not done anything. i got attacked this morning, yesterday, i'm sorry, when i was trying to put in on some ointment because of an allergy, she kicked me here in my spine, ok and i got no help. screamed to call 911, and abuse i went through being handcuffed again and said i'm crazy -- >> thank you for your comments. thank you. next speaker, please. thank you, kindly. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, c.w. johnson, i'm here to let you know that we definitely oppose the bill 1045 because of all the points that you have already heard. no use my repeating the same things. the thing is that california and you supervisors, you are

innovators, you are risk takers, you are people to challenge the status quo. what we do here in california reflects on all the states. what we do here is repeat it. and you know that. so, if we put out bad law or we put out something like 1045 without taking a look, really taking a good look at it, it feels like i'm in a mike tyson fight. i came to the restroom and this was back and this was here without me having a chance to have a voice on it. i'm looking for you to step up and say let's take a good look at this thing. we are not knocking it, we know it's a necessity, we know that we have some problems, some issues we need to work on, but i just really don't think this is the way to do it. thank you for your time. and have a good afternoon. >> thank you for your testimony, sir. next speaker, please. >> hello again, t.j. bossa, speaking as a district three resident and concerned citizen

on the case of visiting peace advocate, 25-year-old jerome from the southern philippines, from april 17th to 19, and torture and deportation at s.f.o., received having received a ten-year visa to enter the united states. when i first heard the account of what transpired of being made to strip down, subjected to freezing temperature, deprived of fresh food, religious rights, psychological torture, comparison to guantanamo. i'm shocked this is allowed to trans pire in our city and state that prides in progressive values. i believe jerome was profiled for being an outspoken activist against the trump and duterte regimes and a muslim filipino man. you know i'm one of the

thousands of outraged constituents calling for the strong condemnation for this injustice, and full independent and transparent investigation and urge our congressional representatives to do the same. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good evening, glen, district 11 resident, and i'm also here to bring attention to the case of jerome abba, the human rights peace advocate who came here to a speaking tour for the worsening climate and human rights in the philippines. he was a muslim man of peace and invited by the united methodist church network, but he was accused of being a terrorist and went through psychological torture at the airport. held more than 24 hours before

being deported back to the philippines. i see this happening all the time, an example of how black and brown people are unjustly profiled and treated. even though it's something that's common it's still shocking every time it comes up in the community. whether our national origin is here or elsewhere, this treatment tells us and gives the sentiment that we don't belong here. but what actually does not belong here is the tyranny, the bigotry, inhumane treatment and not being accountable by c.p.p. i ask you to condemn inhumane practices at c.p.b., and call for independent and transparent investigation on this matter. >> thank you, kindly. next speaker, please. >> hi, caroline boss, and a

resident of san francisco in district two. i want to tell you a story about my mother, her 65th birthday a couple weeks ago, we chatted about her diabetes care, we, i took her to get a mammogram, or took her to the hospital to check out irregular mammogram that she had. she engaged with my 3-month-old daughter and very healthy and amazing state. compare to three years ago when i tried to get her conserved, because she lives with schizophrenia, and i had run out of options. i had called the police multiple times, she'd been 5150ed multiple times, gotten evicted because of her severe psychosis. she had lost 30 pounds, no way to support herself. no food, no family that was supporting her because we couldn't support her without her taking her drugs. unfortunately, family members like me, this is a story here from many people with severe

mental illness, is that we have to at a certain point say no, we can't help you any longer until you take your medication, until you seek help and i'm so happy because i called the police after one of her 5150s, i called the police every hour for 48 hours so when her 72 hour psychiatric hold would expire, they would consider putting her in the psychiatric facility and they did, and her dignity is restored, and it's a sensitive issue, but i want a way to support people like her so i support s.b.1045. thank you. >> thank you for your testimony. next speaker, please. >> tom gilberti, marijuana

taxis, broken people on the street, airport torture, pretty good day at the office, i would say. i shared my first 12 years with a woman who died in 1962, 78 years old. i didn't know her, i kind of recognized her in pictures and newspapers and she was on the tv screens. and then in the decades since, you know, you find out more stories, there's books. one especially resonated, "the american experience." there was a part of her story, eleanor roosevelt's story about what she did one block away with the, started the birth of the united nations. at the end, every man gave her a standing ovation. she deserves a little statue

here, you know, one block east of us. i would like to adopt two cities, counties, sister cities like we talked about here. the two palestinian states, gaza and the west bank, i think san francisco should lead the way. and these are sister, brother, sister, whatever you want to call them, cities. lost rights, they don't have any. it's an apartheid with the strength, if it takes another 50 years, that's 70 years already, 120, it doesn't matter. they'll be gone. i would love to see san francisco stand up and say we are one with these people. and as far as our government, governments, we need to bring them home. thank you. >> thank you for your comments.

