would have different resources to make that happen. >> i think they have an idea of the number of bikes that they would like. do we know what that number is we ? i imagine the company has projections of what they would like to see. >> chairman brinkman: do we have someone from jump here? >> would someone like to take a whack at that? [laughter] >> hello. i am mark from jumped bikes. it is a challenging question. it is a challenging question to answer because as you deploy more bikes, you also create more usage. it is a difficult thing to forecast. it is never really been done meaningfully at scale and in a city like san francisco. we only have guesses. i am born and raised here in the city and have been biking for over 20 years of my life and i

would say that my own dealing is the city could easily support in the 2-5,000 range of bikes but we would love to do -- what we would love to do is to play them in groups and figure out if demand can keep up to create a scenario where we could even have demand for a 5-10,000 bikes those are the numbers -- numbers were talking about when we are thinking about projecting out for the years to come. we are not saying we are there today and we want to drop thousands of bikes but we would love to do more than 500 today because we already know that we will outpace the demand. but we also understand the process to pursue the pilot. does that answer the question? >> director hsu: there must be some sort of numbers you have in mind or if there's any other smaller cities with additional data.

>> sacramento recently launched the jump. they have something like six or 700 active bikes that are being utilized right now in sacramento , which has a fraction of the density that san francisco has and a poor bike network system. to the extent that we can compare, you know, it has a little bit apples and oranges. but when you look at data and you understand what are the important pieces that inform bike ridership, that you can draw from useful conclusions from that. >> we have the hills for that. [laughter] >> vice-chairman heinicke: so the question that i ask of similar programs is enforcement with what our partners are doing forgive me if i'm not as up-to-date on the program as i am with others. but to director torres posed this question, there are a few

issues that we have seen. there is improper parking of the bike. forgive me if i'm naïve. if we come across a bike that is improperly bite -- parked or dangerously parked, wouldn't we not have information of who the last registered user was and some sort of ability to hold the person accountable? >> from mda's standpoint, we hold the company accountable company accountable. it is up to them to figure out how they pass it on to users are not. we got about three complaints a month about improperly parked bicycles and jump is required to move them within several hours at each bike also comes with a permanently displayed contact information and an i.d. number 4 jump. i don't know if jump wants to talk about -- >> vice-chairman heinicke: if it is that limited and that is the way we are doing it to, that is ok. as these programs go forward and as these programs expand, i am

fine leaving enforcement with the company as long as we make clear that it is a condition of you moving forward. that you are going to have to hold your riders responsible and show us that you are doing so. that is a proper model and much better than us playing a police. just as we did with a the scooters, there really has to be a part of this program. i appreciate that a representative from jump is here i appreciate he answered the last question very eloquently and straight to the point. i am in no way criticizing this program. when i hear those sorts of numbers and have seen what happens when we get larger and larger fleets out there, i just expect that the agency will expect this and i will have programs in place. >> it is not just a matter of ensuring there is adequate enforcement by the companies of the permit condition so that they can expand, but even so that they can keep their permits

and to the extent the companies cannot demonstrate that they can have their users here with the permit terms. ultimately, we can revoke the permit. >> director borden: one of the things i noticed in next steps, as part of our emerging mobility data, these spikes bikes are trackable and people can go in on an app and find a bike and we know where the bikes are. is not like we don't know where they are. if we are doing that then we shouldn't have compliance issues because, conceivably, we would know if it was part someplace it was not supposed to be part. is it that part of when we gather data that we will be able to do that? >> we certainly will be using the data sharing from jump for our evaluations and understanding the use pattern. we could maybe then find some

generalized places where there might be a not a lot of dependent -- demand and not a lot of bike parking. we not collecting any personally identifiable information from jump. that is something we are doing for our end for security purposes. we would not be able to identify individual users. >> director borden: but we will be able to identify the shuttles and the location of where they are? >> i don't think that the g.p.s. accuracy, and this came up during that scooter a set -- session, i don't believe that the accuracy is such that we wouldn't be able -- we would be able to pinpoint the location of relative to a legal or not legal parking space and the sidewalk. we do not have every bike rack. so whether it was at a bike rack or a treaty or a lamp post, we wouldn't know if it is in the street. we might know that but i don't think we or the companies -- i don't think that technology is very good at that level of accuracy. >> director borden: i would

