Transcripts For SFGTV BOS Govt Audits And Oversight Committee 20200207

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. >> i went through a lot of struggles in my life, and i am blessed to be part of this. i am familiar with what people are going through to relate and empathy and compassion to their struggle so they can see i came out of the struggle, it gives them hope to come up and do something positive. ♪ ♪ i am a community ambassador. we work a lot with homeless, visitors, a lot of people in the area. >> what i like doing is posting up at hotspots to let people see visibility. they ask you questions, ask you directions, they might have a question about what services are available. checking in, you guys. >> wellness check. we walk by to see any individual, you know may be sitting on the sidewalk, we make sure they are okay, alive. you never know. somebody might walk by and they are laying there for hours. you never know if they are alive. we let them know we are in the area and we are here to promote safety, and if they have somebody that is, you know, hanging around that they don't want to call the police on, they don't have to call the police. they can call us. we can direct them to the services they might need. >> we do the three one one to keep the city neighborhoods clean. there are people dumping, waste on the ground and needles on the ground. it is unsafe for children and adults to commute through the streets. when we see them we take a picture dispatch to 311. they give us a tracking number and they come later on to pick it up. we take pride. when we come back later in the day and we see the loose trash or debris is picked up it makes you feel good about what you are doing. >> it makes you feel did about escorting kids and having them feel safe walking to the play area and back. the stuff we do as ambassadors makes us feel proud to help keep the city clean, helping the residents. >> you can see the community ambassadors. i used to be on the streets. i didn't think i could become a community ambassador. it was too far out there for me to grab, you know. doing this job makes me feel good. because i came from where a lot of them are, homeless and on the street, i feel like i can give them hope because i was once there. i am not afraid to tell them i used to be here. i used to be like this, you know. i have compassion for people that are on the streets like the homeless and people that are caught up with their addiction because now, i feel like i can give them hope. it reminds you every day of where i used to be and where i where i used to be and where i >> welcome to our first meeting of the transbay joint powers authority director special meeting today. roll call, please. [roll call] we have some directors absent. you have a quorum. >> thank you. before we dive into our agenda this morning, i want to take a moment to make a couple comments unfortunately, earlier this week we had some news from the media reports that was very unfortunate. specifically that a former member of our board of directors was arrested and charged with public corruption by the federal bureau of investigations. it is our understanding the investigation is ongoing and we do not know yet all the facts at this time. more troubling is that the tjpa, the agency that we represent as directors was mentioned in the complaint relating to our retail leasing program. i want to take a moment to emphasize that there is no allegation of wrongdoing by the tjpa or any of the members of the board of directors or staff at tjpa. i want to take a moment to assure everyone, the public, and everyone who wants to look at the minutes and pays attention to what we do that we have a very rigourous and transparent process to receive and validate proposals from companies interested in leasing retail space at salesforce transit center. including regular, detailed reporting of public meetings like this one. i would like to take a moment and ask the executive director to share with the public the leasing process that we go through here for any interested party when they're looking at a potential lease at the salesforce center. >> thank you. the tjpa uses a well-developed and transparent process to receive, evaluate, and award retail leases in the transit center. in 2017, we entered into an asset management agreement with lincoln property company through subcontractor, colliers international to implement a port upper -- board approved spaces. this includes rents, length of term, and landlord contributions to tenant improvements. also in 2017, the board approved retail leasing policies including the standard letter of intent and lease. all businesses registered or interested in leasing directly with colliers as a first step in the leasing process. to date, they have more than 600 people registered in the process it self itself. interested parties typically request tours of available sites and many submitted letters of intent. colliers provides the tours and the letter of intent -- reviews the letter of intent, including offered rent compared to things, their experience, credit worthiness, and fit with the retail merchandising plan approved by the board. that agreement requires colliers to give letters of intent to our director for tentative approval. the tentative approval shows intent and is not binding. colliers and retail legal council then negotiate the forms of the leases and recommends leases to the tjpa. most leases are presented to the board for approval at public meetings. each of these leases is accompanied by a detailed staff report which includes how a particular proposed lease compares to rent, term, the standard template lease and the retail leasing plan. per the retail lease policy, leases that meet certain criteria including leases under $1.8 million, have an initial term of 10 years or less, may be approved by the executive director and are presented with details to the board at the next scheduled board meeting. regardless of