tv Government Access Programming SFGTV December 12, 2017 7:00pm-8:01pm PST
mentioned that you might have a wife and if he and his wife owned a different home somewhere but it's not his main residency but it's his wife's and they claim the exemption and maybe only can claim one. is it possible that one could claim an exemption for one place and actually have primary residency in another place. >> deputy city attorney john gibner. basically every member of an appointed body must be a resident and registered voter in the city, although the board can waive that residency requirement in its discretion if it can't find any qualified applicants for the seat. and that's a judgment for the board to make. whether a person is a resident
depends on two factors. first, their physical presence in a place, and second, their intention to make that place their permanent home. without getting inside someone's head, the courts and the attorney general have looked at a number of different factors to determine whether a person intends to make a place his or her home. those include, are you registered to vote there? do you file your tax returns there? are -- does your driver's license or motor vehicle registration list that as your address? that's where your homeowner's exemption credit is taken. that's one factor, among many, that courts look at in determining whether someone is domiciled in a particular
location. >> councillor yee: so one can -- well, one can have a certain definition that includes, i am here most of the time. this is the place where i stay. and i register to vote here as being a definition of, that's his residency? >> yes. if a person is in a place and tends to make that place their permanent home and has indications that that is so, that they do intend to make the place their permanent home, including registering to vote at that address, yes, that would be their address. >> councillor yee: okay. i'm just drawing some conclusions, that it's a possibility mr. elberling considers his san francisco address his home, not trying to
fool anybody. otherwise, there's no reason to fool anybody. if he said that his primary home is in sonoma, then we can always give him residency waiver, like we do to many people, actually. so i'm okay. i can't assume he's lying. so either way, if he weren't -- if we determined that -- what he claims as his residency doesn't fit our -- i think he's been a valuable member of this advisory group and that i would be willing to support him today. >> councillor breed: thank you, supervisor yee. supervisor kim? >> councillor kim: with a little bit of research that we've noted
that john elberling is a registered voter in san francisco and only san francisco. i just have to state as an individual who is not a homeowner in san francisco and is not certain that they can afford to own a home in san francisco, i've often gotten advice that i should buy a home outside of san francisco to be a homeowner. i don't think it's unusual for a san francisco resident who is a renter to own a home outside of san francisco, given the housing prices we have here in the city. in fact, i know i have many friends who are domiciled in san francisco. there are individuals we know that are executive directors that are renters in san francisco but own outside of san francisco and we do not question their residency. so i just want to say, again, that i want to move forward with these four outstanding individuals who really have offered their support and advice to this board around housing and
affordable housing as we move very quickly through our technical process around inclusionary housing. thank you. >> councillor breed: thank you, supervisor kim. supervisor ronen. >> councillor ronen: i want to add my voice of support for these four excellent candidates and say that a letter we received last night at 4:30 when there was a hearing at rules committee is not the fairest way to give input. and given the timelines that we have to meet before us and the fact that i have worked with mr. elberling and many times have asked for his technical advice on affordable housing issues and found him to always be incredibly knowledgable and accessib accessible. i see no reason to not move forward today. >> councillor breed: thank you, supervisor ronen. seeing no other names on the
roster, i think we should move this item to later on in the meeting and i think within that time we'll be able to confirm the residency requirement and vote on it at a later date. this is the last meeting of the year and so in thinking in terms of timing, i'm not certain if it would be appropriate to hold off on move forward names to this particular committee until the new year. we'll hold off and move own our agenda and work on verifying the residency and come back to it at that time. thank you, colleagues, for your indulgence in that. madam clerk, next item. >> clerk: motion to appoint kelley cutler to the local homeless coordinating board. >> councillor breed: same house same call. without objection, motion is approved unanimously.
next couple. >> clerk: item 29, motion to approve the mayor's appointment of mike many pappas to aging and adult services term ending july 21, 2020. >> councillor breed: same house, same call. without objection, motion amoved unanimously. let's go to committee reports. >> clerk: reports were forwarded as committee reports. item 39 was recommended, an ordinance to accept as a gift to the city open space and community improvements at 55 laguna street, accepting as a gift the costs associated with maintaining the improvements and making requisite findings. >> councillor breed: can we take this same house, same call.
