thriving here in san francisco, such a honor and makes me feel proud of myself and of my city as well. just to be able to add to this city that is so special. we are just a speck of the specialness, but you know, to have any part that is just a honor.

declares that it is the policy of the city and county of san francisco to provide up to five years of rapid rehousing assistance to an eligible household where the city has assessed that special circumstances, and concluded that a shorter term subsidy will

put them at risk of return to homelessness. this legislation also requires the homelessness oversight commission to hold an annual hearing and issue an annual report analyzing the city's implementation of the rapid rehousing program. while we added trailing legislation in july that extended hsh rapid rehousing programs for up to five years for eligible families, this included only the 180 subsidies funded in this budget process. it excluded programs such as those receiving calworks subsidies through hsa, with limits of 1 to 3 years. we know that some families will not be able to become self-sustaining and pay their full rent within one year of a program. some can do it in two and three, while others need a little more time to off ramp and address the multiple barriers to achieving this goal. regardless of the funding source or program in which a resident is enrolled, we want rapid housing extension for up to five years to capture

families who might fall through the cracks and would otherwise return to homelessness if not for this extension. we have to stop the revolving door of poor families in san francisco, going from shelter to shelter, to finally being housed, only to return to homelessness again. this negatively impacts children, creating adverse childhood events that will haunt them for a lifetime. the goal of this legislation is to give families the time and support to help them transition, to become stable and successfully housed. before we go to a brief presentation from the departments, i also have a few minor amendments to the legislation today that we have discussed with hsh and hsa that are clarifications of policy and noncontroversial. they will not delay this this legislation today. very briefly. and i passed out the amendments to you on page two, line ten, changing the number of years from 3 to 2

to reflect the data on page two, lines 19 through two. through line two. on page three. clarifying the scope of time. limited subsidies. page two. line three. line eight. page two. line three two. line eight. removing coordinated entry. because these families are already in the system and increasing the number of months in advance, they are alerted to this option. page three. line 15, including the line to ensure that every household that receives, quote the maximum allowable rent subsidy is assessed to determine whether the household is at risk of returning to homelessness. page three. line 21. add the word every and rent. page three. line 24 add the line. maximize and exhaust all available federal and state funds that may be used to provide rent subsidies before expending general funds to comply with this article 20. and with that, we will hear a short joint presentation put together by the department of homelessness and supportive housing and the san francisco human services agency. we will be hearing from emily cohen,

deputy director of communications and legislative affairs at hsh, and also here and, and is available for questions. jenny tye, calworks program manager for hsh and expert on calworks housing support program. thank you for your presentation. i just wanted to ask the city attorney to confirm that these amendments we are submitting, are they substantive? good morning. supervisors. deputy city attorney brad russell. these amendments are not substantive. thank you so much. so i will i will ask you to make a motion to accept the amendments after the presentations. and i would. and with that, we'll hear from emily cohen. good morning. good morning. good morning, chair walton. good morning supervisors. thank you very much for having me. my name is emily cohen. i'm deputy director for communications and legislative affairs at the department of

homelessness and supportive housing. and i want to start by thanking supervisor ronen for convening such a collaborative process to develop this ordinance. and it's been great to work on and thank you for hearing hearing us. do you want to start with an overview of the rapid rehousing program? rapid rehousing is a program that's been administered in san francisco for many years now, and it is a time limited rental subsidy for adults, youth and families experiencing homelessness. that also includes wraparound support services. hsh currently operates over 1500 slots of rapid rehousing for adults, families and young adults, with 470 slots specifically for families with children. and that's the subset of the program that we're going to be focused on today. our rapid rehousing program has a 70% success rate, meaning that

at the end of the program, 70% of all participants exit to permanent housing solutions. this is quite strong and with available extensions will be even higher. it's important to note that 52% of the department of homelessness rapid rehousing program is funded through federal dollars, which has a hard cap of two years on the subsidy. so that any extensions that are offered up to five years will need to be funded through another source of funding. of the 70% of households who successfully exit this program, 92 exit. 92% exit within three years. 7% within four. and currently only about 1% go up to five years. and that is in part because it's not offered to everyone who might need it. it's really funding available based on funding availability. the human services

agency also operates a rapid rehousing program through the calworks housing support progra. hsp, which is also a time limited subsidy for families who are specifically on calworks and are experiencing or at risk of homelessness. while the program is administered by the human services agency, the referrals do come through the coordinated hci's coordinated entry system. last year, hsa had 156 slots of rapid rehousing through their state funded program, and this year they anticipate it being about 96 slots because of the ending of some one time funds, hsp funded rapid rehousing is a one year subsidy program with extensions available based on state allocation of funding. so this is another funding source where we in order to extend up to five years, we will be looking to general fund dollars

to provide the ongoing extensions similar to our program. the hsa program has a 71% success rate, and the average family stays on the subsidy for about 18 months. the impacts of the proposed ordinance. you know, i think one of the things we're really excited about with this ordinance is the consistency and parity that it creates within the homeless response system, so that if a family is on rapid rehousing funded by prop c, or they're on rapid rehousing funded by our federal continuum of care, it shouldn't make a difference to them. what what our funding sources. that's sort of our responsibility to figure out and the families should have equity in the programs that they receive. and i think that's that is the primary reason hsh has been supportive of this ordinance. so that all families will have the same access to up to five years of rental assistance. that said, it will come with a cost. we estimate

that it will cost approximately $32 million more annually to implement up to five years if all families on the subsidy were to be extended. and we know that that is unlikely that everyone will need it. so can i just through the chair, ask a question about this? i, i feel i feel like this is highly incendiary. incendiary, like putting out a $32 million figure when you just said that only 19% or 19 families have actually taken the full five years. why even put out that number? we have asked you several times that you know not to do that, because the that number assumes that every single family on the list is going to or who, who is in any sort of subsidized housing will take all five years. and you just showed data showing that that that's not the case. so i just i find this

number incendiary and inaccurate and unnecessary. thank you. supervisor. we were asked to give an estimate of what it would cost. and this is what our budget team felt was fair in terms of what this could cost. up to now, we definitely recognize that not every family will need up to five years. and you just showed us data that hardly any family needs up to five years. so why right now? why no families are there are very few families are eligible for up to five years. at this point. when we open the eligibility that. if so. so here's what that tells me and what really, really frustrates me. it it tells me that you're saying that all of a sudden if a family is eligible for additional subsidy, even if they have a way of getting out of poverty and not needing a city subsidy like they have a more than a minimum wage job, because we know a minimum wage job isn't

enough to afford a market rate house on your own. in san francisco, right? so you know that they're going to somehow not want to escape poverty on their own and stay in subsidized housing just because it's eligible to them like that. i find that insulting. i don't believe in that reaganesque ideology towards families that are are, are struggling. and i think the data bears that out. i mean, can can you go back to that slide that has the data for how many, how long families have been in subsidized housing? great. now can you tell me how many of those families in each category returned to homelessness? i can tell you that only 30% across the board have returned to homelessness, and again, supervisor, not in this data is not intended to insult anyone or to frustrate anyone, but just to give us a ballpark of what it could cost. and i fully a real number. it's

not a real number. you're telling me we don't have analysts sophisticated enough to look at the data and create a more realist number right now, because so few of the subsidies are eligible to be extended for up to five years, we do not have a strong sense of when that is available to everyone. how many families will take us up on that ability to extend up to five years? and so, sorry. go ahead. no, i was just going to say, you know, as a policy statement, we are in support of this legislation and our budget team really felt like they needed to estimate what it could cost up to in order for us to have an idea of how to implement it. so again, and it is not intended to be an ask, we're not asking for $32 million to implement this program, that we are in alignment and in support of, but we do know that this will add cost to rapid rehousing, especially when the federally subsidized subsidies close that

the two years we're looking that potentially each of those families could need up to three years more of subsidy at $47,000 per year. so i just want to say this to the public and to my colleagues. i find that number insulting. i feel like it's not a real number, and i'm annoyed both because i'd like a real number and in instead of providing a real number, it feels like we're providing a politicized number, which is irresponsible. so that's number one. number two, i very much vehemently disagree with an ideology that assumes that families that are battling poverty and trying to escape poverty would stay in poverty longer, because a subsidy is available to them. i just i

don't i don't ascribe to that ideology. and so i want to make it clear that this legislation doesn't ascribe to that ideology. i do not think that every family that receives a subsidy will take all five years. i think families are going to do their best to escape poverty as soon as they possibly can. and i just want to make a point that that's what this legislation is meant to do. i also don't think that we're benefiting anybody that if 30% of people return to homelessness after the programs that we give them, i don't know how that's that's something to be proud of. i don't know. that helps. so even if it does cost more money or even if we if it means that we can enroll less new families in a in in a in a program, it just doesn't benefit us at all. in fact, it it's more damaging

to have a family do all the work to get out of poverty, to get their life on track, to be you know, enrolled in programs and school and work training programs and then find themselves back on the streets again with their kid. it just it's it doesn't make any sense. so even if this means because i know there's going to be a slide coming up and we, we, we argued a lot about this slide saying we're going to be able to help a lot less families if this is city policy. but if we're not helping families successfully, then i don't know how we can say we're happy. we're helping less families because what we're doing is we're helping the families that we started helping to be ultimately successful. so i just also think that that's a false paradigm that i just want to mention at first, sorry, i had to say those things because we've been arguing about them privately for quite a long time. we have not gotten to an agreement on those. and so i wanted to state my position publicly. thank you. supervisor. my last slide is just about some

of the operational challenges of implementing this. and most of this has to do with just braiding funding and making sure that there is a seamless transition when a family comes off of a federal or state subsidy and moves on to a locally funded subsidy. this is most challenging. if the family is left the county and they're on the calworks program because they're no longer eligible for hsrr funded programing. so how we can provide extensions to them in a way that is not disruptive, doesn't you don't necessarily need to change service provider. that's all sort of on the departments to figure out. but just something for folks to be aware of that we are looking at as one of the operational challenges and then of course, as you mentioned, the notion of trade offs, better outcomes for potentially fewer households served. and, you know, we hear the policy direction of the board on this. so i'm happy to take any questions. but thank you very

much. thank you so much. any questions colleagues i have some questions after public comment, but. with that we will go to public comment on item number one. yes. members of the public who wish to speak on this item should line up to speak at this time by the windows. each speaker will be allowed two minutes. there will be a soft chime when you have 30s left and a louder chime when your time has expired. i would like to defer to our translators today to make that announcement on our behalf. if it if it is possible. is our translator present here? can we have our first speaker?

