>> for those that have seen the hetch hetchy reservoir it's severe but it got worse the next year there's just not a good picture of that compared to this one. those are conditions we hope not to see again. our objectives for water supply adopted in 2008 by the commission is to survive a specific eight and a half year plan scenario from 1987 to 1992 followed by 1976-77 back-to-back with no more than 20% rationing. there's a lot in that and that means at the end of the drought we're down to zero water. that's survival. that's not being able to do anything else in the future. that's a whole other question but that's the basic scenario.

and it's shown graphically here we start out with 1.68 million acre feet and then you see along the bottom line there's a series of fiscal years with '86 to '76, '77 following that. the blue line shows the decreasing level of storage through the end of the year. as we got to different levels of storage available to us because ours say storage-based system, you end up with a new level of rationing as it gets worse and worse. interest in the middle of 1988 we go to 10% rationing. in the middle of 1990, 20% rationing and this goes to 25% rationing because we still have a small bit of drought supply, 2

million a day of drought supply we haven't achieved we'd have to go through as we go to the next to the last year of the drought. this ends with this sequence with us getting to del -- dead pool and that means there's some left in the reservoir but you can't get it out. you throw a hose in and pump it out in an abnormal way but it can't be released through normal mechanisms. this is how we track our work over time. so for the last drought, we followed this basic scenario of getting to higher levels of conservation driven by state water board measures and i was asked by a conference what would have you done different if you had known we were getting into this drought and my answer is nothing. this drought-planning scenario serves us extremely well to meet obligation to our customers here in the city and outside.

which means, if the drought isn't that severe, yes there'll be some water left over but we don't really know for sure about that. that led me -- as we prepared our comments to the state on the water quality control plan to look at more documents. there was a declaration by the general manager at the time when considering the factors associated with the city's entitlement to water and systems and consequences of just being wrong is the forecasting the leng length the drought, i can't not say they were overly conservative. i like to cite a sitting commissioner and former general manager who is the general manager through the '87-'92 drought and that was a horrific period for water managers in california. that's what we used going back to 1994 our drought-planning

process adopted as part of the water improvement program. we can look at other alternatives but it's a matter of how much risk we're willing to take on. that's a very important question for us to consider. i wanted to summarize what we do, why we do it and how we have used it so far. are we going to a new drought? could be but we're prepared for it. that's our response, being prepared as if we're getting into a long period of drought no matter what. we plan that way. you saw this being drawn down and it gives me a twitch. if it rains in january we'll shut the project down and take the water. it's more important to get the water than to finish that. we can do that at a later time. we'll have to balance that risk though. and it's in our planning scenario and we'll be happy to

answer questions. >> commissioners. >> on the drawdown, that affects and it's on the progressive curve you showed. how's that affect your first-year actions if it turns out to be the first year of a drought sequence. and if droughts don't last longer, does this change your thinking about a first-year event? >> not particularly. we talked about the eight and a half year planning sequence but i think what's built into that is the first year assumption that you're probably not going

to over react because you don't know you're in a drought. when we talk about operationalizing new projects we assume that is going to cover a seven and a half year period and kick in at the end of the first year when we say, gosh, that was dry. we have to act as if we're in a drought sequence now. in this case that would take us down 200,000 or 250,000 acre feet of storage which is halfway down the first decreasing year. it would accelerate us getting into a first-year drought is what it would do for us. >> it does give you less resource if you were to -- in fact enter a critical period -- >> that's correct. >> feel the loss of that but at a later year? >> yes, it would.