not say that on a proactive basis but you can probably look at the data and see where it is. within an uber app you can rent a jump. it tells you where the bike is. >> but you can't tell on that sidewalk, as it properly attached to a tree? is it lying on the ground? >> director borden: we would know if there were complaints then you could see where it was. obviously we don't have these abilities to proactively enforce anything. >> the retaught -- realtime data would be significant for all of these these programs in terms of compliance. >> director borden: that is my only thing. we have the ability -- i know we have no ability to do proactive enforcement in terms of searching. no agency has the capability to do that. because they are already tracking the location of the bikes, we can cross-reference that if indeed people are parking wrong.

i have been wanting to use jump bike for a while. there are many times where i don't ride my bike because of the hills. >> i think it is a great solution with mobility. and we need more people to say they would like you bikes. >> chairman brinkman: thank you. >> director rubke: you discussed service area a couple of times. it looks like on the map, the western side of the city is just not covered very well in general i am wondering, as we expand the cap during the pilot program, is that going to be better covered or is that more forward-looking once we're done with with the pilot program? >> i think a significant expansion of the service area would be contingent on expanding the station list program after

the pilots. from 250 to 500 the initial focus will be on serving the existing service area better. you may be some targeted expansions of it around the edges, but i don't think, based on the conversations with jump and our observations on how well and tune the existing service area is, that 500 to will allow us to serve the entire city. >> chairman brinkman: i do have a few questions. i don't know if you can answer the ones or if it is better for it jump to answer them. so gender breakdown of jump users and forward go bike users. are we seeing more gender diversity? i know with female cyclists in the city we are holding tight at 26% of cyclists that were women. are we seeing more women writing these bike share programs?

>> we don't have any data on gender breakdown for jump users right now. one of the things we are doing is the continuation of the pilot and an in sfmta voluntary user survey. i don't know if jump has specific data. the tendency is to try to not collect that kind of data from users on a mandatory basis because it may prevent people from using the service. we will be doing a voluntary survey to get information on racial breakdown, age, demographics that i think will tell us how the program really is. >> chairman brinkman: but really encouraging a segment of the population that doesn't own bikes and doesn't like to ride bikes uphill. i admit i am embarrassed how many times i have run into directors when they are on their own bikes and i am on my bike and i waved. [laughter] >> the 20% boost members, are

they able to access bikes when and where they need them? i am worried that when i look at the jump map and the other maps, it does not cover communities of concern as much as he jumped as right now. are they able to get the bikes? i worry we have this great program. that boost membership is fantastic. but if people can't get the bike , it does not help them and it is not reliable enough to depend on. >> mark may want to add something to this. i think that you can still use the option to locate a bike if you have the boost membership. you do not have to do this. if you see a bicycle you can do it. but certainly locating bicycles without a dedicated docking station or an app is a challenge and in particular, i think as i

have mentioned before, the southeast portion of the service area in the bay view tends to not have very many bicycles and it in the middle of the day. it is something that i think has been hard to achieve with bicycles. we are really looking to jump to make sure that that improves with the expansion. >> chairman brinkman: i understand the balancing is challenging. i live not too far away in a western addition, and in the middle of the day i can't get a bike. there is nothing up there. they were all empty at 10:30 am. thankfully i have the flying five that i took down. no harm and no follow. it would be nice for people to be able to access that. i understand that we don't know what the correct number of bikes is, but when i opened one of those apps to look for a bike and i end up not taking a bike, do we know if that is logged as a missed opportunity so that the

companies have some idea that this person up there opened both apps and did not get a bike from either one. >> i understand the stance is yes. do you want to add to that? >> chairman brinkman: it would help us get some information about the correct number of bikes. >> we call that eyeball data. someone opens the applicant for a bike and does not find one. furthermore, we logged how far away they are at the moment. we create designations based on not just if you open to the app but did you open the app and close the bike -- and was the closest bike more than a quarter mile away? it was often used in bike share as a general guideline for how far a person should be expected to walk to grab the bike. we do log that data. there are many thousands per day if you remember, we did send some information to summarize the data. and that was on the slides that