good morning. supervisors jamie lang homeless prenatal program housing justice work group treatment on demand coalition. i'm a former problem solver at central city access point, and i'm formerly chronically homeless. the day before, i was scheduled to be induced to give birth, i was i was matched to a 90 day housing search with the expectation that i would start immediately postpartum. i delivered via c-section, ended up having another surgery about a week later, and was given a tiny human to keep alive. i was forced to do an intensive housing search knowing that my subsidy was not enough to cover the cost of rent, and that my rental and credit history would not be in my favor. i was just jumping through the hoops so i could stay housed at the shelter, living with uncertainty every day. this housing opportunity was not appropriate for me. i had been living on the streets for more than ten years. i was six months in recovery from substance use disorder. this is what eligibility looks

like. how does the city expect someone with this significant of a history to recover and stabilize in 1 or 2 years, especially when most of the people successfully being housed in the program are being sent out of town, away from the supports they have here, only to return after 1 or 2 years in the same position, except now they are not chronically homeless by definition and do not qualify for any housing opportunities. just one way. hrsa has pretended to serve our community. the rapid rehousing program abused me so hard and one of the most tender times of my life, and i will never forget that. i believe the rapid rehousing subsidy is a good option for people who have a history of stability and eviction prevention. please extend the subsidy program to five years. this is my personal experience with the program, but i can tell you nightmares that i've witnessed my clients go through with the rapid rehousing subsidy. thank you. i yield my time. good morning, supervisors.

i'm here. i'm mercedes, i'm from the coalition on homelessness. i am asking that you vote to extend the legislation from one to 3 to 5 years. to give families the ability to take advantage of the resources, to become financially stable, and to learn what that takes. i know from experience, debt takes time to climb out of, and i think the rapid rehousing extension would allow families to do that. and i also think that it would encourage landlords to accept the subsidies in san francisco and to stop the displacement of families. that is really an issue here in san francisco. thank you. good morning, supervisors. my name is evie parmentier. today i am with i'm

a member of the nueva esperanza accompaniment team of the interfaith movement for human integrity. our neat team walks with newcomers to newcomers to our country as they navigate their way through the winding ways of bureaucracy. today is a moment of crisis and urgency for a family who could have an easier time staying alive. if this ordinance was in place today. right now, i'm speaking for a beautiful family, very much at risk of homelessness. we are talking about a single mother and survivor of domestic violence, a mother of three, the youngest being a ten month old

infant with a very rare and severe developmental disability. sorry. okay. we are we are okay. she has very big plans. she wishes to get a braiding business going. she wishes to get a braiding business going, extending the beautiful gifts that flow flow through generations of her maternal line. she has very big plans. the family has a move out day of december 10th. if this ordinance was law of the city today, this household could reassessed to see how an extension of a subsidy would be life changing. the family needs more time to survive, to thrive. you could say it was a matter of life and death and you would be right. i

urge you to move this bill forward. thank you for your hel. good morning supervisors. my name is alicia and i'm the policy and organizing manager at compass family services. i am here today to strongly support supervisor ronan's rapid rehousing policy at compass. we know firsthand that stable housing is essential for families to thrive. this policy is crucial because the length of the subsidy directly impacts family's success. currently, families are receiving support for longer periods, 25 months or more, have an 86% chance of transitioning to permanent housing. however, for those cut off at just 19 to 21 months, the success rate drops by extending subsidies to five years. this policy will halt families truly build stable lives, breaking the cycle of homelessness rather than perpetuating it. this

policy is also essential for equity, black families, in particular, have been disproportionately affected by shorter subsidy programs, which often lead to displacement. extending subsidies will help keep black families. in san francisco, the extended timeline encourages landlords to participate, knowing that families won't face abrupt displacement if they are not yet financially ready to take over the rent. by supporting this legislation, we're giving families the stability they need to pursue self-sufficiency, protect their children from the trauma of homelessness, and ultimately build a better futur. with over 500 families persistently on our shelter waitlist, many of whom return to homelessness when their housing subsidies expired, i urge you to support this policy not just as a matter of housing, but also as a matter of equity and justice. thank you. good morning supervisors. my name is sheba.

i'm a policy associate at glide and our center for social justice and a member of the hesper family subcommittee. i want to begin by thanking supervisor ronen for working with the community to bring this very crucial legislation forwar. i strongly urge you all to consider this policy opportunity to extend our existing 1 to 2 year rapid rehousing subsidies up to five years for families who need it. this extension will ensure that families can focus on stabilizing their lives and those of their children. it will ensure that more black and brown families experiencing poverty in our city are provided with the housing supports that they need to keep them housed in san francisco, our city has a family shelter waitlist with over 500 families. some are a result of the existing rapid rehousing program that failed to support families who were enabled to greatly increase their annual income before their subsidy expired. as many of you are aware, glide is a key member of the end poverty coalition that has been working with monolingual spanish and portuguese speaking families experiencing homelessness who

are using their rvs, their vehicles, as shelter. these families have very young children, school age children living in rvs. many have been waiting for services for over three years from the city. some have been offered these rapid rehousing subsidies, but unfortunately, the risk of taking a 1 to 2 year or even three year housing subsidy knowingly without a stable income base continues to be a challenging barrier for the families to access housing. we need an emphasis on prevention that reduces the chances of any family falling back into homelessness and re-experiencing the trauma of homelessness once they've been stably housed in the rental market. it is definitely great to see our city working towards policy solutions that prevent the revolving door on families experiencing homelessness. i urge you to please pass this legislation to the full board, and we look forward to ways that we can work with you all to prevent more families from falling into homelessness. thank you. good

morning everybody. my name is susan and i'm here today on behalf of my sisters and every homeless family in san francisc. and i'm just here to let you guys know that experiencing homelessness and now being housed with my beautiful kids, i know that if you guys extend the program, it will help a lot of families. the two years is not enough. sometimes they have 1 or 2 year subsidy and they have to move out of the city. and it's not. they don't even have enough time to get their stuff together. within a year. a year is like when you're fully moving into your place. you know, and if you guys give them a chance, we won't lose many families. you know, i lost my best friends on the streets. her name is emily because she was homeless with her, with her kids. and now she's not here with us today. and i'm asking that if you guys agree. and please just give them a chance, these family will thrive and they will grow with

the help and the support, because they need a support system. and you guys are our support system. and if you guys agree and pass this like a lot of families will do better because i am living proof and i'm here today to tell you guys this. if you guys do it like a lot of families will drive and they need it. a lot of mothers, they're struggling. sometimes they don't have help and it's not okay. you know, it's not. they don't deserve to sleep on the streets and stuff. you know, we have a lot of resources in the city and county of san francisco to do this. so please agree and help us help our city and make our city better. thank you so much. good morning, supervisors. i'm virginia taylor from safe and sound, and i'm representing san francisco's family services alliance. our network serves around 300 around 30 k families annually, preventing child abuse and strengthening families. today,

i'm here to urge you to support for extending families housing subsidies to five years for at risk families. we are trying to prevent the revolving door of homelessness that devastates our children's lives. the harsh reality is that homeless children are sick at twice the rate of housed children, 50% of homeless children under four have developmental delays, and each episode of homelessness deepens the trauma, increasing risks of long term struggles. our family support organizations work tirelessly to find housing and prevent child abuse, but they can't create miracles. when the city policies work against them. this legislation gives our overworked, underfunded caseworkers the time they need to help families increase their economic stability. research shows that longer subsidies dramatically improve outcomes. families receiving 25 plus months of support have an 86% chance of achieving stable housing, compared to just 50% for shorter terms. the extension is about breaking cycles of poverty, preventing child abuse

and giving families a real chance at stability. it's an investment in our city's future. it gives families the time they need to overcome barriers, whether it's securing employment, addressing health issues or navigating complex systems. in conclusion, this is a child protection measure. by providing stable homes, we're creating safer environments. we urge you to move this on to the full legislation. thank you. hi. good morning. thank you for being here. my name is ali. i've been homeless for seven years, and the last year and a half i've been living in transitional housing, waiting for my rapid rehousing voucher. i've been waiting for over a year, and i'm eligible for two years. and recently i started college, and i'm going to school to try to give my nine month old son a better life. and i think if the voucher was extended, i would be

able to get through school and then be able to do that for my son. so i'm asking that you please extend it. thank you. to the numerous tengo dos puntos en primer lugar, yo soy voluntaria con la coalition de los desamparados y como dijo la persona muchas familias dijeron no querian un hijo de dos o tres anos después de sus arby's, donde iban a vivir. por eso, se ponen de la ciudad. yo estoy muy enojada el alcalde aqui ya no va a ser alcaldes porque como se trevor a sacar a la gente porque es por darles alternativo mucha gente tenian los servicios pueden de la ciudad también mantener para mantener a las familias negras in san francisco, segun datos de la ciudad. qué comenzaron a recuperarse? in 2023, el cuento

por ciento de las personas y familias negras del programa estaban todas in san francisco en comparacion con el centro por ciento de los blancos por ciento de los hispanos, o latinos multiracials y por ciento de los hispanos o latinos. un pueblo, pueblo latino de nuevo personas de nueva personas de familias asiatica estaban en la ciudad fuentes san francisco standard. la tentativa subsidios a largo plazo mas por ciento de los hogares fueron unidades privadas en san francisco, creemos a la alargar. la opcion de sucedio mas propietario se por el programa de san francisco. so basicamente estamos diciendo aqui. este es la coleccion de los desamparados. es. encuestas son comprobado cuando la gente

tiene mas tiempo para quedarse mi viendo mas oportunidad para qué no regresan a los arboles. para qué no regresan a la calle. estos son datos. esto es la cultura del pueblo hispano. muchos de los personas en harbeson como noventa por ciento son hispanos y muchos tuvieron. otros esta la sukheja. qué van a hacer sin sin los subsidios de la vivienda donde van a vivir imaginense ustedes con ninos o sea ninos como va a permitir como van a los ninos a la escuela como para mantener su amistad. esto es muy importante para el desarrollo educativo en las montes de los ninos. yo les digo, por favor. speaker time has elapsed. my apologies. two minutes have elapsed. okay. gracias. mr. o. yolanda. quetzalcoatl. one moment. i believe mr. consensus will provide translation. what did

you want to provide? translation. yeah, yeah. good evening. board. my name is giovanna yolanda kalsakau. i am a member of the coalition of desamparados and i am here to talk about the rv situation in lake merced, where many people were forced out of the city and they could not accept short terms in their subsidies. i am really mad at the at the mayor. this has forced people to leave the city, and i'm also here to talk about keeping black families in san francisco. according to the data that started being collected in 2023, 50% of black individuals and families in the program were housed in san francisco, compared to 82% of white people. 79% of multiracial hispanic or latino people, and 59% of hispanic or latino people. out

of nine asian individuals and families, eight were housed in the city. sources of standard. alternatively, in long term subsidies, over 85% of households were placed in private units in san francisco. we believe lengthening the subsidy option. more landlords will be attracted to the program, and in san francisco. español ten, español c a and this is the reason why i need to speak about this, because over 90% of them were hispanic. and we have to think, we have to think about the children and their development as well, and what schools they will go to. i can also offer a transcription to what she said. if that summary is not sufficient. thank you. thank you. hi. good morning, jennifer friedenbach of the coalition on homelessness. i