>> you brought out one comment. the picture at the beginning of o'shaughnessy as the island was appearing, brings me flashbacks and nightmares and that. it was a very serious time and that be resulted in a bunch of things. it resulted in changing our operations so we were without any ambiguity of water-first operations and power would not be generated in a way that would compromise our long term ability to produce water ability and prompted an extensive and deep analysis of what our hydrolgy can be operated in order to

maximize our resiliency, if you will, during a drought sequence. so when you look at the curves you have and the rule curves we have in place, that was the product of deep and sober thoug'thought and modelling and consideration. the policies that were generated were not without cost. they cost us in our ability to generate power. they cost us in our ability to certify water supplies. there's no part of that that's back of the envelope calculation. there's no part of that is aimed at anything other than preserving the ability to serve in a reliable and responsible way. i do get concerned when numbers

are cited out of context. that impugning and integrity of the planning process and i take that personally. i think what san franciscans can be confident in and what our wholesale customers can be absolutely confident in, is that the operating criteria we're using and the planning criteria we're using are not scare tactics and they are not conveniently conservative numbers. they're very carefully derived numbers and cognizant of the cost in terms of money. in terms of social impact, in terms of economic viablity --

viability of the area and there are serious feelings. i wanted to share that with you. we had other numbers presented today that would cast that in a less than serious light. i think that's important to discuss. >> commissioners, anything else? thank you. >> we have two gentlemen to speak on public comment on item number nine. first is mr. peter dreckmyer. welcome back. >> so it's interesting that mr. moran's quote from 1994 suggests that people were saying the drought plan at that point or whatever management of the system was 14 years before the 2008 design drought. i would beg to differ with you,

mr. moran. i think the design is arbitrary. it's two droughts combined. i don't think there's science behind that. in 2009, the state adopted the co-equal goals of ensuring reliable water supply and protect the eco system. i think san francisco's a little behind on the second of those. i will give you credit. in the upper tuolome stakeholder group meeting on friday, it's people from state and federal agencies and ngos talking about biology. it's a great, constructive collaborative process and we need something like that for the lower tuolome and there was a climate change study. i don't think any of that was reflected in the design drought. if the concern is climate change, why don't we look at the

science. it will affect things in positive and negative ways. the first 2400css belongs to the irrigation district and between april and june the climate study said more precipitation will fall as rain and not snow and the snow will melt earlier shifting to the season when it benefits the fpuc. the last year was the second wettest year on record in the tuolumne water shed but yielded the most run off ever probably because of the fire and less taken to vegetation. that's probably what we'll see in the future and it does have a

positive as far as the water supply, negative for the environment. i hope the state will do more. the proposals focus on measures. we don't see those working in the absence of higher flows and sfpuc hasn't supported the idea of if the measures don't work we need more water. that's adaptive management and we hope to see that and there was an agreement in 1995 that said the state agrees to support the negotiating position regarding volumes of water to be supplied during the mediation professional and during proceedings relating to the fish flow issue. it seems like you're contractually obligated to follow the lead of the

irrigati irrigation district for the tuolumne. >> next mr. dave river. >> it's a pleasure to speak to you again. i think the way i'd like to approach this is to -- i think commissioner moran, back when you were going through this problem and i can feel the emotion of you saying the challenge of going through this was an outstanding job at the time. the thing that was missing was the environmental aspect. the questions i'd love to see you guys asking are what environmental unless was done when the current design drought was created. what is the environmental impact? what were the measures implemented to mitigate that impact and does the measures make a difference? i think that's really what san franciscans today would like to have. they would like to have a great, reliable water supply but done

with great environmental support. i think we've only got half of that. another question is, how often do you regularly get updates on the environmental damage going on at tuolumne and the chinook salmon possibly going extinct? another question is how did the drop planning mile compare to history. peter covered that. do you note the results of the last drought was not merely as long but it resulted in us having three years of unneeded storage and that would have been terrifically valuable to the fish. you can ask questions and find solution that's are win-win for both the habitat and for the water reliability which you so wonderfully provided for s

citizens. i does notice in the 2015 urban water management plan there was an assumption household demand for water increases as affluence increases. i think we may have seen the opposite. another question that could be asked -- and maybe it doesn't go anywhere but worth the discussion, is what if we changed that assumption that affluent households take the drought more seriously. they implement more planning measures so we see the demand for those households go down? if you model that, what does that do to overall demand? does that give you more options for dealing with achieving drought goals and protecting the environment. thanks so much. >> thank you, mr. warner. any other public comment on item nine? next item, please. >> i have a question on where we are in the whole process with the state conversation and

negotiations. >> deputy general manager, that's covered by a confidentiality agreement we can discuss that later on the agenda. >> okay. is there a public piece to where this process is -- >> for the state and water quality control plan and the substitute environmental environment the control board took comments on march 17 in 2017. there has not been the release of comment doc. we can only rumor when they'll release that. we hear it's maybe february but that's a rumor. it's not official. maybe they take it up some time in april in may but they don't have a schedule posted on their website at this point in time. >> that's helpful. thank you. >> last call for public comment? next item. >> the clerk: item ten is a bay area water supply and conservation update.

