and it's a fairly exhausting and traumatizing process, begging people to recognize your humanity in the horrific conditions they've experienced. as an organization that supports trans-people in all of these different locked facility, we're clear that the violence faced by the community runs parallel to all spaces, including jails, prisons, detention centers and other locked facilities. it is a classic tactic used by a police officer, sheriff's departments and prison guards for a very long time, not just against trans-people, nonconforming folks, but people who descent from societal. and to pretend that a cage is a slave place ever is a waste of time, but while we are here trying to ask the question of

how we can make the spaces safer, we're clear that the independent body to review the sheriff's department is necessary so we won't be arguing that point -- [bell ringing] -- what we want to name is the important factors that an effective review process takes place. so roles must be open to community members, especially those that don't have ties to law enforcement. the process including public records should all be accessible to community. the independent review completed in a timely fashion that requires realistic funding and support for those doing the investigations. and last but not least, the independent -- [bell ringing] good afternoon.

i'm a social worker. when i met this client for the first time, she was placed at county jail 4 which is the designated men's jail. as incarcerated transwoman, she should have been placed in the pod in county jail 2. however, this client had been administrative segregation at the men's jail for a month by the time i met her. but that time she had filed several grievances to no avail. she felt violated, humiliated, hopeless and ignored. after speaking to a watch commander about the situation, i was told this client is the only transwoman at the men's jail. i was told she was at the men's jail because space was limited in the tgnc pod with people with

her classification. a deputy told me there is no set limit of time a transwoman to be in ad in the men's jail. it is well known that incarcerated people are placed in segregation, otherwise known as isolation or solitary because of their gender identity. she feared for herself. due to the advocacy from pgijp who just spoke, our client was eventually moved from the men's jail to the medical pod at county jail 2. the experience at the hands of deputy was likely ten fold when no one was watching and it's worse for folks of color who are incarcerated. [bell ringing] >> supervisor walton: thank you.

>> hello there, supervisors. i'm a member of the democratic socialists of america as well the campaign of dean preston, but i'm speaking as someone who has been within 850 bryant street as detainee. it seems evident to me, that no individual or organization can be safely charged to investigate itself. all the more so for an organization like the sheriff's department which holds custody of persons in profound isolation from the rest of the world. i want to speak in favor of the strongest policy of external oversight for the sheriff's department. it strikes me as one that is in itself fraught with capacity for injustice. as we've seen in the history and the cases we've heard about today, it will be in the interest of sheriff's deputies and officials to down play, cover up and obscure wrongdoing.

i do not believe that the moral standards of the people of san francisco are the same as the processes of the sheriff's department. nor what discipline is appropriate for actions. it contains abuse of power and common cruelty accepted within the palaces of suffering that are our county jails. i urge not only oversight, but the investigation of complaints so that we, the public, through our agents, might know and decide for ourselves what is a crime and which is an administrative matter befitting training or suspension. thank you. >> good morning. i'd like this say that while i'm no longer surprised, i am still angry and tired how difficult it is for this city to bring its own agents to heel. when you have a process by which

the sheriff department vebt /* veth -- investigates itself, it can only have one end. the department of police accountability itself, its recommendations first of all have no power to bind the agencies it supposedly is holding to account. on the slides they showed, they said they don't take inmate grievances. and further more, they often -- they rarely suggest disciplinary suggestions and often suggestion mediation with abusive officers. even in the police department, which have more oversight than the sheriff's currently. we do not need mediation with

these agencies. we know what they do. the things they're doing, i would like this remind the board, are -- the things we're discussing at this current hearing are beating people who are already completely at their mercy. and when they do these crimes, they do them in the name of the city and in the name of this board -- [bell ringing] -- i would like to remind the board that they should, in fact, bring their agents to heel because the crimes they're doing reflect on this city and this board. they work for the city and it should be possible to actually prevent these things if the board -- as it does claim wants to do so. >> hello. i'm dr. kate, i'm the staff psychologist at the county jail. i need to be clear i'm here as a