next speaker, please. >> thank you, madam clerk. i noticed you have started to refer to the comments, the public comments as testimony. i would just like to remind you that we are not under oath and therefore, it is not testimony, and i would appreciate it if you would respect that distinction. president breed, ladies and gentlemen of the board, winship hillyer, an involuntary psychiatric outpatient in the city. through the policies of the city i have been disabled. in five years i will be homeless. it is because of what you are doing in this chamber that i am here and that i am disabled and unable to provide for myself and denied welfare. this city provides people with, thought to have mental illness

with two choices. treatment or the sidewalk. so don't give me all this crap about preventing homelessness with treatment. you are causing homelessness. this is treatment. homelessness is treatment for refusing treatment. and this is your policy and you know it's true. madam clerk. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. and mr. duffy, before you begin, if there are any other members of the public who would like to address the board during general public comments, please step up. thank you. please proceed. >> yeah. i also know rita from our neighborhood, and yeah, she's -- she's some, you know, obviously the world ignores her or allows

that to go on. something missing. i don't know if s.b.1045 is the answer, we have to work that out locally. not just her, but we have janet jackson, regularly has the wardrobe malfunctions, pavaroti, the guy, and the tip of the iceberg. so, obviously compassion is the item of the day. you know, i would think somewhere in this city there would be a place we could, some corner where we could grow some hemp, for example, you know. what i was thinking was, madam president, you know, sooner or later this board is going to have to pick a new president, less than a year away, at the longest. and i just hope that we don't make the mistake that we made a few years ago where we picked somebody who is brand-new in the seat, in the chair, just

elected. i hope we pick one of the older, more senior members and you know, to start working, someone who could actually solve some of these problems. for example, the taxi drivers who come in here. i mean, this was an excellent program financing when we really, really needed money we got money from them. but typically in those situations you pay the money back at some point. $5 million a year if we stretch out over ten years, it's like three hours of our city revenue. let's put an offer on the table. that would be something that a board president should be able to do. thank you. >> president breed: any other members of the public who would like to provide public comments, seeing none, public comment is closed. read the items for adoption. >> 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.

>> tenderloin is unique neighborhood where geographically place in downtown san francisco and on every street corner have liquor store in the corner it stores pretty much every single block has a

liquor store but there are impoverishes grocery stores i'm the co-coordinated of the healthy corner store collaboration close to 35 hundred residents 4 thousand are children the medium is about $23,000 a year so a low income neighborhood many new immigrants and many people on fixed incomes residents have it travel outside of their neighborhood to assess fruits and vegetables it can be come senator for seniors and hard to travel get on a bus to get an apple or a pear or like tomatoes to fit into their meals

my my name is ryan the co-coordinate for the tenderloin healthy store he coalition we work in the neighborhood trying to support small businesses and improving access to healthy produce in the tenderloin that is one of the most neighborhoods that didn't have access to a full service grocery store and we california together out of the meeting held in 2012 through the major development center the survey with the corners stores many stores do have access and some are bad quality and an overwhelming support from community members wanting to utilities the service spas we decided to work with the small businesses as their role within the community and bringing more

fresh produce produce cerebrothe neighborhood their compassionate about creating a healthy environment when we get into the work they rise up to leadership. >> the different stores and assessment and trying to get them to understand the value of having healthy foods at a reasonable price you can offer people fruits and vegetables and healthy produce they can't afford it not going to be able to allow it so that's why i want to get involved and we just make sure that there are alternatives to people can come into a store and not just see cookies and candies and potting chips and that kind of thing hi, i'm cindy the director of the a preif you believe program

it is so important about healthy retail in the low income community is how it brings that health and hope to the communities i worked in the tenderloin for 20 years the difference you walk out the door and there is a bright new list of fresh fruits and vegetables some place you know is safe and welcoming it makes. >> huge difference to the whole environment of the community what so important about retail environments in those neighborhoods it that sense of dignity and community safe way. >> this is why it is important for the neighborhood we have families that needs healthy have a lot of families that live up here most of them fruits and

vegetables so that's good as far been doing good. >> now that i had this this is really great for me, i, go and get fresh fruits and vegetables it is healthy being a diabetic you're not supposed to get carbons but getting extra food a all carbons not eating a lot of vegetables was bringing up my whether or not pressure once i got on the program everybody o everything i lost weight and my blood pressure came down helped in so many different ways

the most important piece to me when we start seeing the business owners engagement and their participation in the program but how proud to speak that is the most moving piece of this program yes economic and social benefits and so forth but the personal pride business owners talk about in the program is interesting and regarding starting to understand how they're part of the larger fabric of the community and this is just not the corner store they have influence over their community. >> it is an owner of this in the department of interior i see the great impact usually that is like people having especially with a small family think liquor

store sells alcohol traditional alcohol but when they see this their vision is changed it is a small grocery store for them so they more options not just beer and wine but healthy options good for the business and good for the community i wish to have more ♪ >> welcome to hamilton recreation and aquatics center. it is the only facility that has an integrated swimming pool and recreation center combined.

we have to pools, the city's water slide, for little kids and those of you that are more daring and want to try the rockslide, we have a drop slide. >> exercises for everybody. hi have a great time. the ladies and guys that come, it is for the community and we really make it fun. people think it is only for those that play basketball or swim. >> i have been coming to the pool for a long time now. it is nice, they are sweet. >> in the aquatics center, they are very committed to combining for people in san francisco. and also ensuring that they have public safety.

>> there are a lot of different personalities that come through here and it makes it very exciting all the time. they, their family or teach their kids have a swim. >> of the gem is fantastic, there is an incredible program going on there, both of my girls have learned to swim there. it is a fantastic place, check it out. it is an incredible indication of what bonn dollars can do with our hearts and facilities. it is as good as anything you will find out why mca. parents come from all over. >> there are not too many pools

that are still around, and this is one-stop shopping for kids. you can bring your kid here and have a cool summer. >> if you want to see some of the youth and young men throughout san francisco play some great pickup games, come wednesday night for midnight basketball. on saturdays, we have a senior lyons dance that has a great time getting exercise and a movement. we have all the music going, the generally have a good time. whether it is awkward camp or junior guard. >> from more information, visit

(>> and so first order will be item number 4, presentation from public works about the 201 # one road repaving and street safety bond program and possible action by the committee in response to such presentation.