just want to first start by thanking supervisor ronen for spearheading this legislation and for president peskin and supervisor walton for co-sponsoring. this is a small but mighty piece of legislation that's going to have a tremendously transformative effect on so many families. we brought this up in collaboration with family service providers and homeless families themselves, because we just kept seeing over and over again families returning after they had, you know, gone through this process. they got a landlord to rent to them, which was a huge hurdle. they were they had a huge hurdle, even getting accepted into the program and then really, if they could have gotten more time, could have really stabilized and taken over the rent on their own and were unable to get extensions. and we kept talking with the department about, you know, exceptions, being able to get it just wasn't happening. and so we just really felt the need that it needed to

be put into legislation. i want to talk a little bit about the budget situation. just to clarify, a little, if you have 340 rapid rehousing slots this year in a small portion, need an extra year next year, let's say 40 need an extension, the cost would come in if you wanted to add 40 slots for 40 new families, the cost would be kept the same. if we kept it at 340. so i just wanted to be clear about that. and it really is a question of whether we want we want to have a family return to homelessness because we can show we served more families versus actually getting families permanently out of homelessness. and that is somewhat of a trade off. but what we see is the families return to the streets, in the shelters, and then that puts pressure on the waitlist as well. so we really appreciate the push for more funding. but

just wanted to clarify that point. thank you. good morning. my name is mayo lunt and i'm from hamilton families. i'm going to be speaking from a lens of relationships in reference to housing. i propose that five years is more beneficial to the families we serve than one year. two year or even three years because it helps to foster relationships between tenants and landlords. the assurance of five years to a landlord makes a landlord more inclined to invest in the tenant, and to trust the tenant. this leads to better stability of housing for our families. it allows them to communicate with landlords, build a relationship that if their needs are, give me an extra month of rent, you know, to just let me catch up on my payments. a landlord is more apt

to invest in them. this leads to less turnovers and also more housing opportunities and landlords that build relationships with their tenants and that their long term. and they can trust allows them to say, hey, i'll try again and open up more housing for others. thank you for your time. good morning everybody. i also am here to speak and proposal of extending subsidies to five years for families. my name is tony baldwin and i work with hamilton families. i've worked with hamilton families for the past eight years, and i've been a member of the service community here in san francisco since 1990, working with families in our subsidy program in support of their housing goals. i've seen firsthand with my work with families, the impact of less time receiving the subsidy and support of their housing goals, versus if they

were to receive more time regarding the impact of less time families. as you heard before, the data point that families who receive 25 months or more have 8,086% chance of continuing to hold on to that housing versus a 50% chance if they have housing for less than 19 months. under current conditions, families are often required to begin having meetings that focus on exit planning from the subsidy program about six months after they move in. these families have often not been able to address or process through the prior experience of trauma and desperation of being homeless before they have confronted a or just. they have to confront the possibility and plan for being houseless again due to not being able to increase income in the subsidy program that provides less time. in closing, i'd like to share my thoughts as well on

the impact of supporting staff as a supervisor in our subsidy program at hamilton families, the case management staff working in collaboration with families will often share during consultations challenges they have regarding case exit planning. these challenges do not involve talking about successful outcomes or case closure. instead, we are talking about and discussing coordinating logistics to help families exit the unit that they have lived in for less than 18 months. the committed staff report that this makes their work helping families feel less effective and at worst, that they are continuing this shell game of displacement of familie. thank you. hi, my name is kate fisher. i'm also with hamilton families. i think we can all agree that time is an incredible gift, that a task taken and a task given and its success can rely entirely on the amount of time you have to complete it. i

discussed this with my boss often. if you come to me with a request in a good mood or a bad mood, it's going to change my outcome and timing is all of that, especially when you consider ptsd and the trauma that our families have experienced. timing is everything. or as my mom would say, god is in the timing. this is about making sure that all families can be eligible for the time they need, when they need it, depending on what their plans are for success. i believe i'm preaching to the choir when i say that it can take a whole year to get the supports and time necessary for the nervous system to start to heal from the trauma that they've just experienced moving into this unit from where they've been. the decision to choose childcare providers, to trust neighbors, to engage in services that you've outlined can take that amount of time and can be impossible and terrifying until they have been able to address

the traumas they've experienced. for the families that we have in our three year contract, we can approach them with a gentleness and patience and long term goal setting that they deserve. for the families in our 12 month program, they do not get that luxury. imagine a family moving into their new unit for the first time, and taking the first breath that they may have taken in their lifetime. now imagine your case manager coming in with new responsibilities, new tasks, and the task that our case managers are charged with to say, i know that you're not ready, but you have 12 months. we can never let go of that reality. and that discussion with them that this has to happen fast, that they have to learn to become employed, to make $30 an hour at a minimum, to be successful in the program. overall, i would just say that the time needless, regardless of arbitrary eligibility. good

morning supervisors. my name is frank de la campa. i'm the real estate manager over at hamilton families. i too am going to be coming in with a lens coming from the landlord perspective here, i have the privilege of overseeing a department tasked with holding and strengthening our relationships with our external landlord partners. without them, rapid rehousing doesn't work. we need the housing market. we serve as the landlord liaisons to those actively engaged in our program by renting out their units to the families that we serve. it cannot be overstated what this ordinance passing would mean for bolstering rapid rehousing. specifically, when it comes to landlord retention. the number one question a new potential landlord asks any of my staff is how long does the subsidy last for increasing the length of subsidy would be the best and most effective way of incentivizing landlord partners to agree to work with our programs. it it provides the needed extra security to kind of give them that confidence and trust in not only the potential tenant, but also the program,

the staff that i oversee, and the case managers work with the family to provide all of those wraparound case management services. more time in the program, more time with subsidy means that there's more patience and grace awarded to those who are still learning how to become self-sufficient. as a first time renter, building the skills needed to be a successful tenant and having more time to get their feet back underneath them. to put it bluntly, at the end of the day, this is also a business for all of the landlords and property management companies that we engage with. unsuccessful exits from the program doesn't only mean a family comes back to the access point, it doesn't only mean that they're potentially damaging their credit and rental history if they're unsuccessfully ready in 1 to 2 years. but it also means that landlords are feeling burned by the lack of follow through in their eyes from a program that doesn't give the families enough time to stabilize. increasing this length of subsidy undoubtedly serves the people in need of the support most. however, it also makes partnering with organizations like all of all of the service providers here in the city that do this work, a more lucrative and attractive

proposal. it means that we're able to bring families back into san francisco, keep them housed here, and access to greatnd better resources. thank you for your time. good morning. my name is andrew kramer. i am the program manager of hp's homeless prenatal programs and path programs. i will appeal to your fiscal responsibility is a lot is a word that comes up in government all the time. we have families who leave on rapid rehousing subsidies for a year, and i see the success of those who have longer terms versus the semi success of those who have shorter, rapid rehousing subsidies. i see it with my own eyes, with follow ups from the clients who leave. you heard from a couple of them already. these are things that can help the city save money just by

extending funds and extending the time period that our clients have on these subsidies. so you got to remember, if somebody returns to homelessness, it's just not this money that comes out. they're using other resources as well, not just the funds that's coming out of here. so i appeal to youis responsibility of the city. also, you've heard the statistics. i won't repeat them here, but we're asking families to recover financially, emotionally, physically and mentally in one year. we can't do that. and we're housed. it's impossible. ask. so giving them extended time will help heal. thank you. buenos dias, a todos. supervisors. mi nombre es ana

flores. yo vengo del programa de vip de arriba. juntos por parte de cargas. yo estoy aqui para apoyar. si es posible sucedio a cinco anos para las familias de abajo recursos. el tener un trabajo ganando el minimo no podemos este pagar una renta accesible nosotros. por ejemplo, cuando ganamos el minimo, yo soy una mama soltera tengo tres hijos y me ha tocado vivir en un cuarto con mis tres hijos y estoy aqui para apoyar a todas las mujeres. qué tenemos el mismo? las mismas necesidades. las mismas el mismo problema. yo vengo soy immigrant e venido a este pais a lucha de trabajado para poder. este pues tener un hogar bien y la verdad como les

vuelvo a repetir ganando el minimo. no se puede tener una vida. este completa tener un tener casa pagar renta de three mil cuatro mil dolares manualmente o trabaja o comes o pagas renta y no se puede vivir y por eso estoy aqui para apoyar a pues subsidios tienda a cinco anos. gracias. good morning. members of the board. my name is anna flores. i am from the vip program from arriba juntos, and i'm here to support the expansion of the program to five years. i have been i am a low income worker and i have three kids. it's really difficult for me as a single mother to be paying rents that go up from 3

to $5000, and also support my family. for me, the option is either to pay rent or to feed my kids. as a hard working immigrant, i am here to also speak on behalf of all of the other mothers who face the same needs and urgencies. so please listen to me. when i ask you to support the expansion of the program up to five years. thank you. i'm sure. okay. hi, my name is jasmine. i am currently residing at jelani house. i have been i have been in foster care all my life, ever since i got emancipated. and then once i got emancipated, i have been traumatized throughout my whole entire life. i've been through a lot of stuff and i'm, you know, i've been through organizations and organizations. i had rapid

housing for two years, and it hasn't lasted due to me trying to manage maintaining work schedules and finances. and it's not it doesn't add up. so it's hard because you don't have that. you don't have the wages to cover everything. so it's really difficult. and i fell of. and so i am asking you guys, can you please extend the rapid housing so that i can have stability for my son, something that i have never had my entire life? thank you. good morning supervisors. that was so powerful. my name is hope kamer. i'm the director of public policy at compass family services and the chair of hesper. i'd like to start by thanking supervisors ronan

walton and peskin for sponsoring this legislation. despite important efforts by members of this body and the advocates in this room, the family response system requires significant additional investment and administrative adjustments to meet the crisis level. need we continue to face. this legislation moves us in that positive direction. at compass, 96% of the families that we serve on subsidy programs achieve stable exits from homelessness. after 36 months, only 76% exit homelessness at 24 months. so i think we're all kind of on the same page that we would like the subsidy system to work better. and i appreciate your consideration of moving this forward. thanks. hello, supervisors. my name is ian james. i'm the community

engagement manager at glide center for social justice. i am here to support the legislation amending city policy to provide up to five years of rapid rehousing assistance in 2021. i was part of a series of listening sessions at family shelters across the city, and i heard from family after family who are back in shelter because their housing had expired. there are very few resources for families who come to the end of their subsidy and are unable to take over the entirety of their rent. this causes families to cycle in and out of housing and shelter, which is cruel. it's ineffective. it's fiscally wasteful, and it undermines hope for a better future. i also have met many families who have been left with no other option except to sleep in their vehicles or live double up with other families when their subsidies expired. this included families who had supposedly successfully exited rapid rehousing before falling behind on rent soon after their subsidy had expired. without a more effective process for extending rapid rehousing

subsidies, the city runs the risk of losing track of unhoused families and allowing them to return to dangerous living conditions. please take the opportunity to support this common sense improvement of city policy and continue to monitor this issue as the changes are implemented. thank you. hello supervisors. my name is aaron rodriguez. i am a shelter case manager with homeless prenatal and i'm speaking on behalf of the homeless mothers in the path program. in order for the mothers that i work at majority have to get a housing voucher through calworks and calworks is only a one year subsidy. and in that time you're asking mothers to get a full time, a livable wage, full time job, establish childcare, and in that time when they're making a livable wage, they're no longer qualified for the benefits they once received.