private citizen and in no way representing my agency. i worked in the jail for a year from august 2017 to 2018. since then i've been out on medical leave for ptsd related to the environment i'm here to describe to you. i was a site manager for c-pod and my office was on the pod adjacent to the psychiatric observation unit. i had daily opportunities to see interactions with sheriffs and inmates. in that context, i saw and heard verbal threats of harm, transphobicic harassment, and what i believe are abuses of inmates' rights. there are good people doing good work in the jail. absolutely, but the culture and context of the jail is such that staff, if they want to, can hide and justify abuse of inmates as long as everyone there agrees what happens. i was concerned about a variety

of things i saw and the guidance i received from colleagues was, you can speak up. it's your license, but remember it's their house. and they can make it hard for you to do your job. that turned out to be accurate. you can get stuck between locked doors in the jail for a long time. or suddenly it's not possible to run your program or see your client when you need to. they spoke about concern about getting beat up. they told me a particular inmate would not cause trouble in being moved because when we're moving him we have no liability. i had a particular concern about sheriff's deputies claiming that an inmate was suicidal or a danger to others to justify placement in the safety cell, but it was our job to screen for that. the inmates reported -- [bell ringing]

>> that is a hard act to follow. i'm a member of the public and speaking to you as such, although i am a member of the dsa justice committee. i've been involved for the past four or five years in the police department and the violence they provoke in my community which is the mission. i am outraged to hear that -- about the commingling of the administrative and the criminal cases. that is just sort of beyond belief. it's like, what? and what will be done about that? i mean is there any remedy for that misconduct by the sheriff's department? i mean i've heard good things about the sheriff's department and not all sheriff's, you know,

are abusive people, but there seems to be a systematic problem here and that is what i ask you to address, is the systematic situation where you say the fox is guarding the hen house. there has to be put into place a system that makes sure this does not occur again. i think that the sheriff's department should not be investigating either the administrative or the criminal. it's just not acceptable. [bell ringing] and to be honest, i'm not sure that d.p.a. has the capacity. i'd like to think so, but this is just going to add, as you saw on the slide, a number of cases, a huge number of cases. so i would ask you to think about either increasing funding or doing something else to

enable a situation where true justice is at hand. and this is -- [bell ringing] >> thank you, supervisors for having this hearing. roma guy from taxpayer for public safety. and this is a great hearing, but we've had many like this. and so our recommendation is one that we made in october 2018, when we tried to reenvision what criminal justice is in san francisco and how to create real safety. and so what we think of is, it's great to have a department of police accountability. what we need is a department of criminal justice accountability. that is broad and deep. so that when you have a hearing, all the interested parties are here to begin with. but when we go home, we're

problem solving not in our protective silos, but for broader transparency with your own website so we can find the documents. we don't need to be spending half the day looking for the public information. so there is a structural problem to all the incidents that you hear. we need to find champions among you who are going to spend real creative and transformative time to submit, whether it's charter reform or it's something else. but no ordinances that just solve a problem within a silo. thank you. >> hi, my name is steffey. i'm a member of the public.

the cases of assault and abuse talked about today are egregious and horrible. i also want to say that all jails are dangerous and unsafe places. and i urge you not to separate this hearing from that hearing that happened in october about the closure of 850 bryant and reenvisioning safety in san francisco. these allegations are just another piece of evidence along with the voices of people inside, the j.r.p. hearing and work group, that we urgently need to close 850 bryant county jail and move millions of dollars that would be saved to services and housing that provide real safety. a reminder of something that should be top of mind, but i haven't heard, our jail population is 30% homeless at least. 85% -- and 50% black.

