to note--it was very frustrating for everyone at the state level when the state program was running and people would apply and many months go by so i understand some ways i think we are trying to avoid that situation. have a more functional program locally then what in many ways i think was botched at the state where everyone was frustrated, landlords and tenants were frustrated. at the same time, the state continued allowing those applications, and that application provided some protection for tenants from being evicted during that time because it wasn't their fault the state was taking a long time to process it. i understand it is different in terms of legalities but as a practical manner in the event a landlord

moves forward with eviction it looks really different to a court to someone trying to negotiate a settlement or resolution. if a tenant filed an application and the city or someone else is delaying because of bureachy or process or overwhelmed with applications so the money hasn't come in yet, that is a different look then people turned away from a program. some of whom may never apply again and can't really show that-the landlord shouldn't evict them because they should be waiting for the check even if we are frustrating how long it takes so i want to note that is more realty as someone who represented many many people facing evictions and presenting these things in court. it matters if you can point to a pending application for the money in the event that someone moves forward with eviction. vice chair chan. >> thank you chair

preston. i think you have really asked most of the questions that i intend to ask specifically about applications and funding sources making sure that we have enough. i just are want to have a clarifying point that was mentioned earlier in the presentation and also in the answering chair preston's question was that, we already as a city process 5,000 households or applicants with the $33 million distributed and with roughly 4500peneding applications but what we are looking at is 2250 households and yet we still have about $43 million available for those 2 thousand something households is that correct? >> to clarify

supervisor chan, it is true we have $43 million available in direct financial assistance. that isn't to suggest that that will all go to thepeneding apcondition. that is what we have available at this time. we'll have a portion of that available when we resume accepting new applications as well. >> and the 5,000 you processed were households or applications? >> great question. they are households. all of these figures in terms of tenants served are by household: and >> that is is 34 or $34 million distributed for the 5,000 households? >> that is correct. >> go ahead. >> that has been from the onset of the program before-we are counting our

expenditure of local funds over the course of the program so that was the initial launch of the program i believe march or april of 20- >> (inaudible) >> and that was >> june 2021. >> 2021 already. also was roughly $58 million of state funds received for rent relief though? >> that is correct, supervisor and the state of california was able to leverage more then a $120 million beyond that as a result of our partnership. so it is true that the state of california received $58 million from the u.s. treasury for san francisco, but through legislation the state of california actually tapped into the general fund to leverage an additional more then 120million for san francisco through the partnership.

>> right. so, i think what i would love to see if possible is that for follow-up that we could see a break down of funding sources and just what has been spent and what has remained to be available. i think that there is-i'm trying to figure out when we mention about while that not everybody could qualify for the state and the local funding for rent relief and you mentioned availability of prop i and prop c funding which i'm grateful we have that and thanks to supervisor preston with the prop i transfer tax we are now being able to allocate those funding. just like to understand the break down for the previous 5,000 households and are upcoming 2 thousand something households how those funds are distributed among them and how much each household received. in fact i think there was a resolution i authored

previously asked specifically we also like to understand because i understand that with the rent relief it doesn't go to the tenants directly which is that what you are trying to solve. the reason why you have the back log because you understand they need services as well, but at that time we also understand that the rent relief really doesn't go to the tenants directly but go to the landlords and we like to understand who are the landlords receiving these rent relief and small property landlords or corporate landlereds lands lord and how much each landlord received so we like to understand the breakdown and tracking as well moving forward. thank you so much for all your work and that is all my questions . i don't expect all those answers today but like to see a breakdown. >> thank you vice chair chan. one other question i have, how are you going to let residents know when the program resumes

accepting applications? and do you have-will be you following up with people who submit during this period in which the program is paused? >> so, i are think-in this instance we have been clear coordination with the agency partners with hsh and program administrations from the cbo and outreach mechanism and so in that instance as--the outreach isn't stopping if it needs tenant protections in the other spaces, it is just pivoting and messaging at this moment but we'll continue to work with outreach partners, with the agency partners and the operation partners to communicate this. we are doing a multi-channel and with you all as well. i want to thank you very much for being responsive. i thank you for all the work you did amplifying this. it was in the

news letter and tweets and want to thank the supervisors for their work and amplifying this initially as we launch both the local program, as we launch the transition to the state program and we tried to push folks to get the applications before march 30 this year. in that instance we will continue to coordinate with all those channels to make sure that not only the people know the existing tenant protections, but when those applications will be received again. >> thank you director shaw. supervisor mandelman. >> on that point-i don't know. i don't know what is hard and not hard but it does seem to me if i were trying to submit application and find i couldn't submit an application at the very least it is nice if there were a way to request easily i'm not able to submit the application which

