resolution which i'm in favor of. i oppose sp50, senator wiener is a speer carrier for real estate investors such as the toronto investors that built the condos at 22nd street and mission. just happened to be the same day the grand opening of those condos was the suspicious seemingly arson fire at the corner of 22nd street and mission which is still a hole in the ground. we need 100 percent affordable housing, housing for families, housing for workers. >> thank you so much.

one final ask. any further public comments before we close this? seeing none. public testimony is now closed. i just wanted to say express a deep thanks to all of the diverse community members that really waited patiently to share your perspectives on this really important issue, and no matter which side you are on, on the resolution clearly on the housing affordability crisis is one of the most broadly felt issues in our city, region and state. for me personally this is one of the top reasons why i took the step to try to run for office and to be on the board of supervisors to ensure my teenage daughter is going to be able -- her and her friends and children in the city are going to be able to afford to live in the city they are going up in.

this is a personal level as well. thank you for speaking out. i assure you i was listening to every comment and taking notes. supervisor brown. >> commissioner brown: thank you. i want to thank everybody for coming today. i know there is different opinions, but we are san francisco. we do work together even when we disagree. i want to be clear. we are in a housing crisis? san francisco. how did we get here? if we want to plan for the future, then we really need to understand the past. we can't ignore history. if we look to history, we know that san francisco has not been equitable as we like to think. for the past 15 years, working class communities and communities of color and densities have born the burden

of our economic boone. mass displacement and rapid gentrification impact folks of color and low income communities. these same communities have suffered over 150 years of system inequality in housing from red lining to predator relending to segregation. residents are excluded from opportunity reach areas with good jobs, accessible transit, high performing schools. this is all by design. thanks to tight local zoning and land use controls that limit density, we have historically segregated this city among race and class lines. further, many of our city policies reinforce residential segregation to support wealthy communities and homeowners.

name the give aways. deed restrictions, urban renewal, exclusionary zoning, eminent domain, the list goes on and on. these oppressive legacies through several prominent examples live on. the fillmore, bayview and chinatown. even with this awful history, we still struggle to get more housing built for the communities that need it the most. for city workers, for families, teachers, and restaurant workers, we need housing. we need to change this course of history. we need to break the cycle and look for real solutions.

let's talk about the present. over the past few decades we had a healthy job market, and we have also have had housing unaffordability. it is a crisis. since 2017, the bay area has 3.5 times more jobs than housing units. 54% of the job growth of the bay area since 2010 has occurred in san francisco and santa clara. this growth is staggering. these simple statistics also means awful trends that we have never seen before like increase in the working homeless. four hour commute for 8 hour workday people in cars because they can't afford to live where

they work. this is unacceptable. it is time to share the wealth. it is time to share the responsibility and time to challenge the status quo. i think sp50 will increase the housing supply that we need through all of the communities. to take on housing throughout the state of california by increasing the zone capacity by housing and focusing near transit service and jobs rich areas. we need to build housing for our working people. we can't ignore, we cannot ignore that the california labor federation is supporting this

legislation. every member of that body works with partners at seiu. plumbers. pipe fitters, teachers and electricians every day they support this. we need to continue to tell these working folks we care about them, and we care about them living in san francisco. we know to meet this housing and homeless crisis, we need regional solutions. san francisco cannot do it alone. let's express concrete concerns and put forth specific amendments because we do need regional solutions and we do need these statewide solutions and we don't have the power to do that without working with our state representatives.

whether or not we like it or not, we don't have that power. statustatus quo is not working. we need bold proposals. just not here, we need to have the rest of the bay area and california get into gear. we need the state to bring the north bay and the peninsula to the table. i do not believe we need to oppose to have leverage or to be at the table. at the most as one of the most important cities in this state, san francisco and la have all of the leverage they need, and we are in a great position to work with senator wiener on amendments. we should be working with him to get this right. sp50 already has lower height limits than th the previous sp8.

