thanks the ethics commission staff for facilitating the dialogue. i think it is needed as we go through the inner process and i want to thank the federal ethics commissioners that i met with over the last weeks. this was last before the committee and i appreciate the fact that they are listening to our ideas and remain open to as i said the last hearing having us discharge our duties, and again i want to reiterate my desire that we be given the space to do our job and that they not put this on the june ballot and if we don't do our job, they reserve to put it on the november ballot. i think that as far as the legislation that was forwarded to us, had an effective date of january 1st of 2019 long after the race. having said that, there was a comment from the public and i am actually going to offer an amendment later. to remove that date of january 1st of 2019.

and have at least those provisions that we are able to vote on and pass become effective immediately upon passage long before this would become operative work to go to the june ballot. as a threshold matter, i would like to ask the deputy city attorney and ethics commission staff about the nature of this process because my understanding is that we can only pass something that is identical to what the ethics commission passed. so to a certain extent making these amendments today is a little absurd if they are not taken in whole by the ethics commissioner tomorrow or in future meeting. is that a correct understanding? >> deputy city attorney. >> yes. >> in order to pass the

ordinance or any ordinance amending the chapter, the board and the ethics commission must adopt the ordinants. the same ordinants. the board by 8 out of 11. typically, the way this works is the board will propose something or ethics will propose something and it will go to board committee. the board committee if they do not agree or wants to amend what ethics proposed, the board committee will make amendments and continue it to the call of the chair typically. the clerk will send the ordinants to commission. the ethics commission may pass it. they may offer something else. it will come back to committee. it could be a back and forth. ultimately, both bodies need to pass the same ordinance. >> what would happen if we had a joint meeting of both parties? >> that is an interesting idea. as far as i know, that has never

happened. i don't think there would be a legal problem with that happening with each body making its own separate vote on the proposed ordinance. >> we see that. we see joint meetings between the planning commission on shadow issues. the commission secretaries they have and they have the vote and then they raise the shadow limits unfortunately. >> the board has held joint meetings with the commission years ago. it is definitely something you could do. >> i would like to put that out there, particularly insofar as there -- i don't mean to point fingers at anybody. there is back sliding with regard to my desire that this not be put on the june ballot by the ethics commission by the vote. we have the negotiation. the last little bit of information i heard in my office

with mr. ford was that they wanted to put it on the ballot tomorrow. which means this that they have a handful of dates to take it off. that is the wrong path. i would offer if the president is willing and in the spirit of the amendments that are made by commissioner tang and the ones i am about to make to offer the concept of a joint meeting to see if we can get it done quickly and as i said at the last meeting, get it done right. again, not to sound like i am picking on anybody, but staff at the ethics commission is holding new staff. it is relatively new. you gentlemen are relatively new. the reality is, you guys have been working on the piece of legislation for quite some time. i mean for over a year. and then it comes to you and we

have a compressed time frame to discharge our job and up until this week, i personally communicated my disappointment that the level of communication between staff has not been everything it could be. i am appreciative of the meeting we had this week and the fact that my staff is going to your offices and working out language stuff. the issues that we brought up at the last meeting after having not seen a year's worth of deliberations. by the way, much of that is stuff that i actually introduced here and was said there and we could have acted on in pieces along the way. but didn't. i mean 1.127 land use matters, originally introduced in 2008. and subsequently introduced a year ago.

last night, i actually got an e-mail from a member of the public with the staff recommendations. i was taken a back that the members and the supervisors and the members of the finance committee that we will grapple with it today did not get the e-mail. i am not -- i will to say those things. i want to thank the supervisor for duplicating the file. i think that shows that there is -- it is a message that we are willing to go both ways. the language is something that i have been interested in now literally for a decade. i introduced that in 2008 toward the end of my first go around on the board of supervisors. i am looking for that harmony and maybe the way to do it is to have that joint meeting. i would like to introduce an

amendment to delete the operative date. it means it would be effective 30 days after the mayor's signature. and i want to signal the commission that the board can approve the changes and vote them effective long before the january 1st, 2019, date that is in the legislation before the board. i think this is necessary, prudent and i will work with staff to ensure that they have what they need to implement the changes in advance of the november election. and to the extent in advance of the final lap in the final june election. on page of line 1. i have in section 4, and i have given that to my colleagues. the city attorney has a copy of that and the clerk. section 3.209 subsection b. this is the repeated recusals.

