finally, i wanted to underscore this issue of the threat. because there have been 400 of these eviction notices served gins since january 2017. some are short, and some are long-term. and behind that are also fraudulent evictions that are not being actually filed with the rent board. they have landlord notices -- [buzzer] >> chairwoman: can you finish that thought and then i have a question for you. >> sure. it is a tactic of some landlord attorneys to issue an unfiled notice, claiming a temporary eviction, and i have a copy of a letter from a landlord saying we're going to evict you for nine months. you've already rejected a buyout. you have one week to accept a buyout, because we're doing capital renovations, and the tenants took the buyout.

>> chairwoman: a quick question -- i know that is happening, and it is happening in the mission district constantly, so this is a really important piece of legislation. but i just want to understand what happened. so the person gets a preference, moves into an affordable housing unit through that preference, and then their original unit, the capital improvements are done, and the landlord does the right thing and offers it back to the tenant. >> right. >> chairwoman: does that person then have to move in or lose the unit -- can you walk me through how that is going to work? >> sure. this will require an amendment to our leases so that it would need to provide for affordable housing unit when the tenant gets a preference and they move in with this temporary preference. it would need to be a condition of the lease -- there is a policy that you can haven't more than one rental unit, if you have affordable housing. if you have another unit

offered to you, it is a legitimate condition of they're having a temporary unit, if the original unit is offered back to you, you need to move back, and there should be a reasonable time to move back. that tenant would be provided reasonable time. then the relocation assistance that is being provided can be used for what it should be, which is moving in and moving out, but not having to pay exorbitant rents. >> chairwoman: so it would be a condition of the lease that when their original unit becomes available again, they must move back in? >> yes. >> chairwoman: and that is allowed with tax credit, funding these temp prairiprairietemporary leases. >> we wouldn't call it a temporary lease. there are quite a number of units where the tenant never gets the original

offered. those tenants, they can't moved out and -- if they can't get enough out -- it really is an intent to clear a building, and their ace in the back pocket is okay -- so sometimes they never get the unit back. some tenants do not get a unit back that has been reconfigured, so they can't actually move back in. for whatever reason, tenants don't always get to move back. my colleague noted she has a case which has been going on two years now, and they haven't been offered the restored unit back. so when somebody gets into an affordable unit, they're not saying i'm going to stay here for a lifetime, but i'll stay there for the period of time i need the unit. so it will be a conditional lease. there is nothing, as far as we know from discussing with our counsel, that prohibits a lease

provision which would state that if they have other housing available, that becomes available to them or is restored to them, that they would move out, and that would be a condition, a term of the lease. currently all leases do not have it, so currently we don't do it. we do not know of a prohibition in the lease to be able to do that. >> i was going to add the operative language on page five, which sa temporary displaced tenant may occupy an affordable housing unit until the earlier of one: the tenants reoccupying the unit, or, too, the tenants declining or failing to accept an offer to reoccupy the unit within 30 days of receipt of such an offer. >> chairwoman: i was reading that language, but it was very confusing. the preference is gone, but they're already living in the unit. so that is not a preference. it's a lease. >> mr. fujioka and i spoke

about that. would you like to elaborate? >> we would need to have an addendum to our lease, which would say it is a good cause. basically what the tax credit law is that you can't evict without good cause. but a provision of the lease -- if you're breaching a provision of the lease, a condition of the lease is that is grounds to terminate. >> chairwoman: if the tenant prefers their new home or has gotten used to living there, we would have to initiate eviction proceedings? >> and that is not something that we are in the business of doing, but when we have to do it, we do it. so -- and so -- i want to add, so the, um, we understand there are questions that have been raised, particularly with respect to tax credit projects. it is important to note that a good many of the units that are available

are inclusionary units, which are not subject to the tax credit laws, so we can write the laws as we want them, as long as there is good cause. we have an equivalent in our good samaritan law. so it is -- so we need to be able to think this through in order for us to accommodate the numbers of tenants are being relocated, that need temporary, or long-term, sometimes -- temporary to long-term housing, but it is not without a term. >> chairwoman: okay. the problem with adding new preferences is it doesn't add additional housing.

it just bumps someone up the list. i agree this is a major problem and we need to fix it. i'm just a little concerned about how this would work. in practice. and if we would end up having to evict someone, and given that it is 400 people in two years -- with the four preferences at this point, we don't have affordable housing for people that don't fit into the preference. >> if i may to the chair, not all -- you have to still be income-el available. eligible. and not all 400 would be income-el jaifnlt aneligible. and we slipped this in as a fourth tier. so the formally homeless and neighborhood preference -- all of that is still further up the list. >> chairwoman: i understand that.