that was the result of negotiation. the state legislation still has a long path, and many committee hearings ahead. this is going to be actively discussed and amended for another four or five months through the state legislature. san francisco has already committed ourselves to leading on climate change. two days ago, we voted to declare a climate emergency. at that same time we cannot contradict ourselves and note that the natural resource defense counsel is supporting this legislation. once again it is supporting the legislation. we need more people to live in cities to combat climate change. we need people to live more densely and we need to move forward and do that now. the fate of the climate depends

on cities making more changes. it depends on cities making room and letting people live in the communities. not just in san francisco, but in all cities if you are ban areas. we have got to be open, we have got to be creative, and we have to be bold. we need to be bold and show real leader ship in working with our state representatives to bring these solutions forward. san francisco is not a city of nay sayers. we have never been that. we don't run from our challenges, be it climate change or immigration. we lead, we lead. we need to show the same leadership on housing. let's lean into this policy discussion and demonstrate why our leaders have always mattered

in the city of california. my question, what specific amendments are we seeking? we should make additional anti displacement protection for renters for sb50. as a long time neighborhood activist, i firm leap believe that projects are better with neighborhood input, absolutely. jim and a few of us worked on this together as neighborhood activists. we cannot continue to allow input and language like we don't want more people here, we don't want more density. we have seen that happen when we tried to build 100% senior affordable housing. we should not be stoking irrational fears of a 13 story building next to a 2 story building of massey vacations.

-- evictions. we have to protect vulnerable communities including renters from displacement. that is why i worked so hard back in when i was a legislative aid to push through neighborhood preference. that is why i sponsored legislation to waive fees. i am pushing so hard to expand the small site programs with supervisor fewer. san francisco will have a say in what we build and how and for whom. local controls will still stay in place and they include discretionary reviews, environmental reviews, lawsuits and labor and unemployment standards, local development fees, community engagement, local design standards, local

inclusionary housing standards, local demolition controls and local approval processes all remain untouched. to me, that is what made me come forward as a community activist to support though. sb50 does include new protection for tenants by banning demolition for buildings occupied by renters within the past 7 years for the building that had been ellis act eviction in the past 15 years. we need a rental registry. we have to work on that. these additions of protections in sb50 constitute real progress from when sb827 had been debated. what i am troubled by the language of this resolution and

the neal that we -- feel that we may be shutting the city off from further negotiations in sacramento. the trickle down, control, i can't use those terms. i have a question, too. what is a luxury home in this city? what is a luxury apartment? is it the standard one bedroom renting for more than $3,700 per month? the medium home selling for $1.4 million? be honest, not all housing is luxury or affordable. this leaves out most of the people in san francisco who are working people, who cannot afford the true luxury housing and doesn't qualify for affordable housing. we can't build affordable housing in rh- rh-1 and 2 neighborhoods.

it needs to be at a certain scale. in all neighborhoods should we accept that scale? we can't ignore the nonprofit housing association of northern california supports sb50. zoning limited to rh-1 doesn't mean apartment buildings can't be built. it ensures affordable housing won't be built. it is just not true that sb50 would do nothing to expand affordable housing. our own planning department has reported the sb50 is likely to increase affordable units. not only does it create inclusionary requirements in many parts of the state where there is none right now and that is really important because a lot of the -- before san francisco and we are building most of the affordable housing in this area, that is not fair. others should be building

affordable housing. this helps do that. but this also denies the very real connection between market rate development and affordable housing development. do i have questions about this? do i have concerns? absolutely. i do have questions and concerns about sb50 and how do we address supervisor fewer's concerns that we are going to get with sb50 a lot of six and nine unit market rate apartment projects with no benefit to affordability resulting in indirect replacement pressure? i have that concern. while i share a number of the questions and concerns raised by the planning department staff and others, thank you, dennis, i also don't believe that now is the time to be in opposition. how do we ensure this legislation appropriately captures the value it confers?

can we require affordable contributions on site fees for projects under two units? that is something we should look at. how do we ensure sensitive communities are equitable and definessed and how can we locally help the state with that knowledge with this work? how will this law impacted and interact with our howing law -- housing laws? how are we going to ensure a solid process for determining whether a property has previously been tenant occupied. 63% of san francisco occupied housing units are occupied by renters. this will not be a subject to ab50. in closing i want to say i have

significant questions. i do share some of my colleagues concerns but i don't think we should be in opposition to this state bill. this is my opinion, and the first legislation to seriously take on this housing crisis and the status quo. not now. when there are still 5 months and many committee meetings, hearings left to make these amendments. the things we bring up. not now when we need to build 3.5 million housing and there are 134,000 people who are homeless in this state. i feel we need to be part of solving this problem, san francisco. we need to be part of supporting solutions. i look forward to working with

my constituents and my colleagues on the board and with senator wiener to do just that. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor brown. i just want to briefly respond to your statement and not necessarily to the policy issues that you raise but clarification about the resolution in front of us and make sure you understand the resolution states we are opposed to sb50 unless amended to address the concerns of the community and affordable housing developer. number two in the resolution the board of supervisors of the city and county of san francisco ask committed to working with the state delegation to craft the necessary amendmentses to sb50 to guarantee housing affordability, protect the

