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. i want to thank everybody for joining me here today for this

special announcement. we're all here today because we care about our home. we care about the city of san francisco. san francisco is a world class city. we have world class attractions. world class institutions. we have world class residents. and a world class civic leaders. but we have a world class problem right now. our streets are filthy. filled with debris, litter, human waste and drug paraphernalia. it's unacceptable. the status quo on our streets today is unacceptable. a child should not have to walk over a needle on their way to school in the morning. a business owner should never see garbage strewn across their store front in the mornings. this is not confined to one neighborhood or district, it's plaguing communities across the entire city of san francisco and affecting residents and families in every part of our city.

and we need to act as a city government. so that is why today, i'm introducing our city-wide and comprehensive street cleaning plan. a far ranging plan that seeks to address these challenges across the entire city of san francisco. over the next two years, i'm committing over $13 million in new funding that will make our city cleaner, safer, and healthier for all residents. and i am making clear today that this is a top priority for me. and i will work every day as mayor to see this plan through. these new investments will include 44 new neighborhood cleaning workers. which means every single supervisor -- and i want to thank supervisor safai for being here, supervisor kim for being here, who has started atlantic lot of the -- a lot of the conversation inside city hall.

they will be able to allocate where the street cleaners will go, because it is our neighborhood supervisors and their district supervisors that know their own neighborhoods. that know their own districts. they will target corridors that are most in need of this help. we're also going to have a dedicated cleanup team in the south of market district. the area where we have the most residents, visitors and people working in our city than any other neighborhood in san francisco. if you've taken a walk there lately, you will understand the need for street cleaning in that area. in addition, we're going to be extending our pit stop system. pit stops which are safe monitored public toilets, or proven model to reduce human waste in our industry. let's be clear, san francisco resume departments, our visitors, the people who work here should not be seeing human waste on our streets. when people defecate and urinate

on our streets, the city has to do something about it. we're increasing the pit stop hours at five of our existing pit stops. they're going to be added to high risk communities, where we see the most amount of human waste in the city. we want to make sure people have a dignified place to use the bathroom, in a dignified environment. an environment that will keep our city streets clean. we're also supporting these additional new staffing and operations with additional equipment. our two-year budget will include over $3 million for new equipment which includes some of these rival street cleaners that you see today. after we're done, there will be a demonstration of the new street cleaners if you would like to be here and stick around. these street cleaners make a difference in our neighborhoods, they make a difference on our streets and that's what we want to do with the funding

initiative. these are all great new investments and we're also pairing them with other initiatives. so we have a great fix-it team here in the city of san francisco, led by sandra. i want to thank her for being here today. there she is. [applause] these fix-it teams have been created for a specific reason, to respond to our neighborhood needs and respond quickly. each community in san francisco, each neighborhood in san francisco we know has its own issues. whether it's broken streetlights, graffiti, needle pickup. our fix-it team is pounding the pavement every day, addressing quality of life concerns in a quick and efficient manner. i know every single neighborhood that has seen a fix-it team has been overwhelmed with response and positive by the effect we're having in the neighborhoods. i want to thank sandra who is here today for leading the team.

she does an amazing job listening to our community and coming up with specific plans for every single neighborhood. because of her team success, we'll grow from 25 to 35 teams across the entire city of san francisco. and these new street cleaning investments where we see the fix-it team expanded will build upon the existing efforts we're leading on our streets today. earlier this week, we announced the creation of a new rapid response team specifically dedicated towards picking up our needles and syringes. they'll be canvassing hot spots, identified by residents, and they will address this health epidemic in our city. we have a needle epidemic and we're finally doing something about it. so together this is an ambitious effort. and i know i only have a few months left as the mayor of this great city of san francisco, but

i plan on sprinting to the finish. i know i'm surrounded by dedicated city officials, elected officials and committed people who want to see our city cleaned up and who are eager to carry out these initiatives. i want to thank mohammad, our department of public works director, and your entire team, many of which are behind us today. [applause] again, i want to thank supervisor safai, whose district we're in today, as well as supervisor kim, who has been pressing on these issues or some time. this is an issue that affects every single resident of san francisco. this will be a sprint to the finish. but i want to make sure that san francisco residents know that as mayor of this city, i am committed to make sure i leave our streets in a cleaner, safer environment than they've been before. with that, i want to thank you all for coming and i'm going to

bring up muhammad nuru, head of the department of public works. >> let me begin by thanking mayor farrell for the leadership who has shown in providing some of the resources that we need to clean up all the things that the mayor said. our city is a beautiful city and we have some areas, challenges we're faced with every day. these resources will definitely go towards helping change some of those concerns that we have. those 44 sweepers that will be in the various neighborhoods in san francisco, i will work with the various supervisors and they'll tell us some of the areas they're concerned about. those sweepers will be block sweepers. many cities all over the world, paris, london, shanghai, it's this model they have used, having someone on the block that takes care of several blocks and

that person makes sure it's clean, free from graffiti, but more importantly build a relationship with the people on the blocks so there is communication and dialogue and then we're able to get that back to the department level and bring our partners in to respond. i know this will make a difference, because it's on the block, block by block, we'll take our city back. the additional hours to the pit stops will also make a huge difference. when we started this program, since two years, 2014, we have seen a huge increase in the number of flushes. so increasing hours will definitely make more bathrooms available to people who want to use them. it's for everybody, not just the homeless or just a certain group of people, all people can use them, they're staffed, clean and they're a good place. when you want to go, there is a new place for you. five new locations also. we will look for those locations