ordinance passes unanimously. next item. >> clerk: item 40 ordinance to appropriate 9.5 million from state and federal contingency reserves to back fill the loss of funding for various programs in the amount of $9.55 million for 2017-2018. >> councillor breed: same house, same call. without objection, the ordinance passes unanimously on the first reading. >> clerk: item 41 was referred to the board without recommendation as amended. it's a resolution to authorize an option to extend the property lease for 1145 market street for san francisco law library for approximately 20,000 square feet with 1145 market street lp for five years, july 1, 2018, june 30, 2023, pace rent annually of $1.18 million with 3% annual
increases. >> councillor breed: supervisor tang. >> councillor tang: thank you, colleagues. i apologize, i have a cold. i want to highlight what we talked in our budget committee. we inserted a clause that by the end of next year, we expect the law library to take all the books that are in storage at brooks hall and move it into the second floor of the law library at 1145 market street on the second floor, where there are empty shelves. so by the end of the year. if that doesn't happen, then the department of real estate has the ability to allow other departments to occupy space on the second floor of the law library. i wanted to make the board members aware of the condition we put into the resolution. we have received some information from the law library, which is the first i've seen in many, many years, upon
many subsequent budget seasons, so i'm glad we finally have some information and that there may be some progress with having the law library really effectively serve the public. with those amendments, i would recommend that we approve this resolution. >> councillor breed: thank you, supervisor tang, for your work on this particular item, which has been a challenge for each and every one of us. colleagues, seeing no other names, can we take this item same house, same call? without objection, resolution is adopted unanimously. >> clerk: resolution for department of public health sub commit to disease prevention and control to continue to receive funding for integrated hiv surveillance and prevention programs in the amount of $7.2 million from january 1, 2018, to december 31, 2018. >> councillor breed: same house,
same call. adopted unanimously. next item. >> clerk: item 43 apply department of health to submit applications for the ryan white act h.i.v./aids emergency relief program $16.6 million march 1, 2018 through february 28, 2019. >> councillor breed: same house, same call. without objection, adopted. >> clerk: item 44 is recommended with a new title. resolution to authorize an airspace lease for approximately 63,000 square feet of land under the highway 280 structure near cesar chavez and indiana streets for the motor coach operation islais additional term of 50 years with two extensions and annual rent of $191,241.
>> councillor breed: supervisor cohen? >> councillor cohen: i raised several issues at committee. i appreciate the work, which was to increase access to the community room and also access to the second floor, additional promise made to the community. i want to acknowledge a couple of things. first, community access from where we restarted the discussion a few months ago and adrian hine's attention to this issue, but i'm not sure that they've done everything they can to give back. i'm concerned that promises made will not be promises kept. and i want to get on the record and make sure that we see a commitment to examine the
external balcony policy and be responsible to the feedback and usage of the community. and i wanted to see a concrete plan for the art installation for plant life around the creek restoration, right on the creekb creekbed. i believe that this plan should have been reflected in the original cost estimates and design plan. sfmta leans heavily on the dog patch community to get things done for their input, co-collaboration and the bayview community. but i still don't see the transparency to establish this trust. so i do believe that this is an appropriate location for this facility. and so i am going to be supporting the looease, but i would like to signal to mta to pay closer attention to what they promised, honoring their promises, pay attention to the transit corridors they're
creating and make sure we're not neglecting the corridors and to think critically about how we can continue to always develop better ways to work within the neighborhoods and the communities that live and exist within the neighborhoods. colleagues, i will be supporting this lease and i hope that you will join me, but, again, mta, want to be sure that we're clear and that you deliver on the promises that you've made. thank you. >> councillor breed: thank you, supervisor cohen. colleagues, can we take this item same house, same call? without objection, resolution is adopted unanimously. >> clerk: recommended as a community report to approve and authorize the grant of easement property at 1101 connecticut street at no cost for a term to commence upon board approval and until pg & e abandons the area