communities and the charter authority. i want to make sure that was clear. >> could i respond to that? >> sure. >> yes, i know that, but i feel we really need to come with those specific amendments. instead of opposing it, i want to be at the table and come with those specific amendments i talked about, the concerns i have, and the things we should be pushing forward as a city instead of just saying no. we have to have the amendments to come forward. we are some of the most creative minds of the board of supervisors. we have really smart people. we should be coming to the state to say this is what we need to protect the most hav vulnerablen san francisco. >> i have been working in conversations with many community members, some spoke here today, some weren't able to make it, and especially people

in the afford annua affordable g committee. we didn't see the need to include that level of detail in the resolution because it states we are going to work with our state delegation including senator wiener to develop the most appropriate amendments. i heard some good ideas around amendments. one person raised the idea of exempting cities that don't have the tools and capacity to verify which units have been rented in the past years, except them from sb50. that was a good idea. another person said cities like san francisco that have been meeting or exceeding market rate housing goals, sb50 should only apply to 100% affordable housing developments. that is a good idea to consider. there are a lot of good ideas

and stuff we can do with the board of supervisors with the community and with senator wiener. >> i appreciate that, supervisor bar. instead of opposing, i want to bring forward the things we want in san francisco and we need in san francisco. that is my position. i don't want to oppose but bring forward and be at the table. thank you. >> supervisor fewer. >> thank you very much. i have a question, supervisor brown. if we were to amend the resolution to say we oppose sb50 unless amended as such and included the amendments we would like to include, would you then sign on to it? >> yes, if it talks about the things that we have concerns about and the things we want to bring forward, absolutely. i would love details annd

specifics. >> i think some of the things, for example what supervisor marmentioned. if we are already meeting the market rate housing goals or above moderate. i think we can all agree on what you say and what we have said has a board what we need the more affordable housing. amendments that meet the specific needs of san francisco now, i am asking if we included those with the resolution would that be something you would be agreeable to? >> i am open to that. i definitely want it spelled out in detail, and i definitely agree with supervisor marthere were a lot of great ideas today. i also agree a rental registry is something we need to do and have to have in place as we move forward on this. i also know that 63% of the city

is renters. a lot of the demolition would be tough to do when we have renters there. i am open. i want to make sure we are detailed going forward. >> thank you. i want to say that we heard a lot today and i think this is hitting to the heart of really where the past building of market rate and disproportionately building of market rate housing has got us to. what we can agree on as a board without any more conversation is really about we have an afford ability crisis and people cannot afford to live here. i understand that people need housing, but i want to also say about job rich.

when we see the jobs that have come into san francisco, where are those jobs for working class people? who have they been hiring? are they inputting help? we have done hearings on that. the evidence shows who we are building for. in my district, i take offense to people who say we don't want more density. only 3% of affordable housing dollars has come to my neighborhood. i am trying to preserve my rental housing. i have to say when people say if you can't afford to live in a million dollar home in my district, you can't live here in san francisco. we are not saying that. we are saying that million dollar home we don't want it to turn into $8 million unit. that is what we are saying.

we are not and this idea -- i want to tell you come to see who lives in my neighborhood. talk to me about the seniors living under the federal poverty line eating cat food for dinner. come and meet them. who is livings in the single family homes? families are tripling up in the single family homes. this criticism you elitists, i house probably more city employees than any other district in san francisco. when i constantly meet people from the m.t.a., planning, from all the other district they tell me they are my constituents. i have a lot of older homes and older units in my district where

they provide housing for working class san francisco. i agree not everything in sb50 is bad. do i think palo alto should build more, hell yes? >> beverly hills i haven't been there but i assume yes. i don't believe in trickle down economics. i don't believe if you give 1% a huge tax break for somehow for workers they will give them workers so everyone makes $100,000 a year. that is a falls hood. that is what we are being told all the time. i do not believe -- i was going to say i do believe but i do not believe trickle down housing works. when you look at what is built in san francisco. who is living two hours away from san francisco to work a $1?