makes my case as chair preston pointed out maybe harder then it would ideally be, but at least if i could know as soon as this program starts taking applications because i tried to submit application i will be informed-it seems like having a box to click for that and then e-mail address or phone number i can put in so i can then have some belief i will hear at some point and don't have to keep checking a website might be nice. >> i appreciate that input supervisor and we'll keep you updated how we progress with that. >> thank you. i think we all know with any program, it is hard to get especially the most vulnerable folks hard to get folks to apply even when there are resources stow is a huge success of this program that the non profit partners and

ocd and hsh have gotten the word out to the point where 250-300 people a week are applying so that should be applauded but we also know if 300 people receive an e-mail saying sorry you can't apply right now, some will remain in need but will not re apply in the future so any extra care we can take in terms of notification and tracking of those folks i think would be time well spent. and i do want to go back to before we go to public comment, just the numbers. i am concerned about not having a timeline for this to be done and would definitely appreciate in the upcoming week or two update of projections because the e-mail sent to the board of supervisors by ocd announcing this estimated a 2 month

pause in the program, but what i hear in terms of the numbers is that we have a 4,000 application backlog and are aspiring to process about a thousand applications per month so that would suggest more like a 4 month pause, and that's just very concerning to me and i think we really have to ask whether that is the best approach or whether we should be resuming the applications with a detailed disclaimer telling people this may take x number of months and we are behind on the backlog and working to get through that. i think it is one thing if this is a few weeks, a month, 6 weeks, but if we are looking, 3, 4, 5, month pause i think my question to you really to think about would be, what else do we need to be doing to scale up the capacity? what would it take to

be able to unpause more quickly. i will leave that more as food for thought and madam clerk if you can open up public comment on this item, that would be great. >> thank you mr. chair. any member ozf the public in the chamber who would like to make public comment for item 4? please line up to your right. remote public call in members press star 3 to be added to the queue. for those already on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. >> welcome. >> now? okay. hi. i'm (inaudible) i wasn't hear for this item, but i was so happy to hear it, and i just wanted to say kudos to the case managers for the rental assistance program, the district 5 and district 10 who i have been in touch with and as latest-i think it was tuesday,

if it wasn't tuesday it was monday i spoke with one of the case managers because prior to the cut-off for the state or whatever, the last session of money, i have referred about 34 specifically 34 individuals for rental assistance and all but one received their funds and one got evicted. we dont know what the situation is because they will not tell us why. kudos to them. not only it is very comprehensive program that thank you director shaw. i don't know you, but if you are the director over this program it is doing awesome work. that is the things we don't hear because people only speak up when it isn't going their way or when they are dissatisfied. i felt i needed to commend the program, the only two i know

i'm working with because my work in a community with the shipyard overlaps with the work for people who-because they are not worried about the shipyard if they don't have a place to stay. i want to say kudos to the program and they told me tuesday or monday while they have a pause that soon one of the case manager s told me said, don't worry, we are going to open our program soon so that is within weeks. thank you. >> thank you. >> we will move to public comment online. we have 6 in line. one in the queue. can you please forward the caller? >> hi supervisors. i'm a district 5 resident in the building of a big wall street landlord. i

will remain anonymous so i don't give the landlord any ideas. during the covid crisis i applied for rent relief and got it. now sort of post-crisis even though the state of emergency is still in place, my income has partially returned but intermittent and i currently am able to pay rent but i can see the possibility that in the future i won't be able to, because of the ongoing impacts that covid had on my income in lowering my income. so, it is really important that when this program gets started again hopefully very quickly, it allows people to apply who applied before and got rent relief, but not sure at this point whether they will need it again. i don't need it now but might in the near future or next year. make sure please make sure that

you're not letting folks like me fall through the cracks who's income is returning but not as good as it used to be and might get into trouble. thanks. >> thank you and that concludes the speaker frz the item. >> thank you, public comment is now closed. i wanted to-before we wrap up, and the speakers really remind me the first speaker reminded me of all the folks doing this work in getting the word out and who i agree are unsung heroes here, i are wanted to go to see-sorry to put you on the spot, but if anyone from ocd can list out-there are 10cbo partners doing the work, edc,

eviction (inaudible) can you just read those off so the public knows who's doing all this work with us to get- >> certainly. thank you chair preston. that is wonderful. off the top of my head, and (inaudible) the eviction defense collaborative, catholic charities, young community developers, (inaudible) community resource senties, homeoes organizing the mission to empower youth, hamilton families, compass family service. homeless prenatal. native american health center. one more--i apologize for the last one. it will come back to me. >> no problem. with a list of 10 i'm impressed you could get 9 off the top of your head there. >> chair preston, sorry, i remembered it is mission neighborhood center.