we showed. >> chairman brinkman: i appreciated. >> director hsu: just a follow up on that. if you see a lot of zeros show up in one spot, you can deploy a number of bikes to that location is that right? >> we are not monitoring that data at right now on a moment by moment basis but it is historical data we are analysing to inform. for example, should we be expanding the area into this part of the city? it is no secret. by the north beach area is an area outside of the highest number just mumble -- number of applicants. >> director hsu: it will be cool to get to an area to quickly eyeball this data. but we have to work on it. >> chairman brinkman: i am concerned about two things. one is my ability to get a bike and my other concern is, how do we quickly get -- what is the

fastest way to get bike share deploy to the west side? we are hearing more and more from people out there that they want to use that. i know that 20% of u.s. car trips are less than 2 miles and 50% of u.s. car trips are less than 4 miles and 4 miles, on electric assist bike in san francisco, i don't even break a sweat at that point. this is such a great solution for those short urban trips that we are seeing clogging up our streets. and to go back to the parking question, -- i don't want my own because if it gets stolen, that is expensive. i don't want a bike and then have it stolen. my other concern there is i have incorrectly locked a jump bike. i locked one to the parking sign at the end of my block when i can get my paws on one and i can't get another bike. it is gone within an hour.

i thought i will use this one later in the day. no chance. it was gone within an hour or an hour and a half. so i think we need to look at that. is a bike racks or can we expand that to parking metres and fixed post? the same way i would do with my personal bike. if i would expand, there is not many bike racks out there, are there? we will have to give people other options on where to lock these jump bikes and we will have to make sure that we really support the expansion of the bikes. i don't like the idea of this e.a.c. request that the board has to approve any every single docking station. that will slow down the bike expansion a lot. i know there is concern about the docking stations taking car parking spots. when you think that these spikes are being used, 6-10 times a day , we are gaining so much more use out of that curbside spot than just two or three cars that

we might turn over a few times a day. [laughter] >> i will get you on an electric assist bike. i bet you would like it. >> i do want to be careful about encouraging locking two poles. from what i can see, anecdotally , jump has been great i have not seen jump bikes in bad places. but i do think we need to encourage more bike racks so that we are not compromising accessibility at the curb for those who need it. >> chairman brinkman: that is a good point. i had not thought about that with the parking metres. it could be really difficult to open the car door. we need to really work on expanding the bike racks. if you do the quick meth, there are almost 400,000 cars in san francisco. and we want 20% of trips to be by bicycle, each bike is due

nine trips a day, that is almost 1,000 bikes that we could support and a combination of jump and the other bikes. cut to the chase. more bikes and quickly. with that in mind, when this expansion to 500 comes to us in october, how quickly thereafter, in tandem with jump bikes, can we expand that number of bikes and can we expand a geographical reach of those bikes agree. >> quick clarification, that is under the permit terms of the director of transportation. would not be a specific m.t.a. board approval for the expansion to 500. was author -- already authorized and then in terms of bringing more bikes faster, the next nine months of the pilot is about

figuring out the future of bike share in san francisco. i think the first nine months has shown very clearly the demand for shared ebags is high. we don't need to do further evaluation to understand there is demand. but what we need to do is figure out how we meet that demand and whether working with m.t.c. and regional partners on bike share and working with jump and figure out the bike park program, we need to figure out how we scale the system. we agree the demand is high and we need to figure out a way to meet it. >> chairman brinkman: to go back to the 500 number since that has been approved and that is the director transportation decision, then the next jump past that cleat what happens to go above 500-1,000? >> with the board did was authorize an 18 month permit program with up to 250 for the first nine months and up to 500 for the balance.

that is what you have already authorized. you have not authorized anything beyond that. we would be coming to you towards the end, in advance of the 18 month permit program for a recommendation in terms of what to do in advance of this program expiring. >> chairman brinkman: can we do it before that pilot period ends? >> the intent would be to do it before so if you wanted to continue -- so we would not necessarily have a break in service. >> chairman brinkman: i don't even want a break in service. i want more bikes more quickly. more bikes than the 500 before the end of the pilot program. >> it is something -- there is a complication associated with this that we can discuss. >> chairman brinkman: i do understand the complication. >> i understand the direction and the desire. >> chairman brinkman: that is not the complication. the complication is -- yes. ok. do i have anymore questions or comments from the board?