who is that? that is not someone working for a sales force or twitter. it is people actually serving the people of san francisco. you go to my neighborhood and there a help wanted sign on any one of my small businesses because people can't live here. i am not saying that everything in sb50 is bad. what i'm saying is the falsehood of what they are selling is bad. i think we in san francisco we understand that we have a work force here that is building a strong economy. we also understand what it has done to the working class people. to people who are striving to put food on their table, to the seniors who retired 25 years ago who san francisco is their home for 50 years, where parents are trying to raise children here

and families and srss. i think we have seen what happens when we allow developers and depend on developers to build our affordable housing. the fifth largest economy in the world. why isn't senator wiener having a proposal to fund our affordable housing, to give us a positive stream of money to build our affordable housing. to actually keep people in my district and supervisor mar's district and brown's district. buy up these small sites before speculators do it. i have spoken with people starting with one apartment building and now they have 250 buildings. i don't believe in trickle down housing. what i believe is that in san

francisco working class folks have taken a beating for the last 12 years. we now have seen our neighbors displaced. we have seen our family members displaced. we have seen people who have contributed to the lively hood of san francisco. we have seen people of color pushed out. we have seen people who were working class but not college educated. we have seen them pushed out. we have seen these peopl peopleo are renters in our city facing the biggest fear of their lives that they will be evicted and kicked out because gentrification happens so quickly. it is true in supervisor mar's district and my district we have not had a lot of building. we are in an older part of san francisco we have rent controlled homes. i wish this kind of energy they are putting to sb50 would put to

repeal to expand our units that are affordable. where is that voice? i would hope that in this time where san francisco is a city that is known for inclusiveness and to say that these if you say you want to protect renters, you want to protect low income folks, you want to build more housing for low income folks and somehow that is racist, i don't understand that. yes, yes, yes. we need more opportunity for the people who really define who are our legacy in san francisco. we have been racially diverse and economically diverse. we are a town of diverse

thoughts. you can't have that without economic diversity. the work force that built the city can't live here. the people that serve san francisco every day can't live here. who is pushed out? come on. open year eyes. we cannot turn a blind eye to this. yes, some things. do i think they should build, marin county, build. you can't just have two story homes and say that fitting marin. san francisco has done what we need to do. if these other organizations have signed on, they sign on because they realize what is happening in other areas of california. but here in san francisco, we have seen what has happened. we have taken the breadth of it. we are for density. i want 100% affordable housing in my district.

i want homes protected in my district and so does supervisor mar. to say we are anti density show us. show me affordable housing in my district. keep my seniors there, keep my working class folks there and the people living there 50 years there. then let's see as san francisco how we can all come together to build for the people who are coming to keep the people here. it is not just about protection. it is about preservation and protection, and we hear the cries of people saying we can't live here any longer. how many times have we all heard that? i think part of sb50 could work for our state.

i get it. man, in san francisco and be that is the only place where it has legislative jurisdiction over, i hope it isn't too late for our city. i hope that we will keep people of color here. i hope that we will be a city that values diversity and instead of calling people a envy. let's be inclusive in my backyard and try to keep everybody here, and i think the testimony that we heard today i hear fear. i hear opposition. when people say, you know, all of these people have signed on. let's take a break, take a moment, a pause. all these people signed on. it is not just san francisco.

look at the people of san francisco. which of the people much san francisco say i actually think with the planning department bringing this data to us, what does the data show. let me find it first. whawhat does the data show? we are meeting needs for above moderate folks. we are meeting goals there. we are short on affordable housing goals. this is what it shows. it shows that we would have to build 777 units to meet our goals. can we concentrate on that? i just think it is time that actually we looked at what is really displacing those in san francisco? i feel like we are always even with my legislation, we are always trying to put a dant aid

on it. get to the root cause of it. i just think it is urgent. this argument about sb50, palo alto build more. all you places build more. we have done when we need to do in san francisco. we are carrying the region here. when cooper tino can have a google with the employees living here not investing in housing because guess what? it is not profitable. that is ridiculous. i just say i am worried, yes, absolutely, i am worried about my neighborhood, my 80,000 constituents whoever ready are struggling to stay here. yes, i am worried that one single family home worth $1 million that is true will turn into eight units each worth

$1 million each and none of the inclusionnary housing will come to my neighborhood. that gentrification i want to say is devastating. i think this is what we were hearing today that type of gentrification is sweeping and it is irreversible. i am with supervisor mar i am supporting this. i make a motion to move this to the board with a positive recommendation. [applause.] supervisor brown. >> i agree with a lot of your points. it is something that we struggle with every day here in the city. what do we build? how do we build it? who are we building it for? before i became supervisor, i

was working in that kind of here at city hall looking at development. my question was who are we building this for? even in affordable housing you had to make $46,500 a year to qualify for affordable housing. if you are making $15 an hour or muni bus driver you don't make $46,500. guess what? you can't qualify for affordable housing. there are a lot of things we need to do. a lot of things are wrong with housing, who is it for and how do we build o it and what kind f housing do we build. there are a lot of things wrong in san francisco. we have to be at the table with the state. i know there is a couple bills going on in the ab11 that is what is redevelopment at the state.