those are the 10. >> excellent. thank you so much. and it is really absolutely remarkable what these organizations have done with ocd leadership on this and with the commitment from the board supervisors and the mayor to really-as our public commenter noted, we hear a lot of things when things are going wrong and the rent relief program one reason we wanted to have the hearing is make sure we are not verying veering off and going wrong and continue a very successful program. i do want to note one last thing about this, and that is we should not take for granted that we are in this position to provide these funds to tenants and the landlords to resolve these rent debt disputes or these debts whether disputed

or not, because of san francisco voters, and so we are a lot of times these ballot measures are abstraction. over $50 million of the funds going into the local program are because san francisco voters approved prop i and approved prop c. major progressive taxes on the wealthy with a shared commitment these funds should be used in this way so great to see the funds used that way. we look forward getting clarification the timeframe for unpausing the program and making sure folks don't fall through the cracks during the period in which the program is paused. i will go ahead and with thanks to director shaw and are mr. ramirez and your whole team, thank you for all your work on this and we look forward getting the additional

information that we discussed today and i will go ahead and move to continue this item to the call of the chair. >> thank you. continue the item to the call of the chair. [roll call] >> 3 ayes. >> thank you madam clerk. the motion passes and let's go ahead and call items 5 and 6 together. >> item 5, hearing on the report released on june 1, 2022, by the civil grand jury titled, “buried problems and a buried process - the hunters point naval shipyard in a time of climate change,” for departments to review and report back to the board of supervisors on what each agency's response to the recommendations are; and requesting san francisco public utilities commission, department of public health, environmental protection

agency, navy, and other related agencies to report. item 6, resolution responding to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations contained in the 2021-2022 civil grand jury report, entitled “buried problems and a buried process: the hunters point naval shipyard in a time of climate change;” and urging the mayor to cause the implementation of accepted findings and recommendations through her department heads and through the development of the annual budget. members who wish to provide public comment call the public comment line at 415-655-0001 meeting id-24845498965 then pound and pound again. if you haven't done so please dial star 3 to line-up to speak. the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and may begin comments when you go to public comment. >> thank you.

colleagues this committee heard these items during our last meeting. continued them to today. we are president walton's request trying to finalize amendments last time but needed a little more time, so i know president walton is not able to be here in person but his chief of staff nattily gee is here to address the item and proposed amendments. >> thank you. we e-mailed out the proposed amendments this morning and i will read them on record right now. it starts from page 3, line 18. the board of supervisors report to the judge of superior court they agree with finding number f4 for the reasons as follows: the report clearly case confusion around the navy cleanup process and timelines on the shipyard and need for more transparency from the navy. in addition, we find that

the city and county of san francisco have very little opportunity to influence the process set forth by the navy for the shipyard cleanup as the navy is a federal entity. however, the office of community investment and infrastructure, ocii successor agency to the former san francisco redevelopment agency can determine whether or not a transfer of land from the federal government to the city would take place. and be it further resolved that the board of supervisors reports to the presiding judge of the superior court that they agree with finding number f5 for the reasons as follows: the city and county of san francisco can work to increase staffing to adequately address the issues and problems that arose on the shipyard that have missed by the federal facility agreement sig torry. a deeper commitment from city and county of san francisco to identify

additional issues in order to provide responses to new information or new problems if needed. and be it further resolved the board of supervisors reports to the residing judge of the superior court the partially agree with finding number f6 for the reasons as follows. the board believes the establishment of the bayview hunter point shipyard citizen advisory committee along with the consistent meetings with navy and environmental protection agency epa demonstrates that a proactive mechanism does exist for the city and county of san francisco to articulate interest and concerns for the cleanup. furthermore, the tax existence also demonstrates that the city and county of san francisco understands the importance of community representation feedback and participation in ensuing the shipyard is clean and safe. there is however more