anybody else? thank you so much for the presentation. thank you so much for coming. i do appreciate it. moving on to item 13. making environmental review findings and improving amendment number 1. to provide excess liability for central public project with risk insurance west for a total contract amount not to exceed $25 million. madam chair, no member of the public has indicated an interest in addressing this matter. >> good afternoon. my name is albert. the acting program manager for central subway. i'm here to talk a little bit of insurance. is an owner -controlled insurance program which was adopted under the central subway program in 2012 and approved by this board board. this is to supplement the

issuance for our two largest contracts. the tunnel contract and the station contract. to basically provide additional coverage. the coverage that we would have gotten from the contractor was not cost effective. we took on the goal -- the burden of getting older coverage with the tunnel contract, it had a 200 million-dollar coverage and we put 150 million on top of that. and for the station contract, there was a 60 million-dollar contract and we put another hundred 50 million on top of that. when he first came to this board , we had authorization to authorize both contracts and the station contract. the first amendment first amendment that we are here to talk about -- talk about is a retroactive amendment. it is a result of the station contract originally estimated of $750 million but the premium was based on 750 million contract amount. we awarded the contract and the amount was $840 million.

we had to pay additional premium of $684,000. that amendment went through and got approval from director raskin. however, when we improve just reviewed all of the differences and the amendment action based on prior adjustments of the supervisor approval, we noticed this was one of the items that exceeded the authority. the half a million dollar authority. i am here today to get a retracted approval from this board and i will be going to the board of supervisors next month to get the board of supervisor approval to move forward. that is the first item of this amendment. the second item is an extension of the program. currently the program has expired. we are in the process of trying to expand this. part of the reason i am here to expand it is because construction is not finished.

we have been delayed for a year. so part of the reason why we are here is that the way that the contract was written as we put in the contract that we will provide above the 50 million dollars of coverage that the contractor got for additional hundred $50 million. because of that, if we allow this contract to expire, we would have to abide our contract and also we would need to either get additional insurance or do something different. that is why i am here. in addition to that, this coverage has something called a tale. what that does is if we extend the contract beyond the completion of the contract itself, what it will do is will allow for additional ten year coverage beyond the completion of the station. what that means is that we are

actually buying a 12 year insurance program. not just a two-year but another ten year beyond that. any construction issues that happen between now and that 12 years. that is what i am here for. i will take any questions that the board may have. >> chairman brinkman: thank you. directors. questions? >> vice-chairman heinicke: within the budget and plans? >> it is all within the budget. we are not asking to change the 1.578 budget that you approved. >> chairman brinkman: other questions? do i have public comment? public comment is closed. do i have a motion to approve. >> second. >> chairman brinkman: all in favour? >> aye. >> chairman brinkman: approved item 14 is discussion and vote to open attorney client privilege to conduct closed session. >> chairman brinkman: do i have any public comment? public comment is closed. all in favour?

>> aye >> chairman brinkman: return, they are backed back. they met a close session and discussed with the city attorney to settle the matter. item 16 would be appropriate to vote to disclose or not disclose the information discussed. >> do i have a motion? do i have a motion? >> aye. >> there is no board meeting on october 2nd. everybody, thank you very much for your time today. take care.

>> hi, everybody. welcome to healthright 360 where we provide substance abuse disorder treatment, primary medical care, dental care, services to help people access housing, employment services, education services; basically everything that our clients need to help get well and help get better, do better, and be better in their life. and hopefully, at some point, they're able to offer an

overdose prevention service here, otherwise known as supervised injection facility. we think it makes sense. it makes sense for a couple of reasons. one, people who overdose and die never have a chance of recovering, never have a chance of reuniting with their families, and having a better life. and two because there's a lot of research that supports it, that it helps people to link to care and improve their health out comes. so because i work in this field, i talk a lot about this, and i get a lot of questions about these services. and the questions that are directed to me are often about aren't we enabling people who are using these services? aren't we enabling addiction? to this i say, absolutely not. people who live on the streets and are publicly injecting