it is to put money to build 100% affordable housing. that is what we all need. i knew supervisor few errand supervisor mar want affordable housing. i have five sites empty that are affordable housing sites. there is no money for those. we definitely need this now from the state level. we need to have funding for 100% affordable housing. there is also a bill at the state for preservation. that is important for us in the city. i feel right now unless we have these specific amendments to this resolution, i can't support it. what i can say is i am definitely going to work with my colleagues, supervisor few errand supervisor marfor us to bring those forward to say this is what we want and this is with

this resolution. until then, i am going to hold off my support. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor brown. before we move on the committee action on this item, i want to respond to that point. what i feel like the urgency to move the resolution forward today in committee and full board on tuesday, it is my understanding that at the first hears in sacramento in the senate housing committee that happened on tuesday the representative of the mayor's office was there in support of sb50. i think through that there would be the assumption the city and county of san francisco are in full support of sb50 at this moment without the important amendments needed to strengthen the tenant protections and other aspects of it. that is why i think it is

important for the board to move that resolution forward stating we are in opposition to sb50 unless amended. there is the clause saying the board of supervisors is committed to working with senator wiener and the state legislative delegation to craft the amendment goes to sb50. supervisor fewer had the motion to move the resolution forward to the full board. >> it requires a roll call vote. >> i do not know if you have taken action on >> we should take action on the amendment before that. can we accent the amendment to the resolution without objection? can we take a roll call vote to recommend this item to the full board as amended as a committee report? >> the motion provided amendment

as committee report. >> as committee report, yes. >> on that motion, supervisor brown. brown no. supervisor fewer. yes. chair mar. yes. the motion passes. [applause.] is there any further business in. >> that completes the agenda for today. >> we are adjourned. thank you.

>> we take a lot of pride in what we do. the electric shop covers all of waste water, so out of this location here, we cover everything from oceanside to southeast plant and all the computations including treasure island and yerba buena. we have all the preventative responsibility, maintaining maintenance and also keeping up with work orders from operations. i would say one of the things fortunately for me is the staff

is incredibleably motivated. the staff here knows what to do, how to do the job safely, and it makes my job incredibly easy. >> they know the job, and they know the challenges, and i think it's all about personal pride. they want to do a good job. from our maintenance group to our i.n.c., dedication to the people. when they're going home, and they're crossing the bay bridge, and they get a call that there's a problem with a pump station on treasure island, they return to work. they turnaround in westbound traffic and get back to work and get this pump back in line, and i can't tell you how much that means to me as a boss and the city and county of san francisco. >> as a group, if they didn't do what they do, the streets would be flooded with waste and

gray water, and it could become a health hazard. we take a lot of pride in what we do, and we do the jobs right, and you walk away fulfilled that you've done the city a 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 spoke with people regardless of what they are. that is when you see change. that is a lead vannin advantage. so law enforcement assistance diversion to work with individuals with nonviolent related of offenses to offer an alternative to an arrest and the county jail. >> we are seeing reduction in drug-related crimes in the pilot

area. >> they have done the program for quite a while. they are successful in reducing the going to the county jail. >> this was a state grant that we applied for. the department is the main administrator. it requires we work with multiple agencies. we have a community that includes the da, rapid transit police and san francisco sheriff's department and law enforcement agencies, public defender's office and adult probation to work together to look at the population that ends up in criminal justice and how they will not end up in jail. >> having partners in the nonprofit world and the public defender are critical to the success.