to be desired in the area of monitoring progress towards satisfactory response to such interest and concerns from the sig nitore and required to obtain timely transpparent response from the navy and all federal facility agreement. be further resolved the board of supervisors reports recommendation number r2 will be implemented to secure an independent commission and third party study of the hunters point shipyard to predict the future ground water surface ground water flows and potential interaction of ground water with hazardous material and plan modification of the site under multiple sea level rise scenario is necessary and work to secure the resources for the independent commission and third party study. in addition, the city needs to insure that the appropriate city employees are attentive and prepared to respond to the

issues presented in the report around ground water and sea level rise. and it may be beneficial for the san francisco department of public health to assign additional staff to conduct the study and to urge the california department of public health and the federal regulators like the environmental protection agency and the california state water resources control board to do the same. we were not asked by the civil grand jury to respond to recommendation r1, but do agree an independent third party study is necessary and be it further resolved that the board of supervisors report recommendation r3 will not be implemented because in lieu of creating a permanent oversight committee the board of supervisors will create a short term oversight committee or task force to develop recommendations to address the findings in the report. and that understanding the science is on ground water and sea level

rise is important in keeping people safe as the city is committed to doing and be further resolved the board of supervisor report recommendation r7 will not be implemented, however, the board of supervisors intends to create a short-term task force within 18 months to develop recommendations to address the findings in the report and as an independent third party entity that conduct the study to prepare a report on the recommended request for the federal facility agreement based on findings and deliver that report to the board of supervisors the mayor and department of public health. and be further resolved the san francisco department of public health will be monitoring the indefinite 5 year review from the navy to evaluate the protectiveness of past remedies to insure they are ongoing cleanup and solutions remained protective. the process began in 2018 and be further

resolved the board of supervisors (inaudible) accepted findsings and regulations through department heads and development of the annual budget. thank you. >> thank you mrs. gee for reading the proposed amendments. we'll take those up after public comment. i do want to thank you and your office and president walton for all the work on this and appreciate what i think are really strong response from the board around the issues raised by the civil grand jury in the report that we discussed at length in the last two hearings on this, and to community concerns raised and i think trying to navigate that with the jurisdictional issues, but also not continue what is sometimes done on some of the complicated issues which is to say it is

someone elses problem. these amendments and president walton leaned into this to say what can we control in the city in terms of establishing this kind of task force and in terms of getting a independent study done, which i think are really key parts of the grand jury report and of the demands from the public and recognizing that while we may not have jurisdiction to control everything, we do have the ability to take those steps and appreciate those recommendations. i just really want to commend president walton and his team for navigating this and findsing a way to be responsive to the grand jury report and the very reasonable and are important demands from community members. thank you. let's unless there are comments or questions from colleagues let's open public comment on item 5 and 6. >> thank you mr. chair. any members in the chamber who like

to make comment on 5 and 6? line up to the right. remote press star 3 to be added to the queue. those on hold continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. thank you. >> dr. (inaudible) i was elected to the hunters point shipyard restoration advisory board in the year 2000 and 2001. i founded the rad logical subcommittee and should be noted much of the discourse with regard to the 5 year plan centers around protective preliminary remediation goals for radio(inaudible) specifically thorium and radium 226. one elephants in the room in both the civil grand jury report and in the discussion is what is in shipyard ground water and i brought an important document to you that you should since you own this property. this is a record of

decision from november 1994 and documents that on the property that the city and county now owns, these substances were detected in ground water. there was no health risk assessment conducted because it was presumed that there were not pathways of exposure for this ground water that contains many of the heavy metals that we are detecting in residents within one mile buffer zone of the system with federal super fund sites. this is a navy map that identifies the extent of contamination of the shoreline. this is another navy map in which we geo located residents and workers with radio nuke liin the urine. this is photo i took of the shoreline. the weekday the chival

grand jury report was released i worked up to the shoreline, it is radiationcon tamination. this is the type of dust fence that should be placed to be more protective. this is another photo that was taken by a resident. >> i apologize dr. porter, your time has lapsed. >> thank you. >> (inaudible) again. i'm here not as-i took off work to be here as a resident, and i wanted to just preface my comments by saying thank you to the aseemed board members, including of course president walton for the resolution. we appreciate it. it is a step forward. it