section -- page 31. line 23 through 32. i would delete this section. in my reading of this, i still think the section poses a problem. you have spoken to the fact -- the board supervisor should be taken out. as part of the community, i don't mind being regulated. but the 2 weeks ago, under state law, any of us are presumed as a matter of law to have a conflict if there is an appeal within a thousand feet of real property that we own. in my case last year in 2017, this never happened to me in the years i served on the board until last year, lo and behold by chance, there were two land appeals in 1,000 feet of my property. i didn't know what to do. i talked to the city attorney and recused myself of the board.

had there been a third, my neighbours are upset i was not able to actually vote. i would recuse myself. i hear you about the broad nature of the jack of all trades and expert at none. i hear you. and it does make sense in the commission context. in my office, discussion with the ethics commission staff, i think the responses have been in adequate as to how the commission intends to calculate the one percent threshold in subsection 2. and more critically, i don't know understand why there is a penalty for taking the proper step to recuse itself. that is a disincentive to recusal. a couple of weeks ago, isn't a recusal a good thing. we want people to do the right thing and recuse themselves. the bottom line is that absent clear objective rules when the board should recuse himself for

a conflict of interest, we cannot allow the member to decide for themselves whether they should make the call. i am not satisfied with the explanation i received from staff that, you know, what is good for los angeles is good for san francisco. i am certainly open to that. lastly, the staff has new recommendations for the commission deliberation tomorrow. i would like to introduce formally my major donor disclosure amendments. as my colleagues on the committee know, i introduced stand alone ordinance this tuesday that would require major donors to disclose additional information regarding business interests in san francisco.

we cannot ban the behaviour, unfortunately because political mediators -- before the supreme court. the people of san francisco deserve to know why the individuals and the entities who are dumping millions of dollars into the local political economy are doing so. i think that is good public policy. that should be implemented as quickly as possible. and i am so far impressed by the willingness of my colleagues to move this forward expeditiously. i want to thank the board president for the willingness to waive the 30 day rule. i want the ethics commission to waive is properly and send it to the board of supervisors. i distribute a new section, 1.158. major donors financial disclosure that begins at line -- page 20, line 4 and extends to page 22, line 2. and at page 22, line 2 -- page

23, line 11. a number of members that require real-time disclosure and audio and video requirements as to who the contributors are no the advisors. this is commonplace in other jurisdictions. lastly at page 24 lines 1 through 8. clarifying that the advertizers, the top three contributors must be disclosed. as i am thinking about it, and maybe i can hear from colleagues with regard to the recusal, maybe what staff is saying works for the panel, i might hold on to my notion of deleting the recusal. one possibility is we can delete the recusal in one of the copies and not in the others. we are showing the commissioner willingness to hear from them and try to come up with

something to pass quickly. delete it in one maybe, and not the others, the amendments are on the table. >> any comments? refer to public comment. are there members of the public that wish to speak to the item? >> super san francisco human services network. i want to comment today. on content of the legislation. i want to express our deep appreciation to the board of supervisors for taking a thorough look at at this legislation that is deeply

flawed and many of your proposed amendments to address some of the serious concerns. we have not seen a written version of all the amendments that are on the table. and there is also a new version for the ethics commission. there was a new version on tuesday and then another version on wednesday. that is what they are discussing for putting on the ballot for friday. we have not really had time to read what they are proposing. we do appreciate and support and urge everybody to accept this collaborative process where everybody can work together to look at what is on the table. there is no reason whatsoever to rush to the ballot in june.

the supervisor noted, there is no reason to wait for a january date. it can take effect earlier. also once it goes on the ballot, there is no opportunity to tinker with little thinks when we find out in the real world that does not work. there are unintended consequences. we live in a city with a spirit of collaboration and stakeholder engagement and public participation in the process. there is a reason why we have a high threshold before the members of the ethics commission. >> thank you very much. the next speaker. >> good morning. we have 180 members who are part of our association.

i just want to appreciate the thoughtfulness brought to the process. we are encouraged by the spirit by the board of supervisors and the members and staff of the ethics commission and are encouraged on the legislation. as noted by the folks, this is important legislation and to get it right. to ensure that not only public trust is felt by institutions and unintended consequences that will harm the san francisco residence or hinder the ability for philanthropy to address the complex issues affecting the city. we hope that the commission and the board will continue to work together. we are in support of the supervisor suggesting to hold joint hearings so the legislation can move forward actively and effectively. working together to get it right. thank you.