or they align electrical facilities that they no longer require the use. and to authorize the director of property to make modifications and take actions as defined therein. >> councillor breed: same house, same call? adopted unanimously. >> clerk: item 46, resolution to approve and authorize a long term ground lease with 1296 shotwell lp for a term of 75 years with one 24-year option to extend with base rent of $15,000 in order to constructed a 100% affordable, 94-unit multifamily housing unit for low-income seniors and adopt the appropriate findings. >> councillor breed: same house, same call. without objection, the resolution is adopted unanimously. madam clerk, please call items
47-51 together. >> clerk: comprise resolutions that pertain to the geneva car barn and powerhouse improvements. authorizes a recreation and parks department to accept and expend a grant from the california department of parks and recreation for $3.5 million through june 30, 2020. item 48, development services agreement with affiliate of art stabilization trust for the payment of the city's construction costs and related expenses. item 49, funding agreement with art stabilization trust for renovation of powerhouse building. item 50, 50-year lease for powerhouse building and zero initial rent, affirming
additional findings. and item 5 up, indemnification of renovation of powerhouse building. >> councillor breed: supervisor safai? >> councillor safai: this is an historic day for the residence of district 11. it's the oldest, most historic buildings that now won a $3.8 million grant on behalf of this revitization, tax credit, and this center will be, we're hoping, one of the premiere arts and performing spaces for children and families, particularly youth under the age of 18. much needed in the part of our town that has one of the highest
concentration of children and families. performing arts workshop will work with community art stabilization trust and parks department and executive director phil ginsburg has worked tirelessly on this effort and it's only half of the project. it's $15 million in total. there's another $15 million to go to fully revitalize this. supervisor yee and my district will greatly benefit and we both care deeply about this and worked collectively on this. colleagues, i ask for your support. thank you. >> councillor breed: thank you, supervisor savfai. same house, same call. items pass unanimously. madam clerk, let's go to the next couple. >> clerk: item 52 corrective actions by the mayor and director of the mayor's office of housing and community development to mitigator avoid the negative consequences of proposed federal tax reform on multifamily housing bonds of the
city and multifamily housing revenue projects and approving any action heretofore taken in connection with corrective action. >> councillor breed: with we take that same house, same call? without objection, the resolution is adopted unanimously. we're going to go back to item 27. >> councillor cohen: i got my questions answered. i'm satisfied with the answers and justification and i'm happy to support. >> councillor breed: would you like to withdraw your meegs to continue? >> councillor cohen: yes, ma'am. i would like to withdraw my motion to continue and move forward. >> councillor breed: colleagues, can we take item 27 same house, same call? supervisor farrell? i was going to call you elberling. roll call or would you like to
separate anything or roll call? >> councillor farrell: separate out. >> councillor breed: colleagues, we will divide the question. and we will take john elberling separately. on the remaining candidates, including the residency waiver for shannon way, colleagues, can we take that same house, same call? without objection, those items are adopted unanimously. and on john elberling, madam clerk? colleagues, can we take that item same house, same call, without objection, the entire motion is adopted unanimously.
let's go to items 53 and 54 together. >> clerk: both recommended as amended with new titles. item 53, resolution to authorize the mayor's office of housing and community development on behalf of the city to execute a grant application. the amended part, by striking out grant agreement and related documents under the department of housing and community development, affordable housing and sustainable communities program with 1950 mission street, associates lp, city to assume joint liability in completion of the projects. and item 54 to execute a grant application and amendment to the title again by striking grant agreement and related documents under the department of housing and community development affordable housing and sustainable communities program with 2060 folsom for the project
and authorizing the city to assume joint and liability for completion of the project and adopt the appropriate findings. >> councillor breed: supervisor ronen? >> councillor ronen: madam clerk, i believe -- were those the amendments made in committee that you were -- >> clerk: through the president to supervisor ronen, yes. >> councillor ronen: i think i will make a motion to make a couple of additional amendments that were minor. they should have been passed out to you on both items. these resolutions authorize to apply as joint applicant with 1950 mission and 2060 folsom for state affordable housing. i will add 250 units of housing for families. the amendments that i put forward right now will clarify that should the projects get awarded funding that mohcd will come back to the board of supervisor to accept and expend the funds.
