into account emergency situations such as domestic violence and other violent crimes. and i want to mention that public housing tenants are entitled to procedures before the case proceeds to eviction. with private developers we are having trouble getting those procedures followed. and to be followed through due diligence, and for most developers eviction is the first step. thank you. >> i am nancy cross, and i am here to bring to your attention danger of having what sounds like a very good partnership between the city administration and the developers.

in relation to a project that is funded for the benefit of the public. and the public doesn't have any meaningful say about what is happening here. and i will illustrate by this public/private partnership in relation to the (inaudible) and the shelters in the city in relation to smoking. when you consider what the hotels want and the hotel users in the tourist trade. you say, we wish for the hotels to preserve 75% of their room dedicated to nonsmoking. not what happens on separate floors with separate elevators. but when it comes to shelters and sro's, we allow smoking and provide smoking patios.

and we don't enforce no smoking in front of the shelter on polk street. and if you look at the statistics you feel, you find this is a primary cause of death. and that the people that are homeless have 20 year shorter life expectancy in the circumstances they are put. none of the developers will devel developer, and you spread the epidemic and you impose welfare costs of smoking through the shelters. and sro's [mic turned off]

>> thank you, ma'am. ma'am, thank you, we have one more speaker. we appreciate your comments. >> good afternoon, supervisors, i am sarah short with the housing rights committee. i want to second the sentiment you heard br -- about the tremendous need for education and it needs to be resourced. and it needs to be independent, and done by trusted community

groups and residents themselves. to work with other residents to apprise what is happening in their buildings. people are feeling in the dark, and it deprives residents to have input in the process and involved in the negotiations around the important tenant protections that we need to preserve and strengthen. i want to flag some of those that we think need to be further discussions about. and to say that what we need is a standard, fair and reasonable set of policies around such things as grievance procedures, transfer policies. eviction policies and back-rent payment plans. leases. and house rules. those are the types of things that we hope before we get

rolling with rad, and we work with the city as holson said that it's worked in the agreements and codified some more than just assurances. and we need the residents involved in that and we need to go out and talk with the residents and explain how they can be involved and what exactly is proposed, etc. so they can be a part of the process. and then we need to ensure that we are looking very closely at any loss of rights between the conversion from the public housing program to what will now be the product-based voucher program [mic turned off] >> thank you, any other members of the public that would like to make public comment at this time? seeing no members at the time, public comment is now closed.

[gavel] supervisor av vavaloavalos, thi very interesting hearing, you have any comments? >> i do have comments. mostly i live in a district where we don't have a great deal of public housing. a few sites on randolph street. not a very large one. a lot of section 8 in the district. i wanted to co-sponsor this hearing, because i saw a lot of great changes proposed. and a lot of framework provided by the federal government, that we have to align ourselves with to shore up public housing and make sure we have the resources to move forward. often these mandates that come from other levels of government are completely unfair. and puts us in a difficult situation, where we have to

create changes that people are not comfortable with, at a speed that is not -- or not able to see the changes happen as they are happening. i think it creates great caution for san francisco, how we can also as mr. lee talked about the values that went out in our rfq, and we have to ensure other values strong in san francisco, that is public oversight and involvement in the creation of these changes. i want to be sure that our city can uphold that value as we are making changes. i think the issues raised around tenant rights, the right of tenants to be have assurity of staying in their property. that they will be able to return to their units. and the ability to be transferred.

whether it's, you know, trying to avoid a dangerous situation they are living in. or other ways, other reasons why they have been transferred. i think it's a right that has to be upheld. i am concerned about financing and who the investors and lenders will be. often we are at the constraint of the banks and the lenders. it's incredible that the profit model, even if we are creating a public/private partnership, the model from the lenders perspective compromises our resources, i am concerned about that. i have worked on since july of 2011, to create our own municipal bank that could be infused with our values as a

city, and infrastructure, and education infrastructure. and to couple our resources, and to add resources. the public bank is one to make sure we have adequate dollars for our housing is an area to focus on. there was recommends -- recommendations that came out of the fsu and regarding the important assets. for decades the idea is that the board of supervisors should play a role over public housing. and i think that the public housing without that oversight has suffered greatly in what tenants face and resources provided. and i think those days really

should end. and maybe this change that is being forced upon us in terms of how we can access resources from the federal government is the time where we actually can make that change here. provide that oversight from the board of supervisors. and i am willing to look at that. with my colleagues and would love to hear your thoughts, supervisor breed. >> thank you, i honestly -- this has been an enlightening hearing. and i have so many questions, so many concerns. i have had for some time. i have been mostly concerned about the communication. i am not concern that this hearing helped me. it confused me a little bit more. but it also made me a little more frustrated because there was a certain, there was something else in my mind that i understood was going to happen with public housing.