whether leases are approved by the board or the executive director, the same vetting process applies. when staff receives inquiries from any source about retail leasing in the transit center, they are referred to colliers. colliers is the lead on tjpa team for all negotiations. in summary, we have a rigourous and transparent leasing process that involves four levels of review and approval to ensure that all leases are consistent with the rent, board approval of the merchandising plan and board policies. these steps include colliers, our leasing agent, reviewing and negotiating the letters of intent. once colliers is satisfied that it meets the board's policies, there presented to the tjpa facility manager. the manager reviews those letters of intent to make sure they are in existence with our policies. once that is down, it is presented to the executive director. they review and approve the letter of intent to be consistent with the merchants and board approved policies, and then after that it is presented to the board for consideration. thank you. >> thank you. the tjpa has not been approached by law enforcement, however, we are or will fully cooperate contact. i would like to assure the public that the shared top priority of the board of directors and our executive director is to ensure that our staff remain focused on the work at hand. operating and maintaining a world-class, 21st century transit hub with the utmost transparency and integrity. i am confident the measures we have in place ensure that every decision we make is in the best interest of the public, fulfils our retail plan and will ultimately greatly benefit the neighborhood. with that, we will continue with our agenda. >> that would conclude item three, communications. we will move on. >> yes, move on. >> board of directors, new or old business. >> i think director brinkman has an item. >> thank you. it has been much discussed in the news the possible changes on natoma street around our property and i just wanted to bring up the idea that when d.t.x. goes in, the buildings on the corner of second and howard, to my understanding, will be demolished and that will be a plaza, which is supposed to connect into natoma street, and the original visioning from the architect was to be the plaza at the tower and the cable bridge above it all. i don't know what the answer is and i don't know what our role in this will continue to be, but i do just want to put in front of us that we probably should try and protect that visioning as much as possible. as we saw yesterday with the launch of the market street and carvery spaces. it is highly valued in the city right now and it will continue to be highly valued in a lot of cities. i want to put it out there that we should think about what that impact will be and what it will do to the overall visioning of the project. >> thank you. any other business from the board? >> item five is executive director's report. >> i am pleased -- i first want to thank the vice chair and the board for their strong and continued support. i am pleased to get right into agency business and provide you with my first director's report of 2020. i would like to first invite rich piatt to give official updates. richard is a general manager of lincoln properties or asset manager and is new to salesforce transit center team. he has more than 20 years of experience in commercial property management and has managed a variety of properties around san francisco. prior to joining our team he was a general manager for a former navy base where he was a client of the city of alameda. he will present the city updates >> thank you for having me. we have brought some slides. the first thing we will go over is transit. the plaza continues to operate at normal capacity with the sfmta and the golden gate transit. similarly, the bus deck also continues to operate a normal capacity with a.c. transit, which is what i take every day, west links, greyhound, and muni treasure island. and finally, sam trans- and amtrak continue to operate at the corner of mission and fremont adjacent to our grand hall. i want to talk a little bit about some of the recent and upcoming tenant activities. on-site dental opened in november and then fitness s.f. opened in the end of december. next month we will have two storefronts with phil's coffee. and pit -- and empanada star will open in april and in may we will have verizon. we will have just about 50% of the retail spaces open. the next slide shows some of the in progress that we have had. some of the coming soon, some of the construction, and then we have business s.f. fully open. -- fitness s.f. there which is fully open. we had a holiday market in the grand hall which started in the end of november and went through the end of december. it was well received despite steady rain. the tjpa got presented rent from it and there was no cost at all to the tjpa. i want to talk a little bit about the park activity. we are currently in winter hours , which, until april, will be 6:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. some of the things that we have going on there, we have movie nights, we have winter festival, and/or park operators have told us that they have seen a good uptick with kids and families utilizing the park. and finally, a sponsorship and advertising continues to grow. we have good level of interest from industries such as financial institutions, airlines , technology, with expected annual revenue of about a million dollars. the next slide just shows some of the community drawings that we have. bottom right we have yoga about the top, up at the top -- up at the park and we have other activities that are bringing the community to the transit center. i will talk more about retail leasing. we have about 85,000 square feet retail, and with that, 81% of that footage is already executed leases and board approved. similarly, we have 71% of the total retail spaces that have executed leases and that are