i've circulated the copies and ask for your support. >> councillor breed: thank you. supervisor ronen has made a motion to -- i have 53 and 54. you are asking for the same on both? >> councillor ronen: that's right. >> councillor breed: supervisor ronen has made a motion to amend. is there a second? seconded by supervisor supervisor kim on items 53 and 54. colleagues, can we take the amendments without objection? without objection, those amendments pass unanimously. on the items as amended, same house same call. without objection, the resolutions as amended are adopted unanimously. next item. >> clerk: item 55 was recommended as a issuance of sale of bonds in principal amount not to exceed $110 million for funding, financing, aquisition 117-unit mixed income housing
project 2675 folsom and 970 treat. >> councillor breed: same house same call. adopted unanimously. next item. >> clerk: 56 and 57 were considered by budget committee on december 11. and 56 was referred without recommendation, to declare an emergency to authorizing director of public works to design and construct front door services case management, medical attention and mental health counseling to individuals affected by homelessness in support of housing property at 440 turk street. >> councillor kim: i am asking for a continuance. i was not made aware of this until yesterday. i was surprised to see it
declared an emergency. it's not clear to me why this was unforeseeable and why we're using this vehicle to move forward with the construction and tenant improvements at 440 turk, which is offices for the department of homelessness and supportive housing and i have a number of concerns about using this as a precedent for emergency construction when this is an item that we've talked about for over two years. separately, there are concerns about clear communication about what would be provided on site. i want to say on a personal note, i support what is being proposed for the site here today. but i just have a number of questions on why we're choosing this route. also out of respect to the neighborhood that i represent that felt blindsided by this resolution that only got an email at 6:30 p.m., i respectfully ask my colleagues to continue this to january 9,
2018. >> councillor breed: supervisor kim has made a month eggs to continue. seconded by supervisor cohen. supervisor peskin? >> councillor peskin: colleagues, i'm rising to speak to both 56 and 57. and without any disrespect to the mayor or supervisors ronen or sheehy, and not to the substance, but to the use of an emergency exemption, and if you read section 6.60 subsection c which defines what an emergency is, respectfully, this does not meet that test. i mean, i can ask the city attorney, i don't know if i need to put the city attorney through the paces, but these were all foreseeable events. an emergency is an unforeseeable event. and it's a really slippery slope
when we start applying emergency declarations where an emergency does not exist because it was a foreseeable event. 440 turk street, highly foreseeable. this board took unanimous legislative action to not allow the department of homelessness and supportive housing to use a different site and to require them to use the 440 turk street site, so we've known that for quite a long time, because that happened six months ago. that's foreseeable. i hate to be the parliamentarian, but i'm sounding a note of caution that we should really use the admin codes as intended and, therefore, will support the continuance. i would actually support a continuance of both items. and, quite frankly --
>> councillor breed: we have not called item 57 -- >> councillor peskin: it says it on the screen. >> councillor breed: that's a mistake. she called 56. supervisor kim, are you asking to continue 56 and 57? we can call 57 at this time? >> councillor kim: i heard 56 called, so i made a motion to continue 56. >> councillor breed: but not 57? >> councillor yee: i did not. >> councillor breed: we'll continue to discuss 56. supervisor ronen? >> councillor ronen: i'm prepared to support supervisor kim's motion to continue because this facility is in her district and came up and if you are looking at the situation on the street with the people who are