>> good morning. i am on the california council for alliance for justice. a national association of non-profits and we focus in large part on helping other non-profits and provide better voices to advocacy. from that perspective, i would like to thank the board for its very thoughtful and meticulous work on the legislation. i would like to thank ethics staff for clearly having taken into account some of the things that we along with the non-profit partners have been stressing throughout the conversation. on that note, i will say that i do agree with the supervisor

thoughts about the repeated recusals provision that i share. some of the concerns that not only in state law rather forceful requiring recusal, including the political reform act and the section 1090 of the government code. this is the area of expertise. and serving on the commission allows them to further serve their communities by bringing that expertise to the board. i would like to emphasize that we really support a lot of the changes that we have seen made to the legislation. particularly being in a financial -- rather than vague

terms such as favours. and also tieing the influence to voter official action. on the matter of recusal... >> thank you very much. >> i am with the council of community housing organizations. i want to say thank you for the process. i think it is moving the legislation forward in a good way. i have not read the new amendments. i think it sounds like they are moving in the right direction. we encourage you to continue to work collaboratively with ethics on creating legislation that works well. i think this is the way to do it. working down a legislative pathway. rather than a ballot measure. again, thank you for all the work that you are doing on this. >> thank you.

>> thank you. issues to members of the committee for consideration. we are appreciative of the fact that you are taking time to add additional things. to tell you what they are, we do think that the land use issue needs to move forward now. this is the time when land use decisions are being made. we think that is important to happen now. we think that the bundling provisions should include contractors, somehow -- making contributions, they left out bundling. and the thought of the ethics commissioner, [no audio] fundraiser for people who are going to make decisions. the answer is yes, you can. unless you change that. we think that influencing the provision about influencing decisions should not be limited

to financial. if you take a look at the lobby page that is downloaded in excel and look at the government decisions, you will find that a very significant of lobbying in city hall. and what kind of policies will take place. with this, that and the other. it is all in financial interest that take place. i think that the language that was there before about attempting to influence legislative or administrative decisions can be modified. the commissioners making contributions is too narrow. there is places where there is no commission for hundreds of millions of dollars. the language means that you

cannot contribute to [indiscernible] >> thank you very much. >> the -- i'm an officer of the ethics commission. i have been onboard of non-profits for 20 years. i will bring my experience forward. i have two process questions outside specific the legislation. first, we don't know whether the supervisor has considered technical issues, we don't know if there is the two supervisors voting or not. that is something that the public ought to know who can vote or not. because you will have a split

vote if it is two people. i want to go back to some of what we have been saying from our end of advocacy. one of the ethics commissioner voted against it because he thought it was not strong enough. there was no private action. if you want to look at comparability and have across the board -- which has been around for decades and not include it in here, that there is no [indiscernible] i bring to mind the scenario of a few years ago, where a real estate professional on a building inspection commission handled [indiscernible] i am suggesting for clarification. for non-profit people, there were open communities.

they need better training by the ethics of the non-profits this will not cause the sky to fall. this will not cause -- it will not chill the silence. >> thank you. >> any other questions? the comments are now closed. colleagues, discussion. yes, supervisor? >> i just wanted -- and i will need help from the supervisor and maybe from the deputy city attorney, but i was kind of recalling the cannabis conversation that we had two different files. it is slightly different, because we had the discussion with the ethics commission. i was thinking that perhaps one duplicate file could incorporate all of the recommendations because there has been no action by the ethics commission that have been made by ethic

commission staff. 1.1.27 would be stricken, all of the recusal provisions that staff discuss would be all in one file. the other file would have the amendments made by supervisor tang and myself. i forget what -- you have a nice word for what we call the two files. clean file and the amended file or something like this. it is two amended files. one would take the staff recommendation. the other would include all of our amendments. >> and the cannabis context we call them clean and dirty. (please stand by) and we could

actually then work out the remaining details. let's see, all 16 of us. >> supervisor tang: thank you. so i think it's fine to do the

bulky and clean version. i want to qualify that the land use amendment that i would like to propose then, it would be in the bulky version where the land use piece is removed and then the clean version where the land use stays. >> maybe in this context we should use different terms. because there is the ethics version which where you would be removing the land use piece, because the ethics staff is recommending removal of section 1.127. maybe call it the ethics version and the committee vrgs. the committee version you would keep 1.127 and make all the amendments that you and supervisor peskin are proposing. >> supervisor tang: thank you. and then i also wanted to ask, attorney givener, is this