board approved. we are at 98% of the average annual rent and we do expect to exceed pro forma. we have 10 remaining spaces including the rooftop, paper -- café pad and an area behind the grand hall escalator. of these 10 spaces, we have promising leases on three of the spaces, but we have a level of interest on all of them. sectors that are represented in our leasing include wellness, service, food and beverage and in the next slides show that. here is the first floor which shows committed and in negotiation. the next slide shows the second floor again. committed and in negotiation. and our final leasing shows the park level. same thing. committed and what is in negotiation. now i will leave it up to you to see if there is any questions. >> thank you. thank you so much for the update the bus deck, what is the capacity that it is currently operating at? i believe it's around 90 buses per hour. i think it is designed to handle a much higher capacity than that i believe the original design for that bus deck has a speed limit at 20 miles per hour and it is currently set at 10. i asked after six months of operations we do an efficiency review of that. i don't want that 10-mile per hour speed limit to become permanent by accident through an abundance of caution during the original opening period. do we have that efficiency and safety evaluation scheduled and has it been six months of bus operations since we reopened? >> i don't have the answer to that. i will be more than happy to address it. we just achieved our six months of operations. i would have to go back and check on what we have done. it is something we would have to discuss with a.c. transit as well. the original design contemplated 25 miles per hour. a.c. transit's team advised us that they would like to have 10 miles per hour. and we went through a process of discussing the benefits of 10 miles versus 20 miles and we agreed that 10 miles was properly defined. i will be more than happy to engage a.c. transit. i have already engaged sfmta. we talked a little bit about it. i would be happy to engage them and see what kind of studies we need to do in order to evaluate whether 10 miles is sufficient or whether it should go back to 25 miles or somewhere in between >> thank you. i am hearing from the public, and as you say, you ride the bus yourself. sometimes getting out of the bus deck takes quite a while. it is, i think, great to operate with an abundance of caution, with a way that bus deck was designed, there are no pedestrians who are ever crossing the best path of travel and in addition, the cross over on the bridge, i believe all buses are coming to a stop when it was originally envisioned and designed so incoming -- i don't know if his incoming or out coming buses would get a green so they would never have to stop at the crossover. it sounds small, but if you are writing that twice a day, if it saves you a minute or two, and i don't know, i haven't taken a bus out of there in a while now, so i don't know what the timeframe is if you are at the fourth farthest bus bay to get all the way out onto the bridge, but anything we can do to make that seamless, to make it operate super efficiently and save those tens of thousands of writers every day a minute or two would be really appreciated by the public. >> i will definitely follow up. >> we welcome the study, but i would also called everyone's attention that there are some recent publicity issues. candidly we can run significantly more service if we can get through the plaza and across the bridge. you may have seen that it's more complicated than that, but i would encourage all the transit advocates to support more multi- occupant vehicles, particularly through the plaza on the bridge and the other factor is clearing up the fund so we can afford more buses and more service. the terminal is certainly not a limiting factor. we're hearing great reviews about it. we can put more buses through if we can get them over the bridge. >> any other comments from directors? very good. richard, welcome. >> next i want to ask our senior construction manager to present the project agreement for the port. >> good morning, directors. i'm here to report the fourth quarter 2019 project project labor agreement report. we held our 301st meeting, we have four a year. we have been doing this for almost eight years and without fail, we have hit every quarter. we have always provided a construction update which is very similar to what i am about to report in agenda item five. a retail leasing update which is exactly what rich showed in a phase two update and union update on the apprenticeship with veterans, which is very interesting. it's still extremely very high. the electricians reported they had 1400 applicants at the recent one. they are going through that and testing this. it's incredible how much are still continuing to be brought into the unions. and then also we discussed and we agreed on the p.l.a. to continue through tenant improvements. what that means is a project labor agreement is clearly active during phase i construction, phase two construction, and there would be an obvious interim period between those two. it also allows for the option for the joint administrative committee to continue the p.l.a. through tenant improvements. the group that was there, operators, carpenters, the electricians and plumbers, all agreed is in our best interest to continue which. we agreed to move it forward. especially, and in fact, that his part -- it's part of the p.l.a. and the unions are not allowed to strike, protest, take any actions, and it allows us to continue through our tenant improvement program without interruptions that potentially others have seen in other parts of the city. it will continue through the tenant improvements as a collective and we all agreed. finally, the labor. no work stoppages were labor instances that we have had. we have never had one the entire phase i construction. and there was a zero recordable safety incidents, which has -- it has probably been years since we have had a recordable or a lost time. lastly, i would like to show the hours. a little bit over 5.7 hours. these numbers are not changing much. it will probably be the last time i will report these for phase i construction because there is a minor crew out there now. we did surpass 5.7 million hours which is an incredible amount. phase two is expecting over 8 million hours so we look forward to eventually getting into phase two construction for and reporting our labor statistics. with that, that completes my quarterly report for this time. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> directors, this concludes my report. thank you. >> is a public comment on the p.l.a.? okay. come on up. >> hello, jim patrick of patrick and company. i have been against this agreement for many, many times and have argued against it here, but i listened to this presentation and suddenly we slipped into, well, we will have it for the next project too. i want to remind this board of directors that this agreement calls for the payment of the highest possible wage that is in the agreement and to sort of say , well, we will just let it roll into the next 4 million craft hours is nonsense. i wouldn't allow that to happen if i were the board of directors i would go back and rebid it, just like we like to rebid these processes. maybe we can do better without the joint labor agreement. i challenge you. thank you. >> thank you. what i would like to do with the board's board's permission is jump into our consent calendar and regular calendar before we lose a quorum if that is acceptable so there is no time constraints for directors. if we can jump to the consent calendar, item nine and carry that item and we will come back to the rest of the reports. >> all right. all matters listed are considered to be routine and will be acted upon by a single vote. there be no separate discussion unless a member of the board of the public requests. we have not received any indication that any items wish to be severed. do we have a motion on the consent calendar? >> moved to move to approve. >> second. >> all of those in favour? >> aye. >> that is approved. item 10, approving the fiscal year 2020 and 2021 operating projection. >> thank you for the introduction. [laughter] >> welcome. >> happy new year. thank you. i'm happy to present to you -- the 19 and 20, 2021 operating budget. we start this budgeting process at the time that we adopt the previous year's budget. we started in june 2019. i showed you a three year projection which included the first year being 2021. and then in september and october we present more refined numbers to the primary tenants, and then come january, we bring to the board for approval the preliminary budget. the luminary budget is still preliminary, which has the ability to be refined. we will come back to you in april of 2020 with a budget outlook and that encompasses operating and capital and in may we present a draft budget, and finally in june, we present a budget to be adopted, operating and capital budget. the highlights of this preliminary budget are that it is 28 million. in june and september around october, i presented numbers that were significantly higher. in june we presented a 30 million-dollar operating budget and in september and october, a 34 million-dollar operating budget. since then we have been able to refine things to get it to 28 million which is encompassed and not using any reserves. some of the highlights of the budget are that it keeps the operators' contributions about level with the current year with 19 and 20 and with a couple hundred thousand increase, with for the most part, it is essentially the same. we are still uncertain about the r.m. $3, but n.p.c. has issued a letter allowing tjpa to use us reserves in anticipation to submit to reimbursements over 19 and 20 or 20 and 211 the litigation is resolved. additionally, we have added in a new source of money, a new old source. if we are successful with our bond sale, it refinances this and then the a.c. transit capital contribution that is currently pledged can be redirected into the operating budget for capital needs. this 20, 21 budget would redirect the dollars if they have -- that they have identified to the operating budget. it addresses any sort of capital maintenance repair costs in the operating budget. we didn't have a lot of data to support vandalism and larger replacement items, so now that we have been in operations, we know we are spending about 200, $250,000 on repairs or maintenance for vandalism. so we have added $1 million in the operating budget to cover that for next year. additionally, one we -- one way we were able to achieve some reduction is by moving the leasing commission out of the operating budget and into the tenant improvement. when we have to refinance, it allows for a source to capitalize the marketing and leasing commission and any sort of rental concessions we might have that are really capital in nature and not necessarily operating cost. with those major highlights, we were able to achieve the $28 million. here is a listing of all of the revenues. the r.m. two increase and the annual increase of 3% on it. it is an estimate about what we have been giving, so it is consistent with the current year we have added $50,000 for transit assistant grants. and that is for physical signage as a result of the wayfinding analysis that is currently underway. and then c.b.d. payments that support 80% of the park. the remaining revenues are the leasing use agreement naming rights. that is probably of interest to you all. when we first signed the agreement, we were given a three year prepayment, and so initially, we had recognized all the revenue in one year, but since then, as we have finished our audit, we are recognizing the revenue in the year that it is intended. and so this $3 million represents the last third of the naming. finally, there