that no tenant is going before a judge or jury without an attorney, without full representation. but beyond that, we he need to begin giving full legal representation to tenants from the moment they get the eviction notice. as has been noted earlier, many landlords issue bogus or what we call pretext evictions, evictions which will not stand up in court, evictions for nonpayment of rent. for example, when the rent has in fact been paid and it's documented that it's been paid, the bullying tenants go into court with an attorney knowing they can bowl them over as if they had a bulldozer. so, tenants need to get representation from the moment they get the eviction notice, not at the moment that they're actually going into the courthouse. and, so, we need to vastly increase funding for legal services in san francisco this year, and we need to establish this city as one that says every tenant who is in danger of losing their home has the

right to an attorney and will be guaranteed that right to an attorney. thanks. >> thank you, mr. guligson. next speaker, please. iris [speaker not understood] lewis, tenant, tenant in the mission for 38 years. very quickly, i read that in 2013 40% more working families are leaving san francisco than coming into san francisco, something we definitely want to turn around. and as a nurse, i'm very concerned about the health effects of all these evictions. i've seen people's blood pressure really go up, blood pressure crises, the stress, not sleeping, not eating well has really taken its toll on these people and families being evicted. i have seen a difference when people have support instead of fighting and have legal representation that they've calmed down, that they weren't alone and their health conditions weren't deteriorating as rapidly. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker.

hi, my name is linda galbreath and i'm a housing attorney at legal aid. we he provide free legal services for low-income tenants facing eviction and displacement and in particular we specialize in serving extremely low and very low-income tenants who are in public and subsidized housing. many of these tenants are long-term residents whose income levels are too low to secure more conventional housing unit. these are the tenants most at risk of homelessness and displacement in the city because of current loss of housing they have no options. for example, given the low hud subsidy ceiling and the strong rental market, landlords can make far more on the private market than they can receiptctioning to section 8 recipients. ~ renting typically these section 8 tenants can't find landlords to accept their vouchers and move

elsewhere. recently tenant in rent controlled building building, she was the only section 8 tenant left in the building. the landlord raised the rent and tried to evict her for not continuing to pay the illegal increase. we represented the tenant at trial and won. she is still at her home. this is increasingly common and a type of case you would have to turn away without additional resources. similarly, tenants who are displaced from public housing regularly cannot afford to remain in the city. san francisco is in the midst of a significant transition that will convert public housing [speaker not understood]. during this transition it is especially [speaker not understood]. finally it will have significant impact on the diversity of our city. housing authority statistics [speaker not understood] blacks and latinos makeup 61% of the housing [speaker not

understood]. there is no end to the need for legal services -- >> thank you very much. >> supervisor campos, can i just ask, we're seeing a range of section 8 push outses in the richmond district and i'm wondering how prevalent it is throughout the city because we're trying to gap l with how to support very vulnerable people in section 8 housing. can you talk a little about that? we have seen section 8 tenants be displaced throughout the city. as rents are increasing city-wide and as the federal government hasn't raised the payment standard that applies to our local area, it's almost impossible for section 8 tenants to pay rent at that are competitive with those that can pay in the private market and they end up having to leave the city because landlords throughout are often unwilling to accept 1850s section 8 tenants. it is a lot of affordable housing across the board. >> thank you. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker.

~ good morning. i'm [speaker not understood]. i'm glad we're having this conversation. we've been talking a lot about evictions. but we haven't talked about the services available to residents who are facing eviction and the dearth of those services. and as someone who runs a tenant counseling organization, i wanted to give you our perspective. we do absolutely everything we can to advise tenants and work with them and do some case advocacy when necessary to keep them in their homes. but we frequently face situations where it's at the point where they need an attorney and it's prior to the eviction that we know that there is nothing we can do to necessarily prevent the loss of their housing without legal support. and, so, we work with all of these groups you heard from today. we don't often get to refer our clients out to those groups,

however, because there's just not enough of those attorneys available. and, so, we think it's a crucial part of the package when it comes to eviction prevention. the other thing i wanted to say was the importance or emphasize the importance for specialized expertise in federal housing law and attorneys that really understand those programs with public housing and section 8 as you heard, legal aid is one such example of an organization. there are many things that come prior to an eviction that people could use legal support for and it would make the absolute difference between them being displaced or staying in their homes. an example is with the section 8 program there are administrative hearings. with public housing there are grievance procedures. those things require tenants to have good representation when they get in the room with the staff of the agency or with the landlord's attorneys. and right now they're going in there without that legal support. thank you.