and so in that year, you're telling them to establish not only all of those and to be without benefits, maybe even be without case management to make sure that their life is going to be able to be stable. so not only is one year just a band aid, it's not effective. it is not. we need to have a more length of time for these mothers and for their family to become stabilized. we need to start by acknowledging that we're not doing enough as a as a as a country, as a city, as a state. we need to do more for our people. we need to have the government finally work for the people. let's do this together. let's end childhood poverty. and speaking on the behalf of those that are voiceless. there's many people that are affected by this. every single day. listen to the people that are doing the work. listen to us. we're doing the work. we're we're there. we're meeting with the people every single day. we're seeing the struggles day in and day ou, but we can only do so much. we need your help. thank you.

hello. good morning. i'm flo kelly and i live in district nine. but i go to district ten, a lot and talk to people in their rvs because i work with the coalition on homelessness. consider this. we have a gaping hole in our bodies. blood and guts are spilling out. do we want a band-aid or do we want surgery? why is the answer to that question regarding our bodies so universal surgery, of course. yet when band aid solutions to homelessness are proposed, people seriously consider them and actually vote for the band aid approach and are surprised at the results. then those same surprise people blame the unhoused folks for the results. families in rapid rehousing. having the opportunity to be in the program up to five years would be

equivalent to a healing surgical operation. thank you for sponsoring this legislation. i appreciate it. good morning, dear supervisors. my name is miguel carrera. i work in the coalition on homelessness. and today, first thing i want to say i want to appreciate arriba juntos homeless pineiro program hamilton compass, and everyone who is present today and everyone who is right here has come because they come to testify, to pass this legislation. we organizing these families to come from pip, from arriba juntos. and you know that many, many of these families isn't the short rent subsidy program like one year, two years and one year and two years? they want to go back to the streets

and we want no, we don't want families and children to go back to the streets ever, ever, ever. it's the reason we you see so many families today and we are demanding to pass this legislation because it's really important. and not only five years, we want more because families need and deserve to live in a stable children. they need to live in a stable. and we know in the school they don't do good. why? because they don't have a housing. how many families we have on the waiting list for more than 500. and this december it's almost the corner of december. the cold weather, the raining, and families don't have a place to live. it's time to do something. please, supervisors, i really appreciate the three supervisors who take the leadership and supporting and sponsoring our legislation, and i would love to pass it. this time. thank you so much and have a great day. i'd like to

make a quick note before the next speaker begins. if you would like to express support, it would be appreciated. if you provide non-audio support, sparkle hands or something of that nature or if you oppose thumbs down in order to avoid disrupting the speakers, it would be appreciated. thank you very much. buenos dias mi nombre es judith damian santos, a soy immigrant. agradezco mucho todo lo hacen por mi por mi familia. yo pasado un movimiento muy dificil en este pais y cuando no tuve para pagar la renta y lamentablemente fui de donde vivia no tenia donde dormir y muchos amigos y familiares. qué me ayudaron nadie me dijo si esta bien. deja to hijo no fue muy dificil muy dificil para mi.

pero gracias a dios encontré. alguien maravilloso me de la mano. les agradezco todo lo hacen por nosotros por los bancos de comida por el medical. es agradezco todo y también les pido de corazon, por favor and en el plazo dos anos es poco un poco la renta es muy cara no alcanza nada mas eso. gracias. muchas gracias. good morning. i'm judith damian santos, and i am an immigrant. and i'm here with my family. and i was evicted from my home when i couldn't pay rent. and i went and i asked many friends, famil, acquaintances. i was with my son, and i said i only needed a place to live. no one could give me that. and thank god i found a

person who gave me a hand. and thank you very much. it's very difficult for us. the rent is very expensive, but thanks that we have medical and other things. but i found this person and thanks for this. housing programs, food banks and i was able to continue. but two years is not enough. we need five years of housing. i'm a mother. i'm a woman, and i know how difficult it is to live on the streets. and the rents are very expensive. so please, i would like to ask for the housing for five years minimum. thanks. buenos dias. mi nombre es fatima miranda. soy una madre desamparado y lo dificil y terrible vivir con un hijo de la calle y no poder dormir por estar pendiente de él. yo lo ohlone le pido. y qué se toca en

su corazon y en este por unos cinco anos o mas si es posible porque no me gustaria ver a otras madres o ninos familias en la calle, porque yo pasé por eso y se lo terrible. qué es muchisimas? gracias. mandelman kathy hochul. good morning. i'm fatima miranda. i'm a mother. and i also i was homeless with my son. i was living on the street. it was very difficult for us to live on the street. and i couldn't even sleep because i had to take care of him. and looking after him during the night. and i will really ask from your deep, from your heart, please. we really need that five year subsidy. we really need those years for everybody, for the families, for the mothers, for those kids that they don't have any houses. thank you. good morning. my name

is liz lawton and i work on the evaluations team at homeless prenatal program. and i'm appealing to you from a position asking you to stop the revolving door of homelessness. i work with data, and i see at homeless prenatal program that almost all of our rapid rehousing clients do not exit to permanent housing, whereas a voucher like bringing families home or other longer term vouchers, we see incredible success rates of families staying in homes and seeing stability years after they exit. we're not asking for a lifetime. we are just asking for up to five years. the one year seems like it could work, but in reality it would just work for someone who's in economic homelessness because they can then increase their rent, their income to pay rent with getting a job. but most homelessness is much more complex. there's trauma and there's substance use and so many other needs wrapped up in that. and oftentimes the rapid rehousing vouchers will place families outside of san francisco where the rent is

cheaper. when the rapid rehousing expires, they then need to come back to san francisco, be homeless for three days before they can enter the coordinated entry system. and that is retraumatisation. the coordinated entry system alone is not helping people get back in, because the shelter waitlists are too long. and so the retraumatisation keeps happening. there's a possibility to set these families up for success by allowing extensions. this will then save the city money by preventing homelessness in the long run. prevent retraumatisation of families and actually make a dent in stopping the cycle of homelessness. thank you. hi, good morning, october day. it's my first time here sitting on. i'm so glad. and it seems i'm the only filipina here. but anyway, your problem is my problem too. we are all

here to solve our problem. actually, i am a victim of eviction and financial abuse in. and it's not easy to find a place a room. sometimes i'm thinking others are sleeping peaceful in a nice bed. every time i passed by, every corner. some are sleeping in a cold. you know, especially during rainy time or raining. they are hungry. you know, i said i lost my mother, my mother, my auntie, and every time i am a victim

over by a victim and said, how can i find a place where i'm going to sleep, you know, and the place where i'm staying out now is to your 24 seven heater on and winter. there's no heater. we always have water cut off. i'm getting sick, you know, especially if we have a problem with our house. okay. thank you. okay. thank you for listening. god bless you. good morning everyone. my name is marisa

salinas and i am a single mother of three children aged 12, six and four years old. extending housing subsidies to five years is crucial for my family. like mine facing homelessness, it will provide us with the time needed to secure a stable employment, save money and start building a stronger foundation for our future. without the support, it is incredibly difficult to me to break that. the cycle of poverty. and provide for my children the stability they deserve. a longer suicide. suicide will give me a chance to regain my independence and create lasting positive change for my family. thank you.

a primeiramente soy lucy pues vengo a pedir por todas estas personas. estan aqui un dia yo ahora son ellos y gracias a dios y a todos a san francisco organizaciones. qué me apoyan junto con mis hijos. soy mama soltera no estoy aqui porque quiero sino la vida me lo obligo y pues fue dificil fue duro. pero gracias a dios. ahora tengo un lugar estable donde soy tan feliz con mis hijos y pues lo agradezco a infinitamente a dios y a todos por haber ayudado por haber escuchado y pues decirles ahora esta en ellos. me gustaria también poder de ellos tengan su

hogar. un lugar donde somos feliz como yo lo soy ahora y muchas gracias. good morning. first of all i would like to say my name is lucila reyes. and thanks for listening to me. i come here to ask for all of those people because one day i. one day i was one of them. but now, thank god, i have a house and a place to live. i live in san francisco with my three kids. i'm a single mother and really life forced me to be here and to try to have a new life. and i really ask you if you can help these people. i'm really grateful for god and all the different organizations that help me, and now i am stable. i am happy with my kids in a house

and thanks for helping me. and i really need that. it's time for them also to buy a house, to feel like they have a place for them and a place where they can grow. and thank you very much. hi, my name is kayla licona. i am coming from jelani house and i just want to come here and speak with the motion that i feel like expanding from five years from subsidy is going to be amazing and great, just because me being a mother with a baby, as you see my little baby girl, is a struggle because every day i have to like, really think about if my am i going to buy food, am i going to pay the rent? am i have to get water for my baby? my baby drinks formula. so formula is expensive and if it can actually the people are helping mothers and then when they do receive a job and it is taken away from them, just imagine that they have to pay

formula. they have to pay clothes. babies grow really quick and fast. so clothes are getting expensive. formula is getting expensive. so every day they have to fight. deciding if they have to pay rent or have to do the necessary for their kids is just not. i feel like is very is struggle. and i feel like if you guys do expand, the five years for subsidy is going to be an amazing it's going to be a great help for other mothers so they don't have to relapse again. and again. going to access point, going homeless year after year because they're afraid they're always going to be a repetitive of losing their house after a year because they can't maintain the income, and paying the rent. so if you do do that, it's going to be amazing and it's going to be a lot of support for all the mothers and thank you. thank you. hi. good. good morning. my name is barry al-masani from mexico. you speak in english and leader. thank you. your service. me coming for no need record quote more money

for programs. the housing and before living in the street and before homeless. thank you for programs for housing for such a more a lot of people no more are living in the street. you need help for groups of families. i have not had papers is really terrible. i living in the stree. please you pedo, i need you. please no more god money for problems. a lot of people return in the living in the street. i love all people. homeless san francisco. thank you. your service. good morning. my name is claire. i'm with the homeless prenatal program, and i've only

been here approximately three months. but i've seen and heard so many stories from my coworkers about the resilience of our families and how they deserve to have this chance to continue to reach their goals in longer subsidy with the rapid rehousing. so thank you for considering this initiative, and i hope you hear our support of that. good morning. my name is maimuna shah with the homeless prenatal program. i work in supportive housing as a case manager and similar to claire, i've seen firsthand the effects of 1 to 2 year program has on our clients. first and foremost, one example that comes to mind is one of my clients who's been in that rapid rehousing program for about a year, and you still see the effects of trauma and chronic homelessness showing up in her everyday life. so i please ask that you extend it to five years to ensure that our families feel safe and stable upon their program exit. thank you. are there any additional