is the retail revenue. so the rent from the tenants in the transit center. it's down from what we had projected previously, but it follows a schedule where all of the executed leases would be open and occupied paying rent come december of 2020. the advertising revenue represents $1.9 million of that 1.9, 1.25 is guaranteed for contracts and the additional representation of active interest that we have in the transit center. sponsorships, it's a minimal amount, but reduce from the current year. sponsorships tied with the occupancy and the transit center as the occupancy increases, we would expect there's more sponsorship opportunities. for now, we have 240 included in the budget. it is a minimum guarantee. we would get that 125 regardless we intend to sublease our old office space into -- that rent would be included. there is our a.c. transit capital contribution that is redirected. and then miscellaneous and interest earnings get us to 28 million. the expense is also matched. we have four-point six in admin costs down from previous productions. we are also able to move some of our salaries and expenses to capital sources. now that phase i is coming to a close out, we can't charge salaries to a capital project. tenant improvements and base building continue on. there is some ability to charge or capitalize salaries and expenses to tenant improvement and base building. we achieved some savings through that. our asset manager and admin fees are down. we have worked with our partners to reduce expenses and to stay within this range. maintenance and janitorial and utilities are essentially the same as the current year. we anticipate when full occupancy comes on in december of 2020 that there could be some increase, but for now based on the information that we have, we are holding it at the current year's level. you will see that i'm skipping down marketing and leasing. it is completely taken out. and insurance has increased a bit. with all the natural disasters and fewer numbers of insurers, the insurance market has steadily increased the rates. so there is an increase of eight % over what we are currently paying. and finally we have capital maintenance repairs at 1.1 million and a small contingency of 250,000. this brings us to the 28 million four expenses. as this is a preliminary budget, there are a few things influx for further considerations that we will look at over the next few months. we don't expect there to be any more reductions in expenses. we have cut it back as far as we could to maintain this at the operational level at our facility. clearly some of these things are based on refinancing so we can achieve the switch for the marketing and leasing commission and capitalization. we have not addressed the reserves being at 25%. our current projection will be half hour reserves being at 3%. twenty-five% is three months of operating expenses. it allows you flow, it allows you the time to get the reimbursements in. so we still need to look at opportunities to fund the reserves at the 25%. additionally, we diminished the park programming to keep it in line with the available resources. so there's an opportunity for the c.b.d. to increase their contribution. we are in negotiations and discussions with them. there is the opportunity for increased operator contributions , although we hope to fend that off, but if the r.m. three is not realized or if there is any other delays in occupancy in the retail leasing, or if the advertising, which is tied to occupancy, does not come in as expected, there could be possible increases for the operators. and then, as we kept the janitorial and maintenance the same this year, and we watched how the facility progresses, if there is a true need to increase janitorial maintenance, then that might be something we have to increase. with that, i will take any questions that you have for the operating budget. >> thank you very much. >> i want to thank you. clearly the hiring committee got it right. we are thrilled to have you as our c.f.o. i appreciate how hard you have worked to get the operator contribution down. i don't like it, but i know how hard you worked. better then the preliminary, preliminary. we still need to drive it down. the more that is up, the less service we can operate which is defeating of why we have the terminal in the first place. with that, i will move the item. thank you for your hard work. >> thank you. >> can i ask one question on the naming rights? you mentioned in the discussion that we are recognizing the revenue this year, to me it sounds like we are accounting for it in this year versus having the actual cash available to pay for expenses. can you clarify whether those funds are available to be used or whether it's just the accounting of things? >> we have the funds on hand. they are in our stores. >> i will second the motion. >> before we vote, a clarifying question. it's just because they know how the public-sector works and money is not really money in the bank. so with the reserves as low as they are, i'm always concerned about cash flow. three months in the and the bank is not always three months of money in the bank. i just want to make sure we keep an eye on that because any delay in funding can have some consequences. so i just want to make sure we monitor that very carefully. any other questions from the board? i believe we have a motion and a second. >> and no members of the public wanting to public on the item. [roll call] five time mac and item 10 is approved. i can call you next item. >> item 11 is approving changes to board policy number nine, investment policy. >> okay. here we are again. no presentation this time. >> no presentation? >> no presentation. [laughter] in december we brought the investment and the debt policy. it is ought to be back one month later. there are a couple of things, and i will admit that i missed one. there is a change that was effective january 1st of 2020 that i should have put into the policy in