technical, i would think it's not technical. >> yeah, both sets of amendments and nearly every piece of each of those amendments is substantive. as i mentioned earlier, not only does this committee need to act on the amendments again, but the ethics commission would need to act. so the only action you could take after making these amendments is to continue the item. >> so i see supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: just a quick question with regard to the amendments. i want to make sure, acting chair, are all the amendments that you discussed and supervisor tang, are they in this document? or were there additional amendments made that are not in the document? >> i believe they're all in the document, but the three that i made were to the operative date to repeated recuesals and the

addition of 1.158, major donors and then supervisor tang made a series of additional amendments. i believe they're all loaded. i just want to make sure we have everything in writing. >> yes, we've got two different documents. one that supervisor tang has prepared and one that supervisor peskin has prepared. and everything that was mentioned by the two supervisors has been drafted. my office is going to have to put those two puzzle pieces together, but they will fit. >> ok. then with regard to the amendments put forth by the ethics commission staff, are those before us today? i know they're out there, but if we're talking about adopting

them, i don't think they're before the body in terms of -- i mean, they're not in front of us physically at this time? >> you could adopt those amendments. it's within your authority. the document that the ethics commission staff prepared is on the ethics commission's website as attachment to the agenda. i have it up, i could e-mail it to you, but my office doesn't have hard copies of it. >> if i may, madame chair, for the purpose of continuing this conversation inso far as it does exist on the welcome back site and it's a message to the ethics commission we are playing ball and have a bunch o balls in and the air and we're not taking action today. this is forwarded by the clerk to ethics and both items will be continued to the call of the chair. there is obviously merging that has to be done. eventually, it would appear

again in committee and again at the full board. >> supervisor stefani: that's right. >> is there a motion on the item? >> if i could just reiterate. i've duplicated the file which -- any single member of the committee can duplicate the file and you can amend each one. >> i would love if it a member was willing to duplicate the file, have the committee version file and ethics commit file as discussed by members and nonmembers of the committee. >> yeah, so i would like to make a motion to duplicate the file and adopt the amendments put forward by supervisor peskin and supervisor tang today and also -- that's my first motion. >> supervisor fewer: i would like to make a motion to continue this item to the next

committee meeting. right. >> supervisor stefani: ok. >> supervisor fewer: does that motion cover what we discussed. >> you still have to have the duplicated file that contains ethics. >> shall we vote on this motion and we can make another motion to continue the ethics version to the call of the chair as well? >> yeah, i recommend two motions, one on the ethics verse and one on the committee version. >> i understand that we have a motion before us to duplicate the file to accept the amendments that have been presented before us and to continue this meeting, this item, to the call of the chair. is that correct? yeah. >> it's my understanding that the matter has been duplicated. one of the duplicated files will include the ethics commission amendments and the other will include the committee's amendments.

and both items are to be continued to the call of the chair. my understanding. >> supervisor fewer: yeah. >> supervisor stefani: we don't need another motion. >> supervisor fewer: then, i don't think this requires a second. and can we take this without objection? ok. >> i just have one question for the clerk, can we ensure that the entire ethics agenda item 4 packet including the staff recommendations and our amendments is included in the board legislative file going forward? >> clerk: yes, i will include it. do you want me to include it in both versions? >> yes, both versions. >> clerk: i will retrieve that in place it into the file. >> supervisor fewer: we can take that without objection. >> clerk: the matters were duplicated, amended and continued to the call of the chair. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much.

mr. clerk, any items before us today? >> clerk: completes the agenda for today. >> supervisor fewer: there is no further business before the committee, the meeting is now adjourned. thank you very much.

>> mayor farrell: first i want to start off on this amazing san francisco day by thanking phil tinge in securing the $10 million funding allocation for the state and overall support for the homelessness initiatives. i want to thank seniors ronen, cohen and kim. and their willingness to open these crucial centers in their districts and be part of the vote to accept and expend the $10 million of funding. i want to acknowledge david chu for his commitment to tackling california's issues up in sacramento and homeless issues as well. we're honored to have great leaders just as tinge and chu up in sacramento representing the members of san francisco. we're all here because we understand that our city like our cities across the state of