yes, the rad program and certain properties. but i wasn't completely aware that those properties that truly need to be rebuilt completely, are not. not only not going to be rebuilt in a timely manner, and we will be required once rehabilitated to keep them online for 20 years, we won't be able to demolish those particular buildings. that's news to me. i am concerned about so many things i don't know where to start. i lived over 20 years of my life in public housing. and you know it was a part of my existence. i had a strong community. but we constantly had challenges. what is really sad, i have gone on walks informally to all the public housing establishments in my district.

and the conditions that existed then, the broken pipes and the roaches and the mice holes, and the smell and the sewage stuff. the list goes on and on. and to go back and i have family and folks who still live there. but to go in as a supervisor and to hear not just the complaints of my friends and family. but to hear the complaints of so many other people living in these same conditions that existed when i was growing up there is really pretty horrible. it's really difficult for -- i am excited on the one hand in that we finally have an opportunity with a mayor that has agreed to work with us. and really focus on helping me to invest city resources into public housing, unlike never

before. but on the underhand there are some challenges to that. and what that really is going on mean for residents. for the folks that kind of suffered through the challenges of public housing. the difficulties of dealing with some of the things that exist. for far too long public housing has operated in isolation. and the most frustrating thing for me as a spfupervisor, is toe treated different than any other housing development in san francisco. separate services for police, and not to mention the market-rate costs that are sucking the budget dry. what i want to know as a supervisor when we talk about moving forward, when we talk about how this program is going to work. i want to know exactly how the

current dollars that are being spent from the public housing are working for the current residents. and i would like to know how we plan to just continue to have this discussion around the transition of what this is going to mean for both residents and employees of the property. especially as many of those employees are actually residents. and when we talk about better service, are we talking about better training it or opportunities for existing employees of public housing? i mean there are so many unanswered questions. and i have to say from my perspective, from growing up i knew that a lot of residents would often get a job with public housing. and it was really difficult to get a job any place else in the city. city employments in the city were hardly available to us, and

working in a public housing site where you lived was probably the job of many young people. and folks grew up in public housing, and doing eligibility work in other things. some of my friends ended up working and getting other jobs through public housing. i want to be sure there is a real connection for the folks that have been around for a long time whether employees or residents. but we are trying to work to make sure they are included in the process, and not just saying out with the old and in with the new. there is a better way do it. and i am not comfortable with the plan is, there are still a lot of questions i have. and i don't want to prolong this hearing by going through the laundry list of questions and concerns. but this is the first of what i feel needs to be discussions around this issue. so we can make sure that we are

working together in this effort. i know that the mayor's office of housing is working with housing authority. you guys are all working together. but those workshops out in the public housing developments were rushed, they were confusing. and we talked about ways in which we could better communicate to the folks that live in these developments. and we got to continue to work harder and smarter as how we communicate that message. and i definitely don't feel confident we are there yet. there is a lot of things going on, a lot of pieces to the puzzle. and i don't understand how they all fit together in order to ultimately serve the residents. for example, i don't know how you rehabilitate west-side courts. i don't understand how that is going on make it better for residents to rehabilitate a

property that needs to be torn down. i won't go into discussions with the plumbing issues that back up in certain rains. and the challenges there. and to rehabilitate that property and with the maintenance calls, that doesn't make sense to me as a policy maker. i don't think that's a wise investment or responsible. i feel we have to continue to have these discussions to make this work. for in properties, yes, they could definitely use the support. and secondly the city is going to have to invest. i know that people believe that we shouldn't invest proxy monies because i guess the voters voted on prop c money for affordable housing are folks. i get that, but public housing

is affordable housing, and kwwe have to be sure that we invest in the current residents that are actually housed there now. we have so much work to do. and the last thing i will say about that. it's not an overnight problem. housing authority has been screwed up since i was a kid, well, since before i was born. it's not an overnight solution. and now we have to figure out how to put the pieces of the puzzle together and we make sure that people have affordable, safe, clean housing in our city. so i am committed to that, and i will continue to work with our various groups to try and get there. but again the last thing -- i think i said that last time.

but i know that there is a lot of uncertainty. and i don't want to turn this into a discussion around employment. but i am asking that the housing authority and the mayor's office of housing continue to work with the current employees there. there could be opportunities to make sure that people hold on to their jobs by adding additional training opportunities. if the jobs are going to train. i don't know what is going on in terms of the details of what all that means. but i think it's important that we be sure that we do everything we can, if we are changing classifications. if we are changing job descriptions, if we are changing the way we do business. that appears to be the case in nonprofits and how this works under rad. we need to look at the existing employees that continue to manage these properties. and for years when whey had,

specif especially in the western edition when we had the homicides and the problems in public housing. no one was there to be found. there wasn't phone calls is everyone okay. and now there is money in public housing and everyone is knocking on the door. i am leary of that, as soon as you start opening the door and making things before. all of a sudden the reality is that african-americans tend to lose in this fight. i am very concerned about that. and i want to be sure that we do everything we can to handle this better, especially the communication. especially working together. and dr. jackson made a really good point. back in the day, i know my grandmother and mrs. rogers, and all of those folks would meet about public housing. whether for rehabilitation or

anything going on. the residents determined how they wanted their developments develop. or who they wanted to work in their development. and now it's just a lot difference. now i hope we have a strong process of open communication and feedback and working together. because there is a lot to do. and i know there some time limitation here, in terms of a 18-month time limit to get onboard with rad. but we have to be sure that we onboard in the residents, and include them in the process. it can't be come to city hall, we have to be in the community, and know the folks in the neighborhood communicating about the residents. yeah, it's a lot.

