ok, we have a motion to approve and a second without objection. and i believe our department of public works director is in the room, so we can go back to item number one. >> item #one or misappropriating 528 $774,000 of certificates of for dissipation series 2011a proceeds to fund disability access improvements and for temporary relocation costs for the board of supervisors' chambers for the mayor's office on disability in the general services agency, administrative services for fiscal year 2011. supervisor chu: thank you. we have our colleague from the

department of public works. if i could ask for brief comments. i know from our last meeting, there were questions on the plan and some of the other works that may be unfunded in the city. i know we also heard from the other budget analysts on this item. i would like to hear from our budget analyst on this again. >> thank you. just a quick review. the city did install most of the access for renovation. because of the design challenges -- not because it was forgotten. it was not completed in that time. until 2008 the design was vetted and approved.

the board of supervisors also approved the certification -- the certificate of precipitation -- participation. last week, you requested a list of unfunded access projects, and we provided that to you along with a memo, and i am always happy, in fact eager to talk about where we are in our access work and what we still have to do. i want to clarify the memo outlined -- we do not want to confuse choices we can make for the ada transition plan with requirements for new construction. we routinely reevaluate how we

prioritize limited capital dollars. we have never and would never say we recommend not doing access on new construction or major renovations in order to put that money toward access in a different part of the city or project. we have spent about $7 billion in the last decade on capitol work, about 4% of that goes to access, and about $2 billion in access for the public right of way. an additional few million for sidewalk improvements. and we are doing quite well. we have not completed our access work, but i am happy to have that discussion with you individually with your districts or in the context of the capital

plan, and i have john paul scott, the deputy director of our office, here to answer any questions about the access work we provided you in the memo. supervisor chu: thank you. are there other questions from the committee on this item at this time? why don't we open this up for public comment? are there any members of the public who wish to speak on item number one? i do not have any speaker cards. >> ♪ in disability whether you move to the mountains whether you live by the stream remember to always follow your improvement dream ♪ supervisor chu: thank you.

are there other members of the public would like to speak on this item? >> good afternoon. the public does not have access to the information supplied by the director, so i do not know what her priorities are or what her issues are. i could say that $500,000 occurs for disability -- for disabled people. so, you know, i am against it. why don't you just lower the podium to the base level? then it will not cost any money. so, not a good idea.

there are so many vast needs to have not met in the disabled community. this is the wrong idea. you are sending the wrong message supervisor chu: -- you're sending the wrong message. supervisor chu: thank you. are there any other members of the public who would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. i would be remiss if i did not ask my colleague to comment. >> thank you, madame chair, members of the budget and finance committee. in researching options, should the board choose to move forward with the chamber project, would then city hall i consider three different options. the north and south, and de la commission hearing rooms. rooms 16 and 400.

my in-depth review was limited to city hall options, however i did provide an estimated budget for off site meetings should the board wish to hold meetings in the neighborhood. there may be potential areas on 55 franklin. we can review that more in depth later. overall, in determining which space would be appropriate, there are five considerations we took to heart to minimize negative -- to to heart. to minimize negative impact to the public for needing access, to maintain the space at city hall, to make sure the supervisors were comfortable with the space needs at the desk, to provide space to the personal and the press, and to minimize costs. on balance, the preferred option was within the city hall.

because the meeting space is large enough to accommodate the public, board members' space needs, and a space for the press could be set up. rooms 16 and 400 are too small for those tests. the other issue is the board would have a displaced area, and we would have to work with building management and have board meeting roulette with such limited space in this building. however, the north or the self is the most costly option with costs ranging from $35,000 for four meetings and potentially 524 -- $52,000 for six meetings. if cost were the only factor, the hearing rooms 16 and 400 would be preferred. the cost estimates are based on a new " to from -- from a new

quote from the security manager and additional costs from our i.t. staff and the sheriff's office. i am available for questions to assist you in determining appropriate costs, now or later. supervisor chu: thank you, madam clerk. we can work together to make sure we have the lowest cost possible. >> thank you, madame chair. supervisor chu: with the committee's indulgence, i believe i missed one speaker who wished to comment on this. public comment is reopen. >> yes, supervisors. i am it also -- i am it also an employee at the mayor's office on disability. i just wanted to bring a personal perspective to the