california, is undergoing a homelessness crisis. our streets and sidewalks are filled with people who are struggling with mental health challenge, drug addiction and poverty. this cannot be the status quo. it cannot be the new normal and it is not something we're going to accept here in san francisco. homelessness is a complex issue that requires a full gamut of solutions. we have to prevent people from losing their homes and we're doing such great work as a city, when you think about the move assistance programs, the eviction prevention programs and the grants we have that remove barriers to housing. we're doing that work here in san francisco. in the unfortunate circumstances where people do lose their homes, we have to pursue measures that are successful and proven here in the city of san francisco. such as our homeward bound and

navigation centers, truly working to save the lives of people on the streets every day. these centers are a crucial part of the program in san francisco, compassion. but commonsense in addressing homelessness. we cannot allow our residents, those that are living on our streets to live in unsanitary, inhumane tent encampments. nobody is getting better sleeping in a tent at night. we have to do everything we can to get people off the streets and into better lives. since our first navigation center opened, we have taken 2000 people off the streets. with the help of this funding, we're going to open two new navigation centers that will provide 250 new beds, helping our goal as a city to move one thousand people off the streets this winter.

these are impressive numbers, but our navigation centers and our efforts as city are not about numbers, they're about individuals, about helping those individuals on the streets. as i said before, these are our mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, we need to do everything we can to help get them onto better lives. we're lucky to be joined today and i'm honored to have standing by me,up. i want to tell you about john's story. john was served here at the dog patch and this morning got amazing news, since moving in the bay area 19 years old, john has experienced homelessness and drug abuse challenges, but last year he was put in touch with the navigation center and his life has turned around. he's been a model resident. acquired all the documents, social security card, mental health certification, his birth certificate. applied for every program including receiving his cal

fresh benefits. he kept all his scheduled points with his case manager and complied with all scheduled mental health meetings. all that hard work and commitment has now paid off. just this morning, john told me, he was notified that he has been given a place in the supportive housing unit here in san francisco. [applause] and here's the notice. this is what we're talking about. this is the benefit of our navigation centers. taking individuals who are living homeless on our streets, people like john, who we need to embrace as a city and now we have the proof and now john is going to be into housing. that is what we need to do in san francisco time and time again. it's the reason why we continue to support our navigation centers. why we continue to thank all the staff that are here today that work in the navigation centers, that john has worked with so

closely over the past few months. and these are the reasons why we're so grateful to assembly member tinge for his hard work in sacramento to secure the funding for these two navigation centers in san francisco. and to everybody here on the board of supervisors for working together on the initiatives. it is what we need to do in the city of san francisco and it's what we're doing in the city of san francisco. there is no better proof than hearing the stories and seeing the piece of paper with john's name on it and individuals getting into housing. with that, i want to introduce our great partner in san francisco and worked to get the funding, assembly member, phil ting. >> thank you very much, mr. mayor. i just wanted to thank you

personally. you've been fighting on this issue during your entire time in office and during the entire time on the board, it's been your number one issue. i also wanted to thank the three other supervisors, cohen, ronen and kim. they have been incredible advocates. tireless advocates on this issue and every day having a laser-like focus. i wanted to acknowledge my partner in sacramento, a housing warrior, we've been working up there not just to fight homelessness, but tacking this housing crisis that has been affecting us. i know jeff sparks is here from senator weiner's office. thank you for being here, senator weiner couldn't be here. they're at a senate democratic caucus retreat today unfortunately. but as we know, homelessness is a crisis, not just in san francisco, but up and down the state. we talked about 7500 people who

are homeless today. a couple thousand people every single night on our streets in every single neighborhood. i live on the west side and the west side is not immune to homelessness at all. if you go take a walk through, run through golden gate park, you see a number of folks who have used that as their nightly bedroom. i had a homeless person who decided to sleep in my car for a little while because they were looking for shelter when it was parked in front of my house. this is an issue that has touched every one of us. i agree with the mayor, we cannot accept this as the new normal. l.a. has a homeless population around 40-50,000 people. that would be a medium-sized city here in the bay area. we know this is not just a city problem, it's no a county problem, this is not a state problem, it's a federal problem

and we know in california we have to do our part and step up to the plate. that's why i was so proud to work with the supervisors, the mayors office in making sure we got $10 million for navigation centers, for housing tied to services, for housing that is meant not just to be temporary shelter, but shelter that is going to move people like john onto more permanent solutions, so they don't have to choose where to sleep tonight. they can have a life moving forward. and that's why i'm so excited to work with the city that really gets it. this is something that is not just happening in san francisco. we had a number of colleagues. we funded navigation centers in elk grove, in modeso county. people are popping up on their

doors steps, in their streets, in their parks. they're looking for help. we hear that message in sacramento. we're going to be working hard this year to tackle this issue, which is a statewide and national issue and we cannot accept we have people on the streets every single night, counting that as their bedroom. we have to do something about it. we cannot accept that as an alternative or as something that is ok to happen in san francisco or really anywhere in california. so, with that, let me turn it offense -- over to my colleague, david chu, who has been a real partner in this effort. [applause] >> i had a san francisco experience this morning, my first interview with my son, 2 years old, for nursery school, i'm sorry about that.

