Transcripts For SFGTV BOS Government Audits And Oversight Committee 20200206

[gavel] >> good morning, everyone. the meeting will come to order. welcome to the thursday, february 6, meeting of the government audit and oversight committee. i'm supervisor gordon mar, and i'm joined by supervisor peskin and supervisor matt hainy. and i would like to thank maya and corwin for staffing this meeting. mr. clerk, do you have any announcements. >> yes, thank you, mr. chair. please silence all electronic devices. your completed speaker cards and documents you have to be submitted as part of the clerk should be submitted to the clerk. >> thank you, mr. clerk. call item number one. >> an ordinance amendmenting the administrative code to require the police department to regularly report certain crime data, related to victims and other spi specified crimes. >> i wanted to ask deputy city attorney pearson if we have the final sort of amendments, and we're ready to move ahead with this item. >> no, i don't think you have the final amendments before you right now. my understanding is that my colleague is working to finalize them. and will let me and your aide know as soon as your ready to distribution. so you might want to hear the second item first. >> so since we're still waiting for some last-minute final amendments from the deputy city attorney, that has been working on this legislation, mr. clerk, can we hold off on this one and move ahead to item two right now? >> i told the people who were going to give public comment on it that it was going to be later. we could, but i just wanted to note that. >> um...well, actually maybe we can still move ahead. i have some introductory remarks on this item. i know there are some people here from the community for public comment. and then if the amendments hopefully get here in time, i could introduce those. does that sound okay? so why don't we move ahead with item number one. this legislation, which we're calling the crime victim data disclosure ordinance, will require that s.f. p.d. begin issuing quartering reports on the aggregated demographic evidence on crime victims. take to supervisors fewer and stefei. the lgbtq community and others city wide, i would like to thank them. the chinese-american citizens alliance, the chinese-american democratic club, visitation asian alliance, lgbtq democratic club, the jewish community relations council, the triangle neighborhood association, golden gate heights neighborhood association, sunset heights association of responsible people, for all submitting letters of summer for this legislation. the crime victim data disclosure ordinance will do the two things: number one, require s.f.p.d. to regularly report aggravated data on the motivating factor for hate crimes, sexual orientation, gender identity or religious preference. and require s.f. p.d. to does close crime victim data, specifically race, gender, and age for victims of assault, aggregated assault, sexual assault, burglary, theft, motor vehicle theft, robbery, battery, vandalism, domestic violence and murder. the legislation does not require the s.f.p.d. to acquire any new information from victims, but to report available data that is already being collected. i first requested this data for a board of supervisors' hearing that convened last month, in response to home invasions targeting the sunset district and other neighbourhoods. i was told by s.f.p.d. that the data did not exist. after a number of incidents occurred targeting chinese victims, i was joined by president yee and supervisor walton a submittal to provide the information. in september, s.f.p.d. provided some crime information, and the information was both alarming and validating for specific communities with heightened concerns about public safety. for example, african-americans were by far the most disproportionately victimized by all types of violent crime, including homicide and sexual assault. for asian-americans, the data showed increasing robbery, burglary, and theft victims year by year in recent years, validating their concerns. and, according to recent f.b.i. figures, hate crimes jumped 58% in san francisco last year, even as they leveled off across california. the city's surge in hate crimes was driven by an increase in incidents targeting victims by their race and ethnicity. it more than doubled from 19in 2017 to 41 in 2018, making up the majority of san francisco's 68 reported hate crimes. while i appreciate that the s.f.p.d. has shared with my office there are some new state requirements related to data reporting coming up, there is a level of urgency for us to start making this requirement -- start making this requested data transparent so we can understand how crime disproportionately affects all of our communities. and, finally, i, after some community feedback -- i am proposing some amendments that would add additional crime categories, such as child abuse, elder abuse, grand theft, manslaughter, and different types of burglary and domestic violence. number two, send these reports to the office of racial equity and the human rights commission. and, number three, ensure that there is -- ensure that there is data analysis. we must ensure that we use this data responsibly and in a way that promotes interracial harmony and cooperation. with this data, we can better track these crimes, understand who is being impacted, and develop better strategies to address them. this information is just a first step to identify what our needs are. and for all of our communities to work together to ensure public safety for all in our city. so i'd actually like to welcome up matt dorsey from the s.f.p.d. >> thank you, chair mar, vice chair peskin and supervisor haney. my name is matt dorsey with the san francisco police department. the san francisco police department stands for safety, with respect for all. and we measure and communicating, and that's under way, and that's part of my new role here. so i want to applaud supervisor mar and your colleagues for your leadership on this. i think we all recognize that to the extent we can be better at collecting data about crimes, we can do a better, more affective job of protecting all of our diverse communities here in san francisco. one of the things that you mentioned about a timing issue coming up with the state, and i just wanted to -- the department wants to just raise this. you correctly identified that there are some limitations in the collection of crime data. and a lot of that goes to the fact that since i think 1930, the united states has had uniform crime reports, and it is relatively limited in what it is reportedly. i believe in the most serious crimes, what it calls, like, section 1 crimes or unit 1 crimes, and it is only about eight categories. that is in the process of being replaced nationwide with a more detailed reporting system, called the national incident-based reportedly system, and it has five categories among the most serious eight parts. that process is under way and it will be completed in 2022. at the same time, states have the ability to both comply with the national standards, but also have their own. so california has its version of nibers, and it is called cybers. and we're in the process of just waiting to see what that is going to be. the reason that matters is last week we found out that this is coming up just in april. we're going to have -- we're right now flying blind on what the state is going to require of us. so because we're in a situation of reinventing one wheel to comply with state requirements, while we're considering this, i just want to raise it, and this is a policy decision and a use of financial decision. just to be aware in april, we will have better information on what the reporting requirements will be for the state cybers, and it is possible that some of what the state is going to be doing from the department of justice could solve some of this, to the extent it doesn't, then it would be a policy question for the city. there is nothing to prevent the city from going above and beyond, in much the way that california is go above and beyond what the nation is doing, and san francisco can go beyond what the state is doing. but we don't know. there was a precedent for something like this, when the city was enacting 96a, reporting requirements, at the same time the state was enacting legislation that was, i think, ab953, and i think this was in 2015, where we got started on one thing and then it ended up being squandered resources because we had to redo it for the state. so it is really just a kind of consideration that we all have an obligation to be responsible stewards of the public fisk. and i wanted to present that to you as a public policy, although i understand there is urgency. >> thank you so much, mr. dorsey. just a few questions on that. i appreciate the point you're raising here about the change in our crime data reporting that's going to happen with the federal guidelines. and that's really -- the timeline for that is 2022. and then you're saying that there might be some changes to the state crime data reporting that could happen. what's the timeline for that again? >> so the standards are going to be issued in april 2020. so in a couple of months, we will know what we need to be collecting for the state level. and this is where it's sort of -- the none, unknown, in this is we don't know what the state is going to do. i think we do have a clear picture -- although i would defer to more knowledgeable people than i in the department. but it isny my it is my understg while nibers is pretty clear, the state has to weigh in on what the state's requirements will be. this may solve what you're seeking to solve with your leadership. it may also be something that not unlike ab953 and 96a may be similar but different, so the department is actually grappling with two requirements that are a little different, but it is important and resource intensive for us. >> and one last question: do you have -- is there any indication that the new state reporting requirements that are being worked on would possibly include reporting requirements about crime victims and the demographics of crime victims, which is really what the focus -- >> so when we worked with the budget and legislative analyst, we were particular in saying it could accomplish this, but it really is something we don't know. it might be a situation in two months -- again, this is a policy consideration for you -- where -- in the sense we're flying blind and you're asking a question that's a good one, and that none of us can answer, but in two months we will be able to answer that. >> great. thank you. >> thank you. >> next i'd like to invite sevrin campbell to present on the fiscal impact of this item. >> good morning. yes, in response to sort of the presentation, our understanding is that there is a new system that will be implemented to meet the federal and state requirements in march of 2022. there is grant funding to cover the costs of planning and implementing developing that system. but in terms of the current reporting standards and the current system, there would be some limitations in what the system can currently do. our understanding is especially when there are multiple crimes or multiple victims, the system doesn't currently aggregate that information. it reports it as the highest crime level. so you might not get the level of detail that this legislation is requesting. we did talk to the public -- the police department to really think through what it would take to modify the existing oracle-based system. there is a cost to it. they thought it would be two full-time oracle consultants, at a cost of about $235 an hour. so it would be a one-time cost of over $900,000. we did talk to the department also about alternatives. we don't have good information at this point, but we think that there would be some potential where there would actually be a manual accounting of the incidents that are actually hard to pull out of the system to meet this requirement. there would be staff costs, and it could potentially be a lot less than the modification of the system. in terms of our recommendation, we do actually consider this to be a policy matter for the board. >> thank you, ms. campbell. colleagues, if you have no questions for comments, maybe we can move to public comment. be have some members of the public here who have filled out speaker cards. if you could please step up on the right side of the room and step up to the mic. benjamin chung, mina young, marlene tran. >> good morning, city supervisors and members of the government audit. my name is benjamin chung. i'm an associate pastor of san francisco chinese baptist church in the sus sussex district at 34th. i want to let you know you're all in my prayers to make good and sound decisions for the residents and the city of san francisco. i know this is not an easy task. i'm here today to voice my concerns about the uptake in crimes, and feel there should be better reporting, especially as an asian/american. i'm in favour of this. i'm also thankful for the s.f.p.d. and their hard work. i had my house burglarized just seven weeks ago many and my neighbor was burglarized just over a years agyear ago. both burglaries were through forced entry through the front doors, and both in the middle of the day. and my neighbor even has an iron gate and they broke through that. due to my neighbor's burglary, i updated my front door, and it took the burglars more time to breakthrough. my neighbor is also filipino. thanks to the s.f.p.d., their quick response, the burglars dropped my property, and as they were exiting, the s.f.p.d. showed up, and they the burglars crashed their car shortly after leaving my house, and i got my two dogs back. and i'm thankful they did not harm my wife, and my two sons, 4 and 2. and they ran into my tenant, who also lived in the house, and his girlfriend, but thankfully upon seeing them, they left the house, and i praise the lord for all of this stuff. i do understand there is a bigger picture, looking at the time, and i think we need better data. [buzzer] >> thank you. ms. tran. >> good morning, supervisors. i'm marlene tran, a long-time volunteer, community activist, retired teacher of newly immigrant students in our public schools, and the spokesperson for the visitation valley alliance. i'm here to support the transparency legislation, especially needed in light of the recent and increasingly brutal crimes against our elderly asian citizens. unfortunately, some of these victims were my former students. this quarterly data will help to guide budget and resource priorities, police staffing, and crime prevention programs to keep our communities safe. in the 1980s, when i moved t to visitation valley, asians were victims, but they couldn't make police reports because of lack of language. i organized monthly police meetings, initiated bilingual service, and provided victims with translations in courts and police matters. i even offered for free the use of my leland avenue property to have direct communications with law enforcements. while the ethnic media has reported many of the crimes, the english community is only starting to write about the serious cases. i grieve for the many victims who suffered greatly because they did not get the services and resources they deserve. with your full support of supervisor mar's legislation to bring much-needed data and the public services to a diverse san francisco, the year of the rat will make san francisco a safer city for all. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is mina young. i'm a member of the bay area homeowners' network. we have hundreds of members in san francisco. we chat, and i see a lot of fear among our members. recently because they themselves or their neighbors got robbed, and they're telling people how they would do different measures to try to avoid being targeted. like new year's, not putting stuff outside to celebrate, to make it look like you're chinese. and not put shoes outside, or certain kinds of plants you don't want to put outside. these are the fears i didn't see before. myself, inside my own house, my plants were stolen a few times, and then they were rearranged right in front of the house, where usually it is on the side. you know, people do all kinds of stuff. we don't know whether we are being targeted, but by having the data, if that helps to reduce that kind of crimes and make us safer, that's -- we would applaud for it. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hi, my name is eva chow, and i've been a long-time resident here in san francisco. the crime situation has gotten so bad that my mom and her friends, maja people, they all talked about not going to chinatown anymore, which is really bad for the community. they feel that having gone to chinatown once or twice every two or three weeks for doctors' visits and all of that is due to this lack of concern that is not being devoted to the chinese community, is actually oppressing their communities because they're not able to feel safe in their own communities. there is something wrong with that. so i really want to thank supervisor mar for brings bringing this to light. we need data transparency so we can allocate resources for the communities in need. and that is the first step. so this needs to be broadcasted to everyone so that my parents and her friends and families can feel safe going to chinatown. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good morning. i'm pastor megan roy. i'm a chaplain with the san francisco police department. although because i provide mental health care for both officers and victims of crimes, i remain neutral in this issue. but today i wanted to speak you in the hat of being the pastor of grace lutheran church in the sunset. prior to that, i worked for 12 years working with the chronically homeless, who have seen some of the worst hate crimes one could imagine. i remember one night encountering a homeless man in a wheelchair who was tied to his chair with a coat hanger and set on fire with his feet. i knew three individuals who were burned to death here in san francisco. when i moved to the sunset, you would think because it is kind of a quiet neighborhood, things would calm down, but being a transgender pastor, you can imagine my experience might be a little bit different. after having a trans-related double mastectomy, i had boxes sent to me before church that include falsies to insert breasts, and hair removal supplies sent to the church, and received death threats because of my partnerships working with the san francisco police department. in the past, i thought reporting the crimes meant i was weak. but sharing this information was something i was meant to endure. growing up in south dakota, i thought this is just how people are treated. so when i was hit in the head with a cane, by a moomanwho later kicked the dog, i didn't report it. but every time i did, the san francisco police department acted professionally, provided me with some of the most diverse employees who could take my report. and just the simple act of saying i had reported it to the police department ended every instance of hate i was experiencing. so i stand here to encourage others to report when they can, and to care for others. [buzzer] >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is wendy wong from san francisco coalition for good neighborhoods. we have to do something correct and simple. let's drop political correctness. all of this information for the police is very complete. we should disclose to the public which neighborhoods are in need. as a matter of fact, we have a lot of misleading information, such as proposition 47, that is petty theft, $950. even when you go to the police, they won't take your cases. this is totally misleading information. when we're seeing the police chief saying that our crime rate drops, i think this is very pathetic data. as a matter of fact, i have a lot of neighbors who thought that home invasions -- if they take their laptop, less than $950, they don't even want to report it to the police because they thought that the cases are not going to be in their report, or they would not be interviewed, or it would cause them a lot of hassle. so my neighborhood has a lot of misleading information in the sunset area. i would like to have the supervisor pay attention to the in othe neighborhoods who are in need. when we have that information, we will get the resources from the city. we can have outreach in the neighborhood, and we can have bilingual information to share with the neighbors. 3-1-1, i hope we have the bilingual language that we can report, if the police has been overloaded in their work. thank you very much. >> thank you. is there anyone else that would like t to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. actually, i just wanted to thank all of the community members that have provided complic comment opublic commente community members that have really pushed us and worked with my office to develop this crime victim closure. including the asian community, the lgbtq community, the african-american communist, and different faith communities as well, who are feeling particularly concerned about public safety, including the jewish community and the muslim community here in our city. so, colleagues, i think we do have the amendmented versioamendmentedversion ofameni referred to in my remarks. do you guys have any questions or comments? >> i do. thank you, chair mar. i just wanted to appreciate your leadership on this. and i also wanted to thank everybody who came out and who shared your experiences, and to thank you for sharing and to apologize for those of you who have been victims of crime. i think that there is no more important thing that we can do as a city than keep people safe. and we know that in particular there are some communities who are more often victims of crime, and it is critical that we have the information, that we have the data. that's an essential first step, but that we're also using that data and being transparent about it, and we're changing these realities that so many folks have experienced. and making sure that we have, culturally and linguistically accessible information. that has to be a big part of how this data is used. i wanted to be added as a co-sponsors on it. thank you. >> thank you. >> please add me as a co-sponsor as well. >> thank you. colleagues, can i move that we accept the amendments? can we take that without objection? great. can we send this item as amended with positive recommendation to the full board without objection? great. [gavel] >> thank you, everyone. mr. clerk, please call item number two. >> item number two requires the department of homelessness and supportive housing to open a navigation centr center where no navigation center currently exists, and to open at least one navigation center within 30 months where no navigation center currently exists. to revise the operational standards by among other thing, allowing them to serve up to 130 residents. and each session must allow residents to reside at the center for at least 90 day and to continue in residence as long as they're participating in assigned services. to develop a good neighbor policy and plan to conduct outreach to people experiencing homelessness in the neighborhood surrounding the center. to require h.s.h. to inform the selection of sites for navigation centers, to provide the shelter monitoring committee, in addition to shelters and affirming the appropriate findings. >> thank you. supervisor haney? >> thank you, chair mar. i want to thank the co-authorities of this measure, supervisors preston, ronen, mar, and walton. i also want to recognize the leadership of supervisor peskin, who most recently was able to have an announcement of a navigation center for transitional age use in this district. i know that is something he has been working on and fighting for for some time. i want to thank him for that. and also the department of homelessness, who i know is here, who has offered feedback and amendments, that i'm sure we are going to discuss, and i want to thank them for their partnership and their hard work on navigation centers more broadly and on working to end homelessness. there are more than 8,000 people experiencing homelessness in san francisco. 65% are unsheltered, which is hundreds more than than in 2017. the city is leading more than 5,000 people unhoused and unsheltered, without a safe place to sleep at night. the number of people who are chronically homeless continues to rise, meaning they've been homeless for at least a year. this crisis impacts every neighborhood and every person in san francisco. unhoused san franciscans are forced to sleep in parks, under freeways, on sidewalks, in their vehicles, and on doorsteps. i think we all agree we have to do better. there is no denying we must expand housing and shelter. the goal of this legislation is to directly address street homelessness and create a clear mandate for city-wide solutions to this city-wide shelter crisis. the city is investing heavily in permanent supportive housing for people existing services, with over 1200 units in the pipeline to add to the housing currently existing. most of the budget is earmarked for housing and keeping people housed. with the number of people without homes steadily growing, we need to invest heavily in new housing and subsidies to get people into vacant units, but we also know we cannot rely on building new housing to solve the homeless crisis alone. we cannot leave 5,000 people on the street while we are working to get the housing built. while our shelter system serves more than 2800 individuals a night, through 1200 emergency shelter beds, and hundreds of beds for families and transitional youth, nearly a thousand single adults experiencing homelessness remain on the shelter wait list, with thousands more who have given up on wait lists. the beds are almost 100% full every night, and people have nowhere to go. we need a system equipped to triage each person based on their needs and assign them to their level of support. according to the controller and practice, it takes roughly three months to achieve permanent housing, and for many clients, it takes much longer. many people who are getting into housing are first stating at a navigation center to get assessed, complete their application, and wait for an opening. we can either provide people who are uncentimetreed with uunshelteredsheltered. the mayor has called for a thousand beds by 2020, and is on track to meet that goal. but the plan has lacked significant input from the community, and the narrow concentration of the beds has ignored the needs of the 25% of the homeless population, and the vast majority of neighborhoods in the city, leaving them with few solutions. the goal is simply to clear the shelter wait list. and while the number has dipped slightly below 1,000, it has not changed significantly. we need to set clear mandates for ourselves, for the department of homelessness, to build a shelter in every district. the legislation, one, sets a policy for the department of homelessness and supportive housing, to build a navigation center in every district. it establishes a new site, including a standardized community engagement process. third, it strengthens the program by setting base line standards. the legislation is not a one-size-fits-all approach. it does not impose sweeping new problematic requirements that don't currently exist or create a new model. the ordinance generally reflects current practices in our navigation centers, which has helped 46% of clients achieve a stable exit, while allowing for some flexibility. it specifics assessment by a case manager, allowing pets, partners, and possessions, and having 24-hour access. it is not a new thing for navigation centers to be mandated by this board. a similar mandate passed the board in 2016, calling for six navigation centers in 26 months, which led to 2,000 people getting in permanent housing, temporary housing, or being reunited with friends or family. since that mandate ended, the nature of this problem has not been met with the same level of urgency necessary to provide adequate solutions. despite the board and mayor affirming we're in the middle of a shelter crisis, we do not yet have a neighborhood by neighborhood plan to address homelessness. most folks know what navigations are, but let me be clear what we're talking about here. one, the navigation center is a name for a high-service, low-barrier shelter that meets minimum criteria, like unsite services, allowing pets, partners, and possessions, and prioritizes homeless individuals getting houses. it is to offer a respite from live lif life on the stree. secondly, navigation centers look different in different neighborhoods and are designed to and an asset. some are comprised of tent-like structures on empty parking lots. some are bungalows. some sites occupy a vacant city college building. another will have commercial activity. many are interim uses, while some are for pre-development. there is no one-size-fits-all. of the existing naf navigation centers, the capacity ranges from 60 to 100. there are restrictive rules, and the fact that many people cannot bring partners, pets, and possessions, they do not use them. navigation centers serve neighborhoods first and foremost, and we have a city-wide challenge related to homelessness. other cities, like las vegas and d.c., have mandated that every district open a shelter or their version of a navigation center to get people off the streets. i have yet to see a plan to address street homelessness in every district and every neighborhood. and i hear a lot not fruft frojustfrom my own residents, bt from my colleagues who are working hard to find a site in their respective districts and who are told no. we need to work harder, and have the full support of the department of homelessness and the mayor to make that happen. this legislation is about saying yes. yes, we can create more places for people to navigate to. yes, we can invest in housing and subsidies and services. and, yes, we can find a way to make a site for every neighborhood at the same time we address the immediate shelter needs of the 5,000 homeless people on our streets. i know we have a representative from supervisor peskin's office, and i want to thank my co-authorities and really believe we can get to a place where the entire board board hopefully is united behind this, and we can see a city-wide plan to address this city-wide crisis. >> thank you, supervisor haney. i would like to welcome jen schneider, district 5 legislative aide, who is here to stair a statement for supervisor preston. >> thank you. happy late morning. i'm jen schneider, from supervisor preston's office. thank you, supervisor haney, for sponsoring this proposal. this is the first piece of legislation that our office agreed to co-sponsor. thousands of neighbors are sleeping on our streets every night. we know 69% of them say they became homeless while they were living here. this means many of our neighbors on the streets were once our next door neighbors who lost the only housing they could afford. our greed-fueled housing crisis squeezes out families, students, people of color, artists, or classmates and friends, and it forces those of us who are most vulnerable into a situation where there is increasingly no place to turn. the long-term solution is affordable housing for all. but the reality is that we are years away from that. even at assuming the political will to get there. in the meantime, our homeless neighbors deserve 24-hour shelter with their pets, their partners, and their possessions, where they can access the services they need. it is the very least we can do, and it will help avoid the downward spiral that homelessness creates. in san francisco, homelessness is the most grotesque symptom of unbrideled capitalism. the bay area has the largest income gap in california, and the vice president said in a recent interview that economists think there are incentives to move up the economic ladder, but when the disparities or so large, does that incentive tiff -- we have allowed a situation where it is virtually impossible to lift yourself out of poverty. as government officials, we have an absolute moral obligation to help as actively as we can. the very least we can do is make sure that all districts share the load and house our unhoused neighbors. district 5 is not immune to the homelessness crisis, and despite the demand for a navigation center, we failed to provide one. it is something our office is working on to change. count district 5 as one district that wholeheartedly embraces the mandate in this proposed legislation. thanks. >> thank you, ms. schneider. and thanks, again, supervisor haney for bringing forth this legislation and spearheading the conversation on our shelter crisis. we must address homelessness city-wide, which is why i was the first supervisor with out city-funded shelter beds in my district to co-sponsor this legislation when it was first introduced. my district is also not immune to homelessness. i've been working directly with homeless residents and housed neighbors in the sunset to determine effective solutions. when i came into office, there were no district 4 homeless services. since then, i personally connecteconnected to individuals living in their cars, and checked in regularly with the familiar faces of people who sleep outside, in our parks, streets, and bus shelters. we cannot forget these individuals. which is why i included to bring project care van to sunset. and i partnered with sunset mental health services to expand outreach to include people experiencing homelessness. as supervisors, we need to think creatively. we need to invite people inside by expanding our shelter bed capacity city-wide. a new homeless facility in the sunset would support our shared goals and alleviate our city-wide shelter crisis. there are unique opportunities in my district to pilot new models for shelters, or other forms of transitional and permanent housing. we know there exists a population of unsheltered people who would benefit from the unique characteristics of the sunset, who need this sort of environment and distance from downtown in order to permanently move into stable housing. we are not meeting or investing in these needs. and i am committed to addressing the service gap. i have already identified potential sites, and i'm working with h.s.h. to expand shelter and services into the sunset. we are looking at every piece of public land, but also private parcels, such as mission-aligned churches. i am receiving feedback directly from the homeless community in district 4, who are seeking daily respite and permanent housing options, in addition to shelter beds. especially for women, veterans, and seniors. since learning more about the challenges of establishing a navigation center through this process, it is clear that we need to be flexible and have adequate resources so we can quickly get more beds online. to meaningfully address the shelter crisis, i believe we need to listen to the community and preserve the flexibility to expand our shelter bed capacity. i deeply appreciate supervisor haney legislation to create navigation centers because each neighborhood has a unique set of stakeholders and needs. after the presentations, i do intend to discuss amendments i am working on that build in flexibility, and i intend to make a motion to continue this item. because of the potential impact, i believe we will need more time to engage with stakeholders, including my fellow colleagues on the board. i look forward to a robust discussion today. i also want to note that we have two staff members from the department of homelessness and supportive housing who are available to answer questions. abigail stewart kahn, director of strategy and external affairs, and dylan rose schneider, manager of policy and legislative affairs. first, i would like to welcome severin campbell for this item. >> thank you, chair mar. i want to point out this legislation would result in eight additional navigation centers in districts that don't currently have one. there are currently six navigation centers. the 2019 budget provides for two new navigation centers, one is in a district that doesn't currently have one. the one at 888 post street. we can't really give very precise estimates on what legislation like this would cost. if you look at table 3, on page 9 of our report, in terms of actual costs and capital costs to set up navigation centers, the costs vary quite a bit, depending on the location and type of property. the average cost for sort of existing centers is about $6.3 million. and that's table 3, on page 9. in terms of annual operating cost, it doesn't vary as much, but there is a variation. and looking at existing centers, it is about $4.3 million annual operating costs. there would probably be other costs in terms of enhanced services and staffing at the department to manage the additional centers, but those, at this point, would have to have a further review. we consider approval to be a policy matter for the board. >> thank you. colleagues, do you have any questions for ms. campbell? actually, would the department like to have a response? >> thank you, supervisors. good morning. my name is abigail kahn. h.s.h. shares supervisor haney sentiment that every neighborhood in san francisco, and every individual here, has a part to play in addressing homelessness. we commend supervisor haney for his commitment to people suffering on our streets. we appreciate this call to action very much and we can all do more. we have some concerns, however, about the way this legislation is written. our concerns are two-fold, and i'll lay them out, and i'm very happy to continue to answer the supervisions' questions. the proposed ordinance focuses time, political capital, and financial and personnel resources on expanding one component. there are six components. on expending one component of our homelessness response system. it does this at the cost of housing exits. despite the board of supervisors voting unanimously to pass legislation to expedite the process of opening new homeless services, including navigation centers as a response to the crisis on our streets, this legislation would make the process slower and significantly more expensive. it also -- supervisor mar spoke articulately about the importance of flexibility, and this legislation as written significantly limits the flexibility. in terms of the proposed ordinance's focus on narrow focus, it would require us to open navigation centers in eight additional center, which would be an addition to the 2000 placements proposed by the mayor. since july of 2018, the city has opened 692 navigation center beds, and has an additional 499 units in the pipeline, which represents the single largest shelter expansion in 30 years. we agree that we need beds for everyone, but navigation centers are not the only type of need. we need boarding care facilities, behavioral health, and every kind of of permanent supportive housing. and i want to specifically address that. because while it is true we can't build our way out of the homeless problem, that is not the only way to bring supportive housing online. we have scattered sites supportive housing, also known as a flex pool, and we have master leases, and we have built housing. this will make navigation centers slower and more expensive, while simultaneously widening the gap and the equity issues between traditional shelters and navigation systems. families tell us that the family shelter system needs care and attention, and if we continue to focus on expansion and navigation centers, we won't have the resources to bring those back to the temporary shelter system that was more traditional in our system of care. i'm very happy to speak to more specifics and questions, and i thank the supervisors for their time. >> supervisor haney. >> i have a few questions. so after the thousand shelter beds, even as we still have close to a thousand people on the shelter wait list, there is no more plans to build additional shelter beds or navigation centers, and your position is that we don't need anymore navigation centers? >> no. that is not our position. our position is that we need a proportional expansion of the homelessness response system. if we take the $28 million that we estimate it will cost us to build two navigation centers in this timeline, in this less flexible way, we lose the ability to use that money for housing exits. and i can talk about what kinds of costs those would take. so in the mayor's 2000 placement goal, there may very well be shelter beds in there and rapid rehousing, and scattered site or flexible housing and permanent supportive housing. we need to pull every lever, or that 46% you're talking about in terms of successful exits, will go down from navigation centers, because people will not have anywhere to navigate to. >> what happens to those people in the meantime? >> in the meantime, we are expanding. i think you're absolutely right. we absolutely have to do more and better. our shelters are very much at capacity, which is why we've opened the largest one in the embarcadero, and we have two more proposed, one in the pipeline at 1925 evans, one at 888 post, and one at 33 goth. so we're working on all fronts. >> while we wait for this exact proportion to be right over the next few years, these folks will be on the street during that time? >> we don't need to wait. >> that's what i'm saying. >> please don't misconstrue my words. we don't need to wait. we can bring permanent supportive housing online rapidly through scattered site models, flex pool models. we can do that today. part of 150 units are going to be brought online in that way in rapid time. >> and that's -- so how many over the next 30 months -- how many housing exits do you expect to be rapidly put in place over the next 30 months? >> 300, if not more, in addition to the pipeline the mayor -- >> 300 housing exits over the next 30 months is all we're going to be able to do? >> no. no. we have the pipeline that is managed by the mayor's office of housing and community development, which you cited and talked about, with a thousand or more coming on line this year. in addition to that, the mayor has committed to 300 additional units using the eraf money. if there is more money, we can bring on more units. if we use that money for navigation centers solely, we not bring on more housing. >> based on the number of housing units you expect to be put in place over the next two years, how many additional navigation beds do you think we need? >> the field feels for every shelter bed you build, you need to build between three and six exits. so that's the proportion we need to be working with. i don't want to sound uncompassionate to the crisis outside. that is our daily work. that's why we're working so hard to create the largest single expansion in 30 years in the city. we're not saying more to more shelter. we're saying yes more shelter, yes supportive housing, yes legislation. this legislation, as written, pulls significant resources to one aspect of our homelessness response system. which solves sleep but does not solve homelessness. >> how many additional spots do you think we need for people who are in vehicles? what's the plan to get more spots for them? >> that's a great question. i think the folks -- we know a lot more about people living in vehicles now. and they, like every group of people experiencing homelessness, are not one in the same. what we understand from my amazing colleagues working in the vehicle outreach team, is there are many people living in their vehicles who don't consider themselves homeless, who are going to school and want to save money. when they graduate, they will seek housing. we also know there are highly vulnerable people living in their vehicles who are homeless and need our care. and that's why we have piloted the vehicle triage center. those individuals who can come in and want to be housed can become part of our coordinated entry system. but we can't house them if we don't have more housing. and if we take this money, millions and millions of dollars, $28 million for two, $230 million for all eight, and we put it only into navigation centers, we will not have the resources needed to create those housing exits. [please stand by] >> they pay attention to neighborhoods and to need. and so while one -- while one might be across the line in somebody's district, that's not necessarily we should be thinking about this. we should think about where people are experiencing homelessness. where can we find sites to build with taxpayer resources. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> if i can just jump in, first of all, i appreciate the process, as this has been evolving since 2015. and understand on the one hand the need for flexibility, as the department juggles different tools. on the other hand, i think that the notion of a fair share of criteria, whether it's in this city or other cities like our nation's capital or new york, also makes sense. but i concur with the department that that does not necessarily fall along supervisor jial lines. the city is a much more complicated set of neighborhoods than relates to these lines that are drawn every ten years on making sure that communities are fairly represented in the context of a plebiscite for the legislative branch of government. so, i mean, as the chair is working on amendments, i think geography is important. lines don't cut it for me, because, while there are communities of interest within a district, whether it's the by aview or chinatown and north beach and telegraph hill, different districts take in all sorts of different slices. and so, anyway, food for thought as the legislation evolves. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, supervisors. >> i just wanted to add that -- well again i want to thank supervisor haney for his leadership on these really important issues and pushing this discussion about addressing the homelessness crisis citywide and ensuring that every neighborhood district and community, you know, does its part, does its fair share to step up on this. and again i'm very fully supportive of that. you know, i have been working with the city attorney to draft amendments, as i mentioned, that would broaden the options for districts to comply with this ordinance. so that we can successfully do our fair share to address the shelter crisis. in addition to navigation centers, this includes transitional housing and permanent housing facilities, specifically for formerly homeless persons. transitional housing facilities could include, but not limited to, safe overnight parking lots, residential facilities with behavioral health services, housing for people exiting residential treatment facilities and even tiny homes. permanent facilities can include, but is not limited to, supportive housing, cooperative living or master-leased residential units for people formerly living on our streets. we work closely with the coalition on homelessness, who brought forth these well-researched ideas. while navigation centers are absolutely needed and available sites may be more feasible for a transitional or permanent housing facility, in some neighborhoods available parels may not meet the requirements and to act expeditiously, i would like to amend in districts where there is not a feasible site for a navigation center, the department would be required to open a new alternative homeless facility in that district. in their fair share citing criteria, the department will need to make the case for an alternative homeless facility. and so i'm working on these amendments with the city attorney. unfortunately they weren't ready to be presented, you know, today. so i, you know, will be making a motion to continue this. so i could bring the amendments forward when they're ready. so maybe -- >> yes. public comment. >> i was going to add one other thing, which is also existing shelters that pre-date the advent of the lower barrier to entry navigation center model, that we also i think need to focus on and think about, that quite frankly could be vastly improved for the clientele, for the surrounding community. i'm thinking of one a few blocks north of here on the edge of mine and supervisor haney's district. but i think we should -- as we move forward, we should not forget about the things that we've done in the past that need fixing. >> yep. >> great. why don't we move to public comment. i know there's people here who wanted to speak on this item. so i have some cards. josephine, calvin, gloria hernandez, wilson parsons and norm dellman. >> good morning, supervisors. calvin quick, legislative affairs officer for the san francisco youth commission. this monday the youth commission voted to oppose this legislation, unless amended, as detailed in the memorandum to that effect of the commission's housing and land-use committee. the commission actually expressed support for expanding the navigation center model across the city, but an overwhelming majority of commissioners felt there were overriding concerns with the legislation, as written in our capacity. as the city's advisory body on youth issues. so back in 2016, when the navigation center legislation was first passed by this board, it included language found on page 5 of the legislation before you, which reads, at least one navigation center shall focus on the needs of homeless persons aged 18 to 29, who have experienced street homelessness. this still has not happened. however, the substituted legislation before you today emits that section in favor of a new section on page 9, which changes the shall to a "may." now the city is finally moving forward with plans for a navigation center at 888 post and we thank supervisor peskin for his leadership in that ongoing process. yet the city doesn't even have the lease yet and those plans may still fall through. additionally, navigation centers are not designed to be permanent uses of aid opened by the city since 2015, two have already closed. we may end up in the future without a navigation center. [bell dings] if all goes well at 888 post, we may never need to refer back to a hard mandate again. but given the city has committed to solving youth homelessness as a priority, it seems the least we can do to affirmatively a center going forward, by reinstating the "shall" language. we, therefore, oppose this legislation unless so amended. thank you for your consideration. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning, supervisors. i'm josephine. chair of the youth commissionen the youth commission opposes this legislation, unless it is amended to reinstate a hard mandate for navigation center, focusing specifically on serving the needs of transitional. it identified 1,200 youth intake experiencing homelessness on any given night in san francisco, which is around the corner of the total homeless population. the report for the more space that, quote, young people experiencing homelessness have a harder time accessing services, including shelter, medical care and unemployment. unquote. the city has committed to solving youth homelessness as a priority, motably by joining grand challenge, a national campaign to end youth homelessness. the city has recognized by developing the tools to end homelessness, for this particularly vulnerable population, we pave the way for improved services to all people experiencing homelessness. the city should, therefore, not be stepping back on its legal commitment to operating and maintaining a navigation center. finally, this is now a completely achievable goal, with 888 post moving forward. the city actually has the potential to fulfill this long-standing promise that made to the unhoused population. retaining a hard mandate for the navigation center will not, if all continues to go well, put excessive pressure on the department of homelessness and supportive housing. it is important and promises the city has made around navigation centers, to keep the hard mandate, should it need to be used to hold the department accountable in the future. thank you for your time. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good morning, commissioners. my name is winston parsons. i live at 8th and fulton in the richmond and a board member with the richmond democratic club. early when this legislation was announced, we shared a letter of support, mandating mandating the a navigation center or something similar to that in every neighborhood. i'm here to say that i want one in the richmond district. we have one of the highest rates of evictions in the richmond district. recently the star shelter closed, due to lead health concerns. and i think that was our only shelter in the richmond. and this has been a heartbreaking and long-standing humanitarian crisis and stands to reason to me that for folks who are already on the streets, making sure that they have some place to go to, especially that's nearby, that they can discover and that staff from the center are reaching out to, that we're more likely to get them the immediate care that they need. it's not just about sleep. it's about protection from the elements. this crisis leads to preventable deaths. and i anticipate a number of my neighbors might reach out and say, oh, this is going to be too much. we can't handle, or whatever the arguments are or it will attract more of the unhoused population. but i look outside my window, at golden gate park, i see people sleeping in the park, i see people sleeping on the streets. we can't both say something needs to be done about this and say we can't do anything about it. it also particularly effects -- we're seeing work at the seniors' center, more older adults coming by on the street who are unhoused. if we cannot take care of our elderly and ensure that people can age with dignity in our community, that's the anti-ethical to our values. please work out the amendments, so it serves our community best. but we want one in the richmond district. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hi, supervisors. my name is norm dellman. i live in district 5. and i support this ordinance. i think that every district should have a navigation center. and, you know, basically my own personal experience is that i walk my little dog at 5:00 in the morning, it's dark out. and, you know, i come across a lot of bodies and my heart goes out for those folks. i hope there's going to be a navigation center in the ashbury district. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good morning to each and every one of you. and thank you, matt haney, for addressing this horrible, horrible -- i don't want to start crying. homeless crisis -- i was part of that. the effect in 2005. and i know how -- i forgot to say my name. my name is gloria rodriguez, retired from working. it's critical and i understand and empathize with everything said here about money and everything else. we need people off the street immediately. we have homeless dying in the streets. and not only just from their own overdose or something, other people killing them. and until we take care of this, as far as i'm concerned, everybody is a-- one day away from being homeless. it's not just the people that are homeless. you could be homeless. you never know. and until we have sympathy and empathy for everybody and consider everybody as one, this is not going to be taken care of. another thing, too, i definitely support the navigation centers, because we have to have some place to start. i understand and empathize that they're building more housing. believe me, if i wasn't a senior disabled, i would have been in the streets. [bell dings] and we cannot just have one area. we have to start with the navigation centers. and definitely we have to have universal mental health care. without the mental health care, none of this is going to work. in the navigation centers, each one of them has to have mental health care. and we have to have after mental health care. it can't go separate. we can't have one without the other. everybody is concerned about getting the people off the streets. [bell dings] >> thank you. are there any other members of the public that would like to testify on this item? >> next speaker, please. >> my name is cheryl. i work with tndc. tenderloin resident and formerly homeless. so we speak -- i'm hearing a lot of things that can happen in the near future, which are good. building housing. but until a person has a place immediately to live at, and their mental issues are addressed, just going into a place off the street, it's not a good thing. they need care. so there are people out there. this is an emergency. i support this legislation, matt. thank you. people are out there. it's gotten so bad, there's not even -- most of them don't even have tents any more. they're sleeping on the sidewalk with coats. on the cement. and it's an emergency. and we need shelters. homelessness is in the richmond district, knob hill, marina district, st. francis woods. it's everywhere. i think a lot of it has to do with not only fear, but racism also. from a lot of these communities that do not want shelters. so this has to do with being humane. [bell dings] and getting people off the streets as quickly as possible. we can work on everything else at the same time. but even a thousand in the next year is not enough. we need emergency housing now. thank you. >> okay. thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning, everyone. jordan davis. and i'm formerly homeless myself and live in the tenderloin. believe it or not, where i was -- where i would often sleep, when i was homeless in this city, it's actually not in a place where there's a lot of navigation centers. it was the sunset district, ocean beach. i remember those cold, foggy nights. because i didn't want to be near people. but the point is, you know, like there's homelessness in every part of the city. and there's homeless -- and i have slept -- as someone who slept in the sunset, this is back in 2014, before like anything even -- any homeless services were even imaginable, it needs to be in every district. and i do share the concerns that we need also to navigation centers, and we need permanent supportive housing. people can't be in shelter forever. i hope all of these things -- and i hope that there's an amendable solution and stakeholders can come together and we can solicit feedback from the youth commission, as well as everyone else. but i just want to say this, there are two types of people in this world. there are people who support the constructive solutions and want to work towards -- work in good faith towards annual solution. or fuckings a holes who just look out for themselves. >> next speaker, please. >> good morning, supervisors. i am laura sign. tenderloin's people's congress. i support this legislation. must take responsibility of having navigation centers in their neighborhood. homelessness is citywide and must provide citywide solutions. no neighborhood is exempt from helping to find the solutions. many of the higher-income districts have shared responsibilities when it comes to homelessness. and this policy must change. all districts must share responsibility to house people in navigation centers. this is a critical legislation and i support this legislation. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please >> thank you for supervisors matt haney and all the rest. this is a huge crisis. so my name is lorenzo. i work as a committee organizer with the tenderloin people's congress. so we support the expansion of navigation centers citywide. because the problem is citywide. so we need a citywide solution. and this just is common sense. okay. so and we need -- we understand that, you know, it's a solution that's been like failing for many years. the fact is that 400 homeless people died on the streets, you know, three years. the past three years. and according to the count data, homeless population increased by 17%, so meaning the previous solutions are not working. yeah. so we know that homeless people are humans, too. and it's difficult for our city to let them die on the streets. it's absurd. but, of course, we want the solutions, navigation center citywide. we should also think about new and innovative ideas. an organization -- [bell dings] the filipino community corporation made a study last year and came up with a program. the urban sleep center is an innovative idea of a popular successful program in seattle, washington, in jacksonville, florida. so this will solve the solution of homelessness. we have over 400 buildings citywide that are empty and abandoned. we can make use of them. [bell dings] >> thank you. thank you. thank you so much. is there anyone else that would like to speak on this item, before public comment is closed? seeing none, public testimony is now closed. [gavel] supervisor haney. >> thank you. thank you, chair mar. i'm definitely looking forward to working with you on the amendments. and i absolutely hear the point about flexibility and making sure that we are able to provide for facilities that really meet the needs of the neighborhood. i do want to note that there is significant flexibility built into this legislation, as is. and i'm absolutely open to additional flexibility. just noting that the legislation says that the navigation centers can serve specific populations, including at least one that may be operated as a managed alcohol shelter expect at least one that may focus on the needs of youth. at least one that may serve transgender or gender, non-conforming individuals, one that provides on-site services for individuals living in cars or recreational vehicles. at least one that may serve seniors, at least one that may focus on another population experiencing homelessness. certainly we have, as i spoke, a lot of diversity in the navigation centers that currently exist, both in the populations that they serve and in their structures and their focus and the services that they provide. i do want to note that we have a hummingbird, which serves as a navigation center, which is on the site of general hospital, which really focuses and targets individuals who may have high levels of mental health needs. so the idea that this is in any way a one-size-fits-all could not be farther from the truth. and i'm absolutely want to work with my colleagues and with the department to make sure that this is fitting the broader overall strategy that we respectively have for our neighborhoods and a little for the city. but, you know, respectfully i have not and am not aware of any plan from the department of homelessness or anyone else that addresses this citywide needs that we have. and identifies a way to serve individuals experiencing homelessness all over the city. and for five years we've had navigation centers. they've only to this point ever opened up in three districts. and during that time, homelessness has gotten worse. in addition to that, supervisors all over the city have said we want services in our districts. and they've been in many cases including, with our new supervisor in district 5, have not been able to have the adequate support for that. so i hear the point and i agree with supervisor peskin that in some cases, you know, the district lines are maybe not the best way to understand our city more broadly. but at the same time, because of the role that supervisors play in this process, the political role that we play, the budgeting role to make things happen in our respective districts, this was sort of the best way to ensure geographic equity, that we could develop from a policy framework. i also want to say a piece about the number of beds. i agree we need to build a lot more housing. hopefully we'll get prop c and have a lot of opportunity there. and certainly we're building more and there's a lot in the pipeline. but i just -- i just can't accept that we don't have a need for hundreds of additional navigation center beds in the near future, to be able to facilitate and transition people off of the street. we need both. we need this and that. and i think that this will help us with added flexibility, get us to a place where we have a citywide plan, that the supervisors can get behind and the mayor can get behind and we can all work together to achieve. in reality, when a navigation center or any facility is proposed in a neighborhood, it's going to mean a lot to the residents there to be able to understand that this is a part of a citywide plan. that everyone is stepping up. and it will be harder to do it if it's done as it has been in a one-off all over the city, certainly residents of my district and i'm sure other districts, always ask, well, what is the rest of the city doing. and that's a fair question. and the answer to that should be we're all stepping up. and that means that, as elected fixers, we're all stepping up and making that commitment. our neighbors are stepping up and making that commitment. and hopefully the department and the mayor is stepping up alongside us on this. so we will work together. you know, i want to get this to a place where we can all be confident and excited and committed to doing this. and if that takes some more flexibility in what would -- what type of facilities are a part of that plan, then i think that, with my co-authors of the legislation and fellow colleagues, that we can -- i'm confident we can get there. so this will be back. >> thanks again, supervisor haney, for your leadership on this. colleagues, so again i want to move that we continue this item to the call of the chair. great. [gavel] mr. clerk, is there any further business? >> clerk: that's the end of our agenda. >> thank you. we are adjourned. >> we can sweep by in front of a house in a matter of seconds. the only people who don't like it are the people who get the tickets. >> this is a street sweeping sign. don't let it get you. pay attention. [♪] >> in the morning, when we first go out, we start at six in the morning or seven in the morning. we call that our business run. we sweep all the main arteries of the city. after 8:00, we go into the residential areas and take care of all the other customers. >> the idea with the street sweeping program is to get the leaves and the debris off the ground. >> we -- for not only appearance and cleanliness but safety as well. >> we will get anywhere from 2- 7,000 pounds per truck depending on the season and the route. the street sweeper and the choice of the use right now is an error sweeper. they have a motor in the back and it blows winds down one side and carried by air into the hopper. what will mess this up is new -- large pieces of cardboard or sticks or coat hangers. anything that is more than 12 inches. the tube on the tracks is only 12-inch diameter. >> people asked what they can do to help to keep the city clean. there are people that letter. leaves are one thing. any of the garbage you see is from people being careless. [♪] >> one cars parked in the way, we can't sweep under the congress. to deal with this, we have parking control officers that are provided by m.t.a. and they go in front of our sweepers and pass out citations to people that are parking the wrong way. once the sweepers sweep past in san francisco, you may park behind the street sweeper. we all know parking is a big issue. north beach hasn't been swept since the eighties because of opposition. but we are getting a lot of requests to sweep. basically our trucks are 10 feet wide. we stick the brooms out and they are may be 12 feet wide. >> there are a lot of blind spots when driving a large truck pedestrians and bicyclists and cars. and navigates this 22,000-pound truck through the city. >> we involve the public here -- to adhere to traffic laws. these routes were developed back in the eighties around the capability of the sweeper. things have changed since then so we have to adapt. luckily, public works is embracing technology and working on a system to alter our maps. this is literally cut and paste -- cut and paste. we will have a computer program soon that will be able to alter the maps and be updated instantly. we will have tablets in the checks for all of the maps. we will send a broom wherever it needs to go and he has the information he needs to complete the safety. what is needed about these tablets as they will have a g.p.s. on it so we know where they're at. you do get confused driving along, especially the inner sunset. recall that to the be made a triangle. >> thanks for writing along with us today. i enjoyed showing you what we do and i urge you to pay attention to the signs and move your car and don't litter. >> this is a huge catalyst for change. >> it will be over 530,000 gross square feet plus two levels of basement. >> now the departments are across so many locations it is hard for them to work together and collaborate and hard for the customers to figure out the different locations and hours of operation. >> one of the main drivers is a one stopper mitt center for -- permit center. >> special events. we are a one stop shop for those three things. >> this has many different uses throughout if years. >> in 1940s it was coca-cola and the flagship as part of the construction project we are retaining the clock tower. the permit center is little working closely with the digital services team on how can we modernize and move away from the paper we use right now to move to a more digital world. >> the digital services team was created in 2017. it is 2.5 years. our job is to make it possible to get things done with the city online. >> one of the reasons permitting is so difficult in this city and county is really about the scale. we have 58 different department in the city and 18 of them involve permitting. >> we are expecting the residents to understand how the departments are structured to navigate through the permitting processes. it is difficult and we have heard that from many people we interviewed. our goal is you don't have to know the department. you are dealing with the city. >> now if you are trying to get construction or special events permit you might go to 13 locations to get the permit. here we are taking 13 locations into one floor of one location which is a huge improvement for the customer and staff trying to work together to make it easy to comply with the rules. >> there are more than 300 permitting processes in the city. there is a huge to do list that we are possessing digital. the first project is allowing people to apply online for the a.d.u. it is an accessory dwelling unit, away for people to add extra living space to their home, to convert a garage or add something to the back of the house. it is a very complicated permit. you have to speak to different departments to get it approved. we are trying to consolidate to one easy to due process. some of the next ones are windows and roofing. those are high volume permits. they are simple to issue. another one is restaurant permitting. while the overall volume is lower it is long and complicated business process. people struggle to open restaurants because the permitting process is hard to navigate. >> the city is going to roll out a digital curing system one that is being tested. >> when people arrive they canshay what they are here to. it helps them workout which cue they neat to be in. if they rant to run anker rapid she can do that. we say you are next in line make sure you are back ready for your appointment. >> we want it all-in-one location across the many departments involved. it is clear where customers go to play. >> on june 5, 2019 the ceremony was held to celebrate the placement of the last beam on top of the structures. six months later construction is complete. >> we will be moving next summer. >> the flu building -- the new building will be building. it was designed with light in mind. employees will appreciate these amenities. >> solar panels on the roof, electric vehicle chargers in the basement levels, benefiting from gray watery use and secured bicycle parking for 300 bicycles. when you are on the higher floors of thing yo of the buildt catch the tip of the golden gate bridge on a clear day and good view of soma. >> it is so exciting for the team. it is a fiscal manifestation what we are trying to do. it is allowing the different departments to come together to issue permits to the residents. we hope people can digitally come to one website for permits. we are trying to make it digital so when they come into the center they have a high-quality interaction with experts to guide then rather than filling iin forms. they will have good conversations with our staff. >> hi. welcome to san staff. francisco. stay safe and exploring how you can stay in your home safely after an earthquake. let's look at common earthquake myths. >> we are here at the urban center on mission street in san francisco. we have 3 guest today. we have david constructional engineer and bill harvey. i want to talk about urban myths. what do you think about earthquakes, can you tell if they are coming in advance? >> he's sleeping during those earthquakes? >> have you noticed him take any special? >> no. he sleeps right through them. there is no truth that i'm aware of with harvey that dogs are aware of an impending earthquake. >> you hear the myth all the time. suppose the dog helps you get up, is it going to help you do something >> i hear they are aware of small vibrations. but yes, i read extensively that dogs cannot realize earthquakes. >> today is a spectacular day in san francisco and sometimes people would say this is earthquake weather. is this earthquake weather? >> no. not that i have heard of. no such thing. >> there is no such thing. >> we are