i hope and i urge that your energy and efforts from this hearing and any budget asks that come from the hearing focus on public transparency, safety and the closure of 850 bryant which will get toward the more systemic issues faced in the jails. county jail 4 is not earthquake-safe. its closure has been called since 1997, yet no action on behalf of the city has been taken. you are all elected officials. we've been having these hearings and i urge one of you to push for closure of 850 bryant now. >> i am a staff member of the youth commission and also resident of d-6. the commission voted about closing 850 bryant. what we heard today about these

incidents is that people are referred as inmates. there is massive dehumanization and this is not care. cages are never about care. and moving forward we really need more oversight that actually allows for implementation and enforcement into what victims actually desire and in terms of breaking down the prison industrial complex, we need to factor in food, shelter and freedom all in that equation. so thank you, all. >> good afternoon. i'm dr. derek kerr. the abuse of incarcerated inmates is almost an occupational hazard for the guards. that was made clear in the 1971

stanford prison study where students were recruited to play guards and prisoners. the study was aborted after six days because the subjects acting as guards became sadistic toward the inmates. similarly, mother jones reporter shane bower spent four months undercover in a private prison. after a couple of months as a guard, bower disclosed that he had been transformed as follows. striving to treat every one as a human being takes too much energy. i focus on proving that i won't back down. and this. i feel ashamed of my lack of self-control, my growing thirst for punishment and vengeance. the prison environment depersonalizes all involved. even with independent investigations, guards can easily get drawn into abuses

that they would normally disavow. while wrong doers must be held accountable, we should also recognize that pathologies arise from institutional culture -- [bell ringing] -- role expectations and unchecked power. so we have to look at the situational factors. thank you. >> supervisor walton: seeing no more public comment, public comment is closed. colleagues, any final thoughts before we close out this hearing? supervisor brown? >> supervisor brown: well, i just think that this is just really disturbing and ms. guy is right. we've had these hearings before. this is not something new. i haven't seen any movement. every time we have these hearings. and we do have the sheriff, is

an elected official. i feel that we need to do something with sheriff hennessey as collaborating, but i definitely don't feel comfortable with the system as it is. as far as the sheriff gets to decide and bring these cases forward. i think once it's, you know, we have a complaint, i definitely feel, especially if it's criminal, it should go through the d.a.'s office. i just don't understand. and paul mahenderson, you're th best, really good at your job, but i don't understand if they're criminal, why isn't it going to the d.a.'s office. the system that we set up years ago and the public worked on to

have that accountability from the police department. i just feel that is where it should be going directly, so that the d.a. can jump in, have that information, interview people that need to be interviewed and i think separating that and putting it in another department, especially with a criminal, i don't understand it. i just feel like we have a model that is working with the police department. why don't just duplicate that model? i also feel that the administrative part of it, like if someone has their living conditions or something that is happening is not up to par, is not humane, that should definitely go to p.d.a. i think that is administrative and be addressed right way. but from what i've heard today, i feel like the d.a. is the

right department that should take these cases and we should use the model that the police department has. that is just my view. and i also feel that we have to look at the criminal justice system and the jails in a totally different way. we though that we should be funding more into preventive and getting people out of jails and productive, than holding them. thank you. >> supervisor walton: supervisor mar. >> supervisor mar: thank you. well, yeah, i agree that the hearing today did touch on a will the of issues that -- lot of issues that we've been grappling with here at city hall and the community for years, decades. i've certainly been on that side of the barrier before in these kind of hearings. but i think that the hearing

today was really important and significant step in at least addressing the -- you know the serious and very troubling cases of misconduct in our jails. and i very much support the direction i think the discussion was moving in this hearing. and even before the hearing, with sheriff hennessey and others to create more of an independent investigation for the cases of misconduct and complaints in the sheriff's department and move that to the d.p.a. and i think this is really a good -- an important step towards creating better policies and systems to ensure that inmates in our jails are treated humanely and justily and to restore trust in the institutions.