has come to my attention and attention of my colleagues and others that angela herrera, usepa press release falsifyed or mislead us on the 29 regarding the epa position and even at that, and paraphrasing but she did state very clearly that in response to president walton's question, she said if the navy didn't respond she would go to the pent gone. now, i'm not new to the system so i know having worked for 4 mayors that she is just protecting her job. we are not going to get into that. i will say this, one thing that the president walton stated, as long as he's here, there will not be transfers. we

need to-i support the young african american leaders to insure that is the case. the next thing is, the public health issue, it is public health issue, it isn't about housing and then i want to close by saying that, we need to just call the commander in chief about the navy who is president joe biden at 2024561111 and say, save the people from sickness and death, clean up what the navy left. that is 202-456-1111. get the commander in chief involved or kick him out of office. >> thank you for your comments. seeing no more in person public comment we'll move to the call in line. there are 9 people on the call and 6 in the queue. please send the first caller.

>> nigh name is (inaudible) environmental health scientist at ucsf program on reproductive health on the environment and cochair of physician for social responsibility environmental health committee. i'm speaking in my role with sf (inaudible) as well as being a resident of the castro since 1982. i appreciate the committee attention to the civil grand jury report. a radio active toxic soup will be served on the shores as the sea meet the (inaudible) i urge the board of supervisors to take intentional and explicit actions to avoid such a catastrophe. in doing so you will be seeking long overdue justish for the people of bayview hunter point past present and future who's health is sacrificed without consent by contamination. i implore you to resolve you will not allow the

transfer of this shipyard land unless it is cleaned up to the most protective standards. that is unrestrictive residential use. you have this power, please use it, don't be derelict in duty by future generations. over 20 years ago i cast my vote along with 86 percent of voters the shipyard should be cleaned up. it is outrageous, the usepa said they will not hold the cleanup to the standsards. if the epa prevails it will (inaudible) intersection of sea rise and hunters point shipyard. to protect the health and health (inaudible) the board must resolve to not accept land unless it is consistent with the cleanup standards articulated by voters and board of supervisors. please insure our city isn't allowed to remain a radio active waste dump. thank you so

much. >> thank you. next caller, please. >> hello. my name is glen rogers a landscape architect and have written numerous articles for the west side observer, most recently i have wrote an article that was-climate change stupid. the name of the article was not the decided by me, but by another editor. what i wanted to mention is that we are for the removal of all toxic substances on hunters point and treasure island to be hundred percent and i wanted to mention recently there is a study of the glacier

in (inaudible) sea level rise-some people feel will come up 10 feet and as you know the nord stream pipeline has been damaged and leaking methane into the atmosphere tremendous amounts and this will accelerate climate change. we ask for the controller to provide a oversight committee for any cleanup that occurs in hunters point. and we wanted to bring to your attention the need for housing is not demanding when we have 6 percent of the population in san francisco leaving. 40 thousand units vacant in san francisco and

22 percent of the office space is vacant in san francisco. all of this is because san francisco is one of the- >> i apologize your time has lapsed. thank you for your comments. next commenter, please. >> [unable to hear speaker] can you hear me? >> yes, it is a little muffled. >> i'm very sorry. my name is dr. robert (inaudible) a associate [difficulty hearing speaker due to audio quality]

partial response clearly indicating epa decided to not support the (inaudible) clear opposition to

supervisor walton (inaudible) hundred percent cleanup. given the (inaudible) not allow the transfer of shipyard land unless cleaned up to the most effective standard of (inaudible) this would be a major demonstration- >> i apologize for the interruption, your time has lapsed. i apologize for the interruption. can you please send the next caller? >> good afternoon supervisors. ireic eric brooks with local grass roots organization our city san francisco which worked for the last couple decades to help deal with toxic and radio active contaminants in bayview and treasure island. i wanted to cover something not

covered sufficiently and other commenters mentioning. it is great supervisor walton for the first time said we need hundred percent clean up but need to define what that means . we need hundred percent cleanup to unrestricted residential standards and for single family homes. so, what that means is that all toxins are removed with no caps or containment so residents can safely plant food gardens and children and pets can safely play in yards natural areas and recreational areas. there are lots of recreational sport areas for kids on treasure island for example and parks in the bayview. we also need to make sure that when this committee set up to oversee the cleanup, that community members from the bayview and treasure island must

be full voting members or the committee is worthless. we need to make sure the community guides the process directly. that is crucial. final r as mentioned last time, we need to make san francisco department of public health helps treasure island and bayview do direct public health studies on residents and visitors of bayview hunters point and treasure island and workers and if dph refuses to do this, the board of supervisors should hold their funding until they do. those are my comments. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next caller, please. >> my name is dan hursh the retired director of environmental policy of uc santa cruz and president of community to bridge the gap and coauthored reports on hunters points. one