talking about the weather in a daily or weekly cycle. there is no relationship. i have heard it's hot or cold weather or rain. i'm not sure which is the myth. >> how about time of day? >> yes. it happens when it's least convenient. when it happens people say we were lucky and when they don't. it's terrible timing. it's never a good time for an earthquake. >> but we are going to have one. >> how about the ground swallowing people into the ground? >> like the earth that collapsed? it's not like the tv shows. >> the earth does move and it bumps up and you get a ground fracture but it's not something that opens up and sucks you up into haddes. >> it's not going anywhere. we are going to have a lot of damage, but this myth that california is going to the ocean is not real. >> southern california is moving north. it's coming up from the south to the north. >> you would have to invest the million year cycle, not weeks or years. maybe millions of years from now, part of los angeles will be in the bay area. >> for better or worse. >> yes. >> this is a tough question. >> those other ones weren't tough. >> this is a really easy challenge. are the smaller ones less stress? >> yes. the amount released in small earthquakes is that they are so small in you need many of those. >> i think would you probably have to have maybe hundreds of magnitude earthquakes of 4.7. >> so small earthquakes are not making our lives better in the future? >> not anyway that you can count on. >> i have heard that buildings in san francisco are on rollers and isolated? >> it's not true. it's a conventional foundation like almost all the circumstances buildings in san francisco. >> the trans-america was built way before. it's a pretty conventional foundation design. >> i have heard about this thing called the triangle of life and up you are supposed to go to the edge of your bed to save yourself. is there anything of value to that ? >> yes, if you are in your room. you should drop, cover and hold onto something. if you are in school, same thing, kitchen same thing. if you happen to be in your bed, and you rollover your bed, it's not a bad place to be. >> the reality is when we have a major earthquake the ground shaking so pronounced that you are not going to be able to get up and go anywhere. you are pretty much staying where you are when that earthquake hits. you are not going to be able to stand up and run with gravity. >> you want to get under the door frame but you are not moving to great distances. >> where can i buy a richter scale? >> mr. richter is selling it. we are going to put a plug in for cold hardware. they are not available. it's a rather complex. >> in fact we don't even use the richter scale anymore. we use a moment magnitude. the richter scale was early technology. >> probably a myth that i hear most often is my building is just fine in the loma prieta earthquake so everything is fine. is that true ? >> loma prieta was different. the ground acceleration here was quite moderate and the duration was moderate. so anyone that believes they survived a big earthquake and their building has been tested is sadly mistaken. >> we are planning for the bigger earthquake closer to san francisco and a fault totally independent. >> much stronger than the loma prieta earthquake. >> so people who were here in '89 they should say 3 times as strong and twice as long and that will give them more of an occasion of the earthquake we would have. 10 percent isn't really the threshold of damage. when you triple it you cross that line. it's much more damage in earthquake. >> i want to thank you, harvey, thanks pat for >> my name tom hewitt. first of all, i would like to welcome everyone to come to this fair. this safety fair, we trying to educate the public regarding how to prepare themselves during and after the earthquake and then to protect themselves for next 72 hours. >> hi. my name's ed sweeney. i'm the director of services at department of building inspection, and we put together a great fair for the city of san francisco to come down and meet all the experts. we've got engineers, architects. we have builders, we have government agencies. >> well, we have four specific workshops. we have the accessible business entrance. >> my name is leah, and i am the assistant manager with the department of small business. i am leading the new accessibility ordinance that helps existing owners better comply with existing access laws. so all buildings that have places of public accommodation in san francisco, they must comply with this ordinance. >> the a.d.e. was setup by the board of supervisors, and the ordinance was passed about a year ago. >> one of the biggest updates that we have is that the deadlines were extended, so all of the deadlines were extended by six months. >> and it's really to help the public, the business community to be specific, to cut down on the amount of drive by lawsuits. >> so on this workshop, we're going to be covering what the compliance looks like, what business examiand property owne need to know how to comply with the ordinance. we'll also talk about the departments that are involved, including the office of small business, department of building inspection, planning department, as well as the mayor's office on disability. >> hi. i'm marselle, and i manage a team at the building department. today, we'll cover the meaning of a.d.u.s, more commonly known as accessory dwelling units. we'll talk about the code and permitting processes, and we'll also talk about legalizing existing dwelling units that are currently unwarranted. >> this is the department of building inspection's residential remodelling workshop. my name is senior electrical inspector cheryl rose, and at this workshop, we're going to be answering questions such as do i need an electrical permit when i'm upgrading my dwelling, when do i need to have planning involved in a residential remodel, and what's involved with the coerce process? we're going to also be reviewing inspection process, and the permitting process for residential remodel in san francisco. there's always questions that need answers. it's a mystery to the general public what goes on in construction, and the more we can clarify the process, the more involved the consumer can be and feel comfortable with the contractors they're working with and the product they're getting in the results. if you have questions that aren't addressed in this workshop, you're always welcome to come up to the third floor of 1660 mission street, and we're happy to discuss it with you and find out what you need to do. >> the program is very successful. the last piece is already 60% in compliance. >> well, we have a very important day coming up. it's sept 15. last four has to be compliance, which means that the level four people that have to register with us and give us a basic indication of how they're going to deal with their seismic issues on their building. >> i'm francis zamora, and i'm with the san francisco department of emergency management, and today we talked about how to prepare for emergencies in san francisco. and so that's really importantiimportant. in san francisco, it's no secret. we live in earthquake country. there's a big chance we will be involved in a major earthquake in the next 30 years, but we don't have to be afraid. these are going to be your first responders outside of the police officers, paramedics, first responders, these are going to be the people that come to your aid first. by getting to know your neighbors, you're going to know who needs help and who can help in case of an emergency. one of the great ways to do that is for signing7for nert, san francisco neighborhood emergency response team. it teaches you how to take care of yourself, your loved ones, and your neighborhood in the case of an emergency. information is just as important as water and food in an emergency. san francisco has an emergency text message alert system, called text sf. if there's some kind of an emergency happening in san francisco or your neighborhood, it could be a police action, a big fire, a tsunami or an earthquake. all you have to do is text your citizenship code to 888777, and your mobile phone is automatically registered for alert sf. >> my name is fernando juarez, and i'm a fire captain with the san francisco fire department. we have a hire extinguisher training system. you want to pull the pin, stand at least 8 feet away, aim it at the base. if you're too close, the conical laser that comes out, it's too small, and the fire won't go out on the screen. if you step back, the conical shape on the screen is bigger, and it will take the fire go out faster. so it can tell when you're too close. >> my name is alicia wu, and i'm the director of a san francisco based nonprofit. since 2015, we go out to the public, to the community and provide training in different topics. today we're doing c.p.r., controlling external feeding and how to do perfect communications in each topic, and also, i hope that they can bring it home and start gathering all the supplies for themselves to. >> on any given day in san francisco, we're very well resourced in terms of public safety professionals, but we all know in the event of a large scale disaster, it will be hours and days before the public safety professionals can get to you, so we encourage people to have that plan in place, be proactive. there's websites. we have a wonderful website called 72hours.org. it tells you how to prepare yourself, your family, your pets, your home, your workplace. we can't emphasize enough how important it is to be >> we have been without a major seismic event for over 20 years now. will happen at a moment's notice [♪] >> today we are practising the activation of our department emergency operations center. >> this is really an exercise for us to train, and we are using fleet week and the entire -- the italian heritage festival as the exercise. we have four different sections that are working today. there is operations, and operations basically is our contact with people out in the fields. they are finding out how things are going, and if there are problems, they are letting us know and we can identify through our action plan what what resources are needed and dispatch those resources. they will fill out reports and then the report gets to planning you will identify if additional resources need to be happening over a long-term timeframe and then they will provide for that by talking with our logistics staff. the logistic staff logistics staff is the one that will order labor, materials, they will do that, first of all, looking within our own organization, then if we don't have that within our own organization, they will contact the p.o.c. and then they will look at getting resources to us. and then last but importantly as our finance staff. and they are here to make sure that we first of all fill out all the paperwork so in an actual event, when the federal government will be reimbursing s., then we are following the proper protocol, and they are also making sure the money is there in place. >> today in the field we have the environmental service is following the parade, and doing the final cleanup of the parade. and an emergency situation, they would likely be doing something similar to this, only with debris. also in the field is the inspectors from the mapping. they are doing some live streaming. >> there is an intersection of beach making sure that everything is safe for our public, our visitors, and everyone participating in the event. >> there will be so many different departments working during a seismic event or any other kind of emergency. they will all have a separate action plan, and we are here making sure that for public works the action plan for that emergency event is actually followed through. >> engineers will likely be doing damage assessment of roads , bridges, overhead passes, architects and engineers as well would be doing damage assessment of facilities and buildings. building repair it would probably be doing some immediate repairs to make facilities operational, especially things like shelters, street and sewer repair, as the urban forestry crew also has big equipment that can help clear the roadways. [♪] >> we have been without a major seismic event for over 20 years now, so it is important that we are ready, we know the roles that we need to play, and we are able to act quickly because it will happen at a moment's notice so that is one of the reasons why we do this, and again, the more comfortable we feel in our roles, then the better we can respond quickly to emergencies. >> for an emergency planning communication is very important, and so i can't stress enough the importance of figuring out a communication plan for your family, and for the department. that is why we are practising today how we communicate and interact with each other, how we share information, and how we use that information, and then for the city as a whole, so that the city as a halt knows what is going on as well. good afternoon. and welcome to the land use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisors. for today, monday, february, 3, 2020. i am the chair of the committee, aaron peskin joined by committee member supervisor dean preston to my left, our clerk is ms. erica major, ms. major, could you please make any announcements? >> yes, please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices. completed speaker cards and copies of any documents to be included as part of a file should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you. could you please call items 1 through 3 together. >> item number 1 is a resolution declaring the intent of the board to order the vacation of the sidewalk portion of streets on the south side of mission street to allow a structure upgrade of 301 mission street high-rise building known as the millennium tower and setting the hearing date sitting as a committee of the whole. item 2 is an ordinance ordering the vacation of sidewalk portions of streets on the south side of mission street to allow a structural upgrade to 301 mission street, high-rise building known as the millennium tower, rededicating the area to public use and adopt the appropriate findings. item 3 is a resolution approving and authorizing a trust exchange agreement with the california state lands commission that would remove the public trust from certain transbay streets and impress the public trust on certain fisherman's wharf street and adopting appropriate findings. >> thank you, ms. major. so obviously all three of these pieces of legislation have to do with the sinking, tilting millennium tower at 301 mission in addition to river a from public works and from the port, we have deputy city attorney john to answer any questions that we have. i believe that public works has a presentation. so mr. rivera, the floor is yores. >> good afternoon. from the department of public works. the department of building inspection has reviewed a proposed design to structurally upgrade the 301 mission street tower. it was determined that the structural upgrade will require infrastructure to be placed under what is currently public right of way along mission street and fremont street. this piece of legislation is really more of a legal exercise than a standard street vacation. when streets are typically vacated, the vacation area is removed from the public right of way and it becomes a city-owned parcel that can be retained by the city or conveyed to a third party. when the city retains ownership, the city has the ability to grant a lease or an easement over all or a portion of the vacated area. this street legislation or this legislation approves three phases. first, portions of mission street and fremont street will be vacated, starting from the sidewalk level down to a depth of approximately 300 feet. this will split off city-owned parcels below grade while keeping the above portion in the current street status as shown on the screen right here along mission street and fremont street. the second portion of this legislation will be an easement that will be granted from the city to the inner of 301 mission street over portions of the below-grade vacated street. the easement areas can be seen on the screen and on file on pages 2 and 3. each one, page two, shows mission street's easement area, and page three shows the fremont street portion of the vacation. finally, after the easement is recorded, the vacated property will be restored to public right of way with subject to the easement. the street vacation was processed as required by local and state law. no objections were received from the city agencies, public utility companies or private fronting property owners. it is important to note that this is a conditional street vacation, and it will not become effective until the board of bof supervisors has approved the following three items. first, the vacation area is currently right of way that is subject to the public trust doctrine. the public trust exchange legislation must be approved and effective. second, the settlement ordinance related to the 301 mission street litigation must be finalized and effective. this ordinance will be introduced at a later date to the board of supervisors. finally the board of supervisors must approve the easement for the structural elements in the vacation area. this legislation will also be introduced at a later date. if you have any questions concerning the vacation process, i'm here to answer them. >> thank you. are there any questions for mr. rivera with regard to the vacation below ground? the construction period will last how long approximately? >> i believe the last i heard was 18 months, probably two years. >> if there are no questions for mr. rivera, would you like to come and tell us about the public trust exchange? >> i'm with the port. i want to talk briefly about the trust exchange. the port is requesting that the board of supervisors approve trust exchange for property in the transbay area, streets in the transbay area as well as the fisherman's what were area. the trust exchange would relate to the project that was just described. it would allow for the construction or improvements for the millennium towers project at 301 mission, but it would also allow for the consolidation of the site for the transbay transit center. so let me focus more in that since you've heard the presentation about the millennium tower. brief background, the transbay authority was created in 2001 