drugs, those people live in a great deal of pain and misery, and pain and misery and shame do not lead people to health or recovery. they keep people unwell, keep people where they're at. it's really hope that brings people to health and recovery, hope and a belief in a positive different future, and if a person can't have it for themselves, somebody else has it for them. and i know this not because of the work i do and i've done it for the past 30 years, i know it from experience. i am a former heroin user, and i got clean through haight-ashbury health right programs over 30 years. i came to haight-ashbury neighborhood did etox like nin

times, and welcomed every time with love and compassion and support. so on the tenth time, i thought, i can't do this anymore. there was someone there who i trusted, who i built a relationship with, said maybe it's time to try something else, and because i trusted them, i did. i went onto one of health right 360's programs. it was because i trusted them that i believed in what they had to say, and i went on, and i've been drug free for the past 33 years. so it's really hope that brings people to health. it's hope, not shame, and it's what these supervised injection facilities will offer, hope and health to those who live on the margins. i'm really excited to have incredible courageous elected

osms and policy advocates behind me who have really stepped up in the face of a national epidemic, an opioid overdose epidemic is a public health crisis, and these folks have had the courage to bring legislation to the forefront that would help address this issue in ab 186. so i'd first like to welcome the author of the bill, assembly member susan egmon. when i went into recovery, one of the things, i went back to school, and i went to graduate school, and i got a master's in social work. i might be a little biased when i say that social workers make the best policy makers. so i'd like to bring her up to talk a little bit about it. >> good morning, everybody. thank you for that warm welcome and thank you for having us in this great facility.

so i'm susan egmon. i am a social worker by training, a politician by accident, like most of us are, i think. but there comes a time when you work with people for years on the streets in recovery in different parts of their lives. unless we have policy in place that actually allow people to rise to their full potential then we're not doing our full job. i'd like to specifically thank one of my staff members, logan hess, who was a champion of this bill all the way through x it probably wouldn't have been possible -- through, and it probably wouldn't have been possible without him. shortly after i got out of the military, i worked in substance abuse. i saw the epidemic go from heroin to crack cocaine to methamphetamine back to opioids. during that time what i learneds and as becoming a professor of social work is

this issue around relationship. i could teach my students all i wanted about different theories about what works, what doesn't, but the most basic thing what we can do is to connect with someone on a human level and treat them with dignity and respect. and that is the whole idea behind the safe injection sites. i think when we look around, and we tell stories about who we are as a society, when we talk about who we are as a people, as a country, as a state, i think we think about the fabric of who makes up that. is it journalists? is it politicians? is it rich and famous? it's all that more, but it's the people who walk by us on the streets. have we tried enough? do we judge, do we offer hope, what do we do? so i think this bill comes on the back of that, of really understanding that we have a crisis, and seeing the evolution of people's willingness, i think, to think

outside the box and try different things. we have long been a law and order kind of society, and i think we realize now that we need to work a little bit more towards humanity. we introduced this bill three years ago and i couldn't even get a vote in the first committee. again, when we started the bill, it was much broader to say let's go statewide. last year, we came back and said let's just try nine counties. when we came back, it was one city, one brave city, san francisco who was willing to try this. recognizing again that people who live on the street, addicts, are part of the fabric of our culture. they are going to be part of what we tell ourselves in 20 and 30 and 40 years, so it's really incumbent to use all of the resources we have to treat people with compassion, to keep them alive one more die. everybody out there, they all have a family. they all have family members who have been waiting for this

call, and hopefully that call will be they got into treatment. i couldn't have done this without a great team behind me, and i'd like to introduce a tenacious -- i'd like to introduce my friend and one of the coauthors of this bill, senator scott wiener. [applause] >> thank you, susan. and i try to be tenacious, but susan egmon is the definition of tenacious. i still don't know how susan was able to get this out of the assembly not once but twice, two different votes. i wasn't 100% confident but she was able to do it. then we almost hit a wall in the senate. we did hit a wall and had to park the bill for a year, but we were able to make the case. we had a great team effort.