members of the public who would like to provide public comment? i do not see any additional speakers. thank you so much. seeing no other speakers, public comment is now closed and i do just want to first thank our interpreters, arturo and katrin, for being here to provide translation. this morning before i pass this back to supervisor ronen, i do just want to say, and i guess i don't have questions, but i do want to say that it is disheartening to see the astronomical number that hsh is stating. will be needed for us to extend the subsidies. if you look at the data that was presented by hsh, we have less than two dozen families right now that have actually accessed or needed the subsidy for 4 to 5 years, and two supervisor ronan's point, if we provide opportunity, make sure that families are stable, make sure that they have what they need. they have the opportunity to change the trajectory of their

lives and move forward and grow and be able to provide housing for themselves versus reverting back into the system. if we look at the lot of the programs that we have for our families, sometimes our mothers and children are aged out and then they have to go from one program to the next. and this also provides more instability. this also provides more issues around childcare. so providing a subsidy for a longer duration obviously gets landlords excited because they know that they're going to have the rental income that they need for them to keep their properties. it's going to make sure that families are more stable because they have an opportunity only if only if they're not able to be housed in a shorter period of time. they have more opportunity for stability. as we increase the subsidy opportunity. so i just want to make sure that as we

move forward over the next couple of weeks, that we really can get a better number of what costs really may actually be as we have this conversation, because according to the data, if we only have a certain amount of folks who've utilized it, we can do a better job of forecasting what the actual cost will be. and $20 million arbitrary number is just something that obviously, you know, doesn't give the public a true perception of what cost is doesn't give my colleagues a true perception of what cost is. and i know we can do a better job of forecasting costs. so my hope is that we get a better number as we move forward, because we need to really, truly be able to demonstrate what this might cost so that we can work towards providing the resources for this opportunity. because this is something that i am excited to support. and as we move forward, we're going to need to work together to make sure that this is a reality for our families. i do see

supervisor ronen. thank you. i just wanted to make a few closing comments. first of all, i wanted to thank everyone for coming out and sharing their stories with us and especially the families that are experiencing homeless right now. coming out and telling your stories publicly is a pretty scary thing to do, and it takes a lot of courage to come here. and i just wanted to appreciate you all so much for doing that. it means a lot. it educates us and it really helps us form these policies. so thank you so much for that. solo queria las gracias a las familias especialmente quién vinieron aqui voy para compartir su historia y a toma muchisimo valor a hacer eso y quiero a confirmar. qué ayuda a nosotros? former a las leyes muchisimas gracias muchisimas gracias por

su por por contar sus historias. i also just wanted to underscore one point that i didn't make in my opening remarks, but i think is super important to this policy and that is the landlord. in order to get rid of a family that no longer has a subsidy, a landlord would have to start eviction process, and that pretty much ensures that you can never get that landlord again to participate in a subsidy program. and getting landlords to participate in these programs in the first place is one of the hardest parts of making it work. so not only does this policy make sense for the families that are experiencing homelessness, this this policy makes sense for continuing to keep landlords in these subsidy programs in the first place. so i just wanted to underscore that point. and then finally, i wanted to thank so

much, jennifer ferrigno from my office for working so hard with the community on this process, on this policy and colleagues, i wanted to thank you for your support. if i could ask you someone to make a motion to amend, as i stated, and then to for this item to the full board with positive recommendation, i would appreciate it. thanks. motion to accept the amendments provided by supervisor ronen on a motion to accept the amendments, vice chair safaí safaí. member peskin, a, peskin i chair walton i walton i. the motion passes without objection. thank you. motion to amend. passes without objection, and i move to move this to the full board with the positive recommendation as amended. yes. on that motion. vice chair safíi safaí. member peskin a, peskin i chair. walton i walton i that motion passes without objection.

thank you. motion carries without objection. thank you so much. we now need to and i want to appreciate everyone for coming out this morning. mr. clerk, would you please call item number two? yes. item number two is ordinance amending the administrative code to reduce the frequency of shelter monitoring committee site visits requiring the committee to establish in its bylaws the threshold number of complaints or out of compliance findings during a year that would trigger additional site visits. revised eligible criteria for seat one on the committee. revise the standard of care for city shelters by establishing requirements for shower stalls with working hot and cold water controls, minimum passing space for sleeping units that are not up against the wall or partitio, and signage posting requirements available of translation services. eliminate the minimum shelter stay. hold on one

second, victor, if we could. if we could please exit. exit the meeting quietly. we do have an agenda to get to. and again, i want to thank everyone for coming out, but we do have more business before us on the committee. this morning. thank you, mr. clerk. minimum stay requirements for single adult reservations. revise the complaint process and investigation. investigation procedure and update several programmatic terms. thank you so much, supervisor ronen. mayor. sponsored it. this is the mayor's and your co sponsor. and do we have a presentation from hsh this morning? good morning. honorable members of the rules committee and supervisor. ronen, my name is dylan schneider, manager of legislative affairs with the department of homelessness and supportive housing. i use she her pronouns. i'm happy to be here before you today with an ordinance that we have worked very closely on with

the shelter monitoring committee over the last year, and i want to thank chair deanna almanza for her partnership and for being here today. and thank you, supervisors ronen and chair walton for your co-sponsorship of this item, as well. so the proposed ordinance would amend the administrative code article seven, chapter 20, and the proposed amendments would do a few things. they would allow the shelter monitoring committee to better focus their efforts on more closely monitoring shelters that are out of compliance, or sites that receive more complaints throughout the year. they would clarify the complaint and investigative procedures, and they would update programmatic terms and reflect the transition of the shelter monitoring committee from the department of public health to our department, including committee appointments by the homelessness oversight commission. they would also expand criteria for seat one to increase the pool of eligible

candidates, and they would establish new minimum standards for city funded shelters as proposed by the committee, such as requiring shelters to provide shower stalls with working hot and cold water controls. just a quick overview on the shelter monitoring committee. for those of you that are not familiar with the committee, the committee inspects city funded shelters through both annual unannounced and unannounced site visits. they investigate standard of care related complaints, and they submit reports to the homelessness oversight commission, the mayor's office and the board of supervisors. the committee has 12 members, with one vacant seat as of november, and i will note that this vacant seat is seat one, which is the seat that we are expanding. criteria under this ordinance. so making eligible candidates a larger pool of eligible candidates so we can fill that last remaining vacant seat. and the committee meets monthly in city hall. and

i am happy to take any questions. and thank you again to chair manza and robert hill, hsh staff for the shelter monitoring committee that are joining me today. thank you so much for the presentation. i don't see anyone on the roster. mr. clark, would you please call for public comment on item number two? yes. members of the public who wish to speak on this item should line up to speak. at this time, each speaker will be allowed two minutes. are there any members of the public who would like to comment on this matter? i do not see any commenters at this time. thank you. seeing no one on the roster public comment is now closed. mr. clark, i'd like to make a motion to send this to the full board with a positive recommendation. yes, on the motion to recommend the matter on that motion, vice chair safíi safaí member peskin a peskin i chair walton i walton i that

motion passes without objection. thank you. motion to move item two forward to the full board with a positive recommendation. passes. mr. clerk, please call item number three. item number three is ordinance amending the administrative code to decrease the number of members on the mental health sf implementation working group from 13 to 7 require the working group by july 31st, 2025 to submit a final report containing an evaluation of the mental health sf program and recommendations for the program. improvements and change the sunset date for the working group from september 1st, 2026 to july 31st, 2025. thank you so much, supervisor ronen. thank you so much. colleagues. last month i introduced amendments to the composition of the mental health sf. i implementation working group. among those changes were an early sunset date and reducing the size of the body. my intention was to help streamline the iwg and help make them more agile. given growing concerns about quorum and

capacity from both the iwg iwg members and d.p.h, which serves as the body's administrator. since introducing those amendments, my office and i have received feedback from d.p.h and iwg members. between persistent concerns around membership capacity to meet quorum and anxiety about being able to complete a lengthy summative report, i've decided to introduce an amendment today that reverts back to the original language in the administrative code and offers a single new amendment to sunset. the mental health sf implementation working group. at the end of this calendar year. it has been five years since we passed mental health sf, and we've made immense progress that the city should be proud of. these are not sexy changes that get headlines every day in the newspapers, but these are really amazing changes that have fundamentally improved the way that our behavioral health system works in san francisco. and i just want to say how proud

i am of this work and how much i appreciate d.p.h for and the iwg for its hard, hard work over the past five years with covid and everything being really faithful to the legislation as much as possible, this work isn't done. of course, when you do a massive overhaul of a system, it takes time. it takes money, it takes energy, and instead of this ordinance or the full version of it, and instead of prolonging the iwg when it really has timed out and fulfilled its useful purpose, i think it makes total sense to end it at the end of this. this policy year. and instead i'm going to introduce a hearing request at tomorrow's board meeting to talk about the success over the last five years and, and the challenges and the continued work of mental health. sf looking super forward to that

hearing before the end of the year as well. i want to thank the iwg members who have dedicated so much time to this effort. i want to give a huge thanks to valerie kirby, who is in the audience for her tremendous work for providing administrative support to this body. valerie, you've done such an incredible job, and i cannot thank you enough for your your incredible work. and then finally, i want to thank jackie prager from my office, who has been spearheading this, this body of work for the office since she came, came here. it hasn't always been easy, but i know that you have made a tremendous change in people's lives. so with that, i wanted to ask my colleagues to make a motion to amend page eight, line 25, to read the implementation working group shall terminate on the effective date of this ordinance in board file number

240984. amending the section 5.445. and that basically means that the very first week of january, the body will expire. but originally we had said december, but that doesn't make sense since the ordinance will become effective after that date. so we just align those two dates. thank you so much. thank you. supervisor ronen. and before we hear from president peskin, i'd like to make a motion to accept that amendment on a motion to accept the proposed amendment, vice chair safaí safaí, member peskin i, peskin i chair. walton i walton i the motion to accept the amendment is passed without objection. thank you. motion to amend passes. supervisor peskin. thank you, chair walton, i just want to take a moment to publicly acknowledge supervisor ronen's commitment to healthy,

just to this entire mental health issue over a long period of time, in collaboration with d.p.h and the public, and really think that this is going to be supervisor ronen's legacy. and i want to commend her and her staff for staying at it and sticking to it these many, many years. it is really an incredible body of work and i am proud for the board of supervisors and the people of san francisco. i deal with that as well. supervisor peskin me too. thank you. supervisor ronen, chair walton i'm sorry, i forgot to ask the city attorney. are these amendments substantive, or are we allowed to send this forward? good morning again, supervisors, deputy city attorney brad russell, these amendments are substantive and so will require a continuance to the next meeting. okay. thank you. i'll make a motion to move this item to continue this item. oh, my apologies. do we have public comment on item number three?