it's just -- i don't know what an alternative solution is, and i agree this is a major problem. i just could see us being in the business -- unlike good samaritan, which are private buildings, these are projects that are city-funded, and i can see people getting comfortable in their units and not wanting to leave, and then having an eviction, or if the rent is raised legally because of the capital improvement -- it doesn't feel very clean. but i understand that i can't think of an alternative, either. >> if it helps, there are two other elements to this. >> chairwoman: right. >> it shall be noted that the move-outs -- when somebody moves for a cab tacapital improvement, in most instances, most of their belongings still remain in the unit. their unit is

uninhabitable, but they haven't completely moved out. it is, in fact -- there home remains. they just can't live in it because of dust, debris, etc. so it is, you know, a move out, but it is not like you might have imagined. >> chairwoman: right. >> the -- and at the point where they are -- i think that the reality is that tenants will have -- let us assume that tenants will make rational choices in their interests. and you have a rental unit, which is your home, is being offered back to you. and if they do not accept it, then they lose the unit, that is for sure, right? if they're being offered their unit back, they lose their unit unless they

accept it within a period of time. so, yes, they may be looking at this dilemma of a unit they know they can move back, it is their former place, it is still their home, many of their belongings are still there, and then they have a unit which, if they stay and pass up their old unit, they're basically abandoning their home. and i think that in most instances, i would argue, perhaps in the vast majority of instances, people will want to move back. that's the rational choice. >> not to use one of the families that testified today, but the reality is if you've lived in that unit for 44 years, and it is proximate to all of the services, whether they're medical, in your community, and then you take a temporary place, which, by the way, is probably not in the neighborhood, particularly if you're in the northeast corner, where there isn't a lot of new affordable housing that has been built, but a lot of

rent-controlled housing stock, you might end up in another part of the city, where more is being built, district 10, for instance, district 6, for instance, and you probably, at the end of that year, want to go home. >> chairwoman: thank you. i understand those arguments. a question to the city attorney. i read the language on page five several, several times, and it wasn't clear to me that that meant what mr. fujioka and supervisor peskin was saying, which is there will be an addendum saying that a just cause of eviction will be being offered back your original unit. can you confirm that's what that language says? >> deputy city attorney john gibner. the ordinance provides that the preference only applies during this period. and once the tenant begins to occupy the affordable housing unit, the tenant's

right to occupy that unit ends when the tenant reoccupies the former unit, the rental unit, or refuses -- or declines an offer to return. the mechanism to make that work will be a lease term with the affordable housing provider. >> chairwoman: maybe what is making me -- what is making this hard for me to understand is that the preference then -- i've interpreted the preference as that's how you get the unit in the first place. but the preference lasts with you throughout the entire tenant tenancy? >> there are two different sentences. one says the preference only lasts for this period of time. and the second sentence says once you've exercised the preference and you're in the affordable housing unit, one of the conditions of your

particular preference is that it is a short-term occupancy. >> chairwoman: okay. thank you. i appreciate it. thank you, mr. fujioka and supervisor peskin for explaining it to me. i'm so sorry. please come forward. >> withou i'd like to add that construction delays are often the result of lengthy permitting process, whether the construction is related to residential, commercial units, or seemingly interminable public infrastructure projects. in the private sector, this is really notable and most visible where there has been significant fire damage to infrastuctures. to structures. they typically are uninhabitable for a period of years. >> chairwoman: thank you. is there any other member

of the public that wishes to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor peskin. >> yeah. i don't want to in any way cut off a member of the committee. i can wait. >> chairwoman: supervisor? >> just a couple of things. one -- and thank you because this is an important preference. i just want to make sure we're 100% clear that this is just specific to displaced tenants -- >> temporary displaced tenants, as compared to the existing tier for folks who have been l. s.'d or o.m.i'd. >> and the language talks about the reasons why a landlord can ask for an extension. but do we have anything in

