>> chair ronen: good morning, everyone. the meeting will come to order. welcome to february 10, 2020 meeting of the rules committee. i am supervisor hillary ronen, chair of the committee. seated to my right is rules committee vice chair catherine stefani, and seated to my left is supervisor gordon an mamar. i'd like to thank sfgovtv for airing the meeting. do you have any announcements,

mr. clerk? thank you, and can you please read number one. >> clerk: agenda item number 1 an ordinance amending the city code to authorize the city administrator identifying those departments that would qualify as business entities or associates under hipaa and to require the city administrator to develop and maintain a citywide hipaa policy. >> chair ronen: great, and i understand there will be a brief presentation?

great. >> good morning, chair ronen and committee members. we have emily cohen from the mayor's office, and i have a very brief presentation for you about our hipaa covered entity designation ordinance. i'm also joined by bill barnes from the city administrator's office who will present on their part of the ordinance. so as i'm sure as most folks are aware, hipaa is the federal law that's to protect personal information. it allows large cities or municipalities to declare themselves a hybrid covered entity. san francisco has not, and it

creates a large compliance burden for multiple city departments, even those that could not create activities. it increases our liability under hipaa, and it leaves gray area when it comes to compliance and data sharing. the ordinance that we have before you declares the city and county of san francisco a hybrid entity. i've been working with the controller's office and city administrator's office to determine which are covered entities and which are not. it's been a lengthy process, and we've consulted with a hipaa consultant to make sure we're following the process. a hipaa entity is essentially a health plan, a health care

clearinghouse, or a health care provider who transmits health records electronically for medical purposes. most city departments do not perform those activities, and so the ordinance would declare us a hybrid, and under the ordinance, the city administrator's office will be responsible for maintaining a list of those city departments, and they must submit that list via resolution to this board within 30 days of passage and then no less than three years. should a city department's resolution change, a simple list brought before the board will list the remaining

departments. i'm going to turn it over to bill to talk a little more. >> bill barnes from the city administrator's office. so as you know, the city administrator oversees the city's priorities through a charter amendment that was placed by supervisor peskin. and the city administrator would be responsible for developing and maintaining a hipaa policy. and the legislation is focused on the legal designation as a hybrid entity, but it's also focused on improving cross departmental sharing. one of the things that we hear from departmenting is sharing information on patients or clients. understanding which ones are hipaa and which ones are not will be a key reason why we

share hipaa. i want to also acknowledge the city attorney's office which has been working with us on this for a while. going forward, each of the departments that is covered under this ordinance would have their own data policies, and for the members of the public and supervisors, we also oversee a program called data s.f. which classifies all data sets in the city based on their protected and that sorts of thing, and this fits neatly into the processes and data requirements that the city administrator already performs, and i'm available for any questions, as is emily. >> chair ronen: do you have a sense of the departments already that you expect will be covered by the -- by hipaa?

>> sure. so we will make recommendations -- this committee that's been working will make recommendations to the city administrator's office. we expect the san francisco police department, the san francisco health plan, and the san francisco fire department to be the three entities that perform this. >>. >> chair ronen: i'm so happy this is finally happening. sometimes seeking data from departments that are not conforming with hipaa, they use hipaa as an excuse to not share that. if i could be added as a cosponsor, i would appreciate it. supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: thank you, chair ronen. i'm wondered why we haven't been a hybrid designation and why now, when other counties in

california already? why hasn't san francisco? >> you know, i'm not sure why we haven't gone through this process. city attorney ann pearson may be able to weigh-in. i was brought into this process, how do we involve data sharing for people involving homelessness. it's a much larger conversation beyond this issue, so i'm not sure what the delay was in doing it, but it's become clear that this is a simple and necessary first simp to ensuring our privacy and accountability for the departments that are covered. so certainly, the time is now. we shouldn't delay further. i would like to speak quickly to your point, chair ronen, that this is absolutely a big deal to help us improve how we share data and how we protect data. this is not the only privacy

law that many departments are hopeful to you. there are other state and federal privacy laws that departments need to comply with. >> if i could just take a moment to supervisor stephanie's question, so just for the public and members of the board, we have been complying with san francisco general, laguna honda. i don't think this was needed when it first came out, but as things have come along, it's been clear that you need better rules of the road and better ordinance. i think when we first started, it was like our structure was sufficient to just operate with the city as a whole entity, and now the hybrid allows us more focus on meeting these requirements. >> supervisor stefani: okay. thank you. definitely, this is the thing to be doing. i just have one more questions in terms of what are the benefits that we expect to

derive, excuse me, from becoming a hybrid designation? i know departments will be able to share information, but what does that look like in real life? how is that going to help people? is this going to help people get into recovery programs quicker? what exactly will it allow us to do? >> this will focus those added layers of cost and responsibility only on those departments that need to make those requirements. and so it will have, i think a benefit across departments. people who aren't covered by hipaa won't be bound by the same costs and regulatory requirements. a paramedic picks someone up, they drop them at the hospital. you have a firefighter at the fire department, a nurse they hospital, they're all covered.

that's what we're trying to do. as it provides health coverage for all residents, it would make those programs more efficient. thank you. >> chair ronen: supervisor mar? >> supervisor mar: supervisor stefani asked the questions that i would have asked. i believe that health care is an evolving issue, so thank you so much for your work on this, and i would like to be added as a cosponsor. >> chair ronen: thank you. we'll open this up for public comment. is there any member of the public who wishes to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. do you want to do the honors? >> supervisor mar: i would move this forward to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> chair ronen: and without objection, that motion passes unanimously. [gavel]. >> chair ronen: thank you so much. can you please read item number

two. >> clerk: agenda item number two is a hearing to consider appointing three members, terms ending april 10, 2021 to the graffiti advisory board. madam chair, there are three applicants, and there are three seats. >> chair ronen: thank you. and i believe we have all applicants here. no? is devin jones here ? yes. come on up if you'd like to share anything with us. >> hi, hi. thank you all for having me -- sorry. my name's devin jones. i work for the san francisco pretrail diversion project. i wear a number of hats over there but one of my main focuses in pretrial diversion is i've been a member of the street services program for five or six years.

are either of you familiar with san francisco pretrial diversion? okay. well, a little background. we act as an alternative to sentencing programs, so that's basically what we're most known for, and our main focus is to provide pretrial supervision for those pending legal court matters in san francisco. this ensures people are not just sitting in custody during the pretrial portion of their case, but the program i'm mostly involved in, sesp, our street environmental services program, my role has been to coordinate efforts to address graffiti in the committee. i supervise clients assigned by the court to deter future

involvement by community service. and i supervise them by making them clean the graffiti themselves. we can address the issues facing the city by the ongoing struggles of graffiti vandalism. i'm also eager to learn of resources and bettopportunitie better focus those who view graffiti as art. we have discussions at our meetings between street art and graffiti. so while my work is mostly on addressing older teens and younger adults at vandalizing or defacing property, i'm looking forward to learn more in this seat, seat 12 if i am given this opportunity. thank you. >> chair ronen: thank you so

much. thank you for your willingness to serve. it's really important, and your expertise is perfect for this body. really appreciate it. any other questions? no? thank you. >> thank you. >> chair ronen: is darcy brown here? no. and is daniel kling here? come on up. >> good morning. >> chair ronen: good morning. hi how are you? >> doing well, thanks. my name is daniel kling. i've served a couple of terms on the graffiti advisory board. i work for recology. i'm a san francisco homeowner. i have two children in the san francisco public schools, and i am a former public educator. i see the graffiti advisory board as an opportunity for me to give back to my adopted city. i came from chicago, and one

thing that i really feel strongly about is, you know, helping san francisco be a clean, liveable, and blight-free city. so serving on the board is something that i can do to give back to the city and be a model to my kids. >> chair ronen: can you just tell us about any accomplishments that you feel that the board has made over the couple of years that you've been on it? >> sure. working with then supervisor now mayor breed on the graffiti penalties. i serve on the law enforcement advisory subcommittee, and working with the district attorney's office on the one main graffiti task force with sfpd, i think we've made good strides at getting graffiti vandals off the streets and hopefully not doing what they

did anymore. if you look at the hibernia bank, and the graffiti there. that was thousands upon thousands of dollars, and we helped deal with that situation. i think there's some good value to be had. i think our analyzing databased on the 311 app and -- analyzing our databases on the 311 app has been extremely helpful in analyzing graffiti in the city. >> chair ronen: well, thank you so much. anybody like to speak on this, come on up. >> my name is sharon rose. i'm with san francisco pretrial diversion. i'm devin's supervisor. i just wanted to come and speak on his behalf.