yes. are there any members of the public who would like to provide public comment on this matter? you can step forward at this time. i do not see any speakers on this matter. thank you so much. no speakers. so we will end public comment. and now i would like to make a motion to continue the amended item to our next rules committee meeting. yes. the matter on the motion to continue the matter to the next rules committee meeting, which i believe to the next rules committee meeting on that motion, vice chair safaí safaí, member. peskin i, peskin i chair. walton i walton i that motion passes without objection. thank you. motion to continue passes. thank you so much mr. clerk, would you please call item number four? item number four is ordinance amending the administrative code to establish a process for creating a publicly available inventory of artificial intelligence to the city, procures and to develop an

impact assessment standard for the city's procurement of ai. thank you so much, supervisor ronen, you have anything on this item? i do, yes. thank you so much. first of all right. right back at you, president peskin, i want to thank you for all the work that you've done on emerging technologies in the city for a very long time, and i've been a great admirer of that work. and i want to thank your former legislative aide, lee hepner, who's been a leader in this area. and i'm excited to have caught up to the two of you a little bit. and have become very, very interested in this body of work myself, local governments, as you all know, have been utilizing artificial intelligence products since the early 1990s. however, it wasn't until the 20 tens with significant advancements in ai technology, that there was a marked increase in the adoption

and use of ai by local governments. ai offers both opportunities and challenges to san francisco residents and workers. in the past, we've struggled to regulate emerging technologies effectively, social media being a prime example where we were slow to address the societal harms it caused. i want to make sure that both policymakers and the public fully understand the ai technologies currently in use by the city, and those that may be implemented in the future. although only a few departments are currently procuring ai products, most ai usage stems from individual employees utilizing free, publicly available tools like chatgpt. however, we anticipate and anticipate that this will change rapidly, and it's crucial that we stay ahead of this curve. san francisco operates a decentralized information technology system, where individual city departments maintain their own it units. this decentralization has

created challenges for the city's department of technology in tracking and overseeing the various ai products and systems deployed across different departments. after i share with you what this legislation does, i will call up the city's chief information officer, michael maxman, to share how the city has been engaging around ai to date. the ai inventory legislation before you addresses these issues by requiring the cio to compile and publish a public inventory of ai products used within city government, city departments will be responsible for providing the content of the inventory, which falls into two categories. the first part has 16 questions with which cover basic facts about the technology, including its purpose, accuracy, potential biases, and training data. departments will likely gather this information from the technology vendor themselves. the remaining six questions assess the impact of the

technology on individuals and workers. for instance, whether the technology is expected to replace any jobs currently performed by human beings, and how people with diverse abilities will interact with the user interface. we name specific exceptions to ai technologies that are required to be included in the inventory they include ai used by the city for internal administration and cybersecurity purposes. we've included an enforcement section to ensure that departments comply with this ordinance. these could be member individuals, members of the general public, civil employee, city employees, or civil liberties organizations can allege violations of the ordinance to the ceo directly. cio directly. if a department has failed to include an ai technology in its inventory response when that happens, departments have 30 days from the notice to cure the violation, the cio will quarterly report to the board of supervisors any notices of alleged violations that the cio deems valid and that were not cured within 30 days of the

notice. if the report identifies the department out of compliance and the board of supervisors will call ang on each such department's noncompliance at the government audit and oversight committee. at that hearing, the department head will have to report on the department's plan for coming into compliance. the legislation also requires the cio to submit to the board of supervisors and publish on data sf platform, an ai technology report for all ai technologies used for the city. the ordinance also requires the comptroller to conduct an annual review of all department inventory responses and confirm each department's compliance or noncompliance with this ordinance. a previous version of this legislation called for the development of an ai procurement process. we've decided to hold off on that for now, including the portion to provide more time and consideration for how non-governmental voices may be incorporated into the process. i imagine that someone on this board of supervisors will take on that step, too, or the

department of technology will do so itself in the future. colleagues, i'll just mention the amendments that i'm going to make today on this item. i'd like to introduce a couple of amendments at the recommendation of civil liberties experts, the city attorney's office has deemed these to be minor, and my staff has sent the amendments to members of the committee. and i've passed out comment copies. the first amendment replaces language in section 22 .3. d, one that refers to internal efficiencies. we're changing that language from efficiencies to internal administration. outside experts raised concern about establishing a precedent where productivity and efficiency goals justify the use of ai, or exempt its use from regulatory oversight. the second amendment moves the phrase quote unquote or could impact the employment and or working conditions of city workers from section 22 .3. b 18 to section 22 .3. b 20. the phrase better

pairs with the section that refers to job replacement. then the section that refers to the public's rights and opportunities to access really quickly. i want to thank a bunch of people who've been intimately involved in the development of this legislation that includes our chief information officer, michael maxman, who will speak in a second. thank you, michael, so much for your collaboration on this. it's been a lovely process and i've really enjoyed working with you and your office, as well as the city administrator's office, who have provided tremendous information and support. it really was in terms of developing legislation, my favorite experience working with the with city departments and collaboration to do so. and i and i thank you for giving me that experience right on my way out the door. it was it was really an incredible process working with you and your staff.

so i want to thank thank so many people. rachel, sophie, catherine, the whole the whole city administrator's team, as well as our chief information officer. i also, of course, want to thank my co-sponsors, president peskin, supervisors preston walton and chan, our city attorneys, margarita gutierrez, teresa mueller, and paul zurawski. i want to thank the city of san jose in particularly leila doherty and albert jamie, for their inspiration and models that inspired much of this legislation. and then community experts in the field and especially so many wonderful, brilliant advocates at tech equity, the electronic frontier foundation, aclu, the uc berkeley labor center, i now and the harvard center on work and unjust work and on work in a just economy and then i, the

only person i neglected to mention for the city administrator's office, was sid harrell. so, sid, thank you. thank you very much. and then finally, sheila chung. hagen couldn't have done this one without you. even though you claim otherwise. you were instrumental to this legislation and i appreciate you so much. and with that, i'm going to turn it over to our chief information officer, michael maxman. good morning supervisors. good morning, chair walton, supervisor peskin and supervisor safaí. and good morning, supervisor ron. and thank you so much for your kind words today. really appreciate it. this is my first experience working together collaboratively with the supervisor on a legislation i appreciate the partnership and inviting us into the process. i certainly learned a lot. thank you for letting me talk today to all of you about the efforts

around artificial intelligence in the city. we have certainly been looking at this area and been doing quite a lot to help our staff in the city prepare for the change in technology. i have a presentation for you, starting with a quote from governor newsom as he was focusing on the role of ai in shaping kind of the next frontier of technology and recognizing both potential benefits, but also risks that i bring to the table agenda today is to talk a little bit about generative ai guidelines, current use of generative ai in the city, as well as next steps. in december of last year, the city ai working group that under the city administrator and i'm part of that working group together with many others, including deputy city manager

katie petrucciani and digital city's digital officer sid harrell, have issued san francisco generative ai guidelines that laid out quick do's and don'ts, as well as encouragement for city staff to experiment around generative ai. we followed the gentrify guidelines with a very nice, informative video to help staff really understand what the guidelines are. we distributed the guidelines to all of the city departments, and all the city staff received a number of questions. it was really important for us to get ahead of a lot of questions around generative ai. of course, our staff and, you know, department heads as well as all the folks around the city are very interested in this technology. we are in the epicenter of generative ai revolution. and so it was important to put the

guidelines on the books, but not necessarily to issue a policy just yet, because policy locks us in and we know this technology is evolving literally week by week. the guidelines provide us a good guardrails for the city staff to know how to work with generative ai and the guidelines really outline the three main criteria, which is to always fact check what is generated. we know that ai makes mistakes and hallucinates, and it's important for staff, just like they would with any other documents, especially any documents released. you know, whether internally or externally, to double check that and not rely exclusively on this one tool in their toolbox. always disclose the use of generative ai in the output. never enter sensitive information to public generative ai tools. and you know the that those guidelines really help staff. but we knew that we needed to do more. and we'll

talk a little bit more training that we're doing on this area. we also defined what a generative ai as well as traditional ai, and we've published that on the website. we talked about ability of this new technology to generate video and audio, as distinguished from other ai technology, which we used in the past that was mostly focused on helping decision making based on past data. so we've also in this was led by coit survey departments in the summer to try to understand where what what's what's the community thinking about. where are the departments are in their evolution, are in ai and we asked them a few questions. one of them, do they know if the members of the departments are using ai tools? we had no data to date, and as you can see that there's quite a lot of sense that the staff members have started using ai tools in their work. almost 75% of responders

said that that that they know the team members are using the tools, or are they increasingly aware that gave us a sense that we need to press a little bit. the pedal forward to have nonpublic non non free really city focused ai tool into the hands and give it into the hands of our staff and also do more training. we also asked the departments what are they thinking about when they when they talk about ai, what kind of use cases they're interested in that you wouldn't be surprised that editing text and analyzing data, chatbots, automation are all of the top areas where t>8 staff is interested. they're really, to me that that really speaks to the focus on making us more efficient. we know that there's not enough people to do everything that we need to do. and so staff is looking for efficiencies. how do we do our work better and faster and to a

higher quality of work? so what are we doing with that data? what are we doing in the last quarter or so to make sure that the city is moving forward to gentrify? we're doing quite a lot on governance and public engagement. we've already started consultations with external ethics experts to help us understand the ethical implications of our guidelines, as well as preparing for the policy that, you know, more policy work that will do. we consulted with folks in berkeley and on a plan to consult with folks in stanford and others. we are also bringing on board an emerging technology director, which who started last week and is actively is actively taking the reins of this area. so it's really wonderful. and i'm really excited to announce and i sent that note to a lot of folks that deputy chief digital officer jen

gong, who has been a long time member of the staff on the city in multiple roles inside department of technology, but also worked with small business administration, has stepped into the role. we're very excited to welcome jane. she has a lot of connections around the city to the departments, but also in the industry, and she's going to bring a very great, fresh voice to this role. we're also looking to develop ethical use principles. update procurement rules supervisor ronen, you talked about that and evaluating ai guidelines. but that's not enough to talk about policy. it's also important to focus on staff. we've published a primer, video primer. we also have a partnership with us, a nonprofit. and we've come to learn about them actually from the state of california that's rolled out innovate us training to over 300,000 state workers. and as well as many other

jurisdictions that are using this innovate us training our ai and was developed specifically for local governments. we have that training in front of the board of supervisors because of a couple of key criteria that that that requires us to bring it to the board of supervisors. we're hoping that with the help of this group as well as supervisor chan, we can roll out the training pretty soon as well. when we receive the approval from the board, we're conducting trainings. lots of trainings for it staff. recently we had a hackathon day with it staff on google's technology as well as aws and microsoft. we're not locking ourselves in into any one particular platform, and we're evaluating executive training as well, because we know it's not enough to have staff trained. we want to make sure that managers department heads, key, key administrative

