>> items 42 through 50 are being considered for adoption without committee reference. a single roll call road may enact these items. otherwise may be severed and considered separate at this. >> president breed: i'm going to pull item 42. seeing no other names on the roster, madam clerk, remaining items, please call the roll. [roll call vote taken] 11 ayes. >> president breed: those items are adopted unanimously.

madam clerk, please call item number 42. >> clerk: item 42, resolution to support state senate bill 1045, expanding california's conservatorship law to include individuals suffering from chronic homelessness when accompanied by mental illness, severe drug addiction, repeated psychiatric commitments or frequent use of emergency medical services. >> president breed: colleagues, we have before us a resolution supporting senate bill 1045 authored by senators scott wiener and henry stern, and also sponsored by the city and county of san francisco. s.b.1045 will create a new program focusses on providing supportive housing and intense wrap around services to care for the most vulnerable residents in the city who are unable to care

for themselves due to the triple burden of serious mental illness, substance abuse, and chronic homelessness. to allow for more time to review s.b.1045, this was continued from last week's meeting. i've been listening closely to the debate on this issue and like to say i don't take lightly what this bill seeks to accomplish. caution must be exercised when considering limitations to anyone's civil liberties which conservatorship entails. but the truth is that a small subset of our population faces profound challenges that inhibits their ability to engage in our existing services voluntarily. the highest users of our city services and the most vulnerable population, those who are chronically homeless, mentally ill, and dealing with substance

abuse endure repeated crises day after day after day. and their self-care deteriorates. this causes them to spend more time on the streets and their health eventually fails. we cannot watch people languish like this. under current law we can't intervene adequately. it has been increasingly frustrating to try and work specifically with people in my own district that we can't help. the current law written in the 1960s does not allow a court to consider the effects of psycho active substances other than alcohol. this limitation is completely insufficient to address the realities of substance abuse we see in our communities. today nearly half of all psychiatric emergency encounters in our city involve methamphetamine use, not

alcohol. and we must change the status quo. our existing system is not working for those people. s.b.1045 would provide us the tools and the flexibility we need to change this. i would also like to say that this is legislation that was not created in a vacuum. it was carefully and thoughtfully created by public health experts and agencies who also know the system is not working. the bill is supported by the departments who are frustrated every day with their inability to help those in dire need because of their limitations to the law. this includes the department of homelessness and supportive housing, the department of public health and the department of aging and adult services. the human services agency and the san francisco police department. our late mayor initiated this dialogue, mayor lee, and the

department of public health has since worked to ensure that the eligibility criteria is narrow. that services are indeed available and do not detract from other people and that protections are in place to promote due process. individuals will still be assigned a public defender, and can petition conservatorship status every 30 days. the city currently spends close to $300 million a year to address homeless issues. this includes efforts to provide supportive housing and voluntarily -- volunteer services. more funding alone will not solve this problem. we need more tools and flexibility to use our existing resources as we fight por more supportive housing and services. we cannot wait another day to start taking actions, as it is there will be a long process to implement this bill.

if 1045 passes, the board will still need to adopt and implementation ordinance to actually opt in. this is where we should have robust conversations of what we want the process to look like. what we have before us is an urging resolution. to support an effort that will give us more opportunities tho help those incapable of receiving services involuntarily, it will give us an opportunity to bring people indoors and help them get on the path of stability and recovery for the long-term. we have a moral imperative to act and to start these efforts now. colleagues, i also have one clean-up amendment to the resolution before you, copies i believe have been distributed. this amendment is on page three, line 23, which strikes the word

or, and replaces it with and. so that it's clear that all of those things -- this change clarifies in order to be eligible to be considered for conservatorship an individual must be chronically homeless, suffering from serious mental illness, and a substance abuse disorder. result in the individual unable to care for themselves, frequent visits to the emergency room, frequent detentions by police under 5150 hold, or psychiatric evaluation and treatment. colleagues, i would like to move that particular amendment and i hope i can count on your support with this resolution. >> thank you, president breed. i want to recognize supervisor

yee next. >> supervisor yee: thank you. colleagues, i know all of us are deeply concerned regarding our ongoing homelessness crisis and impacts that it has on those individuals that are living on our streets. and the well-being of our neighborhoods. s.b.1045 seeks to address a part of this problem by proposing a new process for the appointment of a conservator for a person who is chronically homeless and incapable of caring for their own health and well-being due to acute and severe mental illness and severe substance abuse disorder. while i agree that chronic homelessness due to mental health and substance dependency is a crisis -- is a crisis level problem for which we are not currently having a solution, i'm not ready to say that state senator wiener's bill is the right approach until we have