the two of us also, senator ricardo lara, we made the case and got it out of the senate, and it's on the governor's desk, and this is really exciting. i want to thank healthright 360 and sfgov for hosting us here today. this is one of our amazing, amazing organizations. i'm proud to represent san francisco for many years but one of the reasons near the top is this is truly a public health town. this is a city, a community that believes deeply in the power of health care and the power of progressive, forward looking public health approaches, and we're not scared to push the envelope on public health policy, even if we are ahead -- even if we're ahead of other cities, even if the federal government threatens us with criminal

prosecution, such as that ridiculous new york times op ed that rod rosenstein crawled out of his cave to publish. we did it with needle exchange decades ago because we were experiencing the height of the aids h.i.v. epidemic years ago, and if the federal government was going to stick its head in the sand, we were going to do it here. we did it with medical cannabis. these are all situations where we were being threatened by the federal government, but we persevered. guess what? medical cannabis is being embraced even in republican states, so yet again despite threats from our federal government, we are going to move forward here in san francisco and show the rest of the state and show the rest of the country that this can be done. we know from every other city

and country, australia, canada, europe, every other place that does this has succeeded. safe injection sites lower crime rates, get people into recovery. this is where we should be going, and i'm just so proud of the legislature for doing this. we are urging our great friend, governor brown, to sign ab 86. the governor has spoken to me repeatedly about the syringe and the public injection crisis that we have here in san francisco. he's seen it with his own eyes. this is a governor who believes in progressive alternatives to incarceration. he understands that the war on drugs failed, that drug addiction is not a criminal issue, it's a health issue, and we have to take a public health approach to addressing it. and of course, what we did in

the legislature was simply giving permission to say, understand state law, it's legal. but nothing happens without local leadership, and we are so lucky here in san francisco to have a mayor and to have a board of supervisors who are solidly behind this idea. and it's now my honor to introduce and bring up our great mayor, someone who i have known about 15 years now, back to when we were both little political babies. and i think we are now both thankfully in a position where we can work on these issues. and she just -- not that many mayors would take office, and the first thing she would push is a safe injection site. but other things haven't worked. we have to address this if we're going to tackle the drug issue on our streets, so i want

to thank her for her position on this, and introduce mayor london breed. >> the hon. london breed: thank you for opening up the doors of health rite 360 and allowing us to hold this event here and all that you do for san francisco. i remember when healthright 360 was actually walden house, and i spent a lot of time helping people in my community and family members get into treatment at walden house. and i do really appreciate the approach to focusing on health and trying to get people healthy. and that's why the name is so fitting, healthright 360. i remember when you changed the name, and i kept calling it walden house, but now, i'm calling it what it needs to be called, and that is healthright 360, getting the health of citizens here in san francisco who sadly struggle with drug addiction health -- healthy. and i want to thank our leaders

in sacramento, including evsus egmon and scott wiener or their consistenty -- for their consistency in pushing something that's going to help us make a better place in san francisco. i would get complaints about the number of needles on the street, about the number of people shooting up on the streets. and in certain instances, some programs and other folks would be out there, talking to individuals, trying to get them help, trying to get them support, and sadly, it hasn't worked. what we've been doing in san francisco and i think in many places hasn't worked. i was basically not complete sold on safe injection sites initially until laura thomas over here from drug policy alliance kept bugging me and bugging me and bugging me to get to vancouver to see exactly what it entails and look at the data and how it's actually been

effective. and i was very surprised at how impressed i was with not only the numbers but the facility. zero overdoses in those facilities. over 3500 people refer today detox who have not come back through their system, the compassion of the people who worked there. and it just made all the difference to the people that i spoke to that wanted to get clean and sober. they knew they had a place to go, and had people that supported them and respected them, and would help them when they needed the help. such a major difference in terms of the before and after photos, the look, the conversations. this is something that i know will make a difference. what we're doing right now isn't working, and i know it makes people uncomfortable. it makes me uncomfortable, but i feel like here in san francisco, we have to be