here -- and i didn't see it -- that guarantees that the landlord takes care of payment for that additional time for tenants? >> you are, through the chair -- supervisor walton is putting his finger on an area of policy that this legislation does not address that i think is worthy of a policy dialogue. right now the amount that an individual or a family gets is fixed, regardless of duration. it is a thorny area of public policy that i think we have to grapple with. this legislation does not do that. what the additional language that i'm offering today in the bottom of six and top of seven do, is actually give the administrative law -- so right now, if you do a temporary displacement eviction for more than three months, there is a process by which the landlord has to go to an administrative law judge

under the rent board. and there are certain things that at this point they do not consider. so this would add a whole number of things that the a.o.j. would have to consider, relative to hardship, relative to necessity, relative to time, that currently -- if you look at the vast majority of these cases, if somebody comes in and says, hey, the project is going to take a year, generally the a.l. j. says okay, it takes a year this is giving them some other things to consider. but the larger part that you're talking about i'm interested in exploring. >> i want to thank supervisor peskin for bringing this important proposal forward. and thanks to all of the tenants who shared their stories today, and all of the tenant advocacy organizations that have

highlighted this serious issue and this trend in sort of tenant rights that really needs to be addressed. i do have -- i do share some of the questions that chair ronan and supervisor walton have raised about some of the specifics of this important proposal. i just had a question around -- i see that the tenant advocacy groups, or perhaps the city and the mayor's office, or the rent board, had come up with the documentation of 400 temporary eviction notices with the rent board since 2017. i just had a question about -- a few questions about that figure. and how many -- actually, one question is: do we know how many of those cases were extended beyond the three-month standard

temporary eviction period? >> so i don't know if shelby wants to speak to that. i think she is the one who prepared this. if you know the answer to that... [inaudible] >> you'll have to come forward. >> sorry. >> the rent board doesn't keep that data, but some of it is retrieveable to the extent that it is through an owner petition. not every owner petitions for more time, they just take it. to the extent there is a petition, we can provide that by the next hearing, which i understand there will be. so i think there is an answer to that. certainly -- and you can speak to your case -- >> yes. >> we do have a sense of -- i mean, they are

granted. if that's the question. >> uh-huh. >> and if you have questions about the -- the number, there is no -- there is no record except to the extent that a landlord will petition, and we can get that data by the next meeting. would that be okay? >> if not a specific number, i was curious about the proportion of the cases that go from the three-month sort of standard temporary period, where there is a request to extend -- >> we will gather that information for the next hearing. >> thank you. because that seems like that is a really serious part and aspect of this problem. so thank you. i also had another question -- >> if i could just interject, i know rent board staff has been involved with my staff. i don't know if there are any staff here who would like to answer supervisor mar's question?

no. >> i had another question, maybe it is to the mayor's office of housing, following chair ronan's questions around how this additional preference might -- would impact the -- our overall sort of affordable housing program, and the long wait lists we have ready for community members that don't even qualify for preferences to get into affordable housing. i had questions about how this would impact it. it looks like we might expect 100 based on the data that was presented, 100 or more temporary evictions happening per year, and a good portion of those, you know, would be able to be eligible for this new preference. how would that impact the existing preferences and the broader pull of

community members that are applying for affordable housing? >> amy chung, mayor's office of housing community development, thank you, supervisor peskin for bringing forward this legislation. we currently have four preferences. the c.o.p., displaced tenant, and the neighborhood preference and the preference. most of the occupants of our affordable housing come through our portfolio through utilizing one of these preferences. most of the preferences do see high utilization. and the neighborhood preference in particular is almost 40%. we set aside 40% of units for the neighborhood preference, and we see almost 100% utilization of that preference. we do see some capacity in the displaced tenant housing preference. we reported to the board earlier this year on the utilization of preferences. and we did see some capacity under d.t.h.p., which is why we worked

with supervisor brown and supervisor peskin to include tenants that would be potentially displaced from expiring affordability projects to be rolled into that preference. in terms of adding another preference, it does mean that there is, i think, less units available for the union public who do not currently qualify for one of these preferences. of course, it is a policy question of who we should prioritize in our affordable housing portfolio. because there is a d.t.h.p. preference already, and there has been some capacity under that preference, we would ask that the supervisor consider this preference rolling into the d.t.h.p. preference. obviously, that changes the order of where it fits, but that is something we think would be better in terms of ease of implementation. but we do see some capacity in d.t.h.p., but, overall, if you don't have any one of these preferences, it will be