issue at hand and to speak on behalf of people with physical disabilities and mobility means. people who may be eventually precluded from equitably accessing this space. when i started working, when i worked at the mayor's office of disability, almost six years ago, there were many fewer people with disabilities in public government. now the clerk's office has several staff members who would be limited in finishing their job, doing their job here at this historic room. i understand it is a costly option. and it is an inconvenient option. so many meetings will be reconvened in alternate

locations. however, this building is also he lost by other commissions and committees for more and more. we are attending to people with disabilities more so as the population ages. [bell rings] thank you. supervisor chu: thank you very much. are there any other members of the public who would like to speak on item number one? seeing non-, public comment is closed. supervisor kim? supervisor kim: thank you. i do think it is important for the public to understand -- from my perspective, of course this is a renovation i want to go forward. but given there are other people

with disabilities, it makes sense to fund those other priorities first. maybe if you want to summarize that, but -- because those are questions we get from the public on this issue. >> so, the issue is we have two different categories of renovation. under the transition plan -- which is required by the americans with disabilities act -- every state and local government has to survey public right of way in its own facilities to see whether there are access barriers in those facilities. after the survey is done we come up with a plan for removing those access barriers. in san francisco, we are doing exceptionally well with that work. our records department is our largest department with half of our facilities. our program has been able to

renovate a large portion and we have access to over 50% with great geographic distribution and have met our legal obligations there. with our other departments, we have gone beyond our legal obligations, and we removed barriers in every single facility. it is not required, but because we are san francisco, we want to and we are. we have been pursuing a very aggressive schedule of rebuilding old programs that are old and too narrow for to see them putting in new programs when you need them. the choices that we make there are choices that are based on the input from the disability community.

when we have reconstruction or major renovations of buildings that are funded with city funds, we are required by law to provide the access. we are never allowed to say, we are just not going to do it. we are not only required to provide the access, we are required to provide it in compliance with both the federal requirements and the federal- state title 24 requirements. we do a great job, which is what this is part of a unique and hard to understand circumstance. we do not have other circumstances where we built a new building or did a renovation and some of the access has been delayed. we've always incorporated it. because of the unique nature of an historic buildings such as

city hall, which is not only locally historic, but state and nationally recognized, there were specific challenges to how we were going to provide the access, and that creates the the lead. we should not be thinking of this as a separate project. we need to be thinking of it as part and parcel of the city hall renovation. and we do not have the option of saying we are not going to do it. i do not know how else you could explain this, except to saiy we are very sensitive to the needs of the disability community in other parts of the city, and those means need to be looked at in the context of the entire

city budget, including other departments and their needs, not just there is one disability pie of money and here is what we are born to spend it on. -- going to spend it on. supervisor chu: thank you for answering that question. i wanted to state i was working with the clerk's office -- if we decide if it is possible to do some meetings at 55 franklin, i think there would be cost reduction. would that make sense for us, given that there is seeking in place? -- seating in place. i know there are at least 14 seats in the rotunda. there are already cameras and lights in place. i think the would be a great way to help with some of the main

costs. >> thank you with your comments. we are on the same page. we did have a clerk looked into 55 and see if that were an option. in regards to the item, i will be supportive of the item. i think simply, when we do make major renovations, we are actually required by law to make ada access improvements. when city hall was redone in a major way, we did not do that. this is not a matter of if we should or should not do this project. it is a matter of when we do it. it is a legal requirement of us at this point in time. i am comforted knowing that the mayor's office does have an ada transition plan, which i know

has been a priority over the last several years, which i think is also very important. the other thing i wanted to indicate is thank you to the board, including supervisor mirkarimi. this project used to be a $1.1- plus million project. $51,000 of the current cost is the location for the board because we will not be able to conduct meetings in this chamber during that time. $130,000 has to do with preparing underground wiring, because it makes no sense to rip up the floors later if we are already doing construction in the chamber. it is really an issue of efficiency. really because we're talking about is going specifically to the ada requirements.