willing to try new things. just because we don't want to see people shooting up, and we don't want to see the needles on the street doesn't mean it's going to disappear without us taking action to get to a better place here in our city. so it's going to take a lot of work, and this is one tool that is going to be so significant in helping us here in san francisco with state laws that get in the way of real progress. and so i want to thank our leaders in sacramento and i also would like to thank david chiu for his work and his support because this narrowly made it through the assembly and the senate, and we are so grateful for their work. and we are here today to encourage our governor, jerry brown, to sign this legislation. this is really going to make such a huge difference, and it gets us one step closer to the reality of a real site here in

san francisco, something that we are long overdue to try, something that we had the will and people want to see happen, but we just don't have all the tools necessary to get to a better place. so here we are today, and i am so looking forward to making sure that as soon as we are able, we will open a site here in our city, and we know we have some amazing partners, that we will continue to work with. but more importantly, we want to make sure we protect our great organizations, as well. with that, i'd like to introduce assembly member david chiu who has been just an incredible leader in sacramento on this issue as well as others that have impacted our city. assembly man david chiu. >> thank you, madam mayor, and let me thank all the health advocates here for your vision and your courage and your tenacity. and i want to thank you for

hosting us, and i want to welcome susan egmon to san francisco and thank her as has been mentioned before for her courage. i was the first san francisco le legislature to cast a vote. as a former prosecutor, i had some initial questions about this policy. it is initially counter intuitive until you stop to think about it. and before that vote, i actually pulled down many of the studies that i have heard about of vancouver, of sydney, from canada, australia, and europe, that showed demonstrably that show the health data, the health facts show that we have to do this. as a senate housing committee, we all know that our housing

crisis are exacerbated because of individuals that are addicted to drugs. we need to try new things. as i said on the assembly floor this past week, people are dieing on the streets of our state, on the streets of our city. we have to be willing to innovate, but innovate with facts, and ini receipt with science. i also want to thank the courage of my colleague, senator wiener, who has been tenacious in leading her colleagues along. and i also want to thank london breed. she risked on the campaign trail this moving forward. and the courage of san francisco in moving forward this important and dare i say this historic idea. this is a historic moment. if governor brown signs this bill, we will be able to move forward with an innovation that is rooted in science and

accoufacts. it was not along ago when an abortion, medical marijuana, and needle exchange were considered illegal in the state of california, and we are here making history to say that public health schwinhould win, science and facts should win. it is my hope that the rest of the country will follow in bringing true dignity and true health care to those who desperately need it. with that, it's my pleasure to bring up one of the earliest advocates for this policy, laura thomas is the executive director for the drug policy alliance. miss thomas. >> thank you. it's an honor to be here in healthright 360. you know, its predecessor walden house, people are

important to me. and now i owe them a huge debt. it's been amazing to have the treatment providers across california working with us on this legislation to be able to push back on the myths and misperceptions that leads people out of drug use. i'm laura thomas of the drug health alliance. we're one of the project sponsors of this bill, along with several others. together, we did the groundwork for this campaign, but we relied so heavily on the

leaders, the leadership and the tenacity that you've already heard about. and the reason that we're working on this, the reason that we've been pushing for supervised consumption service is at the most basic level, they save lives. they are people that may not be saved, they are people that may not be reached otherwise. we deserve better. san francisco deserves better. we deserve clean, healthy environments. everyone does, whether it's people that use drugs or those of us who have homes to go to where we may consume our substances, our glass of whiskey in peace. and so this is a new idea for us here in san francisco, but it is not a new idea. you've heard the research referenced. there are now well over 120 of these sites around the world. they've been in place for 30

years, and the first one started in 1986 in bern, switzerland. so we have a wealth of information and experience to rely on as we move forward here in san francisco. but in order for this to happen, we need the governor to sign this bill, and we need to standup to a trump administration that is doing a lot of saber rattling and threatening us. this is par for the course with this administration, and i am grateful to live here in san francisco where we -- whether it's about the environment, it's about same sex marriage, it's about immigration, it's about access to medical marijuana or it's about supervised consumption services. our leadership, our population, the people who live here will push forward to do the right thing. so i'm grateful to live here in