heard from experts in the field and mental health as well as from the service providers in our city. homelessness is a complex tragedy that we need to address as quickly as possible, but we need to do so in a way that is effective, compassionate, and that reflects our san francisco values. in the past few days i have heard from numerous service providers in the homelessness disability, senior, youths and other communities, who are extremely concerned that the bill loosens the standard for conservatorship, and could lead to civil right abuses that allow severely disabled individuals to lose their freedom without receiving access to the proper service and shelter in exchange. i am also concerned that this bill creates a mandate for providing expanded supportive housing and medical and mental health care without actually

providing any funding from the state for us to do so. we do not need another top down unfunded mandate. i do not understand a reason to voting to support the bill without having an opportunity to fully hear from all stakeholders. this does not seem to be a responsible way to address such a serious issue. if there's a claim that we have adequate mental health services, i'm not sure then why during the budget committee hearing almost everybody that came up, department including, stated that we don't have enough money, enough mental health service, the resolution that is authored by supervisor cohen, chair of the budget committee, has a budget ask for the mayor to increase the budget for mental

health services because it's inadequate and i agree with that. so for this reason i cannot support, allowing the resolution to move forward without the benefit of community hearing and i'm hoping that president breed, that you'll schedule a resolution for hearing at committee and once again, i'm not saying i'm against this, but certainly would like to have a little more input from the community. >> madam clerk, at this time i want to recognize, i think president breed made a motion on the floor that was not seconded. >> that's correct. >> i would like to make a second to that motion. >> thank you. >> malia cohen. next speaker will be supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: thank you. i also would love to have a

complete hearing on this resolution. i actually don't know where i stand yet on s.b.1045. there are parts of it that i think make a lot of sense and there are parts of it that i have a lot of concern about. i have been, since the beginning of the year, visiting all of our mental health system in san francisco. i've been to the psych emergency ward at general, i've been to the psych acute ward upstairs, i've been to the hummingbird step down navigation center to the door urgent care and inpatient treatment program, 360, behavioral court, conservator court, touring city services and asking everyone from doctors to our public defenders to our judges, to our

conservator what is going so wrong, why are all of us seeing people in such dire straits in our streets. what could we do to fix this problem. and every single one of them has said one thing. and what they have said is that we do not have enough beds in our system. we do not have enough treatment spots for people with substance abuse, addictions, we don't have enough treatment spots for people with acute mental illness, and when you stabilize someone in psych emergency, or even if you, you know, send them upstairs to the acute ward and you spend a lot of time with a lot of medical attention which is incredibly expensive, and you get them stable, when you release them back on to the streets of san francisco because they are homeless, they immediately deteriorate back to

where we started. and that seems to be the crux of our issue in this city. and i'm not saying that parts of our conservatorship law don't need to be fixed, i do think there are parts that need to be fixed. but in my direct experience working with a woman named alice in my district, living in front of the bart station, 16 street bart, you know what it took to get her inside, it took an intern in my office becoming her best friend and visiting her every single day. and developing trust and developing a friendship. it was intensive case management that convinced her to come inside. i -- that worked. and it took time and it took a lot of resources, but it worked. and we got her her own unit, her own apartment where she was

inside and was not subject to the streets. and that is what eventually worked. she, unfortunately, passed away from stage four cancer but i believe would have successfully stayed in her housing unit had that tragedy not occurred. and the fact that so many of the front line providers are saying this law doesn't -- isn't the fix that makes sense, concerns me. i feel we should at least have a robust discussion in committee. i have a ton of questions for director garcia who sent us a letter today saying that she supportive of this program, but i want to have a dialogue with her about the concerns that we are hearing from the community. so i am not yet ready to say i support or i oppose s.b.1045. but i am ready to say i would like to have a robust

conversation and discuss these issues. so, i would prefer to send it back to committee and will do everything in my power to attend that committee hearing. >> colleagues, before we go on to the next speaker, an amendment on the floor made by president breed and the second has also been accepted. if we can take that amendment and put it to a vote. >> can't we take that without objection? >> yes, we can. i need to call for that. so, we'll take that without objection. thank you. all right. thank you for your comments, supervisor ronen. supervisor fewer. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. i want to echo what my fellow colleagues just said, is that i don't really know enough about this proposal to be able to say whether i support it or oppose it. because i really don't know enough about the situation that we have here in san francisco around resources. so, i know the situation we have here around homelessness and people on the street with