december to catch it ahead of time, but that change is the deposit amount for the local agency investment fund. they increase from 65 million to 75 million. we want to take advantage of that additional 10 million-dollar ability to invest in life. additionally with our impending bond sale, we wanted to open up or expand the investment policy to include a few more opportunities for us. so one that we have added is to allow for the tjpa to invest in its own obligation. once we issue the bonds, clearly we have not had bonds of our own prior to now, so once we do, we would like the ability to invest in them. also, our policy had limited investments to the city and county of san francisco. so we are opening up local agency investments to all of the members or any local agency in california and the state of california. but also limiting it to a.a. rated. there is still the highest rating. the higher rated credit, not anything to be concerned of in that regard. we are also taking advantage of another change in the government code, which is the public vetting complications, but still only a.a. rated and super nationals, which would be like world bank. still a a.a. rated. those are the changes that are encompassed in this revision, mainly doing -- allowing for us to invest in those bonds. >> very good. any questions? is there a motion for action? >> motion for action to approve. >> second. >> any members of the public wanting to comment? [roll call] that is five aye. item 11 is approved. we can go ahead and -- >> thank you very much. let's go back to our regular agenda our reports. >> item six is the construction closeout update. >> good morning, directors. this will be a short update for the construction work. >> we forgot to introduce you. >> i am the senior construction manager with the tjpa. good morning. >> good morning, dennis. >> for the contract closeout status, i wanted to give you an update on our trade groups. we have 49 trade groups with the web core and other companies. as of now, we have 29 of those closed and behind us. we last reported to you we were at 24, so we have gained five more closures since our last meeting. we still have this six which are mid-level fruits, which are pretty much scheduled now to go for dispute resolution. we have them scheduled for march , april, and may, all upcoming. we have had a few already. the ones we have had should be able to close out, leaving us the 14. of those 14 groups, there is a handful that have multiple trade groups such as one company that would be in that 14. we will continue to talk about those 14 for a period of time, but at least by the end of the year, hopefully we will shrink that dramatically down as we continue to go through the dispute resolution process and eventually beyond that with a few as expected. so with that, that is the trade group status at this point. we will continue to update that. on the construction contingency cost update, our construction contingency is that 4.6 million. our cmgc contingency is 4.8 and 32.8. we're still in a good spot to closeout items as we continue to process through the change order requests in the various items that it takes a close out the trade package. we are continuing to do so. we have a few of the items identified below that are close out. either from electrical to construction management services lastly, just as more of a reminder and show that there has been no change at this point in the budget for phase one construction, we're still we are still holding with the phase i target at 2.174 billion and the ultimate, obviously the phase i program is still at 2.259 billion dollars. no changes since the last report that is the short update at this point. we continue to closeout trade packages, utilizing alternative dispute resolution with the d.r.a., which has been helping us. whether directly or as a stick to resolve without having to go there. it has been very effective at this point to continue to close out. i do want to note that web core has not met final completion yet and that is anticipated around march 1st. they still have some very specific items that are not resolved, so our damages continue to assess at this point that concludes my construction update for this month. >> thank you. any questions from the board? seeing non, thank you. >> all right. next item is item seven, the citizen advisory committee update. i wanted to note that i spoke with the chair and there was nothing new to report. >> okay. thank you. >> we will move into the next item which is public comment. opportunity for members of the public to address the board for matters that are arnot on the calendar. we do have mr. patrick. >> morning. thank you. i wanted to call your attention to something that is important that i feel needs to be on your radar scope. this is a programming allocation committee report from the metropolitan transportation association committee. we asked for $400 million to proceed with the d.t.x. we got and received zero. i presume this will be approved. the question is, why? it says here two large projects, the d.t.x. and dumbarton real corridor weren't approved and the projects were not named in the framework as earlier projects were in their developing stage. why are we in the development stage? we are in the development stage because of this nonsense coming off of the metropolitan transportation -- that san francisco transportation committee of this loan. we are not -- we have not been able to finish the engineering, in my opinion, to complete this job to apply for these funds, to move this thing along. here is a calendar for this year we have wasted it. we have 50,000 writers who want to get to downtown san francisco with the d.t.x. i believe it's time to stop fooling around. i think we should go out and see if we can't get commercial funding to finish this. we will no longer be paying leasing commissions because the space is just about least. take that money to pay the interest and package that thing