the past five or six years, he's been on the graffiti abatement program. he takes participants out to clean the streets of san francisco. he's a hard worker, dedicated worker, and i think he'll be a great asset to the board. so thank you for considering his application today. >> chair ronen: thank you so much. appreciate it. and seeing no more public comment, public comment is closed. [gavel]. >> chair ronen: are you familiar with miss brown? >> supervisor stefani: yes, chair ronen. i am very familiar with miss brown. she is one of my constituents, and i am fully confident in her ability to serve on this board. >> chair ronen: do you want to do the honors?

>> supervisor stefani: sure. and i want to thank daniel and devin for their service. i'd like to make a motion to forward with full recommendation to the board to seat devin joans on seat 12, darcie brown in seat 13, and daniel kling in seat 15, and forward to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> chair ronen: without objection, that motion passes. thanks so much for your time today, and for coming on behalf. is there any other items today? >> clerk: there is no further business. >> chair ronen: then the meeting is adjourned. thank you. [gavel]

>> he is a real leader that listens and knows how to bring people together. brought this department together like never before. i am so excited to be swearing in the next chief of the san francisco fire department, ladies and gentlemen, let's welcome, jeanine nicholson. (applause). >> i grew up total tomboy, athlete. i loved a good crisis, a good challenge. i grew up across the street from the fire station. my dad used to take me there to

vote. i never saw any female firefighters because there weren't any in the 1970s. i didn't know i could be a fire fighter. when i moved to san francisco in 1990, some things opened up. i saw women doing things they hadn't been doing when i was growing up. one thing was firefighting. a woman recruited me at the gay-pride parade in 1991. it was a perfect fit. i liked using my brain, body, working as a team, figuring things out, troubleshooting and coming up with different ways to solve a problem. in terms of coming in after another female chief, i don't think anybody says that about men. you are coming in after another man, chief, what is that like. i understand why it is asked. it is unusual to have a woman in

this position. i think san francisco is a trailblazer in that way in terms of showing the world what can happen and what other people who may not look like what you think the fire chief should look like how they can be successful. be asked me about being the first lbgq i have an understands because there are little queer kids that see me. i worked my way up. i came in january of 1994. i built relationships over the years, and i spent 24 years in the field, as we call it. working out of firehouses. the fire department is a family. we live together, eat together, sleep in the same dorm together, go to crazy calls together, dangerous calls and we have to look out for one another.

when i was burned in a fire years ago and i felt responsible, i felt awful. i didn't want to talk to any of my civilian friends. they couldn't understand what i was going through. the firefighters knew, they understood. they had been there. it is a different relationship. we have to rely on one another. in terms of me being the chief of the department, i am really trying to maintain an open relationship with all of our members in the field so myself and my deputy chiefs, one of the priorities i had was for each of us to go around to different fire stations to make sure we hit all within the first three or four months to start a conversation. that hasn't been there for a while. part of the reason that i am getting along well with the field now is because i was there. i worked there. people know me and because i

know what we need. i know what they need to be successful. >> i have known jeanine nicholson since we worked together at station 15. i have always held her in the highest regard. since she is the chief she has infused the department with optimism. she is easy to approach and is concerned with the firefighters and paramedics. i appreciate that she is concerned with the issues relevant to the fire department today. >> there is a retired captain who started the cancer prevention foundation 10 years ago because he had cancer and he noticed fellow firefighters were getting cancer. he started looking into it. in 2012 i was diagnosed with breast canner, and some of my

fellow firefighters noticed there are a lot of women in the san francisco fire department, premenopausal in their 40s getting breast cancer. it was a higher rate than the general population. we were working with workers comp to make it flow more easily for our members so they didn't have to worry about the paper work when they go through chemo. the turnout gear was covered with suit. it was a badge to have that all over your coat and face and helmet. the dirtier you were the harder you worked. that is a cancer causeser. it -- casser. it is not -- cancer causer. there islassic everywhere. we had to reduce our exposure.

we washed our gear more often, we didn't take gear where we were eating or sleeping. we started decontaminating ourselves at the fire scene after the fire was out. going back to the fire station and then taking a shower. i have taught, worked on the decontamination policy to be sure that gets through. it is not if or when. it is who is the next person. it is like a cancer sniper out there. who is going to get it next. one of the things i love about the fire department. it is always a team effort. you are my family. i love the city and department and i love being of service. i vow to work hard -- to work

hard to carry out the vision of the san francisco fire department and to move us forward in a positive way. if i were to give a little advice to women and queer kids, find people to support you. keep putting one foot in front of the other and keep trying. you never know what door is going to open next. you really don't. [cheers and

[gavel] and >> good morning, everyone. the meeting will come to order. welcome to the thursday, february 6, meeting of the government audit and oversight committee. i'm supervisor gordon mar, and i'm joined by supervisor peskin and

supervisor matt hainy. and i would like to thank maya and corwin for staffing this meeting. mr. clerk, do you have any announcements. >> yes, thank you, mr. chair. please silence all electronic devices. your completed speaker cards and documents you have to be submitted as part of the clerk should be submitted to the clerk. >> thank you, mr. clerk. call item number one. >> an ordinance amendmenting the administrative code to require the police department to regularly report certain crime data, related to victims and other spi specified crimes. >> i wanted to ask deputy city attorney pearson if we have the final sort of amendments, and we're ready to move ahead with this item. >> no, i don't think you

have the final amendments before you right now. my understanding is that my colleague is working to finalize them. and will let me and your aide know as soon as your ready to distribution. so you might want to hear the second item first. >> so since we're still waiting for some last-minute final amendments from the deputy city attorney, that has been working on this legislation, mr. clerk, can we hold off on this one and move ahead to item two right now? >> i told the people who were going to give public comment on it that it was going to be later. we could, but i just wanted to note that. >> um...well, actually maybe we can still move ahead. i have some introductory remarks on this item. i know there are some people here from the community for public

comment. and then if the amendments hopefully get here in time, i could introduce those. does that sound okay? so why don't we move ahead with item number one. this legislation, which we're calling the crime victim data disclosure ordinance, will require that s.f. p.d. begin issuing quartering reports on the aggregated demographic evidence on crime victims. take to supervisors fewer and stefei. the lgbtq community and others city wide, i would like to thank them. the chinese-american citizens alliance, the chinese-american democratic club,

visitation asian alliance, lgbtq democratic club, the jewish community relations council, the triangle neighborhood association, golden gate heights neighborhood association, sunset heights association of responsible people, for all submitting letters of summer for this legislation. the crime victim data disclosure ordinance will do the two things: number one, require s.f.p.d. to regularly report aggravated data on the motivating factor for hate crimes, sexual orientation, gender identity or religious preference. and require s.f. p.d. to does close crime victim data, specifically race, gender, and age for victims of assault, aggregated assault, sexual assault, burglary, theft, motor vehicle theft,