i want to thank everyone who turned out for this long, but important hearing. the community members and advocates who spoke during public comment, sheriff hennessey, director henderson, the public defenders office and the district attorney's office. and most importantly, i would like to thank supervisor walton for convening this hearing and your leadership on these important issues and i look forward to working with you on the follow-up. >> supervisor walton: thank you, and thank you for allowing us to have the hearing and the committee today. i want to echo the sentiments on behalf of chair mar for department of police accountability, d.a. office, sheriff department and public defenders' office and the public that did show up today. i want to close with a few statements. i think the most important aspect of all of this work, of course, is prevention. making sure that misconduct

isn't happening and doing what we can to provide an environment so things like this do not happen. the reality of it is, what we're focused on here today is complete systemic change, looking to ensure allegations of misconduct are independently investigated and consequences independently decided when allegations are proven to be valid. in the cases of allegations of assault, civil rights violations, use of force and in-custody death this is even more crucial. we have checks and balances in all of our government. we need to make sure that decisions are never made by one individual and that is how you deal with addressing this systemically. i just want to reiterate that you do not lose your humanity because you are incarcerated. and people who are incarcerated have rights and should not be mistreated as well. i'm going to work with my

colleagues and going to work with the city attorney's office to find a way to include independent investigations and find a way to ensure that consequences of proven allegations are not decided by one person. because, again we have checks and balances. whether that is a committee, a commission, a task force. what that looks like, we'll be working hard to make sure that this doesn't continue. so this is not just hearing about having a conversation about what the issues are, having a conversation about what the concerns are, this is a hearing to put everything on the table so people can see the issues that need to be addressed and we will be coming up with a solution on how to address this in the very near future. we've heard the d.a.'s office talk about lines of separation between administrative and that is not just my opinion, but it's definitely evident in what we've

heard today from a lot of professionals both in law enforcement and both in law in general. and i will end with this. there are currently allegations of misconduct. these allegations are currently investigated. these allegations are currently investigated by the sheriff's department and that cannot continue to happen. so that concludes this hearing. and i want to pass this back over to our chair mar. thank you so much for coming out today. >> supervisor mar: thank you, supervisor walton. thanks once again to everyone who came out and participated in this important hearing. can we file this hearing without objection? great. so we're going to go back to the other agenda items. thanks to the patience to the people who are here for the

other agenda items. let's go to item number 1. can you call item number 1. >> item number 1 is resolution reporting on administrative code, housing preferences requirements to the board of supervisors. my team is charged with conducting all of the affordable

housing lotteries conducted for all city sponsored affordable housing units. we have a resolution for you to receive a report, the report i'm about to give you, on the affordable housing lottery preferences that have -- and developments marketed from july 1, 2016 through june 30, 2018. we're here to talk about three preferences. the certificate of preference program which was adopted by the city in 2008, and it is for folks that were displaced from the western addition and hunter points areas in the 1960s, 70s,

some 80s by the san francisco redevelopment agency. we're also going to talk about the displaced tenant housing preference which is a preference adopted first in 2013 as the ellis act housing preference. and then expanded in 2015 and 16 to include owner move-in, evictees and tenants displaced by fire. all three from rent controlled units throughout the city. finally we'll talk about the neighborhood resident housing preference program and gives preference to folks living in the same district or half mile radius of new developments that are coming up. we're going to -- this map shows all of the developments, all the

units, all the developments that had units during this reporting period. there were 1,368 units across 47 developments that were marketed during that time period. 128 of them were ownership units and 1240 were rental units. there were a total of 100,000 -- 106,894 applications submitted for those units. of those over 100,000 applications, 9543 were submitted with these three preferences. 321 certificate of preference applications. 573 displaced tenant applications. and 8,726 neighborhood resident

housing preference applications. so now we talk about occupants. because it's different who applied and who got in, right? there were a 1012 occupants that during that reporting period actually were housed across 34 buildings. there were 13 buildings that did not finish either leasing up or renting during our reporting period, so we can't report on them yet. but there were 305, or 30% of the households that got units of those 112 unit occupants that got their units because of these

three preferences. the certificate of preference program and displaced tenants housing programs also apply to rerentals and resales. -- of affordable housing units. so during that same reporting period, there were an additional 49 households that used those two preferences to get housing. so with the rerentals and the new rentals and resales and new sales, 67 certificates of preference holders were housed and 99 displaced tenant housing preference holders were housed. i'm going to focus in on the certificate of preference. a little bit more.