more competitive for an applicant to apply for our affordable housing units. >> thank you so much. and just one sort of followup question. do you have any sense, like, what -- if we did move ahead and enact this really good proposal and create this separate preference, what would be the likelihood that somebody having this new category preference have to access affordable housing opportunities, given that you said that most of the affordable housing opportunities that have opened up, the b.m.r. units, are filled already with people in the first -- who were in the first three preference categories. >> i think the way that the legislation reads currently is that preference would apply to 100% of the units, considering, like,

compatibility with, like, the tax credit program and other financing programs that we have to meet those requirements. but, for example, d.t.h.p. only applies to 20% of the units. and neighborhood preference only applies to 40% of the units. i think in this legislation, the preference would apply to 100% of the units, like c.o.p., and it does come before the levers. preference. so applicants applying for housing under this preference would be more competitive. more competitive than those under the other preference, and obviously those who do not have a preference at all. i think there is obviously opportunity for tenants who are applying for this preference to be housed in our universal sphocial housing. affordable housing. we share supervisor peskin's goal of wanting to house tenants who are displaced from these renovations. and our desire to really tackle displacement is a priority for us.

through preferences as a tool, through preservation as a tool. something that does live outside of our scope of work is this temporary housing. we really strive to create and preserve housing so that residents can live in those units permanently. so i think what we would appreciate is just further discussion about how to implement this kind of program given the possibility that a household potentially may not want to relocation back to their original unit. many may, but some may not. and we would -- it would be a very difficult situation for us to be evicting a household who does not want to leave permanent affordable housing that is built for permanent occupancy. so that is something we would appreciate further discussion on. it is something that we don't currently do, and it lives outside of our scope

of work. thank you. >> 819 lombard is actually a perfect example. part of what sparked that project and part of the benefit was the additional of three adus. so while on the one hand we're trying to incentavise the building of new somewhat affordable housing, we are ending up actually losing existing affordable housing. and so part of what i think the community and the supervisor is trying to do is to create some

impediments, where bad actors are disincentive vised. disincent vised. and a some point that tenant is going to be able to come back, there is a financial disincentive for them to keep that unit open as we have taken care of that family for six months or a year or year and a half. and, yes, it is a policy choice because the pie is getting a little bit smaller. there is no question about that. and that means that some folks are waiting longer in line. but it also means that we are saying that that rent-controlled unit is going to remain a rent-controlled unit at its previous rent. there are legitimate reasons that people have to temporarily displace a tenant for major work. some of the mandatory work. i get that.

but there is also a group of folks who go about, many of them speculators, keeping units off the market as long as they can, knowing that that tenant is not going to return. to the extent that we (a) say we're going to own it and have a place for them because we actually do have the capacity within our inclusionary and 100% affordable stock, and we have these additional findings that the a.l.j. has to make, and ultimately we're in the business of preserving existing rent-controlled housing at its current non-vacated rates. which is the whole reason for this. i want to thank the asian law caucus and c.d.c., and the tenant rights committee for pushing this supervisor on his legislation. i would hope that the committee would adopt the amendments and then we would have to continue it. there are other amendments

that are being discussed that might require additional con contuances. >> chairwoman: i'm wondering if we should add tenants replaced by fire -- >> they're already in. it includes o.m.i.s, fire, and -- >> chairwoman: okay. because sometimes, when the unit -- when a fire doesn't require demolition, they can come back. but i guess they would fall under the first preference, where it wouldn't be temporary, and they wouldn't have to -- they wouldn't have to give up the unit once their new

unit was offered to them? >> i now understand, and am happy to talk to your office in the intervening week. yes, i get it. >> chairwoman: okay. great. i'm happy to make a motion to accept the amendments, if that's okay with my colleagues. can i take that without objection? without objection, that motion passes. and then we'll continue this item. supervisor peskin, would you prefer to the call of the chair or to next week? >> i think one week, and i will have hopefully only one more amendment next week -- maybe two, now that you've got that idea. >> chairwoman: okay. so we'll continue this item for one week, to the next rules committee meeting. >> thank you colleagues. >> chairwoman: without objection, that motion passes. thank you. thank you, everyone.