all around the city and that will make a difference. our fix-it teams, we're really excited about the work that they do. they're the arm that really gets into the neighborhood and gets to hear the concerns that people have about the city and they work with all the city departments to address those problems. so it's not just the quality of streets, or the trees, it's also the parking signs, the crosswalks. it's all the things that affect the quality of life. all these programs, in addition to the funding for new equipment will help us. right now, because of all of the demands, we're getting hundreds and hundreds of calls every day and we're double and trip-shifting our steam cleaners and a lot of our equipmentment with this funding we'll be able to buy more equipment and focus in the many hot spots in the areas that we get calls. and i'm really excited about that. i want to thank the supervisors for their leadership, but most importantly mayor farrell has taken a step in the right

direction for this city and i'm proud to lead the department of public works, because we're ready to do what san francisco expects from us from public works. thank you. [applause] thank you. welcome to district 11, i'm supervisor safai. i want to start by saying that this is a real proposal. this is a real solution. i happen to have started my career in the department of public works working for muhammad and we started ambassador program under mayor newsom. we gave people an opportunity to work and to focus on areas of the city that needed the most focus for cleaning up. it's not just about trash on the street, it's about working with businesses, working with residents to educate them on their responsibilities. people think that it's just the city's responsibility to clean the streets. it is the city's responsibility

and i want to thank mayor farrell for the massive commitment in the right direction. 44 people will make a difference in what we see. but they will also be about educating people. in the past year i've worked with director nuru and our former mayor lee. we redoubled our efforts from silver to geneva, we've increased the amount of people cleaning on our streets, but i get calls daily about illegal dumping. i get calls daily about how the trash has increased all over our city. and particularly in my district, obviously because that's the calls i get the most. but the thing i like most about this proposal and i'll end with this, this is a balanced proposal. this is spreading out resources all over the city, because trash is not just located and the frustration and filthy streets are not just located in one part of san francisco. it's all of san francisco that is feeling this frustration.

so thank you to mayor farrell, thank you to director nuru and sandra and the fix-it team, they have made a difference, but this money, street sweepers and pit stops will make a difference and every neighborhood should benefit, so thank you very much, mayor farrell. i'm going to bring up a neighborhood resident, linda, she's going to talk about things from the neighborhood perspective. >> thank you, supervisor. thank you, mayor farrell. and supervisor kim. and all the other city officials who have worked so hard to make street cleaning and our neighborhoods a priority for this type of life experience. i am just one resident, but i'll tell you, there are dozens and dozens of folks like me who want to see our communities cleanedup and want to pitch in.

and want to know what we can do to help. i agree, this is a very balanced proposal and this shows what we can do when we put our heads together. we've talked for years in our neighborhood about anti-littering campaigns through the schools and with the kids. and in our parks. pack it in, pack it out, leave no trace. those kinds of things can work. and those campaigns, but with the extra money and the extra feet behind that, that is going to make it even better. so as a 20-year resident of this neighborhood who loves our community and wants to see it thrive as we know it can, we need this assistance and i appreciate everyone who is here to bring this together. thank you so much. [applause] >> i also just want to thank mayor farrell for taking a leadership role in ensuring that we'll have the investments that are needed in all of our

neighborhoods in san francisco. we know that street cleaning has become an issue and we see it in the e-mails we get in our office, but also when we walk in our own neighborhoods. but the data showings it as well. in 2015, we had roughly 40,000 additional calls for services. and two years later, that number has doubled to close to 80,000. so we know that we're seeing a need for additional street cleaners. so i'm so excited about the 44 new sweepers that we'll have on the block that will be manually cleaning our busiest corridors. i'm very excited about the machines and the performance that we'll be getting after the press conference. but finally, i'm incredibly excited about the expansion of the pit stop stop. i want to thank mayor farrell for investing the money. we have 18 pit stops currently throughout the city and they started in the tenderloin neighborhood. i was proud to lead that with director nuru and it has been a

tremendous success. in every block, we've put one in, we've had reduction of cleaning request, which led us to save water, which is a precious commodity here in the state of california and san francisco. so thank you again to everybody. i want to thank all the men and women at public works. they do the hard job of picking up the trash, the litter, the needles and to sandra, who personally visits our businesses and our residents on a daily basis and responds to a lot of very difficult complaints. i just want to thank you for your leadership and thank all of the members of your team. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, supervisor kim. supervisor safai, linda, muhammad, the entire team, everyone helping with the effort, this press conference is over. we are going to a demonstration of the ravo machine, i don't know if muhammad is driving it, we'll see, but i'll stick around for questions after as well.

thanks, everyone.

adjourned. >> shop & dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges residents to do their shop & dine in the 49 with within the 49 square miles of san francisco by supporting local services within the neighborhood we help san francisco remain unique successful and vibrant so where will you shop & dine in the 49 my name is jim woods i'm the founder of woods beer company and the proprietor of woods copy k open 2 henry adams what makes us unique is that we're

reintegrated brooeg the beer and serving that cross the table people are sitting next to the xurpz drinking alongside we're having a lot of ingredient that get there's a lot to do the district of retail shop having that really close connection with the consumer allows us to do exciting things we decided to come to treasure island because we saw it as an amazing opportunity can't be beat the views and real estate that great county starting to develop on treasure island like minded business owners with last week products and want to get on the ground floor a no-brainer for us when you you, you buying local goods made locally our supporting small business those are not created an, an sprinkle scale with all the machines and one person procreating them

people are making them by hand as a result more interesting and can't get that of minor or anywhere else and san francisco a hot bed for local manufacturing in support that is what keeps your city vibrant we'll make a compelling place to live and visit i think that local business is the lifeblood of san francisco and a vibrant community

>> we expect commissioner bobbie wilson a little later. to my left is deputy city attorney brad russi who will provide the board with any needed legal advice this evening. i am joule rosenberg, the board's executive director. we will also be joined by