we are beginning to succeed because we have that cooperation. >> agencies with very little connection are brought together at the same table. >> collaboration is good for the department. it gets us all working in the same direction. these are complex issues we are dealing with. >> when you have systems as complicated as police and health and proation and jails and nonprofits it requires people to come to work together so everybody has to put their egos at the door. we have done it very, very well. >> the model of care where police, district attorney, public defenders are community-based organizations are all involved to worked towards the common goal. nobody wants to see drug users in jail. they want them to get the

correct treatment they need. >> we are piloting lead in san francisco. close to civic center along market street, union plaza, powell street and in the mission, 16th and mission. >> our goal in san francisco and in seattle is to work with individuals who are cycling in and out of criminal justice and are falling through the cracks and using this as intervention to address that population and the racial disparity we see. we want to focus on the mission in tender loan district. >> it goes to the partners that hired case managers to deal directly with the clients. case managers with referrals from the police or city agencies

connect with the person to determine what their needs are and how we can best meet those needs. >> i have nobody, no friends, no resources, i am flat-out on my own. i witnessed women getting beat, men getting beat. transgenders getting beat up. i saw people shot, stabbed. >> these are people that have had many visits to the county jail in san francisco or other institutions. we are trying to connect them with the resources they need in the community to break out of that cycle. >> all of the referrals are coming from the law enforcement agency. >> officers observe an offense. say you are using. it is found out you are in possession of drugs, that constituted a lead eligible defense.

>> the officer would talk to the individual about participating in the program instead of being booked into the county jail. >> are you ever heard of the leads program. >> yes. >> are you part of the leads program? do you have a case worker? >> yes, i have a case manager. >> when they have a contact with a possible lead referral, they give us a call. ideally we can meet them at the scene where the ticket is being issued. >> primarily what you are talking to are people under the influence of drugs but they will all be nonviolent. if they were violent they wouldn't qualify for lead. >> you think i am going to get arrested or maybe i will go to jail for something i just did because of the substance abuse issues i am dealing with. >> they would contact with the outreach worker. >> then glide shows up, you are

not going to jail. we can take you. let's meet you where you are without telling you exactly what that is going to look like, let us help you and help you help yourself. >> bring them to the community assessment and services center run by adult probation to have assessment with the department of public health staff to assess the treatment needs. it provides meals, groups, there are things happening that make it an open space they can access. they go through detailed assessment about their needs and how we can meet those needs. >> someone who would have entered the jail system or would have been arrested and book order the charge is diverted to social services. then from there instead of them going through that system, which hasn't shown itself to be an

effective way to deal with people suffering from suable stance abuse issues they can be connected with case management. they can offer services based on their needs as individuals. >> one of the key things is our approach is client centered. hall reduction is based around helping the client and meeting them where they are at in terms of what steps are you ready to take? >> we are not asking individuals to do anything specific at any point in time. it is a program based on whatever it takes and wherever it takes. we are going to them and working with them where they feel most comfortable in the community. >> it opens doors and they get access they wouldn't have had otherwise. >> supports them on their goals. we are not assigning goals working to come up with a plan what success looks like to them. >> because i have been in the field a lot i can offer

different choices and let them decide which one they want to go down and help them on that path. >> it is all on you. we are here to guide you. we are not trying to force you to do what you want to do or change your mind. it is you telling us how you want us to help you. >> it means a lot to the clients to know there is someone creative in the way we can assist them. >> they pick up the phone. it was a blessing to have them when i was on the streets. no matter what situation, what pay phone, cell phone, somebody else's phone by calling them they always answered. >> in office-based setting somebody at the reception desk and the clinician will not work for this population of drug users on the street. this has been helpful to see the outcome.

>> we will pick you up, take you to the appointment, get you food on the way and make sure your needs are taken care of so you are not out in the cold. >> first to push me so i will not be afraid to ask for help with the lead team. >> can we get you to use less and less so you can function and have a normal life, job, place to stay, be a functioning part of the community. it is all part of the home reduction model. you are using less and you are allowed to be a viable member of the society. this is an important question where lead will go from here. looking at the data so far and seeing the successes and we can build on that and as the department based on that where the investments need to go. >> if it is for five months.

>> hopefully as final we will come up with a model that may help with all of the communities in the california. >> i want to go back to school to start my ged and go to community clean. >> it can be somebody scaled out. that is the hope anyway. >> is a huge need in the city. depending on the need and the data we are getting we can definitely see an expansion. >> we all hope, obviously, the program is successful and we can implement it city wide. i think it will save the county millions of dollars in emergency services, police services, prosecuting services. more importantly, it will save lives.

[roll call] >> clerk: also, please note that executive director shireen mcspadden is present. at this time, the commission asks that you silence all mobile phones and sound producing devices. >> thank you. and before proceeding, i would like my fellow commissioners to be aware that there is now a way to let me know if you wish to speak. there is a little place to push on the screen. your name will pop up, and you will be called in the order in which you push that button, if it works. if not, we'll just figure out another way. thank you. may i have a motion to