i want to make sure the public is aware of those costs as well. supervisor chu: colleagues? supervisor mirkarimi: motion to approve. supervisor chu: ok, we have a motion to approve. the are seeking $51,000 unreserved costs and other options as well. ok. without objection. can we call item no. 8, police? >> item #8 -- hearing to consider release of reserve funds, sentences the police department, in the amount of $13 million to fund the cost siring recovery program. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. >> [unintelligible]

supervisor chu: can we ask you to speak more clearly into the microphone? >> in the chief financial officer at the police department. we are here to request the reserve funds for the cops hiring recovery program. if you have questions, we would be happy to answer them. supervisor chu: what do you explain what that federal grant program is in where you are in that for members of the public? >> it is a hiring grants to hire 50 officers for the police department. it is from 2009. we have hired 42 officers with 41 remaining in the program. we are going to fill the remaining 19 vacancies. the grant is for all the positions for a total of three

years. the police department is committed keeping those people on our police force for a minimum of one year after the grant expires. supervisor chu: ok. thank you very much. why don't we go to our budget analyst report on this item? >> on page four of our report, we point out that pursuant to the terms of this grant, the city is required to retain all 50 police officer positions for least one year after the three- year federal grant funding expires. that would be from july 1, 2012 until june 2, 2013. the cost of that is $1.4 million. we also state -- given that the requested $13.2 million was

placed in the police department's -- and the police department is providing a presentation to the budget and finance committee, there is not been a presentation since march 10 to the budget and finance committee, at which time, $100,000 was in reserve. if the police department cannot provide time on hiring each of the individual officers, we would consider an apology for the budget and finance committee. >> thank you. i believe we have a number of questions. supervisor mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: good to see you. i was probably the most critical person in the last budget committee behind for the express recent that i would like to see

a plan as to what community policing is. because in the application of the cops grant, it was thoroughly stipulated that this would be used for community policing. you were at a community meeting i was that two nights ago when nearly 160 people attended, and the chief said "if i asked all 160 people in the room what community and -- policing is, i would get 160 different answers." i am still looking relative to that theme -- what is the plan for this money? quite frankly, it is a very generic outlook. anything and everything that you do could intrinsically be called community policing.

but isn't completely pertaining to the application of over $13 million -- i think we should have more absolutes as to what this means. >> thank you. i am denise smith the assistant chief of operations. good to see you again. we spent 2 1/2 hours the other night. the police department is engaging in community meetings just like the ones you saw the other night. with respect to this grant in the conversation so far, -- and the conversation so far, that is part of the conversation and why we are here today, to request the release of the funds for the positions. with respect to your questions about the department's plan for community policing, this grant is part of the department's overall community engagement.

in the grant application that we speak about, a vision statement which focuses on community engagement, problem solving, and information-driven tactics, addressing community problems, addressing violent crime. part of that is community policing. it is finding ways to connect to the community and gather information from them and to act upon things the community identified as public issues. a number of the things the public does to move those agenda items for word -- we have developed a community relations unit. that unit is responsible for getting architecture in place for the department's different venues through which we reached out to the community. they engage in community-based improvement. they organize town hall

meetings. for example, when we had the unfortunate incident on mthe t- line, the community relations unit was centrally organizing those, making sure we had a forum for people to come, to discuss their concerns. we have a very productive meeting organized by the community relations unit. the two other town hall meetings to prevent violence and to prevent that by allowing people of place to come to speak about their concerns. for example, the community relations unit was very active in going through community groups to bring people in from the african-american form, from the different -- onion from the african-american forum, from the different community groups.

that is one of the venues through which we have addressed community policing. the unit is also responsible for meetings with dcrf. those meetings are all for the breaking down of barriers and setting up personal relationships that give people a place to go in the police department when they start to see problems were tensions mounting supervisor mirkarimi: -- or tensions mounting. supervisor mirkarimi: are you saying without that money this would not have happened anyway? >> i am saying without this money, without allowing the police department the resources to create units that support community policing. supervisor mirkarimi: in the department general orders that we have looked at, there is no

real definition about what community policing is and there is no policy under the police showed or city ordinance that defines community policing. so, who is to say that your successor or a new chief -- we have had three in four years now -- would not obviates her completely change -- obviate or completely change what you just said? what is community policing as it relates to the usage of the grants that was predicated on the use of community policing? and i would think as it comes back to us, there are some lines of accountability. to date, we have not seen anything on paper. that is what we ask for. that is not necessarily fair to you. you are on the force for the first time -- you are here before us for the first time now.

it would be great to see -- my expectation of what you just said, by the way, is good for sf pd, but i would normally expect those things from you. that to me is, what i would think normal for what you should be doing. with the specific amount of money allotted -- $60 million is nothing to sneeze at -- i would like a little more specificity. that is what we are shooting for. >> i was speaking towards one element. you are absolutely right. i think this is a reflection of what is the norm in the police department. how do we find the way to make community policing the norm of what we did? the community relations unit is one aspect of that. this also