week ago usepa presented to you a series of platitudes that they were committed to environmental justice and hunters point was top priortopy and did not disclose the very next day they issued a statement saying they will not comply with this board's policies and with prop p and with the requirements president walton set out. they will not require cleanup at the most protective standsards as prop p and your board policy requires. this is extraordinary because it means that a vast amount of con tamination is left in place. i urge the board to revisit one sentence ins the resolution which deals with the issue of the transfer to the city and county and simply put into it the language that you had from president walton 3 weeks ago that the number one goal for the shipyard has to be and should be 100 percent cleanup and without hundred percent clean up the land transfer does not

take place. i urge you to amend the resolution to include president walton's statement in light of what the epa has done which is say they will not clean up the site to a level that is protective for unrestricted use. there is great deal of health risk if not done and urge you to consider the change. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. there are 7 callers on the line with 3 in the queue. next caller. >> hello. thank you supervisors and president walton. my name is blare sandler, i'm a ph.d in environmental economics. i taught environmental economics and cost benefit analysis among other courses around universities in the bay area for a number of years. i am also a resident of the bayview. want to point out that all of

the comments have been unified and i want to reiterate that one, we need a full cleanup of the shipyard all the contaminants and toxins and radio active elements removed with no capping to single family residential standsered so kids and pets can play on the yards and that food can be grown in people's yards. and secondly, that the oversight committee that will be created must include bayview residents, bayview hunter points residents as full voting members. people made all the important points-built what you need to do, the board must commit to refuse to accept any transfer of land unless it has met these requirements. thank you. >> thank you for your

comments. next caller, please. >> hi. my name is dr. kim rose the associate director for community engagement for ucsf cancer center charged (inaudible) responsive to request and needs of the community partners and the community that surround us, including understanding the distribution of cancer and just wanted to point out one of the key pieces i think missing from the conversation that may help the board in making the decision is to understand that when we look at or ask questions about cancers occurring in bayview we need to be specific and make sure we ask questions about cancers that are potentially specific or driven by the known contaminants in the area. during a recent study we did with some of the residents who liveped in bayview over 2 decades [audio cut out]

including leukemia as well as lung cancer and what we found there is a disproportionate disbution of leukemia in bayview compared to the rest of isf and it is a large difference. it leads one to question whether these are driven by exactly what people are living around and so this is i think call to you all to look into the future regardless who will be living there. you need to understand this distribution of leukemia will persist as long as contaminants per cyst so encourage the board to use the power to safeguard community health and do not allow the transfer unless the land is cleaned up as you heard to meet unrestricted residential standsards. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. please have the next caller. >> my name is ann marie (inaudible) and work with dr. rose at ucsf cancer center. i'm here to ask your

support of resolution to implement the civil grand jury report buried problems in a buried process. dr. rose and i along with dr.s tracey (inaudible) and bop gold, jeff (inaudible) and michelle pierce met with carlton water house and are federal and regional epa staff over a year ago to share the science of what we know can about the toxins in the shipyard fallowed by a second meeting we requested several actions to insure a proper and thorough cleanup along with timeline for doing so. we were told numerous e-mails the uspa was taking this issue seriously and insure the navy implements a cleanup that safeguard the community. last week one day after your meeting on the grand jury report when it was announced the usepa and water house were taking the ishi

seriously we received e-mail from the usepa were not going to do a top to bottom review and hold to the cleanest standards shutting off the continued work on the issue. i think you and community should know this. there will not be increased oversight. our team has been meeting with women in the bayview hunters point who are surviving rare cancers and mother sister and family members who died from them. this is beyond tragic and shouldn't be acceptable anywhere. yes, this is a issue of structural racism and the deadly consequence. the board needs to forbid any transfer of land so long as regulators decline to clean it up to the most protective standard for unrestricted residential use. thank you for your time. >> thank you for your

comments. there appear to be no other callers in the queue. >> thank you. public comment on these items is closed. thank you to all the commenters and unless there are further questions or comments-vice chair chan. >> thank you. i just wanted to thank president walton and his team for the work as well and would lake to be added as cosponsor to the response. i think it has been well thought and i know it is really put the city and all of us in a very tough spot to really hold that tough position to say we demand the cleanup for the site and for really for our community and i think that with the civil grand jury report the result isn't just about bayview hunter point. i think it start to help us really think about and question the future of san francisco in terms of our