robbery, battery, vandalism, domestic violence and murder. the legislation does not require the s.f.p.d. to acquire any new information from victims, but to report available data that is already being collected. i first requested this data for a board of supervisors' hearing that convened last month, in response to home invasions targeting the sunset district and other neighbourhoods. i was told by s.f.p.d. that the data did not exist. after a number of incidents occurred targeting chinese victims, i was joined by president yee and supervisor walton a submittal to provide the information. in september, s.f.p.d. provided some crime information, and the information was both

alarming and validating for specific communities with heightened concerns about public safety. for example, african-americans were by far the most disproportionately victimized by all types of violent crime, including homicide and sexual assault. for asian-americans, the data showed increasing robbery, burglary, and theft victims year by year in recent years, validating their concerns. and, according to recent f.b.i. figures, hate crimes jumped 58% in san francisco last year, even as they leveled off across california. the city's surge in hate crimes was driven by an increase in incidents targeting victims by their race and ethnicity. it more than doubled from 19in 2017 to 41 in 2018, making up the majority of san francisco's 68 reported hate crimes. while i appreciate that the s.f.p.d. has shared

with my office there are some new state requirements related to data reporting coming up, there is a level of urgency for us to start making this requirement -- start making this requested data transparent so we can understand how crime disproportionately affects all of our communities. and, finally, i, after some community feedback -- i am proposing some amendments that would add additional crime categories, such as child abuse, elder abuse, grand theft, manslaughter, and different types of burglary and domestic violence. number two, send these reports to the office of racial equity and the human rights commission. and, number three, ensure that there is -- ensure that there is data analysis. we must ensure that we use this data responsibly and in a way that promotes

interracial harmony and cooperation. with this data, we can better track these crimes, understand who is being impacted, and develop better strategies to address them. this information is just a first step to identify what our needs are. and for all of our communities to work together to ensure public safety for all in our city. so i'd actually like to welcome up matt dorsey from the s.f.p.d. >> thank you, chair mar, vice chair peskin and supervisor haney. my name is matt dorsey with the san francisco police department. the san francisco police department stands for safety, with respect for all. and we measure and communicating, and that's under way, and that's part of my new role here. so i want to applaud supervisor mar and your

colleagues for your leadership on this. i think we all recognize that to the extent we can be better at collecting data about crimes, we can do a better, more affective job of protecting all of our diverse communities here in san francisco. one of the things that you mentioned about a timing issue coming up with the state, and i just wanted to -- the department wants to just raise this. you correctly identified that there are some limitations in the collection of crime data. and a lot of that goes to the fact that since i think 1930, the united states has had uniform crime reports, and it is relatively limited in what it is reportedly. i believe in the most serious crimes, what it calls, like, section 1 crimes or unit 1 crimes, and it is only about eight categories. that is in the process of being replaced nationwide with a more detailed reporting system, called the national

incident-based reportedly system, and it has five categories among the most serious eight parts. that process is under way and it will be completed in 2022. at the same time, states have the ability to both comply with the national standards, but also have their own. so california has its version of nibers, and it is called cybers. and we're in the process of just waiting to see what that is going to be. the reason that matters is last week we found out that this is coming up just in april. we're going to have -- we're right now flying blind on what the state is going to require of us. so because we're in a situation of reinventing one wheel to comply with state requirements, while we're considering this, i just want to raise it, and this is a policy decision and a use of financial decision. just to be aware in april, we will have better information on what the

reporting requirements will be for the state cybers, and it is possible that some of what the state is going to be doing from the department of justice could solve some of this, to the extent it doesn't, then it would be a policy question for the city. there is nothing to prevent the city from going above and beyond, in much the way that california is go above and beyond what the nation is doing, and san francisco can go beyond what the state is doing. but we don't know. there was a precedent for something like this, when the city was enacting 96a, reporting requirements, at the same time the state was enacting legislation that was, i think, ab953, and i think this was in 2015, where we got started on one thing and then it ended up being squandered resources because we had to redo it for the state. so it is really just a kind of consideration that we all have an obligation to be responsible stewards of the public fisk.

and i wanted to present that to you as a public policy, although i understand there is urgency. >> thank you so much, mr. dorsey. just a few questions on that. i appreciate the point you're raising here about the change in our crime data reporting that's going to happen with the federal guidelines. and that's really -- the timeline for that is 2022. and then you're saying that there might be some changes to the state crime data reporting that could happen. what's the timeline for that again? >> so the standards are going to be issued in april 2020. so in a couple of months, we will know what we need to be collecting for the state level. and this is where it's sort of -- the none, unknown, in this is we don't know what the state is going to do.

i think we do have a clear picture -- although i would defer to more knowledgeable people than i in the department. but it isny my it is my understg while nibers is pretty clear, the state has to weigh in on what the state's requirements will be. this may solve what you're seeking to solve with your leadership. it may also be something that not unlike ab953 and 96a may be similar but different, so the department is actually grappling with two requirements that are a little different, but it is important and resource intensive for us. >> and one last question: do you have -- is there any indication that the new state reporting requirements that are being worked on would possibly include reporting

requirements about crime victims and the demographics of crime victims, which is really what the focus -- >> so when we worked with the budget and legislative analyst, we were particular in saying it could accomplish this, but it really is something we don't know. it might be a situation in two months -- again, this is a policy consideration for you -- where -- in the sense we're flying blind and you're asking a question that's a good one, and that none of us can answer, but in two months we will be able to answer that. >> great. thank you. >> thank you. >> next i'd like to invite sevrin campbell to present on the fiscal impact of this item. >> good morning. yes, in response to sort of the presentation, our understanding is that there is a new system that will be implemented to

meet the federal and state requirements in march of 2022. there is grant funding to cover the costs of planning and implementing developing that system. but in terms of the current reporting standards and the current system, there would be some limitations in what the system can currently do. our understanding is especially when there are multiple crimes or multiple victims, the system doesn't currently aggregate that information. it reports it as the highest crime level. so you might not get the level of detail that this legislation is requesting. we did talk to the public -- the police department to really think through what it would take to modify the existing oracle-based system. there is a cost to it. they thought it would be two full-time oracle consultants, at a cost of about $235 an hour. so it would be a one-time cost of over $900,000.

we did talk to the department also about alternatives. we don't have good information at this point, but we think that there would be some potential where there would actually be a manual accounting of the incidents that are actually hard to pull out of the system to meet this requirement. there would be staff costs, and it could potentially be a lot less than the modification of the system. in terms of our recommendation, we do actually consider this to be a policy matter for the board. >> thank you, ms. campbell. colleagues, if you have no questions for comments, maybe we can move to public comment. be have some members of the public here who have filled out speaker cards. if you could please step up on the right side of the room and step up to the mic. benjamin chung, mina young, marlene tran.