as we move forward. let's not wait for these guys to do this job. you will be presented with a memo of some sort, and you know what it is? that is called a quid pro quo. take it or leave it. i thank you had better be ready to answer that. number two, we have, mr. matt haney who has already left, and other people who sit on the same boards. one board is loaning money to the other board. it seems to me we need some recusal on this thing. it's just nonsense the way this thing is working. who are the losers? the losers are the people who ride the train to the fourth street and get off and have to walk downtown or take the bus. it has been going on for 50 years. i believe the d.t.x. is losing some of its mojo. we all know what momentum means. we will see that in the super bowl coming up. you supervisors, you board of director members need to increase that mojo, at the excitement to the d.t.x. so we get the funding to get it going. we have already lost six months. i want to save this half of the calendar. please. let's get the d.t.x. up and going. thank you. >> that concludes members of the public that wanted to comment under that item. >> that concludes our agenda for today. meeting is adjourned and we will see everybody in february. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, everyone. >> hi. i am cory with san francisco and we're doing stay safe and we're going to talk about what shelter in place or safe enough to stay in your home means. we're here at the urban center on mission street in san francisco and joined by carla, the deputy director of spur and one of the persons who pushed this shelter in place and safe enough to stay concept and we want to talk about what it means and why it's important to san francisco. >> as you know the bay area as 63% chance of having a major earthquake and it's serious and going to impact a lot of people and particularly people in san francisco because we live on a major fault so what does this mean for us? part of what it means is that potentially 25% of san francisco's building stock will be uninhibit tabl and people can't stay in their homes after an earthquake. they may have to go to shelters or leave entirely and we don't want that to happen. >> we want a building stock to encourage them to stay in the homes and encourage them to stay and not relocate to other locations and shelters. >> that's right so that means the housing needs to be safe enough to stay and we have been focused in trying to define what that means and you as a former building official knows better than anybody the code says if an earthquake happens it won't kill you but doesn't necessarily say that can you stay in your home and we set out to define what that might mean and you know because you built this house we're in now and this shows what it's like to be in a place safe enough to stay. it's not going to be perfect. there maybe cracks in the walls and not have gas or electricity within a while but can you essentially camp out within your unit. what's it going to take to get the housing stock up to this standard? we spent time talking about this and one of the building types we talk about was soft story buildings and the ground floor is vulnerable because there are openings for garages or windows and during the earthquake we saw in the marina they went right over and those are -- >> very vulnerable buildings. >> very and there are a lot of apartment buildings in san that that are like that. >> and time to. >> >> retrofit the buildings so people can stay in them after the earthquake. >> what do they need? do they need information? do they need incentives? mandates? >> that's a good question. i think it starts with information. people think that new buildings are earthquake proof and don't understand the performance the building will have so we want a transparent of letting people know is my building going to be safe in it after an earthquake? is my building so dangers i should be afraid of being injured? so developing a ranking system for buildings would be very important and i think for some of the larger apartment buildings that are soft story we need a mandatory program to fix the buildings, not over night and not without financial help or incentive, but a phased program over time that is reasonable so we can fix those buildings, and for the smaller soft story buildings and especially in san francisco and the houses over garages we need information and incentives and coaxing the people along and each of the owners want their house to be safe enough. >> we want the system and not just mandate everybody. >> that's right. >> i hear about people talking about this concept of resiliency. as you're fixing your knowledge you're adding to the city wide resiliency. >> >> what does that mean? >> that's a great question. what spur has done is look at that in terms of recovery and in new orleans with katrina and lost many of the people, hasn't recovered the building stock. it's not a good situation. i think we can agree and in san we want to rebuild well and quickly after a major disaster so we have defined what that means for our life lines. how do we need the gasolines to perform and water perform after an earthquake and the building stock as well, so we have the goal of 95% of our homes to be ready for shelter in place after a major earthquake, and that way people can stay within the city. we don't lose our work force. we don't lose the people that make san francisco so special. we keep everybody here and that allow us to recover our economy, and everything because it's so interdependent. >> so that is a difficult goal but i think we can achieve it over the long time so thank you very much for hosting us and hosting this great exhibit, and >> he is a real leader that listens and knows how to bring people together. brought this department together like never before. i am so excited to be swearing in the next chief of the san francisco fire department, ladies and gentlemen, let's welcome, jeanine