[gavel] >> good afternoon and welcome to the land use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisors. i am the chair of the committee, supervisor aaron peskin joined by vice chair supervisor safai and committee member supervisor dean preston. our clerk is ms. erica major. madam clerk, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes, due to the covid-19 health emergency and to protect board members, city employees and the public t board of supervisors legislative chamber and committee room are closed. supervisors will be participating in the virtual meeting to the same extent as if they are physically present. channel 26 and sfgov tv are streaming the number across the screen. comments or opportunities to

speak in the public are via available by phone call by calling 1-888-204-5984 and the access code is 350-1008. press pound and pound again. when you are connected, dial 1 and 0 to be added to the queue to speak. you will be lined up in the system in the order you dialled 1 and 0. while you are waiting t system will be silent. the system will notify when you are in line and waiting. all caller wills eare main on mute until -- will remain on mute until the line is open. everyone must account for time delays and speaking discrepancies between live coverage and streaming. best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and turn down the television or radio. alternatively, you may submit public comment in either of the following ways. email ne at erica.major@sfgov.org. that will be included in the

legislative file if you submit via email. or you can send to city hall 1 carlton hall. >> president: thank you, ms. major. i neglected to say today is may 18, 2020. colleagues, because general manager phil ginsburg of the recreation and parks department has a tight schedule, i would like to ask with your indulgence that we call item four out of order. i know that many of the people who would like to comment on item four thought this would come later in the meeting, so what i would like to do is have the author of this emergency ordinance speak and then hear from general manager ginsburg. and then we will not make a decision or hear public comment

until after we have heard items one through three. so madam clerk, please read item number four. >> clerk: item four is an emergency ordinance authorizing the park property for temporary shelter and other measures in response to the covid-19 pandemic, directing the recreation and park department to report to the board of supervisors with a list of potential locations for such uses. >> supervisor fewer, you have been doing incredible work to deal with the crisis that all of us that are members of the board or residents of san francisco have been trying to address relative to a huge amount of homelessness on our streets that has been exacerbated by the covid-19 crisis. the floor, supervisor fewer, is yours. >> supervisor: hello?

>> supervisor, you are muted. supervisor fewer? >> supervisor: i would like to note that director pennick is also joining us for a comment. thank you, chair peskin, for scheduling this item. i would like to provide some background on why i introduced this legislation. while san francisco has shown leadership and responded quickly to covid-19, the city has struggled to respond to the public's needs of the at-risk population this threatens our ability to lift the shelter in place order and jeopardizes the public safety of everyone. and public health safety of everyone. and the mayor previously stated a goal of procuring 7,000 hotel rooms and the board passed legislation to acquire even more, but the city is falling short of the goals on both counts. as of this morning only 1,991

hotel rooms have been secured for unhoused people and only 58% of those rooms were occupied. hotel rooms should continue to be a priority for ensuring that homeless people on san francisco's streets are protected from the threat of the terrible virus, particularly those who are elders and have comprised immune systems. while they must continue to press forward to procure hotel room, we must address other options in a serious problem that existed before covid-19 that now with the inability to move people into indoor shelter, we need a plan in place to adhere to the guidelines to stop the spread of the deadly virus. on may 5, we unanimously passed a resolution urging the city to establish safe sites for unhoused people. safe sleeping sites at the time include space for each tent that alouse for adequate social

distancing, bathrooms, hand washing stations, meals, drinking water, and garbage disposal consistent with the department of public health guidance as best practices. each site would have a safer plan and be staffed 24/7 and include janitorial and other critical services. the resolution passed unanimously and focused largely on the exploration of public property. i introduced this legislation before you today along with supervisor moore to further explore this model we will be creating for safe sleeping sites and park property in san francisco which includes parking lots and the parks department had jurisdiction over several acres of land in san francisco. to be clear, and i i want people to hear this. this legislation would not allow people to camp freely throughout

our parks. it would also not mandate the use of any particular site. this legislation leaves the decision to the general manager of the recreation and parks department. this legislation would simply require directing the parks department to createened an explore, identifying suitable locations throughout the city where it may be possible to establish these sites in accordance with public health specifications. its tent was to look at sites that would not interfere with the regulation needs of san franciscans during shelter in place which is why this defers to the general manager as he knows the property best. this has been severely misinterpreted and purposely misconstrued. having said that, i am happy to say that i have reached and agreement with general manager ginsburg from the rec and park department. manager ginsburg and i agree it

makes perfect sense to look at all options and is our current responsibility as sitting leaders to save lives. to this end mr. ginsburg will provide a report for rec and park sites suitable for safe sleeping sites to the board of supervisors by june 2. in addition, the director of the real estate department will recognize other property where it may be possible to establish a site. as a city, we have contemplated using school property, the d.o.t. parking lot and federal property. of course we would look at city-owned properties as well. i would go so far to say as city leaders we have a responsible need. i want to thank them for working with me on this and for being

here to speak about this. given these agreements, i am requesting that this legislation be tabled today. before i finish, i am happy that the city is now pursuing this model and the city opened the first sleeping site on fulton and we are set to open another one at the old mcdonald's parking dot. exploring other potential site wills add another tool to respond to the homelessness crisis that is worsened by covid-19. the mayor herself is looking for more sites. we need a plan for after the federal government stops reimbursing us for hotel rooms and that could be sooner than later considering the fact that we have a president who, quite frankly, doesn't believe this is the public health emergency that it is against the advice and expertise of scientists and doctors. even if we occupied the full

8200 hotel rooms that are in position the cost would be $57 million a month and during this recession that would be impossible to maintain for the duration of the pandemic. i ask city leaders and people who are listening today and ask my colleagues, what are your solutions? allowing people to live on sidewalks, along the corridors and in front of the small businesses, on our doorsteps, often without adequate facilities of toilets and hand washing stations, without food and access to services. the legislation that supervisor moore simply requests we look at more options as another tool in the tool shed to stop the spread of the virus. we are in the midst of a deadly, global pandemic and we know protecting thousands of people at highs aring from the disease living on the streets of san francisco ultimately serve to protect all of us. perhaps because we have not seen the deaths in other cities like

knock, we have forgotten how very deadly this virus is. this is an an unprecedented public health crisis emergency and that means exploring all possible solutions. thank you, colleagues. with that, i would like to ask direct ginsburg and director pennick to share a few comments. >> general manager ginsburg t floor is yours. >> thank you, chair peskin. and thank you supervisor fewer and supervisor mar for really engaging with us in this conversation. supervisor fewer, you are absolutely correct we are in the middle of an emergency, and in an emergency, we respond as one city and all the resources and all of the city's resources do need to be considered to save lives. i think, as you know, our department is currently

providi providing spaces for covid-19 testing, child care, food distribution, and yes, even for safe sleeping. and i certainly understand your interest in making sure that all of our public land and properties are cataloged to have an inventory of what is available and the endeavor of working with the board t mayor, and the emergency operations senter to identify additional locations for a covid response effort. but i think what we've all learned and appreciated is just the very poignant and important role that parks are playing in this response, not just as spaces for our direct response, but also of respite and health

and well being for san franciscans. i know you understand that and you have been a great park champion in all the parks throughout the district as does the board. the parks, frankly, have never been more important. they are not nice to have. they are must have's. they are not just amenities, but they are utilities fundamental to our health and well being, so this is no doubt a complicated challenge to balance how to best use the public spaces for the public s health and welfare and your approach, supervisor, seems very reasonable to catalog and have an even of the public space, and we're happy to do that. >> good afternoon. >> thank you for those comments. mr. pennick? >> good afternoon, chair peskin,

supervisors, and i am director of real estate and thank you for the opportunity to speak to this issue. as you know, the real estate division has played its role in finding isolation rooms and hotels and congregate sheltering sites. we are happy to lend our support to this additional effort to find safe sleeping sites. i have had conversations at length with supervisor fewer and her aide. i think we have a clear understanding of the criteria needed for safe sleeping sites. and we will be happy to get that report by the june 2 deadline. thank you. >> president: thank you, mr. pennick. supervisor fewer, c congratulations on your incredible work, and i understand that you and your chief of staff have been through a lot over the last several weeks. any final comments that you would like to make before we

continue this for public comment. you have asked that the committee table this item number four, which the committee will take up after public comment later in this afternoon's meeting. >> supervisor: yes, supervisor peskin. i believe my co-sponsor supervisor mar would like to speak. >> president: supervisor mar, i did not press the participant button, so i did not realize that you were in this virtual meeting. supervisor mar, the floor is yours. >> supervisor: thank you so much, chair peskin. i just wanted to sort of -- i think supervisor fewer really kind of covered everything, but i really wanted to say on this, but i just wanted to thank supervisor fewer for her leadership on this item, and also general manager ginsburg and director pennick for working with us on being able to move this forward and just to sort of

echo the statement that we are in the midst of an unprecedented health pandemic, and we believe that all options to save lives should be on the table for consideration. i did want to also acknowledge the many communications that we have received about this item, and i also agree with everyone that our parks, especially are an essential public good now more than ever and any potential emergency use of the parks as we're considering through this action should not interfere with the park's primary purpose as a recreational space. so we'll keep that in mind as we do move ahead with the work to look at potential locations, underutilized locations in our parks city wide to meet emergency needs in our city right now. thank you. >> president: thank you, supervisor mar.

are there any questions or comments at this point from committee members? i should probably press that button. hold on a second. do not see any questions or comments from committee members. so colleagues -- >> supervisor, i just want to say a quick -- i wanted to thank supervisor fewer and supervisor mar for the hard work on this. as supervisor fewer said, there was a lot of misunderstanding and misconceptions on this and i appreciate her willingness to work with the departments and take the time to table the legislation and ask the department to come up with a list of potential locations that would be appropriate based on all the solutions that we have in the city. i have been a strong proponent of opening up our city's parking lots, working to ensure that we have the appropriate number of hotels and that we're moving in that direction. our district was the first to open up the safe parking to the

entire city, and it's been working in a very good fashion. so appreciate you all putting this forward and listening and willing to come up with the right solutions for the right fit at the right time. and i agree. in our district we have seen a tremendous increase of people that are out on the streets, that are out on the doorways, that are in front of the merchants, and i am constantly on the phone with the hot team and with the appropriate people in the police department and in some cases people just don't want the services in the first round. and in the second case, they are just waiting for the opportunity to be placed in the right location. and as you noted, the fact that because of social distancing and this pandemic, a lot of the options that we have traditionally have have been reduced because the capacity is at its max. i just want to appreciate the thoughtfulness and thank you, supervisor fewer, and again, i apologize in any way if i got out in front of your

announcement. thank you for your understanding. -- and listening at the same time. but that is no excuse. thank you. >> thank you for the comments, supervisor safai. and to supervisor fewer, do you want this item to be tabled or to be fileed? >> supervisor: tabled, please. tabled, please, supervisor. >> in other words, so it can be taken off the table. >> okay, understood. seeing no other comments -- >> supervisor preston. >> thanks. sorry, chair peskin. i just wanted to speak briefly on this item and obviously this is an issue that is impacting the whole city and certainly in my district this is top of folks mind looking at and exploring the opportunities for safe sleeping sites and trying to get more folks into hotels and as

supervisor fewer mentioned, we are eagerly awaiting within the next week or two the safe sleeps site at the mcdonald's and working with the eoc to make that a reality. i really wanted to thank supervisor fewer, supervisor mar, for elevating this issue and pushing it forward. and also to general manager ginsburg and director pennick for being with us today and for working collaboratively with my colleagues. i appreciate all the work to find the common ground here. and i wanted to echo my support not just for the discussions happening around parks but also looking at every city department and agency really taking this moment to review the properties that are under their purview and control considering whether they would be appropriate for a safe sleeping site. i want to recognize the mayor's office of housing and community

development which has control over the mcdonald's site and was willing to make that site available immediately for this temporary use. and this is something that we are hearing constantly from neighbors as to supervisor safai mentioned, we are hearing constantly from neighbors who are dissatisfied, rightly so w the situation on our streets and are looking for solutions and it is good to see this solution is something that we have all been able to come together on, even as we continue to try to push for more rapid housing of folks in hotels and thank you for your leadership on this, and really just wanted to underscore the urging of all department heads, other city leaders to look at your portfolio, to look at what properties you have, and i am looking forward to seeing the reports that come back before us. thank you. >> president: thank you, supervisor preston.

colleagues f there is no objection, we will continue this item until later in this afternoon's meeting. thank you, general manager ginsburg. thank you, director pennick. thank you, supervisor fewer. without objection, we will open this up to public comment after we hear the next three items. madam clerk, please call item number one. >> yes. item number 1 is an ordinance amending ordering the summary vacation of a portion of 25th street, to enable extended operation of a temporary navigation center for homeless residents in a friendly appropriate siting. members of the public should call 1-888-204-5984, access code is 3501008. press pound and then pound again. if you are currently on hold for item number four, please press 1 and 0 to be -- to wait for the item later in the agenda. thank you. >> president: thank you, ms.