sleeping in tents in squallor under freeways and in front of people's houses and in the middle of streets and you don't think that is an emergency, a health emergency, at the highest proportion, you and i have a different version of the definition or understanding of emergency. i do not think there is a bigger emergency in the bigger emergency in the city of san francisco than the fact that over 4,000 individuals are sleeping in the streets, using the bathroom in the streets, are injecting drugs and throwing needles in the streets, are in severe mental health crisis in our streets. and that we being a city with a $10 billion budget have not yet gotten it together to build enough facilities to temporarily house and then give services to these individuals so that they
can get their life back together. in fact, one of my deepest, deepest fears and sadness today about those tragic and untimely loss of mayor lee is the fact that he saw this has an emergency in the same way that i do and we were working hand in hand on this issue to make it -- to make a difference and make it better. this is absolutely an emergency of the highest order. as a matter of fact, there's a hepatitis outbreak in los angeles that is spreading into the streets that could easily come to san francisco. there are people dying in fires that are started in tents on the streets and moving to other tents. i don't know what else could be a greater emergency. if we're not in every single building and every single district with every single ounce
of political will we have all working to solve this issue, as a crisis, and in an emergency fashion, then we are failing to do our job. so i absolutely could not disagree with you more, supervisor peskin, and will not support a continuance of item 57 and only reluctantly out of respect for supervisor kim will support a continuance for item 56. >> councillor breed: thank you. supervisor tang. >> councillor tang: i agree with supervisor ronen in this case. and per the budget analyst report, without this emergency declaration, the work will continue 12 to 18 months to complete and with this emergency declaration, we can shorten that timeline 7 to 13 points. i agree that i consider it an emergency in our city right now. there's not a day that goes by
that i don't think that any one of us are not badgered by our residents in the city about the homelessness issue. i would be supportive of the items moving forward. >> councillor breed: thank you, supervisor tang. supervisor safai? >> councillor safai: thank you, madam president. yesterday we had an extensive conversation about the situation. i agree with supervisor ronen. there is no debate that this is an emergency situation. it's an ever-evolving, daily emergency. it's not a situation that we can take lightly. but i think we're dealing with two different things. i hear a couple of different things from supervisor kim and i would like to ask her to clarify them. one, there's a concern about community process and input and definition of how some of the space will be used. i think we've had extensive debate about where the office of department homelessness and supportive housing is going to be located. we had that debate about south of market. we've agreed with the budget and
legislative analyst recommendations that over $21 million for a lease in that part of town when a building is currently owned, which this body before myself and supervisor ronen and a few others were on this body voted to purchase. we were in that purchase phase. so are we debating about community process? are we debating about the need to bring this building on line in an emergency fashion? and i think there's no debate that there is an emergency situation to bring this building on line. 9 times out of 10, as you know, and we've had this debate extensively, i defer to the district supervisor. in this situation, i feel this rises above because this is a matter of creating a department, streamlining it, putting it under one house and providing services described in the committee hearing yesterday that would allow for the homeward bound program to have
participant access showers, laundry, if there is interviews, interviews that need to be conducted on site, i understand that. and i believe that the district supervisor supports the housing offices there. i would like to hear that. but i also believe that there is no debate in this chamber that the homeless situation in this city rises to an emergency level and i understand and i would love to hear from the department. i, too, took a step back when i saw the declaration of emergency, but what was explained in committee is this would allowed for a savings of anywhere between 4 to 6 months and in this situation given the emergency, that seems appropriate for this particular matter. so is there someone from the department of homelessness here or maybe even the department of public works that will be performing the work and why the emergency declaration and would the it would mean to the situation?