>> good morning, city supervisors and members of the government audit. my name is benjamin chung. i'm an associate pastor of san francisco chinese baptist church in the sus sussex district at 34th. i want to let you know you're all in my prayers to make good and sound decisions for the residents and the city of san francisco. i know this is not an easy task. i'm here today to voice my concerns about the uptake in crimes, and feel there should be better reporting, especially as an asian/american. i'm in favour of this. i'm also thankful for the s.f.p.d. and their hard work. i had my house burglarized just seven weeks ago many and my neighbor was burglarized just over a years agyear ago. both burglaries were

through forced entry through the front doors, and both in the middle of the day. and my neighbor even has an iron gate and they broke through that. due to my neighbor's burglary, i updated my front door, and it took the burglars more time to breakthrough. my neighbor is also filipino. thanks to the s.f.p.d., their quick response, the burglars dropped my property, and as they were exiting, the s.f.p.d. showed up, and they the burglars crashed their car shortly after leaving my house, and i got my two dogs back. and i'm thankful they did not harm my wife, and my two sons, 4 and 2. and they ran into my tenant, who also lived in the house, and his girlfriend, but thankfully upon seeing them, they left the house, and i praise the lord for all of

this stuff. i do understand there is a bigger picture, looking at the time, and i think we need better data. [buzzer] >> thank you. ms. tran. >> good morning, supervisors. i'm marlene tran, a long-time volunteer, community activist, retired teacher of newly immigrant students in our public schools, and the spokesperson for the visitation valley alliance. i'm here to support the transparency legislation, especially needed in light of the recent and increasingly brutal crimes against our elderly asian citizens. unfortunately, some of these victims were my former students. this quarterly data will help to guide budget and resource priorities, police staffing, and crime prevention programs to keep our communities safe. in the 1980s, when i moved t to visitation

valley, asians were victims, but they couldn't make police reports because of lack of language. i organized monthly police meetings, initiated bilingual service, and provided victims with translations in courts and police matters. i even offered for free the use of my leland avenue property to have direct communications with law enforcements. while the ethnic media has reported many of the crimes, the english community is only starting to write about the serious cases. i grieve for the many victims who suffered greatly because they did not get the services and resources they deserve. with your full support of supervisor mar's legislation to bring

much-needed data and the public services to a diverse san francisco, the year of the rat will make san francisco a safer city for all. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is mina young. i'm a member of the bay area homeowners' network. we have hundreds of members in san francisco. we chat, and i see a lot of fear among our members. recently because they themselves or their neighbors got robbed, and they're telling people how they would do different measures to try to avoid being targeted. like new year's, not putting stuff outside to celebrate, to make it look like you're chinese. and not put shoes outside, or certain kinds of plants you don't want to put

outside. these are the fears i didn't see before. myself, inside my own house, my plants were stolen a few times, and then they were rearranged right in front of the house, where usually it is on the side. you know, people do all kinds of stuff. we don't know whether we are being targeted, but by having the data, if that helps to reduce that kind of crimes and make us safer, that's -- we would applaud for it. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hi, my name is eva chow, and i've been a long-time resident here in san francisco. the crime situation has gotten so bad that my mom and her friends, maja people, they all talked about not going to chinatown anymore, which is really bad for the community. they feel that having gone

to chinatown once or twice every two or three weeks for doctors' visits and all of that is due to this lack of concern that is not being devoted to the chinese community, is actually oppressing their communities because they're not able to feel safe in their own communities. there is something wrong with that. so i really want to thank supervisor mar for brings bringing this to light. we need data transparency so we can allocate resources for the communities in need. and that is the first step. so this needs to be broadcasted to everyone so that my parents and her friends and families can feel safe going to chinatown. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker.

>> good morning. i'm pastor megan roy. i'm a chaplain with the san francisco police department. although because i provide mental health care for both officers and victims of crimes, i remain neutral in this issue. but today i wanted to speak you in the hat of being the pastor of grace lutheran church in the sunset. prior to that, i worked for 12 years working with the chronically homeless, who have seen some of the worst hate crimes one could imagine. i remember one night encountering a homeless man in a wheelchair who was tied to his chair with a coat hanger and set on fire with his feet. i knew three individuals who were burned to death here in san francisco. when i moved to the sunset, you would think because it is kind of a quiet neighborhood, things would calm down, but being a transgender pastor, you can imagine my experience might be a little bit

different. after having a trans-related double mastectomy, i had boxes sent to me before church that include falsies to insert breasts, and hair removal supplies sent to the church, and received death threats because of my partnerships working with the san francisco police department. in the past, i thought reporting the crimes meant i was weak. but sharing this information was something i was meant to endure. growing up in south dakota, i thought this is just how people are treated. so when i was hit in the head with a cane, by a moomanwho later kicked the dog, i didn't report it. but every time i did, the san francisco police department acted professionally, provided me with some of the most diverse employees who could take my report. and just the simple act of saying i had reported it to the police department ended every instance of

hate i was experiencing. so i stand here to encourage others to report when they can, and to care for others. [buzzer] >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is wendy wong from san francisco coalition for good neighborhoods. we have to do something correct and simple. let's drop political correctness. all of this information for the police is very complete. we should disclose to the public which neighborhoods are in need. as a matter of fact, we have a lot of misleading information, such as proposition 47, that is petty theft, $950. even when you go to the police, they won't take your cases. this is totally misleading information. when we're seeing the police chief saying that our crime rate drops, i think this is very

pathetic data. as a matter of fact, i have a lot of neighbors who thought that home invasions -- if they take their laptop, less than $950, they don't even want to report it to the police because they thought that the cases are not going to be in their report, or they would not be interviewed, or it would cause them a lot of hassle. so my neighborhood has a lot of misleading information in the sunset area. i would like to have the supervisor pay attention to the in othe neighborhoods who are in need. when we have that information, we will get the resources from the city. we can have outreach in the neighborhood, and we can have bilingual information to share with the neighbors. 3-1-1, i hope we have the bilingual language that we can report, if the police has been overloaded in their work. thank you very much. >> thank you.

is there anyone else that would like t to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. actually, i just wanted to thank all of the community members that have provided complic comment opublic commente community members that have really pushed us and worked with my office to develop this crime victim closure. including the asian community, the lgbtq community, the african-american communist, and different faith communities as well, who are feeling particularly concerned about public safety, including the jewish community and the muslim community here in our city. so, colleagues, i think we do have the amendmented versioamendmentedversion ofameni

referred to in my remarks. do you guys have any questions or comments? >> i do. thank you, chair mar. i just wanted to appreciate your leadership on this. and i also wanted to thank everybody who came out and who shared your experiences, and to thank you for sharing and to apologize for those of you who have been victims of crime. i think that there is no more important thing that we can do as a city than keep people safe. and we know that in particular there are some communities who are more often victims of crime, and it is critical that we have the information, that we have the data. that's an essential first step, but that we're also using that data and being transparent about it, and we're changing these realities that so many folks have experienced. and making sure that we

have, culturally and linguistically accessible information. that has to be a big part of how this data is used. i wanted to be added as a co-sponsors on it. thank you. >> thank you. >> please add me as a co-sponsor as well. >> thank you. colleagues, can i move that we accept the amendments? can we take that without objection? great. can we send this item as amended with positive recommendation to the full board without objection? great. [gavel] >> thank you, everyone. mr. clerk, please call item number two. >> item number two requires the department of homelessness and supportive housing to open a navigation centr center where

no navigation center currently exists, and to open at least one navigation center within 30 months where no navigation center currently exists. to revise the operational standards by among other thing, allowing them to serve up to 130 residents. and each session must allow residents to reside at the center for at least 90 day and to continue in residence as long as they're participating in assigned services. to develop a good neighbor policy and plan to conduct outreach to people experiencing homelessness in the neighborhood surrounding the center. to require h.s.h. to inform the selection of sites for navigation centers, to provide the shelter monitoring committee, in addition to shelters and affirming the appropriate findings. >> thank you.

supervisor haney? >> thank you, chair mar. i want to thank the co-authorities of this measure, supervisors preston, ronen, mar, and walton. i also want to recognize the leadership of supervisor peskin, who most recently was able to have an announcement of a navigation center for transitional age use in this district. i know that is something he has been working on and fighting for for some time. i want to thank him for that. and also the department of homelessness, who i know is here, who has offered feedback and amendments, that i'm sure we are going to discuss, and i want to thank them for their partnership and their hard work on navigation centers more broadly and on working to end homelessness. there are more than 8,000 people experiencing homelessness in san francisco. 65% are unsheltered, which is hundreds more than than in 2017.