major. this is a temporary street vacation that lasts for i believe 42 months and needs to be renewed. it is brought to us by the mayor and supervisor walton to a navigation center that i have repeatedly visited and brought my constituents to as we were trying to win hearts and minds to open up a navigation center in the northeast corner of san francisco prior to covid-19, which now is being built out as we speak. on behalf of the mayor's office, ms. cohen, the floor is yours. >> good afternoon, chair peskin and good afternoon, supervisors. thank you very much. i am going to share a fairly quick presentation with you all. plead let me if -- >> we can see your screen. >> beautiful, thank you. as peskin indicated this, ordinance would allow for the

extension of the central waterfront navigational center for an additional five years. this navigation center was originally opened in 2017 with the idea of it being a three-year, temporary navigation center and it is the dead end of 25th street on park property in the neighborhood surrounded by muni to one side, the bay to the other, and drainage on the other side. and we actually originally had a site for it on 24th street and worked with the neighborhood to move it over to 25th where it's been very well received. it's also more close proximity to the park and a strong asset both for folks experiencing homelessness as well as from the neighbors. as you all well know and alluded to in the previous item or discussed in the previous item,

we have an unsheltered homelessness crisis and is continually exacerbated by covid-19. and experiencing homelessness for those living unsheltered in our community. the department of homelessness has opened eight navigation centers, two of which were temporary and have closed. so we currently have six in operation and certainly one sites that we continue. >> and for those who haven't been there, it is a small navigation services and providence foundation to operate the site. services provided are consistent with our other navigation centers with medical, housing, benefits and just general supportive services, meals, etc.

this is a high level of our data and outcomes from the site. you can see here the outcomes of the sites since it opened and served over 680 unique clients. and the outcomes from this site are consistent with our other navigation centers. about 20% of the population have exited to permanent housing. here is the outreach which is obviously an important component of opening the navigation center. prior to original opening in 2017, h.s.h. together with the port robust community outreach project and working closely with the neighborhood association, we entered into an agreement with multiple city departments to support the neighborhood and to provide services in the area immediately surrounding the

navigation centers. prior to moving this extension forward, those at the port commission and before you today, and we worked with supervisor walton's office as well as the dogpatch neighborhood association to update that agreement and everyone is in sort of agreement about whether it includes and providing benefits to the neighborhood and the dogpatch neighborhood association actually issued a letter supporting the five-year extension of the site as a vital part of the community. so the terms of the extension originally t original street vacation ordinance was limited to three and a half years, three years of operation as well as set up and takedown. and this before you today will extend for five years in ali alignment with the m.o.u. just passed by the port commission or

a resolution passed by the port commission to allow the port to extend their agreement with the homeless department to operate the site for an additional five years. [please stand by] >> staff is checking to see if there's any callers in the que

queue. >> i have a number of callers and i will queue the caller. >> first speaker, please. >> hello, caller, you have two. >> you have six questions remaining. >> hello, yes. >> i'm melanie scardina. i am calling in opposition. and i would like to make a comment. senator diane finestein is -- >> ma'am, this is item number 1, not item number 4. this is the summary speech -- >> (indiscernible). >> i'm sorry? do i call in again? >> you just press 1, 0, when you're ready to line up for item number 4. right now we'll just mute you.

thank you. >> you have five questions remaining. >> hello, caller? you have two minutes to speak on item number 1. hello, caller? >> you have six questions remaining. >> hello? >> hi, caller. we're calling public comment -- hello, we can hear you. this is public comment for item number 1. >> oh, i'm calling about a park. the park. item 4? >> yes. yes, go ahead and we'll mute you. so just as a reminder to the callers in line right now that if you're calling for item number 4, please press 1 and

then 0 to be removed from the speaker list. again, if you're calling for item number 4, press 1 and then 0 to be removed from the speaker list. we're currently taking public comment for item number 1 on the agenda. >> public comment on number four? >> we will return to you, ma'am. thank you. >> thank you. bye-bye. >> thank you. >> you have four questions remaining. >> this is for item number 1. we are not on item number 4 yet. >> yes, thank you so much, supervisor peskin. i appreciate your leadership on agenda item number 1. my name is sarah ogolvie and i live in district 9 and i'm calling in support of the navigation center renewal. i think that it's a wonderful place. and i really appreciate that you have reached out to the community and that you have helped them to understand the

need to help our homeless residents in the city of san francisco. giving them a safe place where they can obtain services from providence and i can tell you that providence is a wonderful organization. they also operate homeless shelters in the bayview. and it's been a wonderful thing for people to find a sense of community and safety in the bayview while experiencing homelessness. and so i just wanted to have the language for taking action on this item. i think that it's going to make a big difference in the lives of so many people. and i am really excited that it's going to be able to operate for a longer period of time. i just -- i wanted to speak on behalf of homeless residents in san francisco and just commend the board for making it a

possibility and also looking for other sites. and i want to recommend that mother brown on jenning street that there was an opportunity to build a homeless shelter there. and there are many people that sleep there on chairs every night. and it's just harmful and very hurtful to their health and safety. and a homeless shelter there would also benefit the area and the surrounding community. so, thank you. thank you for taking my comment and i support this measure. >> supervisor peskin: thank you for your comment. next speaker, please. >> you have four questions remaining. >> hello, this is public comment for item number 1. >> you have four questions remaining.

>> clerk: hello, caller? >> yes, i wanted to comment on item 3. >> clerk: okay, if you could go ahead and press 1 and then 0 and then we'll return to that item -- get to that item, ma'am. thank you. and our next caller? >> you have three questions remaining. >> clerk: hello, caller, this is public comment for item number 1. hello, caller? next caller, please. >> you have two questions remaining. >> clerk: hello, caller? this is public comment for item number 1. hello caller?

>> you have three questions remaining. >> clerk: hello, caller, this is public comment for item number 1. >> supervisor peskin: and to the members of the public and my colleagues, i really apologize for the fact that we called number four out of order because general manager ginsburg had a very short period of time that he could present the compromise that supervisor fewer and the rec and park department were able to arrive at. but everybody will -- after these items, have an opportunity for public comment. supervisor fewer has requested that item number 4 to be tabled, but everybody is welcome to comment when we get to item number 4 which we intend to do so as quickly as we can. next speaker, please.

>> you have two questions remaining. >> clerk: hello, caller, this is public comment for item number 1. thank you. next speaker, please. >> you have two questions remaining. >> clerk: hi, this is public comment for summary street vacation on 25th street. hello, caller? >> you have four questions remaining. >> clerk: hello, caller? >> you have one question remaining. >> clerk: hi, caller, this is public comment for item number 1, summary street vacation.

>> hi. you are talking about the navigation to be extended? >> clerk: yes. >> okay. well, you know, on navigation center and the encampment or whatever tents that you supply, they should all -- just like the schools, you know, these are stepping stones and they shouldn't be permanent. and they should give people a chance to get the service they need if they are to be trained for job opportunities and then they should be getting that. and, you know, a -- whatever treatment that they need. and they shouldn't be allowed to be permanently in navigation centers. so these are not supposed to be permanent and you should try to reduce the number of people coming in to get homeless help and not to encourage them.

so the money spent should be helping them to become self-sufficient and to give them expectations of normal people. that's the respect that they should get. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. >> supervisor peskin: are there any other members of the public that want to speak at this point? >> that completes the queue. >> supervisor peskin: so public comment for item number 1 is closed. and, colleagues, if there's no objection, i would like to have a roll call vote on sending this item with recommendation to the full board as the committee report for hearing tomorrow, may 19th. on that item, madam clerk, a roll call, please. >> clerk: on the motion as stated supervisor preston? aye. preston, aye. supervisor safai.

safai, aye. supervisor peskin? peskin, aye. you have three ayes. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madam clerk, that item is passed and be heard by the full board tomorrow. could you read items two and three together. >> clerk: item 2 an emergency ordance for protections for occupants of s.r.o. residents during the covid-19 pandemic. and item number 3 is an ordinance amending the administrative code to residential hotel units from evicting tenants for non-payment of rent that was not due to the covid-19 pandemic and for late fees and penalties or similar changes of such tenants. the members of the public who wish to provide public comment on items number 2 and 3 call the number listed on the screen and press 1, and then 0, to line up to speak.

>> supervisor peskin: thank you, madam clerk. i want to start by thanking my chief of staff who has been doing truly god's work in working to protect the occupants of our residential hotels. as you know, in the 20 years that i have been a member of the board of supervisors or an on/off member of the board of supervisors, i have been working very hard to increase the protections under chapter 41 of the administrative code and i want to thank my colleagues for your continued unanimous votes to strengthen those protections. and i would like to thank my co-sponsors for item number 2, and supervisors haney and wellman. and the vast majority of single occupancy hotels stretch from the mission through the tenderloin and into chinatown and north beach. so this is very important for us

three supervisors. in february, a long-time friend and trusted advisor, attorney, and tenant organizer who works now at the chinatown community development center, reached out to me in a profound way and to the department of public health with regard to the threats that the then impending covid-19 crisis proposed for our s.r.o. communities. particularly in chinatown. he was looking at the same modeling that many of us have been monitoring and he raised the alarm about what was to come. and i sincerely want to thank him publicly for being that canary in the coal mine and to continuing to push along with

the s.r.o. community and their advocates for stronger protections for our s.r.o. residents, particularly during covid-19. and we all now know and we will shortly see that in s.r.o.s and in other congregate settings is where the majority of the viral transmission is now centered. in early march, the city identified s.r.o. hotels as a major potential concern for outbreaks. and based on the fact that these are transmissive environments where bathrooms and kitchens are shared and there are a very high number of vulnerable individuals, particularly seniors, and folks who continue to have to work to pay their rent, s.r.o.s, along with other co conagree settings haven

concerns for us. and after spending to cases i issued a memo in early problem will and outlining the inquiries on to d.p.h. on how they were preparing for s.r.o. outbreaks as well as recommending necessary protocols on how to mitt gat thmitigate the spread 9 in this ideology. when the department was unable to answer the questions presented i issued a second amendment and following up with specific examples of where the city failed to stop the spread in s.r.o.s. to date that second memo, despite many promises, has not been responded to in writing. i think that it's very important that that happens for posterity, but i will set that aside. we have seen the impact of the virus not only worsen in this high-risk community, but the number of covid-19 cases has generally stabilized across san francisco.

thankfully, congregate settings have seen the cases steadily increase. since april 1 -- and you will see the slides shortly -- san francisco's s.r.o.s have seen a phenomenal increase in confirmed covid-19 cases which is actually quite staggering. many s.r.o. residents have always been marginally housed and are also most at risk of becoming homeless in a state of emergency. i have gone into the residential alleyways, including just this past weekend in my district, to assess the tent encampments for myself. and i have met tent dwellers who used to be marginally housed and are now on the streets. and we continue to get reports from the city's s.r.o. collaboratives that s.r.o. owners in some cases are illegally displacing the s.r.o. tenants after 28 days in a practice known as musical rooms. and in an attempt to keep them

from establishing permanent residency with the tenant -- and with the protections provided under the rent stabilization ordinance. my office and the office of my co-sponsor, supervisors haney and ronen have had isolation rooms for covid-19 positive and presumptive cases. which by law the city is required to offer. we have met -- we have been met with consistent delays and some excuses and in some cases a lack of cultural competency and language capacity by some city departments. we are in a state of emergency which requires emergency responses from all aspect of our government, but particularly those with addressing the public health crisis in our most vulnerable communities. these residents are often the essential workers that are risking their lives every day to continue to keep the city running. they're working in our restaurants and they're working in our kitchen remodels and

they're doing our street resurfacing. they're manning our pitstops. the fact that they live in congregate settings which prohibit them from safely self-isolating should, frankly, be a top priority for all of us. and i really have to be candid that i have been disappointed with the lack of urgency and the attention that this population has received. hopefully, and actually the responses, despina despite our d waving for the last six weeks that we have gotten in the last few days gives me a little bit of hope. this legislation does the following -- it mandates protocols for the department of public health on competent s.r.o. notification and case investigation and community education and testing and isolation and quarantine. it mandates eviction protections

for s.r.o. residents, including rent relief and the right to return to units after quarantining. it mandates accurate and transparent reporting on s.r.o. data, including the number of covid-19 confirmed cases across buildings city-wide and i was very happy that i finally got that information on a slide yesterday for the first time. and i, again, i want to thank my co-sponsors and particularly the incredible network of s.r.o. tenants and their advocates that ban together to take care of the communities first. and the values that we all hold of taking care of our most vulnerable members of society. thank you to the federal city s.r.o. collaborative and the chinatown collaborative and the mission collaborative and the senior and disability action, and the coalition on homelessness, and the supportive