and we got a lot of work to do. and i want to thank everyone for coming out here. and hopefully we can continue this discussion. because there is so many more things to talk about. and thanks again. >> there was a question i wanted to ask for the housing authority. i guess that's for mr. torres. or -- yeah, please come forward. the question is really around questions about the layoffs and what specific jobs are looked at. those 100 jobs. and is there a transition plan? a few years ago when it was propose to lay off workers here in the building, maintenance staff here in the building of t the -- there was talk about

moving them to other existing jobs in the city, and i wonder what that plan and which jobs are discussed. >> there won't be any reduction in jobs for about 15 months. and then it will be as properties spin off in the rad program. we are working with the bargaining units. we are having meetings with them. since we are still under negotiations with the bargaining units, we have identified classifications for those bargaining sessions. there will be some jobs in about 15 months and then some more about a year later. we are looking at all options for those positions, including matching up classifications at the housing authority with city jobs. and also while we are shrinking on the public housing side. we will still be managing about

1460 public housing units. but we will be growing on the public voucher jobs. some of those jobs will be to the voucher jobs, eligibility for example. >> so availability workers and property managers, what are the jobs we're talking about? >> and some maintenance workers impacted as well. >> so in previous years, i recall 2009, there were hundreds if not thousands of jobs of clerks in our human service agencies and as well as laguna honda and general hospital that were descaled. they were laid off and hired back at a lower rate. it was really terrible thing that happened.

as a matter of fact all members of fciu put together their money so those descaled wouldn't lose their salaries. and we want to be sure that we transfer jobs, and if we transfer, the model is that we transfer with equal pay and benefits, and not lose anything at all in that process. everyone is trying to maintain their standard of living, a difficult place to maintain your standard of living and create a huge disruption if -- in their lives. >> that's part of the matching and we hope to identify opportunities between now and when the impact takes place. so people have the option to move into other employment opportunities. when they want to. there may be opportunities that come up in the near future. and we would back-fill those positions with temporary workers. we are working hard.

we care a great deal with the employees. and making every opportunity for them to move into comparable positions. >> i expect what will happen if you move to five years out and you have nonprofit providers who are doing the work, eventually they will be union jobs, they will be union members, i expect. >> we can speak to that, yes. >> mrs. smith, if i were told that my job is probably going on end in 15 months. i would be stressed out. and -- you know, there is so much uncertainty here. and i don't feel like i clearly understand what the plan is. in terms of not just the employment, but just the transition and --

>> we can have this hearing back. >> yeah, i think we will need to have another hearing in order to get an update. because there were some things that i said out to understand, and like i said, i am still confused. >> again what we are working towards san francisco housing transition. and we are talking about maintenance i and maintenance ii and property managers, so many people that do incredible work for the residents of public housing. we are in negotiations right now. exploring options. again i am saving those conversations for when we sit down with each bargaining unit at the table. but we are happy to come back, whenever you would like to have us. always coming to you to talk to

you. and more in depth about the communication plans. and how it will work for residents as well as employees. and provide you with the feedback and any concerns you hear about, let us know. like i said earlier, it's a tailored process based on the specific needs of our residents as well as our employees. and i agree with you, if i found out that my job was to go some place in 16-18 months, i would stressed. and why we are asking to hear these reports and be sure that those communications are happening effectively and consistently and accurately. that's what our employees deserve. i appreciate the comments and if you need information, please let us know and we are happy to come in. >> thank you, supervisor avalos, what do you call, the joint --

power of authority. i think we need to have discussions around that so we can have consistency in terms of a public process for information for the public with this process. as i said, i have reviewed the application and reviewed information. i thought i understood it, and still not completely there. we have to continue the discussion around this issue. again thanks everyone for coming out. and we will definitely have other hearings to continue this discussion. would you like to make a motion on this item? >> you want to file or continue this item? >> continue. >> my motion is to continue to the call of the chair. >> thank you, without objection our item is continued to the call of the chair. madam clerk, any other items?

>> no, that concludes. >> thank you, meeting adjourned [gavel] day. >> thank you for being here today to welcome air lingus to san francisco international airport i'm john martin the airport director i want to send a welcome to lingus to christofi mueller (clapping) joined by a number of digital tars including the mayor of san francisco mayor ed lee. mr. mayor (clapping) for san francisco and the city of cork the