the city is leading more than 5,000 people unhoused and unsheltered, without a safe place to sleep at night. the number of people who are chronically homeless continues to rise, meaning they've been homeless for at least a year. this crisis impacts every neighborhood and every person in san francisco. unhoused san franciscans are forced to sleep in parks, under freeways, on sidewalks, in their vehicles, and on doorsteps. i think we all agree we have to do better. there is no denying we must expand housing and shelter. the goal of this legislation is to directly address street homelessness and create a clear mandate for city-wide solutions to this city-wide shelter crisis. the city is investing heavily in permanent supportive housing for people existing services, with over 1200 units in

the pipeline to add to the housing currently existing. most of the budget is earmarked for housing and keeping people housed. with the number of people without homes steadily growing, we need to invest heavily in new housing and subsidies to get people into vacant units, but we also know we cannot rely on building new housing to solve the homeless crisis alone. we cannot leave 5,000 people on the street while we are working to get the housing built. while our shelter system serves more than 2800 individuals a night, through 1200 emergency shelter beds, and hundreds of beds for families and transitional youth, nearly a thousand single adults experiencing homelessness remain on the shelter wait list, with thousands more who have given up on wait lists. the beds are almost 100% full every night, and people have nowhere to go.

we need a system equipped to triage each person based on their needs and assign them to their level of support. according to the controller and practice, it takes roughly three months to achieve permanent housing, and for many clients, it takes much longer. many people who are getting into housing are first stating at a navigation center to get assessed, complete their application, and wait for an opening. we can either provide people who are uncentimetreed with uunshelteredsheltered. the mayor has called for a thousand beds by 2020, and is on track to meet that goal. but the plan has lacked significant input from the community, and the narrow concentration of the beds has ignored the needs of the 25% of the homeless population, and the vast majority of neighborhoods in the city, leaving them

with few solutions. the goal is simply to clear the shelter wait list. and while the number has dipped slightly below 1,000, it has not changed significantly. we need to set clear mandates for ourselves, for the department of homelessness, to build a shelter in every district. the legislation, one, sets a policy for the department of homelessness and supportive housing, to build a navigation center in every district. it establishes a new site, including a standardized community engagement process. third, it strengthens the program by setting base line standards. the legislation is not a one-size-fits-all approach. it does not impose sweeping new problematic requirements that don't currently exist or create a new model. the ordinance generally reflects current practices in our navigation centers, which has helped 46% of

clients achieve a stable exit, while allowing for some flexibility. it specifics assessment by a case manager, allowing pets, partners, and possessions, and having 24-hour access. it is not a new thing for navigation centers to be mandated by this board. a similar mandate passed the board in 2016, calling for six navigation centers in 26 months, which led to 2,000 people getting in permanent housing, temporary housing, or being reunited with friends or family. since that mandate ended, the nature of this problem has not been met with the same level of urgency necessary to provide adequate solutions. despite the board and mayor affirming we're in the middle of a shelter crisis, we do not yet have a neighborhood by neighborhood plan to address homelessness.

most folks know what navigations are, but let me be clear what we're talking about here. one, the navigation center is a name for a high-service, low-barrier shelter that meets minimum criteria, like unsite services, allowing pets, partners, and possessions, and prioritizes homeless individuals getting houses. it is to offer a respite from live lif life on the stree. secondly, navigation centers look different in different neighborhoods and are designed to and an asset. some are comprised of tent-like structures on empty parking lots. some are bungalows. some sites occupy a vacant city college building. another will have commercial activity. many are interim uses, while some are for pre-development. there is no one-size-fits-all. of the existing naf navigation

centers, the capacity ranges from 60 to 100. there are restrictive rules, and the fact that many people cannot bring partners, pets, and possessions, they do not use them. navigation centers serve neighborhoods first and foremost, and we have a city-wide challenge related to homelessness. other cities, like las vegas and d.c., have mandated that every district open a shelter or their version of a navigation center to get people off the streets. i have yet to see a plan to address street homelessness in every district and every neighborhood. and i hear a lot not fruft frojustfrom my own residents, bt from my colleagues who are working hard to find a site in their respective districts and who are told no. we need to work harder, and have the full support of the department of homelessness and the mayor

to make that happen. this legislation is about saying yes. yes, we can create more places for people to navigate to. yes, we can invest in housing and subsidies and services. and, yes, we can find a way to make a site for every neighborhood at the same time we address the immediate shelter needs of the 5,000 homeless people on our streets. i know we have a representative from supervisor peskin's office, and i want to thank my co-authorities and really believe we can get to a place where the entire board board hopefully is united behind this, and we can see a city-wide plan to address this city-wide crisis. >> thank you, supervisor haney. i would like to welcome jen schneider, district 5 legislative aide, who is here to stair a statement for supervisor preston. >> thank you. happy late morning.

i'm jen schneider, from supervisor preston's office. thank you, supervisor haney, for sponsoring this proposal. this is the first piece of legislation that our office agreed to co-sponsor. thousands of neighbors are sleeping on our streets every night. we know 69% of them say they became homeless while they were living here. this means many of our neighbors on the streets were once our next door neighbors who lost the only housing they could afford. our greed-fueled housing crisis squeezes out families, students, people of color, artists, or classmates and friends, and it forces those of us who are most vulnerable into a situation where there is increasingly no place to turn. the long-term solution is affordable housing for all. but the reality is that we are years away from that. even at assuming the political will to get there. in the meantime, our

homeless neighbors deserve 24-hour shelter with their pets, their partners, and their possessions, where they can access the services they need. it is the very least we can do, and it will help avoid the downward spiral that homelessness creates. in san francisco, homelessness is the most grotesque symptom of unbrideled capitalism. the bay area has the largest income gap in california, and the vice president said in a recent interview that economists think there are incentives to move up the economic ladder, but when the disparities or so large, does that incentive tiff -- we have allowed a situation where it is virtually impossible to lift yourself out of poverty. as government officials, we have an absolute moral obligation to help as actively as we can. the very least we can do is make sure that all

districts share the load and house our unhoused neighbors. district 5 is not immune to the homelessness crisis, and despite the demand for a navigation center, we failed to provide one. it is something our office is working on to change. count district 5 as one district that wholeheartedly embraces the mandate in this proposed legislation. thanks. >> thank you, ms. schneider. and thanks, again, supervisor haney for bringing forth this legislation and spearheading the conversation on our shelter crisis. we must address homelessness city-wide, which is why i was the first supervisor with out city-funded shelter beds in my district to co-sponsor this legislation when it was first introduced. my district is also not immune to homelessness. i've been working directly with homeless residents and housed neighbors in the sunset to determine effective solutions. when i came into office, there were no district 4

homeless services. since then, i personally connecteconnected to individuals living in their cars, and checked in regularly with the familiar faces of people who sleep outside, in our parks, streets, and bus shelters. we cannot forget these individuals. which is why i included to bring project care van to sunset. and i partnered with sunset mental health services to expand outreach to include people experiencing homelessness. as supervisors, we need to think creatively. we need to invite people inside by expanding our shelter bed capacity city-wide. a new homeless facility in the sunset would support our shared goals and alleviate our city-wide shelter crisis. there are unique opportunities in my district to pilot new models for shelters, or other forms of transitional and permanent housing.