>> good afternoon, commissionerers. i was extremely saddened by the news of the mayor's passing and his loss will be fell not just by those of you in san francisco and by many including those at bosca so i appreciate the difficulty in going through today but government business must go on. i intend to focus my remarks on primarily two things and i'll keep them short. last month dan wade, the program director, came and spoke to the board and provided an update. it was well received and appreciated by the board.

this year, parked the anniversary the three years passing one allowing representation and the one bill that allowed san francisco to rebuild the system and the last bill that created a financing authority to assist in financing that rebuild if necessary. together, those three bills have created great results. we now sit at 90% or more completed. and essentially the seismic reliability is there for the community. that's a great accomplishment. so you now have you before you with the latest quarterly

reports projections for a release of the schedule. full that engaged with your team on that but it certainly reflects kind of what we think is going to happen as the program tries to wind down. that schedule there's pressures on that schedule for other things as well. the concern is that may not be the end of it with the latest e re-baselining. we'll continue to work on that. as necessary, once the schedule gets firmed up we do anticipate reaching out to our legislative contingency to extend the oversight from the sate and we'll work in collaboration with your staff on that and there was support when we went through that process the last time but that state oversight from our perspective is beneficial and helpful so we want to make sure that continues. on the second point, if i can

look at the slides, i did want to provide a regular update on the total water use in the service area. as a reminder, the top line is the pre-drought for 2013 water use all supplies on a monthly basis. the bottom red line is the lowest use in the 2016 calendar year. and the green is where we are at currently. we're right now tracking 12% less than 2013 in october. that's an increased reduction compared to last month which is about 8%. the interesting thing -- and we'll continue to watch this in the summer months, how much closer to the lower line does the demand go. or does the reduction stay hardened in through the winter. the weather this year and the lack of precipitation will be an interesting part of that. my board has asked me to continue to present on that and

we will do that. lastly, just to add a few comments to the drought discussion you just had, i sincerely appreciate commissioner moran's thoughts on that. it is never something that a water manager wants to go through as a drought. we've had several difficult conversations and didn't get as difficult as it could have the last time. this service area, in many ways, is unique because it does not have a significant access to an alternative water supply source. we don't have a connection to the delta or have the backup available in the event the hechy goes dry and that drives the appropriateness of the planning and something bawsca appreciates so i'd just add my thoughts to that. thank you. >> commissioners, any comments?

any public comment? madame, secretary, please read the consent calendar. >> item 11 is the consent calendar. all matters under are considered to be routine by the san francisco public utilities commission and acted upon by a single vote of the commission. that will be no separate discussion of the items unless a member of the commission or the public so requests in which event the matter will be removed from the calendar and considered as a separate item. >> commissioners, do you wish to remove anything from the consent calendar? >> i'd motion to move the consent calendar. >> second. >> any discussion? public comment? okay. all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed?

>> the clerk: item 12 authorized memorandum of understanding for improvements on illinois straight between 18th and 19th street in concession with the mission bay loop project in the amount not to exceed 8 64,96. >> any public comment? all in favor ? >> aye. >> opposed? thank you. >> item 13. [reading item] >> may i make a comment on the item? i'd like to make a motion but before i do that, i'm wondering if as part of our budget discussions or maybe even to

come before the commission, i'd like to get a sense of -- i believe our grant program is about $2 million now? >> that's correct. >> i don't have an understanding how that compares to other cities when they do apples to apples who have these similar flooding issues that they're dealing with and have grant programs. at some point i'd love to get an understanding if that's sufficient with technical assistance and what's being approved today. >> to touch a little bit upon it and the previous presentation, the grant programs ranges from $30,000 and non-engineer. we're actually trying to do something that's different and so we are providing a budget

amount of $2 million just to kind of see what the appetite is and if with we see that we would need more we will come back and talk to the commission about needing more resources out there to address. now, the program is for folks in those flood areas and not everyone. there's a limit and also we're working with the applicants on solutions. so it's not like everyone that we will look at the situation case by case. so we can kind of give you more of an update -- grand -- >> and i know the storm water fee is coming and how they interface together. would potentially there continue to be a grant program?