mr. clerk, can you please read item number two. >> item number two is the ordinance under the administrative code to change the name of the mental health board to include in the definition of consumer one who receives substance use services, and to permit a consumer who is an employee in the health or public or private agency, and who does not have any influence or authority over any financial or contractual matter. concern the employee or the employer to be appointed to the commission. >> chairwoman: thank you. and we have andy mullen here from supervisor stephanie's office to present. >> good morning. thank you for holding this hearing today. i'm andy mullen. i'm here on behalf of supervisor stefani, who holds the board of supervisor's seat on the mental health board, and she unfortunately couldn't be here today. and many of the members are here for public comment. the legislation before you

today is fairly simple. it makes three proposed changes. i'm going to sort of discuss them just in order of importance. the mental health board is a fairly unique body in that it has been around since 1956. and it puts a majority of its seats for consumers of mental health services or family members of consumers of mental health services. which means it puts people directly in this system in the driver's seat. because the mental health board has been around for so long, some of the language, i think -- and we would probably all agree -- is a little antiquated, its conception of what mental health is and the services is. the first thing it does is expand the definition of consumer, which are a majority of the members, either directing or through their family members, to in clues include substances abuse treatment services.

it also esplanade expands the eligibility of consumers to hold seats. previously there was pro bingprohibition of ployment. employment. the consumers are now waived. they could just have to excuse themselves if they had a financial conflict before them. thirdly, it proposes renaming the mental health board to the behavioral health commission. that comes because the word "behavioral health" as you all know is an umbrella term that includes mental health and substance abuse issues. our conception of this has changed a lot since 1956, before all of us were born. this is now meant to be more inclusive of the work that they do, which is interface with the department of behavioral health services under

d.p.h., and report out and advice those departments and those employees on these matters. with that, these changes come to you directly from the members themselves. and many of them are here to speak about the personal importance of these changes to this organization. and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> chairwoman: i had a question about -- and this is for you or any of the members of the mental health board, where the term "consumer" comes from. it brings up the idea of someone who is buying something. and i'm just wondering why patient or individual isn't used as opposed to "consumer." >> that is such a good question. i have no idea what the answer is. >> chairwoman: i was figuring some members of the mental health board might be able to answer that. >> do you want to answer that? thank you. >> hi, i'm helena brooks,

staff to the mental health board. i'm trying to remember when "consumer" came in. it probably has been eight or nine years. it came from clients requesting that. what could say it is consuming mental health services and substance abuse services, but it was clients not wanting to be referred to as clients or patients, was my memory. >> chairwoman: i appreciate that. i just always -- it just never made sense to me, so i was curious about that. thank you so much. are there any questions? no. we'll open up this item for public comment. any member of the public who would like to speak? and thank you so much to the members of the mental health board for being here today and for serving on this body and for all of the advocacy you do on behalf of this community. it is so appreciated. good morning. >> good morning. thank you. i'm john sanders. i co-chair the board, and

i hold a consumer seat. and just to give, i gues guess -- i guess to underline one of the reasons we're requesting the change is historically there has been a divide between mental health and substance abuse disorder services, leaving consumers -- basically leaving consumers no choice but to choose between co-occurring disorders. if they go for treatment for one, they're often excluded from one or more programs based on having substance abuse for one or mental health issues for the other. again, with behavioral health being more inclusive in addressing both, mental health and substance abuse disorders, the name change would align us not only with other california counties

that have transitioned in this manner, but it also helps us when we're -- with programs that are seeking funding. oftentimes there is that same divide between mental health and substance use. and when we have these integratitintegrative services,t pushes them to gain funding for those sources. [buzzer] >> chairwoman: thank you so much. >> good morning, chairwoman ron nan and members of the committees. my name is terry bora, and i have been on themental health board for four-year. the change has been

gradual, i would say, over the last three years. there are now 11 commissions that are called behavioral health, and there are 32 boards that have used the name mental health/substance abuse. i think that this gives the public more reason to contact our board if there are certain situations that they would like us to look into. it also expands the facilities that we can monitor. which i think is a good thing. the public needs to know that our board, our new commission, is there to serve them. so i think this is a good thing. i know in the scheme of everything that you're looking at, it is not addressing homelessness, it is not addressing tenants. but even shakespeare said, what's in a name? so this is an important change for us. thank you.