we know there exists a population of unsheltered people who would benefit from the unique characteristics of the sunset, who need this sort of environment and distance from downtown in order to permanently move into stable housing. we are not meeting or investing in these needs. and i am committed to addressing the service gap. i have already identified potential sites, and i'm working with h.s.h. to expand shelter and services into the sunset. we are looking at every piece of public land, but also private parcels, such as mission-aligned churches. i am receiving feedback directly from the homeless community in district 4, who are seeking daily respite and permanent housing options, in addition to shelter beds. especially for women, veterans, and seniors. since learning more about the challenges of establishing a navigation center through this process, it is clear that we need to be flexible and have adequate resources so we can quickly get more

beds online. to meaningfully address the shelter crisis, i believe we need to listen to the community and preserve the flexibility to expand our shelter bed capacity. i deeply appreciate supervisor haney legislation to create navigation centers because each neighborhood has a unique set of stakeholders and needs. after the presentations, i do intend to discuss amendments i am working on that build in flexibility, and i intend to make a motion to continue this item. because of the potential impact, i believe we will need more time to engage with stakeholders, including my fellow colleagues on the board. i look forward to a robust discussion today. i also want to note that we have two staff members from the department of homelessness and supportive housing who are available to answer questions. abigail stewart kahn, director of strategy and external affairs, and dylan rose schneider,

manager of policy and legislative affairs. first, i would like to welcome severin campbell for this item. >> thank you, chair mar. i want to point out this legislation would result in eight additional navigation centers in districts that don't currently have one. there are currently six navigation centers. the 2019 budget provides for two new navigation centers, one is in a district that doesn't currently have one. the one at 888 post street. we can't really give very precise estimates on what legislation like this would cost. if you look at table 3, on page 9 of our report, in terms of actual costs and capital costs to set up navigation centers, the costs vary quite a bit, depending on the location

and type of property. the average cost for sort of existing centers is about $6.3 million. and that's table 3, on page 9. in terms of annual operating cost, it doesn't vary as much, but there is a variation. and looking at existing centers, it is about $4.3 million annual operating costs. there would probably be other costs in terms of enhanced services and staffing at the department to manage the additional centers, but those, at this point, would have to have a further review. we consider approval to be a policy matter for the board. >> thank you. colleagues, do you have any questions for ms. campbell? actually, would the department like to have a response? >> thank you, supervisors. good morning. my name is abigail kahn.

h.s.h. shares supervisor haney sentiment that every neighborhood in san francisco, and every individual here, has a part to play in addressing homelessness. we commend supervisor haney for his commitment to people suffering on our streets. we appreciate this call to action very much and we can all do more. we have some concerns, however, about the way this legislation is written. our concerns are two-fold, and i'll lay them out, and i'm very happy to continue to answer the supervisions' questions. the proposed ordinance focuses time, political capital, and financial and personnel resources on expanding one component. there are six components. on expending one component of our homelessness response system. it does this at the cost of housing exits. despite the board of supervisors voting unanimously to pass legislation to expedite the process of opening new

homeless services, including navigation centers as a response to the crisis on our streets, this legislation would make the process slower and significantly more expensive. it also -- supervisor mar spoke articulately about the importance of flexibility, and this legislation as written significantly limits the flexibility. in terms of the proposed ordinance's focus on narrow focus, it would require us to open navigation centers in eight additional center, which would be an addition to the 2000 placements proposed by the mayor. since july of 2018, the city has opened 692 navigation center beds, and has an additional 499 units in the pipeline, which represents the single largest shelter expansion in 30 years. we agree that we need beds

for everyone, but navigation centers are not the only type of need. we need boarding care facilities, behavioral health, and every kind of of permanent supportive housing. and i want to specifically address that. because while it is true we can't build our way out of the homeless problem, that is not the only way to bring supportive housing online. we have scattered sites supportive housing, also known as a flex pool, and we have master leases, and we have built housing. this will make navigation centers slower and more expensive, while simultaneously widening the gap and the equity issues between traditional shelters and navigation systems. families tell us that the family shelter system needs care and attention, and if we continue to focus on expansion and navigation centers, we won't have the resources to bring those back to the temporary shelter system that was more traditional in our system of care. i'm very happy to speak to

more specifics and questions, and i thank the supervisors for their time. >> supervisor haney. >> i have a few questions. so after the thousand shelter beds, even as we still have close to a thousand people on the shelter wait list, there is no more plans to build additional shelter beds or navigation centers, and your position is that we don't need anymore navigation centers? >> no. that is not our position. our position is that we need a proportional expansion of the homelessness response system. if we take the $28 million that we estimate it will cost us to build two navigation centers in this timeline, in this less flexible way, we lose the ability to use that money for housing exits. and i can talk about what kinds of costs those would take. so in the mayor's 2000 placement goal, there may very well be shelter beds in there and rapid rehousing, and scattered

site or flexible housing and permanent supportive housing. we need to pull every lever, or that 46% you're talking about in terms of successful exits, will go down from navigation centers, because people will not have anywhere to navigate to. >> what happens to those people in the meantime? >> in the meantime, we are expanding. i think you're absolutely right. we absolutely have to do more and better. our shelters are very much at capacity, which is why we've opened the largest one in the embarcadero, and we have two more proposed, one in the pipeline at 1925 evans, one at 888 post, and one at 33 goth. so we're working on all fronts. >> while we wait for this exact proportion to be right over the next few years, these folks will be on the street during that time? >> we don't need to wait. >> that's what i'm saying. >> please don't misconstrue my words. we don't need to wait.

we can bring permanent supportive housing online rapidly through scattered site models, flex pool models. we can do that today. part of 150 units are going to be brought online in that way in rapid time. >> and that's -- so how many over the next 30 months -- how many housing exits do you expect to be rapidly put in place over the next 30 months? >> 300, if not more, in addition to the pipeline the mayor -- >> 300 housing exits over the next 30 months is all we're going to be able to do? >> no. no. we have the pipeline that is managed by the mayor's office of housing and community development, which you cited and talked about, with a thousand or more coming on line this year. in addition to that, the mayor has committed to 300 additional units using the eraf money. if there is more money, we can bring on more units. if we use that money for navigation centers solely,

we not bring on more housing. >> based on the number of housing units you expect to be put in place over the next two years, how many additional navigation beds do you think we need? >> the field feels for every shelter bed you build, you need to build between three and six exits. so that's the proportion we need to be working with. i don't want to sound uncompassionate to the crisis outside. that is our daily work. that's why we're working so hard to create the largest single expansion in 30 years in the city. we're not saying more to more shelter. we're saying yes more shelter, yes supportive housing, yes legislation. this legislation, as written, pulls significant resources to one aspect of our homelessness response system. which solves sleep but does not solve homelessness. >> how many additional

spots do you think we need for people who are in vehicles? what's the plan to get more spots for them? >> that's a great question. i think the folks -- we know a lot more about people living in vehicles now. and they, like every group of people experiencing homelessness, are not one in the same. what we understand from my amazing colleagues working in the vehicle outreach team, is there are many people living in their vehicles who don't consider themselves homeless, who are going to school and want to save money. when they graduate, they will seek housing. we also know there are highly vulnerable people living in their vehicles who are homeless and need our care. and that's why we have piloted the vehicle triage center. those individuals who can come in and want to be housed can become part of our coordinated entry

system. but we can't house them if we don't have more housing. and if we take this money, millions and millions of dollars, $28 million for two, $230 million for all eight, and we put it only into navigation centers, we will not have the resources needed to create those housing exits. [please stand by]