housing and interfaith council and the community housing partnership and tndc, and the chinatown community development center and many more that offer your input and on-the-ground experience to shape this package. and particular thanks to my chief of staff who has been ringing the alarm bells each and every day for the last month and a half. and i would like now to afford mr. fujioka the opportunity to offer up the need for this legislation. and with that, the floor is yours. >> thank you, chair peskin, and the committee. i wanted to say i'm not sure that this represents a series of slides to provide a quantitative

assessment and the prospective about the coronavirus crisis in s.r.o.s. can we have the first slide up? >> supervisor peskin: hold on one -- we are working on that and the first slide is up. >> so what i would like to present is data that has been collected and verified of test positives for the s.r.o. buildings. starting with the data from april 1st for cases up to april 1st. and then for cases throughout may 11th which is the last date for which we have data on testing. and, of course, we know that testing is only a partial

indication of the nature of the spread, or the extent of the spread. but the data that is available is quite troubling. so can i go to the next slide, please. and so in that period, less than six weeks, the data shows that the number of those with test positive residents have increased from eight buildings to 53. and during that same period, the number of s.r.o. residents sickened with covid-19 has increased from nine to 144. and it's an increase of almost 1500%. far faster than the city-wide average of increased cases. more than four times actually. and also there's clear evidence from this data as well as the number of cases in which multiple cases have occurred in

the same buildings that establishes that the contagian within buildings has a need for stronger preventative action. next slide, please. and the next slide shows that starting point as of april 1s april 1st, with the cases accumulating and the cases up to that point. and eight buildings, s.r.o. buildings with test positive cases and nine residents are testing positive. that's for the entire period of time that the testing has been available. and next slide, please. and two weeks later on april 22nd, and accumulated data up to that point, 36 buildings had tested positive, and 73 residents had tested positive. and, you know, i think that the full extent of the range of s.r.o. buildings from the northeast chinatown all the way down to the south end of outer

mission. next slide, please. and, unfortunately, during this period as well that we learned of the event -- and to indicate that that information -- that those in the hospitals with covid-19 was not provided by d.p.h. but it was provided by a family member. next slide, please. this slide shows that for the most recent data showing that with 53 buildings, and 144 residents tested positive, and to explain a little bit about this -- and the orange markers are buildings which were previously tested by positive cases and then more than two weeks later additional test

positives showing that -- indicating that -- or suggesting that whatever efforts to address the contablian i connecticut col residents becoming ill with covid-19. that's my presentation. again, i wanted to provide and i wanted to provide the quantitative data to support the qualitative stories and the advocacy and the particular points that are to address the crisis in the legislation. thank you very much. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, mr. fujioka. and, by the way, the number of cases as of yesterday has now risen to 176 in those settings. and i have to say that there is back and forth as to what is and

is not in s.r.o.s and so that number is likely higher. and why don't we open up this up to public comment. are there members of the public who would like to speak on items 2 and/or 3? >> thank you, mr. chair. staff is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. >> yes, give me a second to bricbring up the queue. >> supervisor peskin: remember this is for items 2 or 3 and not for item number 4 yet, but that would be our next one after we deal with these two items. go ahead, first speaker, please. >> hi, my name is chelsea. i am from the coalition on homelessness.

okay. so so far i have witnessed families and individuals being illegally evicted from s.r.o.s during the covid-19 moratorium on eviction. there needs to be greater protection for s.r.o. residents with the ongoing threat of evictions. most s.r.o. residents have transitioned from homelessness and the trauma of having their housing ripped away again is unconscionable. and there have been details in an increase in homelessness post-covid, which san francisco cannot afford. we can't afford one more homeless person. s.r.o. residents are subject to a higher risk of transmission of covid than other housed people because they share communal areas such as bathrooms, showers and kitchens. not only have s.r.o. residents

transitioned from homelessness, but they're in lower income brackets and they have health concerns and they are elderly and are minority. which each of these board members have seen in covid updates that put the s.r.o. residents at an even greater risk of transmission. they need to be put in shelter-in-place hotels and have greater protections. and so they have a home to go back to. when considering rent relief i want you to consider our undocumented population and many live in s.r.o.s. they have been ignored country wide from relief programs. like i said before, we are already at capacity to meet the needs of homelessness in san francisco. every measure needs to be taken for prevention. so, please consider supervisor peskin's legislation. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your call. members who wish to speak for public comment, please press 1

and 0. next caller, please. >> you have 10 questions remaining. >> clerk: hello, caller? >> hello. >> clerk: hi, you have two minutes to speak -- yes, we can hear you. >> yes, i am kathy lipscomb, and a member of senior and disability action and work in the tenants' movement. and thank you so much, supervisor peskin, for taking leadership on this. you know, everybody knows that the folks in the s.r.o.s are poor, they're an underserved population, and many are not in optimal health. many are disabled. and so it behooves us to move with all deliberate speed to get those who may be affected out of those s.r.o.s and into a safe room of their own in a hotel. this is common sense.

it means that the general population is less endangered. certainly, the workers in the s.r.o.s are less endangered. and the residents themselves. so i hope and i pray that we get this through right away. as for no no evictions for non-payment of rent. you know, the federal guideline used to be 25% of income to pay for rent and then it's creeped up to 30% and now it seems to be out of control across the country. but in s.r.o.s there are people who are paying more than 50% and up to 50% of their income for rent. this is -- this cannot continue. do we want those people on the street? do they want them evicted? i think that everyone in this city would be against that kind of thing. so, certainly, we can afford to have a relief fund to help the landlords who are tempted to kick them out and prohibit that. thank you very much for

listening. >> clerk: thank you for your comment. if you wish to speak, please press 1, and then 0 for public comment on items 2 and 3. next caller, please. >> you have 14 questions remaining. >> clerk: hello, caller? >> hi. >> clerk: you have two minutes to speak. >> okay, thank you. my name is freddy martin and i'm a housing organizer at senior and disability action. and i just wanted to thank the sponsors and everyone who supports this legislation. as a native from san francisco, i have seen firsthand the conditions in several s.r.o.s, but to live under the threat of covid must be harder. working as an organizer and providing services for tenants there and many years having lived in one myself, i know the constant fear and the threats they face every day. it's exkiewshiating at best. as of now i cannot go in and deliver services, organize, or

do anything at this time to help the tenants to advocate for themselves. and all of them, and everyone that i know, that lives in an s.r.o. are concerned about one thing first -- their lives. and their safety. s.r.o.s aren't like any other apartments and should be treated differently. they need to be prioritized for safety protections because people share common areas. which increases the likelihood of infections spreading and more people dying. a significant number of people that i serve and that live there in s.r.o. hotels are seniors or disabled and they have underlined medical conditions. in the mission, 22 residents tested positive for the multiple requests and it took six days to get everyone tested. we don't want to see this happen again. so having said this, at the heart of this matter for me is the basic idea of taking care of

people. constituents who are living in dangerous situation and bottom lines, and being our sisters and brothers' keepers. putting folks in hotel room where is they can be isolated and properly quarantined to protect them and others who have it, and to safely shelter-in-place is what we need and that's why i support this legislation. it saves lives. >> you have 16 questions remaining. >> clerk: hello, caller. >> hello. i am -- hi. i'm co-chair (indiscernible) and a long-time tenderloin resident. and i'm calling today because, you know, i live in an s.r.o. in the tenderloin and i have been here for a lot of years and i have to say that looking at the infections and this is frightening.

we're finally getting (indiscernible). and the s.r.o.s are not like other apartments. they need to be treated differently. and the residents here are a vulnerable population, a significant portion of them that live in the building and near me in s.r.o.s, the disabled and those with underlying medical conditions. so they need to be moved out of this and into safer spaces. and it needs to be done quick because the infection is spreading in the community. (indiscernible) and we need testing in the s.r.o.s, by the way, but that's separate. and we definitely need to provide protection. and you know that once somebody leaves that place it's more expensive to house someone than to keep them in their housing so we need to do everything to keep people in their existing housing. but we need to make available rooms in the shelter-in-place

hotels so that we can do this. and it's not healthy and it's not safe and, honestly, it's a choice for the city. and so, please, for the folks that are in danger and we need your help. so thank you, supervisors. >> clerk: thank you for your comment. next caller, please. >> you have 14 questions remaining. >> clerk: hello, caller, you have two minutes. >> hi, this is r.j. sloan and i work as a private s.r.o. hotel organizer with central city s.r.o. collaborative. i would just like to acknowledge the hard work of everyone who sponsored this emergency legislation. i am sure if you were to design a residential setting in which a

global pandemic could spread rapidly, that you would design a tenderloin s.r.o. hotel. a small unit, a shared bathroom, and a shared kitchen, and a shared common area, and tiny little elevators. this would be the perfect setting to spread a virus like the coronavirus. so i think that we need to not only consider this emergency legislation now, but in the future, i think for new building sites, we need to consider absolute requirement that bathrooms to be inside every apartment. i also would like to throw out the idea of housing as health care. i think that if people are housed and use the emergency

services far less and, therefore, costs and the health care system less if they don't use emergency services because they're housed, we ought to consider housing as a health care cost and bill it to medicaid. and to start to think outside of the box. and i hope that you will pass this emergency legislation. it's just the beginning. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. >> you have 14 questions remaining. >> clerk: hello, caller, you have two minutes to speak. >> yes, good afternoon, sarah ogolvie, i'm a resident and calling on behalf of the action, a coalition lead. i want to commend supervisor peskin as well as supervisor haney and ronen on creating this

ordinance and passing it timely. s.r.o.s are a really good example of the difference between overcrowding and densi density. as somebody who experienced homelessness and moved into a transitional s.r.o. for a period of time, i can definitely attest to the fact that i know several families living with small children, two or three of them, in units that are basically the size of maybe two walk-in closets or smaller. you know, they're sharing common areas and they really represent the big reason why n.b. action is pushing for more affordable units, especially in key sites like the balboa reservoir. i really hope that along with passing this legislation that the board will continue to look at affordable housing sites or

sites with mixed use. and to consider putting these families and their children into these upcoming available and affordable homes. we really need more units like those in the city, rather than single-room occupancy rooms to house these families. and so i want to thank you for looking here and looking ahead to leadership in affordable housing as well as more housing throughout the city. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comment. >> you have 14 questions remaining. >> clerk: hello, caller, you have two minutes to speak. >> hello, i am kim ospero, and i live on the corner of leavenworth and golden gate, and a home that was renovated in 2012. i have a small bathroom in my building and still have very small quarters.

i see that the way things have been, closed down, that the people are still with ptsd, with health issues that need to go to seek doctors and we are told that we can't go to doctor offices and that we have to see them over the computers. and 80% of the people in our building don't have a computer. what will i do with us? i have been homeless and i have been blessed to put in this place but it's not a good living condition. there are many buildings in this area that are promised to become s.r.o.s. where is humanity in that? you have got to support us. we are the people that you are there to support. do not let us put us on the street and we're going to not become only worse but people will die. and is that worth the money that you may save on not helping us? please, do not leave us out on the streets. i have been there. and it is not safe. it is unfair that that money

does not get used for what it is supposed to be used for -- humans. not things and not the police to corral us and to move us someplace else because we're not wanted in the spot that we are in. we need your protection. not your maybe we can do this and maybe we can do that later. we need it now. we not only need more s.r.o.s but we need your protection. thank you. >> you have 13 questions remaining. >> hi, can you hear me? >> clerk: hi, yes, sorry about that. yes, you have two minutes to speak starting now. >> hi, my name is (indiscernible) and i live in an s.r.o. and i also am a community organizer with the community

organization partnership. and we have s.r.o.s and also buildings considered s.r.o.s and they have bathrooms and it's still settings where people are sharing kitchens and bathrooms. apparently where i live i share kitchens and bathrooms with about 19 other people. so you can imagine that in order to go to the bathroom, in order to go to the building, and to go out to get fresh air, i have to touch multiple objects that others have to touch. there's been quite a bit of debate whether we should have those doors opened or closed because we're literally feet from each other and breathing each other's air. especially those that have to deal with the air wells, and it's really important that people have access to the testing because right now our

community health care is limited by discrimination and poverty. so people knowing that they have access to testing, have access to health, and it's going to do a lot for our community to have a safe fashion on that. and the resources during this outbreak are limited and so the information is super crucial in helping people to understand the scope of the pandemic individually. so for people to take the action wearing masks and to take better action in washing their hands and being safe for others, it's going to take the city prioritizing people that are living in s.r.o.s. there's a lot of fear and apathy right now and i feel that could be caused if we had information. >> clerk: thank you. >> you have 13 questions remaining. >> clerk: hello, caller, you

have two minutes to speak. your two minutes begins now. >> hi. hi, i am (indiscernible) and part of the s.r.o. family and a collaborative. and with a lot of the cases happening right now in san francisco, many of the families are very concerned with their safety and possibility of exposure to their neighbors because of the shared bathrooms and the cooking area. this is why we think that the support for this legislation to have extensions in the s.r.o.s. so we ask you to please support this legislation, thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. >> you have 12 questions remaining. >> clerk: hello, caller, you have two minutes beginning now. >> hi, this is jennifer bosch,

and i am the director of the coalition on homelessness and i'm calling to support and thank supervisor peskin for this legislation. you know, one of the things that we know about this virus is that folks that are in conagre congre living are exposed and how much the virus and the particles spread really quickly when you flush a toilet, for example. there is really transportors and there's often very poor ventilation. a lot of unhealthy housing already in place that has done damage to folks that are living there who probably already have

very vulnerable health situations in many cases. a lot of elderly people and a lot of folks who -- because of severe poverty and destitution have had their health compromised. so it's really important to highlight this population and to -- and also as mentioned, is made up primarily of people of color and working-class people and what we know about this virus also is that it has disproportionately hit communities of color very hard. this is linked to poverty and i think that for s.r.o.s that's really the housing that is the most -- in terms of the market, has the lowest price range in the city. so all of this in mind, it really is a strong shout out and support for this legislation.

thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. >> you have 11 questions remaining. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. >> clerk: hello, caller, you have two minutes. >> my name is -- good afternoon, supervisors. my name is p.j. and i am a counselor at sound camp. sound camp provides services to families and workers living in s.r.o.s with finding work and assuring they are safe. the workers that we serve are very concerned with the issues at work and at home. some of them are essential workers and they are very concerned that when they go to work they are already exposed to the public. and usually when people go home you would think that they would feel safe but that's not the case for workers who are exposed to this and the neighbors do share essential spaces. and s.r.o. residents are extremely low income people of

color. seniors, immigrants, people with disabilities. by not addressing the serious safety concerns and the city is once again turning to the members of the marginalized areas and second class. they deserve dignity as residents of san francisco and should have the same opportunity to shelter-in-place and to quarantine as all other san san franciscoians. and thank you, supervisor peskin, for bringing forward this legislation which is really an extension of the voices of the workers who are residents living in the s.r.o.s. so we ask you to please support this legislation. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comment. if you wish to speak please press 1, 0, to line up to speak. caller, you have two minutes. >> yes, this is laureen from district five and a member of the senior and disability

action. i'm here supporting items 2 and 3. clearly we have learned by now in fighting this coronavirus that the health of all of us depends on everyone's ability to shelter in place. s.r.o.s, we know, are congrgate settings and residents are vulnerable people. you know that many are seniors and people with disabilities and people with underlying medical conditions and now that there's talk of opening up let's not let down our guard. we have heard that it's spread within the s.r.o.s and let's not ignore this major segment of san franciscoians. those who remain vulnerable and are urgently deserving of our highest regard and all

protections we can give them. saving lives is our responsibility. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comment. >> you have 10 questions remaining. >> clerk: thank you, caller. this is public comment for items number 2 and 3. >> linda chapman, a member of the housing collaborative. and also captain of an action team which supports protecting s.r.o.s as affordable housing for elders and disabled people. i'm speaking though from the perspective of the knot hill neighbors. this is one of our major housing resources and there's thousands of s.r.o. rooms on knot hill. and i'm a property owner and three buildings are s.r.o.s. i'm not too concerned about the c.d.c. building across the street from me and i'm sure that it's well taken care of. but they are privately owned

buildings. and our members and the knot hill neighbors for many years, including our heroes, lived in some of these s.r.o.s. and many of those have been turned into expensive housing for whatever, you know, which needs to be stopped. the co-op where i live and i was an owner, we had s.r.o. units for rent, a number of apartment buildings on knot hill have too. and you have already heard the concerns about the congregate settings and so i won't repeat that. but i would say that looking forward you could have a kitchenette, that allows people to cook in their rooms and to be placed wherever possible and that would be a good way to encourage it. the rooms that we had rented had it. and the building on the corner from me have some rooms that have that also so it reduce this is situation going forward. but they're very close occupancy

as you know, and i guess when i think about it, you know, i could be in danger because of all of the s.r.o. rooms on my block if people begin to develop coronavirus there. and i'm running into them all the time. so, obviously, this is important for many perspectives. the people whom i worked with at social security lived in s.r.o.s and the person at church where i went and at the two universities that i've attended and they lived on s.r.o.s on knot hill. and so they have middle-income working people who don't need a large apartment that are living in these s.r.o.s too. >> you have nine questions remaining. >> clerk: thank you for your comment. hello, caller, you have two minutes to speak and this is public comment for item number 2. hello, caller? >> i was waiting for number 4.

>> clerk: oh, okay. we're going to return to that item a little later in the meeting. so you can just -- we'll go ahead and mute you. okay? >> thank you. yes. >> you have eight questions remaining. >> clerk: hello, caller, public comment for items number 2 and 3. >> hello, my name is teresa flanderick, and i'm calling in to support and to thank especially supervisor peskin with this legislation. both numbers 2 and 3 are so important to the entire city of san franciscoian residents. and so i wish that this had happened actually long ago. and i'm really thrilled that we have much more data right now. and i also commend the work on

gathering and insisting. so, yes, please, please, let's make sure that all supervisors support both items 2 and 3. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comment. this is public comment for items 2 and 3. >> you now have 7 questions remaining. >> clerk: hello, caller, you have two minutes to speak. >> thank you, madam clerk. i'm with chinatown c.d.c. i think that the residents and the advocates have done, done egregious work talking about what is needed and why this legislation is needed. i'll just add a simple thing which is that that it's really a microcompany of what makes san francisco great. residents and families and seniors all live together in very cramped spaces and, you

know, make a communal living. and, therefore, we as a city have an absolute mandate to protect them. to protect their communities, just like we protect communities in fancy apartment buildings. this legislation is needed. testing is needed. contact tracing is needed. this is a collaborative work put together by supervisor peskin and his staff. and the s.r.o. advocates and the individuals that are s.r.o. residents that put their best thinking together and they came up with these recommendations. so we're really excited that we're here today and that we can get this passed hopefully out of committee today and at the full board tomorrow. i want to thank her for all of the work that she's done with all of us and everyone who has

supported this legislation. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comment. >> you have six questions remaining. >> clerk: hello, caller. you have two minutes and this is public comment for item number 2 and 3. >> this is anastasia anopolis and i'm with the tenancy union. this is very well put together, supervisor peskin and haney and ronen. it's very comprehensive. and you must realize that s.r.o.s are congregate settings and places where shelter-in-place and social distancing is not possible. when an s.r.o. resident goes to the doctor, the doctors don't know that s.r.o.s exist. so they send them home to self-isolate. s.r.o.s are not places that you can self-isolate.

so, therefore, i support moving them to solitary hotel rooms. and to recover there. >> clerk: thank you for your comment. next speaker. >> you have five questions remaining. >> clerk: hello, caller, this is public comment for items 2 and 3. >> hi, this is sa sarah short ad i'm with the community partnership leadership. and we have hundreds of units where we have residents and staff, and we're really, really concerned about their safety. and so we're extremely pleased that supervisor peskin has put forth this legislation.

our residents are vulnerable by nature. and they tend to be disabled, and seniors and folks with long-standing medical conditions. and you combine that with the fact that they're sharing bathrooms and kitchens in a congregate setting it's just a recipe for disaster that the city does not want to see. unfortunately, we have been starting to see some outbreaks. and if we don't do something soon, we'll see more coronavirus cases rip through these hotels. i also want to say that this legislation was born out of some real challenges that the organizations like ours and other housers have faced. that is that the providers have not been notified when there's been cases in their hotels and so the residents and the operators do not have the opportunity to contain the virus, and clean properly and to make sure that quarantine is

happening. also testing has not been properly done when there have been positive cases of other residents in the building. there have been cases where people have been told to shelter-in-place and quarantine, rather, after testing positive in an s.r.o. room which does not work. and so we've seen a lot of problems on the ground and we've had trouble getting a good response from the department of public health, unfortunately, and yet we're well aware that this could be a very large crisis that impacts far more than just the s.r.o. residents, but the community at large if these buildings start to -- >> you have four questions remaining. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. hello, caller, this is public comment for items 2 and 3. >> hi, my name is evan with the s.r.o. collaborative. thank you supervisor peskin and

for your attention to the s.r.o. issues. i regularly see s.r.o. tenants who are living in fear. they are scared to use their shared spaces, fear they'll contract covid. could you imagine living in fear to even use the restroom in your own place of residence? and each time i have this conversation i have been saadly unable to tell them the program from the city to protect. and these protections are overdue. on top of the concerns about covid in their buildings, many have fears about addiction. many tenants are on a fixed income and were barely making rent in the first place. if you are on a fixed income you cannot show the decrease in income due to covid. further, the current language is not clear enough for protections. the city cannot say that taking covid seriously will protect people. and the population needs our continued attention.

thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. hello, caller this is public comment for item number 2. >> this is colleen rebecca and i work at tenderloin neighborhood development corporation. and we also support this legislation because s.r.o. residents face barriers to preventing infection from covid-19 that other housed san francisco residents do not face. and they need policies to protect and to support them during this pandemic. health starts in our community and health starts in people's home. this legislation is necessary because as we have seen as this pandemic has unfolded over the past couple of months, a one-size-fits-all approach leaves residents who share bathrooms and kitchens out of a

real chance for prevention. and out of a real chance to recover from an illness in an environment that is safe for them. and our policies really have to mitigate the structural inequalities that exist that created this discrepancy that have already resulted in, you know, different health outcomes for our lowest income members of our communities, for people living in s.r.o.s, and our seniors aging in place and people with disabilities and formerly homeless people, families. and the immigrant population that makes our city run. so we are really grateful to supervisor peskin and the board for this legislation. it is necessary. and we need to mitigate some of the structural inequalities that

are affecting s.r.o. residents and creating health disparities that are not in their favor. so thank you for this legislation. and we support it. >> clerk: thank you, this is public comment for items 2 and 3. hello, caller, you have two minutes. >> my name is felicia smith and i'm a tenant organizer at an s.r.o. building in the tenderloin. i'm calling in support of 2 and 3. and i'm going to tell you why. about two months ago, i had bornial pneumonia and went to emergency in an ambulance. they immediately put me under quarantine and they thought that maybe i had the virus. and thank god i did not have the virus, it was just bronchial

pneumonia and they sent me home and told me to self-isolate and i did. and two weeks later we had to go to another s.r.o. building for our food bank and i got some inside information that someone had died over there with the virus. and i'm like we shouldn't be going there then. and because of -- because of this, i called my supervisor at central city and it was, you know, we were not going to go over there. so i stood outside in front of our building and i stopped people from going over there. this is why we need this. there's not enough communication. we have 60 plus rooms in this building and we could have gone over there and every single one of those froze and that's not how to stop this thing. we have to have some communication. because people have to go to other s.r.o. buildings and i'm lucky that i had my own bathroom, so that's cool.

but other people don't. when you have to go someplace to pick up your food or whatever, you need to know is it safe for me to walk into this space. there could have been an extra 60 people with this virus if it hadn't been for my inside tip. this stuff -- and i know that there's regulations and i worked in the medical field for 20 years -- i know about the regulations, that there's nothing wrong with saying that the virus is here. but we have no -- >> you have zero questions remaining. >> chair, that completes the queue. >> supervisor peskin: thank you to the members of the public for your comment. and, colleagues, the items are back in our hands. madam clerk or -- there we go -- it looks like we are back.

so colleagues a number of things. first, and i believe that you're in receipt of these and i would like to make a number of non-substantive amendments starting at page number 6 at line 14 to set some time parameters. this is item number 2. insert the words "as soon as feasible but not more than 12 hours after receiving such confirmation." at the bottom of page 6 at line 24, similar language that says "insert as soon as feasible but not more than 12 hours after receiving such confirmation provided necessary to all s.r.o. residents who occupy or access parts of the residential hotel that has been occupied or accessed by people who may have had exposure to covid-19 within the prior 14 days.