the certificate of preference applications, if you have a certificate of preference, it's kind of like the golden ticket with the affordable housing developments. because all of the -- there is 100% of those units could go to certificate of preference holders. so our certificate of preference holders tend to apply for more than one at a time. so while there were 321 applications, there were 215 unduplicated. so there were actually 215 different households that were applying during this period. and the slide here shows where they came from. but the darker the areas, the more where the certificate of preference holders hail from. what you don't see in there, almost 40% of the certificate preference holders that apply

live outside of san francisco and they're wanting to come home. so if you look at the occupancy of certificate of preference holders, there were 48 households that were actually housed during the period. and the darker area shows here where they were housed. it's no surprise to us that most households were housed -- chose to live in district 10, where they were initially displaced from. well, many of them. >> excuse me, can i ask a question about the certificate of preference holders. >> supervisor mar: going back to the bar charts of the stats you mentioned that there were 321 applications from certificate of preference holders, but i think you mentioned -- is it some of them applied to multiple?

the number is 2 -- >> 215. >> supervisor mar: but only 48 of them. my question is, why weren't the rest of them -- >> sure. why didn't they get housed? that's a very good question. many of them are choosing where they want to live. and so the -- i'm sorry, i actually have the stats on what the reasons why they weren't selected. some of the units that they applied for were not senior units and they were seniors. some were -- did not meet the income requirements. some were over income, some were under income. [please stand by]

it shows in where everybody is coming from. where they are housed, i am going all-around the world here. where they are housed, there were 69 households housed in 158 giant158unit units set aside. some were after this reporting

period. they are generally across from the whole city. i will tell you before you ask why people weren't housed for displaced tenants, a lot of the buildings in the set were designated for seniors and so the people applying didn't qualify for those units. there were somewhere this preference wasn't even reached because there were so many other applicants. for example alice griffith had a preference for people returning so they didn't get to the displaced tenants' housing preference in that one. the interest where people wanted to live really plays into they might be applying for units. when it coming down to it, they are holding back and taking the

unit that they really want to live in. now, i am moving to neighborhood preference, neighborhood resident housing preference. in that housing preference, there were 8726 applications, with that 40% set aside. for 216 units. some of the projects were ineligible for neighborhood housing preference because of the building size or federal, state or other funding limitations. but it is clearly there is a wide area that folks are getting into back into the same

neighborhood they hailed from. there were 20 closed projects and 188 households who took occupancy in these units. the more it is going on. newly constructed units. so they were under occupancy under that preference. you know, i am telling you about the numbers and the data and the analysis of the data. what we are talking about is people. we are talking about people getting housed. i would like to introduce you to three households, one from each of these preferences. the first picture is a mother and daughter who were re-housed in the mother's neighborhood of

certificate of preference. the mother was a child when her family was displaced from hunter's point. she moved back from fairfield close to family and friends and now she is able to raise her daughter in the neighborhood she wanted her family wanted her raised in but they were displaced. the middle picture is a fire victim. she was displaced from her rent controlled unit from deep five because of a fire. she was able to purchase a unit in d10 because of the displaced tenants housing preference. finally, this is a father and son. the family purchased the bmr unit as the first home. the cute little guy's parents had been living in a studio with this toddler in d5, also.

with the neighborhood preference they were able to purchase a two bedroom bmr in their same neighborhood and they were looking outside of the city because they could only afford the studio that they were raising this boy in. now they are able to stay in san francisco. that is my report. i have the resolution to accept the report and the clerk asked us to do some minor edits to it. it is amended a bit. thank you. >> thank you so much. colleagues do you have any questions? >> go ahead.