>> good morning. my name is richelle slota, and i serve on the mental health board. sandra fewer appointed me. i am in favor of this change because it improves clarity and consistency for our message. and that's the heat of it. heart of it. it is not a huge thing. it is a little thing, but it is an important thing. thank you very much. >> chair ronan, supervisors, my name is greg betor, and i'm, too, a member of the health board. as i've been on the board, i have noticed a fine line

between mental health and mental health/behavioral health and then substance abuse. they've all been put under the same umbrella, and i feel that as we move on and progress, the term "behavior" would probably encompass, one, similar things that we're working with, and i think my colleague just said, we don't do much housing or the things you guys are dealing with, but i feel that the change in name would give us a little more flexibility in the things that we do. thank you for your consideration. >> chairwoman: thank you so much. the next speaker. >> thank you, and good afternoon. my name is iddelle wilson, and i'm a native of san francisco. i love our resourceful

city, it is the most city in this world. we have the best services you can possibly get. you cannot get anywhere else. renaming our board from a board to a can commission is very important because somehow when it is a commission, it seems a little more important. i'm not saying that boards aren't important. please, don't nobody go back and say i said boards aren't important. but when you're a commission, people are oh, you're a commissioner, oh, how are you? no, i'm just kidding. it would be very important. i'm in support of everything my colleagues had to say. i'm not going to repeat it. i'm in support and behind all of them. thank you so much. >> chairwoman: is there any other member of the public that would like to speak? would you like to speak

again, soon to be commissioner? alana? do you want to say anything else. that didn't take up your time, sorry. >> i'm not a commissioner. i'm just staff to the board. >> chairwoman: oh, okay. >> i want to make clarity on two of the items, the one about consumers who are employed by the department being on the board. that is actually a state regulation that was not in the original administrative code because it came bou about about two years ago. and the third item about our role with the mental health services act was also added by the state. so, any other questions? >> chairwoman: that's all. thank you so much. is there any other member of the public that would like to speak? >> i was just wondering if any of the consumer groups might qualify, kind of, as lobbyists if they're selling any kind of material, like needles or what have you to any of the programs, and then

they're sitting on the -- i don't know, in effect, who is on the commission, but i mean speaking in generalities. using one example that i can -- or one item that comes to mind. i was just wondering, lobbyists sitting on the board as consumers. >> chairwoman: thank you. seeing no other members of the public who would like to speak, public comments is closed. i just wanted to really give a shoutout and a thank you to the members of the mental health board, soon to be the behavioral health commission, it would appear. as many of you know, i've been working very closely on these issues and on a proposal with supervisor matt haney. we were going to come and

speak to you about it at your last meeting, which was unexpectantly cancelled, so i'll really looking forward to the opportunity to speak with you all. i will say that mental health assess also recognizes the integration of a substance abuse illness and mental health illnesses as being very similar and oftentimes people have two dual diagnosis. most providers say it is a rare day when they see someone with just a substance abuse illness or just a mental illness, and not a co-incurring diagnosis. so this makes a lot of sense to be changing that name. i also have to say that i'm very excited that you will now have an official role in oversight of our substance use programs in san francisco. you know, most of those are run through health

360, which i think is an incredible organization, but i do believe they need some oversight in terms of both the switch to drug, medi-cal, in terms of funding sources for their services, and the number of vacant beds there are in the facility every night. we know there certainly is not a lack of need for those beds in our city. but somehow, whether it is procedures within the organization to get into those beds, or the type of programs that are being offered, there is a mismatch in terms of what is going on there. because the fact that there has been as many as 70 beds vacant in a night is up to the level of an outrage given what we all see, the suffering we see in the streets every day in san francisco. so the fact that this board will be soon to be commissioned, and will be overseeing and forgetting

out what is going wrong there, and how can the city intervene to make sure that is not the case is a relief to me. i wanted to thank you all for your extraordinary work. i can't wait to meet with you all and talk about mental health assess, and how we're really going to be hopefully very shortly a model for the nation on how to achieve genuine mental health parity in the city. perhaps we can finally do that in san francisco and then sprayed it to the state and the rest of the country. there is a lot of work and advancement happening in this field. i certainly hope that san francisco will be on the forefront of moving that forward and i very much look forward to working with all of you. thank you for bringing this forward, supervisors stefani and mandelman, and thank you to the

commissioners for doing all of your extraordinary work. i look forward to getting to know you much better shortly. with that, is there a motion? supervisor mar? >> i just wanted to echo your deep thanks and appreciation for the board members and soon to be commissioners on such an important body here in the city. and thank you for all of your work and leadership on these critically important issues that connect to so many other important and challenging sessions that we are dealing with as a city. i would like to make a motion that we move this forward to the board.