addiction issues and people who are very mentally ill. i think we have all seen our fair share and more of those individuals living on our streets, and some, you know, i have to say, in my neighborhood, you know, i worry about nadine wong, chronically homeless and find her a place and she refuses to go. and as an older chinese woman myself i can relate to her as an older woman being cold and hungry and just living marginally, and i have great empathy for her and if we were to have her under a, you know, conservatorship, i would not want her to be incarcerated. i would want her actually to be in a place where she's getting some service. and i think that i don't know also the budgetary implications

of this. i have heard again through all the testimony exactly what supervisor ronen said, we don't have enough resources, we don't have enough beds, we don't have enough shelters, don't have enough supportive housing and this is what the individuals need. i think that i understand about the problem, i get it, i think that something has to be done. i'm just saying i don't know enough. and so i also welcome more of a conversation about this, but especially because senate bill 1045 does not have any resources attached to it. it's very, very concerning that where are these services going to come from, how are they going to be funded, will the state throw down some money for us. what services are being provided for those who are currently conserved, what are the outcomes for them, will we have to reduce services for others in order to accommodate new

conservatorships, i think these are all questions i would like to have answered and i'm not saying i oppose this, i'm not saying i support it, i am saying that i would like to find out more about this and have a really robust discussion on if this were to pass, what would it take to implement something like this. i would like to ask director garcia what type of resources do you think this might require of us, and since we are going through the budget season right now, i think is really appropriate to have that conversation. thank you. >> thank you. supervisor sheehy. >> supervisor sheehy: thank you, and also, i want to thank president breed for her outstanding description of this bill and for her leadership here. the reality is, is that we are spinning resources already. budget committee director garcia describes an individual 5250, 72 hour psychiatric hold, more than 100 times.

that to me is, does not make any sense. i mean, that person is being traumatized by doing in and taken involuntarily to the hospital, it's costing us hundreds of thousands of dollars. i mean, when i go to my district and i see people who i've seen actually taken to the hospital who then come back, it doesn't make any sense. and that's why i introduced legislation, once we get someone off the streets and into mental health or substance use treatment we can continue to care once their period either in general or at walden house or another mental health facility ends they don't end up back on the streets but i think we have gotten to the points where somehow it seems humane to let someone, and there are three

categories, three boxes that have to be checked. homeless, mental health issues, and substance use issues. are we doing anyone a favor by living, letting them be on, you know, leaving them on the street to slowly die? that's compassion? it -- i just don't understand why we don't make choices and make decisions that, to really try to address this. i've heard from folks with, who have been in leadership to not build a new jail who are supportive of this because where do these individuals end up? they end up in jail. they end up in jail. it's not like people with severe mental illness who are homeless, substance using, are just having a normal life on the street.

and the other thing is, once we get people into treatment, it does not mean we are incarcerating them, we are starting them on a path of careless and less restrictive. but i think we tend to look at the best case scenario and say well, it's going to be that individual. that individual and i know individuals, you know, a kid i talk to at least once a week. this is not going to apply to that kid who is service resistant, as they call it. he's probably not going to go in until he gets a situation that he likes. but he's not mentally ill, he's, he may be, i think he's probably using substances, but he doesn't check all those boxes. what we are talking about are people who are clearly slowly dying because, i talk to mothers of these kids. you know, who tell me we got to do something, and it's so hard

to get action taken. and i guess that's where i always come back to on these issues, is i look and i say if this was my daughter, heaven forbid, if this was my daughter, would i think it was her civil right, would i think it was compassionate for this city to allow her in the state of mental distress, living on the street that i don't think we have an obligation, a responsibility to do something for her? so, that's why i support this bill, and i think as president breed said, this is just the first stage. getting this through the legislature is an important first step. and we talk about resources, but we are spinning the resources already, spinning at san francisco general, spinning at county jail, we are spinning at, d.p.w, d.p.h., we are spinning