>> councillor breed: one section. supervisor safai, supervisor kim would like to separate first. >> councillor kim: i would like to separate 56 and 57. 56 is using the declaration of emergency to build an office space for department. that is unprecedented. i don't know when this board has ever declared an emergency to build offices for a department. and to be very clear about what we've had on site. what's been told to the tenderloin neighborhood over and over is that it will be office space for department of homelessness and supportive housing, not a navigation center. that's why i want to separate the two. i want to concur that there is a declaration -- there is an emergency on our streets today and while i was concerned that i didn't get a heads-up that we would be moving forward with the two navigation centers, one in my district, as an emergency, i do agree that we are in a state of emergency today and, in fact,
supervisor cohen and i introduced a resolution in 20 2016 declaring a state of emergency for homelessness. we've want to see our centers come on line as quickly as possible. i've worked very closely with hsh and the director about ensuring that we find a space where women will be prioritized, understanding that as we talk about the environment for women in this country today that it is a daily reality that if you are a woman sleeping on the street that sexual assault is a part of your life. it's not a question. it's a fact. and i cannot stand knowing that as a representative of the city that we are allowing women to get raped and sexually assaulted on our streets. so i just think that the two issues are separate. i have a lot of questions both as a policymaker about using a declaration of emergency for an office space and i'm glad to
hear specifically on that issue. i want to separate items 56 and 57 in terms of using that vehicle. on a separate note, there was community issues about what was communicated and what would be freud of provided on 440 turk. i support having an access point on site with showers and laundry services. i think that's something that's very basic. but out of respect to the neighborhood that i represent that felt blindsided, i think through a continuance to january 9 will allow us to have that communication and i plan on moving this forward in the beginning of the year. i just want to make sure that people understood the distinction between the two items. >> councillor breed: thank you for that clarity. supervisor safai, did you have any further questions? >> councillor safai: i have questions from the department. what i understood from the hearing is part of the emergency
declaration for the offices is that 20% of space is designated for uses that would provide services, shower, laundry facilities, and we have on the record that the department would come back with a detailed plan. they admitted that there was some disagreement with some members of the community. they did talk about having multiple, large meetings that hundreds of people had attended along with outreach to multiple groups. but i will allow them to say that on the record, but i would like to have an explanation on the record why the emergency declaration in this instance for both the 440 turk and the other locations. director kasitsky. >> director of homelessness and supportive housing. background on the sites. in july of this year, we began a discussion about opening up a resource center at 440 turk street, which would have had offices for about 40 of our
staff and would have primarily served as a resource center where individuals experiencing homelessness can come in and get access to services, showers, a place to sit down, a meal, etc. we received a fair amount of pushback from the community and had a meeting on august 3 in which approximately 75% were in attendance and heard concerns from the community and a preference that a resource center not be opened up at that site due to the fact that there were other resource centers in the community and concerns about the level of services already in the neighborhood. at a second meeting on august 15, we returned another community meeting with like 75 people in attendance and presented the plan that we are pretty much presenting today. during that plan, we presented to the community, we did explain that we would primarily be office space.
and rather than a resource center, it would serve as an access point or the front door to the department where people coming in to get services like homeward bound, to get qualified for housing, to get certified for things like shelter plus care, to get into our coordinated entry data system, we would make all of that information on that site and when people had concerns or experiencing homelessness, it would be the one place that people would say, go to 440 turk street, and we'll be able to provide you -- at least get you into our system. we felt that since many of our clients coming in for the programs need access to showers and laundry that we would have a small shower and laundry facility available. as you mentioned, supervisor safai, homeward bound that connects people with friends and families, we make connections and make sure they're financially and emotionally able to accept the folks back in their lives and put them on a bus and get them home. prior to that, we need to make
sure that folks' clothing is clean and they've taken a shower and we wanted those services available on site. after that meeting, we held approximately 10 community meetings with resident associations, with community benefits districts and with business groups, explaining what our plans were and also held a meeting in which mayor lee was in attendance. i believe that was september 25. so our plans have been the same since august 15 we've done our best to communicate with the community as well as your offices about moving forward on this. we understand there are concerns about being showers and laundry facilities. we've heard the concerns loud and clear, we don't necessarily agree with them. i also want to be clear that this will not be a drop-inn center or resource center. the community was clear this is