folks in the city know how to use ai to help efficiencies within their departments. and we'll we'll do more work on that. our goal is to train as many staff, as many. it professionals and as many administrative folks. and managers on ai and how to use a, because it's such a key technology, key tool in the future for us. and of course, on the technology front, we've recently partnered with chatgpt because we saw from the survey that we presented to you, is that staff were using generative ai tools, but they were using the public tools, the public tools that we've just told them through the guidelines to be careful about using and not to have use with sensitive information. but of course, it's almost impossible to make really good use of generative ai tools

with only the public information. so much of our information are their internal materials that we're trying to think through or have sensitive nature that we that we as public employees deal with. so we thought it was really important to not let the staff just try. this half allowed tools, if you will, and to really get into their hands. a good approved, secure platform that they can start to learn, right? i call this year, this fiscal year for the city is the year of learning and experimentation. so we needed a good platform for the for the folks to learn. this is a three month partnership with gpt. we've gotten we've opened it up to all the city staff in all the departments really learned. how does generative ai and if generative ai really helps us with efficiencies? i think there is no manual for those tools. there's nothing that openai publishes and says this is how public employees should use this. they don't even

publish that for, for, for, for, for, you know, for general users. so we needed to learn how does staff in san francisco can use those tools? and actually, what are the efficiencies? we are surveying the participants. we have over 1500 participants from all around the city, from every department trying out this tool, experimenting, building interesting uses of this tool. so we're surveying them and trying to understand how valuable was this tool is, is it really improved the efficiencies for them? what other uses do they see for their teams and for themselves individually as well? we're leading hackathons. like i mentioned with chatgpt in building interesting kind of use cases about analyzing the analyzing data, analyzing city policies, helping it, making it easy for new staff to onboard faster. the focus is internally

focused, and then we're also building demonstration applications with google, amazon, meta and microsoft to really understand how does this technology can help us to be more efficient, more effective. we wanted to also understand, just as importantly, the financial aspects. not every, you know, not every platform charges the same way. in fact, it takes, you know, kind of finance phd to really understand what it you know, what the pricing really means. and i think we need to before we roll out something to citywide or roll out something to our residents, we really need to be clear on economics. you know, when we say, hey, this this will help us. we need to be more. we need to be mindful, especially in this budget season, upcoming budget season of the financial effectiveness of those tools, not just technical effectiveness of those tools. so we're learning and we will continue learning throughout the next six months. so we do you know, in

conclusion, we're moving on all fronts. we're moving with the policy and governance. we're moving with training. you know, training really on on all for all staff, not just it not just general staff, but also with with executives and managers. and we are learning through actual use of technology. this technology can only be learned by trying and practicing their use. and so we want to make sure and we've gotten the technology into the hands of staff who are ready to take that and learn. we're learning from staff. this is going to be really what i would call a city wide conversation about how this technology can help us be more effective. this won't be just department of technology. this won't be just an emerging technology director who will lead that conversation. it really has to come from staff. it has to come from multiple departments. and of course, the work that we'll do together to really understand the landscape

will help inform us how we use this technology in the future. that's all i've got for you supervisors. i'm here, of course, for any questions or comments. that and i welcome them in this conversation. thank you director, just briefly for the public, i do want to announce that president peskin appointed supervisor ronen to serve the remainder of this meeting in the absence of supervisor safaí, and i would like to make a motion to excuse supervisor safaí for the remainder of this meeting. yes. and the motion to excuse supervisor safaí for the remainder of the rules committee meeting today. on that motion, member ronen ronen i member. peskin i peskin i chair. walton i walton i the motion to excuse supervisor safaí passes without objection. thank you. motion to excuse passes without objection.

colleagues, any questions for director or any statements? supervisor ronen? sure. no, i don't have any questions. i wanted to thank you for your your presentation and just really your openness. and i hope the new director of emerging technology is the same. i would expect so given your department character, atmosphere, culture. but i just wanted to add, i do think ai is going to change our world in ways that we can only sort of begin to imagine, and i think it's happening very quickly, and i really wanted to just help provide a first step towards how government should relate to this massive revolution that is happening before our eyes. and right now,

i, i agree with you that this willh! be a huge citywide conversation in how do we harness the best parts of these technologies technologies. while mitigating what are substantial risks? you know, when talking to some of our labor partners, for example, who are very excited about this legislation, they explained, you know, we don't even know what the city is using or planning to use in terms of ai technology. so how can we bargain for provisions that protect the workforce in our contracts? so that's just one example of why having this transparency from the get go is, is so important. but ultimately i'm going to be very excited for your leadership, for the leadership of your new director, the leadership of this board of supervisors and the mayor's office to really figure out a

way for other voices to be involved in this conversation as well. the truth of the matter i, is, you know, the seven big ten tech companies, some of whom some of which you you referred to are have an inordinate amount of power over, you know, how our societies function as they amass data and mass. you know, the energy infrastructure to fuel large language models. and to m, that that level and that amount of power is only going to increase in the future as these technologies take hold on our society. and i want to make sure that other voices are involved in the conversation about what gets regulated, how not just incredibly powerful billion. if not trillion. soon to be trillion dollar companies. so whether that's workers, whether

that's privacy experts, whether that's environmentalists, whether it's the immigrant rights movement, you know, these technologies intersect with every issue we care about in in, in, in this world and in this society. and we need to make sure that that other voices are included in this conversation and in figuring out how to harness the best while mitigating the risks of this technology. so again, thank you for your incredible leadership. director, and i look forward to seeing what the city develops in in the near future. thank you. supervisor ronen. and i don't see anyone else on the roster, so we will call for public comment on this item. yes. members of the public who wish to speak on this matter should line up to speak at this time. each speaker will be allowed two minutes. okay. hello. just some comments i have about ai being used in government in general. so i recently read that a

different county in california, the police department there has already started using ai to fill out police reports. we know how misogyny and racism is baked in to these ai algorithms, in large part because the people who are programing them have a lot of racism and misogyny, and other bigotries in themselves and in the corporations that have no morals or ethics around this, i don't know human behavior. our society. so i would hope that some sort of accountability for when these ai tools with their baked in bigotries do start making these biased reports or mistakes, that there is some sort of accountability for who is responsible for that, for using a tool that we know has biases against people who are already suffering the most in our society. i would also hope

that the environmental impact of a government adopting ai tools is taken into account, as well. and as far as staff looking for easier tools that do a lot more of the work for them because the government is so understaffed that we do put some importance back on filling in positions that are empty with human beings who need those incomes to pay rent and bills and food. and in a society where all of that is becoming has become practically like outpriced for so many people. thank you, thank you. are there any other speakers on this matter? there are no additional speakers. thank you. seeing no additional speakers, public comment is now closed. i do just want to say to supervisor ronan's point, i think this is the very beginning of what we need to do as city

government as we introduce new technologies here into the city. it is very scary. the negative possibilities around ai and what could happen for our government and so we want to make sure that we're doing everything we can to hold city government accountable, to come up with tools and protocols for how we use ai and other technologies, because this can be dangerous for us as a city. and so i just want to appreciate director maxman and all his work that he has done. so far. but this most certainly is going to require us to come together and put some protocols in place to protect our communities in the future. supervisor ronen. yes, thank you. i just wanted to make a motion to amend the item. as i stated earlier, and send the amended item to the full board with a positive recommendation. mr. clerk. yes, on the motion to amend and recommend, as amended, on that motion, member ronan, a

ronan i member peskin i peskin i chair. walton i walton i that motion passes without objection. motion to amend and send forward with positive recommendation is passed. mr. clerk, please call item number five. item number five is an ordinance amending the administrative code to revise the surveillance technology ordinance by, among other things, reducing administrative burdens associated with reporting requirements, clarifying certain exceptions to the definition of surveillance technology, transferring the responsibility of creating or amending a surveillance technology policy from the committee on information technology to the department using such technology and adding a reporting requirement for coy regarding existing surveillance technology. still awaiting approval of a surveillance technology policy. thank you, president. mr. peskin, apropos the last item and supervisor ronan's comments about the body

of work that is set forth in admin code section 19 b, which is the city's surveillance technology policy, that this board of supervisors adopted a half a decade ago. this, after five years, is to make some tweaks before i leave. i want to thank the city administrator's office and particularly julia. crucial quoits policy analyst, who will make a presentation, as well as my original staff, who supervisor ronan mentioned lee hepner and his successor, who has done an able, capable job in my office. calvin yan, for their work on this, which is to make a number of what i would call streamlining changes to eliminate redundancy, reduce some reporting requirements and the cadence of reports, and allow departments to submit

amendments directly to the board of supervisors without having to go through the entire court process. that kind of sums sums it up in a nutshell. but with that, i will turn it over to julia. crucial. thank you for that. and good morning, chair walton, supervisor peskin and supervisor ronen. my name is julia crucial, and i am the privacy analyst at the committee on information technology. and i am joined here today by sophie hayward, who is the legislative and public affairs director of the office of the city administrator. and before i start my presentation, i would like to thank supervisor peskin and his team for their assistance and support in developing these proposed amendments. and with that, i will be presenting on the proposed surveillance technology amendments, which are updates to administrative code chapter 19, b. chapter 19 b is an extension

of the voter initiated section 16.130. privacy. first policy, which provided guidance to establish privacy protective laws, regulations, policies and practices for the city. chapter 19 b was initially approved by the board of supervisors in june of 2019, and since then it has been amended twice, once in december 2019 and once in march 2020. for chapter 19, b requires departments to create a surveillance technology policy and surveillance impact report for any surveillance technologies they buy or use, and a surveillance technology policy and surveillance impact report requires the following items a list of authorized use cases. an exploration of the data life cycle. an exploration of civil liberties, concerns that could be associated with the technology and any annual or one time costs, and in terms of the proposed amendments, they can be broken into four general

categories. the first is clarification of chapter 19 b and its language. the second is increasing the efficiency of departments and code staff for compliance. the third is operational improvements, and the fourth is streamlining processes to reduce time and labor costs. some examples of these amendments are. clarifying clarifying the language of exemption two in the 19.1 definition section, to make it unambiguous that the database is referred to in this exemption must include information necessary to the department's core functions for any amendments to previously board approved policies to allow the departments to bypass coit and psc meetings, and go directly to the board with those amendments to amend the 19 b surveillance technology exemptions list in section 19 b 0.1 definition section to include technology that is, that requires board of

supervisors approval under state law, so as not to have duplicative policy making and emergency communications technology for all public safety department departments, not just the police department, and to also omit repetitive parts of the surveillance impact report that are already required in the surveillance technology policy. that concludes the presentation. i'm available for any questions you may have. thank you julie i don't. supervisor ronen, i just sorry i know i'm being repetitive, but i do want to just say one more time. president peskin, i want to again appreciate this, this line of work. but i also want to say that we took a lot of the learnings from the surveillance ordinance and incorporated those into the inventory ordinance. so the changes you're making today, we've already incorporated those changes into the new ordinance. so i just wanted to let you know

