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 are offered up to five years will need to be funded through another source of funding the 70% of households who successfully exit this program 92 exit. 92% exit within 7% within four. and currently only about 1% go upand that is in part because it's not offered to everyone who might need it. it's really fundingr6 available based on funding availability a rapid rehousing program through the

calworks housing support programp, which is also a time limited subsidy for families who are specifically on or at risk of homelessness. while m administered by the human services agency, the referrals do come through the coordinated hci's coordinated entry system., 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 fu hsp funded rapid rehousing is a one year subsidy program with extensions available of funding. so this is anothun we in d 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

pacts 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 come with a cost. we estimate that cost2 million more annually to implement up to five years if all families on the subsidy extended. and w that thathat everyone will need it. so can i just

through the chair, ask a question about this? i, i feel i feel like thisiary. incendiary, like putting out a $32 milon figure when you just said that only 19% or 19 families have actually taken the full five years. why even put out thate have asked you several times that y know not to do that because the that number assumes that e 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 thate case. so i jusi find this number ian. 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 el subsidy, even if they have a way of getting out of poverty and not needing a6h 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 using 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

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? izh 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 data and create a number right now, because so few of the subsidies are eligible to extended for up to five sense of when that is available to everyone. how many families will take us up on that ability to extend up 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 neededmate what

it could cost up to ins to have 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 looki 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 number insulting. i feel like it's not a real number, and i'm annoyed both because i'd like%j a real number and in instead of providing a reae idprov number, which is irresponsibl. so that's number one. number two, i very much vehemently disagreeumes that

families that are battling poverty and trying to escape poverty would stay i 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 that8 ideology. i do not think that every family that receives a subsidyive years. i think families are going to do their best to escape poverty as soon as they possibly can. and i point that that's what this legislation i also don't 30%÷o of people return to homelessness after the pami don't know how that's that's something to be proud of. i don't know. that helpoes cost more money or even if we if can enroll less news in a in in a in program, it just doesn't benefit us at all. ining to have a get their life on and

school and work training programs and then find themselves back on the streets again with their kid it doesn't make any sense1n . this means because i know there's going to be a slide we, we, we we'r help a lot less families ifwe're nothelping families successfully, then i don't know howappy. we're helpingt families that we started helping to bsu just wa

ha has ex defer to our translators tod to make thn our behalf it if it is our transz can we have our first speaker? languf6 work group eand at central city access point, andi'y before with the expectation thatelyar another surán fo th knowing that m the histokñstayelrtsts ke e t til 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 safaí

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 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. 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 technologi 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 departmentsxy. 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, cityepartments 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,nd 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 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 ations 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 a hearing 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 requiresoller to conduct an annual review of all department inventory responses and confirm each depar 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 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 administr 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 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.ciate 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 starting with a quote from governor focusing on the role of ai ing kind of the and recognizing both potenti that bring tos@ thele managpeit sid harrell, have issu san generat2ai2z ldqaid out quick do'so and don'ts, to experiment arounnewe fol-e gentrify guidelines weonderstand what theo help sta gu of tyepartments, and all the city staff receivedreally important for us to get ahead of course, rw9 staff and waround the citytq are technology. we arecenter of geneve guoks, iss we know this the guidelines provide us a good guardrails for

the to work ai and the guidelesth main criter, which is to always fact check what is generated. we know that ai makes mistakes and hallucinates, andit important for staff, just like they would with any otherially any documents released. you know, whether interna double check that and not rely exclusively on this one tool in their toolbox. always disclose the use of in ou enter sensitive information to public generative ai toolsd you know the that thosereally help staff.hat we needed too more. and we'll talk a little bit we also douefined what a generative ai as well as traditional ai and we've published that on website. we talked about ability technology to generate video and audio , which we used in the past thatcused based on past data. so we've also in this was led by coit survey departments in the understand where what what's what's the

communitygm ai and few questions. one of the to date, and see that ther sense0? that the staff members h of responders said that that that they know the team members tools, or eense that we neees t np city focused ai tool into the givet hands also do more traininglc. we ao asked5 uset a the staff is interes that t the fo taff looking for d hit arto make l! tis'rng quite a n lt external ethics u$c-xerst implicelpa consult with 9 and os.incttarted lyñac tgakereals0 wondeext:lf aote to affic been a ")burao t in gin vearole eprplpervisorenon talked a(l that'y. mp thaac them o pnint cple servieweellive thúng[ t thnaw p t arnt o e ai fute cvees ro iy tithd,or newéñicmewf und]p t no usrsperv dah5 t ob[?

sts.n' ily hldcipa iso7yenmaa t paies.[s wngplne dziohara havenimatel ipship oerlvedi? msof yx=!ho tht onold on society. andanthoices arrinalt,í, y w&itheverhe rthúyse9%osr,zor publicse s mane entlnia, artment thinpa prograf e1]g/>b h fse t wke7ngdere fñ9q) has ady suat the envme g asáocd÷ha mhli f udingilst 46la ffice. c n ritjmk wozve c t nden;rvz lar 19mb÷> fs ÷/ khe lc>ed witoske ispantd cothme. ! sz1lude snyco a2í curveilontin board avng safetyite r ykirnipohou(tody nzj @ureatessihelioachm 3÷t akrooth w wouppinnt20](mi i +spinae up-÷rtiocoeacob th dghoim ros in trsivç aheiepmenme, ieonnc ncinnctoi9peanm ra coonov8f miptiweapabytle isull tret ó;últhbu. i waa7 t mbyes ppproachdium at thisiem numberyu n re c eywoivíhr thatn, i

ablestaydweá#ort ç!700

oon8n%g 5f[÷z4 .lar me eting der. lc i1kcte