to build a new transbay center. in 2010, the caltrans transferred the original caltrans term gnat site to the tjpa for the construction of the facility, but it did not include air and substructure rights for fremont and mission street. so the city could not transfer the entire site to the tjpa. so related to what's being requested now, we are talking about an exchange that would permit the consolidation of the transbay term gnat site in addition to the towers development. but the streets are subject to this. the property is transferred originally to the city based on the act approved by the state in 1968. and so the port owns title to those streets. and the burden act does not allow the city or the port to transfer any interest in those streets without state approval. and so to consolidate the site or to make the permanent easement available to the millennium towers association, the trust would have to be removed. now, the state does allow for the city to remove the trust. there are a number of conditions. the primary condition or key condition is that the property that's being swapped or transferred into the trust must have a value equal to or greater than the property that's being removed from the trust. so the fremont and mission streets, that land must be -- can't be more valuable than the streets that are being swapped into the trust. in this case, that's bay beach and hyde streets and the the fisherman's what were area, those streets allow access to the waterfront and will be a positive addition to the port and to the trust. the streets that are getting removeed, they are cut off from the bay are no longer of value to the trust, and that's the reason we are proposing this swap. square footage, and this was the basis of the port commission action, the square footage of the streets in the fisherman's what were area that would be coming into the trust, 152,000 square feet that would be removed from the trust, 143,000 square feet. the original apray sal process that's going on -- appraisal process that will verify the values. at the time the commission took its action on january 14, that appraisal hod had not been completed. so the commission took their action and on january 14, approving and authorizing the executive director to sign a trust exchange agreement between the port, the city and the land commission subject to the board of supervisors approval and of course subject to lands commission approval. this map, if we can show the map on the computer here. >> on the overhead or the laptop? >> it's on the laptop. >> here we go. >> this map is showing the streets that will be removed from the trust. they are shown in red. again, it's fremont and mission streets. i'm having trouble getting to the next map. okay. the streets in green here are the streets to the fisherman's what were beach hyde and bay, they will be where the trust would be applied, and these would be part of the trust. >> and what are the lands transferred to the united states of america and retained by the city? in parcel r? >> this map is showing more than the trust streets. i'm not sure why that area is listed there. i don't know if the city really has any idea about that area. >> the streets totaling the 34,000 square feet plus 119,000 square feet >> is what's in green, and that's what's being swapped into the trust. >> john, do you understand what these retained by the city, transferred to the united states stuff is? is that from a different swap? >> john from the city attorney's office. to be honest, i'm not exactly sure what that area is. i think it's down near the aquatic park area, there's some federally-owned land. that's the way i've always read it, but i don't have a specific answer for you. >> okay. but they are not implicated, even though the legend says, the key says proposed trade-in lands, and then there's these other two categories that don't seem to be the act lands. >> right. it's just an adjacent property. >> got it. any questions for mr. rhett? if you have any questions you can come on up and testify. we will open up public comment. >> not for this but to help me understand, when the port takes over a street, does this mean that any businesses that operate on that street have to get permits then from the port to do, like, get a new plumbing thing in for their restaurant? or how does that work? >> i would love to explain to you the history of the public trust doctrine and why it is that these lands as a matter of development of land use history in the state of california are lands of the people of the state as opposed to lands of the city and county of san francisco. but in 1968, john burton was able to pass legislation wherein those lands are, that historically were state lands, they are still state lands, but they are stewarded by the port of san francisco in trust for the people of the state of california as parts of the public trust. but as a practical matter, not to engage in dialogue and get in trouble with the city attorney, it has no actual effect on the adjoining property owners and is merely a paper swap. so with that, and subject to approval by the state lands commission of the state of california, ms. jennifer presiding, there are a couple or members of the public who would like to testify on items 1 through 3? seeing none, we will close public comment. there are a couple of housekeeping matters in item number two, the piece of legislation that is before you, this is the street vacation matter refers to a yet to be introduced settlement ordinance. and the amendments which are on pages five and pages six, you will see, strike the words, the settlement is on file with the clerk of the board of supervisors and replaces it with language as language that says that this ordinance will not be operative unless and until the board approves the yet to be introduced settlement. so those changes are set forth on pages five and six. and then with regard to item number three, while the public notice was technically sufficient, i thought that it was important for the public to know that as we have discussed in this hearing, that item number three is correctly related to the millennium tower settlement. and so i have -- i would like to make an amendment to item number three to clearly show in the short title and the long title that is related to the millennium tower matter. so i would like to make a motion to amend items two and three as i've just discussed or moved by supervisor safai, we have been joined by supervisor safai who has made those amendments which we will take without objection. and then, colleagues, i would like to send item one, which is the resolution of intent for the street vacation to the full board. >> mr. chair? >> yes >> we need to add the committee of the whole date to item one for the resolution. >> thank you, ms. major. and we have an amendment to item number one, which is the resolution of intent for street vacation, which of course will require a board of supervisors hearing. and what date, ms. major, should we insert for that? >> march 3, 2020 >> so we will include the hearing date of march 3, which will be a committee of the whole, on march 3, 2020. and we will add that to item number one. that amendment we'll take without objection and send item number one as amended with the march 3 date to the full board with recommendation as a committee report for hearing tomorrow. and items two and three as amended will go to the full board on february 11 without objection. >> mr. chair. >> yes? >> item two will need to be referred without recommendation. >> you are right. because item number two requires the public hearing. so we will send that without recommendation. and item number three we will send with recommendation without objection in the normal course of business. madame clerk, would you please read the next item? >> yes. item four is an ordinance approving an amended and restated land disposition and acquisition agreement with 2000 marin property l.p. for the city's transfer of real property at 639 bryant street under the jurisdiction of the san francisco public utilities commission in exchange for real property at 2000 marin street, subject to several conditions, including the reimbursement of certain transaction costs. >> mr. carlin. >> chair peskin, supervisors, i'm here on behalf of the san francisco public utilities commission. i'm the deputy general manager. this item we have been working on for several years. it's an exchange of our brought at 639 bryant street which for exchange. it is based on fair market values. there is no cash being exchanged but there are other considerations part of the development deal with the developers. there will be tenant improvements at the port. there will be moving costs absorbed by the developer. and he's helping us to secure a tank site for hydrogen peroxide tank for border patrol and our sewers. so i'm happy to answer any questions, but it's pretty self explanatory in the material that was developed for you. >> are there any questions for mr. carlin? this has been discussed by this committee and the board in the past and was actually once considered as 2000 marin as the temporary site for the flower mart, but as we all know, they ended up with a different proposed site. supervisor safai? >> i just wanted to point out to the clerk that the item on the screen is not representative of the current item >> that is true. and that is actually sfgov tv, because item 4 -- item 5 is -- they keyed up the wrong -- >> thank you. >> thank you for that comment. you are right, we are on item 4, amended and restated land acquisition agreement, exchange of 639 bryant for 2000 marin. are there any members of the public who have any comments on this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment and colleagues, if there is no objection, we will send this to the full board as a committee report with recommendation, without objection. madame clerk, please read the next item. >> item five is an ordinance amending the administrative code to classify certain types of unlawful detainer settlement agreements as buyout agreements, require the rent board to provide more information on the disclosure form that landlords must give to tenants, require landlords to give the disclosure form to tenants a certain number of days before the buyout agreement is executed and allow tenants to invalidate any provision of the buyout agreement in which the tenant waived their rights if the landlord did not timely file the buyout agreement. >> thank you. this legislation is sponsored by supervisor ronen and cosponsored by any number of supervisors including myself and supervisor preston. and from supervisor ronen's office, ms. amy is here to present. and we have robert collins from the rent stabilization board. if we have any questions for him. and i know ms. amy has a couple amendments which i am handing out to you for your review, and we will discuss. the floor is yours. >> thank you so much. legislative aid, supervisor ronen's office. good afternoon, chair peskin, vice-chair safai, supervisor preston. the legislation before you today will amend admin code section 37.9e to tighten the regulations on landlord buyouts of tenants and protect tenants from being subjected to high pressure to get them to leave their homes. with speck at a live rents and sales continuing to rise, landlords have a powerful incentive to remove and replace long-time tenants. no-cause evictions are allowed under the state act and move-in laws but some landlords see a cash buyout as a way to get tenants to move out quickly and avoid restraints on condo conversions. supervisor passed a regulation in 2014 which established annual reporting. there was 379 buyouts in neighborhoods throughout the city but some advocates estimate there may be as many as three untracked for every one that does get filed. we need to be sure the laws are being followed. what this legislation will do is the following, it will ensure the tenants are informed of their rights. currently, we are seeing landlords deliver required disclosures to tenants after start of negotiations or not at all, the amendments will require a landlord file a declaration under penalty of perjury prior to commencing negotiations providing evidence of disclosure and method of delivery. it will give tenants time to decide landlords often use high pressure, take it or leave it deadlines that leave tenants no times to reach out to legal support or their advocate assistance. the amendments set a minimum of 30 days between the initiation of buyout negotiations and the execution of an agreement. it will phosphorus landlords to file. they sometimes file in order to recharacterize a buyout agreement and bypass the filing in subsequent condo conversion restrictions. it is filed within 120 days as a buyout agreement, subject to regulation. lastly, the amendment will push landlords to file by waiving any waiver of tenant rights if a landlord does not file on time with the rent board. so we submitted several amendments, actually at the request of the regular board, and each of these together are intended to help make sure the recording is done in a way that's easier to track. on page one, lines eight through 10, it will note that we now require landlords to include in the final buyout agreement identifying information about the location of the unit, same thing continues on page four, lines two to three, it specifies the agreement will show the parcel number. on page six, line six and seven and nine, reiterates the same, and lastly, page nine, line one and six we've deleted the march 1 operative date so it becomes effective 30 days after enactment. we have heard criticism from some interested parties that this legislation will discourage buyouts, and that is in some way, disadvantaged to tenants. on behalf of supervisor ronen, we want to make sure the goal of the board should be to preserve tenants in rent-controlled units. tenants who quote ask for buyouts are usually misinformed and terrified. it's not the job of the city government to enable buyouts which would essentially spell the end of the tenants ability to end in san francisco. i would to say thank you so much from robert collins from the rent board, our city attorney and from the advocates who we have worked with closely to structure this amendment. so thank you. i'm here for my questions. >> anything you want to add? >> thank you supervisor peskin and safai and preston. , no, i wanted to thank amy and supervisor ronen for taking into account amendments that we requested which go to making sure we have the correct unit identified. that's been a challenge that we have had that was brought up from staff. so i just want to thank supervisors for taking those amendments into consideration. >> thank you. are there any members of the public who would le to testify on this item? please come forward. >> thank you, supervisors. my name is sarah. i'm here from housing rights committee of san francisco. by also pushing out tenants who want to stay in a unit and stay in san francisco, we've made it hard in san francisco to just evict tenants for no other reason beside that you want more money. it isn't impossible. but it is -- we've made it a little hard. but we have tenants coming to our office all the time with buyout offers saying that they have no other choice beside take this buyout. a lot of tenants want to stay. and the tenants who take the buyouts, often the money is gonna couple years with the new expensive rent, first and last, for tenants who are on disability benefits or other benefits sometimes it's counted against them. most often tenants come to us way too late. they've already signed the buyout agreement. they've already largely in the process. they've already had months of landlords and their landlord's lawyer lying to them, harassing them, threatening them, bullying them. tenants who get a call every day with the buyout and will they take it. tenants who receive letters saying if they didn't take the buyout, they will be hearing from the lawyer. sometimes with a sample ellis act attached. thank you. i have a tenant i worked with on market street who took a buyout thinking told have to leave and ended up living on the street in front of his build building that he used to live in as a rent-controlled tenant. tenants we get to are more able to stay. this legislation isn't enough ultimately, but it is a big step. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is jennifer and i'm a tenant at 1900 jefferson street. and reside in supervisor stefani's district. the building was sold in 2018 to someone and is managed by jim and carol of peak realty. after the sale, construction began to convert all units from one bedroom to two bedrooms to increase rent from approximately $3,100 to $5,200 per unit. since the sale, tenants have been embroiled in a rent eviction nightmare, and some have been approached for buyouts by jim and their attorney andrew zacks. tenants were given deadlines and told by not taking the buyouts or relocating to other buildings, their rents would be raised. in one case the lawyer insulted the tenant's responsibility as a parent for not taking a buyout. this harassing and threatening behavior is unconscionable. this is why i support legislation to strengthen tenants protections against buyout bullying and harassment from attorneys. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm born and raised in the mission. i'm organizer and counselor of housing committee. we get a lot of tenants who come to the office telling us they've gotten a buyout notice, and they actually see the buyout as an eviction notice. and many tenants are scared, they feel threatened. these are tenants who are part of the most -- population, tenants who have been there for 30, 40 years, and they're scared. and they tell me, they say i'm only being offered $5,000. what can that get you in san francisco for $5,000? it's really -- they're scared, they get threatened by ellis, they get threatened, some of these buyout notices, they are not even notices, they are actually verbal conversations with the tenant saying you have to leave, we are offering you this amount of money. they are selling the building, it's coming into san francisco to our community to take over that building and displacing that tenant with the merely pennies in comparison to how much housing costs in san francisco. it's very crucial this legislation is not -- it is going to support the tenants. we need something more to help these tenants out. tenants who have no voice in san francisco. tenants who are born in the mission, living in drastic conditions where that buyout might be, but it's not. they are displaced to the east bay, they are displaced to down across the state. we need to keep these tenants in rent-controlled buildings. please support this legislation. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> supervisors, our efforts to provide anti-eviction representation to those who need it still remains a work in progress. i have a lot of empathy for, i do, i'm at the housing rights commission a lot with a lot of issues. i have a slightly ancillary approach to this. i imagine there might be general comment to this committee, but there is none, so i'll do it here. it does go with this insure. what i noticed is there isn't any committee assigned to global climate change. one of the biggest issues of our time. and of course this committee is the closest thing. global climate change is connected to land use, the same thing as our housing jobs linkage is. and i'm wondering if we could do something, maybe get it put in the name or somehow -- if we had a better understanding of how land use affects to meet our need for global climate change, in our land use issues like this one, we would start to see a lot more land use issues but that are resolved in favor of antigentrification and in favor of neighborhood preservation, and we are not seeing that, and this certainly is one such issue. >> thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon. if you know me, and i know you do. i'm an advocate for other groups of people and i never thought i would be in here advocating for myself. my name is sherry lord and i live in north beach. i've lived there since december 2009, and i'm 71 years old, not sure how that happened but it's true. and i'm disabled. in the ten years i've lived in this building, it's been sold four times and we've had six property managers. in the building is tenants who are disabled, and they have been there 30 years. they had the flu and couldn't come today. the last two years, we have been through owners that have wanted us to leave with a lot of pressure. in august of 2019, the building was purchased by hans. his first act was to enforce the tenant to move out. he offered them $35,000, and justin had been there ten years and moved. did the owner move in? no. did he file an owner buy out with the city? no. he put the building up for sale. the tenant at the same time the owner offered the tenants, myself and the two elderly people in unit a buyouts. and we both said no. and then he kept at it and at it. it got to the point where he would call us weekly and say i have a buyout for you, and then it got to be daily, and then it got to be the day before the sale of the building, he called us that day and we said no. so the new owner is starting the same tactic, and he's only been in here since november. i think i got lots more but i'll leave it at that. i'm not sure what to do at this point. but when i was advocating for homeless, i never thought that i would be homeless myself. i may not be better off after all. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm a long-time voter from district 5. and i'm a member of senior and disability action. i'm here to support supervisor ronen's legislation on behalf of many seniors. seniors, we are highly vulnerable, we have very few resources, very few options, very limited incomes. we live in isolation. we have no plan b. what does that mean? pretend that i'm 85 years old. i live alone. i've been in my rent-controlled apartment 40 years in an old victorian. my husband died, my children live thousands of miles away. my friends have died. the shopkeepers i used to know and talk to every day, they're gone. i only go to the grocery store, maybe on a good day. one day, the new landlord knocks on my door. i've never met him. he says he has to have my apartment. he'll give me $10,000 or he'll take me to court. he says i have ten days to decide. all i know is what he tells me. all i know is what he tells me. supervisors, we need you to support this legislation. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is marvin green. i have lived at the residence intent in the san francisco bay area for the past 30 years. in the past several years in the mission district. these stories you hear are just the tip of the iceberg. for every one person that's here there's probably 200 people who have stories about how landlords and how speculators abuse, bully and use the system against them. what this bill does is help to level the playing field. on one side, you have speculative real estate people who have years of sophisticated, years of legal training, years of legal support. and years of planning to do this against people who find out about it ten days, two months beforehand with no real sophistication, with no real estate background in most cases, and with no support system. what this does is helps to tighten up the loopholes that the sophisticated, well-background, speculators are using against citizens of san francisco. so i urge you to pass this bill and refer it to the full board so they can pass it so that we can try at least a little bit to level the playing field to give those of us who rent and live and contributed in san francisco an opportunity to at least stand up for ourselves. thank you very much. >> next speaker. >> hi. good afternoon. my name is letica and i'm the ss lead housing organizer with just cause. in the mission we offer counseling for tenants facing eviction, harassment and these verbal buyouts that we keep seeing which we see often in our clinic. and i am here in support of these amendments, to close the buyout loopholes in the legislation. like i said, we see tenants coming in with verbal buyout offering on a regular basis. and landlords are simply not following the law by issuing the prebuyout disclosure forms. and when they do share these forms, it often comes with serious threats of eviction if the tenants refuse to negotiate a buyout agreement. just a couple of weeks ago this past month in january, we had an entire building come in from the mission for counseling support, because a landlord invited them to a meeting on a saturday, surprised them with a presentation for a verbal buyout and threatened an ellis if they did not agree. they received a prebuyout disclosure form after the meeting, not before. and when they came to our clinic, we supported them with a letter refusing to negotiate a buyout, and then they got issued an ellis act eviction. so tenants, when they are exerting their right to say no, they are being seriously threatened with these buyouts, i'm sorry, with these evictions whether it's ellis or owner move-in, and it's not in good faith like the notice says. so we support this amendments to strengthen tenant protections. until then, tenants are going to be harassedd with buyouts and with evictions unless we are able to enforce that landlords file these buyouts. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. kelly hill with united to save the mission. first i want to thank hillary ronen's office for bringing this important legislation to you. today i want to talk about my own story, which is kind of a harassment displacement story. in early 2000 our landlord put our building up for sale, a two-unit building near hayes. we lived through two years of harassment. back then it was a little harder to get ahold of legal help. it wasn't financially feasible. we lived through two open houses a week for two years. we had just started our business. we eventually took a tiny buyout to get out from under the harassment. basically that small buyout barely paid for the moving expenses and a couple of months of the rent increase. we lasted six months at our next place and that trajectory led to years of housing insecurity. this legislation is super important. i have a couple of things that would make it more of a dream legislation, some of these things may not be possible. we have firsthand knowledge of the predatory behavior taking place in the mission. we are tracking case studies two blocks from my house of multiple buildings being harassed in this exact same way. we are seeing the same serial predators, people like michael camp sini and the big time folks like veritas changing the landscape. i would love to see a longer deadline of giving people to decide. is there a way to prematch tenants with counsel before the negotiations commence, remove the stress. i've seen this. we help with tenant work when we know their buildings are going to be predatory upon. is three a number of hostile attempts by the same people? we live in an age with no horizontal mobility. our rent is going to triple for people all over the place. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. supervisors. district 8 tenant anastasia. a rental unit that's been vacated is worth more to a landlord or real estate speculator than a building that's empty of tenants. and a building that's empty can fetch a higher price in today's speck at a live housing market. it's vital to preserve our city's rapidly-depleting rental controlled housing stock and keep tenants in their home. to this end i fully support today's legislation that will close tenant buyout agreements including classifying certain types of unlawful detaper settlements, agreements as buyout agreements and requiring the rent board to provide more information on the disclosure forms landlords must give tenants before buyout negotiations commence. tenants need to know they are not compelled to agree to sign the disclosure form or agree to a buyout of their tenancy that they can seek advice and have time to consider the buyout offer or to reject the offer. and landlords must file all required forms timely or tenants would be able to invalidate any waivers of rights agreed to. i'm so disheartened by the taxes a developer investor miller used to force my neighbor, a retired legal secretary, to give up her rent-controlled flat on chattanooga street. she got a disclosure form two weeks after he bought the building in 2016 and then had sac's law firm send a letter telling her she had to move out because the landlord was constructing an adu below her, which was b.s. because he hadn't even gotten the permit approved. then he harassed her with phone calls and raised a noise campaign above her till she finally got -- >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you for having this hearing. i support hillary ronen's legislation. and we can make it even stronger in making howing as a human right. and we should not be treated like a commodity. i live ad 698 bruce street. this property in december 2019. and i was hearing a conversation between a prospective buyer and a real estate agent, and he was telling, oh, you buy this, we can get rid of these old-time tenants. and i hear it, you know? and they didn't know i was listening to them. but this is their model. now, veritas sold the building to another speculator, russ, he was my landlord 30 years ago, and he bought it again. and i know what his game plan is. i heard have a real estate broker talking to them. and this eviction is imminent. and i've been there for 48 years. and i came in that building when i was full hair and now i'm losing my hair. and i want this legislation even stronger. and i would like to see we have a tenants rights people here. i would like to bring this in the city and county here so we can even make it better. thank you very much. >> thank you. good to see you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm with our mission no eviction. i'm a volunteer with housing rights committee. and i'm here to support this legislation. but to echo that it doesn't do enough. and one of the things that i think that should be amended in this legislation is the time period between the notification and the agreement. 30 days is just not enough. and i'll tell you why. i just recently worked with a woman who had been given a buyout notice. she had been in her unit for 48 years. her mother had died in that unit, and she was terrified. she had a nervous breakdown. she had to get on medication. 30 days does not allow enough time. it took -- she wanted to fight. she got a lawyer, she's still in her place right now. but to do all of this and to organize tenants in the building, 30 days is just not long enough. and i know that you know the difficulty, the number of lawyers that we have can't even keep pace with the number of tenants that need assistance. and then i also want to echo the concerns that kelly raised. we are seeing neighbors in our, just our block, we think we have lost close to 70, that are being evicted under the table. they are threatened to take a buyout under the table and then when they leave, the places immediately are serial permits are used to completely renovate the spaces and to be leased at market rate or flipped. and we need to do something about this situation, because we are losing our immigrant neighbors at a very rapid pace. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> my name is scott weaver where the san francisco tenants union. i'm sure you are all aware of the vulnerabilities of the population that is subject to these buyouts. and the shock that they feel when they receive a letter from an attorney saying we may ellis the building, my client is considering owner move-in eviction. immediately, there's one foot out the door. immediately. and that's why we need this 30-day cooling-off period so that we don't have people making sudden decisions, so we have people who have the ability to go to counseling organizations to be able to do that before being scared so much that they will sign an agreement. i think as we talk about buyouts, we underestimate the displacement effect that buyouts have. if we were to count the number of buyouts that really happen in the city, they will exceed any single cause for eviction. they probably exceed any two causes for eviction combined. this is a big deal in terms of what is happening right in front of us. and landlords have been very open about not filing these things with the rent board. almost to the point of bragging about it. and if we are going to actually make this ordinance enforceable, then we have to prohibit or invalidate any waiver of rights that a tenant will have in a buyout agreement if a landlord doesn't file with the rent board. that's the only way to put some sting into it and to allow tenants to file with the rent board. and that's the only way that this city is going to get on any kind of profile of what -- >> thank you, scott. next speaker, please. >> hi. from the san francisco tenants union. thank you, supervisors. and thank you so much hillary ronen for putting this legislation together. every month in our coalition, the antidisplacement coalition, we review the biggest threats to tenants in the city. and almost without fail, buyouts makes the top of the list every month. and we've also known the buyouts are the primary way we are losing affordable housing in san francisco for years. this is why we introduced the original buyout legislation. it was actually hillary ronen was the aid who worked on it with us. so she was our natural choice to lead this effort to fix the gaps. what is a buyout? it's when a tenant sells their rights for the sake of a bit of money and a bit of certainty about the day they have to move. sells their rights. basically they are giving up the chance to enforce the rights they have that you all passed, that we passed as a city of san francisco to protect their housing and to protect this affordable housing for everyone here. i don't blame individual people who do that, because they are scared, but it is our responsibility to make sure that that is as hard to do as possible and that we save that housing. in the intervening years since we originally passed the legislation, we were able to -- it worked to a point. we were able to track some information, we were able to incorporate that information about buyouts that happened into the housing balance report to show us how much we were losing. knowing we were losing a lot more than that. but we knew we were falling way short of what was going on, based on storying we were hearing in our clinics, reports from the courthouse about fake lawsuits being filed so people could get away with not filing. and from tenants about their own neighbors. this legislation has been designed to fill those gaps, to stop the fake lawsuits and raise the stakes when landlords break the rules. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is peter. i'm a proud member of north beach. my family established residence there in the late 1800s. i live at 646 lumbar street. my wife, directly across from me. i'm in the pool five days a week, 5:30 in the morning, because i'm disabled. i have a good work out there and i can't stay on my feet. i've been there for 23 years my aunt rose, lived there 21 years before me. i've seen a lot of changes in north beach. and i don't like what i see. aaron peskin has stepped forward and put a big effort to help us out. my wife and i, we don't want to move. i don't plan to move. i'm a north beach boy, and i'm going to stay a north beach boy. my grandfather, i was born in the house, 165 165valpraiso. he built two bungalows there in the early 1900s with his little 28-foot fishing boat. i was born in the family house in 1940 by the county midwife. i'm a true son of the beach. thank you. >> [laughter] thank you. good to see you. next speaker, please. >> i'm peter's wife gail deluca. we got a new landlord. this was the third since our wonderful john passed away who lived in the front unit. [please stand by] -[please stand b >> since they've been in, we were offered a buyout which we turned down, but we were given, like, i think about 10 days for us and the tenants below us to either accept or reject the buyout. once this started happening, i can't describe the kind of turmoil, the fears, you know, and you can't think. you know, you don't know where to turn. it's just all so sudden. in responding to the buyout offer, i basically said we would need more time to move out. they've given us three months to -- >> you've got to wrap up. >> [ indiscernible ] -- >> gail, i'll tell you what, i'm happy -- you know where i live. you know where my office is. we can meet offline. i'm happy to continue talking with you. >> good afternoon. theresa flederick, senior and disability action. i live in north beach. i know of 39 households within four blocks of where i live. and within two blocks, 39 households are being asked to take buyouts. i know of on alta street, for example, the senior there, diane, was not given the seven-page pamphlet on her rights. she was asked to take a buyout which she declined, and then she was told they could l-sat her. she's lived there for 50 years. another man because of the flu he was extremely disappointed that he couldn't come today. and, in fact, he sent me -- if i could have the overhead, he sent me this image in a text, saying that he was so sorry that he could not come because he so wanted to speak and tell his story, which is that they lived there for over 33 years. both him and his wife are disabled. asking them to take a buyout, and they said, no, we're going to decline that. this is the second landlord in the last nine and a half months. he said, no, we don't want to move, we want to stay here. the new owner said, i will lsat you or i could move in a relative is the other thing. what i know is this is happening all over. i know that people are threatened. there is a harassment through sudden renovations. i hear these stories all the time. this legislation is going to fix a lot of those loopholes that have been used, abused, and hurting so many people. we also then lose these affordable housing as these units are turned into luxury units -- >> thank you. are there any other members of the public that could like to testify on this item number 5? seeing none, the matter is back in the committee's hands. supervisor preston. >> thank you. i would like to thank all the folks that came to speak on this. this is a big step forward when the buyout legislation was initiated. it was the first buyout legislation of its kind in the state, if i'm not mistaken. some other jurisdictions have followed suit since then. but i want to thank supervisor ronen and others for their work on this measure. i think there is -- probably nowhere there is a bigger disconnect in the housing world between what academics, media, and other pundits look at around evictions and the reality that folks who are working on the ground, like a lot of our speakers today are, in terms of perception and numbers of evictions. as some of the speakers noted, this is the leading form of eviction. buyouts are essentially de facto evictions. this is not just in san francisco. i personally as a tenant advocate for the last 20 years have done state-wide and national research on evictions. you realize when you run those numbers, you're dealing with a tiny fraction of the number of people who are actually displaced. in more cases it's more advantageous for a landlord to threaten they are going to drag a tenant through the eviction process and get them to surrender their rights without going to court. in san francisco it is the same with the eviction notices that are served. two aspects i want highlight on this particular legislation that i think are really essential. the most common thing that i hear from tenants in san francisco, particularly in district 5, are that they are given these false, very threatening and scary deadlines. we will give you this much if you respond by monday or in a week. these are entirely false deadlines. you just want to be clear for folks that are not here and are watching this on tv, when you get buyout offer, you have absolutely no obligation or requirement to respond. usually the threats that those offers will go away are false and usually taking the time you need is to your advantage. so i think the -- providing the 30-day window here is absolutely an essential part of this legislation. it's going to have a big impact. and the other side is the attainment process. and the previous legislation, the bou buyout legislation, we landlords would get creative. one of the bad-faith ways is to try and dress up buyout efforts as a part of litigation in order to avoid obligations to go ahead and file these. so i think closing the unlawful detainer loophole here and forcing landlords to file those buyouts as well is absolutely essential. i'm going to be supporting this and thanks to supervisor ronen for her leadership on it. >> thank you, supervisor preston. i concur with those statements, which is precisely why i am a proud co-sponsor and also want to add my thanks to the community and supervisor ronen for bringing this forward. we have some minor, non-substantive amendments that are before us as to lot and block numbers spread out. can we take those amendments without objection and then, as amended, we will send the item to the full board with recommendation without objection. colleagues, i have been informed that there was actually an intended small amendment to the previous item, so if i could make a motion to rescind the vote on item number 4, we'll do that without objection. and then add on page 11 a subsection b that says, within 30 days of the amended agreement being fully executed by all parties, the sfpuc shall provide the final amended agreement to the clerk of the board for ininclusion into the official file. so that language we will amend into item 4 and then send the item again as amended with recommendation as a committee report. madam clerk, could you please read item number 6, our final item. >> clerk: yes, item 6 is a planning toad ordinance amending the planning code to enable the use of development project sites during the project approval and entitlement process by authorizing the planning department to authorize certain interim activities at development project sites as temporary uses for up to 36 months, subject to extension at the discretion of the planning director in increments for up to a maximum possible total of 24 additional months; adopting the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act; making findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1; and making findings of public convenience, necessity, and welfare under planning code, section 302. >> thank you, ms. major. we have heard this repeatedly. we had an amendment that the city attorney deemed to be substantive, so it required a one-week continuance. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, can we send this item that has been heard repeatedly -- wait winning supervisor preston, do you have a comment? sorry, i didn't take you down from your last comment. to the full board with recommendation without objection. that will be the order and we are adjourned. >> welcome, everyone. and thank you so much for coming and i am claire farley and the director and a senior advisor for mayor breed and tony newman, and today we are gathered on this historic day to open up san francisco's first trans home for transand non-conforming adults in san francisco. [applause] and it's such an honor to work for a city that continues to celebrate but also to do the work to make sure that our community gets housed. without housing, without housing we will not be able to help our communities thrive. every one of us need to come together to be a part of this solution and st. james and larkin street are doing that today. thank you. [applause] so first we have honored guests with us today and i'll turn it over to her. and mayor breed has led the effort and she made $2.3 million investment into transhome which includes this opening today which is going to be 13 folks housed and 55 folks to receive subsidies for folks who are low income and she spearheaded with the community and the office and tony and we're so honored to have a mayor that continues to commit and really work to make sure that everyone in this city can thrive. so please welcome mayor breed. >> mayor london breed: thank you for joining us on this historic day. when i first became mayor in san francisco and met with the folks in my office, many of the department heads, i made it clear that equity would be at the top of our agenda in everything that we do. we need to change the culture of san francisco and not just talk about the problems that exist, but actually to make the kinds of investments that will deliver real results. and it comes from my own experience of growing up in san francisco in the african american community, living in poverty, and waiting for something to be done. we know what the data says, but we don't always make the right investments that ensure the results that are going to change the lives of the people that we want to serve. and so when i met with the trans-advisory committee and we talked about the challenges that continue to persist around the opportunities for grants and the arts community and opportunities for housing and opportunities for programs and other services, the discriminatory practices that exist with job opportunities that they seek, the challenges with our homeless population and learning that people who are part of our transcommunity are 18 times more likely to experience homelessness than anyone else in this city, i knew that it was important to not only listen and hear what they had to say, but to invest ar resources in tryino make sure that we can change what those challenges are for the better. and so i'm so grateful to be standing here with claire farley who is the director of the office of transgender initiatives for san francisco, because she has brought so many people together and to come up with incredible solutions. and is the reason why we have invested in this past year's budget, thanks to the supervisor of this district and others, supervisor peskin, $2.3 million for this initiative of trans-home s.f. and this is one of the first, most incredible projects that we are cutting the ribbon on today that will provide safe affordable housing for people who are experiencing homelessness. and so it is so great to be here today. and i really want to thank tony newman because tony newman -- [applause] and she's a force and is committed to this work and she has hit the ball rolling with staffing up and working with folks in the community and making it clear what was needed, which makes it easier to provide the funding right to the places where we know that it's needed the most -- rental subsidies and wraparound support and services and making sure that we have the right people in place to get the job done so that we can get people off the streets and to get them into housing. so thank you so much to tony and the work that you do, to the mayor's office on housing and community development, and to the coalition, to larkin street and youth services and especially to the san francisco transadvisory committee who i have mentioned before the work that they continue to do to make sure that we call attention to all of the inequities and the various city departments as it relates to funding and how it needs to change to make an impact on the lives of people who are a part of this amazing community and a true important part of san francisco. so i want to thank... (♪) (♪) >> our young people, as well as reaching the thousand new shelter beds which is such an accomplishment and thank you so much for your leadership to make that goal happen. also i want to recognize our commissioners who are in the house today as well as our department heads, dr. colfax from the d.p.h. and others, leadership at mohcd for their support and really making sure that these programs get funded and that there's equity continuing throughout the work. and as well i want to welcome the district supervisor aaron peskin. thank you so much. [applause] >> thank you. i think that everything has been said but not everybody has said it. in addition to our d.p.h. director grant colfax i want to acknowledge and to thank the director of our department of building inspection, tom hooey. thank you to larkin street and thank you to st. jerusalem's and to the office of transinitiative incentives and the mayor's office of housing and community development. i am here to give a district 3 welcome. and let me just say that we are delighted, we were delighted to appropriate the funds, and i could not be more proud that this is the first facility and it is located here in district 3. which has a very proud, long lgbtq history from the black cat down the street to polk street on the other side, this is where it all began in san francisco. and we are profoundly aware that homelessness is acutely an lgbtq issue. and today we are taking a large step in addressing it and in solving it. welcome to district 3, to the 13 individuals, i will register you to vote the second you move in. [laughter]. [applause] >> thank you, so much, supervisor, and thank supervisor mandelman and supervisor haney, they were not able to join us but their teams are here and so thank you so much for your efforts. before i introduce tony i wanted to recognize the anonymous building owner of this property who is renting this space to us and he and his partner are committed to making sure that transhome is a success and that we continue to work to make sure that our communities are housed in the city. and without having such a strong and supportive and inclusive manager of this building, we would not be here today. so let's please give he him a hd and thank them for their support. [applause] so now it's my honor to introduce tony newman, she's the director of st. james infirmary and i would like to say that i helped to kind of create the idea, and now she's the mother of the project. so please welcome the mother of trans-home, toni newman. [applause] >> welcome, everybody. i'm just so excited to be here today and i want to thank all of the partners here, hugo from the mayor's office of housing. and we have open house and we have larkin who have been very supportive. and larkin is so supportive to me and st. james and the navigating team of matthew payden and jesse and camden, that have been working day and night to make this available for you. we're excited that st. james can be a leader with larkin. and larkin has been leading the youth for many years. and they have taught us how to do this. and i want to thank my board of directors for coming and i have four board of directors and two will be speaking and now i introduce akira jackson did she's here. she's a sponsor and she's been fighting for housing but i don't think that she's here, so jesse santos is going to come up and to introduce our first resident moving into the house this week. jesse, and jane, please come up right now. >> good morning, everyone. thank you for being here and this is a dream for us, for the trans-gender community. i will introduce jane, the resident in our house and she's a beautiful woman. [applause] >> hi, i am jane cordova and i was born in central mexico and i came here when i was 16 years old and i grew up in l.a. and eventually made my way to san francisco, which is i live here for 10 years. and i went to new york and we stayed there for another 10 years and i'm very happy to be back in this city where our community has the most resources and i'm very happy to be here and to have a place finally to call home. thank you. [applause] >> i'd like to call up joquaim and jane, come on up. [applause] hi, thank you for coming, i'm joaquin ramora and i'm here where i proudly serve as a board member and as an advocate for harm reduction and transsupport in the greater bay area. thanks to mayor breed and our trans-home and everyone else who helped to make this project come together. today we can celebrate that our trans-home is a step in the right direction for the city of san francisco. this ensures that transgender people have an opportunity to become successful in our society. stable housing is fundamental to creating access to resources for survival. our trans-home will provide this foundation to create a support system for those living on the margins within our city. excuse me. members of our community are constantly faced with unjust incarceration and poverty and constitutional and emotional violence. some encounter even more severe consequences and our transgender sisters of color are experiencing hate crimes and murders on a daily basis and this goes unnoticed. the society must understand discrimination based on race and gender presentation. we must continue with this momentum and inspire more programs for the needs of our community. it's our due diligence as transpeople to ensure that the issues are confronted and change. we need companies and foundation and government to commit to advocating for transgender causes. our trans-home will provide the opportunity to not only recover and survive but to thrive and survive the power members to become leaders and role models. and protecting our community members and we are shifting the narrative away from being defined by our margins and barriers towards being defined by successes and positive impacts on the world. the housing crisis in the bay area has become recognized as an ongoing issue and despite this we're continuing to demonstrate that there's ways to empower and to support our communities with pride. i feel proud to know that san francisco is a place of historical resistance and refuge for people of all walks of life and that we continue that resistance by uplifting our marginalized communities. thank you. [applause] >> i'd like to take a second to acknowledge akira jackson who is unable to be here today. i'd like to thank her leadership, without her we wouldn't be here today. and st. james is honored to be part of this project connecting folks. -- thank you -- connecting folks with the services and homes that our community needs. we look forward to continue to fight for the rights of our community. thank you. [applause] >> well, thank you all so much. and now we're going to move the podium and cut the ribbon. one, two, three,. [applause] thank you all so much. (♪) (♪)

Related Keywords

Fremont ,California ,United States ,New York ,Jerusalem ,Israel General ,Israel ,Philippines ,Richmond District ,Ocean Beach ,Embarcadero ,Florida ,China ,Togo ,Washington ,Seattle ,London ,City Of ,United Kingdom ,San Francisco ,Mexico ,Kelly Hill ,Italy ,North Beach ,Telegraph Hill ,Italian ,Americans ,Filipino ,Chinese ,American ,Statesof America ,Abigail Kahn ,Marlene Tran ,Robert Collins ,Gloria Rodriguez ,Loma Prieta ,Jane Cordova ,Gordon Mar ,Abigail Stewart Kahn ,Benjamin Chung ,Claire Farley ,Alicia Wu ,Toni Newman ,Akira Jackson ,Jordan Davis ,John Burton ,Jen Schneider ,Matt Haney ,Wendy Wong ,Francis Zamora ,Hillary Ronen ,Tom Hewitt ,Wilson Parsons ,Gail Deluca ,Winston Parsons ,Tony Newman ,