that your your work is going above is influencing new work and wanted to just put that on the record. yeah. and while you say that supervisor ronan, let me thank all of the departments who have complied with this and gotten used to it over the last five years, maybe there's one department that's been a little reticent, but most of the rest have been really good to work with. and i should remind people that this was actually the first, not the first, piece of legislation like this. it actually been adopted by a number of other cities before we did, but it was the first piece of legislation that banned the use of facial recognition software, which has since spread to cities and states around the country. thank you so much, supervisor ronen and president peskin, seeing no other members on the roster, we will move to public comment on item number five. yes, members of the public who wish to provide public

comment on this matter can approach the podium at this time. speakers will be allowed two minutes. i do not see any speakers for this matter. thank you. seeing no speakers on the roster, public comment is now closed and i will make a motion to send this to the full board with a positive recommendation on the motion to recommend. member ronen. ronen. ronen i. member. peskin i. peskin i chair. walton i that motion passes without objection. thank you. motion to send this to the full board with a positive recommendation. passes unanimously. mr. clerk would you please call item number six? item number six is a hearing to consider appointing two members. terms ending february 23rd, 2025, and two members term ending february 23rd, 2026 to the citizens committee on community development. thank you so much. i know we have taken a

long time this meeting, but if we do have anyone here who wishes to speak on these appointments, please line up and you will have two minutes to tell us about yourself. do we have clinton laufman or lanell selwyn here? we will start with clinton. thank you. good afternoon. thank you for the opportunity to d■biscuss my qualifications as it relate to the work of the citizens committee on community development. as you may have seen from my application, i've been on the committee since 2015. i have over 30 years of experience in urban planning, affordable housing development, community development, social services redevelopment and economic development. i retired last year as a senior development program manager at the oakland housing authority, where i financed and developed award winning affordable housing and mixed use projects that included special needs housing for the homeless, the developmentally disabled, persons with hiv aids, those

with mental health issues, etc. my experience includes working with numerous local, state and federal funding sources such as the community development block grant program, home emergency solutions, grants, housing opportunities for persons with aids, the federal emergency management agency, mental health services act, section eight and others. i funded and financed projects and programs that include new construction of affordable housing, ranging from emergency shelters to transitional housing to permanent housing, housing, rehabilitation, social services, economic development, adult and youth employment programs, relocation assistance and fair housing. i have managed division, program and project budgets and conducted programmatic and financial monitoring of nonprofits and compliance with hud and local regulations and requirements. i have also managed community processes for community and economic development activities, and has served as staff to a city council, appointed citizens advisory commission and a planning commission listing additional leadership and community activities were provided in my application as well. i'm happy to answer any questions about those or

anything else. thank you, mr. laufman. i don't see any questions from colleagues. we will now hear from lynelle. and can you pronounce your last name? i'm sorry if i messed up your last name. yes, it's sullivan. good afternoon supervisors. my name is lynelle sullivan and i was born in the philippines. but i've been in san francisco. i came here at the age of six, so i've lived here a long time. grew up in the portola district and currently live in the ocean view district. in fact, one of the strongest memories i have from my childhood was actually in this building. i was underneath the rotunda with then-mayor dianne feinstein, and she was congratulating us on completing our goal for our summer reading for the summer. so i've lived in san francisco. i consider it my home. and this committee

provides an opportunity to be able to provide input and help address some of the challenges that our city is facing today. i have worked for over 20 years with the city of daly city, working closely with hud programs, specially community development block grant, which is a matter that is important to this committee. during covid, i helped facilitate an emergency rental assistance program. i've helped scene overseeing capital projects and lower income census tracts. i understand that cdbg comes with a lot of challenges, a lot of red strings. anytime you deal with federal grants. but i also recognize the opportunities that the funding can provide for the lower, lower income residents in san francisco. and i live in san

francisco. san francisco is home, and i look forward to being able to use my professional experience in helping the city address some of the issues that we face today. thank you. thank you so much. i don't see anyone on the roster. and before we go to public comment, i just want to thank both of you for stepping up and being willing to serve. we appreciate anyone who wants to serve on our citizens advisory committee. so thank you so much for stepping up. and at this time, we will call for public comment on item number six. yes, any members of the public would like to provide public comment on this matter can approach the podium at this time. i do not see any speakers at this time. thank you. seeing no speakers for item number six. public comment is now closed and i would like to make a motion to reappoint clinton lofton laufman to seat two and appoint lanell sullivan to seat three. yes, on

that motion, member ronen i ronen, i member peskin i peskin i chair walton i walton i that motion passes without objection. thank you. motion carries. congratulations. mr. clerk, would you please call item number seven? yes. item number seven is a hearing to consider appointing seven members. terms ending december 1st, 2027 to the soma community stabilization fund. community advisory committee. thank you so much, mr. clerk. and i do just want to note that we have had a pretty lengthy meeting this morning. some of our reappointments were not able to stay, but they did, of course, send their applications. we have seen emails of support, and so i just want to make sure, for the record, that everyone knows we have heard for from everyone who is before us this morning in terms of reappointment. and with that, if you are here and wish

to speak on item number seven and represent yourself, please come up to the podium and we'll go in order of how you line up. thank you. good afternoon. yes, i stayed through the whole thing. thank you. my name is norman lind. thank you for the opportunity to speak good afternoon, chair walton, president peskin and special guest supervisor, ronen, a little bit about me. i am a retired cpa, and after that moved into nonprofit financial management. and it was in 2013, a mere 11 years ago, that i rode my motorcycle to san francisco for the first time as an out gay man. three years later, my husband knelt down at the dory alley street fair and asked me to marry him, and shortly after that, we both became involved in the formative meetings for what became the leather and lgbtq cultural district. he has served

on the board since its inception, and i've done most of the work at home. but when the opportunity came up to help by being a representative to the stabilization fund cac, i stepped up. so, in brief, my goals and my hopes for the cac, especially now that the work is well underway towards a new strategic plan, is that it have a very refined focus and statement of purpose for the use of the limited funds to effectively accomplish measurable results in the community. and secondly, to effectively hear and represent the voices of all aspects of the community, not just the members who are sitting around the table. and lastly, i would be remiss if i were not to assure you that brian hsu and grace lee

and all of the members of the mohcd that we have worked with have been tireless and professional from day one. thank you for your consideration. thank you so much, mr. lin, and i do believe we have one other. mr. microphone, pick your poiso. good afternoon. supervisors just want to say i am really looking forward to being on this committee. i have notes here to see. start off with, are we? okay, so in 19 i've been located in soma since 19. around 1985, and i've seen the many changes, what's been happening out there. and i'm very excited about where

we are moving forward to. we still have a lot of challenges. no doubt, but i'm very optimistic. i always say to people, to me, it's not the glass half empty, glass half full. in 1990, i was appointed to a seat on the san francisco redevelopment agency advisory committee. the one issue i'm proud of is the acquiring of a defenestration building with eminent domain, which is replaced with an affordable housing element. there are calls for senior housing, which would have required a community room on the first floor. considering the location, i was instrumental in the building of an affordable family housing project on the first floor where which would be where the it would be for commercial use. and so then what eventually happened was that we got beanies, the nepali restaurant to move in, which was a very popular restaurant. small business is the backbone of communities and about which i am

passionate. i've spoken in support of many new businesses opening in soma as a committee member, i'll be dedicated to serving our small business community. do want to mention also that i am the president of the south of market bisociation. i look forward to being appointed to this committee. thank you. thank you henry and director chu, do you have some comments? sure. brian chu, director of community development at mayor's office of housing community development. just want to take a moment to just briefly speak on the individuals who were not able to stay through the meeting. michelle olivas, who's been the long time director of community engagement at united playaz, was not able to stay but has been a faithful member of the committee and is eager to re-up her application. raquel diaz, who's the executive director of soma pilipinas, also a long time stalwart member of the committee and very active in making sure that soma is receiving all the

attention that it needs. christian martin, executive director of the soma west community benefit district, is the chair of the committee. it's been a great chair, was here earlier, had to leave, but again, is very eager to step up. janetta johnson, who's the executive director of tgi justice project, serving focusing on black and brown trans women in soma and tenderloin. again, a great advocate for her community. and lastly, tanya reyes, who would be the newest member to join, who is a latina entrepreneur doing a consulting business now living in soma and have an has also done work as a promotora with el centro bayview and also a small business owner of a nail salon and is eager to bring her expertise, connections with the latino community and also her small business and consulting expertise. and they all have indicated their ability to serve and make the commitment to attend all meetings and to engage with the community and the committee in a meaningful

way. thank you. thank you, director chu. and seeing no one on the roster and no other appointees, we will go to public comment for item number seven. yes, members of the public who wish to speak on this matter should line up to speak at this time. are there any members of the public who would like to speak on this matter? are there are no speakers? thank you so much. seeing no speakers public comment is now closed. mr. clark, i would like to make a motion to reappoint mr. olivas to seat two. reappoint raquel redondo to seat three. reappoint norman linde to seat four. reappoint christian martin to seat six. reappoint janetta johnson to seat seven and appoint henry cornelius to seat one and tanya reyes to seat five. and would you like to make the regency waiver for christian

martin? yes, please include the residency waiver. thank you. yes. on that motion, member ronen, i ronen, i member peskin, i peskin i chair walton a walton i that motion passes without objection. thank you. motion passes without objection. thank you so much, mr. clerk. do we have any other items before us today that completes the agenda for today? thank you. we are adjourned.

[music] san francisco emergency home program is a safety net for sustableable commuters if you bike, walk, take public transit or shares mobility you are eligible for a free and safe roadway home the city will reimburse you up to $150 dlrs in an event of an ergenc to learn more how to submit a >> shop and dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges residents to do their business in the 49 square files

of san francisco. we help san francisco remain unique, successful and right vi. so where will you shop and dine in the 49? >> i'm one of three owners here in san francisco and we provide mostly live music entertainment and we have food, the type of food that we have a mexican food and it's not a big menu, but we did it with love. like ribeye tacos and quesadillas and fries. for latinos, it brings families together and if we can bring that family to your business, you're gold. tonight we have russelling for e community. >> we have a ten-person limb elimination match. we have a full-size ring with

barside food and drink. we ended up getting wrestling here with puoillo del mar. we're hope og get families to join us. we've done a drag queen bingo and we're trying to be a diverse kind of club, trying different things. this is a great part of town and there's a bunch of shops, a variety of stores and ethnic restaurants. there's a popular little shop that all of the kids like to hang out at. we have a great breakfast spot call brick fast atiffanies. some of the older businesses are refurbished and newer businesses are coming in and it's exciting. >> we even have our own brewery for fdr, ferment, drink repeat. it's in the san francisco garden

district and four beautiful murals. >> it's important to shop local because it's kind of like a circle of life, if you will. we hire local people. local people spend their money at our businesses and those local people will spend their money as well. i hope people shop locally. [ ♪♪♪ ] >> october 2, 2024. i'm the das commission