>> thank you. next speaker. hi, jennifer friedenbach, coalition on homelessness. thank you so much for having this hearing. it's really timely. as we talked about a lot, the eviction epidemic and it's really contributing to the city's homeless population. about 35% of respondents in the last homeless count said that they had been evicted just prior to becoming homeless. and of course many more are several steps down. this eviction epidemic in many ways is man-made. as a people we can respond aggressively and take steps to halt all preventable evictionses in san francisco. we have been having a very intensive community process with over a dozen community-based organizations with -- including input from tenants and homeless people and we know what steps it would take to get us there. and there's five of them that are outlined in this proposal that i'm going to be passing to you. first of all, we need to

continue our efforts from last year. the board of supervisors puts $950,000 last year into prevention. it was incredibly successful in staving off displacement for about a thousand households and that was building on the year before's 1200 household we staved off displacement. as we said it's gone nowhere meeting the need. there are more additional steps. we need to make sure someone has access to back rent. someone loses income temporarily, we don't want them to lose their rent control apartment as a result. we need to do full scope eviction and this is a right to counsel and we need to add attorneys into our system to make that happen and it's outlined exactly how many that would take. and we need to do a ton of outreach and really invest indoor to door alternative languages, going around and making sure that people are not being scared out of their units and that they then have access to those attorneys. and we need to also stave off our evictions that are happening in public housing and our nonprofit housing and we

can do that by creating the mediation program. so, thank you so much again and i'm going to pass this [speaker not understood] to you for more details. >> thank you. next speaker. yes, dr. espinola jackson. i decided i'd be last to speak because san francisco is reminding me of a report that i've been reading called vail, california. you know, we have the bayview hunters point community legal and i was happy to see when they came and to be a part of my community because we have not had anyone to represent us. the problem, the core problem that we have is right here at city hall. i've been before you, supervisors, asking you to please hold a hearing on the

so-called affordable housing. you haven't done it. why? it's because of big developments coming into san francisco, and that is one of the reasons why people are being evicted, especially in bayview hunters point. there was a lawsuit filed and we won, and the city is overlooking the law. they're still trying to build out there at the shipyard. why isn't it you, the policy makers, are letting other departments make policies for this city? it's ridiculous. and it hurts me when i'm getting calls every day about people dying in my community because of all the toxins there. nothing is being done in bayview hunters point and there is a reason. it's by design. willie brown, when he became mayor, he had never been to hunters point, but he saw ah this beautiful scenery and the sun coming up. and he said, oh, this is a good place for big development. and guess what? it started. one of the other reasons we

have is the managers, that the redevelopment gave to us back in the '70s. john stewart, he's evicted mostly all the people out of public housing. i've asked you all to come out and just take a look at what is going on out there, and the housing that is being built, you wouldn't want your dog to live in it. thank you. >> thank you. is there any other member of the public who hasn't spoken? seeing none, mr. chairman, i think public comment is closed. [gavel] >> and with that, i have to apologize that i have to leave the hearing, but i want to thank you for this opportunity and we will be back as we work with the mayor's office, community, and all the various agencies to develop the proposal. thank you very much, and thank you to all the tenants and the representatives who. come out today. >> thank you, supervisor campos. supervisor avalos. >> thank you. appreciate supervisor campos and the community coming forward with this hearing. and i have been supportive of eviction defense for many, many years [speaker not understood]