would it increase? decrease for the folks not in the flood zones or who may be but then they would be pegged fees instead. >> i think to talk about about what our strategy has been, the storm water fee in the first stage is to acknowledge that's a component we'll put on everyone's bill. the second part is for folks who do not receive a puc bill because they don't receive a water bill, is to submit a bill. so if you have a parking lot and you don't have water service, we want to make sure we capture those folks because they're contributing storm water to our system. that's the first phase. the second phase after we roll that in, we are looking at size

of property and see if there's pavement and there's multiple factors we haven't fully baked out. so we can maybe talk about where they are as far as run-off if you're on top of the hill verse this bottom of the hill. those things haven't been ironed out yet. >> i think there may be two different grant programs we're talking about here. one is an investigation for a future green infrastructure grant program. that's correlated to the storm water rates modification and that's for installing storm water management and the flood water grant program which is the agenda item, is for structures on existing properties experiencing flood damage due to rain-induced flooding.

and trying to find ways to protect properties in low-lying areas. i mean at the end of the day it's the same property have the flood risk with every storm because it's a matter of topography. so to try to provide assistance to those property owners who are always going to have flood risk no matter how -- any capital projects we build to try to manage storm water a bigger storm would bring flood risk to the same vulnerable properties and we're trying to help them to take measures to flood-proof their property. we'll see how it gets deployed and see if it's the right amount or more or less needed. >> i'd like to make a motion. >> second. >> all in favor? >> public comment?

discussion? all right, all in favor? opposed? next item please. >> item 14 authorize the issuance of the 2017 series defg water revenue bonds to advance refund a portion of the 2011 series a, 2011 series b and series c and 2011 series d and 2012 series a and 2012 series c water revenue bonds to achieve debt service savings. >> i have to jump the screen. >> the monitor's moving. >> okay. i have problems with my monitor and when he came to try to correct it he explained the monitors were very old and you can try to plug and plug it back

in but it's a bit of a lost cause. >> thank you. >> apparently they don't have immediate plans to replace them either. as we struggle with our monitors, it's a pet peeve but we're in the technology capital of the world and we don't have screens we can read documents on. >> no comment. my wife's in charge. >> we need a solution. >> good afternoon. i'm the debt manager at the sfpuc. i'm here to present item 14, the water enterprise refunding bond transaction that we're about to -- with your approval, embark

on. before i do that though, i want to spend a couple minutes giving you a quick briefing on an earlier transaction we did that you approved november 14. this is for the new money water bond sale we did. those bonds sold on november 30, approximately 339 million bonds sold in the 2017 series a, b, c, water revenue bonds. successful transactions around we had seven under writers and the winning bid result in 3.8%. to put in context, we assume 5% for debt issuances so to come in below that is a good thing. also, i wanted to point out the bond rating agencies affirmed

the water bond ratings, moody's affirmed it at aaa3 and standard at poors at aa minus. it's scheduled to close tomorrow, december 13. happy to answer questions on that transaction before we jump into the item at hand. >> i'd like to move the item. >> second. >> discussion? any public comment? all in favor. >> aye. >> thank you. >> approved, thank you. next item, please. >> the clerk: item 15 thorse a memorandum of understanding with the office of the treasurer and tax collector bureau of delinquent revenue to provide special collection services for delinquent water, sewer and power charges. >> i have a question on that. i would like a better understanding how that will

impact low-income residents who may not be able to afford to pay and what that entails. >> this is an arrangement with the tax collector. currently he is working with an assessment of fees and how it affects low-income customers. >> since this is a continuation i would ask maybe through the general manager, once he finishes that assessment we can understand that better because i do have some concern around the rate increases espescialr espec especially on low-income folks and get payment but consider them. >> that's the work we're doing on affordability. >> thank you.