thank you very much. i was a legislative aid that pushed neighborhood preference through. that was a large bolder going up a hill and i thank everyone. and the director at the time. i think it was really important because one of the things we kept hearing when we were out in the communities is that i want to stay in my neighborhood with affordable housing if i apply, and i am not able to get these different developments. i ran into him and he was talking about it. how much it really meant to have a place in the neighborhood that they had been for so long and

their support systems in the neighborhood. that was really important. a lot of the development is in certain areas of the city. we have to look at, to be fair, developments, you know, throughout the city and looking to build those developments. the one question i had because the first neighborhood preference that we were age to use was a senior center, kennedy. we were able to use and that had federal funds. when hud had -- because neighborhood preference is around in new york since the 1970s.

talked to hudto say we really need this. one of things they opened up the really bright people from the mayor office office of housing in san francisco had come up with a displacement map, and asked the federal government to use the displacement map, which was bayview-hunters point, a small part of china town and areas in excelsior also. the federal government actually said, yes, you can use displacement. when you talked about not having this in, not using neighborhood

preference in federally funded buildings can you talk about why? we did it at willoughby kennedy senior center. that is displacement. why aren't we doing it in other areas for displacement with federal funding. first of all, we don't have any buildings that are being built with federal funding. the federal funding has in essence dried up. willoughby kennedy was the last one now time has gone and we are

able to analyze and look at whether there really is an impact on the communities to have the preference applied. we have gone back to the state because we do have several buildings with state funding. we will have more with state funding in the future with the recent bonds passed from the state. we went to the state. we showed them analysis and they agreed that at a lower percentage we would be able to apply the neighborhood preference to buildings funded with their money. we feel that is a real win. it is better than having nothing for neighborhood preference and

we are really excited to be able to apply it across the board. in the future we will be able to apply it. >> i dealt with advocates when we were doing legislation. they wants 50%, 60%. also, displacement from the federal government included the mission. i think in the western addition that was the canary in the cave. we felt like it was too late for the western addition, sadly. there were areas bayview,

mission, excelsior that it could be applied to. that is where we got the biggest push from the advo cats. then 40%. now 25 makes it. i just think we are going backwards. i feel like we need to fight for at least the 40. i mean i will definitely. i think we should really push the state for 40. i just do. i think it is something that if we are trying to preserve these neighborhoods with cultural districts and everything else. we have to save the people that live there and give them choices. one other question. with any of the certificate of preference do you have the numbers how many people just didn't make enough money to qualify for affordable housing? >> i don't have the actual

numbers. that is a real problem. >> it is huge everywhere. my district i know and supervisor walton's district it is prevalent because of my prior job i was out there trying to figure out how can we get people in the housing in the neighborhood? one of the biggest hurdles we worked on. people do not make the 35 as as 55% -- 55% ami. the affordable housing is 55% ami. that is $46,500 per year. people weren't making that. that is something i think we also need to address is that we need to make sure we have our academies from work force, free city college to the places to get people to b to be able to be ready to apply for these. if we have all of the

preferences if they don't make enough money. $46,500. we have had this conversation. we have talked each other's ear off about it, that they still, the notion that who are they building this for is still a problem. >> that's right. it is. i think that is the bad news, and i don't know how to make it completely go away. the good news is that the tax credit regulations from the state have recently changed to allow serving households at 30% ami in tax credits before they were at 60% or 50 or 60%. now we are able to serve folks at 30%. it is awhile for the units to be built, but at least it is a move, a little bit in that direction of being able to serve a lower income household.