the budget over the years and interested in doing that again this year the mayor's office can do that. i also want to make sure we have a balanced approach as well. i worked very hard to pass prop c, the housing trust fund. part of that what actually a homeowner stabilization fund. at the very last minute it was changed to housing stabilization fund and there was money that was moved from homeowner stabilization fund to eviction defense. i think there should be more money for eviction defense, but we also have a crisis for working class homeowners in san francisco that we are now addressing as a city. so, i want to make sure that as we're talking about, you know, tenancies, we're also talking about under water mortgages. we're also talking about household that are trying desperately to hold onto their property and their mortgage it's in the southern part of search. we have not paid attention to that adequately as a city. so, how can we move forward with a program not protecting

tenants and very vulnerable homeowners who have actually tried -- had their houses for generations and now are at the cusp of leaving san francisco. we talk about african-american outmigration. there are many african-american household that are in this situation, left san francisco, on the verge of leaving san francisco. if we have some part of our housing program that addresses that issue, we are doing something positive. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor avalos. supervisor mar. >> thank you. i wanted to acknowledge the grassroots and housing justice groups that have been with us today. also thank jeff hadachi, our public defender, sheriff mirkarimi, dean [speaker not understood] from usf and many others that have testified. i think the legal service organizationses and the community-based counseling organizations ~ really identify the critical need and the budget analyst report that supervisor campos called for is going to be really valuable as we evaluate the different

budget item that will come forward. and i wanted to thank jennie friedenbach and the coalition for keeping san franciscans housed, san francisco funding proposal, which we'll look at carefully. i did want to say i think the eviction antimapping project has done a good job identifying the 12 cereal evicters, the dirty dozen, how unfair the playing field is against tenants as they go up against well feuded landlord attorneys ~ like the so-called [speaker not understood] and that we try to identify the critical lack of fairness that exists for many tenants that are trying to seek basic, basic help. i think the request from the eviction defense collaborative and others and the community-based organizations really makes a lot of sense in basic fairness in addressing the tremendous greed. i think supervisor campos raised the issues of how the eviction epidemic is occurring, and i see it like a cancer

that's spreading throughout the city and rapidly, but in areas like the richmond district it's not seen as clearly as it is in the mission and it some other areas, but i know that the cancer is spreading so fast in the richmond district as we deal with whole buildings, evicting people and people kind of giving up. this, hopefully after last year's budget and allocations for the eviction defense collaborative and others, hopefully this will help. but i know there's a lot of other efforts that play into our addressing the cancer that is spreading in our city as we try to help residents stay in their homes. but i really appreciate everyone for testifying today. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor mar. okay, colleagues. at this point this, this hearing has been held. can i have a motion to file, file the hearing? we have a second. we can take that without objection. [gavel] >> okay, thank you. let's see, madam clerk, can we

go -- [speaker not understood]. can we go to item number 8, please? >> item number 8 is a resolution authorizing the sheriff's department to enter into a contract with leaders in community alternatives, inc., (lca), in an amount not to exceed $2 million for a term not to exceed five years, with an original term from may 1, 2014, to april 30, 2017, with two one-year options to extend, to administer a home detention program with electronic monitoring and case management, which includes the rules and regulations of the program and the requirement that lca maintain current liability insurance. >> okay, thank you. we have brief from our super -- excuse me, from our sheriff's office. >> good afternoon, supervisors. thank you very much. we're back for the original item that we were here for. under the rules and regulations of our own contracting process, we are up to present what the

new contract looks like for the sheriff's department electronic monitoring service and case management program. we have a quick powerpoint that we can show for you. consistent with california penal code section 1203.0 16 and 1203.0 18, as you know, the board of supervisors annually ~ review and approved the rules and regulations of this program. the contract to include a provision requiring that the contractor demonstrate and submit for approval by the board of supervisors evidence of financial responsibility that may include a current liability insurance policy. next, please. this is one side, particularly pleased with. in 2013 you'll see the number 359. that is the highest number in five years where we have put participants on electronic monitoring. certainly quite a vast difference in the previous year and years before that.