not what they want. people coming to the building are people coming in to do business with the department and not off the street. we committed security inside and outside of the sites. and spending a lot of time gathering information from folks. that was the community process and this is where we landed. the question as to why this would be an emergency as supervisor ronen so eloquently put and many of you also echoed in agreement, homelessness is a great emergency and crisis. and everybody treats this as an emergency to people experiencing homelessness. it's critical to the strategy that the department has developed that we have a central
access point for services. i think it's important to our strategy of coordinated entry that we open up this facility and i think it's an emergency that because we have not done the best of jobs for the past years, we have amazing programs and nonprofit providers. we're trying to build a homelessness response system that makes sense that requires access points that are available to people experiencing homelessness that requires us to work in a coordinated matter. we're spread over five different buildings and it's created a lot of challenges for the department. so i do believe that we're currently facing an emergency in the city and around the state and around the country around homelessness. and i do believe that opening up of this site as quickly as possible is an emergency, that it is critical that we move as quickly as possible in opening up these facilities as well as navigation centers and any other
site to serve the 7,500 people currently experiencing homelessness in the city. >> councillor breed: supervisor kim? >> councillor kim: is it correct that the board of supervisors and the mayor allocated funding for the office space at 440 turk in june, 2016, for the fiscal year 2016/2017 budget? >> yes. >> councillor kim: if this was such an emergency, why are we doing this 1 1/2 years later? it just -- if we're going to use a declaration of emergency, we should have used it in july, 2016, one year, six months ago. i have a hard time that we allocated money 18 months ago and now we're put against a wall saying, it's an emergency to build all of this office space. i get the navigation center. i'm not going to debate the need
for beds, particularly as the rain and the cold comes. it's very cold already right now. i'm just not understanding that. second point, i went to both meetings at the end of july and beginning of august. it is true that there was mention that hsh was considering shower and laundry facilities on site, but one of the frustrations that the community had at the end of the meeting is they didn't feel they got a clear proposal. at no point, do i remember hearing an access point that would be rfp'd out to a nonprofit. i think those are two different things. what i heard in the august 15 meeting is that because there would be an hsh office there that naturally people who are searching for services would come on site and you would, of course, want to provide some emergency services on site. what i'm hearing today is different from what i heard a few months ago. i think that while i support
this, i don't want to say that i don't -- i understand the need for that -- i don't see what a three-week continuance will do providing that additional time to respect the neighborhood that we're moving into. >> so i think, supervisor, those are good points and just to speak about what happened in june, 2016, and why we didn't immediately move forward. as you know, we were creating a new department at that time. and had many, many staff vacancies and, frankly, struggled to get the vacancies filled and in many ways are still struggling to get our vacancies filled and get the department fully stood up. so, frankly, we prioritized getting staff on board, getting settled, and we needed to continue the day-to-day duties of the department. he maintain housing for 9,000
people a year and outreach to 6,000 and so, frankly, trying to provide services that need to be provided on a daily basis and trying to start a new department and trying to come up with a new strategy for the department. it was in many ways like trying to build an aircraft while it was in flight and 30% of your mechanics are still on the ground. so we were not able to, not because we didn't want to, but not able to prioritize opening up the facility. when we did move forward with a proposal and started to look at the site, we saw that there were other issues that we had not uncovered in june, 2016, including the fact that the building at 50 ivy street will be closing in the next couple of years and had a better idea of what our office needs were and presented an alternative to the board of supervisors and it was not accepted, and then needed to
adjust and came one a proposal with feedback from the board of supervisors and the community. >> councillor kim: when was item 56 introduced? if you don't know, i can tell you. it was introduced on october 31. about 1 1/2 months ago. again, it's an emergency and a declaration of emergency is heard 6 weeks later? that doesn't sound like an emergency to me. >> i will defer to my colleague -- >> councillor kim: item 57 was introduced two weeks ago. what has changed between june, 2016, and today that makes it an emergency now? if it was such an emergency, we should have been working very
quickly to open these offices over the last 18 months. >> i, again, referring to my previous answer. i agree. however, we had to prioritize other issues relating to getting other issues off the ground, hiring staff and ensuring that the services we provided on a daily basis were going uninterrupted. >> councillor kim: are you providing all of these services today with all the employees you've hired up? >> yes. >> councillor kim: i still don't understand what makes it an emergency. honestly, it sounds like what a department normally goes through. actually, what you went through is very normal, the fits and starts of starting a department, putting it together, but then the department comes to us and building their office space is an emergency. i'm wondering what differentiates you and other departments? >> i don't believe that anything does, but i think that the difference is this is not just about our office space. it's about creating an access