>> they pay attention to neighborhoods and to need. and so while one -- while one might be across the line in somebody's district, that's not necessarily we should be thinking about this. we should think about where people are experiencing homelessness. where can we find sites to build with taxpayer resources. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> if i can just jump in, first of all, i appreciate the process, as this has been evolving since 2015. and understand on the one hand the need for flexibility, as the department juggles different tools. on the other hand, i think that the notion of a fair share of criteria, whether it's in this

city or other cities like our nation's capital or new york, also makes sense. but i concur with the department that that does not necessarily fall along supervisor jial lines. the city is a much more complicated set of neighborhoods than relates to these lines that are drawn every ten years on making sure that communities are fairly represented in the context of a plebiscite for the legislative branch of government. so, i mean, as the chair is working on amendments, i think geography is important. lines don't cut it for me, because, while there are communities of interest within a district, whether it's the by aview or chinatown and north

beach and telegraph hill, different districts take in all sorts of different slices. and so, anyway, food for thought as the legislation evolves. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, supervisors. >> i just wanted to add that -- well again i want to thank supervisor haney for his leadership on these really important issues and pushing this discussion about addressing the homelessness crisis citywide and ensuring that every neighborhood district and community, you know, does its part, does its fair share to step up on this. and again i'm very fully supportive of that. you know, i have been working with the city attorney to draft amendments, as i mentioned, that would broaden the options for districts to comply with this ordinance. so that we can successfully do our fair share to address the shelter crisis.

in addition to navigation centers, this includes transitional housing and permanent housing facilities, specifically for formerly homeless persons. transitional housing facilities could include, but not limited to, safe overnight parking lots, residential facilities with behavioral health services, housing for people exiting residential treatment facilities and even tiny homes. permanent facilities can include, but is not limited to, supportive housing, cooperative living or master-leased residential units for people formerly living on our streets. we work closely with the coalition on homelessness, who brought forth these well-researched ideas. while navigation centers are absolutely needed and available sites may be more feasible for a transitional or permanent housing facility, in some neighborhoods available parels may not meet the requirements and to act expeditiously, i would like to amend in districts where there is not a feasible

site for a navigation center, the department would be required to open a new alternative homeless facility in that district. in their fair share citing criteria, the department will need to make the case for an alternative homeless facility. and so i'm working on these amendments with the city attorney. unfortunately they weren't ready to be presented, you know, today. so i, you know, will be making a motion to continue this. so i could bring the amendments forward when they're ready. so maybe -- >> yes. public comment. >> i was going to add one other thing, which is also existing shelters that pre-date the advent of the lower barrier to entry navigation center model, that we also i think need to focus on and think about, that quite frankly could be vastly

improved for the clientele, for the surrounding community. i'm thinking of one a few blocks north of here on the edge of mine and supervisor haney's district. but i think we should -- as we move forward, we should not forget about the things that we've done in the past that need fixing. >> yep. >> great. why don't we move to public comment. i know there's people here who wanted to speak on this item. so i have some cards. josephine, calvin, gloria hernandez, wilson parsons and norm dellman. >> good morning, supervisors. calvin quick, legislative affairs officer for the san francisco youth commission. this monday the youth commission voted to oppose this legislation, unless amended, as detailed in the memorandum to that effect of the commission's housing and land-use committee.

the commission actually expressed support for expanding the navigation center model across the city, but an overwhelming majority of commissioners felt there were overriding concerns with the legislation, as written in our capacity. as the city's advisory body on youth issues. so back in 2016, when the navigation center legislation was first passed by this board, it included language found on page 5 of the legislation before you, which reads, at least one navigation center shall focus on the needs of homeless persons aged 18 to 29, who have experienced street homelessness. this still has not happened. however, the substituted legislation before you today emits that section in favor of a new section on page 9, which changes the shall to a "may." now the city is finally moving forward with plans for a navigation center at 888 post and we thank supervisor peskin for his leadership in that ongoing process. yet the city doesn't even have the lease yet and those plans

may still fall through. additionally, navigation centers are not designed to be permanent uses of aid opened by the city since 2015, two have already closed. we may end up in the future without a navigation center. [bell dings] if all goes well at 888 post, we may never need to refer back to a hard mandate again. but given the city has committed to solving youth homelessness as a priority, it seems the least we can do to affirmatively a center going forward, by reinstating the "shall" language. we, therefore, oppose this legislation unless so amended. thank you for your consideration. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning, supervisors. i'm josephine. chair of the youth commissionen the youth commission opposes this legislation, unless it is amended to reinstate a hard mandate for navigation center, focusing specifically on serving the needs of transitional.

it identified 1,200 youth intake experiencing homelessness on any given night in san francisco, which is around the corner of the total homeless population. the report for the more space that, quote, young people experiencing homelessness have a harder time accessing services, including shelter, medical care and unemployment. unquote. the city has committed to solving youth homelessness as a priority, motably by joining grand challenge, a national campaign to end youth homelessness. the city has recognized by developing the tools to end homelessness, for this particularly vulnerable population, we pave the way for improved services to all people experiencing homelessness. the city should, therefore, not be stepping back on its legal commitment to operating and maintaining a navigation center. finally, this is now a completely achievable goal, with 888 post moving forward. the city actually has the potential to fulfill this long-standing promise that made to the unhoused population. retaining a hard mandate for the navigation center will not, if

all continues to go well, put excessive pressure on the department of homelessness and supportive housing. it is important and promises the city has made around navigation centers, to keep the hard mandate, should it need to be used to hold the department accountable in the future. thank you for your time. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good morning, commissioners. my name is winston parsons. i live at 8th and fulton in the richmond and a board member with the richmond democratic club. early when this legislation was announced, we shared a letter of support, mandating mandating the a navigation center or something similar to that in every neighborhood. i'm here to say that i want one in the richmond district. we have one of the highest rates of evictions in the richmond district. recently the star shelter closed, due to lead health concerns. and i think that was our only shelter in the richmond. and this has been a heartbreaking and long-standing humanitarian crisis and stands to reason to me that for folks

who are already on the streets, making sure that they have some place to go to, especially that's nearby, that they can discover and that staff from the center are reaching out to, that we're more likely to get them the immediate care that they need. it's not just about sleep. it's about protection from the elements. this crisis leads to preventable deaths. and i anticipate a number of my neighbors might reach out and say, oh, this is going to be too much. we can't handle, or whatever the arguments are or it will attract more of the unhoused population. but i look outside my window, at golden gate park, i see people sleeping in the park, i see people sleeping on the streets. we can't both say something needs to be done about this and say we can't do anything about it. it also particularly effects -- we're seeing work at the seniors' center, more older adults coming by on the street who are unhoused. if we cannot take care of our elderly and ensure that people

can age with dignity in our community, that's the anti-ethical to our values. please work out the amendments, so it serves our community best. but we want one in the richmond district. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hi, supervisors. my name is norm dellman. i live in district 5. and i support this ordinance. i think that every district should have a navigation center. and, you know, basically my own personal experience is that i walk my little dog at 5:00 in the morning, it's dark out. and, you know, i come across a lot of bodies and my heart goes out for those folks. i hope there's going to be a navigation center in the ashbury district. >> thank you. next speaker.