>> we had a motion. second. >> i think there was a second. >> any discussion? public comment? all in favor? opposed? approved. >> next item. >> the clerk: item 16 authorize the san francisco public utilities commissioner waste water enterprise to accept and expend the green infrastructure leadership exchange in $29,000. >> move for second. >> discussion? public collect? all in favor? opposed? approved. next item. >> authorize san francisco utilities commission water en

prize to accept the port for a 30-year term. >> second? >> discussion? public comment? all in favor? opposed? approved. next item, please. >> the clerk: item 18 authorize a general manager to execute a second amendment to the site license agreement dated october 6, 2015 between tri star investors llc and city and county of san francisco and locate additional telecommunicati telecommunicating equipment and in the increase of subject to 3%. >> i move the item. >> second. >> any discussion? any public comment? all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? it passes. >> the clerk: item 19, authorize the general manager to execute a

memorandum of standing between the treasure island development authority and continue to provide utility services for the naval station at treasure island. >> i'd like to move the item. >> second. >> discussion? public comment? all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? it is approved. next item. >> item 20, authorizing the general manager to execute 15 to 25 grant agreements to support san francisco youth and young adults engage in project-based learning opportunities. each grant agreement will provide approximately 25,000 in grant funds per year to the grantee and have a duration of three years each. >> i'd like to comment real quick if i could. so i wanted to make sure that my

colleagues understood i'm supportive of the effort and i also wanted to thank staff, especially ag ellis for pa painstakingly go over the details and what are career and pathway programs and what is good work in the field. i think what excites me the most, is through the efforts we'll begin to compile data useful for both the efforts and the career pathway development proposals currently on the table. specifically knowing what the wage rates are and the minimum qualifications and whether you need to possess a california driver's license or ged. i'm excited about moving this item forward.

i'm excite about the dialogue i'm having with agency leadership and i support it but if there's something that you feel you should add please go ahead and do that. >> i'm the acting community benefits workforce manager. i don't think i have anything substantial to add to that. this is a project learning grants is around our eco literacy strategy and linking concepted to project-based learning that exposes youth to career opportunities around the puc and partnership with union so what you're speaking to is these grants support that first-touch point and reaching youth 11-17 on track to the workforce development programs. >> i would add from my seat i

appreciate the work you're doing as well in this area from an environmental stewardship perspective. it's an incredible opportunity for careers going forward i support the program as well and thank you for your work on it. >> thank you. >> one of my colleagues at my day job said it was a big moment to teach kids where milk comes from and where it goes eventually but the program is great work. >> thank you. >> i'll move the item. >> second. >> any discussion? any public comment? all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? approved, thank you. okay. we're moving into closed session. will agree closed session items. >> item 23 is anticipated lake

litigation with two cases as plaintiff. item 24 is existing litigation versus the city of san francisco and items 25 through 31 will not be heard today. >> so is there any public comment or matters to be discuss during closed session? is there a motion to assert the attorney-client privilege as conference for legal concert. >> move to assert. >> okay. >> second. >> all right. all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? okay.

>> motion not to disclose. >> second. >> those in favor. >> opposed? >> passed. as we adjourn the meeting i'd like to officially do so in memory of mayor lee and if i may say so i think it is again all the priority of the commission and staff to continue the work of mayor lee and to support the acting mayor. with that the meeting is adjourned. happy holidays, everyone.