>> chairwoman: without objection, i move it. mr. clerk, are there any other items? >> that concludes the meeting today. >> chairwoman: thank you so much. the meeting is adjourned. [meeting adjourned at 1 11:

>> my name is andrea, i work as

a coordinator for the city attorney's office in san francisco. a lot of it is working with the public and trying to address their public records request and trying to get the information for their office. i double majored in political science and always tried to combine both of those majors. i ended up doing a combination of doing a lot of communication for government. i thought it would connect both of my studies and what was i was interested in and show case some of the work that government is doing. >> i work for the transportation agency known as muni and i'm a senior work supervisor. >> i first started as a

non-profit and came to san francisco and started to work and i realized i needed to work with people. this opportunity came up by way of an executive fellowship. they had a program at mta to work in workforce development type project and i definitely jumped on that. i didn't know this was something that i wanted to do. all i knew is that i wanted to help people and i wanted to empower others. >> the environment that i grew up that a lot of women were just stay-at-home moms. it wasn't that they didn't have work, but it was cheaper to stay home and watch the kids instead of paying pricey day care centers. >> my mom came from el salvador during the civil war. she worked very hard.

when she came here and limited in english, she had to do a service job. when i was born and she had other kids, it was difficult for her to work because it was more expensive for her to be able to continue to work in a job that didn't pay well instead of staying at home and being able to take care of us. >> there isn't much support or advocacy for black women to come in and help them do their jobs. there also aren't very many role models and it can be very intimidating and sometimes you feel uncomfortable and unsure of yourself and those are the reasons exactly why you need to do it. when i first had the opportunity, i thought that's not for me. my previous role was a project manager for a biotech start up. i thought how do i go from

technology to working in government. thinking i didn't know about my skills, how am i going to fit in and doing that kind of work. thinking you have to know everything is not what people expect have you, but they expect you to ask questions when you don't know and that's important. >> my mom was diagnosed with cancer. that was really difficult. she encouraged me to go to school because in case anything happened i would be able to protect myself. i wanted to be in oncology. i thought going to school it would set me for the trajectory and prepare me for my life. >> we need the hardships to some of the things that are going to ultimately be your strength in the future. there is no way to map that out and no way to tell those things. you have to do things on your own and you

have to experience and figure out life. >> you don't have to know what you are going to do for the rest of your life when you are in college or high school because there are so many things to do. i would encourage you to try to do everything that you are remotely interested. it's the best time to do it. being a young woman with so many opportunities, just go for it and try >> i went through a lot of struggles in my life, and i am blessed to be part of this. i am familiar with what people are going through to relate and

empathy and compassion to their struggle so they can see i came out of the struggle, it gives them hope to come up and do something positive. ♪ ♪ i am a community ambassador. we work a lot with homeless,

visitors, a lot of people in the area. >> what i like doing is posting up at hotspots to let people see visibility. they ask you questions, ask you directions, they might have a question about what services are available. checking in, you guys. >> wellness check. we walk by to see any individual, you know may be sitting on the sidewalk, we make sure they are okay, alive. you never know. somebody might walk by and they are laying there for hours. you never know if they are alive. we let them know we are in the area and we are here to promote safety, and if they have somebody that is, you know, hanging around that they don't want to call the police on, they don't have to call the police. they can call us.

we can direct them to the services they might need. >> we do the three one one to keep the city neighborhoods clean. there are people dumping, waste on the ground and needles on the ground. it is unsafe for children and adults to commute through the streets. when we see them we take a picture dispatch to 311. they give us a tracking number and they come later on to pick it up. we take pride. when we come back later in the day and we see the loose trash or debris is picked up it makes you feel good about what you are doing. >> it makes you feel did about escorting kids and having them feel safe walking to the play area and back. the stuff we do as ambassadors makes us feel proud to help keep the city clean, helping the

residents. >> you can see the community ambassadors. i used to be on the streets. i didn't think i could become a community ambassador. it was too far out there for me to grab, you know. doing this job makes me feel good. because i came from where a lot of them are, homeless and on the street, i feel like i can give them hope because i was once there. i am not afraid to tell them i used to be here. i used to be like this, you know. i have compassion for people that are on the streets like the homeless and people that are caught up with their addiction because now, i feel like i can give them hope. it reminds you every day of where i used to be and where i am at now.

>> evening everyone. welcome to the commission meeting. anthony, roll call. >> this is the meeting of the tran04 tran02. it is tuesday, september 24, 2019 and the time is 5:01 p.m. a note and the ringing and use of cell phone and electronic devices are prohibited at this meeting. plea -- please be advised that any person may be removed for the ringing of any electronic