>> good morning to each and every one of you. and thank you, matt haney, for addressing this horrible, horrible -- i don't want to start crying. homeless crisis -- i was part of that. the effect in 2005. and i know how -- i forgot to say my name. my name is gloria rodriguez, retired from working. it's critical and i understand and empathize with everything said here about money and everything else. we need people off the street immediately. we have homeless dying in the streets. and not only just from their own overdose or something, other people killing them.

and until we take care of this, as far as i'm concerned, everybody is a-- one day away from being homeless. it's not just the people that are homeless. you could be homeless. you never know. and until we have sympathy and empathy for everybody and consider everybody as one, this is not going to be taken care of. another thing, too, i definitely support the navigation centers, because we have to have some place to start. i understand and empathize that they're building more housing. believe me, if i wasn't a senior disabled, i would have been in the streets. [bell dings] and we cannot just have one area. we have to start with the navigation centers. and definitely we have to have universal mental health care. without the mental health care, none of this is going to work. in the navigation centers, each one of them has to have mental health care. and we have to have after mental health care. it can't go separate. we can't have one without the

other. everybody is concerned about getting the people off the streets. [bell dings] >> thank you. are there any other members of the public that would like to testify on this item? >> next speaker, please. >> my name is cheryl. i work with tndc. tenderloin resident and formerly homeless. so we speak -- i'm hearing a lot of things that can happen in the near future, which are good. building housing. but until a person has a place immediately to live at, and their mental issues are addressed, just going into a

place off the street, it's not a good thing. they need care. so there are people out there. this is an emergency. i support this legislation, matt. thank you. people are out there. it's gotten so bad, there's not even -- most of them don't even have tents any more. they're sleeping on the sidewalk with coats. on the cement. and it's an emergency. and we need shelters. homelessness is in the richmond district, knob hill, marina district, st. francis woods. it's everywhere. i think a lot of it has to do with not only fear, but racism also. from a lot of these communities that do not want shelters. so this has to do with being humane. [bell dings] and getting people off the

streets as quickly as possible. we can work on everything else at the same time. but even a thousand in the next year is not enough. we need emergency housing now. thank you. >> okay. thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning, everyone. jordan davis. and i'm formerly homeless myself and live in the tenderloin. believe it or not, where i was -- where i would often sleep, when i was homeless in this city, it's actually not in a place where there's a lot of navigation centers. it was the sunset district, ocean beach. i remember those cold, foggy nights. because i didn't want to be near people. but the point is, you know, like there's homelessness in every part of the city. and there's homeless -- and i have slept -- as someone who slept in the sunset, this is back in 2014, before like

anything even -- any homeless services were even imaginable, it needs to be in every district. and i do share the concerns that we need also to navigation centers, and we need permanent supportive housing. people can't be in shelter forever. i hope all of these things -- and i hope that there's an amendable solution and stakeholders can come together and we can solicit feedback from the youth commission, as well as everyone else. but i just want to say this, there are two types of people in this world. there are people who support the constructive solutions and want to work towards -- work in good faith towards annual solution. or fuckings a holes who just look out for themselves. >> next speaker, please. >> good morning, supervisors. i am laura sign. tenderloin's people's congress.

i support this legislation. must take responsibility of having navigation centers in their neighborhood. homelessness is citywide and must provide citywide solutions. no neighborhood is exempt from helping to find the solutions. many of the higher-income districts have shared responsibilities when it comes to homelessness. and this policy must change. all districts must share responsibility to house people in navigation centers. this is a critical legislation and i support this legislation. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please >> thank you for supervisors matt haney and all the rest. this is a huge crisis. so my name is lorenzo. i work as a committee organizer with the tenderloin people's congress. so we support the expansion of

navigation centers citywide. because the problem is citywide. so we need a citywide solution. and this just is common sense. okay. so and we need -- we understand that, you know, it's a solution that's been like failing for many years. the fact is that 400 homeless people died on the streets, you know, three years. the past three years. and according to the count data, homeless population increased by 17%, so meaning the previous solutions are not working. yeah. so we know that homeless people are humans, too. and it's difficult for our city to let them die on the streets. it's absurd.

but, of course, we want the solutions, navigation center citywide. we should also think about new and innovative ideas. an organization -- [bell dings] the filipino community corporation made a study last year and came up with a program. the urban sleep center is an innovative idea of a popular successful program in seattle, washington, in jacksonville, florida. so this will solve the solution of homelessness. we have over 400 buildings citywide that are empty and abandoned. we can make use of them. [bell dings] >> thank you. thank you. thank you so much. is there anyone else that would like to speak on this item,

before public comment is closed? seeing none, public testimony is now closed. [gavel] supervisor haney. >> thank you. thank you, chair mar. i'm definitely looking forward to working with you on the amendments. and i absolutely hear the point about flexibility and making sure that we are able to provide for facilities that really meet the needs of the neighborhood. i do want to note that there is significant flexibility built into this legislation, as is. and i'm absolutely open to additional flexibility. just noting that the legislation says that the navigation centers can serve specific populations, including at least one that may be operated as a managed alcohol shelter expect at least one that may focus on the needs of youth. at least one that may serve transgender or gender, non-conforming individuals, one that provides on-site services for individuals living in cars or recreational vehicles.

at least one that may serve seniors, at least one that may focus on another population experiencing homelessness. certainly we have, as i spoke, a lot of diversity in the navigation centers that currently exist, both in the populations that they serve and in their structures and their focus and the services that they provide. i do want to note that we have a hummingbird, which serves as a navigation center, which is on the site of general hospital, which really focuses and targets individuals who may have high levels of mental health needs. so the idea that this is in any way a one-size-fits-all could not be farther from the truth. and i'm absolutely want to work with my colleagues and with the department to make sure that this is fitting the broader overall strategy that we respectively have for our neighborhoods and a little for the city. but, you know, respectfully i have not and am not aware of any

plan from the department of homelessness or anyone else that addresses this citywide needs that we have. and identifies a way to serve individuals experiencing homelessness all over the city. and for five years we've had navigation centers. they've only to this point ever opened up in three districts. and during that time, homelessness has gotten worse. in addition to that, supervisors all over the city have said we want services in our districts. and they've been in many cases including, with our new supervisor in district 5, have not been able to have the adequate support for that. so i hear the point and i agree with supervisor peskin that in some cases, you know, the district lines are maybe not the best way to understand our city more broadly. but at the same time, because of the role that supervisors play in this process, the political role that we play, the budgeting

role to make things happen in our respective districts, this was sort of the best way to ensure geographic equity, that we could develop from a policy framework. i also want to say a piece about the number of beds. i agree we need to build a lot more housing. hopefully we'll get prop c and have a lot of opportunity there. and certainly we're building more and there's a lot in the pipeline. but i just -- i just can't accept that we don't have a need for hundreds of additional navigation center beds in the near future, to be able to facilitate and transition people off of the street. we need both. we need this and that. and i think that this will help us with added flexibility, get us to a place where we have a citywide plan, that the supervisors can get behind and the mayor can get behind and we can all work together to

achieve. in reality, when a navigation center or any facility is proposed in a neighborhood, it's going to mean a lot to the residents there to be able to understand that this is a part of a citywide plan. that everyone is stepping up. and it will be harder to do it if it's done as it has been in a one-off all over the city, certainly residents of my district and i'm sure other districts, always ask, well, what is the rest of the city doing. and that's a fair question. and the answer to that should be we're all stepping up. and that means that, as elected fixers, we're all stepping up and making that commitment. our neighbors are stepping up and making that commitment. and hopefully the department and the mayor is stepping up alongside us on this. so we will work together. you know, i want to get this to a place where we can all be confident and excited and committed to doing this. and if that takes some more

flexibility in what would -- what type of facilities are a part of that plan, then i think that, with my co-authors of the legislation and fellow colleagues, that we can -- i'm confident we can get there. so this will be back. >> thanks again, supervisor haney, for your leadership on this. colleagues, so again i want to move that we continue this item to the call of the chair. great. [gavel] mr. clerk, is there any further business? >> clerk: that's the end of our agenda. >> thank you. we are adjourned.

sustainability mission, even though the bikes are very minimal energy use. it still matters where the energy comes from and also part of the mission in sustainability is how we run everything, run our business. so having the lights come on

with clean energy is important to us as well. we heard about cleanpowersf and learned they had commercial rates and signed up for that. it was super easy to sign up. our bookkeeper signed up online, it was like 15 minutes. nothing has changed, except now we have cleaner energy. it's an easy way to align your environmental proclivities and goals around climate change and it's so easy that it's hard to not want to do it, and it doesn't really add anything to the bill. january 8, 2020 -- director dunlop. [roll call] we do have a quorum. >> president tsen: i