waterfront and areas and how we protect our residents and beyond so thank you. >> thank you vice chair chan. i also do want to just clarify for the public. i think there were a lot of good points made in public comment. some requesting further amendments. what is before us is a response to a grand jury report and we are statutorily required under california law to respond to the various findings and recommendations, so some of the suggestions may be things that the board should consider in the future. i'm sure there will be ongoing discussion and dialogue on that, but i think at this time i'm eager for us to move these amendments forward, get to full board. appreciate the time we have taken in a number of hearings but we also have deadlines with the court we want to make sure we comply with and getting our responses moved forward. i like to go

ahead and move the amendments distributed by president walton's office and read into the record by mrs. gee unless our deputy city attorney tells me we need to do anything additional. okay, great. i will move those amendments to the resolution. [roll call] >> 3 ayes. >> thank you. the motion to amend passes and then i like to move to resolution item 6 to full board with positive recommendation. [roll call] >> 3 ayes. >> thank you. that motion passes, and last like to move to continue item 5 to the call of the chair.

[roll call] >> 3 ayes. >> thank you. >> actually, with the answers for item 6, you can file that item. for item 5. >> is that--correct? deputy city attorney gibner? it references doing some things in terms of setting up task force and so forth, so i don't know whether we need to keep it open or file it. >> deputy city attorney john gibner. you can file the hearing item and the board can consider establishing a task force in the future through ordinance or hold another hearing. >> okay, thank you. do we need to resend that? we are in the middle of calling the roll on that. do we need to--finish or just start again with a different motion?

resend? okay. let's move to rescind the vote on the motion to continue to call of the chair. >> on the motion to rescind the vote-- [roll call] >> 3 ayes. thank you. >> thank you. that motion passes and now i like to make a motion to file item 5. >> on the motion to file the hearing-- [roll call] 3 ayes. >> that motion passes. any further business before the committee? >> there is no additional business. >> thank you. we are adjourned. [meeting adjourned]

♪♪ >> san francisco! ♪♪ >> this is an exhibition across departments highlighting

different artworks from our collection. gender is an important part of the dialogue. in many ways, this exhibition is contemporary. all of this artwork is from the 9th century and spans all the way to the 21st century. the exhibition is organized into seven different groupings or themes such as activities, symbolism, transformation and others. it's not by culture or time period, but different affinities between the artwork. activities, for example, looks at the role of gender and how certain activities are placed as feminine or masculine. we have a print by uharo that looks at different activities that derisionly performed by men. it's looking at the theme of music. we have three women playing

traditional japanese instruments that would otherwise be played by men at that time. we have pairings so that is looking within the context of gender in relationships. also with how people are questioning the whole idea of pairing in the first place. we have three from three different cultures, tibet, china and japan. this is sell vanity stot relevar has been fluid in different time periods in cultures. sometimes being female in china but often male and evoking features associated with gender binaries and sometimes in between. it's a lovely way of tying all the themes together in this collection. gender and sexuality, speaking

from my culture specifically, is something at that hasn't been recently widely discussed. this exhibition shows that it's gender and sexuality are actually have been considered and complicated by dialogue through the work of artists and thinking specifically, a sculpture we have of the hindu deities because it's half pee male and half male. it turns into a different theme in a way and is a beautiful representation of how gender hasn't been seen as one thing or a binary. we see that it isn't a modest concept. in a way, i feel we have a lot of historical references and touch points throughout all the ages and in asian cultures.

i believe san francisco has close to 40% asian. it's a huge representation here in the bay area. it's important that we awk abouk about this and open up the discussion around gender. what we've learned from organizing this exhibition at the museum is that gender has been something that has come up in all of these cultures through all the time periods as something that is important and relevant. especially here in the san francisco bay area we feel that it's relevant to the conversations that people are having today. we hope that people can carry that outside of the museum into their daily lives.

>> what i will bring up my lovely cohost and i realized we went to the same high school in sacred heart the lovely of the bay area! >> i love that you did an amazing job after all the year its is a pleasure we never cohost third degree event. i'm thrilled to be here with you yoch excited, this is the first time. >> with we give a shout out toure high school a couple blocks away. gi know >> a lot of green high schools our high school fighting irish sacred heart cathedral. >> that is cool.