ok, let's get started. welcome to our special, special,

special budget and finance committee meeting for monday, december 11th, 2017. i am norman yee and i will chair this committee as soon as everyone is quiet. thank you, very much. i am joined by supervisor jeff sheehy and ahsha safai. these are my committee members and today is ms. linda the clerk is miss linda wong. the committee would also like to acknowledge the staff of sfgtv, jesse larson and i cannot read it. we record each of our meetings and make the transcripts available online madam clerk any

announcements. >> silence cellphones and electronic devices and completed speaker cards to be included as part of the file to be submitted to the clerk, thank you. >> before we begin can we have a motion to excuse supervisor ma leah cohen and katie katy tang from this meeting. >> motion passes. >> no object object. >> madam clerk can you call item number one. >> clerk: declaring a homeless shelter emergency and authorize ing the direct offer public work to improve facilities and the director of the department of homelessness and support of housing to contract for homeless services and officer services to protect the health, safety and welfare of individuals effected by homelessness and all san francisco citizens. >> we have jeff kazski

department of homelessness and department of public works here to present. >> good afternoon, supervisors, jeff, director of the department of homelessness and supportive housing. i want to share some information with you regarding why we believe san francisco is currently experiencing a shelter emergency and homelessness crisis. i don't think that we have to walk very far and look out doors to see living on our streets suffering and without access to basic hygiene needs and at this time, we saw that 7,499 people were experiencing homelessness on any given night and i think it's also important to note in any given and there's 25,000 people unique individuals who experience homelessness in san francisco and we have a very high percentage of the homeless

population in our city 58% that are unsheltered living on our streets and 4,000 people on any given night that are sleeping out of doors. thirty-two% of that population is over the age of 51 and 40% having drug or addiction disorders. you will see that there has been where we've had some good successes overtime, we've seen an increase in the number of young people experiencing homelessness and relative to the homeless population and also an increase in the number of people who are over 61 years of age senior citizens who are experiencing homelessness and again, approximately 58% of un sheltered. being unsheltered causes a whole

variety of health-related issues some of which are very obvious not having a place to go to the bathroom to cook food, to take a shower and they're recently in southern california has been an outbreak of hepatitis a which has led to hospitalization and deaths many in the city of san diego and the problem has spread to santa cruz and los angeles and in san francisco, we have been able to do a lot of vaccinations and take other measures to keep that outbreak from happening but none the less the acts of showers to shelter and housing is making us a risk for hepatitis a and other out breaks. we have seen and i'm sure this is again you all are familiar with this issue and receive many of the complaints that i do there's been an increase in the number of complaints related to unsheltered homelessness and you will see here just the very

large increase in 311 calls related to this issue between 2015 and 2017 and you will also see where as we have invested a fair amount in our homelessness response system we have over 2,000 beds of temporary shelter available, mainly 1,389 shelter beds for adults and transition- age youth. we still have a waiting list of over 1,000 people on any given night currently in need of shelter. as such, the mayor has announced his challenge to get a thousand additional people off the streets this winter that will require the expansion of our shelter system to meet the demands that currently exists

helping cut the time it takes for us to bring shelters and other fail facilities online by four to six months and it will sunset in february february 15te looking at right now specifically this resolution to help move forward projects that are going to bring shelter and navigation centers quickly online and at this point we'll turn it over to edgar lopez that will talk to the specifics of the resolution. >> good afternoon exercise, edgar lopez with public works as jeff mentioned the resolution before you would enable public works to implement fast deployment of shelters by allowing us to cut it takes to pre cure construction contracts for us to order trailers, tents, and bring in site utilities to

bring in water and power and sewer and able to cut period time it takes by at least a third and i would be happy to answer specific questions that you may have. >> i see no questions and we have a b. l.a. report. >> good afternoon chair yee and analist office yes as we talk about on page four of our report , for the emergency declaration for 440 turning street the estimated cost of the is 7.8 million in renovations and legislation calendered for wednesday december 13th budget and it would approve the funding for this project and there are more details presented to that

committee and for the emergency shelters mr. lopez i think comments on the two sights looked at right now that are one at fifth and bryant and one on 13th street that are under the jurisdiction of cal trans and our public works is working on the actual defining the project scope and that the department of homelessness will return in january to the board of january 2018 on the estimates for these projects and the code itself defines an emergency is a sudden unforeseeable and unexpected occurrence which isn't the case with these two emergency declarations however they have discretion under the administrative code to declare an emergency and i will want to say and i don't believe it was mentioned in the presentations, it's a question has come up about the open-endedness of the