and to all workers who access the same areas to provide service on site." and then make a corresponding change on page 7 at lines 19 through 20 by striking the language that says "the city shall provide face coverings to residents and residential hotel employees who lack face coverings" because that's in the aforementioned amendment in the top of page 6 -- the bottom of page 6 and the top of page 7. so i would like to make a motion for those non-substantive amendments -- madam clerk, those indeed are non-substantive and approved by your office, is that correct, miss pierson? >> yes, chair peskin. they are non-substantive. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. so i'd like to make that motion. madam clerk, call a roll on those non-substantive

amendments. >> clerk: on the motion as stated to amend item number 2, supervisor preston. preston, aye. supervisor safai. safai aye. supervisor peskin. peskin, aye. you have three ayes. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madam clerk. and, colleagues, i don't know if you have any comments, but i have had -- i would like to say i had somewhat productive conversations with representatives of the mayor's administration and the department of public health yesterday, sunday, reaching well into the night and ending at about 10:00 p.m.. and there are some additional amendments that are still being discussed that have yet been approved as to by the city attorney that would not be

substantive, that i think that the community that we just heard from may be okay with. but they have not been yet approved by the city attorney. so what i would like to do is to send both of these items with recommendation as committee reports to the full board of supervisors. and if in the intervening 24 hours that we can land on language that can be approved as to form and as acceptable to the community primarily and the department of public health. secondly, i will make those amendments at the full board of supervisors tomorrow, may 19t 19th. if that is acceptable, supervisor safai and preston. >> sounds good to me. >> sounds good. >> supervisor peskin: all right, sending item 2 as amended and item 3 as it stands with

recommendation as committee reports for a hearing tomorrow, may ninth at the full board of supervisors. madam clerk, please call the roll. >> clerk: on a motion as stated, supervisor preston. preston, aye. supervisor safai. safai, aye. supervisor peskin. peskin, aye. you have three ayes for item number 2, recommended as a committee report and item number 3. >> supervisor peskin: now to item for four and open up public comment for that item. and i profoundly want to apologize to members of the public and thank you for your patience. this item was supposed to be heard last on our original calendar but due to general manager of rec and park phil

ginsburg's schedule we had to hear that at the beginning of the meeting. and supervisor fewer, the primary author of this legislation, asked after public comment that this item to be tabled given the arrangement that she has managed to negotiate with rec and park. and our department of real estate. and with that why don't we open up public comment for item number 4. first speaker, please. >> clerk: staff is checking to see if there's callers in queue for item number 4. >> yes, i do have a number of callers and i'll queue the first caller. >> clerk: thank you. >> you have eight questions remaining. >> clerk: hello, caller, this is public comment for item number 4. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am margaret o' sullivan, a native san franciscoian. and i'm opposed to moving the homeless into golden gate park

as part of the sentence. i support senator fine sign's idea to use ultimate space such as the port authority land and other public spaces such as schoolyards and closed down gyms. the concept should be to provide cover, comfort, meals, a cot and then on to more supportive services. i am grateful that supervisor fewer, rec and park department head ginsburg will look to catalog available places for housing them. thank you. >> clerk: next speaker, please. >> you have nine questions remaining. >> clerk: hello, caller. you have two minutes to speak. this is item number 4. >> hello. my name is trish robins and i thank you supervisor peskin. i'm 100% for getting unhoused people off streets and out of the doorways which are not a

good place for anyone to live. and it's a safe site. and my concern is with thousands of homeless that are moved to public parks, how would it be possible to immediately hire enough qualified people to provide 24/7 oversight? and how would they be empowered to settle any level of ineinevitable issues. and it would be a terrible 150-year anniversary present for golden gate park. i would like to thank the general manager phil ginsburg for working with supervisor few or this delicate issue. also i am in support of legislation to what we discussed today and thank you for this public forum. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, next speaker, please. >> you have 10 questions

remaining. >> clerk: hello, caller, you have two minutes to speak. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is alice savior and i'm in district 7. i'm calling today because i'm concerned about the health and well-being of our seniors, children and families who are possibly would be exposed to things like syringes or feces for those not housed in buildings. there's the tal palace that seems to be a solution to housing the homeless during this covid-19 emergency. i urge you to please house the homeless in available indoor shelters. and not in squares like golden gate park. thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you for your comment. >> you have 11 questions remaining. >> clerk: hello, caller, this is public comment for item number 4. you have two minutes to speak.

>> yes, my name is martha ersfeld. and i believe that all parks are our backyards, and the city doesn't have backyards. and i want all of the supervisors to think carefully and to come up with a long-temple plan fo-term plan for this project. and i would like them to consider the city college site. i'm very concerned about what i have seen happen in the southeast corner of golden gate park with encampments in the past that have become sites (indiscernible) and i'm urged though it sounds like golden gate park is not being considered, that you consider to not consider any area that is opening up this site for a tent site. you need to keep that part of the park safe and open for everybody. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you.

next caller, please. >> you have 13 questions remaining. >> clerk: hello, caller, this is public comment for item number 4. you have two minutes to speak. >> yes, hello, my name is zeke lareldo, and i live in sunset. and the proposal to allow for a place for homeless people in public parks in san francisco is -- will have massive negative consequences. and it strikes me as odd that, you know, that this problem has been with us for about 40 years now. and it's now, you know, with an emergency, that the supervisors propose an emergency issue to solve this issue. i think that most people who live and play by the rules that are proposing and, however, all it takes are a few of these mentally ill and drug-addicted

homeless people to destroy our parks and harm our children and endanger our neighborhood residents. it is not okay to allow tent parksites in our camps. and they need places that do not endanger our neighborhoods or our children. we live in the sunset and over the past 18 months we've had our cars broken into four times and our house twice. i have been shopping at walgreens and witnessed homeless people walk in and steal products with impunity. the employees are in danger and throw their hands up in futility. they ken can't do anything. you call the police and the cops can't do anything. so inviting more homeless people into the parks it is playing with danger. for decades homeless and unsheltered people have been

coming here for free food, for drugs, for needles and for money. i think that if we advertise, if we put them in the golden gate park this will become an advertisement for people to come and to live in the golden gate park. i think that it's a massively bad idea. there are plenty of alternative locations that -- >> you have 13 questions remaining. >> clerk: thank you. this is public comment for item number 4. please press 1, and 0, and line up to speak. if you have already pressed 1, and 0, please continue to wait. hello, caller, you have two minutes. >> hi, this is katherine howard. i support protecting our vulnerable populations but i'm also very scared about the impact of this legislation on our parks. not just immediately, but into the future. our parks provide the people of san francisco with the opportunity to experience nature. as our cities become more and more dense, people turn to the parks to reestablish that

connection. wealthier people may be able to retreat outside of the urban area but for the average resident this is not an option. and it's also a habitat for wildlife and habitat is being destroyed across the world. as wildlands are lost, some plants and animals find homes in our city parks. however, this ordinance has no mention of habitat or wildlife or the nature in our parks and how they'll be protected. the language of finding a park as this sets a bad precedent. and it opens the door to losing our parks completely. over the years more and more buildings and paving have been add to golden gate park. if we follow this to logical conclusion, eventually all that will be left are a series of buildings and roads with a few trees here and there to imagine us of what was once parks. any new park policy that changes

the uses of our parks should be discussed in a public forum with an analysis of the potential impact on our parkland. and an evaluation of the additional alternatives for meeting the needs of the homeless. therefore, i strongly support tabling this legislation. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. again, if you would like to speak, press 1 and 0. if you are there already, please continue to wait. next speaker, please. >> you have 19 questions remaining. >> clerk: hello, caller. you have tw two minutes to spea. hello, caller. >> you have 20 questions remaining. >> clerk: hello, caller. this is public comment for item number 4. >> hello. >> clerk: you have two

minutes. we can hear you. you have two minutes to speak, ma'am. >> hi, i am sarah harris, i'm a resident of district 5 and i'm in support of supervisor fewer's ordinance. and while i'm grateful for a compromise to table this time with a promise of prohibitin prs with possible sites it does make me nervous based around the fact that we have been in an emergency shelter-in-place for months now. and actions taken to protect our health and population have not met the needs and the needs of our population are just as important as any resident in san francisco. historically the parks in san francisco have been used to respond to different medical emergencies as well as environmental emergencies. and our homeless population deserves supportive shelter situations where they have access to nature and access to

grass and protection from the environment. just like anyone else would. when i see the encampments set up in the asian art museum or the one in fulton, i'm extremely alarmed that we're putting people in parking lots and caging them in, that is not a solution. and i am hopeful and i appreciate seeing that this alliance is going to be at the site and i'm excited to see what that would look like. and i urge as we look for these sites that we look for sites with a human-based approach where we're really respecting all residents of san francisco. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> you have 19 questions remaining. >> clerk: hello, caller, you have two minutes to speak. >> hello. i agree with senator diane

finestein, that golden gate park is not the answer. the city has other resources such as the closed down parking lots and fort mason and the giant and warriors parking lots for example. and there's many more. these places can be temporary and they can be cleaned up. golden gate park cannot be temporary. once people live and use drugs, needles and paraphernalia that will remain for years to come. this will become the new normal and you will not get people to move out. quite the opposite. news travels fast. and golden gate park will become the largest homeless park in the country. regarding the article in this weekend's "examiner," we are not misinformed and we know that you have good intentions for this to be temporary. but i ask you what happens when shelter-in-place is lifted?

who evicts homeless from the parks? what will the punishment be when people are asked to leave these camps and they don't. where will they go? they will not leave the park willingly and we all know that the police department's hands are tied. so what is the exit plan? there is no shortage of compassion from the city, but we do lack people solving real problems. please, for the children of the city and the neighbors of the park, don't allow this to happen. i live half a block from golden gate park and over the last couple years my daughter and i have been yelled at and cursed at and things thrown at us and there's been off-leash dogs and i have called 911 a number of times. two of which were for homeless people that had started fires in the park. one they lit and fell asleep. the other was arson. we've had our cars broken into three times and our house once while we were home. all of this will not officially

allow them to live in the park and can you imagine what will happen when they are allowed to live -- >> you have 19 questions remaining. >> clerk: thank you. next caller, please. >> this is linda chapman. i'm speaking from experience as an organizer with a local, the national right organization in for poverty and later as a sociasocial security administran the tenderloin. you know, this is just a tragedy. i wish that people had heard the special hearing of the government oversight committee where there was no press present. practically nobody knows. there werethere were 15,000 hots empty and 11,000 were considering with the city to use them for this purpose. i believe that it was supervisor peskin who reported that $40,000

a night was spent for rooms that were being held empty. and they were being held empty and others were not being leased because of the decisions of the bureaucrats in charge of homelessness and housing. and what do they say now -- because they made the decision just like in the welfare department in buffalo when i lived there. they could refuse food and they did. you know, they were so superior. they made their decisions. based on the same kind of thinking that you would read about and blaming the victim, a popular book at this time. but they knew best. and the people were less than human. you know that they were dealing with. just like these people are

treating people who are homeless. there is no excuse for anyone to be on the street. in the 1970s we had the same kind of population. it was our job at social security and the job of people at g.a. to see that they were not on the streets. you know, if people were getting benefits, they lived in hotels and they paid for them. or they got a room an at someboy else's place. if they couldn't manage their own money which is the case of some -- >> you have 18 questions remaining. >> clerk: thank you. caller, you have two minutes to speak. >> hi, (indiscernible) and i'm part of (indiscernible) and i wanted to support this legislation. we need to get people into safe shelter as fast as possible. when we think about this population and the hearings that we have about them, we spend a lot of time listening to the concerns of people who live

nearby -- >> the at&t operator, linda blog would like to speak at some point during the call but her line is muted. did you want me to open up her line at all? or -- >> not at this time. she can get in the queue. you can keep her muted. if she wishes to speak she can wait in the queue and i will meet with her when it's her time to speak. >> very good, thank you. >> clerk: i apologize caller. we'll restart your time -- mr. theo gordon? >> yes, listening. so -- >> clerk: continue. >> and let me pick it back up. we need to get these people housed in tents or hotels, whatever we can do as fast as

possible. if you're a health risk and it's cheaper and better to put them in tents and hotels than in i.c.u. beds if they get sick because they can't shelter in place. and also just speaking about the voices that we're hearing today, like, we all use the parks and we all understand that it's not ideal to have this. and however, when we have these hearings, we don't hear enough from the actual people who will be benefitted by these sites. the people who are on the streets right now who are at huge risk to themselves from contracting covid-19. i think that we need to think about who doesn't have the opportunity to call in to these hearings. you know, progressive cities think about the most unfortunate and they don't overemphasize the voices of the most privileged. so, please, think about who we can help today and then how to do that as fast as possible. >> clerk: thank you for your comment.