but i know today is in part a celebration for john. and i want to congratulate you for what we just learned, but we're here because there are still thousands of san franciscans, men, women, children, families. there are hundreds of thousands of californians who are suffering every day on the streets of our golden state. there is so much more that we need to do to address this. phil referred to the fact this is not just a crisis in san francisco, it's a crisis in california. when i went to the legislature in 2014, we had the highest rates of homelessness in the country here in california. 20% of america's homeless here in our state. today, that statistic is 25%. in 2014, one out of three, chronically homeless americans live in california. today that statistic is 42%. the crisis that has been here in our city is now all over the

state. we read about hepatitis a outbreaks in san diego, but e. coli in the american river, near the sacramento delta. we read about the pain and suffering that we're seeing everywhere, every corner of our state. i want to take a moment and thank all of the men and women behind us who have come together with this, starting with phil ting. it's been amazing partnership working with him, trying move forward an agenda that addresses not just our houses crisis but homelessness crisis. as well as all the supervisors, the mayor, the department heads, the leaders moving this forward. san francisco is leading the way when it comes to pioneering this model of navigation centers and that is incredibly important. we know the work is not going to end here. last year, we were fortunate to move forward a historic housing

package that creates a permanent source of funding for housing. this year, half of that money is going to address homelessness around the state of california. i want to thank governor brown for signing a bill, housing for california which pilots the idea that supportive housing after navigation centers is the most effective way to take care and take folks off the street. that being said, the work is not ending. i know every elected official here is continuing to strive to make sure that some day we don't have anyone who is homeless on our streets. phil and i have more things we're going to say on the topic, but i want to thank all of you for being part of the compassion that is the city of st. francis. thank you very much. >> good afternoon, everyone. my name is hillary ronen, i'm the supervisor of district 9,

which includes the mission district which has been plagued by tent encampments in many years. as in john's case, the only thing that really solves homelessness is housing. but the thing that solves street homelessness, people living in tent encampments on our street, dangerous conditions and squalor are navigation centers. i'm so proud of the work i did with phil ting. when i got into officer a year ago and was able to security the temporary navigation sent which allowed us to reduce the number of tents in the mission from at a high before the navigation center opened, of 246 tents, to today, or actually yesterday, of 40 tents in the mission. that work was only possible because we opened that temporary navigation center. i did that together with noou

ryu and jeff co-sin ski. we opened that center to solve the crisis in the mission, but we know we only have that center for a certain amount of time. i wasn't to phil ting, the chair of the budget committee and i said, please help us get the funds to find a replacement navigation center for wen this one closes. he said absolutely, we cannot only have temporary solutions, we need permanent solutions and he went and was able to obtain a record amount of money for san francisco to deal with our homelessness crisis, $10 million. which is now allowing us to open not just one navigation center when 1515 south closes down, but two. one will be on bay shore and the

other at division circle. so i just wanted to thank the assembly member for really stepping up to the plate in unprecedented ways. i want to thank my two colleagues on the board, supervisor cohen who had to go to another appointment, who is the supervisor of district 10. where we are, the dog patch navigation sent. and supervisor kim, the supervisor of district 6 who hosts the majority of homelessness services and other types of intervention in her district. districts 6, 9 and 10 take the bulk of this problem and offer up the solutions in our city. we do want to see more geo graphic equity and we'll be looking at that as we all work together to achieve our former

mayor ed lee's dream of adding one thousand new navigation center beds in our city. so we can truly once and for all end the street encampment crisis that plagues san francisco. with that, i turn it over to supervisor kim. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, supervisor ronen. many of the comments have been made, but i want to thank assembly member ting and chu for their leadership in sacramento. homelessness is a statewide issue, it is not just a san francisco issue. we will never solve homelessness if we treat it just as a regional issue. we absolutely must have a statewide solution. and as was mentioned previously, we host close to 20-25% of the entire nation homeless count in this state. i want to thank both of them for leading the first grant ever for