in our community in my administration and to helping those that do not have to be incarcerated, and by looking for diversions and looking for alternatives to incarceration, our full-service electronic monitoring program is achieving numbers that haven't been achieved before in the city and county of san francisco without adding any risk. we're pleased to announce that in 2013 that the number 359 of participants on electronic monitoring also represent the 93% success rate of those that had been put on em and county to county comparisons we're really at the top of us making sure that public safety is maintained while also looking for alternatives to incarceration. next, please. rules and regulations. referencing the reason why we're here, sfg's electronic monitoring program was established to pro stride an

alternative to incarceration for low-risk offenders, participants approved by the courts [speaker not understood], participants who are assessed, to determine needs, approve activities, approve locations and equipment setting. case manager is assigned to each participant to monitor and evaluate progress, maintain public safety of course is paramount. reduce recidivism, reduce repeat rates, [speaker not understood], reduce incarceration costs. since incarceration costs if somebody is incarcerated is practically about six times the amount of somebody being on electronic monitoring, and even more, and offsets impacts of ab 109 state prisoner realignments. next, please. the strong case management is a key to our administration. it's not just about putting somebody on home detention or being electronically monitored, but making sure that the process of rehabilitation and

reentry is corresponding with the em process so that, again, our efforts to rehabilitate as if they would be incarcerated, able to benefit from the in-custody programs that exist. we also want to make sure that a post-incarcerated environment, post-incarceration environment, they are able to have access to those reentry services as well. and we believe that through this, through this assessment, participant not ready to change, improve, motivational interviewing, but engagement strategies from day one, referral to community services, lack of support from family and community. we see that through areas of improvement, engage family member, mentor, any supportive person in the orientation and monthly meetings with case manager out of our department and through our contractor. and, of course, age-specific or even gender put special focus

on younger participants age specific interventions. the next, please. so, i won't go into too much, except the fact the types of electronic monitoring are the gps bracelet, home monitoring unit, mobile breath testing, and continuous alcohol monitoring. just go on to the next. and then this is the company, lca is a certified women-owned business enterprise, wbe, lca is a local certified business enterprise. local presence will improve resolution to equipment malfunction. it will support implementation of new legislation that expands electronic monitoring, criterion increases participants in electronic monitoring. reducing proposed ngo cost. lca has existing relationships with criminal justice stakeholders such as san francisco court system, san

francisco [speaker not understood] probation, san francisco juvenile probation. lca specializes in case management, especially in the role over adult probation ~ which helps extend that continuum of in-custody and post-custody services that both chief and i have been developing. and that is before you. the contract of lca for our electronic monitoring. more than happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. so, but to be clear, i understand the contract is here, but we're not approving the contract, correct? >> that's right. rules and regulations. >> okay. so, do we have -- is it an amendment of the whole that we're introducing here? yes. >> yes. >> ; is that correct? >> yes, that's right. >> colleagues, any questions, concerns? ~ okay. i believe we do have a budget analyst report on this, right? so, we'll open up to public comment. anybody wishing to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> okay, colleagues. >> thank you. >> if no other questions, can i

have a motion to send this item forward? >> i move with recommendation. >> take it without objection. gov. >> would you like to adopt the amendment of the whole? >> thank you. motion to rescind the vote on item number 8, so moved. [gavel] >> okay, first, can we adopt the amendment of the whole? motion to adopt the memorandum of the whole? take it without objection. [gavel] >> the line item as amended now, we can take it without objection as well. [gavel] >> thank you, madam clerk. can we please call item number 7? >> item number 7 is an ordinance amending the administrative code to pro he vied that the city's local hiring policy and payment of prevailing wages apply to construction projects on property owned by the city and county of san francisco. >> okay. supervisor avalos? >> thank you, chair farrell. colleagues, as you know, we have heard this item about three weeks ago. since then we've been working with various parties, the city departments, especially the city administrator's office to see how we can include language in this ordinance that would make our city the first to come