nicholson. (applause). >> i grew up total tomboy, athlete. i loved a good crisis, a good challenge. i grew up across the street from the fire station. my dad used to take me there to vote. i never saw any female firefighters because there weren't any in the 1970s. i didn't know i could be a fire fighter. when i moved to san francisco in 1990, some things opened up. i saw women doing things they hadn't been doing when i was growing up. one thing was firefighting. a woman recruited me at the gay-pride parade in 1991. it was a perfect fit. i liked using my brain, body, working as a team, figuring things out, troubleshooting and coming up with different ways to solve a problem. in terms of coming in after another female chief, i don't think anybody says that about men. you are coming in after another man, chief, what is that like. i understand why it is asked. it is unusual to have a woman in this position. i think san francisco is a trailblazer in that way in terms of showing the world what can happen and what other people who may not look like what you think the fire chief should look like how they can be successful. be asked me about being the first lbgq i have an understands because there are little queer kids that see me. i worked my way up. i came in january of 1994. i built relationships over the years, and i spent 24 years in the field, as we call it. working out of firehouses. the fire department is a family. we live together, eat together, sleep in the same dorm together, go to crazy calls together, dangerous calls and we have to look out for one another. when i was burned in a fire years ago and i felt responsible, i felt awful. i didn't want to talk to any of my civilian friends. they couldn't understand what i was going through. the firefighters knew, they understood. they had been there. it is a different relationship. we have to rely on one another. in terms of me being the chief of the department, i am really trying to maintain an open relationship with all of our members in the field so myself and my deputy chiefs, one of the priorities i had was for each of us to go around to different fire stations to make sure we hit all within the first three or four months to start a conversation. that hasn't been there for a while. part of the reason that i am getting along well with the field now is because i was there. i worked there. people know me and because i know what we need. i know what they need to be successful. >> i have known jeanine nicholson since we worked together at station 15. i have always held her in the highest regard. since she is the chief she has infused the department with optimism. she is easy to approach and is concerned with the firefighters and paramedics. i appreciate that she is concerned with the issues relevant to the fire department today. >> there is a retired captain who started the cancer prevention foundation 10 years ago because he had cancer and he noticed fellow firefighters were getting cancer. he started looking into it. in 2012 i was diagnosed with breast canner, and some of my fellow firefighters noticed there are a lot of women in the san francisco fire department, premenopausal in their 40s getting breast cancer. it was a higher rate than the general population. we were working with workers comp to make it flow more easily for our members so they didn't have to worry about the paper work when they go through chemo. the turnout gear was covered with suit. it was a badge to have that all over your coat and face and helmet. the dirtier you were the harder you worked. that is a cancer causeser. it -- casser. it is not -- cancer causer. there islassic everywhere. we had to reduce our exposure. we washed our gear more often, we didn't take gear where we were eating or sleeping. we started decontaminating ourselves at the fire scene after the fire was out. going back to the fire station and then taking a shower. i have taught, worked on the decontamination policy to be sure that gets through. it is not if or when. it is who is the next person. it is like a cancer sniper out there. who is going to get it next. one of the things i love about the fire department. it is always a team effort. you are my family. i love the city and department and i love being of service. i vow to work hard -- to work hard to carry out the vision of the san francisco fire department and to move us forward in a positive way. if i were to give a little advice to women and queer kids, find people to support you. keep putting one foot in front of the other and keep trying. you never know what door is going to open next. you really don't. [cheers and >> when i open up the paper every day, i'm just amazed at how many different environmental issues keep popping up. when i think about what planet i want to leave for my children and other generations, i think about what kind of contribution i can make on a personal level to the environment. >> it was really easy to sign up for the program. i just went online to cleanpowersf.org, i signed up and then started getting pieces in the mail letting me know i was going switch over and poof it happened. now when i want to pay my bill, i go to pg&e and i don't see any difference in paying now. if you're a family on the budget, if you sign up for the regular green program, it's not going to change your bill at all. you can sign up online or call. you'll have the peace of mind knowing you're doing your part in your household to help the environment. 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 mak

Related Keywords

New York ,United States ,Philippines ,Richmond District ,California ,Ocean Beach ,Embarcadero ,China ,Florida ,Washington ,Seattle ,Telegraph Hill ,San Francisco ,Americans ,Filipino ,Chinese ,American ,Brinkman Hasan ,Abigail Kahn ,Marlene Tran ,Jen Schneider ,Jordan Davis ,Jim Patrick ,Gloria Rodriguez ,Gordon Mar ,Abigail Stewart Kahn ,Matt Haney ,Wendy Wong ,Wilson Parsons ,Winston Parsons ,Jeanine Nicholson ,Benjamin Chung ,