navigation centers here in san francisco, which will get us a quarter, 25% of the way there, to mayor ed lee's goal of getting one thousand people off the streets into navigation centers. i want to thank the residents in districts 6, 9 and 10 who have been generous, understanding, that in order to get people off the street, we need to place navigation centers in their neighborhoods by their home. the district where i represent, where supervisor ronen mentioned, we see 50% of the homeless count and the vast majority of our homeless services and shelter beds. i want to thank our residents for being open-minded and saying yes to more navigation centers and shelters, instead of saying no we don't want to be part of the solution. i also want to recognize the staff that do this work on the front lines every day. this work is incredibly

difficult and i know we have some of the members of the episcopal community services behind us here today. i was reminded by two of the staff members that the night that i stayed at next door shelter, they were staffing the night i was there. and i have to say that everybody treated we with dignity and respect. that i was a member of the board of supervisors. and how important it is to create an environment that creates more trust and respect and not less. because people won't accept services if we don't do it the right way. finally, as supervisor ronen mentioned, i want to thank my two sister colleagues in 9 and 10 who are accepting more shelters and services. not just accepting it, but fighting for it and asking for it. we cannot solve this issue if the entire city isn't a part of that. and we have to make sure we're

addressing homelessness both as an economic issue, but also a public health issue as well. we have to continue to serve our population, providing medically appropriate services, so that we can help more folks end up in supportive housing like john here today. thank you very much to everyone. this is a really major effort and this is going to go a long way toward us meeting our goals. thank you. [applause] >> good morning, everyone, jeff can the department of homelessness and supportive housing. thank you for being here today. and i just wanted to point how difficult it is to get these centers open and how difficult it is to operate them. and it really does take this entire city coming together to make this happen. i want to thank the neighbors of the dog patch. i don't know if anybody is here. the dog patch community neighborhood association has

been incredible and helpful and i want to thank the staff of ecs and providence foundation. providence is here on site providing service, cooperating the site, along with ecs, as well as the partners from the human services agency, and the department of public health, who i believe are here today. they're also providing services, enrolling people in benefits and providing them with medical care. i want to thank the port. this is on porlt property and the port was gracious to work with us to make sure we were able to secure the property for the next three years to operate the navigation centre and the folks standing up here, the department of public works, helped identify the site, made sure it was going to work, designed it and this is a beautiful facility. really, really well thought out and then built the site and made sure it got built fast. probably in record time despite

multiple challenges we had with utilities and other things. they did an amazing job and also their ongoing work lepping to keep the -- helping to keep the streets clean. supervisor ronen has been just a fierce champion for navigation centers in her district and city-wide and helped make this funding possible by working with assemblyman ting and to make sure it got used in the best way possible. in terms of the size of the sites. i don't know how to thank you, 250 new beds, going serve thousands of people a year. thanks to you and your advocacy. we would not have had the funds to do this without your advocacy, that's a thousand people we're going to be able to help thanks to you and your

leadership and muhammad and supervisor ronen. mayor farrell has picked up the torch from mayor lee. normally, we serve about 7,000 people in shelter every year. we're housing 2000 people a year and now we're going to assist an additional thousand above that thanks to mayor lee's vision and mayor farrell's support. and pushing us to move this forward. assemblyman chu is also really doing the important work as homelessness is about housing. and he has taken incredible leadership at the state level to building affordable housing and housing at all levels, because tend of the day, navigation centers don't solve homelessness, housing solves

homelessness. we have del up here, he is the head of the local coordinating board that oversees the funding that we have in the city for homelessness and director and formerly homeless himself. and supervisor kim i believe had to leave. she has been supportive and really amazing around the issue of women experiencing homelessness and have had us expand for women who are homeless. that nav center will have a special section for women, and a new program that are serving women who are homeless and pregnant. and certainly not least, supervisor cohen who is the chair of the budget committee and has been supportive of facility opening in her district. this one and another one opening up. has been working with our department to ensure we have the funding we need to move forward

and achieve our goals as a city. thank you all very much for being here tonight. today. we appreciate you all being here. i think we can, folks want to take a look at the nav center, a few at a time, we can do a walk through if you want to see the site. [applause]

[gavel] >> welcome, everyone, to our land use committee meeting of february 12, 2018, monday. i am katie tang, chair of this committee, and we're joined by