resources already on this problem already. and at least let's try to actually help people. >> thank you, supervisor sheehy. president breed. >> president breed: i want to also add that this is an opt in program. so, still a policy that has be agreed to here at the board of supervisors, it's not any sort of un -- it's an unfunded mandate. it's not necessarily a dollar amount attached to it. i appreciate the comments from my colleagues about this particular issue. and this is putting us on record as board of supervisors to support the legislation and would still need to come back to our legislative body in order to implement it, and i think it's the right direction, the right thing to do, so i would hope you consider supporting it. >> supervisor ronen: thank you. just in response to supervisor

sheehy. there are things that i agree with need could be changed about the conservatorship laws. for example, the issue that it allows people suffering from severe alcoholism, a harm to themselves or others to be conserved but not someone taking another substance, like drugs of some sort. that does not make any sense to me and should be changed. but there are other parts of s.b.1045, that a sheriff is making medical calls and i don't understand why that's included in the bill. overall, and again, i think maybe with tweaks i would be on board with the law. but just on record right now and saying i'm totally on board, especially without being able to question the experts, both in

the community and in the city about my concerns, it doesn't make, i'm not comfortable with that yet. but it is an absolute mistake to think that just by broadening the criteria under which we can conserve people suffering from severe mental illness in our street is going to solve the problem that we all agree absolutely needs to be solved. to solve that problem we have to have beds available when people are released from jails, or from our behavioral health court or in the conservatorship program, or from emergency psych ward or from the acute ward. and right now, there are no beds to release people to. they are released, either held in the acute ward at general, by far the most expensive way and the most restrictive way to serve these people, or released

to the streets where they deteriorate almost immediately. so, to pretend that s.b.1045 is going to solve the problem in our street is just going to set our residents up for disappointment. that is not the debate we are having on this. the debate we are having is whether or not our criteria to conserve someone is not fitting the reality of our times or not fitting the reality of the situation on the streets in san francisco. and that's a debate we should be having, and as i said, i do think there should be some changes, but i'm just not convinced that going on record 100% supporting a bill that we have not vetted in committee makes sense. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madam president. this is obviously a very complicated body of policy and whether or not the bill in question is the right public

policy approach or not. i actually am viewing this from a slightly different lens, which is how we as a body take positions on legislation that is pending either in the state legislature or the united states congress and there are some things where all 11 of us are on the same page and it's on the adoption without committee reference calendar. there was an item earlier, a.b.2989 and no brainer and stuck it on the calendar. there are more controversial things like assembly bill 827, we had a split vote but it was after a committee hearing where we heard from the people and we heard from experts. and when i see folks from the drug policy alliance come up here and other folks and i get a letter from our respected director of public health but not here because she's in

sacramento and i want to ask miss garcia questions but i can't do that, i feel this would benefit from a public hearing and i want to agree with supervisor sheehy which is we have to do something, and as supervisor ronen said, our current system, it's either acute or the street, is not ok, and conservatorship has proven effective in many ways. the woman that we heard testify about her mother was extremely moving and important to me. having said that, i guess i have really one question and i don't know if president breed can answer this. is really the timing of when a hearing, a committee hearing in sacramento is going to take place on this bill because for instance, with s.b.827, we knew a hearing was going to take place and needed a position before the hearing and we, you

know, managed to have a committee hearing so we could hear from everybody and have a full board vote on it prior thereto. my understanding is this bill is significantly amended or really just started to take form in the last few weeks. does anybody know when it's going to have a committee hearing? >> president breed: they were at the committee today, so it's already happening. >> supervisor peskin: in committee today, it does not sound like there's any urgency to be voted on if it went before a committee today, maybe we can get this into a committee at the board next week and then back to this body on may 8. that's my suggestion. i would vote for sending it to committee and bringing it back here. >> seeing no names on the roster, on the item as amended, madam clerk, please call the roll. [roll call vote taken]

>> supervisor kim: whether or not to vote this item up or down as amended. >> i thought there was a motion to refer this to committee. >> there was no motion to refer to committee. this is just a motion to amend? >> the motion -- >> already approved. >> i would like to make a motion to send this to committee, on the theory that it comes back here quickly and benefits from the kind of -- >> i apologize, are we out of order and having this discussion? >> when an item is under debate, item to refer to committee does not take precedent -- i should say it does take precedence over the vote. so, supervisor peskin is making a motion to send it to committee. takes precedence over voting on the item itself. >> point of clarification. >> supervisor cohen: i thought we were discussing and getting

ready to vote and supervisor kim interjected in the conversation and then supervisor peskin interjected with a motion. i believe the motion that was already underway for the vote would take precedence. >> through the pres to supervisor cohen, the president did ask the roll call to be voted on, and all due respect to supervisor kim, unless the board wants to override the roll call vote with another vote, the president's call on the roll call does take precedence. >> apologize, i thought i heard supervisor yee to make a motion to move it to committee. i thought that's what -- why have we been discussing sending this to committee then. i thought it was clearly what we were debating whether to send it to committee, not whether we supported the bill or not. an o only one motion on the floor, articulated and seconded.