san francisco. i'm looking forward to many of these sites opening around the city. i'm excited to figure out what kinds of models and locations will work best for us, and i look forward to being able to provide people who use drugs in san francisco with better options. you know, these sites work for everyone. if you live in a neighborhood that has -- where you're seeing needles discarded on the streets and people injecting, then your neighborhood is probably a good location for one of these sites. if you're not seeing that, then your neighborhood is not a good location for one of these sites, but i think everyone understands that people who are injecting on the street, that they're doing that because that is their last resort. they don't want to be injecting on the street, they don't want to be injecting in public where children may see very

brief. when senator ween iener told m about this event, i wanted to be here. we know that the situation in san francisco on our streets are intolerable, it's intolerable for people who are dieing, it's intolerable for people who are finding needles on our streets in the city. we know the war on drugs has failed, and although people in washington might want to try to pursue that war, they are not giving us what we need to cleanup our streets and get help for the folks who need it. i'm so proud as a san franciscan that we have such tremendous leadership from our mayor and our state leadership and state assembly. i'm so proud of the california that assembly woman egmon has provided such leadership around this. i'm hoping that san francisco will move forward with implementation and can demonstrate that it works as a

pilot and then it will be something that other cities in california can benefit from. so thank you very much. [applause] >> okay. that concludes the press conference. if there are any questions, we're happy to take them or separately. yes. >> if the governor does actually sign this, how long will it take to actually get them up and running? >> madam mayor? >> the hon. london breed: so we are having some challenges as you know with federal law and making sure that if the governor signs this, we have all the tools that we need on the state and local level, we need to make sure that the people who are going to be working at these sites are going to be protected, so we're just trying to address this particular layer of challenges, but we're ready to go. we're ready to go, we're ready to move forward. we have a lot of support, and we're hopeful that we can get one opened sooner rather than later, but i can't give you a

specific time just yet. >> a lot of people are concerned about taxpayer money going towards this. >> the hon. london breed: so we have identified some resources to help assist in the funding for this site, and it is -- at this time, it will probably not necessarily come from our city's budget. >> okay. thank you very much. >> yeah, sir, i have a question for assembly woman egmon. could you talk about -- [inaudible] >> actually, didn't pass as a statewide thing. we had it statewide three years ago when we first started. [inaudible] >> in -- in u.s. or in california? >> outside of san francisco. there were some other counties. >> not within california. that was not what we were able to get across the final. it was just san francisco, right? it went from statewide to nine counties to one county, so that's -- it's called a

compromise in passing legislation. >> okay. of course we hope that after we do this pilot, we can show the rest of the state how it's done. thank you very much, everyone. >> thank you. [applause] francisco. >> my name is fwlend hope i would say on at large-scale what all passionate about is peace in the world.

>> it never outdoor 0 me that note everyone will think that is a good i know to be a paefrt. >> one man said i'll upsetting the order of universe i want to do since a good idea not the order of universe but his offered of the universe but the ministry sgan in the room chairing sha harry and grew to be 5 we wanted to preach and teach and act god's love 40 years later i retired having been in the tenderloin most of that 7, 8, 9 some have god drew us into the someplace we became

the network ministries for homeless women escaping prostitution if the months period before i performed memorial services store produced women that were murdered on the streets of san francisco so i went back to the board and said we say to do something the number one be a safe place for them to live while he worked on changing 4 months later we were given the building in january of 1998 we opened it as a safe house for women escaping prostitution i've seen those counselors women find their strength and their beauty and their wisdom and come to be able to affirmative as the daughters of god and they accepted me and made me, be a part of the their

lives. >> special things to the women that offered me a chance safe house will forever be a part of the who i've become and you made that possible life didn't get any better than that. >> who've would know this look of this girl grown up in atlanta will be working with produced women in san francisco part of the system that has abused and expedited and obtain identified and degraded women for century around the world and still do at the embody the spirits of women that just know they deserve respect and intend to get it. >> i don't want to just so women younger women become a part of the the current system

we need to change the system we don't need to go up the ladder we need to change the corporations we need more women like that and they're out there. >> we get have to get to help them. >> : we'll call this meeting to order. hello and welcome to the tuesday, september 18, 2018, meeting of the san francisco enter townment commission. i'm ben bleiman, commission president, and it's my first time as acting president, so excuse my stumbles. it's the first full meeting for our official executive