emergency declaration for homeless shelters and my understanding is that the department would -- >> what they did? >> didn't catch that they did introduce a amendment to the legislation to sunset on february 15th. and we do consider it to be a policy matter for the board. >> thank you for your report. so i don't see the amendments in here. where are the amendments? does anybody have a copy or is someone -- >> that the only thing being requested to be amended? just for records for those that may not have caught it, this is a further amended in to work being asked to be amended and

that says the resolution sunset at the time that the permanent emergency ordinance is enacted or on february 15th, 2018 which ever comes first. any other questions? >> i have a question to our city attorney. city attorney mr. gibner, so this is a resolution effecting the add min code but not amending the addmin code? >> that's right. this section of the administrative code authorizes the board of supervisor to declare an emergency by resolution and authorized emergency work in response to that emergency and the amendment that you have before you

indicates that the board may be adopted -- may adopt an ordinance, it wouldn't technically be an emergency ordinance which say special category under the charter but adopt an ordinance amending the administrative code or exemption s to the administrative code and it would be broader you could wave different competitive bidding processes by ordinance than by resolution. >> so this is not an addment to the code it is accessing that section of the add men code. >> that's right. >> that was it? >> ok. >> any public comments on this item? come on up. you have two whole minutes. >> jim san francisco chamber of commerce i want to thank the mayor and supervisor ronen and we urge them to vote this out

unanimous will he and this is something we've worked with the city and various business organizations for some time believe it's absolutely necessary unfortunately not just necessary here but probably necessary at this level of the state of california but the state has 20% of the homeless population of america supposedly and if we had had a major natural catastrophe or disaster, we would find ways of housing people that are living on the street if it was anybody in this room who was living on the street because an earthquake, there would be emergency housing for us and this will allow your department to move more aggressively and more quickly and perhaps we can urge the state of captain to do the same thing because we're not going to solve this problem in san francisco and we would be trying for decades and we've been doing better jobs for communities but it's a long way to go and the state of california so i thank you on behalf of the business community the authors of this support and urge support and surgery san francisco to look more towards sacramento and

figure out what would do with this state-wide crisis, thank you very much. >> thank you. any other public comments on this item? come on up. if there are other public comments just come on up and lineup over here to your right. to your right and my left. good afternoon i'm director of programming and ucs managing two shelters sick for single adults with 534 beds and two of the navigation centers and we're just here to support the resolution if it's passing and encouraged the board of supervisors to pass it and we believe that there is need occupancy is don cyst enter lehigh and bad weather is coming so we urge and ask that you consider and pass. thank you.

>> hi, good afternoon, my name is holly and i work with the community services and currently i am the program manager of the entry pilot for the city of san francisco and so just to talk about housing homeless people experiencing homelessness in the city and the benefit of them having permanent and benefit them having a place to stay and being stabilized and we see a lot of clients that are coming out of homeless encampments on the streets and we lose about one out of five clients that are high needs and are staying outside and have no permanent place to stay or no temporary place to stay and so we definitely, when clients were able to stabilize them in shelter or navigation center we see there's a higher percentage of success with housing those clients and that those clients

are able to better access case management services in terms of getting documents in it for housing and just in general having a place to stay every night and being able to make appointments on time so thank you. >> good afternoon i'm john warn er the support service mange with the a and i'm speaking in support of the resolution and we're getting clients coming out of the encampment situations and a lot of clients were able to work with as far as getting them immunizations for hepatitis a and b and we're also starting to work with them as far as hepatitis c a lot of the clients coming out of the encampment situations with i.v. drug use have suffered from help c and we're trying to get them in to

treatment for that as well with clients coming in to navigation centers we're able to work with them as far as growth them on to opioid replacement therapies for them and other forms of treatment they might not have gotten and as well a lot of the residents might be hesitant to come in to standard shelter situations and they're getting them in to the navigation centers we're able to talk to them about getting in and more formal shelter system and as well a lot of clients coming in have difficultys holding on to maintaining items such as documentation with housing from us being able to hold on to them and help them with documentation as well as getting them to other appointments but they might not have been able to get to. thank you s. >> thank you. >> my name is dennis