>> at this time, madam clerk, a step back. supervisor peskin has made a motion to send it to committee. is there a second? seconded by supervisor yee and i want to say i'm not going to be supporting the motion to send it to committee. i think that i continue this item one week to continue to allow discussion to give people an opportunity to talk about this particular issue. it is not completely decided and won't be until if it passes on the state level, it will come back to the board at that time. it's an unfunded mandate, so many of the concerns brought here today are not necessarily things that are relevant to this particular bill. i think it's necessary, i would like to move it forward. i think it's clear in terms of what it's proposing to do. and so with that i won't be supporting the motion to move this item to committee.

please call the roll on the motion to move this item to committee. [roll call vote taken] there are five aye and six no, with supervis-- >> the motion fails. >> and because i had to leave because of family matter last tuesday, i would have made that motion last tuesday, so i'm -- anyway, i'm sorry i was not here for the vote last tuesday. >> understood. on the item as amended, madam

clerk, please call the roll. [roll call vote taken] there are six aye and five no with kim, peskin, ronen, yee and fewer in the dissent. >> the resolution fails. read the in -- >> adjourned in memory of the following beloved individual on behalf of supervisor peskin for the late mr. danny neeson.

>> thank you. any other items before us today? >> that concludes our business for today. >> thank you, we are adjourned. - working for the city and county of san francisco will immerse you in a vibrant and dynamic city that's on the forefront of economic growth, the arts, and social change. our city has always been on the edge of progress and innovation.

after all, we're at the meeting of land and sea. - our city is famous for its iconic scenery, historic designs, and world-class style. it's the birthplace of blue jeans, and where "the rock" holds court over the largest natural harbor on the west coast. - our 28,000 city and county employees play an important role in making san francisco what it is today. - we provide residents and visitors with a wide array of services, such as improving city streets and parks, keeping communities safe, and driving buses and cable cars. - our employees enjoy competitive salaries, as well as generous benefits programs. but most importantly, working for the city and county of san francisco gives employees an opportunity to contribute their ideas, energy, and commitment to shape the city's future. - thank you for considering a career with the city and county of san francisco.

>> we broke ground in december of last year. we broke ground the day after sandy hook connecticut and had a moment of silence here. it's really great to see the silence that we experienced then and we've experienced over the years in this playground is now filled with these voices. >> 321, okay. [ applause ] >> the park was kind of bleak. it was scary and over grown. we started to help maclaren park when we found there

wasn't any money in the bond for this park maclaren. we spent time for funding. it was expensive to raise money for this and there were a lot of delays. a lot of it was just the mural, the sprinklers and we didn't have any grass. it was that bad. we worked on sprinkler heads and grass and we fixed everything. we worked hard collecting everything. we had about 400 group members. every a little bit helped and now the park is busy all week. there is people with kids using the park and using strollers and now it's safer by utilizing it. >> maclaren park being the largest second park one of the best kept secrets. what's exciting about this

activation in particular is that it's the first of many. it's also representation of our city coming together but not only on the bureaucratic side of things. but also our neighbors, neighbors helped this happen. we are thrilled that today we are seeing the fruition of all that work in this city's open space. >> when we got involved with this park there was a broken swing set and half of -- for me, one thing i really like to point out to other groups is that when you are competing for funding in a hole on the ground, you need to articulate what you need for your park. i always point as this sight as a model for other communities. >> i hope we continue to work on the other empty pits that are here. there are still a

lot of areas that need help at maclaren park. we hope grants and money will be available to continue to improve this park to make it shine. it's a really hidden jewel. a lot of people don't know it's here. sfgovtv.org. >> neighborhoods and san francisco as exists and fascist as the people that i think inhabitable habit them the bay area continues to change for the better as new start up businesses with local restaurants and nonprofit as the collaborative spaces the community appeal is growing too.