next speaker, please. this is public comment for item number 4. >> you have 16 questions remaining. >> clerk: hello, caller, you have two minutes to speak. >> good afternoon, my name is cynthia and i'm calling as a resident of district nine by the park. and on behalf of the (indiscernible) where i work by golden gate park and i'm calling in today to demonstrate support for the safe sleeping site legislation and to ask for support for the exploration of the use of the rec and park property. while public comment today has been about the parks the legislation is about recs and park property in general which includes parks and parking lots and golf courses. a number of encampments and tents have grown, 1,200 across the city and while the city

tries to identify solutions, rec and park, you have a responsibility, especially as you all account for 15% of the city's property. as we try to find solutions like for renters and s.r.o.s, and the unhoused neighbors, we need more space. we need creative solutions. that's why we are asking, supervisor, that you look at all possible pathways during this health crisis and addressing the unhoused residents. while hotel rooms should be a priority we have a lot of outdoor sites on city-owned property that could be used to mitigate this crisis and this disaster right now. i would like to see actions for our unhoused neighbors, especially in the midst of this pandemic. and please i ask for the safe sites. i be that it's being tabled but we still support it. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. again, this is public comment

for item 4 on the agenda. if you have not already, press 1, 0, to line up to speak. your line will be silent until your queue to speak. and just please wait until we get to you in line. thank you. next speaker. >> you have 19 questions remaining. >> clerk: hi, caller. you have two minutes to speak. >> hello, my name is kim ostero and i live in district 6. having been a homeless person and now living in an s.r.o. and i am sickened by the fact that i hear more of "not in my neighborhood" and yet i have seen people already on this issue. and being on the sidewalk is not acceptable, and being not in the parks is acceptable and they are not building more s.r.o.s, where are we supposed to go? why are you making property more important than human life? where else do tents belong than

in a park? and we can still work together, since our mental health have been closed down, yes, our mentally ill are on the street more and more. so what do we do, push them aside and not build housing specifically for them? this is unacceptable as human behavior. instead of calling in and saying that the park is not suitable when it is, please come up with a better situation. if we cannot get the housing built, we are being told that s.r.o.s are going to be built and they are not. i have been watching this profile being empty for five years straight. what human excuse is there for that? we talk about building housing and yet we never do it. we talk about not wanting tents on our parks and send to to another state. every state has this problem. you people need to wake up, open your eyes and accept the fact that you have a problem and it needs to be addressed, not pushed off to somebody else.

yes, parks need to be opened up to people. that is how humans started, out in the wild. that's where we're being pushed back into, and we should be allowed to occupy that wild yet again. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. again, if you pressed 1, and 0, please continue to wait. next caller, please. >> you have 20 questions remaining. >> clerk: hello, caller, you have two minutes to speak. >> thank you, my name is curtis mathford and i'm calling -- you know, (indiscernible) and i have been listening to calls today and i have to say that i'm really upset. and i share the last caller's frustration. people are starting to sound this is about parks and this is about the behavior of homeless and those people, and those others and it's really unacceptable language that people are using.

i get frustration. and you can't be on the sidewalk and i understand the challenge. but we're talking about people, real human lives. and we're in the middle of a pandemic. in 1906 with the san francisco earthquake and fire, and the people went to golden gate park for refuge and they set up tents and the city rebounded and we had all of this support. the fact of the matter is that this is a pandemic. these are humans and human lives are at stake. as long as the folks are not able to shelter somewhere more safely, your life and everyone listening to the calls is in danger because you can't control an epidemic in the conditions that we're under. folks need a safe place to shelter and we need to be able to provide that for them. and, listen, this is really upsetting to me. o i'm going to suggest that they think about their privilege and use this time in their shelter-in-place in their comfy

homes and instead of worrying so much about the park and start evaluating yourself and asking yourself what are your values because people are going to die on our streets. if you don't want to share your park with other human beings. and i can't understand it. i hope that you will support this legislation. thank you, supervisors fewer and peskin and i'm glad that we're looking at other sites around the city. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker. this is public comment for item 4. if you pressed 1, 0, please continue to wait. >> you have 18 questions remaining. >> clerk: hello, caller, you have tw two minutes to speak. >> thank you. i'm a resident of 94212 and i see emotional upheaval on how people are heartless because they live next to the park and i they don't want to have this

beautiful gem of this city which is really not designed and never was to be a home for people who are houseless. most of these people need help. they don't need a home because if they were given a home they would use it. they need help, and the kind of help they need the city doesn't seem to have a plan for. they have a plan for so far is to find a place to throw them. that's not a park. that's heartless. you would a solution? i recommend that you get a benchmark on other cities that manage it and know that the best place is not in the park because that's a public use space which can be endangered by some of these folks. 41% of them who go into emergency psychiatric help. these are not people who are capable of keeping a job and keeping a house. they need help. there's no question. so, please, take into consideration the housing around

this park and the people who live here and whose children have been scared. my wife will not go in the park alone because on at least three occasions in the last two months have been startled by an individual who is really not in their right mind. it is not their fault. but the housing in a park, which is beautiful, and then it's just a trash area and no one is cleaning it today. this is a health hazard in the park that is about to happen. i use this park regularly and the reason that i live here in san francisco and commute is because of this park. but i am a heartless person? it's a shame that we -- we like to shame people who are thinking about the real problem. which is that these people need help. what they don't need is a tent encampment. >> you have 18 questions remaining. >> clerk: hello, caller. you have two minutes to speak.

>> hi, sarah ogolvie. and i'm calling in support of this ordinance today. there's over 7,000 existing homeless residents in the city and at this time there's not enough supporting housing units for them to shelter in place. and many residents of shelters and navigation centers have been transitioned into hotel rooms, but supervisor fewer acknowledged at this hearing today that the costs associated with putting every homeless person in a hotel room for the duration of the pandemic was unrealistic. the park is an available resource that can be safely be staffed to meet the needs of the residents who will be placed there. the city officials are smart enough and imaginative enough to come up with an exit strategy solution. but they need to reduce the transmilingtransmission right ns immediate and great. please support and pass this legislation. >> clerk: this is public comment for item number 4. you will have two minutes to speak. next caller, please. if you haven't already --

>> you have 17 questions remaining. >> hello, caller, you have two minutes to speak. >> (indiscernible). >> clerk: hello, caller? >> (indiscernible). >> supervisor peskin: caller, next speaker, please. >> you have 15 questions remaining. >> clerk: hello, caller, you have two minutes to speak. this is item number 4 on the agenda. >> thank you. my name is mark and on behalf of a dozen of my fellow neighbors here in district 1, and many in intergenerational households, i show opposition for golden gate

park for homeless individuals. i live one block from the encampments that have sprung up and i can tell you with 100% confidence that this increased the risk of virus transmission to hundreds ever m of my neighb. there are chronically homeless for five or 10 years or more and i know several of them personally and i observe their routines daily. the people in this small encampment are not maintaining sanitation with the handwashing stations or the port-a-potty that the city has provided and not social distancing or following guidelines. while all of my neighbors are following the shelter-in-place rules and remaining isolated, as everyone listening right now knows that these vulnerable people can't or don't follow the same rules. and their risk of contracting covid is clearly much greater and higher than housed residents in our neighborhood. so while i'd love this encampment to be migrated elsewhere for the health and

safety of my neighbors, if we envision a small sample as a representative of a larger encomp campment in golden gate park here's what we'll be doing -- putting a covid time bomb in the middle of the most used public space in the entire city. i was in golden gate park yesterday and it was packed. everyone from all of the bordering neighborhoods poured from to use their public space, families, kids, grandparents and picnickers and all maintaining distance. and unless you envision building a biodome over this encampment you have no way to not introduce a higher risk, and with high risk people and behaviors in a camp directly amongst so many residents. so, you know, look, i get that the homeless are at risk for covid, but don't go with solutions that put more people at risk. the residents of the richmond district oppose encampments in golden gate park to protect the health of themselves and their

neighbors. thank you for your time. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. this is public comment for item number 4. and press 1, 0 if you would like to speak. if you already pressed, please continue to hold. next speaker, please. >> you have 17 questions remaining. >> clerk: hello, caller, you have two minutes. >> yes, my name is joe wilson, calling for hospitality house. i'm happy to support supervisor fewer's legislation, the emergency response to parks. i have to concur with a few of the other callers in terms of some the commentary, but i guess that it points out typically during a crisis mode that you see some of the best human behavior and you see some of the worst. so this is clearly no different. i do think that at least one guiding principle here is the

principle of democratizing the public assets, and making maximum use of the public resources during an unprecedented public health crisis. and, you know, we're encouraged by general manager ginsburg, at least his willingness to talk through some specifics. i hope that continues. i do think that though some of the commentary has been disturbing that it's absolutely necessary to get these comments out in public because i think that is probably at least one opportunity to address some of the stereotypes and the biases that we're all carrying around with us. and i also believe that we do have a collective responsibility to act quickly and to act intelligently and to act responsibly to make sure that we

are marshalling all of our resources during a public health crisis. i just say as an aside for, you know, 140 years the statue of liberty has been a magnet for america. and i suppose that we could have the statue moved elsewhere if we're no longer as welcoming as we thought that we once were. but i hope that we have the opportunity to reconsider. >> you have 16 questions remaining. >> clerk: hello, caller, you have two minutes to speak. >> hello, can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can hear you. you have two minutes for public comment. >> thank you. thanks. you know, i will say that all options are on the table.

the act of doing this is not. but there is a possibility that they could put this in the park. and, you know, you people -- you politicians, you are smart. you know (indiscernible) even the assessment, the assessment of this idea is very bad, it's very bad. my son (indiscernible) -- you know, my son is small and you make this your retirement project. and he writes i speak five different chinese languages and you mess with my park and i mess with your passion projects. you mess with my parks and i mess with your passion projects. i support the -- you mess with my parks and i mess with the other policies.

bye-bye, thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. this is public comment for item number 4. >> you have 14 questions remaining. >> clerk: you have two minutes to speak. >> hi, another mark from supervisor fewer's district. i'm not a fan of the safe sleeping site proposal. a couple items. first, relating to the shelter-in-place hotel rooms, earlier in your presentation, supervisor fewer, and basically saying that the federal reimbursements will be closed down soon. and paraphrasing that he's not on board with the health crisis. and it was just cheap and not needed. and my question relating to that though is how many hotel rooms has san francisco been able to procure? and what is the utilization rate of them? we're underutilized and people are forced into shelter, what is

the park going to -- how will you force to shelter in a park? is it true that temporary residents are provided alcohol and drugs and cigarettes at no cost to them? and will that continue into the park plan? second, saving lives during a pandemic is a priority. but the parks department has to the first week of june to reply with the proposed plan sites for use within the park. until that time, we know at least three unplanned tent sites on the district 1 sidewalks that are allowed to operate without the safety controls that are in the park system. how can you the board of supervisors protect both the residents who live next to these sites and the tent dwellers who occupy them from contracting the virus? and most important, what is the forecasted timeline for temporary use of the parks and parking lots? when does it end?

i mean -- and somebody mentioned before -- what is the exit strategy. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. this is public comment for item number 4. please press 1, 0, if you are waiting to speak. please continue to hold. next speaker. >> you have 14 questions remaining. >> clerk: hello, caller, you have two minutes to speak. next speaker, please. >> you have 15 questions remaining. >> clerk: hello, caller, you have two minutes to speak. >> hi. my name is sarah sentilis and

i'm a resident of district 4 and i voted for supervisor mar. i have been writing him and not getting a reply to my letters of other solutions. so i just have one question -- why is it inhumane and discompassionate and unsafe to put the homeless population -- in the palace? what is so wrong with that? why are you so gung ho about putting them in the park? to me it's more safe, you know, it's more compassionate and dignified to put them inside of a stadium, when there are emergencies around this country. so that's my one country. your you so gung ho about putting them in the park and hotels as opposed to a huge stadium or trailers? okay, thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comment. this is public comments for item

number 4. next caller, please. >> you have 13 questions remaining. >> clerk: hello, caller. >> hello. >> clerk: you have two minutes to speak. >> sorry. my name is michael shanahan and a dress dent of district 2 and i am speaking in favor of the proposed legislation. you know, we have a moral responsibility to make sure that all of our neighbors are housed during this pandemic and it's still true now. especially we know and have seen before that the state of our health is only as good as the state of our most vulnerable residents. and putting people who don't have homes where they can have sanitation and they are able to be safer, making our city safer overall. a few things that i want to make sure -- and i think we just went

through -- (indiscernible) and operation in the city sites. we need longer term funding for emergency shelters and for the health crisis. and the truly long-term solution is supportive housing. and it is something that i hope that everybody on this committee and you are thinking about how do we house people for the long term. especially these are the things they would welcome, you know, people who are calling in, what are the ways to make sure that people who are unhoused that are in our neighborhood. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> you have 12 questions remaining. >> clerk: hello, caller, you have two minutes to speak. >> my name is marnie.