>> thank you. >> thank you supervisor walton. >> thank you so ever for this report. i don't know if you know this right now. do we know how many clps exist that are not housed? >> let me get the numbers for that, too. we know that there were almost 7,000 households documented that were actually displaced back in the day. we know that approximately 2000 have used their certificates. others moved and didn't use the certificate. many of them are deceased at this point, almost 2000.

then we have on our lists about 925 active people that want us to continue to send them notifications, but of those 900 folks, there are about 200 actively looking for housing. those are the same 200 that are applying to a lot of things going to check it out and saying, no, i will wait or they are not qualifying because of income constraints and they are waiting for something they can qualify. our number that we are really looking at is around 200 households. it will probably grow. you know what i hear? when we talk to folks that some of them are waiting until they want to go into a senior building. they are going to wait for a senior building that they want

to move into to become available. we had many, many, many applications for doctor davis from the certificate of preference holders. >> i am aware why a lot of the clps wait to accept certain housing. as we look at do you know the ethnic breakdown of the beneficiaries of the clps and neighborhood preference? >> we are going to come back to you in january 2020 with a full demographic report. i can tell you that the certificate of preference program demographics are 99% african-american folks. we will come back with the

displaced tenant and neighborhood preference demographics. >> that is key. i remember when we had the neighborhood preference fight, there were a lot of communities that typically would fight together that weren't on the same page around neighborhood preference in terms of what they thought the unattended consequences would be for certain groups, and i think it is important that people see the data how important this actually was, particularly for a black community and communities of color to remain and come back to san francisco as well. how are we informing the communities when there is affordable housing in the pipeline of neighborhood preference strategies and how these work? >> we just in 2018, we revamped our inclusionary bmr marketing requirements because we weren't

-- buildings were coming up and people didn't know there were bmrs in the building. we have them put a sign on the outside of the building there are available units coming up so you know that is something that you can attain. we work really hard with developers, both nonprofit and for profit to do local neighborhood outreach. when people apply through the system, through our on-line application system, first of all, we have e-mail housing alert that goes out to, i want to say 45,000 people, 47,000 people, and when people apply through dahlia, they put address in, it automatically tells them you get this preference.

they have to upload a document tthat shows their address. if they don't upload up to ask them over again. this really matters to get eligible if you go further to upload the document. we have great up take in the neighborhood preference from people. some didn't know they would get it until they actually applied and it was given to them. i don't know if that answers your question. >> have them build all affordable and understanding where supervisor brown is coming from in terms of lowering income requirements for affordable. i know that. for instance 10a and 11:00 a.m. going as low as 30% and everything. we will check in on that and check on that. that work is being done.

we are laser focused on keeping an eye on that in the district as well. >> i want to add that i think the report really does show that preferences as a strategy for housing access is having some useful effect. i appreciate the support. the board is going to get the report on an annual basis. i think it shows a limit as policy tool in the face of the rampant displacement crisis looking at the numbers of applican't in the preference category. i think it was over 9,000 and less than 300 were housed through preference. it is good to see the numbers. that gap i think highlights the need to tackle the housing speculation and displacement crisis head on as well as have effective preference programs to create better access to

affordable housing opportunities for people we feel like should be a high priority. you know, i think above all, we clearly need to build more affordable housing in the city, and to increase opportunities for those in san francisco to have stable housing in the community and city wide. there is a lot of focus on that in the mayor's office to expand affordable housing. as supervisor brown referenced, that is particularly true on the west side in district four that haven't received investments on affordable housing until now. on the preferences there are no housing preference eligible projects in district four, district one or district 7. the west side of the city.

of the thousands of applicants from the west side, most were unhoused by the program. those that applied from my district were housed outside of my district. there were zero applicants able to use the neighborhood preference in district four because there was no project in their neighborhood. i wanted to make those points and maybe ask the question that is on a broader topic. if the affordable housing bond that is in the works passes, will money be dedicated to affordable housing projects in neighborhoods that have been under served, for example, in district four? >> i don't have the answer to that question. i am sure i can find out where things are going with the bond. i know that every dollar that we get goeswa