point, critical access point, for people experiencing homelessness in a single place where people on the streets and needing to find access for services to get into the coordinated entry system to be able to access homeward bound and our expanded problem-solving or prevention and diversion services is critical. >> councillor kim: how many access points are there in the city? >> two, and we're rolling out our new strategy of coordinated entry and access points for families. there are two access points existing for families and a third to be opened up in the mission district. we're going to be rolling out access points for the adult population during the next month. and essentially, what we're doing now, is having the hot team out in the streets trying to enroll kwem into our coordinated entry system. with 4,000 people on the streets and no clear places for individuals to go to, i believe
that this, again, in my opinion, warrants an emergency. we need to have this space for individuals to be able to come to to get access to services. >> councillor kim: i'm just a little disappointed by the response only because hsh spent so much time sending emails and coordinating meetings, emphasizing that the access point was a very minimal part of what was going to be put in the tenderloin neighborhood and the neighborhood fought to get the office to move in and then add your request you said, but because we know some people will come, simply because our staff are there, we want to be able to provide some services. really, that was always put as a comma or a -- it just wasn't a significant part of what 440 turk was about. and now you are telling me it is such an integral part of 440 turk that it requires a declaration of emergency. so i feel like i'm getting a
completely different answer that what i've been hearing from the end of july until even yesterday. >> well, i mean -- >> councillor kim: so it's integral or not integral. what is it? >> it's certainly not a comma. everybody -- all of the staff at the department of homelessness and supportive housing, our mission is to help people exit homelessness as quickly as possible and providing services on site wherever our offices are and you would agree that when we are serving a population that we're not in offices behind an ivory tower, but accessible to the public, where we have services that the public needs and that our clients need, which is, again, why we are proposing having showers and small laundry facilities for our clients that come into our offices to do business with us that need those services. >> councillor kim: i agree with
you. i just feel a little misled right now, because i was told that the office was the primary purpose of the site and that any services provided were just, you know, the minor consequences of it being an office that people would know that staff serving our homeless population would be in. it was complete news to me that there would be an access point yesterday with an rpf that would go out to a nonprofit organization. i thought that all the service provided would be by your staff, not by nonprofit workers. so i feel like there's been a lot of miscommunication and, colleagues, i request a continuance on item 56. >> councillor breed: thank you, supervisor kim. supervisor sheehy? >> councillor sheehy: when will the building be operational? >> if you were to move forward with the emergency resolution, construction would begin on january 12 and the building would be open within six months.
>> councillor sheehy: what happens to the work that people are doing as they're moving? it's my experience, when people move, you are reorganizinreorga right at a time when you look at item 57, which i know the mayor was determined and i share his determination and i do share strongly the feeling that there is an emergency. well, that there is an emergency on our streets today. there was one yesterday. and what i'm -- i'm very eager to start acting, through the chair, on the urgency next to me, is overwhelming, but i feel like two things are going on at the same time.
giving people a card -- we're going to house them the most expedient places, and where is that? commission commissioner ronen, my district and your district. i'm just saying that i am concerned that it would not allow us to have more input. when i think about the navigation center that we opened up just in june-july of -- earlier this year, we have no idea where the data is. that's why i requested a meeting on the introduction center. we don't know anything, other than it feels good to be able to say hey, we opened up a navigation center, and we're moving down the road. okay. but at some point, we need to start to look at the data, and so i'm concerned about giving this emergency declaration -- because it allows certain
emergency contracting provisions that again, i think would have an adverse impact on the quality of life of the people that live in district ten, the people that have been more than tolerant, more than generous and shouldering their responsibility as a resident of this county, and accepting the resources and accepting the bids that are needed to do our part to address this homeless crisis. so this -- director, this is where my concerns are. i understand that you -- sin the last time we spoke, you introduced a date in the language, saying it'll only be -- it'll only be what? it'll only be declared an emergency until now in september -- or february 15th
of 2018. i don't know. i mean, i just -- i'm just uncomfortable, and i'm uncomfortable because of the way largely because of how the department of homelessness -- and this goes before your tenure, director. i don't want to make this personal. this is definitely before you came on board, but it has been the administration's policy to move first and ask questions later, or apologize later. they allocate the money, but it takes a long time to get forward, so this is where i am uncomfortable. if you like, you can speak to it. if not, you can just take it -- take it and internalize it. it's up to you. thank you. >> well, i just wanted to -- just as a -- to clarify, i believe the sunset provision is in item 57, not in item 56. item 57, which i know will be