into compliance with senate bill 7 which was signed by governor brown last october. sb7 was intend to zth -- to maintain [speaker not understood] wages and benefits that promote middle class opportunities, for construction work force across california. it requires chartered cities like ours must conform with state prevailing wage laws if we want to avail state funds for public works construction ~. today i will be amending our local hiring prevailing wage ordinance to bring us into compliance with sb 7. so, i have an amendment of the whole to do that. i want to thank deputy city attorney ronald flynn for his work with my office and herd a lot of the cats to get language for us. this will require continuance and at the request of the city administrator i would move to continue to may 21st to allow her to convene the mayor's local hiring task force and

other departments that will be impacted by this ordinance. i want to thank everyone for your patience on this. i want to thank the city community, labor stakeholders as well as for working on this piece of legislation. for local hiring, already we are at 36% local hiring hours for 2013. since the law went into effect, cumulatively san francisco residents have performed 34% of the hours on our public works projects. partnership hours are 60% versus 35% that were under good faith efforts. we've actually moved the needle very, very far forward on our local hiring requirements and i just want to thank everyone who has been involved in this effort. and there are many for your help. this ordinance expands local hiring and prevailing wage creates a winning combination for our working families who are slightly [speaker not understood] in san francisco and we'll be able to hear on the 21st. but i'd like to motion that we accept an amendment of the

whole for this legislation and we have deputy city attorney ronald flynn, perhaps he he can explain just the main parts of this, the new amendment of the whole. >> deputy city attorney ron flynn. the amendments of the whole concerns primarily section 2 which deals with the prevailing wage provision. as originally written, it was to expand prevailing wages to construction projects that would take place on property that is owned by the city and county of san francisco. as amended, it is going to cover a different category of construction projects that they're all public works projects defined by the state which is a requirement under sb 7 that we pass such an ordinance if we want to be able to be eligible to continue to apply for and expand state money on construction projects

beginning on january 1st, 2015. the sb 7, there are narrow differences between the prevailing wage law now and prevailing wage law defined by the state. this ordinance would close the gap on those differences and allow us to be in compliance with state law and continue to apply for state funding and it would also require the payment of prevailing wages on all public works as defined by city and the state. >> thank you very much. okay, colleagues, any questions? okay, seeing none, why don't we open this up to public comment. anybody wishing to comment on item 7 please step forward. you'll have two minutes each. yes, this is to the city. you know, i have a concern, been having a concern ever since this began where there is

not one city department with a state certified compliance officer to make sure that this is done. when will this city hire? i talked to the mayor. i sent compliance officers to him. even to the city administrator's office. it seems as though no one want to do the right thing here. now, i would like to know how are you going to be sure -- how would you be sure that these jobs are being done under the hud guideline section 3? looks like nobody knows about hud guidelines, and it is a shame. and i've been saying it -- and i know you, city attorney, tired of hearing me talk about it. but i just had to come up here right now and state the fact that it's sad, it is sad. the only department in this city, which is the unified school district that has a

state federal certified compliance officer. now, they got so-called compliance officer in name, but they are not certified by the state where they can send in reports monthly like they should be done. when are you all going to make sure the city does this? thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. good morning. my name is trudy garver. thank you for the opportunity to speak. i'm speaking on behalf of the public land. we create parks and protect land, ensuring livable communities for generations to come. and while we fully support local hire policies, we are concerned that this legislation will discourage charitable gifts that help build parks for all san franciscans to enjoy and that this legislation will decrease the flexibility needed

for effective public/private partnerships to build world class parks that this city deserves. we rehe expectfully suggest that private donations and charitable organizations be exempt from this legislation at the least and that the board of supervisors slightly delay the ordinance to study it further to clearly understand the full impacts. in the past five years the trust for public land has had a strong partnership with the recreation and parks department and together has completed projects such as hayes valley playground and balboa park. for these projects, rec/park has successfully encouraged charitable donations, public private partnerships and a variety of public and private grants. this legislation would strain the flexibility needed to accomplish these projects. we are currently working with a generous donor to explore redoing the playground in front of civic center. the proposed legislation again concerning the budge and schedule of this project and challenge the donor's intent to