supervisor sandra fewer, your own newsletter stated that golden gate park had areas that would be perfect for safe sleeping sites and that you were working on legislation and now you claim that you were misnsmged. that's unfair. senator diane finestein opposes encampments in golden gate park and she believes that there's more viable alternatives i agree. and it's easy to secure and to keep clean, and there's ample room to set up tents outside a safe distance apart. utilities are already there and there are multiple bathrooms and kitchens on site. in addition, the buildings and the meeting areas would be ideal for supportive services. it's also near both muni and art. and there's a large lot at 74 mission rock owned by the port. both of these choices are much better than city parks. i grew up in the 1960s and i

recall when the hippies took over the park and it was no longer a safe place for families and it took over eight years to clean it up and we shouldn't repeat the same mistake. by the city's own me rest micks, 95% of homeless have drug adduce and they use emergency psychiatric services. and there's a direct cor core correlation between tent encampments and break-ins and drug trafficking and profit diewgz. and it's rampant in the encampments and the dealers are going tent-to-tent and police have been told to stand down. we're supposed to believe that you can keep the park and the neighboring areas safe? that's unrealistic. the addicted need medically supesupervised drug treatments d not tents. it's eye avenu naive for those h

psychosis to wear masks. and folks are not following guidelines. the same thing will. >> you have 12 questions remaining. >> clerk: caller, you have two minutes to speak. hello, caller. next caller, please. >> you have 11 questions remaining. >> clerk: he hello, caller, this is public comment on item number 4. you have two minutes to speak. >> hi, thank you very much. my name is brandy markman and i live in the richmond district, district 1. i lived in rich plon richmond f0 years and i can see the park from my window. i'm very much in support to this legislation and kudos to supervisor fewer. i know that it took bravely to put this forward and i'm so

proud that you did. i'm really saddened by parents using their children as reason why we can't consider our parks as part of the solution. i'm a parent of an 8-year-old. what i find to be most frustrated about being a parent in san francisco is how to explain to my son that though we're a very wealthy city, so many people have to live on the street because of our horrible economic divide. during the earthquake, the sky didn't fall when we put homeless san franciscoians in golden gate park. and i really don't appreciate when, again, back to using children as an excuse, and i actually had my son leaving the room when this -- when i had my phone on speaker because of some of the vile things that people were saying about homeless people. i just want to remind everyone that are listening that one out of 25 of our students are

homeless. so, please, remember that when you're doing public comment. also this is based in science. i mean, obviously, hotels should be the first line of homes for people in need. but it's no critical they be in safe places and not on the sidewalk. in late march my husband and i both had covid symptoms. we were not able to get tested but we had doctors tells us that it's extremely important to try to keep ourselves safe. and so it is backed by reason and science. and supervisors, i hope that you can turn off some of the awful noise and do the right thing and support this legislation. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. again, this is public comment for item number 4. next caller, please. >> you have 11 questions

remaining. >> clerk: you have two minutes to speak. >> this is martin calling. i'm horrified and appalled by the dehumanizing language by our unhoused neighbors who right now during a global pandemic are having to face the hardest time ever faced in their life. whether it's due to addiction or losing a paycheck and losing their housing and this incredibly expensive city or the litany of other reasons that people are homeless. like the recent caller said, one of the 25 san francisco schoolchildren are homeless as well and they need a place to stay. we have been in this housing crisis for more than 40 years. we have refused to build enough housing to house our vulnerable population. we do not have enough affordable housing and enough housing period. so for people to call in now, i want to ask you where were you when we were fighting for a navigation center?

where were you when we were fighting for more housing all across san francisco neighborhoods? and not just the east side of the city where so much poverty is concentrated because we totally ignored building any supportive housing on the west side where supervisor fewer and mar are. so i want to applaud that for taking steps to try to figure out how we have people unhoused right now to have a safe sleeping spot during this pandemic. and i urge supervisor mar and fewer and all of the supervisors on the west side of the city to figure out how to build more affordable housing in the city. because it's not enough to just build it in soma and the mission. we need more sites and more permanent housing and we need it now. so for everybody who is using dehumanizing language, shame on you. do something about the problem. that's all. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. gain, this is public comment for item number 4. next caller, please. >> you have 10 questions remaining.

>> clerk: hello, caller, thank you so much for waiting. you have two minutes to speak. >> thank you. good afternoon, supervisors, corey smith on behalf of the san francisco housing action co coalition, here to support the legislation by supervisor fewer and supervisor mar and i thank them for their leadership on this. we feel this is a predictable outcome due to the underbuilding of housing in the city for the last 30 or 40 years. and this sort of emergency response. we absolutely think that it is appropriate given the circumstances. and i think that for people that have are both supporting and opposing this legislation, i think that doing so and understanding the status of the current situation and putting that in context versus what this proposal is, i think that it is an opportunity for us to improve what currently is happening on the streets. like many of my neighbors in

district 5 we're seeing more tents on the sidewalk. so i see this as a positive alternative because, a, social distance is not practiced right now. but when you've got a city sanctioned facility that does have the services and does have all of those things that people were saying that are unavailable right now, those situations will help people and actually get people off of the street. and the one comment that was made by a previous speaker and i do want to reemphasize this and we're talking park and rec and the land and the value of it, and what is available. this is not a proposal to in a couple days to put something in a field in golden gate park. this is an evaluation of what is out there and if something makes sense and if we can work with the community in a right way, this is a logical short-term solutions. and it makes sense in the near term. thank you.

>> you have eight questions remaining. >> clerk: hello, caller, thank you for your patience. you have two minutes to speak. >> always happy to be patient. this is r.j. sloan and i'm not calling in today to further this item as an s.r.o. tenant advocate. i'm calling actually as a humanitarian. so what i would like to do with my two minutes of public comment, and i'm sure that philip glass would support me, i'd like to stay silent and i will close out my two minutes with a word or two. i'd like all of you to consider and your precious children what you want to be remembered for as a human being when this life is over. i'll close out my two minutes when it's nearly done. consider your humanitarian value, folks.

i'd like to be silent for a minute. >> clerk: hello, caller? >> yes, i'm here. i'm using my two minutes for some contemplation. >> clerk: oh. >> i'll close my time out when it's nearly over. so i hope that all of you that refuse to look at the homelessness of fellow human beings will consider your humanity before your life is over. thank you.

>> clerk: thank you. >> you have seven questions remaining. >> clerk: hello, caller, thank you for your patience. you have two minutes to speak. >> i live in district 9. i wholeheartedly support item number 4. this is the first step towards establishing safe spaces. i look forward to seeing unsheltered people at least having a safe place to live in a tent. that is the very least that the city can offer to our neighbors who are experiencing homelessness. in our current situation, people who live in their tents are told to move their tents from one place on the sidewalk to another place on the sidewalk. even as i speak this is happening. there are lives that are already challenging and are rendered even more unstable by constantly being forced to move. my preference is for everyone to

live indoors. but until that happens, this legislation is important. it addresses -- it begins to address the needs of our homeless neighbors. by the way, i am an elementary schoolteacher and i want our children to see what it looks like when everyone in a city comes together to help each other. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please, you will have two minutes. >> you have five questions remaining. >> clerk: hello, caller, you have two minutes to speak. >> hi. my name is denise donaldson. thank you, board of supervisors. i'm from district 5 and i'm for housing the homeless. but i oppose this. i oppose allowing the homeless to live in tents in the parks. san francisco needs to wake up. we are a wealthy city.

we're such a wealthy city. and we have avoided this problem for years and we are avoiding addressing this problem for years. and it's now time to really solve the problem. the homeless are a vulnerable population and they need to get out of tent encampments. as die a diane finestein reports for moving people indoors. no one would oppose putting people in tents in union square, or in central park in new york city. these people need help. they need homes. they need s.r.o.s and they need mental facilities. thy don't need tents. tents won't solve the problem. during this pandemic, san francisco, let's really solve this problem for real. it's time for a paradigm shift. this is -- it will take a pandemic. let's not continue to do more of the same. no more tents for encampments

for homeless people. let's give them homes and walls and ceilings and toilets and bathrooms. no more tents. putting people in tents in a park is not a solution. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. >> you have four questions remaining. >> clerk: hello, caller, you have two minutes to speak. this is item number 4. >> hi, my name is jill maxwell and i'm from district 2. earlier on in this broadcast i was glad to hear that there's dialogue going on between rick and clark and the supervisors for the suitable site for these encampments. but i would like to register my concerns about putting up emergency tent encampments specifically in golden gate park. i really don't think this is a suitable location. as some of the other callers have said, we don't even know how long the shelter-in-place and the pandemic will last.

what does "temporary" mean, and how much infrastructure do we need to set up? and how do we wind that down? what is the exit strategy? and another question would be is how would you enforce social distancing, how could that happen? and, i mean, most importantly to me is that at this time every neighborhood is in critical need of access to our parks. and i'm worried about the negative impact on other city residents and visitors when visitors come back in terms of safety, sanitation and drug use. so i think that proper siting of encampments is really something that is important to consider. and in the long run encampments are not really a very good solution but i recognize that we might have to do that for a small amount of time in the city, but, please, not in our

gyms or parks. >> clerk: this is item number 4 on the agenda. if you have not already, press 1, 0 to speak. for those on hold, continue to hold. next caller, please. >> you have three questions remaining. >> clerk: hello, caller, thank you for holding. you have two minutes? >> hello my name is june and i'm in district 5. i'm in great, great, great support of supervisor fewer's ordinance. a few things that i just really wanted to highlight about this process is that, again, this is not a -- this is not a permanent solution, it's a temporary solution to the complete inaction on the part of the city to house our homeless -- or house our homeless. and we have currently had hotel rooms sitting open and so maybe building these encampments is a great step towards getting people into housing. it's something that needs to

happen and can't just be pushed off until we have housing. another thing to consider is that when we look at the stanion site that will be opening up later this week we have the homeless youth alliance who has worked in this community, worked to provide services, to provide training, to the community members about the training to provide training to folks around safety, to provide training to folks around -- or just to provide art and services for people. those are -- that's an organization hiring to get people into these encampments and to be working to be helping out with this movement. so we have people available and ready that have real knowledge and real care about this population. we have people in our homeless population who are wonderful allies and completely resourceful people who can help to make this an organized encampment that is safe and good for everyone. i think that there has also been

hesitation on the part of houseless folks to work with the city because there's fear. there's people feeling that they'll be put into cages and put into parking lots and things like that. i think that since having the park as a place where people can safely organize and to build encampments shows that we're not going to just came the cage ther put them in a place -- >> you have four questions remaining. >> clerk: hello, caller, you have two minutes. >> hi, my name is nancy de stefanos and a resident of district 1 and i'm a supporter of supervisor sandy fewer's legislation. i want to remind the supervisors that this legislation only asks for a list of spaces by rec and park, and a list of spaces and a list of spaces from the real estate agency. it doesn't mandate that folks

are going to be camping in golden gate park or this or that. so i think that is a real jump on the part of the folks that are calling in opposing it. i want to say that those who have quoted diane finestein's opposition, i was the lawyer for the homeless in 19882 along with the folks from old st. mary's housing committee. weemp noticing more and more -- we were noticing more and more homeless on the streets so we asked for a meeting with the mayor. five of us went into diane's office and told her the story of how hospitality house was about to close and all of these other places where there was no space for the homeless. and she said, i'm sorry, i'm sorry, gals, this is -- i don't see that. this is not going to happen. well, the next day at the board of supervisors we had a hearing on this issue. 200 priests, ministers, nuns,

advocates, all social services people came and addressed the board of supervisors. the next day she announced in "the chronicle" that she had gone out in her limo and never seen so much homeless in her life and that she'd give money to keep hospitality house open and start looking at shelters. so those folks here who quote diane finestein's opposition to this legislation, i have to remind you that, supervisors, you know that diane is not your guide on this legislation. she was always the developer's best friend. so let's not kid ourselves. >> you have three questions remaining. qoik. >> clerk: hello, caller, you have two minutes to speak. >> hi, i live in district 5. i would support homeless encampments and the parks nearby and diverse park in the square. i think that parks are great for

enjoyment, but housing should be a human right. and we should give people a safe place to live before we give amenities to people who already have the luxury of having a home. with covid-19 there's so many people who are losing their jobs, and losing their homes, that we need to support everyone and to give everyone a place to live. and also add to the previous caller's comment that diane finestein was not a great mayor for san francisco's housing, under her tenure, the city added so many office buildings and jobs without any effort to add more housing. especially to the west side. so housing should be a human right. housing should be provided for all. and we should not preface people's ability to have a place based upon our concerns about

their drug use or other vices which may or may not be imaginary. because people are people. and that's just it. so thank you very much. i'm in support. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comment. next caller, please. >> you have 2 questions remaining. >> clerk: hello, caller, you have two minutes to speak and this is public comment for item number 4. >> hello, this is diane mason and i live in the sunset district and i vote. i am against consideration of putting any tent encampments in any city park. i kind of take offense at people who are in favor of putting housing in the parks by saying that people who are against this are dehumanizing homelessness. we are not dehumanizing homelessness. no one has said that we're against putting people in housing. we're just saying that there are