>> what anchors me to the community i serve is a terminal connection this is the main artery of the southeast neighborhood that goes around visitacion valley and straight down past the ball park and into the south of market this corridor the hub of all activity happening in san francisco. >> i'm barbara garcia of the wines in the bayview before opening the speculation we were part of bayview and doing the opera house every thursday i met local people putting their wares out into the community barbara is an work of a symbol

how the neighborhood it changing in a a positive way literally homemade wine that is sold in the community and organized businesses both old and new businesses coming together to revitalizes this is a yoga studio i actually think be able a part of community going on in the bayview i wanted to have a business on third street and to be actually doing that with the support of community. >> how everybody reasons together to move each other forward a wonderful run for everybody out here. >> they're hiring locally and selling locally. >> it feels like a community effort. >> i was i think the weather is beautiful that is what we can

capture the real vibe of san francisco i love it i can go ongoing and on and on about the life in the as a society we've basically failed big portion of our population if you think about the basics of food, shelter safety a lot of people don't have any of those i'm mr. cookie can't speak for all the things but i know say, i have ideas how we can address the food issue. >> open the door and walk through that don't just stand

looking out. >> as they grew up in in a how would that had access to good food and our parent cooked this is how you feed yours this is not happening in our country this is a huge pleasure i'm david one of the co-founder so about four year ago we worked with the serviced and got to know the kid one of the things we figured out was that they didn't know how to cook. >> i heard about the cooking school through the larkin academy a. >> their noting no way to feed themselves so they're eating a lot of fast food and i usually eat whatever safeway is near my home a lot of hot food i was

excited that i was eating lunch enough instead of what and eat. >> as i was inviting them over teaching them basic ways to fix good food they were so existed. >> particle learning the skills and the food they were really go it it turned into the is charity foundation i ran into my friend we were talking about this this do you want to run this charity foundations and she said, yes. >> i'm a co-found and executive director for the cooking project our best classes participation for 10 students are monday they're really fun their chief driven classes we have a different guest around the city they're our stand alone cola's

we had a series or series still city of attorney's office style of classes our final are night life diners. >> santa barbara shall comes in and helps us show us things and this is one the owners they help us to socialize and i've been here about a year. >> we want to be sure to serve as many as we can. >> the san francisco cooking school is an amazing amazing partner. >> it is doing that in that space really elevates the space for the kids special for the chief that make it easy for them to come and it really makes the experience pretty special. >> i'm sutro sue set i'm a chief 2, 3, 4 san francisco.

>> that's what those classes afford me the opportunity it breakdown the barriers and is this is not scary this is our choice about you many times this is a feel good what it is that you give them is an opportunity you have to make it seem like it's there for them for the taking show them it is their and they can do that. >> hi, i'm antonio the chief in san francisco. >> the majority of kids at that age in order to get them into food they need to see something simple and the evidence will show and easy to produce i want to make sure that people can do it with a bowl and spoon and burner and one pan. >> i like is the receipts that are simple and not feel like

it's a burden to make foods the cohesives show something eased. >> i go for vera toilet so someone can't do it or its way out of their range we only use 6 ingredients i can afford 6 ingredient what good is showing you them something they can't use but the sovereignties what are you going to do more me you're not successful. >> we made a vegetable stir-fry indicators he'd ginger and onion that is really affordable how to balance it was easy to make the food we present i loved it if i having had access to a kitchen i'd cook more.

>> some of us have never had a kitchen not taught how to cookie wasn't taught how to cook. >> i have a great appreciation for programs that teach kids food and cooking it is one of the healthiest positive things you can communicate to people that are very young. >> the more programs like the cooking project in general that can have a positive impact how our kids eat is really, really important i believe that everybody should venting to utilize the kitchen and meet other kids their age to identify they're not alone and their ways in which to pick yours up and move forward that.

>> it is really important to me the opportunity exists and so i do everything in my power to keep it that. >> we'll have our new headquarters in the heart of the tenderloin at taylor and kushlg at the end of this summer 2014 we're really excited. >> a lot of the of the conditions in san francisco they have in the rest of the country so our goal to 257bd or expand out of the san francisco in los angeles and then after that who know. >> we'd never want to tell people want to do or eat only provide the skills and the tools in case that's something people are 2rrd in doing. >> you can't buy a box of psyche you have to put them in the right vein and direction with the right kids with a right

place address time those kids don't have this you have to instill they can do it they're good enough now to finding out figure out and find the future for