better places to put housing and encampments without putting them in parks that are for use by all citizens of san francisco. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. again, this is public comment for item number 4. if you have not already, please press 1, 0 to line up to speak. next speaker, please. >> you have one question remaining. >> clerk: hello, speaker, thank you so much for waiting. you have two minutes. >> hi, my name is (indiscernible) and i'm with the coalition on homelessness. and i am in support of this legislation but, frankly, i find it ridiculous that we even have to have this legislation. you know, we're a couple months into this already and it was just last wednesday that they created the first space where people can actually exist on our

streets legally. and, you know, we're not advocating for people to be in tents. what we're advocating for is housing. but right now we're also in a global pandemic. and so we need to be responding like it's a global pandemic. and we need to get people into hotel rooms. but short of that, the least that we could do is to be giving people some type of protections and attention when we are doing that. yes, i will continue to support providing even a minimal amount of protection. but people need to understand that there aren't resources available. not only -- you couldn't even get on the wait list, there's a thousand less shelter beds right now and there's no options for people. i'm encountering people on a daily basis in tears and just

begging for somewhere to get a little refuge during this crisis. and there's nothing for them. nothing. and so it's really strange, this whole conversation is really strange and talking about golden gate park and there's a lot of assumptions being made and a lot of people did not even bother to read the legislation before they get upset about it. but we have the civic center that is sitting empty while the law enforcement is pushing people down to that area and then finally as of last wednesday, we created some space and all it is is asphalt. this is -- >> you have zero questions remaining. >> mr. chair, that completes the queue. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, and thank you to all of the members of the public for your public comment and, again, i

apologize that we had to hear this out of order at the beginning of the meeting, given the general manager ginsburg's schedule. and, clearly, this is a hot-button issue. i would like to make a few high-level observations, and, again, sincerely thank everybody for your patience in the change in the schedule. one of the things that i wanted to start with is -- i'll associate myself with the words of mr. joe wilson who said that moments like this bring out the worst and the best of all society. but i do want to say that as a long-term member of the board of supervisors that the board has really been trying to deal with the issue of the impact to our homeless and most vulnerable

communities as expressed repeatedly first through a resolution and subsequently through an ordinance with regard to housing our unsheltered people in hotels during this pandemic where we have tens of thousands, almost 40,00,000 underused hotel rooms in san francisco. and i'm very pleased that we can now go to the data dashboard and actually look at those and we can see how many are used by frontline workers and what are empty and how many are used by vulnerable homeless persons and what our total number of hotel rooms are. which as of today is 2,056. we -- not by the board's advocacy, but by the administration's own numbers expected to be at two or three times the number of approximately 2,000 by this

time. and so i -- i mean, a lot of people -- i have heard saying that they support alternatives, but the board actually has come up with an alternative and it's something in large part reimbursed by fema and the state. so i just wanted to put that out there. i also wanted to hark back to the 1906 earthquake where parks were used, washington square in the corner of the city that i lived in and represent was actually used for housing in the wake of the 1906 earthquake and fire. those were housed people that became unhoused. but when it comes to the notion of unhoused people having alternatives, whether they are safe camping sites which the board has supported at the urjens of th supervisor mandelm. and whether it's the use of hotel rooms.

we're all in this together. and i think there are a number of alternatives short of putting folks in public parks. which, by the way, i don't think what supervisor fewer and marr originally intended. as we heard earlier the recreation and parks department controls 15% of the land mass in our very dense 50 square miles where people call the 49 square miles but it's actually 50.2 square miles in the city of san francisco. and it's not all parks. and it includes parking lots and the becomthe back of house facid it includes yards -- i don't mean playground yards but yards that we could use for alternative housing. so i wanted to say this and i really appreciate the comments of nancy and i'll mention her last name -- we just recently spoke and i associate myself

with her comments. and with that supervisor safai had to leave. supervisor preston -- oh, supervisor fewer is back. supervisor fewer, the floor is yours. >> supervisor fewer: thank you, colleagues, for hearing this item. we have left the determination of which sites would be siewtdablsuitableto the generale rec and park because we realized that he knows best his own facilities and what they're being used for. i hear people say about the park, and i want to say also is that the reason that i originally had mentioned the park is that there's a disaster and emergency site designated by the city and county of san francisco in golden gate park and that's why i mentioned it. but then again i want to say this is that it is not my determination nor the determination of any of the sitting board of supervisors.

general manager ginsburg has that discretion of who -- where to put these sites in accordance with the public health guidelines. i wanted to also say to the folks that came out today for public comment that i have great empathy for unhoused folks in san francisco. i agree that i think housing comes first and that we need to really look at a long-term plan for housing unhoused folks in san francisco. they have been living on our streets long enough and it's time that we do something personally. i hope personally that the city and county of san francisco will take advantage of this recession when many, many hotels in san francisco will be up for sale and hopefully we can turn them into permanent supportive housing for these people who have been on our streets for so long. i want to thank everybody for coming out today and having public testimony. and i want to really thank general manager ginsburg and also the director for having the

willingness to come to the table and to also submit lists of available land that we may use during this horrible, horrible pandemic. and hopefully we can save lives. again, colleagues, thank you so much for hearing this today and thank you, everyone, who came today for public comment. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, supervisor fewer. and i really appreciate the fact that you were able to forward this piece of public policy without the vote of the board of supervisors. and i thank you work working it. supervisor ginsburg, do you have any comments? >> thank you, chair peskin. i just spoke earlier when this was first called and i want to reiterate my appreciation for fewer and for supervisor marr for moving this forward and to general manager ginsburg and director penick for working with the supervisors to get us to the

point where there's some agreement here. i also just want to -- in response to some of the comments and in thinking further, really to reiterate that it is my hope and i think that it's shared by my colleagues that those who head departments, those who have land under your purview that is currently vacant or underutilized and not just here in the city, but also at the state level, please advance some ideas to help us to move forward. and i just want to recognize that myself, many of my colleagues, are fighting every day to try to convince folks to use land for safe sleeping areas, to make hotels available. and i will say with all due respect to a lot of folks who control property in the public

sphere that it shouldn't be this hard. this city, we can do much bigger things when we set our minds to it. so whether you are the state department of motor vehicles that has a huge lot in my district, or you are in credit to the school district which has themselves and on their own initiative put forward the idea of using their land, there is not a shortage of space of hotel rooms that are vacant, of lands for us to create safe sleeping sites. there is plenty of land. and not every step forward should be such a battle or a fight during this time. so i just really want to encourage those who have available and underutilized land under their control to step up during this moment as i know that manager -- general manager ginsburg and director penick are

doing in their conversations with supervisor fewer and marr. but it goes beyond them. and the callers and the commenters i think that have spoken very persuasively and eloquently about the times that we're in and the need for bold action because folks are living on the streets, folks are human beings and nobody wants tents as a preferred solution. but these tents in a space that is supervised and in a place that is safe and in a place with access to bathrooms and handwashing facilities, basic services, is run by folks with the competence to work with folks who are homeless. that is a huge difference from being in unsanctioned encampments that are unsafe and unhealthy on the streets. so, thank you again supervisor fewer for your leadership on this. >> supervisor peskin: thank

you, supervisor preston. so i would like to move the motion that supervisor fewer requested to table this item number 4. madam clerk, please call the roll. >> clerk: yes. on the motion to table the matter, supervisor preston. preston, aye. supervisor safai. safai, aye. supervisor peskin. >> peskin, aye. you have three ayes. >> supervisor peskin: the matter is tabled and this committee is adjourned.

congratulations. >> this inspired me to be a leader when i became conscious of the facility issues in my community i mentored a young man who was 14-year-old and i took roenltd for it and just come back to the table what can i do different we talked with a lot

of the kids and from the they didn't know who i was or where i came from and to figure that out to go back to the motherland - i never really - this is my first day i was leading to see something different. >> they talk about the trip to the holy mecca we hear so much negative stuff in african-american history i thought high trip to gi i can't think with e would which i know my experiences and wanted to see the linkage between african-american and ghana 2017 promo you know something not

right and when i took the trip to african i said we have to implement that back home. >> it was like a month ago i was reading in any history book but this. >> i was amazed with that library how many books he had and walking in here pictures on the wall and why his kids and meeting different people this awesome he has a history books and living room. >> from 1960. >> me and my friends show you u saw those books we didn't have much time but heard about the empowering and all the titles

that was inspiring i winder we could have stated longer reaching out to him he was a leader. >> a symbol with go back to our roots and we should have - we come if different background and different languages we're still one that's why we wants all of us to see this. >> it is cool to see how important he was to the people. >> you see a statute of him his head is sitting next to us we wonder why evident in a different place holding a statute and wanted to take the significance away. >> that is unfortunate his government was ousted so that -

>> he really made something out of nothing in a place where he was actually he was taken out and put into a prison and he made them an independent country he's making something out of nothing in america at hunters point i can start from the ground up and he inspired me to do that. >> like being negative impact san francisco like a different location. >> where we saw this and where we saw the those those

transcriber we got to do frog climbing on one hand was rock climbing. >> the hike was difficult it felt good to be at the top. >> we in the jungle. >> the highlight of the trip seeing our kids interact with kids and how passionate the kids are about education. >> you know the light switch go on on we have a vantage. >> i met a guy said he wants to be a lawyer like me i know that paul and i live on different continent we're going through a structural he's the same age but in middle school

and has to work hard in america i have to work hard i'm an african-american but i know that me and paul will go through the same struggles. >> in my opinion when we invited the school that was one of the best things in ghana 2017 promo we got to interact with the children they were happy and grateful. >> we should asked someone what we wanted to be one wanted to be an engineer like in the u.s. but in ghana 2017 promo they don't have the opportunity to do it compared to ours they want to so they're trying whatever we can to do it at school. >> the school was great.

>> when we went to the vinyl we saw how they made things from scratchy got to go on machine when they made it they use their feet and hundreds to pull the stipulations that was cool they're making the machines to do that. >> they taught but how to stamp them and the ink was made stamping my cloth shows leadership brings it out of me shows the world when i wear my kid things people realize what that looks like a bunch of

circle there is a historical meaning behind that. >> when we dance you can tell their culture they've been doing that for years and something in their passionate about. >> it made me release we have a don't have that much the little we do i wanted to grasp that culture and get - >> staying in a effort in africa i didn't think i said that in a forest in africa. >> but i bringing food to the members. >> we had to walk on those canopy bridges we have in the u.s. a long bridge like

suspected on top nothing trees below you, you walk into the next spot spot there was 7 of them. >> hit it it really starts with ourselves if he wanted to change something we have to change ourselves. >> when i first met steve richie that was like i've been waiting for this. >> this is me washing away in my change getting in the river of me walsh away the negative things i'm no longer a slave to society now awake and opening my third eye to see thing i've

never seen before. >> that was a moment for me because it gave me a change to re-evaluate myself and life because it is not easy to realize that your enslaving yourselves and recognize how our enslaving yourselves i felt the significance i'm a materialistic person that helped me to realize that in myself i hold back from being a leader in that river i was able to wash away in my changes and give me the motivation. >> the vibe is different that you walk under a ghana 2017 promo you walk into that slave

and into the dungeons it is getting real. >> you can feel the negative energy even if it is talking about you see how coordinated in his eyes. >> you are surrounded. >> we're just lucky to die for how many days do we think. >> when we stepped into that how days 3 days max. >> i'll not survive for more than two days. >> lack of water it the subject property at me and put a barrier on my soul that is

wherewith my aunt went to. >> okay. now what is important - >> is our mindset that sets us different from anywhere else none can tell you you have to learn that within yourself and helped me get to keep a change n my head. >> there was nothing you could do if you call for help we all suffered and tried to survive what can i do to help him. >> so this was a haven for those - >> this is difficult. >> i just so stuff different i

kind of feel like i a colored contact in my i'd say i see that different in a different light now. >> those are the white portions. >> honestly, i of the not ready to go home he felt like we hadn't been there long enough but excited to share my experiences with other and let them know how amazing that was >> you got to keep it going it actually works. >> when it was time to it was really like heartbreaking. >> i was sad i don't want to leave those people he met these

kids that wanted to stay and talk with us i did not want to come back here. >> the whole time in the bus ride i had my head against the window that looking out. >> one of the ways that ghana 2017 promo changed me finding the meaning the self-love and loving the community and people around you that is something that african-american community does struggle with. >> black on black crime i didn't want to go back you feel so alive there and open you can be another person not the same person you were before that's one thing that he taught us changing. >> i used to want to be a leader but now a leader and create more leader that will

create an atmosphere and world full of leaders. >> i felt home in